i NBSIR 75-651

Procedural Options to Reduce the

Risk of Injury from Products Installed

in Residences

S. Wayne Stiefel, Clark W. Hand, Donald W. Corrigan

Hazard Analysis Section

Product Systems Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

June 1975

Interim Report

Prepared for Bureau of Engineering Sciences

Consumer Product Safety Commission

5401 Westbard Avenue

Bethesda, Maryland 20207

NBSIR 75-651

PROCEDURAL OPTIONS TO REDUCE THE

RISK OF INJURY FROM PRODUCTS INSTALLED

IN RESIDENCES

S. Wayne Stiefel, Clark W. Hand, Donald W. Corrlgan

Hazard Analysis Section

Product Systems Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

June 1975

Interim Report

Prepared for Bureau of Engineering Sciences

Consumer Product Safety Commission

5401 Westbard Avenue

Betliesda, Maryland 20207

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Rogers C.B. Morton, Secretary

John K. Tabor, Under Secretary

Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Science and Teclinology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler, Acting Director

ABSTRACT

The Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) list of consumer

products with high relative incidence of reported injuries includes

many products which are integral parts of the consumer's residence,

such as stairs, doors, architectural glass, furnaces and water heaters.

The safety aspects of these products are influenced by on-site con- struction practices and design considerations which are regulated through

local building codes. The problem is to identify operational methods

the CPSC can employ in dealing with unreasonable hazards associated with

component parts of residential units.

This report identifies, for products installed in homes, (1) the

product history stages, (2) institutional groups, (3) hazard sources,

and (4) countermeasures available to the CPSC. It structures relationships among these four elements for evaluating the in^acts of alternative

countermeasures. Current mechanisms for control of products installed

in homes are presented and sixteen potential countermeasures are postulated.

Key words: Building codes; Consumer Product Safety Act; product safety;

residence-related products; residential safety; safety implementation

approaches; safety standards.

ii

SUMVIARY

Background

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has determined a ranking

of products based upon data concerning frequency and severity of accidental

injuries. These data are derived from the National Electronic Injury

Surveillance System (NEISS) . The ranking has focused attention upon a group of products which are integral parts of residential households.

Seme of these products have traditionally been regulated either totally

or in part by building, codes of over 18,000 municipalities in the

United States who have the authority to adopt and enforce building codes.

Inherent weaknesses in this traditional system have created a level

of risk for which the CPSC may develop and enforce new safety standards

relating to residential product hazards.

Obj ective

This study was undertaken to identify and explicate some practicable

methods by which the CPSC could procedurally implement its standards

and other appropriate actions for components of residential units. The

study of these methods included:

(1) Product history stages, hazard sources, institutional groups, and

countermeasures available to the CPSC;

(2) The relationships among these four areas as they pertain to or are influenced by countermeasures;

(3) Investigation of current mechanisms for control of residential

product components;

(4) Evaluation of alternative countermeasures for the control,

reduction or elimination of residential hazards.

iii
Evaluation

Product History

Products are created by a sequential process which may introduce

hazards at stages prior to, during, and after installation. The

alternatives for CPSC include each of these stages as subjects for action

separately or in combination to effect control of identified levels of

risk.

Characterization of Hazard Sources

Hazards may derive from (1) defective or improper materials,

(2) faulty or inferior design in assembly, construction, or installation,

(3) inadequate maintenance, (4) misuse, (5) inadequate or misleading

product information, (6) faulty or inferior placement, and (7) normal

wear.

Countermeasures ^

The following sixteen countermeasures were developed from a study

of the stages of product history, institutional control group characteristics and the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) . Some are presented

as possible courses of action and others derive directly from the wording of the Act.

1. Develop product safety performance standards which would preempt

' '' state, county, or municipal regulations and attempt enforcement

through one of the following:

a. Federal inspection staff.

b. In the case of product safety performance standards issued by

the Commission, encourage state and/or local governments to

adopt and enforce identical standards pursuant to Section

26(a) of the Act.

c. Develop and/or fund state product certification programs

under Section 14(b) of the Act.

d. Encourage local inspectors to bring violations to the attention

of CPSC for action.

e. Publicize regulations and allow individual homeowners to

bring violations to CPSC attention or sue on their own

behalf.

f . Require builder to certify to the first purchaser of a home

that he has met all applicable safety standards.

iv
2. Commission CTiployees of state and local agencies to conduct

examinations, investigations, and inspections pursuant to

Section 29(a) (2) o£ the Act.

3. Develop model laws, regulations, and standards, and encourage

their uniform adoption by state or local governments, v^ichever is appropriate.

4. Coordinate and cooperate with other Federal agencies

(e.g., with FHA. regarding minimum property standards, and with

FTC and FCC regarding advertising)

.

5. Encourage or effect the development and implementation of more

effective maintenance and safety-oriented performance testing

programs

.

6. Improve information dissemination or education with the aid of

governments, manufacturers, retailers, special interest groups,

media, etc.

7. Require informative and truthful labeling of a product

having safety hazards.

8. Require public notice of defect, or failure to comply with product

safety rule, and/or require individual notice to purchasers

pursuant to Section 15(c) of the Act.

9. Take court action to effect injunction, seizure or condemnation.

10. Recall, and refund monies to owner.

11. Ban the sale and distribution of particular product (s).

12. In lieu of CPSC court action, seek written assurances from

suspected violators of future compliance, when appropriate.

13. Encourage court action to be brought on the part of private . citizens to enforce a consumer product safety rule or an

order under Section 15 of the Act.

14. Alter on-site product (s) to remedy extant defects by:

a. On-site repair, conponent replacement, retrofitting.

b. Recall of product for in-plant repair, component replacement,

retrofitting.

v
15. Replace on-site products (s) to remedy extant defects by:

a. Removal o£ original product for replacement with another

of the same product category.

b. Removal of product for replacement with another product of

a different category.

16. Seek to amend present Federal legislation or develop new

legislation to give CPSC more authority to implement countermeasures (e.g., develop legislation to allow the licensing of

professional workmen or require homeowners to certify their

dwelling units meet all applicable safety standards prior to

transfer of ownership)

.

Study Limitation

This study has not assessed the relative effectiveness of alternative

approaches for any given product conponent hazard. Factors relevant

in the selection of alternatives include product characteristics, hazard

sources and institutional flexibility. Any regimen considered by

CPSC must accommodate required procedures and provide estimates of factors

of time, cost, effectiveness, performance, and administration.

Acknowledgment

The writers gratefully acknowledge the role of Robert G. Hendrickson,

Product Systems Analysis Division, who edited and revised the final version

of this report . -

vi
CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ii

Executive Summary iii

1. Introduction 1

1.1. Project Background 1

1.2. Scope of Project 2

1.3. General Approach 2

2. Presentation of Product History Stages, Hazard Sources,

Countermeasures and Institutional Groups 5

2.1. Product History Stages 5

2.2. Characterization of Hazard Sources 8

2.3. Countermeasures 11

2.4. Hazard Source and Countermeasure Groups 11

3. Relationships Among Product History Stages,

Hazard Sources, Countermeasures and Institutional Groups.... 18

3.1. Basis for Structuring Conceptual Relationships 18

3.2. Relationship Among Hazard Sources, Product

History Stages and Institutional Groups 18

3.3. Relationship Between Hazard Sources and

Countermeasures 21

3.4. Relationship Between Countermeasures, Product

History Stages and Institutional Groups 21

4. Countermeasure Implementation 25

4.1. Development of Product Safety Performance

Standards 25

4.1.1. Use of Federal Inspection Staff 26

4.1.2. Encourage State, Local Adoption and

Enforcement of Identical Standards 26

4.1.3. Develop and/or Fund State Product

Certification Programs 30

vii
CONTENTS (continued)

Page

4.1.1. Local Inspectors Bring Violations to

CPSC for Action 28

4.1.5. Publicize Regulations and Allow Individual

Residents to Bring Violations to CPSC

Attention or to Sue on Their Own Behalf 28

4.1.6. Require Builder Certification of

Conpliance 29

4.2. Commissioning of State and Local Employees for

Enforcement 30

4.2.1. Other Agency Cooperation of the State and

Local Levels 30

4.3. Development of Model Laws, Regulations and

Standards and Encouragement of Their

Adoption by State or Local Governments 33

4.4. Coordination and Cooperation With Other Federal

Agencies 34

4.5. Development and Iitplementation of More Effective

Maintenance and Safety-Oriented Performance

Testing Programs 35

4.6. Improvement of Information Dissemination

or Education 36

4.7. Require the Labeling of a Product Regarding

Safety Haizards 36

4.8. Require Public Notice of Defect or Failure to

Comply With Product Safety Rule 37

4.9. Take Court Action to Affect Injunction, Seizure

or Condemnation 37

4.10. Recall and Refund Monies to Owners 38

4.11. Ban the Sale and Distribution of Particular

Products 38

viii
CONTENTS (continued)

Page

4.12. In Lieu of CPSC Court Action, Seek Written

Assurances from Suspected Violators of

Future Conpliance 39

4.13. Encourage Court Action to be Brought on the

Part of Private Citizens to Enforce a Consumer

Product Safety Rule or an Order Under

Section 15 of CPSA 40

4.14. Alter Products Already Installed On- Site

to Remedy Defects 40

4.15. Replacement of Products Already Installed On-Site

to Remedy Extant Defects 40

4.16. Amendment of Present Federal Legislation

or Development of New Legislation to Give

the CPSC More Authority to Inclement

Countermeasures 40

Appendix A. Data Sources A-1

Appendix B. Institutional Groups Influencing the

Safety of Residences B-1

Appendix C. Housing Projections C-1

Appendix D. Subject Content of Voluntary Product

Standards D-1

ix

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Project Background

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has determined a ranking of

products ordered by a measure of accidental injury frequency and severity,

based on data derived from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance

System (NEISS) . This ranking (called the Consumer Product Hazard Index)

has focused attention on a group of products which are integral parts of

a consumer's residence. Among the first 50 products ranked by NEISS in

FY74 are a dozen such product categories. The items by category are:

stairs, ramps, and landings

doors, other than glass

architectural glass

bathtub and shower structure

space heaters and heating stoves

swimming pools (in ground)

floors and flooring materials

fences (nonelectric)

furnaces and floor furnaces

water heaters

porches, balconies, open side floors

outside structures (walls, terraces, etc.)

These products (the safety aspects of which are influenced by on-site

construction practices and by architectural design) have traditionally

been regulated by building codes. There are over 18,000 municipalities

in the United States with the authority to adopt and enforce building

codes. With the exception of g. few states which have promulgated

their own codes, local jurisdictions possess autonomy in the

adoption and enforcement of building codes. This is an area where the

Federal Government has had no direct legal jurisdiction. Its involvement has been primarily limited to developing minimum property standards

used for obtaining federally- insured housing loans (i.e.. Federal Housing

Administration and Veterans' Administration) and construction activities

for government-oimed residential housing (e.g.. Department of Defense and

General Services Administration)

.

The Commission must address itself to fundamental questions which

relate to these products and conditions. The questions raised are legal,

technical and procedural, and most generally relate to:

(1) When is a product a consumer product (jurisdictional) ?; (2) When there is a safety problem with a product, what should

be done about it (technical) ?; and

(3) When a potential solution to the problem has been identified,

how should it be implemented (procedural)?

1
This report will address the technical and procedural solutions and

alternatives for correcting or alleviating residential product component

hazards

.

1.2. Scope of Project

The project's objective is to identify practicable methods for use

by the CPSC in dealing with unreasonable hazards associated with component

parts of residential units and to develop techniques for assessing their

relative effectiveness. This report (representing the first phase of

project work) deals with defining those alternatives available to the

CPSC and discusses their feasibility in light of the residential construction

environment

.

1.3. General Approach

In order to structure our evaluation, the steps which normally are followed in the regulatory process for detection and elimination of un- reasonable hazards associated with consumer products are depicted as a flow chart in Figure 1.3. This flow chart illustrates the necessary

steps for detection of a problem and actions required to regulate or control

products to effect a reduction in accident occurrence. The major emphasis

for our study will involve those steps which fall within the dotted lines

in Figure 1.3. These activities are concerned with taking appropriate action

once a product hazard has been identified and a determination has been

made that an unreasonable hazard exists. The study will not develop or evaluate processes for: accident data analysis, determination of the

existence and extent of unreasonable hazards, identification of hazard

sources, or the selection of an appropriate set of countermeasures . These

processes are recognized as essential to successful regulation and a gap

in any step may render the process unworkable. The study will be concerned

with the generic identification of hazard sources and the selection of

appropriate responses to the extent that this is necessary for the

purposes of establishing the likelihood of the CPSC utilizing particular

countermeasures. The distinction here acknowledges that to adequately

assess appropriate actions for each product (as is being accomplished by

CPSC on a product -by-product basis) would require a level of effort beyond

that which is appropriate for this project and would divert attention

from identifying major procedural options.

Section 1 outlined the project's scope and general approach.

Section 2 presents descriptive material on:

(1) The major events in a residential product's "history"- -its

life cycle;

(2) The generic sources of hazards \\^ich can lead to accidents;

(3) The alternative countermeasures which are available to the

Commission to reduce injury causing accidents; and
to

'H

t/)

N

rH

B

o

:g*H

+->33 •Hw

'H

+-> U

<D

+->

t/)

<DUO

u

I

r3 I—

I

r

and

ted

made ollec

(/) u

eport data

!

o

0) 0) u

XI -P 3

•H c(J U >—I o O (D U

<

Xt

05 tn

+-> D

Ph-H ^

i

o 1 1

<u

Ifi "5

CD _t3 u i-l 13

trt (/) O 3

oJ +-> <D ^ P

CD cij CD P (=! i-H

+-> P O

CD B rH •a c

o O CD rH O

U If) CD (A

c p

3 o o

-H CD P m

> M-io M
(4) The various institutional groups which affect products

and their regulation.

Section 3 examines in general terms the relationship between the

product history stages, hazard sources, countermeasures and the institutional

groups. The Section indicates at what step during, and subsequent to, a product's introduction into a residence, the hazard sources are introduced, and by what entity. Infomation is provided on vMch countermeasures

might be applied to alleviate a given hazard source, when in a product's

history a countermeasure could be applied, and through which entities.

Section 4 discusses various countermeasures and makes some judgments

regarding their feasibility and appropriateness within the institutional

environment in which CPSC must operate.
2. PRESENTATION OF PRODUCT HISTORY STAGES

HAZARD SOURCES, COUNTERMEASURES AND INSTITUTIONAL GROUPS

2.1. Product History Stages

Products are subjected to many processes which may introduce hazards

at stages prior to, during and after, installation. Attempts to study

intervention strategies applied to the removal o£ hazard sources must

consider the particular stage at which intervention would most effectively

result in injury reduction. In the case of products installed in homes,

the listing of product history stages (Table 2.1.) is intended to be

general and as all-inclusive as possible. The stages specified in the

product history represent the major phases in the product's "life cycle"

from the input of raw materials (pre -manufacture materials processing)

through disposal of recycling. The product history can be constructed

for a particular product through a selection of the appropriate com- bination of stages. For purposes of analyses the product history is

divided into two phases to identify when hazard sources are introduced

and where countermeasures can be applied. The first phase, ManufactureSales, includes all stages involved in the preparation and sale of the

product or its major con^onents: pre-manufacture materials processing,

manufacture, packaging, transportation, storage (before delivery to the

builder) , merchandising and assembly (before delivery) . The second

phase, Building-Utilization, differentiates the products installed in

residences fron other products and includes: architectural design,

storage, on-site assembly, installation and construction of products.

Utilization applies to those stages in which the owner or others implement

some action concerning the product. These actions include use, maintenance, storage, disposal and recycling. Following are brief descriptions

of each stage. The enumeration follows Table 2.1.

^^anufacture- Sales

:

I. Pre-Manufacture Materials Processing. This stage involves the

manufacturer's development of the basic materials used in the product

manufacturing process. "Basic materials" are defined as any distinct . elements which are combined or altered in the manufacturing process

to form an unpackaged product . They may thus include products made

by other manufacturers.

II. Manufacture. In this stage, the basic materials are combined,

and/or altered, in the fashion specified by the manufacturer, using his

tools and labor resources. Some labeling of the product may also be

involved in this stage.

5
III. Packaging. The manufactured product (assembled, or unassembled)

is packaged in this stage. The packaging may not only prepare the product

for transportation and storage, but it may also include labeling of the

packaging.

rv. Transportation. This stage may occur at three points in the

product history. The primary transportation is from the manufacturer to

the storage area (e.g., a wholesaler's warehouse, or a retailer's storage).

The product may also be transported from storage to the merchandiser,

and from the merchandiser to the builder or consumer,

V. Storage. Stored products, either by the distributor or the

consumer, may develop hazards which occur because of possible interactions

with other products, the environment of their storage, or actor groups.

VI. Merchandising. In this stage, the product is promoted and

sold by retailers and others. Thus, not only is the actual sale to the

purchaser involved, but also the advertising and explanations of the

product

.

Building-Utilization;

VII. Architectural Design. This stage encompasses the planning

and design aspects of the building process. It includes the work of

architects, contractors, among others, who develop the situation which

allows the builders to engage in the building stages.

VIII. Building. This stage involves the on-site preparation of the

product for utilization. Building may involve some combination of

product assembly, construction and installation, as well as any planning

for such actions. - i - , ;

*

IX. Use. Included in this stage are all actions by consumers

involving some use of the product. Also included here are aspects of

the product's history in which the product has the potential to be used,

though it is not in use (e.g., standing stairways which are vacant, but

which can be used, would be included in this stage, as opposed to

"Storage").

X. Maintenance. Products requiring maintenance may involve some

type of controlled maintenance procedures.

6
Table 2.1.

Product History Stages

I. Pre-manufacture materials processing

II. Manufacture

III. Packaging

IV. Transportation

V. Storage

A. Before delivery to builder

B. When after delivery—other product (s), and/or natural environment, and/or other actor (s) interact with product

C. After delivery—product does not interact

VI . Merchandising

VII. Architectural Design

VIII. Building

A. Before delivery to the builder

B. When delivery

1. "Builder(s)" and/or other product (s) , natural environment,

other actor (s) interact with product

.2. Product and "builder" interact only with each other

IX. Use

A. User(s) and/or other product (s), natural environment, other

actor (s) interact with product

B. Product and user(s) interact only with each other

X. Maintenance

A. Actor (s) and/or other product (s) , natural environment, other

actor (s) interact with product

B. Product and actor (s) interact only with each other

XI. Disposal

A. Disposer (s) and/or other product (s) , natural environment, other

actor (s) interact with product

B. Product and disposer (s) interact only with each other

XII. Recycling

7
XI. Disposal. Disposal by the consumer is the discharge o£ the

product from any further ownership or control on his part. It will

usually involve disposal of the product in the local mixed refuse disposal

system, but it can also include the giving away, or sales of the product

by the consumer, the return of the product for recycling, or abandonment.

XII. Recycling. Certain manufacturing processes deal with the

recycling of used products. These products would be turned over by the

consumer to some type of clearinghouse which would collect the products

for return to the manufacturer for preparation for redistribution to consumers. Recycling may also involve certain portions of the original

product

.

2.2. Characterization of Hazard Sources

A hazard source is defined as an event in the product history

which contributes significantly to a product -related accident. The

derivation of the hazard source list, in Table 2.2., was based upon

an examination of CPSC in-depth investigatory reports as well as other

data sources pertinent to our list of products . ^ Hazard sources associated with products installed in homes are characterized in the

following paragraphs:

A. Defective Materials. By "defective materials", is meant

the existence on the building site, or in the finished home, of products,

or component parts thereof, which are broken or altered in some manner

which makes them unsuitable for safe use. The defect (s) may be caused

in any stage prior to the stage in which the accident occurs (e.g., a manufacturer poking a hole in the service piping for a gas water heater's

gas intake) . Although this discussion concentrates on problems which

arise after the product or components are delivered to the construction

site- -that is, problems with the builders, users, and so on- -defects may

be caused in the manufacture and sales stages. In this case, we may

consider two parties to be at fault: the manufacturer, who inadvertently

created the defect; and, the builder, \Aio allowed the defective product

to be installed.

B. Improper Materials. "In^roper materials" may occur from

two sources. First, they may be integrated as component parts of a product

by the manufacturer (in a manner which may make the product "defective"

See Appendix A for a general discussion of the various sources of data

used to support this portion of the study.
Table 2.2.

Hazard Sources

A. Defective materials

B. Inproper materials

C. Faulty design in assembly, construction, installation

D. Inferior assembly (workmanship)

E. Inferior construction (workmanship)

F. Inferior installation (workmanship)

G. Inadequate maintenance

H. Misuse prior to the accident sequence

I. Misuse during the accident sequence

J. Inadequate or misleading information about the products proper

use, hazards, maintenance, assembly, installation, etc.

K. Placement of product such that interaction with the natural

environment, other factor (s), or other product (s) creates a hazard

.

L. "Normal" wear

9
and delivered to the construction site. Second, they may be designated

by the building planners, and implemented by the builders, into a product

which, because of their existence, becomes unsafe for use. "Improper

materials" are therefore materials which are integrated into a product

in its construct or alteration (in the design phases by the planners,

or in the construct or alteration phases by the builders, users, maintainers, disposers, or recyclers) . They are materials which, after

their delivery to the construction site, cannot be deemed "defective"

but exist as unsafe materials because of the negligence, bad planning,

oversight, etc., of those involved in subsequent product history stages.

C. Faulty Design in Assembly, Construction, Installation.

Faulty design is attributed to the building planning stages. The faulty

design may involve the actual design of the product itself, the placement

of the product in a manner which causes it to interact with its en- vironment in an unsafe manner, or the misinterpretation that the product

will be used generally in a way in which, in actuality, it will not.

D. Inferior Assembly (Workmanship). Inferior workmanship in

assembly involves actions by the builders or workmen in which they perform their duties in a manner which is contrary to that prescribed by the

planners and makes the final product unsafe for use. "Inferior" thus

is associated with workmanship which does not meet properly followed

practices

.

E. Inferior Construction (Workmanship). Inferior workmanship

in construction follows the same basic definition as that for inferior

workmanship in assembly. The workmen do not follow what would be deemed

to be proper procedures for the construction of a safe product.

F. Inferior Installation (Workmanship). Inferior workmanship in

installation also follows the basic definitions as that for both assembly

and construction. Installation, as the term is used here, is distinguished

from construction in the sense that it involves working with a product which

is, for the most part, prefabricated before the installation is begun.

G. Inadequate Maintenance. Inadequate maintenance involves the

maintenance of a product in a manner which does not follow prescribed

methods and leaves the product unsafe for use. Note that the product may, or may not, have been unsafe before the maintenance was undertaken.

H. Misuse Prior to the Accident Sequence. Misuse is herein

defined as the use of a product in a manner in which it was not intended

to be used, and in a manner which creates the strong likelihood or the

actual occurrence of an accident. Misuse is subdivided into simple

misuse and negligent misuse. In general, negligent misuse differs from

simple misuse in the sense that the person committing the misuse in a negligent manner was aware before and during the action that the misuse

was happening, and that it might clearly lead to an accident.

10
I. Misuse During the Accident Sequence. Misuse is defined as above, in "H". Misuse during the accident sequence may provoke different

responses, in terms of countermeasures , than misuse prior to the accident

sequence.

J. Inadequate or Misleading Information About the Product's

Proper Use, Hazards, Maintenance, Assembly, Installation, etc. Inadequate

or misleading information indicates failure to distribute information

that should have been given to the consumer, or the act of distributing

information that was misleading to the consumer. Inadequate information

may further involve either the distribution of too little information, or

the lack of distribution entirely. The agents involved in such actions may

be the manufacturer, the packagers, the retailers, the building planners,

the builders, the owner, the maintainers, the disposers, or the recyclers.

K. Placement of Product Such That Interaction with the Natural

Environment, Other Actor (s), or Other Product (s) Creates A Hazard, Such

placement may occur in the building, storage, use, maintenance, or disposal

stages. If such placement is done during the building stage, and is

contrary to established accepted practices, it may be considered as inferior construction or installation.

L. "Normal" Wear. All products undergo wear as a result of

either their use under normal circumstances or their existence in their

environment. Though this is an expected result, excessive amounts of normal

wear may present a serious hazard. It is assumed here that a product

experiencing normal wear has been used and maintained in a proper fashion.

As such, actions to alleviate wear hazards n^ight be the replacement of

coiq)onent parts, or the replacement or removal of the entire product.

2.3. Countermeasures

Countermeasures are responses available to the CPSC to reduce

injury- causing accidents through the alleviation or removal of

suspected or identified hazard sources. A set of potential countermeasures

(Table 2.3.) has been developed based primarily on the provisions of the

Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972 (CPSA) . The countermeasures listed

are intended to present a general category of responses and may be made

more specific to fit particular circumstances. Section 4 of this report

gives a general treatment on their implementation.

2.4. Hazard Source and Countermeasure Groups

Crucial to an analysis of decision alternatives concerning

products, hazard sources and countermeasures is an understanding of

the agents and institutions involved in the entire process. It is necessary

to consider:

(1) Whether or not party was injured; and

11
(2) Whether or not a party was an expert in performing certain

tasks (e.g., installation, maintenance) which could affect

the performance of the product.

The various hazard source groups are shown in Table 2.4.1.

The countermeasure groups include both those who may be involved

in the introduction of hazard sources and who may become involved as

a result of countermeasure implementation. The countermeasure groups

were based on the following interactions:

(1) Those groups most likely to be involved in the iiimlementation

of the countermeasures . These are the groups with which the

CPSC will have to work.

(2) Those groups who will most likely be directly affected by

the implementation of a countermeasure^ These are the

groups that the CPSC must consider in assessing the

impact of countermeasures upon them.

The list of countermeasure groups, is shown in Table 2.4.2. This

list is to be considered as an extension of the hazard source groups of

Table 2.4.1. Appendix B discusses the relevant activities of what might

be considered the most important groups relative to the regulation of

the building and related industries and their bearing on the safety

of products installed in homes.

12
Table 2.5.

Countermeasures Available to the CPSC

1. Develop product safety performance standards which would preerpt

state, county or municipal regulations and attempt enforcement

through one of the following:

a. Use Federal inspection staff.

b. In the case of product safety performance standards issued by

the Commission, encourage state and/or local governments to

adopt and enforce identical standards pursuant to Section 26(a)

of the Act^.

c. Develop and/or fund state product certification programs

Section 14(b).

^- Encourage local inspectors to bring violations to CPSC for

DroDer action.

e. Publicize regulations and allow individual homeowners to

bring violations to CPSC attention or sue on their own behalf.

f . Require builder to certify to the first purchaser of a home

that he has met all applicable safety standards.

2. Commission employees of state and local agencies to conduct

examinations, investigations, and inspections pursuant to Section

29(a) (2).

3. Develop model laws, regulations, and standards, and encourage their

uniform adoption by either state or local governments, whichever is

appropriate.

4. Coordination and cooperation with other Federal agencies (e.g.,

with FHA regarding minimum property standards, and with FTC and

FCC regarding advertising)

.

5. Encourage or effect the development and implementation of more

effective maintenance and safety- oriented performance testing

programs

.

6. Improve information dissemination or education with the aid of

governments, manufacturers, retailers, special interest groups,

media, etc.

7. Require the labeling of a product regarding safety hazards.

continued

Section numbers refer to the Consumer Product Safety Act of 1972.

13
Table 2.3.

Countermeasures Available to the CPSC (continued)

8. Require public notice of defect, or failure to comply with product

safety rule, and/or require individual notice to purchasers

pursuant to Section 15(c).

9. Take court action to effect injunction, seizure or condemnation.

10. Require recall, and the refund in monies to owner.

11. Ban the sale and distribution of particular product (s).

12. In lieu of CPSC court action, seek written assurances from

suspected violators of future compliance, when appropriate.

13. Publicize consumer product safety rules and orders under Section 15 of

CPSA so that citizens may bring court actions to achieve enforcement.

14. Alter product (s) already installed on-site to remedy extant defects.

a. On-site repair, component replacement, retrofitting.

b. Recall of product for in-plant repair, component

replacement, retrofitting.

15. Replace product (s) already installed on-site to remedy extant

defects

.

a. Removal of original product for replacement with another of the same product category.

b. Removal of product for replacement with another product of a different category.

16. Seek to amend present Federal legislation or develop new legislation

to give CPSC more authority to implement countermeasures (e.g.,

develop legislation to allow the licensing of professional workmen

or require homeowners to certify their dwelling units meet all

applicable safety standards prior to transfer of ownership)

.

14
Table 2.4.1.

Hazard Source Groups

I. Pre-manufacture materials processors

II. Primary manufacturers, processor

III. Packagers

IV. Transporters

V. Wholesale operations management

VI. Warehouse operators

VII. Promotion, advertising personnel

VIII. Retail operations management

IX. Salesman

X. Retail product assemblers

XI. Building planners (contractors, architects, etc.)

XII. Builders

A. Owner

1. Injured party (a. Expert, b. Nonexpert)

2. Not injured (a. Expert, b. Nonexpert)

B. Injured party other than owner

1 . Expert

2 . Nonexpert

C. Other than owner and/or injured party

1 . Expert

2 . Nonexpert

XIII. Users, Storers

A. Owner

1. Injured party

2. Not injured

B. Injured party other than owner — —V cont inued
Table 2.4.1.

Hazard Source Groups (Continued)

c. Other involved party (not included in A or B)

XIV. Maintainors

A. Owner /

1 . Expert

2. Nonexpert

B. Injured party other than ovmer

1. Expert

2. Nonexpert

C. Other involved party (not included in A or B)

1. Expert

2. Nonexpert

XV. Disposers (may include landfill incinerator operators, etc.)

A. Owner

1. Injured party

2. Not injured

B. Injured party other than owner

C. Other involved party (not included in A or B)

XVI. Recyclers
Table 2.4.2.

Countermeasure Groups

These groups include those specified in the Hazard Source Groups (I thru

XVI) plus the following:

XVII. Federal government (other than regulatory commissions)

A. Federal executive branch officials whose domains may in some

way involve safety aspects of products under consideration.

Departments represented include HUD (plus FHA) , VA, GSA, DoD,

DoC, HEW, DoJ.

B. Congress (members plus staff)

C. U.S. Court officials

D. Federal product safety- related regulatory agencies

XVIII. State governments

A. State executive branch officials whose domains are in building

regulation, and/or product safety (including prosecutors)

B. State legislatures (members plus staff)

C. State Court officials

XIX. Local governments

A. Local executive branch officials whose domains are in building

regulation, and/or product safety (including prosecutors)

B. Local legislatures (members plus staff)

C. Local Court officials

XX. Private lawyers, law firms

XXI. Model code associations

XXII. Voluntary standard- setting associations (ASTM, etc.)

XXIII. Consumer interest groups

XXIV. Professional trade and business associations

XXV. Media

XXVI. Independent testing laboratories (UL, Good Housekeeping, etc.)

XXVII. Banks

XXVIII. Insurance conpanies

17
3. RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PRODUCT HISTORY STAGES, HAZARD

SOURCES, COUNTERMEASURES AND INSTITUTIONAL GROUPS

3.1. Basis for Structuring Conceptual Relationships

From the previous definitions of hazard sources (Section 2.2.) it

is possible to structure a conceptual guide concerning the hazard sources

and available countermeasures . The guide is presented in matrix format and

is intended to depict the interactions which are possible among the product

history stages, hazard sources, countermeasures and institutional groups.

Tbe objective is to present a format for recognizing: (1) where in a product's history, and by whom, .a particular hazard source might be

introduced; (2) which countermeasures should be considered^; and (3) which

groups either participate in, or are affected by, the introduction of

countermeasures (s) . The tables discussed below are based upon information

sources such as the various accident data bases and literature sources

on the organizations involved. When specific cases are considered, these

tables may be used to guide the formulation of pertinent information for

a specific product hazard and its associated set of circumstances.

3. 2. Relationship Among Hazard Sources, Product History Stages and

Institutional Groups

Table 3.2.1 (Hazard Source by Product History Stage) indicates

where in the -product history a given hazard source may be introduced,

and which processes must be investigated in order to respond to resulting

hazards

.

Table 3.2.2. (Hazard Source by Hazard Source Groups) distinguishes

which institutional groups (from Table 2.4.1) may be involved with the

introduction of a hazard source. For a given hazard source, investigators

can use this information to ascertain which groups' actions need to be

analyzed.

The combination of relationships presented in Tables 3.2.1. and

3.2.2. provides information which should aid in the process of addressing

the total range of possible hazard sources associated with products installed in homes. The outcome of such investigations should enable the

enumeration of hazard sources and institutional groups associated with

their introduction.

^The determination of which countermeasures should be considered is based

solely on their projected applicability in reducing injuries attributed

to a given hazard source. No economic, political or social considerations

are taken into account in this determination.

18


3.3. Relationship Between Hazard Sources and Countermeasures

Table 3.3. (Hazard Source by Countermeasure) shows which countermeasures previously listed in Table 2.3. are potentially useful in

alleviating a hazard source. Once hazard sources have been identified,

applicable countermeasures that deserve investigation can be selected.

Table 3.3. provides a guide for such determinations,

3.4, Relationship Among Countermeasures, Product History Stages

and Institutional Groups"

Table 3.4.1 (Countermeasures by Product History Stages) indicates

what stages of the product history a given countermeasure is likely to

affect. By "affect", is meant the alteration of the typical operations

in a stage as the direct result of a countermeasure. Efforts to assess

the impact of particular countermeasure choices can be facilitated

through use of this Table, Although specific details may be lacking, the areas for investigation are made known.

Table 3.4.2. (Countermeasures by Countermeasure Groups) points

out the nature of the involvement of various institutional groups in

the implementation of countermeasures. The intention was to make this

"^hle generally apply to the generic category of residential products.

However, it is recognized that the situation may be altered when a specific

product and even a specific circumstance for the product is considered.

In fact, this might be considered a strong point of the method for

providing a framework for consideration of the implication of alternative

actions. The "Bble gives a general indication of the grom)s likely to

be involved in many cases. The following notation is used

to indicate the degrees of involvement of the institutional groups:

(1) Direct involvement in the implementation process (marked D)

;

(2) Indirect involvement in the implementation process (marked I); or

(3) Directly affected by the implementation of a countermeasure

(marked A)

.

21
22
X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

•X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

1.

Dev.

Profor.

Stds.

A.

Fed.

Staff

B.

State

Adoption

C.

State

Certification

D.

Local

Inspection

E.

Homeowner

Action

F.

Builder

Certification

2.

Commission

State/Loc.

Employees

3.

Develop

Model

Laws

4.

Good.

/Coop,

with

Fed.

Agencies

5.

Better

Maintenance

Test

6.

Improve

Inform.

Education

7.

Require

Labelling

8.

Public

Notice

of

Violation

9.

Court

Action

10.

Recall,

Refund

Monies

11.

Ban

12.

Violators'

Written

Assurances

13.

Private

:

Citizen

Court

Action

14.

Alter

Prod.

Instal.

A.

On-site

B.

Recall

to

Plant

15.

Replc.

Prod.

A.

Same

Prod.

Cat.

B.

Different

Category

!

16.

Amend

Federal

Legislation
"^1 p'

< < < < < < < <

< < < < < Q - < Q Q < Q o a Q a Q Q < < < < < < < <

t—

J

>- Q < " Q < < < < < < < <* Q < < <: < < < < < < <

<

a Q

CI Q Q o < < < < < < < Q

Q Cl Q

1—

1

Q < < <

Q Cl

' < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

' < < < < < < < < < < < <

' < < s

< < < < < < < < <

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

<^ < < < < < < < <

<^ < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < < <

< < < < Q < < < < < < Q < < < < <

O < < < < < < Q < < < < <

Cl < < < < <

•< < <: D < < < < <

<; *c < <

<; <^ <^ <i < <

- < <t «< <C <; Cl < < <

<; <^ <c •< Ct Cl < <l <i. Cl < < <

«i; <; •< <! < Cl Cl <

a^ •< <C < Cl < < <

<; Q

' < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

< < < < < < < < < < <

<! •i <: <; < < < < <

- <: <! < < < < < < < < < <

<; <; < < Q < < < < <

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < •< < < < <

< < < < < <; <

- a Q Q a < < Q Q < Q < Q < f—

1

<

- (5 ci Q Q Q < < < < Q < Q < O < Q Q a <

- a a a Q Q a < < < < Q < O < O < Q Q Q <

1.

Dev.

Prof

or.

Stds.

A.

Fed.

Staff

B.

State

Adoption

C.

State

Certif.

D.

Local

Inspection!

E.

Homeowner

Action

F.

Builder

Certif.

Z.

Coinniission

State/

Local

Employees

3.

Develop

Model

l,aws

1.

cooa./coop.

with

Fed

.

.^gen

.

5.

Better

Maint.

,

Test

b.

improve

Intor.

,

Education

7.

Require

Labelling

8.

Public

Notice

ot

Violation

9.

Court

Action

in.

Recall,

Refund

11.

Ban

iz.

Violators'

writ.

As.

u

O

• o

> H

- u< 14.

Alter

Prod.

Instal.

A.

On-site

B.

Recall

to

Plant

IS.Replc.

Product

A.

Same

Prod.

Cat.

13.

Different

Cat.

16.

Amend.

Fed.

Legis. |

S 2

o c

U 3

5
4, COUNTERMEASURE IMPLEMENTATION

Previous discussions o£ the institutional groups have been directed

toward explaining their interaction with products installed in homes.

The set of countermeasures listed in Table 2.3. would involve the institutional groups directly or indirectly or would affect them bychanging the processes associated with the products. The depiction

of these possible changes is presented in Table 3.4.2.

This section of the report will, for each countermeasure proposed,

describe some of the potential reactions of affected institutional groups

and describe information relevant to the countermeasures' potential for

reducing injury occurrence. Further information concerning the major

institutional groups having an inpact upon residential construction and

related industries may be found in Appendix B. (This information has

been drawn upon for the following discussion.)

Projections of the number of occupied housing units based upon

population projections (Appendix C) give an indication of the potential

coverage which could be obtained by countermeasures impacting new construction. By conservative estimate, 30 percent of the residences in 1990

would contain new safety features required in 1975 and implemented

throughout the 15 year span. This estimate assumes a high population

growth rate but neglects a conponent for replacement housing units. It

thus appears that the use of product safety performance standards or other

countermeasures altering the requirements for new housing and renovated

units will significantly impact the U.S. housing inventory. Replacement

of items, which either wear out (furnaces, water heaters, etc.) or break

(architectural glass), with products that meet safety performance standards,

should further increase CPSC impact upon the residential environment.

4.1. Development of Product Safety Performance Standards (l)'^

The establishment of a product safety performance standard will

preenpt state or local standards which address identical hazards. From

a practical point of view the preemption could create an enforcement

void, for unless the state or local jurisdiction had an identical standard,

they could not enforce a standard aimed at correcting the same risk of

injury covered by the CPSC safety standard. State and local jurisdictions

must either adopt an identical standard or request an exeniption under

the provisions of Section 26(c) of the Act. Tliis could lead to the

'^Numbers in parentheses refer to the countermeasures listed in Table 2.3.

25
conclusion that a Federal inspection staff would be required for en- forcement. However, we have identified five means, in addition to Federal

inspection, for the in^lementation of product safety performance standards.

The discussion of all six options follows.

4.1.1. Use of Federal Inspection Staff (la)

VMle the law is clear as to how CPSA standards will effect state

standards, the manner of their enforcement is not generally spelled out.

A Federal inspection staff will be necessary, of course, but the size of

that force is limited frcm a practical standpoint. Even FDA, with one of

the largest forces of Federal inspectors, must from time to time call for

support from other agencies, both Federal and state, to effect a complete

recall of a particular product that has been distributed all over the

country. Naturally the number of Federal inspectors will have to depend

somewhat on the Commission's policy regarding reliance on other agencies,

but regardless of the size of the staff, the Commission may want to make

use of other agency resources, especially manpower.

The size of a CPSC inspection staff required to inspect individual residences, given the number of new housing starts of between

1.5 and 2.5 million units per year, and the diffuse nature of the housing

construction industry with almost 800,000 firms, makes this alternative

a prohibitively expensive means of enforcement. A team of inspectors

that could perform special investigations as required, or as an additional

assignment for the existing CPSC conpliance staff, could be a more

reasonable approach for CPSC inspections.

As seen in Table 3.4.2, the major groups directly involved in

inplementation will be the CPSC and other Federal agencies having

cognizance over housing construction or mortgage insurances. Those groi:tps

which may be indirectly involved, or involved in a supporting role, may

be the corresponding state and local officials and associations dealing

with model codes and standards. The organizations most likely to be

directly affected by the implementation will be those groups involved

in all stages of the product history, dealing with the development, production and installation of the product in a residence.

4.1.2. Encourage State, Local Adoption and Enforcement of Identical

Standards (lb).

Based on the Commission's policy of cooperation with state

governments, an option to be considered is to encourage the states to

adopt and enforce those standards issued by the Commission. This approach,

perhaps more than any others discussed in this report, may be extremely

difficult to achieve because of state and local government perogatives

and authority. (See Appendix B, Section B.7 for discussion of state

activities.)

26
Local authorities, having a tendency to keep a stronger hold

on the areas of responsibility left to them, and not assumed by states or the Federal Government, may be even less anxious to cooperate on a voluntary basis than the states. Furthermore, there is the operational

problem of having many more individual localities to deal with than

there are states.

Voluntary cooperation may be best accomplished through

seeking the cooperation of organizations like the National Conference

of States on Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) . This organization

is a vehicle for coordinating activities of all states involved, and is

thus a means for reducing the total effort associated with a large number

of municipalities. However, reliance solely upon local jurisdictions

for adoption of an identical performance standard to gain coverage of

the entire country is not practicable. Some jurisdictions do not have

building codes covering all aspects of construction and, for instance,

have adopted only electrical and/or plumbing codes. The concept of

obtaining local enforcement depends upon an assumption that the framework

for enforcement exists, and at present it is not true for all localities.

(See B.8. in Appendix B for discussion of local regulation.)

An additional factor to be considered is the process for prosecuting violators under state or local administrative and judicial

procedures. Building code violations are usually corrected soon after

detection (by local inspectors) to prevent construction delays. However,

the effectiveness of the inspection system may be increased if the inspection

program was backed by strong penalties. In the absence of such penalties,

the reliance upon having states and local governments enforce the performance standard may prove less than satisfactory.

4.1.3. Develop and/or Fund State Product Certification Programs (Ic)

If the Commission desires to have states involved in product

safety without the Commission's having to relinquish any control, it

might consider the possibility of promoting state testing laboratories

to serve as qualified "third party" certifiers of products subject to

product safety standards referred to in Section 14(b) of the Act.

Since all products subject to these standards will require certification

according to Section 14(a) of the Act, the states could play a vital role

in product safety without actually adopting an identical standard.

If these state laboratories were partially Federally funded they could

provide a greater degree of impartiality than might otherwise be possible,

and the Commission, through various means, could be assured of their

qualifications. Conceivably, these laboratories could provide a return

on the represented investment through new ideas for safety and testing

as a result of their experience.

27
4.1.4. Development of Product Safety Performance Standards- -Local

Inspectors Bring Violation to CPSC for Action (Id).

This program would have many of the same outside-party enlisting

benefits for the Commission as the state certification programs. In this

case, however, those enlisted (the local building inspectors) would

clearly be acting to enforce local codes which may or may not include

product safety standards. The CPSC may have to provide guidelines to

the inspectors on what constitutes a suspected violation of the product

performance standards. The major parties involved in implementation will

be the Federal, state and local officials. The CPSA encourages the

Commission to enlist the aid of the local inspectors. The state legislative and executive officers involved may have to act as the middle men,

perhaps giving the localitites permission (Section 29(a) (1) of the Act)

to engage in such activity, keeping the chain of communication and

responsibility from Federal to state to local intact. This plan may

be appealing in two ways:

(1) It is a voluntary one in which the local jurisdictions can

keep their autonomy over local inspections, while, at the same time, cooperating with CPSC; and

(2) It gives them a position of relative importance in the

operation.

4.1.5. Development of Product Safety Performance Standards- -Publicize

Regulations and Allow Individual Residents to Bring Violations

to CPSC Attention or to Sue on Their Own Behalf (le)

.

This countermeasure would require a much more intensive information/

publicity canpaign that the countermeasures discussed so far. The means

for publicity could include those being used now by the Commission including the electronic media as well as written material distributed

through a variety of public service organizations. It may also be

feasible to require, as a part of some of the product safety rules, that

written notice be provided the ultimate user of the product as to the

provisions of the performance standard and the procedure for reporting

violations to the CPSC.

The individual resident is the interest group member who has

carried the least influence of all those involved in the product safety

process because he has no organized representation. The CPSC was

created with the intent of taking into consideration the bodily safety of

the consumer- -in this case, the individual resident and his family.

However, despite the CPSC mandate to ensure adequate safety for all

consumers, and despite CPSC efforts to accomplish this end, resident

consumers have the least efficient vehicle for presenting their case. Some sort of working advocate, be it within the CPSC or as a fourth

28
party (the other three parties being the CPSC, the residents and the

"violators"), could be developed. Existing consumer interest groups,

standards and code-developing and adopting organizations, the media,

private lawyers and consultants, and even state and local governmental

officials, could all take a role in this advocacy effort. The benefit

in allowing individual residents to take a role in the process is that

violations which consumers find would have an improved chance to be

reported.

The option of an individual suing under the provisions of the

CPSA are not precluded by Commission actions. As an additional vehicle for

gaining con^liance, publicity concerning this alternative may prove

helpful. Notwithstanding the difficulty of proving a violation, injured

parties are specifically covered by Section 23 of the Act and may recover

from parties willfully violating consumer product safety rules.

4.1,6. Development of Product Safety Performance Standards --Require

Builder Certification of Compliance (If)

.

The issuance of a performance standard, requiring testing and

certification, is not the end of the Commission's involvement in the safety

of products. Some checks on its effectiveness will be necessary. In fact

products could present special problems where the manufacturer has no

control over the uses of his product line.

There are many ways in which the Commission could get some such

assurance on product use. One method would be to require that the

builder relay to the first purchaser the fact that the products covered

by CPSC standards were indeed certified to conply when sold to him.

He could do this through his own certificate, much in the same way as a property report is required in the interstate sale of land. Consumer

awareness of this requirement could also provide some check on non- complying builder or sellers, and could provide leverage for the consumer

at settlement on the property. (The housing construction industry is

discussed in more detail in B.l. of Appendix B.)

This countermeasure is designed to put a check on the system before

the consumer becomes involved. Presumably, by certifying that products

installed meet all safety standards, the builder is adding more insurance

that his homes will be safe for use, within the guidelines set up by the

CPSC.

Conversely, such certification gives those who bring grievance

against the builder more power to make the builder correct a mistake.

This, also should increase the likelihood of his work being in compliance

with safety standards.

29
Of importance here in setting up and running such a system is

the cooperation of the builders, perhaps through the existing building

and trade associations, such as the National Association of Home Builders

(NAHB) . These groups can act as coordinators with the builders for the

CPSC and as representatives to the CPSC for the builders. The efforts

of the NAHB to establish a home warranty program indicates that the basic

administrative capability exists within this organization. Clear guidelines on the responsibilities of the builder must be established. Furthermore, the setup of builder certification requires that a working system

for processing complaints against the certifications be established.

4,2, Commissioning of State and Local Employees for Enforcement (2)

The commissioning of state and local officials to conduct

examinations, investigations and inspections is designed to give the

CPSC an enforcement whose organizational structure and manpower is,

to a large degree, already established. Commissioning would allow state

and local officials to perform specified tasks which may exceed state

authority, but are fully within CPSC jurisdiction. The CPSA provides the

Commission authority to make payments to state or local agencies doing

the work ( Section 29 (a ) )

.

The ideal situation for the CPSC in terms of Federal -state

cooperation would seem to be to have one agency in each state with

essentially the same statutory base. Since that is not the case,

the CPSC will have to determine which agencies (and there may be

several) have the authority, capability and interest in their activities.

For example, the CPSC could have an interest in cooperating with health

authorities, housing authorities, building authorities and fire authorities

in one state concerning a single hazardous product installed in the home.

Some of these authorities may be more influential at the local level,

others at the state level. Even in cases where there is a state counterpart, it might still be useful to call on other state and local agencies on

certain occasions.

4.2.1. Other Agency Cooperation at State and Local Levels

In view of Section 29 of the CPSA, requiring a program to promote

Federal- state cooperation in furtherance of the Act, and in view of our

own task to identify methods of implementing various solutions for CPSC,

we considered it worthwhile to briefly inquire as to what extent, and in

what manner, some other Federal agencies cooperate with state and local

authorities on enforcement matters.

FDA is a good example, not only because of the amount and

variety of their cooperation, but because the FDA, like the CPSC,

30
has statutory authority to commission state and local inspectors (see

Section 29 (a) (2) o£ the Consumer Product Safety Act, and Section 702 (a)

of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act). The FDA work-sharing plan

involves state participation in planning, surveillance and compliance in

order to make the most efficient use of available Federal and state

resources. Basically, it involves dividing responsibility to avoid un- warranted duplication of effort, and has the advantage of permitting both

participants to retain their statutory responsibilities and authority,

since each can continue some activity in all program areas. Presently

28 states are participants in formal work-sharing programs with the FDA.

In the last few years FDA has instituted a system of granting

contracts to the states to assist in various programs, such as food

plant sanitation inspection, medicated feed sanpling and analysis,

interstate travel and food service sanitation, and food surveillance

sample analysis. Contracts under this program have been negotiated with

37 states.

Another program that is associated with the contract program is

that of commissioning cooperating officials. There are now 372 state

officials commissioned by FDA to work as Federal officers in the medicated

feed program. It appears that this program is designed to supplement

the inspection authority of the states while providing increased sur- veillance capability for FDA.

The Federal Trade Commission's cooperation with state agencies

has, for the most part, been confined to information exchange such as referral of complaints, assistance in solving specific problems and informal counseling. Apparently the fact that the FTC has no authority to

delegate its authority, and the difficulties in developing standards for

unfair and deceptive practices, have not been conducive to true worksharing agreements.

It is interesting to note that both the FDA and FTC have model

state FDA and FTC Acts, and that the idea of uniform state laws coinciding

with their Federal counterparts is considered essential to effective

Federal-state cooperation by representatives of both agencies.

The Department of Agriculture has a broad range of responsibilities and functions that could involve state cooperation. Our inquiry

was confined to their enforcement of the Wholesome Meat and Poultry

Products Acts, which are somewhat similar to product safety regulation.

The concept of both acts is to allow states to administer their own

inspection programs if their requirements equal those imposed by Federal

law. In addition to cooperating with the states in developing and

administering their own programs, the Department is also authorized to

fund up to 50% of the cost of the state program. One of the ways in which

31
this "matching funds" authority is used is in the case o£ licensing state

inspectors in Federal inspection plants, with the Department of Agriculture

paying half of the state inspector's salary. As is the case with FDA

and FTC, cooperation presupposes the existence of adequate state

enforcement authority.

The Atomic Energy Commission^ also has several programs involving,

for the most part, state Departments of Health, Their "Agreement

State Program" involves turning over the licensing and regulation

functions concerning source, by-product, and special materials that are in

less than critical quantities. Thus far 25 states are participating.

There is no AEC funding of states involved in this program.

Another AEC program that does involve cost sharing concerns radioactive environmental and effluent monitoring, whereby the 20 participating

states set up instrumentation around nuclear facilities, take samples,

analyze them, and furnish the data to the AEC. These data are used

primarily as a check on basically the same information required to be

supplied to the AEC by the licensee of the facility.

A third program of cooperation with state officials is the co- sponsorship by AEC, FDA, and EPA of a National Conference of Radiological Program Control Directors. This appears to be primarily a program of information exchange whereby the Federal agencies can discuss

radiation matters within their respective jurisdictions with all the

state officials concerned. The sponsorship generally involves no more Federal expenditure than the cost of travel and per diem of state

officials to the sponsored meetings.

Though there are many other agencies also extensively involved

in cooperation with state and local officials on a variety of subjects,

such as EPA, OSHA, DOT and HJD, some preliminary comparisons are still

possible. The fact that the Commission has the authority to pay for

state and local assistance, and to commission state and local officials

to conduct inspections, in addition to having an expressed purpose of

minimizing conflicting state and local regulations, puts the CPSC,

in comparison to these other Federal Agencies, in an excellent position

to engage in extensive cooperative arrangements.

The Commission will also have to be particularly sensitive to the

fact that, for the most part, the states do not now have one established

regulatory agency with statutory authority corresponding to that of the

CPSC. Since this is the case, the appropriate state agency will have to

be sought out on a case by case basis.

'^Now called the Nuclear Regulatory Agency,

32
Local authorities, for the most part, do not have as extensive

departmental organizations as do state governments nor have they had

as much experience in working with Federal agencies. This is particularly

true for localities of smaller size. Larger localities, e.g.. New York

City, have developed the experience and have had the Federal -local contact

that many of the states have had. However, most of the localities

holding jurisdiction in enforcement are of considerably smaller size,

Some coordinating effort, perhaps managed by the states involved, may

be necessary.

4.3. Development of Model Laws, Regulations and Standards and

Encouragement of Their Adoption by State or Local Govermients (5)

An alternative to mandatory standards are model standards, model

laws, and regulations which the Commission could encourage the states

to adopt on a uniform basis. Substantial uniformity could possibly be

achieved simply through the presence of the Commission's power of preemption.

Uniformity among the states allows for parallel enforcement actions re- inforcing Federal and state activity to in^rove product safety. Widespread adoption of models might be encouraged on the same basis, with

the single advantage over the mandatory standard being that it need not

be identical.

The existing model building code organizations, as well as the

NCSBCS, are organizations whose purpose is to develop model laws, codes

and standards. These organizations are the obvious ones for the CPSC

to coordinate with to encourage development and adoption of models.

This avenue has been used by other Federal agencies, but, in the instances

where it has been the most effective, it has also been tied in with

detailed programs of Federal-state cooperation in assuring compliance

with the laws. This countermeasure offers the states and the localities

the option of adopting or rejecting the regulation, and it thus allows

them to retain autonomy. However, in the case of model standards, it

may be contrary to current CPSC preferences of having outside groups

develop suggested (in this case, on a par with model) standards for CPSC

review and possible acceptance. Implementation of this countermeasure

would probably mean the decentralization of product safety policy and

enforcement power. (See B.4. in Appendix B for discussion of code groups.)

If the Commission were to rely on the adoption of model laws,

regulations or standards in lieu of the issuance of a single Federal

regulation or standard, they would, in the case of products installed

in the home, probably be considering adoption as part of a state or local building code. Given that, the CPSC should consider the performance of the existing model building code system discussed in B.8.

of Appendix B. While the time required for adoption of a model regulation

33
change is a factor, it would depend upon a comparison with the time involved

in the issuance of a mandatory standard by the Commission, The process

of implementating a recommendated model involves the initial modification

of a model building code and the adoption by a jurisdiction of the change.

Both activities require time and must be successfully completed prior to

implementation of the model. However, as indicated in Appendix B, the

percentage of jurisdictions following model building codes at all, and

the number that make recommended annual changes, may indicate to the

Commission that the coverage obtained through the model law and regulation

route may not be adequate. An additional factor, affected in a similar

way, is the level of enforcement. As in coverage, adequacy of enforcement

depends upon a comparison with what the Commission would expect to achieve

if they were to promulgate a consumer product safety rule.

4.4. Coordination and Cooperation With Other Federal Agencies (4)

The CPSA requires the Commission to cooperate with a number of

Federal agencies in administering its duties. For instance, the FHA

and VA control over some of the new housing units and a number of

occupied housing units being renovated could allow the CPSC to have an

effect on the safety standards and codes used in future housing as well

as existing housing. In many cases the CPSC may be able to mandate

actions by other agencies in areas in which the CPSC has control, however,

it may be more effective to enlist the voluntary cooperation of these

agencies

.

There are three agencies (FHA., VA, DOD) which presently have their

own inspection staffs, or have the authority to hire outside staffs, for

the inspection of residential construction. Use of these staffs in

conjunction with changes made in the property specifications (to increase

safety) used by these agencies would help ensure that the promulgated

changes will be implemented.

The Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Poison Prevention

Packaging Act of 1970, and the Flammable Fabrics Act all name the

Department of Health, Education and Welfare as the chief Federal agency

responsible for carrying out the provisions of the Acts. The CPSA has

subsequently transferred much of this responsibility to the CPSC.

However, the legal power that remains with HEW^, and much of the expertise

and cooperative structure necessary in certain fields of investigation^

make HEW a unique source of experience for the CPSC.

CPSC must work with all other Federal agencies engaged in both

building standards and codes development and promulagation (e.g., DoC.

%ith the FDA for foods, drugs and cosmetics.

^e.g.. The knowledge of the NIH staff in areas of effects of injuries on

humans, which is accessible to all agencies within HEW.

34
EPA) and the awarding of grants for research in consumer product safety

(NSF). The experience of the Building Research Advisory Board, National

Academy of Sciences, in coordinating and enlisting the cooperation of

other government agencies to develop a Federal Government set of property

standards may provide useful insights into how the CPSC may develop

good channels for cooperation within an operating framework.

Where CPSC has active cooperation with other Federal agencies,

it will also have to consider the role of the state and local governments

in the other agency programs. For exanq^le, if the CPSC were to seek

the introduction of a particular product safety requirement into FHA's

minimum property standards, the CPSC should consider what role local

building inspectors might play for the CPSC that would differ from their

current relationships with FHA.

One policy question that seems inextricably tied to the extent

and kinds of cooperation with other Federal agencies is the extent of

mandatory consumer product safety standards versus the voluntary (at

least from the Commission's view) standards approach. Presumably, com- pliance with a product safety rule concerning a product installed in a home would be mandatory on the part of the builder regardless of any

FHA or VA requirement. A decision to utilize FHA minimum property

standards as a means to achieving improved safety in the home could

require that the CPSC refrain from adoption of a mandatory standard for

the same product. Considerable study will be needed to determine which

method is most appropriate, weighing such factors as coverage obtained,

levels of compliance, cost of inplementation, etc. The Commission may

have to consider relinquishing some authority or funding in most cooperative efforts with either Federal or state agencies . (Relevant Federal

activities are noted in more detail in B.6. of Appendix B.).

4,5. Development and Implementation of More Effective Maintenance and

Safety-Oriented Performance Testing Programs (5)"

This countermeasure involves an effort which is designed to ensure

that a product installed in the home remains in safe working order during

its entire service life. Studies will be required to indicate which

products require periodic maintenance, at what interval and what operations

are required for safety. Such investigation may provide information

relevant to initial design which may result in fewer requirements for

safety oriented maintenance. Furnaces, for instance, have been tested

for fuel efficiency by fuel conpanies. Use of natural gas and oil

suppliers' personnel may be an effective avenue to acconplish safety

testing. The testers would have to be educated and trained in the

proper methods (once developed) for performance testing.

To accoii5)lish this tester training, the CPSC could enlist the

aid of state (perhaps universities), and possibly local officials. Other

avenues would be the cooperation of trade associations and unions. In

35
many instances, state or local ordinances will have to be passed to ensure

compliance on the part of those engaged in the maintenance or testing,

and that the regulations are carried out in the prescribed manner. One option may be the licensing, following certified training, of the

, personnel who do the work. Some system, (such as reporting to a licensing agency), whereby a homeowner who feels that the work has not

been done properly, can request a check by an independent authority,

may be useful.

4.6. Improvement of Information Dissemination or Education (6)

Several possibilities fall within the category of information

dissemination and education. For example, a general informational cam- paign to increase consumer consciousness relative to product safety,

and to assist them in evaluating the conparative safety of major consumer

products could be initiated. Such a canpaign would go beyond the mere

disclosure of known hazards and defects, and include guidelines for use

by consumers that are similar to those used by CPSC in their product

evaluation. Attention could be focused on those product related injuries

and accidents which seem to be as much attributable to carelessness as they are to product hazards. In addition, the Commission could consider

making practical recommendations for the consumer to correct or reduce

hazards typically associated with certain products.

Information dissemination and education should not be limited

to consumers. Awareness on the part of architects, builders, contractors,

etc. that product safety is often dependent upon design and installation

practices is crucial to improving these activities. The various trade

and professional organizations could be contacted as both a conduit to

reach the individual and as a source of material for educating the various

professions involved.

The various possible uses of information dissemination and education may necessitate the involvement of many organizations: governmental

departments, manufacturers, retailers, special interest groups, the

media, trade and business associations, and so on. The Bureau of

Information and Education at the Commission is responsible for such

activities. They may decide to conduct these activities directly, with

the aid of the media, or they may enlist the help of outside organizations

in developing and disseminating material and programs. It may be necessary

to provide incentives to certain groups to help in this dissemination,

and in certain cases to encourage jurisdictions to require training

of tradesmen or inspectors (e.g., to require of local inspectors that

they take a course in how to check for product safety in newly-built

homes)

.

4.7, Require the Labeling of a Product Regarding Safety Hazards (7)

The Commission may issue standards which require only labeling

36
or warning of hazard. Because o£ the detailed requirements for notice

and opportunity to comment on adoption of a safety standard, the Commission

may find it more difficult to issue a safety standard which is solely

concerned with product labeling. The Commission should consider labeling

and warnings as important adjuncts to performance requirements, if not

a distinct alternative in some cases.

Section 14 (c) of the Act permits the issuance of a labeling

requirement as to manufacturer identity without meeting the requirements

in Section 7 for consumer product safety standards. The ability to

identify the manufacturer and the time or place of manufacture, even

through a code, (such as is done in the case of textiles through

registration numbers with the FTC) , offers at least two potential con- sumer benefits. Such identification could facilitate repair, replacement

or refund in the event that it is required, and it could stimulate man- ufacturer responsibility in that private labels would no longer serve

as a "shield" against consumer con^laints. There is also a potential

for manufacturer benefit, since in the event a "recall" is required

the scope could be confined and the adequacy of notice less subject

to doubt. Obviously such a requirement would not be appropriate for

all products, but the Ccmnission could begin to consider those products

that might be suitable for such identification.

4.8. Require Public Notice of Defect or Failure to Comply With

Product Safety Rule"T^

This countermeasure brings to public attention violations

of individual hazard source groups associated with manufacturing,

processing, v^olesale operations managing, promotion and advertising,

retailing, retail product assembling, building and maintenance. The

countermeasure also conceivably will cause those groups required to

post such public notices to improve their future adherence to standards

and regulations.

Whether the notice is public or through private mailing will

depend upon the type of substantial hazard, the speed and efficacy

required by the notice, and the number of purchasers involved. If a particular product were found to be a substantial hazard, and it

could be determined that the hazard is the result of a defect occurring

in the manufacturing, either during a particular period or at a particular

plant, then the notice might be confined to manageable limits, if the

products are traceable to a place or time of manufacture. If not, it

is conceivable that a more stringent action might be required.

4.9. Court Action to Affect Injunction, Seizure or Condemnation (9)

This countermeasure assumes that no actions in the product

user environment can be effected that will accon^lish the desired re- duction in hazard. It is designed to catch products with imminent hazards

37
before they are installed in the homes. It is, in effect, a ban of

the sale of the product, but in an atmosphere where the product may

have otherwise been put into use. The countermeasure will involve

the use and cooperation of government and private law staffs for those

seeking the injunction, and private law staffs for those groups seeking

to block the injunction.

An injunction to restrain any violations of requirements

imposed under the CPSA. may be sought either by the Commission (Section

22 (a)) or by any interested person (Section 24). While similar to a ban, an injunction may be sought to:

(1) Enforce a ban against a product that could not be made

sufficiently safe through a performance standard; or

(2) To prevent distribution^in effect, ban, a product that

does not meet a performance standard or other safety

requirement in^osed under the Act.

Because an injunction cannot be applied effectively against

products already installed in the home, its primary usefulness relates to

products intended for such use but not yet distributed. Perhaps the

primary difference between injunction and seizure is that the former

would be used to prevent the introduction of products into commerce,

and seizure is used to remove from commerce those items already introduced and available for sale.

4.10. Recall and Refund Monies to Owners (10)

This countermeasure assumes the prior purchase and installation

of the product by the homeowner. It may be used primarily in cases

where no other countermeasure can be effective to reduce existing

hazards. The Commission may order repair, replacement, or refund.

The subject of the order may elect to refund as one of his options. This

countermeasure could involve the actions of any of the product history

groups named in countermeasure (8) (requiring public notice of defect)

,

plus the transporters, and storers. The intent of this countermeasure

is covered under Section 15 (d) (e) of the Act.

4.11. Ban the Sale and Distribution of Particular Products (11)

Banning a hazardous product, as provided for in Section 8 of

the CPSA, is a countermeasure designed for special cases where there is an unreasonable risk of injury sufficient to warrant a standard, but

where a standard would not adequately protect the public interest. Since

implementation of a ban is fairly straightforward there is little that

38
can be said that would be unique to products installed in the home.

One action that the Commission might consider is combining the evaluation

of unreasonable risks in determining whether a ban is appropriate with

the review of notices of new products that the Commission may require

according to Section 13 of the Act.

4.12. In Lieu of CPSC Court Action, Seek Written Assurances of Future

Compliance from Suspected Violators (ifj

Implementation of this countermeasure involves actions between

the CPSC and suspected violators. Associated with the countermeasure

should be a strong possibility that, if agreement for assurance is

not secured, the suspected violator may be found in violation of the

ruling involved. The assurances would be of a more private nature

in the sense that the public would be made aware of the action when it is

taken, but no continuing public announcements of the decisions would be

made. Such actions, of course, would be kept on record by the CPSC

and made available to anyone requesting them.

The Commission may consider obtaining "consent decrees" similar

to those obtained by the Federal Trade Commission, whereby the parties

involved provide a written promise not to perform certain acts complained

of, without admitting that they have been guilty in the past. This

approach would certainly be preferred by manufacturers and distributors

to an injunction, and it could save time for the Commission. Naturally,

this approach would not be obtainable or effective in all cases, but in some cases it might be sufficient to demonstrate the Commission's

seriousness and concern, vdiile providing producers and distributors

with a "second chance".

4.13. Publicize Consumer Product Safety Rules and Orders Under Section 15

of CPSA So That Citizens May Bring Court Actions to Achieve

Enforcement (13)"

This countermeasure provides consumers with a means for initiating

action against violators and aids the Commission in implementing a product safety rule or order. It has the benefit of involving the homeowner in the process of enforcement. However, there must be an effective

mechanism to inform the consumer of the proper methods for such action,

and to allow the consumer to take such action in the most expeditious

manner. There is a distinct possibility that, if such a mechanism is

not developed, the consumer will be reluctant to take the action. In

this case, the Commission may combine this countermeasure with one that

can take over in the case of consumer reluctance by having the Commission

receive documented violations in the same manner as prescribed for local

inspectors but administrated differently. Consumer interest groups could

be of help in promoting individual efforts, and in organizing class actions

where appropriate.

39
4 . 14 . Alter Products Already Installed On- Site to Remedy Defects (14)

This countermeasure recognizes that changes in the physical makeup

o£ a product, or in its placement in its environment, can reduce the

hazard. Groups involved in making this judgment with the CPSC will be

government and private experts in residence construction and engineering.

The building planners and the builders will handle the on-site repair, and,

in the case of removal to the factory, the actual removal of the product.

A requirement to either repair a product, replace it, or refund

the purchase price may be imposed in cases of substantial product hazards.

The person subject to the requirement has the option as to which of the

three he will select, but he may be required to submit a plan for Commission approval. There is probably little the Commission can do to predict

which choice will be made in any given case; however, the Commission

might be able to determine which choice is preferred in a case by case

basis and judge the plans submitted accordingly.

4.15. Replacement of Products Already Installed On- Site to Ranedy

Extant Defects (TSj

Replacement of some products could conceivably require action

by more than one of the hazard source groups involved in the development

and sale of the product. Replacement with another product of a different

t>'pe might be more complicated than replacement with a product of the same type. It might necessitate planning on the part of the manufacturer,

building planner and builder to effect the installation of the new product

in a manner which allows its operation to acconplish the same tasks as the old product. This countermeasure is offered along with the recall

and refund of monies as options for those subjected to the Commission

order. In the case of refund of monies to consumers, the original

product has no designated replacement and one may not be required.

However, if the affected product is a substantial hazard, the desired

elimination of the hazard will not be assured by a refund to the consumer

unless the return of the product is required as a condition for refund.

4.16. Amendment of Present Federal Legislation or Development of New

Legislation to Give the CPSC More Authority to Implement ~

Countermeasures (16)

One other action that the Commission might take is to seek

additional statutory authority for other countermeasures. For example,

the Hazardous Substances Act provides in Section 13 (a) that the Secretary

may publish summary reports of any judgments, decrees, or court orders

recorded under the Act including the nature of the charge and the disposition. If the Commission had such authority it might strengthen their

40
position in seeking con^liance because of the fear of adverse publicityinvolved. Publication of nonconformity to a standard under Section 15 (c)

of the CPSA, while not appealing to manufacturers, would probably be less

damaging than publication of adverse court actions.

The seeking of new or amended legislation may be occasioned by

the realization that present laws do not cover aspects desired by the

Commission, or it may be necessitated by perceived weaknesses or vagueness in present laws that can be corrected only by additional

legislation.

USCUMM-NBS-DC 41

APPENDIX A.

DATA SOURCES

The data needed for a successful determination of hazard source

involvement should cover the accident sequence and pertinent past history

of products, persons, and environments involved in individual accidents.

Nfost of the data sources surveyed offered very little of this information.

Where data sources did afford an indication of hazard sources, at best

conceivable candidates can only be estimated and often by subjective

interpretation of the data presented. Following are descriptions, by name

of source, of the general content of the data sources we have consulted.

Selected aspects of each source are discussed to illustrate the sources'

content in terms of what they offer to the report. Generalizations

concerning the overall usefulness of the sources are also made. It must

be noted, however, that the purpose of the particular report or data base

under review may not have been intended to provide the information being

sought by this investigation.

A.l. Descriptive Data on Residential Accident Types, Buffalo

Organization for Social and Technological Innovation CBOSTI) ^

The data base was set up "for an etiological and human factors analysis

of important home accidents, and for the subsequent development of preventive

performance specifications, based on a conceptualization of the accident as a system" (p. 1). Furthermore, the study collected "epidemiological data

on residential accidents from at least 30 states, covering all types of

housing..." (p. 1) and grouped the accidents into two types:

• "Group A", including accidents in which a housing element or service was the actual agent of injury or accident, and,

• "Group B", including accidents whose agents were products which

were deemed beyond the control of the housing industry. These

particular accidents are of interest, because "the housing design

context in which these products are used may contribute to the

occurrence of the accident, and that the factors that generate

their use may be modified in such a way as to prevent the

accident" (p. 3).

The data presented related the particular accidents to the cause of each accident. Little is given to indicate what underlying hazard

sources were involved. Also, the statistical significance of the

data is limited. The data collected do not appear to represent a base

that can be easily extended to represent the national picture. Certain

^ Increasing Residential Safety Through Perfomance Design—Phase 1, Buffalo Organization tor Social and Tecnnological Innovation, inc., August 3, 1971.

A-1
assumptions are made in the selection of data included in the base which

make it difficult to make inference concerning a number of products and

circumstances under consideration in this report. The accidents that are excluded from the BOSTI base, and that may be ajnportant for this study,

are excluded: (p. 170)

.

"1) because their prevention is already being dealt with on a larger scale by other organizations as in the case of fire

or explosion,

2) because they are not generated directly by human activity

in the Lise of a living space as in the case of accidents

caused by natural disasters, (and,)

3) because intervention by residential design is not possible,

as in the case of children's toys or home furnishings..."

While these data did give some indications concerning the accident -cause relationship for certain accident circumstances, they were of little use

for our purposes.

A. 2. In-Depth Investigatory Reports (IDIR's)^

The IDIR's are accident reports collected, by product category, either

by CPSC field investigators as follow-ups to reports from the National

Electronic Injury Surveillance System or by private contractors who use

a number of additional sources for descriptions of accident occurrence. They contain brief narratives and some quantitative information giving

insight into accident patterns and sequences. The number of IDIR's available

for a given product category varies widely and does not reflect a set

percentage of all accidents reported or occurring with each product. The

reports, however, do serve at least as examples of the accident situations

that can be expected to occur.

The information presented bears most directly on the causes of

accidents. While the hazard sources are, once again, not directly

indicated, one can derive an indication of feasible ranges of hazard sources involved with given accidents.

In an attempt to discover how effectively hazard sources might be

established from the IDIR's, 58 reports were read representing 9 of the

product categories under study (Since we are solely interested in the

value of the IDIR as a tool for establishing hazard sources, breakdowns

for each product are not given) . The reports read do not represent the

total number of the nine categories. They were selected at random to serve as examples

.

^Bureau of Epidemiology, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

A2
A list of possible hazard sources involving products installed in

homes was constructed before the reports were read. (Note that this list

is not the same as that fonnally presented in the text. It serves merely

as a breakdown for the purpose of example.) The list follows:

(1) Defective materials

(2) Improper materials

(3) Faulty design in manufacture or construction

(4) Inferior installation

(5) Inferior construction

(6) Inadequate maintenance

(7) Misuse prior to accident sequence

(8) Misuse during accident sequence by injured consumer

(9) Misuse during accident sequence by bystander

(10) Inadequate information about product's use and/or maintenance

(11) Cannot establish with degree of confidence

Table A. 2.1. summarizes the results of the survey. The results are dependent on the reader's interpretation of each ireport and may vary

from reader to reader. Multiple hazard sources in Table A. 2.1. indicate

that more than one hazard source may have contributed to an accident. The

hazard sources which most often contributed to an accident were in order

of frequency, misuse during accident sequence by injured consumer, inadequate

maintenance, and ii^proper materials.

Table A. 2.1.

Summary of Accident Causing Hazard Sources

Hazard Source

Number of Accidents

(Single Hazard Source)

Number of Accidents

(Multiple Hazard Sources)

1 0 1

2 5 6

3 1 3

4 1 4

5 0 0

6 5 9

7 2 2

8 16 16

9 1 3

10 1 1

11 3 0

A high degree of confidence cannot be placed in the estimates of

hazard source contribution. Much more detailed information on each case and its history would have to be obtained to be able to better establish the

contributing hazard source (s).

A3
Summaries of the IDIR's associated with given products are also

available. The summaries present condensed information, for every

accident occurring with a product, under the following categories: case number; sex of victim; age of victijn; date of accident; pattern of

the accident; accident sequence; disposition of the victim; specific injury

sustained; and, the product (and its make, if known). Occassionally, further

analyses and narratives are included. Several of these summaries were

compared with several of the corresponding IDIR's used in the above survey.

We felt that, in most cases, we could make as good an estimate of the

involved hazard source (s) with the summaries as we were able to with the

full reports. For the purpose of estimating some very general trends in

hazard source involvement, the summaries are a more time- efficient vehicle.

The same problems with lack of more detailed information are, however,

heightened.

A. 3. National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) Summary

Matrices"^

Summary matrices for FY73 for all 44 individual products (representing

the 12 product categories) were obtained. The matrices include information

on: date of the accident; age and sex of the victim; disposition of the

victim; type of injury and the body part injured.

These data do not give any indication of the accident situation,

and thus do not contribute significantly to the determination of hazard

sources. The data base, however, is the most statistically significant and

reliable one available for information on accidents occurring in the home.

A. 4. Flammable Fabrics Accidents Case and Testing System (FFACTS)**

The data included in the FFACTS is very similar to those available

from the CPSC. The extent of infomation available lies somewhere between

that available from the NEISS reports and that available from the IDIR's.

The products of interest to this study would generally be listed as "ignition

sources".

A. 5. National Center for Health Statistics Data^

The information available from the National Center for Health Statistics

includes statistics on accidents in the United States covering types of

^Bureau of Epidemiology, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

"^Fire Technology Division, Institute for Applied Technology, National

Bureau of Standards.

^U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service,

Types of Injuries Incidence and Associated Disability , United States

July 1965-June 1967, October 1969.

A-4
injuries, number and types o£ persons injured, disability days due to

injury, itc. The data are useful as support material, but they are neither broken down by product nor presented in a manner which gives an indication of the accident pattern, sequence, hazard sources involved,

and so on.

A. 6. U.S. Department of the Interior, and National Oceanographic and

Atmospheric Administration Accident Reporting Systems

While these systems do present consistent reports on accidents

involving Interior and NOAA employees, the accidents are all occupational.

Of the reports surveyed, very few of them involved products installed in

homes. The displays available give information, by accident, on items

covering the injured party, the product, and the circumstances of the

accident.

A. 7. Household Safety Study^

This study of home accidents was conducted by mailing questionnaires

to selected people requesting information on the latest accidents in their

households. The reports available give information on the product

involved, the date of the accident, the age and sex of the victim, very

short edited phrases giving the skeleton of the accident sequence, and an estimate from the person reporting the accident on how the accident

may have been prevented. Due to the structure of the survey, the

statistical validity and the accuracy of the reporting is limited.

The information presented was of little use for our purposes.

A. 8. Home Department Data, National Safety Council

The information available from the National Safety Council does not

give breakdowns by products . The data are of a gross nature (e.g., total

number of accidents involving bums from ranges) and do not give the

history or sequence of the individual accidents. They are thus not

detailed enough to indicate estimations of hazard source involvement.

A. 9 . A Design Guide for Home Safety^

This report lists causes of accidents for the product categories

involved in this study. These causes, however, are almost entirely related

to physical characteristics of the faulty product -environment system. They

do not indicate what, or who, caused the faults. The report does offer

constructive recommendations for design of homes promoting accident

reduction.

^Market Facts, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, June 1971.

^Teledyne Brown Engineering, prepared for HUD, PB-211709, January 1972.

A-5

injuries, number and types o£ persons injured, disability days due to

injury, itc. The data are useful as support material, but they are neither broken doMi by product nor presented in a manner which gives an indication of the accident pattern, sequence, hazard sources involved,

and so on.

A. 6. U.S. Department of the Interior, and National Oceanographic and

Atmospheric Administration Accident Reporting Systems

While these systems do present consistent reports on accidents

involving Interior and NOAA employees, the accidents are all occupational.

Of the reports surveyed, very few of them involved products installed in

homes. The displays available give information, by accident, on items

covering the injured party, the product, and the circumstances of the

accident.

A. 7. Household Safety Study^

This study of home accidents was conducted by mailing questionnaires

to selected people requesting information on the latest accidents in their

households. The reports available give information on the product

involved, the date of the accident, the age and sex of the victim, very

short edited phrases giving the skeleton of the accident sequence, and

an estimate from the person reporting the accident on how the accident

may have been prevented. Due to the structure of the survey, the

statistical validity and the accuracy of the reporting is limited.

The information presented was of little use for our purposes.

A. 8. Home Department Data, National Safety Council

The information available from the National Safety Council does not

give breakdowns by products. The data are of a gross nature (e.g., total

number of accidents involving bums from ranges) and do not give the

history or sequence of the individual accidents. They are thus not

detailed enough to indicate estimations of hazard source involvement.

A. 9 . A Design Guide for Home Safety^

This report lists causes of accidents for the product categories

involved in this study. These causes, however, are almost entirely related

to physical characteristics of the faulty product -environment system. They

do not indicate what, or who, caused the faults. The report does offer

constructive recommendations for design of homes promoting accident

reduction.

^Market Facts, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, June 1971.

^Teledyne Brown Engineering, prepared for HUD, PB- 211709, January 1972.

APPENDIX B.

INSTITUTIONAL GROUPS INFLUENCING THE SAFETY OF RESIDENCES

The safety aspects of the products installed in residences is

determined by the acts of the many individuals and institutional groins

listed in Tables 2.4.1. and 2.4.2. This appendix discusses the activities

of what might be considered the most important groups relative to the

regulation of the building and related industries and its bearing on those

products under study. Discussion will concentrate on the present activities

of the various institutional groups under the existing regulatory system

without speculating on what part, either passive or active, these groups

could take to decrease injuries when faced with a particular CPSC

initiative. The information developed for the institutional groups was used in sections (4) of this report, which discusses the implementation

of alternative countermeasures , The institutional groups to be discussed

include the housing construction industry, trade and professional

associations , model building code organizations , standard making

organizations , Federal Government agencies , state government agencies and

local government building departments. This information is used to indicate

how alternative CPSC implementation approaches parallel activities presently

being carried out in some fashion by existing institutional groups.

Particular attention will be directed to describing activities which could

be directly affecting consumer product safety or could be used to aid the

implementation of CPSC product safety rules or education programs.

B.l. Housing Construction Industry

The construction industry includes general building contractors,

special trade contractors (plumbing, heating, air conditioning, painting,

paper hanging, decorating, electrical work, masonry and other stonework,

plastering and lathing, terrazzo, tile, marble, mosaic work, carpentering,

floor laying and floor work, roofing and sheet metal work, concrete work,

structural steel erection, glass and glazing work, excavating and foundation

work, and installing building equipment) and operative builders.^ Housing

construction fims in the United States consist of a combination of many

small fims and a relatively few large firms in terns of both dollars

expended and numbers of construction workers employed. In fact, in 1967,

of the 795,000 total construction firms, 436,000 were run without a payroll by working partners or proprietors.^ The median construction firm had

total annual receipts of between $10,000 and $25,000. Of those firms

having a payroll, the median firm had receipts between $50,000 and $100,000.

^Builders prmarily engaged in construction for sale on their own account

rather than as contractors.

^^^^^^ Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1973

1 ^4tn edition; , wasnington, B.C. 1973. n. t^/J. ' Vh. .t.f . c^-f-,.. Ar. Qirrerentiate

m

"the type o± building taking place and the statistics used this discussion include buildings of all types regardless of use. B-1
There are 16,137 firms with annual receipts exceeding one million dollars,

with an average of 3.4 million dollars per firm. Firms with total receipts

exceeding one million dollars (which include subcontract payments for

construction work) represent only 2% of construction firms, yet they

account for 541 of the total receipts. Table B.1.1 indicates, for

construction firms with a payroll , an average of only 8 workers per

firm, with special trades contractors averaging 6.3 and operative builders

having an average of 3.7 workers. Average net receipts for all types

of construction firms after deduction payments to subcontractors is

$189,000. The regulation of an industry as diffuse as the construction

industry presents quite a challenge. Many factors must be considered when

addressing the operations of the construction industry which ultimately

affect the safety aspects of residences being constructed.

Market competition and the economics of operation introduce many

practices and factors which may influence safety. The factors which

influence a builder's selection of materials and design include the

type of structure, as well as its intended market. Residential construction

types include high-rises, mid-rises, garden type structures, detached

houses, row or townhouses, etc. Market considerations include competition

and the structures intended use-^diether for rental, condominiums or single

resident owner-and the degree of luxury required. The practice of engaging

an independent architect to design, supervise construction, and certify to

the owner that a building has been completed according to plan for an agreed upon percentage of total cost, has decreased in practice over

time. The present day arrangement is one of owner-developers hiring

architects and engineers for a salary in hopes of cutting the costs of

construction. One of the by-products of this practice is that the

architect has lost his ability to control deviations from his plans which

could result in code violations. This is true, since, in most instances,

he does not supervise construction, nor can he overrule an owner-developer.

Another practice which has potential for allowing unsafe conditions

and code violations is the practice of piecework payment. Piecework

involves paying tiadesmen by the job, although technically (perhaps

by union rule) they may be getting paid by the hour. The advantage to

the subcontractor or developer is to afford him a fixed-cost operation.

If a tradesman experiences difficulties causing delay, he will be working

in effect at a lower hourly rate, thus encouraging him to rush the job with

the possibility of making mistakes or using improper practices. The subcontractor system widely used in the United States tends to encourage such

practices, since the economics of construction dictate a quick turnover

from one job to another. Furthermore, subcontractors are tempted,

when qualified tradesmen are not available, to hire rovers for the sake

of meeting construction deadlines. These conditions make the inspection

and enforcement function of the local building code enforcement agency

B-2
CD I—I

03

p;OH CD <D -M W) U

03 5 t/) e ^ S >H p o CD to

a» 4-1 <u -H

oo r*

J

J- fn

+-> CD /—

<D in

CD (->

g TO iH LO LO OO

OO LO OO to

rrt 1 •1—4- 1 , j ?H (D P-i O fee- <U U X > CD H

I—1

03 M CD /—

N

O Cl, (/) o 1—1 o

CD (->H c3 vD

O LO bO Ph-h (/) (SI (Nl tn 1—1 to

rrt . -J Ll C/D CO CO

5h CD

O

CD

U -5 > CD H < w

c/) +J

CD >—i i o I—1

CD CT> to

i-H OO o to

t/i !>, r-- 1—1 o <yt •H 03

l-H P-( oo LO LO to vO C3^ 1—1 1—1 03 X to CM

4-* 4-*

(/5 -H W ^

1—1OS (A •MO O^

-4-ct

to

to 03

O

CD 5-1 4-> •H 4-> o o 03

4-> •H

O

U

4-> 4-> O f-. o CD

4-> •H lu

CD •H

1—1 t3 o o •H 03 •H u ;3 f-. ct CQ ve

1—1 1-1 •H

g •H 03 o3 4->

4-) 5h •H 03 I—1

CDU ^1 •H CD CD o CD P.

pq CO &

to

CD

4->

4-> COt3

CD B

CD

4-> mom

4-i U

03U

4-) CO

o3o

•H

4->

C/1 •H

4-) 03

4-> CO

CD

M-l t3

CD>

•H

CD

ino

•H

+->

t/5 •H

4-> 03

4-1 CO

t/1 5hCD

4-) OO

4-> 13

CD 4JU

03U

4-> ou

tosg

•H

4-J O

4-' o

in

4->

CDI

I/)

(/) CD

to

4-> o, •H

<DO

CD8

•H

4-> ^

4-> Ou

B-3
extremely important for the protection of the people who will occupy

these structures. The fact that there are 800,000 construction firms

operating in the United States makes this task difficult. Of course the

local building and zoning codes provide guidelines ajid constraints within

which most builders will remain. In the following sections we will discuss

the degree of consideration given by local building codes to the safety of

the products installed in homes.

Recent efforts by the home construction industry reflect an

awareness of the need, or at least an awareness that the public perceives

a need, for increased quality control and protection for the home buyer.

The home building industry is introducing a national home owners warranty

program modeled after a similar program now operating in England.

The warranty covers: first year faulty workmanship and defective

materials; during the first two years plumbing, heating, cooling, and

electrical systems and their installation, exclusive of defects covered

by any manufacturer's warranty; and for ten years, major construction

defects. The program is being implemented through the National Association

of Home Builders (NAHB) and will be administered by a council established

by the NAHB. The council will use fees (0.2% per house) to obtain insurance

coverage for claims paid to home owners during the third through tenth

years of warranty coverage with the builder responsible the initial two

years. The program is intended to provide a mechanism to decide disputes

between builder and buyer through the council and finally through binding

arbitration. The council will establish standards of construction, such as those of FHA, VA, and local building codes, for housing under warranty and

inspect homes to insure the standards are being met.

B.2. Trade Associations

The system for determining those specifications required of products

used in the building industry has evolved over time as the need to establish

guidelines for manufacturers, designers, builders, and code officials became

apparent. Organizations and institutions have grown with the support of

various sections of the building industry as well as various government

agencies to guide the development and acceptance of innovations in

construction methods and materials. Among those institutions having an

interest in such requirements are trade associations, which consist of

a group of business firms joined for the promotion of their common interests.

There are more than 150 such associations and technical groups producing standards

to which the building industry is asked to conform.^ One of the model

building codes (the Basic Building Code) references over 400 standards for

the various aspects of construction.

^ Building the American City , Report of the National (Douglas) Commission on Urban Problems to the Congress and to the President of the United States,

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1968, p. 263.

B-4
Except in the larger cities the basic industries (steel, lumber,

cement and gypsum) do not become involved in local building regulations.^

Their trade associations, however, are a major force for change in the

model building codes. The engineers assigned by trade associations to

work with the model code associations are concerned with keeping the codes

up to date for their products and, if possible, gaining a better

competitive position for their industry. When they are threatened, trade

associations will fight changes. Following an intensive campaign,

proponents of plastic pipe had achieved its adoption in the Building

Officials Conference of America (BOCA) Basic Building Code of 1970. The

Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute realizing the potential harm to their position

as a result of such a change brought suit against BOCA to prevent their

publication of the approved changes allowing plastic pipe. The Illinois

Supreme Court finally acted to dismiss the case.

In view of obvious opposing interests, the trade associations have

formed an organization to deal with model code publishing groups. This

organization know as the Building Industry Association Representatives

(BIAR) attempts to represent the common interests of their trade

associations. The representatives of BIAR discuss code change policies

and procedures and other needs and recommendations with the model code

groups

.

B. 3. Professional Associations

In addition to the trade associations which represent almost every

product or material used in construction, there are professional societies

which also influence the actions of the model code associations. The

ultimate design and material specifications for buildings and systems is

determined within the constraints of the building code system by the

membership of the following associations: The American Institute of

Architects, American Society of Civil Engineers, National Society of

Professional Engineers, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and

Air Conditioning Engineers, The Society of Mechanical Engineers, American

Institute of Electrical Engineers. The talents of the membership of

these associations are employed to design and construct housing and

associated equipment and make the decisions which result in "safe" or not

so safe" places for people to live. These professionals, rather than the

building code officials, can, if given the proper incentives and information,

make changes to reduce accidents in the home.

Members of these professional societies are often active on various

committees producing standards for the building industry. Often a society

may be assigned as secretariat for a particular standard for which they

have expressed strong interests and shown initiative.

^Richard L. Sanderson, Codes and Code Administration: An Introduction to

Building Regulations in the United States , Building Officials Conference

of America, Inc., Chicago, 1969, pp. 33-34.

B-5
B.4. Model Buildiag-Related Code Groups

The Basic Building Code (BBC) , developed by the Building Officials

Conference of America, Inc., states regulations which :^

"...control all matters concerning the construction, alteration,

addition, repair, removal, demolition, use, location, occupancy

and maintenance of all buildings and structures . . . ; except as such matters are otherwise provided for in the local municipal

chapter, or other ordinances or structures, or in the rules and

regulations authorized for promulgation under the provisions of

the Basic Code."

This is the general scope which all of the model building codes are designed

to cover. The codes are of a voluntary nature such that localities may

choose to adopt all, or portions, of them. In the area of safety, they

are theoretically designed®

"...to safeguard life or limb, health, and public welfare and the

protection of property as it relates to these safeguards by

regulating and controlling the design, construction, prefabrication, equipment or appliance installation, quality of materials,

use and occupancy location and repair of detached. . .dwellings."

IVhen operating effectively in this capacity, the model codes would seem

to be promising avenues for effective ranges in safety- related building

code aspects.

Most localities and states have adopted, completely or in some altered form, one of the five national model building codes. The

associations, and their codes are:

• Building Officials Conference of America (BOCA)—Basic Building

Code (BBC) • American Insurance Association (AIA)

National Building Code

(NBC) • Southern Building Code Congress (SBCC)

Southern Standard Building

Code (SSBC) • International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO)

Uniform

Building Code (UBC)

With the cooperation of all four of the above—One and Two Family Dwelling

Code . ~

^ The BOCA Basic Building Code/1970 , Building Officials Conference of

America, Chicago, 1970, p. 1.

® One and Two Family Dwelling Code , 1271 Edition, Preface, Openifig Paragraph.

B~6
The four separate organizations are located at the four comers of

the nation—one on each coast and the other two in the nation's north and

south. Sanderson (BOCA) reports that the local acceptance of the codes

tends to be very regional. However, there is a certain amount of

competition among the organizations in getting their codes more

nationally accepted. With the trend seeming to be toward state

promulgation of building codes, this competition may intensify. As

an example of this competition, a conversation^ with an official of the

American Insurance Association revealed that, in some areas of the nation,

they are losing ground to BOCA, mainly because BOCA offers an architectural

plan and equipment endorsement service in cooperation with the Underwriters'

Laboratories. Product approval or certification programs for about one- half of the codes and standards generating groups are carried on by private

agencies.^" A handbook. Building Codes: Product Approvals has been

written on the subject of product approvals applicable to the construction

industry.

The influence that the model code associations exert over the

localities is due in large part to the inability of most localities to

develop their own codes. Ckily the larger municipalities have the staff

available for such a task. As a result, most localities use the prepared

and readily- available model codes. Also, such services as BOCA offers

(as mentioned above) may attract low- staffed departments.

The comparison of the various model codes offers some interesting

points about their relative and absolute value in the consideration of

home safety. A study done in 1970 by Teledyne Brown Engineering for

the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) analyzes certain

safety aspects of a number of products for the following building codes:

BBC, SSBC, UBC, NBC, and the Federal Housing Administration's Minimum

Property Standards (MPS). Teledyne Brown's intent for HUD was to show

the relative quality of the MPS. Two types of specifications are analyzed for the MPS: safety specifications (SS) and prescription

specifications (PS) . The analysis attempted to show the relative and

absolute quality of the codes in relation to accident causal factors

(e.g., slippery treads for stairs, or glass thickness for glass doors)

defined by Teledyne Brown. The analysis determined for each of the

products considered (stairways, glass doors, windows, doors other than

glass and hot water systems) whether code language was adequate, adequatedeficient, deficient, or omitted requirements which could reduce accident

occurrences for products. Figure B.4.1. was derived from the Teledyne

^Telephone conversation with Mr. Watson, January 16, 1974.

^° Building the American City , op. cit. , p. 263

^ ^William Demarest, Building Codes : Product Approvals, Ludlow Bookman, New

Haven, 1964.

"~

^^Shuford, R. H., Jr., Editor, Summary Report, Phase I Study: Home Accident

Causes and Recommended Remedial Measures, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Jan. 1970.

B-7
Percentage

of Total

Requirements

for Safety

Figure B.4.1

CoiDparison of Building Codes for Requirements

Affecting Product Safety of Products

Installed in Homes

100 -

80

60

40 -

20

12

Adequate

1+4 4

A ^

18

16

Ik

12

71

Adequate

Deficient

Deficient Omitted

Teledyne Brown Rating

A - Basic Building Code

X - Southern Standard Building Code

" - Uniform Building Code

I - National Building Code

: - FHA "Safety" Standards

- - FHA "Prescription" Standards

Percentage

of Total

Requirements

for Safety

100

80

60 -

40

20

22

20

22

0 0

Adequate Adequate - Deficient

Deficient

50

52

Omitted

Teledyne Brown Rating

B-8
Brown analysis and portrays the percentage of the defined requirements falling

within the four categories established for the evaluation. It is recognized

that some of the requirements are more crucial from the standpoint of safety

than others. However, for the purpose of obtaining a gross measure of the

relative quality of the codes, the various requirements for the products

evaluated have been combined.

There are some basic conclusions that can be drawn from this work.

Under the analytical framework defined by Teledyne Brown, the HUD MPS's

appear to include a higher percentage of adequate specifications then do

the other four codes. Furthermore, the MPS's have a lower percentage of

omissions. Within the four model codes, the percentages in each category

from adequate to omitted are fairly close. In an absolute sense, however,

none of the five codes appear to consider safety to a large degree. The

average of the four model codes for adequate specifications is only 10%;

the corresponding value for the MPS's is 20-6. The model codes have only

3.5% in the adequate- -deficient range; the MPS's have 21% deficient. The

model codes and the MPS's have, correspondingly, 59.5% and 51% omitted.

The remaining 8% and 9%, respectively, are in the "Not Applicable" area. While the methods used by Teledyne Brown are but one possible set for

such an analysis, their results do indicate significant lack of safety

consideration in the specifications of the five building codes by 1970.

One other important type of model codes is the model housing code.

This code differs from the model building code in that it is primarily

related to the occupancy requirements of buildings and their maintenance

after they have been constructed and occupied. One example of such a code,

the Southern Standard Housing Code ^^^ 1971> Edition, states that it is

designed to help secure "public safety, health, and general welfare-

through structural strength, stability, sanitation, adequate light and

ventilation, and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards

incident to the construction, alteration, repair, removal, demolition, use and

occupancy of dwellings, apartment houses, rooming houses or building, structures

or premises used as such."

Since, in the near future, the large proportion of occupied housing units

in this country will not have been built under regulations altered to increase

their safety aspects, the housing code, as a vehicle for requiring the

alteration of existing sturcture, may be important to the CPSC. While the

methods of enforcement of the housing code are more complicated and often more

difficult than the enforcement of building codes on the construction site

through inspection, the promulgated codes are associated with some type of

enforcement mechanism in the localities adopting them.

Two other associations, (and their respective regulations) cover

only certain segments of building, but are of wide enough acceptance

to deserve mention. They are the codes and code groups for electrical

work and plumbing. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

^Southern Building Code Congress, pg. 1.

B-9
produces as one of its codes the National Electric Code (NEC) , which is

the major code used by virtually all localities for the regulation of

electrical installations and operations. Also, the American Society

for Mechanical Engineers (ASME) produces the National Plumbing Code,

which has enjoyed fairly wide acceptance. Furthermore, all of the

major model building code associations promulgated*^ the use of the NEC

and the NPC to all of their subscribers. As such, these two codes are major influences on these two building specialities.

Capital stock insurance companies comprise the membership of

the American Insurance Association (AIK) , whose major interest is to

reduce the loss from fire or other' damage to the structures. While this

interest is in common with that of the CPSC, it only covers the major

accidents, ones in which the structure itself is damaged, and does not

necessarily emphasize the safety of the inhabitants from occurrences

not resulting in property loss. The NFPA's membership is broader than

that of the AIA. Sanderson states that:^^

"It is comprised of some two hundred organization members,

mostly trade associations and insurance rating bureaus, and

twenty one thousand associate members. The latter includes

architects, builders, merchants, manufacturers, engineers,

fire marshals, fire chiefs, firemen, electricians, credit

men, insurance executives, field men, agents, brokers,

chambers of commerce, public libraries and many other

organizations, individuals, firms and corporations."

The methods for revision of model codes are basically the same

for all groups. Changes are made on a voting approval basis, with all

members involved in at least part of the process. For those areas which

require either more expert advice or consolidation of effort due to the

largeness of the organizations, preliminary judgments and suggestions

are made by committees set up to study special topics for review. As

an example, consider the diverse membership of the NFPA. Their own staff

does much of the research and development, since they are the ones who

are dealing with the issues on a day-to-day basis. Recommendations

for changes in the national fire codes are made by them to the membership

for approval, modification or rejection.

Building officials' organizations provide a very inportant service

to construction industry trade associations- -research and product approval

programs. The most elaborate of the three is that of BOCA, who, as mentioned

d'^With the exception of BOCA, which has developed its own mechanical code

to replace the NPC.

^^Sanderson, op. cit. , pp. 37-38.

B-10
above, works with the Underwriter's Laboratories, Inc. to approve products.

As Sanderson states . ^ ^

"Since the model codes are performance codes which rely on nationally accepted standards for established materials and methods,

it was necessary to establish a method whereby proprietary products

not expressly covered by the codes or standards may be certified

by an authoritative agency as acceptable under the performance

requirements of the code. The building officials' organizations,

when satisfied that a product is acceptable, issue a recommrtendation

that local governments enforcing their model code accept the product.

These recommendations are not binding on the users of the model codes

but it is rare that they are not accepted."

The general procedures for proprietary product approval are the same for

all three organizations, with only slight variations among them. The

purpose is to allow manufacturers the easier avenue of approaching widelyaccepted code organizations for product approval, rather than making them go

to every locality in which they want to market their products. While these

approvals are only recommendations to localities, these recommendations are generally followed.

There has been a trend in recent years towards coordination of codes

for the major purposes of allowing the groups to reduce duplication of

effort and of establishing a more coherent and homogeneous code system across

the nation. Three organizations which have developed to establish such

coordination are:

Ivfodel Code Standardization Council (MCSC)

ANSI Construction Technical Advisory Board (CTAB)

Council of American Building Officials (CABO)

As an example of the activities of these organizations, consider the MCSC.

It was formed in 1949 as the Joint Committee on Building Codes and has

representatives from NBS, HUD, ANSI, NFPA, AIA, UL, the American Institute of

Architects, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the National Research

Council of Canada, the Building Research Advisory Board, National Conference

OS States on Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) , BOCA, ICBO, and SBCC.

Subjects of discussion at MCSC include review of the most recent developments

in codes, standards, construction methods and new products. In the NCSBSC

January 1974 issue of "News," (page 2) guest editor James C. Spence gives the

following description of recent MCSC activities:

"One of the more significant actions taken by the MCSC at its last

meeting was the formation of an MCSC standards Committee, with the

objective of developing and maintaining a list of current standards

for reference in building codes. The Committee has the responsibility

of reviewing all new and revised national standards and making

recommendations concerning their inclusion in a list of current

^Sanderson, op. cit., p. 89.

B-ll
standards for reference in codes. The Committee will also encourage

the adoption by code organizations and other agencies of the standards

listed by MCSC.

The work of the Standards Committee has progressed to the point where

it has completed a listing of materials and specification standards,

application standards, design criteria, and safety to life standards

for building codes. Similar listings are also being assembled for

plumbing and mechanical codes."

Coordination efforts like the ones run by the above organizations can contribute significantly to the standardization efforts across the nation.

B.5. Standards Organizations

The model building codes and organizations strongly depend on voluntary

product standards, developed by a number of organizations, for guidance on

structure, installation and performance recommendations for specific products.

There are 39 organizations listed in Table B.5.1. which either develop or recognize voluntary product standards for products installed in residences.

These organizations (Table B.5.2.) may be classified as government, trade and

business associations, professional societies, nonaligned associations and

testing-oriented laboratory. The National Bureau of Standards^ ^ has tabulated

voluntary consumer product standards. Table B.5.3. organizes these standards

by the 12 NEISS product categories being studied and indicates the number of

standards promulgated by each organization, not all of which relate to

product safety .

The only organization which has as a major purpose to recognize, and

through their adoption, help promote, standards is the American National

Standards Institute, Incorporated (ANSI). ANSI, besides being a coordinating

agency for standards' adoption, also encourages standard development through

well-established procedures. For the approval of standards made by other

groups, ANSI uses its "existing standards" method whereby they review the

standards for their quality. The "sectional committee" method is used in the case where a standard is requested. Here, ANSI acts as a coordinating agency

to decide : ^ ^

"a. if there is a need for a requested standard

b. if there is an existing representative activity for developing the

standard."

If a and b are answered in the affirmative, the existing group is

encouraged to develop a standard and submit it to ANSI. If b is answered in

the negative, ANSI encourages the formation of a sectional committee of

representatives from groups considered to have expertise in the particular

subject area. When approved by ANSI, the sectional committee becomes

^'Tabulation of Voluntary Standards and Certification Programs for Consumer

Products, Chumus, TN-762.

^ ^Sanderson, op. cit. , p. 23.

B-12
Table B.5.1.

Organizations Which Develop Voluntary Standards

for Products Installed in Residences

AAMA Architectural Aluminum Manufacturers Association

ACI American Concrete Institute

AHAM Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

AIA American Institute of Architects

ANSI American National Standards Institute, Inc.

ARI — Air- Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning

Engineers

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASSE American Society of Sanitary Engineers

ASTNl American Society for Testing and Materials

AVATI Asphalt and Vinyl Asbestos Tile Institute

AWI ** Architectural Woodwork Institute

BHMA Builders Hardware Manufacturers Association

CEE International Commission on Rules for the Approval of Electrical

Equipment

CLFMI Chain Link Fence Manufacturers Institute

DOC ** U.S. Department of Commerce

FHDA Fir and Hemlock Door Association

FSPT — Federation of Societies of Paint Technology

GTA Glass Tempering Association

lAR'D International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials

lES Illuminating Engineers Society

ISO International Organization for Standardization

MFMA Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association

NAAMM National Association of Architectural Metal Manufacturers

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association

NCMA National Concrete Masonry Association

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

NOFMA National Oak Flooring Manufacturers Association, Inc.

NPA National Particleboard Association

JNor National Sanitation Foundation

NSPI National Swimming Pool Institute

NIMA National Terrazzo and Mosaic Association, Inc.

NWMA National Woodwork Manufacturers Association

SCRMA Screen Manufacturers Association

SIGMA Sealed Insulating Glass Manufacturers Association

STDI Steel Door Institute

SWI Steel Window Institute

UL Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc.

WSFI Wood and Synthetic Flooring Institute of America

B-13
Table B.5.2.

' Classification of Voluntary

Product Standards Organizations

Classification Organizations

Government DOC

Trade and Business Associations AAMA, ACT, AHAM, ARI, AVATI

AWI, BHMA, CLFMI, FHDA, FSPT,

GTA, lAPMO, MFMA, NAA>4M, NEMA, NCMA,

. NOFMA, NPA, NSF, NSPI, NTMA,

NWMA, SCRMA, SIGMA, STDI, SWI

and WSFI

Professional Societies AIA, AHRAE, ASME, ASSE, IBS

"Nonaligned" Associations NFPA, ANSI, ASIM, CEE and ISO

Testing-Oriented Laboratory UL

B-14
Table B.5.3.

Standard Promulgation Organizations for Products Installed in Residences

Standards by NEISS

Product Category Standard Promulgating Organizations

I8O1" ANSI*, AWI, m\A, NAAM

Doors ... u 1805 NWMA, D0C(4) , NAANM(2)*, FHDA, UL, AAMA(4)**, STDI(2)

1827 " FHDA, DOC, SCRMA

Architectural Glass

0609 ANSI*, GTA*

1815 D0C(7), SIGMA, ANSI*, ASTM(4) , AAMA(4) , UL*, NFPA*, SWI

1823 AAMA*

1824 - ANSI*, ASTM*, GTA*

1825 ANSI*, AAMA*, GTA*

1826 ' AAMA

1836 AAMA

Bathtubs ... 0611 ANSI(2), D0C(2), lAPMO

Space Heaters . .

.

0313 AHAM*, UL(4)****, NEMA*, CEE*, ARI*

0314 ANSI (3)*

0320 DOC

0323 UL(5) *****, ANSI*

0324 UL*, AHAM*

Swimming Pools ... 1231 NSPI*, UL*, NSF(6)*, NCMA

Floors . .

.

1807 ASTM(3), USC(3), NFMA, AVATI, ACI(2), NOFMA, NTMA,

NPA, WSFI(5), ISO, ANSI (4)

Fences ... 1834 D0C(2) , ASTM, CLFMI(2)

Furnaces . .

.

0310 ANSI (3)***

0311 UL(2)**

0318 UL*, ARI*

0328 ANSI (2)**

0329 UL(2)**

0335 UL*

Water Heaters

0118 ANSI (2)**

0119 UL(2)**, ANSI*, CEE*

0120 UL*

0128 CEE*

Outside Structures...

1810 NCMA

#Numbers in parentheses indicate the total number of standards by a given

organization for a given product. If no number is indicated there is only

one such standard.

*Each asterisk indicates a standard specified in the NBS publication as

a '''safety standard".

B-15
autonomous, though subject to ANSI procedures, and develops the standard.

ANSI standard approval is based on a consensus of all members. In the

case of sectional committee operation, a Standards Board of selected

representatives from the field review the committee's recommendations. The

Construction Standards Board reviews work on building materials and

construction standards. Table B.5.4. lists the ANSI standards committees

which deal with construction or with the products under study.

The board most pertinent to this project within ANSI is the Construction

Technical Advisory Board (CTAB) . CTAB is charged with "managing standards

programs affecting the building industry, by coordinating voluntary material

standards; minimizing duplication of effort, stimulating the standards

activities of existing committees and organizations; keeping standards up to

date; assuring protection and representation of public interests; determining

the need for new standards; and seeking action by existing organizations

competent to solve the need." As such, CTAB is the major ANSI committee

dealing with building-related standards. CTAB's recognition is broadening

to the extent that organizations like NCSBCS have sought membership on the

Board

.

The two largest and most diverse groups developing standards applicable

to the products under consideration are the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) and the Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. (UL) . ASTM

develops and publishes specifications for standards and methods for testing

materials and assemblies. Technical committees, while under the aegis of

ASTM, nevertheless enjoy large autonomy. Many standards are approved on a tentative basis and implemented for a few years. The responsibility of

monitoring the progress of the standard's application, and for making a final decision on approval, is given to the technical committee. The final

decision on adoption is based on a concensus vote of the Society. The

ASTM committees of interest to this project are: E32 on criteria for evaluating

agencies concerned with engineering (systems) analysis, testing, and/or

compliance assurance of manufactured building; E-6 on performance of

building construction; E-36 on criteria for evaluation of testing and/or

inspection agencies; and F-15 on consumer product safety.

Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. (UL) was founded in 1894 by William H.

Mervill to help insurance companies test products for electric and fire

hazards. Over the years, UL has developed into an independent, selfsupporting nonprofit safety test laboratory. Sponsorship and membership

has been expanded to include representatives of government agencies, education,

consumer interest groups, safety experts, public utilities, public safety

bodies, and standardization groups. As stated in its Certificate of

Incorporation, its objectives are: "By scientific investigation, study,

experiments and tests, to determine the relation of various materials,

devices, products, equipment, constructions, methods, and systems to hazards,

appurtenant thereto or to the use thereof, affecting life and property,

and to ascertain, define and publish standards, classifications and

specifications for materials, devices, equipment, construction, methods,

and systems affecting such hazards, and other information tending to reduce

and prevent loss of life and property from such hazards." UL's various

engineering activities are undertaken by six departments: Burglary Protection

B-16
Table B.5.4.

ANSI Standards Committees

A12 Safety Code for Floor and Wall Openings, Railings and Toeboards

Secretariat: National Safety Council

A55 Administrative Requirements for Building Codes

Secretariat: National League of Cities,

Building Officials Code Administrators

International

A65 Safety Standards for General Industrial Stairs

Secretariat: National Safety Council

C2 National Electrical Safety Code

Secretariat : NBS

C72 Electric Water Heaters - safety

Secretariat: National Sanitation Foundation,

Underwriters ' Laboratories

Z21 Performance and Installation of Gas -Burning Appliances and Related

Accessories

Secretariat: American Gas Association

Z26 Specifications and Methods of Test for Study Glazing Material

Secretariat: Society of Automotive Engineers

Z65 Building Areas -Methods of determining areas in buildings

Secretariat: Building Owners and Managers Assoc. International

Office of Education, U.S. Department of HEW

Z66 Prevention of Control of Hazards to Children

Scope: Specifications, tests and procedures to minimize home hazards

to children which might result in physical injury or poisoning

Secretariat: American Academy of Pediatrics

Z91 Performance and Installation Standards for Oil Burners and Oil-Burning

Appliances

Secretariat: National Oil Fuel Institute

Z97 Safety Requirements for Architectural Glazing Material

Secretariat: National Safety Council

Z223 National Fuel Gas Code: Development of safety code for gas piping

systems on Consumer's premises and installation of gas utilization

equipment and accessories ventilation and venting

Secretariat: American Gas Association, American Society of Mechanical

Engineers, National Fire Protection Association

B-17
and Signaling; Casualty and Chemical Standards; Electrical; Fire Protection;

Heating, Air- Conditioning and Refrigeration; and Marine. Manufacturers

and other organizations solicit UL for testing of products. Besides

implementing detailed safety testing procedures, which include such aspects

as efficiency checks on manufacturer's programs for instituting ULapproved methods, and testing individual products, UL publishes annual lists

of manufacturers (updated bi-monthly) whose products UL approves, safety

standards for deAdces, materials, methods and construction, and engages

in numerous research projects.

B.6. Federal Government Agencies

There are nine Federal agencies (excluding CPSC) which in some way deal

with building codes and related construction matters. These agencies can be

divided into four categories

:

(1) those that have direct control over the promulgation and

enforcement of private housing construction codes;

(2) those that have direct control over the promulgation and

enforcement of public housing construction codes;

(3) those that have been given responsibility over safety aspects

in both private and public buildings; and

(4) those that only promulgate suggested codes, or conduct or contract for research in building code related areas.

Between the years 1960 and 1973, the percentage of the total new

housing units represented by private ownership has remained high at

from 97% to over 991.20 Federal construction codes impact on future starts

will thus, to a large degree, be limited to those effected by agencies in

category 1 above, those having an effect on private housing. FHA and VA are included here. They respectively "insure" and "guarantee" mortgage loans

from banks to eligible home buyers. They also have minimum standards which

are promulgated and enforced in all starts they aid. The FHA and the VA

are the two Federal agencies which have the most direct control of any of

the Federal agencies over the building codes followed in the localities.

VVhile they do not exercise the ability to change a local building code, they

do have the leverage of being able to reject any home which is not built to

specifications which are consistent with their requirements. The percentage

of private starts aided by either organization, as compared to the total housing

starts in the nation, has increased from 26 percent in 1960 to 33 percent in 1970,

^Sanderson, op. cit. , p. 229.

^^ Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1973 , U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, B.C., p. 683. Percentages are taken from actual numbers

of starts. Statistics are given for new housing units started by the type

of funding program. Divisions are for privately- owned starts and under

these, but not all-inclusive, mortgage insurance provided by the Federal

Housing Administration (FHA), by the Veterans' Administration (VA) , and

publicly-owned starts. The types of private financing not covered by

FHA or VA and the various types of publicly-owned starts are excluded.

B-18
and then dropped off to a 1973 percentage of 12 percent. While a future

percentage is difficult to predict because of such variables as Federal

policies, market situations, etc., these two agencies still have the

largest degree of direct control over construction standards in the Federal

Government

.

Those agencies included in category 2 (promulgation of public housing

codes) are the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and through

them the FHA, the General Services Administration (GSA) , the VA, and the

Department of Defense (DOD) . Though in 1973 they controlled less than

one percent of total starts that were Federal public housing, they have

developed and enforced their own minimum standards. The Building Research

Advisory Board (BRAB) , National Academy of Sciences is working with

Federal agencies in compiling "Federal Construction Guide Specifications"

which will be adopted "and enforced by all Federal agencies involved with

public building starts.

Category 3 (concern for safety aspects) includes the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) , the Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare (HEW). OSHA does not effect private starts. However, HEW is

concerned with health and welfare problems and has the mechanisms to affect

certain health-related hazards. Finally, category 4 (promulgation of suggested

codes) includes the National Science Foundation (NSF) , which conducts and

contracts for research into a number of building code aspects, and the

National Bureau of Standards (NBS) which promulgates voluntary standards

and conducts research for a number of products installed in homes.

The following discussion pertains to those Federal agencies with

which the CPSC is most likely to work closely concerning the problems

with products installed in the home. The discussion centers on two

aspects of each agency's purview: the areas of building regulation in

which the agency engages and the type and general extent of any enforcement

operations

.

B.6.1. VA

VA powers lie in two areas: first, as a "guarantor" of mortgages

let to veterans, and, second, as a contractor for the building of facilities

for its own operations (construction involves hospitals, support buildings,

and some parking facilities) . The first area is more crucial in the study

of private dwellings. While rising interest rates have had dampening

effect on VA loans, they potentially offer valuable service to building

code regulation. Since all homes built and financed under a VA guarantee

must meet certain minimum standards, as set by the VA, the inspection of

construction by Federal inspectors for compliance to code is an aid to

code enforcement at the local level. Although the VA-guaranteed housing

starts and occupied housing units in recent years have represented small

percentages of the totals for both categories (see Appendix C on new

housing starts and occupied housing units) , there are some masked effects

that may increase the usefulness of the VA activity. The first of these

is the fact that builders may decide to build many of their homes to

meet the VA standards, with the anticipation that some (and they may not

know which ones) of the homes may be financed through VA. Second, the

B-19
standards which the VA has chosen to adopt for its guaranteed homes are based on those set by the FHA. Finally, the standards that the VA sets

for its guaranteed homes are likely to affect, in some way, the

specifications which it approves for building constructed for its own

use. The VA develops and reviews periodically the specifications it

uses in letting contracts. Although VA-owned buildings do not directly

affect what occurs in the private area, new developments may lead the

VA to alter the standards it approves for guaranteed veteran housing.

Also, manufacturers who make items for both public and private buildings

may decide to make their products to meet the most stringent, or at least

one uniform, set of standards for the purpose of being able to meet any

standards to which their products may be subjected.

Concerning their own building programs, VA methods for processing

and approving proposed specifications appear to be very similar to those

used by internally-designed HUD projects. The choice of specifications is

very project-specific and includes what is considered by the Federal

contractor to be the best mix of approved standards and methods for that

building.

The enforcement mechanisms used by the VA for both its guaranteed

homes and its own property are similar. They inspect progress on-site

during construction and after it is finished. However, since the VA

always has the right to reject a home for guarantee, it does not keep

as tight reigns on the work during conceptualization and construction of - the building, as it does on its own property. The VA inspection activities

involves regional centers for both areas of inspection. For its own

buildings, the VA may choose, if the project is large enough, to commit

full-time staff until completion.

B.6.2. FHA

The FHA offers mortgage insurance for residences which meet

"minimum standards (which) ... assure well planned, safe, and soundly

constructed homes." (reference: preface to FHA Minimum Property Standards

for Multifamily Housing) . The standards are updated yearly. Current

literature and past history are reviewed, and what is considered to be

the best is incorporated, as is the practice of the VA. In the most recent

revision, the FHA tried to make its standards more performance-oriented than

in the past.

B.6.3. HUD

Between 1960 and 1973, the percentage of total NHS represented

by publicly owned units remained low, dropping frcan 3% in 1960 to II by

1973. This appears to indicate a small ijiipact on the housing market by those

organizations controlling the public housing. While contracting for

public housing jobs is usually done on a request -for-proposal basis, HUD

has its own staff that reviews submitted proposals. In some cases, the

staff may indicate certain minimum specifications to be met, either in the

AV 'I;- B-20
initial proposals submitted or in future follow-up proposals requested

from the more promising responses. Whatever the case may be, the final

specifications decided on must meet the approval of the reviewing staff.

In many cases the staff follows the specifications of the FHA. In those

cases where HUD approves the specifications, there is a strong mechanism

for affecting safety- oriented changes by working with HUD.

HUD has also been capable of providing adjunct technical and

financial assistance to communities v^o feel the need to inprove their

codes and standards for the construction and occupancy of housing and other

buildings. To bring their building programs up to present standards,

localities have been able to draw on the Urban Renewal Rehabilitation and

the Code Enforcement programs for grants and consultation. Furthemrare,

home-owners have been able to seek financial assistance from the local

authorities to conserve and improve existing housing. The Workable Program

for Community Improvement mandates that properly enforced codes and

standards meeting adequate health, safety and welfare standards must

be in effect for a locality and its individual property owners to be able

to use the plan. While the effect of these three plans in the future is

unsure, they have offered examples, at least, of programs designed to

help localities improve their housing situation with Federal help.

HUD (including FHA) and VA influence building regulation by

exerting a kind of "secondary control" over the entire building industry.

The vehicle is the encouragement, be it direct or implicit through agency

actions, of manufacturers and builders to conduct all of their work in

a uniform manner which will allow their products to meet the requirements

of any existing reasonable codes or standards. One example would be the

designing of a type of stairway which is used in both private homes and

HUD- sponsored projects according to the specification which HUD has

stated. These specifications would be considered by the manufacturer to

be the most stringent ones that his product is likely to meet. There are

a number of other Federal agencies which, though they do not have the power

to mandate codes or standards for private dwellings, do exercise some kind

of similar "secondary control" over the building environment.

B.6.4. GSA

One of GSA's duties is to contract for and oversee the construction

of virtually all Federally-used buildings (with the exception of DOD) . While

all of these are "public" buildings, and while almost none of them are residences, GSA utilizes their own series of specifications and standards

in developing requests for proposals, negotiating with bidders at

different stages of the contracting process, overseeing the actual constrution, and maintaining the buildings, once they are completed. GSA purchases

large amounts of material from private firms which must meet GSA specifi- cations and which may also be used in private homes. Also, the large

amounts of purchasing by GSA encourages builders to buy materials which

meet GSA specification and which may also be used in private home construction. Furthermore, the GSA attitude on various specifications may affect the attitudes of other agencies who are reviewing building codes and standards

B-21
B.6.5. DOD

The Department of Defense contracts for large numbers of housing

units used by members of the armed services as well as DOD enployees.

A conversation with Rear Admiral Kenneth Sears, Director of Construction

Administration, provided a summary of DOD policy on housing construction.

DOD contracts for the building of housing for installations in the United

States only when suitable housing is not available in the local communities.

The Department will survey the housing situation in the area and make a determination of what types, if any, of housing are needed.

Since DOD contracts for more housing units than does GSA they will

be in some way involved with the purchase of many more building products

which may also be used in private homes.

B.6.6. OSHA

OSHA has been charged with protecting the safety and health of

employees in this nation. As such, they are primarily concerned with jobrelated accidents. It is conceivable, however, that a number of the

accidents with which they deal will involve products installed in homes.

Examples of such products are stairs, floors, doors, furnaces, and

architectural glass. The influence of OSHA. on standard setting groups

may be of direct consequence to at least a few of these products. OSHA's

expanding data base may also provide insights into the safety aspects of

these products.

B.6.7. HEW

Many jurisdictions have health agencies which play significant

roles in developing and enforcing certain aspects of housing codes and

standards, especially for sanitary conditions. Their work covers mainly

aspects of occupancy and use of housing. The Public Health Service of

HEW provides technical assistance in housing quality inprovement , code

administration, and the training of state and (on an ad hoc basis) local

agencies. The Bureau of Radiological Health has developed expertise in a number of areas related to safety in the home. Their study of the

hazards associated with microwave ovens is one exanple of this.

Of further importance is the historical background and departmental

development of HEW in the general area of safety. A part of CPSC had its

start in the Bureau of Product Safety. Some of the programs now being

used by CPSC (e.g., the NEISS data base) began there. Also, other parts

of HEW, like the National Institutes of Health, \\iiich have provided

research assistance on questions of effects of safety problems on humans,

have in the past coordinated their efforts with the agencies charged with

running specific safety- related work. The technical knowledge of such

agencies will be of use of the CPSC.

Telephone conservation, i^ril 5, 1974.

B-22
B.6.7. NSF

One of the major functions of the NSF is to award grants to

universities and other research groi:5)s for the investigation of specialinterest projects. One illustration is the Research Applied to National

Needs program. Much of its work is developmental and of an investigatory

nature for the purpose of unearthing new and fruitful areas of future

research. Much of it is in si^^port of efforts that are currently on- going

in other Federal agencies: One of these areas is consumer product safety.

B.6.8. NBS

NBS is one of the major standards promulgating organizations in

the Federal Government. In the Institute for Applied Technology, and with

the help of the Center for Building Technology (CBT) and the interested

industry groups, NBS has promulgated standards for a number of products

of interest to this study. Appendix D discusses some of the major aspects

of these standards. CBT, besides conducting research on all aspects of

building technology, is also involved in a number of panels and organizations

which are involved with the development and promulgation of codes and

standards. One exanple, \^hich will be discussed further in another section,

is the CBT involvement in the National Conference of States on Building Codes

and Standards as its secretariat.

Through the Office of Engineering Standards Services at NBS, the

Department of Commerce has promulgated a number of voluntary product standards

for products installed in the home. (The products covered by NBS-approved

standards are listed in Appendix D.) All of these standards have installation

specifications and procedures for labeling and identification, and, in the case of products v^ich perform a function in and of themselves, i.e., without

the necessary presence of and use by a consumer, performance specifications.

None of the standards, however, has maintenance specifications.

B.6.9. BRAB

The Building Research Advisory Board of the National Academy of

Sciences is in the process of compiling a set of Federal construction guide

specifications whidi, when conpleted, will be used by all major Federal

agencies involved in the promulgation or use of building codes and standards.

The purpose of this effort is to establish a uniform set of regulations which

can be more easily and consistently used by all involved agencies. It will

also help establish a more nearly uniform consensus of what regulations the

Federal Government approves of and uses. Since most of the involved agencies

are working on buildings that are designed for public work or recreational use,

the codes will be slanted along these lines rather than to the private home

sector.

B.6.10. NIBS

Although not a Federal agency, the Housing Development Act of 1974

created the National Institute of Building Sciences. The Institute's

responsibilities relate to development and promulgation of performance

criteria, standards and test methods for adoption by building regulatory

jurisdictions with due consideration of consumer problems.

B-23
B.7. State Jurisdiction

Code enforcement has traditionally been a function of local

government in the United States. Field and Ventre, 22 however, report a trend toward increased activity by state governments to exercise their

power to regulate construction. State codes are often based upon the

national model codes but differ in their potential consequences for local

control. States can inpose limits upon the code powers of local jurisdictions ranging from mandatory minimum standards to mandatory use of a state code. State building codes have taken four major forms: model

codes that may be adopted by political subdivisions; conpulsory statewide

codes; mandatory codes that exclude buildings to be used for certain

occupancies (such as one and two family dwellings) ; and codes that apply

only to construction of state owned buildings or those financed by public

funds. At least 20 states^^ have passed one of the forms of state codes

and the first compulsory statewide code was passed by Connecticut in 1970.

The majority of states having codes (about 801) have established minimum

codes allowing more rigid standards to be set by localities. A few

(North Carolina, for exanple) have set minimum-maxijmjm state codes

limiting local codes to variations within a specified range.

States have asserted themselves in the areas of industrialized

housing where laws allow for inspection and certification of housing units

and mobile homes in factories. These two construction activities are multiregional and therefore demand immunity from the local code

variations. A builder must continue to meet local requirements for

zoning and the affixing of the unit to the site but may be relieved from

seeking local approval on the unit as he markets in different municipalities.

States have also attenpted to control the firms and/or the tradesmen vdiich work on new construction and home inprovements . This control

is exercised chiefly through the process of licensing. Since conplaints

by building officials or consumers against a firm can affect a firm's

ability to renew a license, licensing can provide an indirect control

over workmanship and business practices.

The National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards

(NCSBCS) is primarily comprised of state government employees with building

regulation responsibilities. Its purpose is to provide a forum for the

discussion of mutual problems and to promote uniformity throughout the

states in building codes and in their enforcement. Voting membership

consists of a delegate selected to represent each state. The NBS Center

for Building Technology serves as secretariat for the Conference and

provides technical research assistance in the field of performance criteria

and their measurement methods. Representatives of NCSBCS, the model

building code groups, HUD, DOC, and pertinent trade associations have

cooperated to draft three Itodel State Laws for building regulation. The

suggested legislation distributed by the Council of State Governments

includes a manufactured building act, a mobile home act and a state

building code act.

"zz Charles Field and Francis Ventre, "Local Regulation of Building Codes:

Agencies, Codes, and Politics", 1971 Municipal Yearbook , p. 143.

23 As of 1971.

B-24
Like their counterparts in the other inspection functions of state

government, state building code officials are located in a variety of

departments depending upon the particular state. The NCSBCS Management

and Regulatory Procedures Committee recently attenpted to formulate a suggested organization for state and local jurisdictions. The Committee

solicited from the 15 states, which had statewide building regulatory

organizations, their organization charts and salary schedules. Responses

were received from six of these states. The Committee found "a great

disparity in the various states' organization, and in the responsibilities

other than buildings assigned the state organization." The state

delegates to the NCSBCS also demonstrate the diversity in organization

among the states coming from such departments as Department of Planning

(Arkansas) , Department of Housing and Community Development (California)

,

Public Works Department (Connecticut) , Labor and Industrial Relations

(Hawaii) , State Fire -Marshall (Louisiana) , Department of General Services

(Maryland) , Department of Labor and Industries (Washington) . State

governments exercise, for the most part, indirect control over construction,

leaving inspection, and, in most instances, code requirements up to local

governments

.

B.8. Local Government Building Code Regulation

A survey conducted in 1967 for the Douglas Commission^ ^ found from

surveying almost 18,000 units of local government that 46.41 had a building

code. The survey found, for the 4,067 municipalities and townships with

populations exceeding 5,000, 80.51 had a building code. With respect to

electrical and plumbing work the National Electrical Code was adopted by

78.11 of these (4,067) governments having a building code and the National

Plumbing Code was used by 43.91 with the remainder either not having a plumbing code or using the BOCA, Western, or some other plumbing code. In

addition, the Douglas Commission survey found that for the governmental

units over 5,000 in population 52.51 (421 of all governmental units)

•'substantially incorporated" a national model code. Other local codes

were originally based upon such a model (482 jurisdictions) , or were based

upon a state model code (589 jurisdictions) or were not related to any model

(383 jurisdictions), or the relationship was not reported (105 jurisdictions).

Model code groups meet on an annual basis to revise their codes to

keep them up to date with the changing technology. The survey found.

^'^Report of the Management and Regulatory Procedures Committee to the 6th

Annual Meeting of the National Conference of States on Building Codes

and Standards, May, 1973, p. 1.

^^Allen D. Manvel, Local Land and Building Regulation Research Report

No. 6 , National (Douglas) Commission on Urban Problems, 1968.

B-25
when assessing the local governments' record for keeping up with such code

revisions, that:

° Only two -thirds of the "building code governments" (only

one-half of all governments, including those without codes)

base their codes on the model code to begin with.

° Of these "model code governments" only 58% had provided

for procedures to consider changes on an annual basis.

° Only 281 had adopted as much as 90% of the recommended changes

during the previous three years.

° Of all governments having a building construction code of any

kind, 45% had not made conprehensive revisions in the four

year period preceeding the survey.

° Finally, only about 15% of all municipalities and townships

above 5,000 residents had an up-to-date version of a national

model code with the remainder either not based upon a model

code or failing to keep the model code up to date.

A survey conducted in 1970 by the International City Management

Association (ICM\.} of local building departments confirmed many of the

findings of the 1967 survey. The ICMA survey also ascertained for the

919 cities reporting the basis for their present code. The model code

based cities consisted of 73.5% (12.2% AIA, 31.3% ICBO, 14.9% SSBC and

15.1% BOCA), state or county codes accounted for 13.5%, 10.8% were

locally drafted codes and the remaining 2.2% of the san^le reported no

code in effect.^'' The report also indicated for the 140 cities (15%)

changing their code between 1964 and 1970, a 40% increase for the model

code group, a decline of 80% for the locally-drafted code cities and a dramatic gain for cities adopting state codes from two in 1964 to 34

cities in 1970.

Both the Douglas Commission and the ICMA surveys selected an identical set of 14 construction technology advances, all but one of

which had been accepted by either the model building code organizations,

the National Electrical Code or the National Plumbing Code. Based on

information collected from the local jurisdictions, Ventre^^ came to the

conclusion that:

"there appears to be a marked tendency for local building codes

based on advisory model codes to be more technologically

2 ^Francis T. Ventre, "^feintaining Technological Currency in the Local Building

Code: Patterns of Communication and Influence", Urban Data Service International City Management Association, Washington, D.C., April 1971, Vol. 3, No

^''The Survey was administered to all U.S. cities over 10,000 population and a few under 10,000 accounting for the high rate of cities having a code when

conpared to the 1967 survey which included many jurisdictions between

5,000 and 10,000 population.

^^Ventre, op. cit., p. 6.

B-26
current. On the whole, model code cities prohibited fewer of

the 14 construction advances than did state/county or local

code cities. But considering that all items except one are accepted by all of the model building codes or pertinent

model mechanical codes, the substantial deviation from

perfect scores underlines the purely advisory and voluntary

nature of the model code."

When the code types were con^pared in terms of population served rather

than the number of jurisdictions, only a slight technical advantage for

local codes based on model codes was noted:

"if the proportion of cities served by technically current codes

is the measure of code effectiveness, then model codes are clearly superior; if, in contrast, the proportion of people

served by technically current codes is the measure of code

effectiveness^ than any of the three (model state/county or

local) code types can be shown to deliver 'better' service."

There are two basic functions for a code enforcement agency-

examination and inspection. The examination function involves those

activities which are designed to determine the possibility of conpliance

prior to construction, while inspection involves activities which will

disclose violations following construction. The examination function is

concerned with the testing of tradesman (plumbers, electricians, air

conditioning and refrigeration contractors, television repairmen, boiler

operators, etc.) and issuing them licenses, and the examination of plans

(for buildings, structures, alteration, plumbing, wiring, etc.) and the

issuing of permits for these activities. Inspection involves the

determination of initial compliance and continuing conpliance

.

Enforcement of building codes may be acconplished through the

use of "stop work orders." Jurisdictions vary in the authority

given to inspectors but where the authority exists to halt construction

for violations a potentially powerful tool is present for code enforcement. The contractors are sensitive to delays in schedule which can

cause considerable economic losses.

Other enforcement mechanisms usually provided only in cases of

danger to the community are the power to perform work on a structure,

such as backfill of dangerous excavations, and the assessment of the

owner/builder for city expenses. Where these choices are not available

to a local building code agency, it must take court action to gain

corpliance with code for noncomplying builders.

Housing codes differ from building codes in that housing codes are primarily related to the occupancy requirements of buildings and their

maintenance after they have been constructed. Housing codes offer a nechanism for influencing the safety aspects of older buildings which

could not be influenced by modification of existing building codes.

Particular influence over rental properties can be obtained through

housing codes. Housing codes are even more difficult to enforce than

building codes. If the administrative process fails to gain compliance,

then court action is sought; however, judicial permissiveness, as reflected

B-27
in low or nominal fines, and no jail sentences may reduce the deterrent

effect of the threat of court action. Typically a defendant will plead

guilty and engage in repairs prior to sentencing. Thus the court will

be less likely to treat them harshly.^ ^ After referencing many studies on low cost housing vdiich ir^icated a failure to enforce housing codes

at the local level, Schoor addressed the questions: "Why is it so difficult to enforce codes? Why do they not work effectively?" Some

of his answers were:

(1) codes are antiquated and unclear;

(2) penalties embodied in the law are slight. Owners find it

cheaper to pay occasional fines than to make repairs;

(3) municipal enforcement staffs are likely to be undermanned;

(4) political interests may not support enforcement efforts;

(5) resident owners may not have tiie resources to make

improvements; and,

(6) tenants may resist enforcement because it means rent rises

or that some must move,

Schorr further observes that:

' , "One cannot review the problem of code enforcement and the

solutions that are proposed without concluding that they are

siqjerficial, if grave, synptoms of a deeper maladjustment. The

hard fact is that profit-making incentives run counter- -so far

as the maintenance of housing is concerned- -to the best

interests of the poor. Tax laws and condemnation procedures

combine with the peculiarly vulnerable situation of those who

are poor to pay the most profit for the worst housing. When

enforcement is pitted day by day against the businessman's

incentive to make profit, enforcement is bound to be in trouble."

Factors identified that operate in this fashion are the municipal property

tax, the capital gains tax, the basis for calculating value in condemnation,

and the depreciation allowance.

The extent to which injuries can be attributed to poor maintenance

as opposed to original design will affect which type of codes now in

effect should be the major concern to reduce injuries. Sanderson^

describes building codes and housing codes as follows:

"The typical building code regulates the construction, alteration,

maintenance, repair, and demolition of buildings and structures.

^5 Building the American City , op. cit., p. 28.

3 0 Alvin L. Schorr, Slums and Social Insecurity , U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D.C. 1966, p. 89.

31 Sanderson, op. cit., p. 14.

B-28
It may or may not regulate the installation maintenance of

mechanical systems and equipment within or appurtenant to

buildings and structures. Many experts look upon the entire

conplex of regulatory codes, including electrical, plumbing,

heating, boilers, pressure vessels, air pollution, air

conditioning, refrigeration, elevators, and flammable

liquids as integral parts of the comprehensive building

code... Housing codes are basically maintenance codes v^ich

also regulate the environmental factors of residential buildings

and, in the case of rental property, the facilities \^^ich must

be supplied by the landlord. Housing codes are frequently a

chapter in the building codes of major cities, but there is a trend to separate the housing code from the building code."

The Douglas Commission compared housing codes of four model code

groups, nine state housing codes and 16 city or county housing codes for

their content. The evaluation considered dwelling unit occupancy provisions;

sleeping room occupancy provisions; required facilities for bathrooms, and

ventilation. The results from the examination of the standards indicated^^

"that there are wide variations among them; that they are often

in conflict, that the variations are so great that by definition

they could not be based on scientific or objective standards,

that many provisions are couched in subjective language 'adequate,'

'in safe condition,' or 'in good repair,' that many of the

objective standards are based on a combination of tradition,

rule of thumb, or personal experience, and that they differ in

en^hasis from structure to health, depending upon the code

adopted."

32 Building the American City , op. cit., p. 277.

B-29

APPENDIX C.

HOUSING PROJECTIONS

One mechanism through which coimtermeasures can be applied is to

require that housing units to be occupied in the near future meet certain

safety requirements. This requirement would affect the construction of

new housing units starred (NHS) and the renovation of presently unoccupied

housing units intended for future occupancy. We have considered data for

NHS's and occupied housing units (OHU) in an attempt to project the impact

of this type of mechanism on future countermeasure effectiveness. Effectiveness may be, to some extent, tied to the percentage of total housing units

covered by the regulations at a given tune. We have estimated

the future number of NHS's and OHU's for 1980, 1985 and 1990, and the

corresponding percentages of total which would be covered by regulations

adopted in 1975.

The general trend appears to be that, while predictions are very

difficult to make and rely on, countermeasures implemented in 1975 may

influence a significant percentage of the housing units occupied in the

future

.

As shorn on Table C.I., the number of NHS's since 1960 has increased

significantly. The number, however, appears to fluctuate from year to

year, with an upward trend from 1960 indicated, but not assured, for the

future. The variables influencing the NHS's include National, State and

local policies. National and regional economics, availability and price of

materials, and so on. The wide variety and unpredictability of the

contributing variables make accurate future predictions on the number of

NHS's difficult. Too many of the variables can change their characteristics

to make NHS projections reliable when accuracy is demanded. NHS projections

seem reasonable to use at best to obtain a range of possible outcomes.

The NHS's, however, do offer some information:

• The NHS's for the time period considered have been dominated

heavily by privately- owned starts. The publicly- owned starts

represent roughly less than 10% of the total throughout the

period.

The privately- owned dwelling unit has thus been the dominant element in new

units started.

• Of the privately- owned starts, a significant percentage (varying

from 121 to 33%) has been intended to be financed through the

FHA or the VA. Thus, while the total FHA and VA financing has

not dominated the new starts, it does represent a significant

percentage of the total NHS's.

C-1
u

I—I

+-> u

+-> M

•HI

CM (M to (S3 rH vD (NI LO «;+• vr 00 t—1

(NJ o O ' -1 CNl rH

CM CM rH (Nl LO

LOO (Nl

O

cn to rH fNl r—1

(NJ

I—1

LO (Nl 00 Tt- (Nl (Nl o\° 00 LO (Nl to (NI O o o LO VO to

.—1

CNl

O rH r-i LO (^-. to to

tO

1—1

I—1

1—1 o t-- rH o to LO to 00 cn cn LO CNJ (Nl rH

1—1

I—1

r—I

OC LO 00 o 00 o (NI LO to OO

cn LO LO <NI < J rH

I—1

I—1

CNl o (NI o (N] c\'= vO CTi 00 LO to to OO

cn tn rH (Nl rH rH

I—1

rH

LO o to cn o o\o I—1

cn to vO

LO rH (Nl rH

t—1

rH o vO rg rH LO vO

vD LO \o I>~ to \U

cn (Nl to (NI t—1

rH rH * •

5-. • •

cti 0)

UO

al rH >N

>-. bb

g CD •M T) O •(-> ^ o •r- •M O t3 < •H XI E—1 OJ /—> <

Mh I—I

Mh

C >»

O 0) rH

O QJ

P-i o t/i +

•H +-> (U _C rH C 5- ^ 1—1 +-> t-i +

ta Wi

H Pu

U (D (X, ^ CS^ ^ o >^ (U H a,

(D

(-> cU

4->

•M •H

"4HO

t/5 (-> U

V) <u

•HM• HM

rt •M CO

to

4-1

<-l-

!->

<D

too

•H

(-> • H

•M

03 M

(/) B

0) f

CM
• Of the two agencies, the FHA. has dominated the financing of new

starts. HIA financing has run approximately to 701 of the

total for both FHA and VA. It thus appears that the FHA has

the opportunity to be the more influencial agency.

• All categories of the breakdown were in a slow increase from

1960 to 1970. From 1969 to 1971, the FHA and VA financing both

increased substantially and then dipped significantly in the

next two years. The publicly- owned starts stayed fairly

constant relative to the other categories during the entire

period of the data. The total starts, and total privatelyowned starts both showed a change, in a similar direction

and more steep than that for FHA and VA financing, (and with

a year ' s lag with respect to them)

.

The data for total NHS's are difficult to use for the purposes of

projection. The information for the occupied housing units, however,

appears to be more applicable to prediction.

The number of CHU's has increased significantly since 1900 (See

Table C.2.). Overall ten-year periods show, the CHU's have shown positive

percentage increases (ranging from 171 from '30- '40 to 11% from '00- '10,

and averaging 11%), Given the dependence of the number of CHU's on many

hard- to -predict variables including those listed above for NHS's,

conclusive statements about the years 1980-90 should be carefully qualified.

If we assume a constant 201 increase (that showed in the last 1960-70

ten-year period) for 1970-80, 1980-85 and 1985-90, the total OHU's for

1980, 1985 and 1990 will be respectively, 76 million, 84 million and

91 million. If we further assume that countermeasures implemented in 1975

will affect the newly- occupied (MJ's after 1975 the analysis leads to the

following percentages affected:

Thus, by 1990, the countermeasures implemented may affect over 30% of the

housing units occupied. Tnis should be considered a lower bound since

replacement housing (not considered by net change in OHU) would be subject to

countermeasures

.

A second method for predicting OHU's tied the number of GHU's to the

projected resident U.S. population. It was assumed that the number of

occupied housing units could accurately be described in a regression

equation using the resident U.S. population as the single independent

variable. When figures for the resident U.S. population and the OHU's

were correlated for the eight census years from 1900 to 1970, inclusive,

the following values for r and r^ were obtained:

Percent (Increase from 1975)

1980

1985

1990

8.7

19.6

30.5

r =0.997,

r^ = 0.995

C-3
Table C.2.

Occupied Housing Units 1900 to 1970^

(Figures in Thousands Except Percent)

Percent Increase Over

Preceding Census

Owner Occupied Renter Occupied

Total

Occupied Total

Total Number Percent Number Percent Units Population

1900 15,964 7,455 46.7 8,509 53.3 25.8 20.7

1910 20,256 9,301 45.9 10,954 54.1 26.9 21.0

1920 24,352 11,114 45.6 13,278 54.1 20.2 14.9

1930 29,905 14,280 47.8 15,624 52.2 22.8 16.1

1940 34,855 15,196 43.6 19,659 56.4 16.6 7.2

1950 42,826 23,560 55.0 19,266 45.0 22.9 14.5

1960 53,024 32,797 61.9 20,227 38.1 23.4 18.5

1970 63,417 39,862 62.9 23,555 37.1 19.6 13.3

^1971 Statistical Abstracts of the United States, p. 673.

... C-4 ' '.^
It thus appears that the resident U.S. population may be used as a reasonable predictor of the OHU's, fcStr a given census year. The 1971

Statistical Abstracts gives four values for population projections for

each of the years 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1990. The regression equation is as follows:

Y = + b

where: X is the resident U.S. population projection, and,

Y is the resulting OHU projection, and

and: a and b are the constants for the regression equation,

a = 0.38 and b = 14,811.

Table C.3. relates the projected occupied housing units as a function of

the Census Bureau's population projections.

Table C.3.

Occupied Housing Unit Projection as a Function of the U.S. Census Bureau's Resident

Population Growth Rate Predictor

(in thousands of units}"

1975 1980 1985 1990

High population growth

Low population growth

68,353

67,767

67,020

66,696

75,070

73,406

71,545

70,786

82,731

79,796

76,637

75,116

90,438

86,276

81,873

79,218

Table C.4. shows the high and low percentage increase figures

from the year 1975 using the population projection method.

Table C.4.

Estimates of Occupied Housing Units

Growth Over the Base Year 1975

Year

Percentage Increase

High Population Growth Low Population Growth

1980 9.8 6.1

1985 21.0 12.6

1990 32.3 18.8

C-5
The year 1975 was used as a "base" year for the projections since it is

assumed that a substantial number of countermeasures that the CPSC will

implement concerning hazards with products installed in the home will

not be begun until 1975. As such we seek an estimate of the impact on the number of occupied units any such actions might have by 1980,

1985 and 1990. It is clear from the tables that, even for the low

estimates, the percentage increases representing over 10^ of total

around 1985, or ten years after countermeasures, may be initiated.

This means that it may take about that amount of time to see an impact

on the total occupied units by actions taken on units that are being

built. This gives some idea of the time it would take before the CPSC

might expect to see measurable results from actions taken in units that

were not occupied at the time of countermeasure implementation using

implementation methods which do not attempt to influence "older"

housing.

The projected net change in OHU's between 1975 and 1990 (90M-68M)

for high population growth is about 22M units. Tliis calls for a minimum average of 1.5M new housing starts per year over the 15 year

period, not including allowance for replacement housing. It therefore

appears, considering typical ranges of new housing starts (Table C.I.),

that using the high population growth net change in OHU's and neglecting

a component for replacement housing units provides a gross but

conservative estimate of potential countermeasure impact.
o8

CO

(U I -H

CD -H

'TijU

I—I CD O

boo C -H

•H -P

i-H nJ rH O

<U -H ^ M-lo

(U -H u +-> C c3

ct3U

C -H

CD '+^ P -H

(=:

u • H CD M O

(D -H y -M CD

•(->

-M

c/:i

?H 0

CD PCL, CO

(A S§O -H

•H +->

CC

U

1—1 'H

rH M-l -H

+->

U

W CD C P,

I—I CO

.n3

<D

O 0

bO > 0 OU CO 03

(-0

uO

U o o

Oh O.0Q

4-» UO

Cm 0PP

CO

130PP

COpo

a:0p

CT3 p

CO

too

(X)

•H ^ U i-H 0 -H S O U P> •P oj eg 5h e Q O I p I—I 3 ^

<d

u I O r-l m rH

nS p 0 m

6)1—1 • H \o

t/l L) LO 0 -H ~ Q P

I/) 0 C 0PP

CO0

-P

nJ P

CO) po0p

+-> CO

•po

12:0

•P

nJ P

COooo

K5

OO ^ \ u ^ to uO

-PCOnd

5h

05^

P>CO

r-l

H

p>QI P rH

bO'Td o

•H0I—I 0 ?-i HQ •> 1 (/) ^ rH 0

(/) 0 £

13 TO rH P> J-i CO

130P

OJ P

CO

130

+-> a

p> COpo

2: 0

+-> p> CO 0

P>

oJ p>CO

n30

p>

oJ P>CO

p>o

130P

P> CO

+-) o

130P

cd p> COocc

too

5h tA) O P H -H

P)

I-H

Oo

Td

Q0

b0i3 C O

•Hn 0

p>p> CO

p>o0P

oJ p>CO

LOoCOrH

lO o

CJ

t/) p 0P

CO

uH

13

(/I

4-> oj 0 ^

(/) PL, 0P

p> CO

p)o2

130

P>

p>CO

130

P>

OS p>CO

p>o0

p>

p>CO

LOooo

to 0

•H

oo

(/) - o0 (/) o

0-,

Q

130

p>

Cti p

COo

130

p)

oJ p»CO

p»o0P

nJ p

CO

LOooo

to

130

?-i 00a> °2 Td - oo *

5-1

O

oJ

O

130

P»

03 P>CO

130

P>

oj p>CO

p>o

^30

P>

oj piCO

130

P>

oi p

CO

LOooo

to I eooo

p*CO

13

P>CO

V)O CNl

r oQ -

to rH » 0 Ifl rH 0

+-> £

rH CO TO

Oj i-t •H ^ [X, o o

5-< .H 13

If) p>Uo0O

CJ

5-t

COog

•H

P>

03O

•Hhh

•H

P>

^<0

C_) 13

CO 13U

03 13

P>CO

03 Pmoo

•H

P>

Cti rH

13 H

if) n30

•H

P.O

CO

D-1
I

(U t3

•X3<U • Hm•Hu

Ph

CO

bO

O

C -H

•H -PO

CD

O

U -P 3 u C -H

CD <+H +J -H C U

•H (U S CO

CD inCo

•H

u

M

03 i U

•Hm•Hu

0) P-: CO - oHM

03 IoQ

03

O

I—I -H ^ <+H 03 -H M U

(/) tU

i=i ft

1—1 ir: O (D

bi) >

CD

O ^ +-> U , +J 4-1 U U O O

03 Q

+-> Uo

Ti t3 n3 T3 1-Q 13 13 13

<x> CD CD CD CD <D CD CD

4-* •p +j 4_> 4_) 4_)

ct3 03 03 nJ o3 <A 03 03 03

•t-J •P •P

p -P +-> P +-> -P

C/^ CO CO CO CO CO CO

Ti t3 tj t3 13 13

CD CD <D CD <D CD ^ 4_) +j +j ^ 4_) 4J

05 03 03 03 05 03 03 03 05 M P P P P P +-> P p

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO p p -P p -p +-) p p •P O o o o o O o o oz

t3 Id 13 13

CD CD CD CD CD CD

4_) 4_) 4_> 4_) 4_> 03 03 o3 CD cti 03 +j 4_) 4J 4J 4_) CO <j J

r/~i VJ CO CO CO

+-> P •P +-> +-> CO •p +-> P O O O O o o O "-7O

1^

Ti Ti Ti t3

CD t3 nd 13 13

CD CDD CD o3

D CD CD CD 1 i •P ^jt +j

o3 ct3 03 o3 CO 03 o3 Oj 03

4_) +_) 4_) 4_> 'p CO CO CO CO p CO CO CO CO o

Vi--' (Nl

#\ \r LO LO LO LO

to to to o o tH rH tH rH c» OO OO CO OO OO OO 00 OO

tH T—t

1—1 T—1

T-l rH i-H r-H T—l

hO to to

O

OO o

to to to (XI CNI 1

T—l T—I

tH 1—1

to 1 o •- ^TlJ C3i •H s

4_)

Q

H

O ^ bOvO t3

p

y (J CIJ !S " P O - 13

.1—) r\ (11 ^ ci bG CD

d •j-i

n .

C^ C5 P - i-i—1

"^ Uh •iH r—1 [Xi •H 1 (/)

p bo , , 1 ^ , 1 ». Cj O -P /—\ p 1 CD

•iH vO Ph CO 1 1 C(_| ,H "Tj r-; - I—1 -r-l _ T3 O o5 (/) XI c

(-* Kl 1 bo CD <—1 • 13 HD -P '3 S

CJ 'H *^ ^ _J] ri ci P pH

O (/5 o

i-j v_> fv-/1 o .• ^n o3 • o3 S (D f_,

r;; •H~ Ct—< S "TS 6 bC QJ 0 5 If) (11 ^i. S-4 u/ rH Oj O •H O • C "XJ bC l3 t/1 CD 13 13 13 +-> CD r-\ Xi CD (D p., 3 o3 LO (/) !-i O 5 O :2 c3 C 3 C <: f-i O C O -H P o3 cti P T-l i—j ^ \0 O ctf 1—1 • "4—> 'pH C/j CJ u o r^ . ^ ri CO O PU CAD Ph H < U - ^ pq J 2 CO ^ ^ a, 13 CO MB D-2
no

CD

1 -H

CD -H 13 O

(—1 0)

<D o

c

bO O 4-> C -H

•H •!-> I—

1

r-t O

(1) -H ^ l+'l

.-^l 4->

o U -M

<D M-i

+-> -H C O

•H (1)

•M

O

0) U 4-J 4-1 C 03 OJ

cd u +-> P -H M

<m u o

<D PL,

O -H

•H +->

nj u

T-H -H

i-H m

03 -H P U

t/5 CD C P,

1—I C/D

.T3 o o

0) o

fTl ^-^ +->

o o

<L) p

03 Q

+-> uO

5h

(U p

03 -P COo

2:

T3

0)

+-> •p 00

T—

I

oo

•H

:s

•pc

CDto p

03 • H U

S

O

O 1

IS

CD P

03 +JCO

(D P

03 P

+-> o

T3

CD

+-> +J COp

o

CD •P

03 P

CO

csi

I-H OO

o3 ;s c/l -P O 03 C CO o c: N .H I—

(

•H ^ ,-1 5- <

O CiO^

•H t/1 n3 t3 -P O -H -H P T-H C ^ CO -

13

(D •p

OS p

CO

t3

CD p

oJ

+JOZ

CD •P

OJ P

in

t3

CD P

OS

+->

LOoo

I I—

I

03 ^ P o

o d

O

C

•H (/) Id p

O -H -H P >-l C ^ CO D

C

•HP

03

i-H ^

CDO

Q 03 e CO

CD P

03 •pCO

T3

CD -P

03 P

m

+-> o2

CD -P

03 •PCO

•PO

Id

CD P

oj -p CO

LO

OO

XI (D tHc

•H

COo

o

t/5

I

•H

D-3
NBS-114A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. pu!u,k:ation or report no. NBSIR 75-651

2. Gov't Accession

No.

3. Recipient's Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

PROCEDURAL OPTIONS TO REDUCE THE RISK OF INJURY FRCM

PRODUCTS INSTALLED IN RESIDENCES

5. Publication Date

•Tnnti 0 LLilK^ 1 07( ^

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

o. Wayne otierei, LiarK w. nana, uonaia w.. uorngan

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Bureau of Engineering Sciences

Consumer Product Safety Commission

5401 Westbard Avenue

Bethesda, Maryland 20207

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Interim Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual sunmiary of most si^ificant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) The Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) list of consumer products with

high relative incidence of reported injuries includes many products which are integral

parts of the consumer's residence, such as stairs, doors, architectural glass, furnaces

and water heaters. The safety aspects of these products are influenced by on-site

construction practices and design considerations which are regulated through local

building codes. The problem is to identify operational methods the CPSC can employ

in dealing with unreasonable hazards associated with component parts of residential

units.

This report identifies, for products installed in homes, (1) the product

history stages, (2) institutional groups, (3) hazard sources, and (4) countermeasures

available to the CPSC. It structures relationships among these four elements for

evaluating the impacts of alternative countermeasures. Current mechanisms for control

of products installed in homes are presented and sixteen potential countermeasures are postulated. .

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons)

Building codes; Consumer Product Safety Act; product safety; residence -related products; residential safety; safety iuiplementation approaches; safety standards.

18. AVAILABILITY Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

1 For Official Distt ibution. Do Not Release to NTIS

UNCL ASSIFIED 94

1

^ Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government

Washington, D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. CI3

Printing Office 20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

\^], Order From National Technical Information

Springfield, Virginia 22151

Service (NTIS)

UNCLASSIFIED $4.75

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74