 Good morning. Welcome to this public meeting as a consumer product safety commission. Today, we're considering CPSC's final rule on safety standards for magnets. Now, this day has been long coming and I'm pleased to return this meeting. 6 years ago, a court overturned the CPSC's 2014 safety standard for magnets. Since that time, staff has worked tirelessly to investigate this hazard even more deeply and propose the mandatory safety standard that is before a student. In that process, agency gathered data demonstrating unequivocally the effectiveness of safety standards in this area. These tiny powerful magnets cause severe injury, even death, when swallowed by small children teens. During the time that CPSC previous previous rules in place, there was dramatic decrease in the injuries and deaths that progress reversed when the 2014 rules overturned. In fact, according to the staff's briefing package, while an average annual estimated injuries dropped from about 2,300 per year to about 1,300 per year when the rules in place, that number rose again to 2,400 per year once the rule was vacated. It's time to put a mandatory safety standard back in place to stop these horrific injuries from happening. Before we can move to consideration of the final draft rule, we have several staff members present at this meeting to answer questions, if any, from my colleagues and myself. With us are Steve Arshani, who's engineering psychologist with the division of human factors directorate for engineering sciences and project manager for magnets. And also, Kim attorney in the regulatory affairs division, the office of general counsel. Also in attendance of Jason, the being executive director, Dwayne Ray, deputy executive director, Austin, general counsel and Alberta Mills, commission secretary. Each commissioner will have 5 questions, comments, and after the questions are complete, we will then consider any amendments. Turning to that question round, I personally don't have any questions, so I'm going to defer to my colleagues. Um, 1st, I should have actually probably just done a role to make sure that we're all here. So I'm going to do that. So, commissioner by Biacco, you're commissioner Feldman. I'm here. Thank you, Mr. Trump. I'm here and commissioner Boyle turning back to the questions I didn't have any. So, commissioner Biacco, did you have any for me either? Thank you, sir. All right, commissioner Feldman, do you have questions, comments? I do not. Thank you. Commissioner Trump, I've got no questions. Thanks and commissioner Boyle. I have no questions either. Thank you. Alright, so having heard no questions, staff is excused and we're going to begin consideration of package that's before us. I will now entertain any amendments to the draft proposed rule. That is before us commissioner Biacco, did you have any amendments? I do not. Thank you. Commissioner Feldman, do you have any amendments? No, Mr. Chairman, I do not. Mr. Trump, do you have any amendments? I do not. And commissioner Boyle, do you have any amendments? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have an amendment. Commissioner Boyle, you're a little soft, so you may need to speak. A little loudly to the microphone. That is better. Thank you. So, um, recognize for 3 minutes. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment has 2 parts. The 1st would strike the 2 additional exemptions that were not in the NPR, but have been included in the draft final rule. My amendment would though keep the exemption for the product subject to the F 9 63 toy standard because that standard provides the same level of protection against the ingestion hazard that we are considering in the rule today. The 2nd part of the amendment is intended to clarify the scope or the rule by revising the definition of subject magnet product. The goal of the magnets rule is to protect as many children as possible from the devastating injuries these magnets can cause. And I believe that the best way to do that is to maintain the broad definition of subject magnet product as the commission proposed in the NPR. And so that is the purpose of the 1st part of my amendment to strike the exemptions at the same time. Rather than adding exemptions to the substantive requirements of the rule, I believe it's appropriate to include a narrowly tailored, but clear definition of products that do not constitute a subject magnet product. Which is what the 2nd part of my amendment would do so together the 2 parts of the amendment are responsive to commenters who sought clarity on the scope of the rule. While also taking into account the 10 circuit discussion about the potential utility of magnets sets in the context of mathematical scientific and other types of uses that don't pose the same type of ingestion hazard. I say play and jewelry, for example. So, specifically the 2nd part of my amendment spells out products that are not included in the definition of subject magnet magnet product. And those are. Products that are sold and or distributed solely to school educators, researchers professionals and or commercial or industrial users exclusively for educational research, professional commercial and or industrial purposes. I would note that the home use reference is eliminated as redundant because that would have exempted home use products that are not subject. Subject, not products in the 1st place, because they are not designed marketed or intended for entertainment jewelry, mental stimulation, stress, release or a combination of those purposes. So, to be clear, the exemption that exemption would have been superfluous, because if such a product is not designed marketed intended for those purposes, then it already would be excluded as not meeting the subject. Magnet product definition. So, I believe that the definition has originally proposed in the NPR as sufficiently broad scope that will protect the greatest number of children and my amendment keeps that broad scope intact. Well, at the same time, defining those products that do not fall within the scope. And so, to summarize my amendment would remove the additional exemptions, keep the toy exemption. Keep the definition as originally proposed and add to that definition of description of products that are not within scope. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my colleagues for consideration of my amendment. Thank you, Commissioner Boyle. Is there a 2nd for the amendment? 2nd having heard a 2nd will now move to consideration of Commissioner Boyle's amendment only commissioners last questions make any comments with respect to the amendment. And then we'll come back to Commissioner Boyle at the end. Each commissioner will have to 5 minutes per round. We can have multiple rounds necessary. So, I recognize myself for 5 minutes. And I'll first of all, thank Commissioner Boyle for this amendment for her work since the briefing in August to protect the language and make sure that the definition of subject product is clear and precise, providing clarity for both industry and consumers alike. As I understand the amendment, it will maintain strong protection against magnet products that are demonstrated to create an ingestion hazard, but the same time, sure to the extent that there may be valuable uses for high power magnets that they've not been that have not been associated with ingestion incidents, such as research instructions. Those uses can continue so will strengthen the rule and should be helpful as we go forward if this rule is challenged again. So, I'd like to support this amendment and hope that my colleagues will do so as well that I turn to Commissioner Bianco. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Commissioner Boyle for the amendment. I think it's necessary. I think there was a little bit of a strain amongst the commission with the way the exemptions came in. I do think it needs to be narrowed and I will support it. I just have 1 clarifying question the term mental stimulation that that that is really meaning something to keep you busy like and to pay attention to and there's no physical stimulation with these magnets. Correct. I mean, that is my understanding and obviously in the context of enforcement staff would be looking at products and on a case by case basis in terms of what that would mean in particular reference to particular product. Okay, with that, I don't have any additional questions. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner, Mr. Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again, thank my colleague for offering the amendment. I have no questions. Mr. Trump, again, and Commissioner Boyle, thank you for this amendment. We needed it and I think the exemptions that they were proposed in the final up to us. I agreed with the underlying purpose. I mean, we want to allow any legitimate research and structure out there. But as they were originally drafted, there was too much daylight for bad actors to try to repack. Toys is something that they weren't. Her amendment slams the door on that possibility. The way that you've crafted it, it allows narrow categories of legitimate use to continue, but it eliminates those dangerous situations where kids would come into contact with these magnets. With this amendment, we're only allowing products sold to specific adults through narrow channels for specific purposes. And we still go above and beyond the directive that we receive from the court. So with this amendment, we've got a very strong rule that will keep kids safe and I'm very much in favor. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Boyle, did you have anything for them to say on your amendment? No, Mr. Chairman, just to thank my colleagues for their support and consideration. That we're going to move to a vote on the amendments. Commissioner, how do you vote? Yes, Mr. Feldman, I vote yes. Mr. Trump, I vote yes. Mr. Boyle, yes, and I vote yes as well. The yeses are 5, the noes are 0. The amendment by Commissioner Boyle is adopted. Are there any other amendments? Hearing no additional amendments, I move to approve staff's draft final rule on safety standards for magnets as amended. And to direct publication of the same, including forming changes directed by Commissioner Boyle's amendment, the federal register. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Having a second, we can move forward with a vote. Mr. Biakko, how do you vote? I vote yes. To Mr. Feldman, I vote yes. Mr. Trump, I vote yes. Mr. Boyle, I vote yes. And I vote yes as well. So the yeses are 5, the noes are 0. The motion to approve staff's final final rule as amended on safety standards for magnets passes. The draft final rule as amended has been approved and shall be published in the federal register. We now have up to 10 minutes for commissioner for any closing remarks and I will start by claiming my time. As I mentioned in my opening statement, this has been a long process and many people inside outside the agency have dedicated time and energy to making sure these standards are put into place. Pediatricians and pediatric gastronomologists. You can see firsthand the health impacts of these magnets have led the way in pushing for mandatory standards. Consumerate advocacy organizations, members of Congress, particularly representatives Cardinus, Trier, as well as Senator Blumenthal maintain attention on the dangers of these small and powerful magnets. Inside the staff have worked relentlessly after the. 2016 court decision that will gradually put. Children back at risk staff turned the best and developed a rule that accounts for court's concerns and makes it even stronger factual case for safety standards than the previous rule did. I think the rule that were we've just floated on today is strong that will protect the children and it will. Benefit all of the country as these injuries that we see and have seen far too many above will hopefully reduce the coming days, which if past is prologue will definitely happen. I'm proud of the work we've done to finalize this rule and look forward to this implementation now. Commissioner, do you have a statement? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I also believe that this rule was necessary and I believe it's necessary with the amendment to keep it very strong and narrow. I think that since I've been at the commission, the magnet issue to me has been 1 of the most dangerous and I appreciate the other side of this and that there are arguments for the utility. Of these small pieces, but I just do not see them outweighing the type of safety risk, especially to little children that these magnets bring. And for that reason, I support the rule and I hope that we don't see another child suffer this type of injury. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner, commissioner, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Feldman, for some reason, I have trouble hearing you. Can you try again? I'm not, are other people having trouble hearing? Yes. So it's not just me. You were fine a minute ago. It's very soft. Well, I'm not sure what's going on. Go ahead. Well, thank you. Listen, I to believe that this rule was a long time coming and I'm proud of the work that we've done today to pass it. I think the fact that the rule took so long to get to where we are today is in large part the agency's own doing. This a call experience should be a lesson in the fact that in pursuing this type of regulatory activity, we need to make sure that the agencies. Actions are underpinned by sound data and science and comply with the the meets and bounds of of our statutory directives, but I'm glad that we were able to get to where we are. I think the rule that we passed today is going to save lives. So, I appreciate all the work agency staff and my colleagues have put into getting us to where we are today. Thank you, commissioner, commissioner, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to clarify one thing. Mr. Chair, you've now accused. Both commissioner Boyle and commissioner Feldman of being a little soft, and I want to clarify, we're talking voice only as it's coming over. You've both proven you're tough as nails today. So. But, but with this rule, I look, thank you for to everyone who's worked on it. It's been an unnecessarily long road. But I'm glad that we're resolving this hazard once and for all. And it's sad to think that this agency already solved this problem once. Before we had 2 judges step in and set aside the agency's expertise substituting their own personal desire for deregulation cost. And here, there was a very, very clear cost real people. Mostly kids were hurt by that action and horrifying numbers and that court delayed justice, but it can't prevent it. And so I'm proud of this agency's perseverance and its empathy. And while they might not have cared about how their actions hurt people. We do and this agency has proven that when there's a real problem to solve, we are not easily deterred. So thank you to everyone for sticking with this. This rule is going to prevent gruesome injuries to children. So great work everyone. And thank you. Thank you, commissioner, commissioner Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my fellow colleagues for proving this important rule today. And of course my immense thanks and appreciation goes to the staff who have worked tirelessly. Not only I'm bringing this rule making to fruition today, but for their dedication, as has been said to this issue for well over a decade, you stuck with it. And because of that, lives will be saved and devastating injuries will be avoided. While we do it, CPSC makes a difference using a regulatory authority makes a difference. And if there was ever any doubt, the tragic history of magnet injuries to infants, toddlers and teens over the course of the past 15 years or so surely proves that. As has already been stated, but I think bears repeating the injury trends that occurred before, during, and after the agency's 1st, magnet rule making our eye opening for the period 2010 through 2013 before announcement of the magnet sets rule. CPSC estimated that there were approximately 2300 magnet ingestions treated annually in emergency departments. That number dropped to 1300 from 2014 through 2016, which corresponds to the year the rule was announced and in place. And after the rule was vacated, that number shot back up to approximately 2400 from 2017 through 2021. The rule we have adopted today will make a difference. It will make a difference to infants and toddlers who, as we all know, put things in their mouths in the normal course of development. It will make a difference to older children and teens who experiment with piercings. It will make a difference to families who will be devastated by magnet ingestion injuries to their children, which can be lifelong and life altering and even fatal. It makes a difference to a severely burdened health care system that treats these patients through our actions today. We are reaffirming our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable among us children on this unique hidden hazard. And let me repeat, CPSC staff makes a difference. We are able to act today because of the dedicated CPSC staff more than a decade ago. Staff identified magnet ingestions as an emerging and urgent issue and presented persuasive data on the need to act. And we are acting today because the devastating injuries to children demand such action. And while I certainly would have preferred that the agency's 1st magnet rule making remain in place. I'm gratified that the commission is using its regulatory authority to act today so that once again, we could see a downward trend in these horrific injuries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, commissioner and thanks again to staff and my fellow commissioners for their work on this final rule with that. This concludes today's decisional meeting as a consumer product safety commission.