 Good morning, and welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission We have one item on the agenda this morning CPSC staff will brief the commission on the FY 2018 mid-year review and proposed operating plan adjustments After staff's presentation is completed pursuant to our decision-making procedures The commissioners will be recognized in order of seniority to ask questions for staff responses Each commissioner will have up to ten minutes for questions and staff responses, and we will go multiple rounds if needed The CPSC staff here this morning who will assist us in the briefing are miss Patricia Adkins our executive director Mr. Dwayne Ray deputy executive executive director for safety operations Ms. Monica summit deputy executive director for operation support and mr. Jay Hoffman the director of our office of financial management Good morning, and thank you to all of you for being here and to everyone behind the scenes who worked on this package and who have Done many pre-briefings in order to prepare for this briefing We will now begin with the staff briefing miss Edkins if you would like to go ahead, please. Thank you Good morning to the commission As far as the briefing on using the PowerPoint Monica summit is going to do the overview and then Jay Hoffman will follow up with the recommendations. So Monica Good morning. Thank you, Patricia. Good morning madam chair and commissioners as an update or an overview of the mid-year process the Commission approved the fiscal year 2018 operating plan in October 23rd 2017 Which was premised with the finance with the fiscal year budget that was presented to the president that year Since then the agency has operated under six continuing resolutions Through March 23rd of this year Congress then enacted the full year appropriation on March 24 2018 of this year At the level of one hundred twenty six million dollars three million dollars more than the president's budget request the commission decision on the fiscal year 2018 mid-year review will amend the fiscal year 2018 operating plan as Part of the mid-year review process. There are three staff recommendations first recommendation from staff is to align the fiscal year 2018 operating plan with the fiscal year 2018 Appropriation level the second recommendation from staff is to Authorized authorized projects to fund from unexecuted balances if available and the final recommendation from staff is to update fiscal year 2018 mandatory standard activities voluntary standard activities and Select operating plan performance measures and milestones and now to Talk to in more detail on the recommendations the last J offman to do that. Okay. Very good. Thank you morning commissioners Okay, I'm gonna walk through some of these numbers just in detail The first recommendation as Monica mentioned is to align the FY 2018 operating plan with the enacted level from the appropriation As you recall the FY 2018 operating plan Was changed from the FY 2017 enacted level. We'd received a hundred and twenty six million dollars and 17 and had gone in with the request of a hundred and 18 Excuse me a hundred and twenty three million dollars Table one on your FY 2018 operating plan described the necessary changes They were there were two one was the elimination of funding for the VGV grant program and the second were a net set of unspecified reductions to our salarit expense account to a Lower target as well as to adjust for inflationary increases now the FY 2018 enacted appropriation level was actually a hundred and twenty six million dollars which was flat from FY 2017 and The appropriation did two things one it restored $1.1 million in VGV grant funding and also provided $1.9 million in unspecified salary and expense funds What we're proposing to do so this technically adjusts the table two in your operating plan to match those numbers the $1.9 million in unspecified Appropriations will be allocated per recommendation to and any pursuant commission action based on the mid-year decision Okay, so recommendation number two staff is coming forward asking the commission to authorize projects to fund from our Unexecuted balances should they be available our current unexecuted balance forecast is two point one million dollars These unexecuted balances generally consist of unspecified increases and appropriations, which I just described As well as variances in our operating execution such things as staffing differences or operating budgets That are executed slightly different than plan Staff is identified about five million dollars and currently unfunded projects and we've listed them in priority order for your consideration We've listed them in two tiers the first tier totals Approximately two point one million dollars, which is in within the Forecasted range and so highly probable that those projects would be funded between now and September 30th Tier two consists of projects that are outside of that two point one million dollar range And currently are are less likely to be funded by September 30th But these these balances tend to change over the summer and will obviously keep you apprised If the projects are approved they will be funded in priority order subject to availability of funds and procurement acquisition feasibility So here they are Tier one as I mentioned totals two point one million dollars the projects are exposure and risk data Portable generators furniture tip-overs gas appliances and play yard mattresses Tier two totaling approximately two point nine million dollars consists of the following projects lithium-ion batteries import surveillance evaluation of e-commerce requirements testing for coin cell battery packages infant and toddler strength measurement ATV occupant protection disposable fuel bottles additional ATV R&D and pooled drowning technology investigation via a proposed challenge.gov initiative Attachment one of your mid-year package that was provided in advance of this meeting provides a more detailed description of each of the proposed projects on this table recommendation number three is to update the fiscal year 2018 voluntary standard activities and mandatory standard activities as they appear in the FY 2018 operating plan Staff is proposing revisions to the voluntary standards activities that appear on pages six and seven Those changes would be the following to add electric fans and to add gas grills staff is proposing new work in these areas and to delete Methylene chloride as ATM is not pursuing this at this time Attachment two of the mid-year memo shows the revised FY 2018 voluntary standards table The revisions from the FY 2018 operating plan staff is all pro also proposing revisions to the mandatory standards work That appears on pages eight and nine of your FY 2018 operating plan. Those changes are as follows The first change is really just a technical adjustment for furniture Tipovers it's listed It used to be listed as an ampere to accurately reflect the current status basically just a calendar update The second is to add furnaces CO sensors as a DATR So staff is starting work in FY 2018 and this revision is actually consistent with the ANPR is Annotated in the FY 2019 president's budget request that was submitted to Congress on February 12 Attachment three of the mid-year memo shows the revised FY 2018 mandatory standards table Lastly recommendation number three is to update 11 performance measures and milestones that appear in the FY 2018 operating plan I won't go through each one, but they they're kind of categorized here Staff is proposing to adjust the target for for the performance measures to replace one measure We're deleting four measures, and then there's some clarifying Adjustments to how the measures are worded for for a couple So these changes are described in more detail in attachment for of your of your mid-year package So those conclude my remarks. I'm sure you have some questions. So we'll move to that Thank you very much at this point the Commission will begin their rounds of questions, and I will begin with the questioning I'd like to ask Mr. Hanway to come up to the table. I want to have a little conversation about Maybe not so little conversation about end cares When the the package first came up to me in my office the number one item on Interior one was this end cares exposure project And I'd like for you to talk to me and the Commission about what this project would provide the Commission with that We already don't have Your speaker. Yeah. Thank you. Okay From time to time CPSC finds it necessary to obtain information from consumers about the products that they have in use and Knowing that this is kind of a recurring need and perhaps even becoming an increasing need as we become More risk-based in terms of our decision-making We'd like to develop a process for obtaining the information as quickly and efficiently as possible And cares would allow us to select a set of Products and we would do that with the guidance of the Commission as to what our priorities ought to be and and Seek information about those from a nationally representative set of respondents So that we can understand Again, you know, how many people have certain products and how they're using them to help us better gauge The risks that they face Thank you very much. So the information we would glean from this and my understanding this is a long-term project This isn't a one-year Project, is that correct? Yeah, our Anticipation our desires that this is something that would become a continuous process almost like nice. However The question front of you doesn't require you to make that decision about as to the longevity of the study This would be just just to get it started and get an initial set of pilot data Thank you. And why would we be better served as an agency to? To begin this process now instead of waiting for a specific project or a specific rulemaking or voluntary standard Well, I think if we approach these each as individual events We lose some of the economies of scale and some of the timeliness That would be available to us if we Began to recognize that this is something that we may be asking for regularly So when you combine the recruiting efforts for multiple products even products that may be very different from one another a Lot of the cost is born in just reaching a representative set of Americans to get answers about what they use But once you've you've got that interview going the questions that you ask Can be varied in terms of what you do and that can allow you to do What is the equivalent of multiple studies within a single study? And so in that sense your kind of cost per product if you think of the studies in that way goes down Also, then there's the timeliness element because anytime you do a new study you go through the process of designing it of awarding a contract of Clearing things with OMB through the paperwork reduction act That adds an extra element of time in terms of how quickly you can get your answers on the back end So the idea is if you're anticipating this that you were kind of looking on the horizon of where you'll you'll want these kinds of data You can shorten the time frame from when you start asking the questions Or identify the products you want to ask about Starting to ask people those questions and then get it getting the data back to do analysis and to provide that data to the Commission Thank you very much. Those those are the questions I have for this round. Commissioner Adler Thank you very much. And again, I want to thank staff for What I think is an extremely readable and substantive and very useful document It's it's just a delight to read and it once again renews my incredible Respect and faith in our staff and if I might Steve I want to congratulate you for finally getting your SES designation I know it was a long slog and well well worth it. So congratulations to you so back to the questions that Chairman Burkle was asking and I guess as a starting point. It's not that I think it's necessarily a bad idea It's just where I think I would prioritize it I think a lot of it depends on the word we use to describe what we're doing and you use the word necessary I would use the word. It's nice. It would be nice to know I don't know that a lot of this data is essential to know if we are starting out with nice data and death Certificates and we've got good market surveys and we've got good industry data This then gets into the sort of thing where it it's extremely useful. It would be helpful It's just a question of choosing between some priorities and the others But that said, let me ask a couple questions and and by the way, thank you for coming by and briefing me on this You took care of a lot of my questions, but the one thing I or one of the couple things I forgot to ask is What's the useful life of this instrument? Is this something that we think the actual Instrument the template not each exposure study, but do you have any sense of the longevity of this? Is this a ten-year thing? Is this a forever thing? It could potentially be a forever thing if this became a common way that we examined exposure And if we commonly found that we had needs like these to keep going with it It's it's hard to look in the eyes and know what our budget will always be what our priorities will always be But certainly in our world we can certainly imagine this being a frequent and common component of what we do and So you've got two things you've got the template that we would use and I think that's a that's a terrific idea And then we've got each of the individual exposure studies that would Be addressed and I just off the top of your head. What's the useful life of an exposure study? Is it ten years? Is it five years? Or does it just vary dramatically from product to product? I think you're probably seeking some evidence of how frequent with things are changing with particular products Some probably change more rapidly than others. Yeah, so I would have our time placing a specific amount of time but you know the numbers you throw out might be plausible and This is a this is an expenditure of almost a million dollars And so obviously you said we were going to be hiring a contractor to do the work for us What specifically would the work be that the contractor is doing presumably will tell the contractor which Product areas to study. So is the main Funding to develop the template is the main funding to do the data Research or to do the data analysis. What what's that money being spent? Yeah, I would say the majority of the cost even in year one is is the data collection However in future years, I think a greater proportion becomes data collection because some of the other pieces The investment goes into the initial design and the initial clearance has already been born But I do anticipate even with it with a single-year authorization that we would be able to collect data that would allow us to make some National estimates about some products and one of the things we're always trying to decide between One approach or another approach is what do we spend the marginal dollar on and so Can you tell me if you can sort of pull this from your memory? Why would you spend the marginal dollar doing this which will be a recurring cost versus? improving nice in more hospitals more refined assessments, maybe more ide's Obviously these are two competing considerations Yeah, and in some ways you might be considering if you were spending more in epidemiology versus in other areas And so it's not so much I'm saying this ought to come at the expense of something else We're doing with data so much as I'm saying if we're if we're moving to being more data-driven that perhaps we're making greater Investments in this area, and this is one of the areas that we think would be useful Yeah, no that that makes perfect sense, and thank you again for an excellent presentation I'm always impressed what I'd like to do next is ask about the furniture tip-over project And so I guess my first question whoever is prepared to answer that is We've just gotten this a bunch of data from consumer reports they did this long article on furniture tip-over and I guess I would be curious what if any Intention do we have with respect to incorporating the studies done by consumer reports? Do we think that is information that's of high enough quality that we could take it into our Analysis and maybe save ourselves some work or is is you know, what would be the additional work beyond what? They've done that would that would be useful in doing this furniture tip-over project Well, I I think we would take a look at any data that we were given and reviewed So I think that's starting from there With regards to this specific study, you know, we had the we had the three different parts that are laid out here that we plan to use to Inform our work in both the voluntary standards and the mandatory standard that we're working towards and Let me be clear I think Gathering additional data doing additional testing especially engineering testing is an excellent thing I have to say I'm a bit skeptical about the need for focus groups to tell us something that I think we already know But I guess my question is how much of this is it a hundred and thirty five thousand? How much of this is dedicated to the focus group? How much of this is dedicated to doing the other especially the engineering study? It's around half around a half. Okay And then on the subject of focus groups I see that we are talking about doing Playyard mattress firm from this study and spending a hundred and ten thousand dollars on focus groups And I'll just ask the question. I don't know. I'm sure there's a disagreement, but first of all, isn't there enough academic literature on These issues so that we don't need a focus group and my follow-up question is Why can't we do focus group like this in-house? It doesn't seem to be a terribly complex challenge And I guess my third question would be Why can't we ask the folks at WPI to help us do the focus group? I'm sure they could do it for a lot less than a hundred and ten thousand dollars Those were three excellent questions That is that we did not put forward before the commission right now I think as far as the academic literature We were we relied on staff to put forward projects that they believed need to fill the gap They are aware of what is available or not and and so I think that from a starting point We felt like that was the least necessary. I think with regards to doing it ourselves there are some administrative costs and burdens on the collection of data and some limits that that We would have to follow with regards to that And I think the third question was going to a university that yeah, my my experience tells me we could go and give somebody a $10,000 grant and they could probably do some good focus group work for us And I just don't understand why we need to spend a hundred and ten thousand Hiring a contractor to do focus groups, but maybe there's something there. I'm missing well the the contract would not preclude University from bidding on on any such work So I think that would be our approach if that came out that way Okay, well, I certainly appreciate that and these are not easily answered questions But they're easily raised questions and I appreciate your your response. I guess my final question is with respect to the challenge gov approach for pool drownings And I think I asked this and I have to admit I just forgot what part of the $300,000 is going to be used as actual prize money if we go to challenge gov And is there a reason we came up with pools? Which is an important and critical need But we've got important and critical needs elsewhere that I would love to see some challenge money Set up for furniture tip over being the one that I raised in years past But if you could answer that I'd appreciate it. Sure. Good morning When it came to looking at challenge gov really the motivation was from the data Seeing how many hundreds of deaths we had with children drowning in pools every year a pretty specific hazard pattern of Child was in the house suddenly You know gets it gets out of the house Unobserved falls in the pool and is found, you know sometime later It's a specific hazard pattern that lends itself not easily to kind of what I would call our traditional approaches of go to the voluntary Standard, you know the usual tools we have in our toolbox and the idea behind specifically pools and challenge gov is How do we try and do something different to try and solve this problem? And how do we create the incentive for some technological solutions, which we know are probably in some sort of nascent form, you know Needs to be put together How do we create an incentive through crowdsourcing to get the public to really try and create what in our vision is a working Prototype of something that sits Detects and alarms of a child in or in you know that isn't near the pool or in the pool And so that was really the motivation for staff putting together this specific challenge gov on pool This is just trying to do something different to solve this incredibly difficult Intractable problem that is killing hundreds of children a year and where if we had even a small, you know 1% change You're talking about a whole number of lives saved and there's very few products that we do that on my times Expired, but I still would like to know how much of this is actually going to be prized money How much of the 300,000 sure so the way we've set this up 150k of it is research money looking at different sensor types and 150k of it would go towards the Contractor to set it up the prize money was not part of that 150k so zero on the actual prize money part Thank You Commissioner Robinson First of all, I want to thank all of you for the time you spent with me yesterday And I have absolutely no question that over the next two weeks I will have additional questions as we work our way through this process But it was very helpful to get answers to some of my preliminary questions yesterday I think it will come as a surprise to no one who's watched me over the last five years that I'm not someone who's going to favor general surveys and focus groups without a very specific purpose and need that has a direct relationship With protecting consumers from a specific danger such as we did with table saws and with ATVs table saws is a perfect example That I have trouble seeing how a general end-cares Program would help us with that. We just needed to know with people who actually suffered injuries what kind of saws they were using so I Am having a little trouble with this sort of general Surveys focus groups and giving out prizes We have such limited resources, but let me let me say first of all with respect to the Exposure and risk data analysis and mr. Hanway I want to thank you for our discussion yesterday, and I look forward to reading the Academic articles you told me that you would get to me to help me perhaps understand this better We certainly have a lot of data gaps in this agency, and I would you know I'm urging care facilities is the glaring low-hanging fruit that we're doing absolutely nothing to address our safer products Dot gov is In dire need of updating both with respect to reporting and making it something that consumers can actually use And as I told you yesterday mr. Hanway, I'm going to get you List of things for safer products that I'd like to see what kind of resources would be necessary in order to improve that It incredibly important website that's important both for us in getting information and to consumers in in getting more I Do have a question for you mr. Ray about portable generators That you've asked for additional money for this project with NIST to assess the NC The pgma standard and the ul standards that have just been passed Pgma has repeatedly represented in press releases to members of Congress and to a number of other people that Their standard does not require a reduction of CO and they've repeatedly represented that the CPSC has approved that they don't have to reduce CO and that their standards 99% effective if that's true Why do we need additional resources to study this further? Well, I would like to say we have not completed the evaluation of of that standard and then the requests that's before the Commission is to evaluate the ul-2201 which App was there was a change in the approach they were taken after we had gotten the contract in place So this additional money was to do additional testing related to that. We're ready related to the ul standard, okay? But we're still doing work on the pgma. That's correct. We have not completed our evaluation, okay? And at the priorities hearing pgma represented to us that they had given us data that Allegedly supports their representation. They're repeated public representations of the effectiveness of their standard Is that evaluation part of this request or are we doing that now? I hope? separate from this we were doing this evaluation independent of the work that they presented they did share that with with us, so okay? and Dr. Borlase I do have a question for you with respect to the tip-over request for $135,000 You know we we've watched over this last several years as we came up with a plan We were purchasing dressers. We found that a number of the dressers did not meet the voluntary standard I know that kids in danger and consumer reports has also analyzed dressers and and has has found that they did not meet the The voluntary standard as it exists now and I guess I would also add that my staff and I have been intimately involved in Watching because we can't do anything else but watch in terms of the voluntary standard Process because it looks like that's what we're going to get stuck with for the foreseeable future because we're not going to have a Mandatory standard so in watching that process I do as I'm reading this description, and I just want to make sure I understand I certainly have have been Incredibly frustrated as I'm I assume staff has been it as well at the roadblocks being thrown up By industry to keep the voluntary standard from becoming stricter even though by by all assessments of our staff and others It's inadequate What what is it that we're going to learn? Let's I'm going to do this backwards by buying more dressers What are we going to learn because we've already gone out? We've bought dressers. We found non-compliant product We started to recall them where and all of that got shut down Approximately a year ago, and we haven't I don't think we've been recalling any of the non-compliant product So why are we purchasing more dressers? so in proposing the Purchasing and the testing of the dressers. We have a couple goals in mind coming out of VXHR first goal is to get a better sense the This round of purchasing and testing is really to capture a wider Scope of the market when we did the testing back in 2016. We had a very focused Segment we were specifically looking for lighter dressers This is supposed to be our plan here is to have a more representative sample of the dressers that are out there looking, you know at number of different manufacturers types etc Another goal of this is to see Not just the current stability, but to test them to see how much weight for example that they could And hold under the current standard and then also evaluate as we're developing our performance requirements Under the NPR what type of based on those performance requirements? How many dressers would meet the current standard? How many dressers would meet a new proposed standard to help assess what the change in the market would be based on any proposed requirements, okay? Well, I will talk to you further about this over the next couple weeks But I have a real problem with why we want why we are concerned about dressers that are safe What we're concerned about are dressers that are not safe and I do know that these And it's hard to call them anything other than games that industry has been playing about you know The outstops which nobody nobody uses on a dresser drawer But in the last meeting they were discussing whether if we put things in the drawer whether they should be made of cotton Or silk. I mean they've just been throwing up all these roadblocks and as I understood you answered yesterday most of what you're asking for in this 135,000 is to address these so-called concerns that industries Raising as roadblocks to the voluntary standard being improved. Is that fair to say? It's not exclusively related to the voluntary standard all the request in here with the furniture tip over also is to inform The mandatory standard work that's been directed by the Commission so for the testing as I mentioned the questions that we're trying to answer There are questions We know we'll have to answer as part of the development of a proposed rule the other Questions related to the testing in the focus group are also born out of the technical work We're trying to do in the development of any possible Performance requirements. We're looking at tip over. We're looking at how children climb the furniture What's the status of the furniture when the children are climbing it for example loaded versus unloaded? So part of the question is are there performance requirements? We need to develop to reflect, you know the furniture when it in its condition when the children are climbing it And so the things that are in here that we're asking for specifically are requested to try and answer some of those questions Okay, as I say I'll talk to you further about this because I'm about to run out of time But when we got the ANPR all of these things that you're talking about that we're going to study further We're already we're already in the package So I'm not sure why we're spending years and years in in this process that doesn't seem to be going anywhere But we will talk further. Thanks very much. You're welcome Thank you Commissioner Kay. Thanks madam chair. Thanks to the staff for the package and for the Briefing and for answering the questions You've answered our questions to date and I don't have any more questions at this moment. Thank you Thank you Commissioner Kay. I do have a couple of questions and I think Okay, so we will go a second round for questions. Mr. Hanway. I'd like to call you back to the table if I could thank you Without putting you between Commissioner Adler and myself Commissioner Adler Referred to nice versus necessary and I want to kind of get your thoughts about this end-cares project and how necessary is it how Useful is it to this agency and I thought you raised a good point that I'd like you to elaborate a little bit on if we are going to Be a data-driven agency How would this assist us in that endeavor yeah, I think we're Frequently called upon to answer very specific questions some of those we have data at our disposal that can help us answer those questions Sometimes that's not available to us This is just an area that we we feel like we're frequently at a deficit to provide answers that would be useful and So so the idea is just to put ourselves in a position to be ready to answer those questions as they come before the Commission Thank you very much. Dr. Borlase if I could ask you to take the seat If you could and wouldn't mind would you talk to us a little bit about focus groups Why they are in why staff believes they have an important role in what we do and informing this agency Why they were put into the mid-year plan and I recognize that for focus groups They've shown up a couple times in each of the projects. I will say that as staff developed the projects It was project by project in terms of what questions we have and what we need that focus groups came in The reasons focus groups show up in a couple of these is because as we're working on these projects We're reaching a point where we have questions related to the consumer behavior and the consumer interaction with the product That we're trying to get answers to We went to focus groups because we have a specific set of questions that we're trying to answer we in a Shorter amount of time than say what you see in a national survey. So kind of to draw a distinction we're looking at You know a smaller group of people that we can get questions or answers from in a shorter amount of time But we still feel at the end there are these questions related to Consumers and interacting with the products and we felt the best way for those specific projects is to do focus groups And that's why we propose that to the Commission Thank you. Those are the questions I have for now Commissioner Adler I'm not about to put staff in the middle of an ongoing debate because some of the issues regarding this additional research are legal questions and So and that's something we need to sit down and talk to our attorneys about but I still Maintain that a lot of what I'm hearing discussed today is what I call fits into the realm of that'd be nifty to know that would be nice to know but I don't know that it's necessary to know and We are a data-driven agency, but we are not driven to the point of distraction By data in the sense that we can always do additional work And it would always be fun to do that and useful But then you do get into paralysis by analysis and every day that you're spend spending studying something May be a day that you're not actually protecting people and that's the ongoing Debate that we have and we're not going to resolve that now, but I appreciate Commissioner Burkle raising it as an issue And I guess one just last comment is that it is useful to know about consumer behavior, but The ongoing test of consumer behavior in many respects is the bottom line are people being injured Are they being killed if they're being injured and killed that may be what we need to know If you look at section 9 section 9 does not require a lot of this elaborate Consumer behavior study and you know, there's language there that you can interpret both ways, but my my basic Sense especially from having observed this agency over 40 years is that if you've got good injury data You've got good fatality data You've got good ID eyes and you've got good market data There isn't really a lot more that you need to know and again every day you're spending not Helping people and just studying it as a day that people are at risk that said I'd like to Ask a question about ATV's and I just Comment that back in the day when I left the Commission back in ought 84 We were immersed in doing ATV's and when I came back guess what we're still working on ATV's and nine years later We're still working on it's a very complex and important and dangerous product But my specific question has to do with the rollover protection devices And I see that staff is proposing that we do some very careful study of these rollover protection devices now My best memory tells me that when the folks from Australia came to us and talked about these rollover protection devices Staff was pretty skeptical about them And I guess my question is have we on the basis of additional data coming in from Australia? Australia decided that that really is something worth looking at and is does that hold out promise for reducing injuries? So I'm staffs aware of the work that Australia has been doing on the rollover protection and what we have in here is Not specifically driven just by the Australia data, but from the plan that we've had for the last couple years in terms of trying to evaluate ATV stability in executing that plan We've gone through Other and published the reports that we've done on the technical work with our contractor on ATV's and ATV rollovers and we're the point now to evaluate rollover protection systems And that's really why it's now in here at the mid-year. No, I think that's very useful I'll just say that when I first met the The Australian guys I got very excited about it I went running to staff and they said nah It won't work and there are a million reasons that they said not only would it not work But it might make them more dangerous and so I'm glad to see that we're actually looking at it I have no idea what the answer is, but I'm really delighted that staff is is focusing on that and those are the questions I have. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Robinson. I would just like to say that this this phrase of data-driven agency gets thrown around pretty loosely and pretty It's in a misleading way many times We have data tools here at the agency that are tried and true nice as an example safer products gov is an example They are in urgent urgent need of updating. There is absolutely nothing in this plan to use this Use it to find ways of improving these data tools that we know we have and instead what's being proposed is a brand new one That's sort of a general amorphous endcares a very a Nice name, but but there's there's no way in which this is going would in any way come close to what is needed in terms of updating safer products gov and improving the nice system including getting information which we are completely without 100% lacking any information from urgent care facilities which surveys and Have shown repeatedly is a place where people are going much more frequently than emergency departments now We have no data whatsoever, but instead the proposal is that we will Form a whole new amorphous creature that who knows how it's going to be used. I have nothing further Mr. K No more questions. Thank you Thank you I I'd like to just if I could piggyback on Commissioner Robinson's question and that is is this a new project this end-cures project while we've done exposure surveys in the past most recently with the nursery product exposure survey what's new about this is the attempt to try and you know create a a Process and be able to put together a couple of these and gain some efficiencies when we do the exposure surveys by doing a Number of exposure surveys at once that will save us money and then by having a pre-approved OMB process save us then time when we do them so doing exposure surveys is not new We have done them before at the agency what is new about this is trying to gain some Efficiencies and money and time by putting them together under what we're calling the end-cures program. Thank you I also want to just follow up on the ATV questions There are two projects in this mid-year proposed by staff The acumen protection to evaluate what's in the marketplace now and then the second one to develop and evaluate Proof of concept device So I'd like to have you speak a little bit about if there is a correct order in those projects What it would be what makes sense for this agency to do The way we've proposed it and prioritized it is the correct order to do it the first request which is under number 2.5 Is the request of what is currently out there 2.7 is based on the results of 2.5 So in order you have to do 2.5 before you can do 2.7 We have them both in there in that should the funding be available We could kind of forward fund 2.7 if you will but to be clear you have to do 2.5 first Thank you very much commissioner Adler No further questions again. Thank you for a really excellent presentation and an excellent document Commissioner Robinson just a follow-up question. Dr. Borlase. I've been here for five years and if I'm remembering correctly We've had one maybe two exposure surveys. We've done in that time. I know we're we're still doing right ATVs Was proposed and we didn't do it that had been previously proposed But we did not receive funding for it the Nash the durable nursery product exposure survey was probably the most recent one We've done. Okay, and can you tell me any other one you've done other than durable nursery products? That's the most recent one we've done when you say most recent though. That's the only one I recall in five years About correct. Yes Commissioner Kay nothing. Thanks So I think that that ends our rounds of question from the Commission having heard for no further questions I again want to thank staff for being here this morning and all again behind the scenes who played a role in developing this 2018 mid-year Plan I also want to thank Congress and the administration for working to provide this increased funding as a part of our FY 2018 omnibus bill it's because of those additional funds that we have additional funding available this year I'm grateful for what we received so we can fund these important safety products However, the Commission decides to move forward at this time We will conclude this public meaning of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, and I thank all of you