 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission Today, we're going to consider one agenda item the Federal Register notice announcing a PGA message set test and request for participants The CPSC staff members before us are Ms. Carol Cave Assistant Executive Director Import Surveillance and Mr. Jim to whole ski deputy director of import surveillance Before we get going with our questions Unlike the normal package that comes for the Commission where it's pretty much self-contained and self-evident what the Commission is doing and Where it is in the process. I do want to just try to orient where we are Because this is somewhat unique and from my perspective this goes back to the congressional response to September 11th and the Safe Port Act of 2006 particularly section 405 Which created the international trade data system a single window for trade related data to help compliant trade move through more easily and For the United States government to enforce our laws to target non-compliant goods more effectively and After the Safe Port Act was passed Congress looked at opportunities with each independent or with each agency to try to Improve its own abilities to support that effort and ours came in the in section 222 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act With the creation of our risk assessment methodology that we are working with Customs on And we created that pilot and that also is about improving our targeting Next came the executive order from February of 2014 from the president which directed the agencies We are not subject to that where we're participating and directed the rest of the agencies to see through the vision of ITDS in the single window And but by by December of next year agencies are required to be ready to use the single window For e-filing of needed data elements in furtherance of the related goals of facilitating compliant trade and Enforcing the law by better targeting We've been working with our PgAs there's 46 other of those so we're we're number 47 We're actually not number 47 if you think about we've been identified as one of the most critical 14 or so with port authorities And we've been working as part of that core group to identify pilots with Customs and border protection across the entire government to make sure that the government is ready when the single window goes online next year So that brings us to today with this is part of our process This is our pilot the first of our pilot we call it the alpha pilot and this is our effort working with the trade Extensively to try to put CPSC in a position with Customs to be ready by the time the single window comes online next year So that's why we're here today to vote on this pilot And we're going to start with five minutes from each for Commissioner for questions, and I'm going to start right now with questions for miss cave and mr. Jaholsky I Guess the first question is miss cave Do you feel like I got it wrong in any way or do you feel like I've? Properly laid out where we are today because you've been running this effort and you've been at all these meetings And want to make sure that that perspective that I laid out is an accurate one Absolutely I think one of the keys is timing on this and being consistent with other agencies that are doing the developmental work at the same Time for other agencies can also if necessary look at the needs of the agency at the same time So that's the only thing I would add. Okay. Thank you mr. Jalski anything when I add to that So one of the areas that we're very concerned about is making sure that we get accurate information And that we only ask for that type of information that is necessary for targeting that's certainly been a priority of the effort to see the single window through and to Make sure that we're doing our part in that and I understand and I'm sure there'll be more discussion about this in a bit I understand that we already receive a significant amount of information from customs and border protection that we currently use right now and one of those items is what we call the manufacturer identification code or the mid and Can you both please tell me who generates that by whom? What's the purpose of it and how much can we rely on that currently to do what we need to do and is that sufficient? Sure, I can answer that so the mid is actually Filed by it's created by the filer so that could be the broker could be the importer in or the broker in-house depending on the company And really the block the mid block is to accommodate Manufacturer or shipper information so it can be shipper information and how it really works in an operational world is a broker gets An invoice has information on the invoice and they create a mid based on the invoice that they get That invoice could have a hundred different items on it But they would only be required to put the shipper information for one of those That's what's required on 3461 today for customs With the exception of the textile world in the textile world It is the actual manufacturer of the product and they are required to include that in the actual filing So is it staffs? view that We need more than what customs is currently giving us to be able to Effectuate this vision of having better targeting Yeah, absolutely So one of the things that we look at is the actual manufacturer of the product to inform risk across the board and Many agencies as you've heard in a lot of these public meetings Everybody said the mid is worthless because it's fabricated. It could be duplicative And it is not the actual manufacturer so from a risk standpoint Us targeting a shipper is not really helpful So I would say no it is not sufficient Which is why looking at manufacturer address things of that nature to do geographical targeting is much more critical to us Okay, and then the staff proposal Understandably because that was the direction that staff was working off of was very much based on certificates Is there value or what is the value or any type of correlation between certificates and targeting? So Knowing whether the presence of a certificate is is there or not is huge Right because it tells us that the filer knows that the product is subject to a consumer product safety rule and is Acknowledged that that is in fact the case So that is critical to us in my opinion and Jim can answer as well, but I think the certificate data You know the staff from the staff's perspective. We have looked at this and examined You know based on our best professional judgment things that we think are absolutely critical for informing our decision-making To allow admissibility of product. So I think it's absolutely critical. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Jalski I mean, I think I would just add just to follow up on Carol that Carol's point is that you know the our goal is to get better at risk assessment and the more data that we can have available to us to determine Risk from one shipment to another is going to help us do our job better The staff's proposal really laid out what was required on a certificate And we do feel that a lot of that information could be very helpful to us when we're doing that targeting a risk assessment Okay, thank you commissioner out there Thank you very much And I just want to take a second to thank both Carol and Jim for taking the extra time to explain the proposal to me I don't think I've ever run across a more acronym Layed in document in my life than this but a lot of that has nothing to do with us It has to do with customs and I'm just delighted we have two such talented folks who actually understand and can explain the acronyms I have a question about the data registry Miss cave. Can you tell me where that came from and can you tell me? Whether it's a mandatory item or whether it's a voluntary and can you Let me ask that first and then maybe a follow-up Sure, so the staff proposal put forth the registry It actually is the outcome if you will of the 2014 workshop that the staff had We were hearing a lot of comments from the trade regarding this concept of a blanket certificate and how to avoid You know duplication of entry at import. I don't want to keep doing this over and over again And so the concept arose because we really wanted to reduce the redundancy of data entry We wanted to also have a mechanism for small businesses who may not have Such a mechanism in place within their own company to be able to store their data and be able to refer back to it And then finally, I think the third issue was really in the express carrier world where there's a 24-7 Presence where CPSC is not there or brokers are not there and you need to have the Accessibility for those types of people to access data when cargo is moving 24-7 And so that was really the idea behind the registry in terms of whether it's voluntary or not. It's absolutely voluntary You know again what we were hearing is well if I'm going to file in the registry And then I only have to file one data element with customs That's a heck of a lot easier for me than it is and I can refer back to it a lot of these companies brings in bringing repetitive You know commodities time and time again, and they need a mechanism for being able to do that And so that was the whole idea behind the registry and the other point I would make is the Document as we're discussing it now before amendments contains a requirement For 10 data elements, it sounds like we're going to drop from that But if a company for whatever reason and I could think of reasons why a company might want to wish to submit 10 data elements or other data elements Is there anything in our proposal that would prevent them from doing that not at all? We in fact we would welcome that and I think they may find I mean again This is best professional judgment They may find that that's great and the Commission may when they do their analysis say you know This is a great way to look at filing a certificate and not having to you know deal with paper or whatever Yeah, and I know that's a pilot so everybody's Exploring the best way to do it to make it most efficient to make at least burdensome So we may find that it's useful or the companies may find it's useful or not Thank you very much for your responses Mr. Robinson, thank you. I also would like to thank you to Carol cave and Jim jahulski Both for the enormous effort that went into this and also for being so available to me and my staff and answering a Multitude of questions so that we could understand this very important package better I also would like to thank thank some other parts of our agency though I know that the IT staff and the contractors were very involved in Putting to get building data registry and we would not have an alpha pilot without them I would also like to thank the compliance and the OGC staff who I know worked very hard on this package There were also people from outside of the agency that I know worked very closely with you too and with our agency and putting this together The industry stakeholders the co-act BIC and all of you have been Invested committed and engaged throughout this process, and I thank you I'm always speaking to groups about what a tiny agency we are and how limited our resources are But when you see how well we can work with a sister agency like CBP the way we have on this kind of project It it makes our resources much larger than they otherwise would be And I think that this working relationship has just been I know the two of you have worked very hard and have one enormous respect From the people at CBP For the work that you've put into this And I also would just like to thank my staff Heather Bramble Boas Green and Dottie Lee along with the chairman K and the other commissioners and their staff This has been a huge effort over the last Many days and they have they have worked very well together and we all have the same multifaceted goal We want to implement the single window initiative initiative and having week after week scene reports come across my desk with repeat offenders I'm very encouraged that this program can enhance our targeting and compliance and enforcement efforts as set forth in cpsa sections 14 16 17 in cpsIA section 222 So to closely work with the state with the stakeholder community and cbp to reach the most efficient cost effective and practical way Of achieving this result is obviously what we're all trying to do I just have a follow-up question and I don't care which which one of you wants to answer this but It's with respect to the registry I was not surprised having sat in on the 2014 workshop to know that the idea of the registry really came from Stakeholders which has been amusing to me given some of the complaints. I've heard about it now But I'm glad we've built this registry in response to To their request that we do so Do you do either of you know if there are any other agencies that use a registry? And if so have you reviewed those in connection with developing our registry? Sure, so Obviously a lot of agencies. I'll give you one example Fda it's it's very similar in concept in terms of operational fda requires prior notice Documents are filed with fda in advance. They create essentially what's called a what I would term as a reference file Kind of like where they store things and then when the data is actually filed at entry bounces off that reference file to determine If there's an immiscibility decision a more accurate Agency though with respect to what we do is You may remember when rory schade from epa came in and testified Regarding the pesticide That they regulate basically the way that theirs works today is that they file Pesticides applications with their regional office And they then receive a notice of arrival and that notice of arrival is then filed with customs and it's bounced off their registration system so they call it a registration system not really a registry So in terms of it in the way the development works, it's very similar to what cpsc is doing Thank you. I have nothing further Commissioner berkel Thank you, mr. Chair and let me begin again by Just reiterating what my colleagues have said and thanking the staff carol and jim and everyone who's been involved in this issue Since march when we had our first hearing on the hill We tried to my office and give nancy and katlyn tried to get our head around this whole issue It's a complicated issue. It has a lot of moving parts to it and what we're talking about today is just one of those parts And we really feel that they should be in concert with each other And so to that end I really have encouraged the agency and The chair to move incrementally and slowly and prudently so that we can avoid A debacle like some of the other government agencies have had and would like to see us come out With a pilot that's effective a pilot that works well a pilot that gives us the information that we need So with that I just have a few questions for staff One of my concerns is That Our meetings policy Has been a detriment and an obstacle As we've gone forward in this process And i'm interested to hear your Your thoughts about that. Do you think our meeting policy hindered your ability to engage on some of these issues? So I would say absolutely. I think this is um a very unique situation that the agency's dealing with We're dealing with you know another government agency where we're trying to implement You know a policy moving forward and and procedure moving forward It has It's it's affected our ability to I think from an operational standpoint Discuss You know technical issues really back and forth with the trade So that's been a concern of mine. I know that if we move into the tsn group that will hopefully You know go away and we'll be able to have those constructive conversations, but Um I think it's definitely been an issue It's been a challenge for staff to be able to move in that direction Just because my next question is going to be a follow-up as we proceed to the tsn with the pilot how What changes and with regards to our meeting policy? Well, we still have to document obviously that we have meetings like we've been doing with every open meeting that we're doing um I think the reluctance you're going to find is on maybe on the trade side Is you may have less people willing to talk about trade secret or confidentiality information I have to tell you though in meetings that I've been in with the trade They've been pretty forthcoming So like I heard that was an original obstacle, but they've been pretty forthcoming And maybe it's because we haven't gotten into the weeds with them on their particular business model but You know Gc really has given us The guidance if you will to move forward to say when you meet and there's confidential business information This is how you need to deal with it and we have we've actually put together with our Contractors kind of a communication plan of how we're going to move forward with that And so that's what we'll follow that will be the procedure We'll just have to document what we do. Thank you with regards to we talked a little bit was touched upon with the certificate information and The chairman talked about the mid information If you had to prioritize were give a value What is the most important data field for targeting purposes in your opinions? Manufacture name and address Would you agree with that Jim? I would yes. Thank you So to the best of your knowledge that information is available to the broker at the time of entry Not for every commodity it might be that the top of the invoice Has you know a hundred different items on it and they may provide that Manufacturer ID for the first item on the list. They may not have it readily available Unless there's a certificate which you know if there's a certificate required then they should have that information available Because it's due upon request and prior to importation in the United States. Thank you Is there any way to the best of your knowledge to access the lab information other than through the certificate information? Not that i'm aware of Do we have since we're talking about seeing and I think jim your point or I should Your point is very well made in terms of we're trying to see what works and what affects what's good for targeting Improve our targeting abilities Do we have any information or evidence that the lab and the lab information that we're seeking in the pilot would add to The value of our targeting So we don't have any quantitative data at this point because that would be a new piece of data that we've never had The ability to receive and target off of You know, I think our best professional judgment is that we do feel that they're that this would be very useful to us and looking for Trends similar to what we look for in In the manufacturer area So we do feel that it's that it's a piece of information that would be useful for targeting. Thank you And my time's expired will we have a second round? If you need one, thank you. Sure. Absolutely commissioner moho rovick. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Mr. Mr. Jaholsky, it's good to see you both I have some questions and I'll see whether or not. I'll we can get what we can get done in this round or what maybe is better for questions for the record Submitted subsequently the first question has to do with participation in the pilot And for those playing at home section three, I believe of the FR notice identifies the test participant Eligibility the selection criteria and throughout this process We've had great interest from segments of the it community that g rc space the government regulatory and compliance Network providers, etc. But in looking at the criteria It seems pretty limited in terms of the applicant must and it seems to identify only Importers or manufacturers. We know we've also had Interest from the laboratory community that oftentimes provides the same Without naming them. Could you I could you express the participation that might be foreseen from that particular community? Sure. So we absolutely anticipate Labs being involved in this process. They store the data. We heard this from companies, you know that when they came in They store the data. How can they help facilitate that the key is going to be and I'll be honest with you We've been contacted by several of the labs about I want to participate. I want to be involved You know sign me up the key for them is that they really have to Be involved with the company And because labs don't file and don't serve as an importer in that kind of capacity They can really help facilitate this process and so they will absolutely be involved So I would anticipate we're not saying no, they shouldn't be But if they come in they're going to want to come in with a company that wants to actually participate Excellent. Thank you very much Second question has to do with some of the previous Lines of inquiry from my colleagues regarding the utility of the The mid generally and of The exploration of additional data points from my perspective the consideration of what data points we might be asking Pilot participants to engage with us has been limited to the scope of the original 10 data elements put forth Back in the original 1110 rule and then identifying which of those might have additional Value to us or what comparative value they might have What's also been referenced is the next step subsequent to the co-act with the trade support network Is it is it the plan of staff to continue to explore? What might be additionally valuable pieces of information that we might ask to better inform targeting through this next phase now That we're through the co-act phase Absolutely. I think um, I would say it's both I'd say it's looking at additional data that may be helpful and then also examining data that may not be helpful Right because that's the whole point of the pilot We may find that in a lot of this some things are not valuable and so That's the intent of the alpha pilot But I would say staff need to from a risk standpoint Staff need to constantly be assessing the data and whether it's valuable or not And you know, that's just our experience over the years. We've seen that we need to constantly be assessing that Excellent excellent, and I know it's been uh, you know somewhat constrained through the Because of the outside forces that were represented today My next question has to do with something that was brought up by The co-act in their formally registered Remarks and questions to the agency. I know you've seen them. They're available on cbp's website, but the There's a particular question as to trusted traders and the co-act recommends That the cb that the cpsc Continue to engage in the pursuit and exploration of a trusted trader program Could you give an update and mr. Chairman? I'm sorry if this I don't mean for this question to be out of order with regards to any operational Update on trusted trader, but I think it's relevant to the discussion if you'll allow it I'm going to leave it up to the general counsel to determine germane. Thank you So the current trusted trader program that's in place is still open Throw that out there for people to obtain benefits In terms of trusted trader that um, you may recall or because you were at the co-act meeting Two weeks ago, you know, we're trying to align with cbp as a one Trusted trader. I mean ideally that's where we would like to get and you saw that their status is not necessarily They haven't moved very far So in terms of our perspective and where we are within the commission We're actually trying to hire somebody to take on this role and develop this program Again, it is very critical to have What I would call a program that allows an importer to deem themselves as compliant and wants to go through the exercise of And trust me it costs them a lot of money to get to that point But for somebody who is willing to go through that effort and move them into a low risk category that they should absolutely Be compensated for it and the commission should take that in consideration for risk Thank you very much. I don't think I'll have time for my next question. Mr. Chairman Thank you commissioner moherovic. So we're going to go around one more time at least So miss cave Commissioner berkel is exploring a really important area Which is that balance between us getting what we believe in your professional judgment As law enforcement personnel we need for targeting In furtherance of that larger effort of being able to properly distinguish between compliant and non-compliant trade Something industry wants and is pushed for And where that information comes from comes from and who bears the burden to provide us that information I think it's been probably the primary point that commissioner berkel has focused on will continue to focus on Is trying to find a line that is least burdensome to those who have to provide that information And providing you with what you need And as she was going through her questioning she asked you What were the manufacture work with the top priorities from a targeting perspective? And I believe the answer was the name of the manufacturer and the location of the manufacturer From your perspective, even if those are the top priorities are those sufficient Are those sufficient as data elements for the commission to be able to properly participate In the single window as part of the united states government and really be able to take that next step forward in Much better delineating between compliant and non-compliant trade Absolutely not. I mean, I think the staff and and we've said this many times, you know in looking at for example the certificate data We we know and risk prioritized and try to prioritize what we think is that is absolutely not the only data element That will help us lead to risk targeting and we know that today because we try and do it manually today And it's a very cumbersome process And you know I I would add to jim, you know, I mean let him speak as well But from a risk standpoint, I think we need to look at a broader scope And look at everything that could impact and allow us to make a miscibility decision effectively so that we're not holding Cargo unnecessarily at import that is compliant Thank you. Mr. Hoske, I mean I would just add, you know, we we do get mid information now from customs which although That is not generally the actual manufacturer that information has been incredibly useful to us for targeting We think that these other elements Would be would be also very beneficial in targeting as well We have to prove that out through the pilot. Um, but we do believe they'd be very beneficial. Great. Thank you commissioner Adler um I uh I share the same concern that the Part of the problem is you don't know what's useful until you're tracking the data For example, it might turn out to be the getting lab information in many respects It's more important than getting a manufacturer information that where we thought the manufacturer was the one that was The problem area it would turn out to be a lab. So until we're gathering that information I can see that It's as useful as we can without burdening the industry to To gather that additional information um I did just want to make a quick comment and Express my appreciation to commissioner burkle for raising the issue with respect to the meetings policy It's been many many years since we've looked at that And I think there's some additional Items about it that need to be reexamined. I just mentioned that in passing. I have no real questions Mr. Robinson nothing further Mr. Burkle Thank you, mr. Chair. I want to go back to um What we discussed before and but I do want to clarify something the chairman just mentioned I am looking for the least burdensome, but i'm also looking for the most effective and it's my understanding that the top two targeting fields As identified by staff to me is Number one the manufacturer ID. We've heard that several times In within this discussion And then followed by the product ID and that if we can Give some granularity to product information that that would be extremely helpful And so I just want to I mean are you in agreement that it's manufacturer ID and product ID? Yeah, so if I can just so Manufacturer ID if we can just move away from what's submitted today because sometimes it's not accurate I just want to clarify that So when we talk about manufacturer ID, we're talking about the actual manufacturer of the product Not what is composed by a broker filed for cbp And I understand that and I understand that in some cases although Um that the shipper information may have some value in the targeting. It's not necessarily just the I mean We would that's what we would ask for the manufacturer information as you identified earlier with apparel They have to provide the actual manufacturer of that but So, um, I want to um Talk a little bit about This the manufacturer because I think Miss cave you talked about it's only available after in some instances. It's only available in the certificate It's not available in the invoice or the bill of laden The manufacturer ID not for each individual product So that the not commercially available Okay, I guess that's a little bit inconsistent with what I've understood and been told prior to to today But we can flesh that out a little bit Okay, um The other thing I want to talk about is The purpose of the alpha pilot and It's been talked about well, we want to explore we want to see If any of this has a value of the targeting Information has value to targeting. So One of the and commissioner adler brought it up with regards to the lab. So it's my understanding that when we sees Product at the ports one of the things we do is ask for a certificate That's right. And so we have those certificates. We ask for it before we see Well, yeah, when you stop it, I should say and then when you realize it's violative They have to produce the certificate. So we have certificates in our possession That are can be attached to violative products It within the agency now Correct. We have those we don't have those elect. We don't have that data electronically Those would be basically hard copy certificates that we had received if they were available So have we ever tried to make any correlation between violative products and perhaps labs that Are doing the testing that the fault might be with the lab and that's what happened there This is a fabulous question and one I could spend hours on with you But you're actually getting into the analysis part of it which is A ram discussion and full production ram discussion Which is We actually want to be able to do that That analysis because it comes in on paper and that data entry is and it's a it's a scan form in our systems today So we're not extrapolating the data from that. It's very difficult unless the analysis is done by hand to do that So I guess my point is the data is available and yes, we are limited in our technology But we could look at that information and see whether or not there's a correlation between a lab and a violative product In order to kind of assess at least Preliminarily whether or not there is a connection and there is value to the lab data in in terms of targeting and I only say that because Once we get into The lab information we now are talking about accessing certificates and it would require the participants to build a certain To develop a technology that would allow for that information to come in If we've got some of that information already, maybe we should do an assessment before we move forward and and so that's why I bring that up Um, and we can talk about that further In post the npr when the first 1110 came out and that was sort of when we first got here, I remember I think it was the chair at the time I'm working in Inez's office who came into my office with a stack of comments With regards to the npr and the 1110 rule What what were the biggest concerns that the that the comments indicated to us? Oh my gosh, we have to file things electronically now And we're not inconsistent with every other government agency that's trying to get data electronically that's been in paper form So that's I mean the comments really didn't surprise me In terms of oh my gosh, that's a huge change I think my time is up. I have to Good Mr. Mohorovic, thank you, mr. Chairman commissioner berkel coming from the testing community. I'm happy to give you a Score of each competent and incompetent lab and we can go through the entire list of cpsc accredited labs I'll provide you that privately After the meeting just kidding of course I have a question in the spirit of our policy on Retrospective review that I'm very proud that my office Collaborated with the chairman's office and the development of it and one of the key elements of that Retrospective review provision suggests that even in for in future rule makings that We are going to encourage and support that the effectiveness Of future rules and I'm attributing that same theme to an activity here that we evaluate the measures with which We're going to evaluate Hopefully empirically the The success of the activity so in looking at the pilot moving forward It's going to be a lot of discussion about what date elements to include what data elements not to include Including the cost and I don't mean to formalize cost benefit analysis because I would hope that The potential benefits of data elements that we might require in a future rule Would have a yield far far beyond The individual cost What are your plans going into the pilot moving forward on how we'll be able to Identify comparatively the individual effectiveness of different data points And if you could also speak to how you might plan on identifying the through the pilot If that's possible on a goal of the pilot the cost of individual pieces of information as one might be More expensive or harder to gather than another piece of information Maybe one that is only Relevant to a certificate Right. So a lot of that is going to come out in the Metrics evaluation when we're doing the tsn Trade support network grouping But in terms of the staff's perspective and what we're looking at is, you know, does it expedite clearance of cargo? Does the time of filing an entry make a difference versus entry versus entry summary? Or does it maybe need to be at manifest because it adds so much more value at a different thing? So timing is a huge issue for us In terms of the overall evaluation in terms of the specific data elements itself It's gonna when we and honestly in terms of the alpha pilot itself and drilling down We will likely not have the answers to all of that But we will have the answers to timeliness questions and things like are we having an impact and does it make a difference to file electronically versus paper So I think a lot of that will come out in the alpha and how we drill down into each of those areas But that's a huge factor for us in terms of being effective Okay Thank you. Another question that I have this is my last has to do with the the concept of a registry and For those that have been following along closely and of course everybody here has been the registry was an outcome of Potentially requiring data elements at entry pursuant to Certification and then the registry would be a certificate registry. My question is the following How relevant is a registry in the unregulated products arena? And I say that because you know my Hoped future vision for informed targeting moves far beyond the regulated product community Beyond those products that are whether they're children's product rules or or general use product rules that are subject to the certification requirements What would be envisioned if we're going to require data elements for unregulated products and how then How relevant then or how much utility does a registry have for those particular product categories? So you're talking to a data person. So better more data is good Um, and from our perspective, you know, just to give you an example and put it in perspective for you today when we look at Say a repeat offender foreign manufacturer Um We tend to not isolate that to Regulated products we look across the board because the risk profile between us and potentially cbp Um, for example, sometimes it helps inform intellectual property issues for cbp and things of that nature We tend to look across the board across all commodities That's part of what our role is down at c-tac To, you know, have a the fusion center of all health and safety issues And so I think it is incredibly and i'll let jim speak to it, too I think it's incredibly valuable in terms of informing risk From us from our standpoint, so I would agree. I mean, I think, you know Registry information for for non-regulated products opens up the door to Um looking At products that may be causing an emerging hazard that have been recalled It would give us Better data to be able to Look for those products as they're coming into the country So in the pilot, um, if we if the pilot is Expanded to include and I know in the draft it doesn't currently include that but if the pilot included unregulated products would Uh, a pilot participant that's accepted Into the pilot program Would they have the opportunity to enter their information through directly through cbp and the pga message set or the registry? Yeah Yeah, I think I don't think that that would change the the way the data would be filed I don't believe would be changed from regulated to non-regulated Okay, so to so to clear the air a little bit conceptually with what this registry might become the registry is not exclusively A certification registry or a registry of only certified products potentially Right. I mean you can look at that as a registry For commodities under cpsc's jurisdiction. I beg your pardon. I I didn't recognize my time expired mr. Chairman No problem at all. Uh, commission berkeley. You said you needed more time. So I think we'll go around one more time so Miss cave and mr. Jehulsky we Talked earlier focusing in on certain data elements in particular the product id and the manufacturer name and location Just so I understand do you feel that that information is currently available? To us through cbp or from the broker or commercially available Or do you feel like even to just to get that information the name of the manufacturer for each product? That that requires somebody Going further into the company's Database systems to get that information Right. So the product id is defined in the customs world now could be the hts code and it could say toys What we're talking about is more model number G 10 number things that are more granular in nature that allow us to pinpoint And target effectively so from a product id I think the information might be available on the invoice for the broker to file, but it's not You know a common thing that it would be filed And then manufacturer id again is because It's calculated or formulated by the broker based on The mechanism that customs has in place for developing that it's not sufficient enough for staff's purposes To only have the mid we're talking actual manufacturer and what about any other commercial availability for that information Is it any is it otherwise commercially available? Not that i'm aware of mr. Jalski No, and perhaps an example may may help is you know currently if um If a shipment of toys comes in say there's 10 different toys on the on the invoice The invoice may have been issued by the shipper Okay, so when the broker goes to file the mid with customs They're actually going to file the shipper as being the manufacturer But those 10 toys may have been manufactured at 10 different factories So ultimately we want what we want to get to is what are those 10? Unique manufacturers the identification for those That information would not necessarily be available to the broker at first blush when they get an invoice from The importer to file because it's just going to be associated with the shipper And I think as miss cave said earlier that even if it's not the shipper But it's one of the manufacturers who's listed on the mid That may be one of the 10 and you still wouldn't even get the other nine. Is that correct? That would be correct Okay, thank you commissioner adler anything else nothing else commissioner robinson Thank you. I'm just going out to the macro for the moment to to refocus on what we're trying to do here and that is target Products coming into this country that don't comply with our safety rules um, miss cave when uh, commissioner berkel was asking you questions about Um, the certificates of compliance the limited number that we do have and going through them by hand To look at the labs versus what you're proposing in the pilot of getting that information electronically If I was reading body language correctly, you looked as though you would like to say something would you That is a massive undertaking By hand, yeah, and I you know, I probably shouldn't speak for compliance and I don't know howards in the room But that is a he's hiding behind the fall That is a incredibly Massive project to take on Versus the electronic proposal that you put before versus an automated Project, okay. Thank you. I have nothing for all right. Commissioner berkel Thank you, mr. Chair. Have we done a cost-benefit analysis on this pilot? We have not I mean the whole intent really of the pilot is to Figure that out We have a lot of government agencies or counterparts that are actually just converting forms And not doing any cost-benefit analysis at all and I you know, I'd like to think that we're actually taking the right approach Which is trying to do the alpha and figure out What is what does make sense so that we are doing the least burden to industry? okay, um, I must say I'm a little bit confused and Because we've had so many meetings And so I just want to clarify. So you're saying to me that In the case where there is a multiple manufacturer and shipment The only place that information is available is the certificate I'm not saying it's the only place I Would expect that uh companies ultimately are going to know where their products are manufactured Um, I I think a lot of that's going to depend on the relationship that they have with their shipper or consolidator Um, so that information should be available to the company somewhere Um The where it would be required to be presented is on a certificate though So we know that that would be one place the information would be available But not the only place but not with the exception of the textile industry right right textile. It's absolutely the manufacturer so, um, I want to go back to uh when commissioner morohovic was asking Questions and you said more data is good And I agree with that and I want to make it clear that my approach this incremental approach is not It's not an approach that Says that has no value. It's just that it's an approach that says let's proceed cautiously. Let's Take a couple steps at a time Not jump into this whole thing all at once and that's been my position on import surveillance from day one and Since the hearings and and everything else um What's my understanding right now we have data and um Whether or not we have the mechanism And this is the problem I understand we don't have the mechanism to look at those Certificates that we have to make that correlation, but we have the data We know with In this I don't know if this is outside the balance, but with retailer reporting. We have data We can't get to it with regards to other and I Because of compliance reasons and the prohibition, but we know there's other data coming in that's not being reviewed So more data is good. I agree But unless we have the capability the manpower the the technology to review that data more data does it's meaningless And so we're asking for more when we've got data right here right now that we're not looking at and that's my concern with an incremental approach That we really need to go step by step and make sure what we're asking for We will have the technology and the people to look at that information So if I can comment on that If I can give you any sense of confidence So the technology to receive the data in an electronic environment exists today So we will have the analytical capability to review that data The the balance which debt are you referring to data that we proposed, you know through the pga message set So we'll have the ability would come into the ram. We have the ability to to review it analytically from that standpoint If it gives you so staff were challenged if if and I I'll be quick staff were challenged with Finding the balance between you know filing this data and And I lost my train of thought. I'm sorry and and and I completely lost my train of thought. I'm sorry the dad does to you I had a point there. I'll get back to it. I'm sorry If I could just follow up I mean, I think one of the one of the one of the core elements of our risk assessment methodology is Taking the data that we have now Data that we may receive in the future And have that data be able to inform an increment or decrement risk associated with a particular shipment So I think that's that's what we're looking to do is any any additional data that we would get Would help to inform that risk which now in our pilot ram system is based on a risk score So that risk score is going to go up or down depending on what that data Shows us or tells us And I have one last question and then I'll be finished So with the pilot the participants of the pilot can you explain With regards to their product Will they be able to choose Which hts code they're going to maybe you could explain that how you anticipate that part of the pilot would work Absolutely. Um, we've actually been asked that question by several companies saying, you know, can I just limit it to 9503 toy code or can I limit it to atvs? Absolutely, they can pick the commodity that they want to use And stick to only that that commodity so they don't have to go full steam ahead in terms of changing their system Or anything like that. They can pick and that'll be their their decision staff won't try to Usher them into one hts code away from another that'll be their decision. It's their decision. Okay, and Commissioner mohair over nothing further I've been I only want to make a quick comment and I do you commission burgled you want to Ask one last thing you should okay, so hearing no further questions The staff's favorite part where we move to the commission's consideration of amendments I do want to make a quick comment though that at least in terms of the compliance data that was mentioned It is absolutely reviewed. I know that for sure as well as all the incident data I didn't want that misimpression to be out there that we don't review that data We're now going to turn to amendments. I do have an amendment and while it's being circulated I'm going to go ahead and explain it briefly. I do want to thank staff For the original package that they put forward I felt that it was completely within the bounds of what was expected the staff had to follow where the commission had been and stuck to that We did have a number of meetings both open and close with the trade My office was central to putting a lot of those together I found those to be incredibly informative and in the discussions as well one on one with my other commissioners I felt that we could refine the proposal a bit and really focus in even better on Trying to get to those highest priority data elements While also allowing us to have the ability to Distinguish between compliant and non-compliant trade So that's what my amendment does it cuts the list down from 10 to 5 Focusing on the top four staff priorities as well as working with staff to come up with a fifth data element That addresses the ability to target off of whether or not a certificate has been if it is required whether or not it's been provided The other thing that my amendment does is that it broadens It does not replace it broadens the potential legal authorities under which the commission can move going forward I thought that it was important that the commission Put out there at this point some key points in regard to the different authorities that the commission can move under And different ways the commission can approach this None of that is intended to signal one way or another how the commission will end up because that's the whole point of the pilot But it does reinforce something i've said Way back in february at uh ikvistow in florida the importance of us continuing to enforce certificates And letting the community know that certificate enforcement is going to continue to be a priority of ours And they should continue to be on the lookout for that And that also as commissioner moho rovick has mentioned there is the area of Products subject to our jurisdiction that are not currently subject to any regulations And the importance of being able to target off of that and i'm sure we'll have more of a discussion on that So that's the basic point of my amendment and do I have a second Second Thank you commissioner adder will now i'll take any questions on the amendment commissioner adder um I would ask if you don't mind if you would give a fuller explanation of how you Arrived at these five specific data elements we'd started out with ten Did you consult with staff with respect to these data elements? Absolutely, it was purely actually if the if the commissioner will yield for me to answer. Oh, yes, it's purely Based on staff's input. I asked staff to work with my office To say let's work on that list and try to narrow down to your highest priorities rank them And let's pick those find that line where you felt like at this point for the alpha pilot These are the must have to be able to meet that critical critical post 9 11 Policy call of being able to allow compliant trade to move through more quickly and being able to target non-compliant trade And that's the list that we came up with the fifth was a hybrid that my office suggested Again to try to capture the value of certificates and we left it up to staff as to whether or not they felt that Was worth it they thought it was worth it to put it in there and that's how that fifth one ended up in there And I just wanted to make a quick observation that what I find so delightful about the amendment is that this is a demonstration That we uh with all the meetings that we've held with the trade that we listen to the trade That we tried to accommodate ourselves to the trade and that you have entered into this in the spirit of compromise Which I think is uh one of the great things you've brought to the agency along with the spirit of civility And I just want to commend you for that no further questions Thank you for that commissioner robinson As you know, um, I am Convinced that at some point hopefully in the near future We're going to have electronic filing of certificates of compliance And I certainly supported staff's original recommendation That we go with the full 10 elements that they recommended That we have filed electronically and um with this narrowing to five I would just like to make sure that You tell us why you're comfortable that these five capture sufficient data elements for us to be able to enhance our targeting and enforcement at our ports Will the commissioner yield Again, as I responded to commissioner adler's question This was really very much a staff driven effort to try to figure out from a priority standpoint. Which are those Data elements that they felt were most critical at this particular juncture I do think it's important And we've had this discussion and I think my memory reflects the fact that in broadening out the authorities and mentioning the value of certificates And including the importance of certificate filing as a fifth data element I feel that it uh properly Preserves the ability as it needs to for the commission To continue to enforce the certificate requirement and to keep everything on the table in terms of moving forward as we identify And as miss cave identified as we learn and mr. Toholski said too What information do we truly need to have and I know from my discussions with other government agencies The I think the government generally looks at that as an evolving process as information changes as data sources change The government wants the ability and I think this is one of the beauties of the electronic filing The government wants the ability to be able to evolve its system To be able to choose which pieces of information it finds to be most useful at that particular time I would imagine for us commissioner robinson that certificates will always be central to that Yes, just as a follow-up um given the questions that commissioner burkle asked uh going beyond the two elements to the five elements Could you just tell us why you think that's important as opposed to just doing the two elements? I think again that and if the commission will yield I think that Staff earlier identified that that while the two data elements are important and they're necessary they're not sufficient And more importantly that they are not accessible currently through what's available and that if you are going to I'll just say have to build an electronic bridge So to speak from the q8 qc side of the house where the certificate information is housed to the import side You're probably going to have to do it Anyway, if you're at one of these companies just for the two data elements that have been identified by commissioner burkle Manufacturer name and manufacturer location And I felt that if you're going to have to do that anyway You might as well include that core list that staff feels that this juncture for the pilot are the most important Thank you Commissioner burkle any questions? Yes, thank you So for two years we've been talking about this immutable Unnegotiable ten fields Seven statutory and then the three that were in the pilot or in the npr So i'm wondering have you engaged with The stakeholders so to the best of their knowledge We show up today and now there's a different proposal on the table Have we engaged with them? Have we done any kind of inquiry as to And I I know you made one call Yesterday I think but has there been any other engagement do they do we seek their opinion? Did we ask if this addresses their concerns and their questions with regards to all of the comments? We received in opposition to the npr and will the commissioner yield So we did do at least a little bit of fee of trying to get some feedback without trying to Debreach the confidentiality of the process so we were very careful We didn't want to discuss internal deliberations and so we tried to just put out general feelers The challenge at that point was This is a balance. This is a balance between What information is provided and who provides it and what must staff have and once staff identified that they must have this Set of information. This is the highest priority For me that became the floor And so even if I had consulted trade and they said we don't want to or we don't believe in having these five data elements At that point I believe staff's judgment as professional law enforcement personnel will work on this issue that judgment trumps Concern as far as I'm concerned from industry on the data which data elements and how many How the information comes to us and the costs associated on that that's where industry comes in and that's where their value Trumps staff's judgment. So if industry says this has cost 100 million dollars and staff says we don't believe that I have to defer to industry because I'm going to assume that they know more This is part of the balance and this is part of why we've had so many discussions And I would imagine as this moves into the trade support network if this Amendment and the underlying package are approved I think that these will continue to be discussions and I don't think anything is set in stone And I even as you explored with the staff the hts codes and who chooses which parts to Participate in the pilot I think these this dialogue will continue and my hope is that will industries will see from my amendment Is that all of the meetings that we had with them there was a purpose to them? We did hear what they said we did window it down down to the bare minimum What we think is workable at this level, but that we do we must have so I guess my concern is with regards to The concerns we heard and The top concern we heard was the fact that they don't have access to the data that you're requesting And that it would require going to the certificate and so despite the fact we've done we've gone from 10 to 5 We haven't we haven't addressed that issue we haven't They still have to do so to commissioner ravinson's you know her We may as well do all 10 because we have not addressed that concern that we you know We're only asking for 5 it's it defeats the purpose because it doesn't accomplish anything Will the commissioner yield sure first i'm pleased that you already think we've moved to 5 because nothing's been adopted I think 10 is still on the table, but i'm encouraged that you're gonna might vote for my amendment the I think that where it is Is that from my perspective? Anything beyond what is currently asked for or provided by cbp And what is currently commercially available would require the companies to have to go into systems that they may not already have linked up And even if we were to ask from my perspective just from listening to staff Even if we were to ask for just the manufacturer id and the manufacturer location that would already So to speak breach this require breaching of the systems or bridging of the systems But I do think it's important from my perspective what have I heard from the trade is not there's a Hard and fast Number of data elements, but just tell us what those are and what the justification is That's what has been asked me over and over and over again What do you really need and why do you really need to tell us that and then we will try to work with you I think this amendment is our response to that I think what we're saying is we heard you We're giving you what we really need we've given you the justification And now we want to work with you through this pilot to see if you are able to help us do that But we heard staff say that the lab value and beyond the product identification and the the manufacturer identification everything else is Speculative we are looking to see whether it has value. So it isn't that we absolutely need it. It's necessary. It's just that We're going to include it in this round and and my point is I'm not saying we shouldn't go there But for now, let's do these two The first two the two that staff has identified as the most critical and have value We know they have value before we go on to something that's speculative in its value and that's my concern I want to get to another question on page eight You state twice that there will be a minimum of five data elements evaluated by the pilot um, can you Maybe explain what you mean by a minimum of five data elements who gets to decide if there's going to be additional data elements Is it the commission? Is it the staff? I'm trying to understand what that minimum of five means if the commission will yield My sense is that that's a staff call working with the participants of the pilot Similar to what you mentioned with the hts code and as long as staff has those five data elements at that point Whatever goes on in their one-on-one discussions and whatever industry might Choose to continue to do whether it's adding certificate data to the data registry as I propose Not not that they I'm not proposing they would add certificate I'm calling it the data registry as opposed to the certificate registry If they want to provide more information into the registry or they want to work with staff and give more information I wanted to give staff that flexibility to not have them locked into one thing But this is going to be As I think it is really from my experience with all of the other pilots that are going on across the government These are very interactive collaborative Discussions with the trade because both the trade And the united states government participating agencies want the single window to succeed So I view this as being in a very productive Collaborative uh voluntary approach that staff would have with the trade That's all the questions I have for right now Commissioner Milerovic Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate the uh the substitute that you put before the commission I also very much appreciate you distributing this to the commission at 5 p.m. On friday That made for an especially fun weekend to look at it. I'm kidding. My you uh your staff did uh Indicate to our staff at least a couple hours before that what was going to be in the amendment But it is uh, I want to touch upon something that you mentioned in your opening remarks That this amendment broadens the legal authority To uh to allow and identifies that we have the Ability outside of certification and e filing of certificates To potentially require additional data elements at import or at import summary And I very much want to thank our general counsel for weeks ago Bringing this to the attention of the commission that we do have flexibility outside of this If it's something that we wanted to take advantage of and your amendment reflects that very much I think that this amendment Provides a great deal and injects a great deal of flexibility To the cpsc My greatest concern with this effort, mr. Chairman at the at the outset was that it was bracketed And constrained to certificates and those product categories that are subject to certification requirements And for me, I thought that that painted, uh, you know too restrictive of a uh of a scope in terms of what the agency should be looking at in terms of a more evolved import safety program And there was uh, so for that reason I very much appreciate this and that it that it gives the public a clear indication of what the future May be in terms of additional product categories outside of regulated regulated products But I do have to comment on on something that commissioner robinson mentioned and heard remarks She mentioned Seeing a day where the e filings of certificates would be mandatory And I honestly can't think of A worse public policy Moving forward such that the agency would be requiring for all products Subject to certification and let me tick off some of these high-risk products cbn tennis Waste paper baskets garage door openers Bike helmets as effective as they are I think I've recently visited consumer reports and saw an evaluation that Consumer reports evaluated every helmet they could find and everyone was compliant with cpsc regulations refrigerator doors Commissioner adler. I apologize the refrigerator door. I understand is your favorite piece of legislation Uh, and maybe regulation, but I don't want to speak for you there But but think of this conceptually if we were to require Horizontally that all that every product subject to certification be required to provide One two ten data elements pursuant to a certificate at import summary We haven't found in decades a refrigerator that fails to comply with the regulation of the statute So why would we be imposing those extreme costs and the time pressures to get that data relevant to a certificate? It's almost bad enough that they have to certify But it would be tremendously worse that we would be requiring that for product categories that don't pay play risk And don't pose a risk to the american consumer So I tie that back into what the chairman has done here by broadening the legal authority that eventually If we are going to require Additional pieces of data we can do it on a product category basis on a risk basis And it doesn't have to be completely inclusive of all regulated products Nor nor does it need to be exclusive of those that aren't we can pick and choose eventually And I very much appreciate the fact that you've broadened the authority and therefore given the public a better indication Of where we're moving uh in in poor targeting. Thank you. Mr. Chairman Thank you. Commissioner marovic. We're going to have time to debate the underlying amendment But I want to make sure before we do that. Does anybody else have any questions of me regarding the amendment commission around there? No questions. I will have some comments. Okay. Commissioner robinson. No commissioner berkel Yes, I do have one more additional question and that is um, will cbp have to review this document They've already reviewed the document if there are amendments to the document Then there probably will be have to be some additional actually i'm getting told no i'm getting enough that we're okay We are good to go Have they reviewed the amendments in the document? Yes So they've seen this amendment and yes they have Commissioner marovic any other questions nothing brother. Okay. We'll now turn to consideration of the amendment commissioner adler Well, I strongly support the amendment and again I want to reiterate How delighted I am that in a spirit of compromise and in a demonstration of listening to the trade that we have whittled this These 10 data elements down to five And I think you in consultation with staff have picked the five critical of the four critical elements Plus the question about certification, which to me makes a lot of sense Um, it's amazing how when you frame something it sends a signal when you call something speculative That sounds bad when you call it a pilot that sounds good To me the whole point of a pilot is that you don't have Information and what you're trying to do is work in partnership with the trade to see what information is useful to us And what information they are prepared to Supply and the costs that they face in supplying it the one thing that I do have to reflect on with respect to certificates And the e-filing of certificates it just seems to be inevitable that that is the world of the future We're just moving into digital so quickly So that even if you didn't want to have to Do a certificate for a refrigerator door you have to do one And it's probably going to be a lot easier to do it electronically so in a certain sense the market may just answer that for us and It it's not going to be that Critical or that necessary to take that extra step of making it mandatory But it does seem to me that this is a very very thoughtful proposal I know how hard the chairman and his staff have worked on this And I know that you have consulted with me and with all the other commissioners And I think what you've come up with is a really excellent proposal. I'm delighted to support it Thank you. Commissioner other commissioner Robinson Thank you This e-filing of certificates whether we determine It's just something that's going to be a part of the future and this comment by commissioner moharovic That it's bad enough that we have to certify Given the strong comments he makes about how much we must follow what congress tells us to do This is something congress has told us to do and the certificates are the only conditions of entry that this agency has For making sure that imported products under our jurisdiction are safe and meet this country's safety requirements And given the fact that four out of five of our recalls are imported products It emphasizes how critically important this is Um, it's my understanding that this amendment that you've proposed chairman k For the purposes of this alpha pilot is one in which we are going to concentrate for the moment On just the data elements most directly related to targeting and enforcement as a way to make it easier for Stakeholders to participate and to enable testing of the proposed systems test the plumbing as they say This makes sense to me It's a first step the contours of this alpha pilot do not Not lock any of us into the ultimate form of e-filing that we may take And after hearing cbp and trades concerns I'm very comfortable that limiting the data elements to those five that you and your staff have identified and worked So hard on is something that I can support I very much look forward to seeing the results of this alpha study and then going from there for the next stages of What the cpsc will require Thank you commissioner robbins and commissioner berkel. Thank you, mr. Chair I unfortunately don't share the same enthusiasm as my colleagues Because I don't think that this amendment does address the concerns that the stakeholders have indicated to us They still don't have access to this information And so anytime we talk about delinking or disengaging the targeting from the 1110 I think that's somewhat disingenuous because the information we're asking for requires that we get to the certificate The only place the lab information is available is the certificate So we haven't done anything we've not delinked those two processes and that's one of my big concerns I'm not opposed to e-filing of the 1110 certificate. I think commissioner eddlers absolutely correct. That is the wave of the future electronic Information is Is the wave of the future? I don't know what else to say about it, but let's do it incrementally We we stopped rulemaking because there were so many concerns about accessing the information about inability to do it. So let's start right now and my understanding is that the manufacturer id and the product id is available without going to the certificate in To the broker at the port. That's what I've been told. That's what I believe it's and it would avoid the certificate issue that's truly delinking the the targeting from the From the e-filing in the 1110 Commissioner Robinson said let's get the plumbing plumbing right. I agree with that Let's make sure that the single window the pga message says that that's all working and we can do that most efficient most effectively And I do think that that's really the primary Intent of the of the whole pilot is to make sure that plumbing works So make sure the pga message set and the single window that that mechanism works and the way to do that I think is With fewer fields and the two fields that will not require us getting to the The certificate information so unfortunately as much as I Like I would like to support the chairman's amendment. I cannot support it at this time Thank you commissioner berkel and I hope when you called it somewhat disingenuous you were not saying I was being disingenuous as opposed to how you were interpreting it Of course not it's I to say it's we're delinking targeting and the 1110 rule in the certificate issue is I think that's commissioner mohorovic Any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. Are there any amendments to the amendment? Yes, mr. Chair. I have an amendment if you can please proceed Thank you. I believe that nancy has passed out the amendment to everyone you have it in front of you and Um, it is something with staff has been discussing Prior to today's hearing um, and as I have alluded to my amendment would truly delink targeting enhancement from electronic filing of certificates It would create a much simpler straightforward pilot by keeping the two most important targeting factors identified by the staff namely the manufacturer id and the product id And deleting any other unsupporting target factors that would drive unnecessary premature changes in private sector import systems and both Data fields would be available upon entry without access to the certificate As was identified earlier the manufacturer id is by far the most important important factor from the identification of the foreign Manufacturer. This is no secret. We've heard this from staff over and over again It was a central feature of the 1110 proposal Which sought to add this element to the list of required information Contained in every certificate under my amendment and I want to make sure that this is clear Uh participants in the alpha pilot would be required to include in the pga message set An identification of the manufacturer if that information is not in the mid data field up in the 3461 form That is filed through When product is being brought into this country with cbp And so if if we've heard if that is the shipper information then it would be incumbent in the pg message set to include the manufacturer id Staff has asked for granularity on the product identification and again As this cave had mentioned there we could use the upc code the g10 There's many opportunities for us to give some granularity So it's not just a toy, but we know exactly what kind of a toy it is So those are my two amendments i think that um And i've already expressed my concern with the chairman's amendment that the three additional types of information Require that access to the certificate In short i think that um In terms of a pilot and figuring out whether or not our plumbing works And we can even transfer this information that that's a prudent way to start I continue to say incrementalism. Let's go slowly. Let's make sure we know what we're doing Let's make sure we can handle the data that comes to this agency Let's do this cautiously and carefully and let's just include two data sets as we proceed with the pilot Thank you commissioner berkel. Is there a second for commissioner berkel's amendment to the amendment? Second having heard a second will now proceed to questions and discussions And i'll begin and as i ask any questions i will uh yield to the commissioner for responses, please So the first area and i do want to note by the way i'll write off the bat how The opposite of disingenuous i think you've been on this and how genuine you've been we've had a lot of discussions on it It goes back to you mentioned our first hearing on the hill together It was just the two of us and how important we both felt it was that we represent the agency in a way that is purely on the merits of the policymaking civil have the discussion be at a Detailed level but in a you know like i said in a civil way and in a way that is purely on the merits And that has meant a lot to me. We've had a lot of private discussions on the merits We've had testimony now three times on the hill on these issues And even if we're not in the same place from my policy perspective I've really valued that and i think it's been good for the commission as well And so that the spirit of my questions are in or that my questions are in that spirit of trying to have that type of engagement And you've mentioned that the two pieces of information you're looking for you believe are currently available We heard earlier from staff that they disagree with that assessment Are you able to share what your sources of information are? And maybe staff can look at those sources as to why you have a different impression that that information that you're seeking is currently available I Don't want to put staff in the middle of it, but it's been staff that's indicated that to me That those both of those data sets would be available without accessing the certificate information And I like you believe that they are the pros at this they understand this most Clearly and most and and so that's That was the genesis of this whole amendment in that we're going to truly separate targeting and 1110 And the two pieces of information that are available to the broker at the time of entry Would be those two and without having to access the certificate And if it turned out to be what staff said today that they are not aware of any Information source other than the certificate, but there might be beyond what companies have Does that change your view of the amendment meaning your concern all along from my perspective? And I get I totally get it is that you want to avoid the companies having to Create a new data link and ship information from the certificate side. Everything should be Already available if it turns out that to get just the two data elements that you've asked for Companies would still have to link up their systems. Does that change your view of asking for these two versus any others? I don't believe it would But I I don't want to put staff in the middle of our disagreement on policy. I don't think that's fair Because I think asking for the lab values that staff hasn't made the case that that's critical They're saying and I won't use the word speculative for commissioner adlers purposes. I'll say We just don't know if it has value and my position is we could find that information out at least nominally somewhere else without Here's my concern with what we're asking the stakeholders to do to build a system So that that information can now Be available to the broker number one. I think it's going to slow things down If to try to access that information to try to when you get to the lab data as we all know You've seen one product the number of tests the number of detail that goes with it Which would mean the number of certificates It would be an inordinate amount of work and I think it would cause delay so that With regards to the lab information, that's one of my It's just difficult and it would require accessing the The certificate Okay, thank you and on the testing of the plumbing Does it make a difference if staff feels that part of the Testing of the plumbing is to is for companies to figure out ways since they're going to have to do the single window anyway And they're going to have to electronically file How they have to and customs has been certifying a whole number of software developers for the Exact purpose of making software developers available for companies to use So there's going to have to be and there already is going on in an internal it investment at these companies To be able to pipe in this data Through their brokers or to their brokers If The only way staff believes that we can test the plumbing is to go beyond those two data elements that you've identified To get an accurate read and feel like this pilot was not a A waste of money basically would that change your mind if we if they felt two was not enough to really test the plumbing but The information i have is that two would be sufficient to know whether or not those pg message sets and that information could go through the single window It's you know the mechanism That that would work that would be sufficient to to know whether or not the plumbing works Okay, thank you for answering those questions commissioner adler Thank you, mr. Chairman, and i did want to commend commissioner burkle for approaching this with a very thoughtful and Reasonable proposal it's not one that i necessarily agree with but i always am delighted with the spirit with which you Work with me and work with the rest of the commission So i guess my question and i'm just going to think out loud partly This is an entirely voluntary Program nobody has to enroll in this unless they want to And so it seems to be one of the most useful things about having people enroll in it Is to say to them here are the data elements you're submitting Would you please tell us the degree of inconvenience that you're facing? Would you please give us very cold hard blunt feedback? And so i guess my question is would you not want to hear from them about the burdens that they face as volunteers in Participating in this program. I'm just curious if you have thought that through and if you have a reaction Will the commissioner yield? Oh, absolutely. I'm sorry it's ongoing yield I didn't realize we had to yield during q&a, but i delighted to yield It it is voluntary, but my concern is On one level is that only the big guys can afford to dabble in technology development Not knowing fully whether or not that's the system that's going to be required because we've all here agreed that Eventually we want to go to e-filing of of certificates So that's a different scenario than getting that lab information And so for the mid-size and the smaller guys that really kind of disenfranchises them And that's one of my concerns is that we are only the only ones who can afford to do this Are the big guys and and I don't think any of us want that Well, I you know again, that's a premise that may be accurate. I don't know if it is but it would see it certainly be my Sense that we would try as best we could to get some mid-size and some some Smaller participants to join in this but I guess the other thought is that If the big guys are having serious cost Issues that is a real red flag to us that we've asked for too much and we're pursuing too much I guess the other question is you were always trying to balance the burden on the industry versus the benefit to the public Not to the commission the benefit to the public And I guess the question and you've sort of answered it, but I want to ask it bluntly Do you believe the two data elements that you're offering are going to provide as much useful information to targeting non-compliance to Protect the public as the five that chairman k has offered Thank you for your question and I do believe it will because the lab information Other than the staff not making the case That it is and it's not it's just that we don't know and so But beyond that there's the golden sample issue with labs There's the fact that a manufacturer may create a product send it to the lab for testing and apparently And I know commissioner morovic is the expert on labs And I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but um if we send a product off to the lab manufacturer does and That testing sample could be fine in the meantime the manufacturer gets sloppy and he's cranking out stuff and shipping stuff to the That that's not fine, but that's not the fault of the lab and neither is the golden sample the fault of the lab and so It's it is speculative it is there is a questionable value as to What kind of information we can glean from the lab records and and that's part of my concern Yeah, I guess I'd look at it in a completely different perspective because there is the potential for the golden sample issue That's why we want to have this more expensive data set so we can pin down where the problem Arises, but again, I thank you for your amendment. I appreciate it. Thank you Mr. Robinson Thank you commissioner berkel for this thoughtful Proposed amendment and I do confess that I totally understand where you're coming from But I do confess it in my discussions that my understanding was Different in terms of whether we already get this information whether it's being produced It's some my understanding is that sometimes we get it and sometimes we don't So I guess I I'm going to switch the focus more to what the ultimate goal is and you have commented Many times and a couple times today that you foresee that Going forward that there will come a time when we will have electronic filing of certificates of compliance I I you did say that I think we all agree I think was were your words, but I'm not sure commissioner more heroic given his comments agrees with that But I'm just curious as to why you Individually think that that's the route that we're going to be following well I think technology and and electronic filing is is the wave of the future the question is When will we get there? Quite frankly will we get there and in the meantime? We're having the pilot participants develop this program here that may be And my understanding is the information would be quality insurance and that from a company with that information would come to the port I'm not sure what the mechanism is, but it's a completely different mechanism Then one would be required if we move to the 1110 certificates. So We're asking and here's a couple of Additional points number one. We heard miss cave testify that it's going to be expensive It is going to be an investment to participate in this pilot and again It disenfranchises the mid and the smaller guys But beyond that we If I were a stakeholder and I had participated in all these meetings and I had said to this agency Please we can't access that information. Don't go down that road. Try to figure out a different way at least for now In terms of targeting and we proceeded with the five fields And we were talking about in the chairman's amendment I'd say gee if I participate in this pilot, are they going to listen to the opportunity that I have for input? Or are my concerns or the cost or are they going to forge ahead? And and I think that's a real concern because have we listened to the stakeholders have we is this amendment That the chairman's amendment is that responsive to all of the concerns I mean, they've invested thousands of hours in all of the co-asses our staff Hundreds and hundreds of hours in the co-act meetings in the bi-act meetings in our our workshop And The question I think we have to ask herself is have we been responsive to their concerns and I would argue We've not been we've not we're still challenging them and giving asking them to access data. That's not there at the port And just if I do I have a minute two minutes. Okay Just as a follow-up just going back out to the macro for the moment Philosophically are we we know congresses told us that in certain instances as a condition of entry of imported products They are to have certificates that they comply with our safety requirements Philosophically do you believe that products are more likely to be compliant given the fact that these certificates are required? Of course, I mean accountability always, you know, I think that would indicate it compliance, but I'm not saying For now For right now in this pilot we would ask for those two data fields And of course the certificate would have to be available upon inquiry And so that piece of it would remain the same as it is right now We would have the right to and demand a certificate Especially in the case where we seize the product or we Or certainly if it's violative so your point is just to move more incrementally exactly exactly right. Thank you. Thank you Thank you commissioner robbins and commissioner mohovic any questions for commissioner berkel Uh, I don't have any direct questions for for commissioner berkel But I very much appreciate the amendment and I would like to make some comments on it Uh, I think commissioner robinson put it very well in identifying that one of the goals of the pilot as well Is to test the plumbing, you know, whether or not this the cpsc pga message set Can be operationalized and that's certainly a goal as identified in commissioner berkel's element another goal is to Identify and ascertain the potential utility of different data elements that we might request from pilot participants in advance of importation Such that they might further inform better targeting We've talked about how we listen to The regulated stakeholders and I think we have somewhat and I think mr. Chairman your amendment does also reflect Listening and hearing and incorporating to a great degree, but fairly enough not completely We've got a retail industry represented in the audience and they've been very generous with their participation both from nrf and rila in rila's statement Their third point that they submitted to the to the cpsc was to suggest That the industry and co-act working group is repeatedly requested cpsc to limit the number of data fields Required to be e fine to only those that Limited number of data fields necessary to enhance cpsc import risk assessment Methodology and further identified some of the proposed original data set elements that they feel would and they put in bold adds No value to cpsc import risk assessment mr. Chairman They've give some examples the name and address of the person maintaining testing records Certification that an that an item is exempt From from testing and also an attestation of compliance and if we look at those individually Some of those have been eliminated by our amendment I would believe that the attestation of compliance is likely the fifth element that we're looking for in the pga message set A check box indicating that a required certificate currently exists So I think we have we have listened listened your amendment down from the 10 elements to the five you've identified Does eliminate some of those but probably not all uh commissioner berkel's amendment would take those five down to two and That's why we're piloting I think it's been mentioned from other commissioners that Part of the purpose and the great reason why we're running a pilot is to test the utility of different data elements To the extent that they better inform targeting and also to understand as commissioner adler pointed out The incremental cost of this different data elements I firmly believe that some of the data elements that are more relevant for the customs brokers and freight forwarders in terms of the identification of the manufacturer the address Those that you've identified commissioner berkel and your amendment are more readily available than some of the other data elements that You've pointed out commissioner berkel can only be found from a certificate and that might be a A tougher bridge to cross But i'm i am also optimistic because staff has testified that In the evaluation of this pilot We'll be testing the utility and the effectiveness and we'll know clearly empirically what data elements Supported targeting and what did not and I think that's also the part of having a pilot I share commissioner berkel Your skepticism in looking at the differential between some of the elements that commissioner That excuse me chairman k's amendment Suggest in the pilot versus the two that you've refined that down to I share some of that skepticism But I also am curious To find out what that would potentially yield and I recognize that I don't have the full confidence And the and the assurity that those three elements wouldn't better inform targeting and i've been surprised in the past And perhaps this pilot might give the opportunity for more surprise that it would have better utility In terms of an incremental approach I think what i'm reminded in terms of an incremental approach is that incremental approaches do have opportunity costs And if the process for the cpsc and evaluating data elements were to run a pilot and test two elements And then run another pilot and test two elements and then three elements We could be moving years down the road and as we do that The american consumer is failing to achieve the benefits from better targeting Because we still haven't implemented a thing yet. We've still been testing and testing So opera while I don't want to move, you know head first Into something without A competent and effective test I do think that the opportunity costs of prolonging the testing will Will reduce the potential benefits moving forward. So for that reason I won't support the amendment commissioner berkel Because I do feel that if these Three additional data elements that chairman k has identified and you are suggesting that we remove from the pilot If they proved to have no utility I believe that the pilot will render them definitively Unuseful and that I would suggest that the commission would be smart to not incorporate that into a future rule. Thank you, mr Chairman thank you commissioner rojova keering no further questions of commissioner berkel on her amendment to the amendment will Now turn to discussion on the amendment to the amendment Uh, I want to address a couple of things that came up during the round of questions And for commissioner berkel and commissioner adler on the topic of who will participate in the pilot Obviously, we can't say specifically who will participate. That's the point of the federal register notice, but A number of months ago I did direct or at least request that the small business ombudsman that he and his office engage with our Imports or valence team and start attending some of these meetings in particular working with the external engagement committee That is part of the bick The border interagency executive council and making sure that From a small business perspective, not only the concerns of small businesses were being communicated throughout this process But just as importantly That our small business ombudsman and his staff could start to recruit and talk to potential candidates to be in the pilot They've had a lot of discussions again I can't say for certain that somebody will join the pilot But there certainly has been a strong effort to try to make sure that there is across the board engagement Because I know what staff wants is a representative sample Of the industry. We don't and we do not want to end up highlighting something They do not want to end up highlighting something That only represents a portion of the industry and is not reliable in terms of making judgments going forward The other area that commissioner mohova commented on as well as a responsiveness is the responsiveness to the trade And commissioner berkeley your point was that your concern that trade will feel that we were not responsive with my amendment And that your amendment is more responsive One I would be disappointed and commissioner mohova got thought that an excellent job of pointing out some of the comments that we've gotten And I thought from his reading of those comments it actually demonstrated how responsive we have been Two I would think anybody who's approaching this from the trade in good faith And i'm hoping that's everybody who's approaching it from the trade is doing it in good faith That they will see how much movement that truly is and as I mentioned earlier the core question that I heard over and over again was What do you really need and why do you need it? It was not Give us the bare minimum and whether or not it affects targeting We're not going to do it and make sure everything is about our costs It was we understand we're going to have to incur costs We just want to make sure it's useful for the for where we're trying to go Just please convince us that you've thought this through You've winnowed it down and you can justify asking this of us and then we will be in a much more positive state That may not guarantee success But I think my amendment reflects that process and I would be disappointed if folks from the outside who engage with us Again who were engaging in good faith did not see that as a genuine effort Beyond that unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to support your amendment despite again. I think it's a thoughtful proposal I think it's a fair proposal I thought that between what the other commissioners said that probably sums it all up in that I don't think we're going to get access to the information that we truly need I don't think that it will avoid the issue of systems having to cross I think I think I take a face value what staff said today that they believe that Even if we went just to the two data elements that are proposed in your amendment It still would require having to go into systems that are probably where the certificates are housed or more on the quality control And quality assurance side So I I'm not even sure that as well intentioned as it is that your amendment would avoid the costs that you're trying to avoid And then I share definitely commissioner moherovic's approach That at some point if we move too slow We will not only harm ourselves and harm our agency from a fiscal perspective We will more importantly harm the public that the whole point of this effort is to better target non-compliant products And at some point we need to be part of that larger united states government Effort to do that and if we delink so far from what the rest of the partner government agencies are doing Especially when we've been identified as one of the critical 14 I'm concerned with that means for consumer safety and I don't think as a public policy matter that that's ultimately a good thing commissioner adler Thank you very much and again, I really want to express my appreciation to commissioner berkel for such a thoughtful proposal and for such a thoughtful response to questions and comments And I guess it goes back to points that have been made Up to now it's not it seems to me that the information that you're Suggesting we approach is necessary But as miss cave said it's not sufficient to really enable the agency in a meaningful fashion to target non-compliance And going back to the statistic that commissioner robinson cited So much of the problem that this commission has found and so many of the reasons why we had the consumer product safety improvement act Past was because of problems with imports So this has got to be an area where we really focus concern and we Keep in mind commissioner moho rovick's point about Opportunity costs but commissioner moho rovick made another point that I want to reiterate and that is to say If we explore this if we find that the information is not useful in helping us target non-compliance Then that's not useful to us and that doesn't protect the public and I would be delighted To winnow the the data elements down further or to modify the data elements to other things that Get past us that turn out to be extremely valuable pieces of information And I guess the the final point I would make is to Know what the chairman said is that In for a penny in for a pound it may be even the two data elements that you've suggested are going to impose Whatever significant costs companies face But this is a new world and we all have to face it and it is the world of e-filing And I think this is a very thoughtful and measured step forward But the commissioner yields for a moment just so I can address one point you made I do think it's important to note the commission has talked a number of times about evaluating all these data elements and this particular pilot I think in terms of tempering expectations and staff can vigorously nod or shake its head if the disagrees I don't believe this pilot is primarily intended to reach concluded conclusive Findings on each data element I think it's intended to begin that evaluation and that the beta pilot is probably a place to even get Further down that road. I just don't want at the end of the alpha pilot For the commission to be waiting with baited breath on every single data element because I don't think staff has ever intended for that to be the case Thank you for yielding. Uh, no, and thank you for Helping clarify the point and I will not wait with baited breath. I will continue breathing. Thank you. Thank you commissioner Robinson I have absolutely no question that the ultimate goal of all five of us is that we better monitor our ports for products that do not meet our safety standards I cannot support this amendment because I because I think commissioner berkel that this is too Smallest step forward particularly since it as I understand it. It's going to require Importers to actually get into systems that they would have to get in for the five elements versus the two elements And to build a second system to get the added three wouldn't seem to make any sense I think we very much listened to industry and that's why Taking this down to five elements that are aimed Specifically at targeting is something that makes sense and ultimately what i'm doing is going with the recommendation of staff Which I who I think no What not think I know know way more about this than I do and that is that these are the elements that they think they need In order to help us do our jobs Commissioner marverovic commissioner berkel Thank you, and I thank all of my colleagues for their thoughtful comments and their Discussion on this matter just a couple of points commissioner marverovic talked about one of the real recommendations and I guess I would You know, we've got a lot of recommendations that are contrary to this To the the chairman's amendment But what the co-act recommended is that the alpha pilot should be limited to the data that cpsc is currently authorized to collect With a focus on streamlining the flow of critical information that cps needs for risk assessment So, you know, there's a lot of recommendations into cherry pick is is I think always difficult I do want to say something about Opportunity costs and that is when we ask companies to engage in I have to use the word a Speculative pilot where we're going to assess the value of it That is money and that is an investment that takes money away from rnd Takes money away from compliance within a company and affects Can affect safe safer products and so I think that's something that has always got to be mindful of There's only a certain pot of money and when we're taking money to come to develop a technology that doesn't exist now That that money has to come from somewhere and it could possibly come from compliance into our rnd In regards to with regards to the timeliness and moving this forward quickly this pilot The npr for 1110 came out two years ago And I know carol ms. Cave has been extremely frustrated in her whole thing has moved this thing forward Let's move this thing forward and I share in her frustration and I know there is a sense of urgency And all I'm saying for the purposes of my amendment is let's do it incrementally. Let's not impose in additional burdens on on the participants of the pilot and Back to the the Talking about and I'm delighted to hear with regards to the small small business on Budsman But the investment the expenditure that will take I think will discourage mid and small businesses And last but not least the people who are involved in the pilot Have to be compliant and so I do question the value of The entire pilot in terms of the people who are going to participate and volunteer are going to not be the scoff laws They're going to be the people who bring compliant product into this country And so at this juncture, I think really what we're looking to Pilot and to investigate is that the plumbing works not necessarily The value of the data Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Birkel. Are there any more comments on the amendment? Hearing none and I'll call the vote The vote is on the Amendment by commissioner burkle to my amendment commissioner adler. How do you vote? No commissioner robinson no commissioner burkle commissioner moho rovick no And I vote no and those are four in the eyes of one the amendment does not prevail Are there any more amendments to my amendment chairman? I have an amendment that begs a second Please go ahead if you can explain it first commissioner and then I'll ask for the second Thank you, mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman in plain english my amendment humbly Amends your substitute amendment in the following way by expanding the solicitation Of product categories beyond Those that your amendment identifies in the regulated product arena Specifically hairdryers extension cords and seasonal outdoor lighting The purpose of this amendment is To try to Stop the misperception that import targeting in our efforts will be constrained by The activity of certification those products that are subject to certification But to move beyond that Mr. Chairman I I recognize completely that your amendment as written does not provide that restriction Your amendment the language the legal authorities To quote that section of the of your amendment It identifies very specifically that we have authority outside of certification and potentially e-filing To be able to require additional data elements, but I think that expanding the solicitation beyond regulated products would be able to To be able to give a clear indication to the public That potentially what we'll be looking at moving forward is beyond the regulated Product community and it may not be that the agency will be looking for additional data elements for every regulated product You've heard different You know contrary opinions represented here on whether or not, you know, totally filing is Is something that should be required or shouldn't be required I think that might be a subject for a different rulemaking a different policy before the agency But what i'm afraid that in its current written form, Mr. Chairman that your amendment will contribute to that misperception So I ask for your support and the support of my colleagues to expand this list To those three product categories identified such that we can be able to Break that paradigm that many feel is the case With regards to the the products that we're interested for evolved import targeting with that I'll stand for any questions Do I hear a second on the amendment to the amendment second having heard a second We'll now turn to questions from the commissioners. I have none commissioner adler Um, first of all, I want to thank commissioner moho rovick for sharing this amendment I think it's an extremely thoughtful one And maybe just to pick up on the points as you were making Could you explain why you think it's so important to have our focus with respect to imports go beyond strictly regulated products to include Potential defects associated with unregulated products Thank you commissioner and and and thank you commissioner adler for continuing to press the agency and our staff to be focusing on defective products um My vision for an evolved and more sophisticated import targeting program is one that is risk based is one that is Uh defined in where burdens might be additional there in the product categories that the cpsc fields Are creating That that create greater harm to the american consumer that we want to identify not categorically just by regulated or unregulated There are those subject to a cpsc cpc or those subject to a gcc But to look in instead individually by product category So this would give a clear indication that that is the intention Of the agency to move beyond the regulated product arena Thank you very much for that. Uh, I will have some comments, but I'll have no further questions commissioner Robinson any questions from commissioner rovick Thank you commissioner rovick. Um, one of the things that we've all emphasized in our discussion today is how important It's been that we get the input of stakeholders and I was just wondering if you or your staff has had an opportunity to speak um with stakeholders with respect to how they View expanding this beyond regulated products to 15 j which i'm a firm supporter of incident Thank you commissioner. Um in terms of Conversations my staff and I myself have spent time um not directly participating but observing in the co-ac uh in the co-ac activities and um speaking to co-ac members as well and one of the the feedback that informed this amendment Commissioner is the fact that what I've found from the trade is that they keep wanting to focus back in on What is it that you're really looking for? You know, I think that the that we've been we've gotten off focus By looking through the paradigm of certificates and mandatory e-filing and what data elements might be relevant for a certificate And how they might be better informed targeting and the trade is has pulled back and said what is it that you're really looking to do Are you're looking to better identify? Violative products unsafe products because we are in agreement and want to help you engage in that fashion So in doing so, um, I don't think that the that the trade necessarily felt that the universe should only be among regulated products But since the commission is making formal moves in that direction I think it can contribute to that what might be a misperception. I hope that answers the question It does. Thank you. And I guess just again going back out to the macro for the ultimate goal here Given some of your comments today I would like to know philosophically if You agree on those products that congress has told us that we need to have tested and there need to be certificates of compliance Before we'll allow them into this country Whether you believe that it is more likely that those products will be More likely to be compliant if in fact they're required to have these certificates Commissioner Robinson, I do agree that that would be an important data element that if one were asked Before importation whether or not or they were required to submit a certificate Prior that that would yield a higher compliance rate But yet if that becomes the dynamic with which all import targeting Is limited to then therefore I think that we're That we're not going to be able to take the risk based approach that I'd like to see the agency move And while I've you've you've mentioned that the three product categories and and perhaps I was remiss for not identifying them as 15 j product categories I also would like to see that where risk identifies product categories outside of 15 j that perhaps the future Rulemaking where we're requiring additional data at importation Also moves beyond potentially regulated products or beyond the 15 j product categories and with those goals that you have in mind Are you envisioning as it seems the other four of us are that they ultimately? We will have electronic filing of certificates of compliance Mr. Robinson, I think that we may have electronic filing The question is whether or not we're going to require that Electronic filing at that time sensitive point at importation at entry or at entry summary, which creates a great deal of Of difficulty for the trade to be able to manage that because of the time constraints So I would not like to see a situation where everything subject to certification requirements Is provided through e filing at entry or at entry summary, but currently we're We're requiring certificates upon request and if that can be done electronically Without creating Therefore to be able to bypass a paper process. That's something that I could very much be in favor of Given the fact that this is our only requirement of importers bringing products into our country that congress has told us That need to be compliant with our safety standards. I think we disagree on that, but we can discuss it further later. Thanks Commissioner burkle I have no questions. Just comment Thank you. Uh, hearing no further questions for commissioner moho rovick will now turn to discussion of his amendment Commissioner moho rovick. Thank you for this clarifying amendment to my amendment As you state in stated in your opening description of the amendment You're correct. My intention with my amendment was to move beyond the paradigm of thinking only in terms of Certificates, but to consider other authorities With the goal in mind that Products that were within our jurisdiction that are not subject to certification requirements currently would certainly be in that scope I think you Your amendment not only does a better job than I did of clarifying that but also takes the next step Of including the first category, which is the products that are subject to the provisions of 15 j of the consumer product safety act And working with staff on that knowing that this is something that they can accommodate was important to me So that this pilot would go forward and it would be productive So I very much appreciate the collaboration that our offices have engaged and I know there was a lot of back and forth and I think it's a good example of having the chance just having an open dialogue having the the Conditions existed the commission where you can feel comfortable and your office can feel comfortable coming to my office And saying are you open-minded about changing your language to try to achieve something that is And in agreement in furtherance of what I'd like to achieve too So I just wanted to thank you for that and I plan to support your amendment commissioner adler I want to echo what the chairman said. I can't tell you how much I appreciate your willingness to come by and Collaborate and discuss with me this proposal that when you first floated I thought it was a wonderful idea. I was envious that that wasn't my idea because I think it is such it captures such an important element of imports and Which leads me and I'm just going to digress for a second I know that miss cave and mr. Jiholsky worry a lot about The issue of defective products coming and you've got serious constraints in trying to broaden the Scope of work that The import division does but it does seem maybe this is such a critical issue that I myself would love to see The commission have a briefing perhaps jointly from import and compliance talking about A vision for the future for how we can expand the scope of Investigation of imported products coming into this country because we know at least Domestically that a lot of the issues that we're finding Are the more serious ones are turning out to be product defects, which tells us that our rules are being Complied with which I think is a very good thing But that that's a conversation for a different day, but I do think this is a really thoughtful An excellent amendment and I want to commend you for advancing. I certainly intend to support it Commissioner Robinson I echo my fellow commissioners comments in terms of you coming by to discuss this I really appreciate it and it's a very thoughtful amendment I'm a as I said a firm supporter of 15j and I hope that our staff is continuing to identify products That we should be putting under that rule and that being the case I think the pilot's the perfect place to include these products to help inform the application of data transfers between trade the cpsc And cbp as well as provide the cpsc with additional data sets on these 15j products And I will support this amendment Thank you. Commissioner more commissioner berkel Thank you, mr. Chair and Unfortunately, I will not be supporting this amendment for a couple of reasons actually several reasons Number one, we've had engaged really And staff can attest to this Numerous occasions about these issues since march preparing for the hill hearings And this issue was not brought up once by staff And so if we're relying on the expertise of the staff and the needs of the staff Then I would guess it would have been brought up or discussed Number two, we have been for two years discussing 1110 and e-filing and nowhere in that Was there anything beyond the scope of regulated products now at the 11th hour? We bring out we're now we're going to include 15j. That's not that's not fair to the stakeholders number three The talking about evolving to risk base Changing how we look at products coming into this country. We're looking at defects now that where we should This is a public policy issue It is a much bigger issue than what we're talking about here today It is a debate and a discussion that should have occurred Should occur I should say at a different time in a different place I think it's beyond the scope of what we're talking about here today And lastly my colleague commissioner morahovic mentioned to commissioner robinson the worst public policy and I think that when you Expand the scope of the products that are going to be included in this as well as you expand the authority of the government I think that's bad public policy. Those are very important discussions to be had You can't just do it in an amendment to Um to this proposal and so I will unfortunately not being able to be able to support this amendment Thank you commissioner berkel commissioner morovic First of all, I'd like to start with with thank yous and apologies To first the staff For taking the time to consider this amendment. I realized that it was provided in very very short notice I want to thank my staff for their hard work Bryce dustman and mike gentine and putting this amendment together in very short order But I appreciate the time that staff and that goes also for all of the commissioners Um, I apologize for the short for the short time frame But I appreciate very much the attention that you and to all of your staff Contributed to the collaboration of this amendment. It certainly is in a form not with that we provided it in but it again chairman It identifies and it is a testament and an example of moving Beyond collegiality to collaboration and for that you have my sincere. Thanks, and I also do want to Thank commissioner berkel my colleague for pointing out There's some language that I used earlier that I think in hindsight commissioner robinson with apologies Was a little bit intemperate and and in expressing e filing of certificate as being the worst public policy And hindsight I think that was the kind of language that's unnecessary And with that, I hope you'll you'll accept my apologies for for using that while I still disagree with it That's certainly not in the spirit of the of the experience that I've shared with my colleagues over the last year With that mr. Chairman. I have nothing further on the the merits of the amendment Thank you commissioner rojovic. I do want to pick up where commissioner berkel was in terms of the 11th hour and That was actually my primary concern and commissioner mohrabic knows that that we had engaged and my office had engaged in these good faith meetings over and over again with the trade and this had never come up and I think where I ended up was that For those in the trade who have focused on us Comfortable that as they step back and look at the big picture And they see if commissioner mohrabic's amendment is adopted in my amendment if it is adopted We'll see that how far we've come And that this is really just a toe in the water outside of the products that are subject to our certification but I would understand if there is a little bit of Confusion or questioning as to why it came up at this hour. I don't think there was anything intentional about it I think it was just as commissioner mohrabic looked at my amendment and thought about how he it could be improved This was an area that came to mind and he raised it with us as quickly as possible And so I admit to some of that hesitation I hope it's received by the trade community as intended Which is really not a very big step at all and that again It's voluntary if it turns out that we have folks who are not going to sign up Under those lines. I would imagine it I don't think we're going to force anybody or ask anybody or make anybody do it And so if there is some hesitation on trades part who are subject to the 15 j requirements Then they will choose not to participate, but I appreciate commissioner berkel mentioning that commissioner addler You basically made the point I was going to make and which is that if People who otherwise were going to participate suddenly are discouraged because of these 15 j the 15 j amendment They don't have to participate So this really will not in as far as I'm concerned burden the trade more than it otherwise might My sense my understanding is that you did talk to staff about this And at least the message I got back from staff was that staff is very very enthusiastic about this amendment and thinks it's a good one And so I I think this You know, we'd all love to have our brilliant ideas hit us earlier on But I think it's a brilliant idea and I'm glad you raised it in enough time for us to consider it and devote on it Commissioner robinson Nothing further commissioner berkel just one additional point and that is Earlier the staff miss caveman Had testified that it will be up to the participants to choose their hts code It in the in this pilot and so I guess my question Would be or one of the issues I see before us as if no one chooses to participate with the 15 j I'm not sure what the point of this amendment is Commissioner more over Thank you, miss chairman I think you know the point of the amendment would be a clear indication and it I don't think it's been that clear That the cpsc's intention with regards to import surveillance is not restrained to regulated products I think the close observers of cpsc policy will recognize that limiting More sophisticated efforts at our ports only in the regulated product community will limit The kind of benefits that we can achieve for the american consumer and it's not to say that we shouldn't be identifying and targeting Regulated products, perhaps we should but I brought up some examples that perhaps A risk-based approach would not deem it Valuable or comparatively valuable to target certain product categories So I think there's this been this underlying feeling that well We would never just assume targeting and evolve targeting would be limited to the regulated product classes So I wanted to make clear that that's not that's the agency's direction And maybe i'm making clear in this amendment that that's not the direction that I think The commission should take that we should only be imposing potentially additional cost to better identify relatively More dangerous and relatively more unsafe products to just the regulated product class I'd also like to bring up with this amendment the fact that Perhaps from the regulated product community. We should not be asking for additional Data and elements at importation. That's a that's a decision for a later date But that's the point of this amendment as well is to provide a clear indication of where the agency may be going moving forward While to date it's been it's been constrained by The vehicle of e-filing of certificates. Thank you, mr. Chairman Thank you, commissioner morovic. Is there any further discussion on the amendment to the amendment? Hearing none. We'll now turn to vote I call the vote on the amendment to the amendment by commissioner morova commissioner addler. How do you vote? I commissioner robinson. I commissioner berkel Commissioner morovic I And I vote I the eyes are for the naser one the amendment to the amendment is agreed to Are there any further amendments to the amendment? Hearing none we'll turn again to any final discussion on the amendment to the amendment as amended I'm sorry to the amendment as amended. I do want to say especially commissioner addler There will be chance for a closing statement. So we need not give it right now Is there any for anybody can if he really wants to as he always does Is there any further discussion on the amendment as amended commissioner addler? Commit one little faux pas and you're you're never it's never forgotten. No commissioner robinson. No commissioner berkel. No commissioner morovic Hearing none. I now call the vote on my amendment as amended by commissioner morovic's amendment commissioner addler How do you vote? I commissioner robinson. Hi commissioner morovic I commissioner berkel No, and I vote I the eyes are for The naser is one the amendment as amended has been adopted We're now going to move to final passage and to Publish in the federal register Is there any comment before on final passage and publishing in the federal register commissioner addler? No commissioner robinson No, commissioner berkel. No commissioner morovic Hearing none. I'll call the vote on it. I move to approve my substitute amendment as amended by commissioner morovic's amendment electronic filing of targeting enforcement data Announcement of a pga message set test and requirements for participation and to publish the same in the federal register Commissioner addler. How do you vote? I Commissioner robinson. Hi commissioner berkel. No commissioner morovic. I and I vote I the eyes are for the nases one The underlying package has been approved and approved for publication in the federal register I will now turn to closing statements as always commissioners will have 10 minutes I'm going to begin and I'm going to make it brief because I think we've covered The areas that need to be covered at least from my perspective First and foremost, I do want to thank Ms. Cave mr. jahulski and your staffs and all of the staffs the agency who have worked on this area This has been a lot of work probably more than you anticipated when we thought about doing a pilot and thought That we would do what the other agencies are doing and try to be Violeting these systems. I also want to thank miss jacklyn cambell who is on detail from EXHR to my office and has been working so diligently on this as well as My chief of staff and chief counsel jenna funk swamadas who engaged in the shuttle diplomacy with jacklyn With miss cambell going back and forth to all the offices I start or I I go back to where I started The entire purpose of all this is for the united states government To have better information so that the decisions that are made at the ports Are allowing compliant trade to move through more quickly and focusing on non-compliant trade in my mind That is the primary public policy objective of everything that we are trying to do and everything that is Being worked on with our other 46 partner government agencies This pilot is a critical step in that. We do want to test the plumbing. We do want to make sure that at the end of next year When the ace system is turned on for good or it's the only system and everything else is turned off And electronic filing is finally here that this will work And the whole point of this pilot is to test assumptions Test some thought processes. That's that's why there is a pilot and I Throughout the entire process have deferred to staff on those areas Where they felt like in their best professional technical judgment As frontline law enforcement officers guarding our nation's ports to try to prevent Hazardous and non-compliant products from coming in. This is their best judgment as to what is really necessary In terms of targeting and enforcement and working with my office in trying to also be responsive to trade Finding that right balance. And so I think staff has struck that right balance I think that we've expanded the authorities to allow us the flexibility as I mentioned the beginning to move in the directions that We see fit working with the trade I expect this to continue to be a very collaborative process with the trade For those folks who participated in the office in the meetings with my office from the co-act working group And might be listening now or might watch later or hear about this. I hope you see how responsively been I hope you feel as you should from my perspective that we listened we struck that right balance of Giving you the highest priority to targeting data elements, but also Finding that balance in a way that allows us to continue to move forward with that larger public policy goal Of focusing on non-compliant products So i'm looking forward to this conversation and dialogue continuing I will continue to be engaged as the staff and the trade feel that my office needs to be engaged to help with that dialogue And i'm looking now. I have to admit i'm candidly looking for a positive response from the trade Recognizing all the work that the staff and the commission has put in and i'm hoping that we will see a robust Level of interest in this pilot from all different sectors so that we can make this work for everybody. Thank you commissioner adler um I want to again thank uh, miss cave and mr. jaholski for the incredible hours you've put in on this and for your Tremendous patience in explaining these concepts to me over and over again until they finally sink in But i also have to add my thanks to my own personal staff gen fineberg and sarah client because Even after you left and i would sit there scratching my head. They would once again patiently And sweetly explain a lot of the concepts and the acronyms and that that's made it a huge difference I just i don't want to repeat all of the chairman's eloquent comments about this I think i want to associate myself completely with what he's just said But i do want to for those who are observers of the commission Note that something significant has occurred and is occurring and it's what i call the three c's There's just been a high degree of civility A willingness to compromise and a dedication to collaborate among the commissioners That is a tremendous thing and it really has made this commission A special place especially as we look at the sea of turbulence It's going on in washington these days And i really want to thank my fellow commissioners for making this such a delightful Conversation and such a meaningful contribution to public safety Thank you commissioner other commissioner robinson one of the first trips i took as a commissioner was to our port in uh, Los angeles long beach and then i met with CBP import people when i was in guangzhou in hong kong and i could spend some moments which i won't Lamenting the resources that our fellow agency the fda has at these different ports So i will just stick with the positive When i met with the cpsc and the cbp personnel in in long beach I spent the entire visit just incredibly impressed and and it's seeing is how These two agencies work together at that critically important Port in making sure that americans are safe from potentially dangerous and hazardous products It's clear that the teamwork and the positive relationships between cbp and cpsc It's import and field staff have made a significant impact on the work being done by both agencies We see the benefits of this relationship every day here at the cpsc from our import surveillance teams work in bethazda and rockville Our field and support staff Located across the country at various ports and the work that cpsc Staff is doing all the time with industry shareholders at the cbp coac and bick meetings And we all want to get this right. That's clear I'm very proud of the work we've done here today as i mentioned earlier We all know that four out of five of our recalled products are imports and the import surveillance Enforcement and compliance are so critically important to our work of protecting the americans consumers from unsafe products Um, I also must again thank my staff Heather bramble bow as green and doddie lee for the amazing effort that they put into all of this and it was not easy To make me understand some of the things that they were really in the weeds on But I think we got there and I just want to thank them for their hard work on this and again think Miss cave and mr. Jehulski for being so patient with with me My mr. My staff was much was much better than I was in understanding this This alpha pilot is the first small step on our journey to ensuring efficient and effective targeting compliance and enforcement For all of our imported products those requiring certificates of compliance and those not requiring those This first small incremental step is to set up electronic filing of key data elements Through the single window in conjunction with cbp to enhance cpsc's targeting and risk assessment methodology To identify dangerous and potentially dangerous products and to create a fully operational data registry Which will inform future Versions of this pilot as a result of this experience and the resulting data analysis I fully support the staff's original recommendation as I mentioned earlier that we require electronic filing of certificates of compliance But because as I said those certificates are the only conditions of entry for those products that we are assigned the task Of making sure are safe for american consumers, but since receiving the original package. I have certainly very Carefully considered chairman case and commissioner more hero vicks amendments and my staff and I have had lengthy conversations with their staffs and With others and and the import staff and ultimately I voted for both of these amendments I would like to say that although I remain convinced that ultimately will need To have cost effective means to electronically file the certificates of compliance prior to entry I still believe this pilot's a necessary small first step The industry and trade community's participation in this pilot However, is absolutely imperative for us to do this work Participants in the pilot will have an opportunity to help shape future electronic filing initiatives And as early adopters will be well positioned when electronic filing is eventually fully implemented And I would just say to industry as as uh, commissioner moharovic would say those of you at home Given how we listened and responded to you We hope that this will be reciprocated and that you will participate in this pilot And fully cooperate with us in trying to get this right in monitoring our ports. Thank you commissioner berkel Thank you, mr. Chair I too want to reiterate My sincere thanks to Miss cave mr. Jehulski for being just such invaluable resources and help to us Over the last several months and as I was pointed out earlier in the hearing other Departments and directorates within the agency have also been extremely helpful in helping us to understand this issue And so I want to just extend my sincere thanks to all of you for your efforts To get us up to speed both for the hearings and for today's hearing Well, some say that the commission compromised. I don't think it has Claiming that reducing the number of fields from 10 to 5 Is engagement and compromise? I feel and again We pride ourselves in collegiality, but I must be frank here this morning I don't feel it's compromised and I don't feel I I believe it really is An insult to the stakeholders who have over and over and expressed to us that they don't have access to that data at the time of entry and We're proceeding in a manner that still requires them to access The certificate information so it doesn't solve the central problem that has really put this rulemaking That began in 13 2013 on hold. It doesn't solve that That problem when we as I mentioned before I came to cpsc the commission issued the npr On 1110 and it did require the electronic filing as a result of an overwhelmingly negative response There wasn't one positive response to this initiative We suspended rulemaking and to the credit of this agency and to the credit of the of the current chairman Who understood we need to start engaging and and I will say and I said it before and commissioner adler agreed with me We probably are not on the same page as a meetings policy, but I say that The staff has been truly hampered and just really a disadvantaged because of the meeting policy And they were their engagement and their level engagement was certainly compromised as a result of that But I think the meetings policy is an issue for another day Um, given that import surveillance is such a complex issue and that the government in general does not have the best track record when it comes to technology efforts I sought to approach this problem incrementally and I will beat that drum for a long time Throughout our countless meetings staff advised me over and over again They're the most important goal of the pilot program was targeting And with that in mind I worked with staff to determine that we could separate out targeting from The 1110 and the e-filing of the certificates that was a really a tremendous breakthrough because that meant we could Disengage delink whatever language you want to use targeting from 1110 There's a strong consensus among staff We heard it over and over again that the two pieces of information namely the manufacturer id and the product id Are of particular value when it comes to targeting both sets of information are often if not always available To the import broker from commercial documents By contrast as I've discussed ad nauseam such test lab Identification would rarely be available to the brokers unless they can get access to that certificate So the scenario that we've tried to avoid for two years is going to come to fruition Another concern I have with all of this is that for two years we've been telling and I Pointed this out earlier for two years. We've been telling the stakeholders that we're stuck here with these Seven statutory data fields and then the three once we identified that you could pull those Two pieces apart as was mentioned. We have a more discretion with the data fields I'm afraid that the proposal today the amendment that passed does not address and does not really I think Efficiently and effectively decoupled delink targeting from the e-certificate Um The majority of the fields that are in this amendment Are unsupported targeting factors that would drive unnecessary premature changes in the private sector import As I see it and unfortunately I'm frustrated by this as I see it these five data fields take us right back to The original proposal because now it is going to be necessary to Um Access that certificate at the time of entry I don't want the cpsc to become a tone deaf agency The government is famous for that. We want to listen. We want to engage and we want our engagement not to be passive We want our engagement to be Active where we truly listen to the stakeholders and that is my concern with this Amendment that's my concern as we go forward has our pilot really been responsive to all of the concerns That we've heard One can only imagine and I alluded to this because we know the resources and the time that staff has invested in this But we can only imagine what? Um was invested in terms of time and resources By the other stakeholders Thousands of hours resources that could have been invested in rnd and the creation of safer products You know in the private sector time is money and all of the engagement Which they willingly participated in hoping that we could have a good outcome Cost money, and I think we always have to be Aware of that and and beyond that I guess I want to apologize to the taxpayers because We spend their money And then when we cause increased costs with the manufacturers those consumer product prices go up as well And so they get to pay twice And I think we should always be aware when we're proceeding with rulemaking With a pilot with any initiatives that the taxpayers are responsible and pay for our efforts And I want to be sure that this pilot is meaningful that it's effective That it gets us the information that we need I think primarily with regards to making sure we have the mechanism and that has has been discussed the plumbing works so I think that our staff today has been put in a difficult position All they have ever wanted to do is to advance this and to get this going I think they've been frustrated by a number of things and for that I apologize and uh again my sincere thanks to everyone who Made this hearing happen today Lastly, I do want to say one point because I think it is important and that is the The introduction of commissioner morrow hovicks amendment. I think that this is not the time to talk about public policy Expanding the scope of what we Do risk assessment on and and I just think this was not the time public policy is an important discussion How this agency moves and in what direction really should be um I would say it's a different time and place for that discussion With that, I thank the chairman and yield Thank you commissioner, um berkel commissioner moho rovick Thank you, mr. Chairman first. I'd like to thank Miss cave mr. Jehulski. You are Stars among a constellation of stars truly at the cpsc And thank you for your patience Thank you for Your consideration in the long hours you've spent especially personally and in consideration of of my amendment And I'd also like to pay again special thanks to our general counsel who Significantly provided what I would consider a milestone moment a few weeks ago and in helping prompt the commission to think beyond What the chairman's amendment has identified in terms of the Legal authority with which the cpsc may require additional data points at entry I'd also like to thank the chairman For the spirit of collaboration that you've fostered throughout this entire effort And that goes especially to all of the commissioners assistance as well for their consideration of the of the two amendments that were before the agency three And the last minute nature of all that it creates incredible time pressures to keep up with all of that And I'd also like to recognize my colleague commissioner berkel for For raising for contributing to the public interest in a very very significant way While I didn't support your amendment I think you've properly raised awareness and consideration as to The incremental benefit and utility of data elements that as you recognize data elements are costs borne by the agency But because of the debate that we had on that subject I think the the informed public as well as the commission will be Evaluating data elements moving forward in a very empirical fashion I do share your skepticism in terms of the utility But I also have confidence that our staff is going to Go forward with a pilot in the kind of fashion that will be thinking in advance of how the effectiveness of individual Data elements the costs as well as the yield Will be will be considered in this as well as what the chairman has mentioned and alluded to in a beta project I'd also like to thank my friend and colleague commissioner adler You are my friend in the conscious of this agency and I think you very eloquently identified the three C's before the agency and These are behavioral norms that I support and appreciate and recognize that I've even strayed from that today. So again commissioner robinson. I hope you'll Accept my apology for that And my final my final remark an apology will be to the affordable care act and In light of obama care It's ludicrous for me to say that electronic filing of certificates is the worst public policy Conceivable. So with that, thank you very much, mr. Chairman Thank you to my commissioners my fellow commissioners. Thank you to the staff Thanks for those who participated in person or who watched on the web This concludes this public meeting of the united states consumer product safety commission