[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6246-6322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01689]



[[Page 6245]]

Vol. 87

Thursday,

No. 23

February 3, 2022

Part II





 Consumer Product Safety Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1261





Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 6246]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1261

[Docket No. CPSC-2017-0044]


Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or 
CPSC) has determined preliminarily that there is an unreasonable risk 
of injury and death, particularly to children, associated with clothing 
storage units (CSUs) tipping over. To address this risk, the Commission 
proposes a rule addressing the stability of CSUs. Specifically, the 
proposed rule would require CSUs to be tested for stability, exceed 
minimum stability requirements, be marked and labeled with safety 
information, and bear a hang tag providing performance and technical 
data about the stability of the CSU. The Commission issues this 
proposed rule under the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Act 
(CPSA). The Commission requests comments about all aspects of this 
notice, including the risk of injury, the proposed requirements, 
alternatives to the proposed rule, and the economic impacts of the 
proposed rule and alternatives.

DATES: Submit comments by April 19, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Direct comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
aspects of the proposed rule to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: CPSC 
Desk Officer, fax to: 202-395-6974, or email 
[email protected]. Submit other comments, identified by 
Docket No. CPSC-2017-0044, by any of the following methods:
    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. CPSC does not accept comments 
submitted by electronic mail (email), except through https://www.regulations.gov, and as described below. CPSC encourages you to 
submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 
described above.
    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier Written Submissions: Submit comments by 
mail/hand delivery/courier to: Division of the Secretariat, Consumer 
Product Safety Commission 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 
telephone: (301) 504-7479. Alternatively, as a temporary option during 
the COVID-19 pandemic, you can email such submissions to: [email protected].
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number for this notice. CPSC may post all comments without 
change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or 
other personal information provided, to: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Do not submit electronically: Confidential business information, trade 
secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that 
you do not want to be available to the public. If you wish to submit 
such information, please submit it according to the instructions for 
mail/hand delivery/courier written submissions.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments regarding this 
proposed rulemaking, go to: https://www.regulations.gov, insert docket 
number CPSC-2017-0044 in the ``Search'' box, and follow the prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Talcott, Project Manager, U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 
20852; telephone (301) 987-2311; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    CSUs are freestanding furniture items, typically used for storing 
clothes. Examples of CSUs include chests, bureaus, dressers, chests of 
drawers, drawer chests, door chests, chifforobes, armoires, and 
wardrobes. CPSC is aware of numerous deaths and injuries resulting from 
CSUs tipping over, particularly onto children. CPSC identified 226 
fatalities associated with CSUs tipping over that were reported to have 
occurred between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2020.\1\ Of these, 
193 (85 percent) involved children (i.e., under 18 years old), 11 (5 
percent) involved adults (i.e., 18 to 64 years old), and 22 (10 
percent) involved seniors (i.e., 65 years and older). In addition, 
there were an estimated 78,200 nonfatal CSU tip-over injuries that were 
treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments (EDs) between January 1, 
2006 and December 31, 2019. Of these, an estimated 56,400 (72 percent) 
involved children, and the remaining estimated 21,800 (28 percent) 
involved adults and seniors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Reporting is considered incomplete for the years 2018-2020 
because reporting is ongoing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the hazard associated with CSU tip overs, the Commission 
has taken several steps. In June 2015, the Commission launched the 
Anchor It! campaign. This educational campaign includes print and 
broadcast public service announcements; information distribution at 
targeted venues, such as childcare centers; social media; blog posts; 
videos; and an informational website (www.AnchorIt.gov). The campaign 
explains the nature of the risk, provides safety tips for avoiding 
furniture and television tip overs, and promotes the use of tip 
restraints to anchor furniture and televisions.
    In addition, CPSC's Office of Compliance and Field Operations has 
investigated and recalled CSUs. Between January 1, 2000 and March 31, 
2021, 40 consumer-level recalls occurred to address CSU tip-over 
hazards. The recalled products were responsible for 328 tip-over 
incidents, including reports of 149 injuries and 12 fatalities.\2\ 
These recalls involved 34 firms and affected approximately 21,500,000 
CSUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the remaining incidents, either no injury resulted from 
the incident, or the report did not indicate whether an injury 
occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2016, CPSC staff prepared a briefing package on furniture tip 
overs, looking at then-current levels of compliance with the voluntary 
standards, and the adequacy of the voluntary standards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Massale, J., Staff Briefing Package on Furniture Tipover, 
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (2016), available at: 
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Staff%20Briefing%20Package%20on%20Furniture%20Tipover%20-%20September%2030%202016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2017, the Commission issued an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPR), discussing the possibility of developing a rule to 
address the risk of injury and death associated with CSU tip overs. 82 
FR 56752 (Nov. 30, 2017).\4\ The ANPR began a rulemaking proceeding 
under the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2051-2089). CPSC received 18 comments during 
the comment period, as well as five additional correspondences after 
the comment period, which staff also considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The briefing package supporting the ANPR is available at: 
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ANPR%20-%20Clothing%20Storage%20Unit%20Tip%20Overs%20-%20November%2015%202017.pdf?5IsEEdW_Cb3ULO3TUGJiHEl875Adhvsg. After 
issuing the ANPR, the Commission extended the comment period on the 
ANPR. 82 FR 2382 (Jan. 17, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is now issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPR), proposing to establish requirements for CSU stability.\5\ The 
information discussed in this preamble is derived

[[Page 6247]]

from CPSC staff's briefing package for the NPR, which is available on 
CPSC's website at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed%20Rule-%20Safety%20Standard%20for%20Clothing%20Storage%20Units.pdf. This 
preamble provides key information to explain and support the rule; 
however, for a more comprehensive and detailed discussion, see the NPR 
briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission voted 4-0 to approve this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Statutory Authority

    CSUs are ``consumer products'' that the Commission can regulate 
under the authority of the CPSA. See 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5). Section 7 of 
the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue a mandatory consumer 
product safety standard that consists of performance requirements or 
requirements that the product be marked with, or accompanied by, 
warnings or instructions. Id. 2056(a). Any requirement in the standard 
must be ``reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable 
risk of injury'' associated with the product. Id. Section 7 requires 
the Commission to issue such a standard in accordance with section 9 of 
the CPSA. Id.
    Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the procedure the Commission must 
follow to issue a consumer product safety standard under section 7. Id. 
2058. Under section 9, the Commission may initiate rulemaking by 
issuing an ANPR or NPR. Id. 2058(a). As noted above, the Commission 
issued an ANPR on CSU tip overs in November 2017. 82 FR 56752 (Nov. 30, 
2017). When issuing an NPR, the Commission must comply with section 553 
of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), which requires the 
Commission to provide notice of a rule and the opportunity to submit 
written comments on it. 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). In addition, the 
Commission must provide interested parties with an opportunity to make 
oral presentations of data, views, or arguments. Id.
    Under section 9 of the CPSA, an NPR must include the text of the 
proposed rule, any alternatives the Commission proposes, and a 
preliminary regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C. 2058(c). The preliminary 
regulatory analysis must include:
     A preliminary description of the potential costs and 
benefits of the rule, including costs and benefits that cannot be 
quantified, and the analysis must identify who is likely to receive the 
benefits and bear the costs;
     a discussion of the reasons any standard or portion of a 
standard submitted to the Commission in response to the ANPR was not 
published by the Commission as the proposed rule or part of the 
proposed rule;
     a discussion of the reasons for the Commission's 
preliminary determination that efforts submitted to the Commission in 
response to the ANPR to develop or modify a voluntary standard would 
not be likely, within a reasonable period of time, to result in a 
voluntary standard that would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk 
of injury addressed by the proposed rule; and
     a description of alternatives to the proposed rule that 
the Commission considered and a brief explanation of the reason the 
alternatives were not chosen.
    Id.
    In addition, to issue a final rule, the Commission must make 
certain findings and include them in the rule. Id. 2058(f)(1), (f)(3). 
Under section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, before promulgating a consumer 
product safety rule, the Commission must consider, and make appropriate 
findings to be included in the rule, concerning the following issues:
     The degree and nature of the risk of injury the rule is 
designed to eliminate or reduce;
     the approximate number of consumer products subject to the 
rule;
     the need of the public for the products subject to the 
rule and the probable effect the rule will have on the cost, 
availability, and utility of such products; and
     the means to achieve the objective of the rule while 
minimizing adverse effects on competition, manufacturing, and 
commercial practices.
    Id. 2058(f)(1). Under section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA, the Commission 
may not issue a consumer product safety rule unless it finds (and 
includes in the rule):
     The rule, including the effective date, is reasonably 
necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury 
associated with the product;
     that issuing the rule is in the public interest;
     if a voluntary standard addressing the risk of injury has 
been adopted and implemented, that either compliance with the voluntary 
standard is not likely to result in the elimination or adequate 
reduction of the risk or injury, or there is unlikely to be substantial 
compliance with the voluntary standard;
     that the benefits expected from the rule bear a reasonable 
relationship to its costs; and
     that the rule imposes the least burdensome requirement 
that prevents or adequately reduces the risk of injury.
    Id. 2058(f)(3). At the NPR stage, the Commission is making these 
findings on a preliminary basis to allow the public to comment on the 
findings.
    Section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA allows the Commission to prohibit 
manufacturers of a consumer product from stockpiling products subject 
to a consumer product safety rule to prevent manufacturers from 
circumventing the purpose of the rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2). The 
statute defines ``stockpiling'' as manufacturing or importing a product 
between the date a rule is promulgated and its effective date at a rate 
that is significantly greater than the rate at which the product was 
produced or imported during a base period ending before the date the 
rule was promulgated. Id. The Commission is to define what constitutes 
a ``significantly greater'' rate and the base period in the rule 
addressing stockpiling. Id.
    Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue a rule 
to require manufacturers of consumer products to provide ``such 
performance and technical data related to performance and safety as may 
be required to carry out the purposes of [the CPSA].'' 15 U.S.C. 
2076(e). The Commission may require manufacturers to provide this 
information to the Commission or, at the time of original purchase, to 
prospective purchasers and the first purchaser for purposes other than 
resale, as necessary to carry out the purposes of the CPSA. Id. Section 
2(b) of the CPSA states the purposes of the CPSA, including:
     Protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury 
associated with consumer products; and
     assisting consumers in evaluating the comparative safety 
of consumer products.
    Id. 2051(b)(1), (b)(2).

III. The Product and Market

A. Description of the Product

    The proposed rule defines a ``CSU'' as a freestanding furniture 
item, with drawer(s) and/or door(s), that may be reasonably expected to 
be used for storing clothing, that is greater than or equal to 27 
inches in height, and that has a total functional volume of the closed 
storage greater than 1.3 cubic feet and greater than the sum of the 
total functional volume of the open storage and the total volume of the 
open space. Common names for CSUs include, but are not limited to: 
Chests, bureaus, dressers, armoires, wardrobes, chests of drawers, 
drawer chests, chifforobes, and

[[Page 6248]]

door chests. CSUs are available in a variety of designs (e.g., vertical 
or horizontal dressers), sizes (e.g., weights and heights), dimensions, 
and materials (e.g., wood, plastic, leather, manufactured wood or fiber 
board). Consumers may purchase CSUs that have been assembled by the 
manufacturer, or they may purchase CSUs as ready-to-assemble furniture.
    The proposed definition includes several criteria to help 
distinguish CSUs from other furniture. As freestanding furniture items, 
CSUs remain upright without requiring attachment to a wall, when fully 
assembled and empty, with all extension elements closed. As such, 
built-in units or units intended to be permanently attached to a 
building structure (other than by tip restraints) are not considered 
freestanding. In addition, CSUs are typically intended and used for 
storing clothing and, therefore, they are commonly used in bedrooms. 
However, consumers may also use CSUs in rooms other than bedrooms and 
to store items other than clothing in them. For this reason, whether a 
product is a CSU depends on whether it meets the criteria in the 
proposed definition, rather than what the name of the product is or 
what is the marketed use for the product. The criteria in the proposed 
definition regarding height and closed storage volume (i.e., storage 
space inside a drawer or behind an opaque door) aim to address the 
utility of a unit for holding multiple clothing items. Some examples of 
furniture items that, depending on their design, may not meet the 
criteria in the proposed definition and, therefore, may not be 
considered CSUs are: Shelving units, office furniture, dining room 
furniture, laundry hampers, built-in closets, and single-compartment 
closed rigid boxes (storage chests).
    CSUs may be marketed, packaged, or displayed as intended for 
children 12 years old and younger. Examples of such products include 
CSUs with pictures or designs on them that would appeal to children; 
CSU designs that would be useful for children; or CSUs that are part of 
a matching set with a crib, or similar infant product. However, CSUs 
are more commonly general-use products that are not specifically 
intended for children 12 years old and younger. The proposed rule 
applies to both children's products and non-children's products.

B. The Market

    CPSC staff estimated the annual revenues and shipments of CSUs, 
using estimates of manufacturer and importer revenue, and estimated 
sales, by using data on retail sales. The shipment value of chests of 
drawers and dressers combined for an estimated $5.15 billion in 2018, 
and combined shipments of dressers and chests totaled 43.6 million 
units. Average manufacturer shipment value was $118 per unit in 2018 
(about $104 for chests of drawers and $144 for dressers).
    Retail prices of CSUs vary substantially. The least expensive units 
retail for less than $100, while more expensive units may retail for 
several thousand dollars. The estimated retail value of U.S. bedroom 
furniture sales in 2019 totaled $60.3 billion, of which $20.8 billion 
was sales of closets (which likely includes wardrobes and armoires), 
nightstands (some of which may be considered CSUs), and dressers (which 
likely includes chests of drawers).
    According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2017, there were 
a total of 3,404 firms classified in the North American Industrial 
Classification System (NAICS) as non-upholstered wood household 
furniture manufacturing, upholstered household furniture manufacturing, 
metal household furniture manufacturing, or household furniture (except 
wood and metal) manufacturing. Of these firms, 2,024 were primarily 
categorized in the non-upholstered wood furniture category. However, 
these categories are broad and include manufacturers of furniture other 
than CSUs, such as tables, chairs, bed frames, and sofas. As such, it 
is likely that not all of the firms in these categories manufacture 
CSUs. Production methods and efficiencies vary among manufacturers; 
some use mass production techniques, and others manufacture their 
products one at a time or on a custom-order basis.
    The number of U.S. firms that are primarily classified as 
manufacturers of non-upholstered wood household furniture has declined 
over the last few decades, as retailers have turned to international 
sources of CSUs and other wood furniture. Additionally, some firms that 
formerly produced all of their CSUs domestically have shifted 
production to foreign plants. More than half (64 percent) of the value 
of apparent consumption of non-upholstered wood furniture (net imports 
plus domestic production for the U.S. market) in 2019 was comprised of 
imported furniture, which may be true for CSUs as well. In addition to 
manufacturers, according to the Census Bureau data, in 2017, there were 
5,117 firms involved in household furniture importation and 
distribution. According to the Census Bureau, there were 13,826 
furniture retailers in 2017. Wholesalers and retailers may obtain their 
products from domestic sources or import them from foreign 
manufacturers.

IV. Risk of Injury

A. Incident Data 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more details about incident data, see Tab A of the NPR 
briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff analyzed reported fatalities, reported nonfatal 
incidents and injuries, and calculated national estimates of injuries 
treated in EDs that were associated with CSU instability or tip overs. 
Each year, CPSC issues an annual report on furniture instability and 
tip overs.\7\ The information provided for this rulemaking is drawn 
from a subset of data from those annual reports, as well as from the 
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System \8\ (NEISS), which 
includes reports of injuries treated in U.S. EDs, and the Consumer 
Product Safety Risk Management System \9\ (CPSRMS). For this 
rulemaking, staff focused on incidents that involved products that 
would be considered CSUs.\10\ Staff considered incidents that involved 
the CSU tipping over, as well as incidents of CSU instability with 
indications of impending tip over. Tip-over incidents are a subset of 
product instability incidents, and involve CSUs actually falling over. 
Product instability incidents are a broader category that includes tip-
over incidents, but may also include incidents where CSUs did not fully 
tip over. Staff considered instability incidents relevant because 
product instability can lead to a tip over, and the same factors, such 
as product design, can contribute to instability and tip overs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These annual reports are available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/Furniture-and-Decor-1.
    \8\ Data from NEISS is based on a nationally representative 
probability sample of about 100 hospitals in the United States and 
its territories. NEISS data can be accessed from the CPSC website 
under the ``Access NEISS'' link at: https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data.
    \9\ CPSRMS is the epidemiological database that houses all 
anecdotal reports of incidents received by CPSC, ``external cause''-
based death certificates purchased by CPSC, all in-depth 
investigations of these anecdotal reports, as well as investigations 
of select NEISS injuries. Examples of documents in CPSRMS include: 
Hotline reports, internet reports, news reports, medical examiner's 
reports, death certificates, retailer/manufacturer reports, and 
documents sent by state/local authorities, among others.
    \10\ Staff considered incidents that involved chests, bureaus, 
dressers, armoires, wardrobes, portable clothes lockers, and 
portable closets.
    \11\ This section refers to tip-over incidents and instability 
incidents collectively as tip-over incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data presented here represent the minimum number of incidents 
or

[[Page 6249]]

fatalities during the time frames described. Data collection is ongoing 
for CPSRMS, and is considered incomplete for 2018 and after, so CPSC 
may receive additional reports for those years in the future.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Among other things, CPSRMS houses all in-depth 
investigation reports, as well as the follow-up investigations of 
select NEISS injuries. As such, it is possible for a NEISS injury 
case to be included in the national injury estimate, while its 
investigation report is counted among the anecdotal nonfatal 
incidents, or for a NEISS injury case to appear on both the NEISS 
injury estimate and fatalities, if the incident resulted in death 
while receiving treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Fatal Incidents
    Based on NEISS and CPSRMS, CPSC staff identified 193 reported CSU 
tip-over fatalities to children (i.e., under 18 years old),\13\ 11 
reported fatalities to adults (i.e., ages 18 through 64 years), and 22 
reported fatalities to seniors (i.e., ages 65 years and older) that 
were reported to have occurred between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 
2020.\14\ Of the 193 reported CSU tip-over child fatalities, 89 (46 
percent) involved only a CSU tipping over, whereas, 104 (54 percent) 
involved a CSU and a television tipping over. Of the child fatalities, 
190 (98 percent) involved a chest, bureau, or dresser, 2 involved a 
wardrobe, and 1 involved an armoire. Of the 33 reported adult and 
senior fatalities, 32 (97 percent) involved only a CSU tipping over, 
whereas, 1 (9 percent) involved both a CSU and a television tipping 
over. Of the adult and senior fatalities, 29 involved a chest, bureau, 
or dresser, 2 involved a wardrobe, 1 involved an armoire, and 1 
involved a portable storage closet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Of the 193 reported fatalities, there was one tip-over 
incident that resulted in two deaths, making the number of fatal 
incidents 192.
    \14\ Different time frames are presented for NEISS, CPSRMS, 
fatal, and nonfatal data because of the timeframes in which staff 
collected, received, retrieved, and analyzed the data. One example 
of the reason for varied timeframes is that staff drew data from 
previous annual reports and other data-collection reports (which 
used varied start dates), and then updated the data set to include 
more recent data. Another example is that CPSRMS data are available 
on an ongoing basis, whereas NEISS data are not available until 
several months after the end of the previous calendar year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the years for which reporting is considered complete--2000 
through 2017--there have been from 3 to 21 child fatalities each year 
from CSU tip overs, and from 0 to 5 fatalities each year to adults and 
seniors.
    Of the 193 reported child fatalities from tip overs, 166 involved 
children 3 years old or younger; 12 involved 4-year-olds; 7 involved 5-
year-olds; 4 involved 6-year-olds; 1 involved a 7-year-old; and 3 
involved 8-year-olds. Of the 89 reported child fatalities from tip 
overs involving only CSUs (i.e., no televisions), 84 involved children 
3 years old or younger; 2 involved 4-year-olds; 1 involved a 5-year-
old; 1 involved a 6-year-old; and 1 involved a 7-year-old. Thus, 94 
percent of these fatalities were children 3 years old and younger; 97 
percent were 4 years old and younger; 98 percent were 5 years old and 
younger; and 99 percent were 6 years old and younger. Therefore, 
regardless of television involvement, the most reported CSU tip-over 
fatalities happened to children 3 years old or younger. Among children 
4 years and older, a television was more frequently involved than not 
involved.
    CSU tip-over fatalities to children were most commonly caused by 
torso injuries when only a CSU was involved, and were more commonly 
caused by head injuries when both a CSU and television tipped over. For 
the 89 child fatalities not involving a television, 58 resulted from 
torso injuries (chest compression); 13 resulted from head/torso 
injuries; 12 resulted from head injuries; 4 involved unknown injuries; 
and 2 involved a child's head, torso, and limbs pinned under the CSU. 
For the 104 child fatalities that involved both a CSU and television 
tipping over, 91 resulted from head injuries (blunt head trauma); 6 
resulted from torso injuries (chest compression resulting from the 
child being pinned under the CSU); 2 resulted from head/torso injuries; 
4 involved unknown injuries; and 1 involved head/torso/limbs.
2. Reported Nonfatal Incidents
    CPSC staff identified 1,002 reported nonfatal CSU tip-over 
incidents for all ages that were reported to have occurred between 
January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2020.\15\ CPSRMS reports are 
considered anecdotal because, unlike NEISS data, they cannot be used to 
identify statistical estimates or year-to-year trend analysis, and 
because they include reports of incidents in which no injury resulted. 
Although these anecdotal data do not provide for statistical analyses, 
they provide detailed information to identify hazard patterns, and 
provide a minimum count of injuries and deaths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Nonfatal incident reports submitted to CPSC come from 
reports entered into CPSC's CPSRMS database no later than December 
31, 2020, and includes completed NEISS investigations. All of the 
investigation reports based on NEISS injuries that occurred from 
2006 through 2020 appear in the reported nonfatal incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 1,002 reported incidents, 64 percent (639 incidents) 
involved only a CSU, and 36 percent (363 incidents) involved both a CSU 
and television tipping over. Of the 1,002 incidents, 99.5 percent (997 
incidents) involved a chest, bureau, or dresser; less than 1 percent (4 
incidents) involved an armoire; and less than 1 percent (1 incident) 
involved a wardrobe.
    For the years for which reporting is considered complete--2005 
through 2017--there were from 6 to 256 reported nonfatal CSU tip-over 
incidents each year, with 2016 (256 incidents) and 2017 (101 incidents) 
reporting the highest number of incidents. Each year, there were from 5 
to 232 reported nonfatal incidents involving only a CSU, with the 
highest number (232 incidents) occurring in 2016.
    Of the 1,002 nonfatal CSU tip-over incidents reported, 362 did not 
mention any specific injuries; 628 reported one injury; and 12 reported 
two injuries, resulting in a total of 652 injuries reported among all 
of the reported nonfatal incidents. Of these 652 reported injuries, 64 
(10 percent) resulted in hospital admission; 296 (45 percent) were 
treated in EDs; 28 (4 percent) were seen by medical professionals; and 
the level of care is unknown \16\ for the remaining 264 (40 percent). 
Of 293 reports of nonfatal CSU tip-over injuries where only a CSU was 
involved; 7 resulted in hospital admission (of which 6 were children 
\17\); 23 were treated in the ED (of which 22 were children); 27 were 
seen by a medical professional (of which 19 were children); and the 
level of care is unknown for the remaining 236.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ These reports include bruising, bumps on the head, cuts, 
lacerations, scratches, application of first-aid, or other 
indications of at least a minor injury that occurred, without any 
mention of aid rendered by a medical professional. There were three 
NEISS cases in which the victim went to the ED, but then left 
without being seen.
    \17\ Incidents involving children include those in which the age 
of the victim was reported as well as those in which the age was not 
reported, but the report included indications that the victim was a 
child (e.g., a sibling of a small child, or referred to as a 
``child,'' ``daughter,'' or ``son''). For the remaining incidents, 
the victim was either an adult, or the age was unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the victims whose ages were known, there were more injuries 
suffered by children 3 years old and younger, than to older victims; 
and the injuries suffered by these young children tended to be more 
severe, compared to older children and adults/seniors. The severity of 
injury ranged from cuts and bumps to concussions and skull fractures. 
Of the 7 victims admitted to the hospital, 5 were 3 years old or 
younger; 1 was a child of unknown age; and 1 was an adult. Of the 23 
victims treated in the ED, 8 were 3 years old or younger; 4 were 4 to 5 
years old; 4 were 6 to 17 years old; and 6 were children of unknown 
age.

[[Page 6250]]

3. National Estimates of ED-Treated Injuries 18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Estimates are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not 
sum to total, due to rounding. NEISS estimates are reportable, 
provided the sample count is greater than 20, the national estimate 
is 1,200 or greater, and the coefficient of variation (CV) is less 
than 0.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to NEISS, there were an estimated 78,200 injuries,\19\ an 
annual average of 5,600 estimated injuries, related to CSU tip overs 
for all ages that were treated in U.S. hospital EDs from January 1, 
2006 to December 31, 2019. Of the estimated 78,200 injuries, 56,400 (72 
percent) were to children, which is an annual average of 4,000 
estimated injuries to children over the 14-year period. For the 
remaining estimated 21,800 injuries to adults and seniors, about 3,200 
(15 percent) were to seniors (i.e., 65 years and older).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Sample size = 2,629, coefficient of variation = .0667.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An estimated 61,700 (79 percent) of ED-treated injuries involved 
only a CSU tipping over, whereas, an estimated 16,500 (21 percent) 
involved both a CSU and television tipping over. This ratio was similar 
for injuries to children, with an estimated 40,700 (72 percent) of 
child incidents involving only a CSU, and an estimated 15,700 (28 
percent) involving both a CSU and a television. In contrast, nearly all 
(an estimated 21,000 or 96 percent) of the estimated injuries to adults 
and seniors involved only a CSU. For each year from 2006 through 2019, 
there have been more estimated ED-treated injuries to children 
involving only a CSU tipping over, compared to incidents involving a 
CSU and a television tipping over.
    For all ages, an estimated 77,000 (98 percent) of the ED-treated 
injuries involved a chest, bureau, or dresser. Similarly, for child 
injuries, an estimated 55,800 (99 percent) involved a chest, bureau, or 
dresser.\20\ Of the ED-treated injuries to all ages, 93 percent were 
treated and released, and 4 percent were hospitalized. Among children, 
93 percent were treated and released, and 3 percent were hospitalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Data on armoires, wardrobes, portable closets, and clothes 
lockers were insufficient to support reliable statistical estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each year from 2006 through 2019, there were an estimated 2,500 
to 5,900 ED-treated injuries to children from CSU tip overs. The 
estimated annual number of ED-treated injuries to adults and seniors 
from CSU tip overs is fairly consistent over most of the 14-year 
period, with an overall yearly average of 1,600 estimated injuries, 
although data were insufficient to support reliable statistical 
estimates for adults and seniors for 2014, 2015, and 2019.
    CPSC focused on ED-treated injuries involving children because 
these make up the majority of ED-treated CSU tip-over injuries. For 
2010 through 2019, there is a statistically significant linear decline 
in child injuries involving CSU tip overs (both with and without 
televisions); \21\ however, there is no linear trend detected in 
injuries to children involving only CSUs tipping over. This indicates 
that the statistically significant decrease in all CSU tip overs 
involving children is driven by the decline in tip overs involving 
televisions, while the rate of ED-treated incidents involving CSUs 
without televisions has remained stable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ There were not enough CSU ED-treated incidents to children 
involving both a CSU and a television to make reliable estimates for 
the most recent 5 years, 2015 through 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the estimated ED-treated injuries to children, most involved 2- 
and 3-year-olds, followed by 1- and 4-year-olds. An estimated 7,900 ED-
treated injuries involved 1-year-olds; \22\ an estimated 15,000 
involved 2-year-olds; \23\ an estimated 13,000 involved 3-year-olds; 
\24\ and an estimated 7,500 involved 4-year-olds.\25\ There were an 
estimated 2,300 injuries to 5-year-olds that involved only a CSU, and 
an estimated 1,800 injuries to 6-year-olds that involved only a CSU, 
but data were insufficient to support reliable statistical estimates 
for incidents involving CSUs and televisions for these ages. For 
children 7 to 17 years old,\26\ there were an estimated 4,700 ED-
treated injuries involving only a CSU, and an estimated 1,600 involving 
a CSU and a television.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ An estimated 6,300 involved only a CSU and the remaining 
1,600 involved a CSU and television.
    \23\ An estimated 10,600 involved only a CSU, and the remaining 
4,400 involved a CSU and television.
    \24\ An estimated 9,200 involved only a CSU, and the remaining 
3,800 involved a CSU and television.
    \25\ An estimated 5,100 involved only a CSU, and the remaining 
2,400 involved a CSU and television.
    \26\ These ages are grouped together because data were 
insufficient to generate estimates for any single age within that 
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the estimated 56,400 ED-treated CSU tip-over injuries to 
children, an estimated 20,800 (37 percent) resulted in contusions/
abrasions; \27\ an estimated 14,900 (26 percent) resulted in internal 
organ injury (including closed head injuries); \28\ an estimated 7,600 
(13 percent) resulted in lacerations; \29\ an estimated 5,200 (9 
percent) resulted in fractures; \30\ and the remaining estimated 7,800 
(14 percent) resulted in other diagnoses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Seventy-six percent of these involved only a CSU, and the 
remainder involved a CSU and television tipping over.
    \28\ Sixty-one percent of these involved only a CSU, and the 
remainder involved a CSU and television tipping over.
    \29\ Eighty-two percent of these involved only a CSU, and the 
remainder involved a CSU and television tipping over.
    \30\ Sixty-nine percent of these involved only a CSU, and the 
remainder involved a CSU and television tipping over.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, an estimated 33,700 (60 percent) of ED-treated tip-over 
injuries to children were to the head, neck, or face; and an estimated 
10,300 (18 percent) were to the leg, foot, or toe. The injuries to 
children were more likely to be head injuries when a television was 
involved than when no television was involved. Of the estimated number 
of ED-treated injuries to children involving a CSU and a television, 73 
percent were head injuries, compared to 55 percent of injuries 
involving only a CSU. In addition, of the estimated injuries to 
children involving only a CSU, 20 percent were leg, foot, or toe 
injuries, and 14 percent were trunk or torso injuries. Data were 
insufficient to generate estimates of trunk/torso or arm/hand/finger 
injuries when both a CSU and television tipped over.

B. Details Concerning Injuries 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ For more details about injuries, see Tab B of the NPR 
briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the types of injuries that result from CSU tip overs, 
CPSC staff focused on incidents involving children, because the vast 
majority of CSU tip overs involve children. The types of injuries 
resulting from furniture tipping over onto children include soft tissue 
injuries, such as cuts and bruises (usually a sign of internal 
bleeding); skeletal injuries and bone fractures to arms, legs, and 
ribs; and potentially fatal injuries resulting from skull fractures, 
closed-head injuries, compressional and mechanical asphyxia, and 
internal organ crushing leading to hemorrhage. These types of injuries 
can result from tip overs involving CSUs alone, or CSUs with 
televisions.
    As explained above, head injuries and torso injuries are common in 
CSU tip overs involving children. The severity of injuries depends on a 
variety of factors, but primary determinants include the force 
generated at the point of impact, the entrapment time, and the body 
part impacted. The head, neck, and chest are the most vulnerable. The 
severity of injury can also depend on the orientation of the child's 
body or body part when it is hit or trapped by the CSU. Sustained 
application of a force that affects breathing can lead to compressional 
asphyxia and death. In most CSU tip-over cases, serious injuries and 
death are a result of blunt force trauma to the head and intense 
pressure on the chest causing

[[Page 6251]]

respiratory and circulatory system impairment.
    Head injuries are produced by high-impact forces applied over a 
small area and can have serious clinical consequences, such as 
concussions and facial nerve damage. Such injuries are often fatal, 
even in cases where the child is immediately rescued and there is rapid 
intervention. An incident involving blunt head trauma can result in 
immediate death or loss of consciousness. Autopsies from CSU tip-over 
fatalities to children reported crushing injuries to the skull and 
regions of the eye and nose. Brain swelling, deep scalp hemorrhaging, 
traumatic intracranial bleeding, and subdural hematomas were often 
reported. These types of injuries are typical of crush injuries caused 
by blunt head trauma and often have a fatal outcome. Children who 
survive such injuries may suffer neurological deficits, require 
neurosurgical interventions, and can face lifelong disabilities.
    Compressional and mechanical asphyxia is another potential cause of 
injury and death in CSU tip-over incidents. Asphyxia can be fatal 
within minutes. In multiple CSU tip-over incidents, there was physical 
evidence of chest compression visible as linear marks or abrasions 
across the chest and neck, consistent with the position of the CSU. 
Compressional and mechanical asphyxia can result from mechanical forces 
generated by the sheer mass of an unyielding object, such as furniture, 
acting on the thoracic and abdominal area of the body, which prevents 
thorax expansion and physically interferes with the coordinated 
diaphragm and chest muscle movement that normally occurs during 
breathing. Torso injuries, which include compressional and mechanical 
asphyxia, are the most common form of injury for non-television CSU 
fatalities. External pressure on the chest that compromises the ability 
to breathe by restricting respiratory movement or on the neck can cause 
oxygen deprivation (hypoxia). Oxygen deprivation to the brain can cause 
unconsciousness in less than three minutes and may result in permanent 
brain damage or death when pressure is applied directly on the neck by 
the CSU or a component of the CSU (such as the edge of a drawer). The 
prognosis for a hypoxic victim depends on the degree of oxygen 
deprivation, the duration of unconsciousness, and the speed at which 
cardiovascular resuscitation attempts are initiated relative to the 
timing of cardiopulmonary arrest. Rapid reversal of the hypoxic state 
is essential to prevent or limit the development of pulmonary and 
cerebral edema that can lead to death or other serious consequences. 
The sooner the CSU (compression force) is removed and resuscitation 
initiated, the greater the likelihood that the patient will regain 
consciousness and recover from injuries.
    In addition to chest compression, pressure on the neck by a 
component of the CSU can also result in rapid strangulation due to 
pressure on the blood vessels in the neck. The blood vessels that take 
blood to and from the brain are relatively unprotected in the soft 
tissues of the neck and are vulnerable to external forces. Sustained 
compression of either the jugular veins or the carotid arteries can 
lead to death. Petechial hemorrhages of the head, neck, chest, and the 
periorbital area were reported in autopsy reports of CSU tip-over 
incidents.
    Pediatric thoracic trauma has unique features that differ from 
adult thoracic trauma, because of differences in size, structure, 
posture, and muscle tone. While the elasticity of a child's chest wall 
reduces the likelihood of rib fracture, it also provides less 
protection from external forces. Impact to the thorax of an infant or 
small child can produce significant chest wall deflection and transfer 
large kinetic energy forces to vital thoracic organs such as the lungs 
and heart, which can cause organ deflection and distention and lead to 
traumatic asphyxia, or respiratory and circulatory system impairment or 
failure. In addition, a relatively small blood volume loss in a child, 
due to internal organ injuries and bleeding, can lead to decreased 
blood circulation and shock.
    The severity of the injury or likelihood of death can be reduced if 
a child is quickly rescued. However, children's ability to self-rescue 
is limited because of their limited cognitive awareness of hazards, 
limited skills to react quickly, and limited strength to remove the 
fallen CSU. Moreover, many injuries can result in immediate death or 
loss of consciousness, making self-rescue impossible.

C. Hazard Characteristics 32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ For additional information about hazard patterns, see Tab C 
of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To identify hazard patterns associated with CSU tip overs, CPSC 
focused on incidents involving children and CSUs without televisions 
because the majority of fatal and nonfatal incidents involve children 
and, in recent years, there has been a statistically significant 
decrease in the overall number of ED-treated CSU tip-over incidents 
that appears to be driven by a decline in incidents involving CSUs with 
televisions, while the rate of ED-treated incidents involving CSUs 
without televisions has remained stable. Staff used NEISS and CPSRMS 
reports to identify hazard patterns, including In-Depth-Investigation 
(IDI) reports, and also considered child development and capabilities, 
as well as online videos of real-life child interactions with CSUs and 
similar furniture items (including videos of tip-over incidents).
1. Filled Drawers
    Of the 89 fatal CPSRMS incidents involving children and only CSUs, 
53 (59 percent) provided information about whether the CSU drawers 
contained items at the time of the tip over. Of those 53 incidents, 51 
(96 percent) involved partially filled or full drawers. Of the 263 
nonfatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only CSUs, drawer fill 
level was reported for 67 incidents (25 percent). Of these 67 
incidents, 60 (90 percent) involved partially filled or full 
drawers.\33\ CPSRMS incidents show that most items in the drawers were 
clothing, although a few mentioned other items along with clothing 
(e.g., diaper bag, toys, papers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Nonfatal NEISS incident reports did not contain information 
on drawer fill level or contents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Interactions
    Of the 89 fatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only a CSU, 
47 reported the type of interaction the child had with the CSU at the 
time of the incident. Of these 47 incidents, 35 (74 percent) involved a 
child climbing on the CSU; 8 (17 percent) involved a child sitting, 
laying, or standing in a drawer; and 4 (9 percent) involved a child 
opening drawers. Climbing was the most common reported interaction for 
children 3 years old and younger.
    Of the 263 nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children 
and only CSUs, the type of interaction was reported in 160 incidents. 
Of these, 101 (63 percent) involved opening drawers; 32 (20 percent) 
involved climbing on the CSU; 10 (6 percent) involved putting items in/
taking them out of a drawer; 9 (6 percent) involved pulling on the CSU; 
5 (3 percent) involved leaning or pushing down on an open drawer; 2 (1 
percent) involved another interaction; and 1 (less than 1 percent) 
involved a child in the drawer. Opening drawers was the most common 
reported interaction for children 6 years old and younger, and was 
particularly common for 2- and 3-year-olds.

[[Page 6252]]

    Of the 1,463 nonfatal NEISS incidents involving children and only 
CSUs, the type of interaction was reported in 559 incidents. Of these, 
the child was injured because of another person's interaction with the 
CSU in 22 incidents; the remaining 537 incidents involved the child 
interacting with the CSU. Of these 537 incidents, 412 (77 percent) 
involved climbing on the CSU; 42 (8 percent) involved opening drawers; 
and the remaining 83 incidents (15 percent) involved a child in the 
drawer, pulling on the CSU, putting items in or taking items out of a 
drawer, reaching, hitting, jumping, a child on top of the CSU, playing 
in a drawer, pulling up, swinging, or other interaction. For children 3 
years old or younger, climbing constituted almost 80 percent of 
reported interactions. Overall, 81 percent (438 of 537) of the reported 
interactions in the nonfatal NEISS tip-over incidents involving 
children and only CSUs are those in which the child's weight was 
supported by the CSU (e.g., climbing, in drawer, jump, on top, 
swinging), and 12 percent (64 of 537) were interactions in which the 
child's strength determines the force (e.g., hit, opening drawers, 
pulled on, pulled up).
    Thus, in fatal incidents, a child climbing on the CSU was, by far, 
the most common reported interaction; and in nonfatal incidents, 
opening drawers and climbing were the most common reported 
interactions. These interactions are examined further, below.
    To learn more about children's interactions with CSUs during tip-
over incidents, CPSC staff also reviewed videos, available from news 
sources, articles, and online, that involved children interacting with 
CSUs and similar products, and CSU tip overs. Videos of children 
climbing on CSUs and similar items show a variety of climbing 
techniques, including stepping on the top of the drawer face, stepping 
on drawer knobs, using the area between drawers as a foothold, gripping 
the top of an upper drawer with their hands, pushing up using the top 
of a drawer, and using items to help climb. Videos of children in 
drawers of CSUs and other similar products include children leaning 
forward and backward out of a drawer; sitting, lying, and standing in a 
drawer; and bouncing in a drawer. Some videos also show multiple 
children climbing a CSU or in a drawer simultaneously.
a. Climbing
    As discussed above, climbing on the CSU was one of the primary 
interactions involved in CSU tip overs involving children and only a 
CSU. It was the most common reported interaction (74 percent) in fatal 
CPSRMS incidents; it was the most common reported interaction (77 
percent) in nonfatal NEISS incidents; and it was the second most common 
reported interaction (20 percent) in nonfatal CPSRMS incidents.
    Children as young as 9 months, and up to 13 years old were involved 
in climbing incidents. Fatal climbing incidents most often involved 1-, 
2-, and 3-year-old children, and nonfatal climbing incidents most often 
involved 2- and 3-year-old children. Of climbing incidents with a 
reported age, the children were 3 years old or younger in 94 percent 
(33 of 35) of the fatal CPSRMS incidents; 73 percent (301 of 412) of 
the nonfatal NEISS incidents; and 63 percent (17 of 27) of the nonfatal 
CPSRMS incidents.
    The prevalence of children climbing during CSU tip overs is 
consistent with the expected motor development of children. Between 
approximately 1 and 2 years old, children can climb on and off of 
furniture without assistance, use climbers, and begin to use playground 
apparatuses independently; and 2-year-olds commonly climb. The 
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) focus 
groups on child climbing (the UMTRI study is described in section 
VII.B. Forces and Moments During Child Interactions with CSUs of this 
preamble) demonstrated these abilities, with child participants showing 
interest in climbing CSUs and other furniture.
b. Opening Drawers
    As discussed above, opening the drawers of a CSU was a common 
interaction in CSU tip overs involving children and only a CSU. It was 
the most common reported interaction (63 percent) in nonfatal CPSRMS 
incidents; it was the second most common reported interaction (8 
percent) in nonfatal NEISS incidents; and it was the third most common 
reported interaction (9 percent) in fatal CPSRMS incidents.
    Children as young as 11 months, and up to 14 years old were 
involved in incidents where the child was opening one or more drawers 
of the CSU. In nonfatal CPSRMS incidents, opening drawer incidents most 
commonly involved 2-year-olds; in nonfatal NEISS incidents, opening 
drawer incidents most commonly involved 3-year-olds, followed by 2-
year-olds, followed by 4-year-olds, followed by children under 2 years 
old; and in nonfatal CPSRMS incidents, opening drawer incidents most 
commonly involved 3-year-olds, followed by 2-year-olds. Children of all 
ages were able to open at least one drawer.
    Looking at both fatal and nonfatal CPSRMS tip overs involving 
children and only CSUs, where the interaction involved opening drawers, 
overall, about 53 percent involved children opening one drawer, 10 
percent involved opening two drawers, and almost 17 percent involved 
opening ``multiple'' drawers. In several incidents (23 CPSRMS 
incidents), children opened ``all'' of the drawers; it is possible that 
additional incidents, mentioning a specific number of open drawers 
(between 2 and 8), also involved all the drawers being opened. In 
incidents where all of the drawers were open, the CSUs ranged from 2-
drawer to 8-drawer units. The youngest child reported to have opened 
all drawers was 13 months old.
    Consistent with these incident data, the UMTRI child climbing study 
found that caregivers commonly reported that their children opened and 
closed drawers when interacting with furniture.
    It is possible for CSUs to tip over from the forces generated by 
open drawers and their contents, alone, without additional interaction 
forces. However, pulling on a drawer to open it can apply increased 
force that contributes to instability. Once a drawer is fully opened, 
any additional pulling is on the CSU as a whole. The pull force, and 
the height of the drawer pull location, relative to the floor, are 
relevant considerations. To examine this factor, staff assessed 15 
child incidents in which the height of the force application could be 
calculated based on descriptions of the incidents. Force application 
heights ranged from less than one foot to almost four feet (46.5 
inches), and children pulled on the lowest, highest, and drawers in 
between.
c. Opening Drawers and Climbing Simultaneously
    CPSC staff also examined incidents in which both climbing and open 
drawers occurred simultaneously. Of the 35 fatal CPSRMS climbing 
incidents, 13 reported the number of drawers open; in all of these 
incidents, the reported number of drawers open was one, although, based 
on further analysis, the number of open drawers could be as high as 8 
in one incident.\34\ Of the 32 nonfatal CPSRMS climbing incidents, 15 
gave some indication of the number of open drawers. Of these, 7 
reported that one drawer was open, 2 reported

[[Page 6253]]

that half or less of the drawers were open, 4 reported that multiple 
drawers were open, and 2 reported that all the drawers were open. In 
the 2 cases where all drawers were open, the children were 3 and 4 
years old. Of the 412 climbing incidents in the nonfatal NEISS data, 28 
gave some indication of the number of open drawers. Of these, 11 
reported that one drawer was open, 12 reported that multiple drawers 
were open, 1 reported that two drawers were open, and 2 reported that 
all drawers were open. These data are consistent with the videos staff 
reviewed, which show a range of drawer positions when children climbed 
on units, including all drawers closed, one drawer open, multiple 
drawers open, and all drawers fully open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ CPSC staff analysis suggests that 7 or more drawers of an 
8-drawer unit were open and the child was in a drawer leaning out 
over the edge in a fatal incident. This analysis is described in Tab 
M of the NPR briefing package, as Model E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is limited information in the incident data about children's 
interaction with doors on CSUs, as opposed to interactions with 
drawers. Staff found two fatal CPSRMS and four nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over 
incidents involving wardrobes and armoires, which include doors. In one 
of the fatal incidents, the victim was found inside a wardrobe that had 
two doors and one drawer, suggesting that the child opened the doors of 
the wardrobe. In the other fatal incident, the victim was found under a 
two-door wardrobe. In most of the nonfatal incidents involving 
wardrobes or armoires, children were reportedly interacting with items 
inside the unit, which would require them to open the doors. The ages 
of the children in these incidents ranged from 3 to 11 years, although 
opening doors is easily within the physical and cognitive abilities of 
younger children.
    These incidents indicate that children can and do open CSU doors. 
There is no direct evidence in the incident data that, once CSU doors 
are open, children put their body weight on the open doors (i.e., open 
and climbing). However, this is a plausible interaction based on child 
capabilities, provided that the child has a sufficient hand hold.
d. Differences in Interactions by Age
    Based on the incident data, children 3 years old and younger climb, 
open drawers without climbing, get items in and out of drawers, lean on 
open drawers, push down on open drawers, sit or lie in bottom drawers, 
or stand on open bottom drawers. Among fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents 
involving children and only CSUs, climbing was the most common 
interaction for children 3 years old and younger; this drops off 
sharply for 4-year-olds. Starting at 4 years old, children do not 
appear to sit or lie in bottom drawers of a CSU. Among nonfatal CPSRMS 
tip-over incidents involving children and only CSUs, opening drawers 
was, by far, the most common interaction for children 7 years old and 
younger; and climbing was also common among 3-year-olds and, to a 
lesser extent, among 2- and 4-year-olds. Among nonfatal NEISS tip overs 
involving children and only CSUs, climbing was common for 2- and 3-
year-olds, slightly less common for 4-year-olds and children under 2 
years, and dropped off further for children 5 years and older.
3. Flooring
    Of the 89 fatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only CSUs, 
the type of flooring under the CSU was reported for 55 incidents. Of 
these, 45 (82 percent) involved carpeting, which includes rugs; 8 (15 
percent) involved wood, hardwood, or laminate wood flooring; and 2 (4 
percent) involved tile or linoleum flooring. The reports for 30 of the 
fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving carpet included photos with 
visible carpet. All carpet in these pictures appeared to be typical 
wall-to-wall carpeting. Four appeared to be a looped pile carpet, and 
26 appeared to be cut pile. Staff also identified two incidents with 
reported ``shag'' carpeting, including one fatal incident. Staff found 
one report mentioning a rug, although the thickness of the rug is 
unknown.
    Of the 263 nonfatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only 
CSUs, the type of flooring under the CSU was reported for 60 incidents. 
Of these, 48 (80 percent) involved carpeting, which includes rugs; 10 
(17 percent) involved wood, hardwood, or laminate wood flooring; 1 (2 
percent) involved tile or linoleum flooring; and 1 (2 percent) 
indicated that the front legs of the CSU were on carpet while the back 
legs were on wood flooring.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Flooring type was not reported in nonfatal NEISS incident 
reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, for incidents where flooring type was reported, carpet was, 
by far, the most prevalent flooring type.
4. Characteristics of Children in Tip-Over Incidents
a. Age of Children
    Children in fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving only CSUs 
were 11 months through 7 years old. A total of 33 fatal incidents 
involved children under 2 years old; 30 involved 2-year-old children; 
21 involved 3-year-olds; 2 involved 4-year-olds; and 1 incident each 
involved 5-, 6-, and 7-year-old children. Among the nonfatal CPSRMS 
tip-over incidents involving children and only CSUs where age was 
reported, 3-year-olds were involved in the highest number of incidents 
(59 incidents), followed by 2-year-olds (47 incidents).
    Nonfatal NEISS tip-over incidents involving children and only CSUs 
follow a similar distribution, with the highest number of reported 
incidents involving 2-year-olds, followed by 3-year-olds, and children 
less than 2 years. Further details regarding the age of children 
involved in CSU tip overs is available in the discussion of incident 
data, above.
b. Weight of Children
    Among the 89 fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children and 
CSUs without televisions, the child's weight was reported in 49 
incidents and ranged from 18 pounds to 45 pounds. Where weight was not 
reported, staff used the most recent Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) Anthropometric Reference to estimate the weight of the 
children.\36\ Staff used the 50th percentile values of weight that 
correspond to the victims' ages to estimate the weight range of the 
children. For the remaining 40 fatal CPSRMS incidents without a 
reported weight, the estimated weight range was 19.6 pounds to 45.1 
pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Fryar, C.D., Carroll, M.D., Gu, Q., Afful, J., Ogden, C.L. 
(2021). Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: 
United States, 2015-2018. National Center for Health Statistics. 
Vital Health Stat 3(46). The CDC Anthropometric Reference is based 
on a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population, and 
the 2021 version is based on data collected from 2015 through 2018. 
CPSC staff uses the CDC Anthropometric Reference, rather than the 
CDC Growth Chart, because it is more recently collected data and 
because the data are aggregated by year of age, allowing for 
estimates by year. CDC growth charts are available at: https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/clinical_charts.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the 263 nonfatal CPSRMS incidents involving children and only 
CSUs, the weights of 47 children were reported, ranging from 26 pounds 
to 80 pounds. Where it was not reported, staff again estimated the 
weight of the children using the 50th percentile values of weight that 
correspond to the victims' ages from the most recent CDC Anthropometric 
Reference. The estimated child weights for the 164 nonfatal CPSRMS 
incidents without a reported child weight, but with a reported age 
(which included a 17-year-old), ranged from 19.6 pounds to 158.9 
pounds.
    Although nonfatal NEISS incident data did not include the 
children's weights, staff again estimated the children's weights by 
age, determining that for tip overs involving only CSUs, the estimated 
weights of the children ranged from 15.8 pounds to 158.9 pounds (this 
covered children from 3

[[Page 6254]]

months to 17 years old). The weighted average of children's estimated 
weight in nonfatal NEISS incidents was 40.26 pounds.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Weighted average is equal to the sum of the product of the 
number of reported incidents for that age times the estimated weight 
for that age divided by the total number of reported incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, the weighted average of children's reported weight for 
CPSRMS incidents is 34.23 pounds; whereas, the weighted average of 
children's estimated weight was 38.8 pounds.
    The weight of a child is particularly relevant for climbing 
incidents because weight is a factor in determining the force a child 
generates when climbing. For this reason, CPSC staff looked at the 
weights of children involved in climbing incidents, specifically. Of 
the 35 fatal CPSRMS child climbing incidents, the weight of the child 
was reported for 23 incidents, and ranged from 21.5 to 45 pounds. For 
the remaining 12 climbing incidents in which the child's weight was not 
reported, CPSC staff estimated their weights, based on age, and the 
weights ranged from 23.8 to 39 pounds. Of the 32 nonfatal CPSRMS child 
climbing incidents, the weight of the child was reported in 8 
incidents, and ranged from 26 to 80 pounds. For the remaining 24 
incidents, staff estimated the weights based on age, and the weights 
ranged from 25.2 to 45.1 pounds. Weight was not reported in the 
nonfatal NEISS data, however, using the ages of the children in the 412 
nonfatal NEISS child climbing incidents (9 months to 13 years old), 
staff estimates that their weights ranged from 19.6 to 122 pounds, and 
the weighted average was 34.2 pounds.
5. Televisions
    Of the 104 child fatalities involving a CSU and television tipping 
over, 85 (90 percent) involved a box or cathode ray tube (CRT) 
television, 2 involved a flat-panel television, and 16 did not provide 
information about the television. Of the incidents that provided 
information about television size, the most common television size was 
27 inches. The approximate weight range of the CRT televisions, when 
provided, was between 70 pounds and 150 pounds.
    Although televisions are involved in CSU tip overs, and the 
Commission raised the possibility of addressing televisions in the 
ANPR, the proposed rule does not focus on television involvement. This 
is primarily because, in recent years, there has been a decline in the 
overall number of CSU tip-over incidents that appears to be driven by a 
decrease in tip overs involving televisions, while the rate of ED-
treated incidents involving CSUs without televisions has remained 
stable.

V. Relevant Existing Standards 38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For additional information about relevant existing 
standards, see Tab C, Tab D, Tab F, and Tab N of the NPR briefing 
package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the United States, the primary voluntary standard that addresses 
CSU stability is ASTM F2057-19, Standard Consumer Safety Specification 
for Clothing Storage Units. In addition, CPSC staff identified three 
international consumer safety standards and one domestic standard that 
are relevant to CSUs:
     AS/NZS 4935: 2009, the Australian/New Zealand Standard for 
Domestic furniture--Freestanding chests of drawers, wardrobes and 
bookshelves/bookcases--determination of stability;
     ISO 7171 (2019), the International Organization for 
Standardization International Standard for Furniture--Storage Units--
Determination of stability;
     EN14749 (2016), the European Standard, European Standard 
for Domestic and kitchen storage units and worktops--Safety 
requirements and test methods; and
     ANSI/SOHO S6.5-2008 (R2013), Small Office/Home Office 
Furniture--Tests American National Standard for Office Furnishings.
    This section describes these standards and provides CPSC staff's 
assessment of their adequacy to address CSU tip-over injuries and 
deaths.

A. ASTM F2057-19

    ASTM first approved and published ASTM F2057 in 2000, and has since 
revised the standard seven times. The current version, ASTM F2057-19, 
was approved on August 1, 2019, and published in August 2019. ASTM 
Subcommittee F15.42, Furniture Safety, is responsible for this 
standard. Since the first publication of ASTM F2057, CPSC staff has 
participated in the F15.42 subcommittee and task group meetings and 
worked with ASTM to improve the standards; however, ASTM has not 
addressed several issues CPSC has identified.
1. Scope
    ASTM F2057-19 is intended to reduce child injuries and deaths from 
hazards associated with CSUs tipping over and aims ``to cover children 
up to and including age five.'' The standard covers CSUs that are 27 
inches or more in height, freestanding, and defines CSUs as: 
``furniture item[s] with drawers and/or hinged doors intended for the 
storage of clothing typical with bedroom furniture.'' Examples of CSUs 
provided in the standard include: Chests, chests of drawers, drawer 
chests, armoires, chifforobes, bureaus, door chests, and dressers. The 
standard does not cover ``shelving units, such as bookcases or 
entertainment furniture, office furniture, dining room furniture, 
underbed drawer storage units, occasional/accent furniture not intended 
for bedroom use, laundry storage/sorting units, nightstands, or built-
in units intended to be permanently attached to the building, nor does 
it cover `Clothing Storage Chests' as defined in Consumer Safety 
Specification F2598.''
2. Stability Requirements
    ASTM F2057-19 includes two performance requirements for stability. 
The first is in section 7.1 of the standard, Stability of Unloaded 
Unit. This test consists of placing an empty CSU on a hard, level, flat 
surface, opening all doors (if any) to 90 degrees, and extending all 
drawers and pull-out shelves to the outstop (which is a feature that 
limits outward motion of drawers or pull-out shelves). In the absence 
of an outstop, all drawers and pull-out shelves are opened to two-
thirds of the operational sliding length (which is the length from the 
inside face of the drawer back to the inside face of the drawer). All 
flaps and drop fronts are opened to their horizontal position or as 
near to horizontal as possible. If the CSU tips over in this 
configuration, or is supported by any component that was not 
specifically designed for that purpose, it does not meet the 
requirement.
    The second stability requirement is in section 7.2 of the standard, 
Stability with Load. This test consists of placing an empty CSU on a 
hard, level, flat surface, and gradually applying a 502-
pound test weight. The 50-pound test weight is intended to represent 
the weight of a 5-year-old child. For units with drawers, the test 
requires opening one drawer to the outstop, or in the absence of an 
outstop, to two-thirds of its operational sliding length, and gradually 
applying the test weight to the front face of the drawer. For units 
with doors, the test requires opening one door to 90 degrees and 
gradually applying the test weight. All other drawers and doors remain 
closed, unless they must be opened to access other components behind 
them (e.g., a drawer behind a door). Each drawer and door is tested 
individually. If the CSU tips over in this configuration, or is 
supported by any component that was not specifically designed for that

[[Page 6255]]

purpose, it does not meet this requirement.
3. Tip Restraint Requirements
    ASTM F2057-19 requires CSUs to include a tip restraint that 
complies with ASTM F3096-14, Standard Performance Specification for 
Tipover Restraint(s) Used with Clothing Storage Unit(s).\39\ ASTM 
F2057-19 and F3096-14 define a tip restraint as a ``supplemental device 
that aids in the prevention of tip over.'' ASTM F3096-14 provides a 
test protocol to assess the strength of tip restraints, but does not 
evaluate the attachment to the wall or CSU. The test method specifies 
that the tester attach the tip restraint to a fixed structure and apply 
a 50-pound static load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Approved October 1, 2014 and published October 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Labeling Requirements
    ASTM F2057-19 requires CSUs to be permanently marked in a 
conspicuous location with warnings that meet specified content and 
formatting. The warning statements address the risk of children dying 
from furniture tip overs; not allowing children to stand, climb, or 
hang on CSUs; not opening more than one drawer at a time; placing the 
heaviest items in the bottom drawer; and installing tip restraints. For 
CSUs that are not intended to hold a television, this is also addressed 
in the warning. Additionally, units with interlock systems must include 
a warning not to defeat or remove the interlock system. An interlock 
system is a device that prevents simultaneous opening of more drawers 
than intended by the manufacturer (like is common on file cabinets). 
The standard requires that labels be formatted in accordance with ANSI 
Z535.4, American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels.
    The standard also includes a performance requirement and test 
method for label permanence, which are consistent with requirements in 
other ASTM juvenile furniture product standards. The warning must be 
``in a conspicuous location when in use'' and the back of the unit is 
not considered conspicuous; the standard does not define ``conspicuous 
location when in use.''
5. Assessment of Adequacy
    CPSC does not consider the stability requirements in ASTM F2057-19 
adequate to address the CSU tip-over hazard because they do not account 
for multiple open and filled drawers, carpeted flooring, and dynamic 
forces generated by children's interactions with the CSU, such as 
climbing or pulling on the top drawer. As discussed earlier in this 
preamble, these factors are commonly involved in CSU tip-over 
incidents; and, as discussed later in this preamble, testing indicates 
that these factors decrease the stability of CSUs.
    Although ASTM F2057-19 includes a test with all drawers/doors open, 
the unit is empty and no additional force is applied during this test. 
Consumers are likely to fill drawers with clothing, since that is the 
intended purpose of the product, and a CSU with filled drawers is 
likely to be less stable than an empty unit when more than half of the 
drawers are open. In addition, although ASTM F2057-19 includes a static 
weight applied to the top of one open drawer or door (intended to 
represent a 5-year-old child), this 50-pound weight does not include 
the additional moment \40\ due to the center of gravity of a child 
climbing, dynamic forces, and horizontal forces when a child climbs, 
even when only considering the forces generated by very young children. 
As the UMTRI study described in this preamble found, the forces 
children can exert while climbing a CSU exceed their static weights. 
Finally, the testing does not account for the effect of carpeting, 
which is common flooring in homes (particularly in bedrooms), is 
commonly present in tip-over incidents, and decreases CSU stability. 
Thus, by testing CSUs with open drawers empty, a 50-pound static 
weight, and on a hard, level, flat surface, ASTM F2057-19 does not 
reflect real-world use conditions that decrease the stability of CSUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Moment, or torque, is an engineering term to describe 
rotational force acting about a pivot point, or fulcrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff also looked at whether CSUs involved in tip-over incidents 
complied with ASTM F2057-19 because it would give an indication of 
whether F2057 is effective at preventing tip overs and, by extension, 
whether it is adequate. Of the 89 fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents 
involving children and only CSUs, CPSC staff determined that 1 of the 
CSUs complied with the ASTM F2057-19 stability requirements, 1 CSU met 
the stability requirements when a test weight at the lower permissible 
weight range was used, and 11 units did not meet the stability 
requirements. For the remaining 76 units, staff was unable to determine 
whether they met the ASTM F2057-19 stability requirements, although 
staff did determine that an exemplar of one of these CSUs complied with 
the requirements. Of 263 nonfatal CPSRMS incidents involving children 
and CSUs without televisions for which staff assessed the compliance of 
the CSU, staff determined that 20 met the ASTM F2057-19 stability 
requirements, and 95 did not. For the remaining 148 units, staff was 
unable to determine whether the units met the ASTM F2057-19 stability 
requirements.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Staff did not assess whether NEISS incidents involved ASTM-
compliant CSUs because the reports do not contain specific 
information about the products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a limited review of the tip restraint requirements in ASTM 
F2057-19 and ASTM F3096-14, CPSC is concerned that these requirements 
may not be adequate either. ASTM F3096-14 does not address the whole 
tip-restraint system, which includes the connection to the CSU and the 
connection to the wall. The standard assumes an ideal connection to 
both the furniture and the wall, but incidents suggest that both of 
these are potential points of failure. In addition, ASTM F3096-14 uses 
a 50-pound static force. Based on the UMTRI study, this force may not 
represent the force on a tip restraint from child interactions, 
especially for interactions that can generate large amounts of force, 
including from older children. For example, the UMTRI study found that 
when a child bounced, leaned, or yanked on a CSU, the forces generated 
were equivalent to 2.7, 2.7, and 3.9 times the child's body weight, 
respectively, at a distance of 1 foot from the fulcrum. However, staff 
did not evaluate the tip restraint requirements in ASTM F2057-19 and 
ASTM F3096-14 because, as discussed in this preamble, several research 
studies show that a large number of consumers do not anchor furniture, 
including CSUs, and there are several barriers to the use of tip 
restraints. As such, even if tip restraint requirements were effective, 
CSUs should be inherently stable to account for the lack of consumer 
use of tip restraints and additional barriers to proper installation 
and use of tip restraints.
    CPSC also has some concerns with the effectiveness of the content 
in the warning labels required in ASTM F2057-19. For example, the 
meaning of ``tipover restraint'' may not be clear to consumers, and 
directing consumers not to open more than one drawer at a time is not 
consistent with consumer use. In addition, focus group testing 
discussed in this preamble indicated that consumers had trouble 
understanding the child climbing symbol required by the standard. CPSC 
staff also believes that greater clarity about the required placement 
of the label would make the warning more effective.

[[Page 6256]]

6. Compliance With ASTM F2057
    CPSC staff assessed compliance with the stability requirements in 
ASTM F2057-19. In 2016,\42\ staff tested 61 CSU samples and found that 
50 percent (31 of 61) did not comply with the stability requirements in 
ASTM F2057.\43\ In 2018, CPSC staff assessed a total of 188 CSUs, 
including 167 CSUs selected from among the best sellers from major 
retailers, using a random number generator; 4 CSU models that were 
involved in incidents; \44\ and 17 units assessed as part of previous 
test data provided to CPSC.\45\ Of the 188 CSUs, 171 (91 percent) 
complied with the stability requirements in ASTM F2057. One CSU (0.5 
percent) did not comply with the Stability of Unloaded Unit test, and 
17 (9 percent) did not meet the Stability with Load test. The unit that 
did not meet the requirements of the Stability of Unloaded Unit test 
also did not meet the requirements of the Stability with Load test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Although this testing involved ASTM F2057-14, the stability 
requirements were the same as in ASTM F2057-19. The test results are 
available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/2016-Tipover-Briefing-Package-Test-Results-Update-August-16-2017.pdf?yMCHvzY_YtOZmBAAj0GJih1lXE7vvu9K.
    \43\ This testing also found that 91 percent of CSUs (56 of 61) 
did not comply with the labeling requirements in ASTM F2057-14, and 
43 percent (26 of 61) did not comply with the tip restraint 
requirements.
    \44\ Staff tested exemplar units, meaning the model of CSU 
involved in the incident, but not the actual unit involved in the 
incident.
    \45\ The CSUs were identified from the Consumer Reports study 
``Furniture Tip-Overs: A Hidden Hazard in Your Home'' (Mar. 22, 
2018), available at: https://www.consumerreports.org/furniture/furniture-tip-overs-hidden-hazard-in-your-home/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as part of staff's incident recreation and modeling 
(discussed in section VII.D. Incident Recreation and Modeling of this 
preamble), staff determined that two of the seven tested CSU models 
that had been involved in tip-over incidents complied with the 
stability requirements in ASTM F2057, and one additional CSU was 
borderline on whether it complied with the standard. This suggests that 
the stability requirements in ASTM F2057-19 do not adequately reduce 
the risk of tip overs.

B. AS/NZS 4935: 2009

    AS/NZS 4935 is a voluntary standard prepared by Standards 
Australia's and Standards New Zealand's Joint Technical Committee CS-
088/CS-091, Commercial/Domestic Furniture. There is only one version of 
the standard, the current version AS/NZA 4935:2009, which was approved 
on behalf of the Council of Standards Australia on August 28, 2009, and 
on behalf of the Council of Standards New Zealand on October 23, 2009. 
It was published on November 17, 2009.
1. Scope
    AS/NZS 4935 aims to address furniture tip-over hazards to children. 
It describes test methods for determining the stability of domestic 
freestanding chests of drawers over 500 mm (19.7 inch) high, 
freestanding wardrobes over 500 mm high (19.7 inch), and freestanding 
bookshelves/bookcases over 600 mm (23.6 inch) high. It defines ``chest 
of drawers'' as containing one or more drawers or other extendible 
elements and intended for the storage of clothing, and may have one or 
more doors or shelves. It defines ``wardrobe'' as a furniture item 
primarily intended for hanging clothing that may also have one or more 
drawers, doors or other extendible elements, or fixed shelves. It 
defines bookshelves and bookcases as sets of shelves primarily intended 
for storing books, and may contain doors, drawers or other extendible 
elements.
2. Stability Requirements
    Similar to ASTM F2057-19, AS/NZS 4935 includes two stability 
requirements. The first requires the unit, when empty, to not tip over 
when a 29-kilogram (64-pound) test weight is applied to a single open 
drawer. The 64-pound test weight is based on the 95th percentile body 
mass of a 5-year-and-11-month-old child (which is 27 kilograms or 59.5 
pounds), adjusted to reflect trends of increasing body mass. The test 
weight is applied to the top face of a drawer, with the drawer opened 
to two-thirds of its full extension length. The second test requires 
the unit not tip over when all of the extension elements are open and 
the unit is empty. Each drawer or extendible element is open to two-
thirds of its extension length, and doors are open perpendicular to the 
furniture. Units do not pass the stability requirements if they cannot 
support the test weight, if they tip over, or if they are only 
prevented from tipping by an extendible element.
3. Tip Restraint Requirements
    The standard does not require, but recommends, that tip restraints 
be included with units, along with attachment instructions.
4. Labeling Requirements
    The standard requires a warning label, and provides example text 
that addresses the tip-over hazard. The standard also requires a 
warning tag with specific text and formatting. The label and tag 
include statements informing consumers about the hazard, warning of tip 
overs and resulting injuries, and indicating how to avoid the hazard. 
These requirements do not address the use of televisions. The standard 
includes label permanency requirements and mandates that the warning 
label be placed ``inside of a top drawer within clear view when the 
drawer is empty and partially opened, or on the inside face of a 
drawer'' for chests of drawers and wardrobes.
5. Assessment of Adequacy
    CPSC does not consider the stability requirements in AS/NZS 4935 
adequate to address the CSU tip-over hazard because they do not account 
for multiple open and filled drawers, carpeted flooring, and dynamic 
forces generated by children's interactions with the CSU, such as 
climbing or pulling on the top drawer. As discussed in this preamble, 
these factors are commonly involved in CSU tip-over incidents and 
testing indicates that they decrease the stability of CSUs.
    AS/NZS 4935 requires drawer extension to only two-thirds of 
extension length for both stability tests. This partial extension does 
not represent real-world use because children are able to open drawers 
fully, incidents involve fully open drawers, and opening a drawer 
further decreases the stability of a CSU. In addition, it does not 
account for filled drawers, which are expected during real-world use, 
are common in tip-over incidents, and contribute to instability when 
multiple drawers are open. It also does not account for carpeted 
floors, which are common in incidents and contribute to instability. 
Although AS/NZS 4935 uses a heavier test weight than ASTM F2057-19, it 
is inadequate because neither stability test accounts for the moments 
children can exert on CSUs during interactions, such as climbing. 
Considering additional moments, the 64 pounds of weight on the drawer 
face is equivalent to a 40-pound child climbing the extended drawer. A 
40-pound weight corresponds to a 75th percentile 3-year-old child, 50th 
percentile 4-year-old child, and 25th percentile 5-year-old child.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Fryar, C.D., Carroll, M.D., Gu, Q., Afful, J., Ogden, C.L. 
(2021). Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: 
United States, 2015-2018. National Center for Health Statistics. 
Vital Health Stat 3(46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. ISO 7171 (2019)

    The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed 
the voluntary standard ISO 7171 through the Technical Committee ISO/TC 
136, Furniture and published the first version in May 1988. The current 
2019

[[Page 6257]]

version was published in February 2019.
1. Scope
    ISO 7171 (2019) describes methods for determining the stability of 
freestanding storage furniture, including bookcases, wardrobes, and 
cabinets, but the standard does not define these terms.
2. Stability Requirements
    ISO 7171 (2019) includes three stability tests, all of which occur 
on a level test surface. The first uses a weight/load on an open 
drawer. The second involves all drawers being filled and a load/weight 
placed on a single open drawer. In the loaded test, one drawer is 
opened to the outstop, and if no outstops exist, the drawer is opened 
to two-thirds of its full extension length. The test weight is applied 
to the top face of the opened drawer, and varies depending on the 
height of the unit (either 200 N (44 pounds) or 250 N (55 pounds)). The 
fill weight is also variable, depending on the clearance height and 
volume of the drawer (fill density ranges from 6.25 lb/ft\3\ to 12.5 
lb/ft\3\). The third test is an unloaded test with all drawers open. 
For this test, drawers and extendible elements are open to the outstop 
and doors are open 90 degrees. If there are no outstops, then the 
extension elements are open to two-thirds of their extension length. 
Existing interlock systems are not bypassed for this test.
    ISO 7171 (2019) does not include criteria for determining whether a 
unit passed or failed the loaded stability test. However, it includes a 
table of ``suggested'' forces, depending on the height of the unit.
    An additional unfilled, closed drawer test is required for units 
greater than 1000 mm in height, where a vertical force of 350 N (77 
pounds) along with a simultaneous 50 N (11 pounds) outward horizontal 
force is applied to the top surface of the unit.
3. Tip Restraint Requirements
    ISO 7171 (2019) does not require tip restraints to be provided with 
units, but does specify a test method for them. The tip restraints are 
installed in both the wall and unit during the test and a 300 N (67.4 
lbf) horizontal force is applied in the direction most likely to 
overturn the unit. The force is maintained between 10 and 15 seconds.
4. Labeling Requirements
    The standard does not have any requirements or test methods related 
to warning labels.
5. Assessment of Adequacy
    CPSC does not consider the stability requirements in ISO 7171 
(2019) adequate to address the CSU tip-over hazard because they do not 
account for carpeted flooring, or dynamic and horizontal forces 
generated by children's interactions with the CSU, such as climbing or 
pulling on the top drawer. In addition, although ISO 7171 (2019) 
includes a stability test with filled drawers, the multiple open drawer 
test does not include filled drawers, and the simultaneous conditions 
of multiple open and filled drawers during a child interaction are not 
tested. As discussed in this preamble, these factors are commonly 
involved in CSU tip-over incidents and testing indicates that they 
decrease the stability of CSUs. Finally, test weights are provided only 
as recommendations and there are no criteria for determining whether a 
unit passes.

D. EN 14749: 2016

    EN 14749: 2016 is a European Standard that was prepared by 
Technical Committee CEN/TC 207 ``Furniture.'' This standard was 
approved by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) on 
November 21, 2015, and supersedes EN 14749:2005, which was approved on 
July 8, 2005, as the original version. EN 14749:2016 is a mandatory 
standard and applies to all CEN members.
1. Scope
    EN 14749: 2016 describes methods for determining the stability of 
domestic and non-domestic furniture with a height >= 600 mm (23.6 in) 
and a potential energy, based on mass and height, exceeding 60 N-m 
(44.25 ft-lbs). Kitchen worktops and television furniture are the only 
furniture types defined. The test methods in this standard are taken 
from EN 16122: 2012, Domestic and non-domestic storage furniture-test 
methods for the determination of strength, durability and stability, 
which covers ``all types of domestic and non-domestic storage furniture 
including domestic kitchen furniture.''
2. Stability Requirements
    EN 14749: 2016 includes three stability tests, which are conducted 
with the units freestanding. In the first loaded test, a 75 N (16.9 
lbf) test weight is applied to the top of the drawer face, when pulled 
to the outstop. However, if no outstops exist, the extension element is 
open to two-thirds of its full extension length. In the second test, 
all drawers and extendible elements are open to the outstop and doors 
are open 90 degrees. If no outstops are present, then the extension 
elements are open to two-thirds of their extension lengths. Existing 
interlock systems are not bypassed for this test. The third test 
involves filled drawers and a load; all storage areas are filled with 
weight and the loaded test procedure (above) is carried out but with a 
test weight that is 20 percent of the mass of the unit, including the 
drawer fill, not exceeding 300 N (67.4 pounds). Similar to ISO 7171, an 
additional unfilled, closed drawer test is required for units greater 
than 1000 mm in height, where a vertical force of 350 N (77 pounds) 
along with a simultaneous 50 N (11 pounds) outward horizontal force are 
applied to the top surface of the unit.
    Relevant to the portions of stability testing that involve opening 
drawers, the standard also accounts for interlock systems, requiring 
one extension element to be open to its outstop, or in the absence of 
an outstop, two-thirds of its operational sliding length, and a 100 N 
(22 lbf) horizontal force to be applied to the face of all other 
extension elements. This is repeated 10 times on each extension element 
and all combinations of extension elements are tested.
3. Tip Restraint Requirements
    EN 14749: 2016 does not include any requirements regarding tip 
restraints.
4. Labeling Requirements
    EN 14749: 2016 does not include any requirements regarding warning 
labels.
5. Assessment of Adequacy
    CPSC does not consider the stability requirements in EN 14749: 2016 
adequate to address the CSU tip-over hazard because they do not account 
for carpeted flooring, or dynamic and horizontal forces generated by 
children's interactions with the CSU, such as climbing or pulling on 
the top drawer. In addition, although the standard includes a stability 
test with filled drawers, the multiple open drawer test does not 
include filled drawers, and the simultaneous conditions of multiple 
open and filled drawers during a child interaction are not tested. 
Moreover, the fill weight ranges from 6.25 lb/ft\3\ to 12.5 lb/ft\3\, 
which includes fill weights lower than staff identified for drawers 
filled with clothing (discussed in section VII.A. Multiple Open and 
Filled Drawers of this preamble). As discussed in this preamble, these 
factors are commonly involved in CSU tip-over incidents and testing 
indicates that they effect the stability of CSUs.

[[Page 6258]]

E. ANSI/BIFMA SOHO S6.5-2008 (R2013)

    ANSI/SOHO S6.5 does not address CSUs, but rather, applies to office 
furniture, such as file cabinets. However, CPSC considered this 
standard because it addresses interlock systems, which some CSUs 
include and are relevant to stability testing. This standard was 
completed by BIFMA Engineering Committee and its subcommittee on Small 
Office/Home Office Products in 2000. The first version was approved by 
ANSI on August 4, 2008. The current version of the standard was 
approved on September 17, 2013.
    This standard specifies tests for ``evaluating the safety, 
durability, and structural adequacy of storage and desk-type furniture 
intended for use in the small office and/or home office.'' ANSI/BIFMA 
SOHO S6.5 includes testing to evaluate interlock systems. The test 
procedure calls for one extendable element to be fully extended while a 
30 lbf horizontal pull force is applied to all other fully closed 
extendable elements. Every combination of open/closed extendable 
elements \47\ must be tested. The interlock system must be fully 
functional at the completion of this test and no extendable element may 
bypass the interlock system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Excluding doors, writing shelves, equipment surfaces, and 
keyboard surfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section VIII.B.2.a.ii Interlocks of this preamble, 
child strength studies show that children between 2 and 5 years old can 
achieve a mean pull force of 17.2 pounds. Therefore, CPSC considers a 
30-pound horizontal pull force adequate to evaluate the strength of an 
interlock system. However, because ANSI/SOHO S6.5 does not include 
stability tests or requirements reflecting the real-world factors 
involved in CSU tip overs, the standard would not adequately address 
the CSU tip-over hazard.

VI. Technical Background

    This preamble and the NPR briefing package include technical 
discussions of engineering concepts, such as center of gravity (also 
referred to as center of mass), moments, and fulcrums. Tab D of the NPR 
briefing package provides detailed background information on each of 
these terms, including how staff applies them to CSU tip-over analysis. 
This section provides a brief overview of that information; for further 
information, see Tab D of the NPR briefing package.

A. Center of Gravity and Center of Mass

    Center of Gravity (CG) or Center of Mass (CM) \48\ is a single 
point in an object, about which its weight (or mass) is completely 
balanced. In terms of freestanding CSU stability, if the CSU's CG is 
located behind the front foot, the CSU is stable and will not tip over 
on its own. Alternatively, if the CSU's CG is in front of the front 
foot, the CSU is unstable and will tip over. The CG (and CM) of an 
object is dependent on its geometry and materials. For example, CSU 
drawers typically have a front that is thicker and larger than the 
back, which causes the drawer's CG to be closer to the front. The CSU's 
CG is defined by the position and weight of the CSU cabinet (without 
drawers), combined with the position and weight of each drawer. A CSU's 
CG is equal to the sum of the products of the position and the weight 
of each component, divided by the total weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ For CSU-sized objects, CG and CM are effectively the same. 
Therefore, CG and CM are used interchangeably in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CG of a CSU will change as a result of the position of the 
drawers, doors, and pull-out shelves (open or closed). Opening 
extendable elements, such as drawers, shifts the CG towards the front 
of the CSU. The closer the CG is to the front leg, the easier it is to 
tip forward if a force is applied to the drawer. Therefore, CSUs will 
tip more easily as more drawers are opened. The CG of a CSU will also 
change depending on the position and amount of clothing in each drawer. 
Closed drawers filled with clothing tend to stabilize a CSU, but as 
each filled drawer is pulled out, the CSU's CG will shift further 
towards the front.

B. Moment and Fulcrum

    Moment, or torque, is an engineering term to describe rotational 
force acting about a pivot point, or fulcrum. The moment is created by 
a force or forces acting at a distance, or moment arm, away from a 
fulcrum. One simple example is the moment or torque created by a wrench 
turning a nut. The moment or torque about the nut is due to the 
perpendicular force on the end of the wrench applied at a distance 
(moment arm) from the fulcrum (nut). Likewise, a downward force on an 
open CSU drawer creates a moment about the fulcrum (front leg) of the 
CSU. A CSU will tip over about the fulcrum due to a force (e.g., weight 
of a child positioned over the front of a drawer) and the moment arm 
(e.g., extended drawer).
    Downward force or weight applied to the drawer tends to tip the CSU 
forward around the fulcrum at the base of the unit, while the weight of 
the CSU opposes this rotation. The CSU's weight can be modeled as 
concentrated at a single point: The CSU's CG. The CSU's stability 
moment is created by its weight, multiplied by the horizontal distance 
of its CG from the fulcrum. A child can produce a moment opposing the 
weight of the CSU, by pushing down or sitting in an open drawer. This 
moment is created by the vertical force of the child, multiplied by the 
horizontal distance to the fulcrum. The CSU becomes unbalanced and tips 
over when the moments applied at the front of the CSU exceed the CSU's 
stability moment.
    Horizontal forces applied to pull on a drawer also tend to tip the 
CSU forward around the front leg (pivot point or fulcrum) at the base 
of the unit, while the weight of the CSU opposes this rotation. In this 
case, the moment produced by the child is the horizontal pull force 
transmitted to the CSU (for example, through a drawer stop), multiplied 
by the vertical distance to the fulcrum. The CSU becomes unbalanced and 
tips over when the moments applied at the front of the CSU exceed the 
CSU's stability moment.
    When a child climbs a CSU, both horizontal forces and vertical 
forces acting at the hands and feet contribute to CSU tip over. Figure 
1 shows a typical combination of forces acting on a CSU while a child 
is climbing, and it describes how those forces contribute to a tip-over 
moment. Note that when the horizontal force at the hands and feet are 
approximately equal, which will occur when the child's CM is balanced 
in front of the drawers, the height of the bottom drawer becomes 
irrelevant when determining the tip-over moment. In this case, only the 
height of the hands above the feet matters. As Figure 1 shows, a child 
climbing on drawers opened distance A1 from the fulcrum, with feet at 
height B1 from the ground and hands at height B2 above the feet, will 
act on the CSU with horizontal forces FH and vertical forces 
FV. The CSU's weight at a distance A2 from the CSU's front 
edge touching the ground creates a stabilizing moment. The CSU will tip 
if Moment 1 is greater than Moment 2.

[[Page 6259]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.000

VII. Technical Analysis Supporting the Proposed Rule

    In addition to reviewing incident data, CPSC staff conducted 
testing and analysis, analyzed tip-over incidents, and commissioned 
several contractor studies to further examine factors relevant to CSU 
tip overs. This section describes that testing and analysis.

A. Multiple Open and Filled Drawers 49
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Further details about the effect of open and filled drawers 
on CSU stability is available in Tab D, Tab L, and Tab O of the NPR 
briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff's technical analysis, as confirmed by testing, indicates that 
multiple open drawers decrease the stability of a CSU, and filled 
drawers further decrease stability when more than half of the drawers 
by volume are open, but increase stability when more than half of the 
drawers by volume are closed. Thus, while multiple open drawers, alone, 
can make a unit less stable, whether the drawers are full when open is 
also a relevant consideration. When filled drawers are closed, the 
clothing weight contributes to the stability of the CSU, because the 
clothing weight is behind the front legs (fulcrum). However, open 
drawers contribute to the CSU being less stable, because the clothing 
weight is shifted forward in front of the front legs (fulcrum).
    To assess the effect of open drawers and filled drawers on CSU 
stability, CPSC staff conducted testing to evaluate the effect of 
various combinations of open/closed and filled/empty drawers using a 
convenience sample of CSUs.\50\ Staff conducted two phases of testing 
(Phase I and Phase II). The purpose of the testing was to assess the 
weight at which a CSU became unstable and tipped over with various 
configurations of drawers open/closed and filled/empty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Because of the limited number of units tested, this study 
provides useful information, but the results are limited to the 
tested units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary variable of interest in the Phase I study was the 
influence of multiple open/closed drawers. The 11 CSUs tested in Phase 
I were primarily units with a single column of drawers. The Phase II 
study examined the influence of multiple open/closed drawers and 
filled/empty drawers. The 15 CSUs tested in Phase II included more 
complex units with multiple columns of drawers. Staff used the 
stability test methods in ASTM F2057-19, with some alterations, to 
collect information about variables that ASTM F2057-19 does not address 
(i.e., the effect of open/closed drawers, filled/empty drawers, and tip 
weight). Filled drawers contained weight bags to simulate a drawer 
filled with clothing, based on the interior volume of the drawer and 
8.5 pounds per cubic foot (the explanation for this fill volume is 
provided below). In addition to various configurations of open/closed 
and filled/empty drawers, staff also varied the drawer on which the tip 
weight mechanism was applied, referred to as the ``tip weight 
application location.''
    The primary goal of the Phase I study was to gain insight into the 
influence of multiple open or closed drawers on CSU stability as a 
function of tip weight. Additionally, this study was designed to test 
and ideally confirm that identical drawer open/closed patterns (e.g., 
two open drawers) yielded nearly identical tip weights, particularly 
when drawers were identical in size, regardless of the specific 
configuration (drawers open/closed and tip weight application 
location). The Phase I study confirmed that comparable tip weights 
existed for similar open/closed drawer configurations in the tested 
CSUs when considering a simple single column of drawers that are 
identically sized.
    The primary goal of the Phase II study was to examine additional 
complexities with respect to real-world scenarios of CSUs. This 
included more complex CSUs and combinations of filled and/or empty 
drawers (including partially filed configurations, in which some 
drawers were filled and some were empty) within the same CSU, in 
addition to open/closed drawers. Staff also modified the test method to 
decrease

[[Page 6260]]

test-to-test variability, for example, by adding cross hatches on the 
drawer and the weight bag to ensure weight bags were centered within 
drawers.
    Based on this testing, lighter and shorter units appear to be less 
stable, although a taller and heavier unit was also unstable; and 
similar units passed and failed ASTM's stability requirements. This 
suggests that specific heights or weights of a CSU do not correlate 
with stability or instability. Similarly, the footprint ratio (depth-
to-width ratio) of the CSU, alone, did not appear to affect tip weight.
    From the 26 CSUs tested, CPSC staff analyzed 1,777 data points for 
a variety of combinations (filled/empty drawers, open/closed drawers, 
and tip weight application location),\51\ and supplemented this data 
with results from other CSU testing CPSC staff had performed. The 
results of this testing indicated that individual CSUs vary in 
stability, depending on the configuration of open/closed drawers, and 
filled/empty drawers, and that different CSU drawer structures (e.g., 
number of columns, relative drawer sizes) have an influence on tip 
weight. In general, the results indicated that CSUs were less stable as 
more drawers were opened, and that filled drawers have a variable 
effect on stability. A filled closed drawer contributes to stability, 
while a filled open drawer decreases stability. Depending on the 
percent of drawers that are open and filled, having multiple drawers 
open decreased the stability of the CSU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Staff excluded some data points for reasons explained in 
Tab O of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine the appropriate method for simulating CSU drawers that 
are partially filled or fully filled, staff considered previous 
analyses, and conducted additional testing. Although ASTM F2057-19 does 
not include filled drawers as part of its stability testing, the ASTM 
F15.42 subcommittee has considered a ``loaded'' (filled) drawer 
requirement and test method. The ASTM task group used an assumed 
clothing weight of 8.5 pounds per cubic foot in testing and other 
discussions of filled drawers. Kids in Danger and Shane's Foundation 
found a similar density (average of 8.9 pounds per cubic foot) when 
they filled CSU drawers with boys' t-shirts in a 2016 study on 
furniture stability.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Kids in Danger and Shane's Foundation (2016). Dresser 
Testing Protocol and Data. Data set provided to CPSC staff by Kids 
in Danger, January 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess whether 8.5 pounds per cubic foot reasonably represents 
the weight of clothing in a drawer, CPSC staff conducted testing. As 
part of this assessment, staff looked at four drawer fill conditions. 
Staff considered folded and unfolded clothing with a total weight equal 
to 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of functional drawer volume in the drawer; 
and the maximum amount of folded and unfolded clothing that could be 
put into a drawer that would still allow the drawer to open and close. 
For these tests, staff used an assortment of boys' clothing in sizes 4, 
5, and 6. Staff used a CSU with a range of drawer sizes to assess 
small, medium, and large drawers; the functional drawer volume of these 
3 drawer sizes was 0.76 cubic feet, 1.71 cubic feet, and 2.39 cubic 
feet, respectively. Staff determined the calculated clothing weight for 
the 8.5 pounds per cubic foot drawer fill conditions by multiplying 8.5 
by the drawer's functional volume, defined as: \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ ``Clearance height'' is the height from the interior bottom 
surface of the drawer to the closest vertical obstruction in the CSU 
frame. ``Functional height'' is clearance height minus \1/8\ inch.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.001

    For all three drawer sizes, staff was able to fit 8.5 pounds per 
cubic foot of folded and unfolded clothing in the drawers. When the 
clothing was unfolded, the clothing fully filled the drawers, but still 
allowed the drawer to close. Because the unfolded clothing was stuffed 
into the drawer fairly tightly, it was not easy to see and access 
clothing below the top layer. When the clothing was folded, the 
clothing also fully filled the drawers and still allowed the drawer to 
close. The folded clothing was tightly packed, but allowed for 
additional space when compressed. The maximum unfolded clothing fill 
weight was 6.52, 14.64, and 21.20 pounds for the three drawer sizes, 
respectively; and the maximum folded clothing fill weight was 7.72, 
16.08, and 22.88 pounds for the three drawer sizes, respectively.
    Staff also compared the calculated clothing weight (i.e., using 8.5 
pounds per cubic foot), maximum unfolded drawer fill weight, and 
maximum folded drawer fill weight for each drawer. The maximum unfolded 
clothing fill weight was slightly higher than the calculated clothing 
fill weight for all tested drawers. The difference between the maximum 
unfolded clothing fill weight and the calculated clothing weight ranged 
from 0.08 pounds to 0.87 pounds. The maximum unfolded clothing fill 
weight was 101 to 104 percent of the calculated clothing weight, 
depending on the drawer. The maximum folded clothing fill weight was 
higher than both the maximum unfolded clothing fill weight and the 
calculated clothing fill weight for all tested drawers; however, the 
differences were relatively small. The difference between the maximum 
folded clothing fill weight and the calculated clothing weight ranged 
from 1.28 to 2.55 pounds. The maximum unfolded clothing fill weight was 
111 to 120 percent of the calculated clothing weight, depending on the 
drawer. The maximum unfolded clothing fill density was slightly higher 
than 8.5 pounds per cubic foot for all tested drawers; and the maximum 
unfolded clothing fill density ranged from 8.56 to 8.87 pounds per 
cubic foot, depending on the drawer. The maximum folded clothing fill 
density was higher than both the maximum unfolded clothing fill density 
and 8.5 pounds per cubic foot for all tested drawers. The maximum 
folded clothing fill density ranged from 9.40 to 10.16 pounds per cubic 
foot, depending on the drawer. Thus, there does not appear to be a 
large difference in clothing fill density based on drawer size.
    Based on this testing, staff found that 8.5 pounds per cubic foot 
of clothing will fill a drawer; however, this amount of clothing is 
less than the absolute maximum amount of clothing that can be put into 
a drawer, especially if the clothing is folded. The maximum amount of 
unfolded clothing that could be put into the tested drawers was only 
slightly higher than 8.5 pounds per cubic foot. Although staff achieved 
a clothing density as high as 10.16 pounds per cubic foot with folded 
clothing, consumers may be unlikely to fill a drawer to this level 
because it requires careful folding, and it is difficult to remove and 
replace individual pieces of clothing. On balance, staff concluded that 
8.5 pounds per cubic foot of functional drawer volume is a reasonable 
approximation of

[[Page 6261]]

the weight of clothing in a fully filled drawer.

B. Forces and Moments During Child Interactions With CSUs 54
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Further information about the study described in this 
section, and forces and moments generated by children's interactions 
with CSUs, is available in Tab C, Tab D, and Tab R of the NPR 
briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated above, some of the common themes that staff identified 
in CSU tip-over incident data involve children interacting with CSUs, 
including climbing on them and opening drawers. To determine the forces 
and other relevant factors that exist during these expected 
interactions between children and CSUs, CPSC contracted with UMTRI to 
conduct research. The researchers at UMTRI, in collaboration with CPSC 
staff, designed a study to collect information about children's 
measurements and proportions, interest in climbing and climbing 
behaviors, and the forces and moments children can generate during 
various interactions with a CSU. Forty children, age 20 months to 65 
months old, participated in the study. For additional details about the 
study, see UMTRI's full report in Tab R of the NPR briefing package.
1. Overview of Interaction Portion of UMTRI Study
    The interaction portion of the study included children interacting 
with a CSU test apparatus with instrumented handles and a simulated 
drawer and tabletop (to simulate the top of a CSU or other tabletop or 
furniture unit). Researchers measured the forces of the children acting 
on the test apparatus and calculated moments generated by the children 
based on the location of the CSU's front leg tip point (fulcrum). The 
researchers based the fulcrum's location on a dataset of CSU drawer 
extensions and heights provided by CPSC staff.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ CPSC staff provided UMTRI researchers with a dataset of 
drawer extensions and drawer heights from the ground from a sample 
of approximately 180 CSUs. The researchers selected the 90th 
percentile drawer extension (12 inches) and drawer height (16 
inches) as the basis for placing the moment fulcrum in most of their 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The interaction portion of the study looked at forces associated 
with several climbing-related interactions of interest, which staff and 
researchers selected based on CSU tip-over incidents, videos of 
children interacting with CSUs and similar furniture items, and 
plausible interactions based on children's developmental abilities. 
Staff focused on the ascent/climbing \56\ interaction for this 
rulemaking because climbing incidents were the most common interaction 
among fatal CPSRMS incidents and nonfatal NEISS incidents, where the 
interaction was reported, and they were the second most common 
interaction in nonfatal CPSRMS incidents, where the interaction was 
reported; and because climbing begins with ascent, which is a child's 
initial step to climb up on to the CSU, and therefore, is considered an 
integral part of all climbing interactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Ascending is a subcategory of climbing, and is described as 
a child's initial step to climb up on to a CSU. Therefore, ascending 
is an integral part of climbing. The UMTRI study provided 
information about forces children generate during ascent, because 
that testing measured forces children generate during an initial 
step onto the CSU test fixture. Those forces can be used to model 
children climbing because ascent is the first and integral step to 
climbing, but not all climbing interactions can be modeled with 
ascent, as forces associated with some other behaviors can exceed 
those for ascent. The term ``climbing'' is often used in this 
preamble and the NPR briefing package because that is the general 
behavior described in many incidents. Both climbing and ascending 
are used to refer to the force children generate on a CSU, for 
purposes of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Test Apparatus and Data Acquisition
    UMTRI researchers created the test apparatus shown in Figure 2, 
which used a padded force plate to measure interactions with the floor 
and included a column to which the various instrumented test fixtures 
were attached. Tests were conducted with a pair of handlebars 
(simulating drawer handles or fronts), a simulated drawer, and a 
simulated tabletop. In preparation for the study, CPSC staff worked 
with UMTRI researchers to develop a test fixture that modeled the 
climbing surfaces of a CSU. CPSC staff provided information to UMTRI 
researchers on drawer extension and heights from the sample of dressers 
used in CPSC staff's evaluation (Tab N of the NPR briefing package). 
Researchers selected and constructed a parallel bar test fixture, 
representing a lower foothold and an upper handhold. These bars 
represent a best-case CSU climbing surface, similar to the top of a 
drawer.
    UMTRI researchers configured the test fixtures based on each 
child's anthropometric measurements. Researchers set the upper bar to 
three different heights relative to the padded floor surface: Low (50 
percent of the child's upward grip reach), mid (75 percent of the 
child's upward grip reach), and high (100 percent of the child's upward 
grip reach); researchers set the lower bar to two different heights: 
Low (4.7 inches from the padded floor surface) and high (the child's 
maximum step height above the padded floor). The heights for the bars 
were within plausible heights for CSU drawers. Researchers set the 
horizontal position of the upper bar to two different positions: 
``aligned'' with the lower bar, or ``offset'' from the lower bar, at a 
distance equal to 20 percent of the child's upward grip height. Tabs C 
and R of the NPR briefing package contain more information about the 
test fixture configurations. The bars, drawer, and tabletop, as well as 
the floor in front of the test fixture, had force measurement 
instrumentation that recorded forces over time in the horizontal (fore-
aft, x) and vertical (z) directions.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 6262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.002

3. Target Behaviors of Children Interacting With a CSU
    CPSC staff worked with UMTRI researchers to develop a set of 
scripted interactions. Staff focused on realistic interactions in which 
the child's position and/or dynamic interactions were the most likely 
to cause a CSU to tip over. The interactions were based on incident 
data and online videos of children interacting with CSUs and other 
furniture items. The interactions UMTRI researchers evaluated included:
     Ascend: Climb up onto the test fixture;
     Bounce: Bounce vigorously without leaving the bar;
     Lean back: Lean back as far as possible while keeping both 
hands and feet on the bars;
     Yank: From the lean back position, pull on the bar as hard 
as possible;
     1 hand & 1 foot: Take one hand and foot (from the same 
side of the body) off the bars and then lean as far away from the bars 
as possible;
     Hop up: Hold the upper bar and try to jump from the floor 
to a position where the arms are straight and the hips are in front of 
the upper bar, an action similar to hoisting oneself out of a swimming 
pool;
     Hang: Hold onto the upper bar, lift feet off the floor by 
bending knees, hang still for a few seconds, and then straighten legs 
to return to the floor; and
     Descend: Climb down from the test fixture.
    As described above, the ascend interaction best models the climbing 
behavior commonly seen in incidents, and is analogous to a child's 
initial step to climb up on to the CSU, which is an integral climbing 
interaction. The other, more extreme interactions, such as bounce, 
lean, and yank, were identified as plausible interactions, based on 
child behavior; but these interactions were not directly observed in 
the incident data.
    After the children performed the interaction, the researchers 
reviewed video from each trial to isolate and characterize interactions 
of interest. Interactions of interest for the handle trials were 
categorized as: Ascent, Bounce, Lean (lean back), Yank, and One Hand 
(see Figure 3). Researchers analyzed forces from each extracted 
behavior to identify peak forces and moments.

[[Page 6263]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.003

4. Image-Based Posture Analysis
    Participant postures have strong effects on the horizontal forces 
exerted by the child and the subsequent calculated moments, due to the 
location of the child's CM during each behavior. Thus, the CM of the 
child is important when evaluating the stability or tip-over propensity 
of the child/CSU-combined system. UMTRI researchers used the images of 
the subjects to estimate the location of the child's CM. The UMTRI 
researchers extracted video frames at time points of interest 
(typically when the child produced the maximum moment during the 
interaction) and manually digitized the series of landmarks on the 
image of the child, as shown in Figure 4. The location of the CM was 
estimated, based on anthropometric information on children,\57\ as 33 
percent of the distance from the buttock landmark to the top-of-head 
landmark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Snyder, R.G., Schneider, L.W., Owings, C.L., Reynolds, 
H.M., Golomb, D.H., Schork, M.A., Anthropometry of Infants, Children 
and Youths to Age 18 for Product Safety Design (Report No. UM-HSRI-
77-17), prepared for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(1977).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.004


[[Page 6264]]


    The UMTRI researchers estimated the location of the child's CM by 
examining the side-view images from the times of maximum moment, as 
shown in Figure 5. Table 1 shows the average estimated CM location for 
each behavior.\58\ The children in the study extended their CM an 
average of about 6 inches from the handle/foothold while ascending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Graphs are available in Tab R of the NPR briefing package 
(page 59, Figure 54).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.005


                                       Table 1--Estimated CM Horizontal Offset From the Handles for Aligned Trials
                                                                        [Inches]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                               10th            50th            90th
                Behavior                    N subjects       N trials          Mean             SD          percentile      percentile      percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ascent..................................              36             109             6.1             2.0             4.3             6.1             8.6
Bounce..................................              32              80             6.0             2.5             4.0             5.8             9.1
Lean Back...............................              30              81            11.3             3.4             8.5            11.6            15.9
Yank....................................              25              53            10.9             3.4             7.3            11.5            15.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Handle Trial Force Results
    Figure 6 shows side-view images of examples of children interacting 
with the handle fixture. The frames were taken at the time of peak tip-
over moment. Forces exerted by the child at the hands and feet are 
illustrated using scaled vectors (longer lines indicate greater force 
magnitude; arrow direction indicates force direction). Digitized 
landmarks and estimated CM locations are shown. The images demonstrate 
that forces at both the hands and feet often have substantial 
horizontal components, and usually, but not always, the foot forces are 
larger than the hand forces. The horizontal components at the hands and 
feet are also in opposite directions: The horizontal foot forces are 
forward (toward the test fixture), while the hand forces are rearward 
(toward the child).

[[Page 6265]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.006

    Figure 17 in Tab D of the NPR briefing package shows an exemplar 
time-history plot of the horizontal and vertical forces for the Ascent 
behavior of the depicted child. As that figure illustrates, the child's 
body weight transitions from the force plate to the bars, with the 
lower bar bearing nearly all of the weight. The horizontal forces on 
the upper and lower bars are approximately equal in magnitude and 
opposite in direction, consistent with the posture being approximately 
static toward the end of the test, where the child completed the ascend 
maneuver. Under these conditions, the behavior is no longer dynamic, 
and the vertical forces sum to body weight.
    UMTRI researchers modeled a child interacting with a CSU with 
opened drawers, by measuring forces at instrumented bars representing a 
drawer front or handle. Figure 7 is the free-body diagram of the child 
climbing the CSU. The horizontal and vertical forces at the hands and 
feet correspond to the positive direction of the measured forces. The 
CSU drawers were modeled using the top handle and bottom handle height, 
and the drawer extension was modeled from 0 inches to 12 inches.\59\ 
The UMTRI researchers calculated the moment about the CSU's front foot 
or fulcrum, using the measured forces, vertical location of the top and 
bottom handles, and the defined drawer extension length (Fulcrum X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Here, 0 inches corresponds with a closed drawer when the 
fulcrum lines up with the drawers. Additionally, 12 inches 
represents the 90th percentile drawer extension length in a dataset 
of approximately 180 CSUs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.007

    Figure 7 shows that the child's body weight will generally be 
distributed between the two bars, but that the child's CM location will 
also typically be outboard of the bars (farther from the fulcrum than 
the bars). The quasi-static

[[Page 6266]]

climbing moment is approximately equal to the location of the child's 
CM (the horizontal distance of the CM to the fulcrum), multiplied by 
the child's weight. In reality, the moment created by dynamic forces 
generated by the child during the activities in the UMTRI study, such 
as during ascend, exceed the moment created by body weight alone as a 
result of the greater magnitude horizontal and vertical forces.
6. Moment About the Fulcrum
    UMTRI researchers analyzed the force data as generating a moment 
around a tip-over fulcrum. The UMTRI researchers calculated the maximum 
moment about a virtual fulcrum, based on the measured force data for 
each test and the location of the force. Figure 8 shows the test setup 
and the forces measured. Note that the test setup mimics a CSU with the 
drawers closed and the Fulcrum X = 0. UMTRI researchers defined the 
horizontal Fulcrum X distance of 1-foot (based on the 90th percentile 
drawer extension) to simulate a 1-foot drawer extension. The bottom 
handle vertical Fulcrum Z was set to 16 inches (based on the 90th 
percentile drawer height from the floor), and the Top Handle Z varied, 
depending on the size of the child.\60\ Researchers calculated the 
moment that would be generated for a child interacting on a 1-foot 
extended CSU drawer, as shown in Figure 8, where Fulcrum X = 1 foot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ The top handle varied from 7.4 to 47.3 inches above the 
bottom handle.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.008

    Figure 20 in Tab D of the NPR briefing package (also Figure 44 in 
Tab R) shows the calculated maximum moment for each interaction of 
interest versus the child's body weight, and shows that the maximum 
moment tends to increase with body weight. UMTRI researchers normalized 
the moment by dividing the calculated moment by the child's body weight 
to enable the effects of the behaviors to be examined independent of 
body weight, as shown in Figure 21 in Tab D of the NPR briefing package 
(also Figure 46 in Tab R). As the figure illustrates, the greatest 
moments were generated in the Yank interaction, followed in descending 
order by Lean, Bounce, 1 Hand, and Ascend. As the weight of the child 
increased, so did the maximum moment. For all of the interactions, the 
maximum moment exceeded the weight of the child. For Ascend and Bounce, 
the slopes are close to zero, indicating that the difference in the 
moment generated for the Ascend and Bounce interaction is primarily due 
to the child's weight. A weak positive relationship can be seen for 
Lean and Yank. This suggests a difference in the Lean and Yank behavior 
for heavier children that is not accounted for by body weight. This 
difference for the Lean and Yank behavior is consistent with the 
heavier children also having longer arms and legs that would allow them 
to shift their CM further away from the handles, as well as being 
relatively stronger, leading to greater magnitude dynamic forces.
    The preceding analysis was based on a 12-inch (one foot) horizontal 
distance between the location of force exertion and the fulcrum. The 
following analysis shows the effects of varying the Fulcrum X value, 
which is equivalent to a CSU's drawer extension from the fulcrum.
    The net moment can be calculated using a Fulcrum X = 0 position, as

[[Page 6267]]

shown in Figure 9, to bound the effects of drawer extension. Placing 
the fulcrum directly under the hands and feet in the aligned conditions 
eliminates the effects of vertical forces on moment, while amplifying 
the relative effects of horizontal forces.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.009

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
    UMTRI researchers analyzed the effects of the Fulcrum X (which 
corresponds to the drawer extension) \61\ on the tip-over moment for 
the targeted behaviors. Since the moment about the fulcrum was 
calculated based on measured force data and input values for Fulcrum X 
distance, the authors were able to analyze the effects of the fulcrum 
position by varying the Fulcrum X value from 0 to 12 inches. UMTRI 
researcher used this virtual Fulcrum X value to calculate the 
corresponding maximum moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Drawer extension data provided by CPSC staff to UMTRI 
researchers was measured from the extended drawer to the front of 
the CSU, and did not account for how the fulcrum position will vary 
with foot geometry and position. UMTRI researchers assumed that the 
fulcrum was aligned with the front of the CSU to simplify their 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure 23 in Tab D of the NPR briefing package (also Figure 51 in 
Tab R) shows the maximum moments versus the Fulcrum X values of 0 and 
12 inches across behaviors for aligned conditions. For example, the 
calculated moment for Ascend at X=0 is about 17.5 pound-feet. The 
moment when X=0 is due entirely to horizontal forces. These horizontal 
forces exerted by the child on the top and bottom handles of the test 
apparatus are necessary to balance his/her outboard CM. UMTRI 
researchers concluded that the child's CM due to their postures have 
strong effects on the horizontal forces exerted and the calculated 
moments. Consequently, the location of the child's CM during the 
behavior is an important variable.
    As previously discussed, the UMTRI researchers normalized the 
moment by dividing the calculated moment of each trial by the child's 
body weight to enable the effects of the behaviors to be examined 
independent of body weight. The graphs of Figure 23 in Tab D of the NPR 
briefing package show how the moments and the normalized moments 
increase with the fulcrum distance (which corresponds to the drawer 
extension). For the normalized moments shown in the bottom graph, this 
can be interpreted as the effective CM location outboard of the front 
foot of the CSU (fulcrum), in feet. For example, a child climbing on a 
drawer extended 12 inches (1 foot) from the front foot fulcrum will 
have an effective CM that is about 19 inches (1.6 feet) from the 
fulcrum. At Fulcrum X = 0, the contribution of vertical forces to the 
moment are eliminated, and only the horizontal forces exerted at the 
hands and feet contribute to the moment. The horizontal forces exerted 
by the child on the top and bottom handles are necessary to balance 
his/her outboard CM. The effective moment where the fulcrum = 0 is 
about 6 inches (0.5 feet) for the Ascend behavior, and it is primarily 
due to the outboard CM position of the child about 6 inches (0.5 feet) 
from the fulcrum.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ UMTRI researchers reported that the average CM offset was 
6.1 inches (0.51 feet) during ascent at the time the maximum moment 
was measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the drawer is pulled out farther from the fulcrum, vertical 
forces have a greater impact on the total moment contribution. UMTRI 
researchers reported that at the time of peak

[[Page 6268]]

moment during ascent, the average (median) vertical force, divided by 
the child's body weight, was close to 1 (staff estimates this value is 
approximately 1.08 for aligned handle trials).\63\ This suggests child 
body weight is the most significant vertical force, although dynamic 
forces also contribute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Refer to Figure 48 in the UMTRI report (Tab R of the NPR 
briefing package).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Normalized Moment for Ascend shown in the bottom graph 
of Figure 23 in Tab D of the NPR briefing package, CPSC staff estimated 
the Ascend line with the following equation 1:

Equation 1. Normalized Moment for Ascend = 1.08 x [Fulcrum X (ft)] + 
0.52 ft.

Equation 1 can be multiplied by a child's weight to estimate the moment 
M generated by the child ascending, as shown in Equation 2:

Equation 2. M = {1.08 x [Fulcrum X (ft)] + 0.52 ft.{time}  x child body 
weight (lb)

For example: For a 50-pound child ascending the CSU with a 1-foot 
drawer extension, the moment at the fulcrum is:

M = {1.08 x [1 ft] + 0.52 ft{time}  x 50 lb = 54 lb-ft + 26 lb-ft
M = 80 lb-ft

The child in the example above produces a total moment of 80 pound-feet 
about the fulcrum. The contribution to the total moment from vertical 
forces, such as body weight and vertical dynamic forces, is 54 pound-
feet. The contribution to the total moment from horizontal forces, such 
as the quasi-static horizonal force used to balance the child's CM in 
front of the extended drawer and dynamic forces, is 26 pound-feet.
    Similar climbing behaviors for drawer and table trials (e.g., 
climbing into the drawer or climbing onto the tabletop) generated lower 
moments than ascent. Therefore, the equation for ascend is expected to 
cover those behaviors as well.
7. Summary of Findings From the Interaction Portion of the Study
    UMTRI researchers found that the moments caused by children 
climbing furniture exceed the effects of body weight alone. CPSC staff 
used the findings to develop an equation that could be used to 
calculate the moment generated by children ascending a CSU, based on 
the child's body weight and the drawer extension from the CSU fulcrum, 
shown in Equation 2. This equation, combined with the weight for the 
children involved in CSU tip-over incidents, is the basis for the 
moment requirements in the proposed rule.
8. Focus Group Portion of UMTRI Study
    In addition to examining the forces children generate when 
interacting with a CSU, in the UMTRI study, the researchers also asked 
participants and their caregivers questions about participants' typical 
climbing behaviors. This portion of the study identified many household 
items that children showed interest in climbing, including: CSUs, 
tables, desks, counters, cabinets, shelves, windows, sofas, chairs, and 
beds. In the same study, six children climbed dressers, based on 
caregivers' reports. Caregivers described various tactics the children 
used for climbing, such as ``jumped up,'' ``hands and feet,'' ``ladder 
style,'' and ``grab and pull up,'' but the most common strategy was 
stepping into or onto the lowest drawer. Caregivers also mentioned 
children using chairs, stools, and other objects to facilitate 
climbing, including pulling out dresser drawers.

C. Flooring 64
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Details regarding staff's assessment of the effect of 
flooring on CSU stability is available in Tab D and Tab P of the NPR 
briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To examine the effect of flooring on the stability of CSUs, staff 
reviewed existing information and conducted testing. As background, 
staff considered a 2016 study on CSU stability, conducted by Kids in 
Danger (KID) and Shane's Foundation.\65\ In that study, researchers 
tested the stability of 19 CSUs, using the stability tests in ASTM 
F2057-19 on both a hard, flat surface, and on carpeting. The results 
showed that some CSUs that passed on the hard surface, tipped over when 
tested on carpet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Furniture Stability: A Review of Data and Testing Results 
(Kids in Danger and Shane's Foundation, August 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further examine the effect of carpeting on the stability of 
CSUs, staff tested 13 CSUs, with a variety of designs and stability, on 
a carpeted test surface. For this testing, staff used a section of 
wall-to-wall tufted polyester carpeting with polypropylene backing from 
a major home-supply retailer and typical of wall-to-wall carpeting, 
based on staff's review of carpeting on the market. Staff installed and 
secured the carpet, with a carpet pad, on a plywood platform, and 
conditioned the CSU and carpeting by weighting the unit for 15 minutes. 
Staff then tested the unit using the same methods and CSU 
configurations (i.e., number and position of open and filled drawers) 
as used with these units in the Multiple Open and Filled Drawers 
testing conducted on the hard surface (Tab O of the NPR briefing 
package).
    Using the 1,221 pairs of tip weights (i.e., tip weight on the flat 
surface and on the carpet, with various configurations of multiple open 
and filled drawers), staff calculated the difference in tip weight when 
on the hard surface, compared to the carpeted surface for each CSU (tip 
weight difference). A CSU had a positive tip weight difference if the 
tip weight was higher on the hard surface than on the carpet, 
indicating that CSUs are less stable on carpet. The testing showed the 
CSUs tended to be more stable on the hard surface than they were on 
carpet. Of the 1,221 tip-over weight differences, the tip weight 
difference was positive for 1,149 (94 percent) of them; negative for 33 
(3 percent) of them; and was zero (i.e., the tip-over weights were 
equal) for 39 (3 percent). For all 1,221 combinations, the mean tip 
weight difference was 7.6 pounds, but for individual units, the mean 
tip weight difference ranged from 4.1 to 16.0 pounds. For all 1,221 
combinations, the median tip weight difference was 7 pounds, but for 
individual units, the median ranged from 2 to 16 pounds. The standard 
deviation for the entire 1,221 data set was 5.1 pounds, but was smaller 
for individual units, ranging from 1.8 to 4.7 pounds, indicating that 
most of the variability in tip weight differences was between units, as 
opposed to within units, which suggests that some units are affected 
more than others by carpeting.
    Staff also analyzed the relationship between tip weight difference 
and open/closed drawers and filled/empty drawers. The mean tip weight 
difference was 7.6 pounds (median was 7 pounds) when most of the 
drawers on the unit were open, and 8.5 pounds (median was 8 pounds) 
when most of the drawers were closed, indicating that the units were 
more stable (required more weight to tip over) when more drawers were 
closed. The mean tip weight difference was 7.2 pounds (median was 6 
pounds) when most of the drawers on the unit were empty, and 7.7 pounds 
(median was 7 pounds) when most of the drawers were filled.\66\ This 
shows that, in general, CSUs are less stable on carpet. All units 
tested, under various conditions, tended to tip with less

[[Page 6269]]

weight on the carpet than on the hard surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ To further assess whether the effect of carpet changed 
based on the CSU's stability--that is, to determine if the results 
reflected the change in flooring, or the overall stability of the 
unit--staff calculated the percent tip weight difference, as: 
Percent tip weight difference = (hard surface tip weight-carpet tip 
weight)/hard surface tip weight. This revealed that, as the weight 
to tip the unit on a hard surface increased, shifting to a carpeted 
surface had less of an impact in terms of the percentage of the tip-
over weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff used the results from this study to determine a test method 
that approximated the effect of carpet on CSU stability by tilting the 
unit forward (Tab D of the NPR briefing package). Using the CSUs that 
were involved in CSU tip-over incidents (Tab M of the NPR briefing 
package), staff compared 9 tip weights on carpet with tip weights for 
the same units in the same test configuration when tilted at 0, 1, 2, 
and 3 degrees in the forward direction on an otherwise hard, level, and 
flat surface.
    The tip weight of CSUs on carpet corresponded with tilting the CSUs 
0.8 to 3 degrees forward, depending on the CSU; the mean tilt angle 
that corresponded to the CSU tip weights on carpet was 1.48 degrees. 
This suggests that a forward tilt of 0.8 to 3 degrees replicated the 
test results on carpet. Staff also conducted a mechanical analysis of 
the carpet and pad used in the test assembly, and found a similar 
forward tilt of 1.5 to 2.0 degrees would replicate the effects of 
carpet for one CSU.

D. Incident Recreation and Modeling 67
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Details about staff's incident recreation and modeling are 
in Tab D and Tab M of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff analyzed incidents and tested products that were 
involved in CSU tip-over incidents to better understand the real-world 
factors that contribute to tip overs. Staff analyzed 7 CSU models, 
associated with 13 tip-over incidents. The CSUs ranged in height from 
27 to 50 inches and weighed between 45 and 195 pounds. Two of these CSU 
models did not comply with the stability requirements in ASTM F2057-19; 
one complied with the requirements in section 7.1, but not section 7.2; 
two complied with both sections 7.1 and 7.2; and one was 
borderline.\68\ Through testing and analysis, staff recreated the 
incident scenarios described in the investigations and determined the 
weight that caused the unit to tip over in a variety of use scenarios, 
such as a child climbing or pulling on the dresser, multiple open 
drawers, filled and unfilled drawers, and the flooring under the CSU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Staff tested this model two separate times. In one case, 
the tip weight just exceeded the ASTM F2057-19 minimum acceptable 
test fixture weight. In another case, the model tipped over just 
below the minimum allowed test fixture weight. These results are 
consistent with earlier staff testing that found that the model 
tipped when tested with a 49.66-pound test fixture; but did comply 
when tested with a 48.54-pound test fixture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis and testing, staff identified several 
factors that contributed to the tip-over incidents. One factor was 
whether multiple drawers were open simultaneously. Opening multiple 
drawers decreased the stability of the CSU. A related factor was 
whether the drawers of the CSU were filled, and to what extent. Staff's 
testing indicated that the weight of filled drawers increases the 
stability of a CSU when more drawers are closed, and reduces overall 
stability when more drawers are open. Generally, when more than half of 
filled drawers were open (by volume), the CSU was less stable.
    Another factor was the child's interaction with the CSU at the time 
of the incident. In some incidents, the child was likely exerting both 
a horizontal and vertical force on the CSU. Staff found that, for some 
CSUs, either a vertical or horizontal force, alone, could cause the CSU 
to tip over, but that the presence of both forces significantly 
increased the tip-over moment acting on the CSU. These forces, in 
combination with the other factors staff identified, further 
contributed to the instability of CSUs. Some of the incident 
recreations indicated that the force on the edge of an open drawer 
associated with tipping the CSU was greater than the static weight of 
the child standing on the edge of an open drawer of the CSU. The 
equivalent force consists of the child's weight, the dynamic force on 
the edge of the drawer due to climbing, and the effects of the child's 
CG extending beyond the edge of the drawer. Some of the incident 
recreations indicated that a child pulling on a drawer could have 
contributed to the CSU tipping over.
    Another factor that contributed to instability was flooring. 
Staff's testing indicated that the force needed to tip a unit over was 
less when the CSU was on carpet/padding than when it was on a hard, 
level floor.

E. Consumer Use Study 69
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ The full report from FMG, Consumer Product Safety 
Commission: Furniture Tipover Report (Mar. 13, 2020), is available 
in Tab Q of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2019, the Fors Marsh Group (FMG), under contract with CPSC, 
conducted a study to assess factors that influence consumer attitudes, 
behaviors, and beliefs regarding CSUs. The study consisted of two 
components. In the first component, the researchers conducted six 90-
minute in-home interviews (called ethnographies). Three of the 
participants had at least one child between 18 and 35 months old in the 
home, and three participants had at least one child between 36 and 72 
months old in the home. In this phase of the study, the researchers 
collected information about family interactions with and use of CSUs in 
the home.
    In the second component of the study, FMG conducted six 90-minute 
focus groups, using a total of 48 participants. Each focus group 
included eight participants with the same caregiver status (parents of 
a child between 1 and 5 years old, people who are visited regularly by 
a child between 1 and 5 years old, and people who plan to have children 
in the next 5 years) and homeowner status (people who own their home, 
and people who rent their home). Participants included parents of 
children 12 to 72 months old, people without young children in the home 
who were planning to have children in the next 5 years, and people 
without young children in the home who are visited regularly by 
children 12 to 72 months old. The focus groups assessed consumer 
perceptions of and interactions with CSUs, perceptions of warning 
information, and factors that influence product selection, 
classification, and placement.
    In describing CSUs, participants mentioned freestanding products; 
products that hold clothing; features to organize or protect clothing 
(e.g., drawers, doors, and dividers); and named, as examples, dressers, 
armoires, wardrobes, or units with shelving or bins. Participants noted 
that whether storage components were large enough to fit clothing was 
relevant to whether a product was a CSU. However, participants also 
noted that they may use smaller, shorter products, with smaller storage 
components, as CSUs in children's rooms so that children can access the 
drawers, and because children's clothes are smaller. In distinguishing 
nightstands from CSUs, participants noted the size and number of 
drawers, and some reported storing clothing in them. Some participants 
reported that how products were displayed in stores or in online 
marketing did not influence how they used the unit in their homes, and 
indicated that although a product name may have some influence on their 
perception of the product, they would ultimately choose and use a 
product based on its function and ability to meet their needs.
    Focus group participants were provided with images of various CSU-
like products, and asked what they would call the product, what they 
would put in it, and where they would put it. Participants provided 
diverse answers for each product, with products participants identified 
as buffets, nightstands, entry/side/hall tables, or entertainment/TV/
media units also being called dressers or armoires by

[[Page 6270]]

other participants. Products that participants were less likely to 
consider a CSU or use for clothing had glass doors, removable bins/
baskets, or a small number of small drawers.
    Participants primarily kept CSUs in bedrooms and used them to store 
clothing. However, they also noted that they had products that could be 
used as CSUs in other rooms to store non-clothing, and had changed the 
location and use of products over time, moving them between rooms and 
storing clothing or other items in them, depending on location.
    Focusing on units that the participants' children interacted with 
the most, the researchers noted that CSUs in children's rooms held 
clothing and were 70 to 80 percent full of folded clothing. 
Participants reported that the children's primary interaction with CSUs 
was opening them to reach clothing, but also reported children climbing 
units to reach into a drawer or to reach something on top of the unit. 
A few participants reported having anchored a CSU. As reasons for not 
anchoring furniture, participants stated that they thought the unit was 
unlikely to tip over, particularly smaller and lighter units used in 
children's rooms, and they do not want to damage walls in a rental 
unit.

F. Tip Weight Testing 70
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ A full discussion of this testing and the results is 
available in Tab N of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier in this preamble, in 2016 and 2018-2019, CPSC 
staff tested CSUs to assess compliance with requirements in ASTM F2057. 
As part of the 2018-2019 testing, staff also assessed whether CSUs 
could hold weights higher than the 50-pound weight required in ASTM 
F2057, testing the CSUs with both a 60-pound test weight, and to the 
maximum test weight they could hold before tipping over. For this 
testing, staff assessed 188 CSUs, including 167 CSUs selected from 
among the best sellers from major retailers, using a random number 
generator; 4 CSU models that were involved in incidents; \71\ and 17 
units assessed as part of previous test data provided to CPSC.\72\ 
Appendix A to Tab N in the NPR briefing package describes the test 
procedure staff followed. To summarize, after recording information 
about the weight, dimensions, and design of the CSU, staff used a test 
procedure similar to section 7.2 in ASTM F2057-19 (loaded weight 
testing), but with a 60-pound test fixture, and with test fixtures that 
allowed staff to add additional weight, in 1-pound increments, up to a 
maximum of 134 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Staff tested exemplar units, using the model of CSU 
involved in the incident, but not the actual incident unit.
    \72\ The CSUs were identified from the Consumer Reports study 
``Furniture Tip-Overs: A Hidden Hazard in Your Home'' (Mar. 22, 
2018), available at: https://www.consumerreports.org/furniture/furniture-tip-overs-hidden-hazard-in-your-home/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 188 CSUs staff tested, 98 (52 percent) held the 60-pound 
weight without tipping over. The mean weight at which the CSUs tipped 
over was 61.7 pounds and the median was 62 pounds.\73\ The lowest 
weight that caused a CSU to tip over was 12.5 pounds. The next lowest 
tip weights were 22.5 pounds (2 CSUs), 25 pounds (6 CSUs), and 27.5 
pounds (3 CSUs). One CSU did not tip over when the maximum 134-pound 
test weight was applied. The next highest tip weights were 117.5 pounds 
(1 CSU), 112.5 pounds (1 CSU), 102.5 pounds (1 CSU), 97.5 pounds (1 
CSU), 95 pounds (1 CSU), and 90 pounds (4 CSUs). Most CSUs tipped over 
with between 45 and 90 pounds of weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ This is based on the results for 185 of the units; staff 
omitted the test weight for 3 of the CSUs because of data 
discrepancies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Warning Label Symbols 74
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Further details regarding staff's analysis of warning label 
symbols are available in Tab C of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2019, CPSC contracted a study to evaluate a set of 20 graphical 
safety symbols for comprehension, in an effort to develop a family of 
graphical symbols that can be used in multiple standards to communicate 
safety-related information to diverse audiences.\75\ The contractor 
developed 10 new symbols for the project, including one showing the CSU 
tip-over hazard and one showing the CSU tip-over hazard with a tip 
restraint; the remaining 10 symbols already existed. The contractor 
recruited 80 adults and used the open comprehension test procedures 
described in ANSI Z535.3, American National Standard Criteria for 
Safety Symbols (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Kalsher, M., CPSC Gather Consumer Feedback: Final Report 
(2019), available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC%20Gather%20Consumer%20Feedback%20-%20Final%20Report%20with%20CPSC%20Staff%20Statement%20-%20REDACTED%20and%20CLEARED.pdf?GTPK5CxkCRmftdywdDGXJyVIVq.GU2Tx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the existing symbols the contractor evaluated is the child 
climbing symbol from the warning label in ASTM F2057. The symbol showed 
poor comprehension (63.8 percent) with strict (i.e., fully correct) 
scoring criteria, but passing comprehension (87.5 percent), when scored 
with lenient (i.e., partially correct) scoring criteria. ANSI Z535.3 
defines the criteria for ``passing'' as at least 85 percent correct 
interpretations (strict), with fewer than 5 percent critical confusions 
(i.e., the opposite action is conveyed). There was no critical 
confusion with the symbol.
    The contractor conducted focus groups consisting of 40 of the 80 
individuals who went through the comprehension study. Based on the 
feedback received in the comprehension study and in focus groups, the 
contractor developed the two new symbol variants shown in Figure 10. 
CPSC staff is currently working with the contractor to test these new 
symbol variants using the same methodology applied in the previous 
study. CPSC staff plans to assess whether one of the two variants 
performed better in comprehension testing than the F2057 child climbing 
symbol, and thereafter, will determine whether any changes to the 
symbol proposed in this NPR should be modified for the final rule.

[[Page 6271]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.010

H. Tip Restraints and Anchoring 76
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Further information about tip restraints and anchoring is 
in Tab C of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC considered several studies regarding consumer anchoring of 
furniture to evaluate the potential effectiveness of tip restraints to 
help address the tip-over hazard. These studies indicate that a large 
number of consumers do not anchor furniture, including CSUs, in their 
homes, and that there are several barriers to anchoring, including 
consumer beliefs, and lack of knowledge about what anchoring hardware 
to use or how to properly install it.
    A CPSC Consumer Opinion Forum survey in 2010, with a convenience 
sample of 388 consumers, found that only 9 percent of those who 
responded to the question on whether they anchored the furniture under 
their television had done so (27 of 295).\77\ Although a majority of 
respondents reported that the furniture under their television was an 
entertainment center, television stand, or cart, 7 percent of 
respondents who answered this question (22 of 294) reported using a CSU 
to hold their television.\78\ The consumers who reported using a CSU to 
hold their television had approximately the same rate of anchoring the 
CSU, 10 percent (2 of 21),\79\ as the overall rate of anchoring 
furniture found in the study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Butturini, R., Massale, J., Midgett, J., Snyder, S. 
Preliminary Evaluation of Anchoring Furniture and Televisions 
without Tools, Technical Report CPSC/EXHR/TR--15/001 (2015), 
available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/Tipover-Prevention-Project-Anchors-without-Tools.pdf.
    \78\ Three consumers identified the furniture as an ``armoire,'' 
and 19 consumers identified the furniture as a ``dresser, chest of 
drawers, or bureau.''
    \79\ Although 22 respondents reported using a CSU under their 
television, one of these respondents answered ``I don't know'' to 
the question about whether they anchored the furniture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2018, Consumer Reports conducted a nationally representative 
survey \80\ of 1,502 U.S. adults, and found that only 27 percent of 
consumers overall, and 40 percent of consumers with children under 6 
years old at home, had anchored furniture in their homes. The study 
also found that 90 percent of consumers have a dresser in their homes, 
but only 10 percent of those with a dresser have anchored it. 
Similarly, although 50 percent of consumers have a tall chest or 
wardrobe in their homes, only 10 percent of those with a tall chest or 
wardrobe have anchored it. The most common reasons consumers provided 
for not anchoring furniture, in declining order, included that their 
children were not left alone around furniture; they perceived the 
furniture to be stable; they did not want to put holes in the walls; 
they did not want to put holes in the furniture; the furniture did not 
come with anchoring hardware; they did not know what hardware to use; 
and they had never heard of anchoring furniture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Consumer Reports, Furniture Wall Anchors: A Nationally 
Representative Multi-Mode Survey (2018), available at: https://article.images.consumerreports.org/prod/content/dam/surveys/Consumer_Reports_Wall_Anchors_Survey_2018_Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier in this preamble, the Commission launched the 
education campaign--Anchor It!--in 2015 to promote consumer use of tip 
restraints to anchor furniture and televisions. In 2020, a CPSC-
commissioned study assessed consumer awareness, recognition, and 
behavior change as a result of the Anchor It! campaign.\81\ The study 
included 410 parents and 292 caregivers of children 5 years or younger 
from various locations in the United States. The survey sought 
information about whether participants had ever anchored furniture in 
their homes, and their reasons for not anchoring furniture. The study 
found that 55 percent of respondents reported ever having anchored 
furniture, with a greater percentage of parents reporting anchoring 
furniture (59 percent) than other caregivers (50 percent), and a 
greater percentage of homeowners reporting ever having anchored 
furniture (57 percent) than renters (51 percent). For participants who 
did not report anchoring furniture or televisions, the most common 
reasons respondents gave for not anchoring, in declining order, were 
that they did not believe it was necessary, they watch their children, 
they have not gotten to it yet, it would damage walls, and they do not 
know what anchors to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ The report for this study, Fors Marsh Group, CPSC Anchor 
It! Campaign: Main Report (July 10, 2020), is available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Anchor-It-Campaign-Effectiveness-Survey-Main-Report_Final_9_2_2020....pdf?gC1No.oOO2FEXV9wmOtdJVAtacRLHIMK.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 6272]]

    These results indicate that one of the primary reasons parents and 
caregivers of young children do not anchor furniture is a belief that 
it does not need to be anchored if children are supervised. However, 
research shows that 2- to 5-year-old children are out of view of a 
supervising parent for about 20 percent of the time that they are 
awake, and are left alone significantly longer in bedrooms, playrooms, 
and living room areas.\82\ CSUs are likely to be in bedrooms, where 
children are expected to have unsupervised time, including during naps 
and overnight. Many of the CSU tip-over incidents occurred in 
children's bedrooms during these unsupervised times. According to the 
Consumer Reports study, 76 percent of consumers with children under 6 
years old reported that dressers are present in rooms where children 
sleep or play; and the UMTRI study found that nearly all (95 percent) 
of child participants had dressers in their bedrooms. Notably, among 
the 89 fatal incidents, 55 occurred in a child's bedroom, 11 occurred 
in a bedroom, 2 occurred in a parent's bedroom, and 2 occurred in a 
sibling's bedroom. None of the fatal incidents occurred when the child 
was under direct adult supervision. However, some nonfatal incidents 
occurred during supervised time when parents were in the room with the 
child. As this indicates, supervision is neither a practical, nor 
effective way to prevent tip-over incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Morrongiello, B.A., Corbett, M., McCourt, M., Johnston, N. 
Understanding unintentional injury-risk in young children I. The 
nature and scope of caregiver supervision of children at home, 
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 31(6): 529-539 (2006); 
Morrongiello, B.A., Ondejko, L., Littlejohn, A. Understanding 
Toddlers' In-Home Injuries: II. Examining Parental Strategies, and 
Their Efficacy, for Managing Child Injury Risk. Journal of Pediatric 
Psychology, 29(6), pp. 433-446 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another common reason caregivers provided for not anchoring 
furniture was the perception that the furniture was stable. CPSC staff 
testing and modeling found that there is a large difference in 
stability of CSUs, depending on the number of drawers open. Adults are 
likely to open only one or a couple of drawers at a time on a CSU; as 
such, adults may only have experience with the CSUs in their more 
stable configurations and may underestimate the tip-over hazard. In 
contrast, incident analysis shows that some children open multiple or 
all drawers on a CSU simultaneously, potentially putting the CSU in a 
much less stable configuration; and children contribute further to 
instability by climbing the CSU.
    CPSC staff also has concerns about the effectiveness of tip 
restraints and identified tip-over incidents in which tip restraints 
detached or broke. Overall, given the low rates of anchoring, the 
barriers to anchoring, and concerns about the effectiveness of tip 
restraints, CPSC concludes that tip restraints are not effective as the 
primary method of preventing CSU tip overs. Effective tip restraints 
may be useful as a secondary safety system to enhance stability, such 
as for interactions that generate particularly strong forces (e.g., 
bouncing, jumping), or to address interactions from older/heavier 
children. In addition, tip restraints may help reduce the risk of tip 
overs for CSUs that are already in homes, since a rule would only apply 
to CSUs manufactured and imported on or after the effective date. In 
future work, CPSC may evaluate appropriate requirements for tip 
restraints, and will continue to work with ASTM to update its tip 
restraint requirements.

VIII. Description of and Basis for the Proposed Rule

A. Scope and Definitions

1. Proposed Requirements
    The proposed rule applies to CSUs, defined as a freestanding 
furniture item, with drawer(s) and/or door(s), that may be reasonably 
expected to be used for storing clothing, that is greater than or equal 
to 27 inches in height, and with a total functional volume of the 
closed storage greater than 1.3 cubic feet and greater than the sum of 
the total functional volume of the open storage and the total volume of 
the open space. Several terms in that definition, as well as additional 
terms in the proposed rule, are also defined in the proposed rule. For 
example, for purposes of the proposed stability testing, tip over is 
defined as the point at which a CSU pivots forward such that the rear 
feet or, if there are no feet, the edge of the CSU lifts at least 1/4 
inch from the floor or is supported by a non-support element.
    The proposed rule specifically states that whether a product is a 
CSU depends on whether it meets this definition. However, to 
demonstrate which products may meet the definition of a CSU, the 
proposed standard provides names of common CSU products, including 
chests, bureaus, dressers, armoires, wardrobes, chests of drawers, 
drawer chests, chifforobes, and door chests. Similarly, it names 
products that generally do not meet the criteria in the proposed CSU 
definition, including shelving units, office furniture, dining room 
furniture, laundry hampers, built-in closets, and single-compartment 
closed rigid boxes (storage chests).
    Additionally, the proposed rule exempts from its scope two products 
that would meet the proposed definition of a CSU--clothes lockers and 
portable storage closets. It defines clothes locker as a predominantly 
metal furniture item without exterior drawers and with one or more 
doors that either locks or accommodates an external lock; and defines 
portable storage closet as a freestanding furniture item with an open 
frame that encloses hanging clothing storage space and/or shelves, 
which may have a cloth case with a curtain(s), flap(s), or door(s) that 
obscures the contents from view.
2. Basis for Proposed Requirements
    To determine the scope of products that the proposed rule should 
address, in order to adequately reduce the risk of injury from CSU tip 
overs, staff considered the nature of the hazard, assessed what 
products were involved in tip-over incidents, and assessed the 
characteristics of those products in relation to stability and 
children's interactions.
a. The Hazard
    The CSU tip-over hazard relates to the function of CSUs, where they 
are used in the home, and their design features. A primary feature of 
CSUs is that typically they are used for clothing storage; however, 
putting clothing in a furniture item does not create the tip-over 
hazard on its own. Rather, the function of CSUs as furniture items that 
store clothing means that consumers and children are likely to have 
easy access to the unit and interact with it daily, resulting in 
increased exposure and familiarity. In addition, caregivers may 
encourage children to use a CSU on their own as part of developing 
independent skills. As a result, children are likely to know how to 
open drawers of a CSU, and are likely to be aware of their contents, 
which may motivate them to interact with the CSU. For this reason, one 
element of the proposed definition of CSUs is that they be reasonably 
expected to be used for storing clothing.
    CSUs are commonly used in bedrooms, an area of the home where 
children are more likely to have unsupervised time. As stated, most CSU 
tip-over incidents occur in bedrooms: Among the 89 fatal tip-over 
incidents involving children and CSUs without televisions, 99 percent 
of the incidents with a reported location (70 of 71

[[Page 6273]]

incidents) occurred in a bedroom.\83\ This use means that children have 
more opportunity to interact with the unit unsupervised, including in 
ways more likely to cause tip over (e.g., opening multiple drawers and 
climbing) that a caregiver may discourage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Fifty-five incidents were in a child's bedroom; 11 were in 
a bedroom; 2 were in a parent's bedroom; 2 were in a sibling's 
bedroom; and 1 occurred in a hallway. The location in 18 incidents 
was not clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another primary feature of CSUs is closed storage, which is storage 
within drawers or behind doors. These drawers and doors are extension 
elements, which allow children to exert vertical force further from the 
tip point (fulcrum) than they would be able to without extension 
elements and that make it more likely that a child will tip the product 
during interactions. In addition, these features may make the product 
more appealing to children as a play item. Children can open and close 
the drawers and doors and use them to climb, bounce, jump, or hang; 
they can play with items in the drawers, or get inside the drawers or 
cabinet. Children can also use the CSU extension elements for 
functional purposes, such as climbing to reach an item on top of the 
CSU. Accordingly, the proposed definition of CSUs includes a minimum 
amount of closed storage and the presence of drawers and/or doors as an 
element. The element of the definition that indicates that a CSU has a 
total functional volume of the closed storage greater than 1.3 cubic 
feet and greater than the sum of the total functional volume of the 
open storage and the total volume of the open space is based on the 
total functional drawer volume for the shortest/lightest reported CSU 
involved in a nonfatal incident without a television. CPSC rounded the 
volume down, so that the CSU would be included in the proposed 
definition.
    The proposed CSUs definition also states that the products are 
freestanding furniture items, which means that they remain upright, 
without requiring attachment to the wall, in their normal use position. 
The lack of permanent attachment to the building structure means that 
CSUs are more susceptible to tip over than built-in storage items in 
the home, such as kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities.
b. Product Categories in Incident Data
    For this rulemaking, staff focused on product categories that 
commonly meet the general elements of the definition of a CSU, in 
analyzing incident data; these included chests, bureaus, dressers, 
armoires, wardrobes, portable storage closets, and clothes lockers. As 
detailed in the discussion of incident data, of the 89 fatal CPSRMS 
tip-over incidents involving children and CSUs without televisions, 87 
involved chests, bureaus, or dressers, and 2 involved wardrobes; none 
involved an armoire, portable storage closet, or clothes locker. Of the 
263 nonfatal CPSRMS incidents with children and CSUs without 
televisions, 259 involved chests, bureaus, or dressers, 1 involved an 
armoire, and 3 involved wardrobes. Of the estimated 40,700 ED-treated 
injuries to children from CSU tip overs (without a television) between 
January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2019, an estimated 40,200 involved 
``chests, bureaus, and dressers.'' There were not enough incidents 
involving armoires, wardrobes, portable storage closets, or clothes 
lockers to make estimates for these CSU categories.
    Based on these data, the proposed definition of CSUs names chests, 
bureaus, dressers, wardrobes, and armoires as examples of CSUs that are 
subject to the standard. The proposed rule exempts clothes lockers and 
portable storage closets from the scope of the standard because there 
are no reported tip-over fatalities or injuries to children that 
involved those products. Compared to chests, bureaus, and dressers, 
wardrobes and armoires have been involved in fewer tip-over incidents. 
However, the proposed rule includes these products because there are 
some tip-over fatalities and injuries involving them, they are similar 
in design to the other CSUs included in the scope (unlike portable 
storage closets), and they are more likely to be used in homes than 
clothes lockers.
c. Product Height
    ASTM F2057-19 applies to CSUs that are ``27 in. (686 mm) and above 
in height.'' Previously, the ASTM standard had applied to CSUs taller 
than 30 inches. However, CPSC staff identified tip-over incidents 
involving CSUs that were 30 inches in height and shorter, and worked 
with the ASTM F15.42 Furniture Subcommittee to lower the minimum height 
of CSUs covered by the standard. This same 27-inch height is used in 
the proposed rule's definition of a CSU, consistent with this incident 
data and additional information regarding product heights.
    The height of the CSU was reported for 53 fatal and 72 nonfatal 
CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children and CSUs without 
televisions. The shortest reported CSU involved in a fatal incident 
without a television is a 27.5-inch-tall, 3-drawer chest, which tipped 
over onto a 2-year-old child. The shortest reported CSU involved in a 
nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incident without a television is a 26-inch-
tall, 2-drawer chest.\84\ NEISS data do not provide information about 
the height of CSUs involved in incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ The product is marketed as a ``chest,'' but was called a 
``nightstand'' in the consumer's report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Results from the FMG's CSU focus group (Tab Q of the NPR briefing 
package) suggest that consumers seek out low-height CSUs for use in 
children's rooms ``because participants would like a unit that is an 
appropriate height (i.e., short enough) for their children to easily 
access their clothes.'' The average shoulder height of a 2-year-old is 
about 27.4 to 28.9 inches.\85\ In the in-home interviews, researchers 
observed that CSUs in children's rooms typically were low to the ground 
and wide. Based on this information, children may have more access and 
exposure to low-height CSUs than taller CSUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ The mean standing shoulder height of a 2-year-old male is 
28.9 inches and 27.4 inches for a 2-year-old female. Pheasant, S., 
Bodyspace Anthropometry, Ergonomics & Design. London: Taylor & 
Francis (1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, staff is aware of shorter CSUs on the market, as 
short as 18 inches.\86\ For example, a major furniture retailer 
currently sells more than 10 products marketed as ``chests'' or 
``dressers,'' ranging in height from 19.25 inches to 26.75 inches, 
including a 25.25-inch-tall, 3-drawer chest advertised for use in a 
child's room. ESHF staff believes that children may still be motivated 
to climb or otherwise interact with shorter units: Home interview 
participants in the FMG CSU use study said that children climbed short 
furniture items in the home, such as nightstands and ottomans. For 
these reasons, the Commission seeks comments on the 27-inch height 
specified in the proposed CSU definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Industrial Economics, Incorporated (2019). Final Clothing 
Storage Units (CSUs) Market Research Report. CPSC Contractor Report. 
Researchers analyzed the characteristics of 890 CSUs, and found a 
height range of 18 to 138 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Children's Products
    As discussed in section III.A. Description of the Product, section 
14(a) of the CPSA includes requirements for certifying that children's 
products and non-children's products comply with applicable mandatory 
standards, and additional requirements apply to children's products. 
That section also explains what constitutes a ``children's product.'' 
To summarize, a ``children's product'' is a consumer product that is 
``designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or 
younger.'' 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(2).

[[Page 6274]]

    CPSC is aware of CSUs that are marketed, packaged, displayed, 
promoted, or advertised as being for children under 12 years old. These 
CSUs may be sold as part of matching nursery or children's bedroom 
furniture sets, or have features or themes that appeal to children, 
such as bright colors and cartoons. CSUs may be sold at children's 
retailers, or by manufacturers that specialize in children's furniture.
    However, some children's furniture is similar in appearance to 
general-use furniture. In addition, some CSUs convert from a child-
specific design, such as a CSU with an integrated changing table, to a 
more general-use design. Children's furniture with a more general-use 
design or with the ability to convert may be appealing to consumers who 
want furniture that they can continue to use as a child gets older.
    CSUs that are children's products have been involved in fatal and 
nonfatal incidents, and are among recalled CSUs. However, CSUs that are 
general-use products make up more of the CSUs in the tip-over incident 
data. Additionally, the CSU study shows that CSUs that children 
interact with are not limited to CSUs intended for children. For these 
reasons, the proposed rule applies to both children's products and non-
children's products.
e. Product Names and Marketed Use
    The proposed definition of CSUs relies on characteristics of the 
unit to identify covered products, rather than product names or the 
manufacturer's marketed use of the product. This is because, as this 
preamble discusses, there are various products that consumers identify 
and use as CSUs, and that pose the same tip-over hazard, regardless of 
how the product is named or marketed.
    In the FMG CSU use study (Tab Q of the NPR briefing package), 
participants showed flexibility in how they used CSUs and other similar 
furniture in the home, depending on their needs, aesthetics, and where 
the unit was placed within the home. For example, one participant put a 
large vintage dresser in their living room and used it for non-clothing 
storage; one participant said that their dresser was used as a changing 
station and held diapers, wipes, creams, and medical supplies, but is 
now used to store clothes; and a participant said that the dresser in 
their child's room was originally used to store dishes.
    Some participants in the in-home interviews and focus groups used 
nightstands for clothing storage, including for shirts; socks; pajamas; 
slippers; underwear; smaller/lighter items, such as tights or 
nightwear; seasonal items; and accessories. Some participants also 
reported storing clothing (e.g., seasonal clothing items, underwear, 
pajamas, pants) in shelving units with removable bins (including those 
with cloth, canvas, or basket material). Consumers also had a wide 
variety of interpretations of the marketing term ``accent piece,'' with 
some participants saying that they use accent pieces for clothing 
storage, and one identifying a specific accent piece in their home as a 
CSU.
    As part of the study, researchers asked focus group participants to 
fill out a worksheet with pictures of unnamed furniture items with 
dimensions. Participants were asked to provide a product label 
(category of product) and answer the question: ``What would you store 
in this piece of furniture?'' ``Where would you put this piece of 
furniture in your home?'' Participants then discussed the items as a 
group. Results suggest that there is wide variety in how people 
perceive a unit. For example, one unit in the study was classified by 
participants as a cabinet, television stand, accent/occasional/entryway 
piece or table, side table/sideboard, nightstand, kitchen storage/
hutch/drawer, and dresser. Another was classified as an accent piece, 
buffet/sideboard, dresser, entry/hall/side table, chest/chest of 
drawers, kitchen storage unit/cabinet, sofa table, bureau, and china 
cabinet. One interesting item of discussion was the glass doors on one 
of the worksheet furniture items. Participants came to a general 
consensus that glass doors are typically used to display items, and 
thus, an item with glass doors is not a CSU.
    Overall, the results from the study suggest that there is not a 
distinct line between units that people will use for clothing storage, 
as opposed to other purposes; and even within a unit, the use can vary, 
depending on the consumer's needs at the time.
    Moreover, staff is aware of products that are named and advertised 
as generic storage products with multiple uses around the house, or 
they are advertised without context suggesting a particular use. Many 
of these items clearly share the design features of CSUs, including 
closed storage behind drawers or doors. In addition, staff is aware of 
products that appear, based on design, to be CSUs, but are named and 
advertised for other purposes (e.g., an ``accent piece'' with drawers 
staged in a foyer, and large multi-drawer ``nightstands'' over 27-
inches tall). Staff is also aware of hybrid products that combine 
features of CSUs with features of other product categories; for 
example, bookshelf storage products with shelving and closed storage 
behind drawers or doors; desks or tables with large amounts of attached 
closed storage; bedroom media furniture with an electronics slot and 
drawers for clothing; and beds with integrated CSU storage.
    Using the criteria in the proposed definition of a CSU, products 
typical of shelving units, office furniture, dining room furniture, 
laundry hampers, built-in units, and single-compartment closed rigid 
boxes likely would not be CSUs. The proposed rule excludes these 
products, by including in the definition of ``CSUs'' that a CSU is 
freestanding; has a minimum closed storage functional volume greater 
than 1.3-cubic feet; and a closed storage functional volume greater 
than the sum of the open storage functional volume and open space 
volume; has drawer(s) and/or door(s); and is reasonably expected to be 
used for clothing. Staff assesses that some underbed drawer storage 
units, occasional/accent furniture, and nightstands could be CSUs. The 
criteria for identifying a CSU in the proposed rule would keep some of 
these products within scope, and exclude others, depending on their 
closed storage, reasonable expected use, and the presence of doors/
drawers, such that those products that may be used as CSUs and present 
the same hazard, would be within the scope of the standard, while those 
that would not, would be excluded.
    Because consumers select units for clothing storage based on their 
utility, not necessarily their marketing, and there are products that 
are not named or advertised as CSUs, but are indistinguishable from 
CSUs, based on their design, the proposed scope and CSU definition do 
not rely on how a product is named or advertised by a manufacturer.
f. Number of Drawers
    CPSC also considered including, as an element of the proposed CSU 
definition, the number of drawers in the unit, but did not ultimately 
do so. The FMG CSU use study (Tab Q of the NPR briefing package) 
examined how consumers define CSUs and what they use to store clothing 
in their homes. Focus group participants defined CSUs as anything that 
can hold clothing; dressers, closets, and armoires were the most common 
example product categories that participants provided. Participants 
said that CSUs are used ``for organization and the protection of 
clothing (e.g., drawers of various sizes, dividers to help with 
organization, and doors to keep clothing out of sight).'' Researchers

[[Page 6275]]

reported that ``the majority of participants reported that they 
generally think of a CSU as having at least three drawers. However, a 
few participants noted that a CSU could have four drawers, whereas 
others mentioned that, to be considered a CSU, a unit only needed one 
drawer. Participants often considered a unit with two drawers or fewer 
to be a nightstand.'' Because of the varied perceptions about the 
number of drawers for a unit to be considered or used as a CSU, CPSC 
did not include this as an element of the definition.
g. Overall Size and Storage Volume
    Apart from the functional volume of closed storage, which is 
included in the proposed CSU definition, CPSC also considered the 
overall size of units as a potential element of the CSU definition, but 
did not ultimately include this.
    In the FMG CSU focus groups (Tab Q of the NPR briefing package), 
participants discussed how the size of a unit influenced their 
perception of whether a unit is a CSU. Researchers found: ``[t]he 
majority of participants noted that if a unit is too small, they will 
not store clothing in it, because the clothing will not fit''; however, 
participant's perception of ``too small'' varied. Researchers found: 
``a few participants noted that CSUs in their children's room are 
smaller than their typical definitions. The units are shorter so that 
their children can more easily access drawers, and drawers are smaller 
to fit smaller clothing.'' Although there was no consensus on drawer 
size for a CSU, participants preferred ``to have drawers that are large 
enough (e.g., bigger than a shirt) and deep enough to hold clothing.'' 
They also showed flexibility on drawer volume: ``[o]ne participant 
mentioned that there is a difference between what they would ideally 
like in terms of drawer size and what they will accept.'' They said 
ideally, they would like drawers deep enough to easily store clothing; 
however, participants noted that the current dresser they have requires 
them to shove or stuff their clothing inside. Furthermore, the specific 
size of the drawers was reported to vary, based on the needs of each 
person and the size of the home.
    The minimum drawer size that could reasonably accommodate clothing 
is fairly small. For example, the functional volume of each drawer of 
the shortest/lightest reported CSU involved in a nonfatal CSU tip-over 
incident without a television--a 26-inch-high by 15-inch-deep by 21.25-
inch-wide, 2-drawer chest--is slightly less than 0.7 cubic feet; \87\ 
and the manufacturer states that the drawer holds about 5 pairs of 
folded pants or 10 t-shirts. Furthermore, except for the extremes 
(i.e., very short, very narrow, very shallow), the shape of the drawer 
should not have an effect on the amount of clothing that can be stored 
in the drawer because clothing can be folded or stuffed to match the 
drawer dimensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The drawers of the current model of the product are 12\1/2\ 
inches deep x 13\3/8\-inch-wide, and the clearance height is 7\1/4\ 
inches. The functional drawer volume of each drawer is 0.69 cubic 
feet, using the equation in Tab L of the NPR briefing package; the 
total functional drawer volume for the 2-drawer CSU is 1.38 cubic 
feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because small units and small drawers can be used to hold clothing, 
the proposed CSU definition does not include additional requirements 
for overall size and storage volume.
h. Product Weight
    CPSC also considered whether to include a weight criterion in the 
proposed CSU definition, but did not do so. The weight of the CSU was 
reported for 17 fatal and 25 nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents with a 
child and no television. The lightest-weight reported CSU involved in a 
fatal tip-over incident without a television was a 5-drawer CSU with 
the bottom 3 drawers missing, which tipped over on a 2-year-old child. 
The unit weighed 34 pounds without the 3 drawers, the configuration at 
the time of the incident. The lightest weight reported, non-modified 
CSU involved in a fatal tip-over incident without a television was a 57 
pound, 3-drawer chest, which tipped over onto a 2-year-old child.\88\ 
Other fatal incidents involving light-weight CSUs include a 57.5 pound, 
4-drawer wicker dresser without a television that tipped over onto an 
18-month-old child and a 68-pound, 3-drawer chest that tipped over in 
three separate fatal incidents without televisions, resulting in the 
death of a 23-month-old child, and two 2-year-old children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ This is the same unit as the shortest known CSU involved in 
a fatal tip-over incident involving a child and CSU without a 
television.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reported lightest weight CSU involved in a nonfatal incident 
without a television is a 31-pound, 2-drawer chest, which tipped over 
and pinned a 13-month-old child.\89\ In another nonfatal incident with 
no television, a 45-pound, 3-drawer chest tipped onto a 3-year-old 
child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ This is the same unit, identified by the consumer as a 
``nightstand,'' but marketed as a ``chest,'' as the shortest known 
CSU involved in a nonfatal tip-over incident involving a child and 
CSU without a television.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff is aware of some lightweight plastic units marketed and used 
as CSUs.\90\ Staff found many lightweight frame and drawer units 
marketed online as CSUs. Staff also found many online videos showing 
consumers using lightweight plastic units to store children's clothing. 
In addition, one of the participants in the CSU use study said they 
used a plastic stackable drawer unit to store children's clothing. 
Based on this information, consumers will perceive and use lightweight 
units as CSUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ For this analysis, staff only considered lightweight units 
with drawers and/or doors. Staff is also aware that consumers use 
storage bins with lids to store clothing; however, staff does not 
consider these to be CSUs, based on the proposed definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With an assumed clothing load of 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of 
storage volume, many lightweight units could be filled to the same 
weight as the incident-involved units. The 34-pound unit referenced 
above had minimal clothing in it, and the 57-pound unit was reportedly 
empty at the time of the fatal incident. Staff did not identify any 
tip-over incidents involving plastic units in the fatal and nonfatal 
CSPRMS data involving children without a television; however, staff 
cautions that in 64 fatal and 20 nonfatal incidents, model names were 
not obtained and could have included plastic units.
    Because consumers will perceive and use lightweight units as CSUs, 
and it is possible to fill lightweight units with clothing loads that 
exceed the lowest product weights seen in the incident data, these 
units are included in the proposed rule.

B. Stability Requirements

1. Proposed Requirements
    The proposed requirements for stability of CSUs consist of 
configuring the CSU for testing, performing testing using a prescribed 
procedure, and determining whether the performance results comply with 
the criteria for passing the standard.
    To configure the CSU for testing, the proposed rule requires the 
CSU to be placed on a hard, level, flat surface, which the standard 
defines. If the CSU has a levelling device, the device is adjusted to 
the lowest level and then according to the manufacturer's instructions. 
The CSU is then tipped forward 1.5 degrees, and if there is a levelling 
device intended for a carpeted surface, the device is adjusted in 
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for a carpeted surface.
    All doors (as defined in the standard) are then open to a specified 
position and fill weights are placed in drawers and pull-out shelves, 
depending on

[[Page 6276]]

whether there are interlocks on the unit. Because the test 
configuration differs, depending on the presence of interlocks, the 
proposed rule requires testing the interlocks before conducting the 
stability testing.
    The interlock testing consists of placing the CSU on a hard, level, 
flat surface (as defined in the standard), levelling according to 
manufacturer instructions, securing the unit to prevent sliding or tip 
over, and opening the number of drawers necessary to engage the 
interlock. A 30-pound horizontal pull force is then applied on each 
locked drawer, one at a time, over a period of 5 seconds, and held for 
at least 10 seconds. This pull test is repeated until all possible 
combinations of drawers have been tested. If any locked drawer opens or 
the interlock is damaged, during this testing, then the interlock is to 
be disabled or bypassed for the stability testing.
    For the stability testing, for units without an interlock or that 
did not pass the interlock test, all drawers and pull-out shelves are 
open to their maximum extension (as defined in the standard), and a 
fill weight of 8.5 pounds per cubic foot times the functional volume 
(in cubic feet) is placed in the center of each drawer or pull-out 
shelf. For units with an interlock that passed the interlock test, all 
drawers that are not locked by the interlock are open to the maximum 
extension (as defined in the standard), in the configuration most 
likely to cause a tip over (typically the largest drawers in the 
highest position open). If 50 percent or more of the drawers and pull-
out shelves by functional volume are open, a fill weight is placed in 
the center of each drawer or pull-out shelf, including those that 
remain closed. The fill weight is 8.5 pounds per cubic foot times the 
functional volume (cubic feet). If less than 50 percent of the drawers 
and pull-out shelves by functional volume are open, no fill weight is 
placed in any drawers or pull-out shelves.
    The proposed rule provides two test methods for the tip-over test. 
Test Method 1 is most appropriate for CSUs with drawers or pull-out 
shelves. It involves applying a vertical force to the face of the 
uppermost extended drawer or pull-out shelf to cause the unit to tip 
over (defined as the point at which a CSU pivots forward such that the 
rear feet (or edge) lifts at least \1/4\ inch from the floor or is 
supported by a non-support element). At that point, the tip-over moment 
of the unit is calculated by multiplying the tip-over force (as defined 
in the standard) by the horizontal distance from the force application 
point to the fulcrum (as defined in the standard). If a drawer breaks 
during the test due to the force, Test Method 2 should be used or the 
drawer can be secured or reinforced, as long as the modifications do 
not increase the tip-over moment.
    Test Method 2 is appropriate for any CSU. It involves applying a 
horizontal force to the back of the CSU orthogonal (i.e., at a right 
angle) to the fulcrum to cause the unit to tip over. The tip-over 
moment is then calculated by multiplying the tip-over force by the 
vertical distance from the force application point to the fulcrum.
    Once the tip-over moment for the CSU has been determined, that 
value must be greater than several comparison moments, as applicable, 
depending on the design of the CSU. The first comparison moment applies 
to CSUs with drawers or pull-out shelves and is 55.3 pounds times the 
drawer or pull-out shelf extension form the fulcrum distance (as 
defined in the standard), plus 26.6 pounds feet. The second comparison 
moment is for units with doors and is 51.2 pounds times the door 
extension from fulcrum distance (as defined in the standard, in feet), 
minus 12.8. The third comparison moment applies to all CSUs and is 17.2 
pounds times the maximum handhold height (as defined in the standard, 
in feet). The greatest of these three comparison tip-over moments is 
considered the threshold moment, which the tested CSU's tip-over moment 
must exceed.
2. Basis for Proposed Requirements
    As described in this preamble and the NPR briefing package, there 
are several factors that are commonly involved in CSU tip-over 
incidents that contribute to the instability of CSUs, and a number of 
these factors often occur simultaneously. These include multiple open 
and filled drawers, carpeting, and forces generated by children's 
interactions with the CSU (such as climbing and opening/pulling on 
drawers). The proposed rule includes requirements to simulate or 
account for all of these factors, in order to accurately assess the 
stability of CSUs during real-world use.
    The stability testing in the proposed rule simulates these factors 
simultaneously (e.g., all drawers open and filled, on carpet, and 
accounting for child interaction forces). This is because incident data 
indicate that these factors commonly exist at the same time. For 
example, incidents include children climbing on open drawers, filled 
with clothing.
a. Multiple Open and Filled Drawers
    As discussed in section IV.C. Hazard Characteristics, opening 
drawers of a CSU was a common interaction in CSU tip overs involving 
children and only a CSU. It was the most common reported interaction 
(63 percent) in nonfatal CPSRMS incidents; it was the second most 
common reported interaction (8 percent) in nonfatal NEISS incidents; 
and it was the third most common reported interaction (9 percent) in 
fatal CPSRMS incidents. Children as young as 11 months were involved in 
incidents where the child was opening one or more drawers of the CSU, 
and the incidents commonly involved 2- and 3-year-olds. In numerous 
incidents, the children opened multiple or all of the drawers. The 
youngest child reported to have opened all drawers was 13 months old.
    The incident analysis also indicates that, of the CSU tip overs 
involving children and only CSUs for which the reports indicated the 
contents of the CSU, 96 percent of fatal CPSRMS incidents involved 
partially filled or full drawers; and 90 percent of the nonfatal CPSRMS 
incidents involved partially filled or full drawers. Most items in the 
drawers were clothing.
    As this preamble explains, opening extendable elements (drawers, 
doors, pull-out shelves) shifts the CG towards the front of the CSU, 
and the closer the CG is to the front leg, the easier it is to tip 
forward if a force is applied to the drawer. Therefore, CSUs will tip 
more easily as more drawers are opened. The CG of a CSU will also 
change depending on the position and amount of clothing in each drawer. 
Closed drawers filled with clothing tend to stabilize a CSU, but as 
each filled drawer is pulled out, the CG of the CSU will further shift 
towards the front. Staff's testing demonstrates this principle, finding 
that multiple open drawers decrease the stability of a CSU, and filled 
drawers further decrease stability when more than half of the drawers 
by volume are open, but increase stability when more than half of the 
drawers by volume are closed.
    Taken together, this information indicates that children commonly 
open multiple filled drawers simultaneously during CSU tip-over 
incidents, and that doing so decreases the stability of the CSU if half 
or more of the drawers by volume are open. Accordingly, the proposed 
rule includes multiple open and filled drawers as part of the unit 
configuration for stability testing, and varies whether drawers are 
filled depending on how many of the drawers

[[Page 6277]]

and pull-out shelves can open, as determined by an interlock system.
    As staff testing showed, when all CSU drawers are pulled out and 
filled, the unit is more unstable. However, when CSU drawers have 
interlocks or other means that prevent more than half the drawers by 
volume from being pulled out simultaneously, the CSU tips more easily 
with all drawers empty. Accordingly, when an interlock or other means 
prevents more than half the drawers and pull-out shelves by interior 
volume from being opened simultaneously, the proposed rule requires 
that no fill weight be placed in the drawers.
    Although fewer incidents involved CSUs with doors, those incidents 
indicate that children opened the doors of the CSU. Moreover, in many 
CSUs with doors, the doors must be open to access the drawers. Given 
these considerations, and that opening doors makes a CSU less stable, 
the proposed rule also requires doors to be open during stability 
testing.
i. Fill Density
    As discussed in section VII.A. Multiple Open and Filled Drawers, 
staff assessed the appropriate method for simulating CSU drawers that 
are partially filled or fully filled (Tab L of the NPR briefing 
package). To do this, staff looked at the standard that ASTM considered 
(8.5 pounds per cubic foot) and the results of the Kids in Danger and 
Shane's Foundation study \91\ (which found an average density of 8.9 
pounds per cubic foot). To assess whether the 8.5 pounds per-cubic-foot 
measure reasonably represents the weight of clothing in a drawer, CPSC 
staff conducted testing with folded and unfolded children's clothing on 
drawers of different sizes. For all three drawer sizes, staff was able 
to fit 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of unfolded and folded clothing fill 
in the drawers. When the clothing was folded and unfolded, the clothing 
fully filled the drawers, but still allowed the drawer to close. The 
maximum unfolded clothing fill density was slightly higher than 8.5 
pounds per cubic foot for all tested drawers; and the maximum unfolded 
clothing fill density ranged from 8.56 to 8.87 pounds per cubic foot, 
depending on the drawer. The maximum folded clothing fill density 
ranged from 9.40 to 10.16 pounds per cubic foot, depending on the 
drawer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Kids in Danger and Shane's Foundation (2016). Dresser 
Testing Protocol and Data. Data set provided to CPSC staff by Kids 
in Danger, January 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this testing, staff found that 8.5 pounds per cubic foot 
of clothing will fill a drawer. This amount of clothing is less than 
the absolute maximum amount of clothing that can be put into a drawer, 
especially if the clothing is folded, however, the maximum amount of 
unfolded clothing that could be put into the tested drawers was only 
slightly higher than 8.5 pounds per cubic foot. Although staff achieved 
a clothing density as high as 10.16 pounds per cubic foot with folded 
clothing, consumers may be unlikely to fill a drawer to this level 
because it requires careful folding, and it is difficult to remove and 
replace individual pieces of clothing. On balance, CPSC considers 8.5 
pounds per cubic foot of functional drawer volume a reasonable 
approximation of the weight of clothing in a fully filled drawer.
    Because CSUs are reasonably likely to be used to store clothing, 
and incident data indicates that CSUs involved in tip-over incidents 
commonly include drawers filled with clothing, the proposed rule 
requires 8.5 pounds per cubic foot as fill weight when more than half 
of the drawers by volume are open.
ii. Interlocks
    Because the fill level, as well as the stability of a CSU, depends 
on how many drawers can open, the standard also includes a requirement 
that the interlock system withstand a 30-pound horizontal pull force. 
Without such a requirement, consumers may be able to disengage the 
interlock, or the interlock may break, resulting in more filled drawers 
being open during real-world use, and less stability, than assessed 
during stability testing.
    Staff assessed the pull strength of children to determine an 
appropriate pull force requirement for the interlock test (and the 
comparison moment for pulling open a CSU), and found that the mean 
pulling strength of 2- to 5-year-old children on a convex knob 
(diameter 40 mm) at their elbow height is 59.65 Newton (13.4 pound-
force) for males and 76.43 Newton (17.2 pound-force) for females.\92\ 
In the study from which staff drew these values, participants were 
asked to exert their maximum strength at all times, described as the 
highest force they could exert without causing injury. Participants 
were instructed to build up to their maximum strength in the first few 
seconds, and to maintain maximum strength for an additional few 
seconds. Participants were instructed to use their dominant hand. Based 
on this, children between 2 and 5 years old can achieve a mean pull 
force of 17.2 pounds. ANSI/SOHO S6.5 includes a slightly higher 
horizontal pull force of 30-pounds in its stability requirements. To 
ensure that the standard adequately assesses the integrity of interlock 
systems, the proposed rule includes a 30-pound horizontal pull force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ DTI (2000). Strength Data for Design Safety--Phase 1 (DTI/
URN 00/1070). London: Department of Trade and Industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Maximum Extension
    The proposed rule requires that all extension elements--including 
drawers, doors, and pull-out shelves--be opened to the maximum 
extension and least-stable configuration. The proposed rule defines 
maximum extension. The general conceptual framework is that all drawers 
are opened fully, or if there is an interlock, the worst-case drawers 
that can be opened at the same time are opened fully. Maximum extension 
for drawers and pull-out shelves is the furthest manufacturer 
recommended use position, as indicated by way of a stop; if there are 
multiple stops, they are open to the stop that allows the furthest 
extension; if there is no stop, they are open to \2/3\ of the shortest 
internal length of the drawer or \2/3\ of the length of the pull-out 
shelf.
b. Carpeting
    As discussed in section IV.C. Hazard Characteristics, of the fatal 
CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children and only CSUs that 
reported the type of flooring the CSU was on, 82 percent involved 
carpeting. Of the incidents that provided photos, the carpet was 
typical wall-to-wall carpet, with most being cut pile, and a few being 
looped pile. Of the nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving 
children and only CSUs that reported the type of flooring, 80 percent 
involved carpeting. Thus, for incidents where flooring type was 
reported, carpet was by far the most prevalent flooring type.
    As discussed earlier, staff testing showed that CSUs with a variety 
of designs and stability levels were more stable on a hard flooring 
surface than they were on carpeting. Consistent with incident data, 
staff used wall-to-wall carpet for this testing and tested the CSU 
stability with various configurations of open and filled drawers. For 
94 percent of the comparison weights (including multiple variations of 
open and filled drawers), the units were more stable on the hard 
surface than on carpet, with a mean difference in tip weight of 7.6 
pounds.
    Therefore, based on incident data and testing, CSUs are commonly on 
carpet during CSU tip-over incidents, and carpet increases the 
instability of the CSU. Accordingly, the proposed rule

[[Page 6278]]

includes a requirement that simulates the effect of carpet in order to 
accurately mimic real-world factors that contribute to CSU instability. 
To determine how to simulate the effect of carpet, section VII.C. 
Flooring explains that staff compared the tip weights of CSUs on carpet 
with the tip weights for the same units when tilted forward to various 
degrees on a hard, level, flat surface. Staff found that the tip weight 
of CSUs on carpet corresponded with tilting the CSUs forward 0.8 to 3 
degrees, depending on the CSU, with the mean tilt angle that 
corresponded to the CSU tip weights on carpet being 1.48 degrees. 
Therefore, a forward tilt of 1.5 degrees replicates the effect of 
carpet on CSU stability, and this is included in the CSU configuration 
requirements for the stability testing in the proposed rule.
c. Test Methods
    The proposed rule provides two test methods for applying force to a 
CSU to determine its tip-over moment. The first test method involves 
applying a vertical load to the top surface of a fully extended drawer 
on the CSU; the second test method involves applying a horizontal load 
to the rear of the CSU, causing it to tip forward. Based on staff's 
testing (Tab M of the NPR briefing package), these methods produce 
approximately equal tip-over moments. For this reason, the proposed 
rule allows either test method to be used. However, because the first 
test method requires the use of a drawer, the proposed rule specifies 
that the first test method is appropriate for such products. The second 
test involves applying force to the back of a CSU and, as such, it can 
be used for any design.
    Both test methods require the location of the fulcrum to be 
determined and the distance from the open drawer face to the fulcrum to 
be measured. Intuitively, the fulcrum is located at the front of the 
bottom-most surface of the CSU.\93\ This is the point or line about 
which the CSU pivots when it tips forward. Therefore, the proposed rule 
defines the fulcrum as the bottom point or line of the CSU touching the 
ground about which the CSU pivots when a tip-over force is applied. The 
fulcrum is typically located at the line connecting the front feet. 
However, for CSUs without feet, or for CSUs with an irregular pattern 
of feet, the fulcrum may be in a different location. Some CSUs may have 
multiple fulcrums that will vary, depending on the direction the tip-
over force is applied. The fulcrum that results in the smallest tip-
over moment should be determined. If testers choose to use a horizontal 
load, the load should be applied such that the tip-over moment is 
minimized (typically orthogonal to the fulcrum). For this reason, the 
proposed rule requires the horizontal force to be applied to the back 
of the unit orthogonal to the fulcrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ For CSUs with circular pads on the feet, CPSC staff 
typically found higher numerical correlation between test results 
and numerical analysis when the tip-over fulcrum in the calculation 
was placed at the center of the pads on the front feet (rather than 
the front of the pads). The difference between the two results was 
small. Staff does not consider foot pad geometry a significant 
factor in determining the tip-over moment of a CSU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Performance Requirements
i. Pass-Fail Criteria
    Once the tip-over moment has been calculated using one of the 
methods above, the proposed rule specifies that the tip-over moment of 
the CSU must be greater than several comparison tip-over moments (the 
greatest of which is considered the threshold moment). These comparison 
tip-over moments determine whether the tip-over moment of the CSU is 
sufficient to withstand tipping over when child interactions identified 
in incidents and measured by UMTRI occur. Staff developed three pass-
fail criteria based on three child interactions that can lead to CSU 
tip-over incidents. The first interaction is a child climbing 
(ascending) a CSU; the second is a child pulling on a handhold of a CSU 
while opening or attempting to open a drawer; and the third is a child 
climbing (hanging) on the door of a CSU.
    Staff expects that the comparison tip-over moment for ascending the 
CSU will be the most onerous requirement for most CSUs. However, some 
CSUs with particular geometric features, or without drawers, may have 
greater tip-over moments associated with the alternative criteria, 
based on children's interactions with the CSU.
ii. Climbing
    As described earlier in this preamble, of the fatal CPSRMS tip-over 
incidents involving children and only a CSU that reported the type of 
interaction, 74 percent involved a child climbing on the CSU. Climbing 
was the most common reported interaction for children 3 years old and 
younger. Of the nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children 
and only a CSU that reported the type of interaction, 20 percent 
involved a child climbing on the CSU. Of the nonfatal NEISS CSU tip-
over incidents involving children and only CSUs that reported the type 
of interaction the child was engaged in, 77 percent involved climbing 
on the CSU. For children 3 years old or younger, climbing constituted 
almost 80 percent of reported interactions. Overall, 81 percent of the 
reported interactions in the nonfatal NEISS tip-over incidents 
involving children and only CSUs are those in which the child's weight 
was supported by the CSU (e.g., climbing, in drawer, jump, on top, 
swinging). Thus, in fatal and nonfatal incidents, a child climbing on 
the CSU was one of the most common reported interactions.
    Of climbing incidents with a reported age, the children were 3 
years old or younger in 94 percent of the fatal CPSRMS incidents; 73 
percent of the nonfatal NEISS incidents; and 60 percent of the nonfatal 
CPSRMS incidents. Climbing behavior is consistent with expected motor 
development of children this age.
    CPSC staff's analyses of tip-over incidents in Tab M of the NPR 
briefing package outline several scenarios where children climbing or 
interacting with the front of a CSU caused the CSU to tip over. In some 
of the scenarios, the force on the edge of an open drawer associated 
with tipping the CSU was greater than the static weight of a child 
standing on the edge of an open drawer of the CSU. The equivalent force 
consists of the child's weight, the dynamic force on the edge of the 
drawer due to climbing, and the effects of the child's CG extending 
beyond the edge of the drawer. Based on the UMTRI study, staff 
estimated the equivalent force to be more than 1.6 times the weight of 
the child for typical drawer extensions. Therefore, these tip-over 
incidents occurred because the forces and moments associated with 
children climbing on a CSU exceeded the static body weight of a child 
standing on the edge of an open drawer.
    Staff determined that the ascend interaction from the UMTRI child 
climbing study was the most representative of a child climbing 
interaction seen in the incident data. As discussed in Tab D of the NPR 
briefing package, based on the UMTRI study of child climbing behaviors 
(Tab R of the NPR briefing package), ascent can be described by the 
following equation:

M = {1.08 [Fulcrum X (ft)] + 0.52 ft{time}  x Weight of Child (lb)

    In this equation, Fulcrum X is the horizontal distance from the 
front of the extended drawer to the fulcrum.
    In the UMTRI study, other measured climbing interactions involving 
climbing into drawers and climbing onto the tabletop generated lower 
moments than ascent; thus, they are included within performance 
requirements based on ascent.
    Because most climbing incidents involved children 3 years old and

[[Page 6279]]

younger, the proposed rule uses the 95th percentile weight of 3-year-
old children (51.2 pounds) in this equation to generate the first 
comparison tip-over moment. The 95th percentile weight of 3-year-old 
boys is 51.2 pounds and the 95th percentile weight of 3-year-old girls 
is 42.5 pounds.\94\ To address the heaviest of these children, the 
proposed rule uses 51.2 pounds. Moreover, as described earlier in this 
preamble, this is consistent with the weight of children involved in 
tip-over incidents, particularly for climbing incidents, when known, or 
when estimated by their age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Fryar, C.D., Carroll, M.D., Gu, Q., Afful, J., Ogden, C.L. 
(2021). Anthropometric reference data for children and adults: 
United States, 2015-2018. National Center for Health Statistics. 
Vital Health Stat 3(46). Three years of age covers children who are 
at least 36 months old and under 48 months old.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these considerations, to pass the moment requirement for a 
child ascending a CSU, the tip-over moment (Mtip) of the CSU must meet 
the following criterion: Mtip (lb-ft) > 51.2 (1.08X + 0.52), where X is 
the horizontal distance (in feet) from the front of the extended drawer 
to the fulcrum.\95\ Simplified, this is Mtip (lb-ft) > 55.3X + 26.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ For a CSU without drawers, X is measured from the fulcrum 
to the front edge of the farthest extended element, excluding doors. 
If the CSU has no extension elements (other than doors), X is 
measured from the fulcrum to the front of the CSU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff calculates that CSUs that meet a requirement based on 
the climbing force generated by a 51.2-pound child, and that considers 
the effects of all drawers (or doors) open and drawers filled, plus the 
effect of carpet on stability, likely will protect 95 percent of 3-
year-old boys by weight and more than 95 percent of 3-year-old girls, 
and virtually all younger children. For example, with the proposed test 
requirements, virtually all climbing incidents are presumably 
addressable involving 2-year-old children because they are all well 
under 51.2 pounds (95th percentile 2-year-old boys weigh 38.8 pounds 
and girls weigh 34.7 pounds). This requirement would also protect more 
than 90 percent of 4-year-old boys and 95 percent of 4-year-old girls 
who also engaged in this climbing scenario. This testing would protect 
75 percent of 5-year-old boys and more than 50 percent of 5-year-old 
girls. It would also protect 50 percent of 6-year-old children; 25 
percent of 7-year-old children; and 7.1 percent of 8-year-old children.
    Overall, staff calculates that 91.2 percent of all nonfatal NEISS 
incidents involving climbing interactions are likely to be addressed 
with the proposed rule. Staff notes that this number is a low estimate, 
because it assumes that all climbing incidents occurred with all open 
and filled drawers on CSUs located on a carpeted surface, which is a 
worst-case stability condition.
iii. Opening Drawers
    As described in this preamble, of the fatal CPSRMS tip-over 
incidents involving children and only a CSU that reported the type of 
interaction, 17 percent involved a child sitting, laying, or standing 
in an open drawer, and 9 percent involved a child opening drawers. Of 
the nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children and only a 
CSU that reported the type of interaction, 63 percent involved opening 
drawers, 6 percent involved putting items in/taking them out of a 
drawer; 6 percent involved pulling on the CSU; and 3 percent involved 
leaning or pushing down on an open drawer. Opening drawers was the most 
common reported interaction for children six years old and younger.
    Of the nonfatal NEISS CSU tip-over incidents involving children and 
only CSUs that reported the type of interaction the child was engaged 
in, 8 percent involved opening drawers, and 15 percent involved a child 
in the drawer, pulling on the CSU, putting items in or taking items out 
of a drawer, reaching, hitting, jumping, a child on top of the CSU, 
playing in a drawer, pulling up, and swinging. Overall, 12 percent of 
the reported interactions in the nonfatal NEISS tip-over incidents 
involving children and only CSUs are those in which the child's 
strength determines the force (e.g., hit, opening drawers, pulled on, 
pulled up). Thus, in nonfatal incidents, opening drawers was one of the 
most common reported interactions.
    Moreover, looking at both fatal and nonfatal CPSRMS tip overs 
involving children and only CSUs, where the interaction involved 
opening drawers, overall, about 53 percent involved children opening 
one drawer, 10 percent involved opening two drawers, and almost 17 
percent involved opening ``multiple'' drawers. Children as young as 11 
months were involved in incidents where the child was opening one or 
more drawers of the CSU, and the youngest child reported to have opened 
all drawers was 13 months old. Incidents involving opening drawers most 
commonly involved children 3 years old and younger.
    As discussed earlier, it is possible for CSUs to tip over from the 
forces generated by open drawers and their contents, alone, without 
additional interaction forces. However, pulling on a drawer to open it 
applies an increased force that contributes to instability. The moment 
generated with a horizontal force is higher as the location of the 
force application gets farther from the floor. Therefore, the proposed 
rule includes as the second required comparison tip-over moment, the 
moment associated with a child pulling horizontally on the CSU at the 
top reachable extension element handhold within the overhead reach 
dimension of a 95th percentile 3-year-old. This is because children 3 
years old and younger are most commonly involved in these incidents.
    The proposed rule applies the horizontal pull force to the top of 
an extended drawer in the top row of drawers, or to another potential 
handhold, that is less than or equal to 4.12 feet high (49.44 inches). 
The 4.12-foot height limit is based on the overhead reach height for a 
95th percentile 3-year-old male; the proposed rule uses the overhead 
reach height of 3-year-olds because most children involved in opening 
drawer incidents were 3 years old or younger.\96\ Consistent with this 
overhead reach height, staff's analysis of 15 incidents shows that the 
highest pull location was 46 inches from the floor.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Pheasant, S. (1986). Bodyspace Anthropometry, Ergonomics & 
Design. London: Taylor & Francis.
    \97\ Staff assessed 15 child incidents in which the height of 
the force application could be calculated based on descriptions of 
the incidents. Force application heights ranged from less than one 
foot to almost four feet (46.5 inches), and children pulled on the 
lowest, highest, and drawers in between.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule includes a 17.2 pound-force of horizontal pull 
force. This pull force is based on the mean pull strength of 2- to 5-
year-old females exerted at elbow level on a convex knob. The mean 
pulling strength of 2- to 5-year-old females is 76.43 Newton (17.2 
pound-force), and 59.65 Newton (13.4 pound-force) for males.\98\ In the 
study that provided these pull strengths, participants were 2 to 5 
years old, and the mean participant weight was 16.3 kilograms (36 
pounds). Participants were asked to exert their maximum strength at all 
times, described as the highest force they could exert without causing 
injury, using their dominant hand. Participants were instructed to 
build up to their maximum strength in the first few seconds, and to 
maintain maximum strength for an additional few seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ DTI, Strength Data for Design Safety--Phase 1 (DTI/URN 00/
1070). London: Department of Trade and Industry. (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule uses this 17.2 pound-force pull strength because, 
in the study, females had a higher mean strength than males, and these 
incidents

[[Page 6280]]

most commonly involve children 3 years old and younger. The weight of 
children in the study (36 pounds) is over the 50th percentile weight of 
3-year-old children. Therefore, the pull force test requirement will 
address drawer opening and pulling on CSU incidents for 50 percent of 
3-year-olds, 95 percent of 2-year-olds, 100 percent of children under 2 
years, 25 percent of 4-year-olds, 10 percent of 5-year-olds, and will 
not address these incidents for children 6 years old and older.
    Based on this 17.2-pound horizontal force on a handhold at a height 
of up to 4.12 feet, the moment created by this interaction can be 
described with the equation M (lb-ft) = 17.2 (lb) x Z (ft), where Z is 
the vertical distance (in feet) from the fulcrum to the highest 
handhold that is less than or equal to 4.12 feet high. Using this 
equation, the tip-over moment of the CSU in the second comparison value 
in the proposed rule is Mtip (lb-ft) > 17.2Z.
iv. Climbing on Doors
    As discussed in IV. Risk of Injury, two fatal CPSRMS and four 
nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involved wardrobes and armoires, 
which include doors. In most of these incidents, children were 
interacting with things inside the CSU, indicating that the doors were 
open. The ages of the children in these incidents ranged from 3 to 11 
years, although opening doors is easily within the physical and 
cognitive abilities of younger children. Once CSU doors are open, 
children are capable of putting their body weight on the open doors 
(i.e., open and climbing/hanging), provided the child has a sufficient 
hand hold. For this reason, the third comparison tip-over moment in the 
proposed rule represents the force from a 95th percentile 3-year-old 
child hanging on an open door of the CSU.
    UMTRI researchers found that the vertical forces associated with 
children hanging by the hands were close to the body weight of the 
child (Figure 48 in Tab R of the NPR briefing package). For this 
reason, the third comparison tip-over moment, representing a child 
hanging on an open door, uses the weight of a 95th percentile 3-year-
old child, or 51.2 pounds. Staff considers the weight placement 
location for testing doors in ASTM F2057-19 (section 7.2) reasonable. 
Therefore, the proposed rule uses the test location from the voluntary 
standard, which is approximately half the width of the test fixture, or 
3 inches, from the edge of the door, to obtain the equation describing 
a 95th percentile weight 3-year-old child hanging from an open door of 
a CSU: M (lb-ft) = 51.2 (lb) x [Y-0.25 (ft)], where Y is the horizontal 
distance (in feet) from the fulcrum to the edge of the door in its most 
extended position. Based on this equation, the tip-over moment of a CSU 
with doors must meet the following criterion: Mtip (lb-ft) > 51.2(Y-
0.25). Simplified, this is Mtip (lb-ft) > 51.2Y-12.8.
v. Additional Interactions
    For the reasons described above, the proposed rule focuses on the 
interactions of children climbing on and opening CSUs. Although other 
plausible climbing-associated behaviors (e.g., yank, lean, bounce, one 
hand) included in the UMTRI study generated higher moments, there was 
no direct evidence of these interactions in the incident data. However, 
depending on the child's age, weight, and strength, some of these 
interactions could be addressable with the proposed performance 
requirements. Other measured climbing interactions, for example, 
including hop up, hang, in drawer, and climbing onto the tabletop, 
generated lower moments than ascent. Similarly, staff expects that 
putting items in/taking items out of a drawer, reaching, pulling up, 
and hitting the CSU (all indicated in the incident data) would also 
generate lower moments than those included in the proposed rule. As 
such, these additional interactions are addressed by the proposed 
performance requirements. In addition, staff evaluated each of the 
seven incidents involving children jumping, falling from the top of the 
CSU, or swinging, considering the possible moment and reported age of 
the child and determined that five of the seven would be addressed by 
the proposed rule.
    Although the proposed rule focuses on addressing the CSU tip-over 
hazard to children, improving the stability of CSUs should also reduce 
a substantial portion of the incidents involving adults. This is 
because a majority of the incidents involved consumers interacting with 
the CSU by opening drawers and/or getting items in and out of drawers, 
or leaning on the CSU, all scenarios that are expected to be less than 
or equally severe compared to incidents of children climbing with all 
drawers filled and opened.

C. Marking and Labeling

1. Proposed Requirements
    The proposed rule includes requirements for a warning label. The 
proposed warning label requirements address the size, content, symbol, 
and format of the label. The proposed warning statements address the 
CSU tip-over hazard, and how to avoid it. They indicate that children 
have died from furniture tipping over, and direct consumers how to 
reduce the risk of tip overs, by securing furniture to the wall; not 
allowing children to stand, climb, or hang on units; not defeating 
interlock systems (if the unit has them); placing heavier items in 
lower drawers; and not putting a television on CSUs (when the 
manufacturer indicates they are not designed for that purpose). The 
proposed format, font, font size, and color requirements incorporate by 
reference the provisions in ASTM F2057-19. The proposed rule also 
includes requirements for the location of the warning label, addressing 
placement in drawers or doors, and the height of the label in the unit. 
The proposed rule also requires the warning label to be legible and 
attached after it is tested using the methods specified in ASTM F2057-
19.
    The proposed rule also includes requirements for an informational 
label. It requires the label to include the name and address of the 
manufacturer, distributor, or retailer; the model number; the month and 
year of manufacture; and state that the product complies with the 
proposed rule. There are size, content, format, location, and 
permanency requirements as well. The label must be visible from the 
back of the unit when the unit is fully assembled, and must be legible 
and attached after it is tested using the methods specified in ASTM 
F2057-19.
2. Basis for Proposed Requirements
a. Warning Requirements, Generally
    The proposed rule requires a warning label to inform consumers of 
the hazard and motivate them to install tip restraints as a secondary 
safety mechanism. However, there are limitations to the effectiveness 
of warning labels to address the risk of CSU tip overs. Risk perception 
is greatly influenced by product familiarity, hazardousness of the 
product, likelihood of injury, and severity of injury. Risk perception 
is also influenced by people's beliefs about their ability to control 
the hazard and whether they believe the warning message. An inherent 
problem with CSUs and the tip-over hazard is that people are less 
likely to recognize potential hazards associated with products that 
they use more frequently. CSUs are products with high familiarity 
because they are found in most households, and consumers are likely to 
interact with them daily.
    Therefore, even well-designed warnings have limited effectiveness 
in changing a CSU user's behavior. In

[[Page 6281]]

addition, although the warning may impact adult behavior, children 
would not read or comprehend the warnings.
b. Warning Label Placement
    In the FMG CSU use study (Tab Q of the NPR briefing package), 
researchers evaluated warning labels in in-home interviews and focus 
groups. They found that participants indicated that they had not paid 
attention to or noticed warning labels on the units in their children's 
rooms, even when the researchers noted they were present. Participants 
also indicated that, even if they had seen a warning label on a CSU, 
they probably would not pay attention to it. Focus group participants 
identified the following as potential locations where a warning label 
could be seen easily and be more likely to grab their attention: top of 
the unit in the corner, on the handle of a unit, inside the top drawer 
of a unit, and in the instruction manual. Participants said the back of 
the unit was not an acceptable place for the warning label because it 
would not be visible. Participants also expressed that they would 
remove labels that were too conspicuous (e.g., on the outside or top of 
a unit).
    An effective warning label must be visible and noticeable, and it 
must capture and maintain consumers' attention. The proposed rule 
requires the warning label to be placed in the uppermost clothing 
storage drawer or in one drawer in the uppermost row that is entirely 
below 56 inches, which is the 5th percentile standing eye height of 
women in the United States.\99\ This is consistent with the information 
CPSC obtained from the FMG study, regarding placement of warnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Nesteruk, H.E.J. (2017). Human Factors Analysis of Clothing 
Storage Unit Tipover Incidents and Hazard Communication. In Staff 
Briefing Package Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Clothing 
Storage Units. Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ANPR%20-%20Clothing%20Storage%20Unit%20Tip%20Overs%20-%20November%2015%202017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Warning Label Content
    After noticing a warning label, consumers must read the message, 
comprehend the message, and decide whether the message is consistent 
with their beliefs and attitudes. In addition, consumers must be 
motivated enough to spend the effort to comply with the warning-
directed safe behavior. Warnings should allow for customization of 
hazard avoidance statements based on unit design, to reflect incident 
data (e.g., television use). Similarly, the warning text should be 
understandable, not contradict typical CSU use, and be expressed in a 
way that motivates consumers to comply.
    In the FMG CSU use study, focus group participants evaluated the 
ASTM F2057-19 warning label text. Participants had mixed opinions about 
the statement: ``Children have died from furniture tip over.'' Some 
participants found it motivating, others believed that it was hyperbole 
and seemed likely to disregard it. The majority of participants said 
that they do not follow the instruction to install a tip restraint, 
especially if the tip restraint is not included with the CSU. 
Participants wanted more information about why they should not put a 
television on a CSU, and some thought consumers would disregard the 
warning if putting a television on top of a CSU fit their needs. A 
majority of participants said that they open more than one drawer at a 
time, and that children typically open one or two drawers. Participants 
believed that placing the heaviest items in the lowest drawers was 
common sense, and was a warning they would follow.
    Based on this information, the proposed warning label includes 
warnings about the hazard, television use (where appropriate for the 
product), and placing heavier items in lower drawers, but does not 
include a statement to not open multiple drawers because that is 
inconsistent with consumer use. In addition, the proposed tip-restraint 
warning explicitly directs the consumer to secure the CSU to the wall 
and uses a term for tip restraint that consumers will likely 
understand. ``Tipover restraint,'' used in ASTM F2057-19, might confuse 
some consumers because restraints generally describe what they contain 
(e.g., child restraint), rather than what they prevent. Terminology 
such as ``anti-tip device'' is clearer.
a. Warning Label Format and Style
    The proposed rule requires the warning label to be at least 2 
inches wide by 2 inches tall. This size is consistent with the required 
content and format for the label, and it ensures that the label is not 
too narrow or short.
    The proposed rule also requires the child climbing symbol that is 
ASTM F2057-19. However, as discussed in section VII.G. Warning Label 
Symbols, if one of the two variants being considered performs better in 
comprehension testing than the ASTM F2057-19 child climbing symbol, the 
Commission may consider requiring one of those variants in the final 
rule. The proposed rule also requires the ASTM F2057-19 no television 
symbol for CSUs that are not designed to hold a television.
    CPSC staff regularly uses ANSI Z535.4, American National Standard 
for Product Safety Signs and Labels--the primary U.S. voluntary 
consensus standard for the design, application, use, and placement of 
on-product warning labels--when developing or assessing the adequacy of 
warning labels. The proposed rule uses the warning format in ASTM 
F2057-19, which is consistent with ANSI Z535.4.
    To be effective, a warning label must remain present. Label 
permanency requirements are intended to prevent the warning label from 
being removed inadvertently and to provide resistance to purposeful 
removal by the consumer. CPSC staff evaluated the ASTM F2057-19 label 
permanency requirements (Tab F of the NPR briefing package) and 
concluded that they are adequate. Accordingly, the proposed rule 
includes the permanency testing prescribed in ASTM F2057-19.
b. Informational Label
    Staff was able to identify the manufacturer and model of CSU 
associated with only 22 of the 89 fatal CPSRMS incidents involving 
children and CSUs without televisions \100\ and 230 of the 263 nonfatal 
CPSRMS incidents involving children and CSUs without televisions. In 
the case of recalls, consumers must be able to identify whether their 
CSU is subject to the recall and is potentially unsafe. Accordingly, an 
identification label that provides the model, manufacturer information, 
date of manufacture, and a statement of compliance with the proposed 
rule is important to facilitate identification and removal of 
potentially unsafe CSUs. This label would also allow for easier 
identification of compliant and noncompliant CSUs by consumers and 
CPSC, and would provide information that would assist in identifying 
the CSU, allowing staff to assess more easily hazards associated with 
specific designs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ An additional CSU was identified as handmade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule requires the informational label to be at least 
2-inches wide by 1-inch tall, which is consistent with the required 
content and format, and ensures that the label is not too narrow or 
short. The proposed rule requires text size that is consistent with 
ANSI Z535.4. The proposed rule requires the identification label to be 
visible from the back of the unit when the unit is fully assembled 
because it is not necessary for the label to be visible to the consumer 
during normal use, but it should be visible to anyone inspecting the 
unit. In addition, the proposed rule

[[Page 6282]]

requires permanency testing prescribed in ASTM F2057-19 to increase the 
likelihood that the label remains attached to the CSU.

D. Hang Tags

1. Proposed Requirements
    As discussed above, section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes the 
Commission to issue a rule to require manufacturers of consumer 
products to provide ``such performance and technical data related to 
performance and safety as may be required to carry out the purposes of 
[the CPSA].'' 15 U.S.C. 2076(e). The Commission may require 
manufacturers to provide this information to the Commission or, at the 
time of original purchase, to prospective purchasers and the first 
purchaser for purposes other than resale, as necessary to carry out the 
purposes of the CPSA. Id.
    The proposed rule sets out requirements for providing performance 
and technical data related to performance and safety to consumers at 
the time of original purchase and to the first purchaser of the CSU 
(other than resale) in the form of a hang tag. The hang tag provides a 
stability rating, displayed on a scale of 0 to 5, that is based on the 
ratio of tip-over moment (as determined in the testing required in the 
proposed rule) to the minimally allowed tip-over moment (provided in 
the proposed rule). The proposed rule includes size, content, icon, and 
format requirements for the hang tag. It also includes a requirement 
that the hang tag be attached to the CSU and clearly visible to a 
person standing in front of the unit; that lost or damaged hang tags 
must be replaced such that they are attached and provided, as required 
by the rule; and that the hang tags may be removed only by the first 
purchaser. In addition, the proposed rule includes placement 
requirements that the hang tag appear on the product and the immediate 
container of the product in which the product is normally offered for 
sale at retail; that for ready-to-assemble furniture, the hang tag must 
appear on the main panel of consumer-level packaging; and that any 
units shipped directly to consumers shall contain the hang tag on the 
immediate container of the product. For a detailed description of the 
proposed requirement, see the proposed regulatory text.
2. Basis for Proposed Requirements
a. Purpose
    Consistent with the requirements in section 27(e) of the CPSA, the 
proposed hang tag requirements help carry out the purpose of the CPSA 
by ``assisting consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of 
consumer products.'' 15 U.S.C. 2051(b)(2). The proposed rule would 
require CSUs to meet a minimum level of stability (i.e., exceed a 
threshold tip-over moment). However, above that minimum level, CSUs may 
have varying levels of stability. A hang tag provided on the CSU would 
offer consumers comparative information about the stability of 
products, based on the tip-testing protocol in the proposed rule. By 
providing product information at the point of purchase, the hang tag 
would inform consumers who are evaluating the comparative safety of 
different CSUs and making buying decisions. This information may also 
improve consumer safety by incentivizing manufacturers to produce CSUs 
with higher levels of stability, to better compete in the market, 
thereby increasing the overall stability of CSUs on the market.
b. Background
    CPSC based the formatting and information requirements in the 
proposed hang tag on work CPSC has done previously to develop 
performance and technical data requirements,\101\ as well as the work 
of other federal agencies that require comparative safety information 
on products.\102\ As part of CPSC's development of a similar 
requirement for recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs), CPSC issued a 
contract for cognitive interviews and focus group evaluation to refine 
the proposed ROV hang tag. The contractor developed recommendations 
regarding the content, format, size, style, and rating scale, based on 
consumer feedback during this work.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ E.g., 16 CFR 1401.5, 1402.4, 1404.4, 1406.4, 1407.3, and 
1420.3.
    \102\ E.g., the Federal Trade Commission's EnergyGuide label for 
appliances in 16 CFR part 305, requiring information about capacity 
and estimated annual operating costs; and the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration's New Car Assessment Program star-
rating for automobiles, providing comparative information on vehicle 
crashworthiness.
    \103\ EurekaFacts, LLC, Evaluation of Recreational Off-Highway 
(ROV) Vehicle Hangtag: Cognitive Interview and Focus Group Testing 
Final Report (Aug. 31, 2015), available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/ROVHangtagEvaluationReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Studies on the usefulness and comprehension of point-of-sale 
product information intended to help consumers evaluate products and 
make buying decisions support the effectiveness of hang tags, and 
linear scale graphs, in particular. For example, a study on the 
EnergyGuide label for appliances, which also uses a linear scale, 
indicated that the label increased consumer awareness of energy 
efficiency as an important purchasing criterion.\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ National Research Council. Shopping for Safety: Providing 
Consumer Automotive Safety Information--Special Report 248. 
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Specific Elements of the Proposed Requirements
    One element of the proposed hang tag is a symbol depicting a CSU 
tipping over. This symbol identifies the product and hazard. Research 
studies have found that warning labels with pictorial symbols are more 
noticeable to consumers.\105\ To allow consumers to identify exactly 
what product the label describes, the proposed hang tag requires the 
manufacturer's name and the model number of the unit. The proposed 
requirement also includes text to explain the importance of the graph, 
and the significance and meaning of the tip-over resistance value of 
the CSU. The proposed graph indicates the minimally acceptable tip 
rating, which is 1,\106\ so that consumers can evaluate the extent to 
which the rating of a particular CSU meets or exceeds the minimal 
permissible rating. In addition, the proposal requires the front of the 
hang tag to be yellow, to increase the likelihood consumers attend to 
the tag, and also consistent with EurekaFacts research recommendations 
(discussed below) and the EnergyGuide hang tag for household 
appliances, which is ``process yellow.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Wogalter, M., Dejoy, D., Laughery, K., Warnings and Risk 
Communication. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, Inc. (1999).
    \106\ The minimally acceptable rating is just above 1 because 
the tested moment of a CSU must be greater than the threshold 
moment, however, for simplicity, the proposed hang tag marks the 
minimally acceptable rating as 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The performance criteria in the proposed stability requirement 
requires the tested moment of a CSU to be greater than a calculated 
threshold moment requirement. The tip rating number on the hang tag is 
the ratio of tested moment to threshold requirement. This provides a 
simple calculation that results in a number greater than 1,\107\ which 
can be easily represented on a scale. Additionally, due to the nature 
of a ratio, a rating of 2 means the unit can withstand twice the 
threshold moment, a rating of 3 is three times the threshold moment, 
and so forth. As an example: Unit A has an acceptable moment of 10 ft-
lbs. When A is tested, the test engineer finds it tips at 25 ft-lbs. 
Unit

[[Page 6283]]

A's ratio is 25:10, for a rating of 2.5. Unit B also has an acceptable 
moment of 10 ft-lbs. Testing on Unit B found it tipped at 50 ft-lbs. 
Unit B's ratio is 50:10, or a rating of 5. Unit C has an acceptable 
moment of 5 ft-lbs. Testing on Unit C found it tipped at 20 ft-lbs. Its 
ratio is 20:5, or a rating of 4. Therefore, Unit A is 2.5 times more 
stable than required; Unit B is 5 times more stable than required; and 
Unit C is 4 times more stable than required. Also, unit B is twice as 
stable as unit A. Unit C lies between units A and B in terms of 
stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ The equation is Moment tested/Moment 
threshold. If Moment tested = Moment 
threshold, then Moment tested/Moment 
threshold = 1. But the proposedperformance requirement is 
that Moment tested exceed Moment threshold. 
Therefore, all units must have a ratio greater than 1, although it 
may be only a small fraction over 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the linear scale on the proposed hang tag is a graphical 
representation of the stability information, it is important to include 
labels so that consumers understand the data on the tag. To make clear 
the meaning of the information on the linear scale, CPSC staff placed 
the label ``high'' at the right side of the scale to identify for the 
consumer that the higher value equates to better stability or higher 
tip-over resistance. The proposed hang tag also includes a technical 
explanation of the graph and rating to explain how to interpret and use 
the graphic and number.
    When EurekaFacts conducted research on CPSC's proposed ROV hang 
tag, focus group participants preferred to have whole numbers anchoring 
the scale, such as 1 to 10, to communicate comparative information. 
CPSC staff testing suggests that, although few CSUs currently meet the 
proposed requirement, many CSUs on the market today would achieve 
ratings between 1 and 2, with appropriate modifications. Therefore, 
using a 10-point scale may be difficult for consumers to differentiate 
between units. To minimize this difficulty, the proposed requirement 
uses a 5-point scale. CPSC expects that, over time, there may be units 
with a broader range of scores (beyond the current 1 and 2), as 
consumers desire more stable units, and manufacturers build more stable 
units. Although some units theoretically could have a normalized value 
over 5, representing this as a 5, or the highest point on the scale, 
would be reasonably interpreted by consumers as a high stability. If, 
in the future, many CSUs exceed 5, the Commission can revisit the 
scale.
    In the proposed rule, the scale begins at 0. EurekaFacts found 
focus group participants preferred whole numbers as anchor points on 
the scale range and expressed confusion with decimals. Zero is lower 
than the minimal acceptable rating of 1 to provide a common anchor 
point in consumers' mental models of a scale, and the whole numbers 
allow for better relative comparisons. In addition, allowing the 
display of a rating lower than the requirement allows simple 
identification that CSUs at least meet the minimum requirement.
    Research has shown that pictorial symbols and icons make warnings 
more noticeable and easier to detect than warnings without such symbols 
and icons.\108\ Additionally, including a graphic before introducing 
text may serve as a valuable reference for consumers, by maintaining 
attention and encouraging further reading.\109\ For these reasons, the 
proposed hang tag requirement includes a symbol of a CSU at a slight 
angle to identify the product and tipping characteristics. In addition, 
presenting information both graphically and textually offers a better 
chance of comprehension by a wide range of users, such as non-English-
literate users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ Wogalter, M., Dejoy, D., Laughery, K. (1999). Warnings and 
Risk Communication. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, Inc.
    \109\ Smith, T.P. (2003). Developing consumer product 
instructions. Washington, DC: U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The size, placement, and attachment specifications in the proposed 
hang tag requirement are consistent with the recommendations by 
EurekaFacts and similar requirements in other standards. The 
EurekaFacts report found that participants preferred hang tags to be 
large because they were more noticeable and easier to read. In 
addition, participants preferred a vertical orientation. Based on this 
information, the proposed hang tag must be 5-inches wide by 7-inches 
tall.
    Consistent with similar standards, the proposed hang tag provision 
requires the tag to be provided at the time of original purchase, that 
it be replaced if lost or damaged, that it appear on the product and 
packaging, that it be clearly visible to a person standing in front of 
the unit, and that it be removable only with deliberate effort. These 
requirements facilitate the tag staying on the product so that 
consumers see and use the information on the hang tag when making 
purchasing decisions.
    Because the proposed stability performance criteria are based on 
moments, which are not easily understood forces, CPSC expects that some 
consumers may wish to better understand the information provided. For 
this reason, the reverse side of the hang tag provides additional 
information about the test used to calculate the stability rating on 
the front of the hang tag and what the rating means. The required font 
sizes are intended to facilitate ease of reading.

E. Prohibited Stockpiling

1. Proposed Requirements
    As explained earlier in this preamble, section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA 
allows the Commission to prohibit manufacturers of a consumer product 
from stockpiling products subject to a consumer product safety rule to 
prevent manufacturers from circumventing the purpose of the rule. 15 
U.S.C. 2058(g)(2). The proposed rule prohibits manufacturers and 
importers of CSUs from manufacturing or importing CSUs that do not 
comply with the requirements of the proposed rule in any 1-month period 
between the date a rule is promulgated and the effective date of the 
rule at a rate that is greater than 105 percent of the rate at which 
they manufactured or imported CSUs during the base period for the 
manufacturer. The proposed rule defines the base period as the calendar 
month with the median manufacturing or import volume within the last 13 
months immediately preceding the month of promulgation of the final 
rule.
2. Basis for Proposed Requirements
    The proposed stockpiling limit is intended to allow manufacturers 
and importers sufficient flexibility to meet normal levels and 
fluctuations in demand for CSUs, while limiting their ability to 
stockpile large quantities of CSUs that do not comply with the rule for 
sale after the effective date. Because most firms will need to modify 
their CSUs to comply with the proposed requirements, and the 
modifications may be costly, CPSC believes it is appropriate to prevent 
stockpiling of noncompliant products.

IX. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis 110
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Further detail regarding the preliminary regulatory 
analysis is available in Tab H of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is proposing to issue a rule under sections 7 and 9 
of the CPSA. The CPSA requires that the Commission prepare a 
preliminary regulatory analysis and that the preliminary regulatory 
analysis be published with the text of the proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 
2058(c). The following discussion is extracted from staff's memorandum, 
``Draft Preliminary Regulatory Analysis of the Proposed Clothing 
Storage Unit Stability Rule,'' available in Tab H of the NPR briefing 
package.

A. Preliminary Description of Potential Costs and Benefits of the 
Proposed Rule

    The preliminary regulatory analysis must include a description of 
the potential benefits and potential costs of the proposed rule. The 
benefits of the

[[Page 6284]]

rule are measured as the expected reduction in the societal costs of 
deaths and injuries that would result from adoption of the proposed 
rule and any benefits that cannot be quantified. The costs of the rule 
are defined as the added costs associated with modifying CSUs to comply 
with the requirements of the rule, including any impacts on the utility 
of the CSUs for consumers, as well as any costs that cannot be 
quantified.
    Deaths and Injuries Related to Tip Overs of CSUs. CPSC identified 
179 deaths related to CSU tip-over incidents involving children that 
occurred from 2001 through 2016.\111\ This results in an average of 
11.2 deaths per year over this 16-year period. These are the deaths 
associated with CSU tip-over incidents of which CPSC staff is aware. 
The actual number of deaths from CSU tip-over deaths during this period 
could be higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ For this preliminary regulatory analysis, staff used the 
data for 2001 to 2016, rather than the more recent data provided in 
the full incident data, in order to calculate an annual average. 
Data collection is ongoing for more recent years. If the data 
included the years for which data collection is ongoing, the 
calculated annual average would be low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ninety-seven of the 179 deaths also involved television sets that 
had been placed on top of the CSU. Of the 97 deaths involving 
televisions, 80 (82 percent) involved older, heavy CRT televisions, and 
only one of the deaths is known to have involved a flat-screen 
television. The older CRT televisions are usually substantially heavier 
than the newer flat-screen televisions, which may pose more serious 
injuries during a tip over, and may shift the center of gravity of the 
CSU forward, making it less stable. Based on this, as the number of CRT 
televisions in use decreases, staff expects the number of tip-over 
incidents and their severity to decrease. In 2010, about 55 percent of 
all televisions in use were CRT televisions. By 2020, that percentage 
was expected to be about 9 percent; and it is expected to decline to 
less than 1 percent by 2030. Thus, incidents involving CRT televisions 
are not considered in the main analysis. Considering only those cases 
for which staff know that a CRT television was not involved, there were 
99 fatalities (179 deaths less 80 that involved a CRT television) 
during the 16-year period, or an average of 6.2 per year.
    Although the proposed standard is intended to address CSU 
fatalities involving children, during the same period from 2001 through 
2016, there were 29 fatalities involving adults and CSUs tipping over, 
or an average of 1.8 a year. Fourteen of these victims were age 80 
years or older, and none were younger than 40. It is possible that some 
of these or similar deaths could have been prevented had the CSUs 
involved met the stability requirements of the proposed rule.
    Based on NEISS, there were an estimated 14,900 nonfatal injuries to 
children involving CSU tip overs during the 5-year period from 2015 
through 2019 that were treated in hospital EDs. About 2,300 of these 
estimated injuries (16 percent) involved televisions that had been 
placed on top of the CSUs. However, staff is not making any adjustments 
for nonfatal injuries that also involved a television set because there 
is generally less information available about the nonfatal injuries 
than for the fatality cases, making it more difficult to determine if 
the television involved was a CRT or a flat screen.
    In addition to injuries initially treated in hospital EDs, many 
product-related injuries are treated in other medical settings, such as 
physicians' offices, clinics, and ambulatory surgery centers. Some 
injuries also result in direct hospital admission, bypassing the 
hospital ED entirely. The number of CSU-related injuries treated 
outside of hospital EDs can be estimated with the CPSC's Injury Cost 
Model (ICM), which uses empirical relationships between the 
characteristics of injuries (diagnosis and body part) and victims (age 
and sex) initially treated in hospital EDs and the characteristics of 
those initially treated in other settings.
    The ICM estimate of injuries treated outside of hospitals or 
hospital EDs (e.g., in doctors' offices, clinics) is based on data from 
the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). The MEPS is a nationally 
representative survey of the civilian, non-institutionalized population 
that quantifies individuals' use of health services and corresponding 
medical expenditures. To project the number of direct hospital 
admissions that bypass hospital EDs, the ICM uses data from the 
Nationwide Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization 
Project (HCUP-NIS). HCUP is a family of healthcare databases and 
related software tools and products developed through a federal-state-
industry partnership and sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare 
Research and Quality (part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services). The HCUP-NIS provides information annually on approximately 
3 million to 4 million in-patient stays from about 1,000 hospitals.
    Based on the NEISS estimate of 14,900 ED-treated injuries in 2015 
through 2019, the ICM projects approximately 19,300 CSU tip-over 
injuries treated in other settings during the same 5-year period, or an 
average of 3,900 per year. Combining the NEISS estimate of injuries 
treated in hospital EDs with the ICM estimate of medically attended 
injuries treated in other settings brings the estimate of all nonfatal, 
medically attended CSU tip-over injuries to children under the age of 
18 years to 34,100 during the years 2015 through 2019.
    During the same 2015 to 2019 period, there were an estimated 7,000 
adults and seniors that were treated in EDs because of injuries 
received when CSUs tipped over. Although the proposed rule is intended 
to reduce injuries to children, some portion of the injuries to adults 
would probably have been prevented had the CSUs involved met the 
stability requirements of the proposed rule. Based on the NEISS 
estimate of 7,000 injuries to adults treated in EDs, the ICM projects 
that there were 15,700 injuries treated in other medical settings, for 
a total of 22,700 medically attended injuries to adults involving CSU 
tip overs.
    Societal Costs of Deaths and Injuries. To estimate the societal 
costs of CSU-related deaths, staff applied an estimate of the value of 
statistical life (VSL), an estimate used in benefit-cost analysis to 
place a value on reductions in the likelihood of premature deaths. For 
this analysis, staff applied estimates of the VSL developed by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 2018 dollars, the EPA 
estimate of the VSL is about $9.2 million, suggesting the societal cost 
of the fatalities is about $57.0 million annually, if only those deaths 
to children reported not to involve a CRT television are included (6.2 
x $9.2 million). If all deaths are included, the societal costs of the 
fatalities would be $103.0 million annually ($9.2 million x 11.2 deaths 
per year). The societal cost of the adult fatalities would be $16.6 
million a year (1.8 deaths x $9.2 million).
    The societal costs of the nonfatal CSU injuries are quantified with 
the ICM. The ICM is fully integrated with NEISS, and in addition to 
providing estimates of the societal costs of injuries reported through 
NEISS, the ICM also estimates the costs of medically treated injuries 
that are initially treated outside of hospital EDs. The aggregated 
societal cost components provided by the ICM include medical costs, 
work losses, and the intangible costs associated with lost quality of 
life, or pain and suffering.
    Information on the societal costs associated with nonfatal CSU 
injuries to children are presented in Table 2, and

[[Page 6285]]

the societal costs of the nonfatal injuries to adults are presented in 
Table 3. The estimates are the average annual costs for the 5-year 
period from 2015 through 2019. The national estimates of medically 
attended injuries described above are presented in column 2, and 
include not only the 3,000 injuries to children initially treated in 
hospital EDs (1,400 in the case of adults), but also the 3,900 other 
medically attended injuries initially treated outside of hospital EDs 
(3,100 in the case of adults). The estimated injury costs range from 
about $15,015 per injury treated in physicians' offices, to about 
$34,522 for injuries to patients treated and released from a hospital 
ED, to about $323,296 for hospital admitted injuries (averaging the 
costs associated with those admitted from the ED and those admitted to 
the hospital bypassing the ED). The average cost of injuries to adults 
was slightly lower than the average cost of injuries to children: 
$28,344 vs. $31,757. Altogether, the societal costs of nonfatal 
injuries to children involving CSUs averaged $216,747,160 annually, 
from 2015 through 2019. The cost of injuries to adults averaged 
$128,710,471 annually over the same period.

                 Table 2--Average Annual Nonfatal Injury Costs Associated With CSU Tip Overs to Children Under the Age of 18 (2015-2019)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             National                                        Pain and      Average total
                   Place of treatment                        estimate      Medical cost      Work loss       suffering         cost         Total cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor/Clinic...........................................           3,804            $653          $1,521         $12,842         $15,015     $57,112,589
Emergency Department....................................           2,830           2,886           1,767          29,899          34,552      97,786,129
Hospital-Adm Direct.....................................              53          31,157         105,672         160,347         297,176      15,654,763
Hospital-Adm via ED.....................................             139          34,371         116,072         182,813         333,256      46,193,679
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Average.............................................  ..............           2,499           4,753          24,505          31,757  ..............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........................................           6,825      17,057,479      32,438,983     167,250,698  ..............     216,747,160
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSC Injury Cost Model and NEISS cases involving CSU tip overs for the years 2015 through 2019.


               Table 3--Average Annual Nonfatal Injury Costs Associated With CSU Tip Overs to Adults 18 Years of Age and Older (2015-2019)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             National                                        Pain and      Average total
                   Place of treatment                        estimate      Medical cost      Work loss       suffering         cost         Total cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor/Clinic...........................................           3,094            $837          $2,692         $13,800         $17,329     $53,613,046
Emergency Department....................................           1,284           2,519           2,516          21,247          26,281      33,731,304
Hospital-Adm Direct.....................................              37          38,728          72,391         139,589         250,707       9,396,404
Hospital-Adm via ED.....................................             126          40,739          69,784         142,870         253,393      31,969,717
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Average.............................................  ..............           2,734           5,081          20,529          28,344  ..............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...........................................           4,541      12,412,977      23,074,265      93,223,230  ..............     128,710,471
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CPSC Injury Cost Model and NEISS cases involving CSU tip overs for the years 2015 through 2019.

    Potential Benefits of Stability Requirements for CSUs. The proposed 
rule would require that the tip-over moment of a CSU, as determined by 
the method in the proposed standard, exceed the moment that would be 
produced by a 51.2-pound child climbing up a drawer or hanging on a 
door, or a child pulling on drawers and doors of the CSU. The following 
discussion estimates the projected reduction in the societal costs of 
deaths and injuries under the proposed rule.
    Table 4 summarizes the annual societal costs of deaths and injuries 
by age of the victims. Staff used this information to estimate the 
anticipated reduction in the societal costs of injuries that can be 
anticipated if the proposed regulation is finalized. The costs 
associated with fatalities are based on the fatalities known to CPSC 
staff that occurred from 2001 through 2016, and excludes those 
fatalities in which CRT televisions were known to be involved. 
Incidents known to involve a CRT television were excluded for the 
reasons described above, however, cases for which the type of 
television involved could not be determined were included because some 
of these incidents might have involved a flat-screen television. The 
societal costs of nonfatal injuries are based on NEISS cases occurring 
from 2015 through 2019. No adjustment for the potential involvement of 
CRT televisions has been made in the nonfatal estimates for the reasons 
described above.
    Given the multiple real-world factors that contribute to tip overs 
that the proposed rule accounts for, CPSC staff concludes that the 
proposed rule should prevent CSU tip-over incidents caused by children 
climbing up, hanging on, or pulling on drawers and doors of the CSU, 
provided that the child weighs 51.2 pounds or less. The proposed rule 
is also expected to prevent other common, but less severe scenarios 
such as opening drawers without climbing, putting items in and out of 
drawers, or playing in a drawer. CPSC staff believes that the proposed 
rule could prevent virtually all of these tip-over incidents involving 
children who are most at risk and probably many similar incidents 
involving older children and adult victims. The proposed rule would be 
less effective in reducing tip overs in some severe, but less common 
scenarios, such as bouncing and yanking; however, these scenarios were 
not directly observed in the incident data.

[[Page 6286]]



               Table 4--Annual Societal Costs of Injuries and Deaths by Age (Millions of Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Societal cost  Societal costs
         Age (in years)             Fatalities*    Societal cost     Injuries       of nonfatal     of injuries
                                                    fatalities                       injuries       and deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less Than 2.....................             2.4           $22.1           1,039           $29.3           $51.4
2...............................             1.9            17.5           1,498            58.7            76.2
3...............................             1.4            12.9           1,346            43.5            56.4
4...............................             0.1             0.9             980            41.1            42.0
5...............................             0.1             0.9             582            13.9            14.8
6...............................             0.1             0.9             532            13.7            14.6
7...............................             0.1             0.9             172             5.7             6.6
8...............................             0.1             0.9             244             2.9             3.8
9 to 17.........................  ..............  ..............             431             8.1             8.1
Total Children..................             6.2            57.0           6,824           216.9           273.9
18 and Over.....................             1.8            16.6           4,541           128.7           145.3
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................             8.0            73.6          11,366           345.6           419.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Average fatalities per year from 2001 through 2016.
** Average number of medically attended injuries from 2015 through 2019.

    Benefits from Reduced Fatalities. A review of the fatal CSU tip-
over incidents involving children and used in this analysis found that 
all of the victims weighed less than 51.2 pounds. Given staff's 
conclusion that the proposed requirements would prevent nearly all tip 
overs involving children who weigh less than 51.2 pounds, staff 
believes that all of these fatalities could have been prevented if the 
CSUs involved had complied with these requirements. More than 90 
percent of the child fatalities involved children 3 years old or 
younger. The vast majority of children of this age weigh less than 51.2 
pounds. However, there were a few fatalities, an average of about 1 
every other year, to older children who could weigh more than 51.2 
pounds. Therefore, for purposes of projecting the benefits of the 
proposed rule, although staff predicts that almost all fatalities 
involving children 3 years old and younger could be prevented,\112\ 
staff estimates that only about 48 percent of the deaths to children 4 
through 8 years old would be prevented. These calculations are based on 
analysis by the Division of Human Factors staff concerning the 
potential of the proposed rule to prevent tip-over deaths by age. 
Therefore, based on the fatalities between 2001 and 2016, staff 
estimates that, had all CSUs met the requirements of the proposed rule, 
about 94 percent of the deaths to children could have been prevented, 
or an average of 5.8 deaths could have been prevented each year. 
Assuming a VSL of $9.2 million, the benefit of the proposed rule in 
terms of reduced child deaths could be $53.4 million annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Staff assumes that all deaths involving children 2 years 
old and younger would be prevented and about 95 percent of the 
deaths involving 3-year-old children would be prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, there are also an average of 1.8 fatalities to 
adults each year from CSU tip-over incidents. There is less information 
available regarding the tip-over incidents involving adults. Many of 
the available narratives of these incidents suggest that victims were 
losing their balance and grabbed the CSU in an effort to balance 
themselves. Although adults weigh more than 51.2 pounds, because the 
adults were not attempting to climb the CSUs, the full weight of the 
adult victim was probably not on the CSU when the incident occurred. 
Moreover, many of the nonfatal cases involved adults interacting with 
the CSU, by opening drawers, getting items in and out of drawers, or 
leaning on the CSU. In many cases, these scenarios are expected to be 
less or equally severe scenarios, compared to children climbing with 
all drawers filled and opened. Therefore, CPSC staff has concluded that 
a substantial portion of the CSU tip-over incidents involving adults 
would be prevented if the stability of the CSUs was improved. Although 
staff cannot estimate the exact portion of the incidents involving 
adults that would be prevented, for purposes of attempting to quantify 
the benefits of the proposed rule, this analysis assumes that the 
proposed rule would prevent adult tip-over incidents at about one-half 
the rate that it prevents child tip-over incidents. On average, this is 
approximately 0.8 adult fatalities prevented annually or a societal 
benefit of about $7.4 million annually.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Staff estimates that the proposed rule could prevent about 
94 percent of the fatalities involving children (5.5 deaths 
prevented/6.2 total deaths). If the proposed rule prevents adult 
fatalities at one-half this rate, then about 47 percent of the 1.8 
annual deaths to adults might be prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Together, the potential benefits of the proposed rule from reducing 
fatal tip-over incidents to both adults and children is estimated to be 
$60.8 million annually, if all CSUs were to comply with the 
requirements. This consists of an estimated $53.4 million from reducing 
approximately 5.8 child fatalities a year and $7.4 million from 
reducing an average of 0.8 adult fatalities a year. Staff emphasizes 
that the annual benefits would not actually reach this level until most 
CSUs in use meet the requirements of the proposed rule. Using the 
historical sales estimates and an estimated average product life of 15 
years, CPSC staff estimates that about 463.5 million CSUs were in use 
in 2017 and 466 million CSUs were in use in 2018. Given that staff 
estimates there are approximately 460 million CSUs in use, annual sales 
are about 44 million units, and the average useful life of CSUs is 15 
years, it would likely be more than 10 years after such a requirement 
goes into effect before the annual benefits approach this level.
    Benefits from Reduced Injuries. To evaluate the effectiveness of 
the proposed rule in reducing nonfatal injuries, CPSC staff examined 
1,463 NEISS records to determine what the child was doing when the tip-
over incident occurred. In 925 incidents, it was not possible to 
determine the interaction involved in the incident. The remaining 538 
incidents were reviewed to determine whether it was likely that the 
proposed rule would have prevented the incident. A summary of staff's 
conclusions regarding these incidents is available in Tab H of the NPR 
briefing package (Table 3), but the following provides key insights.

[[Page 6287]]

    Most of the incidents involved a child climbing the CSU--this 
interaction accounted for 412 incidents (74 percent). Because the 
proposed rule is intended to prevent furniture tip overs involving 
children 51.2 pounds or less climbing on CSUs, staff assumed that all 
of these incidents would be prevented if the victim weighed less than 
51.2 pounds. The NEISS record does not include the weight of the 
victim, so staff used the age of the victims and data on the 
distribution of weight by age and sex to estimate the number of 
incidents that the proposed rule might have prevented.
    Staff assumed that all incidents involving children 2 years old and 
younger that involved climbing a CSU would have been prevented by the 
proposed rule because the 95th percentile weight for boys is only about 
75 percent of 51.2 pounds. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that 
virtually all children 2 years old and younger weigh less than 51.2 
pounds and would be protected by the proposed rule. For 3-year-old 
children, the 95th percentile weight for boys is 51.2 pounds, which 
means that an estimated 5 percent of 3-year-old boys weigh more than 
51.2 pounds and might not be protected by the proposed rule. To account 
for this, staff assumed that only 95 percent of the incidents involving 
3-year-old children would have been prevented by the proposed rule. For 
4-year-old children, based on the percentile weights from the CDC, the 
90th percentile weight for boys is 49.1 pounds and the 95th percentile 
weight is greater than 51.2 pounds. For 4-year-old girls, the 95th 
percentile weight is 50.1 pounds. Based on these percentile weights, 
staff assumed that 92.5 percent of the climbing-related incidents 
involving 4-year-old children would have been prevented. Staff followed 
the same procedure to estimate the percentage of incidents to children 
ages 5 years through 8 years. For example, for children 6 years old, 
the 75th percentile weight for both boys and girls is greater than 51.2 
pounds. The 50th percentile weights for boys and girls are 50.3 and 
48.6 pounds, respectively. Based on these weights, staff estimated that 
the proposed rule would have prevented 50 percent of the climbing 
incidents that involved 6-year-old children. Based on the percentile 
weights from the CDC, virtually all children 9 years old and older 
would be expected to weigh more than 51.2 pounds. Therefore, staff 
cannot be confident that any of the climbing incidents involving 
children older than 8 years would have been prevented by the proposed 
rule.
    Another 49 tip-over incidents involved children who were reaching 
into the CSU, or placing items in, or retrieving items from, the CSU. 
In a few cases, the victim was playing in the bottom drawer of the CSU, 
or was hit by the CSU when it tipped over. None of these scenarios 
would be expected to cause as much rotational force on a CSU as 
climbing a CSU. Staff believes that CSUs that meet the requirements of 
the proposed rule, which is intended to prevent tip overs in more 
severe circumstances, would not tip over in these incidents. Therefore, 
staff believes that all of these incidents would have been prevented by 
the proposed rule.
    A total of 58 incidents involved children pulling on the CSU, or 
opening drawers. Staff analyzed these incidents based on children's 
pull strength ability and determined that 62 percent of these incidents 
would be prevented by the proposed rule.
    Finally, there were 19 incidents that involved activities such as 
the victim ``swinging'' on the CSU, jumping from the CSU, and being on 
top of the CSU. Based on staff's analysis, staff assumed that 47 
percent of these incidents would be prevented by the proposed rule.
    Staff considered 22 incidents in which some ``other person'' caused 
the tip over as part of the unknown scenarios, because details on 
``other person'' are not available to make an estimate.
    In total, staff believes that the proposed rule would have 
prevented about 87 percent of NEISS tip-over injuries involving 
children 17 years of age and under, including about 91 percent of the 
tip-over incidents involving children climbing on CSUs. As Table 2 in 
Tab H of the NPR briefing package indicates, the average annual 
societal cost of nonfatal injuries to children from CSU tip-over 
incidents is about $216.9 million. If the proposed rule can prevent 87 
percent of these injuries, the annual benefit from the reduction of 
nonfatal injuries to children would be $188.7 million.
    As with the adult fatality victims, there is less information 
available on the activities of the adult victims in the nonfatal 
incidents. In many cases, the narrative in the NEISS record simply 
contains a statement such as ``dresser fell onto hand,'' with no 
description of the interaction. Some narratives indicate that the 
victim might have grabbed onto the CSU for balance, was falling and hit 
the CSU, or may have been attempting to move the CSU. Staff also 
assumes that some CSUs tipped over when the adult was opening drawers 
to place items in or remove items from the unit, given that these 
interactions were in some incidents involving children. Given the very 
limited information on the activities of the adult victims at the time 
of the tip-over incident, staff does not have a basis for making strong 
estimates of the number of incidents that would have been prevented by 
the proposed rule. However, it is reasonable to expect that a rule that 
requires CSUs to be more stable would reduce nonfatal injuries to 
adults. In this analysis, staff assumes that nonfatal incidents 
involving adults would be reduced by half the percentage that nonfatal 
incidents to children would be reduced. Because staff believes that the 
proposed rule will reduce nonfatal tip-over injuries to children by 87 
percent, staff assumes that nonfatal adult tip-over injuries will 
decline by 43.5 percent. Because the average annual societal cost of 
nonfatal tip-over injuries to adults is estimated to be $128.7, if all 
CSUs comply with the proposed rule, the societal cost of the injuries 
would be reduced by $56.0 million annually.
    Summary of Expected Benefits. In summary, if the proposed rule is 
finalized, once all CSUs in use comply with the requirements, staff 
expects that there will be virtually no fatal tip-over injuries to 
children 8 years old and under and fatal injuries to adults will be 
reduced by one half. Staff expects nonfatal injuries to children to be 
reduced by 83 percent and nonfatal injuries to adults to be reduced by 
41.5 percent. The total reduction in societal costs (or benefit from 
the proposed rule) would be $305.5 million annually and is summarized 
in Table 5.

                                  Table 5--Summary of Expected Annual Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Current annual      Current        Expected        Expected
                   Description                       number of     societal cost   reduction in   annual benefit
                                                     incidents      (millions)       incidents      (millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child Fatalities................................             6.2           $57.0             5.8           $53.4
Adult Fatalities................................             1.8            16.6             0.8             7.4

[[Page 6288]]

 
Non-Fatal Child Injuries........................           6,824           216.9           5,937           188.7
Non-Fatal Adult Injuries........................           4,541           128.7           1,975            56.0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................  ..............           419.2  ..............           305.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefits Per CSU in Use. Generally, it is useful to discuss the 
benefits of a rule on a per-unit basis. This facilitates the comparison 
of the benefits of a rule to the costs when the costs are also 
expressed on a per-unit basis. To calculate the benefits of a standard 
on a per-unit basis, staff divided the estimated annual benefit by the 
number of units in use during the year. The result is the benefit per 
unit per year. The present values of expected annual benefits over the 
expected life of the product are summed to obtain the per-unit benefit. 
In general, this should include only those injuries that occurred on 
products that do not meet the requirements of the standard, and divide 
that number by the units in use that do not meet the standard. In this 
analysis, however, given that staff has only identified one CSU that 
would meet the requirements of the proposed rule without some 
modifications, staff assumes that all injuries and deaths to children 
occurred with CSUs that did not meet the requirements of the proposed 
rule.
    Staff estimates that there were 463.5 million CSUs in use in 2017, 
which because staff is using the NEISS data from 2015 through 2019 to 
calculate the societal cost of injuries, this is approximately the 
average number of CSUs in use during the period. Using these estimates, 
the estimated annual benefit per unit of the proposed rule would be 
$0.66. As noted, staff has assumed that the average product life of a 
CSU is 15 years. However, this includes the generally less expensive 
ready-to-assemble (RTA) CSUs that might have expected useful lives that 
are less than 15 years and the generally more expensive factory-
assembled CSUs that could have expected lives greater than 15 years. 
Assuming the average CSU has a product life of 15 years, benefit per 
unit of the proposed rule is the present value of the annual benefits 
per unit summed over the expected 15-year life of a CSU. Table 6 gives 
the estimated benefits per unit of the proposed rule using the 3 
percent and 7 percent discount rates recommended by the Office of 
Management and Budget in Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sep. 17, 
2003). However, because interest rates have declined significantly 
since Circular A-4 was issued in 2003, staff also included the 
undiscounted values. As shown in Table 6, the benefits per unit of the 
proposed rule range from $6.01 to $9.90, depending on the discount rate 
considered appropriate.

               Table 6--Benefits per Unit by Discount Rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Benefit/unit
                                          Annual benefit/  over the 15-
              Discount rate                    unit        year life of
                                                              the CSU
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted............................           $0.66           $9.90
3 Percent...............................            0.66            7.88
7 Percent...............................            0.66            6.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule. This section discusses the 
costs the proposed rule would impose on society. The costs include the 
costs that would be incurred to redesign and modify CSUs so that they 
meet the requirements of each of the standards. These costs include the 
increased cost to manufacture and distribute compliant CSUs. The costs 
also include the costs and impacts on consumers. These include the cost 
of additional time to assemble RTA furniture and the loss of utility if 
certain desired characteristics or styles are no longer available, or 
if compliant CSUs are less convenient to use. The costs of designing, 
manufacturing, and distributing compliant CSUs would be initially 
incurred by the manufacturers and suppliers, but most of these costs 
would likely be passed on to the consumers via higher prices. The costs 
involving the added assembly time for RTA CSUs or the loss of utility 
because CSUs with certain features or characteristics are no longer 
available would be borne directly by those consumers who desired CSUs 
with those characteristics or features.
    To ensure that they comply with a mandatory standard, furniture 
manufacturers must first determine whether their models comply with the 
standard. This would involve testing their models for compliance. 
Because a voluntary standard exists, with which staff believes that 
most CSUs on the market already comply, most manufacturers are probably 
already conducting stability testing similar to the testing in the 
proposed rule. Manufacturers would replace their current test methods 
with the requirements of the proposed rule. Even though the new tests 
would include additional steps (e.g., weighting drawers, pull tests on 
interlock mechanisms, and testing the CSU on a 1.5-degree angle), on a 
per-unit basis, any increase in the cost of testing due to the proposed 
rule is likely to be very small, and therefore, the cost of compliance 
testing will not be considered further in this analysis. Manufacturers 
would also need to add a stability rating to a hang tag that would be 
included on each CSU, which would be derived from the testing. Staff 
expects that the cost of deriving the stability rating and adding the 
hang tag to each unit would also be small on a per-unit basis and will 
not be considered further in this analysis.
    Additionally, the cost of providing the certificates of conformity 
would be very low on a per-unit basis. In the case of

[[Page 6289]]

CSUs that are children's products, which are thought to constitute a 
very small portion of the market for CSUs, the cost of the 
certification testing could be somewhat higher because an accredited 
third-party testing laboratory would be required to conduct the 
certification testing.
    The number of CSU models currently on the market that would comply 
with the requirements of the proposed rule is very low. CPSC staff 
collected and examined 186 CSU models intended to be a representative 
sample of the available CSUs, and only identified one model that would 
meet the requirements of the proposed rule without modification. For 
each model that does not comply with a mandatory standard, 
manufacturers must decide whether to stop offering that model or modify 
the model so that it would comply with the standard. If the 
manufacturer ceases to offer a noncomplying model, the cost of this 
decision would be the lost utility to the consumer. This cost cannot be 
quantified, but it would be mitigated to the extent that other CSUs 
with similar characteristics and features are available that comply 
with the standard.
    Costs of Potential Modifications to Increase CSU Stability.\114\ 
CPSC staff tested and analyzed CSUs to identify several ways units 
could be modified to increase their stability.\115\ The modifications 
staff assessed were: (1) Adding drawer interlock mechanisms to limit 
the number of drawers that can be opened at one time; (2) reducing the 
maximum drawer extensions; (3) extending the feet or front edge of the 
CSU forward; (4) raising the front of the unit; and (5) adding 
additional counterweight to the CSU. Manufacturers can use combinations 
of more than one method to increase the stability of a single CSU 
model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Tab D of the NPR briefing package discusses staff's 
testing and analysis of potential modifications to CSUs to improve 
stability and comply with the proposed rule.
    \115\ The purpose of this testing was to assess options 
manufacturers would have for modifying CSUs to meet the performance 
requirements in the proposed rule; none of these potential 
modifications would be requirements. Some of these modifications 
could be applied to existing CSUs without extensive design changes. 
Staff did not evaluate structural design changes, such as increasing 
the depth of the CSU or using lighter materials for drawers because 
staff could not easily modify existing CSUs to implement these 
changes. However, such design modifications could also help increase 
the stability of CSUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One potential modification staff evaluated was drawer interlock 
systems. A drawer interlock system prevents multiple drawers from being 
open simultaneously. Typically, an interlock allows one drawer in a 
column of drawers to be open at a time, while locking or blocking the 
other drawers from opening, although some interlock systems allow more 
than one drawer to open at a time. Interlock systems are common in file 
cabinets, and they are included in some CSUs. An interlock system can 
improve the stability of a CSU because a CSU is less stable as more of 
the drawers are opened, causing the weight of the CSU to move forward. 
By preventing multiple drawers from opening, the CG of the drawers 
remains behind the tip point and shifts the CSU's CG back, improving 
its stability.
    Based on staff's testing, a drawer interlock system is one of the 
most effective options to improve stability, raising the tip-over 
moment of the CSU more than any other modification that staff 
evaluated. Interlocks were particularly effective at improving 
instability when paired with other modifications. However, the benefit 
of interlocks assumes that they are effective and cannot be bypassed.
    The cost of a drawer interlock mechanism includes the cost of 
design, materials, and labor required to manufacture the mechanism. It 
would also include the cost of warehousing the parts, the logistics 
involved in getting the parts to the factory floor, and the cost of 
incorporating the mechanism into the CSU. In the case of an RTA CSU, 
some of these costs could fall directly on the consumer. The value of 
the extra time that might be required of a consumer to assemble a CSU 
with a drawer interlock is another cost of adding a drawer interlock 
mechanism. Based on information provided by a manufacturer, the cost of 
adding a drawer interlock mechanism to a CSU would be around $12. On 
the assumption that a manufacturer does not have an incentive to 
provide CPSC with a low estimate, in this analysis, staff are assuming 
that this could be a high estimate. Nevertheless, if adding an 
interlock mechanism requires an additional 5 minutes in labor time to 
assemble the mechanism and incorporate it into the CSU, then the cost 
could be $3.34 in labor costs alone. Considering the added cost of 
materials and the fact that some CSUs could require two mechanisms, or 
may need new mechanisms to meet their particular needs, a minimum cost 
for adding a single interlock mechanism could be $6.00.\116\ The cost 
could be $12 or more, especially if more than one mechanism were 
required, or a new design were required.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Staff does not have direct estimates of the additional 
labor time that would be required to manufacture and add one or two 
interlock mechanisms to a CSU, but 5 minutes seems like a reasonably 
low estimate, if much of the work is manual. The cost of 5 minutes 
of labor is based on the total employer cost for employee 
compensation for private industry manufacturing workers in goods 
producing industries, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(December 2020).
    \117\ One manufacturer estimated that an interlocking drawer 
could add $12 to the cost of a CSU and increase the retail price by 
as much as $39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another potential modification is to reduce the travel length of 
drawer extensions, such as with new drawer slides. Reducing the drawer 
travel decreases the moment arm, which increases stability. When 
comparing two drawers on the same unit, the force required to tip over 
the CSU is more for drawers with shorter extensions.
    The manufacturing costs of reducing the maximum drawer extensions 
is low because it does not necessarily require additional parts or 
labor time. Perhaps the largest cost is the potential impact on 
consumer utility if it is less convenient to use CSUs with drawers that 
cannot open as widely. Staff cannot quantify this cost with the 
information available.
    Another potential modification is to extend the front feet of the 
CSU forward to extend the fulcrum towards the edge of the drawer. This 
could be done by extending the front feet forward with an attachment or 
replacement foot, or by attaching a platform to the bottom of the CSU. 
However, based on staff's testing, for CSUs with poor stability, the 
extension or platform may need to be long enough that it could 
introduce a tripping hazard.
    The cost of extending the feet or the front edge of the CSU forward 
can be very low. In some cases, no additional parts would be required, 
and the only cost would be the time it takes for the manufacturer to 
make the change in the manufacturing procedure. This would be the case 
where already-present feet or glides are simply shifted forward an inch 
or so. In these cases, the cost of shifting the front edge forward 
could be less than $1 per unit. In other cases, feet might need to be 
added or redesigned. If these feet or glides could be used on multiple 
CSU models, the costs could be up to $5 per CSU unit.\118\ The cost of 
adding a base to the unit could be more expensive. In addition to the 
cost of the materials, there would be manufacturing costs to form the 
material used for the base and attach it to the unit. For RTA 
manufacturers, adding a base could involve additional costs to redesign 
the shipping packages to accommodate the base, and could impact the 
shipping

[[Page 6290]]

costs. This could add costs significantly over the $1 to $5 estimated 
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ Cost based on observed prices for furniture feet available 
on the internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another potential option is to raise the front of the CSU to tilt 
the unit back, thereby making it less likely to tip forward. Tilting 
the CSU and drawers back increases the distance from the CSU CG 
location to the fulcrum, and reduces the distance from the fulcrum to 
the location where the tip force is applied to the CSU. Several 
existing CSU designs have adjustable front feet to allow for these 
level adjustments. Currently, manufacturers typically instruct 
consumers to adjust the feet as necessary to become level on an unlevel 
surface. Manufacturers could instruct consumers to tilt the CSU back 
further on carpet, or other surfaces, such that the CSU is not level, 
but has more resistance to tipping forward. Similar outcomes could be 
achieved by replacing the front legs with longer legs, or placing an 
object under them.
    However, there are potential issues with this option. While raising 
the front feet makes tipping the CSU forward more difficult, it also 
makes tipping the CSU backward less difficult. Additionally, any manual 
foot adjustment system requires action by consumers to determine the 
appropriate level, and it risks the CSU not being used as intended by 
the manufacturer. Raised front legs also may not be practical on CSUs 
that are intended to have a level top surface.
    According to one manufacturer, leveling devices could cost $5 per 
CSU. Observed retail prices for leveling devices can be as little as 30 
cents each (at least two would be required for a CSU). If the front of 
a CSU must be raised a significant amount, other changes might be 
required to the CSU to keep the top and drawers of the CSU relatively 
level. The full cost of such changes cannot be quantified with the 
information available.
    The final potential modification staff evaluated was adding 
additional weight to the CSU. Currently, the back of many CSUs is a 
thin sheet of fiberboard or other light material. A heavier material 
could be substituted. Alternatively, manufacturers could add weights to 
the back or other sections of the CSU to increase stability. Depending 
on the amount of weight added, there could be an unquantifiable cost to 
consumers, due to the added weight that they must manage in assembling 
and moving the CSU. Based on retail prices observed on July 2, 2020, 
medium-density fiberboard costs approximately $0.24 per pound, which is 
a starting point for estimating the additional cost of adding weight to 
the back of a CSU.\119\ If the additional weight required is low, it 
could be the only additional cost, because the heavier material would 
replace a lighter material, and the manufacturing process would require 
minimal changes. In the case where the added weight that would be 
required is significant, the costs could be higher, because attaching 
the back to the CSU could require different hardware, the reinforcement 
of the sides of the CSU, or different manufacturing procedures might be 
required to manipulate the heavier weight (e.g., an additional worker 
or machine to handle the heavier board). In the case of RTA furniture, 
the cost of packaging and shipping could increase, and there would be 
an unquantifiable cost to the consumer in the form of the need to 
handle more weight. Potentially, manufacturers could offset the 
additional weight by using lower-density or thinner materials for other 
components, such as drawer fronts or cabinet tops. The Commission 
requests comments on the cost and other impacts of adding weight to the 
rear of the CSU to meet the requirements of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Furniture manufacturers presumably would be able to obtain 
materials at less than retail prices. However, staff used retail 
prices in this analysis because, as noted above, there would be 
costs involved, for which staff does not have estimates, in forming 
and handling the heavier material. In the absence of estimates for 
these costs, staff believes that using the retail prices would 
provide a better estimate of the cost to manufacturers of using 
heavier materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual Cost of the Proposed Rule. Of the potential modifications 
for which staff was able to estimate the potential cost, the lowest 
costs were about $5.80 per unit. Several were significantly higher. 
Even assuming the low cost of about $5.80 per unit, assuming annual 
sales of at least 43 million units, the annual cost of the proposed 
rule would be around $250 million.
    Other Impacts on Consumers. The costs discussed above are the costs 
to manufacture CSUs that could comply with the proposed rule. Even 
where staff has used retail prices to estimate the costs, the retail 
price was used in an attempt to capture other costs that would be 
incurred by manufacturers, including the logistics of acquiring the 
parts, getting them to the factory floor, and the labor involved in 
installing them; or in the case of RTA CSUs, the costs of packaging the 
added parts and the cost to consumers, in time and trouble, of 
installing the added parts. The change in retail prices due to these 
costs could be greater if manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers add 
a markup to their costs. Markups can vary among manufacturers and 
subsets of the market, but can be 2 to 4 times the cost to the 
manufacturer. However, it is not certain that the retail prices would 
increase from the proposed rule by the same factor. It is possible that 
competition among manufacturers and different models could prevent 
retail prices from rising by the usual mark-up over cost.
    Some manufacturers may withdraw some CSU models from the market if 
the cost or difficulty of modifying the models to meet the requirements 
of the proposed rule are too great in relation to their expected sales. 
For a small and light CSU, the modifications required could be so 
substantial that the model no longer has the character of the original 
model and is simply withdrawn from the market. Consumers who desired 
those particular models would suffer an unquantifiable loss, which is 
mitigated to the extent that other CSUs exist that are reasonable 
substitutes. If the CSU models that are withdrawn are 
disproportionately the lower-cost models, which are likely to include 
many lighter and RTA models, the proposed rule could disproportionately 
impact lower-income consumers or those seeking low-cost models. These 
consumers might keep using their older, non-compliant CSUs, purchase a 
previously owned CSU, or even choose other products for clothes storage 
in place of CSUs, such as shelving, boxes, or storage bins. Although 
these impacts would be costs associated with the proposed rule, they 
are not quantifiable.
    General Conclusions. Staff found that the societal costs of deaths 
and injuries from CSU tip-over incidents is about $419.2 million 
annually. This includes injuries to children and adults and is based on 
known fatalities from 2001 through 2016, and NEISS injuries from 2015 
through 2019. If all CSUs had met the requirements of the proposed 
rule, however, the societal cost of these incidents would have been 
reduced by $305.5 million annually. This then would be the estimated 
benefit of the proposed rule. On a per-CSU-in-use basis, the benefit 
estimate is $0.66 cents per unit annually. Assuming CSUs have an 
expected useful life of 15 years, the average benefit of the proposed 
rule would be $6.01 per unit, assuming a 7 percent discount rate, $7.88 
assuming a 3 percent discount rate, and $9.90 without discounting.
    The costs of the proposed rule highly depend on the actual 
modifications that are required for CSUs to comply with the rule. The 
costs would be higher for some models than for others. In some cases, 
the required modifications could change the character of a CSU model to

[[Page 6291]]

the extent that it is not viable and will be withdrawn from the market.
    In its analysis, staff used the cost to modify existing CSUs in 
ways that would allow them to comply with the proposed rule as a 
measure of the cost of manufacturing CSUs that would comply with the 
proposed rule. The estimates used in the analysis are reasonable 
approximations of the costs involved, but in some instances, they could 
be underestimates because they do not include all of the expected 
monetary costs (e.g., the costs that would be associated with an 
interlock system that has not yet been developed), and they do not 
consider the nonmonetary cost to consumers of the added weight, the 
decreased maximum drawer extensions, or similar losses associated with 
the other modifications. Potentially, there could be lower cost options 
for modifying CSUs to meet the requirements not considered in the 
analysis. CPSC welcomes comments on any other potential options for 
modifying or manufacturing CSUs to meet the requirements of the 
proposed rule.
    Sensitivity Analysis. Staff's analysis depends on certain estimates 
and assumptions. In conducting the analysis, staff used values that it 
believed best reflected reality. However, in many cases, the basis was 
weak or lacked strong empirical evidence. To address this, staff 
examined how other reasonable assumptions could affect the results of 
the analysis. A description of staff's sensitivity analysis is 
available in Tab H of the NPR briefing package.

B. Reasons for Not Relying on a Voluntary Standard

    No standard, or statement of intention to modify or develop a 
standard, was submitted to the Commission in response to the ANPR. 
However, staff did evaluate existing standards relevant to CSU tip 
overs and determined that these standards would not adequately reduce 
the risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs because they do not 
account for the real-world factors staff identified in CSU tip-over 
incidents that contribute to instability, including multiple open and 
filled drawers, children's interactions with the CSU (such as climbing 
and opening drawers), or carpeting. A detailed discussion of these 
standards, and why staff considers them inadequate, is in section V. 
Relevant Existing Standards.
    With respect to the primary standard in the United States that 
addresses CSU tip overs--ASTM F2057--CPSC staff has worked with ASTM on 
this standard since its inception in 2000, but has not been successful, 
to date, in revising the standard to account for the relevant factors. 
For these reasons, the Commission is not relying on an existing 
standard.

C. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    CPSC considered several alternatives to the proposed rule. These 
alternatives, their potential costs and benefits, and the reasons CPSC 
did not select them, are described in detail in section XI. 
Alternatives to the Proposed Rule, below, and Tab H of the NPR briefing 
package.

X. Response to Comments 120
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ For more details about the comments CPSC received on the 
ANPR, and CPSC's response to them, see Tab K of the NPR briefing 
package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section describes the comments CPSC received on the ANPR, and 
responds to them. CPSC received 18 comments during the ANPR comment 
period, as well as 5 additional correspondences after the comment 
period, which staff also considered. The comments are available on: 
www.regulations.gov, by searching under docket number CPSC-2017-0044.

A. Voluntary Standards

    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for ASTM F2057 and 
felt the voluntary standard process would create a robust standard. 
Other commenters stated that a mandatory standard is necessary to 
address the hazard, citing incident data and numerous flaws with ASTM 
F2057 and ASTM F3096.
    Response: ASTM F2057 does not account for forces associated with 
the weight of clothing in filled drawers, the impact of multiple open 
and filled drawers, children's interactions with CSUs (such as 
climbing), or CSUs placed on carpet, all of which contribute to 
instability. Incident reports show that incidents often combine these 
variables (e.g., a child opening multiple filled drawers and climbing, 
or a child standing on an open drawer of a unit placed on carpet). The 
UMTRI child climbing study shows that children climbing can impart 
rotational forces (tip moments) on CSUs beyond the forces of the 
child's weight alone. CPSC staff has worked closely with the ASTM 
F15.42 committee to improve the voluntary standard; staff has attempted 
and continues to attempt to help revise the ASTM standard to reflect 
these additional factors that contribute to instability, but, to date, 
has been unsuccessful.
    The proposed rule focuses on inherent stability of CSUs, rather 
than tip restraints, because the current rate of tip restraint use is 
low, and staff has identified several factors that make it unlikely 
that consumers will use tip restraints. Given this, staff did not 
evaluate ASTM F3096 in detail for this proposed rule because, even if 
it was effective at ensuring the strength of tip restraints, low rates 
of consumer use make tip restraints an ineffective way to address the 
hazard. However, based on a limited review of ASTM F3096, staff shares 
the commenters' concerns that ASTM F3096-14 may not be adequate 
because: (1) The assumed forces may be too low to represent forces from 
children's interactions, and (2) the standard does not address the 
whole tip-restraint system, which includes the connection to the CSU 
and the connection to the wall.
    Comments: Some commenters provided test data regarding compliance 
with ASTM F2057, or commented on these reports. One commenter submitted 
data sets indicating that about 20 to 23 percent of the CSUs it tested 
did not comply with the voluntary standard.\121\ Another commenter's 
report contained test data for dressers and chests, indicating that 
more than half of the tested units did not comply with the voluntary 
standard.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ This testing assessed compliance with then-current ASTM 
F2057-17. ASTM F2057-17 included the same stability requirements as 
ASTM F2057-19, except that F2057-17 applied to units more than 30 
inches in height; whereas, F2057-19 applies to units 27 inches or 
taller. Some of the tested units were 27 to 30 inches tall.
    \122\ This testing assessed compliance with ASTM F2057-14. ASTM 
F2057-14 included the same stability requirements as ASTM F2057-19, 
except that F2057-14 applied to units more than 30 inches in height; 
whereas, F2057-19 applies to units 27 inches or taller. One of the 
tested units was 27 to 30 inches tall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: CPSC staff conducted a market survey of 188 CSUs 
purchased in 2018 and found that 91 percent met the stability 
requirements in ASTM F2057-17, which has the same stability 
requirements and test methods as F2057-19 (Tab N of the NPR briefing 
package). Since publication of the ANPR, CPSC has issued 20 recalls for 
CSUs that did not comply with the ASTM F2057 stability requirements. 
However, regardless of compliance levels, CPSC considers ASTM F2057-19 
inadequate to address the hazard of CSU tip overs.

B. Hazard Communication: Warnings and Public Awareness

    Comments: Several commenters supported the use of hazard 
communication, including the labeling requirement in ASTM F2057, 
displaying the warning as a handout at furniture stores, and mandating 
labeling

[[Page 6292]]

provisions that are ``effective, seen, understood, reflect real world 
use,'' and ``accurately and clearly describe hazard patterns.'' One 
commenter advocated for education campaigns to educate parents about 
the hazard and promote the use of tip restraints. Other commenters 
indicated that warning labels and education campaigns are insufficient 
to address the hazard because children do not comprehend warning 
labels; incidents occur when children are unattended (e.g., while left 
alone to nap); and renters may not be allowed to anchor products.
    Response: Warnings, on their own, are unlikely to adequately 
address the hazard because they are unlikely to prevent a child from 
opening multiple drawers or climbing on a CSU, and consumers are 
unlikely to heed warnings, including warnings to anchor CSUs. 
Nevertheless, warning labels may have some benefit. Accordingly, the 
proposed rule requires a warning label on CSUs to inform consumers 
about the tip-over hazard; encourage the use of tip restraints as a 
secondary safety mechanism; and provide other safety information. The 
proposed warning label requirement addresses the child climbing hazard, 
tip restraint use, interlocks (if the product includes them), drawer 
loading (place the heaviest items in the lowest drawers), and CSU use 
with a television.
    In addition, the proposed rule requires a hang tag label to provide 
consumers with meaningful information on the stability of a particular 
CSU, using a graphical representation of tip-over resistance, combined 
with an icon and text explanation, to allow consumers to make more 
informed purchasing decisions. This hang tag would provide a rating of 
the stability of the specific CSU that consumers could use to compare 
CSUs.
    CPSC staff agrees that education campaigns could increase consumer 
knowledge of the CSU tip-over hazard and increase rates of anchoring. 
In June 2015, the Commission launched the Anchor It! campaign to 
educate consumers about the risk of injury or death from furniture, 
television, and appliance tip overs, and to promote the use of tip 
restraints to anchor furniture and televisions. However, educational 
campaigns, alone, have not adequately reduced the CSU tip-over hazard. 
As incident data demonstrates, there has not been a statistically 
significant decline in CSU tip-over incidents without televisions while 
these efforts have been in place. In addition, CPSC commissioned a 
study to assess consumer awareness, recognition, and behavior change as 
a result of the Anchor It! Campaign. The 2020 report providing the 
results of this study indicates that the survey included 600 parents 
and caregivers of children 5 years old or younger and showed that only 
55 percent of participants reported ever having anchored furniture.

C. Scope and Definitions

    Comments: Comments about the scope of a rule varied. Several 
commenters suggested including in the scope furniture less than 30 
inches in height, and others supported limiting the scope to furniture 
more than 30 inches in height. One commenter recommended limiting the 
scope of a rule to chests, bureaus, and dressers, because the CPSC 
annual tip-over and instability reports indicate that most incidents 
involve those products. One commenter recommended covering 
``freestanding chests, bureaus & dressers intended for clothing storage 
in a bedroom, with height dimensions over 30 inches (762 mm), 
consisting of a solid top and side panels and containing at least one 
drawer,'' and suggested definitions for chests, bureaus, and dressers.
    Response: In August 2019, ASTM published F2057-19, which revised 
the scope from including CSUs above 30 inches in height, to including 
CSUs equal to or above 27 inches in height. This change was based on 
incidents involving units 30 inches in height and under, including a 
fatal incident with a 27.5-inch-high unit. However, CPSC is aware of 
products that are marketed as CSUs and are under 27 inches high, and is 
aware of a fatal incident involving a 24-inch-high CSU with a 
television. On balance, staff considers it reasonable to include in the 
scope CSUs that are 27-inches high or more, and seeks comments on this 
issue.
    Although most CSU tip-over incidents involve chests, bureaus, and 
dressers, additional furniture items, with the same/similar design and 
function as chests, bureaus, and dressers present the same hazard 
because the tip-over hazard relates to the design and use of the 
products. Similar products include wardrobes and armoires, as well as 
other products that consumers commonly recognize as CSUs, regardless of 
marketing. The FMG study (Tab Q of the NPR briefing package) indicates 
that consumers consider a variety of products suitable for use as CSUs. 
The ASTM F2057 definition of CSUs may exclude items that consumers use 
as CSUs. For this reason, the scope of the proposed rule uses criteria 
to distinguish between in-scope and out-of-scope products.

D. Test Parameters

    Comments: Several commenters recommended using a test weight of at 
least 60 pounds to address children younger than 6 years old. 
Commenters noted that covering children up to 6 years old would be 
consistent with the age and weight of victims in incidents and account 
for developmentally expected behaviors for children that age that are 
associated with incidents (e.g., climbing). Several comments also noted 
that victims as old as 8 years have been killed by falling furniture. 
One commenter urged CPSC to consider the 90th percentile child at their 
6th and 8th birthdays ``to better understand the risks posed to 
children older than 5.'' One commenter supported the ASTM test weight 
of 50 pounds, stating: ``the most at-risk age group are children 1 to 4 
years old'' and the 50-pound test weight ``appropriately reflects the 
age and weight of the most at-risk children based on the reported IDI 
data.''
    Response: Staff agrees that the 50-pound test weight in ASTM F2057 
is inadequate; however, the data and staff's assessment have evolved 
since the ANPR. The ANPR discussed increasing the test weight to 60 
pounds to represent the weight of ``children up to and including age 
five,'' which is the age group that ASTM F2057 aims to cover. After the 
ANPR, staff worked with the F15.42 Furniture Subcommittee to provide 
evidence to increase the test weight to 60 pounds, based on updated 
95th percentile weight data. ASTM balloted the weight increase, but it 
did not pass. The primary data source for the 60-pound weight 
recommendation was the 2000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC) Growth Charts.\123\ In the updated 2021 CDC Anthropometric 
Reference, children's weights tend to be higher than those in the 2000 
CDC Growth Charts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Sixty pounds is the approximate 95th percentile weight of 
a 72-month-old male or 72-month-old female (the 95th percentile 
weight of a child just before his or her 6th birthday).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the ANPR, the UMTRI child climbing study (Tab R of the NPR 
briefing package) quantified forces and moments children generate when 
interacting with a simulated CSU. Staff focused on the ascent forces 
because CSU tip-over incident data indicates that children climbing 
CSUs is the most common hazard scenario in these incidents, and ascent 
is an integral climbing interaction. For the ascent interaction and an 
average drawer extension,\124\ staff determined that a 50-

[[Page 6293]]

pound child climbing could exert forces equivalent to those from an 80-
pound test weight on the face of a drawer opened 12 inches. These 
results show that the 50-pound test weight in F2057 or even a 60-pound 
test weight would be inadequate to replicate the forces of a 50-pound 
child climbing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ The average drawer extension was 9.75 inches, for the 
purpose of this estimate, this extension was assumed to be the same 
as the distance of the extended drawer to the fulcrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this NPR, staff also evaluated the ages and weights of children 
in CSU tip-over incidents. Most tip-over incidents involving children 
and CSUs without televisions involve 1, 2, and 3-year-old children. 
These are also the ages of children who are most involved in climbing 
incidents (the dominant hazard pattern). The 95th percentile weight of 
3-year-old children is 51.2 pounds.\125\ The children involved in fatal 
incidents with CSUs and no televisions weighed 45 pounds and 
under.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ This weight is based on the 2021 CDC Anthropometric 
Reference for a 95th percentile 3-year-old male. The 95th percentile 
weight for a 3-year-old female is 42.5 pounds. A stability 
requirement based on the 51.2-pound male would also cover the 95th 
percentile 3-year-old female.
    \126\ Two fatal incidents involved 45-pound children, one 
involving a 2-year-old child, and one involving a 7-year-old child 
(the oldest CSU tip-over fatality without a television).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this information, the proposed rule simulates a 95th 
percentile 3-year-old (51.2 pounds) climbing on a CSU and generating 
associated dynamic and horizontal forces, rather than the 60-pound 5-
year-old. When the relevant forces are considered, the 51.2-pound child 
weight is approximately equivalent to an 82-pound test weight on the 
face of a drawer opened 12 inches.\127\ In addition, the proposed 
requirements simulate real-world conditions, such as multiple open and 
filled drawers, a carpeted surface, and a child pulling on the CSU. 
These factors are present in many tip-over incidents and contribute to 
the instability of a CSU. Staff determined that the proposed 
requirements would address all of the fatal incidents and the majority 
of the nonfatal incidents involving children and CSUs without 
televisions. The proposed requirements should also reduce incidents 
involving CSUs with televisions and incidents involving adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ The proposed requirements distinguish between child weight 
and test weight. The child weight is used in an equation, along with 
the distance from the fulcrum, that estimates the moment (rotational 
force) that a child will exert on a CSU while climbing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: One commenter suggested a tiered test weight system, 
based on the height of the product, recommending that products less 
than 40 inches in height be tested with 50 pounds of weight, and 
products more than 40 inches in height be tested with 60 pounds of 
weight. The commenter reasoned that older children (who weigh more) are 
less likely to climb shorter products because they can reach the top 
without climbing.'' One comment supported a tolerance of  1 
pound for the test weight, consistent with the ASTM standard.
    Response: Regarding a tiered test weight protocol, staff does not 
support using different tip forces for different height units because 
incident analysis indicates that there is not a strong relationship 
between unit height and child weight for fatal tip-over incidents.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ See CPSC staff letter to ASTM from Nesteruk, H.E.J., Re: 
Update to CPSC Staff letter dated August 24, 2018 (Oct. 12, 2018), 
available at: https://cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/TipoverASTMLetter%20October18%20Update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For test weight tolerance, CPSC staff considers a tolerance of 
1 pound for each of the two test weight blocks required in 
ASTM F2057-19 to be too large. Based on the tolerance, the total weight 
of the test blocks can range from 48-52 pounds, an 8 percent 
variability between the lowest and highest allowed test weights. Staff 
has previously worked with the ASTM F15.42 Furniture Subcommittee to 
propose tighter tolerances for each test weight and for the total test 
weight. However, the proposed rule does not require a fixed test 
weigh--rather, it consists of a tip-over moment measurement--making it 
unnecessary to specify a test weight tolerance.
    Comments: Two commenters stated that more specificity is needed in 
the voluntary standard regarding the time frame to apply and maintain 
the test weight and contact of the test fixture with the drawer bottom.
    Response: ASTM F2057-19 does not specify a time requirement to 
apply the 50-pound test weight or a specific amount of time that the 
CSU must support the weight without tipping over. Test methods in other 
ASTM standards (e.g., F963-17, Standard Consumer Safety Specification 
for Toy Safety, F2236-16a, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for 
Soft Infant and Toddler Carriers, and F2194-16e1, Standard 
Consumer Safety Specification for Bassinets and Cradles) state to apply 
a weight or force over a specific period to avoid imparting an impulse 
force on the product. To address this, the proposed rule specifies that 
the force must be applied gradually over a period of at least 5 seconds 
to avoid a potential impulse force.
    Comment: Several commenters addressed open drawers during testing. 
Commenters emphasized that testing should reflect real-world 
conditions, and that opening one empty drawer at a time, as the ASTM 
standard requires, does not do this. Suggestions included multiple 
drawers being open simultaneously, loaded drawers, and testing drawers 
``at all stages of open.''
    Response: CPSC agrees that stability testing should reflect real-
world use, which includes opening more than one drawer at a time 
(unless the CSU prevents this, such as with an interlock system) and 
drawers filled with clothing. Staff tested a number of different types 
and sizes of CSUs with various configurations of open and filled 
drawers, and modeled CSUs involved in tip-over incidents. Staff 
concluded that having multiple open drawers decreases stability, and 
having filled drawers has a variable effect on stability, depending on 
whether the filled drawers are open or closed. Filled drawers make a 
CSU less stable if the drawers are open; whereas, filled drawers make 
the CSU more stable if the drawers are closed. Thus, the least stable 
configuration is when all drawers are filled and open. If less than 
half of the drawers are open, the least stable configuration (assuming 
that the drawer fill is consistent across drawers) is when all drawers 
are empty. The test method in the proposed rule includes all drawers 
open and filled to reflect the worst-case configuration. The test 
method also accounts for interlock systems that would prevent multiple 
drawers from being opened simultaneously and allows for a modified test 
configuration for these units. If the interlock allows fewer than half 
of the drawers to open, the proposed requirements involve the CSU being 
tested with all drawers empty, which reflects a worst-case 
configuration for these units. These recommendations reflect incident 
data, which include children opening all of the drawers in CSUs and 
incidents involving empty and filled CSU drawers.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that testing involve 
carpeting or a surface that mimics the effects of carpet, to reflect 
real-world use conditions and common incident conditions, and because 
this may decrease stability. Some commenters suggested using a 
standardized material, or some other way of ensuring carpet testing 
would be reliable and repeatable. One commenter submitted a report 
containing test data for dressers and chests tipping that found that 
CSUs were less stable on carpet than on hard

[[Page 6294]]

floors. Another commenter asked for a clear definition of ``a hard, 
level, flat surface,'' specified in ASTM F2057, and suggested 
evaluating floor materials, including carpet, but recommended using a 
standardized material.
    Response: Incident data indicates that consumers commonly place 
CSUs on carpet, and testing indicates that carpet decreases CSU 
stability. CPSC staff tested CSUs on carpet to learn what effect a 
flooring surface can have on the stability of CSUs (Tab P of the NPR 
briefing package). Staff found that, in general, CSUs were less stable 
on carpet. Accordingly, the proposed rule includes an element to 
simulate the effect of carpet as part of the stability testing. Staff 
agrees with the concern that testing on actual carpet may present 
challenges and may not be repeatable. Staff testing (Tab D of the NPR 
briefing package) indicates that an incline of 1.5 degrees was the 
average angle that replicated tip weight on carpet. Accordingly, to 
provide a repeatable method, the proposed rule includes a 1.5-degree 
incline to simulate the effect of carpet during stability testing. For 
the testing on a ``hard, flat, and level'' surface, the proposed rule 
provides a definition of this phrase.
    Comments: Several commenters mentioned operational sliding length 
with regard to how far to extend drawers during stability testing. One 
commenter provided specific suggestions for testing three different 
types of drawer slides: (1) Drawers without an outstop should be tested 
at \2/3\ of the drawer extension; (2) drawers with an outstop should be 
tested with the drawer extended to the ``valid outstop'' (meaning an 
outstop that meets certain pull force and timing criteria); and (3) 
drawers with a self-closing feature should be tested with the drawer 
extended to the ``static outstop'' (meaning a position where the drawer 
remains in a static open position for a set time). Another commenter 
suggested clarifying the requirement in the voluntary standard that 
drawers are to be extended to \2/3\ of the operational sliding length 
if there is no outstop because, with no minimum operational sliding 
length specified, the procedure for testing products with multiple 
outstops is unclear.
    Response: Drawer extension is a key component of a tip event 
because the distance from the force application site to the fulcrum 
(pivot point) determines the moment (rotational forces) on a CSU. The 
proposed test method uses a moment calculation based on full drawer 
extension for drawers with an outstop, and requires \2/3\ extension for 
drawers without an outstop. The proposed rule requires that, for 
stability testing, drawers be open to the ``maximum extension,'' which 
is defined as:

    Maximum extension means a condition when a drawer or pull-out 
shelf is open to the furthest manufacturer recommended use position, 
as indicated by way of a stop. In the case of slides with multiple 
intermediate stops, this is the stop that allows the drawer or pull-
out shelf to extend the furthest. In the case of slides with a 
multi-part stop, such as a stop that extends the drawer or pull-out 
shelf to the furthest manufacturer recommended use position with an 
additional stop that retains the drawer or pull-out shelf in the 
case, this is the stop that extends the drawer or pull-out shelf to 
the manufacturer recommended use position. If the manufacturer does 
not provide a recommended use position by way of a stop, this is \2/
3\ the shortest internal length of the drawer measured from the 
inside face of the drawer front to the inside face of the drawer 
back or \2/3\ the length of the pull-out shelf.

    This definition addresses the issue of multiple outstops. The 
Commission requests comments on self-closing drawers.

E. Tip Restraints

    Comments: Comments about anchoring systems generally supported the 
position that furniture should be stable on its own, without the need 
for tip restraints. Reasons included: Consumers may not have the option 
to anchor products (e.g., rentals that do not allow holes in walls, or 
brick/concrete walls); consumers may not have the skills to anchor 
furniture correctly; some consumers are not aware of the need to anchor 
furniture; and the burden should not be placed on consumers to make 
products safe. However, commenters noted that anchors could be useful 
for used or older furniture, but that consumers need to be informed 
about proper installation. In addition, commenters noted that ASTM 
F3096-14 is inadequate because requirements for anchors should 
``adequately assess the strength of all designs of anchoring devices 
and the components of such devices in real world use conditions'' with 
clear pass/fail tests.
    Response: Staff agrees that tip restraints should not be the 
primary method of preventing CSU tip overs and that CSUs should be 
inherently stable. Several research studies show that a large number of 
consumers do not anchor furniture, including CSUs. A 2010 CPSC Consumer 
Opinion Forum survey found that only 9 percent of participants had 
anchored the furniture under their televisions; for participants that 
had a CSU under their televisions, the anchoring rate was 10 percent of 
participants.\129\ A 2018 Consumer Reports nationally representative 
survey found that only 27 percent of consumers overall, and 40 percent 
of consumers with children under 6 years old at home, have an anchored 
piece of furniture in their homes.\130\ A 2020 CPSC study on the Anchor 
It! campaign found that 55 percent of respondents reported ever having 
anchored furniture.\131\ As the 2020 FMG study on furniture tip overs 
indicates (Tab Q of the NPR briefing package), reasons that consumers 
do not anchor furniture include: The belief that furniture does not 
need to be anchored if children are supervised; a perception that the 
furniture was stable enough; potential damage to walls; lack of 
knowledge about products; and difficulty installing tip restraints. For 
these reasons, the proposed rule does not include requirements for tip 
restraints, and focuses, instead, on inherent stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ CPSC report on Preliminary Evaluation of Anchoring 
Furniture and Televisions without Tools (Technical Report CPSC/EXHR/
TR--15/001), Butturini, R., Massale, J., Midgett, J., Snyder, S. 
(May 2015), available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/Tipover-Prevention-Project-Anchors-without-Tools.pdf.
    \130\ Peachman, R.R. Furniture Anchors Not an Easy Fix, as Child 
Tip-Over Deaths Persist (Nov. 5, 2018), available at: https://www.consumerreports.org/furniture/furniture-anchors-not-an-easy-fix-as-child-tip-over-deaths-persist/.
    \131\ CPSC Anchor It! Campaign: Main Report, FMG (Sep. 2, 2020), 
available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Anchor-It-Campaign-Effectiveness-Survey-Main-Report_Final_9_2_2020....pdf?gC1No.oOO2FEXV9wmOtdJVAtacRLHIMK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, tip restraints may be useful as a secondary safety system, 
to improve the stability of existing CSUs or address additional child 
interactions. In future work, outside of this rulemaking effort, CPSC 
may evaluate appropriate requirements for tip restraints, and may work 
with ASTM to update its tip-restraint requirements. Based on a 
preliminary analysis, CPSC staff agrees that ASTM F3096-14 does not 
adequately address tip restraints in real-world use conditions. Staff 
believes that an appropriate test should assess the strength of the 
connection between the CSU and the wall, the attachment to the CSU and 
the wall, and test the tip restraint with common wall surfaces. In 
addition, as with ASTM F2057-19, ASTM F3096-14 uses a 50-pound static 
force to test the strength of the tip restraint, which may not 
represent the force on the tip restraint from a child and the CSU, 
especially for interactions that can generate dynamic forces, including 
those from older children.

[[Page 6295]]

F. Televisions

    Comments: Several commenters addressed the involvement of CRT 
televisions in CSU tip-over incidents. Commenters stated that 
manufacturers stopped producing CRT televisions around 2008-2010. One 
commenter provided information regarding the transition from CRT 
televisions to flat screens, and suggested that this transition ``has 
significantly reduced the potential hazard posed by TVs being placed on 
CSUs.'' In addition, the commenter stated that ``99 percent of TVs are 
taken out of service after 16 years, meaning the number of CRTs in 
consumers' homes should be nearing zero by 2027.'' Commenters also 
noted that the discontinued production of CRT televisions means that 
CPSC would be unable to regulate these products, making it difficult to 
address the hazard they present. One commenter stated that television 
involvement in tip-over incidents should not undermine CPSC's efforts 
to focus on CSUs because the common denominator in incidents is a CSU.
    Response: CPSC agrees that manufacturers' widespread shift from CRT 
televisions to flat-panel televisions is likely to result in decreased 
use in homes and an associated decrease in tip-over incidents involving 
CSUs with CRT televisions. NEISS data indicates that, for 2010 through 
2019, there is a statistically significant linear decline in child 
injuries involving all CSUs (including televisions); however, there is 
no linear trend detected in injuries to children involving CSU tip-over 
incidents without televisions. Therefore, the decline in estimated CSU 
tip-over injuries during that period was driven by a decrease in ED-
treated tip-over injuries involving CSUs with televisions. It is 
important to note that the CPSC tip-over data include incidents with a 
variety of television types, including CRT televisions and flat-panel 
televisions. Because flat-panel televisions are generally much lighter 
than CRT televisions, staff believes they are less likely to cause 
severe injury. Staff also agrees that television involvement in CSU 
tip-over incidents should not undermine CPSC's efforts to focus on 
CSUs.
    The proposed rule focuses on tip-over hazards involving CSUs 
without televisions. However, increasing CSU stability should also 
decrease deaths and injuries from tip-over incidents involving CSUs 
with televisions.

G. Incidents/Risk

    Comments: One comment compared the deaths due to CSU tip overs to 
the number of children who drown, suggesting that deaths due to CSU tip 
overs were relatively low, by comparison. Another comment provided a 
lengthy discussion of incident data, suggesting that incidents were 
declining, televisions are the primary hazard, and that the majority of 
incidents affect children younger than 5 years old, rather than less 
than 6 years of age. This commenter stated: ``for children 13 to 59-
months, there has been a 34% reduction in reported IDIs for the 4-year 
period between 2011-2015.'' Another commenter stated that CSU tip overs 
present a particular risk to children under 6 years old, due to 
physical and mental abilities and behaviors at these ages, noting that 
children under 6 years old are involved in 95 percent of deaths and 83 
percent of injuries to children.
    Response: The existence of other hazards, such as drowning deaths, 
does not diminish the need to address tip-over hazards. There were 193 
reported CSU tip-over fatalities involving children and CSUs that 
occurred between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2020. With the 
exception of 2010, there were at least three reported fatal tip-over 
incidents involving children and CSUs without televisions, each year 
from 2001 through 2017 (the last year for which death reporting is 
considered complete). Based on data from NEISS, CPSC staff estimates 
that there were 78,200 injuries from CSU tip overs (an estimated annual 
average of 5,600 injuries) treated in EDs from January 1, 2006 to 
December 31, 2019. Of these, an estimated 72 percent (an estimated 
56,400 total and an estimated annual average of 4,000) were injuries to 
children. The estimated number of ED-treated injuries to children 
involving CSU tip overs was between about 2,500 and 5,900 injuries for 
each year from 2006 through 2019.
    Incident data indicates that younger children are the most affected 
age group. In 91 percent of the tip-over fatalities involving children 
and CSUs without televisions (81 of 89), the victim was 1, 2, or 3 
years old. An estimated 76 percent of ED-treated injuries to children 
involving CSU tip overs without televisions were to children 1 through 
4 years old (an estimated 31,100 of 40,700), and an estimated 64 
percent were to children 1 through 3 years old (an estimated 26,100 of 
40,700). The oldest child in a tip-over fatality involving a CSU 
without a television was 7 years old; the oldest child with a reported 
ED-treated tip-over injury involving a CSU without a television was 17 
years old.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ The oldest child in a tip-over fatality involving a CSU 
with a television was 8 years old.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the comment stating that CSU incidents are 
declining, CPSC staff found a statistically significant linear decline 
in ED-treated CSU tip-over injuries to children from 2010 to 2019. 
However, this trend is driven by the decline in CSU tip-over incidents 
that involve televisions; there was no detected decline in tip-over 
injuries to children involving CSUs without televisions during the same 
time frame.
    With respect to the comment that there has been a 34 percent 
reduction in reported IDIs, CPSC notes that IDIs are not reported, but 
are based on staff assignments; that is, when CPSC receives a report of 
an incident, staff can request an IDI. Therefore, the raw number of 
IDIs is not a meaningful number for comparison; it only represents 
example scenarios for which staff has sought and compiled additional 
information through an investigation, and is not a representative 
number of annual incidents. Any increase or decrease in the number of 
IDIs is a function of various factors and not necessarily a reflection 
of the seriousness of the hazard or rate of incidents. Moreover, IDIs 
are based on many types of source documents, and it is not clear to 
which IDIs the commenter is referring.

H. Costs and Small Business Impacts

    Comments: One commenter stated that increasing test weights would 
create costs because many CSUs do not comply with the existing test 
weight requirement in the ASTM standard. Another commenter stated that 
it is possible to alter designs to improve stability in an affordable 
way. The Small Business Administration (SBA) met with CPSC staff 
regarding the ANPR on February 7, 2018. The SBA expressed that its 
small business contacts are comfortable with the existing ASTM 
standard, but are concerned about a mandatory rule that differs from or 
is more stringent than the voluntary standard. Those concerns include 
the impacts a rule would have on existing inventories and when 
compliance with the mandatory standard would be required.
    Response: CPSC believes that the proposed rule would require 
modifications or redesign of most CSUs on the market. To estimate the 
cost of modifying CSUs to comply with the proposed requirements, CPSC 
staff examined five CSU models (Tab H of the NPR briefing package). In 
some

[[Page 6296]]

cases, the cost to modify a particular CSU could be around $5.80 per 
unit; but in other cases, the costs could exceed $25 per unit. The cost 
of modifying lighter or taller CSUs could be greater than for heavier 
CSUs. Changes in the design of CSUs could impose other costs on 
consumers in the form of altered utility or convenience, including 
increased weight, reductions in the maximum drawer extensions, changes 
in the storage capacity of the CSU, or changes in the footprint of the 
CSU.
    The initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this rule 
(Tab I of the NPR briefing package) specifically considers the impact 
of the proposed rule on small businesses. The analysis concludes that 
the proposed rule would likely have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

I. Technical Feasibility

    Comments: Several commenters addressed the technical feasibility of 
designing CSUs that could reduce stability issues. Comments regarding 
feasibility primarily consisted of: (1) Comments that used test data 
showing a proportion of CSUs could pass certain tests as proof that it 
was feasible, and (2) comments that proposed specific solutions to 
address furniture tipping over. Suggestions included drawer slides that 
automatically close drawers or that require users to apply force 
continually to keep a drawer open; reducing the maximum extension 
length of drawers; wider CSU bases; bins in place of bottom drawers; 
and interlock systems that limit how many drawers can be open 
simultaneously. One commenter recommended that test requirements 
account for interlock systems.
    Response: CPSC staff is aware of one CSU that meets the stability 
requirements in the proposed rule without modification. To address CSUs 
that do not already meet the proposed requirements, staff examined five 
CSUs to determine what modifications would allow them to meet the 
proposed requirements. Several modifications, including in combination, 
may improve the stability of CSUs, such as adding drawer interlocks, 
adding weight to the rear of the unit, decreasing the maximum drawer 
extensions, and shifting the front edge or feet (the fulcrum) of the 
CSU forward. Of the potential modifications for which staff was able to 
estimate the potential cost, the lowest costs were about $5.80 per 
unit, but in other cases, the costs may exceed $25. However, the extent 
of the modifications required would depend upon the characteristics of 
the CSU, such as its weight, dimensions, and center of gravity.
    Regarding the comments that provide specific design solutions, 
under section 7 of the CPSA, the Commission may issue performance 
requirements, or requirements for warnings and instructions; the 
Commission may not issue design requirements. Accordingly, the 
Commission cannot require the use of particular designs. However, these 
suggestions demonstrate that it is feasible to design more stable CSUs, 
and these or other design changes may be useful in modifying CSUs to 
comply with performance requirements.

J. Stories of Loss

    Comments: Three commenters shared their personal experiences with 
tragic incidents where a CSU tipped over and killed a child. These 
comments included valuable information about the activities and 
conditions involved in the tip-over incidents they described, including 
the loading of drawers, flooring, and how the child was interacting 
with the CSU. These comments also provided useful information about 
user knowledge of the risk, and the presence of warning labels and tip 
restraints.
    These commenters expressed that safety needs to be built into the 
design of CSUs, rather than relying on consumer knowledge of the 
hazard, consumer installation of anchors, or warning labels. The 
commenters noted several factors that make it ineffective to rely on 
consumer knowledge and actions. For example, the commenters noted that 
children are exposed to the CSU hazard outside their homes, so anchors 
may not be installed; consumers buy used CSUs, which may not have 
anchors, instructions, or labels; and consumers may not be permitted to 
anchor products to a wall in a rental, or may lack the technical skills 
to anchor CSUs properly. The commenters stated that a mandatory 
standard should mimic real-life circumstances that have been involved 
in CSU incidents, including less stable flooring and loaded drawers.
    Response: CPSC appreciates the courage of these parents in sharing 
their stories. To each of these parents, we thank you for sharing these 
stories and we are deeply sorry for your loss. CPSC staff has 
considered the information about the interactions and conditions 
involved in the tip-over incidents in developing this NPR. The 
performance criteria were based on the children's interactions seen in 
fatal and nonfatal incident reports, and they are based on measured 
child climbing forces and child strength data. The performance criteria 
also are based on real-life CSU use, as seen in the incident reports, 
including opening multiple drawers, drawers filled with clothing, and 
placing the CSU on a carpeted floor. The incidents described in these 
comments are captured in the incident data set and have been 
incorporated into staff's analyses.
    CPSC agrees that CSUs should be inherently stable and should not 
require a tip restraint to prevent tip overs. As explains above, there 
are several barriers to the use of tip restraints and research that 
suggests that the rate of anchoring CSUs is low. Additionally, although 
the proposed rule includes a warning label requirement to inform 
consumers of the hazard and to motivate them to install tip restraints 
as a secondary safety mechanism, warnings have limited effectiveness in 
addressing the tip-over hazard.

XI. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    The Commission considered several alternatives to reduce the risk 
of injuries and death related to CSU tip overs. However, as discussed 
below, the Commission concludes that none of these alternatives would 
adequately reduce the risk of injury.

A. No Regulatory Action

    One alternative to the proposed rule is to take no regulatory 
action and, instead, rely on voluntary recalls, compliance with the 
voluntary standard, and education campaigns. The Commission has relied 
on these alternatives to address the CSU tip-over hazard to date.
    Between January 1, 2000 and March 31, 2021, 40 consumer-level 
recalls occurred in response to CSU tip-over hazards. The recalled 
products were responsible for 328 tip-over incidents, involved 34 
firms, and affected approximately 21,500,000 CSUs. ASTM F2057 has 
included stability requirements for unloaded and loaded CSUs since its 
inception in 2000 and, based on CPSC testing, there is a high rate of 
compliance with the standard; CPSC's market survey of 188 CSUs found 
that 91 percent complied with the stability requirements in ASTM F2057. 
In addition, CPSC's Anchor It! campaign--an education campaign intended 
to inform consumers about the risk of CSU tip overs, provide safety 
tips for avoiding tip overs, and promote the use of tip restraints--has 
been in effect since 2015.
    Given that this alternative primarily relies on existing CPSC 
actions, the primary costs staff estimates for this alternative are 
associated with tip restraints. However, this alternative is

[[Page 6297]]

unlikely to provide additional benefits to adequately reduce the risk 
of CSU tip overs. For one, CPSC does not consider ASTM F2057 adequate 
to address the hazard because it does not account for several factors 
involved in tip-over incidents that contribute to instability, 
including multiple open and filled drawers, carpeting, and forces 
generated by children's interactions with the CSU. Based on the UMTRI 
studies of the dynamic forces imparted by children climbing on CSUs and 
staff testing of CSUs on carpeting, staff estimates that, even if all 
CSUs complied with ASTM F2057-19, that would only protect children 
weighing less than 29.1 pounds when climbing on a CSU, providing 70 
percent of the benefits expected from the proposed rule.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ Staff estimates that the proposed rule would reduce 
nonfatal climbing injuries by 91 percent, addressing 375.48 of the 
412 climbing NEISS cases reviewed. Staff estimates that a rule that 
protects children weighing 29.1 pounds or less would address only 
110.08 of the incidents or about 27 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as Tab C of the NPR briefing package explains, several 
studies indicate that the rate of consumer anchoring of furniture, 
including CSUs, is low. A 2010 CPSC survey found that 9 percent of 
participants who responded to a question about anchoring furniture 
under their television indicated that they had; the same survey found 
that 10 percent of consumers who used a CSU to hold their television 
reported anchoring the CSU. A 2018 Consumer Reports study found that 27 
percent of consumers overall, and 40 percent of consumers with children 
under 6 years old in the home, had anchored furniture; the same study 
found that 10 percent of those with a dresser, tall chest, or wardrobe 
had anchored it. CPSC's 2020 study on the Anchor It! campaign found 
that 55 percent of respondents (which included parents and caregivers 
of children 5 years old and younger) reported anchoring furniture. As 
such, on their own, these options have limited ability to further 
reduce the risk of injury and death associated with CSU tip overs. 
CPSC's use of this alternative to date illustrates this since, despite 
these efforts, there has been no declining trend in child injuries from 
CSU tip overs (without televisions).

B. Require Performance and Technical Data

    Another alternative is to adopt a standard that requires only 
performance and technical data, similar to or the same as the hang tag 
requirements in the proposed rule, with no performance requirements for 
stability. This could consist of a test method to assess the stability 
of a CSU model, a calculation for determining a stability rating based 
on the test results, and a requirement that the rating be provided for 
each CSU on a hang tag. A stability rating would give consumers 
information on the stability of CSU models they are considering, to 
inform their buying decisions, and potentially give manufacturers an 
incentive to achieve a higher stability rating to increase their 
competitiveness or increase their appeal to consumers that desire more 
stable CSUs. The hang tag could also connect the stability rating to 
safety concerns, providing consumers with information about improving 
stability.
    Because this alternative would not establish a minimum safety 
standard, it would not require manufacturers to discontinue or modify 
CSUs. Therefore, the only direct cost of this alternative would be the 
cost to manufacturers of testing their CSUs to establish their 
stability rating and labeling their CSUs in accordance with the 
required information. Any changes in the design of the CSUs would be 
the result of manufacturers responding to changes in consumer demand 
for particular models.
    However, the Commission does not consider this alternative 
adequate, on its own, to reduce the risk of injury from CSU tip overs. 
Similar to tip restraints, this alternative relies on consumers, rather 
than making CSUs inherently stable. This assumes that consumers will 
consider the stability rating, and accurately assess their need for 
more stable CSUs. However, this is not a reliable approach to address 
this hazard, based on the low rates of anchoring, and the FMG focus 
group, which suggests that caregivers may underestimate the potential 
for a CSU to tip over, and overestimate their ability to prevent tip 
overs by watching children. In addition, this alternative would not 
address the risk to children outside their homes (where the stability 
of CSUs may not have been considered), or CSUs purchased before a 
child's birth. The long service life of CSUs and the unpredictability 
of visitors or family changes in that timespan, and these potential 
future risks might not be considered at the time of the original 
purchase.

C. Adopt a Performance Standard Addressing 60-Pound Children

    Another alternative is to adopt a mandatory standard with the same 
requirements as the proposed rule, but addressing 60-pound children, 
rather than 51.2-pound children. This alternative would be more 
stringent than the proposed rule.
    About 74 percent of CSU tip-over injuries to children involve 
children 4 years old and younger,\134\ and these are addressed by the 
proposed rule, because the 95th percentile weight for 4-year-old 
children is approximately 52 pounds. The proposed rule would also 
address some of the injuries to children who are 5 and 6 years old, as 
well, because many of these children also weigh less than 51.2 pounds. 
Mandating a rule that would protect 60-pound children would increase 
the benefit associated with child fatal and nonfatal injuries by about 
$10.9 million, and the rule could increase the benefits associated with 
reductions in adult fatal and nonfatal injuries by $3.2 million or a 
total of $14.1 million annually. This comes to about 3 cents per unit 
on an annual basis. Over an assumed 15-year life of a CSU, this comes 
to 7 cents per unit, assuming a 7 percent discount rate, 36 cents 
assuming a 3 percent discount rate, or 45 cents without discounting. 
Therefore, increasing the weight of the child protected to 60 pounds 
would only increase benefits by about 4.5 percent over the benefits 
that could be obtained by the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Based on NEISS estimates for 2015 through 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Presumably, the cost of manufacturing furniture that complies with 
this more rigorous alternative would be somewhat higher than the costs 
of manufacturing CSUs that comply with the proposed rule, using 
similar, but somewhat more extensive modifications. Because this 
alternative would provide only a limited increase in benefits, but a 
higher level of costs than the proposed rule, the Commission did not 
select this alternative.

D. Mandate ASTM F2057 With a 60-Pound Test Weight

    Another alternative would be to mandate a standard like ASTM F2057-
19, but replace the 50-pound test weight with a 60-pound test weight. 
Sixty pounds approximately represents the 95th percentile weight of 5-
year-old children, which is the age ASTM F2057-19 claims to address. 
This alternative was discussed in the ANPR.
    This alternative would be less costly than the proposed rule, 
because, based on CPSC testing, about 57 percent of CSUs on the market 
would already meet this requirement. The cost of modifying CSUs that do 
not comply is likely to be less than modifying them to comply with the 
proposed rule, which is more stringent.

[[Page 6298]]

    By increasing the test weight, it is possible that this alternative 
would prevent some CSU tip overs. However, this alternative still would 
not account for the factors that occur during CSU tip-over incidents 
that contribute to instability, including multiple open and filled 
drawers, carpeting, and the horizontal and dynamic forces from 
children's interactions with the CSU. As this preamble and the NPR 
briefing package explain, a 60-pound test weight does not equate to 
protecting a 60-pound child. The UMTRI study demonstrates that children 
generate forces greater than their weight during certain interactions 
with a CSU, including interactions that are common in CSU tip-over 
incidents. Because this alternative does not account for these factors, 
staff estimates that it may only protect children who weigh around 38 
pounds or less, which is approximately the 75th percentile weight of 3-
year-old children. For these reasons, the Commission does not believe 
this alternative would adequately reduce the CSU tip-over hazard, and 
did not select this alternative.

E. Longer Effective Date

    Another alternative would be to provide a longer effective date 
than the 30-day effective date in the proposed rule. It is likely that 
hundreds of manufacturers, including importers, will have to modify 
potentially several thousand CSU models to comply with the proposed 
rule, which will require understanding the requirements, redesigning 
the CSUs, and manufacturing compliant units. Delays in meeting the 
effective date could result in disruptions to the supply chain, or 
fewer choices being available to consumers, at least in the short term. 
A longer effective date could reduce the costs associated with the rule 
and mitigate potential disruption to the supply chain. However, 
delaying the effective date would delay the safety benefits of the rule 
as well. As such, the Commission did not select this alternative. 
However, the Commission requests comments about the proposed effective 
date.

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains information collection requirements 
that are subject to public comment and review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). Under the PRA, an agency must publish the 
following information:
     A title for the collection of information;
     a summary of the collection of information;
     a brief description of the need for the information and 
the proposed use of the information;
     a description of the likely respondents and proposed 
frequency of response to the collection of information;
     an estimate of the burden that will result from the 
collection of information; and
     notice that comments may be submitted to OMB.
    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). In accordance with this requirement, the 
Commission provides the following information:
    Title: Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units.
    Summary, Need, and Use of Information: The proposed consumer 
product safety standard prescribes the safety requirements, including 
labeling and hang tag requirements, for CSUs. These requirements are 
intended to reduce or eliminate an unreasonable risk of death or injury 
to consumers from CSU tip overs.
    Requirements for marking and labeling, in the form of warning 
labels, and requirements to provide performance and technical data by 
labeling, in the form of a hang tag, will provide information to 
consumers. Warning labels on CSUs will provide warnings to the consumer 
regarding product use. Hang tags will provide information to the 
consumer regarding the stability of the unit. These requirements fall 
within the definition of ``collection of information,'' as defined in 
44 U.S.C. 3502(3).
    Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to require, by 
rule, that manufacturers of consumer products provide to the Commission 
performance and technical data related to performance and safety as may 
be required to carry out the purposes of the CPSA, and to give 
notification of such performance and technical data at the time of 
original purchase to prospective purchasers and to the first purchaser 
of the product. 15 U.S.C. 2076(e). Section 2 of the CPSA provides that 
one purpose of the CPSA is to ``assist consumers in evaluating the 
comparative safety of consumer products.'' 15 U.S.C. 2051(b)(2).
    Section 14 of the CPSA requires manufacturers, importers, or 
private labelers of a consumer product subject to a consumer product 
safety rule to certify, based on a test of each product or a reasonable 
testing program, that the product complies with all rules, bans or 
standards applicable to the product. In the case that a CSU could be 
considered to be a children's product, the certification must be based 
on testing by an accredited third-party conformity assessment body. The 
proposed rule for CSUs specifies the test procedure be used to 
determine whether a CSU complies with the requirements. For products 
that manufacturers certify, manufacturers would issue a general 
certificate of conformity (GCC).
    Identification and labeling requirements will provide information 
to consumers and regulators needed to locate and recall noncomplying 
products. Identification and labeling requirements include content such 
as the name and address of the manufacturer.
    Warning labels will provide information to consumers on hazards and 
risks associated with product use. Warning label requirements include 
size, content, format, location, and permanency.
    The standard requires that CSU manufacturers provide technical 
information for consumers on a hang tag at the point of purchase. The 
information provided on the hang tag would allow consumers to make 
informed decisions on the comparative stability of CSUs when making a 
purchase and would provide a competitive incentive for manufactures to 
improve the stability of CSUs. Specifically, the manufacturer of a CSU 
would provide a hang tag with every CSU that explains the stability of 
the unit. CSU hangtag requirements include:
     Size: Every hangtag shall be at least 5 inches wide by 7 
inches tall.
     Content: Every CSU shall be offered for sale with a hang 
tag that states the stability rating for the CSU model.
     Attachment: Every hang tag shall be attached to the CSU 
and clearly visible. The hang tag shall be attached to the CSU and lost 
or damaged hang tags must be replaced. The hang tags may be removed 
only by the first purchaser.
     Placement: The hang tag shall appear on the product and 
immediate container of the product in which the product is normally 
offered for sale at retail. Ready-to-assemble furniture shall display 
the hang tag on the main panel of consumer-level packaging. Any units 
shipped directly to consumers shall contain the hang tag on the 
immediate container of the product.
     Format: The format of the hang tag is provided in the 
proposed rule and the hang tag shall include the elements shown in the 
example provided.
    The requirements for the GCC are stated in section 14 of the CPSA. 
Among other requirements, each certificate must identify the 
manufacturer or private labeler issuing the certificate

[[Page 6299]]

and any third-party conformity assessment body, on whose testing the 
certificate depends, the date and place of manufacture, the date and 
place where the product was tested, each party's name, full mailing 
address, telephone number, and contact information for the individual 
responsible for maintaining records of test results. The certificates 
must be in English. The certificates must be furnished to each 
distributor or retailer of the product and to CPSC, if requested.
    Respondents and Frequency: Respondents include manufacturers and 
importers of CSUs. Manufacturers and importers will have to comply with 
the information collection requirements when the CSUs are manufactured 
or imported; this is addressed further in the discussion of estimated 
burden.
    Estimated Burden: CPSC has estimated the respondent burden in 
hours, and the estimated labor costs to the respondent. The hourly 
burden for labeling can be divided into two parts. The first part 
includes designing the label and the hang tag that will be used for 
each model. The second part includes physically attaching the label and 
hang tag to each CSU. Additionally, the burden for third-party testing 
is estimated for a subset of CSUs.
    Manufacturers will have to place a hang tag on each CSU sold. In 
2018, about 43.6 million CSUs were sold in the United States. This 
would be a reasonable estimate of the number of responses per year. 
CPSC estimates there to be 7,000 suppliers of CSUs for which there 
would be an hourly burden, as defined by the PRA. CPSC estimates that 
there are about 35,000 different models of CSUs, or an average of 5 
models per manufacturer.
    Estimate of Respondent Burden. The hourly reporting burden imposed 
on firms includes the time it will take them to design and update hang 
tags, and identification labeling, including warning labels, as well as 
the hourly burden of attaching them to all CSUs sold domestically.

                                   Table 7--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Annual burden
          Burden type             Type of supplier   Total annual reponses   Length of response       (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling, design and update....  Manufacturer or     35,000...............  12 min..............           7,000
                                  Importer.
Labeling, attachment...........  Manufacturer,       43.6 million.........  .06 min.............          43,600
                                  Importer, or
                                  Retailer.
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Labeling Burden......  ..................  .....................  ....................          50,600
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
Third-party recordkeeping,       Manufacturers of    21,800...............  3 hours.............          65,400
 certification.                   Children's CSUs.
                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Hourly Burden........  ..................  .....................  ....................         116,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC estimates that it could take an hour for a supplier to design 
the hang tags and identification labeling, and that the design could be 
used for a period of five years, or until the CSU is redesigned. At 60 
minutes per hang tag, and an average of 5 models per firm, the hourly 
burden for designing a hang tag that will be used for five years is 1 
hour (60 min x 5 models / 5 years). Therefore, for 7,000 firms, the 
annual burden would be 7,000 hours.
    CPSC estimates it could take 0.06 minutes (3.6 seconds) for a 
supplier to attach the hang tag to the CSU, for each of the 43.6 
million units sold in the United States annually. Attaching the hang 
tag to the CSU would amount to an hourly burden of 43,600 hours (0.06 
min x 43,600,000 CSUs).
    In addition, three types of third-party testing of children's 
products are required: Certification testing, material change testing, 
and periodic testing. Requirements state that manufacturers conduct 
sufficient testing to ensure that they have a high degree of assurance 
that their children's products comply with all applicable children's 
product safety rules before such products are introduced into commerce. 
If a manufacturer conducts periodic testing, it is required to keep 
records that describe how the samples of periodic testing are selected. 
The hour burden of recordkeeping requirements will likely vary greatly 
from product to product, depending on such factors as the complexity of 
the product and the amount of testing that must be documented. 
Therefore, estimates of the hour burden of the recordkeeping 
requirements are somewhat speculative.
    CPSC estimates that 0.05 percent of all CSUs sold annually, 21,800 
CSUs, are children's products and would be subject to third-party 
testing, for which 3 hours of recordkeeping and record maintenance will 
be required. Thus, the total hourly burden of the recordkeeping 
associated with certification is 65,400 hours (3 x 21,800).
    Labor Cost of Respondent Burden. According to the U.S. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (BLS), Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, the 
total compensation cost per hour worked for all private industry 
workers was $36.64 (March 2021, Table 4, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf). Based on this analysis, CPSC staff 
estimates that the labor cost of respondent burden would impose a cost 
to industry of approximately $4,250,240 annually (116,000 hours x 
$36.64 per hour).
    Respondent Costs Other Than Burden Hour Costs. In addition to the 
labor burden costs addressed above, the hang tag requirement imposes 
additional annualized costs. These costs include capital costs for 
cardstock used for each hang tag to be displayed and the wire or string 
used to attach the hang tag to the CSU. CPSC estimates the cost of the 
printed hang tag and wire for attaching the hang tag to the CSU will be 
about $0.10. Therefore, the total cost of materials to industry would 
be about $4.36 million per year ($0.10 x 43.6 million units).
    Cost to the Federal Government. The estimated annual cost of the 
information collection requirements to the federal government is 
approximately $4,172, which includes 60 staff hours to examine and 
evaluate the information as needed for Compliance activities. This is 
based on a GS-12, step 5 level salaried employee. The average hourly 
wage rate for a mid-level salaried GS-12 employee in the Washington, DC 
metropolitan area (effective as of January 2021) is $47.35 (GS-12, step 
5). This represents 68.1 percent of total compensation (U.S. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,'' March 
2021, Table 2, percentage of wages and salaries for all civilian 
management, professional, and related employees: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm). Adding an additional 31.9 percent for 
benefits brings average annual compensation for a mid-level salaried 
GS-12 employee to $69.53 per hour. Assuming that approximately 60

[[Page 6300]]

hours will be required annually, this results in an annual cost of 
$4,172 ($69.53 per hour x 60 hours = $4,171.80).
    Comments. CPSC has submitted the information collection 
requirements of this rule to OMB for review, in accordance with PRA 
requirements. 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). CPSC requests that interested parties 
submit comments regarding information collection to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES section at 
the beginning of this NPR).
    Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Commission invites 
comments on:
     Whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of CPSC's functions, including 
whether the information will have practical utility;
     the accuracy of CPSC's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used;
     ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information the Commission proposes to collect;
     ways to reduce the burden of the collection of information 
on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques, 
when appropriate, and other forms of information technology;
     the estimated burden hours associated with labels and hang 
tags, including any alternative estimates; and
     the estimated respondent cost other than burden hour cost.

XIII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 135
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Further details about the initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis are available in Tab I of the NPR briefing package. 
Additional information about costs associated with the rule are 
available in Tab H of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This section provides an analysis of the impact on small businesses 
of a proposed rule that would establish a mandatory safety standard for 
CSUs. Whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed rule, 
section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) 
requires that the agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA) that describes the impact that the rule would have on 
small businesses and other entities. An IRFA is not required if the 
head of an agency certifies that the proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
5 U.S.C. 605. The IRFA must contain:
    (1) A description of why action by the agency is being considered;
    (2) a succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule;
    (3) a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number 
of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
    (4) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record; and
    (5) identification, to the extent practicable, of relevant Federal 
rules that may duplicate, overlap or conflict with the proposed rule.
    An IRFA must also describe any significant alternatives that would 
accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statutes and that 
would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on 
small entities. Alternatives could include: (1) Establishing different 
compliance or reporting requirements that consider the resources 
available to small businesses; (2) clarification, consolidation, or 
simplification of compliance and reporting requirements for small 
entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) 
an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part of the rule 
thereof, for small entities.

A. Reason for Agency Action

    The intent of this rulemaking is to reduce deaths and injuries 
resulting from CSUs tipping over on children. These tip-over incidents 
commonly result when young children attempt to climb on the CSU or open 
drawers; the weight and interaction of the child combined with the 
weight of any open and filled drawers causes the CSU to tip forward and 
fall on the child. Children can be killed or injured from the impact of 
the CSU falling on them or by being trapped beneath the CSU, 
restricting their ability to breathe. This preamble, and Tab A of the 
NPR briefing package, provide incident data for CSU tip overs. In 
addition, the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis, above, and in Tab H of 
the NPR briefing package, provide further information about medically 
treated CSU tip-over injuries from the ICM. That data demonstrates the 
need for agency action, and staff considered that data for the IRFA.

B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Rule

    The objective of the proposed rule is to reduce deaths and injuries 
resulting from tip-over incidents involving CSUs. The Commission 
published an ANPR in November 2017, which initiated this proceeding to 
evaluate regulatory options and potentially develop a mandatory 
standard to address the risks of CSU tip-over deaths and injuries. The 
proposed rule would be issued under the authority of the CPSA.

C. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

    The proposed rule would apply to small entities that manufacture or 
import CSUs. Manufacturers of CSUs are principally classified in the 
North American Industrial Classification (NAICS) category 337122 (non-
upholstered wood household furniture manufacturing), but may also be 
categorized in NAICS codes 337121 (upholstered household furniture 
manufacturing), 337124 (metal household furniture manufacturing), or 
337125 (household furniture (except wood and metal) manufacturing). 
According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2017, there were a 
total of 3,404 firms classified in these four furniture categories. Of 
these firms, 2,024 were primarily categorized in the non-upholstered 
wood furniture category. More than 99 percent of the firms primarily 
categorized as manufacturers of non-upholstered wood furniture would be 
considered small businesses, as were 97 percent of firms in the other 
furniture categories, according to the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards.\136\ CPSC notes that these 
categories are broad and include manufacturers of other types of 
furniture, such as tables, chairs, bed frames, and sofas. It is also 
likely that not all of the firms in these categories manufacture CSUs. 
Production methods and efficiencies vary among manufacturers; some make 
use of mass-production techniques, and others manufacture their 
products one at a time, or on a custom-order basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small 
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 
Classification System Codes (2019), available at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2019-08/SBA%20Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20Aug%2019%2C%202019_Rev.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of U.S. firms that are primarily classified as 
manufacturers of non-upholstered wood household furniture has declined 
over the last few decades because retailers have turned to 
international sources of CSUs and other wood furniture. Additionally, 
firms that formerly produced all of their CSUs domestically have 
shifted production to foreign plants. Well over half (64 percent) of 
the value of apparent consumption of non-upholstered wood

[[Page 6301]]

furniture (net imports plus domestic production for the U.S. market) in 
2019 was comprised of imported furniture, and this likely was true for 
CSUs, as well. Firms that import furniture would likely be impacted by 
any rule that the Commission might promulgate regulating CSUs because 
they would have to ensure that any products that they import meet the 
requirements of the rule.
    Under the NAICS classification system, importers are classified as 
either wholesalers or retailers. Furniture wholesalers are classified 
in NAICS category 423210 (Furniture Merchant Wholesalers). According to 
the Census Bureau data, in 2017, there were 5,117 firms involved in 
household furniture importation and distribution. A total of 4,920 of 
these (or 96 percent) are classified as small businesses because they 
employ fewer than 100 employees (which is the SBA size standard for 
NAICS category 423210). Furniture retailers are classified in NAICS 
category 442110 (Furniture Stores). According to the Census Bureau, 
there were 13,826 furniture retailers in 2017. The SBA considers 
furniture retailers to be small businesses if their gross revenue is 
less than $22 million. Using these criteria, at least 97 percent of the 
furniture retailers are small (based on revenue data from the 2012 
Economic Census of the United States). Wholesalers and retailers may 
obtain their products from domestic sources or import them from foreign 
manufacturers.

D. Compliance, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Requirements in the 
Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would establish a mandatory standard that all 
CSUs would have to meet to be sold in the United States. The 
requirements of the proposed standard are described, in detail, in this 
preamble, and the proposed regulatory text is at the end of this 
notice.
    In addition to performance, labeling, and performance and technical 
information requirements, the proposed rule would also prohibit any 
person from manufacturing or importing noncomplying CSUs in any 1-month 
between the date of promulgation of the final rule and the effective 
date, at a rate that is greater than 105 percent of the rate at which 
they manufactured or imported CSUs during the base period for the 
manufacturer. The base period is the calendar month with the median 
manufacturing or import volume within the last 13 months immediately 
preceding the month of promulgation of the final rule.
    In addition, section 14 of the CPSA requires manufacturers, 
importers, or private labelers of a consumer product subject to a 
consumer product safety rule to certify, based on a test of each 
product or a reasonable testing program, that the product complies with 
all rules, bans or standards applicable to the product. The proposed 
rule specifies the test procedure to use to determine whether a CSU 
complies with the requirements. For products that manufacturers 
certify, manufacturers would issue a general certificate of conformity 
(GCC). In the case of CSUs that could be considered children's 
products, the certification must be based on testing by an accredited 
third-party conformity assessment body.
    The requirements for the GCC are stated in section 14 of the CPSA. 
Among other requirements, each certificate must identify the 
manufacturer or private labeler issuing the certificate and any third-
party conformity assessment body, on whose testing the certificate 
depends, the date and place of manufacture, the date and place where 
the product was tested, each party's name, full mailing address, 
telephone number, and contact information for the individual 
responsible for maintaining records of test results. The certificates 
must be in English. The certificates must be furnished to each 
distributor or retailer of the product and to CPSC, if requested.
1. Costs of the Proposed Rule That Would Be Incurred by Small 
Manufacturers
    CPSC staff evaluated potential modifications that could be made to 
CSUs to improve their stability and comply with the proposed rule. 
These potential modifications represent changes that could be made to 
existing CSU designs, rather than design changes, and were merely 
intended as an example of potential options manufacturers could use to 
comply with the proposed rule. The potential modifications are 
described in detail in Tab D of the NPR briefing package. The most 
effective modification staff identified for improving CSU stability was 
interlock systems, which limit the number of drawers that can be open 
simultaneously. Additional options include adding a counterweight to 
the CSU; extending the front legs or edge of the CSU; reducing the 
distance that drawers may be extended; and increasing the height of the 
front legs to tilt the CSU backwards. Most CSUs may require a 
combination of these modifications.
    Based on an analysis of how five CSUs could be modified to meet the 
cost of the proposed rule, CPSC staff estimated the potential cost 
increases to CSU manufacturers. For four of the CSUs, the cost 
estimates were $13 or more per unit, and in some cases exceeded $25, 
which exceeds the estimated average benefits per unit. For the fifth 
CSU, the estimated cost estimates of the modifications were in the same 
range as the estimated benefits per unit. Firms may choose other 
methods or different combinations resulting in lower or higher costs. 
In addition to costs of product modifications, any reductions in 
utility that might be caused by modifications such as reductions in the 
drawer extensions or significantly higher weights have not been 
quantified; nor have any aesthetic costs or the possibility of a 
tripping hazard that might result from the addition of significant foot 
extensions. Some models could require such substantial modifications 
that they no longer have the characteristics of the original models and 
manufacturers might withdraw them from the market, creating some 
unquantified loss of consumer utility.
    The above estimates include the variable costs related to changes 
such as additional hardware, materials that increase the weight, and 
increased shipping costs. They also include the fixed costs associated 
with the research and development required to redesign CSUs and tooling 
costs. If products have to be completely redesigned to meet the 
proposed standard (e.g., if adding weight or other minor modifications 
are not sufficient, and suppliers need to make drawers deeper and add 
new drawer slides), the changes could add substantial costs, or they 
could be offset with lighter weight front panels or tops. One supplier 
contacted by Industrial Economics Corporation, on behalf of CPSC, 
estimated the cost of redesigning a CSU model as $18,000, including 
prototype, testing, engineering, and design.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Israel, J., Cahill, A., Baxter, J., Final Clothing Storage 
Units Cost Impact Analysis, Industrial Economics, Incorporated 
contract report (June 7, 2019), available at: https://ecpsc.cpsc.gov/apps/6b-Temp/Section%206b%20Tracking/Final%20Clothing%20Storage%20Units%20(CSUs)%20Cost%20Impact%20Analysi
s.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs of model redesign per unit produced would be greater for 
smaller manufacturers with lower production volumes. For smaller, 
lower-volume producers, the per-unit costs of the components necessary 
to modify their CSUs might also be higher than those for higher volume 
producers. CSUs that meet the requirements of the proposed

[[Page 6302]]

rule may incorporate hardware designed to limit the ability of 
consumers to open multiple drawers at a time. Therefore, manufacturers 
would incur the costs of adding such drawer-interlock components. Based 
on information obtained from a CSU manufacturer, the cost of these 
components might average $6 to $12 per unit if the CSU only has one 
column of drawers. Component suppliers are likely to charge higher per 
unit prices to manufacturers that purchase fewer units. Also, larger 
companies with vertically integrated operations that own or operate 
suppliers can more easily adapt to changes in design and manufacturing, 
and therefore, may experience fewer impacts than smaller manufacturers 
without vertical integration.
    Manufacturers would likely incur some additional costs to certify 
that their CSUs meet the requirements of the proposed rule as required 
by section 14 of the CPSA. The certification must be based on a test of 
each product or a reasonable testing program. The costs of the testing 
might be minimal, especially for small manufacturers that currently 
conduct testing for conformance to the current voluntary standard, ASTM 
F2057-19. Importers may also rely on testing completed by other 
parties, such as their foreign suppliers, if those tests provide 
sufficient information for the manufacturers or importers to certify 
that the CSUs comply with the proposed rule. In the case of CSUs that 
are children's products, which are thought to constitute a very small 
portion of the market for CSUs, the cost of the certification testing 
could be somewhat higher because it would be required to be conducted 
by an accredited third-party testing laboratory.
    Small manufacturers and importers will also incur added costs of 
required warning labels and hang tags with comparative tip ratings. 
Those manufacturers currently using permanent warning labels in 
conformance with ASTM F2057-19, should not face significant incremental 
costs for the replacement labels specified by the proposed rule. The 
required hang tags showing tip ratings for each CSU would involve some 
incremental costs, although likely to be minor in relation to other 
product modifications required for compliance. The testing costs needed 
to generate the tip ratings will be incurred to comply with the 
performance testing of the proposed rule.
2. Impacts on Small Businesses
    Average manufacturer shipment value for CSUs was $118 per unit in 
2018 (about $104 for chests of drawers and $144 for dressers). The 
estimated costs to manufacturers for product modifications to comply 
with the proposed rule range from about $5.80 (in one case) up to $30 
or more per unit. Generally, staff considers impacts that exceed one 
percent of a firm's revenue to be potentially significant. Because the 
estimated average cost per CSU could be between about 5 percent and 25 
percent of the average revenue per unit for CSUs, staff believes that 
the proposed rule could have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small manufacturers and importers that receive a significant 
portion of their revenue from the sale of CSUs.
    For many small importers, the impact of the proposed rule would be 
expected to be similar to the impact on small domestic manufacturers. 
Foreign suppliers may pass much of the cost of redesigning and 
manufacturing CSUs that comply with the proposed rule to their domestic 
distributors. Therefore, the cost increases experienced by small 
importers would be similar to those experienced by small manufacturers.
    Small importers would be responsible for issuing a GCC certifying 
that their CSUs comply with the rule. However, importers may rely upon 
testing performed and GCCs issued by their suppliers in complying with 
this requirement. In the case of CSUs that are children's products, the 
certification must be based on testing by an accredited third-party 
conformity assessment body, which may involve additional costs.

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule

    CPSC did not identify any federal rules that duplicate or conflict 
with the proposed rule.

F. Alternatives Considered To Reduce the Burden on Small Entities

    As discussed in XI. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule, above, CPSC 
examined several alternatives to the proposed rule, which could reduce 
the burden on firms, including small entities. For the reasons 
described in that section, the Commission concluded that those 
alternatives would not adequately reduce the risk of injury and death 
associated with CSU tip overs, and is not proposing those alternatives.
    As part of that analysis, staff considered alternatives that could 
reduce the impact on small entities, specifically. One such alternative 
that could be specific to small entities could be variations on the 
proposed standard, such as reducing the required tip moment or testing 
units with weight in closed drawers of units with drawer interlock 
systems. Such modifications might reduce the need for other product 
changes, such as foot extensions, raising front feet, and added weight 
in the backs of CSUs. However, while perhaps reducing costs for 
manufacturers, such lessening of requirements would reduce the 
stability of units complying with the standard, thereby reducing the 
benefits of the standard.
    Another alternative that could be specific to small entities would 
be a longer effective date for the rule. In its report on potential 
cost impacts, Industrial Economics, Incorporated \138\ concluded from 
its limited subset of interviews that it appears likely that, unlike 
larger firms involved in ASTM standards development, ``many small 
furniture makers are not aware of the potential regulations under 
consideration.'' Smaller firms may, therefore, find it much more 
difficult to meet an effective date of 30 days after the rule is 
published. As discussed in XI. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule, 
extending the period before the rule becomes effective could reduce 
costs, but would also delay the benefits of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Industrial Economics, Incorporated (2019). Final Clothing 
Storage Units (CSUs) Market Research Report. CPSC Contractor Report. 
Researchers analyzed the characteristics of 890 CSUs, and found a 
height range of 18 to 138 inches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See Tab I of the NPR briefing package for further discussion of 
alternatives to the proposed rule. The Commission seeks comments on any 
alternatives that would reduce the impact on small entities, while 
adequately reducing the risk of injury and death associated with CSU 
tip overs.

G. Request for Comments

    The Commission invites comments on this IRFA and the potential 
impact of the proposed rule on small entities, especially small 
businesses. In particular, the Commission seeks comments on:
     The types and magnitude of manufacturing costs that might 
disproportionately impact small businesses or were not considered in 
this analysis;
     the costs of the testing and certification, warning label, 
and hang tag requirements in the proposed rule;
     the different impacts on small businesses associated with 
different effective dates;
     different impacts of the proposed rule on small 
manufacturers or suppliers that compete in different segments of the 
CSU market; and
     other alternatives that would minimize the impact on small

[[Page 6303]]

businesses but would still reduce the risk of CSU tip-over incidents.

XIV. Incorporation by Reference

    The proposed rule incorporates by reference ASTM F2057-19. The 
Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations regarding 
incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, in 
the preamble of the NPR, an agency must summarize the incorporated 
material, and discuss the ways in which the material is reasonably 
available to interested parties or how the agency worked to make the 
materials reasonably available. 1 CFR 51.5(a). In accordance with the 
OFR requirements, this preamble summarizes the provisions of ASTM 
F2057-19 that the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference.
    The standard is reasonably available to interested parties and 
interested parties can purchase a copy of ASTM F2057-19 from ASTM 
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, 
PA 19428-2959 USA; telephone: 610-832-9585; www.astm.org. Additionally, 
during the NPR comment period, a read-only copy of ASTM F2057-19 is 
available for viewing on ASTM's website at: https://www.astm.org/CPSC.htm. Once a final rule takes effect, a read-only copy of the 
standard will be available for viewing on the ASTM website at: https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/. Interested parties can also schedule an 
appointment to inspect a copy of the standard at CPSC's Division of the 
Secretariat, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone: 301-504-7479; email: [email protected].

XV. Testing, Certification, and Notice of Requirements

    Section 14(a) of the CPSA includes requirements for certifying that 
children's products and non-children's products comply with applicable 
mandatory standards. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Section 14(a)(1) addresses 
required certifications for non-children's products, and sections 
14(a)(2) and (a)(3) address certification requirements specific to 
children's products.
    A ``children's product'' is a consumer product that is ``designed 
or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger.'' Id. 
2052(a)(2). The following factors are relevant when determining whether 
a product is a children's product:
     Manufacturer statements about the intended use of the 
product, including a label on the product if such statement is 
reasonable;
     whether the product is represented in its packaging, 
display, promotion, or advertising as appropriate for use by children 
12 years of age or younger;
     whether the product is commonly recognized by consumers as 
being intended for use by a child 12 years of age or younger; and
     the Age Determination Guidelines issued by CPSC staff in 
September 2002, and any successor to such guidelines.
    Id. ``For use'' by children 12 years and younger generally means 
that children will interact physically with the product based on 
reasonably foreseeable use. 16 CFR 1200.2(a)(2). Children's products 
may be decorated or embellished with a childish theme, be sized for 
children, or be marketed to appeal primarily to children. Id. 
1200.2(d)(1).
    As discussed above, some CSUs are children's products and some are 
not. Therefore, a final rule on CSUs would subject CSUs that are not 
children's products to the certification requirements under section 
14(a)(1) of the CPSA and would subject CSUs that are children's 
products to the certification requirements under section 14(a)(2) and 
(a)(3) of the CPSA. The Commission's requirements for certificates of 
compliance are codified at 16 CFR part 1110.
    Non-Children's Products. Section 14(a)(1) of the CPSA requires 
every manufacturer (which includes importers \139\) of a non-children's 
product that is subject to a consumer product safety rule under the 
CPSA or a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other 
law enforced by the Commission to certify that the product complies 
with all applicable CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ The CPSA defines a ``manufacturer'' as ``any person who 
manufactures or imports a consumer product.'' 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Children's Products. Section 14(a)(2) of the CPSA requires the 
manufacturer or private labeler of a children's product that is subject 
to a children's product safety rule to certify that, based on a third-
party conformity assessment body's testing, the product complies with 
the applicable children's product safety rule. Id. 2063(a)(2). Section 
14(a) also requires the Commission to publish a notice of requirements 
(NOR) for a third-party conformity assessment body (i.e., testing 
laboratory) to obtain accreditation to assess conformity with a 
children's product safety rule. Id. 2063(a)(3)(A). Because some CSUs 
are children's products, the proposed rule is a children's product 
safety rule, as applied to those products. Accordingly, if the 
Commission issues a final rule, it must also issue an NOR.
    The Commission published a final rule, codified at 16 CFR part 
1112, entitled Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity 
Assessment Bodies, which established requirements and criteria 
concerning testing laboratories. 78 FR 15836 (Mar. 12, 2013). Part 1112 
includes procedures for CPSC to accept a testing laboratory's 
accreditation and lists the children's product safety rules for which 
CPSC has published NORs. When CPSC issues a new NOR, it must amend part 
1112 to include that NOR. Accordingly, as part of this NPR, the 
Commission proposes to amend part 1112 to add CSUs to the list of 
children's product safety rules for which CPSC has issued an NOR.
    Testing laboratories that apply for CPSC acceptance to test CSUs 
that are children's products for compliance with the new rule would 
have to meet the requirements in part 1112. When a laboratory meets the 
requirements of a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body, 
the laboratory can apply to CPSC to include 16 CFR part 1261, Safety 
Standard for Clothing Storage Units, in the laboratory's scope of 
accreditation of CPSC safety rules listed on the CPSC website at: 
www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

XVI. Environmental Considerations

    The Commission's regulations address whether CPSC is required to 
prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact 
statement (EIS). 16 CFR 1021.5. Those regulations list CPSC actions 
that ``normally have little or no potential for affecting the human 
environment,'' and therefore, fall within a ``categorical exclusion'' 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4231-4370h) and 
the regulations implementing it (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and do not 
require an EA or EIS. 16 CFR 1021.5(c). Among those actions are rules 
that provide performance standards for products. Id. 1021.5(c)(1). 
Because this proposed rule would create performance requirements for 
CSUs, the proposed rule falls within the categorical exclusion, and 
thus, no EA or EIS is required.

XVII. Preemption

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12988, Civil Justice Reform (Feb. 5, 1996), 
directs agencies to specify the preemptive effect of a rule in the 
regulation. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), section 3(b)(2)(A). In 
accordance with E.O. 12988, CPSC states the preemptive effect of the 
proposed rule, as follows:
    The regulation for CSUs is proposed under authority of the CPSA. 15 
U.S.C.

[[Page 6304]]

2051-2089. Section 26 of the CPSA provides that ``whenever a consumer 
product safety standard under this Act is in effect and applies to a 
risk of injury associated with a consumer product, no State or 
political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to 
establish or to continue in effect any provision of a safety standard 
or regulation which prescribes any requirements as to the performance, 
composition, contents, design, finish, construction, packaging or 
labeling of such product which are designed to deal with the same risk 
of injury associated with such consumer product, unless such 
requirements are identical to the requirements of the Federal 
Standard.'' 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). The federal government, or a state or 
local government, may establish or continue in effect a non-identical 
requirement for its own use that is designed to protect against the 
same risk of injury as the CPSC standard if the federal, state, or 
local requirement provides a higher degree of protection than the CPSA 
requirement. Id. 2075(b). In addition, states or political subdivisions 
of a state may apply for an exemption from preemption regarding a 
consumer product safety standard, and the Commission may issue a rule 
granting the exemption if it finds that the state or local standard: 
(1) Provides a significantly higher degree of protection from the risk 
of injury or illness than the CPSA standard, and (2) does not unduly 
burden interstate commerce. Id. 2075(c).
    Thus, the CSU requirements proposed in today's Federal Register 
would, if finalized, preempt non-identical state or local requirements 
for CSUs designed to protect against the same risk of injury and 
prescribing requirements regarding the performance, composition, 
contents, design, finish, construction, packaging or labeling of CSUs.

XVIII. Effective Date

    The CPSA requires that consumer product safety rules take effect at 
least 30 days after the date the rule is promulgated, but not later 
than 180 days after the date the rule is promulgated unless the 
Commission finds, for good cause shown, that an earlier or a later 
effective date is in the public interest and, in the case of a later 
effective date, publishes the reasons for that finding. 15 U.S.C. 
2058(g)(1). The Commission proposes that this rule become effective 30 
days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The 
rule would apply to all CSUs manufactured or imported on or after that 
effective date. Consistent with that, the Commission also proposes that 
the amendment to part 1112 become effective 30 days after publication 
of the final rule. The Commission requests comments on the proposed 
effective date.

XIX. Proposed Findings

    The CPSA requires the Commission to make certain findings when 
issuing a consumer product safety standard. Specifically, the CPSA 
requires the Commission to consider and make findings about the 
following:

     The degree and nature of the risk of injury the rule is 
designed to eliminate or reduce;
     the approximate number of consumer products subject to 
the rule;
     the need of the public for the products subject to the 
rule and the probable effect the rule will have on the cost, 
availability, and utility of such products;
     any means to achieve the objective of the rule while 
minimizing adverse effects on competition, manufacturing, and 
commercial practices;
     that the rule, including the effective date, is 
reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of 
injury associated with the product;
     that issuing the rule is in the public interest;
     if a voluntary standard addressing the risk of injury 
has been adopted and implemented, that either compliance with the 
voluntary standard is not likely to result in the elimination or 
adequate reduction of the risk or injury, or it is unlikely that 
there will be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard;
     that the benefits expected from the rule bear a 
reasonable relationship to its costs; and
     that the rule imposes the least burdensome requirement 
that prevents or adequately reduces the risk of injury.

15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(1), (f)(3). This section discusses these findings.

A. Degree and Nature of the Risk of Injury

    Based on incident data available through NEISS and CPSRMS, there 
were 193 reported CSU tip-over fatalities to children (i.e., under 18 
years old), 11 reported fatalities to adults (i.e., ages 18 through 64 
years), and 22 reported fatalities to seniors (i.e., ages 65 years and 
older) that were reported to have occurred between January 1, 2000 and 
December 31, 2020. Of the 193 reported child fatalities from CSU tip 
overs, 86 percent (166 fatalities) involved children 3 years old or 
younger, 6 percent (12 fatalities) involved 4-year-olds, 4 percent (7 
fatalities) involved 5-year-olds, 2 percent (4 fatalities) involved 6-
year-olds, less than one percent (1 fatality) involved a 7-year-old, 
and 2 percent (3 fatalities) involved 8-year-olds.
    Based on NEISS, there were an estimated 78,200 injuries, an annual 
average of 5,600 estimated injuries, related to CSU tip overs for all 
ages that were treated in U.S. hospital EDs from January 1, 2006 to 
December 31, 2019. Of the estimated 78,200 injuries, 56,400 (72 
percent) were to children, which is an annual average of 4,000 
estimated injuries to children over the 14-year period. In addition, 
the ICM projects that there were approximately 19,300 CSU tip-over 
injuries treated in other settings from 2015 through 2019, or an 
average of 3,900 per year. Combining the NEISS estimate of injuries 
treated in hospital EDs with the ICM estimate of medically attended 
injuries treated in other settings brings the estimate of all nonfatal, 
medically attended CSU tip-over injuries to children to 34,100 during 
the years 2015 through 2019.
    Injuries to children, resulting from CSUs tipping over, include 
soft tissue injuries, skeletal injuries and bone fractures, and 
fatalities resulting from skull fractures, closed-head injuries, 
compressional and mechanical asphyxia, and internal organ crushing 
leading to hemorrhage.

B. Number of Consumer Products Subject to the Proposed Rule

    In 2017, there were approximately 463.5 million CSUs in use. In 
2018, combined shipments of dressers and chests totaled 43.6 million 
units. Annual sales of CSUs total about 44 million units.

C. The Public Need for CSUs and the Effects of the Proposed Rule on 
Their Utility, Cost, and Availability

    Consumers commonly use CSUs to store clothing in their homes. The 
proposed rule provides a performance standard that requires CSUs to 
meet a minimum stability threshold, but does not restrict the design of 
CSUs. As such, CSUs that meet the standard would continue to serve the 
purpose of storing clothing in consumers' homes. There may be a 
negative effect on the utility of CSUs if CSUs that comply with the 
standard are less convenient to use, such as altered designs to limit 
drawer extensions, an increase in the footprint of the product, or a 
reduction in storage capacity. Another potential effect on utility 
could occur if, in order to comply with the standard, manufacturers 
modify CSUs to eliminate certain desired characteristics or styles, or 
discontinue models. However, this loss of utility would be mitigated to 
the extent that other CSUs with similar characteristics and features 
are available that comply with the standard.
    Retail prices of CSUs vary substantially. The least expensive units 
retail for less than $100, while some

[[Page 6305]]

more expensive units may retail for several thousand dollars. Of the 
potential modifications to comply with the standard for which CPSC 
staff was able to estimate the potential cost, the lowest costs were 
about $5.80 per unit; however, several were significantly higher. CSU 
prices may increase to reflect the added cost of modifying or 
redesigning products to comply with the standard, or to account for 
increased distribution costs if CSUs are heavier or include additional 
parts. In addition, consumers may incur a cost in the form of 
additional time to assemble CSUs if additional safety features are 
included.
    If the costs associated with redesigning or modifying a CSU model 
to comply with the standard results in the manufacturer discontinuing 
that model, there would be some loss in availability of CSUs.

D. Other Means To Achieve the Objective of the Proposed Rule, While 
Minimizing Adverse Effects on Competition and Manufacturing

    The Commission considered alternatives to achieving the objective 
of the rule of reducing unreasonable risks of injury and death 
associated with CSU tip overs. For example, the Commission considered 
relying on voluntary recalls, compliance with the voluntary standard, 
and education campaigns, rather than issuing a standard. Because this 
is the approach CPSC has relied on, to date, this alternative would 
have minimal costs; however, it is unlikely to further reduce the risk 
of injury from CSU tip overs.
    The Commission also considered issuing a standard that requires 
only performance and technical data, with no performance requirements 
for stability. This would impose lower costs on manufacturers, but is 
unlikely to adequately reduce the risk of injury from CSU tip overs 
because it relies on manufacturers choosing to offer more stable units; 
consumer assessment of their need for more stable units (which CPSC's 
research indicates consumers underestimate); and does not account for 
CSUs outside a child's home or purchased before a child was born.
    The Commission also considered mandating a standard like ASTM 
F2057-19, but replacing the 50-pound test weight with a 60-pound test 
weight. This alternative would be less costly than the proposed rule, 
because many CSUs already meet such a requirement, and it would likely 
cost less to modify noncompliant units to meet this less stringent 
standard. However, this alternative is unlikely to adequately reduce 
the risk of CSU tip overs because it does not account for factors that 
are present in CSU tip-over incidents that contribute to CSU 
instability, including multiple open and filled drawers, carpeting, and 
forces generated by a child interacting with the CSU.
    Another alternative the Commission considered was providing a 
longer effective date. This may reduce the costs of the rule by 
spreading them over a longer period, but it would also delay the 
benefits of the rule, in the form of reduced deaths and injuries.
    Another alternative the Commission considered is adopting a 
mandatory standard with the requirements in the proposed rule, but 
addressing 60-pound children, rather than 51.2-pound children. However, 
this alternative would be more stringent than the proposed rule and, 
therefore, would likely increase the costs associated with the rule, 
while only increasing the benefits of the rule by about 4.5 percent.

E. Unreasonable Risk

    As described above, incident data from NEISS and CPSRMS indicates 
that there were 226 reported CSU tip-over fatalities that were reported 
to have occurred between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2020, of 
which 85 percent (193 incidents) were children, 5 percent (11 
incidents) were adults, and 10 percent (22 incidents) were seniors. Of 
the reported child fatalities from CSU tip overs, 86 percent (166 
fatalities) involved children 3 years old or younger.
    Based on NEISS, there were an estimated 78,200 injuries, an annual 
average of 5,600 estimated injuries, related to CSU tip overs that were 
treated in U.S. hospital EDs from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2019. 
Of these, 72 percent (56,400) were to children, which is an annual 
average of 4,000 estimated injuries to children over the 14-year 
period. In addition, the ICM projects that there were approximately 
19,300 CSU tip-over injuries treated in other settings from 2015 
through 2019, or an average of 3,900 per year. Combining the NEISS 
estimate of injuries treated in hospital EDs with the ICM estimate of 
medically attended injuries treated in other settings brings the 
estimate of all nonfatal, medically attended CSU tip-over injuries to 
children to 34,100 during the years 2015 through 2019.
    Injuries to children when CSUs tip over can be serious. They 
include fatal injuries resulting from skull fractures, closed-head 
injuries, compressional and mechanical asphyxia, and internal organ 
crushing leading to hemorrhage; they also include serious nonfatal 
injuries, including skeletal injuries and bone fractures.
    The Commission estimates that the rule would result in aggregate 
benefits of about $305.5 million annually. Of the potential 
modifications for which staff was able to estimate the potential cost, 
the lowest costs were about $5.80 per unit. Several were significantly 
higher. Even assuming the low cost of about $5.80 per unit, assuming 
annual sales of at least 43 million units, the annual cost of the 
proposed rule would be around $250 million. In addition, there is an 
unquantifiable cost to consumers associated with lost utility and 
availability, and increased costs.
    The Commission concludes preliminarily that CSU tip overs pose an 
unreasonable risk of injury and finds that the proposed rule is 
reasonably necessary to reduce that unreasonable risk of injury

F. Public Interest

    This proposed rule is intended to address an unreasonable risk of 
injury and death posed by CSUs tipping over. The Commission believes 
that adherence to the requirements of the proposed rule will 
significantly reduce CSU tip-over deaths and injuries in the future; 
thus, the rule is in the public interest.

G. Voluntary Standards

    The Commission is aware of four voluntary and international 
standards that are applicable to CSUs: ASTM F2057-19, Standard Consumer 
Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units; AS/NZS 4935: 2009, the 
Australian/New Zealand Standard for Domestic furniture--Freestanding 
chests of drawers, wardrobes and bookshelves/bookcases--determination 
of stability; ISO 7171 (2019), the International Organization for 
Standardization International Standard for Furniture--Storage Units--
Determination of stability; and EN14749 (2016), the European Standard, 
European Standard for Domestic and kitchen storage units and worktops--
Safety requirements and test methods. The Commission does not consider 
the standards adequate because they do not account for the multiple 
factors that are commonly present simultaneously in CSU tip-over 
incidents and that testing indicates decrease the stability of the CSU. 
These factors include multiple open and filled drawers, carpeted 
flooring, and dynamic forces generated by children's interactions with 
the CSU, such as climbing or pulling on the top drawer.

H. Relationship of Benefits to Costs

    The aggregate benefits of the rule are estimated to be about $305.5 
million annually; and the cost of the rule is

[[Page 6306]]

estimated to be about $250 million annually (based on the lowest 
estimated cost of potential modifications to the units staff 
evaluated). On a per unit basis, the Commission estimates the expected 
benefits per unit to be $6.01, assuming a 7 percent discount rate; 
$7.88 assuming a 3 percent discount rate; and $9.90 without 
discounting. The Commission's lowest estimated expected cost to 
manufacturers per unit is $5.80 (based on the CSUs evaluated), plus an 
unquantifiable cost to consumers associated with lost utility and 
availability, and increased costs. Based on this analysis, the 
Commission preliminarily finds that the benefits expected from the rule 
bear a reasonable relationship to the anticipated costs of the rule.

I. Least Burdensome Requirement That Would Adequately Reduce the Risk 
of Injury

    The Commission considered less-burdensome alternatives to the 
proposed rule, but preliminarily concludes that none of these 
alternatives would adequately reduce the risk of injury.
    The Commission considered relying on voluntary recalls, compliance 
with the voluntary standard, and education campaigns, rather than 
issuing a mandatory standard. This alternative would have minimal 
costs, but would be unlikely to reduce the risk of injury from CSU tip 
overs. The Commission has relied on these efforts to date, but despite 
these efforts, there has been no declining trend in child injuries from 
CSU tip overs (without televisions) from 2006 to 2019.
    The Commission considered issuing a standard that requires only 
performance and technical data, with no performance requirements for 
stability. This would impose lower costs on manufacturers, but is 
unlikely to adequately reduce the risk of injury because it relies on 
manufacturers choosing to offer more stable units; consumer assessment 
of their need for more stable units (which CPSC's research indicates 
consumers underestimate); and does not account for CSUs outside a 
child's home or purchased before a child was born.
    The Commission considered mandating a standard like ASTM F2057-19, 
but replacing the 50-pound test weight with a 60-pound test weight. 
This alternative would be less costly than the proposed rule, because 
many CSUs already meet such a requirement, and it would likely cost 
less to modify noncompliant units to meet this less stringent standard. 
However, this alternative is unlikely to adequately reduce the risk of 
CSU tip overs because it does not account for several factors that are 
simultaneously present in CSU tip-over incidents and contribute to 
instability, including multiple open and filled drawers, carpeting, and 
forces generated by a child interacting with the CSU.
    The Commission considered providing a longer effective date. This 
may reduce the costs of the rule by spreading them over a longer 
period, but it would also delay the benefits of the rule, in the form 
of reduced deaths and injuries.

XX. Request for Comments

    The Commission invites comments on all aspects of the proposed 
rule. Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions 
in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice. The following 
are specific comment topics that the Commission would find helpful:

A. Scope and Definitions

     The scope of the proposed standard, including the products 
covered, and the characteristics used to define and identify CSUs;
     the listed exclusions, including whether the excluded 
products should be included, or whether other products should be 
excluded;
     whether the scope of the proposed rule should include CSUs 
under 27 inches, or all CSUs, regardless of height;
     whether lightweight units, including lightweight plastic 
units, should be excluded from the scope of the rule, and if so, the 
safety justification for doing so, and what the weight threshold should 
be and why;
     whether all freestanding items marketed and/or advertised 
as suitable for clothing storage should be included in the scope of the 
standard, even if they would otherwise be excluded based on their 
design;
     whether nightstands with drawers and/or doors should be 
included in the scope and what design features and safety 
considerations distinguish nightstands from CSUs;
     design features that distinguish non-CSU cabinets from 
door chests and other similar CSUs; and
     the proposed definitions, including whether any 
definitions should be modified, or any additional terms should be 
defined.

B. Fill Requirements

     Whether the fill amounts for drawers and pull-out shelves 
at 8.5 pounds per cubic foot are reasonable or should be revised;
     data on the weight of clothes in drawers; and
     whether pull-out shelves should be tested with the same 
storage density as drawers, or would a lower fill weight for pull-out 
drawers be appropriate (e.g., 4.25 pounds per cubic foot).

C. Performance Requirements

     The stability requirements, and whether they are adequate, 
or should be modified;
     whether the moment requirements should be increased (e.g., 
the same stability requirements as in the proposed rule, but with a 60-
pound child interaction, or simulating more aggressive behavior) or 
decreased (e.g., use different force/moment values to simulate 
climbing);
     the proposed test methods and any alternatives;
     whether a 1.5-degree forward tilt adequately replicates 
the effects of a CSU resting on carpet;
     whether an inclined surface test should be added to 
account for sloped floors;
     whether ANSI/BIFMA SOHO S6.5-2008 (R2013) requirements for 
interlocks are appropriate to consider for CSU interlocks, or what 
different requirements to consider and why;
     whether the 30-pound proposed performance requirement is 
adequate to assess that the drawer interlock design cannot be easily 
defeated or overridden by consumers;
     whether drawer interlocks should be subject to a 
performance requirement to ensure designs cannot be easily defeated or 
overridden by consumers;
     whether labeling or instructions for proper leveling on 
carpet should be a requirement;
     whether levelling devices should be non-adjustable to 
account for carpeting;
     whether levelling devices should be allowed to be adjusted 
per the manufacturer instructions during stability testing;
     whether levelling devices should include preset heights to 
account for carpeting;
     whether levelling devices should require a permanent 
adjustment mark that indicates the position recommended for use on a 
carpeted surface;
     whether the criteria to measure the maximum tip-over load 
should be the rear of the CSU lifting off at least \1/4\ inch from the 
test surface;
     whether interlocks for ready-to-assemble furniture should 
be pre-assembled and/or automatically engage;
     how to test interlock systems that have an override, such 
as two drawers opened simultaneously, and how to determine whether 
children can engage an override, and associated test methods;

[[Page 6307]]

     whether interlocks on other extendible elements besides 
drawers should be considered (e.g., doors, shelves);
     whether and how to test automatically closing drawers;
     whether all three of the comparison tip-over moments 
should be included in the standard, whether any should not be included, 
or whether any additional forces or interactions should be included;
     pull force and force application location; and
     drawer extension requirements during testing.

D. Child Interactions and Associated Forces

     Whether the test method should account for pull forces on 
the CSU, and the assumptions of pull force and force application 
location (e.g., is the 17.2-pound horizontal force applied at maximum 
4.12 feet vertical distance appropriate to simulate a child pulling a 
drawer or pulling on a CSU);
     assumptions relating to children's interactions with doors 
and associated forces, including whether interactions involving opening 
doors and climbing on doors should be addressed; and
     the adequacy of the proposed requirement regarding opening 
and climbing on doors.

E. Marking and Labeling

     Whether the proposed warning requirements are adequate, or 
should be modified;
     suggestions for the language and format of the warning 
label;
     suggestions for the language and format of the 
informational label;
     whether the graphical symbols being studied, as well as 
the symbols included in ASTM F2057-19 are appropriate, effective, and 
understandable;
     the size, content, symbols, format, location, and 
permanency of marking and labeling;
     whether there should there be a warning on CSUs to anchor 
the television, when the CSU is suitable for holding a television;
     whether labeling or instructions for proper levelling on 
carpet should be a requirement, especially for CSUs with levelers to 
tilt the unit backwards on carpet; and
     whether the product and packaging should contain a label 
that states: ``meets CPSC stability requirements.''

F. Hang Tags

     All aspects of the proposed hang tag requirements;
     whether the hang tag rating and explanatory text is 
understandable;
     suggestions for the language or format of the hang tag;
     potential rating calculations, and suggestions for other 
ratings; and
     improvements in the graphic quality that maintain 
symbolic, iconic representation of a tip-over event.

G. Tip Restraints

     Tip restraints, including their adequacy and suggestions 
for improving the tip restraint requirements outlined in ASTM F3096-14 
and ASTM F2057-19;
     whether there should be a requirement that all CSUs come 
with a tip restraint and/or whether there should be a requirement that 
CSUs intended for use with televisions should include a television 
restraint device and/or means to anchor a television (including a flat 
panel televisions) on the CSU, such as a universal attachment point;
     potential test methods related to tip restraints, 
including whether requirements should address designs where tip 
restraint installation is mandatory to unlock drawers; and
     whether the Commission should develop tip restraint 
requirements, such as restraints permanently attached to the CSU or an 
attachment point, such as a D-ring, that will not fail when pulled at a 
specified force.

H. Economic Analysis (Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and IRFA)

     The annual unit sales of CSUs;
     the accuracy and reasonableness of the benefits estimates;
     the accuracy or reasonableness of the cost estimates for 
manufacturers and importers (if available, sales or other shipment data 
would be helpful);
     costs of the testing and certification requirements;
     costs associated with the warning label and hang tag 
requirements;
     the cost and other impacts of adding weight to the rear of 
the CSU to meet the requirements of the proposed rule;
     the practicality and costs of using levelers or other 
means of raising the front of a CSU to meet the requirements of the 
proposed rule;
     the potential modifications discussed in this preamble and 
the NPR briefing package, and their estimated costs;
     other ways CSUs could be modified to comply with the 
requirements of the proposed rule, including the potential cost of the 
modifications and other impacts on the CSUs or their utility. CPSC is 
particularly interested in ways that the cost of the modifications 
could be offset by making other changes in the design of the CSUs or 
the manufacturing processes used;
     the sensitivity analysis and any other valuations used in 
CPSC's analysis;
     the types and magnitude of manufacturing costs that might 
disproportionately impact small businesses or were not considered in 
the agency's analysis;
     the different impacts on small businesses associated with 
different effective dates;
     the differential impacts of the proposed rule on small 
manufacturers or suppliers that compete in different segments of the 
CSU market; and
     other alternatives that would minimize the impact on small 
businesses but would still reduce the risk of CSU tip-over incidents.

I. Stockpiling

     The need for an anti-stockpiling requirement;
     the proposed manufacture and import limits; and
     the proposed base period for the stockpiling provision.

J. Effective Date

     The reasonableness of the proposed 30-day effective date 
and recommendations for a different effective date, if justified; and
     comments recommending a longer effective date should 
describe the problems associated with meeting the proposed effective 
date and the justification for a longer one.

XXI. Promulgation of a Final Rule

    Section 9(d)(1) of the CPSA requires the Commission to promulgate a 
final consumer product safety rule within 60 days of publishing a 
proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(1). Otherwise, the Commission must 
withdraw the proposed rule, if it determines that the rule is not 
reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of 
injury associated with the product, or is not in the public interest. 
Id. However, the Commission can extend the 60-day period for good cause 
shown, if it publishes the reasons for doing so in the Federal 
Register. Id.
    The Commission finds there is good cause to extend the 60-day 
period for this rulemaking. Under both the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA; 5 U.S.C. 551-559) and the CPSA, the Commission must provide an 
opportunity for interested parties to submit written comments on a 
proposed rule. 5 U.S.C. 553; 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). The Commission 
typically provides 75 days for interested parties to submit written 
comments. Because of the size,

[[Page 6308]]

complexity, and potential impacts of this proposed rule, the Commission 
considers it appropriate to provide a 75-day comment period. In 
addition, the CPSA requires the Commission to provide interested 
parties with an opportunity to make oral presentations of data, views, 
or arguments. 15 U.S.C. 2058. This requires time for the Commission to 
arrange a public meeting for this purpose, and provide notice to 
interested parties in advance of that meeting. After receiving written 
and oral comments, CPSC staff must have time to review and evaluate 
those comments.
    These factors make it impossible for the Commission to issue a 
final rule within 60 days of this proposed rule. Accordingly, the 
Commission finds there is good cause to extend the 60-day period.

XXII. Conclusion

    For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission proposes 
requirements for CSUs to address an unreasonable risk of injury 
associated with CSU tip overs.

List of Subjects

16 CFR Part 1112

    Administrative practice and procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Third-party conformity 
assessment body.

16 CFR Part 1261

    Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, 
Information, Labeling, Safety.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes 
to amend chapter II, subchapter B, title 16 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 1112--REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY CONFORMITY 
ASSESSMENT BODIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 1112 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Pub. L. 110-314, section 3, 122 Stat. 3016, 3017 
(2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1112.15 by adding paragraph (b)(54) to read as follows:


Sec.  1112.15   When can a third party conformity assessment body apply 
for CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule or test method?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (54) 16 CFR part 1261, Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units.
* * * * *
0
3. Add part 1261 to read as follows:

PART 1261--SAFETY STANDARD FOR CLOTHING STORAGE UNITS

Sec.
1261.1 Scope, purpose, application, and exemptions.
1261.2 Definitions.
1261.3 Requirements for interlocks.
1261.4 Requirements for stability.
1261.5 Requirements for marking and labeling.
1261.6 Requirements to provide performance and technical data by 
labeling.
1261.7 Prohibited stockpiling.
1261.8 Findings.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2051(b), 2056, 2058, 2063(c), 2076(e)


Sec.  1261.1  Scope, purpose, application, and exemptions.

    (a) Scope and purpose. This part, a consumer product safety 
standard, prescribes the safety requirements, including labeling and 
hang tag requirements, for clothing storage units, as defined in Sec.  
1261.2(a). These requirements are intended to reduce or eliminate an 
unreasonable risk of death or injury to consumers from clothing storage 
unit tip overs.
    (b) Application. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this 
section, all clothing storage units that are manufactured in the Unites 
States, or imported, on or after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], are 
subject to the requirements of this part 1261, if they are consumer 
products. Section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
2052(a)(1)) defines the term consumer product as an ``article, or 
component part thereof, produced or distributed.
    (1) For sale to a consumer for use in or around a permanent or 
temporary household or residence, a school, in recreation, or 
otherwise, or
    (2) For the personal use, consumption or enjoyment of a consumer in 
or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, a school, in 
recreation, or otherwise.'' The term does not include products that are 
not customarily produced or distributed for sale to, or for the use or 
consumption by, or enjoyment of, a consumer.
    (c) Exemptions. The following products are exempt from this part:
    (1) Clothes lockers, as defined in Sec.  1261.2(b), and
    (2) Portable storage closets, as defined in Sec.  1261.2(s).


Sec.  1261.2  Definitions.

    In addition to the definitions given in section 3 of the Consumer 
Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052), the following definitions apply 
for purposes of this part:
    (a) Clothing storage unit means a freestanding furniture item, with 
drawer(s) and/or door(s), that may be reasonably expected to be used 
for storing clothing, that is greater than or equal to 27 inches in 
height, and with a total functional volume of the closed storage 
greater than 1.3 cubic feet and greater than the sum of the total 
functional volume of the open storage and the total volume of the open 
space. Common names for clothing storage units include, but are not 
limited to: Chests, bureaus, dressers, armoires, wardrobes, chests of 
drawers, drawer chests, chifforobes, and door chests. Whether a product 
is a clothing storage unit depends on whether it meets this definition. 
Some products that generally do not meet the criteria in this 
definition and, therefore, likely are not considered clothing storage 
units are: Shelving units, office furniture, dining room furniture, 
laundry hampers, built-in closets, and single-compartment closed rigid 
boxes (storage chests).
    (b) Clothes locker means a predominantly metal furniture item 
without exterior drawers and with one or more doors that either locks 
or accommodates an external lock.
    (c) Closed storage means storage space inside a drawer and/or 
behind an opaque door. For this part, both sliding and hinged doors are 
considered in the definition of closed storage.
    (d) Door means a hinged furniture component that can be opened or 
closed, typically outward or downward, to form a barrier; or a sliding 
furniture component that can be opened or closed by sliding across the 
face or case of the furniture item. This does not include vertically 
opening hinged lids.
    (e) Door extension from fulcrum distance means the horizontal 
distance measured from the farthest point of a hinged door that opens 
outward or downward, while the door is in a position where the center 
of mass of the door is extended furthest from the front face of the 
unit (typically 90 degrees), to the fulcrum, while the CSU is on a 
hard, level, and flat test surface. See figure 1 to this paragraph (e). 
Sliding doors that remain within the CSU case are not considered to 
have a door extension.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 6309]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.011

    (f) Drawer means a furniture component intended to contain or store 
items that slides horizontally in and out of the furniture case and may 
be attached to the case by some means, such as glides.
    (g) Drawer or pull-out shelf extension from fulcrum distance means 
the horizontal distance measured from the centerline of the front face 
of the drawer or the outermost surface of the pull-out shelf to the 
fulcrum, when the drawer or pull-out shelf is at the maximum extension 
and the CSU is on a hard, level, and flat test surface. For a curved or 
angled surface this measurement is taken where the distance is at its 
greatest. See figure 2 to this paragraph (g).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.012

    (h) Freestanding means that the unit remains upright, without 
requiring attachment to the wall, when it is fully assembled and empty, 
with all extension elements closed. Built-in units or units intended to 
be permanently attached to the building structure, other than by tip 
restraints, are not considered freestanding. Examples of units that are 
intended to be permanently installed include, but are not limited to, 
kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities.
    (i) Functional volume of a drawer or pull-out shelf means the 
interior bottom surface area multiplied by the effective drawer/pull-
out shelf height, which is distance from the bottom surface of the 
drawer/pull-out shelf to the top of the drawer/pull-out shelf 
compartment minus \1/8\ inches (see figure 3 to this paragraph (i)). 
Functional volume behind a door means the interior bottom surface area 
behind the door, when the door is closed, multiplied by the height of 
the storage compartment (see figure 4 to this paragraph (i)). 
Functional volume of open storage means the interior bottom surface 
area multiplied by the effective open storage height, which is

[[Page 6310]]

distance from the bottom surface of the open storage to the top of the 
open storage compartment minus \1/8\ inches.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.013


[[Page 6311]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.014

    (j) Fulcrum means the point or line at the base of the CSU about 
which the CSU pivots when a tip-over force is applied (typically the 
front feet).
    (k) Hard, level, and flat test surface means a test surface that is
    (1) Sufficiently hard to not bend or break under the weight of a 
clothing storage unit and any loads associated with testing the unit;
    (2) Level with no more than 0.5 degrees of variation; and
    (3) Smooth and even.
    (l) Interlock means a device that restricts simultaneous opening of 
drawers. An interlock may allow only one drawer to open at a time, or 
may allow more than one drawer, but fewer than all the drawers, to open 
simultaneously.
    (m) Levelling device means an adjustable device intended to adjust 
the level of the clothing storage unit.
    (n) Maximum extension means a condition when a drawer or pull-out 
shelf is open to the furthest manufacturer recommended use position, as 
indicated by way of a stop. In the case of slides with multiple 
intermediate stops, this is the stop that allows the drawer or pull-out 
shelf to extend the furthest. In the case of slides with a multipart 
stop, such as a stop that extends the drawer or pull-out shelf to the 
furthest manufacturer recommended use position with an additional stop 
that retains the drawer or pull-out shelf in the case, this is the stop 
that extends the drawer or pull-out shelf to the manufacturer 
recommended use position. If the manufacturer does not provide a 
recommended use position by way of a stop, this is \2/3\ the shortest 
internal length of the drawer measured from the inside face of the 
drawer front to the inside face of the drawer back or \2/3\ the length 
of the pull-out shelf. See figure 5 to this paragraph (n).

[[Page 6312]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.015

    (o) Maximum handhold height means the highest position at which a 
child may grab hold of the CSU. This includes the top of the CSU. This 
height is limited to a maximum of 4.12 feet from the ground, while the 
CSU is on a flat and level surface. See figure 6 to this paragraph (o).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.016

    (p) Moment means a moment of a force, which is a measure of the 
tendency to cause a body to rotate about a specific point or axis. It 
is measured in pound-feet, representing a force multiplied by a lever 
arm, or distance from the force to the point of rotation.
    (q) Open storage means storage space enclosed on at least 5 sides 
by a frame or panel(s) and/or behind a non-opaque door and with a flat 
bottom surface.
    (r) Open space means space enclosed within the frame or panels, but 
without a bottom surface. For example, under

[[Page 6313]]

legs or between storage components, as with a vanity.
    (s) Portable storage closet means a freestanding furniture item 
with an open frame that encloses hanging clothing storage space and/or 
shelves. This item may have a cloth case with curtain(s), flap(s), or 
door(s) that obscure the contents from view.
    (t) Pull-out shelf means a furniture component with a horizontal 
flat surface that slides horizontally in and out of the furniture case 
and may be attached to the case by some means, such as glides.
    (u) Tip over means the point at which a clothing storage unit 
pivots forward such that the rear feet or, if there are no feet, the 
edge of the CSU lifts at least \1/4\ inch from the floor and/or is 
supported by a non-support element.
    (v) Tip-over force means the force required to cause tip over of 
the clothing storage unit.
    (w) Tip-over moment means the minimum moment in pounds-feet about 
the fulcrum that causes tip over.


Sec.  1261.3  Requirements for interlocks.

    (a) General. For all clothing storage units, including consumer-
assembled units, the interlock components must be pre-installed, and 
automatically engage when the consumer installs the drawers in the 
unit. All interlocks must engage automatically as part of normal use.
    (b) Interlock pull test. (1) If the unit is not fully assembled, 
assemble the unit according to the manufacturer's instructions.
    (2) Place the unit on a hard, level, and flat test surface.
    (3) If the unit has a levelling device, adjust the levelling device 
to the lowest level; then adjust the levelling device in accordance 
with the manufacturer's instructions.
    (4) Secure the unit to prevent sliding or tip over.
    (5) Open any doors in front of the interlocked drawers.
    (6) Engage the interlock by opening a drawer, or the number of 
drawers necessary to engage the interlock, to the maximum extension.
    (7) Gradually apply over a period of at least 5 seconds a 30-pound 
horizontal pull force on each locked drawer, one drawer at a time, and 
hold the force for at least 10 seconds.
    (8) Repeat this test until all possible combinations of drawers 
have been tested.
    (c) Performance requirement. During the testing specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section, if any locked drawer opens or the 
interlock is damaged, then the interlock will be disabled or bypassed 
for the stability testing in Sec.  1261.4(c).


Sec.  1261.4  Requirements for stability.

    (a) General. Clothing storage units shall be configured as 
described in paragraph (b) of this section, and tested in accordance 
with the procedure in paragraph (c) of this section. Clothing storage 
units shall meet the requirement for tip-over stability based on the 
minimum tip-over moment as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (b) Test configuration. The clothing storage unit used for tip-over 
testing shall be configured in the following manner:
    (1) If the unit is not fully assembled, assemble the unit according 
to the manufacturer's instructions.
    (2) Place the unit on a hard, level, and flat test surface.
    (3) If the CSU has a levelling device, adjust the levelling device 
to the lowest level; then adjust the levelling device in accordance 
with the manufacturer's instructions.
    (4) Tilt the CSU forward to 1.5 degrees by one of the following 
methods:
    (i) Raise the rear of the unit until the unit has a 1.5-degree 
forward tilt, or
    (ii) Place the unit on a hard and flat 1.5-degree inclined surface, 
with the high point at the rear of the unit surface, or
    (iii) Other means to achieve a 1.5-degree forward tilt.
    (5) If the CSU has a levelling device intended for a carpeted 
surface, adjust the level in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions for a carpeted surface.
    (6) Open all hinged doors that open outward or downward to the 
position where the center of mass of the door is extended furthest from 
the front face of the unit (typically 90 degrees).
    (7) For units without an interlock:
    (i) Open all drawers and pull-out shelves to the maximum extension.
    (ii) Place a fill weight in the center of each drawer or pull-out 
shelf consisting of a uniformly distributed mass in pounds that is 8.5 
(pounds/cubic foot) times the functional volume (cubic feet).
    (8) For units with an interlock:
    (i) If, during the testing specified in Sec.  1261.3(b), any locked 
drawer opens or the interlock is damaged, then disable or bypass the 
interlock for the stability testing required in this section, and 
follow the requirements for units without an interlock.
    (ii) If, during the testing specified in Sec.  1261.3(b), no locked 
drawer opens and the interlock is not damaged, then:
    (A) Open all drawers that are not locked by the interlock system to 
the maximum extension, in the configuration most likely to cause tip 
over (typically the configuration with the largest drawers in the 
highest position open).
    (B) If 50 percent or more of the drawers and pull-out shelves by 
functional volume are open, place a fill weight in the center of each 
drawer or pull-out shelf, including those that remain closed (see 
figure 1 to this paragraph (b)(8)), consisting of a uniformly 
distributed mass in pounds that is 8.5 (pounds/cubic foot) times the 
functional volume (cubic feet). Secure the fill weights to prevent 
sliding.
    (C) If less than 50 percent of the drawers and pull-out shelves by 
functional volume are open, do not place a fill weight in any drawers 
or on any pull-out shelves (see figure 2 to this paragraph (b(8)).

[[Page 6314]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.018

    (c) Test procedure to determine tip-over moment of the unit. 
Perform one of the following two tip-over tests (Test Method 1 or Test 
Method 2), whichever is the most appropriate for the unit:
    (1) Test Method 1 can be used for units with drawers or pull-out 
shelves. Gradually apply over a period of at least 5 seconds a vertical 
force to the face of the uppermost extended drawer/pull-out shelf of 
the unit to cause the unit to tip over. Record the tip-over force and 
horizontal distance from the force application point to the fulcrum. 
Calculate the tip-over moment of the unit by multiplying the tip-over 
force (pounds) by the horizontal distance from the force application 
point to the fulcrum (feet). See figure 3 to this paragraph (c)(1). 
NOTE: If a drawer breaks during the test due to the force, use Test 
Method 2 or secure or reinforce the drawer, as long as the 
modifications do not increase the tip-over moment.

[[Page 6315]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.019

    (2) Test Method 2 can be used for any unit. Gradually apply over a 
period of at least 5 seconds a horizontal force to the back of the unit 
orthogonal to the fulcrum to cause the unit to tip over. Record the 
force and the vertical distance from the force application point to the 
fulcrum. Calculate the tip-over moment of the unit by multiplying the 
tip-over force (pounds) by the vertical distance from the force 
application point to the fulcrum (feet). See figure 4 to this paragraph 
(c)(2).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.020

    (d) Performance requirement. The tip-over moment of the clothing 
storage unit must be greater than the threshold moment, which is the 
greatest of all of the applicable moments in paragraphs (d)(1) through 
(3) of this section:
    (1) For units with a drawer(s) or pull-out shelf(ves): 55.3 pounds 
times the drawer or pull-out shelf extension from

[[Page 6316]]

fulcrum distance in feet + 26.6 pounds feet;
    (2) For units with a door(s): 51.2 pounds times the door extension 
from fulcrum distance in feet--12.8; and
    (3) For all units: 17.2 pounds times maximum handhold height in 
feet.


Sec.  1261.5  Requirements for marking and labeling.

    (a) Warning label requirements. The clothing storage unit shall 
have a warning label, as defined below and as shown in figure 1 to this 
paragraph (a).
    (1) Size. The warning label shall be at least 2 inches wide by 2 
inches tall.
    (2) Content. (i) The warning label shall contain the following 
text:

    Children have died from furniture tip over. To reduce the risk 
of tip over:
     ALWAYS secure this furniture to the wall using an anti-
tip device
     NEVER allow children to stand, climb, or hang on 
drawers, doors or shelves.
     [for units with interlocks only] Do not defeat or 
remove the drawer interlock system
     Place heaviest items in the lowest drawers
     [for units that are not designed to hold a television 
only] NEVER put a TV on this furniture

    (ii) The warning label shall contain the child climbing symbol 
displayed in figure 1 to this paragraph (a), with the prohibition 
symbol in red. For units that are not designed to hold a television, 
the warning label shall contain the no television symbol displayed in 
figure 1, with the prohibition symbol in red.
    (3) Format. The warning label shall use the signal word panel 
content and format specified in Section 8.2.2 of ASTM F2057-19, 
Standard Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units, and the font, 
font size, and color specified in Section 8.2.3 of ASTM F2057-19 
(incorporated by reference, see paragraph (c) of this section). Each 
safety symbol shall measure at least 1 in. by 1 in. See figure 1 to 
this paragraph (a).
    (4) Location. (i) For units with one or more drawer(s):
    (A) The warning label shall be located on the interior side panel 
of a drawer in the upper most drawer row, or if the top of the 
drawer(s) in the upper most drawer row is more than 56 inches from the 
floor, on the interior side panel of a drawer in the upper most drawer 
row below 56 inches from the floor, as measured from the top of the 
drawer.
    (B) The top left corner of the warning label shall be positioned 
within 1 inch of the top of the drawer side panel and within the front 
\1/3\ of the interior drawer depth.
    (ii) For units with only doors: The warning label shall be located 
on an interior side or back panel of the cabinet behind the door(s), or 
on the interior door panel. The warning label shall not be obscured by 
a shelf or other interior element.
    (iii) For consumer-assembled units: The warning label shall be pre-
attached to the panel, and the assembly instructions shall direct the 
consumer to place the panel with the warning label according to the 
placement requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (5) Permanency. The warning label shall be legible and attached 
after it is tested using the methods specified in Section 7.3 of ASTM 
F2057-19, Standard Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units 
(incorporated by reference, see paragraph (c) of this section).

[[Page 6317]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.021

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
    (b) Identification labeling requirements. The clothing storage unit 
shall have an identification label, as defined in this paragraph (b)
    (1) Size. The identification label shall be at least 2 inches wide 
by 1 inch tall.
    (2) Content. The identification label shall contain the following:
    (i) Name and address (city, state, and zip code) of the 
manufacturer, distributor, or retailer; the model number; and the month 
and year of manufacture.
    (ii) The statement ``Complies with U.S. CPSC Safety Standard for 
Clothing Storage Units,'' as appropriate; this label may spell out 
``U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission'' instead of ``U.S. CPSC.''
    (3) Format. The identification label text shall not be less than 
0.1 in. (2.5 mm) capital letter height. The text and background shall 
be contrasting colors (e.g., black text on a white background).
    (4) Location. The identification label shall be visible from the 
back of the unit when the unit is fully assembled.
    (5) Permanency. The identification label shall be legible and 
attached after it is tested using the methods specified in Section 7.3 
of ASTM F2057-19, Standard Safety Specification for Clothing Storage 
Units (incorporated by reference, see paragraph (c) of this section).
    (c) Incorporation by reference. Certain portions, identified in 
this section, of ASTM F2057-19, Standard Safety Specification for 
Clothing Storage Units, approved on August 1, 2019, are incorporated by 
reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
You may obtain a copy from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 
PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; phone: (610) 832-9585; 
www.astm.org. A read-only copy of the standard is available for viewing 
on the ASTM website at https://www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/. You may 
inspect a copy at the Division of the Secretariat, U.S. Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, 
telephone (301) 504-7479, email: [email protected], or at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the 
availability of this material at NARA, email [email protected], or 
go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

[[Page 6318]]

Sec.  1261.6  Requirements to provide performance and technical data by 
labeling.

    Manufacturers of clothing storage units shall give notification of 
performance and technical data related to performance and safety to 
prospective purchasers of such products at the time of original 
purchase and to the first purchaser of such product for purposes other 
than resale, in the manner set forth in this section:
    (a) Consumer information requirements. The manufacturer shall 
provide a hang tag with every clothing storage unit that provides the 
ratio of tip-over moment as tested to the minimally allowed tip-over 
moment of that model clothing storage unit. The label must conform in 
content, form, and sequence to the hang tag shown in figure 1 to this 
paragraph (a).
    (1) Size. Every hang tag shall be at least 5 inches wide by 7 
inches tall.
    (2) Side 1 Content. The front of every hang tag shall contain the 
following:
    (i) The title--``TIP OVER GUIDE.''
    (ii) The icon:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.022
    
    (iii) The statement--``Stability Rating.''
    (iv) The manufacturer's name and model number of the unit.
    (v) Ratio of tip-over moment, as tested per Sec.  1261.4(c), to the 
threshold moment, as determined per Sec.  1261.4(d), of that model 
clothing storage unit, displayed on a progressive scale. This value 
shall be the rating.
    (vi) The scale shall start at 0 and end at 5.
    (vii) ``Less'' and ``More'' on the left and right sides of the 
scale, respectively.
    (viii) A rating of 1 shall be indicated by the text ``Minimum 
rating'' and a vertical dotted line.
    (ix) A solid horizontal line from 0 to the calculated rating.
    (x) The statement--``Compare with other units before you buy.''
    (xi) The statement--``This is a guide to compare the unit's 
resistance to tipping over.''
    (xii) The statement--``Higher numbers represent more stable 
units.''
    (xiii) The statement--``No unit is completely safe from tip over.''
    (xiv) The statement--``Always secure the unit to the wall.''
    (xv) The statement--``Tell children not to climb furniture.''
    (xvi) The statement--``See back side of this tag for more 
information.''
    (xvii) The statement--``THIS TAG NOT TO BE REMOVED EXCEPT BY THE 
CONSUMER.''
    (3) Side 2 Content. The reverse of every hang tag shall contain the 
following:
    (i) The statement--``Stability Rating Explanation.''
    (ii) The icon in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
    (iii) The tip rating determined in paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this 
section.
    (iv) The statement--``Test data on this unit indicated it withstood 
[insert rating determined in paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section] times 
the minimally acceptable moment, per tests required by the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission (see below).''
    (v) The statement--``Deaths or serious crushing injuries have 
occurred from furniture tipping over onto people.''
    (vi) The statement--``To reduce tip-over incidents, the U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) requires that clothing 
storage units, such as dressers, chests, bureaus, and armoires, resist 
certain tip-over forces. The test that CPSC requires measures the 
stability of a clothing storage unit and its resistance to rotational 
forces, also known as moments. This test is based on threshold 
rotational forces of a 3-year-old child climbing up, hanging on, or 
pulling on drawers and/or doors of this unit. These actions create 
rotational forces (moments) that can cause the unit to tip forward and 
fall over. The stability rating on this tag is the ratio of this unit's 
tip-over moment (using CPSC's test) and the threshold tip-over moment. 
More information on the test method can be found in 16 CFR part 1261.''
    (4) Format. The hang tag shall be formatted as shown in Figure 9. 
The background of the front of the tag shall be printed in full bleed 
process yellow or equivalent; the background of the back of the tag 
shall be white. All type and graphics shall be printed in process 
black.
    (5) Attachment. Every hang tag shall be attached to the CSU and be 
clearly visible to a person standing in front of the unit. The hang tag 
shall be attached to the CSU and lost or damaged hang tags must be 
replaced such that they are attached and provided, as required by this 
section, at the time of original purchase to prospective purchasers and 
to the first purchaser other than resale. The hang tags may be removed 
only by the first purchaser.
    (6) Placement. The hang tag shall appear on the product and the 
immediate container of the product in which the product is normally 
offered for sale at retail. Ready-to-assemble furniture shall display 
the hang tag on the main panel of consumer-level packaging. The hang 
tag shall remain on the product/container/packaging until the time of 
original purchase. Any units shipped directly to consumers shall 
contain the hang tag on the immediate container of the product.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 6319]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.023


[[Page 6320]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.024

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
    (b) [Reserved]


Sec.  1261.7  Prohibited stockpiling.

    (a) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and importers of clothing 
storage units shall not manufacture or import clothing storage units 
that do not comply with the requirements of this part in any 1-month 
period between [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and [EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF FINAL RULE] at a rate that is greater than 105 percent of the rate 
at which they manufactured or imported clothing storage units during 
the base period for the manufacturer.
    (b) Base period. The base period for clothing storage units is the 
calendar month with the median manufacturing or import volume within 
the last 13 months immediately preceding the month of promulgation of 
the final rule.


Sec.  1261.8  Findings.

    (a) General. Section 9(f) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 
U.S.C. 2058(f)) requires the Commission to make findings concerning the 
following topics and to include the findings in the rule. Because the 
findings are required to be published in the rule, they reflect the 
information that was available to the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission (Commission, CPSC) when the standard was issued on [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
    (b) Degree and nature of the risk of injury. The standard is 
designed to reduce the risk of death an injury from clothing storage 
units tipping over onto children. The Commission has identified 193 
clothing storage unit tip-over fatalities to children that were 
reported to have occurred between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 
2020. There were an estimated 56,400 injuries, an annual average of 
4,000 estimated injuries, to children related to clothing storage unit 
tip overs that were treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments from 
January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2019. Injuries to children, resulting 
from clothing storage units tipping over, include soft tissue injuries, 
skeletal injuries and bone fractures, and fatalities resulting from 
skull fractures, closed-head injuries, compressional and mechanical 
asphyxia, and internal organ crushing leading to hemorrhage.
    (c) Number of consumer products subject to the rule. In 2017, there 
were approximately 463.5 million clothing storage units in use. In 
2018, combined shipments of dressers and chests totaled 43.6 million 
units. Annual sales of clothing storage units total about 44 million 
units.
    (d) The need of the public for clothing storage units and the 
effects of the rule

[[Page 6321]]

on their cost, availability, and utility. (1) Consumers commonly use 
clothing storage units to store clothing in their homes. The standard 
requires clothing storage units to meet a minimum stability threshold, 
but does not restrict the design of clothing storage units. As such, 
clothing storage units that meet the standard would continue to serve 
the purpose of storing clothing in consumers' homes. There may be a 
negative effect on the utility of clothing storage units if products 
that comply with the standard are less convenient to use. Another 
potential effect on utility could occur if, in order to comply with the 
standard, manufacturers modify clothing storage units to eliminate 
certain desired characteristics or styles, or discontinue models. 
However, this loss of utility would be mitigated to the extent that 
other clothing storage units with similar characteristics and features 
are available that comply with the standard.
    (2) Retail prices of clothing storage units vary widely. The least 
expensive units retail for less than $100, while some more expensive 
units retail for several thousand dollars. Of the potential 
modifications to comply with the standard for which CPSC was able to 
estimate the potential cost, the lowest costs were about $5.80 per 
unit; however, several were significantly higher. Clothing storage unit 
prices may increase to reflect the added cost of modifying or 
redesigning products to comply with the standard, or to account for 
increased distribution costs. In addition, consumers may incur a cost 
in the form of additional time to assemble clothing storage units if 
additional safety features are included.
    (3) If the costs associated with redesigning or modifying a 
clothing storage unit model to comply with the standard results in the 
manufacturer discontinuing that model, there would be some loss in 
availability of clothing storage units.
    (e) Other means to achieve the objective of the rule while 
minimizing adverse effects on competition, manufacturing, and 
commercial practices. (1) The Commission considered alternatives to 
achieving the objective of the rule of reducing unreasonable risks of 
injury and death associated with clothing storage unit tip overs. For 
example, the Commission considered relying on voluntary recalls, 
compliance with the voluntary standard, and education campaigns, rather 
than issuing a standard. This alternative would have minimal costs; 
however, it is unlikely to further reduce the risk of injury from 
clothing storage unit tip overs because the Commission has relied on 
these efforts to date.
    (2) The Commission also considered issuing a standard that requires 
only performance and technical data, with no performance requirements 
for stability. This would impose lower costs on manufacturers, but is 
unlikely to adequately reduce the risk of injury from clothing storage 
unit tip overs because it relies on manufacturers choosing to offer 
more stable units; consumer assessment of their need for more stable 
units (which CPSC's research indicates consumers underestimate); and 
does not account for units outside a child's home or purchased before a 
child was born.
    (3) The Commission also considered mandating a standard like the 
voluntary standard, but replacing the 50-pound test weight with a 60-
pound test weight. This alternative would be less costly than the 
proposed rule, because many clothing storage units already meet such a 
requirement, and it would likely cost less to modify noncompliant units 
to meet this less stringent standard. However, this alternative is 
unlikely to adequately reduce the risk of clothing storage unit tip 
overs because it does not account for factors that are present in tip-
over incidents that contribute to clothing storage unit instability, 
including multiple open and filled drawers, carpeting, and forces 
generated by a child interacting with the unit.
    (4) Another alternative the Commission considered was providing a 
longer effective date. This may reduce the costs of the rule by 
spreading them over a longer period, but it would also delay the 
benefits of the rule, in the form of reduced deaths and injuries.
    (5) Another alternative the Commission considered is adopting a 
mandatory standard with the requirements in the proposed rule, but 
addressing 60-pound children, rather than 51.2-pound children. However, 
this alternative would be more stringent than the proposed rule and, 
therefore, would likely increase the costs associated with the rule, 
while only increasing the benefits of the rule by about 4.5 percent.
    (f) Unreasonable risk. (1) Incident data indicates that there were 
226 reported tip-over fatalities involving clothing storage units that 
were reported to have occurred between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 
2020, of which 85 percent (193 incidents) were children, 5 percent (11 
incidents) were adults, and 10 percent (22 incidents) were seniors. Of 
the reported child fatalities, 86 percent (166 fatalities) involved 
children 3 years old or younger.
    (2) There were an estimated 78,200 injuries, an annual average of 
5,600 estimated injuries, related to clothing storage unit tip overs 
that were treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments from January 
1, 2006 to December 31, 2019. Of these, 72 percent (56,400) were to 
children, which is an annual average of 4,000 estimated injuries to 
children over the 14-year period. In addition, there were approximately 
19,300 tip-over injuries involving clothing storage units treated in 
other settings from 2015 through 2019, or an average of 3,900 per year. 
Therefore, combined, there were an estimated 34,100 nonfatal, medically 
attended tip-over injuries to children from clothing storage units 
during the years 2015 through 2019.
    (3) Injuries to children when clothing storage units tip over can 
be serious. They include fatal injuries resulting from skull fractures, 
closed-head injuries, compressional and mechanical asphyxia, and 
internal organ crushing leading to hemorrhage; they also include 
serious nonfatal injuries, including skeletal injuries and bone 
fractures.
    (g) Public interest. This rule is intended to address an 
unreasonable risk of injury and death posed by clothing storage units 
tipping over. The Commission believes that adherence to the 
requirements of the rule will significantly reduce clothing storage 
unit tip-over deaths and injuries in the future; thus, the rule is in 
the public interest.
    (h) Voluntary standards. The Commission is aware of four voluntary 
and international standards that are applicable to clothing storage 
units: ASTM F2057-19, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for 
Clothing Storage Units; AS/NZS 4935: 2009, the Australian/New Zealand 
Standard for Domestic furniture--Freestanding chests of drawers, 
wardrobes and bookshelves/bookcases--determination of stability; ISO 
7171 (2019), the International Organization for Standardization 
International Standard for Furniture--Storage Units--Determination of 
stability; and EN14749 (2016), the European Standard, European Standard 
for Domestic and kitchen storage units and worktops--Safety 
requirements and test methods. The Commission does not consider the 
standards adequate because they do not account for the multiple factors 
that are commonly present simultaneously during clothing storage unit 
tip-over incidents and that testing indicates decrease the stability of 
clothing storage units. These factors include multiple open and filled 
drawers, carpeted flooring, and dynamic forces generated

[[Page 6322]]

by children's interactions with the clothing storage unit, such as 
climbing or pulling on the top drawer.
    (i) Relationship of benefits to costs. The aggregate net benefits 
of the rule are estimated to be about $305.5 million annually; and the 
cost of the rule is estimated to be about $250 million annually. On a 
per unit basis, the Commission estimates the expected benefits per unit 
to be $6.01, assuming a 7 percent discount rate; $7.88 assuming a 3 
percent discount rate; and $9.90 without discounting. The Commission 
estimates the expected costs to manufacturers per unit to be $5.80 
(based on the lowest estimated potential cost), plus an unquantifiable 
cost to consumers associated with lost utility and availability, and 
increased costs. Based on this analysis, the Commission preliminarily 
finds that the benefits expected from the rule bear a reasonable 
relationship to the anticipated costs of the rule.
    (j) Least burdensome requirement that would adequately reduce the 
risk of injury. (1) The Commission considered less-burdensome 
alternatives to the proposed rule, but preliminarily concluded that 
none of these alternatives would adequately reduce the risk of injury.
    (2) The Commission considered relying on voluntary recalls, 
compliance with the voluntary standard, and education campaigns, rather 
than issuing a mandatory standard. This alternative would be less 
burdensome by having minimal costs, but would be unlikely to reduce the 
risk of injury from clothing storage unit tip overs. The Commission has 
relied on these efforts to date, but despite these efforts, there has 
been no declining trend in child injuries from clothing storage unit 
tip overs (without televisions) from 2006 to 2019.
    (3) The Commission considered issuing a standard that requires only 
performance and technical data, with no performance requirements for 
stability. This would be less burdensome by imposing lower costs on 
manufacturers, but is unlikely to adequately reduce the risk of injury 
because it relies on manufacturers choosing to offer more stable units; 
consumer assessment of their need for more stable units (which CPSC's 
research indicates consumers underestimate); and does not account for 
clothing storage units outside a child's home or purchased before a 
child was born.
    (4) The Commission considered mandating a standard like ASTM F2057-
19, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units, 
but replacing the 50-pound test weight with a 60-pound test weight. 
This alternative would be less burdensome in terms of costs than the 
proposed rule, because many clothing storage units already meet such a 
requirement, and it would likely cost less to modify noncompliant units 
to meet this less stringent standard. However, this alternative is 
unlikely to adequately reduce the risk of tip overs because it does not 
account for several factors that are simultaneously present in clothing 
storage unit tip-over incidents and contribute to instability, 
including multiple open and filled drawers, carpeting, and forces 
generated by a child interacting with the unit.
    (5) The Commission considered providing a longer effective date. 
This may reduce the cost burden of the rule by spreading the costs over 
a longer period, but it would also delay the benefits of the rule, in 
the form of reduced deaths and injuries.
    (6) Therefore, the Commission concludes that the rule is the least 
burdensome requirement that would adequately reduce the risk of injury.

Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-01689 Filed 2-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P