 Good morning, and welcome to this public meeting and the consumer product safety commission where we start. I want just to confirm that, uh, Feltman, who is remote can see and hear us. Mr chairman, I can see and hear you. Can you hear and see me? Uh, we can hear you and I'm sure we can switch over. Yes, we can see you too. Very good. Thank you so much at this meeting. CPSC staff will brief. The commission on draft notice of proposed rulemaking that would for the 1st time, establish safety standards for infant rockers and infant toddler rockers. We know 11 deaths over 10 years in these products. This proposal would establish a safety standard for rockers as durable nursery products to fill our obligations under section 104 of the consumer product safety improvement act in a moment. I'll turn this over to staff so they can brief us. Once they complete the briefing, each commissioner will have 10 minutes to ask questions with multiple rounds if necessary. It's a reminder if you have any questions address the agency's legal authority or other legal please don't please don't ask them at this time. We can hold a closed executive session at the end of the briefing upon request briefing us today or Zachary Foster project manager directed for engineering sciences and. Charlotte Alton attorney actually Dan vice is. Charlotte Alton attorney officer general counsel who's joining us via Webex also joins today are Jason Levine. CPC executive director Austin slick general counsel Dwayne Ray, deputy executive director Dan vice assistant general counsel and Pam Stone who is acting as commission secretary now going to turn this microphone over to Mr. Foster. And Miss Alton, please begin. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. And good morning to you, Mr chairman and and the commission my name is Zachary Foster. I'm the project manager for the infant rockers rulemaking project as mentioned. I'm joined by Charlotte Alton via Webex also with me today is Carlos Torres from engineering sciences. He is the mechanical engineer for this project. Um, today, myself, Charlotte and Carlos will discuss staff's draft proposed rule for infant rockers. Next slide, please. Okay, today's presentation will begin with opening statements from Miss Alton discussing the statutory framework for this rulemaking. I will then provide some background information on the product. Review the incident data and hazards associated with the product provide an overview of the current voluntary standard. And discuss other information relevant to the development of staff's proposal. I'll then provide an overview of staff's proposal discuss this potential small business impact and summarize staff's recommendations. I'll now I'll now turn the presentation over to miss Alton and next slide. Please morning. Mr chair and commissioners and thank you. I hope you can all here and see me. Okay. The commission can issue the draft proposed rule pursuant to its authority under section 104 of the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008. Also known as the CPSIA section 104 requires the commission to issue safety standards for durable infant or toddler products using the notice and comment procedure in the administrative procedure act. For the requirements of the APA the draft and PR initiates a notice and comment process for developing a final rule. Section 104 requires that that in consultation with consumer groups, product manufacturers and independent child product engineers and experts, the commission must examine and assess the effectiveness of any voluntary standard for durable infant or toddler products. Section 104 B2 of the CPSIA requires the commission to promulgate standards for durable infant or toddler products until it has done so for all such product categories. The commission must promulgate consumer product safety standards that are substantially the same as the voluntary standard or more stringent than the voluntary standard. The commission determines that more stringent standards would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. Now, I'll turn it back over to Zach to discuss staff's recommended draft proposed rule for infant and infant and toddler products. Thank you, Charlotte. Next slide, please. There are currently two categories of rocker available to consumers that are intended marketed or designed for infant use. The first is the infant rocker, which is for sick infants up to six months old. The second is the infant slash toddler rocker, which is for children up to around two and a half years old. While these two categories function similarly and often share similar features, infant slash toddler rockers generally have an adjustable seat back. Which is meant to allow the occupant to sit in a more upright position as they grow and are able to sit up unassisted. Certain products are considered multi mode, meaning that they can be converted into another seated product, such as a swing or a bouncer. Example products are shown in the image on this slide. For the remainder of this presentation, the term rocker will be used to collectively refer to infant rockers and infant slash toddler rockers. Next slide, please. Staff search of the Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System and National Electronic Injury Surveillance System databases identified 11 fatal incidents reported between January 1st, 2011 and February 28th, 2023 involving rockers. Nearly all reported fatalities involved in infant six months old or younger. The cause of death was attributed to positional asphyxia in four incidents, probable positional asphyxia in two incidents, sudden unexpected infant death, also known as suicide, in two incidents, and respiratory failure in one incident. A cause of death could not be determined in two of these incidents. Nine of the 11 reported fatalities involved infants who were sleeping or napping in rockers. Of these nine incidents, IDIs for six indicate that restraints were not used with three reports of infants being found face down in the rocker. Also among these nine incidents are six reports of pillows and or blankets being placed in the product with the infant with one IDI reporting an infant being found with a blanket covering their face. Of the two remaining fatalities, one involved an infant who was reportedly placed in a rocker for approximately four hours. However, staff was unable to determine if the infant fell asleep while in the product. The other incident involved an infant who was placed in a rocker on top of an adult bed. This infant was later found to have fallen out of the rocker face down onto the bed. Next slide please. In its review of the incident data, staff also identified 1077 non-fatal incidents and consumer concerns in the same reporting period. 88 of these incidents reported injury. Of the incidents resulting in injury, product tip over was the most common hazard pattern accounting for 57 injuries. Staff also notes one incident in which an infant crawled under a rocker and became entangled at the neck by a tethered strap requiring intervention from a caregiver. Among incidents that did not result in injury, instances of battery leakage, tip overs, reports of hardware issues and reports of unstable or wobbly rockers were commonly reported. Next slide please. Current voluntary standard for rockers is ASTM F3084-22, standard consumer safety specification for infant and infant slash toddler rockers. Listed on the left side of this slide are the general requirements included in the voluntary standard. These requirements are found across a wide range of other safety standards, including safety standards for other juvenile products. Listed on the right side of this slide are the performance requirements included in this voluntary standard. These requirements are specifically intended to address hazards associated with rockers. Next slide please. For this rulemaking project, staff evaluated ASTM F3084-22 to determine if it adequately addresses hazards associated with rockers. Staff determined that revisions to the standard are necessary to address hazards associated with rockers and to reduce the risk of injury. In April of 2023, staff sent a letter to the ASTM subcommittee for infant rockers with recommended revisions to ASTM F3084-22. These recommendations will be discussed in later slides. Next slide please. CPSC staff contracted with researchers from Boise State University to compare and evaluate infant seated products, including rockers. The Boise State researchers evaluated incident data provided by CPSC staff, performed assessments on various infant seated products, and performed human subject testing in infant seated products. In June of 2023, Boise State finalized and delivered the report entitled Seated Products Characterization and Testing. In this report, Boise State provides the following recommendations and conclusions for infant seated products. First, Boise State recommends that seated products undergo firmness testing, with the firmness being at least equivalent to that of crib mattresses. Second, Boise State recommends that the concavity of seated products should be limited and that the testing be performed to evaluate concavity. Both of these proposed tests are intended to reduce the risk of suffocation by keeping infant's faces from being occluded by the seat. Additionally, Boise State recommends that soft, loosely connected, or tethered pillow slash body insert features that can cover an infant's face be prohibited. Lastly, Boise State warns that infants should not be placed in seated products for sleep of any kind, including short duration naps. Next slide please. As previously mentioned, Boise State proposes a firmness test be applied to infant seated products and recommends that the firmness of infant seated products be equivalent to what is required for crib mattresses. To account for the differences in product geometry between crib mattresses and infant seated products, Boise State performed a modified version of the firmness test. For this test, Boise State utilized a 7.5 centimeter henospheric probe attached to a force gauge. This probe is intended to represent the size and shape of an infant's face. For the test, Boise State placed the probe on a test point on the seat back representing where an occupant's head would rest and apply to force of 10 newtons. Boise State then repeated this application on a second test point located on a wall slash side of the product parallel to the first test point. For this test, Boise State recommends that the peak deflection at both test points be less than 11 millimeters. Next slide please. Boise State also proposed a test to evaluate the concavity and conformity of infant's seated products. This test is intended to prevent a product's seat back and or sides from including an occupant's nose or mouth during use. For this test, Boise State placed the newborn five segment sagittal plane device in a product to represent an infant sitting in the product. Boise State then measured the width of the seat back from the right to the left denoting this measurement as L. Boise State then measured the depth of the seat denoting this measurement as D. Using the equation shown on this slide, Boise State calculated the radius of the seat denoted as R. In their report, Boise State recommends that the seat radius be greater than 22 centimeters. Staff notes that a higher seat radius means a flatter seat which reduces the likelihood of the seat back or sides including an occupant's nose or mouth during use. Next slide please. After evaluation of ASTM F3084-22 and the seated products characterization and testing report, staff recommends several modifications be made to the voluntary standard to address product hazards and reduce the risk of injury. Staff's first recommendation is to add performance requirements and a test method to evaluate firmness. Staff's recommended requirements are largely identical to the test recommended in the seated products characterization and testing report with minor modifications to make the test consistent and repeatable. As with Boise State's recommended test, staff's recommended requirements are intended to ensure that the firmness of rockers are equivalent to that of crib mattresses with modifications to account for unique product geometry. Staff also maintains Boise State's recommendation of a peak deflection of less than 11 millimeters. Staff has prepared a demonstration of its proposed firmness test on the next slide. For this test, the rocker is first placed on the floor. Next, the hinged weight gauged is placed in the rocker with the hinge located at the seat light. Then the tester marks the first test point on the top of the seat four inches below the top of the gauge. The hinged weight gauge is then removed from the seat. And the tester marks the second test point eight inches to the side of and parallel to the first test point. The tester then places the probe at the first test point and applies a 10 Newton force to the test point for 30 seconds. This 10 Newton force is shown on the force gauge. The tester records the peak deflection, which is what is shown here on the video. And this deflection shall be less than 11 millimeters. This test is then repeated at the second test point with the same requirement that the deflection be less than 11 millimeters. Okay, next slide please. Staff also recommends adding performance requirements and a test method to evaluate concavity to the voluntary standard. Staff's proposed test is largely identical to the test proposed in the seated products characterization and testing report. And staff maintains Boise State's recommendation of a cavity or radius greater than 22 centimeters. Carlos Torres will now perform a demonstration of staff's proposed concavity test. Chairman, good morning commissioners. I'm going to demonstrate the concavity test for you. Here we have an infant rocker. For this test, I'm going to engage the kickstand so it doesn't move as I conduct the test. It's a stable. First, we take the infant size hinge weight and put it on the rocker with a hinge part aligned with a bite of the seat. And we measure about four inches from the top of the hinge that simulates the head position of the shell. Then we take a bar across and we mark where that those four inches are relative to the feedback. Then we take a tape measure and we measure the width of the feedback from left to right. You can either keep the bar in place just to use it as reference. We measure from the inside of the of the seat bag because that's where the concavity is created. That's measurement L for the equation. Then we take and I'm sure I'm sorry I should have kept the bar in place. Then what we try to do is measure the depth of the of the feedback. So we measure from the bar to the hinge weight. And then once we have that measurement from the bottom of the bar to the hinge weight, we then have to add the thickness of the hinge weight because we want to measure the distance from the bar all the way down to the seat bag. And that's the value D in the equations. Now that you have those two values, then you plug it in or put it into the equation to calculate the radius, the concavity radius. And as mentioned, the concavity should be greater than 22 centimeters because that will represent a flatter surface. Thank you Carlos and staff's equation to evaluate to measure the concavity can be found in the staff briefing package. Next slide please staff also recommends that performance requirements and a test method to evaluate tethered straps be added to the voluntary standard. This requirement is intended to address strangulation hazards staff proposes that the bounded openings formed by tethered straps shall either not allow passage of a small head probe. Or shall allow passage of both the small head probe and the large head probe and she'll have a strapped length less than or equal to 7.4 inches. Staff also recommends that a drop test be added to the voluntary standard. Staff's proposed test is consistent with drop tests required in other juvenile product standards, such as the infant bouncer standard. It requires that the products shall not create a hazardous condition when dropped from a height of 36 inches on each of the six product sides. Staff also recommends that performance requirements and a test method to evaluate battery compartments be added to the voluntary standard. These requirements are intended to address hazards associated with battery leakage and are consistent with requirements found in other juvenile product standards such as the infant bouncer standard. Next slide please staff also recommends revisions to the voluntary standards forward stability performance requirements to clarify which requirements are to be applied to which product category. Meaning if the test is to be applied to an infant rocker or an infant slash toddler rocker. Staff also recommends that the forward stability test be revised to apply the static load further away from the crotch post. This revision makes the test more stringent and makes the test consistent with the forward stability test included in the infant bouncer standard. Next slide please. Staff's recommendations also include several revisions to the warning requirements and ASTM F 3084-22. These revisions are primarily intended to emphasize warnings against the use of rockers for sleep. And against the use of soft bedding in rockers. Staff's recommendations also include language to address use by infants who are born prematurely. An example warning label with staff's recommendations is shown on this slide. In addition to changes to the warning language staff recommends warning label visibility requirements be added to the voluntary standard. Staff's proposed requirements are similar to the warning label visibility requirements founded the infant bouncer rule and require that warnings are placed on a product's seat back. Next slide please. Staff recommends adding a definition of rocking to ASTM F 3084-22 to more clearly differentiate rockers from other seated products such as swings or bouncers. Staff also recommends adding an occupant weight limit of 20 pounds to the definition of infant rocker as well as an occupant weight limit of 40 pounds to the definition of infant slash toddler rocker. This recommendation corresponds with staff's recommended revisions to the forward stability performance requirements and is meant to clarify which stability requirements and test methods are to be applied to which product type. Additionally, this recommendation makes the definitions for each product type consistent with the warning requirements of the voluntary standard which require manufacturers to include the applicable weight limit on the product warning. Next slide please. Of the approximately 50 businesses that currently supply infant and infant slash toddler rockers to the U.S. market, nine are small U.S. businesses. Staff assesses that most products currently on the market will likely require modification to meet staff's draft proposed role. Staff notes that certain multi-mode products that are required to meet other safety standards such as the bouncer or swing standard may meet some of staff's proposed performance requirements, but will still likely require revision. Redesign costs for small firms could be significant for the first year that the rule is effective with an estimated redesign cost of $80,000 per model. However, costs associated with provisions to warning labels and testing are expected to be minimal. Next slide please. In summary, staff recommends that the commission publish a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposes incorporating by reference the voluntary standard ASTM F3084-22 with staff's modifications to reduce the risk of injury. Additionally, staff recommends updating 16 CFR Part 1130 to include infant rocker and infant slash toddler rocker as durable infant or toddler products that require a product registration card, as well as updating 16 CFR Part 1112 to include a notice of requirements for infant rockers and infant slash toddler rockers. Lastly, staff recommends an effective date of 180 days following publication of a final rule. Next slide please. And that's all I have today. I'll now open it up for questions. Thank you. Thank you for a very informative and thorough briefing. As he said, we're now turning to questions from the commissioners. Ten minutes, multiple rounds necessary to start with myself. So the package refers to 10 deaths associated with infant toddler rockers, including rockers that have been recalled. In addition, Boise State report raised concerns about a number of specific rockers in that report. Would any of these rockers meet the requirements of the draft rule that's being proposed? They would not. At minimum, they would fail the proposed firmness test. And the Boise State report, as well as commission guidance notes that rockers should not be used for sleep or any seeded product shouldn't be used for sleep. We advocate for firm flat surface for sleep. But with respect to rockers themselves and other seed products or rockers specifically in this case, what are the uses for rockers that are out there? Yes, staff's assessment as well as Boise State's assessment was that seeded products such as rockers offer utility to infants in regards to visual stimulation and infant caregiver interaction. Additionally, they offer utility to caregivers as a place to place the infant during awake time. If these, if seeded products are not available to caregivers, certain alternatives like makeshift products or placing an infant on a sofa may be considered an option to those caregivers, which staff considers to be hazardous. Thank you. And thank you again for the presentation as a whole. I thought it was very comprehensive. I'm going to turn at this point in time to my fellow commissioners. Commissioner Feldman, did you have questions? I did. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again for the briefing today. Again, I appreciate the flexibility and continuing to allow a remote option. Today's a busy day for my team. Among other things, we are in route to Kansas City to celebrate Mr. Brett Horn, whose work with parents against tip over was instrumental in our promulgation of a strong mandatory safety standard for clothing storage units. Mr. Foster, Ms. Alton and the rest of staff, I do want to recognize your work on the briefing today and want to thank you for your dedication in general for keeping consumers safe. Your presentation today included a good summation of the incidents that you're aware of with respect to these products. I do appreciate your work and look forward to reviewing the recommendations that you're making. My question is of the various recommendations that the staff's proposing that are layered on top of the existing ASTM F 3084-22. Were these recommendations socialized with the ASTM technical committee as it was finalizing the 22 standard and if so, can you discuss why they were not about that? Yes, in May or sorry in April of 2023. Staff sent a letter to ASTM. With some of its recommendations since then ASTM has started a task group to work through some of those recommendations. And then in June of 2023, the Boise State report was finalized and delivered to the commission and then that report was later shared with ASTM. So staff anticipates that we continue to work with ASTM on these recommendations. Okay, that's helpful and I'm sure as we progress, we can keep apprised of any developments on that front. Mr. Alton, again, thank you for your work here. I have no further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Turn down to Commissioner Trump. Did you have questions? Thank you and thank you for the work that got us here. We've obviously made some good progress. And I'd like to start with a few questions on issues where I imagine we'll be able to get to agreement on some simple tweaks to the proposal before us. And then I'll address those before moving on to some more fundamental questions. It seems like the two main protections of this proposed rule are the tests intended to achieve increased firmness and a concavity test to make the rockers less closed in around baby's heads. And on the firmness test, the proposal defines two specific points, one in the center of the headline and one eight inches to the side. And the nursing pillow NPR that we just advanced test firmness at three points on each surface. At the briefing on the nursing pillow NPR staff made a pre-compelling defense of a third test point in the area most likely to fail. They noted that if firmness was only tested at two specific points, manufacturers would make those two points firm, but not necessarily everywhere else on the product. Do you agree that there could be value in adding a third firmness test point at a spot in the head area that would be most likely to fail? Staff's assessment of the firmness test was that these two locations were based on a infant sitting prone or supine in the product with their head turned to the side. Staff's assessment that these that these two test points were sufficient in that these are the most likely points where an infant's head would be. However, we are we are open to comments on this matter. Yeah, I think, all right, so if you're thinking most likely first turn, maybe the point of first contact, maybe it's that eight inch point on the side. But once they flip supine to prone, it could be any point in that head area. And so that's why I'd say most likely to fail to make sure it's not just those two points that end up getting made very firm, whereas the rest of the product gets left left hard. So I hope we would think about that moving forward. On the concavity test and Mr. Torres, I appreciated demonstration. I thought that was very helpful to visualize. But I have a similar concern there. So we base the concavity requirement on two measures that you showed us, you know that we the bar comes across the head support line and we measure the width of the head support area and the max depth. And we plug those into a formula and that works as intended if there's a uniform curve of the product. But, but if, if we have a non uniform curve, you know, we've seen products that are head shaping head retention, if those get incorporated into these products, does the test account for that top image. I mean, would that be picked up in the test somehow we measure the interior head angle those two points in the middle or would we still measure the whole way across. Mr. Grimming, if you would like to speak on that. Yeah, I'll take this one. And I hadn't had time to discuss this with the entire team because it was a last minute evaluation. So the configuration you show on the top board is something we've never seen. That's that's one thing. However, the way the the requirement is worded the test measures the with L what you see there along the head support line and the interior of the side supports. So the interior the intent was to measure the side supports for the length L now in your picture on at the top there, the side supports in staffs interpretation would be the ones near the head. Fantastic. That is what I was hoping you'd say to that one. And we we may need some clarification and we're welcome to see opinions or comments come come forth. I appreciate that. Thank you for for being adaptive on that and looking at that quickly. On in the briefing package. There's an image on page OS 140, and it's labeled image five. And it's got a pillow like head rest shown there. That's part of the product that's incorporated into the product unlike the one you see on the table before you there. And so even if a product passes our concavity test and our firmness test. I'm worried that there could still be a potentially hazardous gap where the pillow meets the surface below it. If the baby got his nose or his or her nose and mouth stuck in that gap between the pillow and the product. Generally. So, you know, can you explain how the proposed rule could address that scenario. Staff's assessment is that the that the proposed firmness and cavity tests would address that hazard by kind of eliminating the possibility of that. We're not aware of any incidents of suffocation between an insert and a seat back. However, we are open public comment on that. Okay. Yeah, I think that's one to think through. You know, and one, one thing I'll note no question here, but I'll note that the draft proposal doesn't currently have an anti stockpiling provision and I believe that would be an important, important addition to strengthen up the role if we go forward. You know, another thing according to the briefing package and you mentioned again here today about the developmental benefits here. For infant zero to four months old, the briefing package suggested there was no physical developmental benefits to rockers for that age group. The package stated that quote benefits of using seating, seating products for younger infants would be limited primarily to visual stimulation and infant caregiver interaction. So seeing their parent and the things around them and you mentioned that again here today. I assume that's true that the rockers help with visual stimulation infant caregiver interaction. And that that is of some value to the baby. Are rockers the only products on the market that could provide that benefit. They're not the other seated products would provide similar benefits as noted and that's noted in the, the Boise State report. And I think in the package you identify some of them. This is like swings, bouncers, infant seeds, high chairs. These these all provide that same benefit we're talking about right. Yes. Okay. And I think there's another way to achieve this, you know, the package indicates and again you mentioned this today that caregivers use rockers as a place to contain the baby while they're relaxing or perform performing household tasks. And if you're saying that the alleged benefit to the baby is to see the caregiver doing these things and to be able to interact with them. They would gain the same benefit from from this product. One with less than a 10 degree incline scooted slightly closer to the caregiver, and that product doesn't seem to carry the same risk of an incline that we're worried about. So, if rockers offer no unique benefit if there's other products in the market that offer the same benefit for children under four months old. I question why rockers would be marketed for use with infants this young at all. And that's something I think we may want to address if we move forward with this proposal. Now, to actually gain the benefit you're talking about from rockers babies would have to be awake while they're in the rocker right. So, so if they have to be awake in the package notes they quote various products include a soothing unit that vibrates the product and that may play music or other sounds. I question whether having that we put a battery standard in here which in general is a great idea on products that should have batteries. But I question whether that sends the perverse message that it's okay to have vibration features likely to lead to sleep and these kind of products. And I think that's an issue we should address head on if we proceed here. And it's an issue we have addressed head on very recently in a very related context. We finalized a rule that went into effect five days ago that's directly instructive on this point the band on incline sleepers for infants pursuant to congressional mandate in the safe sleep for babies act and there we said that if a product is inclined over 10 degrees and it's designed for sleep. It's not allowed. And commenters asked what it means to be designed for sleep. And we told them, you know, we told them that evidence we would look to included things like padded sides, excess peeling a padding or pillow like items soothing sounds soothing motions soothing lights and soothing vibrations and here with rockers. The proposal obviously does address pillows and padding but it doesn't yet address the soothing motions and soothing vibrations that could lull a baby to sleep. And because of that I think we're ignoring obvious signs that many of these products are sleepers. And while we're, you know, this is why we're trying to regulate a category of products associated with sleep deaths. So the only alleged developmental baby benefit for babies is to be able to engage with adults while sitting up in a wake. Maybe these products shouldn't rock and maybe they shouldn't vibrate and play lullabies. Maybe they shouldn't do anything that makes it more likely for a baby to fall asleep in them. And I think we should seriously consider that in setting performance requirements for this product category. I am running low on time. I have some more questions, but I will yield for now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Foster for that presentation. I really appreciate the hard work that you put into it. I do have a couple of questions. I'd like to ask first about scope and you touched on this a little bit talking about the different type of products, infants and infant and toddler products. And can you elaborate on the differences in those products a little bit more and tell me whether you all considered setting different performance requirements for each of those categories, particularly since the vast majority of deaths are in that zero to six month range. Was there a way to kind of separate them out to focus on different performance requirements? So the main difference between the two product categories is the weight limit for each one. We're proposing a 20 pound weight limit for infant rockers and a 40 pound weight limit for infant slash toddler rockers. And this weight limit, it wasn't initially included in the scope or terminology. But it was included in the voluntary standards that warning requirements manufacturers were required to list a maximum occupant weight for infant rockers. It was no greater than 20 pounds for infant slash toddler rockers. It was no greater than 40 pounds. And then the other difference between the two products being that these infant slash toddler rockers have that adjustable seat back, which is kind of meant to facilitate upright sitting for older infants or toddlers who are able to sit up unassisted. And in the performance requirements, there are differences in the forward stability test for. For these products infant slash toddler rockers are subject to an additional stability test. I'm sorry, the toddler infant toddler products. Yes. Okay. So, other than weight in that last performance requirement you just mentioned, do any of those performance requirements address the hazards that we're seeing in the 0 to 6 month range? I mean, does the weight differentiation address the hazard scenarios? I might have to get back to you on that. Okay. That's fine. I appreciate that. I also have another question on data just it's really just a point of clarification. I think in the compliance memo it talks about 13 fatalities and throughout the rest of the package. We talk about 11 fatalities and I know there's a date difference, but can you tell me why we focused on 11 and we didn't address the other two. I can take that one. So there is a date difference in the epidemiological memo. The information there was drawn in the camera exactly. I think it was November 2022. And so the other other information came in subsequent to that. And at the time the compliance memo was drafted. We had that additional information allowed us to identify the additional fatalities. Yeah, we analyze those fatalities. Yeah, so they present the same hazard pattern. And we would anticipate in the final rule briefing package when we update the epidemiological poll, we'll add those in there. Thank you. Thanks for that. I do want to go back to a little bit of a discussion on the incline that I think commissioner Trump was alluding to or addressing directly. And, and this may be just a basic question, but why was the 10 degree angle chosen in the first place. That it has that the products in terms of the definition and the scope that their products above 10 degrees that have an angle above 10 degrees just to be clear. I'm not entirely sure I would have to probably go back and kind of examine the history of the standard on that. But it is my understanding that. You know, products that are 10 degrees or less are considered or do have to meet the standard for a sleep product. Yeah, I can help. So the, as you're aware, the sleep standard requires an angle is less than 10 degrees to provide sort of flat seat sleeping surface. These products are not intended for sleep. And so to make it very, very clear that they are not sleep products. We looked for an angle. It was to take it out of the scope of the other. I just wanted to make that point clear. But there's all we set forth a minimum but not a maximum angle. So it could be any angle. Yeah, yeah, there is no maximum angle. Okay. And forgive me if this is outside your expertise, but do we have information on what the literature says about whether inclined surfaces encourage sleep? I'm not aware of any. I can get back to you on that. Okay. And I kind of along those lines too, I like to find out if the information, if the literature talks about whether inclined surfaces result in chin to chest positioning of an infant and how that hazard might result in potential fatalities or incidents. So if you have further information on that, I think that would be really helpful. I also have a question on restraints and just really if you can you explain staff's recommendation on the use of restraints in the context of sleep. Well, in this case, we, we, we recommend that these products are not are not used for sleep. Sorry, I'll just interrupt. I understand that. But in general, and to the extent you can answer just in I understand that we in for sleep products, we don't support restraints because of potential hazards in sleep with restraints. Correct. I just want to make that clear. That is correct. Okay. So that for bassinets or cribs, we, we, we prohibit that. And there was just a point in the package that I just wanted to, I guess, in along those lines clarify, because when you're talking in some OS 13, the package states that most, and it was talking about those incidents that most of those incidents involves infants being placed in a rock or for sleeping or napping, but then it also states that the data indicate that in 6 of the 11 fatalities restraints were not used. And I just wanted to clarify, you weren't suggesting that in that sleep context restraints should have been used. No, we were not. Okay, I just wanted to make that point clear because, you know, if infants are falling asleep in these products and there's restraints, you know, that that is something that I think we should be focusing on. Thank you for that clarification. I also wanted to ask you about the warnings. As far as I remember, but perhaps I'm not remembering fully this is the first time you've staff has made a recommendation for premature babies or is this is this a new direction. I'm not aware of any previous recommendations. Okay, is there something unique about this product that would have warranted a new warning along those lines. We'll have to get back to that one. I'm not sure of any, but okay. I guess given the best that the best number of deaths occurred in the 0 to 6 month. Would it be also helpful to warn. To have a similar warning for that age group and not just premature babies. I'll have to get back to that one. Great. That's, that's terrific. And then one final question, kind of following up a little bit on a question that the chair asked. I think you said in response to his question about products that are currently on the market that they wouldn't meet the standard. What you said. Yes. Okay, but I just want to clarify. Do would they wouldn't meet the standard, but would the proposed requirements address the hazard patterns associated with those deaths. Kind of 2 different points. Yes, they would, they would. It would address the, because I think in those is rollover issues and and you think that these proposed requirements would address those hazard scenarios. Yes, our, our proposed requirements would address the tip over hazards and. Visions that we're making to the warning labels would address hazards associated with. Products for sleep and the use of a soft bedding. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the presentation. I look forward to hearing some of the information that you can follow up with and thank you again. Thank you. Mr. chair. Thank you. There's been a request for another round of questions. Commissioner Feldman. Do you have questions? I have no additional questions. Mr chairman. Thank you. Mr. Trump. So commissioner Boyle was asking about the, the angle, you know, over 10 degrees. We've got a wide range. We don't have a maximum. Angle that these are allowed to be, but is, is there a defined line where we draw a line between laying and sitting? Is there a certain degree where, where that angle is met? So I think of the infant sleep products rule. We've. Define that established that at the 10 degree mark is so below 10 degrees. We consider that laying in. It's within a sleep product below 10 degrees. Definitely laying. So you're saying that everything over 10 degrees. We're defining a sitting. Correct. Correct. Okay. And I asked that because everywhere in the package that talks about the benefits of rockers described the benefits of sitting, but, but I wanted to make sure I understood what we meant by that. And that wide range of rockers would allow a pretty wide range within that. Just over 10 degrees for a product. I mean, I view a product at 11 degrees is laying. That's how I would have thought about that. And I know that when the rock and play was on the market, that was in the 30 degree range or so, and that was a sleeper. So, so they view that as laying in the 30 degree range and we told them to flatten that out below 10. So I just wanted to make sure that when we ascribe any utility to the product that we're talking about the entire range of products in this category and it sounds like you have thought about that. So we've excluded four known deaths associated with the recalled rocker. And it said that it was because it was a convertible product and we didn't know whether it was in the rocking mode or the stationary mode. But I'm trying to struggle with with how that's a relevant distinction here because the rocking motion is not a variable in our tests. The requirements requirements are a firmness test and a cavity test and a product would test the same on both of those, whether it was in the stationary mode or the rocking mode. So I question whether there's justification for excluding those deaths from our analysis and I'd sure like us to consider those going forward if we could. I think in general the package uses a paired down list. Commissioner Boyle asked a little bit about this and you talked about this a little bit too but it seems like a paired down list of the infant deaths overall. Last June we warned the public about 13 deaths associated with the single rocker and a 14th death associated with a second individual rocker. And this package uses a shorter list, regardless though I did want to ask about one of the specific ones that is included in this package. And it is a chin to chest asphyxiation and I worry about the incline of the product contributing to that hazard. So how does this rule reduce the risk of chin to chest asphyxiation and these incline products. So, if it's the incident that you're referring to it's a 2 month old male infant that pitched forward and got into a chin to chest scenario. I believe that's right. I think that the restraints requirements. Yeah, yes, the restraint requirements would help to prevent these kinds of hazards as well as the. Infant rockers and infant slash toddler rockers that are in the. I guess the infant mode would have a more reclined seat back, which would help to prevent these sorts of hazards. But we're not requiring them to have a specific incline. They could have as upright and inclined as they wanted on this rule. Yes. I mean, it's something we ought to think through and here's the bigger question I'm left struggling with. I mean, our advice has been pretty consistent on infant sleep. Never put your baby to sleep in an incline product. You're saying that again here today and I appreciate that we all agree with that these are unsafe for sleep. And that only a firm flat surface is safe with rockers. We've got sleep deaths, but we're not addressing the sleep angle on this product. The agency looked at a very similar issue when it passed the infant sleep product rule. Incline sleepers had very similar physical designs to rockers like the one on the table in front of him. And the hazard pattern there looked very similar to the incline of the products allowed babies to flip over from their backs onto their stomachs. Where they couldn't do that in flat products based on their developmental abilities at that age range. So when the infant sleep product rule, the agency chose a solution to flatten the products out to reduce the incline to under 10 degrees and reduce the risk. Here we have sleep deaths associated with rockers and rather than do the same thing rather than flatten these products out, we're choosing a different solution. You're suggesting these products will be safer with a wider curve of the product around the head and a firmer material. Now I'm willing to accept to provisionally accept that that would make these products safer. But here's the question I'm left with is, does that make them safe enough? Is this a solution that you would have proposed to solve the rock and play problem? And if you propose that for the rock and play, would we have commissioners have voted for it? And while it looks like this will make rockers safer, the question that matters most to me is, will this proposal end infant sleep deaths in this product? And I've got doubts about whether it meets that bar. So we're in the past, we've approached infant sleep products with near identical designs by dropping sleep angles below 10 degrees. And here we're doing the exact opposite. We're defining these products as having a sleep angle of greater than 10 degrees. And I question whether that's an example of letting industry dictate our approach. This proposal defines products by how industry defines and distinguishes them in voluntary standards groups. And it accepts these categories and tries to tweak them to make them safer. Instead of looking at similar products, no matter what the industry wants to call them and ask why anyone needs these inclines at all. I just, that's the question I'm struggling with going forward and I hope we find a solution on it. And I appreciate your work on this. Thank you for this briefing today. Thank you. Commissioner ball. I don't have additional questions just to thank you very much. And I think the staff as well. I also asked my fellow commissioners, are there legal questions that there's a request for a closed. Executive session hearing none. I think again, staff for preparing the presentation for all the work that has led up to this point with the draft as before us and thanks to facilities and communication staffs and the office of secretary for assistance with this briefing. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. This briefing is adjourned. Thanks.