As I am sure you are aware, you are missing the point. The point is the abuse of the process the agency uses to decide what, if any, actions to take. This far into this administration, they should be honest about how they feel about regulation. But they aren't honest markets being better able to regulate themselves because they really believe it. If they did they wouldn't be afraid of debate. But, IMO they don't stand up and say they are against regulation because they want to be free to regulate if they feel they need to.
Nothing in the article indicated they had any specific regulation in mind. But what the lawyer did accomplish was to short circuit any discussion of the cost to society, not just the victims, of this particular brand of stupidity and what can be done about it. Maybe they would have started with an increased public awareness campaign. But, expecting the industry to voluntaryily forgo sales growth for the sake of safety doesn't work either.