 Excuse me, my script says good morning, but we all know that it's not because the commission moved the meeting because we were concerned about the weather, which turned out to be a huge concern, but not for us in Bethesda. This afternoon, CPSC staff will brief the commission regarding a draft final rule on safety standards for carriages and strollers. The standard is a part of CPSC's congressionally mandated rulemaking under the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, or CPSIA. Section 104 of the CPSIA, also known as the Danny Kazar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the CPSC in coordination with new or existing voluntary standards to promulgate a number of new mandatory federal safety standards for durable infant nursery products annually. The draft final rule the commission is considering would incorporate by reference ASTM F833-13B, the Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Carriages and Strollers, with the modification, which I assume staff will explain to us to address head entrapment hazards associated with multi-positional adjustable grab bars. The new safety standard addresses a product, strollers, that has been involved in some of the agency's most serious recalls in recent years. Since 2008, there have been more than 30 stroller recalls involving nearly 6 million units, five deaths, and almost 100 injuries. Unfortunately, the range of injuries and fatalities that we have seen from strollers is incredibly broad. They run the gamut from children's submarineing and suffocating to fingertips being amputated to falls from strollers by young children. That's why the rule is so comprehensive in nature and touches on a number of safety issues. And the complexity of new strollers, which were demonstrated to us, is breathtaking. We have 2D, we have 3D strollers, as well as 3-in-1 and 4-in-1 systems, all of which adds up to a fairly complex but incredibly important standard. Today, we're going to be briefed on the proposed rule by Rana Balcicina, Hyang Kim, and Mark Kumagai. I want to take the opportunity to thank each of you and the rest of the team for all your hard work on this package, and I now turn it over to staff. Good afternoon. Under Section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, the commission is directed to issue consumer product safety standards for durable, infinite toddler products. Strollers is specifically identified as one of those products. In addition, carriages are also included in the voluntary standard. For 104 rules, the commission is required to follow notice and comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. If the commission issues a Consumer Product Safety Standard under Section 104, the standard must be substantially the same as the voluntary standard or more stringent. The commission was also directed to issue standards for infant or toddler products every six months and periodically review those standards. The notice of proposed rulemaking was issued for carriages and strollers in May of 2013. The commission received six comments. The draft final rule addresses the comments on the proposed rule. Staff recommends that the commission adopt the current stroller standard, which is ASTM F833-13B. However, staff also recommends an additional modification to address head and trapman hazards associated with adjustable grab bars on strollers. Rana Balchisinha will discuss the comments on the proposed rule and the modification in the draft final rule. Mark Kumagai will assist in demonstrating some of the stroller products. I would like to start with the definition of a stroller and the types of strollers that are covered under the standard. ASTM F833, the voluntary standard for carriages and strollers, defines stroller as a veiled vehicle for the transport of infants or children generally in a sitting-up or semi-reclined position. The motive power is supplied by a person moving at a walking rate while pushing on a handle attached to the strollers. Carriages shown on the upper right hand of the slide are veiled vehicles used to transport an infant, usually in a lying-down position. Strollers are normally used for children from infancy to 36 months of age. Strollers that fold the handlebars and leg tubes only in the front to back or back-to-front direction are called 2D strollers. I will invite Mark Kumagai to demonstrate how to fold a 2D stroller using the black sample in front of you. Thank you. Umbrella strollers, on the other hand, are lightweight, may lack certain accessories such as cup holder tray for the caregiver, but they are compact when folded as they usually fold in three dimensions. That is, handlebars and leg tubes collapse both in the front to back and side-to-side directions. If a stroller is intended to be used at a jogging rate, then it is called a jogging stroller. An example is shown on the lower right-hand corner of the slide. Travel systems accommodate an infant car seat on a stroller. Strollers can accommodate more than one child. Side-by-side strollers allow two or more children to sit next to each other, while tandem strollers allow them to sit one behind another. In addition, multiple occupant strollers, which are often used in daycare situations, are also available for private use and accommodate up to 10 children. The NPR stated that staff was aware of 1,207 incidents related to strollers and carriages that were reported to have occurred between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2012. In the first half of 2013, there were an additional 90 incidents reported to have occurred. There were no new fatalities added to the four that were already reported in the NPR. An additional 32 injuries were reported during the first half of 2013, which increased the number of injuries to 391. Among the new injuries, four hospitalizations occurred. Two resulted in amputations due to fingers getting caught in the hinge mechanism. One lesseration to the crotch area was a result of child unbuckling the restraints, attempting to leave the stroller and getting caught on a rivet. And the fourth hospitalization involved a cut on the forehead that occurred after a stroller rolled off a train platform and fell on the tracks. The hazard patterns identified among the new 90 incidents were similar to the hazard patterns identified in the NPR. In addition to the injuries involving children four years old and under, there were reports of adults, many injuring their fingers. Six new incidents were reported during the first half of 2013, which brings the total number of incidents involving older children and adults to 84. In terms of nice estimates, there were an estimated 46,200 injuries that were treated in US hospital emergency departments from January 2008 through December 2011, as stated in the NPR. For the year 2012, the estimated number of injuries is 10,400. There were no deaths reported through nice, most incidents were related to falls. In May 2013, the commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register. The NPR proposed incorporating by reference the volunteer standard ASTM F-833-13 standard consumer safety performance specification for carriages and strollers with one modification related to scissors, shearing, and pinching hazards associated with two default strollers. Now I would like to review the changes that occurred in ASTM F-833 starting from the version that NPR referenced. ASTM F-833-13 included substantial additions or changes to the standard, including parking brakes, head entrapment with a car seat on a stroller, wheel detachment, latching and locking mechanisms, restraint mechanisms, pinching, shearing, and scissors at the saddle hinge link on a 3D stroller, canopy hinges, stability requirements, and cores and straps in the occupant space. While the NPR referenced the adoption of a F-833-13, it also included a requirement associated with pinching, shearing, and scissors test for 2D strollers. This identical requirement was adopted by ASTM and was published in ASTM F-833-13A version of the standard. This added requirement was later modified with regards to the travel distance calculation for certain 2D strollers, and the updated requirement has been part of the latest version of the standard, F-833-13B, which was published in November 2013. This slide outlines the difference between ASTM F-833-13A, which is identical to the NPR, and the latest version of the standard, F-833-13B. The difference refers to the distance calculation that is used in certain types of 2D strollers, namely 2D strollers where front and rear wheels move toward each other during folding. In the initial method of calculation, which is shown on the left side of the slide, the travel calculation includes the distance between wheels in both open and closed position of the stroller. In the updated method that is adopted in F-833-13B, only the distance between front and rear wheels in an open position is taken into account. Staff compared both methods using various strollers, including incident strollers. Although in some strollers, the total amount of travel to be tested would be less than the NPR proposed calculation. Staff believes that the new calculation included in F-833-13B still incorporates the most critical part of the frame folding associated with the incidents and therefore provides equal degree of safety while being less burdensome. Six comments were received in response to NPR, including comments from the American Academy of Pediatrics, Consumers Union, Kids in Danger, Consumer Federation of America, and three comments from two manufacturers. One manufacturer recommended simplifying the test method included in the NPR modification. The commenter's request was balloted and incorporated into the F-833-13B version of the standard. Staff agrees with this change as discussed previously because the new method is less burdensome and appears to provide an equal degree of safety. Given that the reduction in travel distance does not make the test less effective. Another comment associated with 2D strollers is regarding providing an exemption to the 2D full test procedure if there is a cover over the hinge. Commenter requests that commission review and adopt the additional requirement to two default strollers once the requirement is approved by the ASTM Stroller subcommittee. The current ASTM standard does not include such an exemption. If ASTM publishes a standard to include a protective cover exemption, ASTM can notify the commission of the revised standard for consideration. Two commenters asked to incorporate two new tests, namely a combined braking and stability test and an irregular surface test. Staff believes that the new requirements and tests added to the F833-13 version of the standard are adequate to address these issues without increasing the burden on the manufacturers. Therefore, staff does not recommend adding these two tests to the draft final rule. Several comments were made on the appropriate effective date for the proposed rule. While one commenter supported the 18 month effective date, a second commenter asked for a careful review of the actual time needed to bring strollers into compliance. A third commenter suggested a 12 month effective date. As was proposed in the NPR, staff still believes that duration of 18 months is a reasonable time for manufacturers who will redesign, test, and retool their production process to meet the substantial changes that were made to the ASTM standard. Staff also believes that 18 months will reduce the economic impact on those firms who primarily or exclusively rely on strollers where they could spread costs over a longer period of time and not experience a lapse in production. Several other comments were made associated with product marking, warnings language, and restraints. Staff does not agree with the commenters on making these changes in the final rule, but will raise the comments associated with warnings and restraint systems in the ASTM subcommittee meeting for review and discussion. One commenter suggested changing the passive containment requirement to ensure that any adjustable part, such as an adjustable grab bar or a car seat adapter that remains in the stroller, is tested in all possible positions. Staff agrees with the recommendation for adjustable grab bars because a grab bar can be left in an unsafe position resulting in potentially fatal head entrapment scenario between the grab bar and the seat. Staff observed in the past that it could be difficult for consumers to differentiate certain positions such as car seat position or occupant use position in some cases. Staff considers the opening to be potentially fatal and very similar to the entrapment hazard between the seat and the tray, which resulted in fatalities in the past. Due to the potential for a fatal entrapment between an adjustable grab bar and the seat, CPSC staff recommends a modification to section 7.12 of the ASTM F833-13B as shown on this slide. The original requirement specifies a minimum opening created by the grab bar or tray and footrest. This test may not capture a hazardous opening that is larger than the minimum opening created by the grab bar and footrest configuration. The revised wording, most likely to cause failure, requires the tester to position the grab bar if possible in a position that creates a hazardous opening and thereby causes the stroller to fail irrespective of the manufacturer's instructions. This addition should address the entrapment hazard for multi-positional or adjustable grab bars in strollers. To further explain the hazard associated with adjustable grab bars, I will invite Mark Umagai to demonstrate the hazard. The brown stroller incorporates a grab bar that does not allow the head probe to pass through. The opening between the grab bar and the seat unit. However, it does allow the torso probe to pass through. Okay, let me demonstrate that. So this is an adjustable grab bar. It's multi-positions. And we would propose that you would test it in the most onerous position or the position that's going to most likely fail the unit. So for example, if we pull the torso probe through, then the requirement says that the head probe must go through. And in this case, the head probe does not go through. So that would be considered a hazardous opening. And the second stroller has an adjustable grab bar that can be set in two positions. And both positions allow the head probe to pass through the opening between the grab bar and the seat unit. Thus would be compliant with the staff's proposed modification. Let me demonstrate the head probe going through here. Then in the second position, the head probe will go through also. Now I will go over the small business impact of the staff-recommended stroller standard. CPSC staff believes that there are currently at least 85 suppliers of care agents and strollers to the U.S. market. 55 are small domestic firms, including 26 domestic manufacturers, 26 domestic importers, and three firms with unknown supply sources. The impact on the 18 small domestic manufacturers whose strollers meet the voluntary standard is not expected to be significant. Staff could not identify any strollers in the U.S. market with adjustable grab bar that would be affected by the modification to the passive containment test procedure in the final standard. However, the impact could be significant for some of the eight small domestic manufacturers whose strollers do not meet the voluntary standard, as well as some of the 13 small domestic importers of strollers. This would be particularly true for firms with low revenues and or limited product lines beyond strollers and stroller accessories. However, the staff-recommended 18 month effective date will help mitigate the impact, allowing these firms to spread their costs over a longer time period. In conclusion, CPSC staff recommends that the commission publish a final rule that incorporates by reference the voluntary standard ASTM of 833-13B, standard consumer safety performance specification for carriages and strollers, with a modification to address head and trapman hazard associated with multi-positional or adjustable grab bars. Staff also recommends an effective date of 18 months following publication of the final rule. This concludes our presentation. Before we open the floor for questions, I have a number of staff members to thank. As stroller rulemaking work began in the late 2010, and since then a number of staff members have diligently worked on this project. And they are our economists, Dr. Jill Jenkins, our mechanical engineers and children's product experts, Petty Edwards, Mark Kumagai, Jake Miller, and Greg Ray, our epidemiologists, Angie Quinn and Rizana Chaudhury, our human factor psychologist, Dr. Jonathan Midget, our physiologist, Dr. Stephanie Marquez and Suadwana Nakamura, our compliance officer, Mike Lee, and our attorneys, Hyang Kim, Patty Pulitzer and Leah Wade. In addition, I would like to acknowledge ASTM Stroller subcommittee for their hard work, resulting in a substantially stronger safety standard. Thank you and we, the stroller team, are here to answer your questions. Thank you again for that excellent presentation and just listening to the list of people involved in this explains to us why this is such a massive effort and why such a well done effort because of the degree of complexity associated with strollers. And I'm still looking at the page four of this presentation and that vast array of strollers and carriages. The first point I'd make is just a comment that I find amusing, but on page four of the briefing package under market description, it says something that then repeated in the staff briefing package later on. It says, according to a 2005 survey conducted by American baby group, nearly all new mothers own at least one stroller. And I was just wondering what happened to the fathers in this new enlightened age, but that's just a comment you need not address. I would ask you if you would to explain with respect to the incident data. And I was looking at page four again, slide eight. The incident you described in which we included an injury to an infant's forehead when the stroller went onto a railroad track. It's not listed as a railroad track associated incident and there's a reason for that. So could you explain that for those who might be otherwise puzzled? The reason of the stroller falling down to tracks is unknown. So it is under the unknown hazard category. But we know what happened to the child, so we know the injury. And the theory is that there's probably a malfunction of the break or at least theoretically a malfunction of the break. That's possible or maybe breaks weren't engaged or partially engaged. Okay, and so that's why it was included as far as I'm concerned. Looking at the incredible rate of change in strollers and boy have they changed since I was pushing one 30 some years ago. And noting that we've got two changes to the voluntary standard in 2013. Is it your sense that the rate of change with respect to strollers is going to continue, the technology changing this dramatically? Yes, I anticipate that there will be changes and we are gonna see a new revised version of the standard shortly, maybe before the rule when it goes into effect. Okay, so it's a race on both sides to keep up with the technology. And I have to say to the staff how proud I am that you've managed to stay up to date with this and how delighted we are in working with ASTM to note that they're doing that too. I did wanna just check one other point. If you look at the standard in the actual final document, it says if you wanna know what the ASTM standard is, go get it and buy it. Do you happen to know what the cost to a member of the public would be purchasing the ASTM standard? $60. So it is within the range of almost every, within the range of all manufacturers and probably a fair number of consumers. And as I look on page 12 of the standard, and this is just, I mean, excuse me, page 12 of the briefing package under restraining system and harnesses where we're going through the comments. One commenter had suggested a five point harness for strollers and the staff response is that we agree that a five point harness would provide extra protection. I'd agree that 25 point harness system, it always seemed me at some point you have to say we can't add new points of a harness, but the staff said the incident data do not clearly demonstrate a significant improvement in occupant safety beyond a three point harness. Is that based on a human factors analysis or was that based on an engineering judgment? What, where was the judgment call made? It's a fault, it's a fault. Okay, as I say, you could put a 25 point harness and that would be incredible safety. Just an observation, I noticed in the slides you gave us and also on page 26 of the briefing, if there's one thing that I express great appreciation for it is photos that help explain some fairly complex language. And so I will just make an individual personal observation that those photos didn't do it for me. Those photos, I don't know how you would get a good photo that would really carry the point forward. Maybe some arrows are sort of flowing, but I wanna commend you, thank you so much for the photos, but encourage you to make them even clearer and more understandable and you can use me as a litmus test because if I can understand it, then anybody can understand it. That is my set of questions for the moment, Commissioner Robinson. Thank you and thank you to all of you for this tremendous amount of work and for this great presentation. I just have a couple of questions. Ron, in response to Commissioner Adler's question, you said that ASTM probably would have a new standard coming out shortly. Would that standard by any chance incorporate our alteration to theirs? I anticipate that they are expecting, they were waiting to see what our proposed language is and they would wanna propose something that is parallel to it and we actually had the first task group meeting last Wednesday. However, the language wasn't, rather the package wasn't public then so they hadn't read it, but all the parties of the task group are interested in investigating and improving the standard in terms of the adjustable grab bar. So I anticipate that we are gonna see a ballot item maybe this spring. Okay, thank you. The only other question I have is there, I know there was a recall of the Britax stroller I think just last week and I know that the danger there was the amputation, the risk of amputation of the caregiver which I would just like to note that those fingers are important too. But could you just tell us how this new standard will address that risk? Right, actually we brought the stroller with us and one side of the stroller is already retrofitted. Basically the folding operation of the stroller is done in two steps. One, the caregiver presses the silver button on the right side and then apparently they keep their hands still there while pulling the handle in the middle of the seat unit. And we have evaluated the stroller after the retrofit is implemented and this is one part of the retrofit. And it complies with the ASCM of 833-13B version of the standard and Mark is demonstrating that his finger can get stuck in the not retrofitted side of the stroller versus here, you can't insert the finger there anymore. So the side that's not retrofitted yet would not meet the standard in the retrofitted wood. Is that correct? Both sides will be retrofitted but we just brought a stroller. I understand, but the one that's not retrofitted yet would not meet the standard. That's correct, that's correct. Thank you so much, I have nothing further. Commissioner Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all to the staff for our pre-briefing earlier this week and for an excellent presentation today and as you mentioned, it's not just the three of you, it's a team and we really appreciate that information. I just wanted to, Ronald, you were talking about the nice data and the most predominant hazards, falls. Can you break that down? Is there a differentiation? I mean, is it they're slipping through? Is it they're tipping over? Are there different types of falls? There are different types of falls I believe it is any type of fall. Children slipping through, unrestrained children slipping off the stroller, stroller tipping over and children falling. However, as you know with the nice data, we do not have a huge amount of detail for incidents. I'm gonna see if we had any definition of the strollers, but now unspecified falls, falls from climbing on the stroller, stroller tip over, stroller falling down steps. Thank you. We started to talk about this a little bit when you were in the office on Monday about ASTM and trying to, our time schedule versus theirs and trying to align them a little bit. I'm wondering, is this most recent and you mentioned that you were hopeful ASTM would adopt this new standard at some point, have we vetted this new test with ASTM or with the manufacturers for that sake? No, this is the next meeting, that next task group meeting will be our first opportunity to publicly talk about what the proposed language is and what the manufacturers think about it. So we don't really know what their reaction will be? Right, but one thing to note is that the test procedure stays the same. We are not modifying the procedure itself in terms of how the test is going to be conducted, what probes are going to be used. It is same as the tray and seat unit opening tests. So a passive containment test is still the same. We are just asking to set the stroller in a way that they're most likely to cause failure if there are adjustable components, such as a grab bar. Okay, what is the usual process in terms of trying to work with ASTM? We have our statutory requirement that makes it necessary for us to go forward at our own pace, but is there any kind of an effort that we would be working with ASTM so these things are, again, to prevent confusion and for the manufacturers and for the consumers? Just to clarify, you're asking about the process, post-final rule as to what the interaction with ASTM committees and future revisions to the standard? And not even necessarily final rule. If we come up with a concept or an idea about a test that we're considering may work or may not work working with ASTM at the same time. We have certain limitations during the NPR period because we are receiving comments from all interested parties. So we have some limitations in what new proposals we can make during that time period. The proposals are supposed to be made during the NPR stage so that people have a meaningful opportunity to comment. So in this case, we received a comment on the adjustable grab bars. So it was important for us to respond to that comment and the modification language is a result of responding to that commenter. So in this case, we have ongoing activities with ASTM not just on this issue, but a number of different issues that were raised by commenters that staff intends to raise. So it's an ongoing process. We continue to work with them. They have opportunities to provide a revised standard which the commission has an opportunity to review for the public, for the safety of the consumer product and evaluation of that revised standard. Very good, thank you very much. And Mike, sincere thanks to all of you. Hi, and I want to point out that answer was a classic response of a lawyer, which I greatly appreciate, but I will just make an. I don't know how to take that. No, no, it's a compliment, believe me. But I would also mention in passing that ASTM can read the briefing package just like anybody else. So I don't think this change is coming as a surprise to them. So I'm sure that if you were to call them and say, hey, did you see this new provision? They'd say, yeah, we saw it. And so it's not as though we're doing regulation by ambush and Mark, I did want to go back to a question I'm intended to ask when you were giving the demonstration with this stroller, how would I, a manufacturer, know what the position is that's the most likely to cause failure? Because the one you showed us, I was thinking that's not the one I would have picked as, I would have picked the one closest to the seat. Yes. So you're showing it flunks even before we put it in the most hazardous setting, is that correct? For this particular stroller, there were a couple of settings that would have failed the proposed requirement or the requirement. And would it ever be the case that it wouldn't be immediately intuitively obvious what the setting is that's most likely to trigger failure? I'm thinking the answer to that is no, but I'd just like to be reassured. It's a pretty quick test and it's pretty simple to once you do it several times, you can sort of. Okay, well I feel reassured because I actually was saying, I don't think that's the one that's the most hazardous, but you were demonstrating that, so I feel reassured and I thank you again. Commissioner Robinson, additional questions or? Nothing further, thank you. Commissioner Burkle? No, I was going to comment on your regulation by ambush, but I'll restrain myself. I like the word collaboration better. Yes, she is a master of diplomacy and I greatly appreciate that and hope to match that. Anyway, I just want to thank the staff again. This really was an incredible undertaking and I think the last chapter is not written because the technology changes and new hazards arise, but I feel and I think the American public ought to feel totally reassured that you guys are on the job. So thank you and thank the entire team for your work. This closes the meeting.