 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. We have one item on the agenda today. We are having a public hearing on a petition submitted asking the commission to act on a class of flame retardants known as again, a halogens. I'm going to start with a series of three apologies. First, our regular hearing room is under renovation. This is not a regular hearing room. If anyone thought it was. So we're making the best of it. And we are appreciative of everyone accommodating as best as they can the differences of how we have to do things today, both in this room and getting back and forth from this room. And as the logistical questions arise, if you have any questions, Patricia Atkins, I believe, is she's in the back of the room if you turn around. She's going to pick up her hand. That's Patricia if you have any logistical questions. The second apology is that everybody's testimony matters, whether they're in person or on the phone, and we have an incredibly tight schedule. And so we're going to be pretty vigilant about the time. And we're going to ask folks, one, we're going to apologize up front about having to cut people off if they go over their time, and we're going to hold ourselves accountable to that same time. But it's really important when we've had these in the past, we know it can be frustrating for people whose testimony is toward the end. People have flights and other arrangements that they're trying to make. And we want to stick to that schedule because it matters whether they're going early, middle, or end. The third apology is that at some point today, I'm going to have to turn this over to Vice Chairman Adler to my left. Unfortunately, I had a knee issue arise that requires more medical attention later today. And so I can't be here for the whole hearing. I will watch online as much as I can when I'm not in the room. And I'll certainly make sure to watch the recorded version. This is a really important issue for all of us. I've spent a lot of time since I've been in this position trying to attempt to begin to crack the nut of chemical exposure to children. It's a frustrating, and I'm not speaking for my colleagues. They'll speak for themselves quite eloquently. As a parent in particular, it's a very frustrating public policy posture for me that we have to wait to find out that our children might have been exposed to a very harmful chemical. And those changes might be irreparable for us to act, us, meaning the US government, or even industry to act to try to take that chemical out of play. And then even when the way the process works is even when that chemical is taken out of play, we often don't know what's coming in behind it. The term regrettable substitution will come up often today. I'm sure I think there's a better public policy route to be taking so that we are figuring out alternatives that actually work and not continuing to whack them all, get rid of a chemical that doesn't work, and wait to see in 20 years whether the next generation of children has been exposed. And it's not only flame retardants. There's many other chemicals, many other products, areas beyond our jurisdiction of roots of exposure. We're not only talking about CPSC related items, but there has to be a better way. And for me, sitting in the seat as a public policy maker, all I want to know is, does the action that we take make a difference for safety for children? If, and for those who I will be asking questions of, if we take the action requested or take a different action requested or don't take this action, how will we, the five of us, know that the choices we make will definitively make consumers, especially children, safer? That is my primary motivation. We want to make sure that whatever we do is actually going to help. And this, unlike taking out something like lead in children's products, this is a much more complicated public policy area because there are two potential hazards at play. There's the acute fire hazard, which obviously needs to be addressed, whether that's through some type of chemical or not. I'll leave that up to others to decide. But the fire hazard is real. We recognize that. But then so is the potential chronic hazard of exposure. And so whatever we do, we have to make sure that we're not potentially exposing people to more fires if we are going to act on chemicals and conversely that we're not choosing to deal with just the fire hazard without dealing with the chemical exposure hazard. So thank you for everybody for coming today and who will appear online. I'm sorry, will appear on the phone. We probably, as I mentioned, will not be able to get to everyone's questions. I'd like to leave it up to the commission to decide how long to leave the record open afterward to figure out some mechanism by which we can, okay, there's fewer than three people on the phone right now. Do I need to press this? Sorry, I have to press star one. Okay, we're hoping that worked. So we will try to figure out some mechanism to have questions for the record to make it as easy as possible for the commission to ask follow-up questions and to have those entered into the record after the hearing is over and be included in any rulemaking that may occur. So with that, we're gonna turn to our first panel. We are quite honored to have with us Dr. Linda Bermbaum as a director of the National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health. And unlike me being in this position, not only is Dr. Bermbaum the head of the agency, she's also an expert. She has spent decades studying these chemicals, flame retardants in particular, and so we are quite, it's quite a privilege for us to have her testifying. And so with that, Dr. Bermbaum, if you can please begin your testimony. Good morning, commissioners. I'm Linda Bermbaum, the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, one of the 27 institutes and centers of the National Institutes of Health, and I'm also director of the National Toxicology Program, which involves FDA, CDC, and NIH. I'm also a principal investigator of the National Cancer Institute Intramural Research Program. For the last 14 years or more, my research has focused on understanding the environmental health effects of flame retardants, and I am considered a subject matter expert in this area. I would like to just say that I am accompanied by Dr. Chris Weiss, who is my chief toxicologist in my Bethesda office, and also an expert in flame retardants. I'm honored to be invited to testify today's hearing by the Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman, Elliot Kaye. Synthetic potomers, things like plastics and foams, are generally considered to be more flammable than natural substances, things like cellulose. Consequently, flame retardants have been added to many modern consumer products and building materials for the purpose of reducing the risk and hazard of fire. Flame retardants containing bromine and or chlorine have often been preferred for specific applications due to their efficiency and thermal stability. Halogens, particularly bromine, interfere with fire chemistry by forming radical species that compete with propagation of the combustion cycle. As a consequence of use, many halogenated flame retardants are now found in the environment and have been detected in wildlife and humans. They have the ability to accumulate in biological fluids and tissues, and toxicological and epidemiological evaluations indicate that they are human toxicants. Included among the flame retardants that may be human toxicants are the polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs. As a flame retardant, PBDEs are mixed into products without being chemically bonded or reacted to the matrix of the products. Such additive flame retardants have much greater potential to leach into the environment than reactive flame retardants. Once in the environment, they are more likely to present exposure concerns for humans and wildlife. PBDEs are present in household and office dust, are absorbed following the exposure and accumulate in human fluids and tissues. Toxicity in rodent models include effects on endocrine disruption, such as thyroid hormone homeostasis, modulation of estrogen and androgen signaling, effects on obesity and diabetes, altered fertility and neurotoxicity. Epidemiology studies have documented many of these same effects in humans. Fetuses, nursing infants and young children may be at highest risk due to critical developmental windows of susceptibility and or the potential for greater exposures. Now, there are 209 possible congeners of PBDEs and three different molecular weight formulations have been used as commercial flame retardant products. Two of the commercial mixtures have been shown to be carcinogenic in both rats and mice. The extent of absorption, the internal dose and the toxicity are largely determined by congener differences in bromine number and substitution patterns. Congeners of the lowest molecular weight mixture used largely in polyurethane foam are readily absorbed and are prevalent in human tissue and fluids. The major congener of the highest molecular weight mixture used primarily in heavy textiles and heavy plastic casings for electronic equipment is poorly absorbed but persists in the environment. Concern over persistence and toxicity has led to removal of all PBDE commercial formulations from production in the US and bands in Canada, Europe and Japan. The lower molecular weight PBDEs have been listed for elimination under the Stockholm Convention of Persistent Organic Pollutants and DECA BDE is currently proposed for listing as well. Another high volume brominated flame retardant also listed for elimination under this international treaty is hexabromocyclo-dodecane or HBCD. HBCD is also a persistent and additive flame retardant and is found in the environment, in wildlife and in people. Mechanistic and animal studies have indicated it is an endocrine disruptor, it is toxic to the liver and causes adverse neurodevelopmental effects. Tetrabromobisphenol A or TBBPA is an example of a halogenated flame retardant with a biological fate that is different from that of HBCD and PBDEs. TBBPA is a reactive high production volume chemical bonded to resins of circuit boards. An advantage of this reactive application is that there is low potential for TBBPA to leach into the environment. Although readily absorbed following exposure, TBBPA is rapidly conjugated and excreted resulting in low bioavailability and little potential to accumulate in tissues. However, recently the use of TBBPA in an additive mode has increased. Current research is assessing where there may be adverse effects due to greater levels of exposure for both humans and wildlife. Continuous exposures and epidemiological studies detecting TBBPA in human serum and breast milk in the United States, Europe, and Asia have been conducted. Dr. Burma, I'm just gonna let you know that we've moved into my time for questioning but I'm gonna yield that time for you to please continue testifying. Thank you, commissioner. Okay, so thus far animal studies have shown it to be a carcinogen in rats and mice and to cause endocrine disruption. Studies are underway to assess the potential for TBBPA to cause developmental effects in rats at low doses. This work will lead to a better understanding of the health risks of TBBPA to humans. Some brominated and chlorinated organophosphate flame retardants have been known for over 30 years to be animal carcinogens. Recent studies have shown that some of these are also developmental neurotoxicants. Alternate halogenated flame retardants include a TBBA derivative, TBBPA, DBE, P-E, a tetrobromobenzuate, TBB, a tetrobromothalate, TBPH, and decobromodiphenylethane, or DBDPE. TBB and TBPH are often used in a commercial mixture, Firemaster 550, which is used as an additive flame retardant. A small study in animals has demonstrated endocrine disruption and neurobehavioral impacts of developmental exposure to Firemaster 550. Both TBB and TBPH have been found in house dust, and a metabolite of TBB has been found in human urine. TBBPA, DBE, TBPH, and DBDPE, which are environmentally persistent and found in wildlife, are poorly absorbed and persistent, whereas TBB is well absorbed, rapidly metabolized, and eliminated. Toxicological studies are underway to characterize the risk of exposure for these and other novel halogenated flame retardants. In conclusion, the halogenated flame retardants for which there is data have been shown to be environmentally and or biologically persistent and toxic in animals. Many have also been shown to have impacts on human populations. When used in an additive mode over time, they leach into the environment and they have been detected in people. Use in a reactive mode or in polymers reduces the opportunity for exposure and hence reduces risk. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you, Dr. Birnbaum, reclaiming my time, and Mr. Stevenson, how much time? I have three minutes, great. Thank you, I'll try to be very quick. So I'm gonna ask two questions and I'm gonna ask them together so that you can at least have the benefit of knowing what they are and then you can answer them with the remaining time, please. The first one is the high throughput screening that you are doing as part of TOX 21. Has that included the organohalogen flame retardants? Yes, some of the TOX 21 efforts have looked at a number of the PBDEs of TBBPA of HBCD and some of the others as well. In addition, some of the halogenated organophosphates have also been looked at in the rapid high throughput screening. And what has that shown so far? They have shown that they have high levels of biological activity. And is that data publicly available? That data is available. Okay, thank you. And the second question is to my earlier public policy point, if the commission goes ahead and acts as the petitioner's request or acts in some way, how will we know that we're actually making people safer? I think one of the questions that always needs to be asked when you use chemicals is do we need them? Are they really providing a safety benefit? And I think that's a question that needs to be asked specifically with the use of many of these flame retardants. The data is not strong, which indicate that they actually provide fire safety at the concentrations with which they have been used in the products. So I think that removing some of the chemicals from use, which has already been done with the PBDEs, although we have a tremendous legacy, people would talk about toxic couches and carpet padding and so on, and what do we do with that? But removing other chemicals, unless we really have strong evidence that they provide fire safety, there really may not be a need for them. Great, thank you very much with my time expiring, Commissioner Adler. Thank you very much and welcome, Dr. Birnbaum. It's a pleasure and an honor to have you at the commission's hearing. In your testimony, you walked through individual organohalagen chemical by individual organohalagen chemical, and we have been advised by some industry folks that we should proceed chemical by chemical in addressing organohalagens. The petition asks us to do something in the alternative, which is to look at organohalagens that are non-polymeric additives as flame retardants as a class. Do you have any observation one way or the other about how we should proceed, assuming we were to proceed? So you're the head of a sister agency and you're also the director of the National Toxicology Program. You get to look at thousands and thousands of chemicals, or at least you have the potential to look at them. We have arguably thousands of chemicals under our jurisdiction, and so as a tiny agency, we have to prioritize. And so I guess my question would be of the thousands of chemicals out there, would you consider these organohalagens to be something that should be worthy of a tiny agency with scarce resources addressing as a priority concern? Yes. No further questions at this moment. Thank you, Commissioner Robinson. Thank you so much, Dr. Birnbaum, for coming today and Dr. Weiss for accompanying Dr. Birnbaum. I am going to follow up on Commissioner Adler's question and I'm gonna do it the same way he did since we only have five minutes and that is ask you three questions and then you figure out how to sort it out. But in terms of grouping, because we're being asked not only to ban a group, but going forward to ban things that haven't even been created that would fall into this class of product. And so my first question is, I know that a lot of institutions have accepted the fact that grouping is appropriate for regulatory purposes as long as you have the structural similarities that are needed, but my understanding is that if there are structural differences within a grouping that would result in a different end point, that that's something that we need to know about. So I'm interested in your comments as to whether you would expect there to be any structural differences in chemicals that fall within this non-polymeric, additive, organohalagen, flame retardants group that would perhaps have a different end point. And I was particularly interested in the written testimony that you submitted because you said that TBB, to quote you, is well-absorbed, rapidly metabolized and eliminated. So it seems to be different than some of the other chemicals in that group. So I'm just interested in your comments on that. So structural differences can be associated with some different health or environmental impacts. However, that doesn't mean they don't have impact. Flame retardants. Thank you. Many, many different health systems and health impacts. And I think our greatest concern today, more so even in the cancer, which has been shown for the flame retardants that have been tested, some of the halogenated organophosphates, which are very structurally different than, for example, the PBDEs, but they've all been shown to be carcinogenic in animal studies. But I think a lot of our concern is for the developmental impacts. And what we are finding is that whether they're some of the halogenated organophosphates, whether they're the rapidly eliminated or the persistent halogenated organics compounds, what we are finding is that they cause a spectrum of adverse developmental effects affecting the developing neurological system, affecting the endocrine system, affecting the reproductive system and are associated with persistent long-term effects in the next generation. And so in your opinion, as one of the experts in the flame retardant field, would it be appropriate to group this group of non-polymeric additive organohalogen flame retardants into one group in terms of this commission making a determination about a ban? I think it is appropriate, okay? You've been quoted as saying that when you first looked at this petition, that there was no way, you thought there was no way of condemning an entire class of chemicals, but then you said that after taking a closer look at the science, that you thought the petitioners were onto something to use your words. Could you just explain that to us? I think it's not only taking a closer look at the science, I think it's really taking a closer look at what the petition is proposing, which is not to ban all halogenated flame retardants, is to ban them in specific classes of products, and it's also to ban those that are additive, not to ban those that are in polymeric form. And the advantage of the polymeric compounds is that they have much less potential to escape into the environment and therefore to expose wildlife and people. We know that for all the compounds that are used in an additive mode, they do get to us. Thank you very much. I have nothing further. Thank you for Commissioner Robinson. Commissioner Berkel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me begin by saying thank you to Dr. Bernbaum and Dr. Weiss for being here this morning and providing your expert testimony. We really do appreciate it. I just want to follow up on my two colleagues, Commissioner Adler and Commissioner Robinson's questions. So Commissioner Adler asked about whether or not it would make sense to prioritize among all of the chemicals. I think I have that right. But specifically in this group of chemicals that we're being asked to consider now a ban on, because to your words, the reality of what our resources are limited and it's very expensive and it takes a lot of time. So if we had to prioritize within this group of chemicals that we're being asked to ban, could you suggest an order for us? Commissioner, that's a very difficult question because some of the different types of organohalogen, flame retardants, do very different things. And I don't think that I am the appropriate person to say whether I would weigh cancer or developmental neurological effects one over the other. We know that the organophosphate, which have been shown to be carcinogens are also now being shown to be developmental neurotoxicants. We know that some of the halogenated, the persistent chemicals are shown not only to be carcinogens, but are shown to be associated with the increase in diabetes and obesity and offspring. And we're shown that they're developmental neurotoxicants. So I think that I would have difficulties saying which of the very large members of the existing class or the potentially to be synthesized class are worse than the others. But I would suggest that essentially all of them will have the potential to cause adverse effects, some kind of adverse effects. Thank you very much. I don't have any more questions. Thank you, Commissioner Burkle. Commissioner Mohorovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're moving along very quickly, Mr. Chairman. I'm gonna tend to answer a question that you posed, if you don't mind. Although I recognize it wasn't to me. You asked the panelists, if we did move forward with the rulemaking, how would we really understand if we were successful? And I would offer this as a solution by virtue of policy in our mid-year review. We as a commission unanimously committed to retrospective review in prospective rulemaking. So I would have confidence that if we did move forward in a rule, we would embed in there the kind of retrospective review to look back on our activity to determine whether or not we were in fact successful. So I just offer that. Thank you, Dr. Weiss, Dr. Birnbaum for participating today. I have two questions. I hope I have time to get to you. The first is on a particular chemical, hexabromocyclerodotocaine. So you referenced it in your testimony. Chairman, you're impressed that I was able to say that without stumbling? Bob. Yes. There were two government studies, Dr. Birnbaum and Dr. Weiss, that looked at flame retardants pursuant to a CPSC open rulemaking on upholstered furniture. The first one was an NAS, NRC study in 2000. You're nodding your head, it's no sense, it answers my first question, are you familiar with the study? And so the quote here that after looking at that is despite a lack of complete database, the subcommittee concluded that the following FRs can be used on residential furniture with minimal risk, even under worst case assumption and hexabromocyclerodotocaine was listed there. And then in 2001, there was a CPSC study that looked at flame retardants for upholstered furniture again. And the quote was that of the four and HBCD was listed would clearly not be considered hazardous to consumers as defined under the FHSA. So that's a pretty specific look. The questions that I have for both panelists is did either of you participate in the study? And if so, if you're recommending us to ban or move on HBCD, how's the science change to yield a different decision? I'll take that because that study was done by someone who worked in my division when I was at USEPA, by Mike Hughes was the prime author on that. And it was done with collaborators here at CPSC. And what that was done was the study where they looked at the dermal absorption. And I'm trying to remember, this is 15 years ago, whether it was, I know it was in vitro using, and also maybe that we did rat studies in vivo. I'm trying to remember exactly. But the point was is that these are very big chemicals that are going to be very poorly absorbed by the skin. And that was the question that was asked, are they going to be absorbed through the skin? The question was not asked, are they going to escape from the fabrics into the environment and then be able to be absorbed orally or by inhalation? Thank you. And I think that's been a tremendous growth in our understanding about things that exposures are not always what you think they might be. That sitting on the cushion is not the problem that it's going to come through your clothes, but that in fact, by sitting on the cushion, you may be expressing it into the dust and from hence it will get into your body by a different route. Thank you very, very much for that explanation. And one other question on another specific chemical you referenced in your testimony on TBBPA. Specifically a different, somebody he'll be testifying later today in their testimony suggested that TBBPA wouldn't be under the scope of the petition by virtue of its inclusion or incorporation used in motherboards or that part of the electronics and therefore it wouldn't be the external casings. However, my question is the following in terms of the movement of the industry with TBBPA. Could TBBPA be used as an additive as a substitute for casings which would therefore put it under scope if its use changes by virtue of the way the petition is written? So my understanding is that TBBPA's use has increased in an additive mode since the reduced use and then the ban on the DECA BDE which has been used in heavy plastic casings and especially in heavy fabrics. So that the use has increased in an additive mode. Beyond what was stated or what's known right now in its general use in would it be electronic motherboards or the interior componentry? Correct, that there has been a shift for many, many years TBBPA which is the largest volume brominated flame retardant was used in a 90 to 10% ratios of reactive to additive and that additive percentage is increasing is my understanding so and the more that it's used in additive, the more opportunity there will be for human exposure. Thank you very much, thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Commissioner Mohorovic, this will end this round and I wanna thank again Dr. Brumbau for your testimony, Dr. Weiss for your appearance. I promise the both of you, you should not take us ending now as indicative of a lack of more questions. We probably spent hours with just the two of you here and that will probably be the case with all the panels. We're now gonna move on to panel two, thank you again. As you've noticed Chairman Kay has departed. The one thing he didn't say was that he sustained the injury during a Thanksgiving day neighborhood football game and his team won, so I said is that after you left or before you left, but he insisted that it was, he was there through the last bitter moments. Again, just begging your indulgence if you could please stick within the five minute period and the panelists now are Mr. William Wallace from Consumers Union, Eve Gartner from Earth Justice, Dr. Simone Balin, Dr. Arlene Bloom and Dr. Miriam Diamond, both of whom are on here by the phone and Mr. Wallace if you wanna begin. Thank you Commissioner Adler and the entire commission. On behalf of Consumers Union, the Public Policy and Advocacy Armour Consumer Reports, thanks for the opportunity to present to the commission on requesting rulemaking on certain flame retardant chemicals. Consumers Union joined Earth Justice and the Consumer Federation of America as well as nine other co-petitioners in filing this petition earlier this year. American consumers are widely exposed from products in their homes that could pose to potentially toxic flame retardant chemicals that could pose serious health risks and may not actually provide significantly better fire protection than other available technologies without these chemicals. Current regulation does not adequately address the health hazards of these chemicals and CPSC has the authority to protect consumers from the potential risk of harm. It is for these reasons that Consumers Union strongly supports the petition before you. While our organization has not conducted independent testing on this issue, we have followed it closely. Consumers rightly expect products in their homes to meet flammability standards but not at the expense of being exposed to potentially toxic chemicals. CPSC should ban the use of non-polymeric additive organohalogen flame retardants in children's products and other specified product categories under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act and encourage manufacturers to instead use barriers and inherently non-flammable materials. In support of the petition, we plan to submit comments to the docket which will include the following points. First, the scope of the petition is clear. It covers organohalogen flame retardants in additive form and only those in additive form because they are not chemically bound to the products containing them and thus have a greater potential to migrate out of products resulting in human exposure. The specific product categories covered by the petition are those for which it demonstrates that the flame retardants have been intentionally added or are often present in a large percentage of the products. Second, Consumers can be exposed to these chemicals from migration or disintegration from household products. Numerous studies have shown these chemicals presence in indoor air and house dust and it is reasonable to conclude that they can persist in the indoor environment leading to chronic human exposure from household products. Studies by EPA and Massachusetts have both found that inhalation may account for a significant proportion of exposures. With regard to vulnerable populations, additional studies have found significant exposure of pregnant women to these chemicals leading to exposure by fetuses and newborn infants as well as particularly elevated levels of exposure by young children, likely due to their frequent hand to mouth behaviors. Third, CPSC has the authority to regulate products containing these chemicals. We agree with the petition that non-polymeric additive organohalogen flame retardants meet the FHSA definition of toxic in that they have the capacity to produce substantial personal injury or illness and therefore they should be considered and designated as hazardous substances. The petition documents significant research showing that human exposure to organohalogen flame retardants is associated with long-term chronic adverse health problems with reproductive, neurological and carcinogenic effects. We furthermore agree with the petition in that the covered product categories meet the definition of banned hazardous substances when they contain the chemicals at issue. We feel labeling would be inadequate. We feel labeling would be inadequate to serve public health and safety since consumers' knowledge of the hazard is unlikely to enable them to take steps to sufficiently protect themselves. Consumers cannot reasonably be expected to successfully collect and dispose of the ubiquitous dust in their homes that is contaminated with the specified flame retardants that can have long-term adverse effects on their health. Fourth, it is appropriate for the commission to make this a priority. The hazard from the specified flame retardants meets many if not all of the requirements to be a CPSC priority for action. The probability of exposure is high because the products are ones that most people use daily, such as chairs, couches, mattress pads, computers and other electronics. Children of vulnerable population are at particular risk because they tend to spend more time on the floor in proximity to house dust, have frequent hand-to-mouth behaviors and may be exposed during critical developmental periods. And continued use of these chemicals is likely to lead to future illness and injury. In addition, current regulation is inadequate, leaving consumers at risk. The Toxic Substances Control Act is widely considered not to give EPA the authority it would need to meaningfully protect the public and to allow chemicals on the market that are not established as safe. Moreover, while there are current congressional efforts to fix the law, it is impossible to know if a bill will pass or be effective at protecting public health. Action taken by CPSC to address this petition would not duplicate existing protections for consumers. In conclusion, we urge you to grant the petition and protect consumers from the documented health risks. Thank you for your attention. Impeccable sense of timing, Mr. Wallace, I hope all the other witnesses will be as effective as Ms. Gardner. Oh, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and I also appreciate the very careful study that the commission is giving to this matter. As you know, the petition asks for regulations under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to protect consumers from non-polymeric organohalagen flame retardants in additive form in four categories of consumer products. Under the FHSA, the legal standard that we're asking you to operate under is that if a substance has the capacity to produce personal injury or illness through ingestion, inhalation, or absorption, then the chemical or the product is toxic. And if a substance or product is toxic, and in addition, it may cause substantial personal injury or personal illness as a proximate result of customary or reasonably foreseeable use, then it meets the definition of a hazardous substance under the FHSA. And if labeling will not protect against the injury as it would not hear, then the CPSC must ban it. So Dr. Bernbaum referenced PBDEs, a group of organohalagen flame retardants used in additive form that would be covered by this petition. The PBDEs are a case study for how federal regulations and policies are not now protecting us from products containing chemicals that are well understood to be toxic. For decades, PBDE flame retardants were used extensively in a wide range of consumer products, and as Dr. Bernbaum explained, they present very serious human health risks. And because they are persistent and bioaccumulative, 97% of people who live in the United States have measurable quantities of PBDEs in their blood. Children have the highest body burdens, and children from communities of color have the very highest levels. So in the face of what was known a decade ago about the toxicity of PBDEs, EPA negotiated a voluntary phase out of their domestic production. But there are two fundamental ways in which consumers are still unprotected against PBDE exposures. First, although PBDEs are not manufactured in the US, they are still being made overseas. Yet no US law or regulation prohibits the importation and sale of products containing any PBDE. Some states have banned the sale of some products containing some PBDEs, but this scattershot approach is not sufficient. EPA has proposed using its significant new use rule authority to prohibit the import of products containing PBDEs, but strong industry pushback has prevented those rules, the SNR rule, from being finalized. So we know from manufacturers self-reporting that children's product containing more than trace amounts of DECA-BDE are still being sold in this country. And it's possible that imported furniture containing PENTA-BDE is still being sold as well. We have no way to know for sure either way. The importation of products containing toxic PBDEs is a major regulatory loophole. Granting this petition would fill that hole. Second, the voluntary phase out of PBDE production did nothing as Dr. Birnbaum referenced, did nothing to protect people in the US from the legacy exposures, the toxic furniture and poison toys that people already own that are still in the homes of millions of people, especially in low income communities. But most people keep their sofas for decades and then pass them on to their kids. So we're passing on essentially just toxicity for generations. If CPSC were to declare products containing non-polymeric organohalogens in additive form to be banned hazardous substances, as we've asked for, it would have the authority under section 15 of the FHSA to protect consumers against the PBDE-laden products in their home. So how do we learn from the past? Obviously, manufacturers have replaced PBDEs with other non-polymeric halogenated flame retardants and the mounting evidence is that they are similarly toxic. That's not a huge surprise. It's a basic fact that chemicals with similar structures are similarly toxic. So all additive non-polymeric organohalogen flame retardants bear the structural similarity of a common functional group. They have shared physical, chemical, environmental fate and toxicity properties. They are all likely to be toxic within the meaning of the FHSA. They should be regulated as a class. We should not continue to make the mistakes we made with PBDEs. Thank you. Thank you very much. Dr. Baylon. There you go. Thank you. So I'm Simona Balan, senior scientist at the Green Science Policy Institute and one of the co-petitioners. And I would like to make the point today as to why it's important to address the entire class of organohalogen flame retardants non-polymeric in additive form. And I believe the example of PENTA BDE really puts this into perspective. So in order to prevent what the CPAC estimated in 2008 as 30 preventable small open flame furniture fire deaths, PENTA BDE was added to furniture and ended up in 97% of the US population, which is over 300 million people. And even though PENTA BDE was phased out, similar organohalogen flame retardants continue to be used in the four product categories mentioned in the petition. Next slide, please. And more and more scientific evidence is emerging that these chemicals share properties and in Dr. David Apples' Professor of Meridians at Stanford University's words, the properties shared by organohalogen flame retardants as a class can lead to adverse effects for human health. So what exactly are these properties? Next slide, please. And this is also from Dr. Apples' research and his collaborators, but I would like you to understand that organohalogens are not natural to our biochemistry. Our cells were not developed while being exposed to such chemicals and so they're not designed to address these chemicals. Our cells are actually pretty good at recognizing certain toxics or removing them from the cell, but organohalogens make it past our defenses and they can persist for a long time inside the cells and they're not removed by the cell detoxifiers. And new research by Professor Amber Hamden from the University of California at San Diego has actually found that not only do they are, they are unrecognized by the cellular bounces, but they can also inhibit the cell's defenses, making them less able to deal with other toxicants. Next slide, please. And we are still catching up with the research on PBDEs. Just this year after the petition was submitted, more papers came up on the adverse health effects from PBDEs and understanding the mechanisms through which these adverse health effects are happening, for instance, late puberty in girls increased risk of free-term births, impaired executive function in young children. So these are really important adverse health effects that we should consider. Also another research paper has analyzed 35 brominated flame retardants that are used as PBD replacements and concluded that they have similar enough physical chemical properties in terms of persistence, biocumulation potential, potential for low-nose transport that in the author's words, they cannot be regarded as suitable replacements to PBDEs. Next slide, please. So we are already seeing government agencies addressing the entire class of organohalogen flame retardants, for instance, by Monitoring California placed the entire class of brominated and chlorinated organic compounds used as flame retardants on their authoritative list. Their scientific guidance panel reviewed this class between 2008 and 2009 and found enough risk of exposure and adverse health effects to warrant, including this entire class, including chemicals that haven't yet been marketed, that are still to be developed within this class. Next slide, please. So this quote from Doctors Needleman and Landrigan was written in 1994, but I think it's still incredibly timely that we are conducting a massive clinical toxicological trial and our children and our children's children are the experimental subjects. So it's clearly time to start ending this experimental trial and the CPSU does have the authority to help protect consumers from organohalogen flame retardants in these product categories. And we as co-petitioners selected these four product categories because we know that these are the ones where consumers are most likely to be exposed when the organohalogen flame retardants are used in additive form and when they are non-polymeric, so they're easily taken up inside the cells. So thank you for your time and for the opportunity to provide comments. And yeah, we're welcome to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We now have Dr. Arlene Bloom on the telephone and Dr. Merriam Diamond. I'm going to call on Dr. Bloom first. Dr. Bloom, can you hear us? Dr. Bloom, can you hear us? Dr. Bloom? Okay, well, let's see about... Hi, you just took my mute off. Okay, good, I'm on the phone. Thank you very much. And I'm Arlene Bloom. I'm the executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute and I'm also a visiting scholar in chemistry at UC Berkeley and I really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you remote today. And I'm going to speak to you about the topic of regrettable substitution because that is one of the major reasons that it is imperative to consider the whole class of organo-hellets and flame retardants. And the classic, in my slide number two, you can see on the left a flame retardant called deca bromo di-phenyl ether. That means 10 bromines, two phenyl rings and an ether bond. And you can see the two rings with the ether bond and bromines all around. And after many years, this flame retardant which has been widely used in fabric back coatings and electronics and a variety of uses was found to be persistent, bio-cumulative and toxic. And again, with an EPA agreement but not with a regulatory approach has indeed been paced out. It's not manufactured in the US. But as the sale of the ether went down, the replacement on the right is a very similar deca bromo di-phenyl ethane which has a different connection, the ethane rather than the ether. But it turns out to be possibly more persistent in bio-cumulative and there's increasing results showing that it's toxic. So this is that regrettable substitution sometimes called Paxa guacamole. And in the next slide number three, my experience with this goes back a very long time. Nearly 40 years to when in 1977, I published a paper about flame retardants in children's pajamas. At that time, the main flame retardant was a chemical called brominated tris that was up to 10% of the weight of the fabric in most children's pajamas in the US. It was found that it ended up inside the children and it was a very strong mutagen. We published this paper as I said in 1977 in January and in the next slide, slide four, you can see that three months after we published the paper, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission banned brominated tris from children's pajamas. So you were able to act quite rapidly in those days but when brominated tris was banned, the unfortunate substitute was coronated tris which had similar properties and was indeed with the assistance of the CPSC removed from pajamas in 1978. And I have to say that since that time which has been approaching 40 years, I have followed this and have not yet seen a flame retardant, organohalitin flame retardant that has not upon study turned out to be problematic. So there's a long unfortunate record and as people have said in the next slide, PENTA BDE has a wide variety of human health effects, neurological, reproductive and in the next slide, most recently the National Toxicology Program found clear evidence of cancer-causing activity from PENTA BDE. And that means that the PENTA BDE couches that are in so many homes, particularly low income homes have the potential to cause serious health problems. And since it was used in all furniture pretty much, we did a study of 100 couches and found that most furniture from 1975 to 2005 in the US contained PENTA BDE. So this is a very long-term and serious problem. But in the next slide, when PENTA BDE was phased out, the replacements were coronated trisks, the same coronated trisks that had been removed from children's pajamas in the 70s, even though the CPSC had said the estimated lifetime cancer risk was up to 300 cancer cases per million. There was a CPSC study saying that in 2006, nonetheless, it was the major replacement and the other replacement, Firemaster 550, the ETA designed for the environment predicted reproductive neurological and developmental toxicity as well as persistent degradation products. And indeed, do you know the Kentura brochure on the left, it claimed that the human health toxicity, whatever that means, a Firemaster would be half of that PENTA, I guess is an advertisement for the change, but is that good enough? So we knew that and yet in 2005, those were the replacements. Dr. Bloom, I'm sorry to interrupt, but your time has expired, but I'm going to yield you if you would like out of my time an additional 30 seconds. No? We have considerable data that the substitutes tend to have the same properties and that indeed I was going to just conclude with the quote from the Chicago Tribune to remind people that a deceptive campaign by industry toxic flame retardants into our homes and bodies and the chemicals don't work as promised. So there is a real opportunity to reduce the use of these chemicals for healthier products. Okay, Dr. Bloom, I'm going to have to cut you off right there and I apologize for doing that. We may be able to get back to you during the questioning. I'd like now to see if we have Dr. Diamond on the phone. Okay, I'm told by our technical expert that it takes a minute to get folks off of mute, so I'm just going to keep asking Dr. Diamond if you are there. Dr. Diamond, can you hear us? We'll try one more time and if not, then I think we can move to questions and if Dr. Diamond comes online, then we can ask for her testimony one last time. Dr. Diamond, can you hear us? Apparently she cannot, so I'm going to move to ask a few questions and I think what I'd like to do, Dr. Baylent, since you're here and we can see you and you're somebody that I can ask this question of, we have a claim that will be made this afternoon that EPA and other governmental authorities have determined, and this is what the phrase was that got me a little confused, that some of the chemistries impacted by the petition do not present a significant risk to human health or the environment. So I guess my question is a broad one. Are you aware of any organohalogen, non-polymeric flame retardant additive that EPA or any other governmental agency has determined does not present a hazard to the environment or human health? I am not aware of that. I know that EPA is in the process of reviewing certain groups of organohalogen flame retardants, but yeah, no, I am not aware of that. And Ms. Gardner, I'd like to ask you a question. The petition limited itself to four categories of consumer products, but I sat down and I said, what other consumer products out there? And I thought candles, carpets, cabinets, sheets, towels, shower curtains, appliances. There are a lot of other products that conceivably might have organohalogens. So one of the things that we have to do in deciding whether to grant the petition is to figure out what the scope of the petition should be. Can you explain in a little bit more detail why you limited the request just to these four product categories? Yes, Commissioner Adler, we chose categories where we know organohalogen flame retardants are used in additive form and in non-polymeric form so that it would lead to human exposures. And we also chose categories where there is documented evidence that there really is no fire safety benefit to using the halogens at the levels where they're currently used. So that might also be the case for additional categories of products, but these are the ones where there's documentation of the lack of fire safety benefit. And if I might, Ms. Gardner, we heard Dr. Bloom's discussion of regrettable substitutions. She did it product by product, showing that when you use one in the famous phrase of whack-a-mole, you find another one. But can you explain more broadly what the notion of regrettable substitution is and why it's of such concern to the petitioners in this particular case? Yeah, so the concern is that unless there's a prohibition on the use of any chemical in this class, that if what we've seen as Dr. Bloom was saying, Penta BDE was used for decades in sofas. EPA determined 10 years ago that that posed risk that they were three or four years later than Europe in determining that. But they entered into this voluntary phase out and then new chemicals came on that have similar chemical structures and similar toxicity. And the concern is that if this commission were simply to act against particular chemicals, then the next replacements would have the same problem, similar structure, similar toxicity. The only way to get at the root of the problem is to address all the chemicals that have this structure, the bonding of the carbon atom and the halogenated chemical. Thank you very much for the question. I have one last question, Dr. Bayland, if I might direct that to you. We're gonna hear testimony this afternoon from a manufacturer who claims to have developed effective halogen-free reactive FR chemicals for use in some consumer products. Setting aside the question whether we need FR chemicals in some of these products, is it possible to develop an effective halogen-free reactive FR chemical for use in consumer products? I believe it is, and I believe that by banning products containing additive non-polymeric and organic halogen flame retardants, we would be opening further opportunities for innovation, for finding safer alternatives. So the fact that the flame retardant would be reactive, that's a good news because it means it's bound to the material would be less likely to cause exposure even if it shows some toxicity consumers will not be exposed to it during product use. Thank you so much, Commissioner Robinson. Thank you, Commissioner Adler. One of my frustrations in reviewing the voluminous materials that were submitted and in listening to presentations that have been given to us over the last few weeks is making sure that we're dealing with only what's relevant to your petitioners. And since you're all petitioners, I guess any of you could answer this, but Ms. Gardner, I'm gonna aim this question at you. I just wanna be perfectly clear that the only thing that's being asked in the petition as I understand it deals with non-polymerics, not polymerics, correct? That's correct. Additive, not reactive, right? That's correct. And when we're talking about electronic devices, when you're talking about the products, the others are very clear, but I wanna be perfectly clear on this, when you're not talking about any flame retardants inside the electronics, but only the casings, correct? That's correct. Okay, and hopefully we'll be able to limit all of the presentations today to just those that are within the subject areas of the petition. The other thing, Dr. Bailen, I would like to ask you, because we're being asked not only to ban products that are in existence, that are non-polymeric, additive, organohalagen flame retardants, but we're also being asked to ban products that might be created in the future that are in this category. And not being a scientist, I need you to tell me whether you can think of any situation in which a chemical, a flame retardant, could be invented that met these criteria that did not have the same endpoint of toxicity that the group that is in existence now apparently has. Yeah, I think so that we're taking, you know, a regrettable substitution, you've heard a lot about that, the problem of regrettable substitution. And as Dr. Birnbaum said before, there are different toxicity endpoints for these organohalagen flame retardants, but they do all have certain things in common and it's too bad that Dr. Diamond could not speak because she has studied the physical chemical properties of organohalagen flame retardants and knows that they tend to all share the properties of persistence and bioaccumulation. So we will have those chemicals in our bodies and by the time we get them in our bodies in the environment, it would take a very long time for us to determine if they have harmful human health effects. So. And would you expect any of the chemicals within this category to be in SVLC? Yes, that is what Dr. Diamond's research has shown and as I said in my testimony, organohalagens in general will tend to enter ourselves and be there for a long time and have potential to cause toxicity. You're speaking of the lipophilic characteristic. Yes, the ones that have phosphates in them, so the halogen organophosphates, those are not lipophilic, so they don't tend to bioaccumulate as much as more water soluble, but they are also not recognized by ourselves defenses and they can similarly bypass our defenses and get into the cells to cause toxic effects. I think that's all I have. Thank you very much. Yes, I understand it. We now have Dr. Diamond on the phone. Am I correct in saying that? Dr. Diamond. Yes. Oh, wonderful. Oh my goodness. Okay, that was stressful. I kept calling out. Well, it's stressful for us too. But anyway, thank you for agreeing to testify and you may now begin. You'll have five minutes. Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before you by phone. My name is Miriam Diamond. I'm a professor at the University of Toronto for the past 25 years, of which 15 of those years I've spent looking at flame retardant, both through measurements and through modeling. I'd like to make three points. The first point is the nature, the physical chemical properties of the compounds that they're semi-volatile organic compounds coupled with the fact that they're additive. The fact that they're semi-volatile organic compounds means that they can exist both in the solid phase, that is like as the additive into the polymer and in the gas phase at the same time. It's inevitable because of this volatility, the tendency for the chemical to go into the air, it's inevitable that the chemical will escape from the polymer and enter into the air in the indoor environment. Now from the indoor air, they will then partition into surfaces. So the first point is it's inevitable that these compounds will slowly migrate from the polymer to which they're added into the environment, be it indoors or outdoors. The second point I'd like to make is that the compounds are persistent. Organic compounds break down by the action of sunlight, extreme temperature and microbes. Now organohalogens are very persistent and that's outdoors where they persist anywhere depending on the compound for months to decades. So indoors where we don't have sunlight, we don't have extreme temperatures and we don't have as many microbes, they're extremely persistent. There are very few opportunities for loss. Couple that with the fact that it's inevitable that they will continue to be emitted from the polymer as long as that polymer is in the environment, you will continue to have emissions indoors and persistence of the compound. The third point I would like to make is that because of these properties, we're exposed. We're exposed in several ways. We can directly touch the polymer and because it's not chemically bonded, some small but significant fraction of the chemical will come off on your hands and we've done testing on that. Secondly, the chemical, because it's semi-volatile, will tend to sort onto surfaces. Now those surfaces include toys, includes your clothing, both of those can be mouth, it includes your skin, it includes the floor, it includes dust. We have opportunities through hand-to-mouth contact for direct exposure from, so for example, we touch the casing of our TV or computer, get the flame retardant on our hands through the casing, through the dust on there, transfer it to our mouth. So we're exposed in multiple ways. Now I think I have one more minute, so I just wanna make a final point, this is actually the fourth point. One thing we don't tend to think of- You actually have two minutes. Am I out of time? No, you have two minutes. I can blow down, I can have a leisurely fourth point. The fourth point is that we don't tend to think of the end of life and I recognize that you're regulating for fire safety in this point. But it behooves us to think of what happens to these products, particularly electronic products. The plastic polymers are a hot commodity they're purchased after the electronic products go into the waste stream. So there's a vigorous market for those polymers that contain flame retardant. Some of those polymers happen to come back to us in other products, including kitchen utensils and other kitchen items. For example, I have measured in my own kitchen spoons the presence of PBDEs that could not have been intentionally added to kitchen spoons and we've done subsequent testing to find that other plastic products such as kitchen spoons have flame retardant in them. So to summarize, it's inevitable that these compounds as a class will migrate out of products and in effect sort of smeared the indoor environment and all the surfaces in the indoor environment with those chemicals. And with that, I'd like to thank you very much for taking me off of you and allowing me the opportunity to present. Thank you so much. I now move to Commissioner Birkel for questions and I did want to make one note about an exception because Commissioner Robinson and I were not able to ask you questions. I'm going to permit her after we've gone through these questions another minute for a question. But in the moment, Commissioner Birkel. Thank you and thanks to all of our panelists for being here today. We do appreciate your testimony. I just have a couple of questions. One for Mr. Wallace. Mr. Wallace, in your testimony, you suggest that all of the four categories of products that are included in the petition include large amounts of these organic halogens. Can you just describe for me what you consider a large amount? Is that a certain percentage? What is the number? It's not a certain percentage. It's our assessment based on our, when we assess the petition to see if we would be signing on and supporting it. Our scientists in our office in DC we concluded that the science was compelling. Okay, well, and because we have such a limited time we'll probably follow up with questions, but thank you. Ms. Gartner, I have a couple of questions for you. Number one in your testimony, you suggested that, so if a product is declared a banned hazardous substance that then under section 15, we could take action. And I'm just wondering what you suggest, what you're suggesting by that a recall or what was relating to the legacy uses. Yes. So I've read that section through a few times and obviously you have more experience with that and I'm not making a particular recommendation at this time, but it could be a recall, it could be a notice, it wouldn't have to be a full recall, there could be replacement foam cushions for sofas. I think there's a variety of authorities that you have and I probably haven't given it as much thought as I could, but I do know you have the authority to address the legacy exposures from chemicals that are already in people's homes. Thank you very much. And then a second question is currently the commission is dealing with phthalates. Another, we've been advised to, and the scientists, as we're going through this analysis to divide up and make distinctions between groups and I'd like to ask your opinion, why isn't that appropriate in this situation? Why are we asking to ban all of these products? Right, so well under, can you say more about when you said by groups? Well, some phthalates have been identified as fine and others are banned and right now there's a group of them that are, there's an interim ban on those are the ones we're looking to decide on. So I think with the phthalates you looked at the CHAP that was convened looked at a particular endpoint and that endpoint was male reproduction and so you the proposal is to ban the phthalates that act on that particular endpoint. So what we're saying here what Dr. Bernbaum said and what Dr. Bellin have said is that the organohalogens as a class the organohalogens flame retardants they operate on multiple endpoints. So we're not saying just look at the carcinogenic effect or just look at the neurotoxic effect. Many of them are neurotoxic. Many of them are carcinogenic. They're not 100% all carcinogenic, carcinogenic. So, but all of them because of this bond and other physical chemical properties that I'll leave to the scientists to describe all of them have toxicity and meet the standard under the FHSA as being a hazardous substance. They don't all operate in exactly the same way but all of them meet the definition of hazardous substance. Thank you very much. And Dr. Bloom for you as well, I have one question. You mentioned some of these chemicals being bio-accumulative and I'm wondering when they're bio-accumulative does that necessarily mean that there is some risk of exposure with that chemical? That they stay in organisms for a very long time and the levels go up as you go up the food chain. So for example, these chemicals are often in wastewater and they wash into the ocean where very small creatures eat them and then larger creatures eat the small creatures and get a higher level and then fish get a higher level and finally you end up with marine mammals who are where they're quite bio-accumulative and the highest levels in the world, for example, of TBBEs are in marine mammals around California where we had the most TBBE uses. And they tend to be lipophilip or fat-loving, it is the reason. So they just stay in our bodies a very long time and we and all other organisms continue to be exposed to them. Thank you. Again though, and we can have a future conversation, I'm sure maybe in a QFR, but with regards to even with that kind of accumulation that you've described for us, does that necessarily mean that there are adverse consequences to exposure? But I think my time is up. Thank you all very much. Mr. Mohorovic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you petitioners for making the suggestion to the agency and the depth and the quality of your petition as well as your availability to myself and the commission to answer questions about your suggestion. I'm interested in the demand drivers for flame retardants and the corporation of the four product sectors that you've identified and leaving aside the children's products, electronics and mattresses and to focus just on upholstered furniture if we could for a moment. It's generally understood that California technical bullet in 117-75, of course again, before the 2013 revisions was a significant demand driver for the incorporation of significant amount of flame retardants to be able to meet that very difficult standard that was the rule of law in California. Since then, there's been a 2013 version, so California technical bulletin 117-13 that has made that standard available to be met through the usage of barriers and other technologies that doesn't require the significant incorporation of flame retardants. I have one question for each of the petitioners and for brevity, I would ask you to answer yes, no or no comment, would you support the commission adopting technical bulletin 117-13 as a national mandatory standard for upholstered furniture? Mr. Wallace. I'll have to get back to you. I guess that would be no comment. No comment. Yes. Yes. Dr. Bloom? Dr. Diamond? Dr. Diamond, yes. Thank you very much. And in my previous, in the previous panel, we talked about the exposure pathways with the upholstered furniture and the study that was done. And I'm now informed that that was limited to dermal exposure. And I was wondering if you have any additional study or information on the exposure pathway that might better inform our staff's analysis to determine a risk assessment, which would be the threshold that we would have to meet in order to ban moving forward. Do you have anything with regards to exposure pathways from other means for the four product categories that are identified in the petition? And I would ask any of the panelists may jump in if they have something. So currently the biggest exposure route is through inhalation of contaminated dust. Dermal exposure has also recently been shown to be a significant exposure route as well. Inhalation is also important, but I think the hand to mouth contact is in general the biggest source. And including hand to mouth from contaminated dust in from product. So there have been studies showing that touching electronics and then bringing the hands to the mouth can create exposure. And also when the electronics heat up, the casings release more of these philometarines in the dust. Thank you. Any Dr. Bloom or Dr. Diamond? Am I off mute? Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. So there was a very large EPA study about four or five years ago that found with Penta BDE, bleed 80% of the exposure was from dust. And there's been a number of studies recently, sadly, finding that children's levels of Penta BDE and TRIS are three to five times higher than their parents, which is believed to be due to hand to mouth contact, which is also further showing that dust exposure through hand to mouth contact is really a large source, given how much higher children's exposure is. And the very unfortunate fact that it is that high. Thank you, Dr. Bloom. And we know that dose is facet venenum, right? The dose makes the poison. Is there any of those studies included a rate? While I recognize and it sounds like the studies have proven that that is a pathway, dermal, oral hand to mouth, as well as inhalation. Has there been any studies to understand the rate with which we might be able to determine a risk assessment outside of just an acknowledgement that it is a pathway for exposure? Yes, and I would just like Ethereum Diamond, I'd like to add one other exposure pathway and that's through directly mousing materials that have the flame retardant absorbed. For example, the flame retardant will go from dust and from air onto the surface of the toy or clothing that can be moused and that could actually be a significant exposure pathway. The US EPA has exposure pathway level so that the risk assessment can be done. I think what's unclear is that the dust, we know that there is exposure through dust, but we also appreciate that dust is probably acting as proxy for just the levels and doors to which we're exposed, depending on the particular activities of the individual. And as Dr. Bloom mentioned, children tend to be in contact with dust more often than adults and also tend to mow products more frequently, leading to those higher exposures. I will now ask Commissioner Robinson if she has any further questions for Dr. Diamond. Thank you, Commissioner Adler. I'm only going to follow up on what Dr. Balin said, Dr. Diamond, that you would be the more appropriate witness to ask this stuff. And as you know, we're being asked to ban an entire category or group of chemicals based on information we have about only a few of them and we're being asked to ban future products that fall within the category of non-polymeric additive organohalogens. And my question of you, given the fact that I'm not a scientist, is can you imagine that a product could be created that would fall into the category of non-polymeric additive organohalogens that would not have the same endpoints that these that we've studied do have in terms of the SVOC, the persistence of bio-cumulation, the hydrophobic aspect, and the resulting toxicity? And the quick answer to that is no. And the reason is that the very, the properties that are favored for the compound to be a flame retardant are the same properties that lead to persistent bio-accumulative nature and potential toxicity. Thank you. At that, we are now going to take a break. We're actually ahead of time, a miracle of miracles, and we will reconvene at 10.45. Thank you all so much.