“And to make matters worse, we issued our press release on December 23, during the holidays and just days before the new testing requirement kicks in. Our insincerity is obvious.”

To make matters even worse, all the folks signed up on the listserv got their emails on 12/29. Mine was sent on 12/23 but didn’t arrive until 6 days later. (In fact a bunch of pre holiday notices were treated that way).

To be fair Neal Cohen did send out the press release to his list on 12/23.

The lawmakers making these discisions need to get input from those that operate aquatic facilities and not the people selling the drain covers. Who knows more about an issue at my facility, me or the salesperson that I order from?

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your recent post on the window covering safety issue. You were so right when you made the point that “The new standards will not deal with any risk that may exist with the vast majority of already-installed window coverings. In light of this, shouldn’t we use every major communication tool to inform consumers how to safely use window coverings currently in place?”
As I understand it, most injuries (some 80 percent) result from existing product, so any regulatory changes would not affect those products. Education really is key. Most people do not know that window covering cords can be hazardous; they should continue to be educated.

Also, at this time I do not believe that any government agency should lose site of the fact that keeping Americans in jobs and creating new jobs is vitally important to the health and well-being of our country.

Unduly stringent safety standards that make it expensive for manufacturers to compete and impede potential new entrants into a business (and as you know 60 percent of new job growth comes from small business) are not, in my opinion, what the Consumer Product Safety Commission should be about, especially in 2011/2012.

The unduly stringent safety standards in the window coverings arena potentially threaten the thousands and thousands of small, independent businesses across the U.S. that rely on the sales of these products for their livelihoods.

Thank you.

Sarah Fletcher
Vice President
Lou Hammond & Associates

Thank you,
Michael A Cienian

And unless I have misunderstood something apparently that direction equates to the fact that it will no longer be the manufacturers responsibility to manufacture a product that has appropriate features and components to provide for the safety of its end-users.

It will now fall to the dealers, installers, and homeowners to provide for the safety of children. Yet the dealers, installers, and homeowners don’t have the same R&D staff/budget that the manufacturers have. The dealers, installers, and homeowners don’t have the same access to materials and components that the manufacturers have.

If this came out of the US Congress, I would say it sounds like a bunch of lobbyists got together in order to create this nightmare.

All in all, to me it sounds like its a good time to evaluate which manufacturers and which product lines we in the industry want to offer and promote. Although by doing so, we will be hampering our ability to provide our customers with what they are asking for thus causing us to potentially “lose the sale” to some offshore/online dealer who doesn’t know/care about the safety standards. Heaven forbid a small business owner be allowed to make a profit in this day and age.

And let’s not forget, like you mention, none of this covers products that are already in place and what about 7-10 years from now if the homeowner wants to sell their house? I’ve been in houses that have changed owners 3 or 4 times, but the blinds & shades have been there for 15-20 years. Will some goof-ball regulation force them to replace all of the window treatments just to be “compliant” or face lawsuits down the road? Where do we as a society draw the line on some of this crap?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for safe products. I have 2 small children myself and I wouldn’t want anything to happen to them if it could be prevented. But in my experience it’s the “micro-managing” of a product or industry by those who are not in that industry that usually creates those unforeseen and unintended consequences that you then have to contend with down the road.

Sorry for the extended length of my commentary. I will step off my soapbox now.

Wow…this is unbelievable that you would write something like this. Your like an answer to a prayer.

Chantal Teraberry, who lost her daughter, Weslea to the chain loop of a vertical blind, is just now getting her life together after 3 years. She says the loss of her daughter’s life will not be in vain and she vows teach others through awareness. Her campaign is ABC, standing for Awareness of Blind Cords.

If parents of little ones know their blinds are dangerous to little kids, then the blinds won’t be dangerous to little kids. People are simply not aware of the danger.. yet. Our ABC campaign is trying to change that.

Any help or suggestions you could give would be wonderful. The blog is at abcsafety.tumblr.com

There are some videos we made and stats and stuff about blind cord dangers. Please stop by.

“There is nothing in this world more important than trying to make sure little kids don’t get hurt. NOTHING!” -the Teraberry Knights of Knickerbocker Cottage.

Also, is the lab testing the best method? I am afraid not, the cost is high and also time-consuming. If we only test a few pieces out of thousands of products, how can we so sure they are all safe for the consumers? If the sample sizes are too high, it will be a very big burden on the industry. I deem the lab testing is the place to verify if the manufacturers have question about the products.

There are other more time/cost-efficient method out there. Such as XRF, it can conduct thousands of tests per day and it is much cheaper compare to the lab test. The key is it can test much more products within a short period of time and it is non-destructive, so it can be largely protect the consumers, which at the same time, it is cost effective to the manufacturers.

Part of the money saved from the lab cost can contribute to the enforcement of the law, which further protect us as consumers. I realize that currently there are only handful CPSC people who are in charge of enforcement. If we can increase the team, I am sure the result is way much better.

I don’t know why the commission is so hestitated to adopt new technology like this. I truly believe there are other methods which are also convinient and cost-effective for the manufacturers, as well as prectect the consumers. I hope the commission can consider those as well. Thank you again.