 Welcome to this public meeting of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Welcome, uh, Commissioner Trump goes for the first, uh, decision and they will be the first, uh, meeting for myself as well. Um, but before we get started with the business of the day, I just wanted to acknowledge the communities impacted by the tornadoes that devastated multiple states this weekend and say that we have you in our thoughts. Uh, I also want to take the opportunity to remind people facing power losses to be safe when using portable generators in their homes. Uh, we've seen too much during this week, please be safe, protect yourselves from carbon monoxide poisoning and fires and always keep generators outside at least 20 feet away from your homes and never use charcoal in your house. Uh, the CPC has many other safety tips for keeping safe these times and I urge everyone to be careful. So, moving to the business of the day, we have 2 subjects with a total of 3 items on the agenda this morning. Decisional items are a draft notice of proposed rulemaking on safety standards for magnets, a draft notice for proposed rulemaking under Section 15J of Consumer Product Safety Act, meaning that no coverings if you do not meet the requirements of the existing ANC standard present a substantial product hazard in a draft. Notice proposed rulemaking under Section 7 and 9 of CPSA to establish a safety standard for operating courts for custom window coverings. We will begin with the notice proposed rulemaking for magnet safety and start with questions for staff if there are any. We have several staff members present in the event that there are questions with us are Mary Boyle, Executive Director, Dwayne Ray, Deputy Assistant Executive Director, Dwayne Boniface, Austin Schlitt, General Counsel, Alberta Mills, our Secretary. In addition for this NPR, we have Stephen Harshani from the Division of Human Factors and Meredith Kelsch of the Office of General Counsel who recently briefed the Commission on this proposal. Each Commissioner will have 5 minutes. After the questions are complete, we'll consider amendments. Once again, we remind everybody that while this is a fight to voice your personal opinions on legal issues, it's not appropriate to discuss legal advice given to us by the Office of General Counsel outside of the Executive Session of Legal Advice should remain confidential. So, going to the questions for staff or like the bank staff for all the hard work, and I have no questions at this point in time. Commissioner Biacco, I think you're. Thank you. First of all, I'd like to say that this is really terrific to share this decision with my new colleagues. I'm delighted that we have the panel that we have and I look forward to having our 5th Commissioner and a full compliment as for the substance for today. I actually have no questions. Thank you, Mr. I agree for having our 5th as well. Mr. Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll finish a clean sweep here. No questions. Given that that is an excuse for now and we move to consideration of the package before putting the matter as proposed by staff to a vote. Interpreting any moment, any amendments to the motion that commissioners may propose. I do not have any amendments. Commissioner Biacco, do you have any amendments? No amendments. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman, do you have any amendments? I do not. Thank you. Mr. Trump, do you have any amendments? I do. So as drafted, if the final rule is promulgated, it wouldn't go into effect for 180 days. And that's the longest delay the statute allows without special justification. And here I don't see any grounds for delaying the effective data this rule. It's a product category that already had a mandatory rule that the manufacturers had to comply with. In general, do you have any unreasonable delay in the effective date of a final rule as a failure to protect people from a known danger? So I've submitted an amendment that would make the final rule effective 30 days after promulgation. Thank you. Somebody should second the amendment. Is there anybody second the amendment? I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner Biacco. Having heard a second, we're going to now move to consideration of Commissioner Trump's amendment. Other commissioners can ask any questions they have or make any comments with respect to the amendment. Then we'll come back to Commissioner Trump at the end. Commissioner Trump, you laid out the basis of the amendment. You can have three minutes, but I think you probably were pretty eloquent in laying out the reasoning for the amendment, but I defer to you if you want the three minutes. No, also, thank you. Great. Then as I said, each commissioner is going to have five minutes to ask you questions. We can have multiple rounds of necessary. And so I will start by recognizing myself for five minutes. Thanks for proposing this amendment and for raising the important questions about our historical practices with respect to rulemaking. You've questioned whether or not we should default to the longest possible deadline for implementation of a rule that is intended to protect children from a dangerous hazard. I appreciate your attention to this and I agree we should consider whether there should be a shorter implementation, really the shortest implementation period that's practicable. If there's sound reason to extend the timeframe, we can consider it, but our primary focus should be on the safety and protection of consumers. So I'll support this amendment. My college is the same and I'm going to yield back through the end of my time. Commissioner Biacco. Thank you. How many questions on the amendment? I will say, and I joked about this earlier in the week that one of the first things I raised as a new commissioner was short in the time period because it seems like it takes CPSC a long time to do things that need to be done. So in this particular instance, I do think that there's no more time to waste on this. This is this is a safety issue. It's been around way too long. And for that reason, I will support this particular amendment. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Bellman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too look forward to supporting this amendment and appreciate the attention and thoughtful approach that my new colleague is bringing to the commission. Rich, we're glad to have you. Thank you. Thank you all. Commissioner Trump seems an auspicious start for you. Do you have anything on the amendment? No, I'll keep my mouth shut, you know, right there. With that, let's move to vote on the amendments. Commissioner Biacco. I vote yes. Commissioner Bellman. I vote yes. Mr. Trump. I vote yes. I vote yes is all. The ayes are four and the nays are zero. The amendment is adopted. Are there any additional amendments? Hearing no additional amendments. I move to approve the staffs. The staff knows a rulemaking with respect to a man that safety is as amended and direct publication the same in the federal register. Is there a second? Again. Thank you. Now that we have a second, we can move to a vote. Commissioner Biacco, how do you vote? I vote yes. Commissioner Bellman. I vote yes. Commissioner Bellman. I vote yes. I vote yes as well. So the ayes are four and the nays are zero. The motion to approve the staff's draft proposed rulemaking as amended for magnet safety passes. The draft knows proposed rulemaking as amended has been approved and shall be published in the federal register. Now let's move on to the next set of packages for consideration. Two rules that together will ensure that when they're sold to consumers, they contain hazardous cords. I will start with the proposed rulemaking under section 15J of the Consumer Product Safety Act. When the coverings do not meet the requirement of the existing voluntary safety standards at the substantial product hazard. Again, we're going to start with questions for the staff if there are any. And as did before, we have the same staff who are available for have run abolished. We have run abolished from the division of human factors and married house from the office of general council who recently briefed the commission. Each commissioner will have five minutes. Questions after questions are complete. Who will be considered the nose of proposed rulemaking. At this point in time, I have no questions for the staff, but I do thank them for their hard work on this. Commissioner Bianco. No questions and likewise. I think you all for your work on this. It was very thorough and I appreciate that. Thank you. Sure. Echoing the sentiments. It's clear that a lot of thought and work went into this proposal. Thanks everybody for their hard work and dedication. I have no questions. Mr. Mr. Trump. No questions and also thank you for the very hard work. So having no questions. Staff is excused for now. We'll move to consideration of the package. Before putting the matter as proposed by staff to vote, I want to entertain any amendments to the motion that the commission may propose. The amendments. Commissioner Bianco. Any amendments? No. Mr. Feldman. I do not. Mr. Trump. Just a question of clarity. Is this just for the 15 J or for custom as well? This is just for the. No amendments. Having no amendments to this proposal. I'm going to approve the staff's draft nose proposal for making direct publication. The same in the federal register. Is there a second? Second. Second. Thank you. We have a second and can move to the votes. Commissioner Bianco. How do you vote? I vote yes. Mr. Feldman. I vote yes. Mr. Trump. I vote yes. I vote yes as well. So the yeses are for the nose are zero. The motion to approve the staff's draft nose proposal making under section 15 J of the CPSA for window covering with safety passes. The draft nose proposal making has been approved and shall be published in the federal register. Now moving to the final item, consideration of the nose proposal making on safety of custom window coverings. Once again, we'll begin with questions for staff if there are any. It has five minutes. And if your questions are complete, we'll move to consideration of the nose proposal making. I have no questions for staff. Commissioner Bianco, do you? No, I do not. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman. I don't either. Thank you. Commissioner Trump. I have none. Thanks. Great. Hearing no further questions for the staff, staff's excuse. And we'll move to consideration of the package. Thank you. Before putting the matters proposed to a vote, I will now entertain any amendments to the motion that the commissioners may propose. I don't have any amendments. Commissioner Bianco. No amendments. Commissioner Feldman. None for me. Thanks. Commissioner Trump. I have one. As for the. Just do the, the procedural. Quick role. Commissioner Trump. I recognize you for your amendment. I will ask you to describe your men for three minutes. And then after the conclusion, I will ask for a second. Commissioner Trump. Please describe your men. Thank you. Sorry for jumping the gun there. So as draft of the custom window covering rule would not go into effect for two years after promulgation. And as, as I mentioned before, the statute requires the final roll go into effect between 30 and 180 days from promulgation. We can only go outside of that statutory range of good causes shown. I think to delay a rule for two years would take extraordinary circumstances that are not present here. I'm not aware of any good cause to depart from the statutory range. So I've submitted two amendments. I said one earlier, but there's two on the same topic. The first would move the effective date into our statutory range, making the final rule effective 180 days after promulgation. The second would add a request for comment on the appropriate effective date. So let us take the amendments one at a time then so that we know what we're voting on and discussing. So let's start with the moving into 180 days. And then we can go to the second one just to make sure that everybody is clear on what they're voting. With respect to the 180 days, do we have a second? Again. As well, Commissioner Krahman. In a second, we'll move consideration of Commissioner Trump's amendments. The commissioners will have five minutes to ask questions for each of our five minutes to ask questions of Commissioner and Trump have multiple rounds if necessary. And that I recognize myself for five minutes. And again, once again, thank you for offering the amendment. I think the package briefing calls for two year implementation timeline for a rule that simply brings one part of the industry compliance with the standard that the industry set for itself. The amendment shortens actually the 80 days, which is generally the timeframe that we look at that the high end of the time that we look at between 30 and 80 days. I think that is, as I said before, in the focus of the commission should be prioritizing protecting consumers and establishing a timeline that is short as practical to make sure consumers are protected. I think I look forward, supportive of keeping us within that timeframe, and then I look forward to seeing what the comments are so we can figure out how to make sure that we set the right final rule. So I'm supportive of this amendment. And with that, I'm going to yield back through age or my time and smooth to Commissioner Bianco. Thank you. Yeah, I'm unmuted now. Sorry about that. I think there are many times that there are justifications for making the time period to address these issues longer. In this instance, however, this issue has been around long before I got to the CPSC and I mean years before I got to the CPSC. And for that reason, I think it's time to move on and I support the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Commissioner Tromka, for offering this amendment. The one comment that I would make, I don't know what the right length of an effective date is. I don't recall another NPR or regulation that we promulgated that has had this long of an effective date, two years to come into compliance. That said, I'm looking forward to supporting this amendment because I'm interested in seeing what comments it solicits. If there are compelling reasons to lengthen the effective date beyond 180 days, then we should pay attention to those comments and make a decision when it comes to a final role. And likewise, if there are compelling reasons to truncate the time period down to our minimum of 30 or anywhere in between is the statute contemplates, I'd be open to hearing those comments as well. I think this opens the discussion and for that reason, I'm happy to support this amendment and thank everybody and Commissioner Tromka, you especially, for offering it. Thank you, Commissioner Feldman. Commissioner Tromka, I assume as before you're going to go with what you got so far from the different. Well, you know what, pretty much. I did just want to say thank you for the collaborative approach we've all taken here. And I also look forward to seeing those comments and learning through that as well. So, thank you. Great. Now let's move to a vote on the amendment. Commissioner Bianco. Vote yes. I'm not control my mute button somebody else is so just. Commissioner Feldman. I vote yes, thank you. Mr. Trump. I vote yes. And I vote yes as well. So there are four yeses, zero does an amendment by Commissioner Tromka with respect to sort of the timeframe is adopted. Now let's turn to the second amendment that you filed was asking for comment on the revised timeframe. Did you have any additional comments that you wanted to make? No, that that one, I think ties in with what we were just talking about. We'd like to hear if there's any justifications for shortening or lengthening from from where we ended up. And actually what I recognize is I probably need a second on that second amendment. Thank you. Then now we'll go to around the questions. I think as you said, it's very close and tied to the first that we just voted on. So I have no questions at this point in time. Commissioner Bianco. None for me. Mr. Feldman. This amendment makes sense. Thank you. Anything else to add before we could put our vote? No, thank you. And let's roll through Commissioner Bianco. How do you vote? I vote yes. Mr. Feldman. I vote yes. Commissioner Tromka. I vote yes. I vote yes as well. That makes it for yeses, zero does and the amendment by Commissioner Tromka is adopted. Are there any other amendments that are hearing none with the amendments complete? I move to approve the staff's draft notice of those rulemaking as amended on the safety of custom window coverings and direct publication of the same, the federal register for a second. Second. Thank you. We have a second. We can move to the vote. Commissioner Bianco. How do you vote? I vote yes. Mr. Feldman. I vote yes. Commissioner Tromka. I vote yes. And I vote yes as well. The yeses are for the noes are zero. The motion to approve the staff's draft of the noes proposal making as amended for custom window coverings passes. The draft public. partie of the draft. Now, of course, when those post will make the proposal to approve, should be published in the federal register. Now moving on, that completes the agenda so moving on to closing remarks. Each of us will have up to 10 minutes to funny closing remarks. for it's been a very fast decision and I appreciate everybody's working closely together and having conversations to make this, you know, both through the briefings that we had through, you know, preparation beforehand amongst our staffs as well. I greatly appreciate everybody's work and collaboration and give it how important these issues are. It is good for the American people for us to move forward so quickly. So first, thank you all. And then thanks to the staff, the CPSC as well. And there's been a lot of work over the last month or so. Or briefings or 80 packages moving quickly to this decision all to be able to get this out for the end of the year to start the process of taking comments on these critical issues. So I do thank the staff very much for all their hard work. And now the packages that we're considering today really are designed to prevent horrific injuries and death from seemingly harmless items. If we can cheat final rules, we'll prevent children from being strangled by window courts. We can provide, you know, small children who will put them with anything in their mouths, as well as teenagers from devastating and deadly internal injuries caused by tiny magnets pulling towards one another in their intestines. You know, the packages that were put before us are strong and a crowd that we're moving forward on the moving process with respect to the magnets noticed in political making, which builds upon a previous rule that was overturned by the courts. It's backed by data that demonstrates the injuries and deaths dropped when the previous rule was in effect. And Rose, again, was brought, this is a powerful finding about the value of mandatory standards and cases where industry hasn't acted to protect the public. The two window blind covering will also say something important about the role of industry in the voluntary standard process. In the case of the stock window covering, the voluntary standard is effective or not found, but we'll take a comment on that. But the proposed rules such as how to get effective in the industry is largely compliant. We will be moving to adopt the 15J rule so inspectors can quickly pull non-compliant window coverings to the shelves. However, in the case of forward requirements for window coverings, the proposed rule looking at a situation where the voluntary standards have been sold, and those proposed rule making require custom coverings to meet the same standard as the stock window covers. Really the risk to children is the same regardless of whether a window covering is sold, a stock or custom built in custom slaves can be constructed in the same way as stock. Far too many children have died and been injured as a result of cord strangulations. We have to find a path forward to effectively protect this vulnerable population. I note that the window blind industry is working on to update its voluntary standard for custom blinds and ask for us to delay the action. And while I hope the voluntary standard practice process is successful, we simply can't put our other efforts on hold. In the end of the day, our children have to come first. We are moving forward with these two proposals. We will take comment from the public and obviously consider all those comments before deciding how to move forward. And in doing that, I urge individual consumers, consumer advocacy organizations, industry and other parties to give us all the information that we are going to need to make a decision in the rule making process. With that, I yield back my time and turn to Commissioner Bianco. Thank you. I'm really happy that we're moving forward on these issues that have been in front of us for way too long. They are important issues that need to be addressed and need to be acted upon. So I'm just thrilled. There are so many issues that this agency needs to address, should be addressing, and we will be able to turn our resources to new and other pending matters moving these two forward. And so I, for those reasons, I think this is a very good thing. And I think Commissioner Trump got for raising the, shortening the time period in his amendments on his first round, it was a good move and I appreciate that. And so I look forward to moving as quickly on the many other issues that need our attention. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So today, the CPSC voted to move forward with two NPRs related to window covering. And this has been an issue that we've had in front of us for some time. So among other things, the first NPR creates additional enforcement mechanism for stock window coverings. These are products that are already covered by a voluntary standard by deeming non-compliant product to present a substantial product hazard. The second NPR would establish a mandatory consumer product safety standard for custom window coverings that aren't currently covered by a voluntary standard. While I support moving forward with both NPRs, I'm cautiously optimistic that a voluntary standard for custom window coverings may be established before a final rule is completed, as was the case for stock window coverings. It is a positive sign that CPSC and other stakeholders have re-engaged in establishing such a standard for custom products. That is something that should have occurred sooner, and I have yet to hear a compelling reason for any of the delays that we've seen. But incidents involving operating court strangulations are and remain tragic, and they've been unresolved for just too long. In that said, absent a voluntary standard that eliminates or adequately reduces the risk of injury and deaths associated with these custom products, CPSC must move forward to promulgate its own consumer product safety standard, and that's what we're doing here today. I want to thank staff for their hard work on both of these items, and to all my colleagues and Chairman Hunzarek for today's collegial discussion and consensus. Thank you all, and I yield a balance of my time. Thank you, Commissioner Bellman. Commissioner Trumka. Thank you. I think it's great that we're moving forward with these two packages today. I look forward to seeing the comments that we get back and moving as quickly as we can to address these safety issues. Thank you. Thanks once again to all of my fellow commissioners and to the staff. With that, this concludes today's decisional meeting by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and we are adjourned. Thank you.