Welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission. Today, the commission will vote on the staff's proposal for mid-year amendments to our FY 22 operating plan, as well as adjustments to our ARPA spending plan for we start. I'd like to, excuse me, confirm that all my colleagues are in attendance. Commissioner Bianco. Here, Commissioner Feldman. Thank you. Mr. Trump, I'm here. Good morning. Good morning. Welcome everybody. The fiscal year 22 operating plan is adopted in September 2021 contemplating a significant increase in our appropriations consistent with the president's proposed budget. Unfortunately, that funding did not come through and we ended up with an appropriations funding level that is essentially flat from last year. I want to thank the staff for the work they put into this mid-year proposal and for the efforts to keep the commission's mission front and center while addressing another year of limited funding. Now, we will start with questions for the staff. If there are any, we have several staff members who are present in the event. There are questions with us are Dwayne Ray, the deputy executive director. James Baker, the chief finance officer, Austin Schlick, her general counsel and Alberta Mills, ARC secretary. Each commissioner will have 5 minutes for questions and we'll have multiple rounds if necessary after the questions are complete. We'll then consider amendments. Please remember that it's not appropriate to receive or discuss the illegal advice given to us by the general counsel's office outside of a closed executive session. This point time, we're going to turn to questions. I am actually have no questions at this point. So, I will turn to Commissioner Bianco. I have no questions. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Feldman. I also have no questions. Thank you. You, Commissioner Tomka. I'll make it a clean sweep. No questions. All right, having no questions, staff is excused and we'll move to consideration of the package before putting the matter as proposed by the staff to vote. We will now entertain amendments to the. That any of the commissioners may propose, I'm going to start with myself with a posed managers amendment. The managers amendment was in response to interest expressed by commissioners Trump and Feldman to move up the population attributable risk and the FOIA support projects up in the mid year list. If adopted, this amendment would move the population attributable risk, the FOIA support projects up higher on the list to be funded within the 1st, 2 million dollars worth of projects to accomplish this. A few projects move lower down, including heaters, more hazard mitigation and youth, a TV projects. Is there a second for the managers? Thank you. Would anybody like, well, I'll go and order, would you do you have any questions or comments? Do you have a comment? Thank you, chair. You know, this is a very difficult meeting to go through and as Alex, as you pointed out, we are at a flat budget. We had hope for more, but even though we had hoped and planned for more, even that amount was significantly low. When you look at the fact that last year, 2021, there was more than 4.5 trillion, trillion dollars in retail sales, most of which falls underneath our jurisdiction and we find ourselves here today, making tough choices about projects, all of which are necessary for the safety of the American population. We find ourselves in a situation where we're cutting and re reordering and trying to get the most out of a, a very small amount of money. And so I just, I want to make clear that I'm disappointed that we have to be in this position at all. I think it's difficult for all of us. We all see something that we'd like to get done. Frankly, I think all of this and more should get done, but we're not here to dispute each other's points of view. At least I'm not, we are just trying to make the most of our small, small amount of money. And from that perspective, I will weigh in today, but that's, that's, I don't have any additional questions. Thank you. Commissioner Bianco. I couldn't set a better myself. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any questions. I want to thank you and in your, your office for working to include my 1st amendment in this manager's package. To, to raise on the priority ranking, the FOIA project. I think that's important. And I look forward to supporting this amendment. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner, commissioner Trump, you know, I agree with you entirely commissioner Bianco. It is a tough spot that we're in. I appreciate all the common ground that the 4 of us have found. So, thank you. So, with that, I don't think anybody else has any additional questions or comments. So, I'm going to call the vote on the manager's amendments. Commissioner Bianco, I vote yes. Commissioner Feldman yes, Mr. Trumka. About, yes, I vote yes as well. And that makes 4 yeses. And so the amendment is approved. At this point in time, I don't have any additional amendments. So, I'm going to go in order seniority commissioner Bianco. Do you have any amendments? I do not. Thank you. Mr. Feldman, do you have any amendments? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to call up for consideration. Feldman 1. Offering this amendment in response to a specific request from our inspector general to provide his office the necessary resources. To achieve it's critical mission. And while I recognize that some outside groups have suggested that we can set aside our inspector general recommendations, I strongly disagree with that sentiment. The recommendations that are made by OIG aren't advisory in nature, but are integral to a strong functioning agency. And the IG tells us that he needs an additional full time staffer to conduct proper agency oversight and simply providing contract dollars won't accomplish these needs. And while the OIG doesn't get a blank check, I think we need to rely on the recommendations of our team leaders who understand best what their particular needs are. And this is true by the way of all of our team leaders. Such recommendations aren't controlling, but they are persuasive. So, as my colleagues are no doubt aware, the IG's office was scheduled to have 8 full time equivalent employees or FTEs, as we call them in his office beginning this fiscal year. And the purpose of these positions is to conduct investigations and audits and oversight to ensure that CPSC remains on mission and honors our obligations to Congress and to the American public. And while some listening to today's proceedings might not be familiar with inspector general, the IG is essentially the conscience of many of these organizations and CPSC is no different. OIG's mission critical work is designed to identify waste, fraud, and abuse, such as the commission's 2019 data breach, which was a massive failure leading to the IG's report that identified so many issues that still need addressing. And simply put, OIG is here to keep us honest. It's this critical oversight role that helps provide Americans some level of assurance that CPSC from the most junior staffers to the commissioners ourselves are working each day to protect the public from unreasonable hazards and doing so in a responsible manner. This is particularly important because we're just now starting to spend down the $50 million that Congress gave the commission as a result of the serious failures during the pandemic. This is why I'm so passionate about this amendment. I appreciate that we're considering $150,000 in new contract authority, but OIG stated publicly that he can't responsibly spend this money and would offer and reject it if it's offered. It shouldn't be lost on anyone that a government official telling us that he can't responsibly spend money is unique. That's quite a statement. That's something that never happens in government and probably something that isn't set enough. So, instead, OIG has said that for this very modest sum of money, he can find a additional career auditor for his office. Moreover, he's told me and my colleagues that OIG is willing to hold any other office as harmless for this position in future years and is willing to relocate other parts of his budget, including converting his other funding for contracts and training to salaries and that's exactly what this amendment would do. I'd like to commend our IG for his candor and willing to work to achieve his goals without affecting other offices. I think that this is a prudent and responsible posture given our current fiscal reality in what should have been the most favorable funding years. Congress and the White House basically gave us no new money. We flat funded and I realize that increased oversight is always uncomfortable. But in my time at the agency, I know how critical a fully empowered OIG is. That's why I'm offering this amendment and would welcome my colleagues support. I would pause here and answer any questions that that that you all may have. Actually, before you do that, I would ask if there's a second and I'll second it. Having the second turn to consideration questions from. Commissures and I can start myself and 1st of all. I want to thank my fellow commissioner for the amendment and for raising this concern. It's a serious one. OIGs have extremely important role in agencies, making sure that there's prevention of waste fraud and abuse. And at the same time, it's the job of the commission to sort of balance out all the different interests as. Commissioner Feldman has said, you know, as Commissioner Bianca pointed out this year, Congress has provided us with a much lower. Final appropriations level than the operating plan anticipated and that we had hoped for and honestly that I think that this commission deserves. But that is what we have to live with. And within that, that funding that we had requested, there was a large number of FTEs that we hope to add, including 1 for the. The office, as a matter of fact, you know, originally, the commission had looked at had, you know, 68 FTEs for the through the ARPA funding. And through this proposal from staff now, we're looking to reduce that to cap it at the 46. That's 22 less employees that we're talking about in general from what we had previously hoped to do and which I think would be good for for the American people. So, I sympathize with the request for additional resources and it is similar to what we're hearing from a lot of the different divisions that we work with at the agency, because they all could do more with more resources and comes to us to balance that out. How do we balance out the safety work that we do? How do we balance out the oversight? And, you know, the, the argument that he was that he needs particular resources for oversight of the ARPA funding program funds that are being spent in the. And oversight of that will be important, but given that the limited appropriations and that the ARPA funding is actually projected to run out in 25, we need to separate our resources carefully and in good conscience. I can't support adding a permanent FTE to our payroll. For oversight of ARPA, when the ARPA projects are necessarily limited in duration due to the nature of their funding. So, you know, I believe that staffs recommendation of approach of adding additional major contract dollars responsible and appropriate alternative to funding a permanent FTE at this point in time. And the use of contractor auditors is consistent with past practices or current practices. I believe of 18 audits. So, I guess, described as ongoing work, 8 of them are currently done by contractors. And despite the concerns of continuity being being raised, many of the contractors that we use go continue from year to year. And, and I would assume and urge the IGT to use a similar approach in the contract dollars. That the commission is proposing and don't get me wrong that the IG's work is important. Commission has recognized this over the past decade while the CPSC's overall budgets increased about 20% during the last 10 years. The commission is dedicated and doubling the budget of the IG's fund at the same time. So, you know, the result IG is funded and staffed comparably in some cases, more fully funded than IG offices. In comparable agencies, but so for these reasons, I can't support this amendment, but I feel confident working with our IG to be able to manage his staff and resources, including the additional contract dollars in the mid year to prioritize and carry out the audits of the agency, including our spending. So, but I thank you again for raising this issue with that, and I would turn to if you have any questions or comments. Yes, thank you commissioner Feldman. Thank you for the amendment. I, I think it was well stated. I thank you both for your comments. I think they are all right on point. It pains me to not be able to support any request for funds that ultimately go to the bottom line, which is pursuing our mission and keeping the the American public safe from unreasonable risks that do develop from time to time. And every project that we're going to have to put aside and every request for an FTE and every dollar that we cannot spend hurts our bottom line. And so it's, it's been pretty tough. I, I, I have decided not to support this amendment for all the reasons that have been stated so far. And 1 additional 1, I think our does an incredible job and I'm going to have faith that even without the additional resource, they will continue to do the excellent job that they've been doing not to reflect any, you know, anything on on that office or that we don't appreciate that. It's just that we're the funds. I can't state this enough are just so thin. So, thank you. I agree with both comments, both sets of comments that I heard today. I couldn't really add much more, but that's where I stand on this particular 1. Thank you, commissioner, commissioner, Trump. First of all, you know, thank you for your passion for oversight. You know, uh, Mr. Feldman, you know, I share it. I came from the House oversight committee waste fraud and abuse is something I took great pride in going after. And I know the does as well. So, um, I agree with my with my fellow commissioners that I can't support this amendment. But when we work together to drastically expand our budget, as we will do and in coming years, hopefully, I will support an expansion here as well. So, thank you. Thank you, commissioner, um, turn back to you, commissioner Feldman, if you want to have a final words before we consider the input from from my colleagues, I'm disappointed to hear the responses in part because this is not a budget buster amendment. This was specifically crafted to hold harmless other offices and and and to the costs for the additional, the additional fte here would be paid out of existing funds that that that are appropriated to to the inspector general via allowing him conversion authority to take existing contract dollars to pay for any additional costs that would be associated. In the out years with the purpose of hiring an additional fte. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that that that that this. Request is primarily geared at at our oversight. And while that's certainly something that the inspector general plans to conduct oversight on that's not the the sole justification for this request is I understand it at least as it's been explained to me by the inspector general. That this would be an additional staffer to conduct audit work that that would that would exceed the the the life of the ARPA funds here at the agency and this is a need that that that that is existing and that will exist even after f525. Hearing that that that there there's likely not a majority to support this amendment. I believe that we'll live the fight another day and this is something that I hope that we can address in a future operating plan or mid year. So, I appreciate that. I have no further comments. Thank you, commissioner Bellman, I take that as drawing the amendment, which I appreciate and would definitely continue to work with you on this. I mean, I think that. You know, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for the days and days. Okay, sorry, I didn't understand what you're saying then, then. I will ask for the A's and A's. I'm sorry with commissioner Bianca. I have to vote. No, commissioner Bellman. Sorry, I didn't hear you. I think you're muted. I assume yes on your amendment. Thank you. Commissioner Trump and I vote no as well. That would make 1. Yes. 3 knows and the amendment then fails. Commissioner Bellman, did you have other amendments? Not at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Trump. Do you have any amendments? I do. Thank you. I'd like to introduce 2 amendments and I think both of these came about. Thanks to a request from commissioner Feldman and he asked for the ideas that staff considered, but didn't include in their mid-year recommendations. And that list was full of great ideas from staff. So thank you to commissioner Feldman for requesting it. The 1st amendment embraces 1 of those staff ideas by investing in technology to help us do our jobs better. The amendment would allocate 2.2 million of ARPA funds to migrate from SAS 9.4 to SAS via. And that's a substantial upgrade to the system that agency staff uses to store and analyze the agency's data on consumer products and injuries. In ARPA, Congress directed us to fund improvement to the commission's data collection and analysis systems. This investment does that SAS via expands our data analysis capabilities and allows us to run analysis significantly faster. And it comes with the ability to mine text data. It will allow patterns to be discerned easier. Including harms to disadvantaged groups. It will allow us to see if injuries differ by things like socioeconomic status or race or age or gender or anything else. And all of this means we can gather more data and analyze it more efficiently. So it's a direct answer to Congress's directive. It's also 1 time investment that will be beneficial for years into the future. So I'd ask for your support on the amendment. Thank you, commissioner. Is there a 2nd? I'll 2nd. Thank you now move to. Questions on so can take these in order. You mentioned 2 amendments of starting with the SAS by amendment. Then we'll move on to the. Other amendment are yours to which I will recommend recognize myself. And so again, I thank you for introducing this amendment and bringing up this issue. Um, commission is currently undergoing a fraud over all of its data systems, as he pointed out, much at the direction of Congress as well. And this is an important component 1 level. I recognize that we've been talking about the limited resources and worry about putting more obligations and are given the need for these funds to be used to pay staff. But recognizing that this will keep within the framework of making sure staff is funded through the early months of 25 from insurance given by the chief financial officers. It doesn't actually move the funding tipping point into 24. And so I feel more comfortable with the amendment that's coming up coming forward, especially given that the capabilities that the SAS via offers. Which will enable us to strengthen our analytical work funds will allow us, as you pointed out, to quickly take full advantage of cloud computing, artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies. And help us mine text and large pools of data in a more comprehensive way. And we'll be able to make imputations about the differential farms impacting populations, looking at rural areas versus urban areas, different income levels, race, ethnicity, in ways. We haven't able to be able to look at them before. So, you know, this amendment, as you said, you know, supports a key goal of our funding, which is to improve our data analytics capabilities. And it's also, honestly, consistent with our oversight committee and the questions that I've been asked during my nominations hearing, Senator Blackburn urged me at the time as a nominee to prioritize the use of. Artificial intelligence and machine learning to address product safety hazards. And this project fits right into that, but that that she was asking us to do. So, with that, I will support this amendment and urge my colleague, the colleagues to support it as well. And at this point in time, I turn to Commissioner Bianco. Thank you. I could not support this amendment with more vigor. Since the day I walked in the door, I really pushed for better technology and we're still behind the curve. And when we're considering technology, the longer we wait to catch up, the longer we're going to be behind. And every project on this list, every project on this list, everything that we do has some necessitates in some way. The use of technology and until this agency is, is somewhat even up to speed with what the rest of the world is doing, we will always be behind the curve. And that is not, that is not a, I just can't support not being at that particular position. So, I do thank you for raising it. I will continue to push for this. I'd like to see this agency, you know, get into get into the real world. If you will, I feel like our technology is basically right now, like using a mimea graph machine from grade school compared to the rest of the world using smartphones and and machine learning and artificial intelligence. So, I, I encourage this agency to put as much attention into upgrading the technology. I would ask Congress again to consider that and I thank you for your amendment and I would support it. Thank you, Commissioner, Commissioner Feldman, do you have busters or comments? Thank you. And I also want to thank Commissioner Trump for offering this amendment. The projects he's proposing may be worthy. However, I think they need to be considered as part of a more holistic plan. If we spend this money, this ARPA money piecemeal, I think there's a higher likelihood that we get it wrong. I believe the that we increase the potential for waste fraud and abuse and on the the SAS amendment specifically, I think it may be a worthy project. And I agree with with much of what Commissioner Bianco just said, the movement towards cloud based machine learning is a positive one. But it's not clear to me how staff would use this new tool, given the lack of detail provided it makes it difficult to make any sort of concrete determinations about the proposed project. We receive the response to my question about the additional projects that were left on the cutting room floor just last Friday. I asked this at the mid-year at the mid-year meeting and was told that we couldn't see that it staff waited then about another week to actually get this back. We haven't my office and I have not had a chance to really do a deep dive to understand any more than sort of the broad outlines of what this project is accordingly. I'm a no right now, but I'm happy to revisit this as part of the our upcoming off plan discussions. And after we've had more time to to to to really dive into how this would be operationalized and and what what metrics were able to show is success. So, again, Commissioner Trump, I thank you for for offering this, but appreciate the discussion today. Thank you, Commissioner, Commissioner, it's your amendment actually. So, um, having, uh, comments time concluded, I turn it back to you, Commissioner, Trump, if you have any final words before. I'm going to vote no, I appreciate the thought, the thoughtful consideration. Um, I think on that last point, we're already using a version of stats. We're just using an older version. And so, in terms of what staff can do with it, it seems pretty clear that it increases capabilities. It speeds up searches. It's going to allow them to use their time instead of sitting around waiting for a query to come back actually analyzing the data and getting more detail on that data. So, I think maybe we could work together to ensure we're using it effectively once, you know, if we do adopt that going forward, but I think it opens up a lot of capabilities. Thank you, Commissioner, at this point in time, we're going to move to a vote. Um, Commissioner Bianco, I vote, yes, Commissioner Feldman now, Commissioner Trump, yes. And I will vote yes as well. So the eyes of 3, the knees are 1 and the amendments by commissioner Trump is adopted. Commissioner Trump, he said he added another amendment as well. I do. Thank you. Um, so the next amendment would allocate $200,000 of the ARPA funds for a consumer behavior study and it would quote direct the office of communications in consultation with the division of human factors. To conduct a study of consumer behavior regarding recalls and factors relating to consumer willingness to report consumer product injuries. Including, but not limited to through the use of focus groups of consumers representative of US population. So, I think we all know that not enough people or not as many as we'd like are participating in recalls and that keeps dangerous products in circulation. For whatever reason, our message isn't resonating wide enough and that means we need to change our message using all the tools that we have or can acquire. We need to understand what motivates consumer behavior and this study will help us determine how to do that. And we also need to understand how to make it easier for consumers to tell us about their product injuries and to learn about products causing injury. The study addresses that as well and the amendment also speaks directly to another congressional directive from the ARPA bill to increase awareness and communication of consumer product safety information. And it's also another 1 time expense that will help us for years into the future. So, I ask for your support on the amendment. Is there a 2nd 2nd, 2nd and turn to consideration. So, commissioner Trump, thank you for this amendment as well. I agree that we are. Task is trying to figure out not only to identify products that are effective or to work with companies when they identify products that need to be recalled because they're unsafe. But the other part of that is figuring out how to get those recalled and. Appreciate it also in talking with my fellow commissioners that it's a complex issue that goes beyond. That deserves consideration not only from a communication perspective, but also from from human factors perspective and how the behavior how consumers act and react. And we need to take that into consideration. So, I know the amendment has evolved over time and I think it is better for that. And so I am supportive in the current form. Commissioner that turn to commissioner Bianca. Thank you and thank you, commissioner Trump for the amendment when I first saw the amendment. My initial reaction was, gee, we've had focus groups and workshops and. You know, all kind of input from a certain stakeholders about a recall effectiveness, if you will. And what I didn't want to see the agency do is spend its limited funds repeating. Things that we've done in the past that we haven't either to for our, for all our fault applied that or for no fault of our own not applied that what I do think is important is for us to understand. If a customer or if a consumer is reacting or not reacting in a particular way, why they do that or why they don't do whatever it is that we would hope that they would do. And I think there's a good bit, not a huge amount, but a good bit of literature out there on the consumer behaviors, not just with consumer products, not just with recalls, but in a large perspective. And I do think that if we take this money and apply it to a broader way, let's figure out what it is that we need to understand from the consumer's point of view. Then we can adjust our communications program, our recall program, our safer products dot gov, the website to accommodate for those particular behaviors. And so from that perspective, I think it's necessary and I do appreciate this amendment in its current form. So, thank you. I will support it. Thank you, commissioner to film idea questions or comments. Thank you. I also want to thank commissioner Trump for offering this amendment. Again, the projects that he's proposing may be worthy. However, I think they need to be considered as part of a holistic plan. I believe CPSC needs a communication plan that explains how we're effectively spending our communications resources, how to measure the return on these investments, including recall effectiveness. This needs to be part of a larger strategy. Which is why I'm voting no today, but remain open to revisiting the project in the future. So, thank you. Thank you, commissioner questions and comments done. I turn back to to Trump. Get to see if you have any final words before we turn to a vote. Sure, well, first, thank you for commissioner to commissioner for your perspective and institutional knowledge on this that I think made this a better amendment after your input on that. And commissioner Feldman agree with you again. And I think that we've got a new communications director. I'm very excited. She seems fantastic. And hopefully we'll all work together on that communications plan going forward. I'm sure it's something she wants to do as well. So, thank you. All right, with that, we're going to move to vote on the amendments. Commissioner Bianco. Yes. Mr. Feldman. Mr. Trump, yes. I vote yes, so there are 3 yeses and the nose are 1 and the amendments by commissioner Trump is adopted. Going to any other amendments at this time. Mr. Trump or any of the other commissioners none for me. Okay, so we're going to turn to the final vote. 1 thing I just. Noted that commissioner Feldman had mentioned before about the timing on getting a response to the QFRs on the the background on the projects believe I had actually circulated on the 20th as opposed to last Friday, which is the Friday before. So, I see that that is what you meant, but just lagging. So, hearing no additional amendments, I move to approve the staff's draft of FY 22 mid-year and our adjustment plan as adopted. Is there a 2nd? 2nd as amended as amended. Have we have a 2nd and can move forward to the vote to commissioner Bianco? How do you vote? Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman also about yes. Thank you. Commissioner Trump, yes, I vote. Yes. Well, that is for yeses. No, no, this point in time, the drafts FY 22 mid-year and our adjustment plan has amended has been approved at this point in time as tradition. We go to. 10 minutes each for for us to be able to talk about what we have just done and so I will recognize myself for 10 minutes. So, 1st of all, I want to thank the staff, my fellow commissioners and their staff for all the effort and the work that went into finalizing this package. As we're closing, I want to reflect on for a moment the decisions we made here today and our agencies fiscal realities. In the operating plan, which was developed for arrived at the commission was predicated on an anticipated appropriations increase of more than $30 million and that $30 million would have funded important lifesaving safety work, including new research projects and other efforts that would strengthen and modernize the agency. Plan also built upon the commissions prior decisions with respect to the use of funds provided to CPSC in the American rescue plan act. Unfortunately, staff recognized in their memo the flexibility possible into the prior appropriations assumptions is not possible under our lower $139 million appropriations level. That was finalized just this last March instead of being asked to do more with less. With today's vote and please that we're continuing to advance CPSC's core mission of protecting consumers. I'm also pleased that the plan, including the amendments that were adopted today, target the key goals of the ARPA legislation and that's to strengthen our import surveillance and e-commerce monitoring efforts to prevent hazardous products from entering and being sold in the country. To improve consumer outreach and education, particularly with respect to underserved communities and to strengthen our data collection and analysis so that we can better monitor and regulate the marketplace. The CPSC uses ARPA funding. We must recognize and plan for the post ARPA world as well. We'll need a significant increase in our annual appropriations to support our increased staffing levels and to build this agency has been proposed in our budget request. So my job is clear and that's to champion the importance of fully funding the lifesaving work that Congress assigned to this commission. The work that began under ARPA can't stop once the funding runs out. It's central to our mission and must continue. That means we must work together as commissioners to make the case to Congress to support our critical consumer protection work. I'm optimistic that we'll be able to demonstrate how our agency improves safety for the public every day and then increasing our budget will support our current staff to support our current staff will benefit all Americans. So, I thank you again and look forward to working with staff commissioners, their staffs on funding this agency going forward that I turned to Commissioner Bianca. Thank you. I'd also like to thank the staff for all the work that went into this and I'd like to particularly thank my fellow commissioners and their staffs for the collegial professional interaction that we've had on this. I think that it has been an absolute joy to work with all of you and to get this mid-year package to where it best could be. I believe that we did the best that we could with what we had to work with. I do hope that we can work together. I think this particular commission has the candle power and the, um, the passion to work together to see how we can get out there and encourage Congress to recognize. The good work that this agency does on a much broader level and help us to continue to move our mission forward in ways of funding, frankly, and we all complain about funding seems that every agency and every organization complains about funding. And I do not intend to it's not my intent to complain about our particular budget rather than to encourage those out there. Who may be listening to consider how much this agency could really benefit and the American people could benefit from additional appropriations. So, I think I'll stop there. Again, thank you all of you for working together and let's keep moving forward. Thank you, Commissioner, Mr. Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did have some closing remarks. First, I'd like to thank my colleagues for working collaboratively on this process. And while I'm disappointed that we did not vote to fully empower our inspector general. There are a number of provisions on which we all agree. And I'm glad to see this across the finish line in particular. I'm glad to see my amendment to adopted as part of the substitute amendment. This ensures support for our FOIA office, which has been troubled historically. But appears to be improving the 1 remaining Felden amendment that we have not discussed today is Felden 3, which would adopt new timeliness metrics for the FOIA processing. I developed these metrics with our general counsel. And while he is committed to work to implement these given the timing considerations, my intent with this amendment is to offer and withdraw it. Instead, I understand OGC intends to submit these metrics as part of the fiscal year 23 operating plan. Allowing that office to fully implement the metrics that that they've undertaken in terms of FOIA compliance. And I fully support these efforts. It's important. And I appreciate that our general counsel has shared his commitment to implement a meaningful FOIA metric. These timeliness metrics propose a step in the right direction and improvement of approximately 25% of processing time compared with CPSC's response performance in fiscal 21. I look forward to working with OGC and my colleagues going forward. Accordingly, I didn't offer that amendment today for consideration, but but again, want to thank everybody for working collaboratively, collaboratively together. I think this is a final product that that. That we can all share and be proud of. So, thank you. Thank you, commissioner, commissioner. Thank you. So, you know, today, we had to make tough decisions about how to best protect consumers from dangerous products. And it was a tough task for this mid year. We've got a shoestring budget to try to keep the country safe. And I think, as my fellow commissioners have pointed out, it's a shame when we have to be forced to choose between life saving projects. To our friends in Congress, we are the best investment you can make. So, by low. But I still welcome this opportunity to discuss the future of our agency and our views about how to approach our mission. And we should always empower agency staff to be strong advocates for consumer health and health and safety. And give them the tools that they need in that work. And I think we did that today. And it's why I'm so pleased that we approved innovative new tools to assess chronic hazards with the population attributable risk study. And why I'm glad that we created new capabilities to gather and analyze data plan. We that we approve today. We'll build new capacity to assess risks to disadvantage groups and any group that might face more dangers from consumer products than others. And it's going to give us give staff greater ability to analyze data and spot evidence of hazardous products faster, which will save lives. We're not going to catch every bad actor or every dangerous product, but these tools are going to help us identify more and identify them quicker. And when we do, we need to hold them strongly accountable for importing products, selling them families, feeding us faulty information or hiding dangers. And the least we can ever do is make sure that we quickly inform the public about hazardous products in ways that people find engaging and can understand. And we're making great strides towards that goal. And I think we've made bigger strides there today. So, I'm glad that we'll continue to get better. As we approved the consumer behavior study that will allow us to hone our consumer messaging across the board. I think we should act with a realistic view of how American consumers interact with products.  We don't expect any credit when we succeed, but we certainly can expect them to blame us if we fail. So, I'm as encouraged as ever that we'll do better in our mission for the remainder of this year and we'll bring more ideas for improvement as we consider the, the 23 budget coming up. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner and thanks to all the commissioners and the staff for this process and for bringing it to a close for the 22 with that, this meeting is adjourned. Thanks.


The magnitude and frequency of flooding has been increasing over the past few decades, with some studies suggesting this could be caused by climate change. However, these studies often lack a solid foundation, relying instead on qualitative reasoning or speculation. To address this issue, researchers have developed a hypothesis testing framework for flood trend attribution, consisting of three key elements, evidence of consistency, evidence of inconsistency, and a confidence statement. This framework provides a more robust methodology for determining the cause of observed changes in flood behavior. Additionally, it allows researchers to better understand the potential impacts of climate change on flooding. This article was authored by Y. Hundeca, J. Delgado, S. Alman, and others.