Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-01689

Proposed Rule2022-01689

Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

February 3, 2022

Issuing agencies

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Abstract

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

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6246-6322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01689]

[[Page 6245]]

Vol. 87

Thursday,

No. 23

February 3, 2022

Part II

Consumer Product Safety Commission

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

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1261

Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 6246]]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1261

[Docket No. CPSC-2017-0044]

Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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

DATES: Submit comments by April 19, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Direct comments related to the Paperwork Reduction Act
aspects of the proposed rule to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: CPSC
Desk Officer, fax to: 202-395-6974, or email
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c3acaab1a29cb0b6a1aeaab0b0aaacad83acaea1eda6acb3eda4acb5">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Submit other comments, identified by
Docket No. CPSC-2017-0044, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. CPSC does not accept comments
submitted by electronic mail (email), except through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, and as described below. CPSC encourages you to
submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as
described above.
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier Written Submissions: Submit comments by
mail/hand delivery/courier to: Division of the Secretariat, Consumer
Product Safety Commission 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone: (301) 504-7479. Alternatively, as a temporary option during
the COVID-19 pandemic, you can email such submissions to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86e5f6f5e5abe9f5c6e5f6f5e5a8e1e9f0">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice. CPSC may post all comments without
change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or
other personal information provided, to: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Do not submit electronically: Confidential business information, trade
secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that
you do not want to be available to the public. If you wish to submit
such information, please submit it according to the instructions for
mail/hand delivery/courier written submissions.
Docket: To read background documents or comments regarding this
proposed rulemaking, go to: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, insert docket
number CPSC-2017-0044 in the ``Search'' box, and follow the prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Talcott, Project Manager, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD
20852; telephone (301) 987-2311; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcf7e8ddd0dfd3c8c8fcdfcccfdf92dbd3ca">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6247]]

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

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

II. Statutory Authority

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

III. The Product and Market

A. Description of the Product

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

[[Page 6248]]

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

B. The Market

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

IV. Risk of Injury

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

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

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

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

The data presented here represent the minimum number of incidents
or

[[Page 6249]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6250]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6251]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6252]]

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

[[Page 6253]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6254]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. ASTM F2057-19

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

[[Page 6255]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6256]]

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

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

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

B. AS/NZS 4935: 2009

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

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

C. ISO 7171 (2019)

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

[[Page 6257]]

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

D. EN 14749: 2016

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

[[Page 6258]]

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

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

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

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

VI. Technical Background

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

A. Center of Gravity and Center of Mass

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

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

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

B. Moment and Fulcrum

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

[[Page 6259]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.000

VII. Technical Analysis Supporting the Proposed Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6260]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6261]]

the weight of clothing in a fully filled drawer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6262]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.002

3. Target Behaviors of Children Interacting With a CSU
CPSC staff worked with UMTRI researchers to develop a set of
scripted interactions. Staff focused on realistic interactions in which
the child's position and/or dynamic interactions were the most likely
to cause a CSU to tip over. The interactions were based on incident
data and online videos of children interacting with CSUs and other
furniture items. The interactions UMTRI researchers evaluated included:
<bullet> Ascend: Climb up onto the test fixture;
<bullet> Bounce: Bounce vigorously without leaving the bar;
<bullet> Lean back: Lean back as far as possible while keeping both
hands and feet on the bars;
<bullet> Yank: From the lean back position, pull on the bar as hard
as possible;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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
<bullet> Descend: Climb down from the test fixture.
As described above, the ascend interaction best models the climbing
behavior commonly seen in incidents, and is analogous to a child's
initial step to climb up on to the CSU, which is an integral climbing
interaction. The other, more extreme interactions, such as bounce,
lean, and yank, were identified as plausible interactions, based on
child behavior; but these interactions were not directly observed in
the incident data.
After the children performed the interaction, the researchers
reviewed video from each trial to isolate and characterize interactions
of interest. Interactions of interest for the handle trials were
categorized as: Ascent, Bounce, Lean (lean back), Yank, and One Hand
(see Figure 3). Researchers analyzed forces from each extracted
behavior to identify peak forces and moments.

[[Page 6263]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.003

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

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

[[Page 6264]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6265]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.006

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

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

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

[[Page 6266]]

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

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

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

[[Page 6267]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6268]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6269]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6270]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6271]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE22.010

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

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

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

\77\ Butturini, R., Massale, J., Midgett, J., Snyder, S.
Preliminary Evaluation of Anchoring Furniture and Televisions
without Tools, Technical Report CPSC/EXHR/TR--15/001 (2015),
available at: <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/Tipover-Prevention-Project-Anchors-without-Tools.pdf">https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/Tipover-Prevention-Project-Anchors-without-Tools.pdf</a>.
\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: <a href="https://article.images.consumerreports.org/prod/content/dam/surveys/Consumer_Reports_Wall_Anchors_Survey_2018_Final">https://article.images.consumerreports.org/prod/content/dam/surveys/Consumer_Reports_Wall_Anchors_Survey_2018_Final</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Anchor-It-Campaign-Effectiveness-Survey-Main-Report_Final_9_2_2020....pdf?gC1No.oOO2FEXV9wmOtdJVAtacRLHIMK">https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Anchor-It-Campaign-Effectiveness-Survey-Main-Report_Final_9_2_2020....pdf?gC1No.oOO2FEXV9wmOtdJVAtacRLHIMK</a>.

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

[[Page 6272]]

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

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

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

VIII. Description of and Basis for the Proposed Rule

A. Scope and Definitions

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

[[Page 6273]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 6274]]

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

[[Page 6275]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With an assumed clothing load of 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of
storage volume, many lightweight units could be filled to the same
weight as the incident-involved units. The 34-pound unit referenced
above had minimal clothing in it, and the 57-pound unit was reportedly
empty at the time of the fatal incident. Staff did not identify any
tip-over incidents involving plast

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on February 3, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.