 Good morning. Welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Today, the commission will consider one agenda item, the final rule to amend 16 CFR Part 1031, also known as Commission Participation and Commission Employee Involvement in Voluntary Standards. We're going to follow our normal process and start with five minutes per commissioner for any questions that they might have of staff. And sitting before us, we have Mr. J. Howell, the Deputy Executive Director for Safety Operations and Ms. Mary House, an attorney in the Regulatory Affairs Division of the Office of the General Counsel. After the questions, then we'll turn to consideration and deliberation of the item in front of us. So I have no questions. Commissioner Adler. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no questions. Commissioner Robinson. I just have a couple questions. I first of all want to be sure I'm clear and I don't care which of you which of you answered this question, but in terms of how the request for a more involvement, whether it's voting or chairing a committee, it sounds implicitly like it can only come from the staff member who's serving on the committee. Is that how this is envisioned, or do we see the request possibly coming from another source or sources? Excuse me. Commissioner Robinson. It's staff's perspective that there's nothing in the proposed regulation that would prohibit a request coming from an outside party. Given the fact that there are many considerations that OEX needs to make before approving staff's participation, either in a leadership role or in a voting role, that should a request be received from the outside, there would be discussions with the relevant staff member who participates in that voluntary standards work and only upon agreement that there is a perceived value in us participating or voting as suggested by some outside party, then that request would then be triggered through the normal process by request from staff member up through OEX. Okay, and I guess I just take that one step further and go from the outside party to the inside party. Is it envisioned that people within the agency, whether they're commissioners, management, or even the executive director herself, could decide that this would be a good voluntary rules committee in which our people should either vote or chair? Certainly, you know, the various considerations that need to be made as to whether or not we believe there's value to the commission mission from either managing, leading, or voting in voluntary standards effort. Those suggestions can come from anywhere in the agency. Certainly, there are many different perspectives. I think collectively, if a decision is made that there is value and it advances the commission's mission, we would then run that back through the normal process that's defined in the proposed regulation. And Mr. Hall, could you comment just in whatever form you think is appropriate? But I'm very interested in some comments on the timing of when the decision would be made with respect to obviously, we don't decide that one of our people will chair a committee, but rather we decide that they're eligible or we decide that they will have the vote. Is that something that you envision as being made at the inception of the committee being formed? Or a rule being reopened? And part of the reason I'm asking this is I wonder if the timing wouldn't address some of the concerns that were voiced but in some of the comments about conflict of interest. Because obviously, if we're just deciding participation before there's even something on the table, that would take care of some of that. Yeah, I believe that one can imagine a scenario where the commission requested a standards development organization to form an effort to develop a voluntary standard and at that point should the decision be made that we would like to at least compete for the leadership position within the rules of that particular standards development organization, of course that's an elected position, we could then make it known that we have a candidate that is available, should they be selected to participate in that leadership role. That could take place should we initiate a voluntary standards effort or should we become aware that there is a soon to be open position in that leadership position. Once again, given all the considerations that are in the regulation for OEX to make, should those be made before that decision is made by the SDO, we could then make it known that we had a candidate that was available for that position. And would you envision the timing for us deciding if our staff member would have a vote being different from our staff member being eligible for leadership? I think the decision on whether or not that staff believes there's value to having a vote is, it's been envisioned as being at least initially triggered by the staff member with the most knowledge of what's going on within that voluntary standards effort. You know, whether that takes place early in the development process or later, I have to imagine that upon our decision to participate in a particular voluntary standard that is of great interest to the commission that that decision would be made sooner than later. I don't envision a lot of situations that we would wait until the SDO was prepared to vote on a particular ballot before we made that decision. I think we would want to want that to be known sooner than later. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Robinson. Commissioner Birkel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, let me thank you. Last week, we had an extremely informational briefing, and I want to thank the staff who were at the table. There were all kinds of staff at the table, but in particularly Rick and Patty Edwards and Mary House and Arthur Lee for really sharing their insights. Patty Pollitzer was there and a whole host of other people. But I do want to express my appreciation. Those briefings are extremely helpful and informative, and I know there are pain in the neck sometimes, but I do appreciate it, and I want to express my appreciation to Patricia, who put it all together. I have a couple of questions. I just wanted to follow up on some of Commissioner Robinson's questions. So I think that's a good point about what if a staff approached the Executive Director, and they are participating in that Standards Committee currently, but another staff member is, would there be any conversation or interaction with the person who's on that Standards Committee or participating in that Standards Committee before a decision was made to grant the second person eligible to vote or to take a leadership position? Given the extremely limited resources of the commission, it's highly unlikely that we would have a voting and a non-voting member on any particular voluntary standards activity. Certainly if a staff member has something to contribute to the development of a standard, whether or not they are actually the participating staff member on that particular committee, the participation and the recommendations that staff currently makes to voluntary standards organizations are seldom done alone, but in consultation with other technical staff, their peers, certainly the amount of expertise required to develop a performance standard is broad and oftentimes exceeds the expertise and the training of any one individual staff member. So certainly if a staff member felt that there was a need to vote, whether or not they needed to cast that vote or the current representative could take their input in formulating their vote, that might be the more appropriate way to handle that situation, but I can't envision many cases where we would actually have two staff members sitting on a voluntary standard committee in a voting and non-voting capacity with the exception of should we have someone in a leadership role, which is more of an administrative guide-the-process type role, we then envision the need to have a second staff member then participating as an active member of that development process and then either voting or non-voting as decided by the executive director. Thank you. And another follow-up question from Commissioner Robinson's line of questioning, as you were explaining to her interaction with these standard committees and the organizations, you were using the word we on several occasions and so I wanted to just clarify, is that an editorial we or is that there's any indication that you know, whether it's the executive director or leadership would interact with the standards committees or are you speaking for the staff person who would be interacting? It was probably more of an editorial we and reflecting the fact that seldom is a vote reflective of an individual's opinion but is much, much broader than that. It's not the position of OEX to direct the vote. That, as I said, is a vote of the participating staff member in consultation with his or her peers as to what the most appropriate vote is given the objective of the agency as a whole and our mission. Thank you. And one last question. Has any consideration been given about what standards committees we may think would be beneficial to have a leadership role? We have not at this point. I think that's a case-by-case analysis that needs to be done. We certainly have had some experience in, let's say, motivating certain voluntary standards efforts where it appears that activity has begun to drag somewhat. Those tend to be opportunities for commissioned staff to engage to move the process forward, perhaps in a more timely way. There may be other situations where, for example, we've had situations where the industry was new to the voluntary standards process and really didn't understand the process in general. There was no one within that industry group or advocate group that had the experience in leading the process forward. There could be value in staff taking that kind of leadership role just to provide the guidance to these new parties as to how to move the process forward and develop a standard. Thank you. And I apologize. I do have one more question because just can you speak to the 104s because that's really a different set of issues, I think, compared to all the rest of the voluntary standards. Has there been any contemplation about how we would handle 104s if they would be handled differently from any of the other committee participation? There has not. We have not sat down and taken a list of our current voluntary standards activity and made any decisions or done any review on those that we believe there may be value in us taking these leadership roles. I think once the commission makes their decision and provides direction in consultation with our new voluntary standards coordinator and staff, we will then make those calls at that point in time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Buerkle. Because we received a little bit of snow in the preceding days, Commissioner Mohorovic's flight was cancelled and he was not able to be here in person, but he is joining us by phone. Commissioner Mohorovic, do you have any questions? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have one having to do with, or one maybe a short series, but thank you very much first for accommodating me by phone giving the weather situation this week. My question is the following. One of the commenters pointed out an internal set of procedures regarding one particular SBO that the commenter felt might be in conflict, if in fact the CPSC does move forward and provides for the ability for staff to vote and or take a leadership position. But yes, I also recognize the fact that in comments from that very SBO, the SBO did not point out that that would be a problem with their internal rules. Could staff please evaluate on how that comment was considered and whether or not there was any potential follow-up with the SBO's internal procedures that were brought into question by a different third party commenter? I believe Commissioner Mohorovic is talking about section 19.2.5 of ASTMs. Regulations is governing ASTM technical committees, and that provision is actually part of ASTM's antitrust policies, basically. And what it states is that neither ASTM nor any committee, subcommittee or task group, shall make any effort to bring about the standardization of any product or service for the purpose or with the effect of preventing the manufacturer's sale of any product or service not conforming to a specified standard or artificially without legitimate business justification inflating the price at which a product or service may be offered for sale or sold. So this is really about preventing participants of the ASTM process from colluding to prevent the sale of the product to other industry members through the voluntary standards process. So they're not going to, they're saying you can't use the voluntary standards to prevent, to collude and prevent someone else from selling the product. Using a voluntary standard. It's for that purpose. It doesn't really impinge on the commission's separate authorities and rule-making procedures. So we didn't see it as having any merit or basis for, you know, preventing the rule or prohibiting the rule. Excellent. Thanks for the elaboration. Those are, that concludes my question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner Mohorovic. Are there any further questions? No, we're good. Okay, so now we'll move to consideration of the package. Are there any amendments or motions to be made? Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. Commissioner Berkel. The text of this motion was circulated yesterday, so I think it's familiar to everyone and it's no surprise as to what my motion involves. But the gist of the motion is to require that the executive director report to the commission regarding the voting and leadership activities allowed by the final rule. And I want to just emphasize we're not looking for the specific vote staff member took. We're asking for whether or not, I don't want to say the word permission, but it is permission or the authority to participate and have the vote and also be in a leadership position. So that's what we're speaking to in the motion. The motion contemplates an initial report that would cover the first year of experience under the amended regulation. It would not be due until 14 months after the first authorization of voting or leadership activities by the staff. And so we, the beginning when the clock starts ticking would be after the first authorization is given so that the clock just doesn't run and there's no data and there's no information. The initial report would give the staff's assessment of the newly authorized activities. Has the ability to vote made any difference? And if so, how? If staff members have had the opportunity to lead a voluntary standard effort, has the opportunity paid off in ways that are useful to the commission? Has the undertaking of leadership activities meant that the commission has expended any additional resources? Is the experience different from the standard development organizations or different staff members? To encourage candor, I would suggest that it may be appropriate to classify this report for official use only. If our staff participation in these activities begins slowly, as I believe it should, there may not be enough experience to draw many conclusions after just one year. In that event, I would anticipate possibly asking for further assessment after another year of experience. After the initial report is submitted to the commission, the commission would be kept up to date on which staff members are authorized to vote or to participate in leadership activities. The logical vehicle for this activity would be in the, what we call the V-STAR report, the report on the voluntary standards activity that's supposed to be issued twice a year. And I will, you know, acknowledge that we have fallen back behind in issuing this lately, so I'm hopeful and optimistic that we will get this back on schedule as we move forward and include information on these topics. And then in these future reports, this motion is again intended not to require information about how the staff is voted, but only who is authorized to vote or who is going to assume leadership positions with respect to the various voluntary standards of interest to the commission. And I am pleased to say that on Friday, Nancy and I met with the executive director, Patricia, at length and discussed this, and the executive director is in support of this motion. Thank you, Commissioner Burke. Was there a second? I second. Thank you, Commissioner Adler. We'll turn to discussion now on the motion, and I'll start by just mentioning, did I hear that you would suggest it be officially for official use only? Yes, I think that that would encourage candor. Excuse me, Mr. Chair, does everyone have a copy of the motion in the audience? Do you want me to read the motion? Sure. I'll yield for you to go ahead and read the motion. I apologize. That's okay. I move that the executive director be directed to submit to the commission no later than 14 months after any staff member is authorized to vote or to assume a leadership position in accordance with 16 CFR Part 1031, a report setting forth the staff's assessment of the activities so authorized. The report shall summarize the staff's view as to the value of any voting and leadership activity occurring within the 12-month period covered by the report. The report shall describe the resources expended as a result of the voting and leadership activities during the same period. The report shall include any recommendations the staff may have regarding voting or leadership activities in light of their experience. After submission of the staff's report, the executive director is directed to include information about staff voting and leadership activities in each voluntary standard activities report. Thank you, Commissioner Buerkle. And so, picking up where I was, did you suggest you think it should be for official use only? I think it would be, I think more useful to the commission in terms of candor and staff's willingness to speak up as to what their experience was. So would you be open on the third line after it says 16 CFR Part 1031 in the comma and then it says A, inserting for official use only report? I would be fine with that. Okay. So I would suggest that as part of the motion. I have no further questions or comments on the motion. I do plan to support it. Commissioner Adler? I want to thank Commissioner Buerkle for doing something that I think is really important for the commission and that I think we do a very good job but we can always improve and that's to evaluate something once we've decided to take a step forward. The only issue I really have is I hope our executive director can remember to keep the clock running after we commence the voluntary standard activity. I will also add that generally with respect to having a report filed, I anticipate personally that we will rely on staff to chair committees or to act in a voting manner not very often and so it may be quite a while before we get enough information compiled to have this kind of evaluation but I think this is an excellent motion I plan to support it. Commissioner Robinson? I would also like to thank Commissioner Buerkle for this motion and I think it's a great idea and I echo Commissioner Adler's comments. Well I don't see how we're going to expend resources, additional resources if we have the voting right we certainly would be expending potentially significant resources if we actually chair to commit, if our staff chair to committee and I think evaluating the value of both of these is important and thank you and I support it. Thank you Commissioner Robbins. Commissioner Mohorovic? Thank you Mr. Chairman. I don't have any questions on the motion but appreciate the work by Commissioner Buerkle and I have no further questions. Good Commissioner Buerkle, any further comment? I know only that I would, first of all let me say I appreciate my colleagues support of the amendment and the motion excuse me and then just would include the Chairman's amendment to my motion with regards to for official use only. Thank you Commissioner Buerkle. Hearing no further discussion on the motion we'll now take a vote. Commissioner Adler how do you vote? I. Commissioner Robinson? I. Commissioner Buerkle? I. Commissioner Mohorovic? I. And I vote aye. The motion as amended has been adopted. Are there any further amendments or motions? Commissioner Mohorovic anything? Nothing Mr. Chairman, thank you. Okay now we'll turn to final passage or at least comments or any thoughts and we will have closing statements if necessary but any we'll go around and see if there's any further thoughts before we vote on the final package. Commissioner Adler? Nothing till closing comments and I don't have very many of those. Commissioner Robinson? Nothing until closing comments and I don't have many of those. Commissioner Buerkle? Nothing further. Commissioner Mohorovic? Nothing further Mr. Chairman. Okay we'll now turn to the final vote on the staff draft plan before the commission. Commissioner Adler how do you vote? I. Commissioner Robinson? I. Commissioner Buerkle? I. Commissioner Mohorovic? I. And I vote aye. The ayes are five, the nays are zero. The underlying package has been adopted. I will now turn to closing statements. I'm sorry the motion let me just clarify the vote for the general counsel says something the vote was on both passage and to publish in the federal register. Do I need to call it again or are we good? We're good. Okay so I wanted to clarify that. I only have a few comments to make. I want to thank first the staff for the work that went into this package. Rick McCallion from the office of hazard identification reduction. Mary House from the office of general counsel. Two staff members Mr. J. How from the executive director's office and then Dwayne Ray who is in the room somewhere I believe who had a key role in this back. Both serving also in the executive director's office but prior to that when he was the director of the office of hazard identification and reduction. This came out of a GAO report from 2012. I view it as a helpful step in the process. We are oriented by statute to defer to the voluntary standards process when it is both effective and it's substantially complied with on a day to day basis. There's probably maybe beyond the office of compliance. Nothing more that our staff can impact than what goes on on the voluntary standards across the board day in and day out. There's a tremendous amount of safety value that is derived from that work. And we enjoy the collaborative process that exists in that process. Both in terms of the consumer groups, the industry groups, a lot of academics and safety experts and of course our staff participate in that. And it is an important effort to try to advance safety. I do think as I mentioned these are relatively small changes. I think it was good for the commission to take a look at this regulation that we have on the books 1031 because it has been a while since it was amended. GAO did make what I believe to be helpful suggestions. We'll see how it plays out. But having the ability for our staff and certain instances on a case-by-case basis to try to move the process along, be helpful with either a leadership role or as necessary a vote I think will advance consumer safety and I'm eager to see how it plays out. And please that the commission is able to adopt this package. Thank you. Commissioner Adler. I thank you very much Mr. Chair and I want to thank the staff. I won't run through each of you name by name the way the chairman did but I echo and applaud his comments. And as the chairman points out this really did stem from a GAO report and it's a thoughtful report and I obviously have no problem with giving the staff the discretion in appropriate cases to act in an expanded way with respect to their authority. I do think voluntary standards are incredibly important at this agency and I'm delighted to see that our collaboration with the voluntary standards organizations in my judgment is as good as it's ever been and a lot of that has to do with the voluntary standards organizations and some of it has to do with CPSC. In fact, I think it is so critical if you reflect on the budget and the operating plan and these numbers are approximate. We have something on the order of 74, 75 voluntary standards proceedings in which we are involved. I'll contrast that with about 13, 14 or 15 mandatory standards activities and it tells you that there's a disproportionate amount of attention at least in terms of projects that the commission is giving to voluntary standards which I think is just fine if the process works well. I do think the process can be enhanced and improved which is why I am eager to see who the new voluntary standards coordinator is and I would like to make sure that that voluntary standards coordinator is well resourced and strongly supported by the commission. I think that's only to the good. The reason that I am a little bit cautious about this particular proposal is twofold. First of all, if you're talking about chairing a committee, as Mr. Howell was saying, the role in most of the voluntary standards proceedings for the chair of a committee is to be a facilitator, to be a broker. That's really not the role that I envision for CPSC staff. The role I envision for staff is that of experts, of that of trying to move the process forward and not necessarily juggling this demand versus that demand. I think we need to be more in the persuasion mode than in the impartial brokerage mode. With respect to the commission voting, I mean, if it really comes to having the commission vote making a difference, then I don't think we've succeeded in the voluntary standards proceeding because we should be in the proceeding every step of the way, providing expert data, providing support to the voluntary standards proceeding and making our case known. And I do think that our staff are so persuasive and so carry so much expertise that that's really what it takes. I don't think it takes a vote. That said, I'm entirely in favor of this proposal, as I say, because I see nothing wrong with adding an additional amount of discretion to the staff in those few appropriate cases. And again, I thank the staff for the excellent work and the excellent presentation. Thank you, Commissioner Adler. Commissioner Robinson. I couldn't possibly have understood before becoming commissioner how critically important the voluntary standards are to what we do here at the agency. And over the past two and a half years, I've certainly come to appreciate how much we rely on the voluntary standards committees to do our jobs. I've also come to appreciate how differently different standards bodies approach their duties in terms of jealously guarding the integrity of the process that results in a standard with their stamp of approval on it and how important the leadership of an individual committee is to its integrity. And I've come to appreciate how important our staffs active participation is to each of the committees on which we participate. I understand the CPFC staff has been explicitly prohibited for years from voting or leading voluntary standards committees and I'm delighted that we are taking this fresh look at our participation and the limits we've had on it. We certainly have had encouragements from a number of bodies. The OMB circular from 1998, A119, promoted federal agency participation in such bodies to ensure creation of standards that are usable by federal agencies and directed that, quote, agency representatives should participate actively and on an equal basis with other members of voluntary bodies, unquote. Congress and Public Law 104-113 in 1996 directed federal agencies to, quote, participate in voluntary consensus bodies in developing technical standards. And then as the Chair mentioned, of course, we had the GAO report that encouraged us to do this. Additionally, DOJ has opined that our participation at this level is not a conflict of interest and recently I and my staff and I believe other commissioners met with NIST and saw a chart of the involvement of other federal agencies and it's very clear that this is a government-wide effort to participate in the voluntary standards process. I'm satisfied that the recommended process by staff is something that takes care of the concerns that were raised by various comments. I am satisfied that the request that may come from a variety of sources inside and outside of the agency is the way to go and that the case-by-case evaluation of the request and the circumstances by the Executive Director before approval is the way to go. Requiring OEX approval for leadership positions or voting helps make sure that staff's involvement is consistent with the CPSC's resource needs and operating plans. And in terms of the comments raised about conflict of interest, I'm satisfied with OGC's assurances as to why such conflict does not exist. Voluntary standards are distinct from mandatory standards under the APA. Staff voting on a voluntary standard only reflects the staff's view. Only the commission may make a decision for the agency itself and keeping approvals at the Executive Director level helps keep the distinction between these two activities. I must note that after sitting through a meeting of a voluntary standards committee on which our staff was actively voicing disagreement with the direction of the committee, I certainly do not share the concern of one commenter that a manufacturer would never risk the ire of the CPSC by disagreeing. These committees have robust disagreements, which is exactly what we want these eight, these committees to have in order to formulate new rules. I would only disagree with commissioners Adler's comments about chairing the committee because I think from my and he, he has a great deal more experience with this, but from my experience of watching committees, the chair is very much the person who is in the place of moving something forward and delaying something can have as big of an effect as what actually comes out of the committee. So I think that the chairing of the committee can be very important in moving a standard forward. I would just like to say quickly to staff that I fully appreciate that taking a more active role on a standards committee, particularly taking a leadership position on a committee or a subcommittee, I appreciate as a large investment of time and effort and as is seeking clearance to do so, but I would very much encourage you to take initiative in requesting these responsibilities where appropriate. There are times that the CPSC's unique position compared to industry or consumer advocates is crucial for making sure a robust voluntary standard makes it through the often difficult and lengthy process of coming up with a voluntary standard. And I would only like to echo Commissioner Adler's comments about how excited I am about the hiring of the new voluntary standards coordinator who I'm hoping will be very proactively involved in monitoring and assisting the voluntary standards process so that we may maximize the benefits of standards committees to us doing our job to keep consumers safe. Thank you, Commissioner Robinson, Commissioner Buerkle. And by the way, thank you again for your motion and the time that you spent putting into this to make this a better process. Thank you, and if you all indulge me, I'll just enjoy this moment because it's rare when we get union, especially when you're in the minority. No, I'm just kidding. It's nothing but cordial. Let me first of all begin by thanking the staff for their work on the package again and for the briefing we had the other day. We do appreciate all your hard work. And I also want to thank all those who made this hearing possible today. Given the weather and the travel challenges and all of the schedule changes, this was no easy feat to accomplish. So I do say thank you to all of you. The voluntary standards process is really an excellent way for industry, our agency, and consumer advocates to work together to address technical product safety challenges and develop real life solutions to emerging safety issues. Every reputable business, I believe, wants its products to be safe and dependable. Voluntary standards development organizations are market-driven solutions developed by industry to address the complexity of the marketplace by introducing more efficient, reasoned, and cooperative mechanisms for developing safety standards. Congress, as was mentioned by my colleagues, recognizing the enormous strength of the value of the voluntary standard organizations and consensus standards, has expressed a strong preference for developing safety standards through voluntary standards process rather than rulemaking. Therefore, taking part in the voluntary standards process is one of CPSC's most important roles. I believe that the voluntary standards process helps to create a system that is fair and equitable. Standards development organizations allow for due process, for the balancing of various interest and ideas, for openness and for a consensus voting process. When this package came to us back in September of 2013, I was very new to the commission and really just learning about what the voluntary standards process was even about. But now two and a half years later, as you heard from my colleagues, I have a much deeper understanding and really an appreciation of the value of the standards process, the technical work and the time commitment by the SDO members in developing and maintaining quality standards. While I have voted today in favor of this proposal, I just want to express a couple of concerns that I have and just say that my vote doesn't come without some reservations. First, I question the need for the change in the staff of levels, excuse me, the staff levels of participation. The package did not come to us organically. It didn't come from the bottom up. It came from the top down through a GAO report. So one must ask, as I always do, what are we trying to fix? Doesn't appear that anything is broken. Another concern I have is that there could be confusion or conflict about how the staff's position relates to the commission's position. While staff actually votes on a voluntary standard, it is more important than ever to make it clear that their vote does not represent the views of any commissioner or the commission itself. This is not just boilerplate. This is crucial to everyone that they understand this. I believe that the potential for conflicts of interest is greatest in the case of voluntary standards for the durable nursery products, the 104s. The commission is required to adopt mandatory standards for these products and to consider the voluntary standards in doing so. So I urge the executive director to consider the complexity of that situation very carefully before authorizing any staff members to vote in that arena. Finally, is a concern with regards to leadership that my colleague, Commissioner Edler, mentioned. While I'm confident in our staff's ability to lead standards committees, I'm concerned that the leadership demands could pull staff away from their more important technical work on the voluntary standards. How will the agency resources be affected when staff is serving in these leadership roles? The motion I offered, which I do thank my colleagues for supporting, aims to address some of those concerns by requiring the executive director to provide this early report to us and report on all of the topics that were mentioned in the motion and in my introduction of the motion. There are many remaining questions, quite frankly, as to how the proposal will be implemented and the impact that it will have on the voluntary standards process as well as our agency. Removing the current prohibitions will allow the executive director to make thoughtful determinations as to when and where staff can contribute more to the process and their own reflections that will be conveyed to us will allow us to make more informed decisions about matters in the future. I'm really optimistic that increased opportunity for our staff to participate in this process could ultimately improve the voluntary standards process and enhance safety. I look forward to understanding how the executive director will determine protocol and the process for granting voting authority or leadership authority. And I do anticipate the weekly updates from leadership and staff. On a slightly different note, I do want to emphasize one point and that is this, as was mentioned, was the result of a GAO report. GAO in that report also emphasized another point and that was that the observation namely that the challenge of our meetings policy sometimes poses for the problems that it poses for the standard development process. This is not the first time this has been revealed to the commission that this policy creates burdens and challenges to collaboration and creative thinking. I hope we will heed the GAO's concern and look for ways to adjust our policy where it presents an obstacle to candidate exchanges and ultimately to the success of the process. In closing, our staff is of the highest caliber and is held in high esteem by both the industry and the standards organizations. And I think we saw that quite clearly in the comments received on this proposed rule. My support for today is really a vote of confidence for our staff, particularly the technical staff who are members of regularly engaged in the voluntary standards process. It is important that staff knows how critical their opinions are to this commission. And to that end, I think we need to know and understand all perspectives and not just one homogenous point of view. As we try to promote employee engagement, I hope that we will consider that allowing staff to honestly express their opinions, particularly the dissenting ones, matter not only to the decision makers but also to them. Again, I want to thank the chairman, my colleagues for their support and for all who made the hearing possible today. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Buerkle. Commissioner Moherovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to also thank the staff putting together this package, which was very well done, as well as all who have contributed to making this hearing possible today and especially for accommodating my participation remotely. I would like to also thank Commissioner Buerkle for her efforts in forging force on middle ground with the motion that she put forward that I was very pleased to support, as well as thanking the commission for the unanimous vote behind that effort. I think it's another example of cooperative efforts at this commission, which I'm very much proud to be a part of. I'd like to take a little bit of a different angle in looking at what occurred today and take it as an opportunity to recognize that, in my opinion, this is another great example of the CPSC implementing a culture of retrospective review of our regulations and as established prior to this president, but especially during this administration, the emphasis on looking at our regulations on the books, identifying those that are outmoded or outdated and efficient in some way can be improved and for the agency to have the will and put forward the effort to make those changes. I think that it's part of a 21st century regulatory system that will protect public health and welfare while also promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. And while I also recognize that this idea was prompted by the GAO, I think that is a particularly good example of the establishment of a culture of retrospective review or regulatory look back by the CPSC because I think what's part of that culture needs to be a recognition that ideas don't have to come only organically from within the agency on how we can change ourselves but perfectly effective and efficient retrospective review culture at the agency needs to importantly include ideas from the outside, whether it's from our sister or brother federal agencies or most importantly from the public as they have to interact with our regulations in a more significant way. So I very much believe in celebrating small victories. I want to put this particular action by the commission in a smaller life but within the scope of retrospective review I will count this as a victory in that capacity and I'll remain vigilant in terms of to the extent that I'm on the commission to see that this culture is embraced by the agency moving forward. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Commissioner Mohorovic and while we are sad not to have you with us today in person we know that the girls your girls are very happy that you're home that daddy's home this week so glad it worked out for you and they were able to join us. This concludes this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Thank you.