 And we are live afternoon and welcome to this public meeting of the consumer product safety commission before I start can confirm that all the commissioners are here, Mr. Feldman. Present, thank you, Mr. Trump, you're a good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Boyle, I am here. Welcome. So, this afternoon, CPSC staff will brief the commission on the agency's 2 final. Rules that together would establish mandatory safety standards for all window covering sold to consumers. These draft rules aim to prevent tragic deaths of babies and small children who strangle to death after getting caught in window courts. To fully address the hazards in the marketplace, the staff have developed 2 final rules, draft final rules. The 1st is a draft final rule under section 15 J of the consumer product safety act to Dean that stock and custom window coverings present substantial. Hazard if they don't meet the requirements of existing voluntary standards and that's for stock and the 2nd proposal is a draft final rule under section 7 and 9 of CBS to establish safety standard for operating courts for custom window, window coverings safety gap that is left by the voluntary standard. These rules have been in the makings for many years and I'm pleased the staff has been able to bring us them to us and gotten us 1 step closer to protecting children from this hidden hazard. In a moment, I will turn this meeting over to staff so they can brief us once they completed the briefing. Each commissioner will have 10 minutes to ask questions of staff with multiple rounds if necessary. Briefing us today have a boss, she sent on director of division of human factors. Alex must go so associate director. Executive director for economic analysis, Mary house turning the regulatory various division for a general counsel's office. Also joining us J are Austin slick general counsel and of our Mel's the commission secretary. That I'm going to turn this over to the staff for the briefing. Good afternoon chair and commissioners my name is Rana about just in how. Turning Mary house and I will present the draft final rules to address child strangulations associated with window covering cords next slide please. We will start with discussing the product category and hazard. Then we will talk about the statutory framework summary of the NPRs and staff recommendations for each of the draft final rule. Next slide window coverings comprise a wide range of products, including shades, blinds, curtains, and in general terms, hard window coverings composed of slats or veins are considered blind and soft window covering that contain a continuous role of material are considered shades. On this slide, we are showing examples of blinds and shades. The left most photo is a horizontal blind with operating pull cords on the right to raise and lower the blind and tilt cords on the left to tilt the slats and two sets of inner cords towards the middle. Second photo from the left is a vertical blind with two continuous loops. One is a nylon cord loop to traverse the blind and the other is that metal be the chain to tilt the vertical vein. Third photo is a roll up shade with operating pull cords on the right and two lifting loops towards the middle on the shade. The fourth photo shows a settler shade with a continuous loop cord to raise and lower the shade. There are unexposed inner cords on the shade as well. And finally, a Roman shade with inner cords on the backside of the shade and operating pull cords on the right to raise and lower the shade. Next slide. Any of these cords can strangle a child. They can strangle from mechanical compression of the neck when they place a window covering cord around their neck. Trangulation can lead to serious injuries with permanent debilitating outcomes for death. Trangulation can occur even when the body is fully or partially supported and death can occur silently within minutes. This slide shows some examples of cord entanglement. In the leftmost photo, child inserts their head to a continuous loop cord. In the second photo, child inserts their head into a lifting loop. This is part of a roll up shade. Third photo shows the child with a wrapped operating pull cord around their neck. And the last photo shows the child inserted their head to a loop resulting from tangled or tied operating pull cords. Next slide. On January 7th, 2022, Commission published two NPRs in the Federal Register. The first one was issued under Section 15J of the Consumer Product Safety Act, CPSA. The NPR is based on the current industry volunteer standard, American National Standard for Safety of Corded Window Covering Products and CWCMA 2018. Under this rule, operating and inner cords on stock products, inner cords on custom products, and the manufacturer label for both products that do not comply with NCWCMA 2018 are deemed to present a substantial product hazard. The second NPR was issued under Section 7 and 9 of the CPSA. Commission proposed to establish a safety standard for operating cords on custom window coverings with requirements similar to stock window coverings described in NCWCMA 2018. Next slide. Now, Mary will explain the statutory framework for the first final rule under Section 15J. Good afternoon. The Commission's authority under Section 15J of the CPSA provides a way for the Commission to determine through a rulemaking that the presence or absence of certain product characteristics are a substantial product hazard or an SPH. Section 15A2 of the CPSA defines an SPH as a product defect that because of the pattern of the defect, the number of defective products distributed in commerce, the severity of the risk or otherwise creates a substantial risk of injury to the public. Next slide. To issue a final rule using Section 15J authority, the Commission must make four determinations based on the information and analysis from the staff. The hazard characteristics must be readily observable, the hazard must be addressed by a voluntary standard, the voluntary standard must be effective in reducing the risk of injury, and the products must be in substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. Next slide. The drought final rule amends the substantial product hazard list, which is codified at 16 CFR Part 1120. As proposed, the final rule, Section 1120.2 FNG, defines stock and custom window coverings as they are defined in the voluntary standard. Section 1120.3E requires stock window coverings to meet the requirements in the voluntary standard for operating cords, inner cords and the manufacturer label, all of which are readily observable characteristics of stock window coverings that are addressed in the ANSI standard. Section 1120.3F requires custom window coverings to meet the inner cord and manufacturer label requirements in the ANSI standard. Note that a final rule under Section 15J of the CPA say is not a consumer product safety rule, rather the rule would make non-compliance with certain parts of the 2018 version of the ANSI WCMA standard, a commission determined SPH. Products that present an SPH are subject to corrective action. A manufacturer, importer, distributor or retailer that fails to report an SPH to the commission is also subject to potential civil and criminal penalties under the CPSA. Products that present an SPH can also be refused admission into the United States under Section 17A of the CPSA. The 15J rule would apply to those hazards that are adequately addressed by the existing voluntary standard. So operating cords on stock products, inner cords on stock and custom window coverings and the manufacturer label on stock and custom window coverings. Rana is now going to review how the draft final rule under Section 15J meets the forced statutory requirements for this type of rulemaking. Next slide please. One more. One more please. Yep. Great. Thanks. There are three characteristics that can be readily observed to determine compliance with the 2018 standards. I will explain them in the next slide. Staff determined that the applicable requirements in the ANSI WCMA standard are effective to address the strangulation hazard. Staff also determined that the window coverings on the market substantially comply with the ANSI WCMA standard. Next slide. Now I will go over the readily observable characteristics. The first one is for operating cords on stock window coverings. According to the standard, stock products should either have no operating cords, have inaccessible operating cords, or have operating cords that do not exceed 8 inches in length. Next. Example of no operating cord is shown on the left photo. Inaccessible operating cords are visually observable using a cord accessibility probe as shown in the middle photo. The third compliance path, which is to keep the operating cord 8 inches or shorter, can be easily measured using your ruler or tape measure. Next please. The second readily observable characteristic applies to both stock and custom window coverings. It is on determining whether inner cords meet the requirements outlined in the standard. Next slide please. Both stock and custom products have various methods to comply with the inner cord requirements. The window covering can have no inner cord. This is visually observable. An example is shown on the leftmost photo. Or the window covering can have inaccessible inner cords that are visually observable using a cord accessibility probe as shown in the middle photo. Or if they are accessible, inner cords cannot form a loop large enough for a child to insert their head. This is also visually observable using a force gauge and a head probe or more practically a tape measure. Next slide please. The final readily observable characteristic is on the manufacturer label for stock and custom window coverings. The compliant labels should have the name, city and state of the manufacturer or importer or fabricator, month and year of the manufacturer, and designation of window covering as custom or stock. Next slide please. The comment period was opened from January 7th through March 23rd. We received three comments during the comment period and two comments before the comment period began. Commenters included WCMA, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports and Parents for Window Blind Safety. The NPR stated a 30-day effective date. We received no negative comments on the recommendations, including the effective date. Next slide please. In terms of small business impact, the total US window covering market size in 2021 was approximately $6.7 billion. We estimate that firms classified as small by small business administration guidelines account for $3.9 billion annually, and none of these firms account for more than 3% of total market share by revenue. Staff determined that the draft final rule is not likely to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses, including small manufacturers, who already comply with the standards, as well as retailers and importers. Staff identified at least one small manufacturer that does not currently conform to the accessible court provision will experience a significant cost impact by the rule, but it is unlikely that a substantial number of small manufacturers will experience this cost impact. Commission received no comment on the contrary. Accordingly, for the final rule, staff recommends that the commission certify that the rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Staff recommends that the draft final rule under section 15j of the CPSA be finalized as proposed. Staff also recommends that the final rule become effective 30 days after the publication. Next slide, please. Now, Mary is going to discuss the statutory framework for the draft final rule under section 7 and 9. Next slide, please. The second final rule addresses operating cords on custom window coverings, which is the only cord type remaining that is not part of the final rule under section 15j. Because the current voluntary standard for operating cords on custom products allows for accessible long cords and would not effectively address or prevent the strangulation hazard to young children, staff advises that the commission uses authority under section 7 and 9 of the CPSA to create a mandatory rule. Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the commission to issue consumer products safety standards that consist of performance requirements and requirements for warnings or instructions. These requirements must be reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with the product. The draft final rule requires operating cords on custom window coverings to meet the same performance requirements in the voluntary standard as operating cords on stock products, meaning that they must be cordless, contain short cords, meaning eight inches or less, or have inaccessible cords. Also, in response to comments, the draft final rule provides requirements for two methods to make cords inaccessible. Using rigid cord shrouds as was proposed in the NPR and retractable cords. The final rule also sets performance requirements for loop cord and bead chain restraining devices as a way to make continuous loop cords non-hazardous. Next slide. Section 9 of the CPSA sets forward the process for a mandatory rule under section 7. Section 9 requires that the commission make several findings to issue the final rule, which are listed on this slide. Next slide. Finally, section 9 of the CPSA requires that when a voluntary standard has been adopted and implemented, as is the case here, to issue a mandatory rule, the commission must find that either the voluntary standard is not likely to eliminate or adequately, adequately reduce the risk of injury, or it is unlikely that products substantially comply with the voluntary standard. Next slide. The rule must also include a final regulatory analysis that includes a description of the potential benefits and potential costs of the rule, including costs and benefits that cannot be quantified, a description of the final rule, alternatives to the rule, including potential benefits and costs, and why the alternatives were not chosen, and a summary of any significant issues raised by commenters. Now, Rana is going to explain how the information in staff's briefing package supports the requirements for the draft final rule for operating cords on custom window coverings. Next slide, please. In the NPR, we propose that the same operating cord requirements for stock window coverings in the NCAA 2018 standard to apply to custom window coverings. As I explained earlier in 15-J rule, these requirements include having no operating cords, having cords with a maximum length of 8 inches, or having inaccessible operating cords by extension to have a rigid cord shroud to make the operating cords inaccessible, and passes the test requirements identified in the NCAA standard, plus the NPR proposed deflection test. Next slide, please. Once the requirements in stock products apply to custom products, then continuous loop cords with detention devices, as currently written in the NCAA standard, and operating systems with multiple long pull cords, and cord loop lift systems that are commonly used on roll-up shades would not be allowed for custom products. In the NPR, we requested comments on several methods that make cords either inaccessible or nonhazardous, such as retractable cords and loop cord and B-chain restraining devices. These two methods are not included in the stock product requirements in NCAA standard. Next slide, please. After the publication of the NPRs in the Federal Register, public comment period ran through March 23rd. In addition, an oral hearing was held on March 16th. We received seven comments for the oral hearing, 2,060 written comments before the public period closed, and two more written comments after the public period closed. Over 1,500 commenters opposed the rule. More than 100 commenters expressed support for the custom product rulemaking efforts, some stating that given the hidden nature of the hazard and severity of the risk, a mandatory standard is necessary. The main topics that were raised in the comments include 8-inch cords not being sufficient to operate the window covering, especially if they are installed in hard to reach areas. This would then require climbing up on ladders and increase the risk of falls, especially for elderly. Over 900 businesses stated that the proposed rule would cause a significant impact on their businesses. Small custom window covering retailers commented that the rule would reduce sales and raise costs. Several other commenters requested that the commercial building where children are not expected to be present should be excluded from the rule scope. More than 140 commenters requested that retractable cords be allowed on custom window coverings, while more than 420 stated that continuous loops with properly attached attention devices are safe and should not be eliminated. More than 400 commenters stated that the proposed six month effective date is very short to meet the proposed requirements. More than 90 suggested at least a one-year effective date. Next slide, please. In the NPRs, staff presented incident data analysis based on 194 reported fatal and near mistrangulations on window covering cords that occurred among children up to 8 years of age. The time period covered January 2009 through December 2020. Since the NPR through December 2021, we received 15 additional incident reports. 11 involve the fatality. This table shows the 100 fatal and 109 non-fatal strangulation incidents that were received since 2009. It is important to note that the data collection is continuing. For example, in the NPR, we had no fatality reports for 2021. During final rule data analysis, six fatalities were reported. Since we pulled the data for the final rule package, three more fatalities were reported, which raises the fatality number to nine in 2021. Next slide, please. The analysis of 209 incidents showed that 35 incidents were related to continuous loops. 23 were on inner cords, four on lifting loops, 74 on operating pull cords, and five on tilt cords, whereas 68 incidents did not have information to identify the involved cord type. Staff did not identify any new hazard patterns from this data. Health Sciences staff reviewed the incident and concluded that the hazard pattern and injuries are consistent with the previously reported incidents analyzed for the NPR. Next slide, please. After the publication of the NPR, WCMA presented several proposals to revise the requirements for custom window covering cords. On July 15th, WCMA issued a ballot to revise MCWCMA 2018. The ballot closed on August 15th. Currently, WCMA has a recirculation ballot that is up for vote. Staff sent a letter to WCMA raising several concerns for the draft language. The major changes in the draft standard are shown on the slide. They include elimination of pull cords and cord loop lift systems from custom products. In addition, horizontal blinds are not allowed to have continuous loops with tension devices. Staff supported these changes. However, the standard still allows hazardous continuous loops that contain tension devices. Staff does not find the provisions regarding tension devices adequate because there are multiple scenarios that make the continuous loops hazardous even with these provisions. For example, we observed that a properly tensioned continuous loop that allows the window covering to be raised and lowered fully can still allow the head probe to be inserted to the opening. We are also aware of a non-fatal incident in which the child was found with his head caught in the continuous loop that installed tension device. Other provisions on tension devices may make the window covering partially operable when the tension device is not installed to a fixed surface but remains on the loop or allows the window covering to be fully operable if tension device is permanently removed from the loop. Both of these conditions allow the hazardous loop to remain on the window covering. At the end of the presentation, we will show you a video demonstrating these scenarios. In addition, the standard allows retractable cords with a pull length of 36 inches. Staff finds this revision inadequate to eliminate the strangulation hazard because a 36 inch extended cord could allow a child to wrap the cord around their neck. Staff recommends no more than 12 inch stroke length to adequately address the strangulation hazard. Next slide, please. We recommend several modifications to the proposed rule based on the comments received from the public, consideration of discussions and correspondence associated with the WCMA volunteer standards activity, staff analysis of the products on the market, and the assessment of foreseeable incident scenarios. In addition to rigid cord shrouds included in the MPR, for the draft final rule, we recommend another method to meet the inaccessibility option, single retractable cord lift system, provided that it meets the requirement in the rule. We require retraction of the cords at 30 grams of force, have a retraction device that is not a cord, and have a stroke length of 12 inches or less that is within headrail. We also recommend that the rule allow loop cord and de-chain restraining devices to make the accessible loops non-hazardous. We recommend a change in the test sequence that is currently outlined in the 2018 standard to make it more representative of real-world scenarios, by exposing the device to UV light first and then conducting the operational cyclic test. We also recommend incorporating a deflection test that is similar to the one provided in the MPR for rigid cord shrouds to improve the safety of these products by preventing bending to an extent that the child could wrap it around their neck. We recommend these changes to help improve consumers' ability to reach and operate window coverings with ease, even for hard-to-reach locations, or for consumers who are short in stature or in wheelchairs, while also keeping custom window coverings safe for children. The recommendations provide flexibility for manufacturers to continue using currently implemented systems, such as continuous loops, provided that the cords are inaccessible or accessible loops are not hazardous. The recommended changes also respond to the comments about not limiting choices for consumers, so that consumers can keep using the same operating system with combined safety measures, such as rigid cord shrouds, loop cord and V-chain restraining devices, or retractable cords, in addition to cordless systems. Next slide, please. Now I will summarize the final regulatory analysis findings. The aggregate benefits of the rule are estimated to be about $23 million annually with the base VSL or value of statistical life at $10.5 million. The lowest cost of the rule is estimated to be about $54.4 million annually. Then put into a more practical framework, if we use the assumption of 12 window coverings per household, this equates to a net cost of the rule above the benefits provided of $23.67 per household every time a household updates their custom, most popular by sales, metal or vinyl blinds, about once every 10 years. The amount of approximately $24 is about 5% of the total cost of $448 that a household would spend to update their window covering. Recent studies suggest that VSL for children could be higher than that for adults. Consumers might be willing to pay more to reduce the risk of premature death of children than to reduce the risk of premature death of adults. When staff increase the VSL by a factor of three for children valued at $31.5 million, the benefits of the rule exceed costs by approximately $14.3 million. Next slide, please. Staff analysis discusses several alternatives to the draft final rule, including no action alternatives, rely upon or improve the volunteer standard, later effective date, limit the scope of the final rule to vertical blinds, curtains and draperies, continue and improve information and education campaign, and adopt Canadian standards. The costs of these alternatives would be lower, so would the expected benefits, or in the case of Canadian standards, the costs would be higher without increased benefits. The only alternative staff recommends is a longer effective date for the rule. A later effective date would allow manufacturers more time to redesign and spread the research and development costs or allow extra time to eliminate product variants that cannot be switched to cordless, inaccessible or non-hazardous operations. Staff does not recommend any of these alternatives, any of the other alternatives. Next slide, please. Whenever an agency publishes a final rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the agency prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact the rule would have on small businesses and other entities. The Office of Advocacy of the SBA submitted several comments on the proposed rule. SBAA stated that CPSD should consider alternatives for the final rule that reduce the burden to small businesses while still meeting stated objectives of increased child safety. SBAA expressed concerns about the costs to comply, time to comply and whether an updated voluntary standard would adequately address the risk of injury. To comply with the draft final rule, small manufacturers are expected to incur redesign and incremental component costs for some product lines that currently are not available in inaccessible cord variants. Staff expects small manufacturers of custom window coverings to incur at a minimum 2% impact to their custom window covering revenue from the draft final rule. Staff expects the draft final rule would have a significant impact on substantial number of small firms. Next slide, please. In summary, the draft final rule requires custom window coverings to meet the same requirements as stock products in section 4.3.1 of the NCWCMA 2018 standard. In addition, the draft final rule includes the requirements for two methods to meet the inaccessibility option, rigid cord shrouds and retractable cords. The draft final rule also allows for continuous loop systems that use a loop cord and B-chain restraining device and that meets the requirements of the rule to address this triangulation hazard. The NPR proposed an effective date of 180 days after the final rule's publication in the Federal Register. During the comment period, many manufacturers stated their concerns about meeting 180 days due to long lead times for receiving equipment and material and manufacturing compliant window coverings. Commenters provided timelines ranging from 9 to 20 months in obtaining and transporting equipment and materials from overseas suppliers. Two large manufacturers specifically stated long lead times of 4 to 12 months related to acquiring and implementing new tooling. One commenter stated an additional 1 to 4 months that would be required upon delivery to assemble component inventory. Other commenters stated additional delays related to continued COVID-19 disruption. Additionally, we have assessed that redesigning of window coverings for unusually sized windows to be compliant with the final rule would create even more additional effort and time above the typical sized window modifications for manufacturers to address. Staff found these concerns to be credible because of the specific examples provided by the commenters and because these comments support staff determination about the industry supply chain. Additionally, staff assesses that supply disruption could result in temporary but significant shift in consumer behavior. Supply chain disruptions and delayed delivery could result in a shift in demand from custom products to stock products. Most customers of covering sellers are small businesses and therefore a temporary shift to stock products could have a significant impact to them. A later effective date would allow manufacturers more time to redesign, distribute costs of compliance along the entire year or discontinue product variants that cannot meet the compliance. Staff assesses that a 1 year timeframe is a reasonable compromise, accommodate delays in lead times for raw materials, logistics, equipment and building inventory. Next slide please. In conclusion, staff assesses that the NCAA 2018 as well as the balloted draft NCAA 2022 do not adequately address the risk of strangulation associated with operating cords and custom window coverings. We recommend that the Commission publish a final rule for operating cords and custom window coverings that sets performance requirements to ensure that custom window coverings do not have cords, have short static cords that do not pose a strangulation hazard, have cords that are inaccessible through the use of rigid cord shrouds or retractable cords or have continuous loops used with loop cord and D-changer straining devices which make accessible loops non-hazardous. Additionally, we recommend that the final rule become effective 1 year after publication of the final rule for manufacturers to comply with operating cord requirements for custom window coverings. Accept those that are 10 feet or greater in length and are raised and lowered for which we recommend allowing 2 years to comply with the rule. Staff estimates that compliance with the final rule will result in a net increase of as little as $24 per household every 10 years when consumers replace all custom window coverings in their home with the most popular type vinyl metal custom blinds. Inherently faced window coverings that do not pose a strangulation hazard to children have the chance to impact people's lives significantly and positively for decades to come. Parents and families will not have to face emotional distress, shock or perceived guilt of losing a child by strangulation. Consumers will have either to use clean looking window coverings and they will not have to worry about the safety of their children and grandchildren. Now we will show the video demonstrating the scenarios associated with attention devices. It will take a few seconds to put it out. Sorry, I did not hear the audio but I hope that you did. This concludes our presentation and we'll be glad to take questions. Thank you. Thank you. At this point in time we're going to turn to questions from the commissioners each individual have 10 minutes and multiple rounds if necessary. So, I'll recognize myself for the first 10 minutes and again, thanks to staff for preparing this package and also for the presentation that we have before us today. So, I'd like to start by asking just expand a little bit upon your briefing and explain a little bit more about why staff found that the draft version of the SCWC may 2020 22 altar standard is inadequate with respect to the custom window blinds coverings. So, although the draft standard makes improvements in particular, not allowing operating pool courts on any custom product. And not allowing continuous loops with external tension devices on horizontal blinds. Continuous loops with external tension devices are allowed for all other types of window covering. We have demonstrated scenarios as shown in the video that would leave hazardous loops on window covering. In addition, the retractable length of the court that is 36 inches according to our assessment is risky depending on child's abilities and installation location of the window covering. I'll make it accessible and possible to manipulate as opposed to staff to commanded length of 12 inches. Thank you. When the commission voted out the proposed rule and custom window coverings. We announced approved an amendment that was shortened the effective date being asked for comment on 180 days given that the new Canadian rules on window safety went to affect this year. Given that cordless custom window coverings already widely available. There was an anticipation at least on my part that the industry would be able to meet the statutory range for an effective date of 180 days without requiring a good cause extension. I understand that during the common period much the industry expressed concern over the effective date. I also understand that at least one other one industry comment or said that the 180 day effective date is workable and commenters urged. Urging a later effective date seemed not to have addressed the relevance of Canadian and stock product solutions. For the understanding consumer groups argue that the rule should go into effect as quickly as possible. Putting aside the extremely large custom window covering staff's justification for lengthening the effective date for the customers with new appliance raises some concerns for me and like a little bit better understanding of the justification the staff had for putting forward this extension of our statutory limits. Do the staff identify any quantifiable cost savings from this extension? I guess let me go to. It's from our car. So, who I believe is muted right now. Can you hear me now? I can. Yes, thank you. Okay. Good afternoon. So staff did not quantify cost savings from from an extension, but rather. Assess that there's a credible risk of market disruptions and a substantial impact on many small businesses. The quantitative estimates of the cost of benefits in the briefing package are based on the recommended effective date changes in both benefits in terms of early in terms of earlier benefits and costs in terms of getting. Compliant products to the market would be expected from from that baseline. So that that kind of modeling is atypical dealing with extreme scenarios like shock and supply chain disruptions. It's outside the typical regulatory cost benefit analysis. And as outlined by some of the commenters, those models are not readily available. And so, you know, on the conflict costs, we do know the benefits are of the safety production and a prevention of injuries and deaths going to the Canadians. So have a new regulation on window coverings, which is substantially similar to the proposal we have. Although I think it's a staff as mentioned, did not go full to do everything the Canadians have put out. And that went into effect earlier this year and noted. It's also noted in the preamble to the draft rule, following implementation in Canada. The market has reacted with cost effective substitutes and redesign of their products. The packages. Sites 3 industry comments in particular prime basis for the good cause finding. At least 2 of those firms have major operations in Canada. In fact, 1 of them was founded in Canada. Well, either of the mentioned that in their comments, they do continue to operate in Canada and presumably comply with the law that country selling products there. Did staff consider that this in their assessing of the strength of their comments. They considered all the comments regarding Canada. Just custom window covering custom windows market in Canada is much smaller than us. And many of the small businesses that make up the custom windows markets. Do not service Canada. So, you know, even though there are similarities. It didn't, it did not change that assessment that in general, the industry within the United States market would have a hard, hard time of feasibly making. Compliant products within under a year given the specific examples that they provided and what how it comports that we understood about the industry. Even though the 2 of the ones that you relied upon heavily. Do you have major Canadian operations and. That's why I acknowledge they're complying with Canadian law as well. I assume that they would be and therefore have ready transitioned the process to process. At this point in time, I'm going to serve the rest of my time and turn to my colleagues to see their comments as well. So, I will turn to commissioner Feldman. Who's next? Thank you, Mr chairman, this questions for staff. Obviously, thank you for the work that went into the presentation today. Including in in 1 of the last questions that was asked, I've heard the Canadian rule described as substantially similar to what we're proposing here, but that's not the same as identical. Can staff explain the difference between the Canadian rule that already applies to custom products and what we're proposing here. It's my understanding that they're doing. Much, if not all of what we're proposing, but. I'll just ask the question directly, are the requirements identical? And if they're not, can you provide some specific examples of of where we deviate from what's already the law of the landed Canada. Right. The Canadian regulation basically limits the length of a reachable cord. That's the part any person can touch. And when it is installed and whether the window covering is fully open, fully closed and in a position in between. And the size of the loops that can be created by a court. And the regulations require any court that can be reached must be too short to wrap around the neck. And that's about 8.66 inches or too short to form a hazardous loop. That's going to accommodate a child head when subjected to a certain amount of force, which is 35 Newton about 7.87 pounds. So, Canadian regulations have a kind of a different way of determining what the hazardous. Accessible cord or a loop is in the answer to my standard and by extension in our rule. There's the short static court length, which is identified as 8 inches. That does not depend on any pull force as opposed to Canadians, they are always following the 7.87 pound pull force on any reachable court. And in terms of the loop determination, they apply 7.87 pound again, as opposed to 5 pounds in the inner court that answer to me standard requires. So, although the estimate standard has a lower amount of pull force to pull inner court out. According to the incident data, we believe that 5 pounds showed a sufficient amount of force. Because we do not have incidents that that would fail that 5 pounds and still cause a hazard. Last majority of the inner court incidents are usually due to broken flats and the inner courts were very available for the child to manipulate. So, the Canadian standard 7.87 pound inner court requirement is more stringent than would be our rule. So, any wind of covering that would pass the Canadian standard in the inner court would also pass here, but the reverse is not true. Another difference is, as I explained, there is always this pull force that is applied to a court that is also applicable for in a free length court. So, you can imagine a scenario where it could meet the Canadian standard because an excessive length is created, let's say above 7.87 pound pull force. But in the US version, that would be a failure because there is no associated pull force for free length court. So, in a way, if it is a free length, free hanging court and to the standard seems to be more stringent. And the other main difference is compared to answer to my standard, Canadian standard doesn't differentiate stock and custom. And they have no side limits either. Okay, I appreciate that answer. That's helpful. If at some point we could get a table cross walking the differences between what we're proposing here and what's currently required under the Canadian standard. And this was a helpful overview. I think having that in the record in front of us would be very helpful. I want to be cognizant of my time, but did staff estimate how long it would take for all of the existing courts that are not in compliance to be replaced and how much that would cost. I don't believe here. I'm muted. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. So the cost for compliance. We have as in the recent package as a range between 54 million to 129 million. The timeframe. We didn't specifically do a future look into that, but that the product life of is about 10 years for window carpeting. So you can imagine from the rule. Going forward, the average product like to 10 years, but pending products tend to fail before and or fail last longer than their product life. So, but that should give you an idea of about how long. Okay, 10 years again seems a little low in my experience. These are, these are products that tend to be in place significantly longer than that. But I understand the caveats that you put on that. Lastly, with with respect to commercial buildings, did its staff consider a more narrow exemption for office buildings where children aren't likely to be present. And obviously that is potentially complicated by building like we're currently in here in Bethesda Towers where there's office space that's co located essentially with pediatricians offices and a daycare on our first floor. But what a more narrow exemption here be a feasible one. I think that's have to take under advisement generally speaking. We don't know of products that are strictly commercial products. You know, they just might be bigger. They might be placed in certain. Buildings, but generally speaking, like you couldn't just exempt businesses, for example. Because they're using the same types of products, as far as we know. And consumers might have access to them. You can think of the building or in which services as office buildings and there's a daycare center to. So, we have jurisdiction over products. That consumers use and enjoy regardless of whether they purchase them. So retail locations, for example, if consumers had access to them. So typically, you know, when we're looking at these jurisdictional issues, it's on a case by case basis. So it's something to take into consideration. But usually, if we're deferring to OSHA rules, for example, and something like that. It's the workers who are using the product. That may not be true with window coverings and we are not aware of window coverings that are strictly commercial. And there's no such thing as a professional window razor and lower. I don't think. So, I think it has some difficulties. Understood. I appreciate that answer. And, and again, I thank you for all the work that you put into this. This has been quite comprehensive. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Trump. Good. Did you have questions? I do. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I'd like to reiterate some of your concerns about the rules effective date. And echo something that you pointed out that when the commission voted this out, the proposed rule on custom window coverings, we unanimously approved my amendment to shorten the effective date to 180 days. We did so. We did so because we can't waste more time while children continue to be strangled to death by dangerous window blinds. In fact, since we did the data analysis for the NPR, we've learned about 11 more fatal strangulations and four more near death strangulations. That's a tragic reminder that delay is not an option here and we have to address this hazard as quickly as possible. And in fact, this draft rule adopts additional means for manufacturers to satisfy the safety standard. In addition to the options we provide in the NPR, at the NPR, we've added retractable cords and loop cord and bead chain restraining devices. So we've actually made it easier for industry to make products that meet that rule by giving them more options. Right. Thank you, commissioner. So the, the options you're talking about fall within the range provided in the regulatory analysis, the regulatory analysis as far as potential costs provided a lower estimate that was based on a tear down. I was just, I was just asking about engineering feasibility. They're not not on the economic side. I mean, we've given more options to comply with this rule. So it should be easier to figure out the engineering solutions. Maybe Dwayne, sorry. So engineering staff analysis that is covered in the staff raising package. We basically looked at how long is it going to take for rigid core shrouds to be made. Because they are not extremely common in the industry right now. And the assess that a 12 months will be reasonable for those of, however, if a rigid core shroud would need to be made for really large products. That will require another year. I appreciate I think you're answering a different question. I'm literally more options on how to comply is better for industry to figure out how to comply. That's just kind of a yes or no. I'll see if I can help. So I think that the fundamental difference in the response though is that there are. You there are certainly design aspects. So there has to be some feasible design to be able to make it possibly the product market. But there are also the challenges associated getting all the components getting the new designs implemented and so forth. The chair also already pointed this out, but I think it bears repeating about the Canadian regulation that was developed. They developed a new window blind safety standard in 2019. So 3 years ago and it went into effect in May of this year, 5 months ago. So, and according to the staff briefing package here. We say that quote companies that sell in both Canada and the US. Have already redesigned their custom offerings to be compliant with the Canadian regulations, which are substantively similar to those being finalized here. Therefore, those companies likely already have compliant product designed that would be ready to sell your smaller dealers and interior designers. And that. That's the end of that quote, but the Canadian rule applies to both stock and custom products. Right. Yeah. Okay. And as you said earlier. If a window covering complies with Canada's rule. It will also comply with our correct. Yes, in practical terms, it would. Okay, and, and we heard from the window covering trade group that it's members sell in or that it's members that sell in Canada. And it's effectively 1 market and I'm also very encouraged by our statement on page of the briefing package. It says quote the evidence from the Canadian custom window coverings market is that the transition to cordless options in the custom market has been relatively inexpensive for consumers. Staff observed that many designs are priced the same for cordless wand options as for the previous courted design. And I'm also encouraged by industries ability to absorb this rule. Something else that we point out in the briefing package. We explained that. The custom market is highly concentrated to large international suppliers who already have compliant products available and any incremental redesign costs will fall on large suppliers. Not strong distributors or dealers. But then on, on page os 107. There's a discussion about a 2 year effective date for a small portion of this. Specifically to accommodate manufacturers of window coverings that are 10 feet taller. And the rationales based on comments submitted by a couple of members of industry estimating that quote engineering design development and testing phases. The large products would take a box approximately 12 months. Followed by a manufacturing and logistics phase, which would take another 12 months. To complete. Not, not only do they know how to make compliant blinds, they're already doing that in Canada. And so I question whether even our 6 month effective date that we put forward in the NPR is too long. It seems gratuitous as companies could comply almost immediately. Now, if we look at where this 2 year concept came from on page os 266, it seemed to be based largely on. Comments of 2 manufacturers under Douglas and spring window fashions LLC. And, and I've got those comments here and I've been looking at them. Hunter Douglas is a Dutch multinational corporation with a Canadian headquarters. In Ontario and countless authorized dealers in Canada. Hunter Douglas has a booming Canadian business presence and has continued to sell its products in Canada after may 2022. When Canada's window covering safety regulation became effective. Spring window fashions LLC was acquired by a investors LP and British British Columbia investment management corporation in 2018. In 2021 a BCI sold spring window fashions to another private equity company called clear like capital group. And then the press release announcing that acquisition. They talked about how much they've grown the business. It's a significant global expansion and that's. Sorry, and then there's no mention. In the comment submitted by spring window fashions of the Canadian regulation. Or whether they're former owner, which was the Canadian company British Columbia investment management corporation advised them on the Canadian standard. Clear like capital, which is spring window fashions current parent company bought the professional soccer team Chelsea football club for $5 billion in May of this year. So they may well be, they may just well be positioned to show their few additional dollars per unit to save children's lives as quickly as possible. That was a lot about, I guess the company's ability to comply with the rule but I did want to refocus for a second on the far more important aspect of what we're talking about today. This effective data is is important and that's that on average, something we all know, but the children under the age of nine children under the age of five die every year from strangulation window blind shades for a reason other court window coverings. And window coverings courts led to more than 200 strangulations between 2009 and 2021, half of which involved the child's death. And it's not only our job to fix that problem. It's our job to fix it fast and as fast as our statute allows it and in closing, I would like to highlight one thing that I'm very encouraged with about this rule as it was put forward. It's the best job that we've done by far of adequately reflecting the societal cost of losing a child's life and for two long children's lives have been grossly undervalued and administrative rulemaking. So we're regulating a product that's hurting mostly kids and we attempt to adequately value the horrific impact of a lost child and that approach more accurately captures the net benefit of this rule, which is 14.3 million dollars per year. So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner Boyle to share questions. Mr. Chair and thank you to the team, the staff team for this comprehensive work. It was, it was well done and I very much appreciate it. Many of my questions, frankly, have been addressed in terms of the effective date. I had similar concerns that have already been addressed. And I do want to just make sure I understand the basis for the recommendation to extend the effective date. I think said that it would be to allow more time to redesign and spread costs. But I'm not sure I heard and maybe you did. So please forgive me if I missed it, whether you're identified specific cost savings with a later effective date versus spreading costs over time. Is there something that would be saved as a result of they were effectively. We did not quantify the cost savings from an extension. It was, it was a qualitative assessment based on credible risk of market disruptions, especially impact, given the comments and how it imports the industry. Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And just since you did say market disruption and I know we've really addressed it repeatedly, but if you could respond again to explain how market disruption is not mitigated by the presence of complying product by stock product during that. During that period, just if you could address again why that is not the case, why that can't mitigate the market disruption. Sure. Sure. So, the markets disruptions. Don't just affect the producers, but we are concerned about this. Many small businesses. That are in this market that a supply chain disruption could be significant to a small business and their employees. But it also affects consumers in the loss of their utility. This is, this is again for custom window coverings. And it's serviced by small businesses. These consumers already have the do have the option currently of a cordless of products and stock products that are less expensive. But they as a self-selected market shows, you can custom window covering. So a market disruption can cause a lack of products to be available and their loss utility and increased prices. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. I'm Mr. Chair. I don't have any additional questions. Thank you, Commissioner. Did any commissioner want to have another round? Hearing none, I want to thank the staff for this informative briefing and to the commissioners for their active participation. We do have a request for a closed session to follow this session. So if commissioners staff can reconvene and it's just 5 minutes because I know it takes a little time for transition over for the closed portion of this briefing. Thank you again to everybody and the open part is closed.