 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission. Before we start, can we confirm that commissioner Feldman, can you see and hear us? I can see and hear you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. All right, and we can hear you as well. At this meeting, CPSC staff will brief the commission on a draft notice proposed rulemaking to amend the safety standard for best nets and cradles, which has not been updated since first established in 2013 in 2022 commission unanimously rejected an update to the voluntary standard for best nets and cradles because we found that it was less stringent. Than the standard previously on the books, our statute calls on the commission to periodically review and revise durable infant product standards to ensure that they maintain the highest level of safety. And this proposal rises from such a review. So adopt the 22. SDM update with important modifications designed to ensure that best nets and cradles meet the high level of safety set by the consumer product safety improvement act. In a moment, we'll turn this meeting over to staff so they can brief us once they've completed the briefing. Each commissioner will have 10 minutes to ask questions of multiple rounds if necessary. As a reminder, if you have questions that address the statutory interpretation or legal advice, please don't ask them. At this time, we will hold a closed executive session at the end of this briefing in order to discuss such matters briefing us today or cells. Celestine kish bassinet and cradle project manager in the division of human factors and Mary house turning the office of general counsels regulatory affairs division going to now turn the microphone over to you. Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Chair commissioners I'm Celestine kish. The project manager for bassinet cradle rulemaking project as the chair said today, Mary house and I will discuss staffs draft proposed rule for bassinet and cradles to update the commission's regulation in 16 CFR 12 18. Next, to set the stage, Mary will provide background information since the original regulation is from 2013 and she will then discuss the statutory framework for this update. Then I will present a summary of the hazard patterns found in the incident data and after that I will present staffs draft proposed rule. The small business impact and the staff recommendations. So now I'll turn it over to Mary. Next slide morning, everyone, provide some context. I'll first briefly review the background for this rule. Pursuant to section 104 B 1 of the consumer product safety improvement act of 2008 or the CPSIA. The commission published the existing role for bassinets and cradles in 2013 and it's codified in 16 CFR part 12 18 existing rule incorporates by reference to 2013 version of the voluntary standard for bassinets and cradles with modifications to make the standard more stringent to further reduce the risk of injury. For example, the modifications in this rule, clarify the scope of the rule. The requirements have a more stringent stability test and it requires the use of a smaller camey dummy, which is actually more stringent for testing. Under that same authority in section 104 B 1 of the CPSIA in 2021, the commission issued the safety standard for infant sleep products, which we also refer to as the ISP rule. Infant sleep product rule is intended to ensure that there are no regulatory gaps for sleep products intended for young infants so that these sleep products are subject to a regulation and meet basic safe sleep requirements. The ISP rule applies to products that are marketed or intended to provide a sleeping accommodation for infants up to 5 months of age that do not already meet 1 of CPSC's 5 existing infant sleep standards, meaning full size cribs, non full size cribs, play yards, bedside sleepers and bassinets. So if a product doesn't already meet 1 of these existing rules, the ISP rule requires that those infant sleep products at a minimum have a head to toe sleep surface angle of 10 degrees or less from horizontal and meet the mandatory rule for bassinets, including the definition of a bassinet in part 1218, which means the product must have a stand. So because of the ISP rule, the bassinet rule provides a safe sleep baseline for infant sleep products to ensure that infants are placed to sleep on a firm flat sleep surface and to discourage caregivers from placing these products, including lightweight and low to the ground products on unsafe, elevated or soft surfaces such as beds, couches, tables and countertops. Also, practically speaking, because of the ISP rule, any changes that the commission makes to the bassinet rule will also apply to the infant sleep product rule, at least to those products that don't meet 1 of the other 5 sleep standards. So the commission considered this fact in 2022 when you rejected the 2022 version of the ASTM voluntary standard. So when they notified the commission at that point that they had a revised standard, the revised standard included requirements for compact bassinets. It added a new category of compact bassinets and added new requirements for these products, including stability, marketing and labeling requirements. Among its other provisions, the 2022 ASTM standard eliminated stands for compact bassinets, but also included new requirements for battery compartments, warnings and instructional literature. After assessing the revised ASTM standard, staff recommended rejecting the 2022 version because the standard would decrease the safety of bassinets and infant sleep products, primarily based on the inclusion of compact bassinets without the requirement for a stand and because the standard subjected compact bassinets to a less stringent stability test. The commission voted to determine that ASTM F2194-22E1 did not improve the safety of bassinets and cradles for infant sleep products and to keep the existing Part 1218. Now staff is recommending adopting the 2022 ASTM standard, but with modifications that Stelstein will explain. Next slide. The authority for this rulemaking is section 104 of the CPSIA. The commission must issue rules for durable infant or toddler products in accordance with the notice and comment procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act and publication of this NPR would start the notice and comment process. For the first time, the commission would be issuing this NPR under the authority in section 104B2 of the CPSIA, which mandates that after the commission establishes rules for durable infant or toddler products, the commission shall periodically review and revise those standards to ensure that they provide the highest level of safety for such products that is feasible. Next slide. Stelstein is going to explain staff's recommended draft proposed rule. Thank you, Mary. So we're all clear about what a bassinet looks like. Here are a few pictures. The two examples on the left are considered cantilever bassinets. The bassinet is a more traditional design and the two bassinets on the right meet the current ASTM definition for compact bassinets and the current 1218 because they have stands. Next slide. Now present the hazard patterns found in the incident data. Staff's review of the incident data identified five addressable hazard patterns from this current data and one hazard pattern from the previous data collected for the 2022 rejection package. Staff searched to CPSC maintain databases to identify incidents associated with bassinets and cradles, the consumer product safety risk management system, CPS RMS, and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, NICE. The fatality and injury data were from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2022. There are also 182 non-injury incidents identified from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022. The first hazard pattern involves bassinets that do not sit level. This category predominantly involved side to side tilting issues with cantilever bassinets. The two deaths involved young infants who were not developmentally capable of rolling, who were placed on their back, but discovered not breathing on their side or stomach position into or near the side of the bassinet. 95 of the 182 non-injury incidents involved similar complaints with consumers sharing photos of their infant rolled over or showing levels in the bassinet which showed a tilt. The next hazard pattern is product design. Within this hazard pattern, we identified safety concerns involving products being unstable, which increased the risk of infants rolling into a compromised position and suffocating, and products sitting too low to the ground. The two deaths in this category resulted from play yard bassinet accessories being used off of the play yard and on the ground, which allowed easier access for older siblings to get into the bassinet with the infant and causing overlay suffocation. As discussed in the 2022 rejection package, another hazard with smaller portable products defined as compact bassinet cradles is that they are significantly more likely to be placed on a soft and or elevated surface, such as a table, sofa, countertop or bed, and making them more prone to tipping over. The death in this category occurred when a soft travel bassinet was placed on an adult bed and the infant fell out of the bassinet and became entrapped between the wall and bed. And two of the three injuries were head injuries as a result of falling from a couch and a countertop. The next hazard pattern has to do with mattresses and mattress supports. Mattresses that were not flat, such as bent, warped, sagging with bumps, bulges, or dips. Mattresses that were not well fitted and mattress boards that were bent, warped, popped out of place, provided little or no support, were broken, or were not staying in place. All of these can lead to uneven sleep surfaces, again, putting infants at risk of asphyxia suffocation. Two deaths, one emergency department visit, one non-emergency department injury, and 75 of the 182 non-injury product-related incidents were identified in this category. Next are products with insufficient structural stability, such as components of the bassinet cradle that reportedly break or crack, hardware coming loose, or stitching coming undone. These can increase the potential for infants to get into a compromised position, increasing the risk of asphyxia or suffocation. Staff identified one reported hospitalization due to a laceration injury, one reported emergency department visit because a broken metal piece hit the infant, and seven of the 182 non-injury product-related incidents were in this category. Some bassinets contain battery-operated or plug-in powered features, including sounds, lights, vibration, and motorized rocking movements. Electrical problems with bassinets can result in shock or battery leakage. Staff identified one hospitalization due to a chemical burn from the leaking batteries, and one non-emergency department treated injury, and two of the 182 non-injury product-related incidents demonstrated this hazard pattern. Next slide. Over the next few slides, I will walk us through the specifics of the draft proposed rule. So, first, staff does recommend incorporating by reference ASTM F-2194-22E1, but with modifications. As the commission indicated in your rejection of ASTM's request to reference F-2194-22E1, compact bassinets are considered a decrease in safety to the bassinet regulation. Therefore, staff recommends removing all references to compact bassinets. Currently, part of the bassinet definition states that, quote, a bassinet cradle is intended to have a sleep surface less than or equal to 10 degrees from horizontal, end quote. However, there are no performance or testing requirements for this statement. Therefore, staff recommends removing the statement from the definition and putting it in the performance and test requirements to ensure all bassinets are testing the sleep surface to be less than or equal to 10 degrees from horizontal. Next. Now I will present the modifications to the performance requirements. To reduce the likelihood of consumers placing bassinet cradles onto elevated and or soft surfaces, staff recommends that the external side rail height be 27 inches or greater above the product surface support surface, which is the floor. With a minimum internal side height of 7.5 inches, which is already in the regulation. The occupant support surface, which is the mattress, shall be at least 15 inches from the floor. Now as you can see on these graphics, bassinets 27 inches tall with support surface 15 inches or more from the floor will discourage consumers from placing bassinets on elevated surfaces. In the first image in the top left, the consumer is able to reach the infant without having to stoop all the way down to the ground. But in these other images, if placed on a countertop or dining table or coffee table, sofa or bed, the infant is actually not easily accessible and would require the consumer to stand up to retrieve the infant. Unlike the smaller portable bassinets that consumers may not appreciate as being unstable on soft surfaces, bassinets at this higher height will be more visibly unstable if a consumer attempts to place on a soft surface, which will stop them from placing it there. Now to help with this in perspective, we have a sample bassinet that meets these requirements and Carlos Torres from mechanical engineering has a yardstick that shows the space between 27 inches and 15 inches. So you can see at this height, consumers will have easier access to the infant when the bassinet is on the floor. So this product does meet those proposed recommendations. Thank you, Carlos. Next slide. The next performance modification has to do with sidewalls. All bassinet cradles are subjected to stability testing, but not sidewall rigidity. The wide variety of sidewall constructed of fabric, foam, fiberfill mesh or cardboard. Staff is concerned that bassinets with non rigid sidewalls may permanently deform or collapse and not contain the infant. As you can see from these photos, the cardboard bassinet bowed outward about three to five inches, and the soft sided travel bassinet bowed more than eight inches. However, rigid sided bassinets showed no deflection or deform deforming during testing. Therefore, staff recommends that all bassinet cradles be subject to the stability tests currently in the standard and proposes that during this stability test, sidewall deflection can also be measured, requiring that the sidewall shall not deflect in any direction more than a half inch. Next slide. Staff recommends a mattress firmness requirement consistent with the mandatory crib mattress requirement in 16 CFR Part 1241 to address incidents of infant's head face conforming to the sleep surface. The mandatory crib mattress rule requires a firmness test intended to prevent the hazard, a positional asphyxia involving infants suffocating when facedown in a soft mattress that can conform to the infant's face. The firmness test involves placing a test fixture, as shown in this picture, placing the fixture level on the sleep surface of the mattress. And then the mattress must be sufficiently firm and flat to support the weight of the test fixture so that the feeler arm does not make any contact with the surface of the mattress. In the picture, the feeler arm is circled in red, and it's a little hard to see, but in this example, the feeler arm is contacting the mattress, which would be a failure. Next slide. Next is the head to toe incline angle modification. As mentioned earlier, to be more effective, staff recommends removing from the definition the head to toe incline statement and instead making it a performance requirement conforming with a test. Putting it as a performance requirement in the bassinet regulation will match the commission's rule for infant sleep products in 16 CFR 1236. These pictures show the infant hinge weight gauge on the bassinet and the digital inclinometer reading the angle at 1.3 degrees, which is a pass for this requirement. Next slide. As a result of numerous complaints from consumers about infants who were developmentally incapable of rolling, being found rolled over or into the side of cantilever bassinets, staff alerted ASTM and worked with a task group to address the side to side tilt incidents. The ASTM task group concluded that all bassinets should be tested for side to side tilt and recommended that the requirement match the current at rest rocking swinging bassinet angle that cannot exceed 7 degrees. However, staff testing showed that cantilever bassinets with tilt angles of 7.1 to as low as 1.2 degrees were associated with rollover incidents. Accordingly, to address the potential for infants to roll into unsafe sleep positions and to provide the highest level of safety that is feasible, staff proposes to add the side to side tilt angle test requirements from ASTM's task group proposal with two modifications. One decrease the allowed tilt angle to 0 plus or minus 1 degree, which means a maximum angle not to exceed 1 degree from horizontal. And two, applying this requirement to both rocking bassinets at rest and non-rocking bassinets. In addition, staff recommends that for bassinets with adjustable height, the side to side tilt test be performed on both the highest and lowest height settings. So these pictures show a cantilever bassinet in the product's lowest height setting and at the highest height setting and the red lines are delineating the angle. Next, sorry, no pictures for these last three performance requirements. First one is electrical. While more and more bassinets are including battery and or electrical components, Part 1218 does not address electrical hazards. However, other commission rules for durable infant or toddler products, such as infant swings, which is in rule 16 part 16 CFR Part 1223 incorporating ASTM F 2088-22, which is the standard consumer safety specification for infant and cradle swings. This part includes adequate requirements to address electrical hazards, such as the conditions that can lead to battery leakage. Therefore, to address bassinet cradle incidents associated with defective electrical systems, staff recommends Part 1218 include the battery compartment requirements from Part 1223. Now aftermarket bassinet mattresses. The crib mattress rule, which is Part 1241 includes performance requirements for aftermarket mattresses, but does not specifically identify crib mattress crib. I'm sorry, does not specifically identify bassinet cradle mattresses as being included in the regulation. While bassinet cradles are required to be sold with a mattress, aftermarket mattresses are available. And therefore, staff recommends performance requirements for aftermarket bassinet mattresses to ensure the same level of safety as original bassinet cradle mattresses. Now regarding multi-use products. ASTM F 2194-22E1 states that if, quote, converted into another product for which a consumer safety specification exists, the product shall comply with the applicable requirements of that standard when in that use mode, end quote. Because the commission's mandatory standard and ASTM's consumer safety specifications are not always in alignment. Staff recommends that multi-use products comply with the applicable mandatory CPSC consumer product safety standard when in each use mode rather than the applicable voluntary standard. Next slide. So staff is now, now that's the end of the performance requirements and now I'm going to address the warnings and instructional literature. So staff is recommending two changes to statements on the warning labels and instructional literature. Because of including aftermarket mattresses, we recommend changing the statement, quote, use only mattress provided, end quote, to instead say use only one mattress at a time. The other changes to this statement never use on an unintended elevated surface. And bassinet should not be used on any elevated surface. We recommend changing that statement to read, never use on any elevated surface. So that, so that those are all the proposed modifications to ASTM F 2194-22E1. And now I will discuss the small business impact. Staff's initial regulatory flexibility analysis on small businesses indicates this draft proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small US entities, primarily from redesigned costs in the first year that the final rule would be effective. A significant impact would occur for small companies whose products do not meet the proposed revised requirements, particularly suppliers of small bassinettes and bassinet accessory products for strollers and play yards, as well as suppliers of cantilever style bassinettes and aftermarket bassinet mattresses. Third-party testing costs should not be a new significant cost for most small firms, given that bassinet suppliers should already be testing to the current mandatory standard in Part 1218. However, for aftermarket bassinet mattress suppliers, the third-party testing costs to comply with the final rule would be new, although these firms already incur costs for testing to establish compliance with other relevant CPSC regulations, including those for lead and phthalates. Next slide. As you've heard, staff is recommending a number of modifications and the IRFA indicates this proposed rule will have a significant impact on small businesses. Therefore, staff is recommending posing specific requests for comments related to each modification, but also for the whole proposed rule. It is very helpful to staff when manufacturers and consumers provide detailed evidence for how these changes will impact them. Next slide. Staff recommends the commission publish the notice of proposed rulemaking for bassinettes and cradles incorporating ASTM F2194-22E1 with staff modifications and with an effective date of 180 days after publication of the final rule. Next slide. I sincerely thank the bassinet team members who are listed on this slide for their diligence and their professional effort to bring this draft proposed rule to you today. We're now available for questions. Thank you. Mr. Kish, thank you, Miss House. We're now going to turn to questions from the commissioners. Ten minute rounds. I'm going to start with myself. Mr. Kish, you talked about the different tests and standards that are out there on, you know, you're listing them out, some of the ones request for comment. Ten degree head to toe. Do you have a zero degree plus or minus one on the side to side? Can you discuss the difference between those two and the thought process being the two difference? So the head to toe angle has come up in the, came up in the infant sleep product rule also. And what we found in research done by Dr. Mannon for that role was that essentially at 10 degrees, the infant's muscle movement is almost the same as if the, the surface was completely flat. And so from Dr. Mannon's research, she said essentially 10 degrees flat to 10 degrees is about the same. Now, for the side to side, the, the swinging angle was at seven degrees. But what we found in our own testing was that cantilever bassinettes would have a side to side tilt of between 7.1 down to as low as 1.2 degrees. And infants were still rolling over. And these are infants, as I said, these are infants that were developmentally not capable of rolling and parents were finding them rolled over. So, and I think another aspect is typically these infants are swaddled, which may be also helping with the role. They're, they're already in that position locked position to roll. So that's why we have the difference. The head to toe is more with the head control at the infant. And then the side to side has more to do with them actually rolling. Why we made the proposal and shifting how bassinettes that are attached to or removed from strollers and play yards meet the requirements that are being proposed. So, when they're attached to the stroller or play yard and then if they are removable from the stroller and play yard, they need to have a stand on which they can be placed. And again, meet the, the height requirements. If the product is able to be taken off the stand and the stroller. We're proposing it should not be able to function as a bass net unless they're on the stand or the stroller or play yard so that consumers would not be using them again on elevated surfaces. And then last year staff roti STM and it seemed at least open to allowing bass nets that were shorter than the ones that proposed here with a wider footprint. Can you discuss staffs thinking between that time and now in the proposal is before us. So, in our initial discussions with a STM, we had discussed what we called a wide footprint. And that was essentially 24 inches by 24 inches. So, what we were considering is that a product like that would be less portable and would not typically fit on an elevated surface. And so we thought that might be an option. But then after some of our testing, we again found that it's still possible to put that product on an adult bed. And so, this is 1 of the questions that we're specifically posing if this would be enough of a deterrent to prevent consumers from using on elevated surfaces. If the product had this wide footprint. Thank you. I'd love to hear from my colleagues. I'm going to turn to commissioner Feldman. I first want to start by offering my thanks to staff for their work, not only presentation. But on this rule banking. I appreciate that. I do have some legal questions that I'm going to reserve for closed session, which I appreciate that we've scheduled immediately following this hearing. But beyond that, I don't have any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you commissioner. Thank you. And miss Kish, Miss house and Mr. Torres. Thank you for the presentation this morning and thank you to everyone who worked on this rule. You put forward a great proposal and I appreciate that. As I'm thinking through it, you know, I, it's certainly critical that bassinets and cribs remain the safe haven in infant sleep. We know how many deadly products are out there in this space that shouldn't exist at all. You know, some of those like inclined sleepers lurking in other spaces like rockers and swings and bouncers. Give me pause. And I know we've had a very tough time figuring out how to regulate some of those products given that they're not always thought of as exclusively for sleep but with bassinets. They are. And so we can regulate these with what we know that they're for sleep and make them safe for that. And so when we do that, I want to make sure that we're we're continuing to make them the gold standard and infant sleep safety. So, so thank you for the work towards that goal. And so, as we always talk about the importance of a firm flat surface for sleep. You know, I was looking at the, where the package pointed out the December 7 2021 letter that you sent to ask him opposing industry side to side seven degree maximum tilt angle quote because minimum safe sleep guidance requires infants to be placed to sleep on a firm flat surface. The seven degree side to side tilt violates that safe sleep principle of a firm flat surface. And this proposal limits that angle to zero degrees plus or minus one degrees to fix that issue. Correct. And my thinking here is that if the seven degree side to side violates safe sleep guidance as to flatness, then a 10 degree head to toe sleep angle would violate that same flatness requirement as well. And that's one area of a very strong package that I think we should improve because this proposal allows up to a 10 degree head to toe tilt. And I don't see why it should, you know, I think flat means flat and if we're regulating side to side flatness, it's important to regulate head to toe as well. And I understand that we point to man and but it's also important to remember that man and was trying to figure out how to make a 30 something degree rock and play, not kill kids. And when you ratcheted that down. She saw less of an issue with those types of products at a 10 degree angle, but here we're talking about products that are already flat. And so I think we can look at those in two different buckets. I have a separate question here on a smaller question on the aftermarket bassinet mattresses. I'm not as familiar with those products so I wanted to understand the proposal said that they have to be the same size as the OEM mattress or larger and I'm not familiar with that and have a floor support structure that's at least as thick as the OEM mattress. My only question there is, is it always obvious what we're comparing it to, you know, for this bassinet. Would you buy a replacement mattress that only fits this bassinet or some sold more generally like how are we making that comparison mattress rule aftermarket mattresses have to be tested with the products in which they're intended to be used and that's how we would control it in this case too if it matches crib mattresses. Okay, so if an aftermarket mattress if it went with that method just said here's a replacement bassinet mattress without labeling a manufacturer they'd violate the proposal. Right, if it's matching the crib mattress rule that's it. Okay, great. I want to understand a little bit more about your answer to the chair's question about how these something that might be in a stroller and then also you could put it into a frame for a bassinet you said that they shouldn't be able to function as a bassinet if they're not in one of those two things. What does that mean what is an example of something that wouldn't function as a bassinet in that scenario. So just one example would be if the, but if the top of the bassinet was a firm top, but the bottom was just kind of hanging right so when it sits on the stand it the stand is attached to the top so it's rigid connection. But when you take it off the stand it essentially collapses. Okay, you wouldn't be able to use it as as in the bassinet. Okay, I was envisioning like maybe you had a rigid central pole that clicked into each of those two things so if you tried to lay it down with just that it would topple over. That is another option. Okay. It couldn't be used as a safe way. Okay, what about if the if it had folding legs or legs that screwed on and off easily. Do we have any type of like this looks like the legs are integrate integrated into the design. What about folding legs or screw on legs or something like that. As another option to make it. Yeah, I mean, if it was easily if you could easily take off those legs and it would function as a bassinet with that failure your proposal. That that that would fail the proposal because the legs are what give it the stability right. Oh, you're saying if you took the legs off the bassinet would still function. You've got a rigid side rigid frame everything it works without legs and the legs are easy to take on and off either they clip on they screw in or you can just fold them and collapse them and it sits flat on the on the bottom. Is that accounted for in the proposal. That would be considered another failure. Okay, good. Those are all my questions thank you very much and again very much appreciated for your work on this. Thank you commissioner ball. Thank you. Mr. chair. Thank you. Mr. Kish house and the whole team for all your excellent work. I really appreciate it was very clear package. Just have a couple of questions. The NPR requests comment on the feasibility of each of the requirements. And I just want to ask how you define feasibility is it synonymous with possible. Feasibility has two aspects. It has both the technical feasibility and economic feasibility. And basically it means capable of being so synonymous with possible. Okay. Alrighty. Thank you for that. And on compact fascinates. I understand we removed it from the scope and from the testing requirements. And I'm just wondering would it have been possible to keep it in the scope to make it clear that these products it's not a labeling issue that these products have to meet the requirements. The reason why compact bassinets were removed as opposed to included in the scope. So we signal that they actually have to meet the requirements. Well, actually, it really doesn't matter if it says I'm a compact bassinet or I'm a cantilever bassinet or I'm a bassinet, because the end is bassinet, that's the key. A bassinet is a product intended for infant to sleep within. So if that's what they're calling themselves they're calling themselves a bassinet and any other name in front of it. They still have to meet this requirement. So it's, it can't be either included or excluded based on a marketing or a label so conceivably there could be a compact bassinet that meets the requirements but it's labeling and marketing is not what's driving this. Okay. Thank you so much. And can you just tell me what the typical age of infants who use bassinets up to typically so bassinets are intended for infants up to about 5 months or age of age or when they start to push up on their hands and knees. Okay, so the youngest cohort of the, the most vulnerable of the most vulnerable. Okay. Are there unique safety requirements for the youngest for the premature or younger infants that would you say. I would say this whole standard is kind of for that age group. That's what we're trying to address. Okay, because the majority of incidents are there are some incidents with older infants, but the majority are for that younger cohort. Okay. Yes. Okay. I know we talked a little bit about the surface angle earlier. And I think you removed it again from the definition but put it in the testing requirements. Is there a reason why we wouldn't do it in both to make it clear to keep it in the scope and also in the testing requirements. Technically, you could have a manufacturer that says, well, my bassinet is more than 10 degrees. So I don't meet this definition. Okay, so this way we're keeping the focus on sleep factor and then putting the performance requirements in, in the body of the, the regulation. Okay. Okay. I understand. And I just have one final question on the warnings and the mattress toppers. I think the draft proposes a warning that instructs the use only have one mattress at a time and I and staff indicates that that should address the issue of using after market mattresses. Market is mattress toppers and I'm just wondering if you could explain the rationale and to me, I thought it was possible that consumers might be confused by this so that if it's something is marketed as a mattress topper, they might conclude, oh, well, that's not another mattress and that's okay. So if you could elaborate on thinking and whether you think I am making a point on that possible confusion. I think you're making a good point. And then, and we can certainly ask that question specifically, but by calling out the mattress toppers and saying they have to meet the mattress requirements. We are making them softer. One of the things about mattress toppers is that they are typically softer. And intended to make it a softer environment, but this way what we're saying is it has to meet the same requirements as the firmness of the mattress. So that's kind of taking away kind of discouraging even using a mattress topper, but we we could certainly ask that question. Sorry about that. The warning could just specifically address either saying don't use mattress toppers or something along those lines. Perhaps. That's another option. Okay. All right. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, thank you for your hard work. Appreciate it. Thank you. I know we also have closed session requested, but any request for another round from anybody hearing none. I would just want to thank the staff. Both of you as well as the whole team that you had on the last slide for all the hard work that you put into this. Pro's rule at this point in time. We're going to take a recess to clear the room from anybody who shouldn't shouldn't be here and we're reconvening in about 5 minutes for the closed executive session. Thanks again.