 Welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission before we start to confirm that all the commissioners are here, Mr. Feldman. I'm here. Thank you, Mr. Trump. I'm here. Good morning. Good morning. And Commissioner Boyle, we have a busy day today. We have 2 briefings on proposed rules at this meeting. CPC staff will be briefing the commission on a draft. And those proposed rule making that would establish safety requirements for the packaging of button and coin cell batteries. This rule making is required by Reese's law legislation that was enacted into law in 2022 honor of Reese and Smith, child who died after swallowing a coin cell battery. I look forward to this briefing to understanding how this will influence the requirements of the law and how it will honor Reese's legacy. In a moment, I'll turn this meeting over to staff so that they can brief us. Once we have completed the briefing, each commissioner will have 10 minutes to ask questions of staff with multiple rounds if necessary. As a reminder, if you have questions that address the agency's legal authority or other legal advice, please hold them until the closed executive session that's been requested to be held later today. Following the 2 schedule public briefings briefing us today. Our Daniel tax year project manager engineering sciences and Mary house attorney with the office of general counsel. Also joining us today are Jason Levine, executive director of CPSC Austin, like general counsel. Wayne Boniface assistant executive director for hazard identification and reduction and Alberta mills commission secretary. Thanks to all the staff and the commissioners for being here and I'm now going to turn this over to our briefers. Thank you, Mr chair and to the commissioners for this opportunity to present staff's work on Reese's law and the battery ingestion hazard. I don't see the slides up. Are they being presented? There we go. My name is Daniel tax year and I am joined today by Mary house and we will be presenting to you this draft NPR. Next slide please today, we will begin with an overview of Reese's law followed by a description of the product and the hazard. Staff's review of related voluntary standards, the proposed rule and our initial regulatory flexibility analysis next slide, please. And I'll hand it over now to Mary to provide an overview of Reese's law. Good morning, everyone. The purpose of Reese's law is to protect children's that are 6 years older younger from the hazards associated with ingesting button cell or batteries. Next slide. Section 2 of Reese's law contains procedural requirements that require that not later than a year after enactment, which means by August 16, 2023. The commission must issue a rule and in accordance with the notice and comment procedures of the administrative procedure act. The resulting rule must contain and shall only contain performance and warning label requirements. Next slide with regard to the performance requirements. The commission must issue the performance standard for consumer products that contain button seller point batteries that secures battery compartments and a manager in a manner that would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury from battery ingestion by children that are 6 years age or younger during reasonably foreseeable use or misuse conditions. Next slide. With regard to the warning labels Reese's law has 2 requirements. 1 is for the placement of warning labels and the others for the content of warning labels with regard to placement. Warning labels must be included on the packaging for button cell and coin batteries and consumer products that use such batteries. Also on any literature that accompanies consumer products and as practicable directly on the consumer product in a manner where it's visible when you install or replace button batteries. Next slide. With regard to the content of warning labels, they must clearly identify the hazard of ingestion and instruct consumers as practicable to keep new and use batteries out of the reach of children. To seek immediate medical attention of a battery is ingested and to follow any other consensus medical advice. Next slide. There is an exception to rulemaking in section 2D of Reese's law. The proposed performance and labeling requirements would not apply if the commission determines that there's a voluntary standard that meets the performance and label requirements in section 2 or such products. And the voluntary standard is in effect at the time of the determination or will be in effect, not later than February 12th 2023. Next slide. Section 3 of Reese's law establishes requirements for child resistant packaging for button seller coin batteries, including batteries. They're included separately with the consumer product, meaning extra batteries that sometimes get packaged with consumer product. Those batteries must be packaged in accordance with the poison prevention packaging act standards and tested to the standard in part 1700. These requirements are self enacting, meaning they don't require a rulemaking. This requirement applies to batteries that are manufactured or imported after February 12th 2023. Next slide. Reese's law contains 2 exemptions. The 1st is for toy products. So performance and labeling standards promulgated under section 2 of Reese's law. Do not apply to toy products as defined in Reese's law and that definition is actually consistent with the definition of toys in the toy standard. So, it wouldn't apply if the toys are in compliance with battery accessibility and labeling requirements of the mandatory toy standard. The 2nd exemption is for child resistant packaging requirements in section 3. Those do not apply to any button seller coin battery that's in compliance with the marking and packaging provisions of ANSI safety standard for portable lithium primary cells and batteries, which is ANSI C18.3M. However, the labeling requirements in the proposed rule would still apply to those battery packaging. Next slide. Finally, separate from Reese's law and pursuant to section 27E of the CPSA. The commission is authorized to require that certain performance and technical data be provided to the commission and to prospective purchasers at the time of original purchase as the commission determines is necessary to carry out the purposes of the CPSA. So, the rule proposes a series of safety related performance and technical information concerning the use of button seller coin batteries at the time of sale, including online sales to improve safety communication to consumers. And to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death from button selling coin batteries, ingestion and other hazards. Next slide. So, now I'll turn it back over to Daniel to discuss the product and hazards. Thank you, Mary. So, the products we are discussing today are button seller coin batteries and the products that use them button seller coin batteries are defined in Reese's law as either a single cell battery with a diameter greater than the height of the battery. Or any other battery, regardless of the technology used to produce an electrical charge that is determined by the commission to pose an ingestion hazard for this package. We focused on batteries covered under the first definition. Button seller coin batteries are so named because they resemble in both size and appearance buttons or coins. Industry tends to refer to the small batteries with a zinc anode and an aqueous electrolyte as button cells. This includes alkaline, silver oxide and zinc air batteries. Batteries with a lithium chemistry are frequently referred to as coin batteries and tend to appear relatively wide and short as compared to button cells. Button seller coin batteries are constructed with the positive terminal cap based over the negative terminal case. The close proximity of the positive and negative terminals are key contributors to the hazard, which we'll discuss in a few slides. Next slide, please. Button seller coin batteries are used in a wide variety of consumer products, some examples of which are shown here. The products include remote controls, light up clothing, games and toys and musical greeting cards. The products like the batteries they use tend to be small and easy to carry. Next slide, please. Ingested button seller coin batteries can become lodged in the body and in particular the throat. When that happens, because the positive and negative terminals are so close to each other, it's very easy for the battery to form a circuit with the surrounding wet tissue. This produces hazardous chemicals, which can burn through the soft tissue and cause severe injury or death in as little as two hours. Batteries inhaled through the nose can also become stuck in this way and lead to similar outcomes. Some batteries do not pose the same ingestion hazard. Zinc air batteries, typically used in hearing aids, require the presence of air to cause a chemical reaction and the wet mucus in the body helps block the air from getting into the battery. Staff recommend that because these batteries do not pose the ingestion hazard, they remain out of scope of the rule. Next slide, please. The hazard has been discussed extensively in literature and other data sources. The National Capital Poison Center, for instance, reported 69 deaths and 267 cases of severe injury from 1977 to June of last year. The injuries include esophageal burns, perforations and strictures or narrowing of the esophagus. Batteries that burn through the throat can also damage other organs, such as the heart. The initial diagnosis can be difficult if the ingestion was not witnessed as outward symptoms can resemble a cold or flu. The internal injuries, when non-fatal, can have both short and long-term consequences. For instance, perforations or strictures may require a feeding tube to be intubated to allow normal swallowing and permanent vocal cord paralysis can also result from the injuries. Next slide, please. In staff's review of NICE and CPSRMS incident data from 2011 through 2021, staff identified 25 deaths in the U.S., all of children age 4 or younger. Staff estimates 54,000 emergency department visits over that time period or an average of just under 5,000 visits a year. Almost 80% of these visits involve children age 6 or younger, and more of these visits result in hospitalization or transfer than consumer products on average. This estimate does not include cases where the battery type was not specified and is likely to be an underestimate. Next slide, please. Injusted batteries can come directly from products from packaging or can be found loose. Batteries from products might be from easy-to-open battery compartments, such as those that slide open or twist off with a single hand movement. They can come from products that have broken open during use, such as a remote or a toy dropped on the ground or from inadequate product quality, such as battery compartments with screws that don't tighten because the screw cuts through the plastic threads or they just aren't long enough. Batteries can come out of already-opened battery packaging or are sometimes provided as spares in plastic sleeves. Loose batteries can be found on the floor or on a table after they've come out of an undetermined product, either intentionally during replacement or unintentionally. Or they might be stored outside the packaging in a battery drawer, something I myself am guilty of. Batteries have also been retrieved from household trash. Next slide, please. CPSC has conducted six recalls from 2011 through July of 2022 related to the ingestion hazard. The recalled products were responsible for at least four ingestion incidents and about 824,000 products were affected. Next slide. Staff evaluated performance requirements and several voluntary standards to assess whether any eliminate or adequately reduce the hazard. The four voluntary standards listed here contained requirements intended to reduce the hazard, but based on staff's review of scope, construction requirements, and use and abuse testing, none of the standards on their own were adequate to reduce ingestion incidents. This includes the toy standard mandated in 16 CFR part 1250. Next slide, please. This table summarizes staff's assessment of the performance requirements. Red boxes show performance requirements that were not addressed. The yellow boxes show performance requirements that were inadequately addressed. And green boxes show performance requirements that were adequately addressed. For example, if you look at the line for captive screws and the construction requirements, captive screws are screws that stay with the battery compartment or door when they have been loosened. This requirement helps prevent screws from becoming lost or separated from the product. UL4200A, IEC 62368, and IEC 62115 all contain requirements for captive screws, but the ASTM toy standard does not. And while UL4200A and IEC 62368 address this requirement, they also include exceptions such as for large panel doors, which can still result in scenarios where screws become separated from the product. That's why they're shown as yellow. If you look at this table by column rather than by row, you can quickly identify areas where each standard performs well and where they do not. The toy standard in particular does well addressing situations where a child may grab parts of the battery compartment with fingers or teeth to twist, push, or pull on them, which is not directly addressed in the UL standard except with the accessibility probe test. Next slide, please. These voluntary standards are limited in scope to cover specific product types, such as toys, audio visual equipment, or those powered by lithium batteries. All of the standards allow as an option or require compartments to be opened with tools, which prevents many young children from gaining access to the battery. Most standards require screws for these battery compartments to be captive, as previously discussed. Voluntary standards for non-toy products also allow battery compartments to open with two simultaneous and independent actions or a double action. This is a proven way to prevent access to young children, and similar requirements can be found in standards for juvenile products such as gates. All of the standards confirm the construction requirements with an accessibility test, which uses a probe to see if you can touch the battery. UL4200A and IAC62368 include a test to simulate the battery heating up the battery compartment and affecting plastic materials over time. They also include a test to simulate repeated opening and closing of the battery compartment, including removing and re-securing screws. This test addresses the change in performance of the battery compartment, resulting from battery replacement. Drop and impact tests simulate the product being dropped to the floor or hit against another product or surface. Crush tests would simulate a person stepping on the product or pushing on it with their hand, and the torque, tension, and compression tests from the toy standard simulate a child grabbing and manipulating the battery compartment with their fingers and teeth. And a probe applied with force is used in some of these standards to confirm that the battery compartment has not been damaged by the previous tests, allowing access. Finally, for non-replaceable batteries, UL4200A includes a test where a hook is used to try and pry off the battery. Next slide, please. Staff's proposed performance requirements combine elements from all of the reviewed standards to adequately address common hazards seen in incidents. Replaceable batteries must be secured in a compartment requiring either a tool or two independent and simultaneous hand movements, with additional clarification to ensure either option is as secure as possible. The adequacy of the construction is assessed with an accessibility test, including a tension test applied to pliable materials like cloth or paper. Next slide, please. Products with plastic compartments are placed in an oven for seven hours to simulate the operational temperature of the battery, and battery replacement simulated temp times. The product is then subjected to a series of tests to simulate use and abuse, including being dropped on a hardwood floor 10 times, being impacted three times, and additional tests to simulate child interactions with hands and teeth. The battery must not become accessible or be liberated from the battery compartment at any point during testing, and the door or cover must continue functioning. Next slide. For consumer products with non-replaceable batteries, the battery compartment can either be secured in the same manner as for replaceable batteries, or the battery must be secured with soldering, permanent fasteners, or equivalent means. If the second option is used, the adequacy of the containment is confirmed using a test hook, and the battery cannot liberate from the product. Next slide, please. Staff also assessed the adequacy of the labeling requirements in battery and product standards to address the requirements of Reese's law. Here you can see the ANSI, UL, and IUC battery standards that we reviewed, and in each case, staff found the standards did not adequately address the requirements in Reese's law. Next slide. These standards are limited in scope to particular battery chemistries and do not address the hazard for the entire range of unsell or coin batteries that pose the ingestion hazard. For instance, ANSI C18.3M includes specific language and guidance addressing the ingestion hazard, such as keep out of reach for children, immediately seek medical attention if swallowed, contact your local poison control center. But the standard only requires the best and most specific guidance for lithium batteries with diameters of 16 millimeters or larger. Staff are aware of injuries and deaths with smaller batteries, so did not find these requirements adequate. Next slide, please. Staff's proposed warning label for the front of battery packaging first directly addresses what the ingestion hazard is and what the consequences of ingestion are. It then tells consumers how to avoid the hazard, keep new and used batteries at a reach of children, and directly informs consumers to seek immediate medical attention if a battery is suspected to be swallowed or inserted inside any part of the body. This directly aligns with the requirements in Reese's Law previously described on slide seven. Staff also proposed alternative warning placement for cases where the full warning doesn't fit on the front of the battery package. Next slide, please. Staff's assessment of the adequacy of labeling requirements in product standards for product packaging, instructions, and directly on the product similarly found that these standards do not adequately address requirements in Reese's Law. Next slide, please. The adult and children's jewelry standards do not address the ingestion hazard at all. UL4200A does not clearly warn of an ingestion hazard. It doesn't form of a chemical burn hazard, but without conforming consumers how this hazard can occur. Next slide. Staff's proposed warning label for the front of consumer product packaging includes all the same information as the warning for battery packaging, but adds this product contains a button cell or coin battery. Staff also included proposals for alternative placement of the label. The size of the package does not permit the full label. Or if there is no product packaging at all, staff proposes to place the label on a hang tag or sticker label. Next slide. Staff's proposal for a warning label directly on consumer products must be visible on the product while the battery is being replaced or upon access to the battery compartment. Like other labels, an alternative is proposed for products where the full label doesn't fit. Next slide, please. Staff also proposes additional warnings to go on battery packaging and in instructions or manuals for consumer products. These warnings reinforce for the consumer that use batteries pose a hazard and advise on disposable and treatment information. Next slide, please. Pursuant to section 27e of the CPSA, the draft rule proposes a series of safety-related performance and technical information concerning the button cell or coin batteries and their use at the time of sale, including online sales, to improve safety communication to consumers and to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death from button cell or coin batteries. In particular, the proposed warning labels for battery packaging and consumer product packaging would be required to be visible during online sales by manufacturers, and additional technical and warning information is recommended for battery packaging and consumer product packaging with some examples shown here. Battery type, battery chemistry, and nominal voltage can all be used by medical professionals to help diagnose and treat a battery ingestion, and a warning not to mix battery types can help prevent hazardous chemical leakage or exploding batteries. Next slide. Based on staff's initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the proposed rule would impact nearly all manufacturers and importers of consumer products using button cell or coin batteries. Products may require redesign to accommodate the required locking mechanisms. Staff estimates an additional cost of two to four cents per product for screw locks and a little over $15,000 for R&D and retooling. Third-party testing would be required for children's products at an estimated cost of $150 to $350 per product sample. Staff estimates that most small firms would not be significantly affected, but those firms that heavily rely on production of small, unique, or novel electronic products or high-volume and low-price products could be adversely affected. Next slide. Reese's Law does not allow the Commission to consider alternatives to the required performance and labeling rulemaking for consumer products that could reduce the impacts to small firms, such as limiting the scope of the rule to certain products, providing exemptions, relying solely on consumer education. The additional labeling requirements under 27E could be removed, but staff estimates the cost of this is inconsequential. Next slide, please. The draft proposed rule establishes a performance standard and warning label requirements for consumer products containing button seller coin batteries in accordance with Reese's Law. Additional warnings and point of sale requirements are proposed under section 27E of the CPSA. The proposed rule does not find any voluntary standards for consumer products which meet the requirements established by Reese's Law. The draft proposed rule is supported by ingestion incident analysis, literature, hazardous use patterns, engineering analysis and product testing, CPSC recalls, and consensus medical advice. Next slide. Thank you for your time, and we are now ready to take your questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Chacks here, and thank you, Ms. House, for a comprehensive briefing on the package before us. We're now going to turn to questions from the Commissioners. As I mentioned, we're going to do 10 minutes each round, multiple rounds necessary, so I'll recognize myself for the first 10 minutes. So as a briefing package states, and you went into some detail, no standard, that voluntary standard that exists today meets the requirements of Reese's Law, but it's like that the staff builds upon the elements of the four voluntary standards in building its proposed rule. It would be fair to say that staff's proposal largely takes for the best parts of those voluntary standards and where there's any gaps fills them in to make a stronger comprehensive standard. Thank you for the question. I would agree with your assessment about where we ended up that we didn't start off with that mindset. Slide 20 with the green yellow and red boxes pretty effective at showing first that no voluntary standard alone addresses all of the hazards adequately. So then after coming to that conclusion, we started assessing how to adequately address each hazard, what works, what doesn't work, what needs some clarification or tweaking. The briefing package shows the results of that work and we request comments from the public to see if the draft proposed rule can be improved further. Thank you. And in the briefing, you noted that there were incidents with toys, but it also pointed out the Reese's Law exempts children's toys from the commission's rulemaking. Do you believe that the proposed rule is stronger than the existing toy standard and if so, do we need to take steps outside the context of this rule to strengthen that standard? Yes, there are elements of this proposed rule that are stronger than the existing toy standard. Staff has already raised concerns to ASTM that the toy standard requirements for battery compartments do not adequately protect against a button seller coin batteries and toys being accessed and becoming an ingestion hazard. We sent a letter back in August of last year to the ASTM toy subcommittee about these concerns and we intend to follow up after the NPR is issued with specific recommendations in accordance with the NPR. Thank you. And the recommendation with the effective date, how do the staff come to that recommendation? Is that for 180 days, I believe in the package? Yes, the 180-day effective date. Well, this rule would touch on a wide distribution of industries and products and a lot of these batteries and products are made overseas takes time for products to be designed to meet the requirements. It takes time for labs to get test equipment, become a CPSC accepted lab and to test the products. 180 days also aligns with language in Reese's law that set the 180 effective date period for packaging requirements. We're asking for public comments on the issue to add any clarity to our initial assessment. And my final question is you're not proposing that we include AAA batteries in the rule. Can you go into that a bit as to how the recommendation is before? Sure. So cylindrical batteries like AAA batteries do not pose the same type or degree of ingestion hazard as button seller coin batteries. They can pose a choking hazard similar to other swallowed objects and CPSC is aware that consumers have ingested cylindrical batteries. However, the medical literature and incident data shows that injury or death due to ingestion of a cylindrical battery is pretty rare. And this is because AAA batteries, well, first they have an insulating wrapper where you would normally see the brand of the battery. And the distance between the poles of the battery is relatively large compared to a button seller coin battery. So this makes it unlikely to cause the same damage in the esophagus as a large button seller coin cell. However, if new information were to change that assessment, the commission could conduct a rulemaking in the future using Reese's law to address the hazard. Thank you. Thank you for the briefing and answering my questions. I'm going to turn this over at this point in time to Commissioner Feldman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to staff for the presentation. This is an issue that the commission has been aware of this hazard of ingestion and death from button and coin cell batteries for some time. And the progress on doing anything to address this hazard has been slow. I had an opportunity to meet with Trista Hamsmith a little over a year ago to work with her to hear the story about Reese and the horror that her family suffered as a result of this hazard. And we have watched and offered some guidance to Ms. Hamsmith and watched with a good deal of being impressed with just the speed with which her story resonated with Congress and the speed with which Congress apt to tell CPSC that we need to be doing more in this respect. And this is what we have in front of us today, Reese's law. I have some questions. I'm concerned that given some of our recent rule makings where we have brought forward safety regulations on an expedited time basis where we have even sought the maximum that specified under our statute 180 days that courts have sought to stay those rules. As I said in the past, state or overturned offer zero consumer protections. And here we are talking again about 180 day implementation period and effective date. So appreciating this, and I want to steer clear of the legal question. But I'm curious to hear staff's thoughts on why it believes 180 days is sufficient for manufacturers to redesign, test, address the labeling requirements that's called for under the act. Sure. Thank you for the question. So based on staff's assessment, the changes needed to battery compartments to make them more secure are not that great. For instance, just adding a screw that's secure in the compartment or the cover. There's a relatively simple solution that requires just a little bit of extra machining. Manufacturers could opt for redesign and depending on how they're set up, that could be a relatively fast process. But we are interested in hearing from manufacturers directly if they have any additional information that could help us with this assessment. Okay. And hopefully putting this rule out for comment as we're proposing to do will provide an opportunity for that. So I do look forward to hearing those comments. I did have additional questions and concerns, frankly, that I'd like to flag in reading through Reese's law. It's actually quite specific what Congress is directing us to do with respect to the labeling requirements. It includes, and this was discussed in the briefing, area mandate that what is promulgated by CPSC shall only contain warning labels that include certain requirements. And that's a clear identification of the hazard and instruction to consumers is practical to keep the new and used batteries out of reach to minimize the ingestion risk. But what I'm hearing from staff is under 2070 that staff's proposing a series of additional requirements. And I'm curious your thoughts how the additional requirements that are being proposed here comport with the statutory directive that Congress has placed in Reese's law. Is this consistent? Sure. I'd say Commissioner Feldman, in terms of a legal assessment, we'd say that for executive session. I wasn't asking for a legal assessment. I'm not asking for staff's thoughts on the litigation risk that this might give rise to, which I believe may be significant. We can discuss that in closed session. I think what I'm asking for is an assessment of how the what's being proposed under 2070, whether that's consistent with what we've been asked to do under Reese's law. Is that permissible for discussion? Perhaps, Ms. Texer could talk about how the 2070 requirements add to the safety benefit that staff perceives. Yeah, absolutely. So the additional 2070 technical information can be used to provide medical professionals information that can be used to effectively treat an ingestion incident should want to occur. For example, a doctor would want to know whether the ingested battery was a lithium three volt coin battery versus a one and a half volt alkaline button battery, which could affect the immediate steps taken to treat the ingestion. And the information also informs of ways to mitigate hazards other than ingestion, including fires and burns. Given staff's strong reluctance, and I've heard this from agency staff, I've heard this from advocates, I've heard this from fellow commissioners, you know, the strong admonition that warning labels just aren't effective in other contexts. Why now does staff believe that warning labels, the additional warning requirements that you're proposing under 2070 are going to be effective? Thank you for the question. You know, by requiring these warning labels on battery packaging, consumer product packaging, directly on the product, I think we are reiterating over and over again, these batteries pose a hazard. So, I think in my mind, that could be a very effective way to reach the consumer. But in other contexts, clearly, we'd be reiterating via a warning label that this product poses a hazard. And the conclusion that staff has reached is that a warning label in those instances would be ineffective. So I'm curious what's different about this product versus, say, infancy products? Well, in this case, we are being required to put a warning label on the battery packaging. But we're going far beyond that with what staff's proposing under 2070. So just to, just to add to the discussion, I think staff has been very, very consistent noting that warning labels are the least effective means of addressing a hazard, but not an ineffective means of addressing the hazard. And in particular, to extent we can use warnings in conjunction with strong performance standards that provides multiple mechanisms for addressing the hazard and gets to a more effective... I understand that, but we've also declined to do that in other circumstances. But I see that I've got a little bit of time. With the additional information that we're being asked to consider for proposal under 2070, is there a risk that we're going to overwhelm consumers with the additional information? I'm thinking specifically of the size of the packaging for certain button cell batteries. It's not a bunch of real estate there. Is there a risk of providing too much information here? You know, thank you for that question. I think a lot, in fact, all of the information that we're proposing is generally on battery packaging already. So what we're doing is asking it to be a requirement rather than optional. And is there a risk that we are sort of providing less than should be required under the statutory directive? I'm reading, you know, the requirement shall include a clear identification of the hazards of ingestion. Isn't one of the hazards of ingestion here death? And shouldn't we say that more explicitly? Thank you for the question. Why did staff decide not to do that? I think if you do look back at the warning label, it does clearly inform of the potential hazard of death. But we would be happy to take public comments on that. Okay. I look forward to seeing this public comment as well. I want to thank staff for their work on this and for the presentation today. I'd also like to thank in particular Trista Hamsmith for her advocacy throughout this process. It's been awe inspiring to watch. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Tromka. Thank you. And to circle back to that, a brief reminder of why we're here today. Reese Elizabeth Hamsmith was 18 months old when she died from ingesting a button cell battery from remote control. And because of Reese's mom Trista and countless other parent advocates who've turned their pain into progress, this agency is putting forward a safety standard that'll protect children from these batteries. And this new safety standard will require battery compartments to be secured to prevent kids under six from accessing the batteries inside. And it'll require warning labels that clearly state the ingestion hazard and warn consumers to keep these batteries out of reach of children. My daughter is three years old. So I can't begin to express my gratitude to Trista and the parent advocates who have dedicated their lives to making the world a safer place for kids like ours. And without their strength and their conviction, these preventable tragedies would continue. I'd also like to commend our staff, including our briefers today and the people who worked on this for the tremendous work on this NPR. This safety standard is already incredibly strong. I do have a few questions aimed at tightening up a couple areas where I think we could make it even stronger. The first question I have is, is we provided an exemption for zinc air batteries. And we reason that they don't pose the same hazard. In part, we say that because they're smaller than other button batteries, coin batteries, they don't pose the same choking hazard. So given that their current size is critical to our analysis of why they don't pose the hazard, shouldn't we limit the zinc air battery exemption to cover only small batteries as they exist on the market today? Thank you for that question. There are zinc air batteries available today that are bigger than the most common small size batteries that we most associate with hearing aids. And given that, the other attributes associated with the ingestion hazard, such as generation of hazardous chemicals, leaking of hazardous chemicals, electrical burns, would still be unlikely to occur if these larger zinc air batteries became stuck in the throat. It may be appropriate to require a different warning label for large zinc air button cell or coin batteries based on this difference of hazards. And staff would recommend requesting comment on that issue. Okay. On this secondary display panel, we direct consumers not to dispose of batteries in household trash, but we don't tell them where they should dispose of the batteries if not the trash. So where should we dispose of these batteries and should we clarify that? Yeah, that's a good question. And it's a challenging one because local trash and recycling centers will each have different guidelines for how to best dispose of used batteries, which can make giving specific advice a challenge. We could potentially advise consumers to place electrical tape over the terminals of the battery and to store it in a safe place until it can be disposed of based on local guidance. And the EPA website actually has links to several resources regarding battery disposal that I found very helpful. Staff would recommend that the commission seek comment on all aspects of the warning labels, including whether more specific guidance would be helpful or necessary. Okay. On the product warning label, and there was a question about this, we definitely do in some of the warnings mentioned the hazard of death, but the on product warning label figure nine on OS 46, it doesn't. And I understand there's going to be space limitations on the product, but we do have a full label where it can fit and then smaller ones for where it doesn't. On that full label, it says, ingestion hazard, this product contains a button seller coin battery. And I guess my question is the same as Commissioner Feldman's, should that specific label where it can fit include something about the risk of death or serious injury or about seeking medical attention? Sure. Thank you for the question. As you mentioned, there are space concerns, particularly for the on product label. I think the options we've proposed have taken that into account and are really intended to inform consumers that hazard exists and then they can find more information on the battery packaging or on the consumer product packaging, or maybe even in the manual. But again, I think that would be a good area to request comments on and maybe we can add more language for even an additional larger size warning label. Okay. Now on on pages OS 271 and 272, we talk about the battery compartment security feature designs and we've got our two options. And we point out there that staff's testing showed that clarification of a double action is necessary to reduce the likelihood of poorly designed double action mechanisms. And we in fact point out some poorly designed double action mechanisms that were on the market. And by comparison, the captive screw requirements seem very clear and they seem less likely to be poorly designed. We clarified it pretty well on how you how you design that properly. So why why do we continue to allow for a double locking mechanism option given the availability of a seemingly clearer and more protective alternative than the captive screw? Sure. Thank you for the question. Staff's experience is that well designed double action locking mechanisms can be just as robust, if not more so, in a lock with a captive screw. And while a captive screw increases the likelihood that the screw will be used to secure the compartment, it doesn't guarantee it. Consumers can defeat the screw by purposefully removing it or by just not using it. Both types of locking mechanisms, the captive screw or the double action lock, they have a history of being used to secure products from young children. And they both have their own strengths and weaknesses. And I think it would be a good idea to seek a comment from the public on how we can improve or mitigate improve on strengths and mitigate weaknesses. Okay, yeah, I think through those comments we could figure out how much guidance might be necessary to ensure that we get good solutions there. Last question here, we adopted 10 drops of a product to simulate abuse in one of our tests. I know that in my house our remotes get dropped that much every day. So should we consider increasing the number to simulate real world abuse? Thank you for that question. So all of the testing that we are proposing is based on testing that's already in these voluntary standards. What we found is that 10 drops is pretty adequate from a height of one meter to determine whether the product is going to survive or not. But definitely fewer drops is not. So generally, if you drop something 10 times, it's going to be pretty clear that it will survive an additional 10 or more drops. And we have all of these other performance requirements as well and add all of these together and you come with a pretty robust product. Well, look, I want to again commend staff for the excellent work that went into the safety standard. Staff clearly understands that every single day of delay means more lives that might be lost. And so you clearly wasted no time in developing a very strong and robust NPR. And though no voluntary standard that exists today is protective enough to address this hazard, you dug into the various voluntary standards and you pulled out the very best and most protective elements of each. And that's really smart work. And the result of that work is a very strong solution that you develop quickly and efficiently on behalf of the American people and in memory of Reese and all the other children that should still be with us today. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to the staff for this very comprehensive package. And I will echo what Commissioner Trump just said that you submitted in under tight deadlines, but was comprehensive and very thorough. So I appreciate that very much. Also want to echo my colleagues tribute to just the Hans Smith and her incredibly effective advocacy that will surely save lives. So I pay tribute to her as well and to the memory of Reese. And finally, I want to thank my colleagues for all very thoughtful questions and have addressed many of the questions I had. I in particular want to echo the chairman's question with regard to the toy standard. I am concerned about staff's assessment of the inadequacy of the toy standard and the fact that there's exemptions for those products. So I do encourage the stakeholders who work on those issues in the voluntary standards community to pay attention to the need to get to quick work on that. So I do appreciate the chairman's question on that. I just have a couple of other brief questions if you don't mind. And then as I say, most of them have been addressed and I appreciate those questions. I do have a question about the incident data. Obviously, the law is directed for protecting children, but I did want to ask Ms. Detects, are there benefits for the older population and are there incidents for older Americans that we know about that might also benefit from this proposed rule? Yeah, thank you for the question. So the draft NPR and table two, I believe displays estimates for the various age groups. I think there's about 21% of those incidents that involve people older than the age of six. There will be some protection for those incidents. A lot of them don't necessarily happen accidentally. Others involve devices not in scope of this rule, for example, medical devices. So we would not be able to address those. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. I also want to ask a little bit about whether we have data on gender issues. I know there are studies that indicate that young girls have increased dexterity as opposed to boys at that age. Do we have any information on whether the incidents skew that way? Thank you for the question. We do have data on sex in these incidents. I do not recall it off the top of my head, unfortunately, so I'll have to get back to you on that. I appreciate that. Thank you. Let's see. The other question I had, and it's in the statute in two places with regard to warning labels and their determination as practicable. Who makes that determination? How do we figure out what's practicable? Yeah, thank you for that question. Within our requirements, we include a table that shows area size and the appropriate text size. I think that would be a good starting place for companies to address where it's practical to place different sizes of warnings. We also include minimum word sizes for some of the warnings, which should be considered. Okay, but it is, first and foremost, the company makes that determination? Yes, I do think the company makes that determination. And just keeping on warning labels for a moment, was there consideration to require languages other than English? Thank you for the question. So at minimum, these warnings must be in English. If a company wanted to create a version of the warning in another language, I don't think we would stop them from doing so, but we would obviously request comment on that issue. So it's up to the company. We're not mandating any other. Okay. Thank you for that. I just have a question of whether we have any sense of what the market shows, say, over the past 20 years in terms of the increase of this type of battery. Do we know any information on that? We might have information on that available, but again, I don't have that off the top of my head, so I might have to get back to you. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you very much. As I say, I think that's it. A very comprehensive, thorough package and presentation. I appreciate the expeditious submission to the commission. Mr. Chair, I don't have any of the questions. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. I pause for my to see if anybody wants a second round of questions. Hearing none, I want to thank the staff for this informative briefing and to the commissioners for their active participation. We are going to reconvene at 11 o'clock for our second briefing of the day on supplement and proposed rulemaking to update our regulations interpreting 6B of the Consumer Robotic Safety Act. And with that, this first session is adjourned.