 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. This morning, CPSC staff will brief the commission on two draft notices of proposed rulemaking that together would establish safety standards for all window-covering sold to consumers. We are briefed yesterday on a draft proposal on magnets. I have two more of these briefings coming up this month, and I appreciate all the hard work staff has done to put together these packages. The draft rules we are going to be briefed on today attempt to address the horrific tragedy of babies and small children strangled on window cords, according to staff on average nine children strangled to death on window cords each year. These two draft proposals reflect changes in the marketplace, industries and CPSC issues and advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on window-covering in 2015. At that time, ANSI has developed an American National Standard for Safety of Corded Window-Covering Product. The staff will present two proposals. First, a draft proposed rulemaking under section 15J of the Consumer Product Safety Act to deem that window covers do not meet the requirements of the ANSI standard. It presents a substantial product hazard. Second proposal is a draft notice of rulemaking under section 7 and 9 of CPSA to establish a safety standard for operating cords for custom window-covering, a safety app that was left by the voluntary standard. I know that we have questions for the staff, so I'll turn it over to them to brief us. Once we have completed the briefing, each commissioner will have 10-minute staff questions of staff with multiple rounds necessary. The remaining staff members will brief the commission. Dr. Rana Balachisina, Division Director for Human Factors within the Directorate for Engineering Sciences and Project Manager for Window Coverings, and Mary House, Attorney in the Regulatory Affairs Division of the Office of General Counsel. Also in attendance are Mary Boyle, the CPSC Executive Director, Pamela Stone, Acting General Counsel, and Abhi Mosham, who is acting for Roberta Mills, our CPSC Secretary. One final point before I turn the meeting over to staff. Any questions of staff to address the agency's legal authority should be withheld into the closed executive session, which we'll follow directly after this public briefing. Thank you. I think I will now over to Dr. Balachisina and Ms. House. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, commissioners. As the chair stated, Mary House and I will be presenting two notices of proposed rulemaking associated with corded window coverings. Next slide, please. We will structure the presentation so that the common information is presented first. We will start with the product category, hazard scenarios, incident data, injury severity, and nature of incidents. We will now talk about CPSC history, followed by voluntary standard activities, including the adequacy of the standard, and its compliance by the industry. Then we will discuss the statutory framework for a rule under Section 15J of the Consumer Product Safety Act, CPSA, followed by explaining the recommended requirements for a Section 15J rule. We will then explain the statutory framework for a rule under Section 7 and 9 of the CPSA, followed by explaining the recommended requirements for a Section 7 and 9 rule. Next slide, please. Window coverings comprise a wide range of products, including shades, blinds, curtains, and draperies. In general, hard window coverings, composed of slats or veins, are considered blinds, and soft window coverings that contain a continuous roll of material are considered shades. On this slide from left to right, we are showing a horizontal blind, a vertical blind, a roll up shade, a settler shade, and a Roman shade. Next slide, please. The user manipulates the operating cords that you see on the right side to raise or lower the window covering. Operating cords can be in the form of operating pull cords, as shown here, or in a continuous loop form. The inner cords are not directly manipulated by the user, but transfer the force, resulting from a user pulling on the operating cords or from the user operating a bond or some other non-corded component to lift the bottom rail up. Operating cords, as well as inner cords, have been involved in strangulation that's of children. Next slide. Here are some examples of children getting entangled in the cords. The continuous loops and lifting loops that you see on the left are pre-existing loops that the child can insert their head through. For operating pull cords, two kinds of strangulation can occur. One is when child wraps the cord around their neck, and the other is when the child inserts their head to a loop, usually resulting from tangled pull cords. Next slide. In terms of incident data, based on a review of the data from National Center for Health Statistics and a separate CPSC study on child strangulations, we estimate that a minimum of nine fatal strangulations related to window covering cords have occurred per year in the United States among children under five years in Younger from 2009 through 2019. We also estimate that based on CPSC's injury cost model, but approximately 185 medically treated non-fatal injuries have occurred annually from 2009 through 2020 involving children eight years in Younger. In terms of reported incidents, we have received 194 fatal and non-fatal strangulation reports among children eight years in Younger from January 2009 through December 2020. 89 incident reports describe the fatality while the remaining were non-fatal incidents. Next slide. Strangulation due to mechanical compression of the neck is a complex process resulting from obstruction of the airway passage and occlusion of blood vessels in the neck. If sustained lateral pressure occurs at a level resulting in vascular occlusion, strangulation can occur even in situations where the child's body is fully or partially supported. Some of the reported non-fatal incidents involved severe injuries with long-term consequences such as permanent brain damage. Strangulation is a form of aphyxia that can be partial when there is an inadequate oxygen supply to the lungs or total when there is complete impairment of oxygen transport to tissues. A reduction in the delivery of oxygen to tissues can result in permanent irreversible damage. Experimental studies show that about 4.4 pounds of pressure on the neck may occlude the jugular vein and 70-11 pounds may occlude the common-corrected arteries. Normal compression of any of these vessels can lead to unconsciousness within 15 seconds and death in 2-3 minutes. Next. CPSC has recognized cords on window coverings as a hidden hazard for many years. Strangulation with cords require only a few minutes and it is silent because even young children are left unsupervised for a few minutes or more in a room that is considered safe such as a bedroom or a family room. Staff concluded that parental supervision is unlikely to be effective. Warning labels also have limited effectiveness because research demonstrates that consumers are less likely to look for and read safety information about the products that they use frequently and are familiar with. Consumers are very likely to have familiarity with window coverings because they almost only have window coverings in their homes and probably use them daily. Therefore, even well-designed warning labels will have limited effectiveness in communicating the hazard on the type of product. Safety devices such as cord cleats and tension devices are unlikely to be effective either. Cord cleats need to be attached to the wall and caregivers must wrap the cord around the cleat every time window covering is raised or lowered. As incident data show, children can still access and entangle into cords. Tension devices also need to be attached to the wall or window sill, which may not occur due to increased cost of compliance that is time and effort required to install the device and unwillingness to create holes in the wall and may not be permissible in rental homes. Depending on how taught the cord loop is, the cord loop can still allow a child's head to enter to the opening as observed in the incident data. Next please. Since the mid-1990s, CPSC staff has been working with the Windup Covering Manufacturers Association or WCMA that represents the interests of windup covering industry manufacturers, fabricators and assemblers. WCMA is a standard-developing organization accredited by the American National Standards Institute or ANSI. In 2013, CPSC received a petition requesting a rule to prohibit any windup covering cords where a feasible cordless alternative exists and for those instances where a feasible alternative does not exist required that all cords be made inaccessible through the use of passive guarding devices. Commission granted the petition in October 2014 instructed the staff to begin their own making. In January 2015, Commission voted to approve publication of the AMPR in the Federal Register. Following the publication of the AMPR, Commission received comments from 1,013 people or entities. Next please. From January 1, 2009 through December 2020, CPSC conducted 42 windup covering product recalls. More than 28 million units were recalled and included stock as well as custom products. Recalled products were associated with 14 deaths and 31 near strangulations. Next, the ANSI standard for the safety of corded windup covering products was first published in 1996 and aimed to address strangulation incidents created by looped cords. In 2002, the standard was revised to require inner cord stops to reduce the risk associated with inner cords. The standard was revised five times between 2007 and 2014 and included requirements related to tension devices to partially limit the consumer's ability to control the blind if the tension device is not properly installed. Requirements related to Roman shade inner cords, warning labels and pictograms on the outside of stock packaging, hazard loop testing, rollout style shape performance and durability of all safety devices. CPSC staff has been involved in all of these incremental improvements to the voluntary standard. However, until the 2018 version, staff found that the requirements were inadequate to address the risk of injury. For example, in the AMPR staff concluded that at least 57% of the incidents that occurred could still occur with pull cords and continuous loops on windup coverings even if the product met the standard. The current version of the standard was published in 2018. This version segments the windup covering market between stock and custom made products. The standard makes substantial improvements to effectively address the strangulation risk associated with operating and inner cords on stock windup coverings. Many of the public comments that were received in response to the AMPR were addressed by the 2018 version of the standard and corresponding changes to stock products. All windup coverings manufactured after December 15, 2018 must meet the new standard. Next, a stock windup covering is defined in the 2018 standard as a completely or substantially fabricated product prior to being distributed in commerce. Even when the seller, manufacturer, or distributor modifies a pre-assembled product by adjusting to size or attaching the top rail or bottom rail, the product is still considered stock. Online sales of a product or the size of an order such as a multi-family housing order do not make the product a non-stock product. The standard provides these examples to clarify that as long as the product is substantially fabricated, subsequent changes to the product do not change its categorization. Next, staff uses the term custom window covering in the draft proposed rule as described in the ANSI standard for custom blinds, shades, and shadings which are defined as any window covering that is not classified as a stock window covering. Next, so for the standard stock products are required to have no operating cords as seen on the picture on the left, or have short cords that are a maximum eight inches long as shown in the middle picture, or have inaccessible operating cords as shown on the right. Having no operating cords effectively eliminates the strangulation hazard because there is no operating cord to cause strangulation. If the length of the operating cord is eight inches or shorter in any state free or under tension based on the anthropometric dimensions of youngest children involved in the incidents, it is not sufficient to strangle a child. Therefore, staff finds this requirement also adequate. If the window covering utilizes a device such as a rigid cord shroud as shown in the picture on the right to make the cord inaccessible, this also addresses the strangulation hazard by adequately preventing access to the cord. Next, staff assessed that stock window covering requirements for operating cords in the voluntary standard are adequate to address the risk of strangulation. Where known, stock window coverings accounted for 59% of all incidents and 58% of all fatal incidents. We could identify 50 incidents involving stock window coverings and 29 involved operating pull cords, continuous loop operating cords, or tilt cords. Staff concluded that if the incident stock products met the current voluntary standard, all of the 29 incidents would have been prevented. Next, for custom ordered window covering products, the products can follow the operating cord requirement for stock products for the standard or consumers can purchase window coverings with accessible and hazardous operating cords. The 2018 standard contains revised requirements for custom ordered products, including operating cords that have a default length of 40% of the blind height that was previously unlimited. They want to be the default option to tilt the slacks instead of the cord. However, the length of the operating cords can still be hazardous when the product is fully lowered because the child can still wrap the cord around their neck. Multiple cords can still entangle and create a loop in which a child can insert their head. Operating cords will also get longer as the window covering is raised, making it easier for the child to access and manipulate. If the cord tilt option is chosen, the cord tilt can also be long enough to be wrapped around the child's neck or be tangled and create a loop in which a child's head can enter. The default options can also be changed during the custom order process, allowing long and accessible cords. Next, staff concluded that the requirements for operating cords on custom window coverings do not adequately address the strangulation risk. Where known, custom window coverings accounted for 41% of all incidents and 42% of fatal incidents. We identified 35 custom window covering incidents and 30 of 35 involved operating pull cords or continuous loop operating cords. All 30 of 35 custom product incidents can still occur even if the product complied with the volunteer standard. Although the NCWCMA 2018 standard divides the window covering market into two categories, stock and custom products, incident scenarios are not based on this product distinction. Fatal and non-fatal injuries associated window covering cords do not distinguish between stock and custom products because both types of products essentially have the same hazard patterns. Next, the fact that the hazard scenarios are the same or both stock and custom window coverings is acknowledged in the NCWCMA in terms of inner cords. As described earlier, inner cords run through the window covering and pull the bottom rail out when the user pulls the operating cords. Inner cords can pose a strangulation hazard if the child pulls on the inner cord and then places their head into the loop. The volunteer standard has two testing requirements to confirm the safety of inner cords that apply to both stock and custom products. First, the inner cords are tested for accessibility using a cord accessibility probe. If cords are inaccessible, we then test whether the cord presents a hazard by pulling the inner cord with a maximum force of five pounds followed by an attempt to insert the head probe into the opening with a maximum force of 10 pounds. Inner cords that are inaccessible or that do not allow a head probe to go through the opening are compliant with the NCWCMA standard and adequately address the strangulation hazard associated with inner cords. Next, staff identified 22 inner cord incidents out of 194 incidents involving stock, custom or unknown, whether it is stock or custom product type. Regardless of product type, we concluded that all 22 incidents would have been prevented if the window covering met the 2018 standard. Next, staff on a preliminary basis assessed that there is substantial compliance with the volunteer standard based on the following. WCMA stated in its comment to the ANPR that there has been substantial compliance among manufacturers with the standard since its first publication. WCMA also stated that association's message to all manufacturers is that compliance with the standard is mandatory to solve window coverings in the United States. To investigate the level of compliance, CPSD contracted with TNR International who interviewed window covering manufacturers and component manufacturers. Manufacturers indicated retail customers would not stock non-compliant products. Manufacturers are also aware of their customers procedures and would not ship to them if there were concerns about the assembly and installation process. All manufacturers interviewed, were aware of the standard and had implemented compliance in all stages of their development process. In addition, CPSD field staff confirmed compliance of the product categorization for stock and custom by conducting unannounced in-store visits to 18 firms comprising wholesalers, manufacturers and retailers. 13 locations demonstrated compliance with the volunteer standard in terms of operating courts for both stock and custom products. In four locations, we have observed non-compliance of the custom products. Primary violations included operating pool courts longer than 40 percent of the window covering length, that window covering was fully lowered without an accompanying specific customer request, lack of warning label or a manufacturer label or a hang tag, and use of court tilt instead of one tilt without an accompanying custom request. Staff found one location with a non-compliant stock product. Based on CPSD staff's review of market information and contractor report findings and WCMA statements, staff concluded that a substantial majority of stock window coverings sold in the United States conform to 2018 standard. Samples tested by CPSD staff also indicate a high level of conformance in custom products related to inner court accessibility. Next, now Mary is going to review the statutory framework for the first draft rule. Good morning, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Staff prepared two NPRs on window covering courts for the commission's consideration. Taken together, the intent was for the draft rules to address the risk of strangulation to young children associated with operating and inner courts on stock and custom window coverings. The first NPR covers the hazards highlighted in the blue boxes on this slide. This draft NPR uses the commission's authority in section 15J of the CPSA. This type of rule is not a consumer product safety rule. Rather, the rule would make non-compliance with certain parts of the anti-WCMA standard, a commission-determined substantial product hazard, FPH, defined under section 15A2 of the CPSA. Products that present an FPH under the CPSA are subject to corrective action, a manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer that failed to report an FPH to the commission is also subject to potential civil and criminal penalties under the CPSA. And products that present an FPH can also be refused admission into U.S. under section 17A of the CPSA. The 15J rule would apply to those hazards that staff assesses are adequately addressed by the voluntary standard. Operating courts on stock products, inner courts on stock and custom window coverings, and the manufacturer label on both stock and custom window coverings. The second NPR addresses operating courts on custom window coverings, that's the red box on the slide. This rule relies on the commission's authority under section seven and nine of the CPSA, and would create a new mandatory consumer product safety rule for operating courts on custom window coverings. If finalized product subject to this consumer product safety rule, in addition to the things I just went over with ESPH, these products would also need to be tested and certified as compliant with the rule. The proposed requirement would state that operating courts on custom window coverings must meet the same performance requirements in the voluntary standard as operating courts on stock products. Next, the commission's authority under section 15J provides a way for the commission to determine through rulemaking that the presence or absence of certain product characteristics are a substantial product hazard under section 15A2 of the CPSA. Section 15A2 of the CPSA defines an SPH as a product defect that because of the pattern of defects, 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 an NPR under section 15J, based on the information and analysis from the staff, the commission must make four preliminary determinations. The hazard characteristics must be readily observable, the hazards must be addressed by a voluntary standard, the voluntary standard must be effective in reducing the risk of injury, and the product must be in substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. Next slide. The draft NPR proposes to amend a substantial product hazard list, which is codified at 16 CFR Part 1120. Proposed sections 1120.2f and g of the draft NPR define stock and custom window coverings as they're defined in the voluntary standard. Proposed section 1120.3e would require stock window coverings to meet the same requirements in the voluntary standards for operating courts, inner courts, and the manufacturer label, all of which are readily observable characteristics of stock window coverings that are addressed in the NPR standard. Proposed section 1120.3f would require custom window coverings to meet the inner court and manufacturer label requirements in the NPR standard. Rana is now going to review how the draft rule under section 15J meets the four statutory requirements for this type of rulemaking. Staff is recommending that hazardous operating courts and hazardous inner courts on stock window coverings and hazardous inner courts on custom window coverings be identified as substantial product hazards along with the absence of a manufacturer label. Staff advises that the commission can make the four preliminary determinations for 15J because the hazards associated with window covering courts are readily observable, requiring a visual observation and or a measurement. The 2018 standard that sets forth these requirements adequately addresses the strangulation hazard and is effective to reduce the risk of injury. As noted previously, if stock window coverings had been compliant with the ANSI standard, all stock incidents would have been prevented and if custom window coverings had been compliant with the inner court requirements, inner court incidents would have been prevented. Finally, for the NPR, staff believes that the commission can determine on a preliminary basis that window coverings substantially comply with the standard based on contractor findings, staff's assessment of samples on the market and WCMA's statements. Next, the first readily observable characteristic that I will discuss is the operating court requirements for stock products. Staff can quickly evaluate whether a stock window covering complies with the operating court requirement in the volunteer standard, usually with just visual observation and a tape measure. Next, for example, staff can visually observe whether a product has operating courts and if so, whether the court is accessible. For products that have operating courts, the voluntary standard requires that they be inaccessible or short. Typically, staff can observe whether the operating courts are accessible to children upon visual inspection. If the product uses a device such as a rigid court shroud to make the court inaccessible shown in the middle picture, the voluntary standard requires a court shroud accessibility probe intended to simulate the finger size of a young child to be used. If the probe cannot touch the court, then the court is then inaccessible. Finally, staff can visually observe whether an accessible court meets the requirement in the voluntary standard for a short court by measuring the length of the court with a tape measure to determine if the court is maximum eight inches long. Next, the second readily observable characteristic is the determination of hazardous inner courts. Like the operating court requirements, staff can quickly evaluate whether stock and custom window coverings comply with the inner court requirement in the voluntary standard with a visual observation and a measurement. Next, staff can visually observe whether a window covering has inner courts. Having no inner courts such as in a roller shade shown on the left basically eliminates strangulation risk due to inner courts. Staff can sometimes visually assess accessibility of inner courts if the product is an open construction like a horizontal blind, but may need to use a court accessibility probe like the one in the picture in the middle to determine whether a child can access the inner court in a closed construction such as a sailor shade. The test is simple. Staff tries to touch the inner court with the probe. If the probe can touch the court, then the court is accessible. If not, the court is inaccessible. If the inner court is accessible, then we would make one more observation to check whether the court if pulled at five pounds creates a loop large enough for the child's head to go through with nine pounds, with 10 pounds of force. Pursuant to the voluntary standard, staff would determine this by inserting a head probe representing anthropometrically correct size of a child's head or simply measuring the circumference of the loop. We will show a brief video that goes through these observations at the end of the presentation. Next. The third readily observable characteristic is a label that includes the name, city, and state of the manufacturer, importer, or fabricator, month and year of manufacture, and designation of the product as stock or custom. The absence of this label constitutes a substantial product hazard because the lack of the label makes it difficult for staff, manufacturers, and consumers to identify the product or class of products that may be subject to a recall and to distinguish stock from custom products. Differentiating stock from custom products is important as long as the operating court requirements for these products are not identical. Next. Staff from Directorate for Economic Analysis investigated the potential effects of a proposed rule on small entities. Staff determined that a proposed rule designating stock window covering products that do not conform to the 2018 standard and custom window covering products not conforming to the inner court provisions in the 2018 standard as substantial product hazards will not likely have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses and other small entities. Data collected in person at manufacturers, retailers, and importers by CPSC staff indicates that the level of conformance with the sections of the WCMA standard concerning stock products is high and most likely greater than 90%. Samples tested by CPSC staff also indicate a high level of conformance in custom products related to inner court accessibility. Firms already conforming to the standard would experience no impact by the proposed rule. At least one small manufacturer that does not currently conform to the stock product requirements will experience a significant cost impact by the rule. Staff does not believe that a substantial number of small manufacturers will experience this cost impact. Based on the available information, the commission could certify that the draft proposed rule to deem non-conforming operating courts and inner courts on stock products and inner courts on custom products to be substantial product hazards would likely not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses or other small entities. Staff advises collecting comments on this issue and certifying no substantial impact at the final rule stage if the commission does not receive adverse comments. Next. So CPSC staff recommends that the commission publish an NPR as prepared by DOGC under Section 15J of the CPSA to deem that stock window coverings that do not comply with the requirements in the ANSI 2018 standard for operating courts and inner courts and custom window coverings that do not comply with the requirements for inner courts presents a substantial product hazard. CPSC staff identified readily observable safety characteristics on stock and custom window coverings namely the presence of hazardous operating courts and inner courts for stock window coverings and presence of hazardous inner courts for custom window coverings. The presence of hazardous courts on these products as well as the absence of an on-product manufacturer label constitute a substantial product hazard. Hazardous operating courts and inner courts on stock window coverings and hazardous inner courts on custom window coverings are adequately addressed in the Voluntary Standard NSW CMA 2018. Based on a study and staff's additional assessment of the market, CPSC staff advises that stock and custom window coverings likely substantially comply with the Voluntary Standard. Staff recommends that the commission publish a proposed rule to list the substantial product hazards stock window covering products that contain one or more readily observable characteristic which is hazardous operating courts and hazardous inner courts and custom window covering products that contain one readily observable characteristic hazardous inner courts and absence of manufacturer label on both stock and custom window coverings. Staff further recommends that the commission propose that a final rule become effective 30 days after publication in the federal register. Next. Now Mary is going to review the statutory framework for section 7 and 9 of the CPSA related to the second proposed rule. Next slide. So the second NPR would create a mandatory consumer product safety rule for operating courts on custom window coverings. This draft rule proposes to require custom window coverings to meet the same operating court requirements of stock products meaning cordless and accessible cords for cords 8 inches or shorter. Because the Voluntary Standard for operating cords on custom products allows for accessible long cords, I would not prevent the strangulation hazard to young children. Staff advises that the commission uses the authority under section 7 and 9 of the CPSA to create a mandatory standard. Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the commission to issue consumer product 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. Next. Section 9 of the CPSA sets forth a process for a mandatory rule. Rules can begin with either an ANPR or an NPR. In this case the commission issued an ANPR in 2015. An NPR must contain the proposed regulatory text, describe any regulatory alternatives that the commission considered, include a preliminary regulatory analysis, contain preliminary findings and provide an opportunity for both oral and written comments. Next. Under section 9 the preliminary regulatory analysis should describe the potential benefits and costs of the rule and who is likely to receive the benefits and bear the cost. The regulatory analysis should also explain what publishing the standards submitted to the commission as part of the proposed rule and regulatory analysis should also discuss alternatives to the proposed rule and why these alternatives were not chosen. Next slide. Section 9 also requires that the commission makes several preliminary findings to issue a proposed rule which are listed on this slide and I'll just pause for a moment so you can review those. 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 reduce the risk of injury or the voluntary standards unlikely that products substantially comply with it. Next slide. Now, Rana is going to explain how the information and staff briefing package supports the requirements for the draft mandatory rule for operating courts on custom window coverings. Next slide please. As discussed before, staff believes that the requirements allowing hazardous operating courts on custom window coverings outlined in the NC standard are inadequate. All 30 of the 35 custom product operating court incidents can still occur even if the custom product met the current standard. Next. Although the 2018 NCWCMA standard divides the window covering market into stuck and custom products, incident scenarios are not based on WCMA's product distinction. Fatal and non-fatal injuries associated window covering courts do not distinguish between stuck and custom because both types of products essentially have the same hazard patterns. Next. Therefore, staff recommends that operating courts for custom window coverings meet the same requirements as operating courts for stuck window coverings as outlined in the NCWCMA 2018 standard. In addition, staff recommends adding the rigid court shroud requirement based on the test method developed by the WCMA rigid court shroud task group, but not yet validated be part of the rule. If the custom window covering uses a rigid court shroud device to comply with the rule, to clarify the meaning of the term rigid, the court shroud would be tested to confirm that it remains rigid with the court enclosed and is accordingly not hazardous to children. Next. Next. Staff estimates that in 2019, approximately 139 million residential window coverings were shipped into the United States. We also estimate that about 44% of unit sales are custom products and estimated 65% of custom products are courted custom products, which corresponds to about 39 million courted custom product shipments per year. Staff estimates that gross benefits attributable to addressing hazardous operating courts on custom window coverings would amount to about 49.5 million dollars per year. Estimated costs are on the order of about 156 million to 309 million. However, staff's complex cost benefit analysis uses estimated parameters, inputs from several models, assumptions based on export judgment, and public private data in which there are likely to be many sources of uncertainty. These include the incremental cost of courtless products, the value of statistical life or VSM applicable to analyzing risks to children, the number of courted custom window coverings in use, and perhaps a longer average product life. Staff from Directorate for Economic Analysis have a detailed assessment of these uncertainties in the briefing package. One example is that a review of the literature conducted by DCPSC suggested that VSL for children could exceed that of adults by a factor of 1.2 to 3. If we substituted the high end of this range, which suggests that the VSL for children could be three times the VSL for adults, the estimated per unit benefit of the draft proposed rule would be higher and brings the expected benefits to about 137 million dollars. Next, in developing the draft proposed rule, DCPSC staff considered various alternatives. Staff does not believe that these alternatives will appropriately address the hazard with the exception of longer effective date. The first alternative is to rely on the voluntary standard. Staff notes that WCMA did not agree with the recommendations from other stakeholders, including CPSC and consumer advocates, to require the stock product requirements for custom window coverings. Therefore, it is unlikely that an effective voluntary standard addressing the operating court hazards on custom window coverings will be developed within a reasonable timeframe. Second is to continue to participate and encourage safety improvements to the voluntary standard. Although staff supports recent changes in the voluntary standard for cordless, short cords, or inaccessible cords on stock products, based on WCMA's rejection in the past of the idea to require the same compliance paths for custom and stock products, staff does not believe that WCMA is likely to improve the voluntary standard for custom products to a level that is equivalent to staff's recommendations for this rule. The third alternative, which staff already recommends, is to allow an effective date that is two years after the final rule is published in the Federal Register, which is 12 months longer than the default statutory provision. Given that there are some issues in redesigning certain window coverings of unusual size and accommodated cordless operation, a later effective date would allow manufacturers more time to redesign and spread the research and development costs. Narrowing the scope to a limited number of product types, such as vertical blinds and curtains and draperies, was also considered. However, given the limited presence of vertical blinds in custom product incidents, only 5.7%, staff cannot recommend this option, as it does not provide an effective reduction in injuries and deaths. Finally, continuing the information and education campaign was also considered, staff does not recommend relying solely on education campaigns to address the risk of injury. Next, whenever an agency publishes a proposed rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact that the rule would have on small businesses and other entities, unless the agency has a factual basis for certifying that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on 2017 data, 1,840 of 1,898 firms were categorized as small blinds and shades manufacturers and retailers. In addition, there are about 83 small importers. CPSC staff expects the draft proposed rule to have a significant effect on a substantial number of small firms. To comply with the proposed rule, staff expects small manufacturers to incur redesign and incremental component costs for some product lines which currently are not available in accessible courts. Staff does not expect small manufacturers to suffer a disproportionate cost effect from the proposed rule. Staff expects small manufacturers of window coverings to incur at a bare minimum a 2% impact to their custom window covering revenue from the proposed rule. This implies that if custom products account for all of the firm's revenue, then the minimum impact of the proposed rule is 2% of the revenue. Generally, staff considers an impact to be potentially significant if it exceeds 1% of firm's revenue. Because even the smallest estimate of cost is 2% of retail price, staff believes that the proposed rule could have a significant impact on manufacturers that receive a significant portion of their revenue from the sale of custom window coverings. This draft proposed rule is intended to address the risk of injury and death posed by hazardous operating courts on custom window coverings. Staff believes that adherence to the requirements of the proposed rule will significantly reduce or eliminate a hidden hazard, strangulation deaths and injuries to children eight years and younger in the future. Thus, the rule is in the public interest. Effective performance requirements for operating courts on window coverings are well known and already utilized for lower priced stock window coverings. Technologies to address hazardous window covering courts are also known and utilized on stock and custom products. Finally, consumers are likely willing to pay more for a custom window covering that eliminates the strangulation risk to children. Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the commission issue a draft proposed rule to require operating courts and custom window coverings to meet identical requirements for operating courts on stock window coverings as set forth in the section 431 of NCW-UCMA 2018 standard. In addition, staff recommends issuing the proposed rigid court shrug requirement drafted by the staff that is based on the requirements developed by the WCMA task group. Finally, staff recommends an effective date of two years following publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. Next, as stated earlier, we will now show a brief video that explains the observations to identify hazardous courts. This product is a horizontal blind with two operating pull cords on the right and two tilt cords on the left. Operating cords are used to raise or lower the blind. Tilt cords are used to adjust the slats. The inner cords connect the operating cords to the bottom rail. The length of both the operating pull cords and the tilt cords are longer than 8 inches. So if this were a stock product due to the hazardous operating cords, the product would fail the standard. If this were a custom product, however, we would need to proceed with determining if the inner cords are accessible and hazardous. First, we determine if the inner cords are accessible using a cord accessibility probe. As you can see, the inner cords are accessible. Therefore, we now need to determine if a hazardous loop can be created. We apply a maximum of five pounds of pull force and pull the inner cord. While maintaining this opening, we then attempt to insert a head probe simulating the head size of a child with a maximum of 10 pounds of force. In lieu of the head probe, for simplicity, we can also measure the perimeter of a loop using a tape measure. This concludes our presentation. Thank you for your attention and we will be glad to answer your questions. Thank you very much for a very detailed, informative briefing. So next is I'll start with commissioners for myself and other commissioners. I'll just start briefly. I think the presentation was very comprehensive. My only real question is, if the hazard patterns are the same for both stock and custom products, why is there a necessity to have different rules, separate rules for the two products? I'll take that one if you want, Ronna. I think we addressed this in the proposed rule. So our authorities are different based on whether there's an existing voluntary standard. So our section seven and nine authority, if there's a voluntary standard in place and it is effective to address the hazard and their substantial compliance, we cannot promulgate a consumer product safety rule. The CPSIA actually added an authority, section 15J, that allowed us for the commission to by rule determine that the presence or absence of certain product characteristics are substantial product hazards if there is a voluntary standard in effect and it's effective. So kind of the opposite finding. So that's why you have two different rules. So 15J would basically set a floor based on the voluntary standard for the operating cords and inner cords. So that's going to set a floor for products coming into the country based on the voluntary standard. But because the staff has assessed that the voluntary standard does not adequately address operating cords on custom products, we can't do a 15J rule for that hazard. We have to do a section seven and nine and there we will be able to meet the requirement because we can say that the voluntary standard is not adequate to address that hazard. So it's appropriate to do a section seven and nine rule for that particular hazard. And I know that you covered some presentation, but just to confirm from your perspective, if we do a mandatory standard with respect to custom blinds that will have likely have an impact of decreasing the number of death of children associated with the custom blind covering that fair representation of what you said. So staff doesn't believe that mandating the current custom product operating cord standards would be adequate, but we concluded that if the operating cord requirements for stock products were also required for custom products, then all operating cord incidents would have been addressed. This corresponds to about 86% as much as 91% of custom product incidents and about 9% is already addressed with the inner cord requirements through section 15J. So we believe that the applying or requiring the same requirements on operating cords for stock and custom would address all the injuries and deaths. Thank you. I don't have other questions to this point in time. Commissioner Adler, Bob, you're muted. Okay. Steve, I get unmuted myself, but I needed Steve to unmute me. So good morning, Rana and Mary. Thank you for excellent presentations as always. It's a delight to see you. So I'm going to put a question a little more bluntly than your very diplomatic response. The fact is that the reason we're having to do a section seven and nine mandatory standard is because WCMA and its members in the ASTM group won't change their operating cord requirements to conform to what the CPSC thinks is essential to promote safety. Am I overstating that? I think that has been the case so far. There has been recent activity on WCMA and they are planning to have a meeting in early December to reopen the standard and discuss custom product requirements. We can only hope that they'll change it because that would make life a lot easier for us to do it as part of a 15J rule. So to the extent that friends in WCMA are listening, please take this as a request that you seriously reconsider and you conform the operating cord standard to what the CPSC thinks is appropriate and to the stock requirement. One other quick question. I see that we are requiring a rigid cord shroud standard for the custom. Do you think that that will then be adopted by WCMA and ASTM in the stock coverings standard? Yes, actually the WCMA rigid cord shroud test group tried to address it for both stock and custom products and the language was developed to cover both types of products so I believe that it will be applicable to both. Okay, so one of the big problems or the issues that I see is cost-benefit analysis and I thought you did a thoughtful cost-benefit analysis. One of the things that you can find in the Consumer Product Safety Act section nine is not that the benefits as measured in a very strict way exceed the cost but that they bear a reasonable relationship to the cost and I'm wondering and they also point out that these can include non-quantifiable costs or non-quantifiable calculations. How much did you include or should be included as a non-quantifiable aspect? The fact that it's such an incredibly hidden hazard because it seems to me that and we've had people during our priority hearings explain that they were excruciatingly fastidious about child proofing their room and it never dawned on them that the cord could present a hazard so it seems to me as a starting point that would be one of those non-quantifiable elements that ought to be included when we're comparing benefits to cost. Was that taken into account? Should it be taken into account? Mary? You want to take that? Well some of that discussion perhaps we can save for the executive session but generally speaking yes staff did consider non-quantifiable benefits. And if I'm just pursuing section 15j and you may want to answer this but I think it's a pretty obvious one. 15j does not require the same cost-benefit analysis that section 7 and 9, mainly section 9 does. It does apply the regulatory flexibility act but it does not apply the section 9 cost-benefit analysis in my correct and stating that. That is correct. 15j rule is under section 553 of the APA so it's a notice and comment rulemaking that does not require a cost-benefit analysis. And so this gets a little beyond my economic insight but the classic criticism of cost-benefit analyses and I don't know whether this showed up in our injury cost model or not is that it undervalues kids and geezers like me because if you're looking at lost wages kids don't have wages and somebody like me who's about to step into oblivion doesn't have any wages. Does our assessment of the value of a statistical life address that because it seems to me I don't know that it does because it's more of a willingness to pay cost-benefit standard but was that element taken into account that children don't have wages and therefore may be valued less? Right that is why the staff's analysis include a range for VSL because the VSL that they use in the base analysis is the EPA estimate which includes the wage risk and state of preference studies that focus on individuals willingness to pay but they are difficult to apply to children like you said. That is why they considered an alternate approach for altruistic preferences of people and based on the collected studies that they have found that the valuation of risk to children could be 1.22 to 3 times higher so people are willing to pay that much more to mitigate the risk for children and that is why we have that range in our estimates. Yeah and I really appreciate that I would make the argument that it ought to apply for a variety of reasons. First of all the victims of window cords are not adults the victims are children and so that would argue for paying particular attention to valuing children's lives more highly and I guess the second point a couple other points our policy on priorities specifically says that in setting priorities we need to play priority on vulnerable populations which obviously would include children so it seems to me that that shows a great emphasis on protecting kids. One of the other points I would make just in passing is an observation if you look at the number of safety standards the agency has the vast majority of them apply to children that shows how much we value and I think we reflect society how much society values children's lives so I would argue for the higher number as well. At any rate I really do appreciate the the analysis and the presentation that you did excellent as always I have no further questions at this time thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you Raina and Mary for a thorough presentation. I actually don't have any questions I know that's very rare for me but I don't so thank you very much. As yesterday I say the high compliment to the staff has covered everything so well which I agree with Commissioner Bianco on. Commissioner Fielton? Thank you Mr. Chairman it's exciting to be back just one day after we did a briefing on magnets this is another sign that we're returning to some sense of normalcy after so much tumult and I want to thank the chairman for scheduling this briefing session. I appreciate the hard work staff has put into the briefing materials and while some of my questions are related to the general counsel's legal memo which I will defer for our next session so we can discuss privilege matters confidentially I do have several questions for staff that are appropriate here in open sessions so I would start with an observation I'm frustrated that we haven't made progress with regard to custom window coverings and my questions for this open session are directed to exploring why that's the case. And this is for Rana and Mary can you provide a brief historical overview of how we got to where we are today for my benefit and for others who may not have all of the background given that this is an issue with such a long history so in particular why was the voluntary standard for stock window coverings implemented and custom window and custom window coverings not? WCMA's decision about differentiating stock and custom products were mainly based on making the products that are sold the most in terms of unit sales the safest and they thought that it would be quickest to implement compared to custom products but they made a commitment to reopen the standard to work on custom products pretty much immediately after the standard passed however in the meantime there has been a development in Canada Canada has a regulation for covering all window coverings so that got their main attention and they had to work and try to interpret and work towards meeting those requirements because that standard in fact went into effect in 2021 but they have a one year of kind of a grace period due to COVID-19 so that delayed the process of reopening the standard here because they basically use the same technical resources to work on Canada as well as US standard. I understand I appreciate that but I'm not sure why Canadian development should have any bearing on commitments that were made to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission but putting that aside CPSC among other things is charged with ensuring the safety of the elderly and those with physical disabilities or mobility issues could one of you please discuss how the proposed standard for custom window coverings would address concerns of these and other communities who might face frankly unattended consequences flowing from the proposed rule draft then. So we have looked at what type of tools or mechanisms available for elderly population as well as people on wheelchairs and we have found a number of products such as extension rods or wands to make it easier for elderly or disabled population to operate the blind or the shade and also note that the motorized systems are becoming more popular and having a lower cost including DIY kits so we believe that there are either tools that the special population can use or may choose a motorized system to meet their needs. That's a helpful answer. Thank you. Could you also walk us through the analysis of how this draft rule imposes the least burdensome requirements that prevent or adequately reduce the risk of injury? Could a voluntary standard address these concerns with regard to custom window coverings? Is that is that even within the realm of possible? So the fact that the voluntary standard allows custom products to have long courts is the problem because for stock products the all the options that the stock products can meet are safe either no courts short courts or inaccessible courts. Custom products can have these but customers have the option of choosing a long hazardous court in their system in their operating system and you don't believe that while having these options available will make this standard safer for custom products. So that is why we believe that applying the same requirements for stock and custom are feasible, technologically feasible and implemented already in the stock market. Okay that makes sense. I want to ask about some of the data that's underpinning our analysis here. WCMA has told me that that two-thirds of the IDIs that they reviewed would not have occurred if the current standard on on custom window coverings had been in place at the time but on the other hand starting on slide 17 of the presentation that you just gave staff has found that all 30 incidents involving custom products could still occur even if the product complied with the voluntary standard. So I would welcome staff's views on WCMA's assertion because it appears to me that you're both saying very different things right now. It is possible because I guess when the IDIs are redacted it is difficult to differentiate whether the product is a custom or a stock product because the brand name is hidden. So we have more information to make a determination in terms of whether the incident blind was stock or custom or which type of cord caused the incident. So maybe within their limited IDI information that is their conclusion but when we look at all the IDIs and the information available to us that's the conclusion we were able to reach. Okay I appreciate that. Thank you. I will reserve my other questions for the executive session but this was a very comprehensive overview. Thank you for all your work on this and for everything you all do at the agency and Mr. Chairman thank you again for scheduling that. Thank you to you and all the commissioners and thank you to staff for the very informative briefing. At this point in time we are going to close the public briefing and move to the executive session. So we are finished. Thank you. Bye bye.