 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission this morning's CPSC staff will brief the commission on the staff proposal for mid-year adjustments for to our FY 23 operating plan based on our full year appropriations level and our plan spending this mid-year adjustment is an annual process we undertake to align our operating plan with our appropriated funds and as we did last year we're also taking this opportunity to rely on our spending under the American rescue plan otherwise known as ARPA. At the start of the pandemic Congress provided CPSC with $50 million to spend over a five year period we are spending those dollars responsibly and have strengthened our ports, our internet surveillance, our data systems and our safety communications. This proposal looks to preserve those gains and positions with the commission to continue the important work after the ARPA funds have been spent in a moment going to turn this meeting over to staff so they can brief us once they have completed the briefing. The commissioner will have 10 minutes to ask questions of staff with multiple rounds if necessary briefing us today is Jason Levine CPSC executive director and James Baker. Chief financial officer also joining us are Austin Schlick general counsel Pam Pamela Springs director of communications Dwayne Ray deputy executive director Dwayne Boniface assistant executive director for hazard identification and induction. Brian Burnett chief information officer and Alberta Mills commission secretary now going to turn the microphone over to Mr Levine and Mr Baker. Good morning. Today, thank you for the opportunity to brief on our proposed operating plan alignment and mid year review. I'll wait for our slides to come up. That's actually the memo as opposed to the we're looking for the PowerPoint deck. There we go. And if you could go ahead when you're ready to slide to. Here we go. So, as you mentioned, Mr chair, the books before us. Is a an alignment based on our received. Full year budget, but just for review purposes in October, the commission approved the 2023 plan operating plan. And because at that point in time, we did not have a full year budget. We did it on a 2 alternate levels 1 being the strict. The strict continuing resolution level and the other being based on our. Most recent at that point in time congressional budget justification of $195 million. And you can see those 2 levels there following. The approval in October of the operating plan in December. Congress did enact a full year 2023 appropriation for us at $152.5 million, which to do the math is 13.45 more than the continuing resolution level and 43 million less than our actual request to Congress. Next slide please. So the package before you before the commission today. Has 3 recommendations. 1 is to go ahead and align the 23 operating plan with. The 23 enacted level to is to approve projects to fund should the commission have any unexecuted balances. We traditionally do. We are anticipating. And we'll talk about this in a minute about $3 million and unexecuted balances. Of course. You can never guarantee what those numbers are going to be. And the 3rd. 3rd item is to adjust the ARPA spending and staffing in part based on that alignment in recommendation 1. Next slide please. So a little more detail on recommendation 1. As noted, the 152.5 level. Is 13.45 above our continuing resolution level the way the 4 major categories. We propose to break that out into our pay inflation and related adjustments. As you may recall, there's a government wide. Increase of a little over 4% for all pay. Pay non pay in inflation of about a million dollars. This goes to things like contracts and or agency agreements rent increases. The continuing increase in costs that we see every year on non pay items. The transfer of 37 full time equivalent staff from ARPA. Now that just as a reminder that covers a full year of salary for those 37. Individuals or 37 positions, I should say. And then $2 million in a new grant program. For the agency, the Nicholas and Zachary Burt Memorial carbon monoxide poisoning prevention act of 2022. Is a $2 million level. And that gets us 152 next slide please. So, as mentioned, the unexecuted balance estimate. We're not, we don't know what the, what the level is or will be between now and September 30, but we are estimating it at approximately $3 million. That said, because we don't know the exact number and sometimes even the best laid plans result in an inability to bring the contract across. The finish line in the amount of time that we have staff has identified. The number of 16 projects and recommended priority order totaling $5.2 million. And these would be if approved funded in that order. Again, subject to the sufficient availability of the unexecuted balance as it as it comes up and the acquisition feasibility. Next slide please. Let's spend a little more detail. Sorry for and a little bit hard to read on the slide there, but this is the list of the 16. Propose pack a proposed projects not going to go through each and every 1 of them. Though the memo obviously does in table 2, I would note that. 3 of the first 6 to relate to either. And I should say and or. Lithium ion batteries refer to here's high energy density batteries. Or electric bikes or the combination of those 2. In part because of the increased. Activity we are seeing with respect to incidents both involving lithium ion batteries and micro mobility products, particularly e-bikes. There is a higher perspective thermal thermal incident perspective as well as what appears to be increased. Injury incidents that are not related to fire involving electric bicycles and other micro mobility products products. And then I would also know and there is a fourth project which I'll mention when we get to it. So in the proposed ARPA spending dealing. Also with this category and then the other sort of larger picture item that I would note. For the commission consideration is we have taken as we traditionally do a broad. Approach to the types of different projects proposed to be funded. In part because these are relying on contract. Acquisitions that can be accomplished between now and September 30th. And to fill in a variety of gaps that unfortunately do crop up every year. Due to our limited resources. So it's you'll see whether we're talking about some of the. The artificial intelligence machine learning projects on the data and has your identification side ATV. Project on on roll over and down to some of the more chronic hazard analysis. There's a wide variety of different areas that we're trying to. To accomplish in terms of what we can what we can do with these on executed balances and again. The more there is the more we'll be able to hopefully get through. Okay, next slide please. As mentioned, this is part of this is recommendation 3, which is to adjust the ARPA spend and staffing. This is. This table table for in your memo lays out. A projection lays out a catch up for where we are and a projection based on. The transfer of 37 FTEs to our appropriate spending. So as you can see through. Essentially through the end of this fiscal year, the plans as either previously spent or previously. Approved and spending go to. $38 million of the 50 provided by Congress and then new 1 time projects of 8.4. And 3.6 in terms of occurring. Those are also newer new projects, but they are more than 1 year projects. Which we'll talk about in the next slide. So next slide please. And so on this slide similarly. To what we were looking at before here are all. 15 projects associated with the proposed ARPA spend. Year and they're broken out and into these 2 different tables. In terms of a 1 time spend versus 2 year recurring spend. These totals would bring us again. Presuming. The 37 staff are moved over would bring us to a total spend of $50 million in fiscal 25, which is slightly ahead of the required. Spend down of the funds, but also keeping in mind. Just as we talked about with mid year, it's not. Actually finishing acquisitions in a specifically timely fashion sometimes slips over for 1 fiscal year to another. But we feel it is these are accomplishable task orders within. A reasonable period of time going forward. And that's it in terms of talking about the briefing package and we stand ready to answer questions. Thank you for the briefing. It's point in time. We're going to turn to questions from the commissioners. With multiple rounds necessary and recognize myself. First, and looking over the package, I appreciate the work that staff has done to put it together and present to the commission. And please see additional funds being proposed for research and to address the risk associated with high energy density batteries who said this is an issue that has become more and more of the 4s we've seen. A greater number of fires that have resulted in deaths and injuries across the country. So. Can you provide a little bit more detail on how the staff plans to spend the funds that are targeted lithium ion batteries and the projects that they're, it seems like there are a couple of different projects that would touch upon this and what we're hoping to gain from those projects. Sure. So, thank you for the question and as. As noted, there are a number of different projects, but the ones that are particularly focused on high energy density batteries. I think in most in particular is project 1. And to another extent project 5, but. This is a project that will conduct. Significant portion of it will be for a research study. That will hopefully support work in the standards development area for lithium ion batteries. Specifically, it's going to provide for research on the battery packs using the mobility devices in response for foreseeable extreme environmental mechanical electrical conditions. Results from the contract would be deliverable research for us, which could be used in development to improvements to existing standards for micro mobility devices, electrical systems and batteries. And ideally help us identify some of the issues that are leading to thermal runway. Not just with with e-bikes, though, e-bikes will be a significant portion of the focus of that research. In addition, with respect to. Project number. Sorry, I just want to make sure I have the number correctly here. Project. 6, I believe it is me 1 second here. Yeah. I'm sorry. Project 5 is a look is going to help us look at. The existence of our existing data with respect to an engineering review. And a data review of incidents that we have, particularly with respect to fire incidents as well as looking at some non fire incidents. But sort of those 2 combined, I think we'll provide a significant amount of information for us in terms of these thermal runway run away incidents. I appreciate that. I know that I've been observing these areas and actively doing ideas along the way as well. Project 3 in the mid year list related to data training for artificial intelligence machine learning. And there's also separate project in the ARP of related to machine learning for hazards defect identification. All appeared to be interrelated and I was hoping you can explain how those projects are meant to work together what you hope to achieve. And are there anticipated milestones that can be used to evaluate the product progress of this projects. Absolutely. So, so to answer that 1st part, yes, the project 3. And the, the, what we're calling the mid year list and project 3 in the arpolis are are related interrelated projects. So to try and break them down as simply as possible though they are a little bit complicated. The 1st project will provide. For contractors to code somewhere between 40 and 50,000. What we call unstructured records. So this would be text that we have in something like a death certificate or. An incident report, whether it be from authorities or from or from consumers. So this would be something that isn't pre coded in terms of how it is entered. So it doesn't specifically say this incident happened on a bicycle. It just might describe something and as you imagine unstructured text. So the goal being these contractors would code these this unstructured text for product codes and classify the severity of the incident involved. For the purpose of quality control, each record involved will be coded twice. By different coders, the deliverable from this contract will provide training data for the other project you mentioned that's project number 3 and the arpolist. That project. Which we're calling machine learning and data identification that project will focus on using contractors to develop the program, which will use machine learning to read unstructured text and assist with classifying the product codes and incident severity from that text. So currently questions why do we need this currently this sort of review and classifications either done by CPC employees or contractors and done on a manual basis and. As you would imagine slowly the goal when we get to the end of the project will be to use that data from that first set the coding we talked about as training material for the programs developed by that second project. And for testing to see how it's doing when complete. The idea is that the program will learn from those 40 to 50,000 records how to read uncoded unstructured text and then properly classify product codes and incident severity from the text. So currently again because it's done manually the process only allows for us to do a very small number of records on an annual basis. In terms of what we receive we have more that we receive more than we can review. If we are successful the program would dramatically impact the number of reports which we can classify for research rules and compliance activities. Now this is going to be an iterative process I think that's important to note it's not as if when you get to the end of the year and the end of this program writing we're done. Because it's going to need to be adjusted along the way it's going to need to be tweaked based on how well the program does how quickly it learns. And how accurate it's it's reading of the unstructured text is. But ideally we're getting to a point where we're in a more automated fashion with humans checking on the back end we can much more quickly and much more comprehensively. Identify product codes and classify severity of injuries and incidents within the data we're receiving. So I mean clearly it's a good and strong goal and as you said it's iterative process so it's one that as you know should this be funded. Make sure that there are also along the way that we can understand how things are going and redirect as necessary. Lastly noting my time I want to talk a little bit about the two funding streams of the agencies running through you mentioned I mentioned the annual preparations and the ARPA funds and the decision to recommend transferring staff from from the ARPA funds to the annual preparations of the 5.5 million dollars proposed to be transferred to the annual preparations for ARPA funds. How much is related to staffing and the reasoning for the approach. Sure so 100% of the 5.5 is related to staffing. So all that would be related to staffing. The reason for the approaches is laid out in the 23 operating plan. In terms of ideally actually what we what we wanted to do is be able to transfer all 46. FTS over to to the appropriations. The funds were not available but the goal is to do this in a thoughtful manner moving this 37 over in a way that protects staff avoids potential disruption and operations going forward. As you know, the funds will run out or or expire in the relatively near future and to move staff into our operating funds. That allows the the the appropriations increases to keep everyone on board and and maintain the momentum that we've built particularly in terms of our import and field staffs. Thank you. I may have more questions, but at this point I'm going to turn to my colleagues commissioner Feldman. Do you have questions? I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Levine and Mr. Baker for the presentation today and for all your work putting this together. I do have a number of questions. We'll probably have to do multiple rounds. But right out of the gate on priority items 11 and 14 relating to organo halogen flame retardants. I just want to clarify one thing. We say class based when we say that are we still talking about the subclass based assessment that the national academies recommended. We seem to be using class and subclass interchangeably. And I've asked this question before another context, but I just want to make sure that we're proceeding pursuant to what the national academies has has recommended this sort of the best science. Yeah, I will confirm for you, but I believe the answer is yes. It's still subclasses. The plan has not changed. Okay. Thank you. I want to ask about home sprinklers on item 10 relating to home sprinklers. I'm curious about how this proposal originated. You could talk a little bit about what the genesis of that project was. Sure. Sorry, I'll just grab it here. The. So, you know, our work in fire reduction is has always been a. Ongoing at the commission in terms of it's, you know, one of the areas. As those of us who read, you know, the death reports is something that obviously is a significant. It's very absurd and and we look for a variety of ways to address it. The home sprinkler project was based on. Staff review of existing data, which suggested that sprinklers are highly effective, but we didn't really have. Hard. Project data that allowed the ability to definitively assess this and definitively make the case to whether it be code coding boards across the country or other interested stakeholders for an approach that looks at home sprinklers as a. Effective deterrent beyond the beyond the lab setting and on the commercial setting as you're well aware, commercial buildings have had requirement new commercial buildings that requirements for sprinklers for many, many years. So how would this differ from the work that the US fire administration NIST and others have already done and completed regarding residential fire sprinklers for example. I'm aware of a 2000 study, a seven study that NIST published that that sort of looked specifically I think at the question that you're getting at, which is to conduct sort of a definitive cost benefit analysis of residential fire protection systems. And they found that that across a variety of applications that that these systems are sort of cost effective across a variety of installation scenarios. Sure. So, being unfamiliar with that specific study, you know, we can circle back. I think that the, I would note if it's a 2007 study, we probably at the very least would want to update it as as much as we could if we're looking to talk to. We're looking to talk to code boards about, you know, current costs. I wouldn't want to recreate the wheel, but I've asked my staff share this with secretary mill so that it'll be available. I'm happy to circulate the rest of the commission and to staff as well. On e-commerce. Thank you for that. We continue to see recalled product product showing up for sale illegally on secondary marketplace platforms and that there there's only so much. And Mr. Chairman, I know you just recently sent a series of letters talking about this issue specifically that there appears to be only so much our compliance staffs able to do when they're investigating these platforms manually as part of their compliance mission. I've worked to expand CPSC's data analytics capabilities and there's been a strong focus on AI. So I'm excited to see this continued focus because this technology appears so promising to spot broad trends and discrepancies are precisely the things that we want to identify in order to proceed with the compliance action. That capability is critical to our safety message and not only that, but recall effectiveness and our enforcement efforts writ large. So on item number three regarding training for AI and machine learning. Would this project have applications are more broadly with respect to our market surveillance operations or is it contemplated that it's a little bit more narrowly targeted than that. So I think it's important to be careful. In terms of stages of it. I think the immediate the immediate application will be for the sort of information we are currently receiving. Which is a significant amount of information, but yes, ideally. You know, the tool could be trained to read unstructured text of similar natures. So. You know, if you're looking at something that's reporting something about a product and something about an injury incident. That's the goal. The goal is to be able to use this sort of technology. To scan and identify that far faster than we can do manually. Items that need to be flagged and followed up by people. So yes, in the long run that is that. I think that's what's exciting actually about the technology. I agree that's exciting. I think that's a powerful tool that that we could make good use of. So thank you. Some of the proposed projects fall under the purview of the chief information officer who I know is relatively recent to CPC. Mr. Burnett. I want to welcome you to CPSC. And I think that the work that your does your office does is a critical part of our mission and comprises a significant portion of our annual appropriation. So it's important that we get it right. Given the technical nature of the proposed product. Projects here and there's no question in here for you. I know that you're not at the dais right now, but given that the technical nature of the projects that have been proposed. I just want to make sure that we're taking full advantage of your expertise as we set our priorities and again, no question. But I just want to ensure that you have every opportunity to provide your input on the portions of the proposal that touch your areas before we move to final consideration. Mindful of the time. I'm happy to yield. Obviously, multiple rounds as well. So if you want to stop there, we can come back again. Great. Thank you very much. I'm good. Do you have questions? Yes, and thank you. Mr. Baker, my first questions to you. Mr. Levine has this nice solid placard in front of them. They gave you a piece of paper. Can we find some money in the budget to get you one of those two? I love the paper. Thank you. Okay. All right. Well, I appreciate the thrifty approach there then. So I'm going to go through the questions in roughly sequential order, starting with the unexecuted balances and up on item one, the high energy density batteries. I definitely 100% support all the work that we're going to do to address the e-bikes, particularly with the lithium ion battery explosion problem. And so I do like to see this item very much and its prominence on this list. I do want to understand more about the equipment purchases for the project. And I understand there's two equipment purchases. Can you tell me what those two purchases are and the capabilities that we gain from them and how they can be used to support future rulemaking? Sure. Thank you for the question. The, to your right, it is a, it's a, there's two different pieces of equipment involved. The first will allow staff to significantly update our ability to measure the capabilities of a variety of micro mobility products. So we're talking about hoverboards, powered unicycles, other self balancing scooters. Right now we can't really measure these units at the speeds that they are being sold on the market at. And we only see those speeds and those capabilities for those products increasing and getting faster. So what we need to be doing is updating our systems to keep pace with these devices. In particular, because one of our observations is that the increased speed and load put on these batteries can play a role in the thermal events. So it's going to allow us. The first piece of equipment we're talking about again, hoverboards, unicycles, self balancing scooters. The 2nd piece is for a dynamometer, which will cover other consumer products with different dynamics than the ones I just mentioned. Including some different wheel configurations varying weight capacities and ranges of speed up to 40 miles an hour. This could cover and should cover e-bikes, e-scooters, battery powered accessible accessibility vehicles, go carts, children's youth ATVs, as well as ride on toys. So again, this will improve our testing capabilities in this area. And again, we have concerns with the speed and load put on these batteries is playing a role in thermal events. So those are the 2 pieces of equipment. So the 2nd piece of equipment you mentioned, you went through a long list of what we could test on that. The 1st 1, you didn't say e-bikes. Correct. We can't use that 1st 1 for e-bikes. Well, it's not that we can't. It's that it's not ideally structured. It's more for as noted in the project is it is for high density batteries in the micro mobility environment. And that 1st 1 is the much more expensive for the 2 right. That's the $300,000 purchase. Yes. And we're not going to be using it on e-bikes. It's not necessarily structured for e-bikes. The it's not to say that we couldn't, but it's better used for these other products, which again. You know, hoverboards in particular, you know, have had a history of of of thermal events and as we've seen with other products. Okay. Item 4 on the list, the ATV roll over protection. That's particularly welcome. And it's the last piece of the puzzle to solving the off road vehicle stability issue. And after this, there should be no more need for contract dollars on this. And we'll be able to present solutions in house. I just want to make sure that we don't have other plans studies on this after this one. Is that right? I couldn't possibly say that once we get to the end of a contract, we'll certainly review it and look to ideally moving forward in a way that helps protect consumers, but I can't predict what a contract is going to say. Oh, so on this 1, I guess what I'm asking is we don't have a planned. This would be the last 1 we have planned. We don't have another one correct. I mean, I think once we get to the end of this, there's currently a project ongoing. This project would add to our base of knowledge. And I think at that point in time, staff would come back with recommendations based on those. Thank you. Correct. There's, there's another plan. Okay. Appreciate that items 5 and 6. And I know you touched on these a little bit already the bicycle standards and data review and the bicycle engineering review nonfire. Can you explain how these 2 interrelate? I mean, is it possible to do them simultaneously or does 5 need to happen before 6. Just how do those 2 work together? Sure. No, they can certainly be happening simultaneously because they're taking different approaches to the category of electric bikes. So the engineering review is literally testing bikes and e-bikes, pardon me. So it's going to work on giving us more information about design, construction differences may explain some of the user control issues that were cited in the 2022 micro ability report. The, the other project is looking at data that we already have in house and helping us analyze it to ideally improve standards, whether those be voluntary or otherwise. And we'll also take a look at existing international standards. You know, we've spent a lot of time looking at some standards. This will help us expand our base of knowledge with respect to other standards. So they can definitely be done simultaneously. Okay, excellent. Item 9 PFAS. It's a topic I'm extremely interested in. I'm glad to see it on here. Can you tell me what we hope to learn from this work and how it could inform rulemaking. So, so, so this project will build on our existing work. As you know, we recently completed a market and use information study involving PFAS. So, the, the, I'm just trying to check my notes here. The idea here is it will include some product testing, which will measure chemical content. And emissions parameters, which would support our, our exposure modeling from a range of different products with respect to PFAS. And help us consider different chemical PFAS chemical product combinations. And it's important to note this aligns with, but does not overlap specifically with our existing efforts to work on voluntary standards. In the voluntary standards context. So this, this is additive to what we're already doing. Have we already determined that, that, like the product categories that we're going to be looking at in, in this analysis. I would need to get back to you on that. I mean, I think what this does is, you know, we just completed this market. And you study, I think this turns to helping us figure out which products we should be most focusing on, but I'll get back to you on that. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Oh, as far as I, you know, Commissioner Feldman, you touched on this a little bit. You know, it's a chemical hazard that I definitely think we should regulate. We spent years and millions of dollars on it so far. And here we see items 11, 13 and 14 asking for another 825,000. I think it's time to move forward with what we have and NPR doesn't need to provide the final answer on every aspect of the problem. So if these don't get funded, I hope we can inform ourselves through the comment period and continue to supplement with more research as it comes along. So I do urge us to move forward there on the cutting room floor document moving on to that one. Can you provide any more detail and maybe Ms. Brings or Ms. Mary, this would be you on item three, the ATV safety campaign. I'm curious on what that looks like the hazard we're hoping to address. What's the message we're going to be spreading with that? Where do we targeted geographically through what mediums? And I guess I'll stop there for an answer. So I'm happy to start and then Ms. Brings if you want. Okay. So I would note for those watch, so these are projects that were not proposed. But these are projects that were considered. So I just think for our viewers that this was not made available to them to our wide audience of viewers. Thank you. So, but the project generally speaking, as you're well aware, ATV has historically been a leading cause of death in terms of concerned products. This would be an add on effort. I think important to note to our annual information education campaign around ATV safety. But this is mainly, this is a, the concept here is to focus on paved roads. And which is a leading cause of ATV deaths. In other words, ATV is being used on paved roads, which leads to a lot of rollovers and crashes. I don't know if you want to go from take it from there. Yes, commissioner. The, the, the general message would be to keep people off of paved roads since our data show that that's where most of the accidents happen. This would be a digital campaign in areas where our data show us that most of these accidents occur areas like West Virginia, Texas, I can supply a full list afterwards. Yeah, I'm, I'm happy to take any. Well, I think the last related question here is, do we have evidence because we have some communications on this already? Maybe not as specific to the pay of road issue, but do we have evidence that our communications about ATV safety are changing consumer behavior so far? What we can tell you is that our messaging and the assets that we put out are resonating with consumers, both by clicks on a website engagement with social media. So, you know, our hope is that if we, you know, provide additional engagement, we would be able to amplify that. Okay. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, Mr. Levine and Mr. Baker and everyone else who worked on putting this package together. I do, I'm happy to say that the commission has been very active in rulemaking in the last couple of years, magnets, infant sleep products, window covering CSUs, hopefully portable generators and we have several other on the list. And that raises the question of enforcement and the need for staff to enforce those rules. And so I wanted to ask about an amendment that commissioner Feldman offered for the operating plan in 2020. For the 2023 operating plan that was adopted and that was to direct the that the commissions and I'll read it for any fiscal year 2023 annual appropriation above 143.45 million dollars. The office of compliance is authorized to hire up to five new full time equivalent staff to support increased investigation and litigation activity. And the office of the general council is authorized to hire one FTE to support this compliance function. And the package does not address that direction from the commission, or does it, I think prioritize those compliance functions. So I wanted to ask you how you, how you respond to that and how you would address that. Thank you for the question. I think the the short answer is unfortunately. The other things were not available. While the, the footnote footnote eight does authorize that raising of what we call the FTE cap from 539 up, it spells in that case to 545 on the appropriated side, the direction in the operating plan. The previous communications to Congress with respect to moving the ARPA staff over we're seen as taking precedent and hence moving the 37 folks over to our full time roles, many of whom are compliance and field officers. Sorry, port and compliance officers. We're seen as taking precedent and so the while authorized. Unfortunately, the funds are not available. But is it possible if 1 of the projects that are on the list that you put forward wasn't funded? If I just did the math, it's about a million dollars, right? For 5 or 6 employees, Mr Baker. Roughly correct. If we did fund 1 of these projects, we could authorize the hiring of those additional compliance personnel. Yes, but we could. However, as noted, these are unexecuted balances based on our appropriations level. So we would not necessarily expect to have that increase funding available for next year. So we might wind up in a situation where we would not have funds to keep them on our roles. So while we give me if I'm missing something is not the same issue with transferring the ARPA personnel over. Yes, yeah, absolutely. So I mean, so the question is simply how we can move folks over. I mean, I think the distinction being with ARPA, there remain funds at least for a limited period of time. To move ARPA FTS back over to ARPA ARPA FTS back over to ARPA versus for our appropriated line. If we wind up at a continual resolution level or lower, those funds are not there. So it's simply a question of we could do it. The staff proposed what we believe to be the most direct interpretation, but there's no reason that the commission could not choose to add to the cap and we could start the process of raising those levels. We would just need to adjust what's being projected and what's being done. And that million dollars in contracting not only might slip for fiscal 23, but might not be available for fiscal 24. And that's certainly a choice that commission can make. Okay, thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, I did have several questions on batteries, but my colleagues have asked several of those. So I won't belabor that. And similarly, Commissioner Trump did raise the questions on e-bikes safety that I have been interested in. I raised the question of e-bike safety at the operating plan, discussion period, and, you know, Congress authorized the commission 20 years ago to can promulgate regulations specifically for e-bikes. And I think we may be looking at a time to take that a little bit more seriously given the rise in use and the green economy that seems to be embracing that form of transportation. So I would just echo my appreciation to see that those projects are in the project, are in the list. So thank you very much for that. Another question I had would be that I raised also in the operating plan period was infant safety and how we need to continue to do research and focus on that. And it does appear noteworthy to me that there aren't any projects listed either in the un-executed balances or I think in ARPA that addresses additional research and looking at emerging products that we might be studying. So if you could address that, I would appreciate it. Sure. And thank you for the question and thank you for the continued focus on this obviously critical area of interest. You know, while it's accurate to say that, you know, there's not a specific project listed other than an information education campaign in this space. In the package, you know, we would note that there are a large variety of ongoing activities with respect to infant safety and infant hazards. We're talking about NPRs for BASINETs, infant pillows, nursing pillows, rockers, and additional activities are enforcement activity around safety for babies and our variety of voluntary standards. I think there's about 25 that go to these questions. You know, we'd also note that some of these projects that we're discussing, you know, and maybe amongst the ones to highlight would be the artificial intelligence machine learning training data project. You know, we think that'll help everything, but a particular focus of the agency has long been and should be infant safety. And so we'd imagine we'd be able to learn a lot more about reports involving infants and injuries and deaths from being able to read that data more quickly. PFAS work certainly goes to it, but I think so all that said, I think your larger question is around what else could we do if that's fair, if my interpretation is correct. In terms of research and long term study as they're constantly new products and unexplained infant deaths that continue to be a source of concern for all of us here. And so I just noted that there wasn't something additional on the list. And that's true. It's a correct observation. I think there has been a consideration and a project around a study on infants safe sleep and it has not been funded for a variety of reasons for a variety of years. Due to resource and timing limitations, quite frankly, and the ability to execute in a timely and cost effective way, but certainly there has been a concept of a project around a literature review of infant deaths working with outside experts on some of these issues. And it's something that can always be revisited. Again, resource and timing being a question, but happy to work with you. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I'll just wait for the next round. Thank you, Commissioner. Appreciate also, as you pointed out, it's been a long time since the bike standard has been reviewed and updated. So I appreciate you focusing on these issues going forward as well. Actually, I'm going to turn to Commissioner Feldman. So for the next round of questions to start. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I only have a couple additional questions. So hopefully this won't take very long, but I did want to ask about priority item number four, which concerns ATV roll over protection. Mr. Levine, I want to know a little bit more about the proposed project in the context of what we've heard from Congress. Congress has restricted CBSEs from advancing a rule on recreational off highway vehicles regarding lateral stability until the National Academies completes its report to determine the technical validity of the proposed lateral stability and vehicle handling requirements. I recognize that it's a different product category ATVs versus ROVs. And obviously the proposal and item number four turns ATVs where we're restricted on ROVs. But I'm curious about sort of the subject that we're probing here and what we hope to find. Would this project raise the same sort of technical validity concerns that Congress has addressed and criticized in our other previous work? Well, I certainly hope not. I mean, the concept here is an examining injury incident data. One of the most common scenarios are our rollovers. And so, unlike with ROVs, which have, as you're familiar, you're often roll cages and other roll over protection issues and wider stability ATVs don't. And so this looks at rollover protection and some of the variety of technologies that have been examined in this space and intend to help inform all stakeholders. And whether that be an mandatory standard context, voluntary standard context, you know, we think it is helpful research to provide this information because, you know, trying to get after this specific incident scenario, which we know is remains a stubborn one. Okay. Thank you. I want to ask about the consumer product safety risk management protection system or the CPS RMS. Can you explain item number eight, the CPS RMS documentation? I see that staff's proposing to spend over a quarter million dollars on the CPS RMS documentation, but the description of the project, frankly, is a little confusing. Can you explain what the project is and how it will advance our mission? Yes. So, CPS RMS is one of them. Yes, I could have picked the easier acronym. I wasn't at the meeting. So the RMS, which is how we generally refer to it because CPS RMS is a mouthful, will provide, so what this project will provide is our ability to basically preserve the utility of our risk management system for our internal enforcement process because right now it is, as many of our legacy systems are, it was built sort of piece by piece without sort of, you know, as these technologies were developed over our 50, coming up on 51 year history. They weren't necessarily developed in a holistic way that allows us to take advantage of modern technologies, modern software applications, and we are now in the process of doing that. And so, you know, we've talked a lot about moving our systems to the cloud. We've talked a lot about the ability to move things into a data lake and use more advanced technology to access those systems. What this project will help us do is as those transitions take place, do so in a way that will allow us to categorize and more effectively utilize the individual siloed pieces of the RMS in our new environment. So this is an important, because quite frankly, if we don't undertake this sort of project, when we do make these transitions, whether because we have to, because software has no longer, and software and hardware is no longer supportable, or because we want to because we see enterprise opportunities to be successful. If we don't have a better understanding of what we're moving and how we're moving it is going to be just as jumbled and ineffective, even in a new, more modern environment. And so this will help us as we make those transitions and Correct me if I'm wrong, but Okay. All right. There we go. Appreciate that. Given the last sentence in the product description on page seven that explains that the project will also be used for requirements generation for CPR MS replacement, which will likely become necessary in the coming years. So do we treat this as a one time expense, or is staff anticipating additional future expenditures in the operating plan and beyond the 2020 for right. So it depends on what we mean by this I think this portion is one time the the upgrading and modernization of CPS RMS is not a one time expense. So it depends on sort of how you break it would be useful to get a projected spend. And obviously that's looking a little bit into the future but just to have have a slightly more clarity on that I think would be helpful with that I have no further questions. I appreciate staff. Your time. Thank you. Mr. Baker. Mr. Levine. Everybody appreciate it. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Trumka. Thanks. Just my last question on the cutting room floor document is with item four about spokesperson collaboration. If we did this do we have specific topics in mind that we would want to do there. So my understanding and the springs can correct me, but again, because the project was not brought forth, it wasn't necessarily brought to completion, but the goal is. With these collaboration reach communities that we know are disproportionately impacted whether we're talking about black communities, Hispanic communities, Native American communities about hazards that are obviously within our jurisdiction from voices that they know and trust. And that that's sort of the concept. I don't know if there's more to speak to on that. No, I think you captured it all. So we don't have specific subject matters that we might want to hit if we did this. I think that the subject matters would relate to the hazards that we know impact these communities, baby safety, CEO safety, fire safety, those kinds of hazards. Sounds like good ideas. Okay. That's all on that on that document. I want to move on to the ARPA one time costs. I love to see item one the website redesign sorely needed. I really hope that CPSC that gov becomes a place that consumers actually go to to look for information. I have a question on the website redesign and maybe this is for our chief information officer. This is the stage where it's easiest to kind of build in universal tools as I would understand it. And so integrating something like a translation translation tool into our website so that we had everything available multiple languages. Would this be the easiest time to do something like that if we were going to do it. Everybody thank you for having me here. In my prior agency. We did a complete that was be the EEOC we did a complete website redesign and built a structure that supported multiple languages. Because you need everything the images, the error messages, everything has to be supportive of multiple languages. So it is an ideal time when you're doing a redesign to think about. How can we structure this so that it's easy to provide multiple languages. While the technology that supports translations increases and it gets better every single day. We still paid people to at the EEOC to do those translations for us. But the the information that was presented the structure of the website made it easy to see what was available in other languages and how to how to get to that information quickly. So, so it does make sense. And, you know, we have we have a budget here for human translators as well later in the document. So the question is, it sounded like a yes that if we wanted to build the website as we redesigned it in a way that could support translation tools. Now's the time. Absolutely. And we could make that into this million dollar contract. I think the design can can accept. Multiple languages. So, I don't know exactly at this point how much the million dollars will buy us. Can we maybe follow up on that because I think it'd be a good idea to, if we can do it to include it in this project, if we're going to be building it, let's build it right. Absolutely. Okay, thank you. And I see an item to our very much like to see the nice special special investigations on that was my only technology question on that so I appreciate it up to you whether. There's an investigation on e-bikes. Can you explain what we're hoping to learn there and how that could feed into a rulemaking process to make e-bike safer. Sure. So, as a macro level on how special studies work within nice. The, the construct is, as you know, we have a sample of hospitals across the country where incident reports are then fed through a model to give us nationwide estimates. But those, those individual incident reports are. Significant in nature, but don't always have all of the information that we might want and think about a product. A similar product to an e-bike, let's say a scooter that is involved in a visit to an emergency department. There's an injury. Child breaks their arm. Parents has happened on a scooter. It's not, you know, immediately important necessarily to the admitting personnel to identify whether it was an electric scooter or a foot pedal. So, like our ATV OHV that kind of problem we, we unpack it. Okay. So the special study here would be for e-bikes and that same and that same issue. So digging into each of those individual. Incidents over the course of a full year, which would then provide us with a significant data set that helped us identify both for for all the variety of reasons that all the variety of ways that we use that that information. Okay. And I also want to touch on item 10 from the ARPA 1 time spent. I wanted to give you a chance to talk about in Miss Springs. I think this is something you alluded to earlier with reaching at the targeted communities. But if you could explain to us what we're hoping to accomplish with this project feels like a really great idea and I just want to give you a chance to elaborate on it. Here you go. Thank you for the DEI community outreach grassroots program and I'll read you the sentence that I was curious about that might help as well. You've got the last sentence in there updating producing and distributing safety related collateral for distributing directly to these audiences and through external stakeholder organizations. It sounds like a great idea. I just wanted to give you a chance to tell us about what that looks like. You've got a great inactive field staff that's on the ground every day. Reaching out to communities both from the compliance standpoint, but they also are great feelers for us to connect with people in the community to help socialize our safety information at the moment. That information is being distributed kind of ad hoc. They're asking us, you know, we need X number of pamphlets. And so the idea is to provide these people with provide our colleagues rather with the content that they need the brochures so that they can socialize more of our safety messaging throughout their throughout their work. And that's great. And Mr. Burnett, I'm glad you didn't leave because I spoke too soon. I think you might be able to help with this next one as well. And I think with items three through seven on this list, these relate to tech upgrades. Christopher Feldman, you alluded to it before that, you know, we want to make sure we do this right and I want to make sure we understand them. So, so people tend to gloss over some of these and assume that we won't understand them. But if you could lay out items three through seven in layman's terms, maybe just a sentence even if you can what's the capability that we currently lack. And what new capability does this give us? Okay, thank you. Why don't I start and then you fill in on this. Why don't we do it that way. So let's start with. Well, we already talked to I think a little bit about the AI and ML project. I don't know if that's something you wanted to continue to cover. If you could maybe just re summarize it for us in a sense, what capability do we lack? What do we gain? How do we gain that capability here? Sure. We don't currently have a an automated fashion for reading unstructured text. Ideally, if this project is successful, it would allow us to read unstructured text and an automated fashion a way to identify. Product codes and injury and incident severity. Perfect. Thank you. Item. For. No, sorry. I'm on the wrong. On the wrong list. Give me one second here. Well, that's idea. Right. Yeah. Correct. The idea. So currently. As we talked about with unfortunately many of our our data collection systems, both from a compliance standpoint and otherwise are outdated. This provides our. Our field officers when they're doing in depth investigations, the ability to upload. The, the investigatory report and the collateral materials that come with it. And a fashion that is appropriate in 2023. So they're not using incredibly old sort of PDFs to do that. And this will allow that information not only to be. Essentially located in terms of finding it, but also more easily searchable. Okay. May I enter that? Yes, a slide. So there's no system today. So it's all managed with these fillable PDFs that are submitted back to the office. This will be replacing those PDFs with forms, fillable forms. It's as. Mr. Levine says 2023. And I think last year, they did a pilot for 1 of these forms. So, so this has already been piloted. We know how to do it. We know how much it costs to do that pilot. I think this is just an extrapolation to replace all the standard PDFs with those forms. So that 1 sounds like it'd be a time saver and you'd get accuracy by not having to re enter. Okay, excellent. Number 5 goes to our epidemiology systems being modernized. We currently have 11 different apps involved in our in our epidemiology systems and 7 third party integrated services. And this will continue the project of modernizing those systems consolidating our legacy applications, which are starting to come offline in terms of being supported, which ideally will help us improve efficiency and effectiveness. And 1 example that is already in play is, for example, web nice or nice hospitals used to be dependent upon us providing hardware, physical laptops that they need to plug into their system. This, the upgrade that has already happened allows for them to participate in the program online. I'm happy to continue or how would you say it's a 2nd year of a 3 year project. Yeah, I'll be whether you want me to just come back to those last 2. Well, it's that question just the answer and have more. I can do it on my next try and get that answer if you want. You can have more time. Well, I just to let the answer keep going. I don't have another. No, that was it. I was. And I can go back to those and get that answer later. So feel free to. Just go through normal rounds and so we'll go through another round of questions, but commissioner boil. Do you have a question? I have a couple. Thank you, Mr. chair. I wanted to ask about item 15 on executed bounces on the smart enabled products. You could just explain what you hope to get out of that project and what it entails. Yes, but I need to grab my notes. This was yes. So thank you for the question and the patients. So. The concept here is expanding our current understanding, which is exists, but is relatively limited when we talk about enabled or related consumer products. So we have seen reports of threats or potential hazards and a range of of IOT Internet of Things related products such as thermostats, furnaces, oven ranges, space heaters, fireplace inserts in that space or connected technology. This work would help and we continue to work in the voluntary standard space around those, those products, but helping us. Continue to develop testing methodologies to support compliance work when we're talking about IOT and a related products needs more research on our part and more. More resources. So the plan here would be to purchase some products that are a related enabled evaluate them in house. Using principles established by our team and then extrapolate from those learnings in addition to our continued participation with. You know, White House is OSTP on these issues and a variety of other stakeholder groups in the space. So you mean purchase different categories of products we've done similar testing already is that what correct and help us continue to understand them better and develop testing methods around them. Okay, I mean, I think it's fair to say that I certainly is in the news a lot lately and rapidly emerging and changing technologies seems to be something we should obviously be focusing on. So I'm a bit surprised to see it at the bottom of your list and is that does that indicate that it's not a top priority or. Well, I think for us, this is more of the cutting edge of the question. I think where our data has suggested is these are risks as opposed to ongoing active significant incident reports. And so many of the, you know, when we're talking about Internet of Things enabled devices, many of the risks go more to the cyber and the privacy side than necessarily the physical injury side, but we want to continue to. We want to continue to stay abreast of these active of these products and these potential hazards, which is why we participate in a wide variety of stakeholder. Activities that allow us to to maintain a foothold in the space continue to be aware of what's going on, but based on, you know, the difficult choices we always have to make in terms of where to apply the resources. This is where we put it forward. So would the bulk of the 300,000 be for equipment and a product purchases versus. I believe it would be for. For product purchases, we can get back to you on the exact. Okay, and I'd be sorry to interrupt. I'd be interested to understand better how purchasing different product categories. Really expands our knowledge of the fundamental issues related to software and the technology that we're talking about. You know, is it really substantially different in a stove versus a refrigerator versus looking at the more kind of fundamental issues related to this. Well, circle back. Okay. Thank you. And then the other question I had was. About embedding equity in our research and our data. Staff in September of 2022 issued a report on, I think it was titled the investigation on racial and socioeconomic differences, race, ethnicity and socioeconomic data and consumer product safety. And in that, and I'll quote for it. It explains that quote ex HR will continue actively to seek opportunities to identify and evaluate consumer safety equity issues and allocate safety work toward equity and consumer product safety. Do you have plans or can you elaborate on the plans that you to evaluate and pursue equity issues within the ex HR products specifically that are proposed in the mid year funding. Sure. Thank you for the question and I think. Similar to where we talked about infant safety, you know, there's not a specific project. From the ex HR perspective that is solely focused in this question. I believe there's 2. I believe there's 2 OCM related projects in the package on this note, but I would say that consumer safety and equity issues are sort of included in many, if not most of the projects that we talk about in the base funding. So when we talk about as mentioned, similarly, you know, it seems like it's keep coming back to it. The, the, the ability to undertake. Review of unstructured text in a way that will give us far more information than we currently have about actual incidents as opposed to projected. Is going to be super significant as we attempt to get deeper into safety differences by demographic subgroup is something that we think is going to be helpful. As, as we move along, the. The RMS documentation project is again, part of our larger effort to modernize our data systems, which will hopefully allow for better access to our data by all of our, all of our staffers. And as we improve these systems, that's again necessary to help us apply. These new tools that we're talking about to pull out better data sets around trying to focus on equity issues. You know, and I mean, I think 1 of the things we've learned with going through our current data as we learned in the recent imputation report. As we're lacking in the current capabilities to best identify in multiple categories. We certainly identified some categories. As Ms. Springs mentioned, you know, we're talking about carbon oxide and drowning prevention and fire, but there are more categories out there that we want to get a better sense of how we can. Help address. At a community level that we're not yet able to mine the data in a way that will help us expand on that and so while they are not so some of these it projects we're talking about may not seem directly. Um, labeled as speaking to some of these equity issues, we do believe they will be helpful and eventually decisive, you know, maybe not necessarily in 12 months, but eventually decisive in helping us push these issues forward. Thank you very much and thank you to all. I'm done. Mr. Sure. Thank you, commissioner. Well, thank you for raising the diversity and equity issues. And I would say ask Mr. lean slash encourage that, you know, whether it's the HR compliance or all the rest that these issues would be. Part of any thinking and work that they're doing that there are looking at if there are disparities. Um, disparate impacts are going on as they're doing. So I assume that's the case from how the commission has pushed in the past, but maybe you can confirm that that that's the case. Yes. Um, Don't another round questions. Commissioner. No questions. Commissioner Trump. We've got several other projects that touch on nice, our hospital data reporting system. How's recruiting stand for nice. I mean, how many do we have in the program and has that lineup with our goal. Sure. So, um, and thank you for the question and, and, um. You know, nice is such an important backbone of our data collection system. So it is, you know, we're always glad. I'm looking for my notes while I'm talking, but we're always for commission interest and shoring up our. The system. So, I think it's important that we recognize that the nice hospitals. What's what's most important is having a. Ah, there we go. Having a representative sample from the country. So it's not necessarily the number. You know, so, for example, we go out and recruit. 200 hospitals if they're all the same size hospitals in the same region. Uh, they're all say urban that doesn't actually give us the, the, the scope that we're looking for in terms of being able to make national estimates. Um, so, uh, you know, that said, we can get back on the exact numbers, but, you know, our goal is to have that representative sample. Recruiting has been a little bit slower than we had hoped we had undertaken starting last year, a large effort to with the help of a contractor to recruit new hospitals. We found COVID to be a significant impediment to, um, to the recruiting, not so much. Uh, on our end necessarily, but hospitals as you can imagine to the emergency departments. Uh, we're distracted. Uh, we are starting to see some, uh, return to normal on that we've recently had an uptick in some of our recruiting. Uh, so the numbers are starting to come back. We've added four small hospitals just this fiscal year alone and we're close to adding a few more at this moment. Uh, we are and we're coming to the end of a two year contract with an outside vendor to help us with recruiting. I think as, um. As we get to the end of that contract, you know, we're not necessarily suggesting moving forward with an option year on that because for a variety of reasons. Uh, we believe we have continued opportunity to recruit. Um, otherwise, but I think we're going to continue to need to find ways to make sure it's stable, but I will note. Um, our current sample has been, um, looked at by the outside by OMB, uh, as, as, uh, satisfactory through 2025. Um, so we do have time to continue to keep moving that forward, but so it's slow, but it's coming on. But we get back to it. And definitely accepting that our, our sample size is good enough to project the things we're doing, but, but more data is better. And I was just curious how we're doing there. So we have a current contract. It goes through when you said the end of this fiscal year. It's the end of this fiscal year. My question was going to be, do we need to. Allocate more funds, but, but we wouldn't have to do that in the mid year if we're tied up through the end of this year. Right. Well, if we were to expect, I mean, so it's. It's the delivery is through the end of the fiscal year. So we don't need to do anything more to finish this fiscal year. The question would be, do we, um, expend more funds to, uh. Ask to contract with this firm to help us continue recruiting the way it's doing. So start, you know, as of October 1 fiscal 20, you know, 2023. Uh, we have not put that forth as a recommendation. Obviously the commission could choose to do otherwise. Um, Well, maybe we should maybe talk about that some more as we get closer to that date and think about what makes sense there. Um, but, but a lot of the funding goes to contracts and, um, you know, we don't have a ton of visibility as commissioners into that contracting process until, you know, we've already posted a solicitation. We get bids and then we find out who gets it afterwards. Um, I'd really love to help spread the word on those and make sure that we get a wide enough pool to make sure we're getting the best candidates to do these things. So I was thinking about whether we could put something in this mid year that would have some sort of regular briefings for us on upcoming solicitations. Um, you know, it doesn't need to be an amendment here because we're just talking about periodic maybe quarterly briefings. Is that something you think you can provide to us on solicitations? Um, you know, certainly we're happy to try and provide whatever information the commission needs. I mean, I'd say we do 300 plus solicitations a year. So it's, it's a pretty significant lift if we're talking about briefing on every single one of them. And it wouldn't need to be that I'm thinking of quarterly and it could be a list. And if we have questions on each specific ones, we could ask questions. Sure. And, and, you know, I mean, I think we of course want to make sure that, um, you know, we're following federal acquisition regulations. As you're well, well aware, there's a tremendous number of regulations around, um, federal contracting. We want to make sure we're staying with it. But anything we can do to increase the pool of, um, of, of competition on our contracts is certainly something we should talk about finding ways to promote. So great. Well, I hope we can do those briefings. And I think hopefully we can get to that process. Um, you know, because this is, this is my second mid year here. Um, I think it's important to look back on the last one to kind of inform how we handle this one. And so I want to ask about what happened with the last one that we did and we had put in several amendments and haven't quite heard back on what the result was. And so I was hoping we could cover a little bit of that as well. So starting with SAS via, and this was an amendment that I put forward and it was investment technology that would help us do our jobs better. We were told there. So the amendment allocated 2.2 million of ARPA funds to migrate from SAS 9.4 to SAS via and we anticipated the investment would expand our data analysis capabilities and allow us to run analysis faster, significantly faster. For example, it came with the ability to mine text data and allow patterns to be discerned easier, including harms to disadvantage groups. So how is the implementation on that one gone? What new capabilities have we gained? And can you provide any examples of why that added value? Sure. So and I think for this project and an all mid year projects and sort of the projects we're talking about today. Also, I think it's important. To remember sort of the contracting period, right? So the contracts, particularly for the unexecuted balances, but similar for ARPA funds, right? We'll take over the next few months, maybe even more than that to execute those contracts, which will then have a performance period of 12 months or more depending upon the contract. Some of these are still in process and the implementation of SAS via is one of those and unfortunately it's got a little bit slower than we had hoped. There were some delays due to what's called an authority to operate license, which we have now gained. And the installation is starting to pick up a little more speed and no small thanks to our CIO shop. In terms of getting what we pay for and getting the contract to provide and the contractor to provide what we asked for. And so it's a multi step process, right? There's training of our staff. There's migration of data and there's integration of our existing systems. And so if we think about it that way, the training has begun for our staff to use the new tool once it has been implemented and they're already beginning to work in what we call the non production environment. So they're starting to actually learn how to employ the training that SAS is providing. And so that's one my the migration piece of has has also begun for us is not yet complete. And then the the integration of our existing systems is also ongoing and is speeding up. I think we're going to start seeing some more results coming this fall, but I think we're still, you know, we're still in we're still a bit of a catch up process. That Brian could speak to a little bit. Okay, but this one's bought and paid for. We're waiting on implementation to start seeing the benefits. Correct. Yeah, it's an ongoing right. It's an ongoing integration of a of a of a tool that that our people once it's fully integrated will be able to use. Okay, we also allocated 200,000 of ARPA funds for a consumer behavior study to quote direct the office of communications in consultation with the division of human factors to conduct a study on consumer behavior regarding recalls and factors relating to consumer willingness to report consumer product injuries, including but not limited to through the use of focus groups of consumer representatives of the US population. So how did the study go, what did we learn and and what benefits we're gaining from it. Right, so this would be another example of one that is just really getting going because of the time it takes to get these things up and running to OMB just to prove the focus groups. So the contract I think asked for a report by the end of summer 23. So hopefully, you know, we'll have something soon. Are we still on track for that. Excellent. Yeah. Okay, look forward to it. Let's see we also funded a project on population attributable risk, which we understood to be a tool for assessing the impact of chronic hazards on specific populations including low income minority communities. I won't go through my but what's the update on that one where do we stand with sure. Contractors have completed nearly completed is the report I'm getting the first phase, which is developing the early version of a tool which would estimate the number of deaths and injuries that may result from specific specific chemical exposure. So we are. We just had a demonstration for our technical staff on the beta version of the model, which we sent back some some tweaks to that we'd like to see and we're hoping to see the final version of that. The tool we're going to use to undertake that that that estimation by the end of April. So soon. Great. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner wall says no, no additional questions. Commissioner Bellman, Commissioner Trump. Sorry to keep being the one who drags us on same line of questions. Last one. Web crawler. Same question. Where does that stand. So this one's had and I know we've spoken to some of the office some of you about this. This project has run into far more problems than I think we had anticipated upon. It's conception in terms of making it work and so far no funds have been expended on. Implementation because we have not yet been able to identify a contract. Vehicle that will produce what we what was proposed. And so, you know, at this point, it has really been shrunk back down to looking at potentially doing something very small. In terms of a maybe looking at one specific website and product type, but it's really we've been unsuccessful in finding a solution that is. Realistic and cost effective based on where we started. So the short answer is. It's has not moved very far forward. I think. One of the things we are hoping is the type of of. Of end result from what we talked about in the project that project number 3 could apply. To the sort of. Websites and other activity that the web crawler imagined in addition to all the other pieces that we're talking about. So again, it's essentially unstructured text and searching for it. And I would take. Pointing the sort of tool that we're developing under that project at a given website as opposed to a sort of free form. It's been successful. However, we've been, I think it's important to note our team has been incredibly successful. Again, in a manual way. At going ahead and doing some of the work that it's been doing, but in terms of developing a tool that is able to find. On the defect side trends and that sort of activity. We've been struggling and and and similarly there there have been some, which I'd rather not discuss in this setting some legal questions around. How some of the other pieces would work. So. The short answer is it's it's. No money has been spent, I suppose is a good thing, but it does not move forward very, very far. I mean, that's that's disappointing. I mean, I know we were all excited about the capabilities. You say if it's doing great work, this would have let them do more of it and do it easier and cover more ground. So it's disappointing to hear that we don't have a solution on that. But I guess my question is, when did we know that. Well, this has become, you know, it's something that continues to develop and we continue to look for solutions. So, you know, as I said, the current. Effort is to see if it could be shrunk and then brought back to the commission. It was noted in the package that, you know, $0 had been spent on this in the in the ARPA table. Actually, sorry, not in the package and one of the collateral materials that was distributed. It's the blue and green chart or table, I should say. That's right. I'm not sure I've seen that, but, but I guess the question is, you know, we approve this in last year's mid year and things happen, you know, we can't always execute what we expect to, but I would definitely hope to be learning it earlier than this year's mid year that we didn't fund the required element of last year's. So I really like us to have a process going forward that we could just learn this earlier on. I'll stop there. But, but I guess one question is what happens with that money then that's last year's money. Where do we put it? Well, again, it was part of ARPA. So it, it's so that stays in. Okay. Okay. So that just says, and that that money that we would have used on that will now it's now part of the plan to be expended in what we have before us. Correct. Okay. Okay. Do you want to? Okay. All right. I don't have any more questions. Thank you. Thank you for, for answering all of these. Appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner. I'm done. Thank you. No request for additional rounds that. So thank you to staff for this informative briefing. We're going to be recommuting next week to make those decisions on the mid year in our packages. I look forward to working with my colleagues on. Finding a strong path forward for the agency on our spending and the projects that we focus on with that. This briefing is concluded. And let's have 10 minutes to the clue the room that works for folks to lunch. Well, this is closed. So we're going to turn off the mic.