 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of consumer product safety commission. We have a big agenda today with 2, decisional items and a briefing from staff and the proposed fiscal year 2024 operating plan starting with a decisional session on the draft knows pose rulemaking to establish safety standards for infant rockers and infant toddler rockers. We're going to start with questions for the staff. They have several staff members present. They were joined by Zachary Foster project manager director for engineering sciences and and vice assistant general counsel also joining us are Jason Levine executive director Austin schlick general counsel Dwayne Ray deputy executive director and Alberta mills commission secretary. Each commissioner is going to have 5 minutes for questions and we have multiple rounds if necessary after the questions are complete. We're going to consider any amendments. And as a reminder, if you have legal questions that address agencies, legal authority or other legal advice, please don't ask him at this time. So we're going to move to questions. I have no questions for staff. Commissioner Feldman. Do you have questions? I have no questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Trumka. I have none. Thank you and commissioner Boyle. No, I don't have any other things hearing no questions. Staffs excuse and we're going to move consideration of the package. Before putting the matter to as proposed to a vote, I will entertain any amendments to the motions that the commission's proposed. I myself don't have any amendments to Mr. Feldman. Do you have amendments? I do not. Thank you, Mr. Trumka. Do you have an amendment? I do. I have a motion. And I'll You know, I believe this agency has the ability and the responsibility to end preventable infant sleep deaths tied to consumer products. We've certainly taken many actions that lead us toward that goal. With this proposal before us, I think that we would make these products safer, but I don't believe we would make them safe enough. Rockers are inclined products. Babies have fallen asleep in them and have died. The current proposal addresses only part of that problem. Though it tries to make rockers safer for sleeping babies, it does not take steps to dissuade sleep and rockers in the first place. With nursing pillows, we did both. We made them less likely to be used for sleep and safer if sleep still occurred. We should do both here. Therefore, I move to adopt the following proposal That the draft NPR be returned to staff with instructions to establish one an age restriction that prevents rockers from being marketed intended or designed for children less than six months of age. Two, a requirement that rockers include prominent warnings on the products and their packaging not to use for children less than six months of age. Three, a prohibition on the inclusion of soothing features such as vibrations or calming sounds. For a third firmness test point at the point in the head area that's most likely to fail and five and anti stockpiling provision. If this motion passes staff would be instructed to establish these additions and resubmit to the commission and updated NPR within 30 calendar days. These changes were selected to make it less likely that those most at risk be placed in these products and they were selected because no additional studies are needed to support them. They rely on current findings. I ask my fellow commissioners to support these these modest but necessary improvements. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a second for the motion? Second hearing a second. We're now going to turn to comments and questions from other commissioners and I'm going to start with myself. Commissioner Trump, I appreciate you engaging on these issues. I believe the package in front of us that was based on the staff's expertise. Research and science in the university state is commissioned by the agency is a significant improvement. What we have here. I believe we should be guided by their work and by the information that's going to be submitted by members of the public through the common period based on that input. We obviously can revise the draft as appropriate and should get the input from the public. But I am strongly opposed to delaying the start of the public common period by returning this proposed rule to staff because they would delay some of the life saving benefits that are being considered in the rule. Currently, there's no mandatory standard for rockers and we have to pursue defective products one at a time and after they've already been sold to consumers. It's a gap that's existed in our regs for too long. So delaying the proceeding will allow the countless of questionable rockers to continue on the market longer than necessary. And so, for that reason, I plan to vote against the motion. Commissioner Felpin, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I agree with what you just put forward. I'm a no on this motion. It would delay our rulemaking. I want to get the NPR out for comment as quickly as possible so that the commission will have the benefit of comments and stakeholder expertise to inform our next steps. Thank you. Mr. Boyle. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also, I'm not going to be able to support this motion. I do think we should go forward and I'm looking forward to robust comments from the stakeholder community and I encourage that. And I understand the impetus behind the motion, but unfortunately I can't support it. Mr. Trump, did you have thoughts? No, thanks. So we're now going to move to vote on the motion. Just going in order, seniority commissioner. Feldman, I vote no, Mr. Trump. I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle. No. And I vote no. So the yeses are one. The noes are three and the motion is not adopted. Commissioner Trump could do you have any other amendments? I do have an amendment. I'll call up a Trump commitment three. So I originally drafted three amendments. I am not going to be putting forward the first two, but I will briefly summarize them because they're they're asked. We asked for comment about them in the third. So the first would have added our standard anti stockpiling provision. We heard it to be at the briefing that all rockers associated with deaths would fail the performance requirements and require some redesign questions, whether we should allow manufacturers to build up warehouses of those products and sell them off after a rule would otherwise be effective. The second would have added a third firmness test point at the point most likely to fail. That was staff's proposal in the nursing pillow NPR that we just approved and staff defended it by saying that we define if we define two specific points companies could design a product that met firmness requirements at those points. But was soft in other places and still passed our test and from the death described in the briefing package. We know that babies have died by flipping themselves over from supine to prone and suffocating and soft parts on these products. So I fear the protection and only two specific points will not stop those deaths. If the remainder of the area babies could end up in stay soft. So instead of making those those changes now. Trump Amendment three asks for comment on those with the goal of gathering the best information and making necessary changes along lines of the sentiments that all of the fellow commissioners have have put forward this morning. So, you know, with this amendment. We asked the public to comment on eight questions and provide us with support for any changes. Those questions are one. What physical design characteristics not already addressed in this package would best signal to adults that rockers are unsafe for infant sleep. Should any characteristics be required for rockers to should rockers be allowed to be marketed intended design or designed to accommodate babies that are too young to gain any physical developmental benefit from using them. Three would any additional warnings be useful and what should those be for should soothing features like vibration or calming sounds be permitted on rockers. Five, whether the NPR has identified the appropriate firmness test points and whether any other test points should be included. Six, whether there's utility in an anti stockpiling provision. Seven should torso angle restrictions be included. If so, should restrictions set a maximum angle under which sleep is appropriately safe. Be should those restrictions set a minimum angle above which a baby is sitting upright and is unlikely to sleep or see should those restrictions do both of the above IE should products be permitted to be below X degrees. Or above Y degrees, but not any of the angles in between X and Y and the last question that it asked for is the commission request comment on whether any rocker with an inclined greater than 10 degrees. In which an infant is likely to fall asleep is safe for infants under 5 months or for infants under 6 months. And if such products are not safe. What modifications the proposed rule should be made to ensure that those products are not available for children in that age range. I ask for your support on this amendment. Thank you. Is there a second second hearing a second. We now turn to comments questions from other commissioners. I'm going to start with myself. So I thank you, Mr. Trump for that. This amendment as is my practice. I support. Amendments that ask questions for commenters so that we can get the most robust record out there. So I'm going to do the same here. I think this strengthens our whole process. So commissioner Feldman. I have no questions. Thank you. Commissioner ball. I don't have questions either. Thank you. Mr. Trump. I appreciate your consideration and support. Okay, we're now going to move to a vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. I vote yes, Mr. Trump. I vote yes, Mr. Boyle. Yes, and I vote yes as well. So the yeses are for and the amendment is adopted. Mr. Trump, could you have any other amendments? I do not. Thank you. Commissioner Boyle. Do you have an amendment? Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment also asked a number of questions that I hope will result in robust and comprehensive comments that help guide the commission's evolving work on infant products with a particular focus on younger infants and whether we need to think differently and specifically in terms of infant age as a factor in evaluating safety. More than a decade ago, the amendments in the CPSIA on durable infant and toddler products, what we call 104 rules put in place a statutory framework that has allowed the commission to adopt strong rules for a wide variety of products to protect infants from hazards associated with those products. As a result, we have rigorous standards for cribs, bass nets, playards, high chairs, infant walkers, strollers and more. And as an agency, I think we have a lot to be proud of on the work we have done with infant and durable products since adoption of the CPSIA. Now, I think we have an opportunity to build on that work and legacy by focusing on how we look at infants through the lens of their developmental progress. This approach is consistent with the statutory direction to periodically review and revise standards set forth under 104 to ensure that such standards provide the highest level of safety for such products that is feasible. As we start to look at what we call seeded products and what the highest level of safety for such products that is feasible, the evaluation done by the Boise State researchers, which is discussed in detail in the package before us, raises important distinctions about the developmental differences among infants and how those differences implicate infant safety. That is, for example, a product may be appropriate for a nine-month-old but not a two-week-old. Such a conclusion may even seem intuitive, but those distinctions are not necessarily reflected in how a product is used and how we look at a product from a regulatory and safety perspective. So the question for me is whether we are adequately taking those differences into account when developing performance requirements and warnings. In this package, I believe staff took a step in acknowledging these differences by including, for the first time, a warning about use by premature infants. Building on staff's inclusion of this warning, my proposal seeks comment on whether such a warning is appropriate for any other age group and whether, more broadly, their product definition should not only include a weight limit but a minimum age. I believe that we need to give greater attention to developmental differences in infants and the questions I propose today are intended to seek information on those differences and whether we need to think differently and more cautiously about the youngest age cohort generally identified in the Boise report at about four months. I thank my colleagues for your support of my amendment and I encourage the public to submit robust comments if this amendment is adopted. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Hearing a second, we're now going to turn to comments and questions. I'm going to begin with myself and Commissioner Boyle, thank you for this amendment. I think you've raised good issues that should be considered in the process going forward and I will support your amendment. Commissioner Feldman. Thank you. I have no questions. Commissioner Trumka. Commissioner Boyle, I appreciate your thoughtful approach and I support your amendment. Commissioner Boyle, did you have other thoughts to add? I don't. Thank you. Matt, I think we will move to vote on the amendment. Commissioner Feldman. I vote yes. Commissioner Trumka, I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle. Yes. And I vote yes as well. The yeses are four. The noes is zero. The amendment is adopted. Commissioner Boyle, did you have any other amendments? I don't. Thank you. Hearing no additional amendments, I move to approve the draft. Notice the proposed rulemaking on infant rockers and infant toddler rockers as amended. Is there a second? Second. Hearing a second, now I'm going to move to a vote. Commissioner Feldman. I vote yes. Commissioner Trumka. I vote yes. Commissioner Boyle. Yes. And I vote yes as well. The yeses are four. The noes is zero. The draft knows proposed rulemaking on infant rockers and infant toddler rockers as amendment has been approved. At this point in time, we're going to move to closing statements. Each commissioner is going to have up to 10 minutes. I'm going to start with myself, but I'm actually going to keep it short given the long day that we have ahead of us in the work to be done. I am very pleased to be moving forward to establish a safety standard for infant and infant toddler rockers. This is an important rule. It's going to fill a gap in our section 104 standards. We have long had mandatory rules for, you know, books on the books for bouncers and swings, but not for rockers. Congress has directed us, as Commissioner Boyle has indicated to continue adopting safety standards for additional categories of infant and toddler products. And that's what we're doing here today. With our new research on firmness and concavity, I believe that this rule can have a real impact on the safety of these products. I'm going to look forward to a robust common period and consideration of a final package that Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank staff for the briefing on this topic a few weeks ago and for all their work in producing the package and the proposed rule that we just voted out. I also want to say that from my perspective, the use of the visual aids in the demonstration during the briefing was helpful, especially to those of us who are visual learners. So thank you for including those. The rulemaking is also valuable as part of our broader efforts from the medical community, public health officials, safety organizations, and the many other interested organizations, including the commission to promote safe sleep for infants. I know that progress on these fronts takes time and that can be frustrating, but there are limits to what we can do as a commission. We learned this the hard way in recent litigation. It's important that CPSC set realistic expectations and focus on those areas that are within our control and work to improve safety based on sound data. At a minimum, we shouldn't advance proposals that are unsupported or amendments that ultimately threaten the viability of a final rule. And I believe the proposal adopted by the commission today may strike that right balance. But this is just one step in the process and I am pleased to see that the process is moving forward. I look forward to reviewing the comments from stakeholders and making further refinements as needed. I want to thank my colleagues for their work on this NPR and thank you all very much. Richard Trumka. I remember having conversations a year ago when regulating rockers was being discussed in last year's operating plan. And it was my belief then that if the proposal didn't address torso angle, I was going to struggle to see the value in moving it forward. That's because these products share so many physical characteristics with inclined sleepers like the rock and play. They're the agency solved that problem by addressing the sleep angle. And obviously, positions have changed on that. I voted yesterday because I think this does make things safer and I hope we can continue making things safer here. And while torso angle may ultimately still need to be part of the solution for rockers. I acknowledge that staff has also shown us other characteristics that could reduce the risk of death. But we've now specifically asked for comments on torso angle in these products. So if anybody down the road is questioning whether they should be on notice that torso angle restrictions are under consideration, they are. So we sought comment on that issue and if torso angle restrictions end up in the final rule, they would be a logical outgrowth of this proposal. And as just one individual commissioner, I'd be particularly interested in commenters thoughts on whether there is applicability of the September 2019 report from the University of Arkansas for medical sciences, biomechanical analysis of inclined sleep products. On page 59 of that report, it stated that quote, inclined surfaces resulted in significantly higher muscle activity of trunk, core muscle abdominals, which may lead to quicker fatigue and suffocation if an infant finds themselves prone. Likewise, that studies analysis of 91 incident reports from 2010 to 2019. That study concluded that many supine to prone incidents occurred in infants averaging 4.2 months old. So I would appreciate commenters thoughts on the utility of those portions of that study to this proposal. I also want to make sure that we're answering the important question. Should babies under a certain age be placed in these products or products like them at all? And with the approach taken by today's NPR, the agency is putting a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of commenters. So we are looking to you for help. If the rule is to be improved, it seems we're looking to you to do that. So I offer you good luck and I, I plead for your assistance. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank the staff for their hard work on this package. I think there's a lot there. I do also echo the sentiments of my colleagues that I hope we have a robust comment period. And we can use this opportunity to build on the important legacy that we've already developed under the 104 process and start to perhaps look at different ways to protect infants. And so just thank you to the staff and I look forward to comments. Thank you. I echo commission boils. Thanks to staff as well. I know that's a lot of work has been put into this and appreciate it not only for the presenters today, but also for the team that is behind them throughout the agency.