 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission We have one item on the agenda this morning the fiscal year 2017 operating plan and the Commission will vote on before I Introduce the staff in front of us. I do want to mention that Commissioner Burkle is joining by phone or thoughts are with her and her mom and their family during this time and I can only hope that the empty chair next to me fake laughs as well as she does to my jokes We have from the staff today. Mr. Dwayne Ray is a deputy executive director for safety operations Mr. Jay Hoffman who's our chief financial officer miss Patricia Atkins Who's our executive director and Dr. George Borlase our director of the office of hazard identification and reduction? so we're going to start with our usual five minutes of questions per commissioner and then after that we'll turn into The consideration I have no questions so commissioner Adler No questions Mr. Robinson no questions Commissioner Burkle I have no questions. Mr. Marovic. No questions. Alrighty. Well To the staff. Thank you very much. That was easy. You are excused And I'm sure that you won't need me to say that twice We'll now turn to consideration of the underlying operating plan We do have a series of amendments and I'm going to begin with my first amendment I'm going to introduce it and then ask for a second My first invent amendment is on the subject of padded crib bumpers And it involves the commission's work on this topic Which has been ongoing now for a number of years Dozens of infants and children Die each year from unnecessary soft bedding and I'm not just talking about crib bumpers But I'm talking about all forms of clutter in the cribs Which is bumpers pillows comforters and other plush bedding in that sleep environment In my opinion these deaths definitely can be prevented so my amendment is a follow-up to great staff work thorough staff work from 2017 and follow-up staff work from 2016 in looking at these incidents as well as significant input from a technical expert on my own staff dr. Jonathan midget and My amendment would direct staff to Follow-up on direction the commission gave the staff in 2013 which was to commence rulemaking My amendment would move the next step to move that rulemaking through what we call the section 104 process Which is section 104 of the consumer product safety improvement act which gave the agency rulemaking for certain Children's products that we view to oppose a certain hazard So I have distributed my amendment my staff has as well and The amendment basically has two parts it would focus on Staff work that would develop a performance standard consider the voluntary standard and develop a performance standard and it would look at both The rigidity of the bumpers as well as the airflow associated with them and both of those get to the same issue as to whether or not This product presents a certain risk of Suffocation or entrapment or other hazards that the staff has identified associated with it So with that I'll ask for a second of my amendment Thank you having heard that will now discuss the amendment commissioner Adler Well, thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you so much for the amendment anybody reading this staff briefing package on Crib bumpers could see that the staff put an enormous amount of work and thought into it that said Part of the staff approach to analyzing the incidence is not an approach with which I agree The staff approach was to ask the question would a death have occurred even if the bumper were not present and Although that's a perfectly reasonable test It's not the one I think that is mandated by the consumer product safety act And it's not the one that I would adopt and I pick an extreme example to illustrate my point It would be the equivalent of saying if we poisoned the victim so the victim would die But then we shot somebody else shot the victim do we forgive the poisoning? Which is to say you can have two causes that contribute to a fatality and To exclude situations where the crib bumper Presents an unreasonable risk because the child might have died from some Additional cause to me doesn't really address what the consumer product safety act mandates the consumer product safety act mandates that we act against Unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products which means you can have a reasonably remote connection between The hazard associated with the product and the actual harm to a child But there is a limiting factor for when we can act and that limiting factor is that any action We would take cannot unduly increase the cost or Unreasonably affect the availability or the utility of the product and that to me is the true test Which is why I commend the chair for taking a fresh look at it and directing staff to take a different perspective In approaching the hazard associated with crib bumpers and one last point that I would like to make when the staff briefing package came in I Was contacted by a number of people who are experts in the field human factors and epidemiology and They raised enough concerns so that I have Scheduled a meeting to which anybody and everybody who wants to is free to attend and that will be on Wednesday the 26th in this hearing room from 10 30 to 12 30 and there will be various people who have been working on the Issues of crib bumpers for many many years who wanted to come in and give their perspective on crib bumper hazards and in particular to give their perspective on the staff briefing package So again, I thank the chair for his his amendment. I certainly propose to support it. Thank you commissioner Commissioner Robinson Thank you I spent a lot of time with my staff looking at this issue over the years that I've been here and it has concerned me for Many years and my staff and I last holiday season spent a very troubling Time reviewing the files in depth of our in-depth investigations for many of the crib bumper incidents I've met with staff to discuss crib bumpers and the hazard patterns I've met with outside groups trade associations consumers groups Doctors groups safe sleep activists and manufacturers of traditional crib bumpers as well as Alternative mesh liner and I've anxious. We've been waiting for this package. I along with commissioner Adler I was disappointed that the test was not what our statute dictates and that is that the The product be associated with which from a legal standpoint I'm intimately familiar with and it's very different than the approach that I felt like the staff took And while I appreciate their hard work I very much appreciate the work that Dr. Midgett and the chairman's office put into this amendment and I very much applaud it I agree a hundred percent the crib bumper should be added to the product registration card as they are Durable infant products in my opinion and I also agree that staff should be directed to begin work on a section 104 Mandatory standard for crib bumpers I also agree that staff should address all or as many as possible of the hazard patterns associated with Padded crib bumpers that include suffocation wedging and entrapment falls use patterns such as installation difficulties using crib bumpers for children past the recommended age and using crib bumpers outside of the crib and Mixed messaging about padded objects in the cribs, which we all know we do not need It's critically important that staff focus on developing the performance standard as Directed in the amendment and I'm confident that once staff has completed the data analysis and technical research Necessary as outlined in the chairman's amendment The staff will be well prepared to present the commission with a section 104 mandatory standard for crib bumpers in fiscal year 18 I have privately complimented dr. Midgett on his very very carefully prepared amendment and And his policy statement and I compliment the chair obviously for your staff's work and for your work on this Then I very much support it Thank you very much commissioner robinson commissioner burkle Thank You mr. Chair. I don't have any questions at this time I will say though that I do not agree with my colleagues that crib bumpers should be classified as a durable nursery product And I will not be supporting this amendment. Thank you Thank You commissioner burkle commissioner roger over Thank You mr. Chairman and mr. Chairman. I applaud the fact that you've brought this issue up in light of the operating plan It shouldn't surprise you or anyone that I have serious concerns about Padded padded crib bumpers. I think there's a problem. I think we need a solution I've said as much in those letters that have been written to state legislatures are available for anybody to take a look at On my section of the website however as What commissioner burkle just brought up in terms of the process in the approach here is what I take some great This this distinguishing the process that I think what we should approach on this in 2009 I recognize that the commission issued a rule the product registration rule Commenters on that rule had suggested a long list of other products Which the commission might include in the definition of a durable infant or toddler product? And that included textiles But the commission expressly rejected that suggestion and in the FR notice the CPSC wrote quote Based on the definition of durable infant or toddler products and the original 12 product categories Identified in the CPSIA the commission does not believe that these products should be included in the final rule So the commission has already spoken on this subject Mr. Chairman if you would yield I don't know if you were were you at the CPSC and a staff capacity at that time when this rule was being promulgated Actually, we need you to yield would you I'll yield if you'll answer. What was the date? I was not in you know nine But what was the date? I don't have the date. I just recognized that it was promulgated in 2009 Yeah, no, I was not here in a step. Okay, and I'm not sure I was here either I certainly have no as they say present recollection at this point in time in place in location Oh, yeah, I could be wrong commissioner Adler. My records reflect that you voted for that in a 5-0 vote with Chairman Tenenbaum Including that quote which really restricted those products at the CPSC felt were durable Infant or toddler products now I recognize that doesn't mean the commission can't change its opinion And that doesn't also mean that commissioners can't change their opinion from one to the other But do we believe that then the CPSC got it wrong or chairman? Do you think the CPSC got it wrong in 2009 in specifically saying that Textiles and those other products that could have been considered in the definition of a durable infant or toddler product and therefore Subject to the product registration card rule should not have been defined or we should have given an open In an open definition Well, as I mentioned, I wasn't here then so without having the benefit of Understanding what all of went into that whether that was a staff decision a commission level decision I really don't know but I can't and you pointed it out We have new commissioners here people with different opinions and I don't think that the law was written in a way from my perspective That's static. I don't think the commission was intended to have everything set in stone I do think that it was something that was intended to be Followed in spirit, and I do believe as commissioner Robinson said that we're following that here and if in fact we didn't instruct staff to Who approach rulemaking in a 104 would we also have to direct staff? Can measurably to reopen the product registration card rule to amend that as well? Yes, and that's actually my amendment It is forgive me for not noticing that as chairman I'm seeing I'm not on a I'm not on a shot clock today So thank you for that opportunity to have an unlimited time to talk about this subject But I don't have so in the end I mean I think we agree with the with the with the hazard associated and there's a need for commission action and in fact I I think there's the need for formal rulemaking. However, I do think that Using the 104 approach and considering these products Durable infinite toddler products is inaccurate And I think Congress in providing us the authority for express streamlined rulemaking without the findings that are otherwise Necessary and CPS a and and our other statutes That they wanted to do so and and have the agency provide great great discretion and It required that this thinking about these products and whether or not a padded crib bumper is in fact a durable nursery product I Couldn't help but just thinking about just a few years ago Playing the Sesame Street gang with my kids One of these products is not like the other Can you determine so here are the products you'll play along with me? So for those kids playing at home So these are durable infant and toddler products So for the two-year-olds playing at home One of these things is not like the other which one is different. Do you know, you know Tell me which thing is not like the others and I'll tell you if it is so It's it's a center one Padded crib bumper. It's nothing like the other products None of the kind of demonstrated qualities. I think any two-year-old if we had if we had a Child observation study and play the Sesame Street game They would all easily be able to point out that crib bumpers padded crib bumpers are not Durable infant or toddler products. They're nothing like toddler beds and Strollers and cribs and heavy functional items. So to broaden the definition I think is going far beyond what Congress intended us to do when section 104 defines a durable infant toddler product as a Durable product intended for use or that may be reasonably expected to be used by Children under the age of five and of course it included the list of 12 examples I've provided nine of them visually to Dramatically demonstrate the difference between those products as intended by Congress and a padded crib bumper The committee the commission added six other products children's folding chairs changing tables bouncers infant bath tubs bedrails infant slings When we added these we said we thought they met the definition, but we didn't explain my way explain why for me The answer lies in what we didn't add as I mentioned earlier the Commission expressly rejected commenters suggestions such as textile items and quote Saying they quote should not be included in the final rule based on the definition of durable infant or toddler products I believe that was the right call at the time and it is the right call now The products we added are functionally similar to the ones on the 104 list Folding chairs high chairs. They make sense together as do toddler beds and bedrails Slings are textile products Which aren't usually considered durable, but they are a form of infant carrier which are on the 104 list Crib bumpers are also a textile product not durable. They also don't perform the same function as anything on the list Crib bumpers don't look like a duck. They don't quack like a duck, and we should not regulate them like a duck This is more than simple semantics section 104 allows us to skip a bunch of our usual analytical steps Congress required those steps for a reason they result in better more thoughtful rules and When Congress authorizes a limited exception to our procedural requirements, we need to treat it like it is a limited Limited exception section 104 didn't give us broad authority to pretend Everything we want to regulate is a durable infant and toddler product So maybe tomorrow we'll take this little lamb that's got some kind of sensor inside for white noise And it's got a little velcro attachment on the back that's intended to attach to a crib and say ah again Another durable infant product. Let's go ahead and regulate it under 104 with no statutory found it findings Now I know some of my colleagues feel that our procedures are too burdensome and that it would be much more fun to Regulate based on impulse alone, but just as we would tell any company we regulate not liking a rule does not get you out of following it and Much like the history of liberty has largely been the history of the observance of procedural safeguards my favorite quote from Justice Frankfurter process, mr. Chairman process matters and For that reason I cannot support your amendment. Thank you Thank You commissioner rovick. I've been feeling that my fellow commissioners are gonna want to speak on this too So I'm gonna be brief because I can feel them both championed the bit to jump in a couple of points on the Child behavioral issues you mentioned actually have a child psychologist on my staff and he fundamentally disagrees with you And he has the technical expertise that I don't think that others do and that is I think meaningful because We normally rely as we should on the technical expertise of staff when we don't have that technical capability This is one of those rare instances where I happen to employ somebody who has spent years Working on this issue as great familiarity with children's products with durable infant products And he's reached a different conclusion than you have and I think when you read what he's written Which I will circulate more broadly more publicly, but I know you have a copy now Hopefully you'll find it compelling, but at least you'll hopefully give him a chance and talk to him about it further I am having a hard time reconciling though your Desire to drag out these efforts with your letters to the that you referenced earlier To other legislatures where I think you called for a full-scale ban. Am I characterizing that correctly? I don't I want to make sure I have it right and I'll yield for that. I Think we should open rulemaking under section seven and nine of our statutory authority Understood, but in terms of the letters that you wrote to the legislatures that were considering actions on crib bumpers Do I have it right you asked you you called for a ban or you called for a regulation at least chairman? Those are different and different bills with different amendments and different legislatures at different time what I can say definitively right now And we don't get a lot of clarity in terms of what our intentions are around here My intention would be open up rulemaking under section seven and nine No bureaucratic double-speak. No, what did you say there then at the time? What did you mean? Let me be clear. I'm a commissioner at the CPSC I've moved open up rulemaking not under 104 but under section seven and section nine of our statutory authority I think that's pretty clear. Yeah, I think that's clear I think it's difficult to reconcile the two positions where you called on other Legislatures to immediately regulate if not ban these products, but when it comes to our agency acting You want to take the slow route and I'm not comfortable with that from a child safety perspective And you mentioned the statute having no findings. That's actually not true section 104 of the CPSIA has one critical finding And it's about safety and that's why I think it's so important that we move under 104 commissioner Adler Thank you very much And I think this falls into the realm sometimes of foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds but the the first thing I wanted to say is that and To the extent I can recall the vote if I participated in the vote and I will take your word that I did was that my problem was I had real difficulty Eliminating baths excuse me blankets and sheets and towels from being durable infant products because if you think about it They really are And with respect to the notion of crib bumpers not being durable. I will cite a personal example I still remember about a month after my son was born Looking out the window and there were my wife's parents with a trailer that had the crib that she was born in and The crib bumpers now I was not a happy camper taking those things simply because of nostalgia But those crib bumpers had been used time and time and time again over the years I think it's inconceivable that they're that you could find them not to be durable The real problem is how do we distinguish things like blankets sheets and towels as Durable infant products and I think as a matter of policy. I said I don't want to extend 104 rulemaking but let me just also point out that and I think you alluded to it Bumpers aren't textiles. They have textiles, but they're not textiles blankets sheets and towels are textiles Those were the things that were excluded from the rule Slinges as you also point out have textiles that doesn't mean they're not durable infant products So I think even trying to approach this from the plain words of the statute I think it's pretty hard to say that bumper pads are not durable infant products. So I Don't view this as acting on impulse and I don't view it as fun I view it as a very serious Charge that the Commission has to promote safety and in this case I think this fits well within and comfortably within the definition of a durable infant product And I think we ought to take the fast route as opposed to it Slow is not even the right word to use to describe the rulemaking procedures of section 7 and section 9 We show Robinson. I Think it's extremely unfortunate that we allowed you unlimited time. Commissioner. Mahorovic But I'm kidding, but the the what I rely on I respect your difference of opinion with respect to these being durable infant products Because I think reasonable lines can differ on that. I certainly Did not rely on pictures, but I relied on what I thought was a very thorough legal analysis that our general counsel's office Produced with the crib bumper package in terms of what our alternatives were and I was convinced by that legal analysis What we have and have not classified as durable infant products Products that are not explicitly listed in the statute and how we've gone about the analysis I I was convinced that we could go this route Mary shaking your head. No, am I doing something? I just caution you to not Yes, thank you I will just say that I that I'm convinced that that this is a durable infant product And I think the the obviously the benefit of that is that we can go a quicker route And we can get this Regulated more quickly and I think that this is much more the equivalent of slings Then then tolls and the bear that you've brought with you But at any rate I recognize that reasonable minds can differ and I differ Thank you mr. Berkel I have nothing further except for I wish I had known joe was going to sing I could have done a duet with him mr. Marovic Mr. Berkel did you get it right which picture which product does not like the others You sure did thank you. Well, I agree that reasonable minds can disagree and this is an unfortunate one I think for me because The long and short of it is it's an area that I think at least with the majority I agree that this is a product category that requires action from the commission so I think we shouldn't lose the The general nature of our agreement Behind the disagreement with regards to the process or the approach that we're taking And thank I want to thank my colleagues for their consideration. I know they did carefully think and not Flippantly consider these products as durable infant or toddler products. And I would also agree With commissioner robinson that reasonable minds May disagree from time to time. Thank you, mr. Chairman Thank you, commissioner marovic having heard no further discussion on the amendment on crib bumpers. We'll now call the vote Commissioner andler. How do you vote? I commissioner robinson Commissioner berkel No, mr. Marovic No, and I vote I The azer three the naser two the amendment to add the crib bumper amendment the amendment to add crib bumpers to the operating plan has been approved Now go to the next amendment. This is my second amendment This is on all-terrain vehicles or what we also call atvs This amendment I view more as a technical amendment to the package in the fact that on the mandatory standards table I felt in looking at it and my staff felt that the amendment did not i'm sorry that the underlying Operating plan did not capture the ongoing staff work beyond conspicuity And it was important for the public to know and we've had discussions in the past at the commission level in public about Alerting the public to the accuracy of our documents It was important for the public to know that ongoing work Is being undertaken by the commission's staff having to do with stability of atvs as a possible Further underpinning of additional atv rulemaking So I think my amendment is a simple one just to make sure that the public understands that there is that ongoing Non-conspicuity atv work related. Is there a second? Second. Thank you having heard a second. We'll now turn to discussion commissioner adler Um, I agree with your amendment. I feel no need to address it beyond Noting that the stability of atvs has been an issue Before the commission for decades and it's time that the commission spent The necessary resources to address issues of stability as well as issues of conspicuity Commissioner Robinson I support this separating out the non-conspicuity. Um, the our staff As you know was spending a great deal of time on The breaks and we're talking break lights and reflectors on atvs and I was absolutely delighted to that in response to um, a conversation that I had with some members of the committee and the and the letter That I wrote about what we were basically asking that they Very generously decided to include these requirements in The the next voluntary standard and my understanding is that we're all very optimistic that that's going to get passed And so then we can move on to the stability issues that given what we did in our mid-year in terms of testing With non Being able to test without humans in the atvs. I'm very encouraged that we're finally going to be able to address The stability issues with atvs and I support separating this out. Thank you. Commissioner Robinson commissioner berkel Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Um, I don't have any questions. I will say that my staff and I spent half the day at the lab and Staff was very kind in Explaining to us the ongoing testing and work that they're being that they're doing on atvs So I appreciate that this amendment is going to provide a more accurate representation of staff's efforts on atvs And I do plan on supporting the amendment Thank you. Commissioner berkel commissioner morovic No comments Okay, having heard no further discussion now call a vote on the second amendment this one's on atvs commissioner adder. How do you vote? I commissioner robinson commissioner berkel I commissioner moho rovick I And I vote I the azer five the nays is zero The amendment on atvs has been adopted. We'll now turn to my third amendment This amendment is on high energy density batteries Recently cpsc is recalled many different product categories or types of products because of batteries overheating or exploding With the potential to cause fires or burns Some of these product categories have been power tools computer notebook batteries radio control toys video baby monitors heated winter clothing hoverboards of course and this course as well Cell phones flashlights rechargeable vacuums and electric bicycles As high energy density batteries become more prevalent in our daily lives As we ask more of those batteries and we ask them to take up less space And as competition to make them more powerful and less expensive increases It becomes increasingly important in my mind at least for the commission to stay informed Of developments associated with the battery industry and to have some path forward To not be dealing with these as much as on the back end But to be making sure on the front end that these are not issues consumers have to deal with So this amendment directs staff to perform additional activities to address the emerging and ongoing hazards associated with high energy density batteries Including but not limited to enforcement voluntary mandatory standards work import surveillance and compliance And industry inter agency and intergovernmental cooperation And I want to highlight that last part in particular that this is about cooperation This is about understanding the lay of the land better Having a much better dialogue with industry with our regulatory partners in the federal government and across the world I also think it's important that to note and this will come up as well in a later amendment I think staff does an excellent job of trying to take lessons learned from recalls and apply that to our hazard identification work This would try to accelerate it in terms of the batteries Is there a second Thank you. Commissioner Robinson having heard a second. We'll now turn to a discussion. Commissioner Adler Um, there are a few things in life that I am reasonably confident of predicting And one of those is that Sometime within the next reasonable period of time. We're going to have yet another issue of lithium ion batteries catching fire That's been going on for years and I suspect it's going to continue to go on They're Very important technology. They've really advanced the technology with respect to Laptops and phones and so on, but they're also used in automobiles This is a wide ranging issue across the federal government And I'm delighted to hear that as part of your amendment We will not be going alone. We will be working in concert with In concert with other agencies and departments because this is just a massive problem And I commend the chairman for bringing it to our attention. I certainly plan to support his amendment Thank you commissioner. Adler commissioner, roberton Thank you One of the great things about this job is watching the technological advances that are being made on a daily basis And they're exciting and really impressive and breathtaking especially with what we can do With batteries not only lithium ion but lithium polymer and lithium iron Phosphate batteries, but they're packing ever more Power into these and can do so many more tasks But anyone who follows our our recalls know that this has increasingly become a problem for us One of our biggest challenges in making sure that these are safe I very much support this and I'm delighted at the idea that we will get out in front of it Instead of taking a product by product basis given the fact that this is clearly going to be A horizontal problem and I applaud this amendment and glad we're going to be working with other agencies. Thank you commissioner roberton commissioner berkel Thank you, mr. Chairman. I do have a few questions on this topic In the amendment language is you're directing staff to perform additional work and you kind of Express some of that work broadly in your Explanation of the amendment, but can you be more specific as to what? Staff will be what additional work they will be performing And will there be a deliverable where will there be a briefing package or a report that will provide us with the information that we're looking for here So to accommodate commissioner berkel the tight resource availability of the and i'm going to answer the second question first of the operating plan I Was asked by staff not to work into this amendment a specific deliverable because that would have taken time in resources away from other projects So I have explained to staff that I could live with that But I do think that the commission does need some type of informal Updates along the way and if it turns out either through the mid-year process or in the next fiscal year that we want a more Concrete deliverable we can of course ask for that and have to work that in from a resource perspective But I do expect from the staff even if it's not a written product some identification of a path forward giving us some sense of what are the voluntary standards gaps if any Where are other federal partners on these issues? What are opportunities for further collaboration and now i'm getting into the first part of your question Where does the european commission sit on this health canada? What can a qs iq in china do to help us? I feel at this point that there are a lot of disparate parties out there that have a lot of knowledge on batteries But we're all not talking and of course most importantly industry Between the industry associations and individual companies I have to believe that there's a wealth of knowledge out there that if we just sit down And have a discussion with them and maybe have some visits to Labs and learn how they're testing and what their results are that we can actually gain a much greater understanding. Does that help? Yes, it helps. I'm wondering if Because you mentioned the word resources Whether or not this amendment is going to have any resource impact I think it's money or staff time. I think it does have resource Implications my understanding from ex hr staff is that it is the equivalent of four staff months And that it would come out of the bucket that staff reserves to deal with unplanned work including responses to legislative legislative questions for instance and petition work Okay How how do you think Will there be a plan I guess to share this information if there's not going to be a briefing package or a report How will the uh, how will the five commissioners be kept abreast of the progress and in what staff is hopefully learning as they um, as they uh, do these additional responsibilities and additional work So certainly I would hope and encourage that the commissioners during your weeklies will ask staff where it stands And if you feel like you haven't heard about in a while or staff feels like there's an update I would encourage staff to Raise it during the weekly briefings if we there is a critical mass of information And we feel it would be best to have us all here at the same time We can of course have some type of public hearing I just want to be sensitive to staff about the fact that that's a non zero amount of resources that have to be pulled Decide to prepare for that put out a federal register notice Potentially answer comments or address comments But I think that if your concern is will you know when what you need to know when you need to know it I'm sure that staff will keep you and all the rest of us certainly informed Thank you With regards to engagement and you mentioned many entities that staff will be talking to and trying to break down some of the silos that exist With this issue Will there be a stakeholder engagement will we be reaching out to those who have been affected by these problems In the regulated community or the stakeholders? And will we have be having conversations and obtaining information as well Well, certainly I think the spirit of my amendment if not the specific words is that this should be a very broad outreach And so I would expect staff and I think staff intends to Reach out as broadly as necessary to get any actionable information So if and I'm going to defer to the judgment of staff But I've laid out in my amendment at least in broad strokes the type of engagement including stakeholders that you're mentioning That I think could have the type of actional information So I would expect that they would be contacted in some form by staff We have to be mindful of the collection limitations on information that exists from OMB But I'm sure staff can figure out a way Within that framework to gather the information that they would need Thank you. One last thing and I do intend on supporting this amendment Because in as you mentioned in light of the recent issues that have come up with this data It's important that we get our arms around this issue So I will if I do intend to support it But I am concerned and maybe at mid-year we can talk about Progress on this issue and whether or not we think a briefing package into our report should be made available to the commissioners Because there is so much information that we need to learn about and understand from staff's perspective and from their additional work I would welcome that discussion as I mentioned that was where I started and I added deference to staff And I would call even please I backed off on that but certainly commissioner burkle I would love to continue that discussion with you and see if The mid-year or some other forum would present an opportunity to get that type of information to us in that format Thank you. That's all I have. I appreciate your answer. Thank you. Commissioner burkle. Commissioner mohairova. No questions Having heard no further comments on the amendment. We'll now turn to a vote commissioner adler. How do you vote? I commissioner robinson I commissioner burkle I Commissioner mohairova. I And I vote I The a's are five the nays is zero the amendment on adding high ends high energy density batteries To the operating operating plan has been adopted now turn to the next amendment This is an amendment that I have on top loaded washing machines And similarly it involves trying to learn information that we that we gather in the compliance context And carry that forward to our hazard identification reduction work My amendment is simple. It would add to the list Of voluntary standards that the staff is monitoring voluntary standards work on Top loaded washing machines Is there a second? Having heard a second we'll now turn to a discussion of the amendment commissioner adler Uh, no questions. No comments commissioner robinson Hopefully that I support adding this. Um That I always support our staff being involved in voluntary standards activities and this is Commissioner burkle Thank you. I just have one question And that has to do with so will the voluntary standards work continue on Your your directing staff to Work on the top loading, but will it also continue the voluntary standards work on the front loading? So my recollection and I don't have the page in front of me I thought that this is one of those areas where staff might be stepping back from at least in terms of its active engagement And as i'm talking i'm just flipping through Yes, so on page seven of the operating plan as staff proposed to us Staff had identified this as one of those voluntary standards where they did not need to be as actively engaged in But I certainly understand from staff that that doesn't mean we don't that we turn a blind eye to what's happening But that basically means we continue to have it under monitoring But that it's not something that we are Preparing for and coming to the voluntary standards body with specific ideas As I think that they might have to do or at least be more engaged on the top loaded washers in light of recent incidents Okay, thank you very much. That's all I have Commissioner morovi no questions having heard no further discussion on the amendment will now call a vote commissioner adler I Commissioner robinson hi commissioner burkle hi Commissioner morović hi And I vote aye the azer five and a zero the amendment on top loaded washers has been agreed to Now turn to my last amendment, which is on upholstered furniture flammability Unfortunately, this is an issue that the commission has struggled with far longer than even bumpers I think that we're coming on maybe two decades Of the agency trying to get its arms around and we're not the only ones But trying to get its arms around hazards presented by upholstered furniture In the interim at least one state california has moved ahead with its own standard And that standard is now as we understand it a de facto national standard What makes this challenging and what I tried to get to in my amendment is that there's really two hazard patterns We're talking about here one is the fire hazard that's associated with This with the foam in particular getting becoming combustible Under some type of the ignition source whether it's a smolder from like a cigarette or a flame from like a candle but there is also the Reality that we have to accept that there might also be a chronic chemical exposure hazard From the flame retardants or certain flame retardants that have been added over the years in an attempt to address the fire hazard And as it's been explained Understandably especially for those of us with young children Over the use and abuse of couches over time this the flame retardants Become the they release from the foam and they settle into the dust kids put their hands under couches in most Homes in the u.s. Except maybe mine And they end up ingesting it and there is significant concern and one of the efforts that california sought to undertake Was to try to drive out those chemicals and my understanding as well Based on reports from california and industries that industry has responded And taken those chemicals out. So my amendment has two parts It's intended to have staff work to reconcile Some of the remaining technical issues that exist between the excellent work that we've done On smolder standard and we've been working on it for a number of years as well as what california has done And then there's a second part to make sure to be sensitive to Vulnerable populations as we pursue this fire hazard and addressing it that we're not unintentionally Debating to chronic exposures from harmful or toxic chemicals Is there a second second. Thank you commissioner adler Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. I strongly support your motion And I did want to make a couple of observations and this goes back to the years. I've been around You can make the case that back in 19 ought 68 Is when the federal government first began investigating the Flammability hazards of upholstered furniture and that was when what was then called the national bureau of standards began Testing extensively. I just know that when I came to the commission in 1973 We were fully engaged in addressing the hazards of upholstered furniture and one of the things that I've concluded is That because of their construction and the multitude of fabrics, it is an incredible technical challenge To address the hazards associated with Furniture flammability, but there's actually been some good news when I first came to the commission. My best recollection is There were well over 1200 1300 deaths from furniture fires In the home and in the intervening years. We've seen a number of factors that have reduced that dramatically We've seen safer furniture. We've seen smoke alarms, and we've seen a Dramatic drop in smoking, which is typically the reason why furniture smolders So we're down to about 400 flammability deaths a year But that's still the number one cause of flammability deaths from consumer products in the home And I don't think we can just abandon the effort We've got to keep working on it, but you raise an incredibly important ancillary point And that is we may be having hundreds or even Thousands of people dying from furniture fires, but we have hundreds and hundreds of millions of consumers exposed to FR chemicals in furniture if we're not careful And sometimes in our haste to address one hazard We unintentionally create a hazard in a different direction, and I'm mindful of the children's sleepwear standard which Triggered the addition of a Chemical flame retardant called tris that turned out to present a serious chronic hazard And so the commission was kind of caught flat-footed Giving good intentions a bad name at that point So we have to be mindful of all of these hazards Which is why I think the chairman's approach is so thoughtful Because what you're asking us to do is to build on existing technology and existing development And I think you've also put your finger on it California right now is the tale that wags the national dog when it comes to Flammability and so to the extent we can go and work with the authorities in california And I love the acronym bear hifty for the california bureau almost as good as icfaso for consumer products I do think that we can sit down And talk and work with the folks at this bureau And I love the idea of federal state cooperation To try as best we can to address the concerns raised by staff with respect to tv 117 I am not convinced that those are insurmountable problems and therefore I look Forward to collaboration very optimistically and again. I thank the chairman for his motion Thank you commissioner other commissioner robinson This is another issue I've watched very closely and i'm convinced that our staff has really been working in in the utmost good faith trying to Address as many causes of fire as they can without moving into danger of dangerous flame retardants Being required for the furniture Our data are not great with respect to the cause of fires, but they are not going to get any better In spite of a lot of efforts on Certainly my part to try to get better data from insurance companies. I have not been successful in In getting that so we have what we have and our staff has been working very hard on this And we all are very aware of the dangers of many of the flame retardants And I think during the hearing for on the the petition to ban non polymeric additive organo halogens This was really really brought home to us By a number of experts in addition to those we've taught we've all met with on numerous occasions over the last years So it's a real concern But I do think that as commissioner adler just said we can't give up on it Um, I've met with so many stakeholders on this consumer groups furniture Manufacturers I went down to north carolina and met with foam makers and textile manufacturers and again with furniture manufacturers And most recently in fact just yesterday I had a conversation with the technical expert at the california's bureau of electronic and appliance repair home furnishings and thermal installation Who's worked on tb1 17 2013 and He answered many of the questions I had about their approach to furniture flammability. So I very much support This amendment I the package that we received from from staff Showed a great deal of effort that had gone into this But it was clear from that package that there's more that can be done with respect to figuring out a path forward Um to find repeatable reliable and relevant performance requirements that we can formulate And I think it's great to be working with california on this because they have so many Experts who've done such excellent work on this. So I very much support this amendment. I thank you and your staff for Thank you commissioner robinson commissioner berkel Thank you, mr. Chair I won't repeat the list that commissioner robinson went through but our staff has done the same analysis Can't stay in meetings in the same conversations. I think it's fair to say for all of us This is a very important issue and understand trying to solve the problem as best we can Is is on everyone's of the commissioner's minds. In fact, it's why Um, I promoted and advanced the tv 117 amendment last year. So Um, this is important to me. I I I do have a couple of questions Regarding your amendment. Um, one of the things that I'm wondering about is what is the status of the upholstered furniture npr now? Will staff are they going to still send us a briefing package to terminate the rulemaking? That they recommended in the tv 117 briefing package Not if this amendment is approved if this amendment approved is approved It would change the direction to staff instead of staff working on a termination package staff would Enhance its efforts with california to see if any agreement could be reached on the technical aspects of the smolder standard Okay, so are we essentially overriding steps through the recommendations? Yes I have great concerns about that. I mean, they're the experts. They're the ones who have as you mentioned Dedicated two decades along this work and they felt along the lines of And trying to figure a flammability standard. They've indicated that in that briefing package that Terminating the rule made the most sense to them. So I Have concerns and I'll just leave it at that When you're talking about staff being engaged With the state of california regarding tv 117. Can you just elaborate on that a little bit further? Sure, so tv california is offered to either host or if need be come out and sit with our technical staff They have a lot of data that they believe could be relevant. They identified In materials shared with the commission that will certainly make as part of the rulemaking docket Information that they feel would help better explain some of the differences of opinions that they and staff have Over specific technical aspects of the smolder test. So staff in 2008 proposed a an npr A notice of proposed rulemaking on the smolder aspect of flammability And maybe 2010 2011 timeframe staff started to shift away from that because of concerns about as commissioner robinson talked about repeatability of Going from a small-scale test to a large-scale test and even extrapolating what that would mean for wheel like scenarios So staff had reached a conclusion where they felt that those that they had exhausted that avenue in california fields As commissioner adder mentioned that there might be more promise there And I think it's important for the two staffs to get together at a technical level And have those discussions and see if there is some type of reconciliation between those two views I'm Please that they'll be reaching out now But I guess my question is why he hasn't we reached out a long time ago adoption of tv 117 is something that's been On the table and discussed both from the industry as well as from the consumer groups from Those concerned regarding chemicals and it seems like that would have been something we could have benefited from A long time ago rather than waiting till now Can I address that commissioner burkle? Sure, you sure can so actually there have been technical discussions In fact when california proposed to update technical bulletin 117 as a lead up to 2013 Two of our staff including senior staff went out to california to meet with california staff and to testify as part of that And i'm pretty certain based on what i've heard from both cpsc staff And california staff that those technical discussions have continued I just don't know if they've had a chance to really focus in on what the core issues were I think there was something about staff producing that report From last month that allowed everyone to home in on what the what the key issues are And really give the groups a chance to try to settle those issues So I think that that evolved From the various discussions that actually have been taking place between the two agencies staff over the course of a number of years Well, that's unfortunate then because You know castle's done and a lot of some of this discussion now we're going to be from what staff's advice I thought was most prudent And and I will say and and I this is here say but and I you know We'll certainly look into it further and that is I don't think that when staff and in their engagement with california california staff took them very seriously And hopefully that that will change and they will have meaningful discussions rather than Just discussions for the sake of discussions I want to go on i have a couple of other questions and If you don't mind answering them Do you know if our staff has clear direction? As it continues its work with the nspa voluntary standards committee And if so what what is that direction? When you say clear direction, do you mean up until the point of this amendment or As a result of this amendment if it passes? Well, I think both You know, I'm just wondering there seems to be a lot of confusion and this will just Continue to add to the confusion What is steps direction with nspa? So I can't speak to what staff to date has been given if staff has even been given any direction as opposed to staff from a technical perspective Pursuing through nspa and their voluntary standards process Or following that process and contributing to that discussion. Whatever the goals are of that Subcommittee or the technical groups. I just i'm not familiar enough with it. I don't obviously attend those meetings It i'm assuming it's like any any voluntary standard where there's a laudable effort In place to address a specific hazard pattern and then there's a group of experts that gather to discuss it And we give staff the latitude as we usually do to come at it with whatever approach they think is most effective and data driven What is different or is overlaid on top of that with this amendment and commissioner adler got to it is that As staff is very focused on solving a particular hazard pattern associated with fires It's not been the charge of that subcommittee or that technical group to consider other unintended consequences And this is one area Where multiple groups have brought to our attention the concern that as you push open flame Mitigation strategies you are driving chemicals to the extent that they've been taken out back into the products And there is that Chronic exposure issue that could occur and so the point of this amendment to staff is to say to staff Keep at it on the fire side But make sure whatever you're doing does not unintentionally contribute to chronic exposure, especially the children from harmful or toxic chemicals Okay, I still I guess i'm still not clear and will continue my staff and I will continue to um To understand the work that's being done in the NFPA voluntary standards committee I mean I and I've said this when I Offered my amendment regarding tv 117 that I mean if we can address and tv 117 does address smoldering ignition sources They why aren't we focused on that since they represent the majority of residential fires involving a poster furniture it seems like that's That would be a good way to go and And and deal with that we're not saying don't go forward with the open flame But deal with the smoldering and deal with tv 117 just as what the staff Indicated in their in their package to us But i'm concerned about NFPA and our participation in NFPA because I've heard from many stakeholders Including those that we recently met with That I mean it's across and this has been the most interesting thing about this issue is how it transcends The usual stereotypical positions On the issue it it brings unlikely partners or it makes them likely partners come together But I've heard from industry health and safety advocates in the firefighters community that NFPA lacks Of transparency and it they don't encourage participation in the voluntary standards process is a very opaque process And they're all concerned about it. So My staff and I will be continuing to look at the NFPA process and make sure that it's open and transparent to all stakeholders I think that's key and that is more in the spirit and in line with what was intended With the voluntary standards work one last I guess one last question or statement To you is is I would like for the commission to seriously consider Putting the staff's recent package on tv 117 out for comment It is a substantial It probably I it should have gone out sooner But it is a substantial amount of work that went into it it reflects years of work on part of the staff And it really does I think It merits Comments from the various stakeholders and I think that would be a really prudent way to go. Let's regroup Let's figure out the direction the agency and the staff should be working in Um, and we have a certain amount of information from what was provided in this package And I would really request that you would consider that let the public comment on the staff package tv 117 Thank you very much. That's all I have. Thank you commissioner berkel commissioner mohovick Commissioner mohovick Thank you, mr. Chairman. I apologize But not being facing forward on this. Uh, I plan on Supporting this amendment mr. Chairman. I appreciate you bringing it forward. I appreciate What you've brought forward with regards to the mandatory standards table so keeping open the activities Towards tv 117 or our upholstered furniture flammability rulemaking For me at least holds out hope that we could come to a point where the commission might adopt tv 117 13 That would be my clear intention. That's my clear direction and if there's ever A second or a reasonable third then we can move right along with that kind of an approach and instruct staff to prepare a package That says exactly that your amendment also addresses the voluntary standards activity commissioner berkel got to it to a certain extent And we've all talked about the amount of stakeholders that have traveled far distance spent thousands of dollars in travel to come and advocate before the commission about their concern of the chronic health effects Of flame retardants, whether they be organo halogenated bromated, etc There's a lot of concern and controversy around that issue Now you mentioned That you didn't know what the purpose of our voluntary standards activity is and you've got a lot in your mind I'm going to help you with that because in our testimony on the hearing I inquired that of mr. Borlase who's here today if you don't want to take it from me You can hear it again from him as I explored exactly what is the intention with staff on that line item with the voluntary standards activity And it was revealed and this is very clear as three of my staffers attempt to try to pull our v-star report So I can quote exactly what it is from our staff to prepare And describe transparently. What is our intention in our voluntary standards activities the nfpa? 277 standard is a large open flame standard I know you didn't mean to be misleading by talking about small candles or small open flame Perhaps you meant in terms of our previous rulemaking, etc But where we are putting cpsc funds towards and asking staff to contribute to is a large open flame standard And again as I do a little bit of distraction There is a perfect quote that explains what the purpose of that activity of that activity. Thank you Just in the nick of time Let's see the purpose of it. I don't know if we've got the right one here Not the right one might Mr. Chairman, would you allow? Mr. Borlase to be able to to testify in terms of what the staff's direction of the nfpa Fire test committee's direction is there is a quote That's available that clearly indicates that they're seeking out a large open flame standard Where a pollster is not the first item ignited but the second item ignited and I think it's relevant because it's talking about The reasonable demand drivers for ways that one might be able to comply with a performance standard That's designed to be large open flame My hesitance called dr. Borlase up for a couple reasons I don't think that dr. Borlase was put on notice that this was going to be the case and I I guess I'm struggling I hear your larger point But I'm struggling to understand why that specific line I got it open flame large open flame But what is it about that specific piece of information that you feel like will Illuminate the conversation that it's otherwise in the dark. I am so glad you asked The reason it's it's important is it's it's about what is the reasonable approach is to addressing it Now we're going to have a hearing later on today About portable generators and carbon monoxide and reducing carbon monoxide and our staff put together a performance standard Not a design standard that says you have to have efi or a catalytic converter But they recognize that any reasonable approach to achieve those kind of Performance will likely require efi or catalytic converter That's not defined. You can do it any way you can but that's where you got to get to and unless there's some magical industrial revolution Between here and there where somebody finds another means of getting there Reasonably, that's what people will have to do if we're going to fund a large open flame standard It shouldn't surprise anybody that they're going to have to do that by the incorporation of flame retardants Now I have a question i'm willing to yield to and that is You have a line in here that says Specifically with our voluntary standards efforts while pursuing fire safety through voluntary standards efforts Staff shall support development of voluntary standard that can be achieved without exposure to toxic chemicals Either from the furniture itself or through combustion of the furniture Now if the staff are going to contribute to an aggressive large open flame standard, how would this Inhibit or discourage somebody from using what many claim to be our toxic chemicals As an approach to meeting it. Sure. I guess I don't understand why it has to be the chemicals We'll go back in why is that a necessity? That's not something that that that staff is presented to me What what ways would one be able to comply with a large open flame standard for upholstered furniture? Unless you think it's going to be upholstered with a flame retardant suit that a fireman well So staff has spent a lot of time on barriers and california the same agency in california that created tb 117 Is actively studying barriers as well for small open flames Well, but but barriers generally it's a technology Maybe I have more faith in the innovation of american businesses to come up with different ways to do it But I do think that there is a legitimate fire hazard because what you're proposing the alternative and by the way I don't see any amendment from you to cut staff's work out on this and I've never seen that but You are proposing in essence the implication of that Is that we should turn a blind eye to one way to potentially address Fire hazards and I'm not comfortable with that. I feel like every option should be on the table We can decide as we go along how far that moves And what we want to live with but I don't I'm not comfortable And I would not support at this point categorically denying staff the ability to participate In NFPA's process and I also don't think by the way That that would stop NFPA from going forward And I do think there is value of having staff at the table to understand what NFPA is doing And to lend our technical expertise to that effort But if you want to propose an amendment to my amendment I'm sure the commission would consider that the reason i'm speaking up about the subject Is the fact that the people who have spent Countless hours and thousands of dollars to advocate before the commission They deserve a straight answer And to pretend that well staff can contribute to a large open standard that Could be achieved through some other means with not necessarily using flame retardants Sure, they could just make all leather furniture that can comply with small open flame and large open flame And cigarette smoldering, but it's disingenuous to say that we're not contributing towards a standard That any reasonable mind would conclude requires flame retardants to pass it everybody knows it the advocates know it We know it and this language Provides a false sense of security that in fact we're not putting resources towards demand drivers for flame retardants So the only reason i'm bringing it up is because washington's got too much of this Going on And they deserve an honest answer and if we're going to fund those efforts and resource them, then let's just say it Let's just say we're going to fund these resources They're going to contribute to a standard The standard will be able to say that it's had the support and the contribution of the cpsc staff And therefore they'll be able to encourage people or Strong on people to comply with their standard And that's that's what'll happen, but much like somebody saying well You know you can comply with the portable generator Standard, but you don't have to have an efi. You don't have to have a catalyst You can magically create some kind of generator that will reduce co that nobody's ever heard of before That doesn't require that kind of technology So let's just say you know come correct as an agency as a government for once and just say this is where we are And we don't believe you yet. We're going to put staff money and dollars towards it And until we're proven otherwise and you know and and i'm out with the jury on this Uh, i'm not compelled either way that i believe that the the exposure created by those flame retardants That are in the standard that would be in the standard to comply with the large open flame Are necessarily creating an unreasonable risk or substantial product hazard But you know the people have spent a lot of time to get a straight answer from the agency And i just think that they deserve a some straight talk Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you commission. Mahorovic. I would like to address a few of those points First of all even some of the advocates who have come in Including last week fire chiefs their recommendation was not to not work on this But it was to expand the scope of the subcommittees mandate so that it would consider public health And so that's in essence what we've done from a cpsc perspective. We can't mandate what the Direction that nfpa is supposed to go in but we can only control the cpsc's aspect So that is actually consistent with the advocacy viewpoint I'm a little disappointed that you have such a small minded view though of the capabilities of companies And I think portable generator is a perfect example and we'll hear about this later this afternoon Where even up to last year we were told it cannot be done You cannot put this type of technology that we're going to hear about on smaller class one engine handheld It is technologically not feasible Here we are a year later and it is and so I have a much I don't have a conspiratorial view of this And I have a much more open mind and a stronger belief in the entrepreneurial aspects and the creativity of businesses to solve these technological problems commissioner adler Thank you. I I this has been an extremely useful and beneficial debate and I have to say that Um To a great extent. I think commissioner moho rovick makes some really excellent points I think given the state of today's technology It's clear that the only way you could meet the open flame standard is by the addition of fr chemicals And unfortunately, I think nfpa is not as sensitive to that or they they just haven't had Our concerns about chronic hazards brought to their attention But I will just go on record as saying as I've said on numerous occasions If people bring me a standard Irrespective of its performance Based drafting that inevitably will bring about the use of fr chemicals There is no way on earth that I would support it and I think The the chairman's amendment is very carefully drawn to address that notion And so I think We can hold out hope that there might be some technological development I think it's perfectly fine to say to staff go ye forth and talk to these Various experts on the development of further refinements with respect to safety but I I do I do repeat once again that If people come back and tell me that An open flame standard whether for small open flame or large open flame will require the use of fr chemicals I'm not going to support that I've also been quite impressed by the work and research of a number of folks in this area who have made the case It's still an open issue in my mind That by the time you get to anything that is the second ignition use with a large open flame Abandon hope because what you've got is something that you could not solve by the use of at least current technology So I'm very skeptical about the work that's underway But the idea of just cutting it off To me does not make a lot of sense Especially since we can keep reminding folks of this carefully drawn amendment that the chairman has In which he goes out of his way to say without exposure to toxic chemicals, which is why I would support that Mr. Robinson Yeah, I'm a I'm a little puzzled Commissioner heroic I think everyone at this table agrees that the open an open flame a large open flame standard would require flame retardants And we would not support that period I think we can all say that we agree on that And we certainly have it from some sources that that I mean it's double triple quadruple hearsay But except for purposes of this discussion that the NFPA is committed to a large open flame standard I don't know that that's the case but just for purposes of the discussion I'll I'll accept that I was in the same meeting you were in last week and shared all of the concerns you shared Um, but I certainly I know you left a little early Because you had to but that certainly was not it certainly was the consensus of the group That they were not telling us not to participate just because they thought a standard was going to come out that they didn't agree with In fact, they thought it was important that we do participate to try to Steer them away from a standard that would require flame retardants And when I think of the examples of the standards committees that if we looked at what we thought the end result was going to be And decided based on that projection that we wouldn't participate I got a long list of standards committees that we wouldn't be participating in Window blinds furniture stability ROVs ATV's I mean I could go on and on of the things we wouldn't participate in But that's not the way we approach commentary standards committees and I just think I the way that this amendment is Phrased I think that it takes care of the concerns that were expressed in the meeting that you and I were in We all know the cpsc is not going to get behind a large open flame standard Because we are not going to require flame retardants in our furniture whether we do not have small children We're concerned about the future of the earth and um, so That that being the case. I don't share your concerns and I support the amendment Mr. Berkel Thank you, mr. Chairman. Um, well I have a couple of additional comments on this issue. Um I I agree with commissioner robinson in that It is hearsay, but we've heard it from many that nfpa is directing their work towards large open flames. That's That is fairly well known and then it gets into Use the use of flame retardants as a possible deal with that issue So having said that I'll go back to my larger concern with nfpa and that is the lack of transparency That our staff would participate in a process That is not I don't believe a consistent with the intent of in the will of congress and the voluntary standards process Where there is open transparency where there is, you know, all of the stakeholders are at the table And have an opportunity to discuss these issues. So I will continue my work with nfpa I don't do not think that when we allow staff to be working with nfpa and the voluntary standards committee That that will be directed towards large open flame, which is a concern to me I I also want to just Ask you and really ask you to consider and respond to me regarding putting out the tv one set of the team package for comment I think that would be a prudent way to go This isn't a settled issue as we know And I'd like to hear what the public what the stakeholders have to say with regards to what our staff found And what they presented to the commissioners in the tv 117 package So my apologies for not addressing that the last time I didn't know that you were asking me a direct question on it I'm happy to entertain that as part of a mid-year amendment Is I think all the commissioners would because that's not an insignificant amount of work To both prepare the federal register pie not a tremendous amount on that end but to deal with the comments on the back end And I also don't think that it's mutually exclusive meaning I think that if just by putting it on our website We already already elicited comments from it and I I might be wrong But in the portable generator capacity when we did the work that we'll hear about with the University of Alabama And we posted that publicly that elicited a number of comments And I don't think that we specifically quote unquote put it out for comment So I would encourage anybody who's been paying attention and I believe a lot have who want to comment on that now They can go ahead and do it But if you feel a more formal mechanism is necessary commissioner burkle I'd certainly encourage you to to look at the mid-year as the next opportunity Since the operating plan is now under consideration at this moment Uh to try to do that I will thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. That's all I have Commissioner marverova Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I want to appreciate your comments responses as well as those of my colleagues I'll I would like to also concede a point that wasn't made directly that Maybe perhaps with regards to technology. Mr. Chairman, what you were bringing up Theoretically with a large open flame standard One could meet that through what many Are considering green flame retardants So while you could and the nfpa 270 standard 7 standard is a large open flame standard. Let's not that's a fact That's what it is our staff and our very own v-star report. I have it right here It says during the meeting the task group agreed on the following goal for nfpa 277 quote Significantly reduced the number of deaths and residential dwelling fires where upholstered furniture is the major contributor to fire growth That's a large open flame. There's already a fire To what extent does the upholstered furniture contribute to that reduce egress, etc So theoretically if we were to pursue that kind of a standard Theoretically one could comply with an incredibly robust large open flame standard through not what some are considered toxic flame retardant chemicals, but perhaps green flame retardant chemicals outside of some of the mechanical Technological designs of the of current or future that perhaps you are conceding of so theoretically We could there could be an incredibly robust standard the point that I still do make that These are performance standards and they for one to comply Much like our generator standard They have options and the most readily available option and one that's been inexistent before California toned down its standard was the use of flame retardants and those that many consider to be toxic So For those reasons I I appreciate the fact I feel successful in the fact that at least we've Demonstrated to the public where our resources are going What kind of a standard that we are contributing to which is a large open flame standard and that If in fact, it seems that there's going to be the need to use Flame retardants to meet that standard. There'll be plenty of attention brought towards it Well, thank you commissioner. You have for a question. I'll do my best. Thank you I am curious though why you wouldn't offer an amendment just to strike staff's involvement in the voluntary standards process Well, the reason is because it it's not it is not my Direction or my priority to inhibit staff from contributing to this standard It's my priority to just be honest about what we're doing The meeting that commissioner robinson mentioned we were both in and I appreciate commissioner robinson Taking that meeting with me And I was able to be there for an hour and 15 minutes before I did have to leave so that we could discuss it It came as a total surprise To those advocates who came in concerned with as well as the Representatives of the firefighting community that we were contributing to 277. It was a shock They were surprised They couldn't believe we were going to do it and it took about the whole day for them to Unwind it and figure it out and I think that you've reacted with this with this amendment, mr. Chairman So there's there's a There's a lot that needs to be made transparent my disappointment. I apologize for the long I'm not meaning to take up your time. It's actually your time. Okay. Thank you Then I'll I'll stay within time My disappointment is the following I recognize that my colleagues yourself and the majority Have expressed great concern about the demand drivers for flame retardants And what disappoints me greatly here is that at the same time There's a need and a stated desire from industry for harmonized standard So we don't have the proliferation of more state-by-state standards We're are continuing to put the united states at a competitive international disadvantage So I was hoping that there would be the kind of movements Behind getting behind adopting 117 and I was hoping the fact that this concern would Compel some of my colleagues in the majority to adopt 117 13 While my motivations are different It we can come to the same conclusion separately But I would expect that much like the decades of experience with the pulsed furniture standard I'll leave this commission one day and there will not be a national standard on Upholstered furniture. So that's the part that disappoints me. It's not Any direct, uh, you know problem with staff wanting to contribute to this to this particular standard I know that their intentions are to reduce fires to save deaths to reduce injuries and property damage That they feel might be achieved by Contributions to this voluntary standard and product that will comply with it I guess i'm confused though and and we can end the discussion unless you want to Me to yield to you or I think we're on my time now because The status in the absence of this amendment this amendment moves us closer. It seems to where you want to go The first part of the amendment is trying to harmonize you talked about harmonize trying to harmonize the technical aspects between our staff And california on the disagreements. That's in furtherance of one day Hopefully everyone coming to a technical agreement on the smolder Part of it. So in the absence of this amendment being on the table We would be further in my mind from your goal than what you've stated Then what this amendment would do for what you stated unless i'm misunderstanding what you're saying I understand that what you would like to see Is the agency just go ahead and adopt tb 117 But there's no other amendment on the table to do that and the operating plan would go in the opposite direction Absent this amendment. So that's the first part The second part is if I heard you correctly you still want staff to work on nfpa You concede that that should probably happen But my you talked to you called it. I think you said dishonest But my amendment makes it clear Disingenuous dishonest a negative word a negative characterization of motives if you will The amendment makes it clear that staff is to proceed in that capacity But under certain limitations that don't create other hazards It seems to me that's more honest. That's more transparent About what the commission feels the commission is speaking through this amendment if it's adopted To express its desire that fire hazards continue to need research on different areas But to be clear to the community that as we go about doing it from a cpsc perspective There's no appetite by this current commission For that to be done With toxic chemicals. So in the again, I'm comparing it with the absence of this amendment I don't know how you feel that the underlying and it's not it's not that the staff has done anything wrong here But the underlying package and I'm happy to yield to you for an answer I don't know how you feel that the underlying Package gets you closer to your policy goals and is more genuine In its approach of addressing the flame retardant Issue than this would be Thank you for yielding and quickly you are correct And that's the reason I'm going to support it in the first instance with regards to the mandatory standard It keeps the rulemaking open in hopes that you know that someday we'll we'll be able to at least in my desire to adopt 117 13 The part that I think is disingenuous much like generators To promulgate a standard of a certain performance Where all the reasonable people and perhaps mr. Chairman This is By virtue of the fact that i'm the one in the agency that comes from the industry We regulate and understand what they need to do to comply With the standards and talking to the members and they know there isn't a fantasy barrier out there Yes, there are some flame retardants that some would consider green and whether they're cost effective or not or all sorts of different considerations But in terms of my my taking My taking some Issue with the language with regards to the voluntary standard is that I feel it's just it's just not true That I feel that in reality in the real world that we operate in that we regulate in A large open flame standard that will stop As the staff as the 277 goal is the contribution of a pulsed furniture to a fire that's already raging Will require flame retardants. There's no question. So I just think that we ought to be Honest about that now we might say we really hope that you know Somebody only makes leather furniture in the future and that's going to comply or somebody only uses this list of green chemicals But the reality is much what we've seen play out in california is with the With the standard of that kind of robustness People will use the means to address the performance standard much like with carbon monoxide and generators People are going to put efi and car and catalytic converters on there if we promulgate that rule It's possible. They could come up with something else, but we have to be realistic So it's that element of realism that I was getting to in terms of Of being genuine about our intentions. Okay. I don't agree, but I appreciate that. Thank you that explanation for the opportunity Are there any further comments commission or other? Yeah, just one Two quick comments As much as I like the idea of just adopting tb 117 I remind my colleague that you can't adopt tb 117 the way we do For astm standards that are developed under section 104 it would require us to go through section seven and nine And therefore I think it's critically important that we Excuse me. Not actually not seven and nine. It would be under the flammable fabrics act, which I think is section three the The point is that we do need to sit down with California and refine some of the criticism that staff has raised and I think that some of those Issues are quite easily addressable the issue of whether there should be a standard cigarette and whether there should be a standard foam I understand the staff's concerns, but I actually think those are For lack of a better term details that can be addressed and they're not substantive irreconcilable approaches Again looking at the staff package the staff has come in and the staff has recommended as part of that Set of recommendations that we continue working with the voluntary standards sector and working to Consider whether we can address open flame is a lot different than saying we're going to do it Absent the development of new technology But as the chairman said, we can't just accept existing technology We have to always look to see what can be done and this is one of those Where we've seen dramatic improvements across the board in technology and this is one I hold out hope for future technology Again Noting the legitimacy of a lot of your concerns and appreciating them. Thank you Christian Robinson I just feel the need to correct a narrative that's been developed This morning I the the groups that with whom we met Last week were not In the least bit surprised let alone shocked that we participate in voluntary standards with the NFPA On a flammability standard their shock As I witnessed it came from a rather emotional what I viewed as a misstatement On your part commissioner moharovic that on wednesday The commission was going to be voting to devote itself to a full open flame standard Your reading of the op plan the way it was phrased before was very very different than what my reading was I never for a moment thought That that what was articulated in the op plan was committing us to an open flame standard That's the point at which everyone went into a tizzy because they thought we were going to be voting on wednesday To commit to an open flame standard, which was very far from What it said, but I but I support this amendment, uh, mr. Chairman in part because There it makes explicit what I thought was implicit before And adds to it our commitment, which I think has always been the case that we would never put dangerous flame retardants We wouldn't make pass a standard that would make them necessary in order to reach it. So I just wanted to correct that narrative Thank you for stating it better than I did commissioner robinson commissioner berkel Thank you. Just one point of clarification regarding The group that was in this cash week, and I will Be honest and say I did not participate but heard from them directly through email that Um So they maybe weren't shocked that we're participating in the voluntary standards of the fpa But they were concerned they were gravely concerned as they brought up the issue of the transparency with nfpa And the fact that nfpa only considers fire testing It does not consider the health impacts of our population Or in larger public interest and I think for those who are so concerned with toxic chemicals That should be an issue and that should be a right flag And all I'm saying is that we should know what our staff is doing and we should be concerned with participation in fpa For that reason, but also because of the lack of transparency and the feeling that Only certain parties are allowed at the table and there isn't true stakeholder engagement and so while I don't disagree that Activity and the voluntary standards should cease. I think we need to understand what is happening What the goal is and hear back from staff As to what's being talked about there and what their positions are when they're participating So I appreciate this time. Thank you very much Thank you. Commissioner burkle. Commissioner morova. Nothing having heard no further discussion on the amendment. We'll now call a vote Commissioner ather. How do you vote? I Commissioner Robinson. Hi commissioner burkle. No Commissioner morova. Hi And I vote hi the yeas are four the nays of one the amendment To direct staff associated with the poster furniture has been adopted Are there any additional amendments? Yes, mr. Chairman I You have the motion that I have Submitted to the commission. I move that the commission establish a program To support consumers and consumer organizations and voluntary standards proceedings Where the commission has determined that those proceedings involve the safety of products of importance to the commission Is there a second Having heard a second will now turn to a discussion on the amendment I do want to begin by commending commissioner adler for Highlighting an area and this got into some of what commissioner burkle mentioned That I think is of concern to all of us Which is the balance and fairness of voluntary standards And I thought commissioner robinson said it perfectly that if we were to judge our work and our resource allocation based on The way some current voluntary standards bodies operate We would really not have much voluntary standards work to do at all But to me that doesn't mean disengagement that means better and more engagement And I think that's exactly where commissioner adler is going with this amendment We have through my office been and I'm happy to talk to commissioner burkle about this when you're back We've been engaging with most if not all of the major voluntary standards bodies To inquire with them How they go about their process and we asked them a series of questions We plan to make those letters public of the back and forth that we've had with them about their openness to the transparency And their balance and the balance is a critical issue Because as well intentioned as a voluntary standards might be to address a product hazard or an injury or a The hazard pattern If there is not a sufficient balance on that committee or the subcommittee or the technical task force that's developed There's no chance that that's going to come to fruition And we see that and there's different ways that the standards bodies permit These committees to be set up But what you're getting at at the heart of it is there is likely an under representation by certain segments That are solely focused on consumer safety. That's all that they have in mind So i'm completely Supportive of the spirit of it I will say I have some concerns about the practical aspect and the mechanics of it And I hope that should the commission adopt the amendment that you allow staff some flexibility And making sure that that we can follow all proper procedures and regulations and laws associated with it And that we can figure out a way that works for staff It achieves the goal that you're looking at But keeps staff in a safe lane and a relatively low resource intensive lane To try to get to that goal But I do support the spirit of it and I do commend you for the larger work that you've done On trying to drive better processes and more balance to the voluntary standards process uh commissioner ropinson I also want to compliment commissioner adler for this creative amendment We've all run into way too many circumstances where the voluntary standards committees are Controlled by the parties that have the resources to participate at a level that many of the consumer groups do not And we end up with a standard that's not as robust as we Think is necessary in order to protect consumers I think this is a great way of us doing our part to help those Voluntary standards committees actually have the balance that's required And I think we have the authority under 16 cfr 10 31.7 a11 to do this. Um, I share Um a concern about exactly how this is going to work But I think patty edwards is going to do a great job in putting together Um a process um by which we administer these funds and I look forward to an update on what we're doing. I support this commissioner berkel Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Um, I I do have several questions for commissioner adler and I apologize for not being there in person And having the opportunity to chat with you during the week. Um, I think probably the most fundamental question for me is who is eligible for the assistance Um, excuse me the way the amendment is drafted it would be consumers and consumer organizations. I realize there are perhaps other Groups that would seek some kind of support and in appropriate cases They they might be eligible for it under a different approach But mine is addressed specifically to the issue that I've heard raised Both in the consumer community, but also in the standards development organization communities When you talk to the folks at astm and ul and ansi They all recognize that there is a serious shortfall In consumer input and so what i've tried to do is address my amendment To the issue that is the most glaring in the voluntary standards amendment process So my amendment at this point is limited to consumers and consumer organizations Um, thank you But that really doesn't give me any more information. Um, in terms of how does one define A consumer consumer organization. I understand from staff that Many actual consumers wouldn't be eligible for example, I think one of in the staff meeting If an individual previously worked for a manufacturer Of the product in question, they wouldn't be eligible So I it's still it is so broad to me that i'm trying to understand What the parameters are and who would be eligible? Yeah, that that's a fair question And i'm always delighted to go into detail my notion, which is not explicitly put in the amendment because I have been asked to leave A lot of discretion to the staff Is to say that if you are somebody who Has received compensation from the industry that is the subject of a proceeding If you have taken money from Any of those manufacturers, there's certainly you have every right to participate But you would not be eligible for support from the commission This is designed to get to those folks who have Who are important stakeholders But who are not in any way financially connected to the industry that's the subject of a proceeding So for example, if you're a retiree, you would not be eligible if you're somebody who is an expert witness for Manufacturers, you would not be eligible if you're an academic who has taken Funding from universities to work on issues Relating to the industry you would not be eligible and I repeat you are more than welcome You're invited and encouraged to participate and the truth is they all do participate My problem is that in a number of the voluntary standards proceedings those folks have been classified As general interest Participants when what they really are are is industry obligated and industry affiliated participants I'm not seeking to Remove anybody from the process I'm seeking to have it be a more open and honest process And I have to say I was encouraged by hearing your remarks about nfpa That's precisely the kind of thing that I think needs to be targeted. We need to have more consumer Participation in groups like nfpa And that is what this amendment is designed to address Well, I I guess I'm I'm ready I'm I'm trying to To understand process here and it seems like this amendment made the premature rather than Rather than trying to Get this amendment passed. It seems to me that there should be a protocol We don't know what we're voting on and in terms of for instance The resources that will be allocated So is there a ceiling on what staff can spend on this process? What is the process for someone who wants to apply for the funding? Will they compete with each other where there'll be match funding? How is all of that going to work? These are wonderful questions that uh, I'm delighted to first of all, I would be delighted to write a protocol In fact, I told staff that that would be nothing I would find more enjoyable but Staff has said and I think there's tremendous legitimacy to this Please don't micromanage the process. Please don't Tie our hands. Give us the discretion To come up with a useful protocol any protocol they would come up with would certainly be run by the commission But you're talking to somebody who's chafing at the bit to write a protocol But just as the chairman was saying in response to request if not, please or in my case, maybe threats not to do so This is a an approach that would leave a tremendous degree of discretion to our staff And I couldn't think of a finer a set of staff folks to work on this then people like patty edwards patty adair And others within the commission So is there a feeling on the amount of money that staff could spend? Yeah, the ceiling is the amount of money the commission would have available to Spend on and we don't really know what that that ceiling is again When I first drafted the proposal I put a specific dollar figure in there But again in response to requests, please if not death threats I have removed the The specific allocation, but I think it's fair to say that anything that would be allocated Would be known to the commission and also when we come to mid-year It may be the case that I will have a specific Number to request and in part that's going to reflect what the state of the budget is when we get around to doing mid-year Would you consider before voting on this amendment that staff would come up with the protocol? That is because your your concern is you're taking some of the discretion away from staff So why not let the staff come up with protocol what they have in mind how they envision this working You know who some of the consumers their budgets are larger than cpsc's budget. So I'm trying to understand How they're going to make those calls and how and so there needs to be a pretty strict protocol We're going to find ourselves in hot water In that there was disparate treatment and so it seems to me so many of those issues should be dealt with before We commit to allocating any funds I think we're not disagreeing, but maybe I don't don't understand I don't think we can tell staff to go and work a protocol if we haven't given them an authorization to go and work to develop a protocol And what i'm asking for is authorization To have staff develop a protocol to move forward on the development of funding and support of consumers and consumer organizations So i'm not sure that we we disagree So this amendment would not allow staff to The give staff the discretion to begin this process. You're saying this amendment would only Ask staff to develop a protocol That would allow It would explain to the commissioners how if this was voted on how it would work. No, I don't think i'm saying that I'm saying I don't think there should be any allocation of funds until there's a protocol It may be that the staff can develop a protocol fairly quickly and they can begin Providing funding to consumer groups. That's certainly the spirit of my approach But I am mindful of the chairman's concerns. You notice how carefully he said he agrees with the spirit But not the precise wording, but uh his concerns are legitimate that uh, there are various technical financial and legal issues That have to be addressed and i'm in complete agreement with that I would just note that we have had on the books for decades A specific provision that says the commission is authorized to provide funding and support of voluntary standards activities and if you believe That voluntary standards activities are important to the functioning of this agency and you also believe there's been As you note with NFPA standards that are being developed that are not open and transparent and that don't have sufficient Outside participation. I would hope that you would support this amendment Well, I think part of my problem with this amendment is not that We don't want broad Involvement as I mentioned with NFPA and we've heard that complaint from many Um But that that the government fund that participation now personal circumstances Today require me to be home here and calling in. I mean this doesn't cost I shouldn't say that. I'm not sure what it cost john magooving in his budget, but Um, it seems on its face that this is a lot cheaper than travel actual travel So there are seems to me there are some options that could be considered to get that broad representation Uh, but not at the taxpayer's expense. That's what concerns me here. That's one of another concern What is it the role of the government to fund people, you know Whoever because we don't really know the protocol hasn't been set up Participants in the voluntary standard committees. And so while I think that yes, there should be broad participation The stakeholders should be there. I think for me one of the questions is should we be funding it? When I just is it our role to fund that participation and could there be other ways to develop that participation That's a fair comment. And it's always one open to debate I will say that it's an issue that has debate been debated and resolved by the commission and the congress over the years Congress has given us the authority with respect to the development of mandatory standards to provide funding to outside groups Who could come in and help improve the process and that's that's been on our books for many years We have not done any funding in similar fashion The voluntary standards participation regulation that we have on the books Addressed that question resolved it and said that inappropriate cases where you can get a better product probably at less cost By funding Consumers and consumer organizations to assist in the process you ought to do that I can think of situations where giving somebody A grant of 500 dollars might save us $10,000 and staff funds from having one of our own staff Members participate in the development of voluntary standard and I would just point out that We've got something on the order of 70 plus voluntary standards proceedings underway. We can't possibly have Commissioned staff involved in all of those meetings at every step of the way and yet we've decided and we've even added some today We've decided those are important And so in particular cases where staff thinks it would make a significant difference It seems to me that we're fully authorized to do it and it seems to make perfect sense to To provide this kind of support So that last statement concerns me because it sounds like unless you agree with staff position You might not be eligible for the support But even more than that, I think cpsc and our staff positions are based on data And and science and that's how we should approach participation whether it's a mandatory standard or voluntary standard committee And so putting a consumer or a consumer group in our place. I think is inappropriate So I wouldn't certainly want to agree with that. I just want to ask one last question because I realize I've taken quite a bit of time Are we um, I should ask commissioner. Are you Aware of any other federal agencies that are doing this at this time? Well, let me go back to a point that you made because it's really important The idea that we would only fund those who agree with us is not Anything that's even implicit in what I'm proposing to the contrary There may be times when we're funding groups that will come in and and are equally committed To promoting safety But that think we maybe haven't taken the proper approach and I would think Crib bumpers might be one of those examples where Outsiders might think that staff approach is not the appropriate approach. So I think this is designed to get additional voices into the process And I couldn't agree more with you that we rely on data and science That's the whole point behind the amendment is to provide resources to consumers and consumer organizations So that they can avail themselves of technical support In ways that here to for only the industry has been able to do so That and and now back to the question which you asked and I just flown my mind. So if you could refresh Oh, I I'm not aware, but it's not an error. This is not something that I have done extensive research on I know other agencies have been authorized to provide the funding But I I'm not aware with I'm not aware of any other agencies doing it. I just don't know Commissioner burko queen come back to you in the next round. Is that okay? Yes, certainly. I apologize. Thank you. That's okay Thank you, mr. Chairman. Um at first commissioner abler. Let me first say I know in my heart As well as I know anything your intention with this I'm I've been aware of and I'm concerned as well With evidence presented in terms of a lack of balance in certain voluntary standards Activities, this is something that I've heard for years as well and I appreciate your Efforts to address it. I know that's where your intentions are before things go horribly worse here in terms of my tone but I think First in terms of this particular the amendment that we have before us The things that you've mentioned with regards to elements of eligibility and There's no direction in the language here at all to staff in terms of the development of a protocol And and I know we're I'm prepared to spend a long time on it only because I I care about it commissioner adler But I'd be happy to yield if you would consider Tabling this amendment and bringing it back in mid-year with maybe some more clarity so that not just for what You might be advocating and proposing But what you might be asking your colleagues to forever associate themselves with in terms of a very serious fiduciary Responsibility that we all have as as commissioners So I'll yield to that if you want to consider otherwise i'll pursue more direct questions about your amendment Again, I can't begin to tell you the degree of mixed signals that I've gotten because what you're asking me to do Is the precise thing that staff went out of their way to ask me not to do And that is because they have said they have the expertise they have the experience To go and especially assess some of the Possible legal financial barriers to coming up with a protocol Nothing would make me happier than to actually sit down and draft the protocol myself But every time I have even toyed with doing that staff has said your micro managing that's not appropriate We would like to have the discretion to develop the protocol I think it's fair to say that any protocol that the staff came up with ought to be shared Immediately with the commission and I'm fully supportive of that and I think any commissioner who has any suggestions that he or she might make For what sort of protocol there might be it's perfectly appropriate For folks to do that needless to say I've made my suggestions clear But am I prepared to table it in order to develop protocol? I'm not prepared to do that Thank you. Thank you commissioner radler. I will just say though in terms of The elements of eligibility Or in terms of any limitation and the appropriation of resources I recognize that we have on average about five million dollars a year in mid year every year to reallocate So there might be as much as five million dollars That will be reallocated to consumers or consumer groups Based on a protocol where we've given No commission direction. It doesn't say anything in the language here about financial constraints Inevitability to fund what their what their proposal is and for those that are Keeping score here with regards to voluntary standards. We've recently made the major move Allowing our staff to now contribute in voluntary standards in a leadership capacity To allow our staff to vote and now if this amendment passes We're allowing our staff To fund and stack the decks of the voluntary standards that they might be leading or or voting on In the bigger picture Uh, I I really would think and and ask you to consider what you're asking your colleagues To agree to in the wide open in the wide open language here with no barriers. No discretion No type of control or or any direction at all All it says is that may provide technical and other valuable input Uh, you know, the your your colleagues who might support this Will have to own this and have to own this and their responsibility as a commissioner with regards to appropriated taxpayer dollars And using them wisely and using them for the purposes that they've been appropriate I know you recognize that and it and again I don't have to remind you that I recognize where your spirit Okay, may I may ask you to yield for just one additional second? Yes, you may sir You I think you raised a good point and The chairman just made a quick note I I really have no problem with saying before we proceed with this that the staff ought to bring a protocol And show it to the commission and get commission approval. I really don't have any objection to doing that And I think that would be a good thing because I think it would be something that we could all discuss and debate And move forward on so I would be open to friendly amendment to say that before any funding proceeds that the That the commission have a protocol presented to it by staff and that the commission Approved the protocol or at least vote on the protocol. I'll since I'm since I'm yielding I I would consider a tabling but what I can't do in all good conscious and responsibility Is provide that blank check with the intention that then the protocol will come after but I've already voted to Allocate and allow the resources without seeing what it is that I'm voting on. This is a classic case We have no idea what we're voting on here. We have no idea how much money We don't I have any idea to whom all we know is to who will make the decisions and it's our staff And it's a wide open blank check So before we get into all the other elements of it and the legal ramifications the fact that Such a novel idea of this not that it's novel to try to increase balance on voluntary standards But that cpsc limited resources will be spent Towards uh towards towards funding outside groups hasn't been shared or exposed and told today I see the chairman is nodding. So I'll yield but I think I'm already beyond my time as the chairman. Yep. So Based on what commissioner out there has said I'm gonna move To amend commissioner out there's amendment with a clarification That all this amendment would do is to direct staff to develop a protocol pursuant to the direction and commissioner out There's amendment Submit that to the commission for a vote and cease all activities until the commission has for give provided further Well not pursue any activities pursuant to this amendment until the commission has provided further direction And as part of that protocol that would include a funding estimate as well as any other Legal or other issues that would be associated with it. So the commission would have full consideration of the protocol The financial implications of it any legal implications before a dollar is spent on effectuating that protocol I can agree to that is there a second I would second that okay. Would any is there any discussion on that proposal to commissioner out there's proposal commissioner out there No, I'm perfectly comfortable with that again, I feel torn and buffeted from both sides because When I'd had the discussions and I've tried to explain why I Phrased it the way I did but in terms of having The commission move forward in accordance with the commission with the chairman's amendment. I'm fine with that Uh Yeah, what I I guess I would in response to a question from staff I would ask for a five minute break so that we could perhaps draft some language that would be Acceptable to all the parties. Yep. So we'll take a 10 minute break actually and reconvene at 11 40