 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission. This morning CPSC staff will be briefing the commission on a draft final rule on crib mattresses. Before we start, I want to acknowledge that today is Bob Adler's new day as CPSC commissioner. He's made an enormous mark on this agency and consumer product safety of his long tenure at CPSC, including the last 12 years commissioner and acting. Known as the agency's story in an ad bit at a supporter of your staff's work and an unwavering advocate for the most vulnerable consumers for contributions are numerous. Especially specifically because of your leadership and tenacity consumers purchase, you savor infants, sleep products and bedrails. But thanks to you and your team, Sarah Klein, Jen Feinberg, Joe Mardiak and Maureen Kentoff for your service to the American people. You'll be missed. And we wish you all the best as you do next chapter. Now, turning back to today, staff will be working us on the draft draft a rule to limit the risks to infants, babies from suffocation, crabmint or laceration mattresses. Excuse me. It addresses both standard size mattresses as well as aftermarket mattresses built to fit the plate. For the NPR, the commission cited 439 incidents, including 116 fatalities associated with crib mattresses from January 2010 to March of 2020. In the following year, another 23 fatalities were reported. These tragic deaths, injuries and driving CPSC's work on this rule. The draft rule incorporates existing ASTM standards and some places established standards are more stringent than those included in the voluntary standards. I know that we all have questions for staff, so I'm going to turn it over to them to brief us. I completed the briefing. Each commissioner will have up to 10 minutes to ask questions of staff with multiple rounds necessary. Following staff members will brief the commission. Hope Nesterook is program manager for children's products. Mary House, who's an attorney in the regulatory affairs division of the Office of General Counsel and also an attendance of Mary Boyle, CPSC Executive Director, Pamela Stone, Acting General Counsel, Alberta Middle CPSC's Secretary. One final question before I turn it over to staff. Any questions that staff have addressing the agency's legal authority should be withheld into the closed executive session, which the commission will hold directly following this public briefing. That, I turn the gavel over to Ms. Nesterook and Ms. House. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and commissioners. Today, Mary House and I are here to discuss the final rule for crib mattresses. Mary will begin our discussion with an overview of the statutory authority. Next slide. Good morning, Mr. Chair and commissioners. The commission can issue the draft final rule pursuant to its authority under section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008, or the CPSIA. Section 104 requires the commission to issue safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. Section 104F of the CPSA defines a durable infant or toddler product as a durable product intended for use, or that may be reasonably expected to be used by children under the age of five. The statute includes a list of durable infant or toddler product categories, and the commission can add to this list. The list already includes sleep products for infants, in which crib mattresses are used, such as full-sized cribs, non-full-sized cribs, and play art. Section 104 also requires that in consultation with consumer groups, product manufacturers, and independent child product engineers and experts, the commission examine and assess the effectiveness of any voluntary standards for durable infant or toddler products. Next slide. The commission must promulgate consumer product safety standards that are substantially the same as the voluntary standards, or more stringent than the voluntary standards if the commission determines that more stringent standards would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. Additionally, the commission can adopt voluntary standards either in whole or in part pursuant to Section 104B4. Finally, under Section 104B2, the commission must also periodically review and revise the standards issued under Section 104 to ensure that such standards provide the highest level of safety for such products that is feasible. Next slide. Now, Hope is going to discuss the staff's recommended draft final rule for crib mattresses. Thank you, Mary. I want to take a moment to further explain the products we are talking about. There are pictures on the slide in front of you. In the top left, there's a full-sized crib and mattress. Full-sized cribs are designed with a regulated length and width so that the mattress must be sized to fit the crib. Non-full-sized cribs do not have a specific length and width. Therefore, the standard requires the OEM to provide a well-fitting mattress. Sorry. OEM, we used to refer to original equipment manufacturer, the people that built the original product. On the bottom left, there's an OEM or original equipment manufacturer play art. The regulations for play arts, 16 CFR 1221, require that all play arts are sold with the mattress that the original manufacturer has designed to fit the play art. Because these mattresses are covered by an existing standard, they are not included in the rule we are discussing today. On the right side of the slide, there are two aftermarket mattresses being used in play arts. On the top of the screen, the mattress is in a play art without an OEM mattress. Although the bottom of a play art is typically a flexible fabric covering support bars, some aftermarket mattresses have enough inherent CFR that they do not need the OEM mattress to provide support. But they would often lack a method of attaching the mattress to prevent anything, including a child from sub-raining below the mattress. In the lower photo, there's an example of a supplemental use pattern. The aftermarket mattress is in a foldable ... Sorry. In the lower photo, the aftermarket mattress is a foldable mattress topper that lacks the rigidity to lay flat, so it is placed on top of the OEM mattress, which provides the flat support. Explaining these two use patterns shows why staff promotes the term aftermarket rather than supplemental. A supplemental is the use pattern, not the product characterization. The key factor we are concerned about is, is it a mattress that is sold separately from the play art for use in a play art? Next slide. In 2015, the commission was petitioned by Keeping Baby Safe to ban supplemental mattresses used in play arts. Staff analysis concluded that a performance standard may be feasible, and in May 2017, the commission voted to grant the petition and initiate rulemaking under Section 104 to create a mandatory standard for crib mattresses that addresses crib mattresses as well as supplemental or aftermarket mattresses used in play arts and portable cribs. The voluntary standard for crib mattresses includes provisions for aftermarket mattresses for play arts and non-full-sized cribs, along with full-sized cribs. Next slide. In October 2020, the commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking to regulate crib mattresses, including aftermarket mattresses for play arts as a durable nursery product. The rule proposed incorporating by reference the then current ASTM F2933-19 with additional modifications to increase the stringency of the standard, including to address suffocation hazards, entrapment hazards, and laceration hazards, plus improvements in the warnings and instructions to improve the hazard communication to address consumer behavior. Next slide. The commission received 13 comments during the public comment period. In addition, one manufacturer of aftermarket mattresses submitted two late comments in July and again in September. Next slide. The comments fell into four main topic areas, testing, mattress fit, communications to caregivers, and procedural comments. Staff reviewed these comments, and while the recommendation is largely as proposed, we did make some minor modifications in the recommended final rule text as appropriate. Next slide. This slide shows the hazard pattern breakdown for the 494 total reports received between January 1, 2010 and April 30 of this year. Hazard patterns with reported fatalities are highlighted. One of the most common hazard patterns identified is coils and springs, which are addressed by the recommended cyclic test that exercises coil springs to identify weak springs that may break and poke through the mattress ticking. The second most common hazard pattern is fit issues, referring to the gaps between the mattress and the sides of the crib or player. Side and corner gaps may entrap infants in compromised positions resulting in fatal outcomes. Fit issues have been the focus of much of the work that went into staff's recommendations. Finally, there are the found prone fatalities and the 55 reports of excessively soft mattresses. To address these incidents, staff recommends incorporating a firmness test for mattresses to ensure that the mattresses are not too soft for young infants. Although soft mattresses are not the only factor in prone incidents, staff concluded that a firmness test may improve the safety by identifying excessively soft mattresses. Next slide. Next, I'll briefly discuss the voluntary standard and two recent revisions. Beginning with F2933-18, published in September 2018. Aftermarket mattresses for play yards and non-rectangular non-full size cribs have been addressed by the crib mattress voluntary standard by requiring these aftermarket mattresses to be tested to provide specific provisions of the play yard voluntary standard while the mattress is in the play yard model it is intended to fit while also having, and I quote, the same thickness floor support structure and attachment methods, unquote. This means that aftermarket mattresses were required to be virtually identical to OEM mattresses. In 2021, the subcommittee updated these requirements to expand the testing provisions from simply requiring, quote, the same thickness floor support and attachment methods to requiring the mattress to be tested to the appropriate provisions of the play yard standard, including stability, cord strap length mattresses for rigid side of products, crib side height, height of sides, floor strength, and mattress vertical displacement. This allowed manufacturers of aftermarket mattresses to produce mattresses up to the full 1.5 inch thickness limit that's in the play yard standard. Whereas the play yard standard limits mattresses to one inch of foam and one inch of hardboard. Task groups for the crib mattress voluntary standard continued to work on cyclic testing and mattress firmness test methods after CPSC issued the NBR. CPSC staff has been working with these task groups, but today neither of these task groups have completed their work. The task group working on warnings has also continued their work and recently validated a revision to the warnings label that passed. The revision was published as ASTM F2933-21A just after this package was sent to the commission in September. However, staff reviewed the revised warning language and concludes that these revisions do not address items that were in the NPR as such staff does not recommend incorporating this revision. Next slide. Therefore, the staff recommended draft final rule incorporates ASTM F2933-21 by reference and includes modifications to increase the stringency of the standard, largely as proposed in the NPR. They have made modifications based on public comments and the work with the ASTM task groups. Specifically, the modifications address overly soft mattresses and trap hazards related to mattress fit, coil springs breaking and improvements to marking labeling and instructional literature. The latter of which ASTM F2933-21A does not address at all. Next slide. Next, I want to discuss the modifications staff recommends to ASTM F2933-21 in the draft final rule. First is a firmness test to address overly soft mattresses. Worldwide, there are two test methods that address firmness of mattresses. One is from an Australian and New Zealand standard and one is in an ISO standard. Staff reviewed both of these test methods when developing the recommendations in the NPR and settled on the Australian test as the more robust test, although the tests were similar. We found that the Australian and New Zealand test identified one additional failure when compared to the ISO test. Now I'd like to show you a video that shows how to perform the test. Steve, if you could please play the mattress firmness video. The mattress firmness test is conducted on a fully aerated mattress that has been placed in the supplied product or on a flat rigid horizontal support. The mattress is tested along the longitudinal centerline in the middle and at two other points which divide the mattress into quarters. The test fixture is placed gently on each of the test locations with the bar extending over the centerline. The fixture is placed as horizontally as possible using the level to verify. The test is repeated one more time at the location away from the centerline most likely to fail, such as a very soft spot or raised portion. If the bar contacts the top of the mattress's sleep surface, the mattress is considered to have failed the test. The test should be repeated if the fixture is not resting in a nearly horizontal orientation. However, if the test produces a fail even with the device tilted away from the bar, then a fail can be recorded. Thank you. As you just saw, this test has a single point to check for the past fail. In comparison, the ISO test requires the test engineer to evaluate the entire perimeter of a four and a half inch sphere. CPSC received comments stating that the ISO test was preferable and that the ASTM group appears to be favoring this test saying it was easier to interpret. As seen in the video, the test and the draft rule requires evaluation at a single point on the fixture. Staff found one evaluation point easier to interpret than an entire perimeter. Staff also found the Australian and New Zealand test was slightly more stringent. Staff considered allowing either test but because the test did not produce identical results, we cannot conclude that the tests are equivalent only that they're similar. Next slide. The next modification addresses fit issues and entrapment due to poorly fitted sheets that allow the mattress corners to compress such that the gap is created where a child may be entrapped. The slide shows a reenactment from an IDI illustrating the hazard of this excessive compression of mattress corners creating a gap in the corner of the crib. In this test, we use an off-the-shelf crib sheet that has been washed and dried twice to maximize shrinkage. Place it on the mattress and check that the mattress does not allow the corner to compress excessively. To pass, the mattress must retain its dimensions when sheets are applied. We have a video of this test. The video also includes the overall mattress sizing test in the crib mattress voluntary standard. Steve, if you could play the mattress sizing video. Per the ASTM standard, the dimensions of the full-size crib mattress are measured using the mattress measuring box. The mattress is placed in the box such that it is touching the two walls. To position the mattress in the box, a 7-pound force is applied to panel A and then a 14-pound force is applied to panel B. Next, both forces are applied simultaneously beginning with the 7-pound load and followed shortly by the 14-pound load. These forces are applied for 60 seconds and then mattress dimensions are measured at the midpoint of the panels. The mattress shall measure at least 27.25 inches wide and 51.58 inches long. Following the mattress measurement, 100% cotton sheet is placed on the mattress. The test mattress sheet has been washed in hot water and dried a minimum of two times on the highest setting before testing. The mattress with the sheet is then placed and positioned in the measuring box using the same method as the ASTM measurement test. We've placed an outline representing the maximum full-size crib dimensions on the measuring box. This is used to verify that the mattress corner opposite the box walls is within 3.15 inches of the crib corner. This dimension is checked to verify that an infant's head would not fit in the corner gap between the mattress and the crib that is created by a fitted sheet. The mattress is then flipped 180 degrees and the test is repeated. Thank you. Next slide, please. Based on the public comments received, staff modified the proposal to measure the corner gap from the projected corner of the crib farthest from the mattress and to measure just the corner gap as depicted in the video. ASTM agrees that mattress compression created by corner gaps is a hazard that should be addressed, but would prefer to apply a set force along the corner, similar to the forces you saw applied to the sides of the mattress for fitting. However, staff has been unable to determine an appropriate force. The comments we received did not suggest a specific force, and ASTM has not provided a rationale for their proposal. As such, staff recommends finalizing the test with the twice-washed commercial sheet. We will continue working with ASTM to determine whether it is possible to develop a force requirement that is repeatable and provides similar test conditions. Should an appropriate test be developed through the ASTM process, the provisions of Public Law 112-28 allow the commission to update the standard to include a revised test method. Next slide. The next modification to the voluntary standard is to address non-full-size crib mattress fit and entrapment issues. The voluntary standard lacks dimensional requirements for aftermarket rectangular non-full-size cribs. These are rigid-sided cribs that are larger or smaller than the specified size of a full-size crib. ASTM includes dimensional requirements for non-rectangular non-full-size crib aftermarket mattresses. However, the other sizing requirements were only applicable to a mattress that is supplied with a non-full-size baby crib, meaning the OEM mattress. Next slide. This slide illustrates this gap in visual form. The draft final rule proposes to expand the dimensional requirements for rectangular non-full-size cribs to all mattresses, both OEM and aftermarket. Next slide. The NPR also proposed to add a cyclic impact test for mattresses that is similar to the cyclic impact test used on the crib itself. The purpose is to exercise coil springs and identify those that may be likely to break or poke through the mattress ticking during routine use. A broken spring may poke through the mattress ticking and pose elaceration hazards. Comments received on the NPR identified the potential for the cyclic test to destroy the sample being tested. So, SAF modified the sample requirements in the draft final rule to require that the cyclic testing be performed on each side of a mattress by using two different samples for testing. Next slide. The NPR proposed significant revisions to the required warnings on crib mattresses and proposed including instructional literature. We received a number of comments on the proposal and ASTM has since updated the standard regarding safety information. However, ASTM's revisions were inconsistent with the NPR and did not include instructional literature. Staff reiterated the NPR proposal during the ASTM balloting process, but the ASTM subcommittee found staff to be non-persuasive. The recommendations in the draft final rule considered the public comments and the work with ASTM and made several changes as a result, such as requiring the warning label for full size troops, a statement that side gaps between the mattress and the crib must be no greater than one half inch instead of one and three eighths inch, which was done for usability reasons. Next slide. The Directive for Economic Analysis identified 27 small manufacturers and importers of mattresses that fall within the scope of the draft final rule. About half are members of JPMA. Most mattresses already comply with the draft final rule, so staff assesses that it is unlikely that this rule will have significant impact. None of the comments expressed that additional time beyond six months is needed to come into compliance. However, the late filed comment requested that the commission defer finalizing a rule until work on the Playard subcommittee is complete. The final rule package was not submitted until after ASTM F2933-21 was published in July, which allowed for manufacturers to utilize the full 1.5 inches without requiring the mattress to have the exact same characteristics as the OEM mattress. Staff is addressing OEM Playard mattresses within the Playard standard, which is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Staff cannot predict if or when ASTM will complete these activities. Therefore, staff does not recommend delaying the final rule until work on the Playard voluntary standard is complete. Instead, allowing staff to address the safety of future revisions to either standard through the PL1-1228 process. Next slide. In summary, staff recommends the commission publish the draft final rule incorporating ASTM F2933-21 with modifications as explained previously, addressing suffocation, entrapment, and laceration hazards, plus improvements to the marking, labeling, and instructional literature. These modifications will increase the stringency of the voluntary standard for crib mattresses. In addition, staff recommends a six month effective date, amending parts 11-12 and 11-30 to include crib mattresses in a third party testing certification list and a list of product subject to the consumer registration requirements. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this briefing. We welcome your questions. Thank you, Ms. Nestrach. And thank you, Mary. So as well. Now, we're going to start around questions now. I'm going to start with myself. Nestrach, all commissioners received a couple of letters this week, both of which were focused on illustrations in the briefing. They explain the entrapment hazards in the play yards. The writers argue that the illustrations included in the briefing packet don't accurately depict the entrapment hazard. I believe that you have seen these letters and from staff's perspectives, do the illustrations in the briefing packet accurately portray the hazard? We think they do. The caption to the figure in the briefing package reads, and I quote, it's an illustration of gap expansion. The figure clearly shows staff concerns that the flexible side of the play yard may cause a simple linear measurement to be inadequate to capture the hazard. This is described in a greater detail in the accompanying text in the briefing package. They were not intended to represent specific scenarios from incidents, nor specific combinations of play arts and mattresses, merely the way the gap can expand. Thank you. With respect to aftermarket play yard mattresses, draft rule calls for the incorporation of ASTM's most recent voluntary standard without any changes. The standard requires aftermarket mattresses to meet the same specification or requirements for mattresses that are sold with the original play yards. Henderson, some commenters are urging a thicker mattress to be sold in the aftermarket. What was the thinking that was involved in the direction that was that's in the proposal? The crib mattress standard, the way it's written, requires aftermarket mattresses to be tested the same performance criteria as the original mattresses by pointing to the requirements for the original mattresses within the play yard standard. For the purposes of this rule, changes being considered within the play yard standard are out of scope of this rule. If the current work to change the requirements for play our for mattresses in the play yard standard is adopted by ASTM F406, then ASTM can present it to the standard for commission review. The staff will assess the standard and the commission makes the final assessment as to whether or not increasing play yard mattress thickness in any associated test methods will improve the safety of play yards. So because this rule points to the requirements for OEM mattresses within the play yard standard, any changes accepted by the commission in the play yard standard for OEM mattresses will be applicable for aftermarket mattresses. And so for the OEMs, the original ones, looking at a 1.5 inch thickness, is that something that staff has determined that there is adequate level of safety attached to that? And the thicker potentially, obviously we'll see what happens at ASTM, but is there any reason to think that the thicker mattresses will be as safe or less safe? I think that we don't really have evidence either way. The problem is, as you get thicker in the play yard, the sides of the play yard get more flexible. And the 1.5 inch requirement for play yards has been in existence for a number of years, 80s or 90s. So it's worked since then. And so I don't think we have the evidence that clearly says that thicker mattresses are okay. We do have some evidence that when you get too thick, or if there's too much of a gap that the expansion forms too deep of a pocket. Yeah, it's my understanding that thicker and softer potentially end up having more chance for suffocation risk and the rest, but be interested in looking more into this. I'm going to pause my questions there and turn it over to Commissioner Adler. Okay, can you hear me now? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mary and Hope, I just want to tell you what a terrific job of presenting you did with a lot of technical detail and a lot of attention to addressing every aspect of the standard. And so I'm just incredibly impressed by your work. So I have one quick question and then a short comment. I remember years ago reading about baby food. And the manufacturers were making baby food taste good to parents. And the problem was that babies don't have sophisticated pallets the way their parents do. And so they were adding, for example, excessive amounts of salt, which was not really needed for a child and I have the same sense when it comes to mattress firmness. Their parents want softer mattresses because they think it makes it easier for kids to sleep. But what I've read and I would like you to comment on that. Do we have any human factors studies that show that the difference in thickness between what we're requiring maybe a softer mattress will lead to more kids sleeping more quickly or longer. I wouldn't say we have human factors studies. We do have human factors analysis that was discussed in the. We did the petition package and NPR that discuss the fact that we have seen some anecdotal reports of. When you look at product reviews that parents say their babies slept better on the thicker mattresses, the aftermarket mattresses. I would also say that we're not completely convinced that thickness is the only answer here. We've looked at some, for example, bassinets have essentially the same type of requirement where it's only limited to an inch of mattress thickness. But if you a lot of bassinets and I won't say all of them, but many bassinets seem to have a denser foam in that one inch. So with the player mattress, a lot of them, and again, I'm not speaking for every product on the market, but a lot of the ones we've seen the foam is not very dense. And so if you basically if you touch it, you're hitting the bottom of the backer board and that's what I refer to as bottoming bottoming out. And you hit the bottom of that backer board, but I've seen player or bassinets, but again with similar requirements that don't have that same issue with you touch the bass net mattress and you're hitting the bottom. So, I'm thinking is evolving somewhat that thickness, it seems like it seems like something that would improve it, but you can have a thick mattress that's still just as opposite of density, that has the same qualities. Termite use is squishy but I was trying to come up with something not squishy. So I was just thinking, based on a data set of one, my son who never slept, but when he did sleep he could sleep anywhere. He was a champ and many is the time that I would be sitting with him on the floor and he would just pop off and of course once we put him in the crib he said oh playtime. At any rate, I really appreciate that answer and I did want to make a couple of very quick observations. First of all, I love the attention to detail that staff is given to criticism mattresses because it's consistent with the detail that we've given to cribs, and I remind everyone that we have probably the most stringent crib mattress crib standard in the world. And the statistics show it fatalities over the life of the crib standards, not just the most recent have led to when I last check over a 90% reduction in fatalities. It's a terrific standard and I'm glad to see you're dedicating the same devotion to crib mattresses as to the crib standard itself. I also think through fits and starts this is a classic example of private public participation. I think our work with a STM has just been exemplary we don't always agree, but there's been an ongoing dialogue and I one of the things that has impressed me is that when members of a STM, particularly some industry members have come in with concerns, staff has paid careful attention and some cases adjusted requirements to address the legitimate concerns of the industry I think that's really the way the system model work. And that leads me to my final point which is, we're writing this standard under section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. What a wonderful procedure it is, I wish that every standard that Commission wrote operated according to the way 104 operates because it involves all stakeholders. And it's done in an efficient and very careful way with lots of due process so that's my two cents on that and again I cannot thank you enough for an excellent presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Allard. Now turning to Commissioner Biacco. We're having a hard time hearing you, Commissioner. But now having a hard time talking to hope we don't have any data that shows that the two to three inch thickness on a crib mattress is dangerous. Correct. Correct. And in fact, what we do know is that, excuse me, that consumers specifically tend to add blankets and pillows under the babies because the mattresses are in fact pretty hard. Correct. I wouldn't say we necessarily know that that's the cause and effect effect. We don't have the that they're doing it because it's hard. We suspect it's probably because it's hard. Would you agree with me that putting pillows and blankets under babies is not a good thing for the baby? Yes. Okay. And we do have people putting pillows and blankets under babies in cribs which have five, six inch thick mattresses. But we don't have any entrapment deaths on after market play or mattresses that are two to three inches. Correct. We have. We don't. We don't, but I would say we have very limited data and we don't have all the data points within. We only have seven incidents and only four of them had the details on thickness gaps, etc. So if we don't, I mean, we've been looking at this for a couple, couple, actually a couple of decades, right? I can't speak to decades. I've been looking at it since 2016. Okay. But what you're telling me is we don't really have any data points for the rule then that we're trying to put in place. I, we, I'm not sure I followed the question because we presented data. And the, the one inch, one and a half inch thick mattress was based on data and incidents that were happening in. And again, don't quote beyond the year mid 80s or mid 90s. And we did have children that were getting underneath the mattress and suffocating in entrapments underneath the mattress. And that's where the limit on the mattress thickness came from. And it was developed based on the data that the scene then that it was happening with the mattresses thicker. So that's where that, let me go back to my question. I don't want to get into data from the 80s or 90s. I want to focus on what we have right here. We have millions and millions of aftermarket play yard mattresses sold. And we have no data of any deaths on the two to three inch thickness, correct? So yes or no, we either have it or we don't. No, we do have, there's one, there is an incident that was reported as a three inch thick mattress. But there are different reports arguing with it that it was actually stacked up more than our IDI suggests. But no specific entrapment. If I could jump in and try to help hope. So I think what this rule, this final rule proposes to do is basically incorporate largely incorporate the ASTM voluntary standards developed by that stakeholder community and largely looks to make sure that aftermarket mattresses meet the same requirements as the original equipment manufacturer. So while we, we don't have detailed data, you know, that flows by mattress thickness or mattress size or so forth. What we are leveraging is that history with that original equipment manufacturer mattress standard that we are merely aligning to here. But Dwayne, if I'm not mistaken, ASTM now has agreed to increase their standard to two inches, right? No, they have, they have, they are talking about validating it. It has not even been validated yet. We've expressed concerns with the fact that it's what they're doing is they're measuring only the linear measurement, which is the pictures that were the, they're measuring from the top of the mattress over to the side with the mattress at rest without any accounting for any flexibility. But again, that has not been validated. I think they are validating and I would, I would encourage you all to go back and check on that for sure because I did check on it and they are validating that. But in any event, your data still shows that in 16 years there hasn't been a single death in a two inch mattress. So I'm having trouble connecting a, we're going to, you know, we're going to follow this pattern or we're going to justify for this. But if it fits, we have no deaths. So I struggle all the time with a presentation of a rule that is based on zero data and with a, an assumption or speculation that there could be deaths. But after millions and millions of mattresses out there have been sold, we have zero deaths in our data. So I'm struggling with that. I don't have anything else. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Commissioner Bellman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I'm here to be having some trouble with my webcam. So I'm going to be on audio only, but it's nice to see everybody's face. I hope everybody had a nice Thanksgiving break. It's exciting to be back and working our way through to or more of the four public briefings that's on the commission's calendar. So it's, it's great to see the chairman working with his colleagues to free up this backlog of items and get the commission back to work. I appreciate the hard work that staff put into the briefing materials and I want to thank everybody. Hope Mary's Wayne for your efforts on the rulemaking and I also want to make a special note of thanks to staff for preparing the videos that we saw today. Those are helpful for presenting technical information to lay and non-technical audiences and visual learners, myself included, so we can understand the engineering that underpins the rule proposal here. I do have several questions for staff that are appropriate here in this session and a couple of others that I'd like to reserve for executive session dealing with matters of legal privilege. But I will note that it's important for our final rules not only to provide strong safety protections for consumers, but also that they're well crafted to withstand legal challenge if reviewed. And ideally that our final rules are crafted to avoid unnecessary litigation which draws on our agency resources, which we all know are limited. So, Mary and Hope, I'll start with you. I realize that the briefing materials that were submitted and the actual package here are comprehensive and do include this information. But because this meeting isn't just for our benefit, but is an opportunity for stakeholders and for the public to hear from staff as well. I want to ask about our section 104 requirements. So, CPSB, among other things, is charged with ensuring the safety of durable products for infants and toddlers. Under our statute, section 104 of our statute includes a definition that is somewhat circular when it comes with respect to durable products. But it also does provide some specific examples. The statutory language does not, however, explain the difference between a durable versus a non-durable product. Mary, I guess this question is probably more in your wheelhouse. But could you take a stab at explaining how staff classifies an infant and toddler product as durable versus non-durable? Some of that would be better reserved for the executive session. But in general, the way the commission has proceeded is to consider whether the types of products there are consistent with the types of products listed in the statute. So this particular product is intended to be used with products that the Congress said are durable infants and toddler products, cribs, and play yards. And so the commission, I think the staff's position here is that the commission can't fully address the hazards related to these products without including the crib mattress because part of the hazards are gap entrapments between the crib mattress and the products being used in. So the way we've done it is more applying the product by the definition by choosing the products that are intended to be used by or primarily used by children under the age of five years that are similar to the products already listed. Okay, I appreciate that. To the extent that a more wholesome answer here calls for discussion and privilege in closed session, I'll reserve it for them again. I'm not sure how definitional matters fall under privilege, but rather than getting into it here, why don't I revisit this when we break into executive session. But, you know, along those lines, could you walk through the analysis of how the draft final rule imposes the least burdensome requirements that prevent or adequately reduce the risk of injury for infant using crib mattresses and why is section, what was the 104 rule necessary? Well, the commission directed the staff to put together a section 104 rule for this product and said it was a durable infant or toddler product when we did the petition back in 2015 and 2017. The commission directed the staff to do a section 104 rule on crib mattresses and to add it as a durable infant or toddler product to, I think it's part 1120 that lists those, what are durable infant or toddler products. So it's appropriate for that reason because the commission made the determination. The staff has addressed this rule like any other section 104 rule. We consulted as soon as the commission told us to do that and 2018 staff presented data, I believe, to ASTM and they got to work deciding what the hazards were and how to address those hazards with the appropriate ASTM subcommittee. The subcommittee updated the voluntary standards, especially to include aftermarket mattresses, which was the primary objective of that petition. And the way they did that ASTM did this was to make sure that aftermarket mattresses meet the same requirements as the OEM mattress for play yards or the play yards in which they're intended to be used. And so at this point in the 21 version of the standard they're required. This crib mattress rule says play yard mattresses have to meet the same performance requirements as the OEM mattress. And so the final rule basically is codifying that part of the ASTM standard. Now we have added some more stringent tests for certain hazards that Hope has already gone over. So I feel like we've met the consultation requirement. I think the rule lays this out. We've met the consultation requirement. We are the draft final rule proposes to adopt the voluntary standard with more stringent requirements if the commission determines that those more stringent requirements are required to further reduce the risk of injury, which the incident data shows that they have the potential to do that. So that's what the final rule does. Okay. I appreciate that response, Mary. Thank you. My last question. It had to do with the letter that we all received from Ms. Nguyen about the graphics that were included. And the chairman asked that at the top. So it's probably, I thought that was a fine answer. So thank you. With that, I again, thank everybody for putting this together and for your work. I'll reserve my other questions for the executive session. Thank you very much. Thanks. I'll just go in and get a few questions. I'll go through your phone. With that, I believe we've gone through everybody at this point in time. Thanks for to staff for this briefing and to the commissioners for their participation. As I know, the start we're going to short break and read in a closed executive session now. Thank you again. Staff stroke. House. process.