[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72598-72672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24587]



[[Page 72597]]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 226

November 25, 2022

Part II





Consumer Product Safety Commission





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





16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1261





Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 226 / Friday, November 25, 2022 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 72598]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or 
CPSC) has determined 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 is issuing a 
rule regarding the stability of CSUs. This rule requires CSUs to be 
tested for stability, exceed minimum stability requirements, bear 
labels containing safety and identification information, and display a 
hang tag providing performance and technical data about the stability 
of the CSU. The Commission issues this rule under the authority of the 
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).

DATES: This rule is effective on May 24, 2023. The incorporation by 
reference of the publication listed in this rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of May 24, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amelia Hairston-Porter, Trial 
Attorney, Division of Enforcement and Litigation, U.S. Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 
telephone (301) 504-7663; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    CSUs generally 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. 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.\1\ Between January 1, 2000 and July 1, 
2022, 43 consumer-level recalls occurred to address CSU tip-over 
hazards. The recalled products were responsible for 341 tip-over 
incidents, including reports of 152 injuries and 12 fatalities.\2\ 
These recalls involved 38 firms and affected approximately 21,530,000 
CSUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For further information about recalls, see Tab J of the 
briefing package supporting this final rule.
    \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\ In 2017, the 
Commission issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), 
discussing the possibility of developing a rule to address the risk of 
injuries 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). In 2022, after considering comments received on the 
ANPR and extensive additional testing and analysis, the Commission 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), proposing to establish 
requirements regarding CSU stability. 87 FR 6246 (Feb. 3, 2022). The 
Commission is now issuing a final rule, establishing requirements 
regarding CSU stability.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \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).
    \5\ The Commission voted 3-1 to approve this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This preamble provides key information to explain and support the 
rule, derived from the following materials. For more detailed 
information, see these additional materials:
     CPSC staff's briefing package supporting the NPR; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The briefing package supporting the NPR is available at: 
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed%20Rule-%20Safety%20Standard%20for%20Clothing%20Storage%20Units.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CPSC staff's public briefing to the Commission regarding 
the NPR briefing package, which includes a video demonstration of 
stability testing proposed in the NPR; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A recording of the public briefing is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIY1wfyOwDk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the NPR; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The NPR is available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/03/2022-01689/safety-standard-for-clothing-storage-units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     information provided in the docket for this rulemaking; 
\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The docket for this rulemaking, CPSC-2017-0044, is available 
at: www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     information obtained at a public hearing on the NPR; \10\ 
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A public hearing was held on April 6, 2022. Submissions 
forwarded to the agency by presenters before the public hearing, and 
the transcript of the hearing are available in the docket for this 
rulemaking, CPSC-2017-0044, at www.regulations.gov. The public 
hearing is available for viewing at: https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/Public-Calendar/2022-04-06-100000/Public-Hearing-Safety-Standard-for-Clothing-Storage-Units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CPSC staff's briefing package supporting this final 
rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The briefing package supporting the final rule is available 
at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Final-Rule-Safety-Standrd-for-Clothing-Storage-Units.pdf?VersionId=X2prG3G0cqqngUwZh3rk01mkmFB40Gjf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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). In this 
document, the Commission issues a final rule under sections 7 and 9 of 
the CPSA, regarding performance requirements, warnings, and 
stockpiling, and under section 27(e) of the CPSA, regarding performance 
and technical data.

A. Performance and Warning Requirements

    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

[[Page 72599]]

or NPR; must promulgate the rule in accordance with section 553 of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553); and must publish an NPR 
that contains the text of the proposed rule, alternatives the 
Commission considered, and a preliminary regulatory analysis. The 
Commission also must provide an opportunity for interested parties to 
submit written and oral comments on the proposed rule. Id. 2058(a), 
(c), (d)(2). Accordingly, the Commission initiated this rulemaking with 
an ANPR in November 2017 and published an NPR in February 2022, which 
included the required content and sought written comments on all 
aspects of the proposed rule. The Commission also provided the 
opportunity for interested parties to make oral presentations of data, 
views, or arguments on the proposed rule at an online public hearing on 
April 6, 2022.
    To issue a final rule under section 9 of the CPSA, the Commission 
must make certain findings and publish a final regulatory analysis. 15 
U.S.C. 2058(f). Under section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, 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). The final regulatory analysis must include:
     a description of the potential benefits and costs of the 
rule, including benefits and costs that cannot be quantified, and those 
likely to receive the benefits and bear the costs;
     a description of alternatives to the final rule that the 
Commission considered, a summary description of their potential 
benefits and costs, and a brief explanation of the reason the 
alternatives were not chosen; and
     a summary of any significant issues raised by commenters 
in response to the preliminary regulatory analysis, and a summary of 
the Commission's assessment of those issues.

Id. 2058(f)(2).

B. Stockpiling

    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.

C. Performance and Technical Data

    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].'' Id. 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

    This rule defines a ``CSU'' as a consumer product that is a 
freestanding furniture item, with drawer(s) and/or door(s), that may be 
reasonably expected to be used for storing clothing, that is designed 
to be configured to greater than or equal to 27 inches in height, has a 
mass greater than or equal to 57 pounds with all extendable elements 
filled with at least 8.5 pounds/cubic foot times their functional 
volume, 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. Definitions of many of the terms used in this definition are 
provided in the rule. Common names for CSUs include, but are not 
limited to: chests, bureaus, dressers, armoires, wardrobes, chests of 
drawers, drawer chests, chifforobes, and 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 (RTA) 
furniture.
    The CSU definition includes several criteria to help distinguish 
CSUs from other furniture. Details regarding these criteria are 
discussed in section IX. Description of and Basis for the Rule. Key 
features include that, as freestanding furniture items, CSUs remain 
upright without needing to be attached to a wall or other structure, 
when fully assembled and empty, with all extendable elements and doors 
closed. As such, built-in units are not considered freestanding. In 
addition, CSUs typically are 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 definition, rather than 
what the name of the product is or the marketed use for the product. 
The criteria in the definition regarding height and closed storage 
volume 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

[[Page 72600]]

in the 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. This rule applies to 
both children's products and non-children's products.

B. The Market 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For more details about market information, see Tab H of the 
final rule briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Based on information provided by large 
furniture associations during the NPR comment period, the estimated 
average price of a CSU is approximately $338.
    CPSC staff used multiple sources of information to estimate annual 
revenues from CSU sales. Considering U.S. Census Bureau estimates of 
retail sales by industry classification, revenue estimates for retail 
sales from furniture stores, and estimates of the portion of furniture 
sales that consist of CSUs that fall within the scope of this rule, 
CPSC estimates that retail sales of CSUs in 2021 totaled approximately 
$6.99 billion.
    Based on the estimated retail sales revenue of $6.99 billion in 
2021, and the average estimated CSU price of approximately $338, CPSC 
estimated that there were approximately 20.64 million units sold in 
2021. On average, CPSC assumes that there are approximately 10,000 
individual CSUs of each model that are sold. Accordingly, staff 
estimates that there were 2,064 different models of CSUs sold in 2021.
    CPSC also estimated the number of CSUs in use, based on historic 
sales estimates and statistical distribution of CSU failure rates, and 
adjusted these estimates iteratively to reflect the decreasing number 
of CSUs that would remain in use over time. Based on this information, 
CPSC estimates that the average lifecycle of a CSU is 15 years, that 
there were approximately 229.94 million CSUs that were in use in 2021, 
and that there were approximately 6,365 different models of CSUs that 
were in use in 2021.

IV. Risk of Injury

A. Incident Data 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For details about incident data, see Tab A of the NPR and 
final rule briefing packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the NPR, CPSC staff analyzed reported fatalities, reported 
nonfatal incidents and injuries, and calculated national estimates of 
injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments (EDs) that were 
associated with CSU instability or tip overs. For this final rule, 
staff updated the analysis to include information CPSC received after 
staff prepared the NPR briefing package. These updates include new 
incidents (that occurred during or after the time frames included in 
the NPR) as well as recharacterizations of incidents that were included 
in the NPR, when warranted by new information.
    Each year, CPSC issues an annual report on furniture instability 
and tip overs.\14\ 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 \15\ (NEISS), which 
includes reports of injuries treated in EDs, and the Consumer Product 
Safety Risk Management System \16\ (CPSRMS). For this rulemaking, staff 
focused on incidents that involved products that would be considered 
CSUs.\17\ 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 can contribute 
to instability and tip overs.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ These annual reports are available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/Furniture-and-Decor-1.
    \15\ 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.
    \16\ 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 (IDI) 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.
    \17\ Staff considered incidents that involved chests, bureaus, 
dressers, armoires, wardrobes, portable clothes lockers, and 
portable closets.
    \18\ This preamble refers to tip-over incidents and instability 
incidents collectively as tip-over incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff used the same information sources and inclusion criteria as 
the NPR for the updated information. These data represent the minimum 
number of incidents or fatalities during the time frames described. 
Data collection is ongoing for CPSRMS and is considered incomplete for 
2020 and after; CPSC may receive additional reports for those years in 
the future.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Among other things, CPSRMS houses all IDI 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 199 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 24 reported 
fatalities to seniors (i.e., ages 65 years and older) that were 
reported to have occurred between January 1, 2000 and April 30, 
2022.\20\ Of the 199 reported CSU tip-over child fatalities, 95 (48 
percent) involved only a CSU (with no television) \21\ tipping over. Of 
the child fatalities, 196 (98 percent) involved a chest, bureau, or 
dresser; 2 involved a wardrobe; and 1 involved an armoire. Of the 35 
reported adult and senior fatalities, 34 (97 percent) involved only a 
CSU tipping over. Of the adult and senior fatalities, 31 (89 percent) 
involved a chest, bureau, or dresser; 2 involved a wardrobe; 1 involved 
an armoire; and 1 involved a portable storage closet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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 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 reason 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.
    \21\ Although televisions are involved in CSU tip overs, this 
rule does not focus on television involvement because, in recent 
years, there has been a decline in CSU tip-over incidents that 
involve televisions and nearly all television incidents involved a 
box or cathode ray tube television, which are no longer common.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the years for which reporting is considered complete--2000 
through

[[Page 72601]]

2019--there have been from 2 to 21 child fatalities each year from CSU 
tip overs, and from 0 to 5 fatalities each year to adults and seniors. 
Although reporting is considered incomplete for 2020 and later years, 
CPSC is already aware of 1 child fatality in 2020 and 5 child 
fatalities in 2021 associated with CSU tip overs without televisions.
    Of the 199 reported child fatalities from tip overs, 171 involved 
children 3 years old or younger; 12 involved 4-year-olds; 7 involved 5-
year-olds; 4 involved 6-year-olds; 2 involved 7-year-olds; and 3 
involved 8-year-olds. Therefore, most reported CSU tip-over fatalities 
involved children 3 years old or younger.
    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 95 child fatalities not involving a television, 60 resulted from 
torso injuries (chest compression); 14 resulted from head/torso 
injuries; 12 resulted from head injuries; 6 involved unknown injuries; 
and 3 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); 4 involved unknown injuries; 2 
resulted from head/torso injuries; and 1 involved head/torso/limbs.
2. Reported Nonfatal Incidents
    CPSC staff identified 1,154 nonfatal CSU tip-over incidents for all 
ages that were reported to have occurred between January 1, 2005 and 
April 30, 2022. 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.
    Of the 1,154 reported incidents, 67 percent (776 incidents) 
involved only a CSU, and 33 percent (378 incidents) involved both a CSU 
and television tipping over. Of the 1,154 incidents, 99.5 percent 
(1,148 incidents) involved a chest, bureau, or dresser; less than 1 
percent (5 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 2019--there were from 6 to 260 reported nonfatal CSU tip-over 
incidents each year, with 2016 (260 incidents), 2017 (103 incidents), 
and 2018 (92 incidents) reporting the highest number of incidents.
    Of the 1,154 nonfatal CSU tip-over incidents reported, 423 did not 
mention any specific injuries; 719 reported one injury; and 12 reported 
two injuries, resulting in a total of 743 injuries reported among all 
of the reported nonfatal incidents. Of these 743 reported injuries, 67 
(9 percent) resulted in hospital admission; 318 (43 percent) were 
treated in EDs; 36 (5 percent) were seen by medical professionals; and 
the level of care is unknown \22\ for the remaining 322 (43 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the victims whose ages were known, there were far 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, as indicated by hospital 
admission and ED treatment rates.
3. National Estimates of ED-Treated Injuries 23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Estimates are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not 
sum to total, due to rounding. NEISS estimates are reportable when 
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 84,100 injuries,\24\ 
for an annual average of 5,300 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, 2021. Of the estimated 84,100 injuries, 60,100 
(72 percent) were to children, which is an annual average of 3,800 
estimated injuries to children over the 16-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Sample size = 2,869, coefficient of variation = .0638.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all ages, an estimated 82,600 (98 percent) of the ED-treated 
injuries involved a chest, bureau, or dresser. Similarly, for child 
injuries, an estimated 59,500 (99 percent) involved a chest, bureau, or 
dresser.\25\ Of the ED-treated injuries to all ages, 92 percent were 
treated and released, and 4 percent were hospitalized. Among children, 
93 percent were treated and released, and 3 percent were hospitalized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Data on armoires, wardrobes, portable closets, and clothes 
lockers were insufficient to support reliable statistical estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each year from 2006 through 2021, there were an estimated 1,800 
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 16-year 
period, with an overall yearly average of 1,500 estimated injuries, 
although data were insufficient to support reliable statistical 
estimates for adults and seniors for 2014, 2015, 2019, and 2020.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Consistent with the NPR, for 2012 through 2021, there was a 
statistically significant linear decline in child injuries involving 
all CSUs (including televisions). Unlike in the NPR, there was also 
a statistically significant linear decline in injuries to children 
involving CSU-only tip overs for 2012 through 2021. Nevertheless, 
data indicate that substantial numbers of child injuries and 
fatalities continue to result from CSU tip overs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the estimated ED-treated injuries to children, most involved 2- 
and 3-year-olds, followed by 1- and 4-year-olds. An estimated 8,500 ED-
treated injuries involved 1-year-olds; an estimated 15,700 involved 2-
year-olds; an estimated 14,000 involved 3-year-olds; and an estimated 
7,900 involved 4-year-olds. There were an estimated 2,600 injuries to 
5-year-olds that involved only a CSU, and an estimated 1,900 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,\27\ there 
were an estimated 6,800 ED-treated injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ These ages are grouped together because data were 
insufficient to generate estimates for any single age within that 
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of an estimated 60,100 ED-treated CSU tip-over injuries to 
children, an estimated 22,000 (37 percent) resulted in contusions/
abrasions; an estimated 15,900 (26 percent) resulted in internal organ 
injury (including closed head injuries); an estimated 8,300 (13 
percent) resulted in lacerations; an estimated 5,500 (9 percent) 
resulted in fractures; and the remaining estimated 8,400 (14 percent) 
resulted in other diagnoses.
    Overall, an estimated 35,800 (60 percent) of ED-treated tip-over 
injuries to children were to the head, neck, or face; and an estimated 
11,000 (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, 74 
percent were head injuries, compared to 54 percent of injuries 
involving only a CSU. Of the

[[Page 72602]]

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 28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For details about injuries, see Tab B of the NPR and final 
rule briefing packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ For additional information about hazard patterns, see Tab C 
of the NPR and final rule briefing packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 was a statistically significant decrease in 
the number of ED-treated CSU tip-over incidents that appeared to be 
driven by a decline in tip overs involving CSUs with televisions. Staff 
used NEISS and CPSRMS reports to identify hazard patterns, including 
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).
    For this final rule, staff updated this analysis to include 
incident information that CPSC received after staff prepared the NPR 
briefing package. This update is consistent with the new incident 
information included in the analysis in section IV. Risk of Injury, 
although the totals in this section may be lower than

[[Page 72603]]

those above. This is, in part, because this section focuses only on 
incidents involving children and no television. This is also because 
this section aims to assess hazard characteristics associated with tip 
overs resulting from child interactions; as such, for this assessment, 
staff did not focus on incidents in which there was no indication of a 
child's interaction leading to the tip over. The new information added 
to this section since the NPR consists of 6 fatal and 97 nonfatal 
CPSRMS tip-over incidents and 168 nonfatal NEISS tip-over incidents 
that involved children and CSUs without televisions. Overall, staff did 
not identify any new hazard patterns or interaction scenarios in the 
new data.
1. Filled Drawers
    Of the 95 fatal CPSRMS incidents involving children and only CSUs, 
56 provided information about whether the CSU drawers contained items 
at the time of the tip over. Of those 56 incidents, 53 (95 percent) 
involved partially filled or full drawers. Of the 366 nonfatal CPSRMS 
tip overs involving children and only CSUs, drawer fill level was 
reported for 78 incidents. Of these 78 incidents, 70 (90 percent) 
involved partially filled or full drawers.\30\ CPSRMS incidents 
indicate that most items in the drawers were clothing, although a few 
mentioned other items along with clothing (e.g., diaper bag, toys, 
papers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Nonfatal NEISS incident reports did not contain information 
on drawer fill level or contents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Interactions
    Of the 95 fatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only a CSU, 
49 reported the type of interaction the child had with the CSU at the 
time of the incident. Of these 49 incidents, the most commonly reported 
interaction was a child climbing on the CSU (37 incidents or 76 
percent); followed by a child sitting, laying or standing in a drawer 
(8 incidents or 16 percent); and a child opening drawers (4 incidents 
or 8 percent). Climbing was the most common reported interaction for 
children 3 years old and younger.
    Of the 366 nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children 
and only CSUs, the type of interaction was reported in 226 incidents. 
Of these, the most common interaction was opening drawers (123 
incidents or 54 percent); followed by climbing on the CSU (59 incidents 
or 26 percent); and putting items in/taking them out of a drawer (18 
incidents or 8 percent). Opening drawers and climbing were also the 
most common reported interactions for children 3 years old and younger.
    Of the 1,630 nonfatal NEISS incidents involving children and only 
CSUs, the type of interaction was reported in 646 incidents. Of these, 
the child was injured because of another's interaction with the CSU in 
26 incidents; the remaining 620 incidents involved the child 
interacting with the CSU. Of these 620 incidents, the most common 
interaction was children climbing on the CSU (475 incidents or 77 
percent), followed by opening drawers (49 incidents or 8 percent). For 
children 3 years old or younger, climbing constituted 80 percent of 
reported interactions.
    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 (76 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 (26 percent) in nonfatal CPSRMS incidents. Fatal 
and nonfatal climbing incidents most often involved children 3 years 
old and younger.
    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. 
Technical Analysis Supporting the Rule demonstrated these abilities, 
with child participants showing interest in climbing CSUs and other 
furniture.
b. Opening Drawers
    Opening the drawers of a CSU also was a common interaction in CSU 
tip overs involving children and only a CSU. It was the most common 
reported interaction (54 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 
(8 percent) in fatal CPSRMS incidents.
    In fatal CPSRMS incidents, opening drawer interactions most 
commonly involved children 2 years old and younger. Nonfatal CPSRMS 
incidents with opening drawers most commonly involved 3-year-olds, 
followed by 2-year-olds, then 5-year-olds, then 4-year-olds, then 6-
year-olds, then children under 2 years old. Nonfatal NEISS incidents 
with opening drawers most commonly involved 3-year-olds, followed by 2-
year-olds, then 4-year-olds, then children under 2 years old.
    Children of all ages were able to open at least one drawer and 
incident data indicates that children commonly were able to open 
multiple drawers. For the NPR data set, 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 23 incidents, children opened ``all'' of the drawers and 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.
    For the 6 new fatal and 97 new nonfatal CPSRMS incidents identified 
after the NPR data set, the fatal incidents did not report the number 
of open drawers, but 30 of the nonfatal incidents reported information 
about the number of open drawers. Of these 30

[[Page 72604]]

incidents, 1 had no drawers open; 11 involved 1 open drawer; 7 involved 
half or fewer of the drawers open; 1 involved more than half of the 
drawers open; 7 involved all of the drawers open; and 3 involved 
multiple open drawers without specifying the number or proportion. 
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 using the NPR data set. 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 1, 
although, based on further analysis, the number of open drawers could 
be as high as 8 in one incident.\31\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incidents involving CSUs with doors also indicate that children are 
able to open the doors at which point they can further interact with 
the CSU, such as through climbing. Using the NPR data set, 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, 
at which point it is reasonable to conclude, based on child 
capabilities and climbing behavior in other incidents, that children 
would put their body weight on the door (i.e., climb) or other 
extendable elements behind the doors, such as drawers.
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. 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 95 fatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only CSUs, 
the type of flooring under the CSU was reported for 58 incidents. Of 
these, 47 (81 percent) involved carpeting, which includes rugs; 9 (15 
percent) involved wood, hardwood, or laminate wood flooring; and 2 (3 
percent) involved tile or linoleum flooring. The reports for 32 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 
28 appeared to be cut pile. Staff also identified 2 incidents with 
reported ``shag'' carpeting, including 1 fatal incident. Staff found 
one report mentioning a rug, although the thickness of the rug is 
unknown.
    Of the 366 nonfatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only 
CSUs, the type of flooring under the CSU was reported for 91 incidents. 
Of these, 67 (74 percent) involved carpeting, which includes rugs; 21 
(23 percent) involved wood, hardwood, or laminate wood flooring; 2 (2 
percent) involved tile or linoleum flooring; and 1 (1 percent) 
indicated that the front legs of the CSU were on carpet while the back 
legs were on wood flooring.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 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 36 fatal incidents 
involved children under 2 years old; 31 involved 2-year-old children; 
22 involved 3-year-olds; 2 involved 4-year-olds; 1 incident involved a 
5-year old; 1 incident involved a 6-year old; and 2 incidents involved 
7-year-olds. Overall, 94 percent of children in fatal CPSRMS incidents 
involving only CSUs were 3 years old or younger.
    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 (68 incidents), followed by 2-year-olds (62 
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 (430 incidents),

[[Page 72605]]

followed by 3-year-olds (367 incidents), and children less than 2 years 
(282 incidents). Overall, 66 percent (1,079 of 1,630) of children 
involved in these incidents were 3 years old or younger.
b. Weight of Children
    Among the 95 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.\33\ 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 46 fatal CPSRMS incidents without a 
reported weight, the estimated weight range was 19.6 pounds to 57.7 
pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 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 366 nonfatal CPSRMS incidents involving children and only 
CSUs, the weights of 60 children were reported, ranging from 20 pounds 
to 125 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 195 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 months to 17 years old).
    Overall, the mean reported children's weight for CPSRMS incidents 
was 34.7 pounds and the median was 32.0 pounds; the mean estimated 
children's weight was 38.7 pounds and the median was 32.8 pounds. For 
nonfatal NEISS incidents, the mean estimated children's weight was 40.1 
pounds and the median was 32.8 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, in the NPR, 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. New fatal 
incidents CPSC identified since the NPR data set involved 2 additional 
climbing incidents, one of which involved a 29-pound child and the 
other involved a 31-pound child.
    For the NPR data set, 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.

V. Relevant Existing Standards 34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ For additional information about relevant existing 
standards, see Tabs C, D, F, and N of the NPR briefing package, and 
Tab F of the final rule 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/BIFMA X6.5-2022, Home Office and Occasional-Use Desk, 
Table and Storage Products.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ The NPR discussed ANSI/SOHO S6.5-2008 (R2013), Small 
Office/Home Office Furniture--Tests American National Standard for 
Office Furnishings. Since the NPR, ANSI updated this standard; the 
revised version is ANSI/BIFMA X6.5-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 standard. In recent years, ASTM 
Subcommittee F15.42 has discussed and balloted changes to ASTM F2057-
19. However, ASTM has not updated the standard.
1. Scope
    ASTM F2057-19 states that it 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); and extending

[[Page 72606]]

all drawers and pull-out shelves to the outstop \36\ or, in the absence 
of an outstop, to two-thirds of the operational sliding length. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ An outstop is a feature that limits outward motion of 
drawers or pull-out shelves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 test weight of 50 
 2 pounds. The test weight is intended to represent the 
weight of a 5-year-old child. For this test, only one door or drawer is 
open at a time and the test weight is applied to that open feature. 
Each drawer or door is tested individually, and all other drawers and 
doors remain closed. 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 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).\37\ ASTM 
F2057-19 and F3096-14 define a ``tipover 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 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
    The Commission concludes that the stability requirements in ASTM 
F2057-19 are not 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 a drawer. As discussed earlier 
in this preamble, these factors are commonly involved in CSU tip-over 
incidents, often simultaneously; and, as discussed later in this 
preamble, testing indicates that these factors decrease the stability 
of CSUs.
    Although the test in section 7.1 includes a test with all drawers/
doors open, the unit is empty and no additional force is applied during 
this test. As such, this test does not reflect the added factors of 
open and filled drawers, even though consumers are likely to open 
drawers and fill CSUs with clothing; and it does not reflect dynamic 
forces generated by interactions. In addition, although the test in 
section 7.2 includes a test with a static weight applied to the top of 
one open drawer or door, it does not include the added factor of 
multiple open and filled drawers. Also, the 50-pound weight is intended 
to represent the static weight of a 5-year-old child and does not 
reflect the additional moment \38\ due to the forces when a child 
climbs the front of a CSU, even when only considering the forces 
generated by very young children. As the UMTRI study (described in the 
NPR and later in this preamble) found, the forces children can exert 
while climbing a CSU exceed their static weights. Finally, neither test 
accounts 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 without accounting for the effect 
of carpeting, ASTM F2057-19 does not reflect real-world use conditions 
that decrease the stability of CSUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 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 
comply 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.\39\ Staff updated its analysis from the NPR to 
account for additional incidents and information identified after the 
NPR. With these adjustments, staff determined that, of the 95 fatal 
CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children and only CSUs, 2 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 81 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. With the adjusted information for nonfatal CPSRMS 
tip-over incidents involving children and only CSUs, staff determined 
that, of the 361 incidents for which staff assessed the compliance of 
the CSU, 50 met the ASTM F2057-19 stability requirements, 106 did not, 
and staff was unable to determine the compliance of the remaining 205 
units. The number of CSUs that comply with the stability requirements 
in ASTM F2057-19, but were involved in tip overs, further demonstrates 
that the voluntary standard does not adequately reduce the risk of tip 
overs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Staff did not assess whether NEISS incidents involved ASTM-
compliant CSUs because the reports do not contain specific 
information about the products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the NPR, 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 study 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

[[Page 72607]]

label would make the warning more effective.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ The NPR also explained CPSC's concerns with the tip 
restraint requirements in ASTM F2057-19 and ASTM F3096-14. These 
include that the 50-pound weight does not represent the force on a 
tip restraint from child interactions, and the standards do not 
assess the connection between the tip restraint and the wall or CSU, 
which are potential points of failure. However, CPSC did not review 
tip restraint requirements in detail because staff determined that 
CSUs should be inherently stable to account for lack of consumer use 
of tip restraints and additional barriers to proper installation and 
use of tip restraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission finds that compliance with ASTM 
F2057-19 is not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury 
associated with CSU tip overs.
6. Compliance With ASTM F2057
    CPSC also assessed whether there is adequate compliance with the 
stability requirements in ASTM F2057-19. In 2016,\41\ staff tested 61 
CSU samples and found that 50 percent (31 of 61) did not comply with 
the stability requirements in ASTM F2057.\42\ 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; \43\ and 17 units 
assessed as part of previous test data provided to CPSC.\44\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 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.
    \42\ 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.
    \43\ Staff tested exemplar units, meaning the model of CSU 
involved in the incident, but not the actual unit involved in the 
incident.
    \44\ 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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 intended to represent the weight of 
a 5-year-and-11-month-old child, adjusted upward 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
    The Commission concludes that the stability requirements in AS/NZS 
4935 are not 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 approximately 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.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Commission finds that compliance with AS/NZS 
4935 is not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury associated 
with CSU tip overs.

[[Page 72608]]

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 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 either 
44 or 55 pounds, depending on the height of the unit, and is applied to 
the top face of the opened drawer. The fill density ranges from 6.25 
pounds per cubic foot to 12.5 pounds per cubic foot, depending on the 
clearance height and volume of the drawer. The third test is an 
unloaded test with all drawers open. For this test, doors are open and 
drawers and extendible elements are open to the outstop or, if there 
are no outstops, to two-thirds of their extension length. Existing 
interlock systems are not bypassed for this test.
    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.
    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.
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 
pounds) horizontal force is applied in the direction most likely to 
overturn the unit.
4. Labeling Requirements
    The standard does not have any requirements or test methods related 
to warning labels.
5. Assessment of Adequacy
    The Commission concludes that the stability requirements in ISO 
7171 (2019) are not 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.
    For these reasons, the Commission finds that compliance with ISO 
7171 (2019) is not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury 
associated with CSU tip overs.

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 
inches) and a potential energy, based on mass and height, exceeding 60 
N-m (44.25 pound-feet). 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 
pounds) test weight is applied to the top of the drawer face, when 
pulled to the outstop or, if no outstops exist, to two-thirds of its 
full extension length. In the second test, doors are open and all 
drawers and extendible elements are open to the outstop or, if no 
outstops are present, 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 pounds) horizontal force to be applied to the face of all other 
extension elements. This is repeated multiple 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
    The Commission concludes that the stability requirements in EN 
14749: 2016 are not 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 
pounds per

[[Page 72609]]

cubic foot to 12.5 pounds per cubic foot, which includes fill weights 
lower than staff identified for drawers filled with clothing (discussed 
in section VII. Technical Analysis Supporting the Rule). 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.
    For these reasons, the Commission finds that compliance with EN 
14749: 2016 is not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury 
associated with CSU tip overs.

E. ANSI/BIFMA SOHO X6.5-2022

    In the NPR, staff reviewed the requirements in ANSI/SOHO S6.5-2008 
(R2013), Small Office/Home Office Furniture--Tests American National 
Standard for Office Furnishings. The standard does not address CSUs, 
but rather, applies to office furniture, such as file cabinets. 
However, CPSC considered the standard because it addresses interlock 
systems, which some CSUs include and are relevant to stability testing. 
On April 5, 2022, ANSI/BIFMA published a new version of the standard, 
ANSI/BIFMA X6.5-2022. Although this update included several revisions, 
the interlock strength test requirements remained unchanged.
    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 
X6.5-2022 includes testing to evaluate interlock systems. The test 
procedure calls for one extendable element to be fully extended while a 
30 pound horizontal pull force is applied to all other fully closed 
extendable elements. Every combination of open/closed extendable 
elements \46\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Excluding doors, writing shelves, equipment surfaces, and 
keyboard surfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section IX. Description of and Basis for the Rule, 
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/BIFMA X6.5-2022 does not 
include stability tests or requirements reflecting the real-world 
factors involved in CSU tip overs, the Commission finds that compliance 
with ANSI/BIFMA X6.5-2022 is not likely to adequately reduce the risk 
of injury associated with CSU tip overs.

VI. Technical Background

    This preamble and the NPR and final rule briefing packages 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 analyses. 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) \47\ is a single 
point in an object, about which its weight (or mass) is located . In 
terms of freestanding CSUs, if the CSU's CG is located behind the front 
foot, the CSU will not tip over due to its own weight. 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 the CG and 
the weight of each component that makes up the object. 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 
doors or extendable elements (i.e., drawers or pull-out shelves), 
combined with the position and weight of each door and extendable 
element. A CSU's CG is equal to the sum of the products of the CG 
position and the weight of each component, divided by the total weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 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 
doors and extendable elements (open or closed). Opening doors and 
extendable elements 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 door or extendable element. Therefore, CSUs 
will tip more easily as more doors and extendable elements are opened. 
The CG of a CSU will also change depending on the position and amount 
of clothing in each extendable element. Closed extendable elements 
filled with clothing tend to stabilize a CSU, but as each filled 
extendable element 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 door or extendable element 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 door or extendable element 
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 door or extendable element 
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

[[Page 72610]]

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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.000

Figure 1: An example of opposing moments acting on a CSU.

VII. Technical Analysis Supporting the Rule

    In addition to reviewing incident data, CPSC staff conducted 
testing and analyses, analyzed tip-over incidents, and commissioned 
several contractor studies to further examine factors relevant to CSU 
tip overs. This section provides an overview of that testing and 
analysis; for additional details see the NPR and NPR briefing package.

A. Multiple Open and Filled Extendable Elements \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Further details about the effect of open and filled drawers 
on CSU stability is available in Tabs D, L, and O of the NPR 
briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff's technical analysis, as confirmed by testing, indicates that 
multiple open extendable elements \49\ decrease the stability of a CSU, 
and filled extendable elements further decrease stability when more 
than half of the extendable elements by volume are open, but increase 
stability when more than half of the extendable elements by volume are 
closed. Thus, while multiple open extendable elements, alone, can make 
a unit less stable, whether the extendable elements are full when open 
is also a relevant consideration. When filled extendable elements are 
closed, the clothing weight contributes to the stability of the CSU, 
because the clothing weight is behind the front legs (fulcrum). 
However, open extendable elements contribute to the CSU being less 
stable because the clothing weight is shifted forward in front of the 
front legs (fulcrum).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Although staff's testing focused on CSUs with drawers, 
rather than pull-out shelves, the same effects on stability would 
apply to pull-out shelves because both drawers and pull-out shelves 
are extendable elements that hold contents. See section VII. 
Technical Analysis Supporting the Rule for more details regarding 
pull-out shelves and why they can hold the same content capacity as 
drawers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the effect of open extendable elements and filled 
extendable elements 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\ Before this 
testing, staff assessed the appropriate fill weight to use for testing. 
Then 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. This section provides an overview of the 
results; for more details regarding the study, see the NPR and NPR 
briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Staff used the stability test methods in ASTM F2057-19, 
with some alterations to collect information about variables ASTM 
does not address (e.g., open/closed drawers, filled/empty drawers, 
tip weight). Because of the limited number of units tested, this 
study provides useful information, but the results are limited to 
the tested units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Fill Weight
    To determine the appropriate method for simulating CSU drawers that 
are partially filled or fully filled, staff considered previous 
analyses and conducted additional testing. In working on ASTM F2057, 
the ASTM F15.42 subcommittee has considered a ``loaded'' (filled) 
drawer requirement and test method using an assumed clothing weight of 
8.5 pounds per cubic foot. 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

[[Page 72611]]

furniture stability.\51\ Staff conducted testing to assess whether 8.5 
pounds per cubic foot reasonably represents the weight of clothing in a 
drawer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ ``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] TR25NO22.001

    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 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 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, staff considers it unlikely that consumers would fill a 
drawer to this level because it requires careful folding, and it is 
difficult to remove and replace individual pieces of clothing. 
Therefore, staff concluded that 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of functional 
drawer volume is a reasonable approximation of the weight of clothing 
in a fully filled drawer.
    The NPR raised the possibility that fill weight for pull-out 
shelves may be lower than for drawers (e.g., 4.25 pounds per cubic foot 
or half that of drawers) if consumers are less likely to fill the open 
area of a pull-out shelf because it is less contained than a drawer. 
Accordingly, staff conducted further assessment after the NPR and found 
that pull-out shelves can hold the same volume of clothing as drawers 
and still remain fully functional and sufficiently contain the clothing 
content during moving of the shelf. Moreover, requirements ASTM is 
considering use the same fill weight as in the final rule for both 
drawers and pull-out shelves.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ For details regarding staff's assessment of clothing fill 
in pull-out shelves, see Tab C of the final rule briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Phase I and II Testing
    Phase I of the study focused on CSUs with a single column of 
drawers and drawers of the same size. Results showed that CSUs tipped 
over under the same weights with the same configuration of open/closed, 
regardless of which drawers were opened and on which drawer the tip 
weight was applied.
    Phase II of the study included more complex CSUs with multiple 
columns of drawers and more combinations of open/closed and filled/
empty drawers. Staff also supplemented this data with results from 
other CSU testing staff had performed. 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.

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 Tabs C, D, and 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

[[Page 72612]]

proportions, interest in climbing and climbing behaviors, and the 
forces and moments children can generate during various interactions 
with a CSU. The study consisted of an interactive portion and a focus 
group portion. Forty children, age 20 months to 65 months old, 
participated in the study. This section provides and overview and key 
results of this study. For additional details about the study, 
including the test apparatus, data acquisition, additional behaviors 
assessed, and analyses, see the NPR and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 and final rule 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 rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 top. 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.

[[Page 72613]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.002

Figure 2: The test setup and location of instruments used to measure 
force during handle trials (left), box/drawer trials (center), and 
table trials (right).

    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. Researchers analyzed forces from each extracted behavior 
to identify peak forces and moments. 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. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 3. The children in the study extended their CM an 
average of about 6 inches from the handle/foothold while ascending.

[[Page 72614]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.003

Figure 3. Example of digitized frame with estimated CM location and 
offset from upper handle. The lean behavior is shown on the left, and 
the ascend behavior is shown on the right. Forces at the hands and feet 
are shown with scaled arrows.

    Figure 4 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).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.004

Figure 4: Depicts examples of interactions. Arrows illustrate the 
directions and relative magnitudes of forces at the hands and feet.

    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 5 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.\58\ 
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 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.

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

[[Page 72615]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.005

Figure 5. Free-body diagram of a child climbing a CSU.

    Figure 5 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 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.
    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 6 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.\59\ Researchers calculated the 
moment that would be generated for a child interacting on a 1-foot 
extended CSU drawer, where Fulcrum X = 1 foot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The top handle varied from 7.4 to 47.3 inches above the 
bottom handle.

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

[[Page 72616]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.006

Figure 6. These diagrams illustrate how the test configuration was used 
to determine the child's moment acting on the CSU.

    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.
    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 
shown in Figure 7, 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.

[[Page 72617]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.007

Figure 7. Depicts a schematic of effects of reducing Fulcrum X to zero 
(compare with Figure 5, which depicts a non-zero Fulcrum X distance).

    UMTRI researchers analyzed the effects of the Fulcrum X (which 
corresponds to the drawer extension \60\) 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 researchers were able to analyze the effects of the 
fulcrum position by varying the Fulcrum X value from 0 to 12 inches. 
UMTRI researchers used this virtual Fulcrum X value to calculate the 
corresponding maximum moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 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 children on the top and bottom handles 
of the test apparatus are necessary to balance their outboard CM. UMTRI 
researchers concluded that the children'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.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 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 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).\62\ This suggests child body weight is the most 
significant vertical force, although dynamic forces also contribute. 
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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Refer to Figure 48 in the UMTRI report (Tab R of the NPR 
briefing package).

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:


[[Page 72618]]


Equation 2. M = {1.08 x [1 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 tabletop 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.
    To summarize the findings from the UMTRI study, 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 this 
rule.
2. 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 63
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Details regarding staff's assessment of the effect of 
flooring on CSU stability is available in Tabs D and 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 and Shane's Foundation.\64\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ 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.
    To further assess the effect of flooring on stability, 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.\65\ This shows that, in 
general, CSUs are less stable on carpet. All units tested, under 
various conditions, tended to tip with less weight on the carpet than 
on the hard surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 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

[[Page 72619]]

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 66
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Details about staff's incident recreation and modeling are 
in Tabs D and 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. One of these CSU 
models did not comply with sections 7.1 or 7.2 in ASTM F2057-19; three 
models complied with the requirements in section 7.1, but not section 
7.2; two models complied with both sections 7.1 and 7.2; and one was 
borderline.\67\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Staff tested the borderline 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 68
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 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 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

[[Page 72620]]

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 69
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 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; \70\ and 17 
units assessed as part of previous test data provided to CPSC.\71\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Staff tested exemplar units, using the model of CSU 
involved in the incident, but not the actual incident unit.
    \71\ 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.\72\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 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 73
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Details regarding staff's analysis of warning label symbols 
are available in Tab C of the NPR and final rule briefing packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\74\ 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). 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 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 F2057-19. The symbol 
showed passing comprehension (87.5 percent) when scored with lenient 
(i.e., partially correct) scoring criteria, but poor comprehension 
(63.8 percent) when scored with strict scoring criteria. There was no 
critical confusion with the symbol.
    The contractor conducted focus groups consisting of 40 of the 80 
comprehension study participants. Based on the feedback received in the 
comprehension study and in focus groups, the contractor developed two 
new symbol variants, shown in Figure 8.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.008


[[Page 72621]]


Figure 8: Two variant symbols being tested (one showing the importance 
of anchoring the CSU, the other demonstrating the tip-over hazard as a 
result of climbing). Note: the symbols are reproduced in grayscale 
here, but the color version includes a red ``x'' and prohibition 
symbol, and a green check mark. See Tab C of the final rule briefing 
package for the color version.

    The NPR explained that staff was working with the contractor to 
test these new symbol variants using the same methodology applied in 
the previous study; would assess whether one of the two variants 
performed better in comprehension testing than the F2057 child climbing 
symbol; and would consider requiring the use of these symbols as part 
of the warning requirements in the final rule.
    In November 2021, CPSC released the contractor report on the 
assessment of Variants 1 and 2.\75\ The results indicated that Variant 
1 passed ANSI Z535.3 comprehension testing with both lenient (95.0 
percent) and strict (87.5 percent) scoring criteria, with no critical 
confusions. The comprehension scores for Variant 2 were lower than 
those for Variant 1 and the ASTM symbol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Kalsher & Associates, LLC. CPSC Warning Label Safety Symbol 
Research: Final Report. Oct. 27, 2021. Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Warning-Label-Safety-Symbol-Research-Final-Report-with-CPSC-Staff-Statement.pdf?VersionId=qCnIivtD0HRs3dEW69p.UVSDxTxvvESq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 many 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 72622]]

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 this rule only applies 
to CSUs manufactured 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. Response to Comments

    CPSC received 66 written comments during the NPR comment period and 
8 oral comments during the public hearing. The comments are available 
on: www.regulations.gov, by searching under docket number CPSC-2017-
0044. This section describes key comments CPSC received on the 
substantive requirements in the NPR and responds to them. For more 
details about the comments CPSC received on the NPR, and CPSC's 
response to them, see Tab K of the final rule briefing package.

A. Incident Data

    Comment: CPSC received comments regarding the rates of CSU tip-over 
incidents. Some commenters noted the decline in tip-over injuries 
reported in the NPR and most recent stability report, while others 
noted that the number of incidents is still too high.
    Response: Although there has been a statistically significant 
decline in NEISS incidents, a high number of fatalities and nonfatal 
incidents continue and present an unreasonable risk of injury that 
necessitates rulemaking. As indicated in the NPR, when considering 
fatalities by year, other than 2010, there were at least three reported 
CSU tip-over fatalities to children without a television involved, each 
year, for the years 2001 through 2017. In 2018, there was one CSU tip-
over fatality to a child without a television involved; and in 2019, 
there were two. Although reporting is considered incomplete for 
fatalities occurring in 2020 and later years, CPSC is already aware of 
one CSU tip-over fatality with no television involved to a child in 
2020, and five child fatalities with no television involved in 2021. 
Similarly, between 2000 and 2019, there was at least one CSU tip-over 
death to an adult or a senior in each year, without a television 
involved, with the exception of 2006 and 2018. In addition, CPSC notes 
that the estimated number of injuries treated in EDs were likely 
influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic for the years 2020 and 2021.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Schroeder, T., Cowhig, M. (2021). Effect of Novel 
Coronavirus Pandemic on 2020 NEISS Estimates (March-December, 2020), 
available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Covid-19-and-final-2020-NEISS-estimates-March-December-6b6_edited20210607_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Scope and Definitions

    Comment: Several commenters requested that specific products be 
excluded from the scope of the rule. These included comments to exclude 
wardrobes from the rule because they are covered by an ANSI standard, 
to exclude file cabinets, and to exclude nightstands.
    Response: The final rule does not exclude wardrobes from the 
definition of a CSU because wardrobes have been involved in tip-over 
incidents and it is reasonable to address children putting their body 
weight on doors and drawers of such units, based on physical and 
cognitive abilities and demonstrated interactions in incidents. 
Moreover, staff reviewed existing standards and determined that they do 
not adequately reduce the hazard and the ANSI standard is not 
mandatory. The final rule does not explicitly exclude file cabinets 
from the scope, although some file cabinets may not meet the criteria 
in the CSU definition (e.g., reasonably expected to be used for storing 
clothing). The rule does not exclude file cabinets generally because 
some may meet the criteria in the definition and, as consumer studies 
indicate, consumers use products as CSUs when they serve the functions 
identified for such products. The final rule also does not exclude 
nightstands because staff has identified products that are sold as 
nightstands but feature all of the characteristics of a CSU; consumer 
studies found that consumers identified and would use such products as 
CSUs; and CPSC is aware of incidents in which children climbed on 
nightstands. However, any nightstands that do not meet the criteria in 
the CSU definition (e.g., under 27 inches tall, insufficient closed 
storage, reasonable expected use, or extendable elements/doors) would 
not fall within the scope of the rule.
    As explained, the criteria for determining whether a product is a 
CSU are based on specific factors that contribute to instability and 
indicate that consumers are likely to perceive and use the product as a 
CSU. As explained, products that look and function just like a CSU may 
be marketed as something else, but consumers will still use it as a 
CSU. Accordingly, the final rule relies on criteria, rather than 
product names, to determine scope.
    Comment: A commenter suggested excluding pull-out shelves from the 
scope of the rule because of a lack of reported tip-over incidents 
involving CSUs with such features. The commenter also suggested that, 
if included in the rule, the fill weight for pull-out shelves should be 
reduced to 4.25 pounds per cubic feet, representing half of the 8.5 
pounds used for a drawer's fill weight.
    Response: The final rule includes testing of pull-out shelves 
because these are elements that extend outward from the case of the CSU 
and are reasonably likely to be loaded with a clothing weight. As such, 
when open and loaded, a pull-out shelf would increase the instability 
of a CSU like an open and filled drawer.
    As explained above, the NPR proposed to use the same fill weight of 
8.5 pounds per cubic foot of functional volume for drawers and pull-out 
shelves, but raised the possibility that fill weight for pull-out 
shelves may be lower than for drawers (e.g., 4.25 pounds per cubic 
foot) if pull-out shelves can hold less clothing fill than a drawer 
while remaining operable and containing the clothing when the shelf 
moves. CPSC did not receive any data regarding this in comments on the 
NPR. However, staff has further assessed this possibility and found 
that pull-out shelves can hold the same volume of

[[Page 72623]]

clothing as drawers and remain fully functional and sufficiently 
contain the clothing content when moving the shelf.\84\ Accordingly, 
the final rule retains the 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of functional 
volume fill density for pull-out shelves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ For details regarding staff's assessment of clothing fill 
in pull-out shelves, see Tab C of the final rule briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter suggested adding to the definition of a CSU 
that it includes ``a top surface and side panels that are rigid and 
solid'' and specifying that they are ``typically found in a bedroom 
environment.''
    Response: Most CSUs are made of rigid and solid materials because 
these features are generally necessary to enable the unit to stand 
upright and hold extension elements. However, there are CSUs that have 
some non-rigid elements, retain extension elements, and present the 
same tip-over hazard. As such, these features are not included in the 
definition. The final rule also does not include ``typically found in a 
bedroom environment'' in the definition of a CSU because consumers use 
CSUs in rooms other than bedrooms and use as CSUs in a bedroom 
furniture that looks and functions just like a CSU but is marketed for 
non-bedroom use. As the studies discussed in the NPR indicate, 
consumers use products as CSUs based on their functionality, not where 
they are typically located in a residence.
    Comment: One commenter suggested changing the CSU volume criterion 
from 1.3 cubic feet to 3 cubic feet, which the commenter believed 
better represents a volume that consumers associate with a CSU.
    Response: The final rule retains the 1.3 cubic feet minimum 
proposed in the NPR. As explained in the NPR, the minimum drawer size 
that can reasonably accommodate clothing is fairly small. The smallest 
total functional volume of the closed storage for a CSU involved in a 
nonfatal incident without a television was 1.38 cubic feet; this unit 
was advertised to hold about five pairs of folded pants or 10 t-shirts 
in each of its two drawers.\85\ As such, 1.3 cubic feet is a reasonable 
closed storage volume threshold, and a larger threshold would exclude 
from the scope of the rule products likely to be used as CSUs that pose 
the same tip-over hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See Tab C of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the terms ``open 
storage'' and ``open space'' that are relevant to the definition of a 
CSU.
    Response: The final rule retains the same meaning of these terms, 
but includes wording modifications and the addition of examples to 
clarify the definitions. These revisions are discussed in section IX. 
Description of and Basis for the Rule.
    Comment: CPSC received several comments suggesting that the scope 
of the rule should exclude CSUs that weigh less than 30 pounds when 
empty. A manufacturer of lightweight plastic CSUs stated that 
approximately 15 million such units over 27 inches tall were sold over 
the past 25 years and the rule would ban such products because they 
would be unable to meet the stability requirements. Commenters stated 
that such a ban would not serve a safety purpose, citing a lack of 
incident data involving lightweight CSUs. In support of the 30-pound 
threshold, commenters noted that ASTM is considering a similar limit in 
revising its CSU standard and that it aligns with the 34-pound CSU 
described in the NPR as being involved in a fatal tip-over incident and 
the 31-pound CSU involved in a nonfatal incident.
    Response: The final rule includes in the definition of a CSU that 
it is limited to products that have a mass greater than or equal to 57 
pounds with all extendable elements filled with at least 8.5 pounds/
cubic foot times their functional volume (cubic feet). This will 
exclude some lighter weight CSUs from the scope of the rule, while 
continuing to cover CSUs that pose a risk of serious injuries and death 
when they tip over. This revision is discussed in detail in the section 
IX. Description of and Basis for the Rule.
    Comment: CPSC received a comment stating that the ``closed 
storage'' definition should include both opaque drawers and doors, and 
not just opaque doors.
    Response: The final rule includes ``opaque doors'' in the 
definition because consumer research showed that consumers perceive 
glass (non-opaque) doors to be for display instead of clothing storage. 
In contrast, there are CSUs on the market with clear drawers or drawer 
fronts, including lightweight plastic units, that have non-opaque 
drawers and that consumers use as CSUs. Consequently, the definition 
only applies to doors, and not opaque drawers to reflect consumer 
perceptions and use.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the definition of ``drawer'' 
should include ``rigid, solid, and enclosed'' and exclude ``bins'' 
because such features do not appear to be involved in incident data.
    Response: Although most drawers in CSUs are rigid, solid, and 
enclosed, some units have drawers with flexible sides (e.g., cloth or 
mesh over rigid frames, cardboard, plastic) that are marketed and can 
be used as CSUs; can be loaded to sufficient weight to pose a hazard; 
and can present the same tip-over hazard as CSUs with rigid/solid 
drawers. For this reason, the final rule does not include ``rigid, 
solid, and enclosed'' as part of the definition of a drawer. However, 
staff also recognizes that the hazard presented by a drawer or similar 
feature is that it serves as an extension element that can bear forces/
weight (e.g., of clothing load or child interactions) that contribute 
to the instability of a CSU. For this reason, CPSC considers it 
appropriate to distinguish between such units and those for which the 
extendable element would not have this destabilizing effect. As such, 
the final rule defines a ``drawer'' as 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. This is the same as in the NPR. However, the final rule also 
adds to the definition an explanation that only components that are 
retained in the case when extended up to \2/3\ the shortest internal 
length, when empty, are included in this definition. This revision is 
discussed in section IX. Description of and Basis for the Rule.
    Comment: Several comments suggested expanding the scope of the rule 
to include CSUs that are 24 inches or taller, instead of 27 inches or 
taller, and one commenter suggested a height limit of 12.1 inches, 
based on child heights.
    Response: As discussed in the NPR, the shortest height determined 
for a CSU involved in a fatal incident without a television was 27.5 
inches. Staff is aware of nonfatal incidents involving units shorter 
than 27 inches, but the number of incidents associated with shorter 
units is small and these incidents did not result in deaths or serious 
injuries. Therefore, the final rule retains the 27-inch height limit 
proposed in the NPR.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested removing from the scope of 
the rule CSUs that have only doors and no drawers. They stated that 
these units are less susceptible to children climbing and less 
represented in incident data.
    Response: Although the storage on CSUs with only doors does not 
extend, such CSUs typically have shelves or other features that 
children can use to climb or interact with, just like other CSUs. 
Moreover, it is easily within the physical and cognitive capabilities 
of children, including younger ones, to open doors, and it is 
consistent with

[[Page 72624]]

children's physical and cognitive abilities to expect that children 
will put their body weight on doors, creating a similar effect on 
instability as children putting their weight on drawers. The child 
climbing study (Tab R of the NPR briefing package) found that the 
vertical forces associated with a child hanging by the hands are close 
to the body weight of a child. In addition, CSUs with only doors have 
been involved in tip-over incidents. As discussed in the NPR, CPSC 
identified a fatal tip-over incident involving a unit with doors only 
(no drawers or other extension elements). For these reasons, CSUs with 
only doors present a similar tip-over hazard as CSUs with drawers or 
other extendable elements and the final rule retains these within the 
scope.
    Comment: One commenter suggested only regulating CSUs that are 
children's products, while another commenter suggested requiring more 
stringent standards for children's products, and others suggested that 
the rule should apply to all CSUs.
    Response: As explained in the NPR, general-use CSUs are more 
heavily represented in the incident data than children's products, and 
children's interactions are not limited to CSUs intended for children. 
In addition, general-use CSUs are commonly used in children's rooms, as 
indicated by the studies discussed in the NPR. Accordingly, focusing 
the rule on only children's products or requiring more stringent 
requirements only for children's products would not adequately address 
the hazard.

C. Stability Requirements

    CPSC received comments regarding the stability requirements, 
including interlock requirements, in the rule, as well as definitions 
relevant to those requirements. Those comments are discussed in section 
IX. Description of and Basis for the Rule to explain revisions made to 
the rule in response to the comments. Additional details are also 
available in Tabs D and K of the final rule briefing package.

D. Marking and Labeling Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that warnings are not 
an effective way to address the tip-over hazard, suggesting that 
consumers may not read or heed warnings.
    Response: Warning labels, on their own, are a less effective way to 
address a hazard than performance or design requirements that reduce or 
eliminate a hazard, in part because warning labels rely on consumers 
seeing, understanding, and following the warnings. For this reason, the 
final rule includes requirements to provide for inherent stability of 
CSUs. However, there are steps consumers can take to further reduce the 
risk of CSU tip overs, and these steps are presented on the required 
warning labels. The content, format, and placement requirements are 
intended to improve the likelihood that consumers will notice, 
comprehend, and comply with the warnings.
    Comment: Commenters suggested revisions to the warning label 
content requirements, including allowing manufacturers to determine 
what hazards to address on the label, and how; providing warnings about 
the use of CSUs on carpet; and including warnings in Spanish.
    Response: CPSC staff developed the warning label requirements in 
the rule based on commonly used approaches in voluntary standards, 
ASTM's warning label requirements, consumer studies, research, human 
factors assessments, and staff's expertise. As such, the warning label 
requirements are designed to include content and format requirements 
that are likely to be effective. Allowing manufacturers to modify 
content may detract from the effectiveness of the label and would not 
benefit from staff's insights and expertise. To clarify that the 
warning label content must precisely match that in the final rule, the 
final rule also includes a statement that the content must not be 
modified or amended except as specifically permitted in the rule. 
However, nothing in the rule prevents manufacturers from placing a 
separate label on CSUs to communicate their desired content.
    The final rule does not include in the warning label statements 
regarding the use of CSUs on carpet. This is because consumers commonly 
have carpet where they place CSUs and may not have the option to remove 
the carpet. As explained in the NPR, warnings that are inconsistent 
with expected consumer use are not likely to be effective.
    Although the final rule does not require that warning labels be 
provided in languages other than English, manufacturers may include 
such labels, separate from the required label, and commonly do so for 
other products on the U.S. market.
    Comment: As discussed above and in the NPR, CPSC contracted a focus 
group study to evaluate comprehension of potential variants to the 
symbol proposed for the warning label in the NPR. That study found that 
one of the variants performed better in comprehension than the 
alternatives under consideration; that variant is required in the final 
rule. One commenter noted that, although they support the variant, they 
are concerned about the type of anti-tip device shown in the symbol.
    Response: The rationale for selecting the variant in the final rule 
is discussed below. However, to address the commenter's concern, the 
final rule specifies that the panel in the symbol that shows the anti-
tip device may be modified to show a specific anti-tip device included 
with the CSU.
    Comment: The rule requires that the identification label be legible 
and attached after it is tested using the methods specified in section 
7.3 of ASTM F2057-19. A major manufacturer and retailer commented that 
the identification label should not be limited to a ``label'' because 
other means of applying the information to the product (e.g., printing, 
etching, engraving, or burning) can also be sufficiently permanent and 
more cost-effective.
    Response: The permanency testing requirements in section 7.3 of 
ASTM F2057-19 include requirements for paper labels, non-paper labels, 
and those applied directly to the surface of the product. As such, the 
rule does not prevent firms from applying the identification label in 
various ways that can be tested and comply with the requirements in 
section 7.3 of ASTM F2057-19. However, to make this clear, the final 
rule includes the term ``mark,'' in addition to ``label,'' to signal 
the availability of marking applied directly to the product for meeting 
the requirement.

E. Hang Tags

    Comment: Several commenters expressed concerns with the rating 
scale, which the NPR proposed to range from 0 to 5, with a minimum 
score of 1 necessary to comply with the stability requirements in the 
rule. For the lower range of the scale, commenters noted that the scale 
need not start at 0 since CSUs may not have a rating below 1. For the 
upper limit of the scale, commenters stated that CPSC's and industry 
testing indicate that, even with modifications, CSUs that are currently 
on the market cannot exceed a stability rating of 2. Consequently, a 
scale that goes up to 5 may confuse consumers when they cannot find 
CSUs with ratings higher than 2 or may suggest that CSUs with a rating 
of 2 are unsafe. One commenter expressed concern that it will be costly 
to modify CSUs to achieve the required minimum rating of 1, let alone 
higher ratings. Commenters also requested clarification on whether the 
stability rating may be rounded, and suggested that CPSC use whole 
numbers, rather

[[Page 72625]]

than decimals, to avoid consumer confusion.
    Response: As indicated in the NPR, CPSC staff's testing found that 
CSUs currently on the market do not exceed a stability rating of 2, 
even when modified to comply with the rule. Based on those test results 
and the above comments, the stability rating scale in this final rule 
ranges from 1 to ``2 or more.'' This is consistent with the minimum 
required rating of 1 and reflects realistic maximum stability ratings, 
while still allowing for designs to exceed a rating of 2. The final 
rule also specifies that stability ratings are to be rounded to one 
decimal place, which facilitates comparisons of CSUs with ratings 
between 1 and 2 and allows for easy comparison of CSUs (e.g., a CSU 
with a rating of 2 is twice as stable as a CSU with a rating of 1). If 
CSUs increasingly achieve stability ratings greater than 2, the 
Commission can adjust the upper end of the scale in future rulemaking. 
As for costs, it is common in other product sectors with safety rating 
scales for manufacturers to offer products with a variety of ratings 
and prices to meet different consumer demands.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that a stability rating hang tag 
may create a false sense of security in consumers, making them less 
likely to take added safety precautions, such as anchoring CSUs to a 
wall.
    Response: The hang tag includes statements, such as ``no unit is 
completely safe from tip over'' and ``always secure the unit to the 
wall'' to warn consumers of the risk of tip overs and steps they can 
take to reduce those risks. Additional explanations on the back of the 
hang tag and on required warning labels provide further information 
about the hazard and ways to mitigate it.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended places the hang tag 
information should be provided to ensure it is useful to consumers. 
Suggestions included at points of sale, including in showrooms and on 
sales websites; in instructions; on packages; on receipts; via emails 
provided by sellers upon purchase; and as permanent labels on CSUs so 
the information is visible to second-hand users. Some commenters 
recommended not requiring the hang tag appear on a CSU itself or on 
packaging, but only at points of sale, because that is when consumers 
make buying decisions.
    Response: Consistent with the purpose of section 27(e) of the CPSA, 
the above comments, and the goal stated in the NPR of providing 
comparative safety information to consumers at the time they make 
buying decisions, the final rule requires that the hang tag information 
be provided at physical points of purchase, such as retail stores; on 
the CSU and package; and on manufacturer or importer websites where 
consumers may purchase the CSU directly. As the NPR discussed, 
requiring the hang tag be visible at a physical point of sale ensures 
the safety information is available to consumers when making a buying 
decision in stores. The final rule retains the requirement that the 
hang tag be provided on the CSU and its packaging because this ensures 
that the hang tag is visible to consumers at the time of purchase, 
regardless of how the product is displayed in a store (e.g., assembled 
and displayed, or packaged). Because consumers also buy CSUs online, 
this is also a ``time of purchase'' where it is important for consumers 
to have the comparative safety information to make informed buying 
decisions. This requirement is limited to manufacturer and importer 
websites where the CSU can be purchased because section 27(e) of the 
CPSA only grants the Commission authority to require manufacturers 
(which includes importers) to provide performance and technical data, 
and it may only be required at the ``time of original purchase.'' 
Similarly, because section 27(e) only grants authority with respect to 
an ``original purchase'' and ``the first purchaser,'' the rule does not 
require the hang tag be placed in a way that would make it available to 
second-hand users. However, warning label requirements elsewhere in the 
rule make tip-over information available to second-hand users.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the information on the back of 
the hang tag should be on the front to ensure consumers see an 
explanation of the rating. Another commenter expressed concern that 
using text is problematic for consumers who are not fluent in English.
    Response: To ensure consumers can quickly understand the meaning of 
the stability rating, the final rule requires an additional statement 
on the front of the hang tag stating, ``This unit is [rating value] 
times more stable than the minimum required,'' with the stability 
rating of the CSU inserted for the bracketed text. Regarding English 
text, although the hang tag requirement only includes English, the rule 
does not prevent manufacturers from including a separate hang tag in 
another language.

F. Stockpiling Requirement

    Comment: Several commenters expressed support for the anti-
stockpiling provisions in the NPR, noting that industry members had 
sufficient notice of the rule given the duration of the rulemaking and 
that stockpiling limits are necessary to prevent industry members from 
increasing production of noncompliant CSUs. One commenter recommended a 
shorter and more limited stockpiling requirement and another 
recommended a limit based on the ``best'' year in the past 5 years, 
rather than the 13 months proposed in the NPR, because the previous 13 
months are not representative due to supply chain issues during that 
period.
    Response: The stockpiling provisions in the final rule balance the 
competing policy goals of addressing the hazard and preventing 
stockpiling and sales of noncompliant CSUs while accounting for 
realistic supply chain limits and the cost to businesses to comply with 
the rule. The Commission considers the provisions appropriate to 
balance these interests.

G. Economic Analyses

    CPSC received numerous comments regarding the economic analyses in 
the NPR, including the preliminary regulatory flexibility analysis and 
the preliminary regulatory analysis. Comments addressed the costs of 
compliance for small businesses and ways to reduce those burdens, as 
well as the estimated costs and benefits of the rule, including: costs 
for manufacturers and importers, including for testing; costs to 
consumers; costs of interlocks; lost sales of matching furniture; the 
impact of the scope of products covered by the rule on benefits and 
costs; the Injury Cost Model and value of statistical life used to 
estimate benefits; the effective date; and alternatives. Comments from 
the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy are 
addressed in the final regulatory flexibility analysis in this 
preamble. A summary of comments and responses regarding the economic 
analyses are provided in Tabs H, I, and K of the final rule briefing 
package. As the briefing package explains, CPSC has updated the 
economic analyses for this final rule based on commenter input.

IX. Description of and Basis for the Rule

A. Scope and Definitions 86
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ For additional information about scope and definitions, see 
Tabs C and D of the NPR briefing package, and Tabs C, D, and K of 
the final rule briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule includes provisions regarding the scope of the 
standard and definitions of terms in the standard. The definition of a 
``CSU'' is the basis for the

[[Page 72626]]

scope of the rule and several terms within that definition are also 
defined in the standard. The final rule includes minor revisions to the 
application section of the rule and some definitions in the rule that 
do not alter the substance of these provisions. For example, the 
application section no longer includes the CPSA definition of a 
``consumer product'' because the definitions section notes that CSUs 
are ``consumer products'' and refers to the definitions provided in the 
CPSA.
    In addition, the final rule includes some substantive revisions to 
the definitions to address issues raised by commenters and identified 
by CPSC staff. This section focuses on the definition of a CSU and key 
terms used in that definition and defined in the standard, particularly 
terms for which the definitions have been revised since the NPR (i.e., 
``drawers,'' ``freestanding,'' ``open storage,'' and ``open space''). 
Additional definitions in the standard are discussed in the section 
below on stability requirements, where those terms are relevant.
1. Final Rule Requirements
    The final rule applies to CSUs, defined as a consumer product that 
is a freestanding furniture item, with drawer(s) and/or door(s), that 
may be reasonably expected to be used for storing clothing, that is 
designed to be configured to greater than or equal to 27 inches in 
height, has a mass greater than or equal to 57 pounds with all 
extendable elements filled with at least 8.5 pounds/cubic foot times 
their functional volume (cubic feet), has a total functional volume of 
the closed storage greater than 1.3 cubic feet, and has a total 
functional volume of the closed storage greater than the sum of the 
total functional volume of the open storage and the total volume of the 
open space.
    The 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 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, depending on their 
design, generally do not meet the criteria in the 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 rule exempts from its scope two products that 
generally would meet the 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 lock or accommodate 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 Final Rule Requirements
    To determine the scope of products that the rule should address to 
adequately reduce the risk of injury from CSU tip overs, CPSC 
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 definition of ``CSUs'' is that they are 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 in the 
NPR, most CSU tip-over incidents occur in bedrooms: among the 89 fatal 
tip-over incidents reviewed in the NPR involving children and CSUs 
without televisions, 99 percent of the incidents with a reported 
location (70 of 71 incidents) occurred in a bedroom. 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.
    Another primary feature of CSUs is closed storage, which is storage 
within drawers or behind doors. These drawers and doors are elements 
that can extend from the furniture case, which allow children to exert 
vertical force further from the tip point (fulcrum) than they would be 
able to without drawers and doors 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 
drawers and doors for functional purposes, such as climbing to reach an 
item on top of the CSU. Accordingly, the 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 CSUs with this 
closed storage would be included in the definition.
    The CSUs definition also states that the products are freestanding 
furniture items, which means that they remain upright, without needing 
attachment to the wall or other upright structures, 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.
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 child fatalities 
involving CSUs, 196 involved a chest, bureau, or dresser; 2 involved a 
wardrobe; 1 involved an armoire; and none involved a portable storage 
closet or clothes locker. Of the 1,154 reported CSU tip-over incidents 
(all ages), 1,148 incidents involved a chest, bureau, or dresser; 5 
involved an armoire; 1 involved a wardrobe; and none involved a 
portable storage closet or clothes locker.

[[Page 72627]]

    Based on these data, the definition of CSUs names chests, bureaus, 
dressers, wardrobes, and armoires as examples of CSUs that are subject 
to the standard. The 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 
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
    As explained in the NPR, 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 was a 27.5-inch-tall, 3-drawer chest, 
which tipped over onto a 2-year-old child. Results from FMG's CSU focus 
group \87\ 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.\88\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See Tab Q of the NPR briefing package.
    \88\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the rule defines ``CSUs'' as including products 
that are designed to be configured to greater than or equal to 27 
inches in height. The definition of a ``CSU'' in the NPR included that 
the unit be 27 inches tall or greater. The final rule retains this 
criteria, but also clarifies that this is determined by the height to 
which the CSU is designed to be configured. Staff has identified CSUs 
that are designed such that the height can be adjusted from below 27 
inches to 27 inches or greater (such as by adjusting levelers or 
glides). Therefore, consistent with the NPR and to ensure that any 
units 27 inches tall or more are covered by the rule, the wording in 
the final rule has been adjusted accordingly.
d. Product Names and Marketed Use
    The 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 the NPR 
and this preamble discuss, 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,\89\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ See Tab Q of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Participants also had a 
wide variety of interpretations of the marketing term ``accent piece,'' 
with some 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. 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.
    CPSC also 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, CPSC 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). 
CPSC is also aware of hybrid products that combine features of CSUs 
with features of other product categories.
    Using the criteria in the 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 rule generally 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; has 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. In 
contrast, some furniture, such as occasional/accent furniture, and 
nightstands could be CSUs. The criteria for identifying a CSU in the 
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 
utility, rather than marketing, and there are products that are not 
named or advertised as CSUs but are indistinguishable from CSUs based 
on their design, the ``CSU'' definition does not rely on how a product 
is named or advertised by a manufacturer.
e. Product Weight
    NPR and final rule. In the NPR, the Commission did not propose to 
include a weight criterion as part of the

[[Page 72628]]

definition of a CSU, noting that consumers use light weight units as 
CSUs and such units can be loaded to weigh as much as CSUs involved in 
fatal tip-over incidents when filled with 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of 
storage volume (i.e., the load representative of normal clothing fill). 
However, the NPR did raise the possibility of excluding certain 
lightweight units that may not pose the same risk of death or serious 
injury in a tip-over incident. The NPR noted that CPSC did not identify 
any tip-over incidents involving lightweight plastic units, but also 
indicated that the type and weight of unit was undetermined in many 
incidents. The NPR explained that the lowest-weight non-modified \90\ 
CSU involved in a fatal tip-over incident weighed 57 pounds total at 
the time of the incident (because the unit was reportedly empty), and 
other lower-weight units in fatal incidents weighed 57.5 pounds and 68 
pounds. The NPR also requested comments on excluding certain 
lightweight units from the scope of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ There was a CSU identified in a fatal tip-over incident 
without a television that weighed 34 pounds, but that was missing 
several drawers at the time of the incident, and the drawer fill was 
unknown, making the total weight unclear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule includes in the definition of a CSU the criterion 
that the unit have a mass greater than or equal to 57 pounds with all 
extendable elements (i.e., drawers and pull-our shelves) filled with at 
least 8.5 pounds per cubic foot times their functional volume. This 
results in excluding certain lightweight units from the definition of a 
CSU and the scope of the rule. Specifically, if the weight of the empty 
CSU and a clothing fill weight of 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of 
functional storage volume totals 57 pounds or more, then the unit falls 
within the scope of the rule. If the total weight of the empty CSU and 
this clothing fill is less than 57 pounds, the unit is excluded from 
the definition of a CSU. This revision is based on comments received on 
the NPR, staff's assessment of the mechanism of injury with lightweight 
CSUs, lightweight CSU incidents discussed in the NPR, staff's 
assessment of the total weights such units can achieve, and the effect 
of a lightweight exception on the effectiveness of the final rule.
    Comments on the NPR. Several comments on the NPR suggested that 
lightweight units with an empty weight of 30 pounds or less should be 
excluded from the scope of the rule. This suggestion is consistent with 
a change ASTM is considering for its standard on CSUs. Commenters noted 
that, for incidents in which the type/weight of the unit is known, 
there are no known incidents involving such lightweight units and that 
lighter weight units would not be able to meet the stability 
requirements in the rule, thereby removing such products from the 
market.
    Mechanism of injury. CPSC staff assess that heavier CSUs pose a 
greater potential for injuries and for more severe injuries because the 
mass/weight of the CSU is a key component in the mechanisms that cause 
injury or death in a CSU tip-over. Accordingly, lighter weight CSUs may 
pose less of a risk of serious injury and death in a tip-over incident 
than heavier weight units. Head injuries, compressional and mechanical 
asphyxia, and strangulation are the leading causes of injuries in CSU 
tip-over incidents. The mass/weight of the CSU is one key factor that 
contributes to these injuries because higher mass CSUs create greater 
impact forces and compressional forces, thereby increasing the risk and 
severity of injuries. High mass/weight CSUs also make self-rescue more 
difficult because children are less likely to be able to move the 
fallen CSU or get out from under it.
    Incident analysis. Staff considered what weight limit would capture 
CSUs that are heavy enough to present an unreasonable risk of injury 
during a tip-over incident, while excluding lighter weight units that 
are unlikely to pose the same hazard. To identify an appropriate weight 
limit for CSUs, staff reexamined the incident data where the CSU 
weights were reported or where staff could determine the weight of the 
CSUs based on product information or other data sources. Table 1 shows 
the lightest weight CSUs involved in fatal and nonfatal incidents. Note 
that Table 1 includes units with heights less than 27 inches, which 
would result in them not meeting the definition of a CSU in the rule. 
However, staff included these in the analysis because they were the 
lightest weight units involved in incidents and, as such, indicate the 
lowest weights that may result in injuries.

                 Table 1--Lightest Weight CSUs Involved in Fatal and Nonfatal Tip-Over Incidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CSU empty weight     CSU height                           In scope under final
             Injury                   (pounds)          (inches)       In scope under NPR           rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Fatal Incidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death--chest compression.......  34 (with 3 bottom               42  Yes..................  Yes.
                                  drawers missing
                                  from a 5-drawer
                                  unit).
Death--neck compression........  57 (empty at time             27.5  Yes..................  Yes.
                                  of incident).
Death--waist compression.......  57.5..............            39.5  Yes..................  Yes.
Death--chest compression.......  66.5..............              33  Yes..................  Yes.
Death--waist compression.......  68................            30.8  Yes..................  Yes.
Death--neck compression........  68................            30.8  Yes..................  Yes.
Death--neck compression........  68................            30.8  Yes..................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Nonfatal Incidents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor bruise under eye.........  28.5 *............            26.8  No...................  No.
Bruising to both legs..........  31 *..............              26  No...................  No.
Scratches and bruises..........  31 *..............              26  No...................  No.
Laceration to cheek............  39.7 *............            22.6  No...................  No.
Laceration requiring 3 stitches  39.7 *............            22.6  No...................  No.
Laceration to top of foot and a  45................            28.1  Yes..................  Yes.
 bruise to calf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* CPSC could not determine the weight of the CSU alone, so this is the package weight (i.e., combined weight of
  the CSU and packing material), as listed on the manufacturer's website.


[[Page 72629]]

    As Table 1 indicates, the lightest weight CSU involved in a fatal 
incident was 34 pounds. However, the configuration and weight of this 
CSU at the time of the incident is uncertain. The CSU was a 5-drawer 
unit and, at the time the incident was investigated, the 3 bottom 
drawers of the unit were not with the CSU; 2 of the drawers were in 
another room and 1 was ``disassembled'' in a separate room. It is not 
clear whether these 3 drawers were installed at the time the unit 
tipped over and were moved out of the way after the incident, or if the 
drawers were removed at the time of the incident. With only the 2 
drawers installed, the coroner's report indicates that the unit weighed 
34 pounds. As such, CPSC does not know the total weight of the CSU or 
its weight at the time of the incident. For this reason, CPSC cannot 
rely on the weight reported for this incident and did not use this 
incident to determine an appropriate weight limit for the rule.
    The next lightest CSU involved in a fatal tip-over incident weighed 
57 pounds. This unit was intact (i.e., not missing drawers) and 
reportedly empty at the time of the incident, making the total weight 
57 pounds. In this incident, the victim was laying on her back with the 
CSU on top of her neck between the CSU drawers. The CSUs in the 
remaining fatal incidents weighed more than 57 pounds. Three of the 
remaining victims were found with the CSU on their necks and three were 
found with the CSU compressing their chests or waists. The mechanism 
for these injuries is the weight of the CSU and contents pressing 
against the victim's body, which provides further indication that the 
weight/mass of a CSU is a key factor in the potential occurrence and 
severity of injuries or death in a CSU tip over. As such, it is 
reasonable to account for CSU weight in determining the scope of the 
rule. Overall, these incidents indicate that the 57 pounds total weight 
is the lowest weight shown to result in fatality during a CSU tip over.
    As Table 1 and the NPR indicate, lighter weight units have been 
involved in nonfatal incidents. The lightest weight CSU involved in a 
nonfatal incident was 45 pounds; the lighter units would not meet the 
definition of a CSU because they are not 27 inches tall, but staff 
considered these incidents as a possible indication of the lowest 
weights that could result in injuries during a tip-over incident. 
However, none of these lighter-weight nonfatal incident units resulted 
in serious injuries. All of the injuries were relatively minor, 
including bruising and lacerations. Staff also considered two incidents 
involving plastic units in the NEISS nonfatal data. Although the weight 
of these units was not reported, staff considered them because, as 
plastic units, they are likely to have been lightweight. In one 
incident, the unit tipped over, resulting in an unspecified head injury 
for which the child was treated and released, suggesting the injury was 
likely not serious. In the other incident, the unit caused a laceration 
to the right eye, which also resulted in the child being treated and 
released. Because of the minor nature of the injuries in these nonfatal 
incidents, CPSC does not consider these incidents a good representation 
of the weight of CSUs that have the potential to cause serious injuries 
or death in a tip-over incident. For this reason, the final rule relies 
on the lowest-weight unit involved in a fatal incident--57 pounds--
because this indicates the lowest weight shown to pose a risk of 
serious injury or death.
    Having identified an appropriate total weight at which to establish 
a threshold for the final rule, CPSC also considered how to determine 
the total weight. As explained, the 57-pound CSU involved in a fatal 
incident was empty at the time of the incident. Thus, its total weight 
at the time of the incident was 57 pounds. However, incident data 
indicates that for CSU tip-over incidents with a reported drawer fill, 
most involve partially or fully filled drawers (95 percent of fatal 
CPSRMS incidents and 90 percent of nonfatal CPSRMS incidents with 
reported drawer fill), and this use is expected because CSUs are 
intended to store clothing. As such, it is necessary to consider 
clothing fill weight, in addition to the empty weight of the CSU, when 
determining whether a CSU reaches the total weight of 57 pounds that 
poses a risk of severe injury or death. As discussed in this preamble, 
staff has determined that 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of functional 
storage volume represents a reasonable fill weight of clothing in CSUs. 
Consistent with this, the NPR explained that lightweight units that can 
reach the total weight, with clothing fill, that presents a hazard, 
need to be addressed in the rule. Therefore, the final rule uses this 
fill weight to determine whether a CSU can reach a total weight of 57 
pounds and poses a risk of serious injury or death.
    Effect of 57-pound criteria. To determine what effect this 
exclusion would have on units included in the scope of the rule and 
whether it would continue to address all known CSU tip-over incidents, 
staff assessed the filled weights of CSUs on the market and involved in 
incidents.
    To assess units on the market, staff selected 3 lightweight CSUs, 
with a variety of designs (i.e., number of drawers, configurations, and 
materials), all taller than 27 inches and weighing less than 30 pounds 
empty. Information about these units is shown in Table 2.

                                        Table 2--Lightweight CSU Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Calculated
                                            Dimensions (width, height,       Empty      drawer fill     Total
      Unit             Description               depth) (inches)             weight      weight *       weight
                                                                            (pounds)     (pounds)      (pounds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..............  6 drawers in one        33.75 x 48 x 15.5..............         16.0          53.4         69.5
                  column, plastic.
B..............  8 drawers in 2 columns  33.75 x 39.5 x 15.5............         25.2          54.4         79.6
                  (4 drawers per
                  column), cloth
                  drawer, metal frame,
                  wooden top.
C..............  6 drawers arranged      23.75 x 38.75 x 15.75..........         19.2          39.3         58.5
                  with 2 small drawers
                  in the top row and 4
                  large drawers below
                  in a single column,
                  plastic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Calculated using 8.5 pounds per cubic foot.

    As Table 2 indicates, although all of these units weighed less than 
30 pounds empty (which is the weight exclusion requested by commenters) 
and they all weighed more than 57 pounds when filled with a reasonable 
clothing fill density. This demonstrates why it is necessary to 
consider the total filled weight of a CSU, and not the empty weight of 
a CSU, in establishing a weight threshold for the scope of the rule.
    Staff also reviewed information about lightweight units on the 
market to determine the extent to which they

[[Page 72630]]

would be excluded or included in the scope of the rule. Staff found 
that many lightweight units on the market are less than 27 inches tall 
and, as such, would not fall within the scope of the rule, regardless 
of their weight. Staff also noted that the lightest weight units in 
nonfatal tip-over incidents were almost all under 27 inches in height. 
Smaller units with lower capacities would be excluded from the scope of 
the rule. Overall, the number of lightweight units that are 27 inches 
or taller and weigh less than 57 pounds when filled is small, making 
the impact of the rule similar to that proposed in the NPR.
    To ensure that the tip-over hazard would still be sufficiently 
addressed, CPSC also assessed whether any CSUs involved in tip-over 
incidents would be excluded from the scope of the rule as a result of 
this weight criterion. Staff found that the 57-pound filled weight 
criterion would not exclude from the scope of the rule any CSUs that 
were involved in fatal CPSRMS incidents or nonfatal CPSRMS incidents 
that were not already excluded from the scope based on height.\91\ As 
such, the weight criterion retains within the scope of the rule CSUs 
that have been demonstrated to and are likely to present the risk of 
serious injuries or death in a tip-over incident, while excluding units 
that are not likely to and have not been demonstrated to present the 
same risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Staff based their assessment on the available information, 
including reported product weights, identification, descriptions, 
and pictures. However, staff does not have details on all incident-
involved units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Definition of Drawers
    The final rule defines a ``drawer'' as 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. This is the same as in the NPR. However, the final rule 
also adds to the definition an explanation that only components that 
are retained in the case when extended up to \2/3\ the shortest 
internal length, when empty, are included in this definition.
    As the language in the NPR and final rule indicates, drawers may be 
attached to the case, but do not have to be. CPSC received a comment on 
the NPR indicating that bins should be excluded from the definition of 
a drawer. CPSC agrees that features that extend from the case of a CSU 
contribute to instability differently depending on their retention 
within the case. An extended element contributes to a CSU's instability 
by shifting the CG of the CSU forward, and this contribution to 
instability increases when the extended element is filled with 
clothing. As such, components that fall out of the case when extended 
will not shift the CG of the CSU forward because once the component 
falls out of the case, it is no longer part of the CSU and forces on it 
do not affect the CSU.
    Staff examined how to distinguish between drawers and furniture 
components that are intended to contain or store items but are not 
usable as extendable elements that are likely to contribute to 
instability when extended. One way to capture attached and unattached 
components that can contribute to instability is provided in ANSI/BIFMA 
X6.5-2022, Home Office and Occasional-Use Desk, Table and Storage 
Products, which includes in the definition of ``extendible element,'' 
``[e]xtendible elements have an outstop OR will remain in the drawer 
case/cabinet (in its normal use position) when it is extended up to \2/
3\ of its depth.'' Staff assessed this with CSUs with unattached 
extension features and found that for some units, these elements were 
retained within the case of the CSU when extended to \2/3\ of their 
shortest internal length, which is the measurement used in the rule for 
drawer depth. Other such extension elements did not remain in the CSU 
case when extended to \2/3\ of their depth. Staff found that the \2/3\ 
extension criterion reasonably excludes components that are not usable 
as extendable elements and are unlikely to contribute to instability. 
Moreover, the \2/3\ extension criterion aligns with the definition of 
``maximum extension'' in the rule, which includes, ``[i]f the 
manufacturer does not provide a recommended use position by way of a 
stop, [maximum extension] 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.''
    For these reasons, the definition of a ``drawer'' includes the 
clarification that the term includes components that are retained in 
the case when extended to \2/3\ the shortest internal length, when 
empty. This retains the definition from the NPR, which includes 
components that are attached or unattached to the CSU case, while 
ensuring that the definition only captures those components that would 
contribute to instability, consistent with the purpose of the rule.
g. Definition of Freestanding
    The final rule defines ``freestanding'' to mean that the unit 
remains upright, without needing attachment to the wall or other 
upright rigid structure, when it is fully assembled and empty, with all 
extendable elements and doors closed and specifies that built-in units 
are not considered freestanding. This definition remains the same as in 
the NPR, but with modifications to address comments and provide better 
clarity.
    As discussed above, a CSU only includes freestanding products 
because the lack of permanent attachment to a building structure means 
that CSUs are susceptible to tip over, whereas built-in storage items 
are unlikely to pose a tip-over hazard. Examples of built-in/
permanently attached items provided in the NPR were bathroom vanities 
and kitchen cabinets, which are typically permanently attached to walls 
and/or floors in a sufficiently secure manner to make it unlikely they 
will tip over. The NPR also explained that CSUs need to be inherently 
stable, rather than rely on tip restraints, because of various reasons 
tip restraints may not be used, installed properly, or be effective. 
The NPR also noted that how a manufacturer intends a product to be 
used/installed (e.g., with tip restraints) is not determinative of 
whether it is a CSU because consumers will use products that function 
as CSUs as CSUs, regardless of marketing or manufacturer intent. As 
such, tip restraints and similar features, alone, would not make a unit 
non-freestanding.
    However, CPSC received several comments seeking clarification of 
the term ``freestanding,'' including the meaning of permanent 
attachment to the building structure, confusion about reference to a 
tip restraint, and specific items that may be permanently installed in 
a home. To address these comments, the final rule adds ``other upright 
rigid structure'' to possible attachments since any attachment to such 
a structure, not just to the wall, could render a unit non-
freestanding; removes reference to tip restraints, since that was 
confusing to commenters; and removes the examples provided in the NPR. 
Kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities may have caused confusion as 
examples because they are unlikely to meet other criteria of the CSU 
definition (e.g., use for clothing storage, sufficient closed storage).
    These revisions retain the same meaning of ``freestanding'' as in 
the NPR and remain consistent with the purpose of including only 
freestanding items in the definition of a CSU by focusing on how 
consumers will foreseeably install and use products and whether they 
will be sufficiently attached to make them unlikely to tip over.
h. Definitions of Open Storage and Open Space
    As described in the NPR, the definition of a CSU was developed, in

[[Page 72631]]

part, based on consumer perceptions, as indicated during the CSU use 
study focus group \92\ One of the design features of a CSU that staff 
identified was that a CSU has more closed storage than display storage 
(e.g., storage behind glass doors) and other open storage (e.g., 
cubbies), and/or open space (e.g., space under legs). This is because 
consumers reported using CSUs to protect clothing, whereas they 
perceive glass doors as typically used to display items, making them 
unlikely to be used as CSUs. Researchers also found that legs and the 
bottom of a product are features consumers often consider when 
classifying something as a CSU. To address this, the final rule 
definition of a CSU includes, as one element, that the total closed 
storage functional volume is greater than 1.3 cubic feet and greater 
than the sum of the open storage functional volume and the open space 
volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See Tab Q of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule defines ``open storage'' as the space within the 
frame of the furniture, that is open (i.e., is not in a drawer or 
behind an opaque door) and that can be reasonably used for storage 
(e.g., has a flat bottom surface) and provides, as examples, open shelf 
space that is not behind a door, display space behind a non-opaque 
door, and framed open clothing hanging space. In the NPR, this term was 
defined as ``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.'' The final rule defines ``open space'' as space within the 
frame of the furniture, but without a bottom surface and provides, as 
examples, open space between legs, such as with a console table, or 
between separated storage components, such as with a vanity or a desk. 
The definition of ``open space'' further specifies that it does not 
include space inside the furniture case (e.g., space between a drawer 
and the case) or any other space that is not visible to a consumer 
standing in front of the unit (e.g., space behind a base panel). The 
NPR defined ``open space'' as space enclosed within the frame, but 
without a bottom surface.
    CPSC received a comment on the NPR requesting clarification of how 
to classify certain spaces within or around a furniture piece for 
purposes of determining ``open storage'' and ``open space.'' To address 
this comment for ``open storage,'' the final rule replaces ``storage 
space enclosed on at least 5 sides by a frame or panel(s) and/or behind 
a non-opaque door'' with ``space within the frame of the furniture that 
is open (i.e., is not in a drawer or behind an opaque door).'' These 
descriptions convey the same meaning but address the confusion 
expressed by the commenter. The final rule also replaces ``with a flat 
bottom surface'' with ``reasonably can be used for storage (e.g., has a 
flat bottom surface)'' based on a comment that open storage may not 
have a flat bottom surface. The definition now also includes examples, 
based on descriptions and examples in the NPR and from the commenter. 
Overall, this definition remains consistent with the NPR and aligns 
with that of ``closed storage'' in the rule.
    To address the comment for ``open space,'' the final rule slightly 
modifies wording and adds examples, consistent with the description in 
the NPR. The modification includes changing ``under legs'' to ``open 
space between legs,'' based on the commenter's suggestion. The 
definition also adds that ``open space'' does not include space inside 
the furniture case or space that is not visible to a consumer (with 
examples), which is consistent with the purpose of aligning the CSU 
definition with consumer perceptions.

B. Stability Requirements 93
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ For additional information about the stability requirements 
in the rule, including interlock testing and relevant definitions, 
see Tabs C and D of the NPR and final rule briefing packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Final Rule Requirements
    The 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. There are several terms used in the stability 
requirements that are defined in the standard.
    To configure the CSU for testing, the rule requires the CSU to be 
placed on a hard, level, flat surface in the orientation most likely to 
cause a tip over. If the CSU has levelling devices, the devices are 
adjusted to the lowest level and then according to the manufacturer's 
instructions. The CSU is then tipped forward using a test block that is 
at least 0.43 inches thick to simulate carpet. All doors, drawers, and 
pull-out shelves that are not locked by an interlock that withstood 
interlock testing (see below) are then open to the least stable 
configuration and fill weights are placed in drawers and pull-out 
shelves, depending on the proportion of drawers and pull-out shelves 
that are open. Because the test configuration differs, depending on the 
presence and effectiveness of interlocks, the rule requires testing the 
interlocks before conducting the stability testing.
    The interlock testing consists of placing the CSU on a hard, level, 
flat surface; levelling to the lowest level and then according to 
manufacturer instructions; securing the unit to prevent sliding or tip 
over; and opening the number of doors, drawers, or pull-out shelves 
necessary to engage the interlock. A 30-pound horizontal pull force is 
then applied at the center of the pull area on each interlocked door, 
drawer, or pull-out shelf, 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 doors, drawers, and pull-out shelves have been 
tested. If any interlocked door, drawer, or pull-out shelf opens 
without retracting the originally open element, or the interlock is 
damaged or does not function as intended during this testing, then the 
interlock is to be disabled or bypassed for the stability testing. In 
general, when interlocks are provided, they must be pre-installed and 
automatically engage as part of normal use.
    For the stability testing, all doors, drawers, and pull-out shelves 
that are not locked by an interlock meeting the requirements of the 
interlock test 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 
of 8.5 pounds per cubic foot times the functional volume (cubic feet) 
is the minimum permitted in open drawers and pull-out shelves, and the 
maximum permitted in closed elements. 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 rule provides two test methods for the tip-over test. Test 
Method 1 must be used for CSUs with drawers or pull-out shelves that 
extend at least 6 inches from the fulcrum. It involves applying weights 
to the face of one or more extended drawers or pull-out shelves to 
cause the unit to tip over. 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 center of force 
application to the fulcrum (as defined in the standard).
    Test Method 2 must be used for any CSU for which Test Method 1 does 
not apply. It involves applying a horizontal force to the CSU 
orthogonal (i.e., at a right angle) to the fulcrum to cause the

[[Page 72632]]

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.
    If a failed component prevents the completion of either test 
method, then to continue testing, the failed components must be 
repaired or replaced to their original specifications and, if 
necessary, be secured to prevent the components from failing, as long 
as the modifications do not increase the tip-over moment.
    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 from the fulcrum distance (as 
defined in the standard, in feet), 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 pounds feet. 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 Final Rule Requirements
    As described in this preamble and the NPR, 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 or pull-out shelves, carpeting, and forces generated by 
children's interactions with the CSU (such as climbing and opening/
pulling on drawers). The 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 rule simulates these factors 
simultaneously (e.g., all drawers and pull-out shelves 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.
    This section discusses the basis for the stability requirements in 
the final rule as well as the definitions of terms relevant to those 
requirements. Based on comments received in response to the NPR, the 
final rule includes revisions to the stability requirements and 
relevant definitions. Accordingly, this section also notes the 
provisions and relevant definitions that have been revised and 
discusses the comments and justifications for those revisions.
a. Definitions
    This section discusses definitions that are relevant to stability 
testing that have been revised or added since the NPR to address 
comments submitted on the NPR and staff's assessments. Additional terms 
that are defined in the standard are addressed in the discussion of the 
stability requirements, below.
    Door extension from fulcrum distance. The NPR specified that, for 
purposes of determining the doors extension from fulcrum distance, the 
door was to be ``in a position where the center of mass of the door is 
extended furthest from the front face of the unit'' and that this is 
``typically 90 degrees.'' As the NPR explained, all doors and 
extendable elements should be open to the maximum extension and least 
stable configuration for stability testing because this is consistent 
with the purpose of the testing provisions to assess CSUs in their 
least stable likely configuration during real-world use. CPSC received 
comments regarding the same wording in the stability requirements on 
how to open doors for testing; the comments indicated that testers 
misunderstood the requirement to mean that they must measure the CM of 
the door to determine what position to which to open it. To clarify the 
meaning of this provision, the final rule states that the door is to be 
in the least stable configuration, which is typically 90 degrees. This 
accomplishes the same purpose as the NPR provision, but should 
eliminate confusion on how to configure the door, and make clear that 
testers need not measure the CM of the door.
    Extendable elements. The proposed rule included numerous 
requirements for ``drawers and pull-out shelves'' and those terms are 
both defined in the rule. Several furniture-related voluntary standards 
use the term ``extendable element'' to refer to drawers and pull-out 
shelves. Because the term ``extendable element'' has the same meaning 
as ``drawers and pull-out shelves,'' but is more concise and does not 
diminish understanding, the final rule replaces references to ``drawers 
and pull-out shelves'' with ``extendable elements.'' This does not 
change any requirements in the rule; it merely uses more concise 
terminology.
    Fulcrum. Intuitively, the fulcrum is located at the front of the 
bottom-most surface of the CSU. This is the point or line about which 
the CSU pivots when it tips forward. Therefore, the 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 atypical 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.
    The proposed rule defined ``fulcrum'' as ``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).'' The fulcrum position is used in 
four measurements within the stability requirements. The first is the 
extendable element extension from fulcrum distance and the second is 
the door extension from fulcrum distance. Both of these distance 
measurements are used to determine the threshold moment, which 
establishes the minimum stability requirement of the CSU. The third and 
fourth measurements for which the fulcrum position is used are to 
determine the tip-over moment in Test Methods 1 and 2, which determine 
whether the CSU meets the minimum stability requirement.
    CPSC received several comments relating to consistent measurements 
to the fulcrum, some of which sought clarity on when to determine the 
fulcrum position. It is possible that the fulcrum position may shift 
forward as a CSU tilts or pivots forward during the test. For most 
CSUs, this positional shift is small and does not have a significant 
effect on measurements to the fulcrum. However, some CSUs with may 
extend the fulcrum forward significantly while they are tilting 
forward. Depending on when certain measurements to the fulcrum are 
made, a forward-shifted fulcrum could either result in a smaller 
threshold moment (making the test easier to pass) or in a reduced 
moment arm for the tip-over moment (making the test more difficult to 
pass). For this reason, the fulcrum position should be determined 
before a tip-over force is applied since the fulcrum position is used 
as a reference point for several measurements. Based on comments, this 
was not clear in the NPR. Because a lack of clarity on this could lead 
to potential inconsistencies in measurement, the final rule revisions 
to make clear at

[[Page 72633]]

what point to determine the fulcrum and at what stage of the stability 
test measurements to the fulcrum are to be made. Specifically, the 
fulcrum definition is revised to indicate that the fulcrum position is 
determined while the CSU is on a hard, level, flat test surface with 
all doors and extendable elements closed. This establishes a clear 
reference that can be used at any stage of testing, making the 
stability test repeatable and reproducible. In addition, Test Method 1 
and Test Method 2 specify that the appropriate time to record the 
distance measurement to the fulcrum is before the load is applied.
    Another comment asked what distance to use for determining the 
fulcrum for CSUs with drawers that extend to different lengths. The NPR 
regulatory text depicted in a figure a CSU with drawers extended to 
different lengths, and showed the drawer extension from fulcrum 
distance measured to the drawer with the longest extension. However, 
the comment suggests that may not be sufficiently explicit. Lack of 
clarity on this issue could lead to potential inconsistencies in 
measurement. To address this, the final rule adds to the stability test 
configuration requirements that, after the CSU has been leveled, to 
record the maximum handhold height and the longest extendable element 
extension from fulcrum distance and door extension from fulcrum 
distance, as applicable. This establishes a clear time when the 
appropriate measurements are to be taken, and makes clear that the 
longest extendable element extension from fulcrum distance is to be 
used, without relying on figures to express the intended measurement.
    Interlock. In the NPR, ``interlock'' was defined as ``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.'' The rule 
addresses interlocks because they are an option for increasing the 
stability of a CSU by decreasing the mass that can be opened from the 
case of the CSU simultaneously. As such, the rule includes testing 
provisions that accommodate these features and assess the strength of 
these features to ensure they function during real-world use 
conditions.
    One manufacturer commented that the definition should account for 
the fact that interlocks are not limited to drawers and could also be 
used for pull-out shelves and doors. Doors and extendable elements all 
extend from the case of a CSU, shifting the CG of the unit outward, 
thereby making the CSU less stable. As such, interlocks, which restrict 
the extension of any such extended elements, could be used to improve 
CSU stability, and it is important that the rule allow for these 
features for design flexibility and ensure that interlocks are strong 
enough to function as intended under real-world use conditions. 
Although the NPR did not explicitly include pull-out shelves and doors 
in the requirements regarding interlocks, the NPR did indicate that the 
purpose of the interlock requirements in the NPR was to ensure 
interlocks function effectively and are accommodated in the test 
requirements and that other similar standards that address interlock 
integrity apply to all extendable elements. To address these comments 
and provide design flexibility, the final rule includes doors and pull-
out shelves in the definition of an ``interlock'' and adds these 
features to provisions regarding interlocks.
    A commenter also stated that the second sentence of the definition 
in the NPR was unnecessary as it did not add to the explanation. 
Because the first sentence of the definition provides sufficient 
explanation of the term and the requirements in the standard address 
interlocks that do not affect all extendable elements, the final rule 
removes the second sentence from the definition. Another commenter 
requested that the term ``device'' be changed to ``feature'' to provide 
as much design flexibility as possible. Although CPSC does not believe 
this wording change affects the scope of products that meet the 
definition of an ``interlock,'' the final rule uses ``feature'' to 
address this comment and ensure adequate clarity about the range of 
features that can serve as an interlock.
    Maximum handhold height. In the NPR, ``maximum handhold height'' 
was defined as ``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.'' The definition also included a reference to a figure, 
which indicated a maximum height of 4.12 feet.
    CPSC received a comment on the NPR, asking to add to this 
definition that it is ``a handhold feature at or below 4.12 ft,'' which 
suggests that the commenter misunderstood the definition in the NPR. 
The maximum handhold height includes the top of the CSU, but is limited 
to a maximum of 4.12 feet from the ground, which is based on the 
overhead reach height for a 95th percentile 3-year-old male.\94\ 
Therefore, the maximum handhold height is either: (1) the height of the 
unit, if the unit is under 4.12 feet tall, or (2) 4.12 feet if the unit 
is that tall or taller. Because the comment suggests some potential for 
misunderstanding this, the final rule rewords the definition to make it 
clear that maximum handhold height means the highest position at which 
a child may grab hold of the CSU, measured while the CSU is on a hard, 
level, and flat test surface. For units shorter than 4.12 feet, this is 
the top of the CSU. For units 4.12 feet or taller, this is 4.12 feet. 
The final rule also includes a revised figure to illustrate this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See Tab C of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Test block. To replicate the effects of carpet during stability 
testing, the NPR proposed to require that the CSU be tilted forward 1.5 
degrees during testing by raising the rear of the unit, placing the CSU 
on an inclined surface, or using other means. The NPR explained the 
testing used to determine that 1.5 degrees was the average angle that 
replicates the effect of carpet (see discussion of tip angle below).
    CPSC received several comments recommending that a test block be 
used to achieve an appropriate angle, rather than specifying an angle, 
to make the test easier to conduct, aid repeatability and 
reproducibility, and because tilt angle could be affected by CSU 
attributes such as weight or depth. A manufacturer recommended that a 
0.43-inch-thick test block would achieve the same purpose as the test 
angle in the NPR. To evaluate whether a test block could achieve a 
comparable tilt angle to that determined to simulate the effect of 
carpet, staff assessed the tilt angle that a 0.43-inch-thick test block 
would produce on most CSUs. Staff used the depth measurements for CSUs 
that were previously identified by staff \95\ and calculated the angle 
that would be produced by raising the rear of the CSU 0.43 inches.\96\ 
Staff determined that raising the rear of the CSU 0.43 inches tilted 
the CSU forward at an average angle of 1.5 degrees. The total range of 
angles produced by this test block was 1.2 degrees to 2.3 degrees, 
which is within the range of angles staff previously determined 
simulated the

[[Page 72634]]

effect of carpet, which was 0.8 degrees to 3.0 degrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ See Tab N of the NPR briefing package.
    \96\ Staff reduced the measured depth by 1 inch for this 
calculation to account for feet placement. The depth of these units 
was measured at the top surface, and staff estimates the feet are 
inset at least 1 inch total from the top, on average. Because a test 
block would be placed under the feet of a CSU, staff adjusted the 
depth measurement accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this assessment, using a 0.43 inch test block would 
provide an equivalent tilt angle to that in the NPR and adequately 
simulate the effect of carpet. In addition, using a test block would be 
easier than tilting the unit forward 1.5 degrees because it is easier 
for a test lab to create test blocks of a specific thickness than to 
create multiple blocks for individual units that will raise them 1.5 
degrees, or to create a test platform that angles exactly 1.5 degrees. 
For these reasons, the final rule revises the tilt requirement and adds 
a definition of ``test block'' that states it is a block constructed of 
a rigid material such as steel or aluminum with the following 
dimensions: at least 0.43 inch thick, at least 1 inch deep, at least 1 
inch wide. The final rule also includes a figure illustrating these 
dimensions. The final rule also updates the figures in the stability 
requirements to show the test block.
    To ensure that a test block properly simulates the effect of 
carpet, the positioning of the block is important to achieve the 
correct angle. A block positioned too far toward the front of the CSU 
will increase the angle; a block positioned too far toward the rear of 
the CSU will decrease the angle. Therefore, to accommodate the 
requested change to a test block, the position of the block must be 
specified. For CSUs that have rear feet with glides or levelers smaller 
than the block, the entire glide or leveler should be over the block. 
Otherwise, the back of the block can be easily aligned with the back 
edge of the rear support. To ensure proper placement of the test block, 
the test configuration requirements are also updated in the final rule 
to state the unit must be tilted forward by placing the test block(s) 
under the unit's most rear floor support(s) such that either the entire 
floor support contact area is over the test block(s) or the back edge 
of the test block(s) is aligned with the back edge of the rear floor 
supports.
    Tip over. The NPR defined ``tip over'' as ``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.''
    CPSC received several comments on this definition including that it 
does not allow for new designs that may intentionally use extension 
elements to stabilize the CSU; that one side of a CSU may lift from the 
floor before the other side; and that it is difficult to measure \1/4\ 
inch during testing. Commenters suggested using a definition like that 
in voluntary standards, such as an ``event at which a furniture unit 
pivots forward to the point at which the unit continues to fall'' or 
``the condition where the unrestricted unit will not return to its 
normal upright position.''
    As explained in the NPR, the definition of ``tip over'' in the NPR 
was based on staff's assessments and its utility for purposes of 
testing. However, based on these comments, staff reassessed the \1/4\ 
inch criteria and found that for most CSUs, the tip-over force, when 
measured with a force gauge, is determined immediately as the rear of 
the CSU lifts off the ground, before the rear of the CSU lifts at least 
\1/4\ inch off the ground, but for other CSUs, when measuring the tip-
over force using weights, the rear may rise up to \1/4\ inch or more, 
but remain balanced. To address this and the comments, the final rule 
revises the definition of ``tip over'' to mean an event at which a 
clothing storage unit pivots forward to the point at which the CSU will 
continue to fall and/or be supported by a non-support element, which is 
similar to the commenters' suggested revisions.
    This change allows the ``tip over'' assessment to be made without 
the CSU continuously falling forward and without simultaneous 
measurements of the tip-over force and the height that the rear of the 
CSU lifts. This also allows tip-over force measurements to be 
determined with weights, without potential confusion caused by the CSU 
balancing with the rear of the CSU raised. Additionally, the tip-over 
force measured with a force gauge is typically determined as the rear 
of the CSU lifts off the ground, before it reaches the \1/4\ inch 
height proposed in the NPR, and this change allows testers to make that 
determination, as appropriate. In addition, this revision allows for 
design flexibility, including features that prevent tip over but may 
permit the unit to lift \1/4\ inch from the floor. This change may, in 
some instances, result in tip-over forces being slightly higher when 
measured with weights, but is not expected to affect tip-over forces 
when measured with a force gauge and such slight increases are not 
expected to significantly affect stability test results.
b. Requirements for Interlocks
    Because the fill level, as well as the stability of a CSU, depends 
on how many doors and extendable elements can open, the standard also 
includes a requirement that any interlock system must withstand a 30-
pound horizontal pull force. Without such a requirement, consumers may 
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.
    General requirement. The NPR specified that for CSUs with 
interlocks, the interlocks must be pre-installed, automatically engage 
when the consumer installs the drawers in the unit, and must engage 
automatically as part of normal use. CPSC received a comment that 
misinterpreted this requirement to mean that CSUs are required to have 
interlocks. Although the NPR clearly indicated that interlocks are not 
required, the final rule clarifies this by adding to the interlock 
provisions that they only apply to CSUs with interlocks.
    Configuration. For the interlock pull test, the NPR stated that the 
CSU was to be secured to prevent sliding or tip over. This is because 
the unit must remain stable to accurately assess the integrity of the 
interlock system. CPSC received a comment recommending that this 
provision specify that the CSU is to be secured without interfering 
with the interlock function. The purpose of this provision is to assess 
the strength of the interlock system and its ability to remain fully 
functional and effective during real-world use conditions. As such, the 
preliminary step of securing the unit from sliding or tip over clearly 
should not be done in a way that interferes with the effectiveness of 
the interlock. However, to ensure this is clear, the final rule adds 
that securing the CSU must not interfere with the interlock function.
    The NPR also stated to adjust a levelling device to the lowest 
level and then in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, for 
interlock testing. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that 
the CSU is level for testing and is consistent with configuring the 
unit in accordance with manufacturer instructions. However, CPSC 
recognizes that CSUs may have more than one levelling device. To ensure 
this levelling is performed for all levelling devices on a CSU, which 
is consistent with the purpose in this NPR, this wording has been 
revised to include multiple levelling devices.
    Interlock 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

[[Page 72635]]

females.\97\ 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/BIFMA X6.5-22 includes a 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ DTI (2000). Strength Data for Design Safety--Phase 1 (DTI/
URN 00/1070). London: Department of Trade and Industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC received a comment seeking clarity on where the force should 
be applied. The pull area is where a person would typically interact 
with or pull on the extendable element or door. Because the test 
requirements in the rule are intended to simulate real-world use 
conditions, the typical interaction area is a reasonable location to 
apply the force. A pull force test is typically applied where a pull 
(such as a knob, bar, handle, or other handhold) is already present; 
however, for long pulls or multiple pulls, it may not be clear where 
the pull force should be applied. Elements with multiple pulls or long 
continuous pulls should be tested an equal number of times as units 
with a single pull, rather than testing such units multiple times with 
each pull feature. The location where the pull force is applied may 
affect the outcome of the test, making it important that this force be 
applied consistently by testers. To address the comment, provide 
clarity, and ensure reliable test results, the final rule specifies 
that the pull force is to be applied ``at the center of the pull 
area.'' For elements with more than one pull area on a single 
extendable element or door (e.g., 2 knobs on a single drawer), the 
center of the pull areas would typically mean at a knob, midway between 
two knobs, or at the center of a bar, handle, or other handhold and 
testers could determine how to apply the force to the center, such as 
by connecting them with rope or wire.
    Performance criteria. The NPR specified that, if during interlock 
testing, a locked drawer opens or the interlock is damaged, then the 
interlock must be disabled or bypassed for stability testing. CPSC has 
become aware of interlocks which, rather than locking an extendable 
element in the case, instead allow the extendable element to extend 
while retracting already extended elements. These features restrict 
simultaneous extension of extendable elements, which addresses the 
hazard of multiple open drawers. The purpose of this requirement in the 
NPR was that, if the interlock does not function as intended or cannot 
withstand the real-world use conditions in the test, it should not be 
used during stability testing because it cannot be relied on to provide 
added stability for the CSU during real-world use. Consistent with this 
purpose and to provide design flexibility, the final rule has been 
modified to address the newly identified interlock type, such that it 
is also permissible as long as it withstands the required testing.
c. Stability Testing Configuration
    Assembly. The test configuration provisions in the NPR required 
testers to assemble the unit according to the manufacturer's 
instructions. CPSC received a comment on the NPR seeking clarification 
of what this means for CSUs where the manufacturer's instructions 
direct consumers to attach the unit to the wall. As the NPR emphasized, 
the rule is intended to address the inherent stability of CSUs, without 
attachment to the wall, because staff's data and analysis (in Tab C of 
the NPR briefing package) demonstrated that consumers do not commonly 
attach CSUs to the wall and, even if they do, the attachment may not be 
effective or installed correctly. Consistent with this purpose and to 
clarify this requirement, the final rule adds that the unit must not be 
attached to the wall or other upright structure for testing. This will 
ensure CSUs are tested for inherent stability.
    Orientation on test surface. The NPR proposed to require that 
testing occur on a hard, level, flat test surface, which the NPR 
defined as sufficiently hard to not bend or break under the weight of 
the CSU and testing loads, smooth and even, and with no more than 0.5 
degrees of variation. CPSC received comments that the angle of the test 
surface is critical to the test and a test laboratory determined that 
the allowable tolerance on the test surface could result in a 4 percent 
overestimate or a 3 percent underestimate from the nominal test result. 
The final rule retains the definition of a ``hard, level, and flat test 
surface'' that was in the NPR, but adds to the stability test 
configuration requirements that, in placing the CSU on this surface, it 
must be placed in the orientation most likely to cause tip over. This 
is consistent with the aim stated in the NPR of generally testing CSUs 
in their least stable configurations to best ensure that stability 
testing assesses real-world worst-case conditions. This revision will 
address the possibility of overestimating stability by not allowing the 
CSU to be placed in a more stable orientation than level.
    CPSC also received a comment that a CSU can slide during the 
stability test and affect test results. To address this, the final rule 
adds to the test configuration requirements that, if necessary, testers 
may secure the unit from sliding. Testers could prevent a unit from 
sliding using high friction surfaces or specially designed blocks, 
among other options. However, the addition also specifies that such 
securement must not prevent the CSU from tipping over. It is implicit 
in stability testing requirements that the unit should not be secured 
from tipping over during testing, as that would defeat the purpose of 
the testing. Thus, while securement may be appropriate to facilitate 
testing, it must not interfere with the accuracy of the stability 
assessment. Thus, the additional wording clarifies that testers may 
secure the unit from sliding, but remains consistent with the proposed 
configuration and the purpose of stability testing by making clear that 
such securement must not prevent the CSU from tipping over.
    Leveling. Like for interlock testing, the NPR stated to adjust a 
levelling device to the lowest level and then in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions, for stability testing. As explained above, 
the purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the CSU is level for 
testing and is consistent with configuring the unit in accordance with 
manufacturer instructions. However, CPSC recognizes that CSUs may have 
more than one levelling device. To ensure this levelling is performed 
for all levelling devices on a CSU, which is consistent with the 
purpose in this NPR, this wording has been revised to include multiple 
levelling devices for the stability testing configuration as well.
    In addition, for stability testing after configuring the CSU 
according to manufacturer instructions, leveling it, and tilting it to 
simulate carpet, the NPR further stated that, if the CSU has a 
levelling device intended for a carpeted surface, to adjust the level 
in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for a carpeted 
surface. CPSC received several comments that allowing levelling devices 
to be adjusted for a carpeted surface would allow CSUs to be tested in 
a more stable position, although consumers may not make these levelling 
adjustments at home. As the

[[Page 72636]]

NPR explains, the purpose of the rule is to assess the stability of 
CSUs under real-world use conditions that contribute to instability. 
This includes testing CSUs on a surface that simulates the effect of 
carpeting, since carpet is shown to be associated with increased 
instability. This also includes accounting for real-world conditions, 
such as consumers not leveling for carpet. Therefore, consistent with 
the purpose of the NPR and in consideration of these comments, the 
final rule does not include the direction to adjust the level for a 
carpeted surface in the stability test.
    Carpeting. As incident data indicates, of the fatal CPSRMS tip-over 
incidents involving children and only CSUs that reported the type of 
flooring the CSU was on, 81 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, 74 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 rule 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. Technical Analysis 
Supporting the Rule 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 was included in the CSU 
configuration requirements for the stability testing in the NPR.
    However, as discussed above (see discussion of ``test block'' 
definition), comments on the NPR indicated that requiring a test block 
that created a comparable angle to that in the NPR and equivalently 
simulated the effect of carpet was preferable to specifying an angle 
because it would make the test easier to conduct, aid repeatability and 
reproducibility, and because tilt angle could be affected by CSU 
attributes such as weight or depth. In addition, using a test block 
would be easier than tilting the unit forward 1.5 degrees because it is 
easier for a test lab to create test blocks of a specific thickness 
than to create multiple blocks for individual units that will raise 
them 1.5 degrees, or to create a test platform that angles exactly 1.5 
degrees. To address this, staff assessed what height test block would 
provide a comparable requirement to the 1.5 degrees proposed in the NPR 
and determined that a 0.43-inch-thick test block would provide an 
equivalent tilt angle to that in the NPR and adequately simulate the 
effect of carpet. Accordingly, the final rule replaces the test angle 
with a test block of specified dimensions and require specific 
placement of that block to ensure they achieve the correct angle.
    Multiple open and filled extendable elements. As incident data 
indicates, opening extendable elements of a CSU was a common 
interaction in CSU tip overs involving children and only a CSU. It was 
the most common reported interaction (54 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 (8 percent) in fatal CPSRMS incidents. Children as 
young as 11 months were involved in incidents where the child was 
opening one or more extendable elements of the CSU, and the incidents 
commonly involved 2- and 3-year-olds. In numerous incidents, the 
children opened multiple or all of the extendable elements. The 
youngest child reported to have opened all extendable elements 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, 95 percent of fatal CPSRMS incidents involved 
partially filled or full extendable elements; and 90 percent of the 
nonfatal CPSRMS incidents involved partially filled or full extendable 
elements. Most items in the extendable elements were clothing.
    As this preamble explains, opening doors or extendable elements 
(i.e., drawers or 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 extended element. Therefore, 
CSUs will tip more easily as more extendable elements are opened. The 
CG of a CSU will also change depending on the position and amount of 
clothing in each drawer or pull-out shelf. Closed extendable elements 
filled with clothing tend to stabilize a CSU, but as each filled 
extendable element 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 rule 
includes multiple open and filled extendable elements as part of the 
unit configuration for stability testing, and varies whether extendable 
elements are filled depending on how many of the extendable elements 
can open, as determined by an interlock system.
    As staff testing showed, when all CSU extendable elements are 
pulled out and filled, the unit is more unstable. However, when CSU 
extendable elements have interlocks or other means that prevent more 
than half of the extendable elements by volume from being pulled out 
simultaneously, the CSU tips more easily with all extendable elements 
empty. Accordingly, when an interlock or other means prevents more than 
half of the extendable elements by interior volume from being opened 
simultaneously, the rule requires that no fill weight be placed in the 
extendable elements.
    The rule requires that extendable elements be opened to the maximum 
extension for both interlock testing and stability testing, and defines 
``maximum extension.'' The purpose of these requirements is that all 
extendable elements are opened fully, or if there is an interlock, the 
worst-case extendable elements that can be opened at the same time are 
opened fully. Maximum extension for extendable elements is the furthest 
manufacturer recommended use position, as indicated by way of a stop; 
if there are multiple stops, they are open

[[Page 72637]]

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 
extendable element.
    Open doors. The stability testing provisions also require that all 
doors be opened. Incident data indicates that, although there are fewer 
incidents involving CSUs with doors than extendable elements, children 
are able to open doors and there are fatal and nonfatal incidents 
involving wardrobes and armoires, which include doors. Based on these 
incidents and children's capabilities and climbing behavior 
demonstrated in incidents, the rule also includes opening all doors to 
simulate the least stable configuration of these units. Children may 
put their body weight on open doors or on extendable elements behind 
doors, both of which would contribute to instability in the same way as 
open extendable elements.
    The NPR specified that doors were to be open outward or downward to 
the position where the CM of the door is extended furthest from the 
front face of the unit, which is typically 90 degrees. As the NPR 
explained, all doors and extendable elements should be open to the 
maximum extension and least stable configuration for stability testing, 
as this is consistent with the purpose of these testing provisions to 
assess CSUs in their least stable likely configuration during real-
world use. CPSC received comments requesting that the test provisions 
be simplified, and staff identified the door position requirement as a 
potential point of confusion that could be simplified. Staff considered 
that testers may misunderstand the requirement to mean that they must 
measure the CM of the door. To clarify and simplify the meaning of this 
requirement, the final rule states to open all hinged doors that open 
outward or downward to the least stable configuration, which is 
typically 90 degrees. This accomplishes the same purpose as the NPR 
provision, but should eliminate confusion on how to comply, and make 
clear that testers need not measure the CM of the door.
    Fill density. As discussed in section VII. Technical Analysis 
Supporting the Rule, staff assessed the appropriate method for 
simulating CSU drawers that are partially filled or fully filled.\98\ 
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 \99\ (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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See Tab L of the NPR briefing package.
    \99\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 rule requires 8.5 
pounds per cubic foot as fill weight when more than half of the drawers 
by volume are open.
    As discussed above, staff assessed whether the same fill weight is 
appropriate for pull-out shelves and found that pull-out shelves can 
hold the same volume of clothing as drawers and still remain fully 
functional and sufficiently contain the clothing content during moving 
of the shelf. Accordingly, the same fill weight applies to drawers and 
pull-out shelves.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See Tab C of the final rule briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPR specified that fill weights must consist of a uniformly 
distributed mass that is 8.5 (pounds/cubic feet) times the functional 
volume (cubic feet). The NPR did not specify a tolerance for the fill 
weight density. CPSC received comments stating that achieving precisely 
8.5 pounds per cubic feet of functional volume would depend on the 
accuracy and precision of measurement instruments, which may affect 
stability results, decreasing a CSU's stability rating by as much as 3 
percent to 6 percent. Accordingly, commenters recommended providing a 
tolerance for the fill weight density. To address these comments, the 
final rule specifies that the 8.5 pounds per cubic feet density is the 
minimum for open extendable elements and a maximum for closed 
extendable elements. This is because, as explained in the NPR, fill 
weight in closed extendable elements contributes to stability and fill 
weight in open extendable elements contribute to instability. Because 
the goal of the stability testing is to simulate the least stable 
likely configuration during real-world use of a CSU, the tolerance 
allows for heavier loads in open drawers, but not in closed drawers.
    The NPR also specified that fill weights were to be placed in the 
center of the extendable element, meaning the center of the storage 
space. CPSC received comments requesting clarification and more 
specificity on where to place the fill weights, indicating that the 
position could be a source of testing error. Based on these comments, 
the meaning of the requirement in the NPR may not have been 
sufficiently clear and the final rule specifies that the fill weights 
are to be placed in the center of the bottom surface of the extendable 
element. This should eliminate potential confusion about what space to 
use to determine ``center.'' This is consistent with the direction in 
the NPR and the general approach of determining the volume of the 
storage space of an extendable element using the bottom surface of it.
    CPSC received a comment recommending that the rule require that 
fill weights be secured to prevent sliding. Some provisions in the NPR 
included this, but some did not. The final rule specifies that fill 
weights are to be secured to prevent sliding, but only if necessary. It 
is not always necessary to secure fill weights to prevent sliding, 
though it can be helpful at times. Requiring the fill weights to be 
secured when it is not necessary could be more onerous than is 
necessary. Moreover, a sliding fill weight tends to slide forward and 
reduce the tip-over moment (and reduce the likelihood of passing the 
test), rather than increase the tip-over moment. As such, the final 
rule provides the flexibility to secure fill weights from sliding, when 
necessary.
    The final rule also removes redundant requirements regarding fill 
weights. In the NPR, fill requirements were stated separately for units 
without an interlock and units with an interlock. However, the fill 
requirements for units without an interlock are the same as the 
requirements for units with interlocks where 50 percent or more 
extendable

[[Page 72638]]

elements are open. At this stage of the stability test, the interlock 
(if present) has already been tested and interlocks that do not meet 
the test criteria have been disabled or bypassed. As such, for the fill 
weights, it only matters whether 50 percent or more of the extendable 
elements by volume can be extended simultaneously. For this reason, the 
final rule streamlines these provisions to eliminate redundancy. 
Similarly, because the requirements for acceptable interlock systems 
are stated in the interlock testing provisions, it is not necessary to 
restate these in the stability testing section, and the final rule has 
been revised accordingly.
d. Stability Test Methods
    Test Methods. The rule provides two test methods for applying force 
to a CSU to determine its tip-over moment. The first test method is 
required for CSUs with extendable elements that extend at least 6 
inches from the fulcrum. The test involves applying weights to the face 
of an extended extendable element, causing the CSU to tip over. The 
second test is required for CSUs for which Test Method 1 does not apply 
and involves applying a horizontal force to the CSU orthogonal (i.e., 
at a right angle) to the fulcrum, causing it to tip forward. Both test 
methods require the location of the fulcrum to be determined and the 
distance from the center of the force application the fulcrum to be 
measured. For both test methods, the tip-over moment of the unit is 
then calculated by multiplying the tip-over force by the distance from 
the force application to the fulcrum.
    The NPR requirements were largely the same, but provided an option 
for which test method to use; it specified that Test Method 1 is more 
appropriate for CSUs with extendable elements, while Test Method 2 is 
appropriate for any CSU. In the NPR, Test Method 1 involved applying a 
vertical force to the face of the uppermost open extendable element to 
cause the unit to tip over and Test Method 2 involved applying a 
horizontal force to the back of the CSU orthogonal to the fulcrum to 
cause the unit to tip over. CPSC received numerous comments requesting 
revisions to these requirements.
    One issue for which commenters sought clarity was when to measure 
the distance from the force application to the fulcrum. As discussed in 
the definition of a fulcrum, the fulcrum position should be determined 
before a tip-over force is applied because the fulcrum position is used 
as a reference point for several measurements. However, comments 
indicated that this was not clear in the NPR, and the wording in Test 
Methods 1 and 2 contributed to that confusion by stating to record the 
distance from the force application point to the fulcrum and the tip-
over force at the same time. To address this confusion, the final rule 
specifies that the distance measurements to the fulcrum are to be taken 
before the force is applied in Test Method 1 and Test Method 2.
    Comments also suggested that the force in Test Method 1 should be 
applied with weights. For Test Method 1, the NPR directed testers to 
gradually apply a vertical force to a specified location, leaving the 
option of how to apply that force open. However, several commenters 
stated that the test methods lacked repeatability and reproducibility, 
indicating that results may vary by tester and by how the force is 
applied (e.g., with a force gauge by hand, with weights, by machine). 
Test reports provided with comments indicated that testing by hand 
yielded the most variable results; testing with weights yielded 
consistent results, but was limited to Test Method 1; and testing by 
machine yielded consistent results within a test method, but differed 
when comparing Test Method 1 to Test Method 2. CPSC reviewed the 
comments and the laboratory report and found that much of the 
subjectivity and variability in the results came from the testers 
applying the force by hand. To address these comments, ensure that 
stability testing results are reliable and consistent, and provide 
clarity for testers, the final rule specifies that Test Method 1 must 
be conducted using weights.
    Because the final rule now specifies that weights are to be used, 
it also specifies where to place the weights and includes additional 
information about placement to address comments. In the NPR, the 
vertical force in Test Method 1 was applied to the face of the 
uppermost extended extendable element to cause the unit to tip over. 
However, commenters raised concerns that this would cause drawers to 
break during testing, implying that testers would not be able to 
complete the test as a result. The final rule states that weights are 
to be applied to the face of an extended extendable element, and are to 
be placed on a single drawer face or distributed evenly across multiple 
drawer faces or as adjacent as possible to the pull-out shelf face, all 
while not interfering with other extended extendable elements. Testers 
that choose to be precise can determine the exact CG of the applied 
weights. The top center of the drawer face is a reasonable 
approximation for linear drawer faces because the CG of the applied 
weights will be aligned with this location. For curved drawers, the 
center of the drawer face where the most rearward weight is to be 
placed is a conservative and reasonable approximation. These revisions 
allow the test weights to be distributed across multiple drawers, which 
reduces the risk of drawers breaking and preventing completion of 
testing.
    The CG of the applied weight is equivalent to the force application 
point described in the NPR; while this change may slightly alter the 
measured tip-over force and the measured distance from the force 
application point to the fulcrum, it will not affect the tip-over 
moment determined by multiplying the required measurements. 
Additionally, the weights are not allowed to interfere with extended 
extendable elements so as to not alter the CG of the CSU. Therefore, 
this change will not affect the test results.
    In the NPR, Test Method 2 required a horizontal force to be applied 
to the back of the unit orthogonal to the fulcrum to cause the unit to 
tip over. The NPR did not specify how to apply the force, allowing 
either a push or pull force for this purpose. Like Test Method 1, CPSC 
received comments stating that Test Method 2 lacked repeatability and 
reproducibility. Staff assessed the repeatability and reproducibility 
of Test Method 2 by reviewing the laboratory test report that was 
provided by two trade associations, and by comparing the test to other 
furniture stability tests that apply a horizontal force. The laboratory 
report indicated variability in both methods, with Test Method 1 being 
almost twice as variable as Test Method 2 when both tests were 
conducted by hand (3.5 to 7.0 percent, compared to 2.0 to 4.5 percent, 
respectively). Staff identified the force location and application 
method as potential contributors to variability. The final rule 
addresses the variability of Test Method 1 with a recommendation to 
require the test to be conducted with weights, as described above. To 
address the variability of Test Method 2, CPSC considered possible 
modifications to the force location and application method by looking 
at other furniture stability tests that apply a horizontal load.
    Staff identified three applicable tests: ANSI/BIFMA X6.5-2022, 
section 4.9; ANSI/BIFMA X6.5-2022, section 4.10; and balloted revisions 
to ASTM F2057-19. Two of these tests differ from Test Method 2 in that 
they apply a horizontal pull force to the drawer, rather than to the 
back of the unit; the other test applies a push force to the back of 
the unit, consistent with the NPR, and to other locations. All three of 
the tests are

[[Page 72639]]

otherwise similar in methodology; the key remaining difference is in 
the types of storage units to which they apply, suggesting that 
different force application sites may be appropriate for different 
CSUs.
    The NPR already allowed either a push force or a pull force, so 
long as it was applied to the back of the unit orthogonal to the 
fulcrum; based on these other test methods and the comments on the NPR, 
test laboratories may prefer to apply a force to a location other than 
the back of the unit, and the preference and appropriateness of a 
method may vary depending on the design of the unit. CPSC has no 
information that indicates that any of these tests, all conducted by 
hand, would produce more or less consistent results than the others. 
Therefore, consistent with the comments, the final rule removes the 
requirement that the force be applied to the back of the CSU because 
the appropriate force application location may differ depending on the 
unit design and this will allow testers the flexibility to determine 
the best location to apply a force when using Test Method 2 for each 
unit. The tester's preference may slightly reduce variability in 
results, but CPSC does not expect this revision to alter stability test 
results in general.
    The final rule also addresses which Test Method to use. The NPR 
specified that Test Method 1 could be used for CSUs with extendable 
elements and that Test Method 2 could be used for any CSU. The NPR 
indicated that the test methods produced approximately equal tip-over 
moments, and therefore either test method could be used. As discussed, 
there were several comments stating that Test Method 1 and Test Method 
2 yield different results, primarily due to differences in force 
application methods, but also partly due to differences between the two 
test methods. However, the differences between the two test methods 
appear to be small. A test laboratory reported only a 3 percent 
difference when comparing Test Method 1 conducted with weights to Test 
Method 2 conducted by hand. These small differences between test method 
and force application methods corroborates the conclusion in the NPR 
that the two tests (with the above revision to force application 
methods) yield comparable stability results. However, CPSC considered 
revisions that may reduce this potential variation further to ensure 
that CSUs yield consistent and reliable stability test results, which 
is important for ensuring they are adequately stable. In addition, many 
commenters, including consumer safety advocates, recommended requiring 
only one test method to simplify testing, but commenters differed in 
which test method they recommended.
    The final rule retains two test methods for several reasons. For 
one, although Test Method 2 is similar in variability to other 
voluntary standards that use a horizontal load, Test Method 1 with 
weights is the most accurate and least variable method for assessing 
stability, based on commenters' data. For this reason, the Commission 
is not requiring only Test Method 2. However, the Commission is not 
requiring only Test Method 1 because Test Method 1 cannot be used for 
CSUs without extendable elements since it requires applying a vertical 
force to an extendable element, and it is not appropriate for units 
with short extendable elements because the high loads required to 
induce tip over increases the potential for drawers to break and 
placing heavy weights on the drawer front is difficult (see discussion 
below). Therefore, Test Method 2 is a necessary option for testing CSUs 
for which Test Method 1 is not appropriate. However, the final rule 
removes the overlap of these test methods by specifying that Test 
Method 2 is only to be used when Test Method 1 does not apply. This 
will eliminate the inconsistent results between test methods raised by 
commenters and simplify testing.
    The final rule also now specifies that, for Test Method 1, it is 
for units with extendable elements that extend at least 6 inches from 
the fulcrum, whereas the NPR did not specify an extension distance 
criteria. Test Method 1 requires that weight be placed on the unit's 
extendable element face until the unit tips over; that weight is 
multiplied by the distance it is applied from the fulcrum to determine 
the tip-over moment. The tip-over moment is then compared to the 
threshold moment, evaluated in the performance requirement section, and 
later turned into the stability rating on the hang tag. The tip-over 
moment is required to be greater than the threshold moment, for a 
minimum stability rating of 1.0. Using Test Method 1, there is a 
minimum weight required on an extendable element for a unit to have a 
stability rating of 1.0. As explained in the NPR, applying force at a 
location further from the CG of the CSU increases instability more than 
applying the force closer to the CG of the CSU (e.g., this is why 
testing is done with open drawers with weights placed on them). 
Therefore, the minimum weight to meet the performance requirement 
increases as the extendable element distance from the fulcrum 
decreases. When extendable elements have very short distances from the 
fulcrum, the load required on the extendable element becomes so high 
that Test Method 1 becomes impractical because the weight takes up more 
space on the drawer face or the pull-out shelf, and the likelihood of 
the extendable element breaking increases. For example, a drawer with 
the median extension of 9.75 inches requires at least 88 pounds to meet 
the climbing threshold moment, while a drawer with a 6-inch extension 
requires at least 109 pounds (almost a 25 percent increase) and the 
rate at which the weight rises increases rapidly as the extension 
distance decreases.
    In general, for CSUs with long extendable element extensions, 
vertical forces (such as a child's body weight) play a dominant role in 
producing a tip-over moment. However, as extendable element extensions 
are shorted or removed, horizontal forces (such as a pull force, or the 
forces required for a child to hold his or her body in front of the CSU 
face) dominate the tip-over moment. Vertical forces have very little 
ability to produce a tip-over moment when extendable element extensions 
from the fulcrum are sufficiently short.\101\ The NPR addressed this by 
allowing Test Method 2 for any CSU. However, because the final rule 
eliminates the overlap of the test methods, it is necessary to 
establish a lower limit on which extendable element extensions can be 
tested using Test Method 1, and apply Test Method 2 to only those units 
with extendable element extensions shorter than the limit (or with no 
extendable elements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ A detailed analysis of the combination of forces produced 
by climbing interactions and how these forces produce a tip-over 
moment is in Tab D of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the dataset of 180 CSU drawer extensions CPSC staff provided to 
UMTRI researchers, the median drawer extension was approximately 0.81 
feet (9.75 inches), with an approximate range of 0.53 feet (6.38 
inches) to 1.15 feet (13.75 inches).\102\ Consistent with the minimum 
drawer extension from the fulcrum identified in this information, 6 
inches is the threshold used in the final rule. The use of Test Method 
1 for units with extendable elements that extend at least 6 inches from 
the fulcrum is consistent with the NPR because it still applies to CSUs 
with extendable elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Tab D of the NPR and final rule briefing package provide 
further information about drawer extensions, including Figure 24 in 
Tab D of the NPR briefing package and Figure 7 in Tab D of the final 
rule briefing package.

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

[[Page 72640]]

    Repairs. The NPR included a note regarding repairs under Test 
Method 1, which specified that 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. This was 
included in the NPR so that Test Method 1 could be completed even if 
the force applied to the drawer face resulted in the drawers breaking, 
but ensured that such modifications would not improve stability. This 
provision is appropriate because the test is intended to address the 
stability of the product, not the strength of the product. To 
accomplish this, it may be necessary for a tester to conduct repairs or 
modifications to complete stability testing if weaker components break 
during the test. Staff's testing experience indicates that most CSUs 
require more than 80 pounds on the drawer front to meet the minimum 
performance requirement but that some CSU drawer designs cannot hold 
much more than 60 pounds without requiring additional reinforcement.
    CPSC received comments indicating that testing may result in 
drawers needing repairs and requesting guidance on how to address 
components that break during testing, so that testing may be completed. 
To address these comments, the final rule applies the repair provisions 
to both test methods (rather than just Test Method 1). This is because 
Test Method 2 is no longer an alternative to Test Method 1; the purpose 
is to allow for needed repairs to complete testing, regardless of which 
test; and although breakage is less likely during Test Method 2, it is 
possible. The final rule also expands the wording to apply to any 
component (not just drawers) and to allow for repair, replacement, or 
securement (not just securement or reinforcement). This is consistent 
with the purpose of this provision, which is to allow breakage of 
weaker components that interferes with completing testing to be 
corrected. Consistent with the NPR, the final rule retains the 
requirement that any such modifications must not increase the tip-over 
moment so as not to undermine the integrity of stability test results.
e. Performance Requirements
    Pass-fail criteria. Once the tip-over moment has been determined 
using one of the methods above, the rule specifies that the tip-over 
moment of the CSU must be greater than several comparison tip-over 
moments that represent a child interacting with the CSU (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 (e.g., while 
opening or attempting to open an extendable element); and the third is 
a child climbing (hanging) on the door of a CSU. The comparison tip-
over moment for ascending the CSU likely is the most onerous 
requirement for most CSUs. However, some CSUs with particular geometric 
features, or without extendable elements, may have greater tip-over 
moments associated with the alternative criteria, based on children's 
interactions with the CSU.
    Climbing. As incident data indicates, climbing was the most common 
reported interaction (76 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 (26 
percent) in nonfatal CPSRMS incidents. Fatal and nonfatal climbing 
incidents most often involved children 3 years old and younger.
    CPSC staff's analyses of tip-over incidents in Tab M of the NPR 
briefing package outlined 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 
younger, the 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.\103\ To address the heaviest of these children, the 
rule uses 51.2 pounds. Moreover, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ 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 (pound-feet) > 51.2 
(1.08X + 0.52), where X is the horizontal distance (in feet) from the 
front of the extended drawer to the fulcrum.\104\ Simplified, this is 
Mtip (pound-feet) > 55.3X + 26.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 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 doors and extendable elements open and extendable 
elements filled, plus the effect of carpet on stability, likely will 
protect 95 percent of 3-year-old children and virtually all younger 
children. This requirement would also protect 92 percent of 4-year-old 
children, 64.5 percent of 5-year-old children, 50 percent of 6-year-old 
children, 25 percent of 7-year-old children, and 7.1 percent of 8-year-
old children. These are likely low estimates because they assume that 
all climbing incidents occurred with all open and filled drawers on 
CSUs located on a

[[Page 72641]]

carpeted surface, which is a worst-case stability condition.
    Pulling handholds. As incident data indicates, opening drawers was 
the most common reported interaction (54 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 (8 percent) in fatal CPSRMS incidents. Additional 
incidents involved other interactions (e.g., pushing down on an open 
drawer, putting items in or taking items out of a drawer) that indicate 
the child opened the drawer as well. For the NPR data set, looking at 
both fatal and nonfatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only 
CSUs, where the interaction involved opening drawers, about 53 percent 
involved children opening one drawer, 10 percent involved opening two 
drawers, almost 17 percent involved opening ``multiple'' drawers, and 
additional incidents reported children opening ``all'' drawers or a 
specific number of drawers that may have represented all of the drawers 
on the unit. 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 an extendable 
element or door 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 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 extendable element or other 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 rule establishes a comparison moment based on a horizontal pull 
force applied 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 
rule uses the overhead reach height of 3-year-olds because most 
children involved in opening drawer incidents were 3 years old or 
younger.\105\ Consistent with this overhead reach height, staff's 
analysis of 15 incidents shows that the highest pull location was 46 
inches from the floor.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Pheasant, S. (1986). Bodyspace Anthropometry, Ergonomics & 
Design. London: Taylor & Francis.
    \106\ 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 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.\107\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ DTI, Strength Data for Design Safety--Phase 1 (DTI/URN 00/
1070). London: Department of Trade and Industry (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule uses this 17.2 pound-force pull strength because, in the 
study, females had a higher mean strength than males, and these 
incidents 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 (pound-feet) = 17.2 (pounds) x Z (feet), 
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 (pound-feet) > 17.2Z.
    Climbing on doors. As discussed, incident data also indicates that 
fatal and nonfatal 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, and incident data indicates that climbing in general is a 
common interaction. For this reason, the third comparison tip-over 
moment in the 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.\108\ 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 (pound-feet) = 51.2 (pounds) x [Y--0.25 
(feet)], 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 (pound-feet) > 51.2(Y--0.25). Simplified, 
this is Mtip (pound-feet) > 51.2Y - 12.8 pound-feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See Figure 48 in Tab R of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional addressability. For the reasons described above, the 
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 
performance requirements. Other measured climbing interactions (e.g.,

[[Page 72642]]

hop up, hang, in drawer, and climbing onto the tabletop) generated 
lower moments than ascent, making these interactions addressable by the 
final rule.
    In addition, although the rule focuses on addressing the CSU tip-
over hazard to children, improving the stability of CSUs should also 
reduce incidents involving adults. Most incidents involving adults 
included opening drawers, getting items in and out of drawers, or 
leaning on the CSU. These interactions are likely to be less onerous or 
equally onerous to the forces addressed in the rule.

C. Marking and Labeling

1. Final Rule Requirements
    The final rule includes requirements for a warning label. The 
warning label requirements address the size, content, symbols, and 
format of the label. The 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 format, font, font size, and color 
requirements incorporate by reference the provisions in ASTM F2057-19. 
The 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 rule also requires the warning label to be 
legible and attached after it is tested using the methods specified in 
ASTM F2057-19.
    The rule also includes requirements for an informational mark or 
label. It requires the mark or 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 mark or 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 Final Rule Requirements
    The final rule requires a warning label to inform consumers of the 
tip-over hazard, indicate steps consumers can take to reduce the risk 
(e.g., use anti-tip devices, do not let children climb on the CSU, 
placing the heaviest items in the lowest drawer), and motivate 
consumers to take those steps.
a. Warning Label Text
    For a warning label to be effective, 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.
    The FMG CSU use study considered these factors, with focus group 
participants evaluating the ASTM F2057-19 warning label text, which is 
similar to the final rule. Based on the principles above and the focus 
group findings, the warning statements in the final rule are similar to 
those in the ASTM standard. The 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 a majority of focus 
group participants said that they and their children open multiple 
drawers simultaneously. In addition, the 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.
    The warning text requirements in the final rule are the same as 
those proposed in the NPR, but the final rule makes explicit that the 
content of the warning label must not be modified or amended, except as 
specifically permitted in the rule. The NPR explained that the warning 
text in the proposed regulation must be used for the warning label, 
except for specified modifications regarding televisions and 
interlocks, which varied depending on the CSU. The final rule makes 
this explicit for several reasons. For one, CPSC received comments on 
the NPR recommending that the Commission allow manufacturers to 
determine what hazards to address on the label, and how. As explained 
in the discussion of comments, above, CPSC developed the warning label 
requirements, including the text, based on commonly used approaches in 
voluntary standards, ASTM's warning label requirements, consumer 
studies, research, human factors assessments, and staff's expertise. 
Such insights and expertise would be lost, and warnings likely would be 
less effective, if manufacturers were permitted to determine the 
warning content.
    In addition, the primary U.S. voluntary consensus standard on 
product safety signs and labels, ANSI Z535.4, Product Safety Signs and 
Labels, states that word messages should be concise, readily 
understandable, and restricted to the most critical information. 
Requiring that warning label text precisely meet the requirements in 
the rule and not include additional content, as well as requiring that 
specific features (i.e., interlocks and televisions) only be addressed 
when appropriate for the particular CSU, achieves this.
b. Warning Label Symbols
    The final rule requires the ASTM F2057-19 ``no television'' symbol 
for CSUs that are not designed to hold a television, as proposed in the 
NPR. The final rule also requires a three-panel child climbing symbol 
on the warning label. The NPR presented three possible child climbing 
symbols that the Commission was considering, displayed in Figure 9, 
below.

[[Page 72643]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.009

Figure 9: The three child climbing symbols presented in the NPR. Note: 
the symbols are reproduced in grayscale here, but the color version 
includes a red ``x'' and prohibition symbol, and a green check mark.

    The NPR proposed to require the first symbol displayed in Figure 9, 
which is the symbol used in ASTM F2057-19, and raised as possible 
alternatives to that symbol, the two variants. As the NPR explained, 
CPSC was working with contractors to test the two variants using the 
same methodology as the previous comprehension study. Based on the 
subsequent findings of that study, discussed earlier in this preamble, 
surpassed the ASTM symbol and Variant 2 in comprehension testing.
    CPSC also received comments on the three possible warning symbols, 
which expressed a preference for Variant 1. Based on comments and 
because Variant 1 showed better comprehension than the ASTM symbol or 
Variant 2, the final rule requires that Variant 1 be provided as part 
of the warning label. The rule allows the third panel of the symbol 
(i.e., the one depicting attachment to the wall) to be modified to show 
the specific anti-tip device included with the CSU. This is based on a 
comment expressing concern with the specific type of anti-tip device 
depicted and on CPSC staff's assessment that consumers will better 
understand the function and set up of an anti-tip device provided with 
a CSU if the symbol depicts that specific type of device.
c. Warning Label Format
    The 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. 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 rule uses the warning format in 
ASTM F2057-19, which is consistent with ANSI Z535.4. These requirements 
are the same as those in the proposed rule.
d. Warning Label Placement
    For CSUs with drawers, the rule requires the warning label to be 
placed at the top and front of the interior side panel of a drawer in 
the uppermost drawer row or, if the top of the drawer in the uppermost 
drawer row is more than 56 inches from the floor, the label must be on 
the interior side panel of a drawer on the uppermost drawer row below 
56 inches from the floor. The 56-inch criteria is based on the 5th 
percentile standing eye height of women in the United States, to ensure 
that the label is visible.\109\ For CSUs with doors, the warning label 
must be on an interior side or back panel of the cabinet behind the 
door or on the interior door panel, and must not be obscured by a shelf 
or other interior element. For CSUs that are assembled by consumers, 
the warning label must be pre-attached to the panel and the assembly 
instructions must direct consumers to place that panel according to the 
placement requirements for drawers and doors that are specified in the 
rule. These requirements are the same as in the NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ 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.

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

[[Page 72644]]

    The placement requirements in the rule are consistent with the 
information CPSC obtained from the FMG study, regarding placement of 
warnings. In the FMG CSU use study,\110\ 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. Focus group participants 
identified the inside the top drawer of a unit as a location where a 
warning label could be seen easily and be more likely to grab their 
attention. Participants also expressed that they would remove labels 
that were too conspicuous (e.g., on the outside or top of a unit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See Tab Q of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Warning Label Permanency
    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. The final rule requires that the warning label 
be legible and attached after it is tested using the methods in section 
7.3 of ASTM F2057-19. CPSC staff evaluated the ASTM F2057-19 label 
permanency requirements \111\ and concluded that they are sufficiently 
effective. This is the same as proposed in the NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ See Tab F of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. Identification Mark or Label
    As indicated in the NPR, CPSC 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 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 CSUs are subject to the recall and are potentially 
unsafe. Accordingly, an identification label that provides the model, 
manufacturer information, date of manufacture, and a statement of 
compliance with the rule is important to facilitate identification and 
removal of potentially unsafe CSUs.
    For this reason, the final rule requires an identification mark or 
label containing this information. The mark or label must 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 rule requires text size that is consistent with ANSI Z535.4. 
The mark or label must 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 rule requires the mark or 
label remain legible and attached after it is tested with the methods 
in section 7.3 of ASTM F2057-19 to increase the likelihood that the 
label remains attached to the CSU and will be legible when needed.
    These requirements are the same as the NPR except that the final 
rule refers to this as an ``identification mark or label,'' rather than 
just an ``identification label.'' This does not change the meaning of 
the requirements, but addresses a comment that expressed concern that 
the term ``label'' meant that other means of applying the information 
to the product (e.g., printing, etching, engraving, or burning) were 
not permissible. The permanency testing requirements in section 7.3 of 
ASTM F2057-19 include requirements for paper labels, non-paper labels, 
and those applied directly to the surface of the product. As such, the 
final rule does not prevent firms from applying the informational label 
in various ways that can be tested and comply with the requirements in 
section 7.3 of ASTM F2057-19. However, to make this clear, the final 
rule includes the term ``mark,'' in addition to ``label,'' as ``mark'' 
more clearly conveys the availability of direct application to the 
surface of the product for meeting the requirement.

D. Hang Tags

1. Final Rule 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 final 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 1 to ``2 or more,'' that is 
based on the ratio of tip-over moment (as determined in the testing 
required in the rule) to the minimally allowed tip-over moment 
(provided in the rule). The rule includes size, content, icon, and 
format requirements for the hang tag. It also includes requirements 
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 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 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 RTA furniture, the hang tag must appear on the main panel of 
consumer-level packaging; that any units shipped directly to consumers 
contain the hang tag on the immediate container of the product; and 
that the hang tag information be provided on manufacturers' and 
importers' online sales interfaces from which the CSU may be purchased. 
For a detailed description of the requirements, see the regulatory 
text.
2. Basis for Final Rule Requirements
a. Purpose
    Consistent with the requirements in section 27(e) of the CPSA, the 
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 rule requires 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 offers consumers comparative 
information about the stability of products, based on the tip-testing 
protocol in the rule. By providing product information at the time of 
original purchase, the hang tag informs 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 hang 
tag on work CPSC has done previously to develop performance and 
technical

[[Page 72645]]

data requirements,\112\ as well as the work of other Federal agencies 
that require comparative safety information on products.\113\ 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 (EurekaFacts) developed recommendations regarding 
the content, format, size, style, and rating scale, based on consumer 
feedback during this work.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ E.g., 16 CFR 1401.5, 1402.4, 1404.4, 1406.4, 1407.3, and 
1420.3.
    \113\ 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.
    \114\ 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.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ 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 Final Rule Requirements
    Applicability. Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes the Commission 
to apply requirements for performance and technical information to 
manufacturers. Under the CPSA, a ``manufacturer'' is ``any person who 
manufactures or imports a consumer product.'' 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11). As 
such, these requirements apply to manufacturers and importers.
    Content. The required hang tag includes a symbol on the front and 
back of the hang tag. Research has shown that pictorial symbols and 
icons make warnings more noticeable and easier to detect than warnings 
without them.\116\ Additionally, including a graphic before introducing 
text may serve as a valuable reference for consumers, by maintaining 
attention and encouraging further reading.\117\ 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. Both symbols depict a CSU tipping over, and one of them shows a 
child climbing a CSU that is tipping over. These symbols identify the 
product and hazard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Wogalter, M., Dejoy, D., Laughery, K. (1999). Warnings and 
Risk Communication. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis, Inc.
    \117\ Smith, T.P. (2003). Developing consumer product 
instructions. Washington, DC: U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The hang tag also includes a title--Stability Rating--to make clear 
what information is provided on the tag. To allow consumers to identify 
exactly what product the label describes, the hang tag requires the 
manufacturer's name and the model number of the unit.
    The performance criteria in the stability provisions of the final 
rule require 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,\118\ which 
can be easily represented on a scale. Additionally, due to the nature 
of a ratio, a rating of 1.5 means the unit can withstand 1 and half 
times the threshold moment, a rating of 2 means the unit can withstand 
twice the threshold moment, and so forth. The graph starts with the 
minimally acceptable tip rating of 1 \119\ and indicates that it is the 
minimum, so that consumers can evaluate the extent to which the rating 
of a particular CSU meets or exceeds the minimum permissible rating. 
The NPR proposed to start the scale at 0 and mark 1 on the scale as the 
minimally acceptable rating. However, based on comments, the final rule 
begins the scale at 1 because there is no need to show a lower rating 
since a CSU with a stability rating lower than 1 would not meet the 
stability requirements of the rule and would be impermissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ The equation is Momenttested/
Momentthreshold. If Momenttested = 
Momentthreshold, then Momenttested/
Momentthreshold = 1. But the performance requirement is 
that Momenttested exceed Momentthreshold. 
Therefore, all units must have a ratio greater than 1, although it 
may be only a small fraction over 1.
    \119\ Although the minimally acceptable rating is just above 1, 
for simplicity, the hang tag marks the minimally acceptable rating 
as 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPR proposed to require the maximum rating displayed on the 
scale to be 5. CPSC staff testing suggests that most CSUs on the market 
today would achieve ratings between 1 and 2, once modified to comply 
with the stability requirements in the rule. CPSC also received 
numerous comments on the NPR indicating that, even with modifications, 
CSUs currently on the market would not exceed a stability rating of 2. 
Commenters expressed concern that displaying a scale that goes higher 
than 2 would confuse consumers looking for higher rated CSUs and would 
suggest that a rating of 2 is not sufficiently stable. To address these 
concerns, the final rule modifies the maximum rating displayed on the 
scale to ``2 or more.'' This reflects currently achievable stability 
ratings and still allows for future designs that may exceed a rating of 
2. If CSU designs evolve to commonly exceed a rating of 2, the 
Commission can adjust the maximum rating on the scale in a future 
rulemaking.
    Because the stability rating scale ranges from 1 to ``2 or more,'' 
many stability ratings will fall between these whole numbers. As such, 
the final rule specifies that the stability rating must be displayed 
rounded to one decimal place (e.g. 1.5). Although, as the NPR noted, 
research suggests that consumers prefer whole numbers, keeping a scale 
of 1 to 2 and reflecting differences with decimals allows for better 
relative comparisons because, with this scale, a consumer can easily 
understand that a CSU with a rating of 1.5 is one and a half times more 
stable than a CSU with a rating of 1.0. To ensure this is clear, the 
final rule also includes a requirement that the front of the hang tag 
include such an explanatory statement (e.g., ``This unit is 1.5 times 
more stable than the minimum required'').
    Because the linear scale on the hang tag is a graphical 
representation of the stability information, the 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 so 
that consumers understand the data on the tag. The back of the hang tag 
includes a technical explanation of the graph and rating to explain how 
to interpret and use the graphic and number. In addition, based on 
comments provided on the NPR, the final rule adds an additional 
statement to the front of the hang tag (stating ``This unit is X times 
more stable than the minimum required,'' with the stability rating 
being inserted for X) to make a brief explanation of the technical 
information more quickly visible and understandable to consumers. The 
front of the hang tag also must state that ``Higher numbers represent 
more stable units'' to further explain the meaning of the rating. The 
front of the hang tag also includes statements to connect the technical 
information (i.e., the stability

[[Page 72646]]

rating) with the safety concern, such as ``this is a guide to compare 
units' resistance to tipping over,'' ``always secure the unit to the 
wall,'' and ``tell children not to climb furniture.''
    Size, color, and format. As proposed in the NPR, the final rule 
requires the physical hang tag to be at least 5 inches wide by 7 inches 
tall. This size requirement is 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. Also as 
proposed in the NPR, the final rule requires the front of the hang tag 
to be yellow. This increases the likelihood that consumers will notice 
the tag, is consistent with EurekaFacts' findings regarding effective 
hang tags, and aligns with other similar Federal hang tag requirements 
(such as the EnergyGuide for household appliances). The rule also 
requires the hang tag to be formatted as shown in the figure provided, 
which provides consistency and ease of comparisons across CSU models.
    Attachment and placement. Like the NPR, the final rule requires 
hang tags to be attached to the CSU at the time of original purchase in 
a place that is clearly visible to a person standing in front of the 
unit and that hang tags be replaced if lost or damaged to ensure they 
are available at the time of original purchase. In addition, the hang 
tag must be on the immediate container of the CSU in which it is 
normally offered for sale at retail; on the main panel of consumer-
level packaging for RTA furniture; on the immediate container of the 
CSU for units shipped directly to consumers; and remain on the product/
packaging/container until the time of original purchase.
    The final rule also requires that manufacturers and importers of 
CSUs with an online sales interface from which consumers may purchase 
CSUs provide on the online sales interface where the CSUs are offered 
the same information required on physical hang tags, with some 
modifications and additions to reflect differences in online and 
physical displays. The final rule includes this additional online hang 
tag requirement because many consumers buy CSUs online and not just in 
physical stores. As such, the ``time of original purchase'' includes 
online sales and consumers buying online would only see the comparative 
safety information provided on the hang tag if it is provided in these 
online sales interfaces as well. Consistent with this, numerous 
commenters noted that online sales interfaces are also places consumers 
buy CSUs and the hang tag information is necessary in these venues to 
facilitate informed decision making. This requirement is also 
consistent with similar Federal requirements to provide performance and 
technical information, such as EnergyGuide labels for appliances, which 
apply to sales websites.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See Federal Trade Commission (2013) EnergyGuide Labeling: 
FAQs for Appliance Manufacturers, available at: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/energyguide-labeling-faqs-appliance-manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, an online hang tag is required to meet the same 
content, form, and sequence requirements as physical hang tags. This 
ensures that consumers have the same information, in the same easily 
comparable form, whether shopping online or in stores, and facilitates 
comparisons between online and in-store products. The only difference 
in content between online and physical hang tags is that online hang 
tags need not contain the statements ``See back side of this tag for 
more information'' and ``This tag not to be removed except by 
consumer'' since these statements are not applicable to non-physical 
hang tags.
    The online hang tag requirements also address placement and 
visibility on the website to ensure that, similarly to physical hang 
tags, online hang tags are noticeable and legible to consumers. Because 
of the large amount of content in the hang tag and the importance of 
this information being visible, for online sales interfaces, the 
stability rating must be displayed in a font size that is equivalent to 
that of the price and in proximity to the price of the product. This 
ensures that the stability rating will be visible to consumers when 
making their buying decisions and that the information will not be 
buried in less visible places on the interface. Also because of the 
large amount of content in the hang tag, online sales interfaces must 
provide the full hang tag through a link that is accessible through one 
user action (such as through a mouse click, mouse roll-over, or tactile 
screen expansion) on the displayed stability rating. This provides the 
same comparative information, in the same format, as physical hang 
tags, but also accommodates the need for other information on the 
website for the product. These requirements are consistent with those 
for online EnergyGuide labels as well as the European Union's online 
energy label requirements.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See European Commission, internet Labelling--Nested 
Display Arrows For Labels, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/eepf-labels/label-type/internet-labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Together, the physical and online hang tag requirements ensure that 
the hang tag information is available and visible to consumers at the 
time of original purchase, whether they are purchasing in a store or 
online, and whether the CSU is assembled and on display, or in 
packaging. These requirements are necessary for consumers to be able to 
use the information to make informed buying decisions. These 
requirements are consistent with similar standards and align with the 
limits provided in section 27(e) of the CPSA, which limit performance 
and technical data requirements manufacturers and the time of original 
purchase.

E. Prohibited Stockpiling

1. Final Rule Requirements
    The final rule prohibits manufacturers and importers of CSUs from 
manufacturing or importing CSUs that do not comply with the 
requirements of the rule in any 1-month period between the date the 
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 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. This is the same 
limit as proposed in the NPR.
2. Basis for Final Rule Requirements
    The purpose of the stockpiling limit is to prevent manufacturers 
and importers from stockpiling products that will be subject to a 
mandatory rule, in an attempt to circumvent the final rule. Because 
most firms will need to modify their CSUs to comply with the 
requirements in the rule, and the modifications may be costly, CPSC 
believes it is necessary to prevent stockpiling of noncompliant 
products. The stockpiling limit will 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. CPSC received several comments on the stockpiling limits in the 
NPR, most of which supported the provisions.
    Based on comments largely supporting the stockpiling limits in the 
NPR and the need for such provisions to allow manufacturers and the 
industry to meet existing or foreseeable increases

[[Page 72647]]

in the demand for CSUs, without allowing large quantities of CSUs that 
do not meet the standard to be stockpiled, the final rule retains the 
stockpiling provisions proposed in the NPR. This stockpiling provision 
reflects a balance between the competing goals of addressing the hazard 
but also considering the compliance cost and practicalities for 
businesses and potential impacts on consumers.

X. Final Regulatory Analysis \122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Further detail regarding the final regulatory analysis is 
available in Tab H of the final rule briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is issuing this rule under sections 7 and 9 of the 
CPSA. The CPSA requires that the Commission publish a final regulatory 
analysis with the text of the final rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f)(2). This 
section provides the final regulatory analysis of the rule. For 
additional details, see Tab H of the NPR and final rule briefing 
packages. For significant comments received on the regulatory analysis 
provided in the NPR, see section VIII. Response to Comments.

A. Market Information

    Retail prices of CSUs vary substantially, with the least-expensive 
units retailing for less than $100, while some more expensive units may 
retail for several thousand dollars. The less expensive units may be in 
use for only a few years, while the most expensive units may remain in 
use for decades, and possibly be passed from one generation to the 
next. CPSC staff used sales information provided by large furniture 
associations during the NPR comment period to estimate an average price 
per CSU of $338.50 in 2021 dollars, for this analysis.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ Staff increased the average price per CSU from the value 
used in the NPR to reflect information provided by large furniture 
associations during the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff used multiple sources of information to estimate the 
annual revenues from the sale of CSUs within the scope of the final 
rule and estimates that there were $6.99 billion retail sales in 2021 
of CSUs within the scope of the rule.\124\ CPSC staff estimates that 
there were 20.64 million units sold in 2021 by dividing the $6.99 
billion in sales revenue by the average price of $338.50. A large 
majority of these CSUs were likely imported, mainly from Asia. CPSC 
staff also developed an estimate of the number of models sold each 
year. To develop this estimate, staff used the assumption that, on 
average, 10,000 individual CSUs of each CSU model are sold. CPSC staff 
divided the number of CSUs sold in each year by 10,000 units of 
estimated sales per model, to generate a rough approximation that 2,064 
new CSU models were sold in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ This estimate is higher than the 2018 estimate used in NPR 
of $5.15 billion. Sales data were updated to 2021 in order to 
reassess the number of CSUs in light of updated market prices 
provided during the NPR comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC staff estimated the number of CSU units in use using estimates 
of historic sales of CSUs, in combination with a statistical 
distribution of CSU failure rates (i.e., when CSUs are discarded by 
consumers, based on the average lifecycle of 15 years). The estimate of 
CSUs in use was constructed iteratively, to reflect that CSUs in use 
may remain in use for varied periods beyond the 15-year period. Using 
this approach, CPSC staff estimates that there were 229.94 million CSUs 
in use in 2021. CPSC staff estimated the number of CSU models in use in 
a similar fashion, estimating that the number of CSU models in use in 
2021 is 6,365.

B. Benefits Associated With the Rule

    CPSC staff measured the benefits of the rule as the expected 
reduction in societal costs of deaths and injuries from implementation 
of the rule.
    Death and injury estimates. In addition to the incident data 
discussed in this preamble from the CPSRMS and NEISS databases, staff 
used estimates generated by CPSC's Injury Cost Model (ICM).\125\ The 
ICM uses data from NEISS's representative hospitals to generate 
national estimates of the total number of ED-treated injuries and 
hospital admissions. Beyond injuries initially treated in EDs and 
through hospital admissions, 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. Therefore, the 
ICM also estimates the number of injuries treated outside of hospital 
EDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ For additional information about the ICM, see Tab H of the 
final rule briefing package and CPSC's website at: https://www.cpsc.gov/content/The-Consumer-Product-Safety-Commissions-Revised-Injury-Cost-Model-2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this benefit-cost analysis, CPSC staff chose a 15-year 
timeframe (i.e., 2007-2021) to reflect the average product life of a 
CSU and excluded data from 2022 because it is not complete. CPSC staff 
identified at least 60 deaths related to CSU tip-over incidents without 
televisions and involving children, for an average of 4 deaths per 
year. The ICM estimated that there were 44,652 injuries to children 
under the age of 18 years involving CSU tip-overs from 2007 through 
2021, or an average of 2,977 per year that were treated in EDs or 
through hospital admissions. The ICM also projected an additional 
58,351 CSU tip-over injuries to children treated in other settings 
during the same 15-year period, or an average of 3,890 per year. 
Combined, there were an estimated 103,003 injuries from 2007 through 
2021, or an average of 6,867 per year to children from CSU tip overs.
    From 2007 through 2021, there were 22 adult fatalities involving 
CSU tip-overs, an average of 1.5 a year. The ICM produced a national 
estimate of 23,695 adults treated in EDs and through hospital 
admissions because of injuries received when CSUs tipped over. The ICM 
also projected that there were 50,119 adult injuries treated in other 
medical settings, for a total of 73,814 medically attended injuries to 
adults involving CSU tip overs, or an average of 4,921 a year.
    Societal costs of deaths and injuries. CPSC staff used the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency's value of statistical life (VSL) of 
$10.5 million \126\ to estimate the societal costs of CSU-related 
deaths. Using this VSL, the societal cost of annual child fatalities 
(involving only CSUs) is $42 million. The societal cost of the adult 
fatalities is $15.4 million a year. The aggregated societal cost 
components for injuries provided by the ICM include medical costs, work 
losses, and the intangible costs associated with pain and suffering. 
The estimated injury costs for children are $16,085 per injury treated 
in a physician's office, $36,206 for injuries treated and released from 
a hospital ED, and $465,992 for hospital admitted injuries (average 
costs of injuries admitted to the hospital after an assessment at the 
ED, and those admitted to the hospital bypassing the ED). The overall 
average cost of injuries to adults is slightly lower than the average 
cost of injuries to children: $30,859 vs. $35,003. The total cost of 
deaths and injuries to both children and adults totals $449.61 million 
per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ For additional information about VSL, see Tab H of the 
final rule briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefits associated with the rule. Staff estimates that 83.9 
percent of nonfatal CSU tip-over incidents involving children are 
addressable with the final rule.\127\ CPSC staff was not able to

[[Page 72648]]

estimate the exact portion of incidents involving adults that would be 
prevented. Instead, staff conservatively assumed that the final rule 
would prevent adult tip-over incidents at half the efficacy rate of 
child tip-over incidents, or 42 percent. Given these expected efficacy 
rates in reducing the number of fatal and nonfatal incidents, when all 
CSUs in use comply with the performance standards, the annual societal 
benefits from the final rule would be $307.17 million. This total is 
comprised of $41.71 million in reduced deaths and $265.46 million in 
reduced injuries, as shown in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ These figures are similar to the addressability estimates 
calculated for the NPR. Staff calculated the ratio of nonfatal 
addressable incidents by the total number of nonfatal incidents for 
each age, and took the average of those percentages to calculate the 
aggregate nonfatal addressability. See Tab C of the final rule 
briefing package for discussion of what incidents staff considered 
addressable. Staff assessed that the ratio of nonfatal addressable 
incidents can be considered a reasonable estimate of the ratio of 
fatal addressable incidents; and used it as such in the estimation 
of benefits.

                                  Table 3--Summary of Expected Annual Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Annual  number
                                      of  CSU         Annual         Expected        Expected        Expected
           Description            incidents  (no  societal costs    efficacy of    reduction in   annual benefit
                                        TV)             ($M)       standard  (%)     incidents          ($M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fatalities......................             5.5          $57.40  ..............             4.0          $41.71
Children........................             4.0           42.00            83.9             3.4           35.25
Adults..........................             1.5           15.40            42.0             0.6            6.46
Injuries........................          11,788          392.21  ..............           7,828          265.46
Children........................           6,867          240.36            83.9           5,763          201.73
Adults..........................           4,921          151.85            42.0           2,065           63.73
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................          11,793          449.61  ..............           7,832          307.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Costs Associated With the Rule

    The costs associated with the rule include costs to manufacturers 
and importers, as well as costs to consumers. Costs to manufacturers 
and importers include the cost to redesign and modify CSUs to meet the 
requirements of the standard, testing CSUs for conformance, as well as 
the cost of the labor and materials required to produce compliant CSUs.
    Costs of redesign and testing. Staff estimates that current 
conformance with the performance requirements in the final rule is very 
low. To comply with the final rule, most furniture manufacturers, 
during the first year of implementation, must produce updated designs 
that achieve the performance requirements of the final rule, and 
conduct testing to verify conformance. Manufacturers will also need to 
add stability-rating hang tags on each CSU, as well as provide the 
required certificates of compliance, identification label, and warning 
labels.
    Industry would incur the cost of redesigning CSUs during the first 
year of implementation of the rule as a one-time cost. Future models 
would use the redesigned features of the models created during the 
first year of implementation of the rule. Under the assumption that, on 
average, 10,000 CSUs are produced of every CSU model, CPSC staff 
estimates that there will be a total of 6,334 existing CSU models that 
need to be redesigned in the first year of the rule.
    Information provided by a large furniture manufacturer/retailer 
association indicated that it would take an average of 5 months to 
redesign one thousand different CSU models. CPSC staff assumed that a 
team of 20 full-time professionals, earning an average hourly 
compensation of $66.37 \128\, would work a total of 17,333 hours \129\ 
to produce the updated designs of one thousand CSU models. This results 
in a cost per model of $1,150.41 for labor ($66.37 per hour x 17,333 
hours / 1,000 models). Therefore, manufacturers will redesign all 
existing models at a total cost of $7.29 million ($1,150.41 per model x 
6,334 existing CSU models). To calculate cost of redesign cost per CSU, 
staff divided the total cost of redesign, $7.29 million, by the number 
of CSUs expected to be produced during that first year, estimated at 
17.68 million. This equates to a redesign cost of $0.41 per CSU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Total hourly compensation for private service-providing 
industry workers in professional and related occupations as of the 
fourth quarter of 2021 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
compensation statistics.
    \129\ This is the result of 40 hours a week per full-employee 
times 20 employees, times 5 months of 4.33 weeks each (52 weeks a 
year/12 months).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Model testing would recur annually, as all new models will have to 
be tested to verify compliance with the standard. The cost of CSU model 
testing is estimated at $711.46 \130\ per model as of the end of 2021. 
Using the assumption of 10,000 CSUs per model, average cost per model 
translates into a cost per CSU of around $0.071. In the first year of 
rule implementation, there will likely be a larger number of models to 
be tested, which prompted CPSC staff to round the average cost per CSU 
to $0.10.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ A large furniture association provided an estimate of $700 
per model testing. Staff assumed the estimate corresponded to 
September 2021, and updated it to December 2021 using the Consumer 
Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
    \131\ Additional competition for resources needed to perform a 
large number of tests within a short timeframe may create price 
pressures. To use a conservative estimate, staff rounded the per-
unit test cost estimate to the next tenth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs of labor and materials to increase CSU stability. CPSC staff 
has identified several CSU modifications that could increase the 
stability of the CSU. These are (1) adding interlock mechanisms to 
limit the number of drawers, pull-out shelves, or doors 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) various 
devices and methods to raise the front of the unit; and (5) adding 
additional weight to the back of the CSU. Manufacturers can use 
combinations of more than one of these methods, or any other methods 
they develop, to increase the stability of a CSU model.
    The cost of an interlock mechanism includes the cost of the 
interlock itself; the cost of design, materials, and labor required to 
manufacture an interlock adapted to the CSU model and install the 
mechanism into the CSU. Staff estimates the total cost of implementing 
interlock mechanisms, including labor, per CSU is $2.93 for CSUs that 
require a single interlock and up to $14.64 for CSUs that require more 
complex CSU mechanisms with significant redesign costs.
    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 manufacturing procedure. 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 at costs of up 
to $5

[[Page 72649]]

per CSU unit,\132\ making the midpoint $3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Cost based on observed retail prices for furniture feet 
available on the internet. These prices are likely much higher than 
the prices many manufacturers would be able to obtain for large 
scale volumes of production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost of tipping the unit back by raising its front or providing 
adjustable leveling feet is estimated at $2.80 per CSU. CPSC staff 
estimated this cost based on information provided by one manufacturer--
according to whom, the cost of devices to raise the front of the CSU 
could be as high as $5 per CSU; and, observed retail prices for 
leveling devices of 30 cents each, or $0.60 for a minimum of two 
devices needed to stabilize a CSU.
    The cost of adding weight to a unit to improve its stability 
includes the cost of the additional materials, the cost of shipping 
heavier CSUs, and the cost of additional packing redesign and 
materials. Based on observed retail prices per pound of medium-density 
fiberboard costs, the average cost per additional pound is $0.24.\133\ 
Staff estimated the average cost of additional shipping per pound at 
$0.16 \134\ for a total cost of $0.40 per additional pound of weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ Furniture manufacturers most likely would purchase 
materials at much less than retail prices; however, to produce 
conservative estimates, CPSC staff did not include cost improvements 
associated with large scales of production and/or sourcing of 
materials. The use of higher retail prices might also offset the 
higher cost associated with short-term supply-chain disruptions in 
commodities markets, as well as the potential use of more expensive 
materials, argued by a few furniture manufacturers and associations 
during the NPR comment period.
    \134\ See Tab H of the final rule briefing package for 
explanation of this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the additional weight required is a few pounds, then companies 
only incur the cost of additional materials because minimal 
manufacturing changes would be needed, and it is unlikely additional 
packing materials would be required. When the additional weight 
required to make a CSU compliant is high, then additional packing 
materials would likely be required. CPSC staff applied a 5-pound 
threshold in applying additional cost for added weight. CSUs that added 
5 pounds or more in additional weight incur an additional packing 
expense of $1.61 \135\ per CSU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See Tab H of the final rule briefing package for 
explanation of this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The manufacturing costs of reducing the maximum drawer extensions 
\136\ is unquantified, but likely low \137\ because it does not 
necessarily require additional parts \138\ or labor time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Reducing the maximum drawer extensions will decrease the 
tip-over moment, as defined by the draft final rule, by reducing the 
effective amount of weight added to the front of the CSU fulcrum 
when opening a drawer.
    \137\ The largest cost is likely the unquantified potential 
impact on consumer utility from CSUs with drawers that cannot open 
as widely.
    \138\ Out-stop devices are discussed in the 2014 update of the 
ASTM F2057 as part of the evaluation of the operational sliding 
length: ``In the absence of stops, the operational length is length 
measured from the inside back of the drawer to the inside face of 
the drawer front in its fully closed position with measurements 
taken at the shortest drawer depth dimension minus 3.5 in.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summary of costs. As the NPR explained, staff assessed several CSUs 
that were representative of models involved in incidents and identified 
combinations of modifications that could be used to bring them into 
compliance with the rule. Considering those exemplar CSUs, the weighted 
average cost of labor and materials of all proposed modifications for 
the five representative CSU models are between $9.70 and $17.13. CPSC 
staff added $0.51 for the cost of redesign and testing to the weighted 
average cost of labor and material to get the total production cost for 
a representative model. In total, incremental costs for the five 
representative models are between $10.21 and $17.64. These represent 
the incremental cost of the draft final rule. To calculate total annual 
costs, CPSC staff assumed equal share among the five representative 
models for the 17.68 million CSUs estimated to be produced in the first 
year of rule.\139\ The total estimated annual cost of the final rule is 
$250.90 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Forecasted sales for 2023 lower than 2021 sales due to 
staff considering sales for 2021 an aberration from the normal trend 
due to the recovery of the COVID-19 pandemic. Forecasted sales for 
2023 follows pre-pandemic historical trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs to consumers. The costs also include the costs and impacts on 
consumers. These include 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 retail prices. The costs 
involving 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.

D. Sensitivity Analysis

    The benefits and costs of the draft final rule are estimates that 
depend upon a relatively high number of inputs and assumptions. The 
benefits, for instance, are dependent on the different sets of 
incidents considered in the analysis, the value of a statistical life, 
and the societal cost of the different type of injuries; the benefits 
per CSU are also influenced by the number of CSUs in use and the 
expected CSU lifecycle, among other considerations. The costs of the 
draft final rule are also dependent on inputs and assumptions. Costs 
are driven by the modifications required to make the CSU compliant, the 
number of CSUs and CSU models, as well as other market variables. Some 
of these inputs and assumptions have a significant impact on the 
outcome of the analysis, while others are less significant.
    In conducting the analysis, staff sought to use inputs and 
assumptions that best reflected reality. However, during the NPR 
comment period multiple commenters suggested that the analysis include 
alternative values for inputs and assumptions of significant 
uncertainty, as well as discuss the impacts of the trends observed over 
time in the data. Accordingly, staff examined the impact of using 
alternative values for some of the key inputs and assumptions of the 
analysis. Public comments suggested some of the alternative inputs 
used. See Tab H of the final rule briefing package for the sensitivity 
analysis.

E. Alternatives to the Rule

    CPSC considered several alternatives to the 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 Rule, below, and Tab H of the final rule briefing 
package.

XI. Alternatives to the 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, after-market anti-tip devices, and education 
campaigns. The Commission has relied on these alternatives to address 
the CSU tip-over hazard to date.
    Between January 1, 2000, and July 1, 2022, 43 consumer-level 
recalls occurred in response to CSU tip-over hazards. The recalled 
products were responsible for 341 tip-over incidents, including reports 
of 152 injuries and 12 fatalities, and affected approximately 
21,530,000 CSUs. ASTM F2057 has included stability requirements for

[[Page 72650]]

unloaded and loaded CSUs since its inception in 2000 and, based on CPSC 
testing, there is a high rate of compliance with the standard. 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 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. In addition, numerous tip-over incidents 
have involved CSUs that comply with the ASTM standard.
    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, CSU tip-overs results in injuries and death continue to 
occur at a high rate.

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 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 rule, but addressing 60-pound children, rather than 
51.2-pound children. This alternative would be more stringent than the 
rule. About 74 percent of CSU tip-over injuries to children involve 
children 4 years old and younger,\140\ and these are addressed by the 
proposed rule, because the 95th percentile weight for 4-year-old 
children is approximately 52 pounds. The 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 benefits 
associated with the rule by further reducing injuries and fatalities. 
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 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 rule, the Commission did not select this alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ Based on NEISS estimates for 2015 through 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 rule, which is 
more stringent. 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

[[Page 72651]]

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. Wait for Potential Update to ASTM F2057

    Another alternative would be to wait for ASTM to finalize a new 
version of ASTM F2057. At that point, the Commission could rely on the 
voluntary standard, in lieu of rulemaking; mandate compliance with the 
voluntary standard if the voluntary standard was likely to adequately 
reduce the risk of injury but there was not substantial compliance with 
it; or mandate the requirements that have been considered for the 
potential new ASTM standard.
    This alternative may reduce costs associated with the rule because 
the provisions in the draft version of the ASTM standard are generally 
less stringent than those in this rule. As such, they would require 
less cost for labor and materials, and more CSUs would comply with the 
standard without modifications. ASTM balloted possible changes to the 
ASTM F2057 standard in May 2022 and July 2022. However, as of September 
2022, ASTM has not finalized a new version of the standard and CPSC 
staff have submitted letters and votes indicating that the balloted 
revisions would not adequately address the hazards. As such, CPSC does 
not know whether ASTM will update the standard; what specific 
provisions the update would contain, if issued; does not consider the 
current draft form of the update adequate to address the hazard; and 
does not know what level of compliance there would be with an updated 
standard. Therefore, although this alternative may improve the 
stability of CSUs to some extent, continuing to wait for ASTM would 
delay the benefits of the rule, and staff does not consider the current 
draft revisions adequate to address the hazard, even if they were 
adopted.

F. Longer Effective Date

    Another alternative would be to provide a longer effective date 
than the 180-day effective date in the rule. It is likely that hundreds 
of manufacturers, including importers, will have to modify potentially 
several thousand CSU models to comply with the 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.

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This 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). The preamble to the proposed rule discussed the information 
collection burden of the proposed rule and specifically requested 
comments on the accuracy of CPSC's estimates. 87 FR 6246 (Feb. 3, 
2022). The estimates included the time for preparing and providing 
required markings and labels as well as performance and technical 
information required on hang tags. These requirements fall within the 
definition of ``collection of information,'' as defined in 44 U.S.C. 
3502(3).
    OMB has assigned control number 3041-0191 to this information 
collection. CPSC did not receive any comments regarding the information 
collection burden in the NPR through OMB. CPSC received one comment, 
through the docket for this rulemaking on www.regulations.gov, that 
stated that producing the hang tag in a foreign country and shipping it 
would be difficult to achieve during the 30-day effective date proposed 
in the NPR. However, in response to comments and other considerations, 
the final rule provides a 180-day effective date. CPSC also received 
comments and obtained additional information regarding economic 
considerations, which resulted in the final rule updating the number of 
estimated manufacturers and CSUs. The final rule also includes 
requirements for online hang tags, which were not specified in the NPR; 
however, these requirements are not expected to create additional 
economic burdens because they can be addressed by simply adding a soft 
copy of the physical design to the manufacturer website.
    Accordingly, the estimated burden of this collection of information 
is modified, as follows:
    Title. Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units.
    Summary of information collection. The consumer product safety 
standard prescribes the safety requirements, including labeling or 
marking 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 or markings, and requirements to provide performance and 
technical data by labeling, in the form of a physical and online hang 
tag, will provide information to consumers. Warning labels or markings 
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 
final 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.

[[Page 72652]]

    Warning labels or markings will provide information to consumers on 
hazards and risks associated with product use. Warning label or marking 
requirements specified in the final rule include size, content, format, 
location, and permanency.
    The standard requires that CSU manufacturers provide technical 
information for consumers on a hang tag at the time of original 
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 physical hang tag with every CSU 
and on retail packaging visible at points of sale and when shipped to 
consumer directly that explains the stability of the unit. For online 
sales, the hang tag information must be provided on manufacturer 
websites from which consumers may purchase a CSU.\141\ CSU hangtag 
requirements include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ The online hang tag is an additional requirement, not 
specified in the NPR. However, because hang tags must exactly match 
the figure provided in the regulation, the same design would be used 
for both physical and online hang tags. Therefore, the economic 
burden of the online hang tags is only the cost of adding a picture 
per model to the manufacturer website, and the virtual space 
required to post the hang tags. CPSC considers these costs to be 
small, or practically negligible for the purpose of estimating the 
burden of this information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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. RTA 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. For manufacturer websites from which consumers can 
purchase a CSU, a link to the hang tag information must be provided in 
the same form as the physical hang tag and be available in close 
proximity to the price listed on the website.
     Format: The format of the hang tag is provided in the 
final rule and the hang tag must include the elements shown in the 
figure 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 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, many of which are considered small private firms. 
More than 3 thousand manufacturers and close to 18 thousand 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. CPSC estimates that more than 95 
percent of respondents that will have to comply with the information 
collection requirements are small firms.
    Estimated burden. CPSC has estimated the respondent burden in hours 
and the estimated labor costs to the respondent. The hourly burden for 
labeling includes designing the label and the hang tag that will be 
used for each model, physically attaching the label and hang tag to 
each CSU, and, where applicable, posting the hang tag online. 
Additionally, the burden for third-party testing is estimated for a 
subset of CSUs that are children's products.
    Manufacturers will have to place a hang tag on each CSU sold. CPSC 
staff estimated that there were 20.64 million units sold in 2021. This 
would be a reasonable estimate of the number of responses per 
year.\142\ CPSC estimates that there are about 6,365 different models 
of CSUs in use. The estimated number of models in use was also updated 
in the final rule.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ The final rule updated the estimate of number of CSUs sold 
in the United States, based on new data from commenters and from 
additional staff analysis.
    \143\ The changes in the final rule to estimates of U.S. sales 
of CSUs and models in use reduced the estimated respondent burden by 
about half as compared to the ICR for the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 4--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Annual burden
          Burden type           Type of supplier   Total annual reponses    Length of  response       (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeling, design and update...  Manufacturer or   2,122.................  60 min................           2,122
                                 Importer.
Labeling, attachment..........  Manufacturer,     20.64 million.........  .06 min...............          20,640
                                 Importer, or
                                 Retailer.
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Labeling Burden.....  ................  ......................  ......................          22,762
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third-party recordkeeping,      Manufacturers of  21....................  3 hours...............              63
 certification.                  Children's CSUs.
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Hourly Burden.......  ................  ......................  ......................          22,825
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC estimates that it could take an hour for a supplier to design 
the hang tags and labeling or marking per CSU model, and that the 
design could be used for a period of three years, or until the CSU is 
redesigned.\144\ At 60 minutes per hang tag design, the hourly burden 
for designing a hang tag that will be used for three years is 20 
minutes per

[[Page 72653]]

year; or equivalently, it could be assumed that one third of all CSU 
models are redesigned each year (2,122 or 6,365 / 3 years). Therefore, 
the annual burden would be 2,122 hours at a burden of one hour per CSU 
model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ The lifespan of a CSU model was reduced from five years in 
the NPR to three years in the final rule. This update takes into 
consideration an accelerating trend in furniture design that demands 
new designs with a much higher frequency, in some cases even on a 
yearly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC estimates it could take 0.06 minutes (3.6 seconds or 1,000 
hang tags per hour) for a supplier to attach the hang tag to the CSU, 
for each of the 20.64 million units sold in the United States annually. 
Attaching the hang tag to the CSU would amount to an hourly burden of 
20,640 hours (0.06 min x 20,640,000 CSUs/60 mins per hour).
    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 up to 1 percent of all CSUs models sold 
annually,\145\ or 21 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 63 hours (3 x 21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ CPSC updated its estimate of the proportion of CSU models 
that are children's products, broadly based on an online search of 
available CSU models for children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 $38.61 (March 2022, Table 4, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06162022.pdf). Based on this analysis, CPSC 
staff estimates that the labor cost of respondent burden would impose a 
cost to industry of approximately $881,273 annually (22,825 hours x 
$38.61 per hour = $881,273.25).
    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 $2.06 million per year ($0.10 x 20.64 million units).
    Most domestic firms that are expected to manufacture or import CSUs 
subject to the final rule are small businesses. CPSC provides a variety 
of resources to help both new and experienced small businesses learn 
about safety requirements that apply to consumer products, including 
the CPSC Regulatory Robot, small business education videos, and the 
Small Business Ombudsman. Many of these resources can be accessed 
online at: https://www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufacturing/Small-Business-Resources. Small firms can reach the Small Business Ombudsman by 
calling (888) 531-9070.
    Cost to the Federal Government. The estimated annual cost of the 
information collection requirements to the Federal Government is 
approximately $4,304, 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 2022) is $48.78 (GS-12, step 
5). This represents 68.0 percent of total compensation (U.S. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,'' March 
2022, Table 2, percentage of wages and salaries for all civilian 
management, professional, and related employees: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06162022.pdf). Adding an additional 32.0 
percent for benefits brings average annual compensation for a mid-level 
salaried GS-12 employee to $71.74 per hour. Assuming that approximately 
60 hours will be required annually, this results in an annual cost of 
$4,304 ($71.74 per hour x 60 hours = $4,304.40).

XIII. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis \146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ Further details about the final regulatory flexibility 
analysis are available in Tab I of the final rule briefing package. 
Additional information about costs associated with the rule are 
available in Tab H of the final rule briefing package. See also Tabs 
H and I of the NPR briefing package for additional details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whenever an agency is required to publish a proposed rule, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires that the agency 
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the NPR 
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for the final rule. 
5 U.S.C. 603, 604. These analyses must describe the impact that the 
rule would have on small businesses and other entities. The FRFA must 
contain:
    (1) a statement of the need for and objectives of the rule;
    (2) significant issues raised by commenters on the IRFA, the 
agency's assessment of those issues, and changes made to the result as 
a result of the comments;
    (3) a response to comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the U.S. Small Business Administration (Office of Advocacy), and 
changes made as a result of those comments;
    (4) a description and estimate of the number of small entities to 
which the rule will apply;
    (5) a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and 
other compliance requirements of the 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
    (6) steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic 
impact on small entities, consistent with the objective of the 
applicable statute, including the factual, policy, and legal reasons 
for selecting the alternative in the final rule and why other 
alternatives were rejected.

A. Need for and Objectives of the Rule

    The final rule would establish mandatory performance requirements 
for CSUs. The purpose of the final rule is to reduce the risks of death 
and serious injury from CSU tip overs. Incident data indicates that 
tip-overs commonly involve CSUs and children and result in serious 
injuries and death. Incidents and staff's testing also indicate that 
factors such as child interactions, open and filled drawers, and 
carpeting contribute to the instability of CSUs. The rule would require 
CSUs to be tested for stability, exceed minimum stability requirements, 
be marked or labeled with safety and identification information, and 
bear a hang tag providing performance and technical data about the 
stability of the CSU. Manufacturers of CSUs would be required to test 
CSUs for compliance

[[Page 72654]]

with the stability requirements and provide the required labeling and 
hang tag.

B. Comments on the IRFA

    CPSC received comments on the substantive requirements in the 
proposed rule. CPSC also received comments on the costs and benefits 
calculations presented in the preliminary regulatory analysis and IRFA, 
the cost and benefit impacts of the scope and effective date of the 
proposed rule, and other possible economic impacts of the rule, 
including economic impacts on firms, the utility of the product for 
consumers, hazard costs associated with the product, and alternative 
actions that the Commission could take. A summary of the comments, CPSC 
staff's assessment of them, and changes to the final rule as a result 
of comments, are discussed in section VIII. Response to Comments of 
this preamble and Tab K of the final rule briefing package. To 
summarize, based on comments relevant to economic considerations, the 
final rule extends the effective date of the rule to 180 days and 
excludes from the scope of the rule lightweight CSUs if the combined 
weight of the CSU and the contents of filled drawers is less than 57 
pounds. These changes should reduce the costs associated with 
compliance with the rule for businesses of all sizes. The change in the 
effective date will give businesses more time to manufacture or import 
CSUs that are compliant with the rule. The exclusion of lightweight 
units from the scope of the rule means that manufacturers of those 
units, which represent about 10 percent of U.S. annual sales of CSUs by 
number of units, will not need to test for compliance with this rule, 
or provide a certificate of compliance with this rule. Staff made other 
clarifying changes on scope and test methods that should make it more 
clear how companies of all sizes must comply with the rule, but that 
should not impact either costs or benefits.

C. Comments From the Office of Advocacy

    The Office of Advocacy filed comments on the proposed rule. The 
Office of Advocacy commented: ``CPSC should consider reasonable 
alternatives to the proposed rule that would ease the burden on small 
businesses while still meeting the Commission's stated objectives'' and 
described specific issues and concerns raised by small businesses, 
including manufacturers, importers, and retailers. Alternatives to the 
proposed rule, and their expected impact on small businesses, were 
discussed in the IRFA and Preliminary Regulatory Analysis that 
accompanied the NPR and are also discussed in this preamble. The issues 
raised by the Office of Advocacy, and CPSC's response are as follows.
    Comment: The Office of Advocacy stated that ``CPSC's Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis underestimates the impact the 
proposed rule will have on small businesses.'' The Office of Advocacy 
also noted that almost all of the industry is small businesses, adding: 
``One small importer estimated that additional packing materials and 
costs plus the increased shipping weight will drive up per unit costs 
by 44 percent. This does not include costs to test the CSUs or ship 
them to third parties for testing, nor does it include the cost 
increases this importer's suppliers will incur in the manufacturing 
process. Other small manufacturers and importers reported similar 
estimates of the impacts of the proposed rule, stating that the costs 
will increase approximately 30-40 percent. These small businesses 
report that an increase of this magnitude will put many of them out of 
business.'' The Office of Advocacy also expressed concern that the rule 
would impact small retailers, because the compliant CSUs would be so 
heavy the units would injure the delivery drivers.
    Response: The economic analyses have been revised to reflect these 
and other commenters' input on costs of compliance. This rule does not 
require third-party testing, except for CSUs that are children's 
products, which are already subject to third-party testing 
requirements. In addition, the assumptions of higher costs by the 
Office of Advocacy and others were based on increased costs for 
shipping and packaging, assuming that compliance with the performance 
standard is achieved by adding weight to the CSU, which is not required 
by the final rule. The regulation is a performance standard, not a 
design standard; and as discussed in the Final Regulatory Analysis, 
there are multiple ways to comply with the final rule that may not 
involve adding weight to the unit. Suppliers can select the lowest-cost 
option to achieve compliance, which, in some cases, will likely be 
interlock hardware or foot extensions that add minimal weight to the 
unit, or one of those options in combination with added weight. Thus, 
there are many options to achieve compliance where shipping and 
packaging cost increases could be minimal, if any. Additionally, the 
Office of Advocacy did not provide data to demonstrate these costs of 
compliance would disproportionately affect small businesses.
    The Office of Advocacy provided an estimate of the total cost to 
small businesses of 30 percent to 40 percent above current costs, but 
it did not provide any specific breakdown of increased costs to small 
manufacturers or importers from components, redesign, packaging, and 
shipping. This estimate is on the high end of the range of estimates 
provided by other commenters, primarily trade associations and large 
businesses, that did provide a breakout of increased costs for 
components, redesign, shipping, and packaging. Larger businesses and 
trade associations that provided comments generally assumed that 
wholesale prices would rise to cover costs of compliance, and they also 
assumed that retail prices would rise to cover all or nearly all of the 
increased cost to manufacturers and importers. It is unlikely, given 
that large suppliers apparently plan to raise prices to cover the cost 
of compliance, that small suppliers would not be able to pass any of 
the cost of regulatory compliance on to retail customers, as is implied 
by the Office of Advocacy's comments. That would only occur if demand 
were highly elastic (any price increase would cause demand to drop 
sharply), so suppliers are unable to pass any of the cost of compliance 
on to retail consumers. The Final Regulatory Analysis assumes that 
demand is somewhat elastic, so that both small and large suppliers will 
be able to cover some or all of the compliance costs of the rule by 
raising wholesale prices, which, in turn, will result in higher retail 
prices. The deadweight loss analysis portion of the Final Regulatory 
Analysis discusses that some manufacturers may exit the market because 
their increased marginal costs will exceed the price consumers are 
willing to pay for their product.
    An industry trade association commenter noted that more than 90 
percent of CSUs sold in the United States are imported. This means that 
very few U.S. manufacturers will directly bear the cost of redesign or 
testing, which, instead, will fall on foreign manufacturers. Small 
importers will be able to choose a compliant foreign supplier for their 
products, rather than incur the cost of redesign themselves, although 
the cost of compliance will likely be reflected in the wholesale cost. 
The economies of scale for larger manufacturers, as compared to small 
manufacturers, may not be an issue in a U.S. industry that is primarily 
importers, not manufacturers.

[[Page 72655]]

    On specifics of shipping costs, the Final Regulatory Analysis 
includes an estimate of shipping furniture with added weight for an 
average of 16 cents per additional pound, which is highly unlikely to 
add 30 percent to the cost of a unit, given the average retail price of 
a CSU is estimated to be $338.50. Again, adding weight to the unit is 
not required by the final rule, and suppliers are free to choose a 
different compliance method that does not add significant weight to the 
unit, such as drawer interlocks or foot extensions. The Preliminary 
Regulatory Analysis that accompanied the proposed rule estimated the 
cost of added weight at 24 cents per pound, based on the retail price 
of medium density fiberboard (MDF); manufacturers would likely pay far 
less for MDF. The Preliminary Regulatory Analysis used the retail price 
as a conservative estimate of the cost of added weight, in part because 
the retail price included the price of shipping the MDF to the 
customer. CPSC did not receive any comments that the MDF price estimate 
in the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis that included the cost of 
shipping MDF to the consumer point of purchase was inaccurate.
    On the issue of economies of scale for any specific technology for 
compliance, while it is possible that large manufacturers would have a 
lower cost per unit for the components, due to economies of scale, no 
small manufacturers provided specific price data on this issue. Again, 
an industry trade association noted that nearly all (more than 90 
percent) of the CSUs sold in the United States are imported, so it will 
largely be foreign manufacturers who decide the best way to achieve 
compliance with the standard in the most cost-effective way.
    Comment: The Office of Advocacy stated that ``CPSC should consider 
a later effective date for the rulemaking, and in the interim require 
small businesses to educate and assist consumers with existing product 
safety options.'' They also stated that ``small businesses will not 
have enough time to redesign their products to comply with the proposed 
requirements. Small businesses that import products will incur 
additional difficulties due to existing supply chain disruptions, as 
well as normal lead times required for some of these products.''
    Response: Other commenters representing large businesses and trade 
associations had similar comments about the burden of the effective 
date. In response to these comments, the final rule effective date is 
180 days after the publication of the rule, rather than 30 days after, 
as proposed in the NPR. The effective date applies to the date of 
manufacture, which addresses concerns from commenters regarding the 
status of items manufactured in foreign countries before the effective 
date of the rule, but still in transport when the rule becomes 
effective. Because the effective date applies to the date of 
manufacture, items manufactured in foreign countries before the 
effective date that do not comply with the rule could still legally be 
imported and sold.
    The Office of Advocacy provided no data about why small businesses 
would find the effective date a greater burden than larger businesses. 
Given that most CSUs are imported, not manufactured domestically, it is 
unclear whether small importers would find the effective date more 
burdensome than large importers. In fact, the rule's effective date may 
temporarily disproportionally benefit U.S. manufacturers, including 
small manufacturers, who will have shorter shipping times for units 
manufactured in the United States than importers of any size.
    Comment: The Office of Advocacy commented that ``CPSC should 
reconsider its two proposed testing methods, as they produce different 
results that may be confusing for consumers and small businesses 
alike.''
    Response: Other commenters representing large businesses and trade 
associations had similar comments. The final rule has been revised so 
that only one of the test methods applies to any given CSU (this change 
is discussed in detail in section IX. Description of and Basis for the 
Rule).
    Comment: The Office of Advocacy commented that ``CPSC should 
consider updating existing voluntary standards if it is appropriate to 
do so'' and that ``updating existing standards will ensure that 
industry has a voice in the process, which may help in minimizing the 
impacts to small businesses.''
    Response: Other commenters representing large businesses and trade 
associations had similar comments favoring the alternative of voluntary 
standards. The Office of Advocacy did not provide data or any detailed 
information that would lead staff to conclude that adopting the 
voluntary standard would minimize the impacts on small businesses, or 
provide adequate levels of safety for consumers. As explained in this 
preamble, staff has reviewed existing standards that address CSU 
instability and concluded that they do not adequately reduce the risk 
of injury. The primary current voluntary standard, ASTM F2057-19, does 
not adequately reduce the risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs 
because it does not address the multiple factors demonstrated to 
contribute to instability and that exist in incidents (i.e., the effect 
of carpet, multiple open and filled drawers, and dynamic forces 
generated by common interactions). In addition, staff found that many 
specific CSU models involved in injuries and fatalities during tip-over 
incidents would meet the current ASTM standard, thus demonstrating that 
the current standard is not adequate to address the hazard. CPSC staff 
worked closely with ASTM to update ASTM F2057-19, and ASTM has balloted 
revisions to the standard. However, staff considers several balloted 
items inadequate to reduce the risk of injury and therefore has 
submitted negative votes on several items. Moreover, ASTM has worked on 
updating its standard for several years and has not succeeded in doing 
so. Therefore, the Commission does not consider it appropriate to 
continue to wait for ASTM to update the standard, particularly since 
the updates under consideration do not adequately address the risk. 
Finally, a voluntary standard does not require compliance. Therefore, 
for a voluntary standard to be effective at reducing the hazard, it 
would need to be both effective and have a high level of compliance. 
Thus, even if ASTM were to develop an effective standard, the level of 
compliance would be relevant to whether it would be as effective as the 
mandatory draft final rule.
    Comment: The Office of Advocacy commented that ``CPSC should 
clarify that once a product has been tested and certified, small 
importers and retailers may rely on that certification without 
incurring additional testing costs.''
    Response: Parts 1109 and 1110 of CPSC's regulations include 
requirements for relying on component part testing or certification and 
for certificates of compliance. Once a product has been tested and 
certified, importers and retailers of any size may rely on the 
certificate of compliance as evidence that the product has met the 
testing and certification requirements. This applies to both children's 
products (for which 16 CFR part 1109 applies) and general use products 
(for which 16 CFR part 1110 applies). These CPSC regulations apply to 
many products and are not new or specific to CSUs.

D. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

    The final rule would affect firms or individuals that manufacture 
or import CSUs that fall within the scope of the rule. Therefore, the 
rule would apply to small entities that manufacture or import CSUs. As 
discussed in the IRFA that accompanied the NPR,

[[Page 72656]]

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 2019, there were a total of 3,303 firms 
classified in these four furniture categories. Of these firms, 1,992 
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's size 
standards.\147\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North 
American Industry Classification System Codes, available at: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.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, as retailers have turned to international 
sources of CSUs and other wood furniture. Additionally, firms that 
formerly produced CSUs domestically have shifted production to foreign 
plants.
    Sixty-seven percent of the value of apparent consumption of non-
upholstered wood furniture (net imports plus domestic production for 
the U.S. market) in 2020 was comprised of imported furniture, and the 
share held by imports has grown in recent years (up from 56 percent in 
2017). Although CSUs are not reported as a separate category by the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, an even greater proportion of CSUs 
purchased by U.S. consumers could be imported. An industry trade 
association commented on the proposed rule, noting that more than 90 
percent of CSUs sold in the United States are imported products. Firms 
that import CSUs would also be impacted by the final rule, because 
imported CSUs would have to comply with the standards; although, as 
noted above, importers may rely on a certificate of compliance from the 
foreign manufacturer.
    The final rule would apply to products manufactured after the 
effective date of the rule. As such, the rule would not directly apply 
to retailers, unless they are also manufacturers or importers. However, 
because retailers may be indirectly affected by changes made by 
manufacturers or importers, staff also considered the effects of the 
rule on retailers. 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 2019, there were 
4,824 firms involved in household furniture importation and 
distribution. A total of 4,609 of these wholesalers (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 13,142 furniture 
retailers in 2019. The SBA considers furniture retailers to be small 
businesses if their gross revenue is less than $20.5 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. 
Retailers would be indirectly impacted by this rule only to the extent 
that they would need to buy compliant units from manufacturers or 
importers. Retailers can increase the retail price of units to reflect 
any increase in their wholesale costs and to maintain their profit 
margin. However, given that demand is responsive to price (somewhat 
elastic), it is possible that retailers will see lower sales of CSUs. 
Given that most furniture stores sell a wide mix of furniture and 
accessory products, it is unlikely that any indirect impact of this 
rule on small retailers would be substantial (more than 1 percent of 
annual revenue).

E. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The final rule establishes a mandatory standard that all CSUs must 
meet to be sold in the United States. The requirements in the rule are 
discussed in this preamble and include stability testing requirements, 
warning and identification label requirements, hang tag requirements, 
stockpiling limits, and certification requirements.
    As discussed above, most of the entities to which the rule would 
apply are small businesses. No specialized professional skills or 
training are needed for the preparation of the record of compliance. 
CPSC's public website provides guidance on how to create a certificate 
of compliance, and an example one-page certificate.\148\ CSU suppliers 
already would have had to provide such a general certificate of 
compliance for other applicable CPSC regulations, such as lead paint, 
so this rule should not require any new skills or training for 
certificates of compliance. The compliance testing requirements are 
described in detail this document and many suppliers are already 
performing similar tests to demonstrate compliance with the voluntary 
standard. Third-party testing is not required, except for CSUs that are 
also children's products. The text and graphics for the required labels 
and hang tags are provided in the rule, so a graphics designer will not 
be required to make the labels and hang tags. Because the Commission is 
issuing the hang tag requirement under section 27(e) of the CPSA, a 
regulatory analysis or regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. 
However, the cost of hang tags will be about 10 cents for materials and 
less than a minute of labor to attach to the unit. As noted earlier, 
the labeling or marking of the unit should have similarly minor costs 
for manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/Business--Manufacturing/Testing-Certification/General-Certificate-of-Conformity-GCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impacts on Small Entities

    As discussed in section XI. Alternatives to the Rule, CPSC examined 
several alternatives to the rule, which could reduce the burden on 
firms, including small entities. Because most domestic firms that are 
expected to manufacture or import CSUs subject to the final rule are 
small businesses, an exemption for small manufacturers/importers is not 
a feasible alternative. As described in section XI. Alternatives to the 
Rule, the Commission concluded that the additional alternatives would 
not adequately reduce the risk of injury and death associated with CSU 
tip overs and did not select those alternatives. The Commission did, 
however, extend the effective date for the rule to 180 days, which was 
an alternative discussed in the NPR. This will likely reduce burdens on 
firms of all sizes.

[[Page 72657]]

XIV. Incorporation by Reference

    This 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, 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, section V. Relevant 
Existing Standards, subsection A. ASTM F2057-19 summarizes the 
standard. In this rule, the Commission requires compliance with 
specific provisions of ASTM F2057-19. Section IX. Description of and 
Basis for the Rule of this preamble summarizes those provisions.
    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. Once this 
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 Office of the Secretary, U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
MD 20814, telephone: 301-504-7479; email: [email protected].

XIV. 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. Sec.  
1200.2(d)(1).
    As discussed above, some CSUs are children's products and some are 
not. Therefore, this rule requires CSUs that are not children's 
products to meet the certification requirements under section 14(a)(1) 
of the CPSA and requires CSUs that are children's products to meet 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 \149\) 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ 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 rule is a children's product safety rule, 
as applied to those products.
    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, this rule amends part 1112 to 
add this standard for 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 listed on the CPSC website at: www.cpsc.gov/labsearch.

XV. 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. Sec.  
1021.5(c)(1). Because this rule would create performance requirements 
for CSUs, the rule falls within the categorical exclusion, and thus, no 
EA or EIS is required.

XVI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (CRA; 5 U.S.C. 801-808) states that 
before a rule may take effect, the agency issuing the rule must submit 
the rule, and certain related information, to each House of Congress 
and the Comptroller General. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1). The CRA submission 
must indicate whether the rule is a ``major rule.'' The CRA states that 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines 
whether a rule qualifies as a ``major rule.'' A ``major rule'' is one 
that OIRA finds has resulted in or is likely to result in:
     an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more;

[[Page 72658]]

     a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, 
individual industries, government agencies, or geographic regions; or
     significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S. 
enterprises to compete with foreign enterprises in domestic and export 
markets.
    Id. 804(2).
    Because CPSC estimates the annual effect of this rule to be 
$100,000,000 or more, OIRA determined that this is a major rule. To 
comply with the CRA, CPSC will submit the required information to each 
House of Congress and the Comptroller General.

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 
rule, as follows:
    The Commission issues the regulations for CSUs under authority of 
the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089. Section 26 of the CPSA provides that 
whenever a consumer product safety standard under the 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, with the exception of the allowances in 15 U.S.C. 2075(b) and 
(c), the requirements in part 1261 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 issued under 
sections 7 and 9 must 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).
    In addition, the CRA includes requirements regarding effective 
dates for ``major rules.'' As discussed in section XVI. Congressional 
Review Act, this is a major rule. In general, unless Congress 
disapproves a rule, a major rule must take effect no earlier than 60 
days after the rule is published in the Federal Register or Congress 
receives a report of the rule, whichever is later. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3).
    The NPR proposed that the rule would take effect 30 days after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. CPSC received 
numerous comments regarding the effective date. Most comments asserted 
that the proposed 30-day effective date would be unrealistic given the 
time, costs, and logistics necessary to modify CSUs to comply with the 
standard, particularly since nearly all CSUs would not meet the 
standard. Commenters explained that work necessary to comply with the 
rule would include: testing CSUs in their current state, modifying CSU 
designs as necessary and within reasonable cost ranges, working with 
suppliers, redesigning packaging, reworking logistics, changing 
manufacturing processes, communicating with and training stakeholders, 
and adjusting costing including with retailers. Commenters also stated 
that significant supply chain issues affect a realistic effective date. 
Commenters asserted that under normal conditions, product lead time 
would be 4 to 6 weeks longer than 30 days, but with current supply 
chain issues, product lead time from ordering to manufacturing to 
delivery is between 9 and 12 months and orders sit in process for 6 
months or more. Accordingly, they assert that orders placed before the 
final rule takes effect could not be met, as manufacturing would not 
occur for several months. Commenters noted that these issues could also 
increase consumer prices. Several commenters recommended that an 
effective date of 180 days may be sufficient to accommodate these 
considerations, and several stated that 360 days was more in line with 
the normal product development process and would still be short, since 
they asserted that this process typically takes several years.
    Based on these comments, and staff's analysis of the costs 
associated with the rule (Tab H), the rule (including the amendment to 
part 1112) will go into effect May 24, 2023 and will apply to all CSUs 
that are subject to the rule that are manufactured after that date.

XIX. Findings

    As explained, the CPSA requires the Commission to make certain 
findings when issuing a consumer product safety standard. 15 U.S.C. 
2058(f)(1), (f)(3). These findings are stated in Sec.  1261.8 of the 
rule and are based on information provided throughout this preamble and 
the staff's briefing packages for the proposed and final rules.

XX. Conclusion

    For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission concludes 
that CSUs that do not meet the requirements specified in this rule, and 
are not exempt from the rule, present 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 amends 
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.


[[Page 72659]]



0
2. Amend Sec.  1112.15 by adding reserved paragraph (b)(53) and 
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). The requirements in this part 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 after May 24, 
2023, are subject to the requirements of this part.
    (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(t).


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 consumer product that is a 
freestanding furniture item, with drawer(s) and/or door(s), that may be 
reasonably expected to be used for storing clothing, that is designed 
to be configured to greater than or equal to 27 inches in height, has a 
mass greater than or equal to 57 pounds with all extendable elements 
filled with at least 8.5 pounds/cubic foot times their functional 
volume (cubic feet), has a total functional volume of the closed 
storage greater than 1.3 cubic feet, and has a total functional volume 
of the closed storage 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, depending on their design, may not meet the criteria in 
this definition and, therefore, may not be 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 the least stable 
configuration (typically 90 degrees), to the fulcrum, while the 
clothing storage unit is on a hard, level, and flat test surface. See 
figure 1 to this paragraph (e). Sliding doors that remain within the 
clothing storage unit case are not considered to have a door extension.

Figure 1 to paragraph (e)--(Top View) The door extension from fulcrum 
distance, illustrated by the letter Y.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.010

    (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. Only components 
that are retained in the case when extended up to \2/3\ the shortest 
internal length,

[[Page 72660]]

when empty, are included in this definition.
    (g) Extendable element means a drawer or pull-out shelf.
    (h) Extendable element 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 extendable element is at the maximum extension and 
the clothing storage unit 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 (h).

Figure 2 to paragraph (h)--The extendable element extension from 
fulcrum distance, illustrated by the letter X.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.011

    (i) Freestanding means that the unit remains upright, without 
needing attachment to the wall or other upright rigid structure, when 
it is fully assembled and empty, with all extendable elements and doors 
closed. Built-in units are not considered freestanding.
    (j) Functional volume of an extendable element means the interior 
bottom surface area multiplied by the effective extendable element 
height, which is distance from the bottom surface of the extendable 
element to the top of the extendable element compartment minus \1/8\ 
inches (see figure 3 to this paragraph (j)). 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 (j)). Functional volume of open storage 
means the interior bottom surface area multiplied by the effective open 
storage height, which is distance from the bottom surface of the open 
storage to the top of the open storage compartment minus \1/8\ inches.

Figure 3 to paragraph (j)--Functional volume of extendable element.

[[Page 72661]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.012

Figure 4 to paragraph (j)--Functional volume behind a door. 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.013


[[Page 72662]]


    (k) Fulcrum means the point or line at the base of the clothing 
storage unit about which the clothing storage unit pivots when a tip-
over force is applied (typically the front feet). The fulcrum position 
is determined while the clothing storage unit is on a hard, level, and 
flat test surface with all doors and extendable elements closed.
    (l) 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.
    (m) Interlock means a device(s) that restricts simultaneous opening 
of extendable elements or doors.
    (n) Levelling device means an adjustable device intended to adjust 
the level of the clothing storage unit.
    (o) Maximum extension means a condition when an extendable element 
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 extendable element 
to extend the furthest. In the case of slides with a multipart stop, 
such as a stop that extends the extendable element to the furthest 
manufacturer recommended use position with an additional stop that 
retains the extendable element in the case, this is the stop that 
extends the extendable element 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 shortest internal length of 
the pull-out shelf. See figure 5 to this paragraph (o).

Figure 5 to paragraph (o)--Example of maximum extension on extendable 
elements with stops and without stops.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.014

    (p) Maximum handhold height means the highest position at which a 
child may grab hold of the clothing storage unit, measured while the 
clothing storage unit is on a hard, level, and flat surface. For units 
shorter than 4.12 feet, this is the top of the clothing storage unit. 
For units 4.12 feet or taller, this is 4.12 feet. See figure 6 to this 
paragraph (p).

Figure 6 to paragraph (p)--The maximum handhold height, illustrated by 
the letter Z for a unit shorter than 4.12 feet (left) and for a unit 
4.12 feet or taller (right).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.015


[[Page 72663]]


    (q) 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.
    (r) Open storage means space within the frame of the furniture that 
is open (i.e., is not in a drawer or behind an opaque door) and that 
reasonably can be used for storage (e.g., has a flat bottom surface). 
For example, open shelf space that is not behind a door, display space 
behind a non-opaque door, and framed open clothing hanging space are 
considered open storage.
    (s) Open space means space within the frame of the furniture, but 
without a bottom surface. For example, open space between legs, such as 
with a console table, or between separated storage components, such as 
with a vanity or a desk, are considered open space. This definition 
does not include space inside the furniture case (e.g., space between a 
drawer and the case) or any other space that is not visible to a 
consumer standing in front of the unit (e.g., space behind a base 
panel).
    (t) 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.
    (u) 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.
    (v) Test block means a block constructed of a rigid material, such 
as steel or aluminum, with the following dimensions: at least 0.43 inch 
thick, at least 1 inch deep, at least 1 inch wide. See figure 7 to this 
paragraph (v).

Figure 7 to paragraph (v)--Test block.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.016

    (w) Tip over means an event at which a clothing storage unit pivots 
forward to the point at which the clothing storage unit will continue 
to fall and/or be supported by a non-support element.
    (x) Tip-over force means the force required to cause tip over of 
the clothing storage unit.
    (y) Tip-over moment means the minimum moment in pound-feet about 
the fulcrum that causes tip over.


Sec.  1261.3   Requirements for interlocks.

    (a) General. For all clothing storage units with interlocks, 
including consumer-assembled units, the interlock components must be 
pre-installed, and automatically engage when the consumer installs the 
interlocked extendable element(s) or door(s) 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 one or more levelling devices, adjust the 
levelling device(s) to the lowest level; then adjust the levelling 
device(s) in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
    (4) Secure the unit, without interfering with the interlock 
function, to prevent sliding or tip over.
    (5) Open any non-interlocked doors that are in front of the 
interlocked extendable elements.
    (6) Engage the interlock by opening to the maximum extension the 
number of extendable elements or doors necessary to engage the 
interlock.
    (7) Gradually apply over a period of at least 5 seconds a 30-pound 
horizontal pull force on each interlocked extendable element or door at 
the center of the pull area(s), one element at a time, and hold the 
force for at least 10 seconds.
    (8) Repeat this test until all possible combinations of extendable 
elements and doors have been tested.
    (c) Performance requirement. The interlock will be disabled or 
bypassed for the stability testing in Sec.  1261.4(c) if, as a result 
of the testing specified in paragraph (b) of this section:
    (1) Any interlocked extendable element or door extends during the 
test without retracting the originally open extendable element or door; 
or
    (2) Any interlock or interlocked extendable element or door is 
damaged or does not function as intended after the test.


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 
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. Units shall not be attached to the 
wall or any upright structure for testing.
    (2) Place the unit on a hard, level, and flat test surface in the 
orientation most likely to cause tip over. If necessary, secure the 
unit from sliding without preventing tip over.
    (3) If the clothing storage unit has one or more levelling devices, 
adjust the levelling device(s) to the lowest level; then adjust the 
levelling device(s) in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
    (4) Record the maximum handhold height, the longest extendable 
element extension from fulcrum distance, and the longest door extension 
from fulcrum

[[Page 72664]]

distance, as applicable. These measurements are used in paragraph (d) 
of this section.
    (5) Tilt the clothing storage unit forward by placing the test 
block(s) under the unit's most rear floor support(s) such that either 
the entire floor support contact area is over the test block(s) or the 
back edge of the test block(s) is aligned with the back edge of the 
rear floor supports.
    (6) Disable or bypass any interlock(s) in accordance with Sec.  
1261.3(c).
    (7) Open all hinged doors that open outward or downward that are 
not locked by an interlock to the least stable configuration (typically 
90 degrees).
    (8) Open all extendable elements that are not locked by an 
interlock 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). Then place fill weights according to the 
following criteria:
    (i) If 50 percent or more of the extendable elements by functional 
volume are open, place a fill weight in the center of the bottom 
surface of each extendable element, including those that remain closed, 
that consists of a uniformly distributed mass in pounds. The fill 
weight in open extendable elements must be at least 8.5 pounds/cubic 
foot times the functional volume (cubic feet). The fill weight in 
closed extendable elements must be no more than 8.5 pounds/cubic foot 
times the functional volume (cubic feet). If necessary, secure the fill 
weights to prevent sliding. See figure 1 to this paragraph (b)(8)(i).

Figure 1 to paragraph (b)(8)(i)--Fill weights in all drawers if 50 
percent or more of the extendable elements by functional volume are 
open.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.017

    (ii) If less than 50 percent of the extendable elements by 
functional volume are open, do not place a fill weight in or on any 
extendable element(s). See figure 2 to this paragraph (b)(8)(ii).

Figure 2 to paragraph (b)(8)(ii)--No fill weights if less than 50 
percent of the extendable elements by functional volume are open.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.018


[[Page 72665]]


    (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 shall be used for units with extendable elements 
that extend at least 6 inches from the fulcrum. Record the horizontal 
distance from where the center of force will be applied (the center of 
gravity of the weights to be applied) to the fulcrum. Gradually apply 
over a period of at least 5 seconds weights to the face of an extended 
extendable element of the unit to cause the unit to tip over. The 
weights are to be placed on a single drawer face or distributed evenly 
across multiple drawer faces or as adjacent as possible to the pull-out 
shelf face. The weights shall not interfere with other extended 
extendable elements. Record the tip-over force. Calculate the tip-over 
moment of the unit by multiplying the tip-over force (pounds) by the 
horizontal distance from the center of the force application to the 
fulcrum (feet). See figure 3 to this paragraph (c)(1).

Figure 3 to paragraph (c)(1)--Illustration of force application methods 
for Test Method 1 with vertical load LV (test block not to 
scale).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.019

    (2) Test Method 2 shall be used for any unit for which Test Method 
1 does not apply. Record the vertical distance from where the center of 
force will be applied to the fulcrum. Gradually apply over a period of 
at least 5 seconds a horizontal force to the unit orthogonal to the 
fulcrum to cause the unit to tip over. Record the tip-over force. 
Calculate the tip-over moment of the unit by multiplying the tip-over 
force (pounds) by the vertical distance from the center of force 
application to the fulcrum (feet). See figure 4 to this paragraph 
(c)(2).

Figure 4 to paragraph (c)(2)--Illustration of force application methods 
for Test Method 2 with horizontal load LH (test block not to 
scale).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.020


[[Page 72666]]


    (3) If a failed component prohibits completion of the test, then to 
continue testing, the failed component(s) must be repaired or replaced 
to the original specifications, or the component(s) must be replaced 
and the test repeated with the failed component(s) secured to prevent 
the component(s) from failing, as long as the modifications do not 
increase the tip-over moment.
    (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 an extendable element(s): 55.3 pounds times the 
extendable element extension from fulcrum distance in feet +26.6 pound-
feet;
    (2) For units with a door(s): 51.2 pounds times the door extension 
from fulcrum distance in feet -12.8 pound-feet; 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 in 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 text in figure 
1 to this paragraph (a)(2)(i), with the text following brackets to be 
included only for the units specified in the brackets.
Figure 1 to paragraph (a)(2)(i)--Warning label content.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.021

    (ii) The warning label shall contain the three-panel child climbing 
symbol displayed in figure 2 to this paragraph (a)(2)(ii), with the 
prohibition symbol in red and the check mark in green. The third panel 
(i.e., depicting attachment to the wall) may be modified to show a 
specific anti-tip device included with the clothing storage unit.

Figure 2 to paragraph (a)(2)(ii)--Three-panel child climbing symbol.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.022

    (iii) For units that are not designed to hold a television, the 
warning label also shall contain the no television symbol displayed in 
figure 3 to this paragraph (a)(2)(iii), with the prohibition symbol in 
red.

Figure 3 to paragraph (a)(2)(iii)--No television symbol.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.023

    (iv) The content of the warning label required in this paragraph 
(a)(2) shall not be modified or amended except as specifically 
indicated.
    (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

[[Page 72667]]

inch by 1 inch. See figure 4 to this paragraph (a)(3).

Figure 4 to paragraph (a)(3)--Example warning label for a clothing 
storage unit with an interlock system that is not designed to hold a 
television (top) and for a clothing storage unit without an interlock 
system that is designed to hold a television (bottom).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.024

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.025

    (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).
    (b) Identification marking or labeling requirements. The clothing 
storage unit shall have an identification mark or label, as defined in 
this paragraph (b).
    (1) Size. The identification mark or label shall be at least 2 
inches wide by 1 inch tall.
    (2) Content. The identification mark or 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

[[Page 72668]]

may spell out ``U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission'' instead of 
``U.S. CPSC.''
    (3) Format. The identification mark or 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 mark or label shall be visible 
from the back of the unit when the unit is fully assembled.
    (5) Permanency. The identification mark or 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. ASTM F2057-19, Standard Safety 
Specification for Clothing Storage Units, approved on August 1, 2019, 
is 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, P.O. 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 Office of the Secretary, 
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.


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 for physical points of sale, 
packaging, and on-product. 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 2 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 shown in figure 1 to this paragraph (a)(2)(ii):

Figure 1 to paragraph (a)(2)(ii)--Hang tag icon.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.026

    (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 stability rating, rounded to one decimal place (e.g., 
X.Y).
    (vi) The scale shall start at 1 and end at 2.
    (vii) ``MIN'' and ``OR MORE'' on the left and right sides of the 
scale, respectively.
    (viii) A solid horizontal line from 1 to the calculated rating.
    (ix) The statement--``This unit is [enter rating value] times more 
stable than the minimum required,'' with the stability rating to be 
inserted for bracketed text.
    (x) The statement--``Compare with other units before you buy.''
    (xi) The statement--``This is a guide to compare units' 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 stability 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),'' with the stability rating to 
be inserted for bracketed text.
    (v) The statement--``Deaths and 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

[[Page 72669]]

(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 2 to 
this paragraph (a). 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 clothing 
storage unit and be clearly visible to a person standing in front of 
the unit. The hang tag shall be attached to the clothing storage unit 
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.

Figure 2 to paragraph (a)--Hang tag for a unit with a tip rating of 
1.5.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.027


[[Page 72670]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.028

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
    (b) Consumer information requirements for online points of sale. 
Any manufacturer or importer of a clothing storage unit with an online 
sales interface (e.g., website or app) from which the clothing storage 
unit may be purchased shall provide on the online sales interface that 
offers the clothing storage unit for purchase:
    (1) All of the content required by paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of 
this section, in the form and sequence shown in figure 2 to paragraph 
(a) of this section, except that it need not contain the statements in 
paragraphs (a)(2)(xvi) and (xvii) of this section.
    (2) The stability rating must be displayed in a font size 
equivalent to that of the price, in proximity to the price of the 
product, and a link to the virtual hang tag of the product must be 
provided through one user action (e.g., mouse click, mouse roll-over, 
or tactile screen expansion) on the stability rating value or image.


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 November 25, 2022 and May 24, 2023 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 November 2022.


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 November 
25, 2022.
    (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 199 
clothing storage unit tip-over fatalities to children that were 
reported to have occurred between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2022. 
There were an estimated 60,100 injuries, an annual average of 3,800 
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, 2021. 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 2021, there 
were approximately 229.94 million clothing storage units in use and 
about 20.64 million clothing storage units sold.
    (d) The need of the public for clothing storage units and the 
effects of the rule on their cost, availability, and utility. (1) 
Consumers commonly use clothing storage units to store clothing in 
their

[[Page 72671]]

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. CPSC estimates that the 
cost, per unit, to modify a clothing storage unit to comply with the 
rule is between $10.21 and $17.64, which includes the cost to redesign, 
modify (labor and materials), and test. 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, anti-
tip devices, 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 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.
    (f) Unreasonable risk. (1) Incident data indicates that there were 
234 reported tip-over fatalities involving clothing storage units that 
were reported to have occurred between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 
2022, of which 199 involved children, 11 involved adults, and 24 
involved seniors. Of the reported child fatalities, 86 percent (171 
fatalities) involved children 3 years old or younger.
    (2) There were an estimated 84,100 injuries, an annual average of 
5,300 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, 2021. Of these, 72 percent (60,100) were to 
children, which is an annual average of 3,800 estimated injuries to 
children over the 16-year period. In addition, there were approximately 
58,351 tip-over injuries involving clothing storage units and children 
treated in other settings from 2007 through 2021, or an average of 
3,890 per year. Therefore, combined, there were an estimated 103,100 
nonfatal, medically attended tip-over injuries to children from 
clothing storage units during the years 2007 through 2021.
    (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 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
1261.5(c)); 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 finds that these standards are not likely to 
adequately reduce the risk of injury associated with clothing storage 
unit tip overs 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 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 benefits of 
the rule are estimated to be about $307.17 million annually and the 
cost of the rule is estimated to be about $250.90 during the first year 
the rule is in effect. Based on this analysis, the Commission finds 
that the benefits expected from the rule

[[Page 72672]]

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 rule, but concluded that none of these alternatives 
would adequately reduce the risk of injury.
    (2) The Commission considered relying on voluntary recalls, anti-
tip devices, 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 continue to be a high number of child injuries from 
clothing storage unit tip overs.
    (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 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1261.5(c)), but replacing the 50-
pound test weight with a 60-pound test weight. This alternative would 
be less burdensome than the 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. 2022-24587 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P