Corded Window Coverings; Request for Comments and Information, 2327-2350 [2015-00566]
Download as PDF
2327
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 11
Friday, January 16, 2015
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.
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
16 CFR Chapter II
[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2013–0028]
Corded Window Coverings; Request
for Comments and Information
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
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:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
SUMMARY:
Electronic Submissions
Submit electronic comments in the
following way:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
The Commission does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(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:
https://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: https://
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;
rbalcisinha@cpsc.gov.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 https://
www.cpsc.gov/Global/Newsroom/FOIA/
CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/
Corded-Window-Coverings-AdvanceNotice-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: https://www.cpsc.
gov/Global/Newsroom/FOIA/
CommissionBriefingPackages/2015/
PetitionRequestingMandatoryStandard
forCordedWindowCoverings.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
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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’’
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
Cords associated with cellular shade
incidents include: continuous loop
cord/beaded-chain (free-standing) and
pull cord (with loops, cord connectors,
or long cords).
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
EP16JA15.000
2328
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2329
include: Continuous loop cord/beadedchain (free-standing) and pull cord
(with loops or long cords).
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/beadedchain (free-standing).
EP16JA15.002
lowered similar to cellular shades.
Unlike cellular shades, pleated shades
do not have an air pocket. Cords
associated with pleated shade incidents
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
EP16JA15.001
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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
2330
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
lifting loop (wraps around the bottom of
the product and enables the shade to
roll up from bottom to top.).
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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
EP16JA15.003
EP16JA15.004
EP16JA15.005
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
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
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2331
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).
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 custommade 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
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: https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/
downloads/residential-windows-and-windowcoverings-detailed-view-installed-base-and.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
EP16JA15.007
associated with vertical blind incidents
include: Continuous loop cord/beadedchain (free-standing).
EP16JA15.006
both sides of the head rail. The head rail
houses mechanisms that allow slats to
traverse or rotate or both. Cords
8. Drapery/Curtain (Figure 8):
Draperies and curtains are usually made
of a fabric material that hangs in a
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
7. Vertical blind (Figure 7): Vertical
blinds are made using slats in a vertical
orientation that can be stacked to one or
2332
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
in U.S. homes. Petition Briefing
Package, Tab G at 148–152.
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.
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, cordrelated 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
Pull cord
Continuous
loop cord/
beaded-chain
Inner cord
Lifting loop
Tilt cord
Unknown
Horizontal .....................
Vertical .........................
Roman ..........................
Curtain/drapery ............
Cellular .........................
Roller ............................
Roll-up ..........................
Unknown ......................
90
........................
2
........................
5
........................
2
2
3
41
1
13
5
6
........................
1
23
........................
24
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
3
........................
2
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
13
2
........................
1
........................
........................
........................
10
131 (53%)
43 (17)
27 (11)
14 (6)
10 (4)
6 (2)
5 (2)
13 (5)
Total ......................
101
70
47
3
2
26
249 (100)
Total
(percentage)
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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
3 N. Marcy, G. Rutherford. ‘‘Strangulations
Involving Children Under 5 Years Old.’’ U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, December
2002.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2333
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
7 Frankenburg, W.K., Dodds, J., Archer, P. et al.:
The DENVER II Technical Manual 1990, Denver
Developmental Materials, Denver, Co.
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.
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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2334
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Table 2: Hazard Scenarios Associated with Corded Window Covering Products
Scenario
1.
knotted or
Demonstration
cords.
Loose pull cords can get knotted or
tangled and create a loop in which
children can strangle.
Blinds or shades with multiple cords
can create this hazard.
2. One or more
Children can wrap one or more long
pull cords around their necks and
strangle.
Blinds and shades with single or
multiple cords can create this hazard.
Blinds or shades with pull cords
ending in one tassel can create this
hazard.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
EP16JA15.008
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
When pull cords end in a single
tassel, children can strangle in the
loop above the tassel.
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2335
4.
Children can insert their heads into
the loop above the stop ball (or cord
connector).
Blinds or shades with stop ball (or
cord connector) can create this
hazard.
Children can insert their heads and
strangle in the loop created by tying
the pull cord to another object, such
as a curtain rod creating aU-shaped
openmg.
Blinds and shades with single or
multiple cords can create this hazard.
Children can insert their heads into
the cord loop or beaded chain loop,
which is not kept taut with a tension
device.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
EP16JA15.009
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Vertical blinds and shades that
operate with continuous loop system
can create this hazard.
2336
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Children can pull the inner cord of a
horizontal blind and create a large
enough loop in which they can insert
their heads and strangle.
Children can insert their heads
between the inner cord of a Roman
shade and the shade material and
strangle.
Children can insert their heads into
the lifting loop that slides off the
roll-up shade and strangle.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
EP16JA15.010
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Petition Briefing Package, Briefing Memorandum Appendix and Tab E.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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:
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.
11 Changes to the descriptive text found in the
ANSI/WCMA Standard, Appendix E, Figure E1,
Row 3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2337
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2338
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—ADDRESSABILITY OF THE HAZARDS WITH THE 2014 ANSI/WCMA STANDARD
Entanglement mechanism
(hazard scenario in Table 2)
1. Entanglement from pull cords ...................
69
14
38
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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 freestanding 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
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
5.6
4
1.6
2
0.8
70
28.1
47
18.9
3
1.2
2
0.8
44
3. Entanglement from inner cords (hazard
scenarios 7 and 8).
4. Entanglement in the lifting loop of a roll-up
shade (hazard scenario 9).
5. Entanglement in the tilt cords (hazard scenario 2).
6. Unknown ....................................................
10.0
14
Entanglement in a loop above the stop ball
of the cord (hazard scenario 4).
Entanglement in a loop created when pullcord was tied to another object, usually on
the wall (hazard scenario 5).
2. Entanglement in a continuous loop cord
(hazard scenario 6).
27.7
5.6
15.3
25
Entanglement in a loop created by knotted
or tangled pull cord (hazard scenario 1).
Entanglement in one or more long cords,
which the child wrapped around the neck
(hazard scenario 2).
Entanglement in a loop above a single tassel
of the cord (hazard scenario 3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Investigated
IDIs
(%)
Number of
incidents
17.7
Section of the standard related
to the hazard
Conclusion
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
Section 4.3.2 allows multiple cords in unspecified lengths.
Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.9 allow accessible
free hanging operating cords.
Not addressed.
Addressed.
Not addressed.
Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 require either separate cords or cords with release devices
in the loop.
Section 4.3.9 allows for an accessible loop
when the bottom rail is fully raised.
Section 4.3.2 allows unspecified length of
cords.
Addressed.
Section 4.3.7 requires a cord tension device
that will at least partially prevent the operation of the window covering, when not
installed but still allows some operability.
Section 4.4 addresses accessibility and
hazardousness of inner cord loops.
Section 4.4.5 addresses the accessible lifting loops of a roll-up style shade.
Section 4.3.2 allows multiple cords in unspecified lengths.
.......................................................................
Not addressed.
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Addressed.
Addressed.
Not addressed.
Unknown.
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.
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
12 https://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/170256/
WCMA_Ltr_22_July_2014.pdf.
13 https://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/170642/
WCMALettertoGBorlase8_29.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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 fouryear-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.
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
14 IDI
110103CCC3322.
050407CCC3309.
16 https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/121510/
5009a.pdf.
15 IDI
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 17and
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2339
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).
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.
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2340
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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
Crank mechanisms (Figure 11) replace
the continuous loop mechanism with a
crank/wand mechanism. Because the
operating cord is replaced with a wand,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the strangulation hazards are completely
removed.
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
EP16JA15.012
hazardous loop, and do not require
external components to be installed.
EP16JA15.011
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Loop cord/bead chain restraining
devices (Figure 10) keep the looped
bead chain taut, preventing access to a
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.
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2341
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’’.
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
Products
ANSI/WCMA requirements
Does the ANSI/WCMA
Standard effectively address the hazard per engineering staff’s assessment
Horizontal blinds, Cellular
shades, Roll up blinds,
Roman shades, Pleated
shades.
4.3.2 The product shall
have one or more separate operating cords.
No—free hanging, exposed operating cords
are permissible.
Cordless window coverings, rigid cord
shrouds, crank mechanisms, cord retractors,
cordless motorized window coverings.
EP16JA15.014
Hazard 1. Loops created
by knotted or tangled
cord.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
EP16JA15.013
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Hazard
Available
technology
(commercially available or
in prototype stage) to
address hazard
2342
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—HAZARD PATTERNS WITH AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES—Continued
Hazard
Products
ANSI/WCMA requirements
Hazard 2. One or more
long cords which the
child wrapped around
the neck involving pull
cords and tilt cords.
Horizontal blinds, Cellular
shades, Roll up blinds,
Roman shades, Pleated
shades.
Hazard 3. Loop above a
single tassel of the cord.
Horizontal blinds, Cellular
shades, Roll Up blinds,
Roman shades, Pleated
shades.
4.3.2 The product shall
have one or more separate operating cords.
4.3.9 The product shall, if
it requires a cord connector, limit 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.
4.3.2 The product shall
have one or more separate operating cords.
4.3.3 The Product shall
contain a cord release
device in the loop or the
head rail.
Hazard 4. Loop above the
stop ball of the cord.
Horizontal blinds, Cellular
shades, Roll up blinds,
Roman shades, Pleated
shades.
Hazard 5. Loop created
when pull-cord was tied
to another object, usually
on the wall.
Horizontal blinds, Cellular
shades, Roll up blinds,
Roman shades, Pleated
shades.
Hazard Unknown manner
(involving a pull cord).
Horizontal blinds, Cellular
Shades, Roll Up blinds,
Roman Shades, Pleated
shades.
Vertical blinds, Roller
shades, Curtains and
draperies.
Hazard 6. Entanglement in
a continuous loop cord.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Hazard 7a. Entanglement
from exposed inner
cords with no cord stops.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Horizontal blinds ...............
19:22 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
4.3.9 The cord connector
shall limit the exposed
loop above the cord
connector to less than 3
inches below the bottom
of the cord lock when
the bottom rail is fully
lowered.
4.3.2 The product shall
have one or more separate operating cords.
Does the ANSI/WCMA
Standard effectively address the hazard per engineering staff’s assessment
Available
technology
(commercially available or
in prototype stage) to
address hazard
No—accessible, free hanging cords can be
wrapped around the
neck of a child as incident data demonstrates.
Cordless window coverings, rigid cord
shrouds, crank mechanisms, cord retractors,
and, cordless motorized
window coverings.
Yes—by requiring either
separate tassels on
each cord or breakaway
tassel, however this separate tassel configuration presents a wraparound (hazard #1) or
knotted loop (hazard#2)
strangulation hazards as
described above.
No—a product that meets
the standard could still
contain an accessible
hazardous loop when
the bottom rail is raised.
Cordless window coverings, rigid cord
shrouds, crank mechanisms, cord retractors,
and, cordless motorized
window coverings.
N/A ....................................
No—consumers may attempt to keep the long
cords away from children by tying the cords
on a curtain rod or other
means.
Unknown ...........................
Cordless window coverings, rigid cord
shrouds, crank mechanisms, cord retractors,
and, cordless motorized
window coverings.
Unknown.
4.3.7 The product shall
contain a cord tension
device that will at least
partially prevent the window covering from functioning for light control or
privacy when not installed.
4.4.1 the product shall
have no inner cords.
4.4.2 no accessible inner
cords.
4.4.3 accessible inner
cords shall 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.
No—hazardous loops are
not effectively addressed
by the standard when
the blind continues to be
operational, despite the
fact that the tension device is not properly installed.
Yes—window coverings
associated with the inner
cord hazard scenario
appeared to be older
products that were manufactured before the
2002 standard was published. Engineering staff
believes that had the
cord stops involved in
the incident scenarios
met the voluntary standard, they would not likely
have occurred.
Loop cord/bead restraining
device, crank mechanisms, motorized option.
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2343
TABLE 4—HAZARD PATTERNS WITH AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES—Continued
Hazard
Products
ANSI/WCMA requirements
Hazard 7b. Entanglement
from exposed inner
cords when the cord
stops are positioned too
low.
Horizontal blinds ...............
Hazard 8. Entanglement in
the Roman shade inner
cord.
Roman shades ..................
Hazard 9. Entanglement in
the lifting loop.
Roll up blind ......................
4.4.1 the product shall
have no inner cords.
4.4.2 no accessible inner
cords.
4.4.3 accessible inner
cords shall 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.
4.4.1 the product shall
have no inner cords.
4.4.2 no accessible inner
cords.
4.4.3 accessible inner
cords shall 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.
4.4.5 accessible inner
cords shall feature an
inner cord release device.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Does the ANSI/WCMA
Standard effectively address the hazard per engineering staff’s assessment
Yes—window coverings
associated with the inner
cord hazard scenario
appeared to be older
products that were manufactured before the
2002 standard was published. Engineering staff
believes that had the
cord stops involved in
the incident scenarios
met the voluntary standard, they would not likely
have occurred.
Yes—the requirements
prevent hazardous inner
cords that may allow
child’s head to be inserted to the loop.
Yes—the lifting loop shall
be pulled 48 times in
various 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.
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Available
technology
(commercially available or
in prototype stage) to
address hazard
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
19 https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/165163/
hidden.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2344
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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.
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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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).
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.
20 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2345
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF ANSI/WCMA STANDARD WITH THE EUROPEAN STANDARD
ANSI/WCMA
A100.1–2014
EN Standard
Summary
Cord Release Device/Cord Shear
Device vs. Breakaway System.
Cord Release Device & Cord Shear Device:
*Create a 3.5 foot loop from the cord and
hook a force gage onto it
*Twist the force gauge 360 degrees and
draw the force gauge at a speed between
.1 and 1 inch per second. The cord shall
release within 10 seconds.
*Repeat for 50 products
*The average release force shall not exceed
3 pounds for the 50 products and all products shall have a release force below 5
pounds.
The ANSI/WCMA standard appears to be more conservative
because it requires the cord to
break away at an average of 3
pounds, compared to EN’s
13.22 pounds.
Cord tension vs.
Fixed Tensioning
system.
*The tension device shall at least partially
prevent the window covering from functioning for light control or privacy when not
installed.
*The tension device shall have a minimum
tested release force of 20 pounds off the
wall.
*Using a force gage gently pull the loop cord
horizontally over a period of 5 seconds to
create an opening. Stop pulling the gauge
when it reads 5 pounds or the pulled pull
distance = 25 inches, 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.
Breakaway system:
*If installation height is not
given, the length of pull
cord(s) shall be less than
or equal to 2⁄3 of the
height of the curtain.
*If the installation height is
given, the pull cords shall
be at least .6 m above the
floor.
*The hazardous loop shall
be eliminated when a
mass of 13.22 pounds is
gradually applied to the
pull cords within 5 seconds of application.
*If the blind’s height is ≤2.5
m, then pull cords shall be
≤1 m.
*If the blind’s height is >2.5
m, then the pull cords
shall be ≤ the height of
the curtain minus 1.5 m.
*The distance between the
two strands of the loop
shall be no more than 50
mm adjacent to the tensioning device.
*Allows for a breakaway
system for the continuous
corded system
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Test
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
The ANSI/WCMA standard is
stronger because:
*It requires the product to be
installed by partially limiting
the
product’s
functionality while the EN
does not.
*Even though the EN allows
for a break away, the tested release force is 13.2
pounds, which is more
than the ANSI/WCMA
version.
*The ANSI/WCMA standard
only allows products into
which a head probe can’t
be inserted, while the EN
does not.
2346
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF ANSI/WCMA STANDARD WITH THE EUROPEAN STANDARD—Continued
ANSI/WCMA
A100.1–2014
EN Standard
Summary
Pull Cords .................
Section 4.3 of the standard specifies that window
coverings with an exposed operating cord or
continuous loop operating system shall meet
one of the following requirements:
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 in below the bottom of the
cord lock when the bottom rail is fully lowered.
When the bottom rail is fully lowered:
*If the blind height is ≤2.5 m,
the pull cords shall be ≤1
m.
*If the blind height is >2.5
m, the pull cord length
shall be no longer than
the curtain height minus
1.5 m.
If the product has two pull cords:
*Pull cords shall not tangle.
*If cords tangle, the loop
shall be eliminated within
5 seconds of a 6 kg mass
application.
*Pull cords shall be connected using a breakaway
system. The hazardous
loop shall be eliminated
within 5 seconds of a 6kg
mass application.
If the product has more than two
pull cords:
*Pull cords shall be connected together using a
breakaway system.
*The hazardous loop shall
be eliminated within 5
seconds of a 6kg mass
application.
If the product has more than four
pull cords in the absence of a
suitable breakaway connector:
*Cords may be connected to
a single pull cord positioned <50 mm from the
head rail when the bottom
rail is fully lowered.
Inner Cords ..............
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
Test
Section 4.4 of the standard specifies that window
coverings containing inner cords shall meet
one of the following requirements:
4.4.1: Product shall have no inner cords.
4.4.2: Product shall have no accessible inner
cords using a test probe with a diameter of
51 mm for open construction and 102 mm
for closed construction. Any cord that the
probe can touch is considered accessible.
If the inner cords are accessible, then pull
on the cord with a force gage until it reads
22.24 N or 635 mm of slack is pulled,
whichever comes first. 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.
*The maximum distance between two consecutive attachment/retention points
of inner cords shall be
≤200 mm.
*It shall not be possible to
insert the head probe (W
148 mm by L 110 mm by
H 150 mm) between the
inner cords after 50 N is
applied and released from
the inner cords. The dimension of the loop shall
not be increased when inserting the probe.
If either of the above requirements are not met, the hazardous loop shall be eliminated when 58.83 N is applied
within 5 seconds of application.
WCMA is standard is stronger as
it requires the cord release device to release the cord at an
average force of 3 pounds
while the WCMA allow for
forces up to 13.3 pounds.
The EN standard is stronger in
terms of the following:
*It ensures that tangled
cords become eliminated
within 5 seconds of a
13.22-pound application,
WCMA has no such requirement.
*It restricts the length on
continuous
loop
and
breakaway pull cords to
reduce access to the cord.
If the product does not
meet the length requirements, then the product
must be fitted with an accumulation system to contain all of the excess cord,
not allowing more than
100 mm of cord when
60N is applied to it. The
WCMA standard does not
restrict the pull cord length
and the cord retractor is
an optional requirement.
*In addition to the length requirement, it requires the
pull cords to either be
connected with a breakaway device, for less than
four pull cords, or connected less than 50 mm
below 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.
The WCMA standard is stronger
because:
*The head probe is inserted
while the inner cord loop
is held open with the force
gage. However, the EN
standard releases the
inner cord after it was
pulled and then the head
probe is inserted. The
weight of the bottom rail
could potentially remove
the inner cord loop.
*The WCMA standard also
gives the option for inner
cord stops, which the EN
standard fails to mention.
The EN standard is stronger because it pulls on the inner cord
with 50 N vs WCMA’s 22.24
N.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2347
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—COMPARISON OF ANSI/WCMA STANDARD WITH THE EUROPEAN STANDARD—Continued
ANSI/WCMA
A100.1–2014
EN Standard
Summary
N/A .........................................................................
Accumulation systems (e.g., cord
cleats) are required to be installed per the manufactures
instructions which should be at
least 1.5 m above the ground.
In addition, no more than 100
mm of cord shall be released
after a force of 13.48 pounds
is applied to any of the cords.
Neither the ANSI/WCMA, nor the
EN standard is stronger standard. Having an accumulation
system can possibly keep the
cord out of a child’s reach and
at the same time pose a hazard similar to, Hazard 5. Loop
created when pull-cord was
tied to another object, usually
on the wall.
Test
Cord Accumulation
System.
C. International Alignment Agreement
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 coverings21
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.
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2348
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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.
22 https://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/165163/
hidden.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
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?
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2349
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?
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2350
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
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
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
46 CFR Part 70
[Docket No. USCG–2011–0357]
RIN 1625–AB91
Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act
of 2010; Implementation
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
2011–0357 using any one of the
following methods:
(1) Online: https://
www.regulations.gov.
(2) Fax: 202–493–2251.
(3) Mail: Docket Management Facility
(M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
(4) Hand delivery: Same as mail
address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number
is 202–366–9329.
To avoid duplication, please use only
one of these four methods. See the
‘‘Public Participation and Request for
Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
Collection of Information Comments:
If you have comments on the collection
of information discussed in section VI.D
of this NPRM, you must also send
comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget. To ensure that
your comments to OIRA are received on
time, the preferred methods are by email
to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov
(include the docket number and
‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for Coast
Guard, DHS’’ in the subject line of the
email) or fax at 202–395–6566. An
alternate, though slower, method is by
U.S. mail to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email LT Jason Kling, U.S.
Coast Guard Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, telephone 202–
372–1361, email jason.m.kling@
uscg.mil. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202–366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Coast Guard proposes
amending its passenger vessel
regulations to implement the Cruise
Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010
with respect to deck rails, systems for
detecting or recording falls overboard
and for recording evidence of possible
crimes, hailing devices, security guides,
sexual assault response, and crime
scene preservation training. The
proposed regulations promote the Coast
Guard’s maritime safety and security
missions.
Table of Contents for Preamble
Comments and related material
must either be submitted to our online
docket via https://www.regulations.gov
on or before April 16, 2015 or reach the
Docket Management Facility by that
date. Comments sent to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on
collection of information must reach
OMB on or before April 16, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Privacy Act
D. Public Meeting
II. Abbreviations
III. Background
IV. Comments on 2011 Notice
V. Discussion of CVSSA and Proposed Rule
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER
SUMMARY:
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Jan 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We encourage you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided.
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please
include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG–2011–0357),
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You
may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
these means. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so that we can contact you if we have
questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, and follow
the instructions on that Web site. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound
format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail
and would like to know that they
reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment
period and may change this proposed
rule based on your comments.
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
Public comments and relevant
documents mentioned in this notice
will all be available in the public
docket. To see the public docket, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, and follow
the instructions on that Web site. If you
do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting
the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12–140 on the ground floor of
the Department of Transportation West
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 11 (Friday, January 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2327-2350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: https://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: https://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: https://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; rbalcisinha@cpsc.gov.
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 https://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: https://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: https://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\ https://www.cpsc.gov//PageFiles/170256/WCMA_Ltr_22_July_2014.pdf.
\13\ https://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\ https://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\ https://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\ https://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