 6 B, it is the law and through this proceeding, I hope to get input from stakeholders about how to best work within the law to maximize consumer protection and education efforts. We have several staff members present in the event. There are questions in the opening round with us are. Uh, Austin Schlich, general counsel, most I am sure assistant general counsel, Amy Colvin attorney Alberta mills, CPS, secretary and Jason, the executive director. We'll begin with questions for the staff. There are any commissioner will have 5 minutes for questions after questions are complete. I would like to skew staff and move to consideration of the drafts up. And I'll notice a proposed rulemaking to update 6, uh, 16 CFR part 1, 1, 0, 1. Again, I remind everyone that it's perfectly appropriate to voice for personal opinions on legal issues. It's not appropriate to discuss in public session, a legal advice given to us by the office of general counsel legal advice must remain confidential. So, at this point in time, I'm going to turn to see if there are questions for the staff. I don't have any questions, um, commissioner Feldman. I don't have any questions. I'd love to thank our general counsel and miss Colvin for the work in the presentations leading up to this. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner Trump. I have none and commissioner Boyle. I don't have any questions either. Thank you, Mr. share having heard no questions, staff and skews to move to listening mode. And we will begin consideration of the package that's before us before putting the matter as proposed by staff to vote. I will now entertain any motions from commissioners to amend the proposal. I myself don't have any amendments going in order seniority to ensure Feldman. Do you have any amendments? Thank you. Mr chairman today, I am offering an amendment that that would add 2 additional questions for for public comment. Should we move to the amendment before I begin discussion? So, I would ask you to describe remember for up to 3 minutes and then a conclusion I'll ask for a second. And then go to round the question from the members. So recognize you can describe it for 3 minutes. Happy to do so. So public input is a critical part of our decision making process. And traditionally, it's been the practice of the commission to allow commissioners to offer individual questions for comment so that we can create a robust record on which to proceed. Specifically, I'm seeking public comment on how the commission should evaluate sources, the sources of information. That it would make available under the proposed rule. We have an obligation to ensure that the information that we're sharing is accurate, not misleading. At the same time, the proposed rule could put the commission in a position of making determinations about the credibility, reliability and integrity of individual outlets or stories or authors. So, I'm seeking comment on the best practices to do that. The proposed rule that the SNPR that's in front of us today would would also allow the commission some additional flexibility to publish information from safer products dot gov. I'm seeking under this amendment public comment on whether we could go even further about releasing this information periodically, for example, on a weekly or monthly basis. I'm curious whether periodic or routine sharing of safer products dot gov information could be a more neutral way to disseminate this information. And at the same time, provide the commission an opportunity to be even more transparent with the American public about the data that we've collected under this website. I'd be happy to answer any questions from my colleagues about the amendment. And if there aren't on I'd request that the chair proceed to a vote. Thank you, commissioner. Is there a second to the amendment? I will second it and second it will not consider move to consideration commissioners felt felons amendments commissioners will ask any questions or make comments with respect to each amendment. And then we can come back to you commissioner felon at the end for a final comments each commission will have 5 minutes per round and you have multiple rounds necessary. So, let me start and say, you know, I want to thank my colleague commissioner felon for engaging on this item. Um, the supplemental notice is an opportunity to hear from stakeholders on any and all issues related to the proposed rule. And as such, I'm generally supportive of efforts to tee up issues or comment. I appreciate you working with an amendment to oppose them in an open manner. And I look forward to reviewing the responses that we receive. Commissioner, can you have questions or comments? I don't thank you commissioner boiled to questions or comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have any questions, but I will say that I definitely appreciate commissioner filaments effort to prompt comments on the few specific issues. But in general, I do prefer to keep the broadest scope possible for the issues that we consider. I'm looking forward to receiving robust and comprehensive comments on all the issues before us. And I am concerned that adding the specific questions will. Unintentionally limit the comments we receive on all the issues before us. And so, as I say, I appreciate the effort and I know commissioner felon has set forth the issues he's concerned about. And I expect commenters will comment on those issues and I look forward to those and all the other comments that we receive. And but for those reasons, I don't want to unintentionally limit the breath of the comments we might receive. And so, I'll have to oppose the amendment. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner commissioner felon. Did you have any final thoughts? I don't having heard no further questions comments on commissioner felons amendments will move to vote on the amendments. Uh, commissioner felon. How do you vote? I vote yes, Mr. Trumka. How do you vote? No, commissioner boil. How do you vote? I vote no. And I vote yes, so the yeses are 2, the noes are 2, the amendment commissioner felon is not adopted. Um, did you have any other amendments? I don't Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Commissioner Trump. Do you have any amendments? No, thank you. Mission boil. Do you have any amendments? No, I don't. Thanks. Hearing no additional amendments, I move to approve the staff's draft. Supplemental notice of proposed rule making and to direct publication the same in the federal register. Is there a second? I second. Thank you. Um, we have a second. We can move to a vote commissioner felon. And how do you vote? I vote yes. Mr. Trumka, how do you vote? No, Mr. Boil. How do you vote? I vote yes. And I vote yes as well. So the yeses are 3 and the nose are 1, the motion to approve the staff's draft supplemental notice of proposed rule making to updates 16 CFR part 1, 1, 1, 1 passes. The notice of proposed rule making has been approved and shall be published in the federal register. This point time, we're going to move to 10 minutes per commissioner for any closing remarks. I'm going to start myself with just a few comments. I think today the is taken a big step towards improving our rules implementing section 6 B and this is long overdue. We really should put consumers first in all the work we do, including the learning the public to hazardous products so that consumers can make informed decisions through this process. I hope to align our rules with the statutory limitations. The CPSC and update our rules to be consistent with the current practices in the world. We are now living in I strongly urge the public to comment on this proposal. I want to thank my fellow commissioners for the support and look forward to reviewing everyone's comments that we receive. By taking reasonable steps to prioritize safety interests of American people or protect corporations. The commission satisfies mandate to protect the public against unreasonable risks of death injury caused by dangerous products. That I'm going to turn to my fellow commissioners commissioner Feldman. Do you have a statement? I do, Mr chairman. Thank you. And I want to again offer my thanks to agency staff and in particular, our office of general counsel for all the work that went into today's decisional. Despite the narrative that section 6 B of our statute is a quote, unquote gag order. It just isn't I do believe that this section and our regulations governing public disclosure of agency information. I have been misinterpreted and misapplied over the year section 6 B allows CPSC to share information with American consumers in a manner that's fair and accurate and timely. It's not a gag order nor does it require CPSC to receive permission from a company before sharing critical safety information. In fact, CPSC routinely shares information over a company's objections. These are called unilaterals and the commission frequently issues them. Mr chairman, I have 2 articles that I'd like to share with my colleagues. The 1st is by a gentleman named Matthew Cohen, an attorney who notes that the commission has been recently incredibly active in publishing unilateral pressure leases since May of. 2022, the commission's issued at least 7 of these unilaterals. I'd also like to read from an op ed from our former assistant general counsel and the former head of our office of compliance. Alan Schoen, Mr Schoen writes that 6 B isn't a gag order and that CPSC has all the necessary tools to overcome concerns about 6 B's limits on the release of public information to address a product that presents a risk. Of to the public of health and safety, he writes that it's in debt is it's quote disingenuous. On the part of the critics of section 6 B to claim that 6 B prevents the commission from acting quickly to warn the public about a product hazard. Mr chairman, I'd like to request consent that that we enter these 2 articles into the record today. We're considering additional flexibility under our statute to share even more with American consumers are public information. Sharing must provide consumers with timely actionable information about safety. And at the same time, our processes must ensure accuracy and fairness to preserve credibility and protect safety. So it's my hope that a final rule here strikes the appropriate balance between these 2 objectives. And while I do have some concerns about the rule as proposed, I'm voting today to publish the SNPR so we can receive public comment and create a record that's going to inform our next steps. Mr chairman colleagues. Thank you very much. I have no further comments. Thank you, commissioner, commissioner Trump. Do you have a statement? Thank you. We work for the American consumer. When we know about a dangerous product, we should be able to warn them. I think every American deserves that they deserve the opportunity to protect themselves and to keep their families safe. Congress put up a giant hurdle to transparency when they saddled us with the gag room. Is anti consumer and it was wrong, but this agency also willingly raised the hurdle even higher for itself starting in 1983 when it passed a regulation tacking on additional burdens that impeded us from informing consumers things well and well above and beyond the gag. Because I believe the consumers should be armed with information so they can protect themselves. I view our duty is very clear. We need to strip away all burdens to information sharing that are not clearly imposed by law. That's what I expected this SNPR to do and I'm disappointed that it doesn't voted. No, because I don't support the direction this proposal takes. It fails to advance consumer protection and it fails to improve our ability to communicate important safety information to the public as rapidly and completely as the statute allows. It doesn't live up to the pro consumer transparency approach that I think it needs to almost a decade ago in 2014. This agency published an NPR that while very modest. Was good on just 1 thing it had clear language allowing the commission to comment on information that was already public. And let's be clear the gag rule applies to disclosures and information that's already public cannot by definition be a disclosure. Now the agency walks backwards from the decade old NPR. Today's proposed SNPR ads ambiguous language that could impose new constraints on our ability to characterize accurate and already public information. The proposal would open new doors for outside interest to try to censor our speech and hide safety information from consumers. I find that wholly unacceptable. This proposal also fails to provide meaningful examples of how we could use our full authority to quickly warn the public of danger. Once any notification will manufacture and waiting around for comment is not practicable. Our statute anticipates that we will warn the public immediately when risks are serious enough and imminent enough connecting public health and safety to the concept of practicality. But our 1983 regulations narrowed that exclusion and this proposal leaves the old system largely intact. To protect the public, we must be able to communicate candidly about risks. And while the gag rule places serious constraints on CPSC, the statute itself allows many exclusions where we just willing to embrace them. My grave is concerned with this SNPR is that it fails to allow a crack of daylight to pass to our biggest statutory exclusion. A unanimous Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Brankwist clarified in 1980 that the purpose of corporate pre clearance under the gag rule is to protect manufacturers reputations from our disclosure of sensitive private information. That we gather under our vast statutory information gathering powers information we come across in different ways. For example, information we generate through our own research on products or information that we gather from public sources. Was never intended to go through the gag rule and the elaborate corporate censorship process. This SNPR would read an entire clause out of the statute. It avoids giving substance to the main exclusion under 6 B. Be subject to the statute. The information must be obtained under the information gathering powers of the act. Or be disclosed to the public in connection with that information specifically obtained under the information gathering powers of the act. On balance this SNPR missed an opportunity rather than open critical safety information to the sunlight. This SNPR would draw a new maze through the darkness. I can't think of any practical examples where this proposal will allow us to share new important information with the public or increase the speed at which we share it. It's amazed to know where hear the role of consumer commenters though becomes very important. I expect you to urge us to correct the shortfalls of this SNPR to tell us how we can best get you as much information as the law allows. When you do that, I'm confident that our final rule will take a significantly different approach. And at the final rule stage, we really need to think about how we can get the most information to consumers as quickly as possible. Where the gag rule stops us, so be it. There's no room for us to stop ourselves from doing the right thing. The old consumers more than that. I hope the commission can reach the consensus with consumer commenters on an approach that protects consumers to the maximum extent allowed under the statute. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank staff from for the work they put into this package. Thank you for all of your hard work with more than a dozen years of service at CPSC under my belt. I can say I'm very familiar with the role that section 6 B plays in the agency's work. And to that end, I certainly can vouch for how hard staff works to meet both the spirit and the letter of the law in terms of not publicly disclosing information protected by statute. And I know that will continue to be the case going forward regardless of any changes the commission makes to the regulation. As the agency looks to align our rules with the statutes language and purpose, though, I do hope we don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Our mission is to protect consumers providing consumers with the information they need to avoid harm and make informed choices should be the overarching goal. Not only for CPSC, but also for those who make and sell consumer products. So, it's in that vein that as the commission takes a fresh look at it, 6 B regulations, I call on industry also to take a fresh look at their responsibility to provide the public timely and actionable information about potentially dangerous products. Section 6 may allow companies to keep certain information confidential by am asking them to consider a different question. Should they be disclosing information that can help consumers avoid harm, even if the law allows them not to do so for me, the answer is, of course, yes. What counts is our common commitment to safety and surely that should take precedence over parsing the requirements of section 6 B meaningful reform beyond what this NPR proposes will require statutory changes. But in the meantime, I look forward to receiving comments on the proposal and invite consumers in particular to make your voices heard. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you again to all the commissioners for engaging and thanks to the staff, especially general counsel's office for the work on this item. And with that, this concludes today's decisional meeting of the consumer product safety commission.