[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2327-2350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00566]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 2327]]
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Chapter II
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2013-0028]
Corded Window Coverings; Request for Comments and Information
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (the Commission or
CPSC) has reason to believe that certain cords on window coverings may
present an unreasonable risk of injury to young children. This advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) initiates a rulemaking proceeding
under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). We invite comments
concerning the risk of injury associated with corded window coverings,
the regulatory alternatives discussed in this notice, the costs to
achieve each regulatory alternative, the effect of each alternative on
the safety, cost, utility, and availability of window coverings, and
other possible ways to address the risk of strangulation posed to young
children by window covering cords. We also invite interested persons to
submit an existing standard or a statement of intent to modify or
develop a voluntary standard to address the risk of injury described in
this notice.
DATES: Written comments in response to this notice must be received by
March 17, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2013-
0028, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic
mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission
encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal as described above.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the following way:
Mail/Hand delivery/Courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda,
MD 20814; (301) 504-7923.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received may be
posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact
information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information,
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information
electronically. Such information should be submitted in writing.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rana Balci-Sinha, Project Manager,
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, National Product Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 Research
Place, Rockville, MD 20850; 301-987-2584; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The purpose of this ANPR is to collect information related to a
potential mandatory rule to address the risk of strangulation to young
children on window covering cords. On October 8, 2014, the Commission
granted a petition to initiate a rulemaking to develop a mandatory
safety standard for window coverings. The petition sought to prohibit
window covering cords when a feasible cordless alternative exists. When
a feasible cordless alternative does not exist, the petition requested
that all window covering cords be made inaccessible by using passive
guarding devices. The Commission granted the petition and directed
staff to prepare this ANPR seeking information and comment on
regulatory options for a mandatory rule to address the risk of
strangulation to young children on window covering cords.
This ANPR is based on information from staff's December 31, 2014
Briefing Memorandum on Recommended Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for Corded Window Coverings (ANPR Briefing Memorandum),
available at http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/Corded-Window-Coverings-Advance-Notice-of-Proposed-Rulemaking.pdf, as well as CPSC staff's October 1, 2014
Staff Briefing Package in Response to the Petition CP 13-2, Requesting
Mandatory Safety Standards for Window Coverings (Petition Briefing
Package), available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/Global/Newsroom/FOIA/CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/PetitionRequestingMandatoryStandardforCordedWindowCoverings.pdf.
Based on CPSC's incident data, the Commission believes that certain
window covering cords may present an unreasonable risk of injury,
specifically strangulation, to young children. The Commission is aware
of 184 reported fatal strangulations and 101 reported nonfatal
strangulations from 1996 through 2012 involving window covering cords
among children 8 years and younger. Petition Briefing Package, Tab B.
Using separate data from the National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS) and a CPSC study, CPSC estimates that on average, at least 11
fatal strangulations related to window covering cords occurred per year
in the United States from 1999 through 2010, among children under 5
years old. CPSC finds no observable trend in the data. Id.
CPSC evaluated the risk of a fatal or nonfatal strangulation to
children involving window covering cords. Based on various CPSC data
sources (e.g., newspaper clippings, consumer complaints, death
certificates purchased from states, medical examiners' reports, and in-
depth investigation (IDI) reports by CPSC staff), from 1996 through
2012, CPSC found, on average, about 11 reported fatal strangulations,
and on average, about six reported nonfatal strangulation incidents per
year for children 8 years and younger. Id.
Tab E of staff's Petition Briefing Package analyzed the current
voluntary standard for window coverings, ANSI/WCMA A100.1-2014,
American National Standard for Safety of Corded
[[Page 2328]]
Window Covering Products (ANSI/WCMA standard or voluntary standard).
CPSC engineering staff found that the current version of the ANSI/WCMA
standard would not effectively address 57 percent of the 249 window
covering cord incidents investigated by CPSC staff. Two types of cords
on window coverings continue to present a hazard to children: Pull
cords and continuous loops.
The Commission invites the public to review the information and
ideas presented in this ANPR and to submit information and comments
that would assist the Commission as it considers regulatory
alternatives to reduce the strangulation risk to young children
associated with corded window covering products.
II. Window Covering Products
Window coverings comprise a wide range of products, including
shades, blinds, curtains, and draperies. In general terms, ``hard''
window coverings, composed of slats or vanes, are considered blinds;
and ``soft'' window coverings that contain a continuous roll of
material are considered shades. Both blinds and shades may have inner
cords that cause a motion, such as raising, lowering, traversing, or
rotating the window covering to achieve the desired level of light
control. Curtains and draperies do not contain inner cords but may be
operated by a continuous loop cord or beaded chain. The cord or loop
that is manipulated by the consumer to operate the window covering is
called an ``operating cord'' and may be a pull cord (single cord or
multiple cords) or continuous loops. Cordless window coverings are
products designed to function without an operating cord but may contain
inner cords. Petition Briefing Package, Briefing Memorandum at 9.
A. Common Window Covering Products
Following is a description of the most common window covering
products and the types of cords associated with incidents for each
window covering product. Cord types are based on CPSC's review of the
249 IDIs completed by staff on window covering incidents. Petition
Briefing Package, Briefing Memorandum Appendix, and Tab B at 83-84.
1. Horizontal blind (Figure 1): Horizontal blinds are made using
horizontal slats. Slats vary in their length and width and are
manufactured using metal, vinyl, wood, fabric, and other materials.
Horizontal blinds are typically raised and lowered using pull cords.
Pull cords are part of the inner cords that users interact with to
raise or lower the blind. Inner cords are attached to the bottom rail
and threaded through the horizontal slats to raise and lower them, as
well as to adjust the slats for lighting. Slats can be tilted with
various mechanisms, including tilt cords, a tilt wand, or in the case
of a blind with no operating cords, by using the bottom rail. Cords
associated with horizontal blind incidents include: continuous loop
cord/beaded-chain (free-standing, i.e., not mounted on a tension
device), inner cord, pull cord (with loops or long cords), and tilt
cord.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.000
2. Cellular shade (Figure 2): Cellular shades are made of multiple
layers of material that are formed into tubes or cells in a horizontal
orientation. Cellular shades, often referred to as honeycomb shades,
are constructed so that an air pocket, which mimics the shape of a
bee's honeycomb, is formed in the center of the shade. Cellular shades
are typically raised and lowered using an operating cord. Inner cords
that assist in raising and lowering the blind are between the layers of
material and are visible from the side openings only. Cords associated
with cellular shade incidents include: continuous loop cord/beaded-
chain (free-standing) and pull cord (with loops, cord connectors, or
long cords).
[[Page 2329]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.001
3. Pleated shade (Figure 3): Pleated shades are made of pleated or
folded material in a horizontal orientation. The pleated material can
be raised and lowered similar to cellular shades. Unlike cellular
shades, pleated shades do not have an air pocket. Cords associated with
pleated shade incidents include: Continuous loop cord/beaded-chain
(free-standing) and pull cord (with loops or long cords).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.002
4. Roller shade (Figure 4): Roller shades are comprised of a
roller, a means of supporting the roller, and flexible sheets of
material attached to the roller. When a roller shade is raised, the
material is gathered on the roller located at the top of the shade.
Cords associated with roller shade incidents include: Continuous loop
cord/beaded-chain (free-standing).
[[Page 2330]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.003
5. Roll-up blind (Figure 5): Roll-up blinds are made of flexible
material, which rolls up from the bottom of the blind when the blind is
raised. Roll-up blinds are typically raised and lowered using pull
cords. Cords associated with roll-up blind incidents include: Pull cord
(with loops or long cords) and lifting loop (wraps around the bottom of
the product and enables the shade to roll up from bottom to top.).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.004
6. Roman shade (Figure 6): Roman shades are made of fabric or other
material that is suspended from a head rail. As the shade is raised,
the material gathers from the bottom upward, toward the head rail.
Cords associated with Roman shade incidents include: continuous loop
cord/beaded-chain (free-standing), inner cords, and pull cord (with
loops or long cords).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.005
[[Page 2331]]
7. Vertical blind (Figure 7): Vertical blinds are made using slats
in a vertical orientation that can be stacked to one or both sides of
the head rail. The head rail houses mechanisms that allow slats to
traverse or rotate or both. Cords associated with vertical blind
incidents include: Continuous loop cord/beaded-chain (free-standing).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.006
8. Drapery/Curtain (Figure 8): Draperies and curtains are usually
made of a fabric material that hangs in a window or other opening
(e.g., sliding door). Cords can sometimes be used to open and close
draperies and curtains. Cords associated with drapery and curtain
incidents include: Continuous loop cord/beaded-chain (free-standing).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.007
B. Window Covering Market
Based on 2011 data, more than 350 manufacturers and more than 1,800
retailers of window coverings operate in the United States. Petition
Briefing Package, Tab G. Three manufacturers reportedly accounted for
almost 70 percent of dollar sales in the U.S. window coverings market
in 2008. Retail prices for corded window coverings have a wide range.
The type of material, brands, and operating mechanisms affect the
price. Average prices for window coverings range from about $50 to $440
for shades and from about $10 to $360 for blinds. Retail prices for
extremely large and custom-made window coverings can be as high as
$3,000.
The Commission obtained window covering market information from a
study conducted by the consulting firm D&R International (D&R,
2013).\1\ The Window Covering Manufacturers Association (WCMA), the
organization that developed the existing voluntary standard, engaged
D&R to conduct the study. D&R received funding for the study from WCMA
and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), through Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (LBNL). Based on information from the D&R study,
shipments of residential window coverings from manufacturers may have
amounted to about 100 million to 150 million units in the United States
in 2012. D&R based these estimates on information (including shipment,
pricing, retail and manufacturing data) provided by WCMA members, U.S.
Census Bureau reports of vinyl blind imports, and data collected from a
WCMA-funded Internet survey of U.S. households, which D&R also
conducted as part of the study. WCMA participated in designing and
implementing the Internet survey. D&R developed a research plan in
consultation with WCMA, with input from LBNL. DOE, through LBNL,
provided funding to analyze the Internet survey and prepare the
report.\2\ Augmenting the D&R estimates with U.S. housing statistics,
more than 1 billion window coverings may be in use
[[Page 2332]]
in U.S. homes. Petition Briefing Package, Tab G at 148-152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ D&R International, Ltd. (September 2013). Residential
windows and window coverings: A detailed view of the installed base
and user behavior (DOE/EE-0965). U.S. Department of Energy, Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington DC. September,
2013. Available at: http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/residential-windows-and-window-coverings-detailed-view-installed-base-and.
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission does not have precise information on sales of
cordless window coverings (or window coverings with inaccessible
cords), but based on CPSC discussions with industry participants and
review of a major retailer's Web site, sales of cordless window
coverings may amount to as much as 25 percent of the market.
CPSC compared the retail sales prices of cordless and corded
products and found that manually operated cordless window coverings may
cost about $15 to $130 more than similar corded window coverings. The
observed prices of motor-operated window coverings are more than $100
higher than the prices of corded window coverings, and the price
differences can exceed $300. Some wand-operated vertical blinds cost
about the same as corded versions; others appear to cost about $10 more
than corded vertical blinds. The Commission has insufficient
information to determine how the costs or retail prices of safer window
coverings will change over time. Id.
III. The Risk of Injury
A. Incident Data Overview
CPSC estimates that a minimum of 11 fatal strangulations related to
window covering cords, on average, occurred per year in the United
States from 1999 through 2010, among children under 5 years old, based
on National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) data and a CPSC
study.\3\ Petition Briefing Package, Tab B. Additionally, CPSC's
emergency department-treated injury data (National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System or NEISS) demonstrate that from 1996 through 2012,
an estimated 1,590 children received treatment for injuries resulting
from entanglements on window covering cords based on NEISS data. Id. at
80-82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ N. Marcy, G. Rutherford. ``Strangulations Involving Children
Under 5 Years Old.'' U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
December 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPSC also receives incident data through newspaper clippings,
consumer complaints, death certificates purchased from states, medical
examiners' reports, and IDI reports. Using data from these sources,
CPSC found a total of 285 reported fatal and nonfatal strangulation
incidents from January 1996 through December 2012 involving window
coverings among children 8 years of age or younger. These 285 incidents
do not constitute a statistical sample of known probability and do not
necessarily include all window covering, cord-related strangulation
incidents that occurred during that period. Given that these reports
are anecdotal and reporting is incomplete, CPSC strongly discourages
drawing any inferences based on the year-to-year increase or decrease
shown in the reported data. Id.
Of the 285 incidents, 184 resulted in a fatality. Among the
nonfatal incidents, 19 involved hospitalizations (7 percent). The long-
term outcomes of these 19 injuries varied from a scar around the neck,
to quadriplegia, to permanent brain damage. In addition, 67 incidents
(24 percent) involved less-severe injuries, some of which required
medical treatment but not hospitalization. In the remaining 15
incidents (5 percent), a child became entangled in a window covering
cord but was able to disentangle him or herself from the cord and
escape injury.
Of the 285 total reported incidents involving window covering
cords, CPSC staff reviewed the completed IDIs for 249 incidents. Table
1 presents a breakdown of all 249 investigated incidents, by type of
window coverings and type of cord.
Table 1--Distribution of Investigated Incidents by Type of Window Covering and Associated Cord 1996-2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous
Pull cord loop cord/ Inner cord Lifting loop Tilt cord Unknown Total
beaded-chain (percentage)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horizontal.............................. 90 3 23 .............. 2 13 131 (53%)
Vertical................................ .............. 41 .............. .............. .............. 2 43 (17)
Roman................................... 2 1 24 .............. .............. .............. 27 (11)
Curtain/drapery......................... .............. 13 .............. .............. .............. 1 14 (6)
Cellular................................ 5 5 .............. .............. .............. .............. 10 (4)
Roller.................................. .............. 6 .............. .............. .............. .............. 6 (2)
Roll-up................................. 2 .............. .............. 3 .............. .............. 5 (2)
Unknown................................. 2 1 .............. .............. .............. 10 13 (5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 101 70 47 3 2 26 249 (100)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSC In-Depth Investigation File (INDP).
Of the 249 incidents investigated by CPSC staff, 170 involved a
fatality. Ninety-two (54 percent) of these fatal incidents involved a
horizontal blind, 36 (21 percent) involved a vertical blind, 14 (8
percent) involved a curtain/drapery, eight (5 percent) a Roman shade,
five (3 percent) a cellular shade, four (2 percent) a roll-up shade,
and two (1 percent) a roller shade. Staff was unable to identify the
window covering type in 9 (5 percent) of the 170 fatalities. Id. at 84-
85.
B. Physiology of Strangulation and Associated Injuries
Young children are at risk of strangulation on corded window
coverings. Strangulation due to mechanical compression of the neck
involves obstruction of the airway passage and occlusion of blood
vessels in the neck. Petition Briefing Package, Tab C. Strangulation
can occur when a child's head or neck becomes entangled in any
position, even in situations where the body is fully or partially
supported, in the event that a lateral pressure is sustained at a level
resulting in vascular occlusion. Id. at 94.
Strangulation can rapidly progress to anoxia, associated cardiac
arrest, and death. Permanent, irreversible damage can occur if the
delivery of oxygen to tissues is reduced. The severity of oxygen
deprivation ultimately governs the victim's chance for survival or the
degree of neurological damage. Neurological damage may range from
amnesia, loss of cognitive abilities due to hypoxic-ischemic injury to
the hippocampus, mobility limitations, and
[[Page 2333]]
loss of function, to long-term vegetative state. Experimental studies
show that 2 kg (4.4 lbs.) of pressure on the neck may occlude the
jugular vein \4\ and 3-5 kg (7-11 lbs.) may occlude the carotid
artery.\5\ Minimal compression of any of these vessels can lead to
unconsciousness within 15 seconds and death in 2 to 3 minutes
(Digeronimo and Mayes, 1994; Hoff, 1978; lserson, 1984; Polson,
1973).\6\ The vagus nerve, responsible for maintaining a constant heart
rate, is also located in the neck, in close proximity to the jugular
vein and carotid artery. If the vagus nerve is compressed, cardiac
arrest can result, due to mechanical stimulation of the carotid sinus-
vagal reflex. Petition Briefing Package, Tab C at 94-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Brouardel P. La pendaison, La strangulation, La suffocation,
La submersion. JB Bailliere et fil, Paris, France, 1897; pp. 38-40.
\5\ Ibid. and Polson CJ. Hanging In: Polson CJ and Gee DJ (eds.)
Essentials of forensic medicine, Oxford England, 1973 371-404.
\6\ Digeronimo RJ1, Mayes TC. Near-hanging injury in childhood:
a literature review and report of three cases. Pediatr Emerg Care.
1994 Jun; 10(3):150-6; Hoff BH. Multiple organ failure after near-
hanging. Crit Care Med 1978; 6:366-9. Howell MA; Iserson, K.V.
Strangulation: A review of ligature, manual and postural neck
compression injuries. Ann. Emerg. Med. 13:179-185, 1984; Polson CJ.
Hanging In: Polson CJ and Gee DJ (eds.) Essentials of forensic
medicine, Oxford England, 1973 371-404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The majority of incidents involving window covering cords resulted
in death (184 of 285 incidents reviewed). Of the 19 incidents that
required hospitalization, nine patients suffered severe neurological
outcomes, such as cerebral edema, coma, loss of cognitive abilities, a
loss of function or mobility, and quadriplegia. Some patients required
intensive care, monitoring, lifelong care, and therapy. Four of the
entanglement incidents occurred on the child's arm or wrist and did not
involve the neck. In 78 incidents involving the neck that were reported
as minor or no injury, the child was found entangled in a cord or with
the cord wrapped around the neck. In some incidents, the cord was
wrapped so tightly that the child turned blue and had red marks or rope
burns visible on the neck. Three children suffered temporary airway
obstruction and were subsequently taken to the hospital. If the child
had not been released from the cord, all of these nonfatal incidents
could have had a more serious and even fatal outcome. Id. at 95.
C. Population at Risk of Strangulation
Corded window covering incidents involve children from about 7
months to 8 years old. Petition Briefing Package, Tab C at 95. Incident
data demonstrate that hazard scenarios involving window covering cords
are consistent with child development milestones. Children go from
total dependence on others to independence in their first 5 years of
life. Petition Briefing Package, Tab D. Starting from around 3 months
of age, children begin to grasp objects placed in their hands. By 6
months of age, most children master reaching and grasping objects
within their reach. Children learn to stand by holding onto an object
starting at around 8 months of age, and a month later, they can stand.
At around 10 months of age, children learn to stand without holding on
to an object. Between 12 to 18 months of age, children progress from
walking, to running, to walking up stairs, to climbing. As children
gain new skills (e.g., sitting, standing, walking, running, climbing),
they want to use and perfect those skills.\7\ The window covering cord
incident data show that children climbed on beds, chairs, tables, and
other furniture to interact with the window coverings. In some
incidents, children were reportedly imitating superheroes or using the
beaded chains as necklaces. Petition Briefing Package, Tab D at 101-
102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Frankenburg, W.K., Dodds, J., Archer, P. et al.: The DENVER
II Technical Manual 1990, Denver Developmental Materials, Denver,
Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents are advised to encourage children to start taking care of
themselves beginning at around age 2 years so that the children can
learn independence and self-discovery. During these times of
independence and exploration, children have less supervision. The
degree of appropriate supervision is strongly linked to developmental
level. Research shows that for preschool (birth to 4 years), constant
supervision is required, except when children are in rooms in the home
that are perceived as safe (living room/bedroom) or in rooms that are
deemed fairly safe (bathroom/garage/kitchen).\8\ Children's bedrooms
and living or play rooms are considered by caregivers to be the safest
rooms in the home. A review of the incidents reported to CPSC shows
that bedrooms, living rooms, family rooms, or TV rooms were the
locations where most incidents occurred. These are rooms that
caregivers perceive to be the safest rooms in the home, and thus,
caregivers may be inclined to leave children alone in these rooms.
Petition Briefing Package, Tab D at 102-103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Peterson, L., Ewigman, B., and Kivlahan, C., (1993)
``Judgments Regarding Appropriate Child Supervision to Prevent
Injury: The Role of Environmental Risk and Child Age.'' Child
Development, 64, 934-950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research demonstrates that the more familiar caregivers are with a
product, the lower their recognition is of the product's hazards.\9\
Increased familiarity, ease and frequency of use, and low price of a
product reduce the likelihood that people will read warning labels.
Consumers are highly familiar with window coverings and interact with
window coverings daily. Even though no specific studies or surveys
related to the use of safety devices for window coverings exist,
research shows that the rate of compliance with instructions is lower
when more effort and time (cost of compliance) are required to comply
with the instructions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Vredenburgh, A.G., & Zackowitz, I.B., (2006). Expectations.
In M. S. Wogalter (Ed.), Handbook of warnings (pp. 345-354). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
\10\ DeJoy, D.M., (1999). Attitudes and Beliefs. In M. S.
Wogalter, D. M. DeJoy, & K. R. Laughery (Eds.), Warnings and risk
communication (pp. 189-219). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In some incidents, parents had seen the warning labels and were
aware of the hazards of hanging cords and continuous loops. Parents
used cord cleats, tied the cords together, or used other means to keep
the cords out of reach of the child; however, the child was still able
to access the cords and strangle. In other cases, parents did not use
any safety devices. One reason for not using the safety devices is that
the parents may have assumed the cords were not a problem because their
child had not shown any interest in the window blind cords. In some
incidents, safety devices, such as tie-down devices or cord cleats,
were not used when the parents did not perceive a threat to the child.
In a few cases, parents reported that that they had observed their
child's interaction with cords but did not think the cords were a
danger. Petition Briefing Package, Tab D at 103-105.
The Commission concludes that if cords are accessible and
hazardous, window coverings will present a risk of strangulation to
young children. Children cannot be supervised 100 percent of the time,
and they can strangle in a few minutes. Children will continue to
explore their environment and interact with accessible window covering
cords even when parents try to be conscientious and use safety devices
on window coverings. Id. at 106.
D. Hazard Scenarios Associated With Corded Window Covering Products
Table 2 depicts the nine hazard scenarios CPSC staff found when
reviewing 249 IDIs related to corded window covering incidents.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[[Page 2334]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.008
[[Page 2335]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.009
[[Page 2336]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.010
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
IV. Efforts To Address the Hazard Associated With Corded Window
Coverings
A. Development of a Voluntary Standard
1. Performance Requirements
CPSC has been working with the window covering industry to address
the hazards associated with corded window covering products for many
years. Petition Briefing Package, Briefing Memorandum at 14-15, Table
E, and Tab F. In 1995, CPSC staff began working with the WCMA on an
ANSI/WCMA standard to address accessible cords on window coverings.
WCMA published the first version of the ANSI/WCMA standard in 1996. The
1996 standard sought to prevent strangulation
[[Page 2337]]
incidents created by looped cords by requiring either: (a) Separate
operating cords, or (b) a cord release device on multiple cords ending
in one tassel. The standard also required a tension device that would
hold the cord or bead loop taut when installed according to
manufacturer's instructions.
In 2001, CPSC staff sent a letter to the WCMA asking for revisions
to the 1996 standard, including the addition of inner cord stops and
the elimination of free-hanging cords or bead chains longer than the
neck circumference of a fifth percentile 7- to 9-month-old child. In
January 2002, CPSC staff sent a similar request by letter to WCMA. In
August 2002, the published ANSI/WCMA standard required inner cord
stops. In 2007, the published ANSI/WCMA standard required that tension
devices partially limit the consumer's ability to control the blind if
the tension device is not properly installed.
In 2009, WCMA published a provisional voluntary standard specifying
descriptive requirements for Roman shades. CPSC staff sent a letter to
the WCMA underscoring that the descriptive requirements still allowed
inner cords to be accessible. In September 2010, WCMA published a
stronger performance-based standard addressing Roman shade inner cords
as another provisional standard. In November 2010, CPSC held a public
meeting and WCMA announced that WCMA would establish a steering
committee to oversee the activities of six task groups, including one
intended for pull cords and another for continuous loops. At the CPSC
public meeting, WCMA reiterated its intent to minimize the risks
associated with pull cords and continuous loops and to draft revisions
to the voluntary standard for balloting by the end of October 2011.
On December 20, 2011, the WCMA balloted proposed revisions to the
voluntary standard. On February 6, 2012, staff sent WCMA a letter
providing comments on the proposed revision. In these comments, CPSC
staff reiterated that the hazardous loop determination should be made
for all cords and that the length of an accessible operating cord
should not be longer than the neck circumference of the youngest child
at risk. In addition, staff raised concerns about the inability of
tension devices to eliminate effectively or reduce significantly the
risk of strangulation under certain foreseeable-use conditions.
In November 2012, the WCMA announced the approval of the 2012
version of the ANSI/WCMA standard, which includes: (1) Requirements for
durability and performance testing of the tension/hold down devices,
including new requirements for anchoring; (2) specific installation
instructions and warnings; (3) new requirements for products that rely
on ``wide lift bands'' to raise and lower window coverings; (4)
requirements for a warning label and pictograms on the outside of stock
packaging and merchandising materials for corded products; and (5)
expanded testing requirements for cord accessibility, hazardous loop
testing, roll-up style shade performance, and durability testing of all
safety devices.
WCMA approved a revised ANSI/WCMA standard on July 21, 2014.\11\
Section 4.3 of the 2014 ANSI/WCMA standard specifies that window
coverings with an exposed operating cord or continuous loop operating
system shall meet one of the following requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Changes to the descriptive text found in the ANSI/WCMA
Standard, Appendix E, Figure E1, Row 3.
4.3.1: Product shall have no accessible operating cords
4.3.2: Product shall have one or more separate operating cords
4.3.3: Product shall contain a cord release device in the loop or head
rail
4.3.4: Product shall contain a permanently attached cord retraction
device
4.3.5: Product shall contain a cord shear device
4.3.6: Product shall contain a cord shroud device
4.3.7: Product shall contain a cord tension device
4.3.8: Product shall contain a loop cord or bead chain-restraining
device
4.3.9: If the product requires a cord connector, i.e. stop ball, the
exposed loop above the cord connector shall be limited to less than 3
inches below the bottom of the cord lock when the bottom rail is fully
lowered.
Thus, the ANSI/WCMA standard allows for separate operating cords,
cord release devices, cord retractors, cord shrouds, cord tensioners,
and loop/bead chain restraining devices.
2. Warning Labels
In addition to performance requirements, the ANSI/WCMA standard
requires a number of warning labels and hangtags on window coverings,
all of which are accompanied with a pictogram. ANPR Briefing Memorandum
at 5.
B. Substantial Compliance With the Voluntary Standard
According to the WCMA, manufacturers of window coverings are in
substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. Beyond WCMA's
comments, CPSC has no data on the extent of compliance and cannot
estimate the proportion of annual sales of window covering products
that comply. CPSC has some anecdotal information on product compliance
and incident hazard patterns that lends support to WCMA's contention
that products substantially comply with the voluntary standard. For
example, the 1996 version of the standard required that pull cords have
separate tassels or a breakaway tassel to reduce the hazard with the
loop above a single tassel. Among the incidents associated with the
loop above a single tassel, staff's review of incidents showed that
only one product out of 14 products involved in incidents was
manufactured after the 1996 standard went into effect and did not
comply with the requirement. Petition Briefing Package, Briefing
Memorandum at 18.
C. Engineering Staff's Assessment of ANSI/WCMA Standard
1. Performance Requirements
For the Petition Briefing Package, the Division of Mechanical
Engineering (ESME) reviewed the incident data to determine whether the
2014 version of the ANSI/WCMA standard would address the hazards
presented in the 249 IDIs reviewed by staff. Petition Briefing Package,
Tab E. According to ESME staff's assessment, the 2014 version of the
ANSI/WCMA standard addresses the hazards in 25.7 percent (64/249) of
the investigated incidents, while hazards reported in 57 percent (141/
249) are not addressed by the ANSI/WCMA standard. Insufficient
information was available to draw any conclusions for the remaining
17.7 percent (44/249) of investigated incidents. Id. at 123-124.
Table 3 summarizes the hazard types identified in the 249 IDIs
reviewed by CPSC staff, and ESME's assessment of the hazard
addressability with the current 2014 version of the voluntary standard.
An Appendix to Tab E of the Petition Briefing Package includes more
detailed descriptions of each of these hazard scenarios.
[[Page 2338]]
Table 3--Addressability of the Hazards With the 2014 ANSI/WCMA Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entanglement mechanism (hazard Number of Investigated Section of the standard
scenario in Table 2) incidents IDIs (%) related to the hazard Conclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Entanglement from pull cords 69 27.7 ....................... Not addressed.
14 5.6 ....................... Addressed.
Entanglement in a loop created 38 15.3 Section 4.3.2 allows Not addressed.
by knotted or tangled pull multiple cords in
cord (hazard scenario 1). unspecified lengths.
Entanglement in one or more 25 10.0 Sections 4.3.2 and Not addressed.
long cords, which the child 4.3.9 allow accessible
wrapped around the neck free hanging operating
(hazard scenario 2). cords.
Entanglement in a loop above a 14 5.6 Sections 4.3.2 and Addressed.
single tassel of the cord 4.3.3 require either
(hazard scenario 3). separate cords or
cords with release
devices in the loop.
Entanglement in a loop above 4 1.6 Section 4.3.9 allows Not addressed.
the stop ball of the cord for an accessible loop
(hazard scenario 4). when the bottom rail
is fully raised.
Entanglement in a loop created 2 0.8 Section 4.3.2 allows Not addressed.
when pull-cord was tied to unspecified length of
another object, usually on the cords.
wall (hazard scenario 5).
2. Entanglement in a continuous 70 28.1 Section 4.3.7 requires Not addressed.
loop cord (hazard scenario 6). a cord tension device
that will at least
partially prevent the
operation of the
window covering, when
not installed but
still allows some
operability.
3. Entanglement from inner 47 18.9 Section 4.4 addresses Addressed.
cords (hazard scenarios 7 and accessibility and
8). hazardousness of inner
cord loops.
4. Entanglement in the lifting 3 1.2 Section 4.4.5 addresses Addressed.
loop of a roll-up shade the accessible lifting
(hazard scenario 9). loops of a roll-up
style shade.
5. Entanglement in the tilt 2 0.8 Section 4.3.2 allows Not addressed.
cords (hazard scenario 2). multiple cords in
unspecified lengths.
6. Unknown..................... 44 17.7 ....................... Unknown.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the standard does address a portion of the hazards
associated with pull cords, remaining pull cord hazards and continuous
loop cords account for more than 50 percent of the hazard scenarios
that are not addressed by the standard.
Continuous Loops. Continuous loops need to be kept taut so that the
free-standing loop does not cause a hazard to young children. The
voluntary standard requires a tension device to be attached on the loop
by the manufacturer. After receiving the product, the consumer must
install the tension device on an external surface, such as a wall or
window sill, per manufacturer's instructions. As explained in the ESHF
memorandum, Tab D of the Petition Briefing Package, compliance with
instructions declines if the effort and time required for the
installation is high. The first publication of the voluntary standard
(1996) required that a cord tension device be supplied and removal of
it is a sequential process (i.e., requires two or more independent
steps to be performed in a specific order). Once the tension device is
installed, it becomes a passive device.
In 2007, the voluntary standard introduced the ``partial
inoperability clause,'' which meant that if the tension device was not
properly installed, the tension device should at least partially
prevent the operation of the window covering. The latest version of the
standard includes the same partial inoperability requirement, in
addition to a new durability test procedure to prevent the tension
device, if installed, from coming off the wall or breaking under the
tested conditions.
Pull Cords. For the Petition Briefing Package, ESME staff concluded
that the voluntary standard does not address the following hazard
scenarios: (1) Loops resulting from knotted or entangled pull cords,
(2) pull cords that are wrapped around the neck, (3) pull cords that
are tied to another object, and (4) pull cords with loops above stop
ball/cord connector. The recently published Canadian standard (CAN/CSA-
Z600-14 Safety of Corded Window Covering Products) adopts the
requirements of the ANSI/WCMA standard with one change: adding cord
cleats as a required component to mitigate the pull cord hazard. CPSC
understands that for the spirit of harmonization, WCMA will propose to
include a similar requirement to the ANSI/WCMA standard.
CPSC staff has raised concerns regarding the pull cord and
continuous loop hazards to WCMA, repeatedly emphasizing that either
eliminating access to the pull cords or making accessible cords
nonhazardous in both raised or lowered heights of the window covering
would greatly reduce the incidents. Most recently, on July 22, 2014,
CPSC staff sent a letter to WCMA suggesting revisions to the voluntary
standard that would address the strangulation hazard created by pull
cords and continuous loops on window coverings.\12\ WCMA responded to
staff's letter on August 29, 2014.\13\ ANPR Briefing Memorandum at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/170256/WCMA_Ltr_22_July_2014.pdf.
\13\ http://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/170642/WCMALettertoGBorlase8_29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WCMA believes that cord cleats, a device around which a cord can be
wound and can be attached to a wall or other structure, or that is
integral with the product, can help reduce incidents associated with
pull cords. WCMA intends to utilize an expedited approval process to
add cord cleats as a requirement to the ANSI/WCMA standard with the
objective of harmonizing the standard with the latest version of the
Canadian standard (CAN/CSA Z600 window covering standard).
Staff has several concerns with cord cleats. Cord cleats require
that the user remove and then secure the cord to the cleat each time
the window covering is raised or lowered in order to mitigate the
hazard, which consumers may feel to be a nuisance and not do, thus
voiding the protections ostensibly provided. In addition, failure to
install a cord cleat will not cause the window covering to cease
operating as intended, which may also serve to reduce the
[[Page 2339]]
protection provided. Indeed, many stock products already come with cord
cleats in the box, so the degree to which they are installed and used
is in question. For example, in a 2010 incident, a four-year-old child
who was standing on the back of a couch, reached the pull cords which
were usually wrapped around the cord cleat, but not on the day of the
incident.\14\ When cord cleats are installed, consumers still need to
be aware that children can climb up to get to the cords, as observed in
a 2005 incident where a four-year-old child moved a small plastic table
near to a window, climbed upon the table, reached up and removed the
pull cord.\15\ Furthermore, even if cleats are used to wrap excess pull
cords, the cords above the cleat present a strangulation hazard.\16\ A
cord cleat retrofit program may be beneficial for those consumers who
become aware of the hazard and want to take action to mitigate the pull
cord hazard. However, staff believes that consumers who respond to a
recall likely install and use cord cleats more consistently than
consumers who are unaware of the hazard. The latter group of consumers
may overlook the cord cleat as they are not aware of the hazard, and
the operation of the product does not necessitate the installation and
use of cord cleats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ IDI 110103CCC3322.
\15\ IDI 050407CCC3309.
\16\ http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/121510/5009a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding continuous loops and tension devices, CPSC staff's IDI
review of 70 incidents associated with entanglement in a continuous
loop cord showed that the majority of the incident units did not have a
tension device installed on the continuous loop. Staff recognizes that
tension devices, when properly installed and intact, keep the looped
cords taut and do not allow a child's head to enter into the loop. If
tension devices are not installed, are installed improperly, or are
removed from the cord, a hazardous loop is present. ANPR Briefing
Memorandum at 4.
2. Warning Labels
Warning labels are intended to alert the user of the strangulation
hazard, and to keep cords away from children and move furniture away
from cords as children can climb on furniture to reach cords. Warning
labels and hang tags have been part of the ANSI/WCMA standard since its
first publication in 1996. In 2009, the voluntary standard required a
hang tag that must be attached to the lower most section of the inner
cord on the back side of a Roman shade. The voluntary standard was
amended in 2012 to require that a warning label be placed on the
product package (or on merchandising material for custom products) and
displayed conspicuously. The requirement to include warnings on retail
packaging and merchandising materials was intended to warn consumers
about the strangulation hazard associated with accessible cords so that
consumers can make an informed purchasing decision.
Staff believes that the requirement to place a warning on product
packaging is potentially beneficial for consumers who either learn of
the hazard by reviewing the warning material on packaging or are aware
of the hazard and looking for a safer product to purchase. However,
consumers who are not the original purchasers of the product will not
benefit from information included on packaging materials as the
packaging is discarded after the product is installed.
The ANSI/WCMA standard requires permanent warning labels \17\and
operational hangtags \18\ on the product that follow ANSI Z535.4,
American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels.
Research demonstrates that warning labels should first be visible and
noticeable. Warning labels should also have design characteristics that
encourage the user to stop and read the warning. Effective labels state
the hazard, explain the consequences of the hazard, and provide
instructions on how to avoid the hazard using explicit text to improve
comprehension. Staff believes that warning labels on window coverings
that comply with the ANSI/WCMA standard have design characteristics to
make them visible and noticeable. For example, warnings that are placed
directly on the product have higher noticeability compared to the
warnings listed in a ``distant'' instruction manual (Wogalter et al.,
1987). Additionally, the voluntary standard requires the word
``Warning'' in all capital letters and printed in an orange color. The
required warning messages that are on the warning labels and hang tags
explain the nature of the hazard, the consequences of the hazard, and
provide instructions on how to avoid the hazard, as recommended in the
warning literature (Wogalter and Laughery, 2006). Finally, the required
labels have a pictogram which should increase their noticeability
because pictograms help capture user's attention (Wogalter and Leonard
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ A permanent marking or label cannot be removed or, during
an attempt to manually remove it without the aid of tools or
solvents, the marking or label tears apart or damages the surface to
which it is attached.
\18\ Operational hangtags contain information based on the
characteristics of the product or the safety devices included on the
product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though the warning labels required by the ANSI/WCMA standard
meet the usual criteria for what is considered a well-designed warning
label, CPSC staff believes that the labels have limited effectiveness
in changing the user's behavior in the purchase and use of window
coverings. The inherent problem with the strangulation hazard
associated with window covering cords and warning labels is that people
are less likely to read instructions or recognize potential hazards
associated with the products that they use more frequently (Godfrey et
al., 1994). Research demonstrates that high familiarity with a product
can lower a user's inclination to read warnings or reduce the
likelihood that the user will believe such information, lowering the
rate of compliance with the warning (Riley, 2004). Window coverings are
decorative products providing utility and found in every household in
one form or another. Consumers interact with window coverings daily and
experienced users are likely to repeat behaviors with little conscious
thought, especially on a product that they have had numerous prior
experiences (Riley, 2004).
Even after users notice and read the warning label, comprehend the
message and make the decision to follow the instructions, they must
comply with the warning as instructed to mitigate the hazard. User's
actual ability to comply with a warning is affected by cost of
compliance, which includes effort, time, and perceived compromise in
product performance as well as expense. In the case of window
coverings, safety recommendations other than purchasing inherently safe
products (e.g., cordless products or products with inaccessible cords),
such as keeping cords out of reach of children, moving the furniture
away from cords, installing a tension device to the wall or floor, and
installing cord cleats, entail significant limitations or high cost of
compliance. For example, depending on the room design limitations,
consumers may not have the ability to keep cords away from furniture.
Additionally, requiring consumers to wrap the pull cords around the
cord cleat each and every time the window covering is raised or lowered
leads to potential errors, such as forgetting the intended action
during the routine use of the product. ANPR Briefing Memorandum at 5-6.
[[Page 2340]]
D. Available Technology To Address the Hazard
Although not currently mandatory, a variety of technologies
currently used by window covering manufacturers on window covering
products eliminate the risk of strangulation to young children. CPSC's
engineering staff reviewed window covering products currently on the
market that incorporate technologies to address the hazard associated
with corded products. Petition Briefing Package, Tab E at 130-136.
Available products that address the hazard include, but are not limited
to: Manual and motorized cordless window coverings, cord shrouds, and
cord retractors.
Cords can be made inaccessible with passive guarding devices.
Passive guarding devices allow the user to operate the window covering
without direct interaction of a hazardous cord. These types of devices
would include cord shrouds, integrated cord/chain tensioners, or cord
retractors.
Cordless blinds and shades are raised and lowered by pushing the
bottom rail up or pulling the rail down. This same motion may also be
used to adjust the position of the horizontal slats for light control.
Through market research, staff found several examples of cordless
blinds that can be made with a maximum height 84'' and a maximum width
of 144''.
Rigid cord shrouds (Figure 9) can be retrofitted over various types
of window coverings to enclose pull cords and continuous cord loops. An
encased clutch system allows the user to utilize the pull cords in the
cord shroud while eliminating access to the hazardous cords.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.011
Loop cord/bead chain restraining devices (Figure 10) keep the
looped bead chain taut, preventing access to a hazardous loop, and do
not require external components to be installed.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.012
Crank mechanisms (Figure 11) replace the continuous loop mechanism
with a crank/wand mechanism. Because the operating cord is replaced
with a wand, the strangulation hazards are completely removed.
[[Page 2341]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.013
Cord retractors (Figure 12) passively retract the operating cord
within 6 inches of the head rail. These devices are intended to keep
the operating cords out of the child's reach. Through market research,
staff found several examples of cord retractors that can be used on
window coverings with a maximum height of 120'' and a maximum width of
174''.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JA15.014
Cordless motorized blinds are raised and lowered using an electric
motor with a supplied controller. These products function in a manner
similar to the motorized projector screens. Because these products use
a motor instead of a pull cord, there are no exposed hazardous cords.
Table 4 groups the hazard patterns with the appropriate available
technologies.
Table 4--Hazard Patterns With Available Technologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the ANSI/WCMA Available
Standard technology
ANSI/WCMA effectively (commercially
Hazard Products requirements address the hazard available or in
per engineering prototype stage)
staff's assessment to address hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazard 1. Loops created by Horizontal blinds, 4.3.2 The product No--free hanging, Cordless window
knotted or tangled cord. Cellular shades, shall have one or exposed operating coverings, rigid
Roll up blinds, more separate cords are cord shrouds,
Roman shades, operating cords. permissible. crank mechanisms,
Pleated shades. cord retractors,
cordless
motorized window
coverings.
[[Page 2342]]
Hazard 2. One or more long cords Horizontal blinds, 4.3.2 The product No--accessible, Cordless window
which the child wrapped around Cellular shades, shall have one or free hanging coverings, rigid
the neck involving pull cords Roll up blinds, more separate cords can be cord shrouds,
and tilt cords. Roman shades, operating cords. wrapped around crank mechanisms,
Pleated shades. 4.3.9 The product the neck of a cord retractors,
shall, if it child as incident and, cordless
requires a cord data demonstrates. motorized window
connector, limit coverings.
the exposed loop
above the cord
connector to less
than 3 inches
below the bottom
of the cord lock
when bottom rail
is in the fully
lowered position..
Hazard 3. Loop above a single Horizontal blinds, 4.3.2 The product Yes--by requiring ..................
tassel of the cord. Cellular shades, shall have one or either separate
Roll Up blinds, more separate tassels on each
Roman shades, operating cords. cord or breakaway
Pleated shades. 4.3.3 The Product tassel, however
shall contain a this separate
cord release tassel
device in the configuration
loop or the head presents a
rail.. wraparound
(hazard #1) or
knotted loop
(hazard#2)
strangulation
hazards as
described above.
Hazard 4. Loop above the stop Horizontal blinds, 4.3.9 The cord No--a product that Cordless window
ball of the cord. Cellular shades, connector shall meets the coverings, rigid
Roll up blinds, limit the exposed standard could cord shrouds,
Roman shades, loop above the still contain an crank mechanisms,
Pleated shades. cord connector to accessible cord retractors,
less than 3 hazardous loop and, cordless
inches below the when the bottom motorized window
bottom of the rail is raised. coverings.
cord lock when
the bottom rail
is fully lowered.
Hazard 5. Loop created when pull- Horizontal blinds, 4.3.2 The product No--consumers may Cordless window
cord was tied to another Cellular shades, shall have one or attempt to keep coverings, rigid
object, usually on the wall. Roll up blinds, more separate the long cords cord shrouds,
Roman shades, operating cords. away from crank mechanisms,
Pleated shades. children by tying cord retractors,
the cords on a and, cordless
curtain rod or motorized window
other means. coverings.
Hazard Unknown manner (involving Horizontal blinds, N/A............... Unknown........... Unknown.
a pull cord). Cellular Shades,
Roll Up blinds,
Roman Shades,
Pleated shades.
Hazard 6. Entanglement in a Vertical blinds, 4.3.7 The product No--hazardous Loop cord/bead
continuous loop cord. Roller shades, shall contain a loops are not restraining
Curtains and cord tension effectively device, crank
draperies. device that will addressed by the mechanisms,
at least standard when the motorized option.
partially prevent blind continues
the window to be
covering from operational,
functioning for despite the fact
light control or that the tension
privacy when not device is not
installed. properly
installed.
Hazard 7a. Entanglement from Horizontal blinds. 4.4.1 the product Yes--window
exposed inner cords with no shall have no coverings
cord stops. inner cords. associated with
4.4.2 no the inner cord
accessible inner hazard scenario
cords. appeared to be
4.4.3 accessible older products
inner cords shall that were
pass the manufactured
hazardous loop before the 2002
test. standard was
4.4.3.1 inner cord published.
stop devices or Engineering staff
cord connectors believes that had
shall be the cord stops
positioned 3 involved in the
inches or less incident
below the head scenarios met the
rail. voluntary
4.4.4 shrouded standard, they
inner cords. would not likely
have occurred.
[[Page 2343]]
Hazard 7b. Entanglement from Horizontal blinds. 4.4.1 the product Yes--window
exposed inner cords when the shall have no coverings
cord stops are positioned too inner cords. associated with
low. 4.4.2 no the inner cord
accessible inner hazard scenario
cords. appeared to be
4.4.3 accessible older products
inner cords shall that were
pass the manufactured
hazardous loop before the 2002
test. standard was
4.4.3.1 inner cord published.
stop devices or Engineering staff
cord connectors believes that had
shall be the cord stops
positioned 3 involved in the
inches or less incident
below the head scenarios met the
rail. voluntary
4.4.4 shrouded standard, they
inner cords. would not likely
have occurred.
Hazard 8. Entanglement in the Roman shades...... 4.4.1 the product Yes--the
Roman shade inner cord. shall have no requirements
inner cords. prevent hazardous
4.4.2 no inner cords that
accessible inner may allow child's
cords. head to be
4.4.3 accessible inserted to the
inner cords shall loop.
pass the
hazardous loop
test.
4.4.3.1 inner cord
stop devices or
cord connectors
shall be
positioned 3
inches or less
below the head
rail.
4.4.4 shrouded
inner cords.
Hazard 9. Entanglement in the Roll up blind..... 4.4.5 accessible Yes--the lifting
lifting loop. inner cords shall loop shall be
feature an inner pulled 48 times
cord release in various
device. directions. The
lifting loop
shall breakaway
with an average
force not to
exceed 3 pounds.
This test mimics
the force that
may be exerted
due to the
child's head
being in the loop.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Compliance Actions
Compliance staff began working with WCMA in 1994, when CPSC
announced a joint recall with the WCMA on how to eliminate the loops on
pull cords ending in one tassel. Petition Briefing Package, Tab F. The
WCMA created the larger Window Covering Safety Council (WCSC) to
include window covering manufacturers and retailers to support the
recall and to provide free repair kits to consumers. In 1999, after an
extensive review of the incidents reported to CPSC, Compliance staff
began a new investigation of window covering deaths resulting from
inner cords of horizontal blinds. In 2000, CPSC and WCMA again
announced a joint recall involving inner cord stops to reduce the risk
of a child pulling on the inner cords and creating a hazardous loop.
Id. at 142-143.
In 2005, Compliance staff learned of a nonfatal incident involving
the inner cord of a Roman shade. Subsequently, CPSC investigated a
worldwide retailer following a child's death from the inner cord of a
Roman shade. In 2008, CPSC and the retailer announced a joint recall
for Roman shades, offering a full refund to consumers. In 2009, CPSC
and 15 manufacturers and retailers in conjunction with the WCSC,
announced individual recalls of Roman shades and roll-up blinds. In
2012, two more recalls occurred: One involving horizontal blinds
manufactured without inner cord stops and vertical blinds manufactured
without tension devices, and the second recall to repair and correct an
assembly error in a breakaway cord connector. Id. at 143-145.
F. Public Education
Since the window covering-related first safety alert was issued in
1985, CPSC has been warning parents of the danger of child
strangulation due to corded window coverings. Petition Briefing
Package, Briefing Memorandum at 19. CPSC identified window coverings as
one of the top five hidden home hazards.\19\ Every October, CPSC
participates jointly with WCSC in National Window Covering Safety Month
to urge parents and caregivers to check their window coverings for
exposed and dangling cords and to take precautions. Both CPSC and WCSC
recommend cordless window coverings or window coverings with
inaccessible cords in homes where young children live or visit. In
addition to traditional communication methods, CPSC reaches out to
consumers using social media, such as safety blogs and online chats,
the Neighborhood Safety Network, and
[[Page 2344]]
through partnerships (such as with the Department of Defense) to create
awareness of the hazards associated with corded window coverings. CPSC
does not have information to assess the effectiveness of public
education campaigns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/165163/hidden.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Existing Standards for Window Covering Products
A. ANSI/WCMA Standard
Although no mandatory window covering standard exists in the United
States, the 2014 version of the ANSI/WCMA voluntary standard
establishes safety performance requirements.. The standard applies to
all interior corded window covering products sold in the United States
and includes, but is not limited to, cellular shades, horizontal
blinds, pleated shades, roll-up style blinds, roller shades, Roman
style shades, traverse rods, and vertical blinds. The standard was
first published in 1996, and subsequently was revised six times. The
latest version was published in 2014. Section IV.A-C of this ANPR
review provisions in the ANSI/WCMA standard intended to address the
hazard creating by corded window coverings.
B. International Standards
Three international standards specify requirements for the safety
of window coverings:
(1) Competition and Consumer (Corded Internal Window Coverings)
Safety Standard 2014 published in Australia (Australian standard),
(2) Corded Window Covering Products Regulations (SOR/2009-11) and
CAN/CSA-Z600-14 Safety of Corded Window Covering Products published in
Canada, which is based on the 2012 ANSI/WCMA standard with some
modifications (Canadian standard), and
(3) EN 13120:2009+A1:2014 Internal blinds--Performance requirements
including safety, EN 16433:2014 Internal blinds--Protection from
strangulation hazards--Test methods, and EN 16434:2014 Internal
blinds--Protection from strangulation hazards. Requirements and test
methods for safety devices published by European Committee for
Standardization (European standard).
CPSC engineering staff compared the ANSI/WCMA standard with the
international standards and concluded that the ANSI standard developed
by WCMA is one of strongest standards in the world. Petition Briefing
Package, Tab E at 124-130.
1. Australian Standard
Australia has a mandatory product safety standard requiring the
provision of information, warnings, instructions, and safety devices
with corded internal window coverings (CIWC). A new regulation has been
enacted requiring those installing CIWC in trade or commerce to follow
the safety instructions when installing the product and avoid the
production of dangerous lengths or loops of cord.
A corded internal window covering must be installed to meet the
following four requirements:
a. A loose cord cannot form a 220 mm loop or longer at less than
1600 mm (62.99 in.).
b. The product must be installed using the installation instruction
on the retail packaging and any other provided information about how to
ensure a loose cord cannot form a loop described in requirement 1.
c. No part of the cord guide (a device designed to retract,
tension, or secure a cord) may be installed lower than 1600 mm above
floor level unless:
i. The cord guide will stay attached to the wall when subjected to
70 N applied in any direction for 10 seconds.
ii. The cord is sufficiently secured or tensioned to prevent the
formation of a loop 220 mm or longer.
d. If a cleat is used to secure a cord, it must be installed at
least 1600 mm above the floor level.
CPSC does not believe the use of a cord cleat is effective to
address the strangulation risk.\20\ First, a cord cleat needs to be
actively installed and used every time. Second, the cord cleat needs to
be installed at a height not accessible to a child. If the child had
access to the cord cleat, the resulting hazard would be similar to
hazard 5: Loop created when pull-cord was tied to another object,
usually on the wall. Finally the cord cleat needs to take up all the
excess slack in the cord; excess cord slack could pose a hazard similar
to the hazard created by loops created by knotted or tangled cord or
one or more long cords which the child wrapped around the neck (see
Table 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Canadian Standard
Canada's most recent standard, CAN/CSA-Z600-14, is the 2012 ANSI/
WCMA standard with the inclusion of cord cleats. Cord cleats are
required for window coverings with accessible cords and shall allow
complete cording length to be accumulated on the cleat. Instructions on
how to properly use the cord cleats are also required. Consumers will
be advised that the cord cleats that are external to the product should
be installed at a height of 1.6 m above the floor, while cord cleats
integral to the product shall be within 18 inches of the head rail.
CPSC maintains the same opinion about cord cleats as explained above in
section V.B.2 regarding the Australian standard.
3. European Standard
Many differences exist between the WCMA and European standards,
with each standard having areas of strength and weakness. Table 5
compares the operating cord requirements of the ANSI/WCMA standard and
the European standard.
[[Page 2345]]
Table 5--Comparison of ANSI/WCMA Standard With the European Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test ANSI/WCMA A100.1-2014 EN Standard Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cord Release Device/Cord Shear Device Cord Release Device & Breakaway system: The ANSI/WCMA standard
vs. Breakaway System. Cord Shear Device: *If installation height appears to be more
*Create a 3.5 foot loop is not given, the conservative because
from the cord and hook length of pull cord(s) it requires the cord
a force gage onto it. shall be less than or to break away at an
*Twist the force gauge equal to \2/3\ of the average of 3 pounds,
360 degrees and draw height of the curtain.. compared to EN's 13.22
the force gauge at a *If the installation pounds.
speed between .1 and 1 height is given, the
inch per second. The pull cords shall be at
cord shall release least .6 m above the
within 10 seconds.. floor..
*Repeat for 50 products *The hazardous loop
*The average release shall be eliminated
force shall not exceed when a mass of 13.22
3 pounds for the 50 pounds is gradually
products and all applied to the pull
products shall have a cords within 5 seconds
release force below 5 of application..
pounds..
Cord tension vs. Fixed Tensioning *The tension device *If the blind's height The ANSI/WCMA standard
system. shall at least is <=2.5 m, then pull is stronger because:
partially prevent the cords shall be <=1 m. *It requires the
window covering from *If the blind's height product to be
functioning for light is >2.5 m, then the installed by partially
control or privacy pull cords shall be <= limiting the product's
when not installed. the height of the functionality while
*The tension device curtain minus 1.5 m.. the EN does not.
shall have a minimum *The distance between *Even though the EN
tested release force the two strands of the allows for a break
of 20 pounds off the loop shall be no more away, the tested
wall.. than 50 mm adjacent to release force is 13.2
*Using a force gage the tensioning device.. pounds, which is more
gently pull the loop *Allows for a breakaway than the ANSI/WCMA
cord horizontally over system for the version.
a period of 5 seconds continuous corded *The ANSI/WCMA standard
to create an opening. system. only allows products
Stop pulling the gauge into which a head
when it reads 5 pounds probe can't be
or the pulled pull inserted, while the EN
distance = 25 inches, does not.
whichever comes first..
*Determine whether the
head probe can be
inserted into the
created with an
insertion force of 10
pounds. If the probe
can be inserted, then
the loop is hazardous..
[[Page 2346]]
Pull Cords........................... Section 4.3 of the When the bottom rail is WCMA is standard is
standard specifies fully lowered: stronger as it
that window coverings *If the blind height is requires the cord
with an exposed <=2.5 m, the pull release device to
operating cord or cords shall be <=1 m.. release the cord at an
continuous loop *If the blind height is average force of 3
operating system shall >2.5 m, the pull cord pounds while the WCMA
meet one of the length shall be no allow for forces up to
following longer than the 13.3 pounds.
requirements: curtain height minus The EN standard is
4.3.1: Product shall 1.5 m.. stronger in terms of
have no accessible If the product has two the following:
operating cords. pull cords:. *It ensures that
4.3.2: Product shall *Pull cords shall not tangled cords become
have one or more tangle.. eliminated within 5
separate operating *If cords tangle, the seconds of a 13.22-
cords. loop shall be pound application,
4.3.3: Product shall eliminated within 5 WCMA has no such
contain a cord release seconds of a 6 kg mass requirement.
device in the loop or application.. *It restricts the
head rail. *Pull cords shall be length on continuous
4.3.4: Product shall connected using a loop and breakaway
contain a permanently breakaway system. The pull cords to reduce
attached cord hazardous loop shall access to the cord. If
retraction device. be eliminated within 5 the product does not
4.3.5: Product shall seconds of a 6kg mass meet the length
contain a cord shear application.. requirements, then the
device. If the product has more product must be fitted
4.3.6: Product shall than two pull cords:. with an accumulation
contain a cord shroud *Pull cords shall be system to contain all
device. connected together of the excess cord,
4.3.7: Product shall using a breakaway not allowing more than
contain a cord tension system.. 100 mm of cord when
device. *The hazardous loop 60N is applied to it.
4.3.8: Product shall shall be eliminated The WCMA standard does
contain a loop cord or within 5 seconds of a not restrict the pull
bead chain-restraining 6kg mass application.. cord length and the
device. If the product has more cord retractor is an
4.3.9: If the product than four pull cords optional requirement.
requires a cord in the absence of a *In addition to the
connector, i.e. stop suitable breakaway length requirement, it
ball, the exposed loop connector:. requires the pull
above the cord *Cords may be connected cords to either be
connector shall be to a single pull cord connected with a
limited to less than 3 positioned <50 mm from breakaway device, for
in below the bottom of the head rail when the less than four pull
the cord lock when the bottom rail is fully cords, or connected
bottom rail is fully lowered.. less than 50 mm below
lowered.. the head rail for more
than four pull cords.
WCMA standard does not
have this requirement.
*Does not allow for
multiple separate
cords without any
other protection
devices. WCMA standard
allows for multiple
cords.
Inner Cords.......................... Section 4.4 of the *The maximum distance The WCMA standard is
standard specifies between two stronger because:
that window coverings consecutive attachment/ *The head probe is
containing inner cords retention points of inserted while the
shall meet one of the inner cords shall be inner cord loop is
following <=200 mm. held open with the
requirements: *It shall not be force gage. However,
4.4.1: Product shall possible to insert the the EN standard
have no inner cords.. head probe (W 148 mm releases the inner
4.4.2: Product shall by L 110 mm by H 150 cord after it was
have no accessible mm) between the inner pulled and then the
inner cords using a cords after 50 N is head probe is
test probe with a applied and released inserted. The weight
diameter of 51 mm for from the inner cords. of the bottom rail
open construction and The dimension of the could potentially
102 mm for closed loop shall not be remove the inner cord
construction. Any cord increased when loop.
that the probe can inserting the probe.. *The WCMA standard also
touch is considered If either of the above gives the option for
accessible. If the requirements are not inner cord stops,
inner cords are met, the hazardous which the EN standard
accessible, then pull loop shall be fails to mention.
on the cord with a eliminated when 58.83 The EN standard is
force gage until it N is applied within 5 stronger because it
reads 22.24 N or 635 seconds of pulls on the inner
mm of slack is pulled, application.. cord with 50 N vs
whichever comes first. WCMA's 22.24 N.
The head probe,
dimensions of W 148 mm
by H 110 mm by H 150
mm, shall not be able
to be inserted in the
loop with a force of
44.5 N..
4.4.3: Products that
have accessible inner
cords shall
incorporate an inner
cord stop device or
cord connector 76.2 mm
or less below head
rail when bottom rail
is fully lowered..
4.4.4: Product shall
have an inner cord
shroud..
4.4.5: If the product
is a roll up style,
blind, accessible
inner cords shall have
a cord release device..
[[Page 2347]]
Cord Accumulation System............. N/A.................... Accumulation systems Neither the ANSI/WCMA,
(e.g., cord cleats) nor the EN standard is
are required to be stronger standard.
installed per the Having an accumulation
manufactures system can possibly
instructions which keep the cord out of a
should be at least 1.5 child's reach and at
m above the ground. In the same time pose a
addition, no more than hazard similar to,
100 mm of cord shall Hazard 5. Loop created
be released after a when pull-cord was
force of 13.48 pounds tied to another
is applied to any of object, usually on the
the cords. wall.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. International Alignment Agreement
In February 2012, participating staff of the Australia Competition
and Consumer Commission, Health Canada, European Commission Directorate
General for Health & Consumers, and the CPSC reached consensus on a
document that describes approaches to addressing the strangulation
hazard related to corded window coverings. Petition Briefing Package,
Briefing Memorandum at 13-14. The document includes a hierarchy of the
various solutions, recognizing that different approaches may be
necessary for making different types of products safer:
To achieve the greatest permanent reductions in strangulations
from corded window covering products, the product designs should
eliminate exposure to the hazard or eliminate the hazard entirely.
At the top of the hierarchy of safe solutions for window coverings
are the following:
The product has no accessible cords under any
conditions of foreseeable use or misuse.
The product has accessible cords that cannot form a
hazardous loop under any conditions of foreseeable use or misuse,
including failure to heed warnings or incorrect installation.
The following approach provides for the next level in the
hierarchy of solutions to reduce strangulation hazard:
The product is provided with safety devices to be
installed ensuring that accessible cords cannot form a hazardous
loop. Instructions and warnings are provided for correct
installation.
Due to variable factors, such as a consumer's diligence and
ability to follow all installation instructions and heed all
warnings, there is a difference between this approach and the
approach providing the highest level of safety. Finally, relying
solely on warnings that the product contains hazardous loops that
could strangle a child is considered insufficient to prevent
fatalities.
Warnings and instructions for safe use however should continue
to be present on all corded window coverings, their packaging, and
their instructions. Public education efforts should encourage the
use of safe window coverings and removal of products with accessible
cords that can form hazardous loops.
VI. Relevant Statutory Provisions
The Commission is conducting this proceeding under the Consumer
Product Safety Act (``CPSA''). 15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq. Window covering
products are consumer products. Id. 2052(a)(5). Under section 7 of the
CPSA, the Commission can issue a consumer product safety standard if
the requirements of such a standard are ``reasonably necessary to
prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with [a
consumer product].'' Id. 2056(a). Such a standard must be expressed in
terms of performance requirements or requirements for warnings or
instructions. Id. Under section 8 of the CPSA, the Commission can issue
a rule declaring a product to be a banned hazardous product when the
Commission finds that a consumer product is being, or will be,
distributed in commerce and there is no feasible consumer product
safety standard that would adequately protect the public from the
unreasonable risk associated with the product. Id. 2057.
Section 9 of the CPSA sets out the procedure that the Commission
must follow to issue a standard or a banning rule. The rulemaking may
begin with an ANPR that identifies the product and the nature of the
risk of injury associated with the product, summarizes the regulatory
alternatives considered by the Commission, and provides information
about any relevant existing standards and a summary of the reasons the
Commission believes they would not eliminate or adequately reduce the
risk of injury. The ANPR also must invite comments concerning the risk
of injury and regulatory alternatives and invite the public to submit
an existing standard or a statement of intent to modify or develop a
voluntary standard to address the risk of injury. Id. 2058(a).
The next step in the rulemaking would be for us to review comments
submitted in response to the ANPR and decide whether to issue a
proposed rule along with a preliminary regulatory analysis. The
preliminary regulatory analysis would describe potential benefits and
costs of the proposal, discuss reasonable alternatives, and summarize
the potential benefits and costs of the alternatives. Id. 2058(c). We
would then review comments on the proposed rule and decide whether to
issue a final rule along with a final regulatory analysis. Id. 2058(d)
through (g).
VII. Preliminary Estimate of Societal Costs
Tab G of the Petition Briefing Package estimates societal costs
associated with deaths and injuries from corded window covering
products. Based on deaths reported from 1999 through 2010, and
medically attended injuries from 1996 through 2012, the societal costs
associated with deaths and injuries involving window covering cords may
have amounted to an average of about $110.7 million annually. EC staff
estimated that an average of about 20 percent of the window
coverings\21\ were cordless (or did not have accessible cords) during
the 1996 through 2012 time period, which suggests that these injuries
and deaths were associated with the roughly 832 million window
coverings in use that had accessible cords.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Based on EC staff's estimate that about 25 percent of
current market sales consist of cordless products, the increasing
availability and sales of cordless products in recent years, and the
assumption that only about one-third of curtains and draperies have
cords.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the estimates provided in the Petition Briefing Package,
the societal costs may have amounted to an average of about $0.13 per
corded window covering per year (i.e., $110.7 million / 832 million
window coverings) from 1996 through 2012. Additionally, because window
coverings remain in use for an average of about 7 years, the expected
present
[[Page 2348]]
value of the annual societal costs (discounted at a rate of 3.0
percent) would average about $0.85 per corded covering over its
expected product life.
VIII. Regulatory Alternatives
The Commission is considering the following alternatives to address
the risk of injury associated with corded window covering products:
A. Mandatory Standard
The Commission could issue a rule specifying performance
requirements for corded window coverings to reduce the risk of injury
identified with these products. For example, to address the pull cord
and continuous loop hazards, one option may be to develop a mandatory
rule that is similar to the current ANSI/WCMA standard, which provides
manufacturers a list of options to make safe window coverings. Such a
rule could require that pull cords and continuous loops be tested for
accessibility similar to the inner cords that are currently required by
the standard. If accessible cords are found, a hazardous loop test
procedure similar to the current procedure, but with some
modifications, could be applied to determine if cords can create a
hazardous loop.
Another option for a mandatory rule would be to issue a rule
consistent with the petitioners' request, which would prohibit window
covering cords if a feasible cordless alternative exists; and for
instances in which a feasible cordless alternative does not exist,
require that all cords be made inaccessible by using a passive guarding
device.
A third option for a mandatory rule may be to model such a rule
after one of the enumerated international standards in section VII, or
relevant portions of such standards.
For any mandatory rule, the Commission could issue a rule that
focuses on performance requirements or issue a rule that includes both
performance requirements and labeling requirements to address the risk
of strangulation. The Commission is interested in comments on the
approaches described above, as well as any other suggestions to develop
a mandatory standard to address the risk of injury associated with
window covering cords. To issue a mandatory standard, the Commission
would need to assess the costs and benefits of the requirements.
Accordingly, the CPSC is interested in an assessment of the costs and
benefits associated with options for a mandatory rule.
B. Labeling Rule
The Commission could issue a mandatory rule that relies on warning
labels. CPSC staff is concerned that warning labels have limited
effectiveness for a product that is familiar, used frequently, and
contains a hidden hazard, as explained in Section IV.C.2 of this
notice.
C. Banning Rule
The Commission could issue a rule declaring window covering
products with cords to be banned hazardous products, if we found that
no feasible consumer product safety standard would adequately protect
the public from the unreasonable risk of injury associated with these
products.
D. Reliance on Voluntary Standard
If the Commission determines that a voluntary standard is adequate
to address the risk of injury associated with corded window covering
products, and that substantial compliance with the standard exists in
the industry, we must rely on the voluntary standard, in lieu of
issuing a mandatory rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(b)(2).
If the Commission announces in the Federal Register its intention
to rely on the voluntary standard, this would obligate manufacturers,
distributors, and retailers to report any product that does not comply
with the standard, even a product with no incidents. 15 U.S.C.
2064(b)(1). Failure to report could result in penalties. 15 U.S.C.
2068(a)(4).
As explained in the Petition Briefing Package, CPSC engineering
staff believes the current version of the ANSI/WCMA voluntary standard
would fail to eliminate or adequately reduce the strangulation hazard
to children because at least 57 percent of the incidents that occurred
could still occur with pull cords and continuous loops on window
coverings that meet the current version of the ANSI/WCMA standard.
E. No Regulatory Action
The Commission could take no regulatory action but continue to rely
on corrective actions under section 15 of the CPSA and/or public
education campaigns to address the risk of injury associated with
corded window covering products. The Commission could continue to rely
on recalls to address hazards associated with window coverings. For
example, CPSC and WCMA announced joint recalls to eliminate the loops
on pull cords ending in one tassel by offering free tassels; to reduce
the incidents associated with horizontal blind inner cords by offering
free inner cord stops, and repair kits to remove inner cords from Roman
shades. The ANSI/WCMA standard was revised accordingly after these
recalls to add performance requirements associated with these hazards.
To date, no recalls have addressed the issue of pull cords ending
in separate tassels or continuous loops that did not require an
external tension device to be installed. Accordingly, just like a
mandatory rule, relying on recalls to address hazards associated with
continuous loops and pull cords would also require a solution from
manufacturers to implement for the products that have been sold and for
future production. We are also concerned that relying on recalls
requires staff to establish independently that each window covering in
question presents a substantial product hazard. In addition, a recall
of an individual manufacturer's window covering has no binding effect
on other manufacturers who may have similar products that present the
same hazard.
The Commission could also continue to pursue public information and
education campaigns. In addition to compliance activities, CPSC has
been warning parents of the danger of child strangulation due to corded
window coverings since the first safety alert that was issued in 1985.
CPSC has identified window coverings as one of the top five hidden home
hazards.\22\ Every October, CPSC participates in National Window
Covering Safety Month to urge parents and caregivers to check their
window coverings for exposed and dangling cords and to take
precautions. Both CPSC and the Window Covering Safety Council (WCSC)
recommend cordless window coverings at homes where young children live
or visit. CPSC reaches out to consumers to create awareness of the
hazards associated with corded window coverings. Staff does not have
information to assess the effectiveness of public education campaigns
to date; however, the lack of an observable trend in the data over this
time period indicates that such campaigns are not effectively reducing
the risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/165163/hidden.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Solicitation of Information and Comments
This ANPR is the first step of a proceeding that could result in a
mandatory rule for corded window covering products. We invite
interested persons to submit comments on any aspect of the alternatives
discussed above.
[[Page 2349]]
A. CPSA Requirements
In accordance with section 9(a) of the CPSA, we also invite
comments on:
1. The risk of injury identified by the Commission, the regulatory
alternatives being considered, and other possible alternatives for
addressing the risk.
2. Any existing standard or portion of a standard that could be
issued as a proposed regulation.
3. A statement of intention to modify or develop a voluntary
standard to address the risk of injury discussed in this notice, along
with a description of a plan (including a schedule) to do so.
B. Information Specific to Corded Window Coverings
In addition, we invite comments and information concerning the
following:
1. What corded window covering products should we include or
exclude from the rulemaking and why? For example, we can include all
corded window covering products, or we could just include products most
likely to be found in homes and residences, and exclude larger products
intended for commercial use.
2. What possible warnings or instructions for corded window
coverings could address the risk of injury? The current ANSI/WCMA
standard requires warning labels, yet injuries and deaths continue. Are
there additional warnings that could address the risk of injury?
3. What possible performance requirements for window covering cords
could address the risk of injury?
4. Are there sections in a foreign or international standard that
can be adopted as part of a mandatory rule?
5. What are the current costs to manufacturers to comply with the
labeling requirements in the current ANSI/WCMA voluntary standard? What
are the potential costs to manufacturers of labeling or performance
requirements?
6. What are the potential benefits of a rule that would require
warnings or instructions for corded window coverings?
7. What are the potential benefits of a rule that would establish
performance requirements for corded window coverings?
8. What are the potential costs, economic and societal, of banning
cords on window covering products? What alternative products would
remain available?
9. What is the potential impact on small entities of a rule based
on the options presented above?
10. Do consumers actually install and consistently use cord cleats
and cord tensioning devices correctly? Are there other actions
consumers take to reduce access to loops or cords?
11. How can public education campaigns on window covering safety be
improved? How can the effectiveness of such campaigns be measured?
Market Information
12. What percent or share of the market or how many products are in
use for curtains and drapes are corded, cordless, or have inaccessible
cords?
13. How many window coverings are in use in U.S. households, by
window covering type, if possible?
14. What proportion of the window coverings in use are cordless, by
window covering type, if possible?
Cordless Products and Products With Inaccessible Cords
15. What percent of the market (as measured by sales volume)
constitutes cordless products?
16. What percent of the market (as measured by sales volume)
constitute products with inaccessible cords?
17. What are annual dollar sales and unit sales volumes of cordless
products, in total, and by product type, e.g. vertical blinds,
horizontal blinds, curtains, and the various types of shades, such as
cellular, pleated, roller, roll-up and Roman shades?
18. What are annual dollar sales and unit sales volumes of products
with inaccessible cords, in total and by product type, e.g. vertical
blinds, horizontal blinds, curtains, and the various types of shades,
such as cellular, pleated, roller, roll-up and Roman shades?
19. What efforts have been made to market these solutions to
consumers both at retail, online, and through direct outreach?
20. What proportion of curtains or drapery coverings are used with
looped or other types of cords for opening and closing?
21. Information on size limitation(s) for cordless products. For
example, would certain types of blinds or shades be too large or too
heavy to be made into a cordless product?
22. Information on size limitation(s) for products with
inaccessible cords. For example, would certain types of blinds or
shades be too large or too heavy to be made into products with
inaccessible cords?
23. Are there any other factors that would limit the production or
use of cordless products and products with inaccessible cords?
24. What is the size of the market for custom made cordless
products, in annual dollar sales value or unit sales volume?
25. What is the size of the market for custom-made products with
inaccessible cords, in annual dollar sales value or unit sales volume?
26. What is the expected product life of the various types of
blinds and shades that are currently being sold in the marketplace?
27. How does the product life of cordless products compare to (or
differ from) the product life of corded products?
28. How does the product life of products with inaccessible cords
compare to (or differ from) the product life of corded products?
29. Are cordless options available that would be inappropriate for
populations with limited mobility or the elderly?
30. Are products with inaccessible cords available that would be
inappropriate for populations with limited mobility or the elderly?
31. What technologies are available as alternatives to a corded
operating system?
32. What are the methods by which corded products can be converted
into cordless products in the production process? What would the change
in unit cost be for such conversions?
33. What are the methods by which corded products can be converted
into products with inaccessible cords in the production process? What
would the change in unit cost be for such conversions?
34. What are the potential benefits and limitations of tensioning
devices that would render the window coverings completely inoperable if
not installed properly?
Information on Compliance With the Voluntary Standard
35. As described in section VIII, one regulatory alternative is
reliance on the voluntary standard issued by ANSI/WCMA.
a. Is the ANSI/WCMA standard likely to result in the elimination or
adequate reduction of the risk of injury associated with window
covering cords?
b. What effect, if any; would the obligation to report non-
compliant products under 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(l) have on compliance with
the standard?
36. What percentage of the market (in terms of sales) or producers
comply with the voluntary standard? Should the Commission consider this
percentage to be ``substantial compliance'' within the meaning of the
CPSA?
37. Does the current level of conformance to the voluntary standard
differ for the various types of window coverings? If so, to what
levels?
[[Page 2350]]
Information on Manufacturer Cost
38. What is the typical difference in cost to produce cordless
products, products with inaccessible cords, and corded window
coverings? If possible, please provide the information by window
covering type (e.g. vertical blinds, horizontal blinds, and the various
types of shades, such as cellular, pleated, roller, roll-up and Roman)?
39. What is the manufacturer's cost to produce various safety
technologies, including research and development costs, and components,
such as a retractable cord operating system, cord cleat, or cord
shroud?
40. How would manufacturing these products in large quantities
change the cost? Please provide examples in terms of quantity and price
change (%).
Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-00566 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P