Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-24587

Rule2022-24587

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

November 25, 2022

Effective

May 24, 2023

Issuing agencies

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Abstract

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) has determined that there is an unreasonable risk of injury and death, particularly to children, associated with clothing storage units (CSUs) tipping over. To address this risk, the Commission is issuing a rule regarding the stability of CSUs. This rule requires CSUs to be tested for stability, exceed minimum stability requirements, bear labels containing safety and identification information, and display a hang tag providing performance and technical data about the stability of the CSU. The Commission issues this rule under the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72598-72672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24587]

[[Page 72597]]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 226

November 25, 2022

Part II

Consumer Product Safety Commission

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

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1261

Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units; Final Rule

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

[[Page 72598]]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1261

[Docket No. CPSC-2017-0044]

Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or
CPSC) has determined that there is an unreasonable risk of injury and
death, particularly to children, associated with clothing storage units
(CSUs) tipping over. To address this risk, the Commission is issuing a
rule regarding the stability of CSUs. This rule requires CSUs to be
tested for stability, exceed minimum stability requirements, bear
labels containing safety and identification information, and display a
hang tag providing performance and technical data about the stability
of the CSU. The Commission issues this rule under the authority of the
Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA).

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amelia Hairston-Porter, Trial
Attorney, Division of Enforcement and Litigation, U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone (301) 504-7663; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b0f1f8d1d9c2c3c4dfdec0dfc2c4d5c2f0d3c0c3d39ed7dfc6">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

CSUs generally are freestanding furniture items, typically used for
storing clothes. Examples of CSUs include chests, bureaus, dressers,
chests of drawers, drawer chests, door chests, chifforobes, armoires,
and wardrobes. CPSC is aware of numerous deaths and injuries resulting
from CSUs tipping over, particularly onto children. To address the
hazard associated with CSU tip overs, the Commission has taken several
steps.
In June 2015, the Commission launched the Anchor It! campaign. This
educational campaign includes print and broadcast public service
announcements; information distribution at targeted venues, such as
childcare centers; social media; blog posts; videos; and an
informational website (<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.\1\ Between January 1, 2000 and July 1,
2022, 43 consumer-level recalls occurred to address CSU tip-over
hazards. The recalled products were responsible for 341 tip-over
incidents, including reports of 152 injuries and 12 fatalities.\2\
These recalls involved 38 firms and affected approximately 21,530,000
CSUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ For further information about recalls, see Tab J of the
briefing package supporting this final rule.
\2\ For the remaining incidents, either no injury resulted from
the incident, or the report did not indicate whether an injury
occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2016, CPSC staff prepared a briefing package on furniture tip
overs, looking at then-current levels of compliance with the voluntary
standards, and the adequacy of the voluntary standards.\3\ In 2017, the
Commission issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR),
discussing the possibility of developing a rule to address the risk of
injuries and death associated with CSU tip overs. 82 FR 56752 (Nov. 30,
2017).\4\ The ANPR began a rulemaking proceeding under the CPSA (15
U.S.C. 2051-2089). In 2022, after considering comments received on the
ANPR and extensive additional testing and analysis, the Commission
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), proposing to establish
requirements regarding CSU stability. 87 FR 6246 (Feb. 3, 2022). The
Commission is now issuing a final rule, establishing requirements
regarding CSU stability.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Massale, J., Staff Briefing Package on Furniture Tipover,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (2016), available at:
<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>.
\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).
\5\ The Commission voted 3-1 to approve this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

\6\ The briefing package supporting the NPR is available 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>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

<bullet> the NPR; \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

\9\ The docket for this rulemaking, CPSC-2017-0044, is available
at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

II. Statutory Authority

CSUs are ``consumer products'' that the Commission can regulate
under the authority of the CPSA. See 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5). In this
document, the Commission issues a final rule under sections 7 and 9 of
the CPSA, regarding performance requirements, warnings, and
stockpiling, and under section 27(e) of the CPSA, regarding performance
and technical data.

A. Performance and Warning Requirements

Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue a
mandatory consumer product safety standard that consists of performance
requirements or requirements that the product be marked with, or
accompanied by, warnings or instructions. Id. 2056(a). Any requirement
in the standard must be ``reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an
unreasonable risk of injury'' associated with the product. Id. Section
7 requires the Commission to issue such a standard in accordance with
section 9 of the CPSA. Id.
Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the procedure the Commission must
follow to issue a consumer product safety standard under section 7. Id.
2058. Under section 9, the Commission may initiate rulemaking by
issuing an ANPR

[[Page 72599]]

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

Id. 2058(f)(2).

B. Stockpiling

Section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA allows the Commission to prohibit
manufacturers of a consumer product from stockpiling products subject
to a consumer product safety rule to prevent manufacturers from
circumventing the purpose of the rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2). The
statute defines ``stockpiling'' as manufacturing or importing a product
between the date a rule is promulgated and its effective date at a rate
that is significantly greater than the rate at which the product was
produced or imported during a base period ending before the date the
rule was promulgated. Id. The Commission is to define what constitutes
a ``significantly greater'' rate and the base period in the rule
addressing stockpiling. Id.

C. Performance and Technical Data

Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue a rule
to require manufacturers of consumer products to provide ``such
performance and technical data related to performance and safety as may
be required to carry out the purposes of [the CPSA].'' Id. 2076(e). The
Commission may require manufacturers to provide this information to the
Commission or, at the time of original purchase, to prospective
purchasers and the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, as
necessary to carry out the purposes of the CPSA. Id. Section 2(b) of
the CPSA states the purposes of the CPSA, including:
<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

This rule defines a ``CSU'' as a consumer product that is a
freestanding furniture item, with drawer(s) and/or door(s), that may be
reasonably expected to be used for storing clothing, that is designed
to be configured to greater than or equal to 27 inches in height, has a
mass greater than or equal to 57 pounds with all extendable elements
filled with at least 8.5 pounds/cubic foot times their functional
volume, and that has a total functional volume of the closed storage
greater than 1.3 cubic feet and greater than the sum of the total
functional volume of the open storage and the total volume of the open
space. Definitions of many of the terms used in this definition are
provided in the rule. Common names for CSUs include, but are not
limited to: chests, bureaus, dressers, armoires, wardrobes, chests of
drawers, drawer chests, chifforobes, and door chests. CSUs are
available in a variety of designs (e.g., vertical or horizontal
dressers), sizes (e.g., weights and heights), dimensions, and materials
(e.g., wood, plastic, leather, manufactured wood or fiber board).
Consumers may purchase CSUs that have been assembled by the
manufacturer, or they may purchase CSUs as ready-to-assemble (RTA)
furniture.
The CSU definition includes several criteria to help distinguish
CSUs from other furniture. Details regarding these criteria are
discussed in section IX. Description of and Basis for the Rule. Key
features include that, as freestanding furniture items, CSUs remain
upright without needing to be attached to a wall or other structure,
when fully assembled and empty, with all extendable elements and doors
closed. As such, built-in units are not considered freestanding. In
addition, CSUs typically are intended and used for storing clothing
and, therefore, they are commonly used in bedrooms. However, consumers
may also use CSUs in rooms other than bedrooms and to store items other
than clothing in them. For this reason, whether a product is a CSU
depends on whether it meets the criteria in the definition, rather than
what the name of the product is or the marketed use for the product.
The criteria in the definition regarding height and closed storage
volume aim to address the utility of a unit for holding multiple
clothing items. Some examples of furniture items that, depending on
their design, may not meet the criteria

[[Page 72600]]

in the definition and, therefore, may not be considered CSUs are:
shelving units, office furniture, dining room furniture, laundry
hampers, built-in closets, and single-compartment closed rigid boxes
(storage chests).
CSUs may be marketed, packaged, or displayed as intended for
children 12 years old and younger. Examples of such products include
CSUs with pictures or designs on them that would appeal to children;
CSU designs that would be useful for children; or CSUs that are part of
a matching set with a crib, or similar infant product. However, CSUs
are more commonly general-use products that are not specifically
intended for children 12 years old and younger. This rule applies to
both children's products and non-children's products.

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

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

Retail prices of CSUs vary substantially. The least expensive units
retail for less than $100, while more expensive units may retail for
several thousand dollars. Based on information provided by large
furniture associations during the NPR comment period, the estimated
average price of a CSU is approximately $338.
CPSC staff used multiple sources of information to estimate annual
revenues from CSU sales. Considering U.S. Census Bureau estimates of
retail sales by industry classification, revenue estimates for retail
sales from furniture stores, and estimates of the portion of furniture
sales that consist of CSUs that fall within the scope of this rule,
CPSC estimates that retail sales of CSUs in 2021 totaled approximately
$6.99 billion.
Based on the estimated retail sales revenue of $6.99 billion in
2021, and the average estimated CSU price of approximately $338, CPSC
estimated that there were approximately 20.64 million units sold in
2021. On average, CPSC assumes that there are approximately 10,000
individual CSUs of each model that are sold. Accordingly, staff
estimates that there were 2,064 different models of CSUs sold in 2021.
CPSC also estimated the number of CSUs in use, based on historic
sales estimates and statistical distribution of CSU failure rates, and
adjusted these estimates iteratively to reflect the decreasing number
of CSUs that would remain in use over time. Based on this information,
CPSC estimates that the average lifecycle of a CSU is 15 years, that
there were approximately 229.94 million CSUs that were in use in 2021,
and that there were approximately 6,365 different models of CSUs that
were in use in 2021.

IV. Risk of Injury

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

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

For the NPR, CPSC staff analyzed reported fatalities, reported
nonfatal incidents and injuries, and calculated national estimates of
injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments (EDs) that were
associated with CSU instability or tip overs. For this final rule,
staff updated the analysis to include information CPSC received after
staff prepared the NPR briefing package. These updates include new
incidents (that occurred during or after the time frames included in
the NPR) as well as recharacterizations of incidents that were included
in the NPR, when warranted by new information.
Each year, CPSC issues an annual report on furniture instability
and tip overs.\14\ The information provided for this rulemaking is
drawn from a subset of data from those annual reports, as well as from
the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System \15\ (NEISS), which
includes reports of injuries treated in EDs, and the Consumer Product
Safety Risk Management System \16\ (CPSRMS). For this rulemaking, staff
focused on incidents that involved products that would be considered
CSUs.\17\ Staff considered incidents that involved the CSU tipping
over, as well as incidents of CSU instability with indications of
impending tip over. Tip-over incidents are a subset of product
instability incidents, and involve CSUs actually falling over. Product
instability incidents are a broader category that includes tip-over
incidents, but may also include incidents where CSUs did not fully tip
over. Staff considered instability incidents relevant because product
instability can lead to a tip over, and the same factors can contribute
to instability and tip overs.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ These annual reports are available at: <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/Furniture-and-Decor-1">https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/Furniture-and-Decor-1</a>.
\15\ Data from NEISS is based on a nationally representative
probability sample of about 100 hospitals in the United States and
its territories. NEISS data can be accessed from the CPSC website
under the ``Access NEISS'' link at: <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data">https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data</a>.
\16\ CPSRMS is the epidemiological database that houses all
anecdotal reports of incidents received by CPSC, ``external cause''-
based death certificates purchased by CPSC, all in-depth
investigations (IDI) of these anecdotal reports, as well as
investigations of select NEISS injuries. Examples of documents in
CPSRMS include: hotline reports, internet reports, news reports,
medical examiner's reports, death certificates, retailer/
manufacturer reports, and documents sent by state/local authorities,
among others.
\17\ Staff considered incidents that involved chests, bureaus,
dressers, armoires, wardrobes, portable clothes lockers, and
portable closets.
\18\ This preamble refers to tip-over incidents and instability
incidents collectively as tip-over incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

\19\ Among other things, CPSRMS houses all IDI reports, as well
as the follow-up investigations of select NEISS injuries. As such,
it is possible for a NEISS injury case to be included in the
national injury estimate, while its investigation report is counted
among the anecdotal nonfatal incidents, or for a NEISS injury case
to appear on both the NEISS injury estimate and fatalities, if the
incident resulted in death while receiving treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Fatal Incidents
Based on NEISS and CPSRMS, CPSC staff identified 199 reported CSU
tip-over fatalities to children (i.e., under 18 years old), 11 reported
fatalities to adults (i.e., ages 18 through 64 years), and 24 reported
fatalities to seniors (i.e., ages 65 years and older) that were
reported to have occurred between January 1, 2000 and April 30,
2022.\20\ Of the 199 reported CSU tip-over child fatalities, 95 (48
percent) involved only a CSU (with no television) \21\ tipping over. Of
the child fatalities, 196 (98 percent) involved a chest, bureau, or
dresser; 2 involved a wardrobe; and 1 involved an armoire. Of the 35
reported adult and senior fatalities, 34 (97 percent) involved only a
CSU tipping over. Of the adult and senior fatalities, 31 (89 percent)
involved a chest, bureau, or dresser; 2 involved a wardrobe; 1 involved
an armoire; and 1 involved a portable storage closet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Different time frames are presented for NEISS, CPSRMS,
fatal, and nonfatal data because of the timeframes in which staff
collected, received, retrieved, and analyzed the data. One reason
for varied timeframes is that staff drew data from previous annual
reports and other data-collection reports (which used varied start
dates), and then updated the data set to include more recent data.
Another reason is that CPSRMS data are available on an ongoing
basis, whereas NEISS data are not available until several months
after the end of the previous calendar year.
\21\ Although televisions are involved in CSU tip overs, this
rule does not focus on television involvement because, in recent
years, there has been a decline in CSU tip-over incidents that
involve televisions and nearly all television incidents involved a
box or cathode ray tube television, which are no longer common.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 72601]]

2019--there have been from 2 to 21 child fatalities each year from CSU
tip overs, and from 0 to 5 fatalities each year to adults and seniors.
Although reporting is considered incomplete for 2020 and later years,
CPSC is already aware of 1 child fatality in 2020 and 5 child
fatalities in 2021 associated with CSU tip overs without televisions.
Of the 199 reported child fatalities from tip overs, 171 involved
children 3 years old or younger; 12 involved 4-year-olds; 7 involved 5-
year-olds; 4 involved 6-year-olds; 2 involved 7-year-olds; and 3
involved 8-year-olds. Therefore, most reported CSU tip-over fatalities
involved children 3 years old or younger.
CSU tip-over fatalities to children were most commonly caused by
torso injuries when only a CSU was involved, and were more commonly
caused by head injuries when both a CSU and television tipped over. For
the 95 child fatalities not involving a television, 60 resulted from
torso injuries (chest compression); 14 resulted from head/torso
injuries; 12 resulted from head injuries; 6 involved unknown injuries;
and 3 involved a child's head, torso, and limbs pinned under the CSU.
For the 104 child fatalities that involved both a CSU and television
tipping over, 91 resulted from head injuries (blunt head trauma); 6
resulted from torso injuries (chest compression resulting from the
child being pinned under the CSU); 4 involved unknown injuries; 2
resulted from head/torso injuries; and 1 involved head/torso/limbs.
2. Reported Nonfatal Incidents
CPSC staff identified 1,154 nonfatal CSU tip-over incidents for all
ages that were reported to have occurred between January 1, 2005 and
April 30, 2022. CPSRMS reports are considered anecdotal because, unlike
NEISS data, they cannot be used to identify statistical estimates or
year-to-year trend analysis, and because they include reports of
incidents in which no injury resulted. Although these anecdotal data do
not provide for statistical analyses, they provide detailed information
to identify hazard patterns, and provide a minimum count of injuries
and deaths.
Of the 1,154 reported incidents, 67 percent (776 incidents)
involved only a CSU, and 33 percent (378 incidents) involved both a CSU
and television tipping over. Of the 1,154 incidents, 99.5 percent
(1,148 incidents) involved a chest, bureau, or dresser; less than 1
percent (5 incidents) involved an armoire; and less than 1 percent (1
incident) involved a wardrobe.
For the years for which reporting is considered complete--2005
through 2019--there were from 6 to 260 reported nonfatal CSU tip-over
incidents each year, with 2016 (260 incidents), 2017 (103 incidents),
and 2018 (92 incidents) reporting the highest number of incidents.
Of the 1,154 nonfatal CSU tip-over incidents reported, 423 did not
mention any specific injuries; 719 reported one injury; and 12 reported
two injuries, resulting in a total of 743 injuries reported among all
of the reported nonfatal incidents. Of these 743 reported injuries, 67
(9 percent) resulted in hospital admission; 318 (43 percent) were
treated in EDs; 36 (5 percent) were seen by medical professionals; and
the level of care is unknown \22\ for the remaining 322 (43 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ These reports include bruising, bumps on the head, cuts,
lacerations, scratches, application of first-aid, or other
indications of at least a minor injury that occurred, without any
mention of aid rendered by a medical professional. There were three
NEISS cases in which the victim went to the ED, but then left
without being seen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of the victims whose ages were known, there were far more injuries
suffered by children 3 years old and younger than to older victims and
the injuries suffered by these young children tended to be more severe,
compared to older children and adults/seniors, as indicated by hospital
admission and ED treatment rates.
3. National Estimates of ED-Treated Injuries 23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Estimates are rounded to the nearest hundred and may not
sum to total, due to rounding. NEISS estimates are reportable when
the sample count is greater than 20, the national estimate is 1,200
or greater, and the coefficient of variation (CV) is less than 0.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to NEISS, there were an estimated 84,100 injuries,\24\
for an annual average of 5,300 estimated injuries, related to CSU tip
overs for all ages that were treated in U.S. hospital EDs from January
1, 2006 to December 31, 2021. Of the estimated 84,100 injuries, 60,100
(72 percent) were to children, which is an annual average of 3,800
estimated injuries to children over the 16-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

For each year from 2006 through 2021, there were an estimated 1,800
to 5,900 ED-treated injuries to children from CSU tip overs. The
estimated annual number of ED-treated injuries to adults and seniors
from CSU tip overs is fairly consistent over most of the 16-year
period, with an overall yearly average of 1,500 estimated injuries,
although data were insufficient to support reliable statistical
estimates for adults and seniors for 2014, 2015, 2019, and 2020.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Of the estimated ED-treated injuries to children, most involved 2-
and 3-year-olds, followed by 1- and 4-year-olds. An estimated 8,500 ED-
treated injuries involved 1-year-olds; an estimated 15,700 involved 2-
year-olds; an estimated 14,000 involved 3-year-olds; and an estimated
7,900 involved 4-year-olds. There were an estimated 2,600 injuries to
5-year-olds that involved only a CSU, and an estimated 1,900 injuries
to 6-year-olds that involved only a CSU, but data were insufficient to
support reliable statistical estimates for incidents involving CSUs and
televisions for these ages. For children 7 to 17 years old,\27\ there
were an estimated 6,800 ED-treated injuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Of an estimated 60,100 ED-treated CSU tip-over injuries to
children, an estimated 22,000 (37 percent) resulted in contusions/
abrasions; an estimated 15,900 (26 percent) resulted in internal organ
injury (including closed head injuries); an estimated 8,300 (13
percent) resulted in lacerations; an estimated 5,500 (9 percent)
resulted in fractures; and the remaining estimated 8,400 (14 percent)
resulted in other diagnoses.
Overall, an estimated 35,800 (60 percent) of ED-treated tip-over
injuries to children were to the head, neck, or face; and an estimated
11,000 (18 percent) were to the leg, foot, or toe. The injuries to
children were more likely to be head injuries when a television was
involved than when no television was involved. Of the estimated number
of ED-treated injuries to children involving a CSU and a television, 74
percent were head injuries, compared to 54 percent of injuries
involving only a CSU. Of the

[[Page 72602]]

estimated injuries to children involving only a CSU, 20 percent were
leg, foot, or toe injuries, and 14 percent were trunk or torso
injuries. Data were insufficient to generate estimates of trunk/torso
or arm/hand/finger injuries when both a CSU and television tipped over.

B. Details Concerning Injuries 28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

C. Hazard Characteristics 29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

To identify hazard patterns associated with CSU tip overs, CPSC
focused on incidents involving children and CSUs without televisions
because the majority of fatal and nonfatal incidents involve children
and, in recent years, there was a statistically significant decrease in
the number of ED-treated CSU tip-over incidents that appeared to be
driven by a decline in tip overs involving CSUs with televisions. Staff
used NEISS and CPSRMS reports to identify hazard patterns, including
IDI reports, and also considered child development and capabilities, as
well as online videos of real-life child interactions with CSUs and
similar furniture items (including videos of tip-over incidents).
For this final rule, staff updated this analysis to include
incident information that CPSC received after staff prepared the NPR
briefing package. This update is consistent with the new incident
information included in the analysis in section IV. Risk of Injury,
although the totals in this section may be lower than

[[Page 72603]]

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

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

2. Interactions
Of the 95 fatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only a CSU,
49 reported the type of interaction the child had with the CSU at the
time of the incident. Of these 49 incidents, the most commonly reported
interaction was a child climbing on the CSU (37 incidents or 76
percent); followed by a child sitting, laying or standing in a drawer
(8 incidents or 16 percent); and a child opening drawers (4 incidents
or 8 percent). Climbing was the most common reported interaction for
children 3 years old and younger.
Of the 366 nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children
and only CSUs, the type of interaction was reported in 226 incidents.
Of these, the most common interaction was opening drawers (123
incidents or 54 percent); followed by climbing on the CSU (59 incidents
or 26 percent); and putting items in/taking them out of a drawer (18
incidents or 8 percent). Opening drawers and climbing were also the
most common reported interactions for children 3 years old and younger.
Of the 1,630 nonfatal NEISS incidents involving children and only
CSUs, the type of interaction was reported in 646 incidents. Of these,
the child was injured because of another's interaction with the CSU in
26 incidents; the remaining 620 incidents involved the child
interacting with the CSU. Of these 620 incidents, the most common
interaction was children climbing on the CSU (475 incidents or 77
percent), followed by opening drawers (49 incidents or 8 percent). For
children 3 years old or younger, climbing constituted 80 percent of
reported interactions.
Thus, in fatal incidents, a child climbing on the CSU was, by far,
the most common reported interaction; and in nonfatal incidents,
opening drawers and climbing were the most common reported
interactions. These interactions are examined further, below.
To learn more about children's interactions with CSUs during tip-
over incidents, CPSC staff also reviewed videos, available from news
sources, articles, and online, that involved children interacting with
CSUs and similar products, and CSU tip overs. Videos of children
climbing on CSUs and similar items show a variety of climbing
techniques, including stepping on the top of the drawer face, stepping
on drawer knobs, using the area between drawers as a foothold, gripping
the top of an upper drawer with their hands, pushing up using the top
of a drawer, and using items to help climb. Videos of children in
drawers of CSUs and other similar products include children leaning
forward and backward out of a drawer; sitting, lying, and standing in a
drawer; and bouncing in a drawer. Some videos also show multiple
children climbing a CSU or in a drawer simultaneously.
a. Climbing
As discussed above, climbing on the CSU was one of the primary
interactions involved in CSU tip overs involving children and only a
CSU. It was the most common reported interaction (76 percent) in fatal
CPSRMS incidents; it was the most common reported interaction (77
percent) in nonfatal NEISS incidents; and it was the second most common
reported interaction (26 percent) in nonfatal CPSRMS incidents. Fatal
and nonfatal climbing incidents most often involved children 3 years
old and younger.
The prevalence of children climbing during CSU tip overs is
consistent with the expected motor development of children. Between
approximately 1 and 2 years old, children can climb on and off of
furniture without assistance, use climbers, and begin to use playground
apparatuses independently; and 2-year-olds commonly climb. The
University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) focus
groups on child climbing (the UMTRI study is described in section VII.
Technical Analysis Supporting the Rule demonstrated these abilities,
with child participants showing interest in climbing CSUs and other
furniture.
b. Opening Drawers
Opening the drawers of a CSU also was a common interaction in CSU
tip overs involving children and only a CSU. It was the most common
reported interaction (54 percent) in nonfatal CPSRMS incidents; it was
the second most common reported interaction (8 percent) in nonfatal
NEISS incidents; and it was the third most common reported interaction
(8 percent) in fatal CPSRMS incidents.
In fatal CPSRMS incidents, opening drawer interactions most
commonly involved children 2 years old and younger. Nonfatal CPSRMS
incidents with opening drawers most commonly involved 3-year-olds,
followed by 2-year-olds, then 5-year-olds, then 4-year-olds, then 6-
year-olds, then children under 2 years old. Nonfatal NEISS incidents
with opening drawers most commonly involved 3-year-olds, followed by 2-
year-olds, then 4-year-olds, then children under 2 years old.
Children of all ages were able to open at least one drawer and
incident data indicates that children commonly were able to open
multiple drawers. For the NPR data set, looking at both fatal and
nonfatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only CSUs, where the
interaction involved opening drawers, overall, about 53 percent
involved children opening one drawer; 10 percent involved opening two
drawers; and almost 17 percent involved opening ``multiple'' drawers.
In 23 incidents, children opened ``all'' of the drawers and it is
possible that additional incidents, mentioning a specific number of
open drawers (between 2 and 8), also involved all the drawers being
opened. In incidents where all of the drawers were open, the CSUs
ranged from 2-drawer to 8-drawer units. The youngest child reported to
have opened all drawers was 13 months old.
For the 6 new fatal and 97 new nonfatal CPSRMS incidents identified
after the NPR data set, the fatal incidents did not report the number
of open drawers, but 30 of the nonfatal incidents reported information
about the number of open drawers. Of these 30

[[Page 72604]]

incidents, 1 had no drawers open; 11 involved 1 open drawer; 7 involved
half or fewer of the drawers open; 1 involved more than half of the
drawers open; 7 involved all of the drawers open; and 3 involved
multiple open drawers without specifying the number or proportion.
Consistent with these incident data, the UMTRI child climbing study
found that caregivers commonly reported that their children opened and
closed drawers when interacting with furniture.
It is possible for CSUs to tip over from the forces generated by
open drawers and their contents, alone, without additional interaction
forces. However, pulling on a drawer to open it can apply increased
force that contributes to instability. Once a drawer is fully opened,
any additional pulling is on the CSU as a whole. The pull force, and
the height of the drawer pull location, relative to the floor, are
relevant considerations. To examine this factor, staff assessed 15
child incidents in which the height of the force application could be
calculated based on descriptions of the incidents. Force application
heights ranged from less than one foot to almost four feet (46.5
inches), and children pulled on the lowest, highest, and drawers in
between.
c. Opening Drawers and Climbing Simultaneously
CPSC staff also examined incidents in which both climbing and open
drawers occurred simultaneously using the NPR data set. Of the 35 fatal
CPSRMS climbing incidents, 13 reported the number of drawers open. In
all of these incidents, the reported number of drawers open was 1,
although, based on further analysis, the number of open drawers could
be as high as 8 in one incident.\31\ Of the 32 nonfatal CPSRMS climbing
incidents, 15 gave some indication of the number of open drawers. Of
these, 7 reported that one drawer was open; 2 reported that half or
less of the drawers were open; 4 reported that multiple drawers were
open; and 2 reported that all the drawers were open. In the 2 cases
where all drawers were open, the children were 3 and 4 years old. Of
the 412 climbing incidents in the nonfatal NEISS data, 28 gave some
indication of the number of open drawers. Of these, 11 reported that
one drawer was open; 12 reported that multiple drawers were open; 1
reported that two drawers were open; and 2 reported that all drawers
were open. These data are consistent with the videos staff reviewed,
which show a range of drawer positions when children climbed on units,
including all drawers closed, one drawer open, multiple drawers open,
and all drawers fully open.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ CPSC staff analysis suggests that 7 or more drawers of an
8-drawer unit were open and the child was in a drawer leaning out
over the edge in a fatal incident. This analysis is described in Tab
M of the NPR briefing package, as Model E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incidents involving CSUs with doors also indicate that children are
able to open the doors at which point they can further interact with
the CSU, such as through climbing. Using the NPR data set, staff found
two fatal CPSRMS and four nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving
wardrobes and armoires, which include doors. In one of the fatal
incidents, the victim was found inside a wardrobe that had two doors
and one drawer, suggesting that the child opened the doors of the
wardrobe. In the other fatal incident, the victim was found under a
two-door wardrobe. In most of the nonfatal incidents involving
wardrobes or armoires, children were reportedly interacting with items
inside the unit, which would require them to open the doors. The ages
of the children in these incidents ranged from 3 to 11 years, although
opening doors is easily within the physical and cognitive abilities of
younger children.
These incidents indicate that children can and do open CSU doors,
at which point it is reasonable to conclude, based on child
capabilities and climbing behavior in other incidents, that children
would put their body weight on the door (i.e., climb) or other
extendable elements behind the doors, such as drawers.
d. Differences in Interactions by Age
Based on the incident data, children 3 years old and younger climb,
open drawers without climbing, get items in and out of drawers, lean on
open drawers, push down on open drawers, sit or lie in bottom drawers,
or stand on open bottom drawers. Among fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents
involving children and only CSUs, climbing was the most common
interaction for children 3 years old and younger; this drops off
sharply for 4-year-olds. Among nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents
involving children and only CSUs, opening drawers was, by far, the most
common interaction for children 7 years old and younger; and climbing
was also common among 3-year-olds and, to a lesser extent, among 2- and
4-year-olds. Among nonfatal NEISS tip overs involving children and only
CSUs, climbing was common for 2- and 3-year-olds, slightly less common
for 4-year-olds and children under 2 years, and dropped off further for
children 5 years and older.
3. Flooring
Of the 95 fatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only CSUs,
the type of flooring under the CSU was reported for 58 incidents. Of
these, 47 (81 percent) involved carpeting, which includes rugs; 9 (15
percent) involved wood, hardwood, or laminate wood flooring; and 2 (3
percent) involved tile or linoleum flooring. The reports for 32 of the
fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving carpet included photos with
visible carpet. All carpet in these pictures appeared to be typical
wall-to-wall carpeting. Four appeared to be a looped pile carpet, and
28 appeared to be cut pile. Staff also identified 2 incidents with
reported ``shag'' carpeting, including 1 fatal incident. Staff found
one report mentioning a rug, although the thickness of the rug is
unknown.
Of the 366 nonfatal CPSRMS tip overs involving children and only
CSUs, the type of flooring under the CSU was reported for 91 incidents.
Of these, 67 (74 percent) involved carpeting, which includes rugs; 21
(23 percent) involved wood, hardwood, or laminate wood flooring; 2 (2
percent) involved tile or linoleum flooring; and 1 (1 percent)
indicated that the front legs of the CSU were on carpet while the back
legs were on wood flooring.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Flooring type was not reported in nonfatal NEISS incident
reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus, for incidents where flooring type was reported, carpet was,
by far, the most prevalent flooring type.
4. Characteristics of Children in Tip-Over Incidents
a. Age of Children
Children in fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving only CSUs
were 11 months through 7 years old. A total of 36 fatal incidents
involved children under 2 years old; 31 involved 2-year-old children;
22 involved 3-year-olds; 2 involved 4-year-olds; 1 incident involved a
5-year old; 1 incident involved a 6-year old; and 2 incidents involved
7-year-olds. Overall, 94 percent of children in fatal CPSRMS incidents
involving only CSUs were 3 years old or younger.
Among the nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children and
only CSUs where age was reported, 3-year-olds were involved in the
highest number of incidents (68 incidents), followed by 2-year-olds (62
incidents).
Nonfatal NEISS tip-over incidents involving children and only CSUs
follow a similar distribution, with the highest number of reported
incidents involving 2-year-olds (430 incidents),

[[Page 72605]]

followed by 3-year-olds (367 incidents), and children less than 2 years
(282 incidents). Overall, 66 percent (1,079 of 1,630) of children
involved in these incidents were 3 years old or younger.
b. Weight of Children
Among the 95 fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children and
CSUs without televisions, the child's weight was reported in 49
incidents and ranged from 18 pounds to 45 pounds. Where weight was not
reported, staff used the most recent Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) Anthropometric Reference to estimate the weight of the
children.\33\ Staff used the 50th percentile values of weight that
correspond to the victims' ages to estimate the weight range of the
children. For the remaining 46 fatal CPSRMS incidents without a
reported weight, the estimated weight range was 19.6 pounds to 57.7
pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ Fryar, C.D., Carroll, M.D., Gu, Q., Afful, J., Ogden, C.L.
(2021). Anthropometric reference data for children and adults:
United States, 2015-2018. National Center for Health Statistics.
Vital Health Stat 3(46). The CDC Anthropometric Reference is based
on a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population, and
the 2021 version is based on data collected from 2015 through 2018.
CPSC staff uses the CDC Anthropometric Reference, rather than the
CDC Growth Chart, because it is more recently collected data and
because the data are aggregated by year of age, allowing for
estimates by year. CDC growth charts are available at: <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/clinical_charts.htm">https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/clinical_charts.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Among the 366 nonfatal CPSRMS incidents involving children and only
CSUs, the weights of 60 children were reported, ranging from 20 pounds
to 125 pounds. Where it was not reported, staff again estimated the
weight of the children using the 50th percentile values of weight that
correspond to the victims' ages from the most recent CDC Anthropometric
Reference. The estimated child weights for the 195 nonfatal CPSRMS
incidents without a reported child weight, but with a reported age
(which included a 17-year-old), ranged from 19.6 pounds to 158.9
pounds.
Although nonfatal NEISS incident data did not include the
children's weights, staff again estimated the children's weights by
age, determining that for tip overs involving only CSUs, the estimated
weights of the children ranged from 15.8 pounds to 158.9 pounds (this
covered children from 3 months to 17 years old).
Overall, the mean reported children's weight for CPSRMS incidents
was 34.7 pounds and the median was 32.0 pounds; the mean estimated
children's weight was 38.7 pounds and the median was 32.8 pounds. For
nonfatal NEISS incidents, the mean estimated children's weight was 40.1
pounds and the median was 32.8 pounds.
The weight of a child is particularly relevant for climbing
incidents because weight is a factor in determining the force a child
generates when climbing. For this reason, in the NPR, CPSC staff looked
at the weights of children involved in climbing incidents,
specifically. Of the 35 fatal CPSRMS child climbing incidents, the
weight of the child was reported for 23 incidents, and ranged from 21.5
to 45 pounds. For the remaining 12 climbing incidents in which the
child's weight was not reported, CPSC staff estimated their weights,
based on age, and the weights ranged from 23.8 to 39 pounds. New fatal
incidents CPSC identified since the NPR data set involved 2 additional
climbing incidents, one of which involved a 29-pound child and the
other involved a 31-pound child.
For the NPR data set, of the 32 nonfatal CPSRMS child climbing
incidents, the weight of the child was reported in 8 incidents, and
ranged from 26 to 80 pounds. For the remaining 24 incidents, staff
estimated the weights based on age, and the weights ranged from 25.2 to
45.1 pounds. Weight was not reported in the nonfatal NEISS data,
however, using the ages of the children in the 412 nonfatal NEISS child
climbing incidents (9 months to 13 years old), staff estimates that
their weights ranged from 19.6 to 122 pounds.

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

\34\ For additional information about relevant existing
standards, see Tabs C, D, F, and N of the NPR briefing package, and
Tab F of the final rule briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the United States, the primary voluntary standard that addresses
CSU stability is ASTM F2057-19, Standard Consumer Safety Specification
for Clothing Storage Units. In addition, CPSC staff identified three
international consumer safety standards and one domestic standard that
are relevant to CSUs:
<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/BIFMA X6.5-2022, Home Office and Occasional-Use Desk,
Table and Storage Products.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

This section describes these standards and provides CPSC staff's
assessment of their adequacy to address CSU tip-over injuries and
deaths.

A. ASTM F2057-19

ASTM first approved and published ASTM F2057 in 2000 and has since
revised the standard seven times. The current version, ASTM F2057-19,
was approved on August 1, 2019, and published in August 2019. ASTM
Subcommittee F15.42, Furniture Safety, is responsible for this
standard. Since the first publication of ASTM F2057, CPSC staff has
participated in the F15.42 subcommittee and task group meetings and
worked with ASTM to improve the standard. In recent years, ASTM
Subcommittee F15.42 has discussed and balloted changes to ASTM F2057-
19. However, ASTM has not updated the standard.
1. Scope
ASTM F2057-19 states that it is intended to reduce child injuries
and deaths from hazards associated with CSUs tipping over and aims ``to
cover children up to and including age five.'' The standard covers CSUs
that are 27 inches or more in height, freestanding, and defines CSUs
as: ``furniture item[s] with drawers and/or hinged doors intended for
the storage of clothing typical with bedroom furniture.'' Examples of
CSUs provided in the standard include: chests, chests of drawers,
drawer chests, armoires, chifforobes, bureaus, door chests, and
dressers. The standard does not cover ``shelving units, such as
bookcases or entertainment furniture, office furniture, dining room
furniture, underbed drawer storage units, occasional/accent furniture
not intended for bedroom use, laundry storage/sorting units,
nightstands, or built-in units intended to be permanently attached to
the building, nor does it cover `Clothing Storage Chests' as defined in
Consumer Safety Specification F2598.''
2. Stability Requirements
ASTM F2057-19 includes two performance requirements for stability.
The first is in section 7.1 of the standard, Stability of Unloaded
Unit. This test consists of placing an empty CSU on a hard, level, flat
surface; opening all doors (if any); and extending

[[Page 72606]]

all drawers and pull-out shelves to the outstop \36\ or, in the absence
of an outstop, to two-thirds of the operational sliding length. If the
CSU tips over in this configuration, or is supported by any component
that was not specifically designed for that purpose, it does not meet
the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The second stability requirement is in section 7.2 of the standard,
Stability with Load. This test consists of placing an empty CSU on a
hard, level, flat surface, and gradually applying a test weight of 50
<plus-minus> 2 pounds. The test weight is intended to represent the
weight of a 5-year-old child. For this test, only one door or drawer is
open at a time and the test weight is applied to that open feature.
Each drawer or door is tested individually, and all other drawers and
doors remain closed. If the CSU tips over in this configuration, or is
supported by any component that was not specifically designed for that
purpose, it does not meet this requirement.
3. Tip Restraint Requirements
ASTM F2057-19 requires CSUs to include a tip restraint that
complies with ASTM F3096-14, Standard Performance Specification for
Tipover Restraint(s) Used with Clothing Storage Unit(s).\37\ ASTM
F2057-19 and F3096-14 define a ``tipover restraint'' as a
``supplemental device that aids in the prevention of tip over.'' ASTM
F3096-14 provides a test protocol to assess the strength of tip
restraints, but does not evaluate the attachment to the wall or CSU.
The test method specifies that the tester attach the tip restraint to a
fixed structure and apply a 50-pound static load.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ Approved October 1, 2014 and published October 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Labeling Requirements
ASTM F2057-19 requires CSUs to be permanently marked in a
conspicuous location with warnings that meet specified content and
formatting. The warning statements address the risk of children dying
from furniture tip overs; not allowing children to stand, climb, or
hang on CSUs; not opening more than one drawer at a time; placing the
heaviest items in the bottom drawer; and installing tip restraints. For
CSUs that are not intended to hold a television, this is also addressed
in the warning. Additionally, units with interlock systems must include
a warning not to defeat or remove the interlock system. An interlock
system is a device that prevents simultaneous opening of more drawers
than intended by the manufacturer (like is common on file cabinets).
The standard requires that labels be formatted in accordance with ANSI
Z535.4, American National Standard for Product Safety Signs and Labels.
The standard also includes a performance requirement and test
method for label permanence, which are consistent with requirements in
other ASTM juvenile furniture product standards. The warning must be
``in a conspicuous location when in use'' and the back of the unit is
not considered conspicuous; the standard does not define ``conspicuous
location when in use.''
5. Assessment of Adequacy
The Commission concludes that the stability requirements in ASTM
F2057-19 are not adequate to address the CSU tip-over hazard because
they do not account for multiple open and filled drawers, carpeted
flooring, and dynamic forces generated by children's interactions with
the CSU, such as climbing or pulling on a drawer. As discussed earlier
in this preamble, these factors are commonly involved in CSU tip-over
incidents, often simultaneously; and, as discussed later in this
preamble, testing indicates that these factors decrease the stability
of CSUs.
Although the test in section 7.1 includes a test with all drawers/
doors open, the unit is empty and no additional force is applied during
this test. As such, this test does not reflect the added factors of
open and filled drawers, even though consumers are likely to open
drawers and fill CSUs with clothing; and it does not reflect dynamic
forces generated by interactions. In addition, although the test in
section 7.2 includes a test with a static weight applied to the top of
one open drawer or door, it does not include the added factor of
multiple open and filled drawers. Also, the 50-pound weight is intended
to represent the static weight of a 5-year-old child and does not
reflect the additional moment \38\ due to the forces when a child
climbs the front of a CSU, even when only considering the forces
generated by very young children. As the UMTRI study (described in the
NPR and later in this preamble) found, the forces children can exert
while climbing a CSU exceed their static weights. Finally, neither test
accounts for the effect of carpeting, which is common flooring in homes
(particularly in bedrooms), is commonly present in tip-over incidents,
and decreases CSU stability. Thus, by testing CSUs with open drawers
empty, a 50-pound static weight, and without accounting for the effect
of carpeting, ASTM F2057-19 does not reflect real-world use conditions
that decrease the stability of CSUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ Moment, or torque, is an engineering term to describe
rotational force acting about a pivot point, or fulcrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Staff also looked at whether CSUs involved in tip-over incidents
comply with ASTM F2057-19 because it would give an indication of
whether F2057 is effective at preventing tip overs and, by extension,
whether it is adequate.\39\ Staff updated its analysis from the NPR to
account for additional incidents and information identified after the
NPR. With these adjustments, staff determined that, of the 95 fatal
CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving children and only CSUs, 2 of the
CSUs complied with the ASTM F2057-19 stability requirements, 1 CSU met
the stability requirements when a test weight at the lower permissible
weight range was used, and 11 units did not meet the stability
requirements. For the remaining 81 units, staff was unable to determine
whether they met the ASTM F2057-19 stability requirements, although
staff did determine that an exemplar of one of these CSUs complied with
the requirements. With the adjusted information for nonfatal CPSRMS
tip-over incidents involving children and only CSUs, staff determined
that, of the 361 incidents for which staff assessed the compliance of
the CSU, 50 met the ASTM F2057-19 stability requirements, 106 did not,
and staff was unable to determine the compliance of the remaining 205
units. The number of CSUs that comply with the stability requirements
in ASTM F2057-19, but were involved in tip overs, further demonstrates
that the voluntary standard does not adequately reduce the risk of tip
overs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

As noted in the NPR, CPSC also has some concerns with the
effectiveness of the content in the warning labels required in ASTM
F2057-19. For example, the meaning of ``tipover restraint'' may not be
clear to consumers, and directing consumers not to open more than one
drawer at a time is not consistent with consumer use. In addition,
focus group study indicated that consumers had trouble understanding
the child climbing symbol required by the standard. CPSC staff also
believes that greater clarity about the required placement of the

[[Page 72607]]

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

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

For these reasons, the Commission finds that compliance with ASTM
F2057-19 is not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury
associated with CSU tip overs.
6. Compliance With ASTM F2057
CPSC also assessed whether there is adequate compliance with the
stability requirements in ASTM F2057-19. In 2016,\41\ staff tested 61
CSU samples and found that 50 percent (31 of 61) did not comply with
the stability requirements in ASTM F2057.\42\ In 2018, CPSC staff
assessed a total of 188 CSUs, including 167 CSUs selected from among
the best sellers from major retailers, using a random number generator;
4 CSU models that were involved in incidents; \43\ and 17 units
assessed as part of previous test data provided to CPSC.\44\ Of the 188
CSUs, 171 (91 percent) complied with the stability requirements in ASTM
F2057. One CSU (0.5 percent) did not comply with the Stability of
Unloaded Unit test, and 17 (9 percent) did not meet the Stability with
Load test. The unit that did not meet the requirements of the Stability
of Unloaded Unit test also did not meet the requirements of the
Stability with Load test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Although this testing involved ASTM F2057-14, the stability
requirements were the same as in ASTM F2057-19. The test results are
available at: <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>.
\42\ This testing also found that 91 percent of CSUs (56 of 61)
did not comply with the labeling requirements in ASTM F2057-14, and
43 percent (26 of 61) did not comply with the tip restraint
requirements.
\43\ Staff tested exemplar units, meaning the model of CSU
involved in the incident, but not the actual unit involved in the
incident.
\44\ The CSUs were identified from the Consumer Reports study
``Furniture Tip-Overs: A Hidden Hazard in Your Home'' (Mar. 22,
2018), available at: <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>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. AS/NZS 4935: 2009

AS/NZS 4935 is a voluntary standard prepared by Standards
Australia's and Standards New Zealand's Joint Technical Committee CS-
088/CS-091, Commercial/Domestic Furniture. There is only one version of
the standard, the current version AS/NZA 4935:2009, which was approved
on behalf of the Council of Standards Australia on August 28, 2009, and
on behalf of the Council of Standards New Zealand on October 23, 2009.
It was published on November 17, 2009.
1. Scope
AS/NZS 4935 aims to address furniture tip-over hazards to children.
It describes test methods for determining the stability of domestic
freestanding chests of drawers over 500 mm (19.7 inch) high,
freestanding wardrobes over 500 mm high (19.7 inch), and freestanding
bookshelves/bookcases over 600 mm (23.6 inch) high. It defines ``chest
of drawers'' as containing one or more drawers or other extendible
elements and intended for the storage of clothing, and may have one or
more doors or shelves. It defines ``wardrobe'' as a furniture item
primarily intended for hanging clothing that may also have one or more
drawers, doors or other extendible elements, or fixed shelves. It
defines bookshelves and bookcases as sets of shelves primarily intended
for storing books, and may contain doors, drawers or other extendible
elements.
2. Stability Requirements
Similar to ASTM F2057-19, AS/NZS 4935 includes two stability
requirements. The first requires the unit, when empty, to not tip over
when a 29-kilogram (64-pound) test weight is applied to a single open
drawer. The 64-pound test weight is intended to represent the weight of
a 5-year-and-11-month-old child, adjusted upward to reflect trends of
increasing body mass. The test weight is applied to the top face of a
drawer, with the drawer opened to two-thirds of its full extension
length. The second test requires the unit not tip over when all of the
extension elements are open and the unit is empty. Each drawer or
extendible element is open to two-thirds of its extension length, and
doors are open perpendicular to the furniture. Units do not pass the
stability requirements if they cannot support the test weight, if they
tip over, or if they are only prevented from tipping by an extendible
element.
3. Tip Restraint Requirements
The standard does not require, but recommends, that tip restraints
be included with units, along with attachment instructions.
4. Labeling Requirements
The standard requires a warning label and provides example text
that addresses the tip-over hazard. The standard also requires a
warning tag with specific text and formatting. The label and tag
include statements informing consumers about the hazard, warning of tip
overs and resulting injuries, and indicating how to avoid the hazard.
These requirements do not address the use of televisions. The standard
includes label permanency requirements and mandates that the warning
label be placed ``inside of a top drawer within clear view when the
drawer is empty and partially opened, or on the inside face of a
drawer'' for chests of drawers and wardrobes.
5. Assessment of Adequacy
The Commission concludes that the stability requirements in AS/NZS
4935 are not adequate to address the CSU tip-over hazard because they
do not account for multiple open and filled drawers, carpeted flooring,
and dynamic forces generated by children's interactions with the CSU,
such as climbing or pulling on the top drawer. As discussed in this
preamble, these factors are commonly involved in CSU tip-over incidents
and testing indicates that they decrease the stability of CSUs.
AS/NZS 4935 requires drawer extension to only two-thirds of
extension length for both stability tests. This partial extension does
not represent real-world use because children are able to open drawers
fully, incidents involve fully open drawers, and opening a drawer
further decreases the stability of a CSU. In addition, it does not
account for filled drawers, which are expected during real-world use,
are common in tip-over incidents, and contribute to instability when
multiple drawers are open. It also does not account for carpeted
floors, which are common in incidents and contribute to instability.
Although AS/NZS 4935 uses a heavier test weight than ASTM F2057-19, it
is inadequate because neither stability test accounts for the moments
children can exert on CSUs during interactions, such as climbing.
Considering additional moments, the 64 pounds of weight on the drawer
face is approximately equivalent to a 40-pound child climbing the
extended drawer. A 40-pound weight corresponds to a 75th percentile 3-
year-old child, 50th percentile 4-year-old child, and 25th percentile
5-year-old child.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ Fryar, C.D., Carroll, M.D., Gu, Q., Afful, J., Ogden, C.L.
(2021). Anthropometric reference data for children and adults:
United States, 2015-2018. National Center for Health Statistics.
Vital Health Stat 3(46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 72608]]

C. ISO 7171 (2019)

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed
the voluntary standard ISO 7171 through the Technical Committee ISO/TC
136, Furniture and published the first version in May 1988. The current
2019 version was published in February 2019.
1. Scope
ISO 7171 (2019) describes methods for determining the stability of
freestanding storage furniture, including bookcases, wardrobes, and
cabinets, but the standard does not define these terms.
2. Stability Requirements
ISO 7171 (2019) includes three stability tests, all of which occur
on a level test surface. The first uses a weight/load on an open
drawer. The second involves all drawers being filled and a load/weight
placed on a single open drawer. In the loaded test, one drawer is
opened to the outstop, and if no outstops exist, the drawer is opened
to two-thirds of its full extension length. The test weight is either
44 or 55 pounds, depending on the height of the unit, and is applied to
the top face of the opened drawer. The fill density ranges from 6.25
pounds per cubic foot to 12.5 pounds per cubic foot, depending on the
clearance height and volume of the drawer. The third test is an
unloaded test with all drawers open. For this test, doors are open and
drawers and extendible elements are open to the outstop or, if there
are no outstops, to two-thirds of their extension length. Existing
interlock systems are not bypassed for this test.
An additional unfilled, closed drawer test is required for units
greater than 1000 mm in height, where a vertical force of 350 N (77
pounds) along with a simultaneous 50 N (11 pounds) outward horizontal
force is applied to the top surface of the unit.
ISO 7171 (2019) does not include criteria for determining whether a
unit passed or failed the loaded stability test. However, it includes a
table of ``suggested'' forces, depending on the height of the unit.
3. Tip Restraint Requirements
ISO 7171 (2019) does not require tip restraints to be provided with
units, but does specify a test method for them. The tip restraints are
installed in both the wall and unit during the test and a 300 N (67.4
pounds) horizontal force is applied in the direction most likely to
overturn the unit.
4. Labeling Requirements
The standard does not have any requirements or test methods related
to warning labels.
5. Assessment of Adequacy
The Commission concludes that the stability requirements in ISO
7171 (2019) are not adequate to address the CSU tip-over hazard because
they do not account for carpeted flooring, or dynamic and horizontal
forces generated by children's interactions with the CSU, such as
climbing or pulling on the top drawer. In addition, although ISO 7171
(2019) includes a stability test with filled drawers, the multiple open
drawer test does not include filled drawers, and the simultaneous
conditions of multiple open and filled drawers during a child
interaction are not tested. As discussed in this preamble, these
factors are commonly involved in CSU tip-over incidents and testing
indicates that they decrease the stability of CSUs. Finally, test
weights are provided only as recommendations and there are no criteria
for determining whether a unit passes.
For these reasons, the Commission finds that compliance with ISO
7171 (2019) is not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury
associated with CSU tip overs.

D. EN 14749: 2016

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

[[Page 72609]]

cubic foot to 12.5 pounds per cubic foot, which includes fill weights
lower than staff identified for drawers filled with clothing (discussed
in section VII. Technical Analysis Supporting the Rule). As discussed
in this preamble, these factors are commonly involved in CSU tip-over
incidents and testing indicates that they effect the stability of CSUs.
For these reasons, the Commission finds that compliance with EN
14749: 2016 is not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury
associated with CSU tip overs.

E. ANSI/BIFMA SOHO X6.5-2022

In the NPR, staff reviewed the requirements in ANSI/SOHO S6.5-2008
(R2013), Small Office/Home Office Furniture--Tests American National
Standard for Office Furnishings. The standard does not address CSUs,
but rather, applies to office furniture, such as file cabinets.
However, CPSC considered the standard because it addresses interlock
systems, which some CSUs include and are relevant to stability testing.
On April 5, 2022, ANSI/BIFMA published a new version of the standard,
ANSI/BIFMA X6.5-2022. Although this update included several revisions,
the interlock strength test requirements remained unchanged.
This standard specifies tests for ``evaluating the safety,
durability, and structural adequacy of storage and desk-type furniture
intended for use in the small office and/or home office.'' ANSI/BIFMA
X6.5-2022 includes testing to evaluate interlock systems. The test
procedure calls for one extendable element to be fully extended while a
30 pound horizontal pull force is applied to all other fully closed
extendable elements. Every combination of open/closed extendable
elements \46\ must be tested. The interlock system must be fully
functional at the completion of this test and no extendable element may
bypass the interlock system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

As discussed in section IX. Description of and Basis for the Rule,
child strength studies show that children between 2 and 5 years old can
achieve a mean pull force of 17.2 pounds. Therefore, CPSC considers a
30-pound horizontal pull force adequate to evaluate the strength of an
interlock system. However, because ANSI/BIFMA X6.5-2022 does not
include stability tests or requirements reflecting the real-world
factors involved in CSU tip overs, the Commission finds that compliance
with ANSI/BIFMA X6.5-2022 is not likely to adequately reduce the risk
of injury associated with CSU tip overs.

VI. Technical Background

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

A. Center of Gravity and Center of Mass

Center of Gravity (CG) or Center of Mass (CM) \47\ is a single
point in an object, about which its weight (or mass) is located . In
terms of freestanding CSUs, if the CSU's CG is located behind the front
foot, the CSU will not tip over due to its own weight. Alternatively,
if the CSU's CG is in front of the front foot, the CSU is unstable and
will tip over. The CG (and CM) of an object is dependent on the CG and
the weight of each component that makes up the object. For example, CSU
drawers typically have a front that is thicker and larger than the
back, which causes the drawer's CG to be closer to the front. The CSU's
CG is defined by the position and weight of the CSU cabinet, without
doors or extendable elements (i.e., drawers or pull-out shelves),
combined with the position and weight of each door and extendable
element. A CSU's CG is equal to the sum of the products of the CG
position and the weight of each component, divided by the total weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ For CSU-sized objects, CG and CM are effectively the same.
Therefore, CG and CM are used interchangeably in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Moment and Fulcrum

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

[[Page 72610]]

determining the tip-over moment. In this case, only the height of the
hands above the feet matters. As Figure 1 shows, a child climbing on
drawers opened distance A1 from the fulcrum, with feet at height B1
from the ground and hands at height B2 above the feet, will act on the
CSU with horizontal forces 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.000

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

VII. Technical Analysis Supporting the Rule

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

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

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

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

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

To assess the effect of open extendable elements and filled
extendable elements on CSU stability, CPSC staff conducted testing to
evaluate the effect of various combinations of open/closed and filled/
empty drawers using a convenience sample of CSUs.\50\ Before this
testing, staff assessed the appropriate fill weight to use for testing.
Then staff conducted two phases of testing (Phase I and Phase II). The
purpose of the testing was to assess the weight at which a CSU became
unstable and tipped over with various configurations of drawers open/
closed and filled/empty. This section provides an overview of the
results; for more details regarding the study, see the NPR and NPR
briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Fill Weight
To determine the appropriate method for simulating CSU drawers that
are partially filled or fully filled, staff considered previous
analyses and conducted additional testing. In working on ASTM F2057,
the ASTM F15.42 subcommittee has considered a ``loaded'' (filled)
drawer requirement and test method using an assumed clothing weight of
8.5 pounds per cubic foot. Kids in Danger and Shane's Foundation found
a similar density (average of 8.9 pounds per cubic foot) when they
filled CSU drawers with boys' t-shirts in a 2016 study on

[[Page 72611]]

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

\51\ Kids in Danger and Shane's Foundation (2016). Dresser
Testing Protocol and Data. Data set provided to CPSC staff by Kids
in Danger, January 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As part of this assessment, staff looked at four drawer fill
conditions. Staff considered folded and unfolded clothing with a total
weight equal to 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of functional drawer volume
in the drawer; and the maximum amount of folded and unfolded clothing
that could be put into a drawer that would still allow the drawer to
open and close. For these tests, staff used an assortment of boys'
clothing in sizes 4, 5, and 6. Staff used a CSU with a range of drawer
sizes to assess small, medium, and large drawers; the functional drawer
volume of these 3 drawer sizes was 0.76 cubic feet, 1.71 cubic feet,
and 2.39 cubic feet, respectively. Staff determined the calculated
clothing weight for the 8.5 pounds per cubic foot drawer fill
conditions by multiplying 8.5 by the drawer's functional volume,
defined as: \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ ``Clearance height'' is the height from the interior bottom
surface of the drawer to the closest vertical obstruction in the CSU
frame. ``Functional height'' is clearance height minus \1/8\ inch.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.001

For all three drawer sizes, staff was able to fit 8.5 pounds per
cubic foot of folded and unfolded clothing in the drawers. When the
clothing was unfolded, the clothing fully filled the drawers, but still
allowed the drawer to close. Because the unfolded clothing was stuffed
into the drawer fairly tightly, it was not easy to see and access
clothing below the top layer. When the clothing was folded, the
clothing also fully filled the drawers and still allowed the drawer to
close. The folded clothing was tightly packed, but allowed for
additional space when compressed. The maximum unfolded clothing fill
weight was 6.52, 14.64, and 21.20 pounds for the three drawer sizes,
respectively; and the maximum folded clothing fill weight was 7.72,
16.08, and 22.88 pounds for the three drawer sizes, respectively.
Staff also compared the calculated clothing weight (i.e., using 8.5
pounds per cubic foot), maximum unfolded drawer fill weight, and
maximum folded drawer fill weight for each drawer. The maximum unfolded
clothing fill weight was slightly higher than the calculated clothing
fill weight for all tested drawers. The difference between the maximum
unfolded clothing fill weight and the calculated clothing weight ranged
from 0.08 pounds to 0.87 pounds. The maximum folded clothing fill
weight was higher than both the maximum unfolded clothing fill weight
and the calculated clothing fill weight for all tested drawers;
however, the differences were relatively small. The difference between
the maximum folded clothing fill weight and the calculated clothing
weight ranged from 1.28 to 2.55 pounds. The maximum unfolded clothing
fill density was slightly higher than 8.5 pounds per cubic foot for all
tested drawers; and the maximum unfolded clothing fill density ranged
from 8.56 to 8.87 pounds per cubic foot, depending on the drawer. The
maximum folded clothing fill density was higher than both the maximum
unfolded clothing fill density and 8.5 pounds per cubic foot for all
tested drawers. The maximum folded clothing fill density ranged from
9.40 to 10.16 pounds per cubic foot, depending on the drawer. Thus,
there does not appear to be a large difference in clothing fill density
based on drawer size.
Based on this testing, staff found that 8.5 pounds per cubic foot
of clothing will fill a drawer; however, this amount of clothing is
less than the absolute maximum amount of clothing that can be put into
a drawer, especially if the clothing is folded. The maximum amount of
unfolded clothing that could be put into the tested drawers was only
slightly higher than 8.5 pounds per cubic foot. Although staff achieved
a clothing density as high as 10.16 pounds per cubic foot with folded
clothing, staff considers it unlikely that consumers would fill a
drawer to this level because it requires careful folding, and it is
difficult to remove and replace individual pieces of clothing.
Therefore, staff concluded that 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of functional
drawer volume is a reasonable approximation of the weight of clothing
in a fully filled drawer.
The NPR raised the possibility that fill weight for pull-out
shelves may be lower than for drawers (e.g., 4.25 pounds per cubic foot
or half that of drawers) if consumers are less likely to fill the open
area of a pull-out shelf because it is less contained than a drawer.
Accordingly, staff conducted further assessment after the NPR and found
that pull-out shelves can hold the same volume of clothing as drawers
and still remain fully functional and sufficiently contain the clothing
content during moving of the shelf. Moreover, requirements ASTM is
considering use the same fill weight as in the final rule for both
drawers and pull-out shelves.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2. Phase I and II Testing
Phase I of the study focused on CSUs with a single column of
drawers and drawers of the same size. Results showed that CSUs tipped
over under the same weights with the same configuration of open/closed,
regardless of which drawers were opened and on which drawer the tip
weight was applied.
Phase II of the study included more complex CSUs with multiple
columns of drawers and more combinations of open/closed and filled/
empty drawers. Staff also supplemented this data with results from
other CSU testing staff had performed. In general, the results
indicated that CSUs were less stable as more drawers were opened, and
that filled drawers have a variable effect on stability. A filled
closed drawer contributes to stability, while a filled open drawer
decreases stability. Depending on the percent of drawers that are open
and filled, having multiple drawers open decreased the stability of the
CSU.

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

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

As indicated above, some of the common themes that staff identified
in CSU tip-over incident data involve children interacting with CSUs,
including climbing on them and opening drawers. To determine the forces
and other relevant factors that exist during these expected
interactions between children and CSUs, CPSC contracted with UMTRI to
conduct research. The researchers at UMTRI, in collaboration with CPSC
staff, designed a study to collect information about children's
measurements and

[[Page 72612]]

proportions, interest in climbing and climbing behaviors, and the
forces and moments children can generate during various interactions
with a CSU. The study consisted of an interactive portion and a focus
group portion. Forty children, age 20 months to 65 months old,
participated in the study. This section provides and overview and key
results of this study. For additional details about the study,
including the test apparatus, data acquisition, additional behaviors
assessed, and analyses, see the NPR and UMTRI's full report in Tab R of
the NPR briefing package.
1. Overview of Interaction Portion of UMTRI Study
The interaction portion of the study included children interacting
with a CSU test apparatus with instrumented handles and a simulated
drawer and tabletop (to simulate the top of a CSU or other tabletop or
furniture unit). Researchers measured the forces of the children acting
on the test apparatus and calculated moments generated by the children
based on the location of the CSU's front leg tip point (fulcrum). The
researchers based the fulcrum's location on a dataset of CSU drawer
extensions and heights provided by CPSC staff.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

[[Page 72613]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.002

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

CPSC staff worked with UMTRI researchers to develop a set of
scripted interactions. Staff focused on realistic interactions in which
the child's position and/or dynamic interactions were the most likely
to cause a CSU to tip over. The interactions were based on incident
data and online videos of children interacting with CSUs and other
furniture items. The interactions UMTRI researchers evaluated included:
<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. Researchers analyzed forces from each extracted behavior
to identify peak forces and moments. Participant postures have strong
effects on the horizontal forces exerted by the child and the
subsequent calculated moments, due to the location of the child's CM
during each behavior. Thus, the CM of the child is important when
evaluating the stability or tip-over propensity of the child/CSU-
combined system. UMTRI researchers used the images of the subjects to
estimate the location of the child's CM. The UMTRI researchers
extracted video frames at time points of interest (typically when the
child produced the maximum moment during the interaction) and manually
digitized the series of landmarks on the image of the child. The
location of the CM was estimated, based on anthropometric information
on children,\57\ as 33 percent of the distance from the buttock
landmark to the top-of-head landmark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The UMTRI researchers estimated the location of the child's CM by
examining the side-view images from the times of maximum moment, as
shown in Figure 3. The children in the study extended their CM an
average of about 6 inches from the handle/foothold while ascending.

[[Page 72614]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.003

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

Figure 4 shows side-view images of examples of children interacting
with the handle fixture. The frames were taken at the time of peak tip-
over moment. Forces exerted by the child at the hands and feet are
illustrated using scaled vectors (longer lines indicate greater force
magnitude; arrow direction indicates force direction). Digitized
landmarks and estimated CM locations are shown. The images demonstrate
that forces at both the hands and feet often have substantial
horizontal components, and usually, but not always, the foot forces are
larger than the hand forces. The horizontal components at the hands and
feet are also in opposite directions: the horizontal foot forces are
forward (toward the test fixture), while the hand forces are rearward
(toward the child).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.004

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

UMTRI researchers modeled a child interacting with a CSU with
opened drawers, by measuring forces at instrumented bars representing a
drawer front or handle. Figure 5 is the free-body diagram of the child
climbing the CSU. The horizontal and vertical forces at the hands and
feet correspond to the positive direction of the measured forces. The
CSU drawers were modeled using the top handle and bottom handle height,
and the drawer extension was modeled from 0 inches to 12 inches.\58\
The UMTRI researchers calculated the moment about the CSU's front foot
or fulcrum, using the measured forces, vertical location of the top and
bottom handles, and the defined drawer extension length (Fulcrum X).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ Here, 0 inches corresponds with a closed drawer when the
fulcrum lines up with the drawers. Additionally, 12 inches
represents the 90th percentile drawer extension length in a dataset
of approximately 180 CSUs.

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

[[Page 72615]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.005

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

Figure 5 shows that the child's body weight will generally be
distributed between the two bars, but that the child's CM location will
also typically be outboard of the bars (farther from the fulcrum than
the bars). The quasi-static climbing moment is approximately equal to
the location of the child's CM (the horizontal distance of the CM to
the fulcrum), multiplied by the child's weight. In reality, the moment
created by dynamic forces generated by the child during the activities
in the UMTRI study, such as during ascend, exceed the moment created by
body weight alone as a result of the greater magnitude horizontal and
vertical forces.
UMTRI researchers analyzed the force data as generating a moment
around a tip-over fulcrum. The UMTRI researchers calculated the maximum
moment about a virtual fulcrum, based on the measured force data for
each test and the location of the force. Figure 6 shows the test setup
and the forces measured. Note that the test setup mimics a CSU with the
drawers closed and the Fulcrum X = 0. UMTRI researchers defined the
horizontal Fulcrum X distance of 1-foot (based on the 90th percentile
drawer extension) to simulate a 1-foot drawer extension. The bottom
handle vertical Fulcrum Z was set to 16 inches (based on the 90th
percentile drawer height from the floor), and the Top Handle Z varied,
depending on the size of the child.\59\ Researchers calculated the
moment that would be generated for a child interacting on a 1-foot
extended CSU drawer, where Fulcrum X = 1 foot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 72616]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.006

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

Figure 20 in Tab D of the NPR briefing package (also Figure 44 in
Tab R) shows the calculated maximum moment for each interaction of
interest versus the child's body weight, and shows that the maximum
moment tends to increase with body weight. UMTRI researchers normalized
the moment by dividing the calculated moment by the child's body weight
to enable the effects of the behaviors to be examined independent of
body weight, as shown in Figure 21 in Tab D of the NPR briefing package
(also Figure 46 in Tab R). As the figure illustrates, the greatest
moments were generated in the Yank interaction, followed in descending
order by Lean, Bounce, 1 Hand, and Ascend. As the weight of the child
increased, so did the maximum moment. For all of the interactions, the
maximum moment exceeded the weight of the child.
The preceding analysis was based on a 12-inch (one foot) horizontal
distance between the location of force exertion and the fulcrum. The
following analysis shows the effects of varying the Fulcrum X value,
which is equivalent to a CSU's drawer extension from the fulcrum.
The net moment can be calculated using a Fulcrum X = 0 position, as
shown in Figure 7, to bound the effects of drawer extension. Placing
the fulcrum directly under the hands and feet in the aligned conditions
eliminates the effects of vertical forces on moment, while amplifying
the relative effects of horizontal forces.

[[Page 72617]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.007

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

UMTRI researchers analyzed the effects of the Fulcrum X (which
corresponds to the drawer extension \60\) on the tip-over moment for
the targeted behaviors. Since the moment about the fulcrum was
calculated based on measured force data and input values for Fulcrum X
distance, the researchers were able to analyze the effects of the
fulcrum position by varying the Fulcrum X value from 0 to 12 inches.
UMTRI researchers used this virtual Fulcrum X value to calculate the
corresponding maximum moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ Drawer extension data provided by CPSC staff to UMTRI
researchers was measured from the extended drawer to the front of
the CSU, and did not account for how the fulcrum position will vary
with foot geometry and position. UMTRI researchers assumed that the
fulcrum was aligned with the front of the CSU to simplify their
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 23 in Tab D of the NPR briefing package (also Figure 51 in
Tab R) shows the maximum moments versus the Fulcrum X values of 0 and
12 inches across behaviors for aligned conditions. For example, the
calculated moment for Ascend at X = 0 is about 17.5 pound-feet. The
moment when X = 0 is due entirely to horizontal forces. These
horizontal forces exerted by the children on the top and bottom handles
of the test apparatus are necessary to balance their outboard CM. UMTRI
researchers concluded that the children's CM due to their postures have
strong effects on the horizontal forces exerted and the calculated
moments. Consequently, the location of the child's CM during the
behavior is an important variable.
As previously discussed, the UMTRI researchers normalized the
moment by dividing the calculated moment of each trial by the child's
body weight to enable the effects of the behaviors to be examined
independent of body weight. The graphs of Figure 23 in Tab D of the NPR
briefing package show how the moments and the normalized moments
increase with the fulcrum distance (which corresponds to the drawer
extension). For the normalized moments shown in the bottom graph, this
can be interpreted as the effective CM location outboard of the front
foot of the CSU (fulcrum), in feet. For example, a child climbing on a
drawer extended 12 inches (1 foot) from the front foot fulcrum will
have an effective CM that is about 19 inches (1.6 feet) from the
fulcrum. At Fulcrum X = 0, the contribution of vertical forces to the
moment are eliminated, and only the horizontal forces exerted at the
hands and feet contribute to the moment. The horizontal forces exerted
by the child on the top and bottom handles are necessary to balance
his/her outboard CM. The effective moment where the fulcrum = 0 is
about 6 inches (0.5 feet) for the Ascend behavior, and it is primarily
due to the outboard CM position of the child about 6 inches (0.5 feet)
from the fulcrum.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ UMTRI researchers reported that the average CM offset was
6.1 inches (0.51 feet) during ascent at the time the maximum moment
was measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the drawer is pulled out farther from the fulcrum, vertical
forces have a greater impact on the total moment contribution. UMTRI
researchers reported that at the time of peak moment during ascent, the
average (median) vertical force, divided by the child's body weight,
was close to 1 (staff estimates this value is approximately 1.08 for
aligned handle trials).\62\ This suggests child body weight is the most
significant vertical force, although dynamic forces also contribute.
Based on the Normalized Moment for Ascend shown in the bottom graph of
Figure 23 in Tab D of the NPR briefing package, CPSC staff estimated
the Ascend line with the following equation 1:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

[[Page 72618]]

Equation 2. M = {1.08 x [1 ft] + 0.52 ft{time} x child body weight
(lb)

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

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

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

C. Flooring 63
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ Details regarding staff's assessment of the effect of
flooring on CSU stability is available in Tabs D and P of the NPR
briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To examine the effect of flooring on the stability of CSUs, staff
reviewed existing information and conducted testing. As background,
staff considered a 2016 study on CSU stability, conducted by Kids in
Danger and Shane's Foundation.\64\ In that study, researchers tested
the stability of 19 CSUs, using the stability tests in ASTM F2057-19 on
both a hard, flat surface, and on carpeting. The results showed that
some CSUs that passed on the hard surface, tipped over when tested on
carpet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ Furniture Stability: A Review of Data and Testing Results
(Kids in Danger and Shane's Foundation, August 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To further examine the effect of carpeting on the stability of
CSUs, staff tested 13 CSUs, with a variety of designs and stability, on
a carpeted test surface. For this testing, staff used a section of
wall-to-wall tufted polyester carpeting with polypropylene backing from
a major home-supply retailer and typical of wall-to-wall carpeting,
based on staff's review of carpeting on the market. Staff installed and
secured the carpet, with a carpet pad, on a plywood platform, and
conditioned the CSU and carpeting by weighting the unit for 15 minutes.
Staff then tested the unit using the same methods and CSU
configurations (i.e., number and position of open and filled drawers)
as used with these units in the Multiple Open and Filled Drawers
testing conducted on the hard surface (Tab O of the NPR briefing
package).
Using the 1,221 pairs of tip weights (i.e., tip weight on the flat
surface and on the carpet, with various configurations of multiple open
and filled drawers), staff calculated the difference in tip weight when
on the hard surface, compared to the carpeted surface for each CSU (tip
weight difference). A CSU had a positive tip weight difference if the
tip weight was higher on the hard surface than on the carpet,
indicating that CSUs are less stable on carpet. The testing showed the
CSUs tended to be more stable on the hard surface than they were on
carpet. Of the 1,221 tip-over weight differences, the tip weight
difference was positive for 1,149 (94 percent) of them; negative for 33
(3 percent) of them; and was zero (i.e., the tip-over weights were
equal) for 39 (3 percent). For all 1,221 combinations, the mean tip
weight difference was 7.6 pounds, but for individual units, the mean
tip weight difference ranged from 4.1 to 16.0 pounds. For all 1,221
combinations, the median tip weight difference was 7 pounds, but for
individual units, the median ranged from 2 to 16 pounds. The standard
deviation for the entire 1,221 data set was 5.1 pounds, but was smaller
for individual units, ranging from 1.8 to 4.7 pounds, indicating that
most of the variability in tip weight differences was between units, as
opposed to within units, which suggests that some units are affected
more than others by carpeting.
To further assess the effect of flooring on stability, staff also
analyzed the relationship between tip weight difference and open/closed
drawers and filled/empty drawers. The mean tip weight difference was
7.6 pounds (median was 7 pounds) when most of the drawers on the unit
were open, and 8.5 pounds (median was 8 pounds) when most of the
drawers were closed, indicating that the units were more stable
(required more weight to tip over) when more drawers were closed. The
mean tip weight difference was 7.2 pounds (median was 6 pounds) when
most of the drawers on the unit were empty, and 7.7 pounds (median was
7 pounds) when most of the drawers were filled.\65\ This shows that, in
general, CSUs are less stable on carpet. All units tested, under
various conditions, tended to tip with less weight on the carpet than
on the hard surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ To further assess whether the effect of carpet changed
based on the CSU's stability--that is, to determine if the results
reflected the change in flooring, or the overall stability of the
unit--staff calculated the percent tip weight difference, as:
percent tip weight difference = (hard surface tip weight-carpet tip
weight)/hard surface tip weight. This revealed that, as the weight
to tip the unit on a hard surface increased, shifting to a carpeted
surface had less of an impact in terms of the percentage of the tip-
over weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 72619]]

the test assembly and found a similar forward tilt of 1.5 to 2.0
degrees would replicate the effects of carpet for one CSU.

D. Incident Recreation and Modeling 66
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ Details about staff's incident recreation and modeling are
in Tabs D and M of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CPSC staff analyzed incidents and tested products that were
involved in CSU tip-over incidents to better understand the real-world
factors that contribute to tip overs. Staff analyzed 7 CSU models,
associated with 13 tip-over incidents. The CSUs ranged in height from
27 to 50 inches and weighed between 45 and 195 pounds. One of these CSU
models did not comply with sections 7.1 or 7.2 in ASTM F2057-19; three
models complied with the requirements in section 7.1, but not section
7.2; two models complied with both sections 7.1 and 7.2; and one was
borderline.\67\ Through testing and analysis, staff recreated the
incident scenarios described in the investigations and determined the
weight that caused the unit to tip over in a variety of use scenarios,
such as a child climbing or pulling on the dresser, multiple open
drawers, filled and unfilled drawers, and the flooring under the CSU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ Staff tested the borderline model two separate times. In
one case, the tip weight just exceeded the ASTM F2057-19 minimum
acceptable test fixture weight. In another case, the model tipped
over just below the minimum allowed test fixture weight. These
results are consistent with earlier staff testing that found that
the model tipped when tested with a 49.66-pound test fixture; but
did comply when tested with a 48.54-pound test fixture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

E. Consumer Use Study 68
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\68\ The full report from FMG, Consumer Product Safety
Commission: Furniture Tipover Report (Mar. 13, 2020), is available
in Tab Q of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2019, the Fors Marsh Group (FMG), under contract with CPSC,
conducted a study to assess factors that influence consumer attitudes,
behaviors, and beliefs regarding CSUs. The study consisted of two
components. In the first component, the researchers conducted six 90-
minute in-home interviews (called ethnographies). Three of the
participants had at least one child between 18 and 35 months old in the
home, and three participants had at least one child between 36 and 72
months old in the home. In this phase of the study, the researchers
collected information about family interactions with and use of CSUs in
the home.
In the second component of the study, FMG conducted six 90-minute
focus groups, using a total of 48 participants. Each focus group
included eight participants with the same caregiver status (parents of
a child between 1 and 5 years old, people who are visited regularly by
a child between 1 and 5 years old, and people who plan to have children
in the next 5 years) and homeowner status (people who own their home,
and people who rent their home). Participants included parents of
children 12 to 72 months old, people without young children in the home
who were planning to have children in the next 5 years, and people
without young children in the home who are visited regularly by
children 12 to 72 months old. The focus groups assessed consumer
perceptions of and interactions with CSUs, perceptions of warning
information, and factors that influence product selection,
classification, and placement.
In describing CSUs, participants mentioned freestanding products;
products that hold clothing; features to organize or protect clothing
(e.g., drawers, doors, and dividers); and named, as examples, dressers,
armoires, wardrobes, or units with shelving or bins. Participants noted
that whether storage components were large enough to fit clothing was
relevant to whether a product was a CSU. However, participants also
noted that they may use smaller, shorter products, with smaller storage
components as CSUs in children's rooms so that children can access the
drawers, and because children's clothes are smaller. In distinguishing
nightstands from CSUs, participants noted the size and number of
drawers, and some reported storing clothing in them. Some participants
reported that how products were displayed in stores or in online
marketing did not influence how they used the unit in their homes and
indicated that although a product name may have some influence on their
perception of the product, they would ultimately choose and use a
product based on its function and ability to meet their needs.
Focus group participants were provided with images of various CSU-
like products, and asked what they would call the product, what they
would put in it, and where they would put it. Participants provided
diverse answers for each product, with products participants identified
as buffets, nightstands, entry/side/hall tables, or entertainment/TV/
media units also being called dressers or armoires by other
participants. Products that participants were less likely to consider a
CSU or use for clothing had glass doors, removable bins/baskets, or a
small number of small drawers.
Participants primarily kept CSUs in bedrooms and used them to store
clothing. However, they also noted that they had products that could be
used as CSUs in other rooms to store non-clothing and had changed the
location and use of products over time, moving them between rooms and
storing clothing or other items in them, depending on location.
Focusing on units that the participants' children interacted with
the most, the researchers noted that CSUs in children's rooms held
clothing and were 70 to 80 percent full of folded clothing.
Participants reported that the children's primary interaction with CSUs
was opening them to reach clothing, but also reported children climbing
units to reach into a drawer or

[[Page 72620]]

to reach something on top of the unit. A few participants reported
having anchored a CSU. As reasons for not anchoring furniture,
participants stated that they thought the unit was unlikely to tip
over, particularly smaller and lighter units used in children's rooms,
and they do not want to damage walls in a rental unit.

F. Tip Weight Testing 69
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ A full discussion of this testing and the results is
available in Tab N of the NPR briefing package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed earlier in this preamble, in 2016 and 2018-2019, CPSC
staff tested CSUs to assess compliance with requirements in ASTM F2057.
As part of the 2018-2019 testing, staff also assessed whether CSUs
could hold weights higher than the 50-pound weight required in ASTM
F2057, testing the CSUs with both a 60-pound test weight, and to the
maximum test weight they could hold before tipping over. For this
testing, staff assessed 188 CSUs, including 167 CSUs selected from
among the best sellers from major retailers, using a random number
generator; 4 CSU models that were involved in incidents; \70\ and 17
units assessed as part of previous test data provided to CPSC.\71\
Appendix A to Tab N in the NPR briefing package describes the test
procedure staff followed. To summarize, after recording information
about the weight, dimensions, and design of the CSU, staff used a test
procedure similar to section 7.2 in ASTM F2057-19 (loaded weight
testing), but with a 60-pound test fixture, and with test fixtures that
allowed staff to add additional weight, in 1-pound increments, up to a
maximum of 134 pounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ Staff tested exemplar units, using the model of CSU
involved in the incident, but not the actual incident unit.
\71\ The CSUs were identified from the Consumer Reports study
``Furniture Tip-Overs: A Hidden Hazard in Your Home'' (Mar. 22,
2018), available at: <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.\72\ The lowest
weight that caused a CSU to tip over was 12.5 pounds. The next lowest
tip weights were 22.5 pounds (2 CSUs), 25 pounds (6 CSUs), and 27.5
pounds (3 CSUs). One CSU did not tip over when the maximum 134-pound
test weight was applied. The next highest tip weights were 117.5 pounds
(1 CSU), 112.5 pounds (1 CSU), 102.5 pounds (1 CSU), 97.5 pounds (1
CSU), 95 pounds (1 CSU), and 90 pounds (4 CSUs). Most CSUs tipped over
with between 45 and 90 pounds of weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\72\ This is based on the results for 185 of the units; staff
omitted the test weight for 3 of the CSUs because of data
discrepancies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Warning Label Symbols 73
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

In 2019, CPSC contracted a study to evaluate a set of 20 graphical
safety symbols for comprehension, in an effort to develop a family of
graphical symbols that can be used in multiple standards to communicate
safety-related information to diverse audiences.\74\ The contractor
developed 10 new symbols for the project, including one showing the CSU
tip-over hazard and one showing the CSU tip-over hazard with a tip
restraint; the remaining 10 symbols already existed. The contractor
recruited 80 adults and used the open comprehension test procedures
described in ANSI Z535.3, American National Standard Criteria for
Safety Symbols (2011). ANSI Z535.3 defines the criteria for ``passing''
as at least 85 percent correct interpretations (strict), with fewer
than 5 percent critical confusions (i.e., the opposite action is
conveyed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ Kalsher, M., CPSC Gather Consumer Feedback: Final Report
(2019), available at: <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 F2057-19. The symbol
showed passing comprehension (87.5 percent) when scored with lenient
(i.e., partially correct) scoring criteria, but poor comprehension
(63.8 percent) when scored with strict scoring criteria. There was no
critical confusion with the symbol.
The contractor conducted focus groups consisting of 40 of the 80
comprehension study participants. Based on the feedback received in the
comprehension study and in focus groups, the contractor developed two
new symbol variants, shown in Figure 8.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25NO22.008

[[Page 72621]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

\77\ Butturini, R., Massale, J., Midgett, J., Snyder, S.
Preliminary Evaluation of Anchoring Furniture and Televisions
without Tools, Technical Report CPSC/EXHR/TR--15/001 (2015),
available at: <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>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 72622]]

effective way to prevent tip-over incidents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

VIII. Response to Comments

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

A. Incident Data

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

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

B. Scope and Definitions

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

[[Page 72623]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 72624]]

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

C. Stability Requirements

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

D. Marking and Labeling Requirements

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

E. Hang Tags

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

[[Page 72625]]

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

F. Stockpiling Requirement

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

G. Economic Analyses

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

IX. Description of and Basis for the Rule

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

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

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

[[Page 72626]]

scope of the rule and several terms within that definition are also
defined in the standard. The final rule includes minor revisions to the
application section of the rule and some definitions in the rule that
do not alter the substance of these provisions. For example, the
application section no longer includes the CPSA definition of a
``consumer product'' because the definitions section notes that CSUs
are ``consumer products'' and refers to the definitions provided in the
CPSA.
In addition, the final rule includes some substantive revisions to
the definitions to address issues raised by commenters and identified
by CPSC staff. This section focuses on the definition of a CSU and key
terms used in that definition and defined in the standard, particularly
terms for which the definitions have been revised since the NPR (i.e.,
``drawers,'' ``freestanding,'' ``open storage,'' and ``open space'').
Additional definitions in the standard are discussed in the section
below on stability requirements, where those terms are relevant.
1. Final Rule Requirements
The final rule applies to CSUs, defined as a consumer product that
is a freestanding furniture item, with drawer(s) and/or door(s), that
may be reasonably expected to be used for storing clothing, that is
designed to be configured to greater than or equal to 27 inches in
height, has a mass greater than or equal to 57 pounds with all
extendable elements filled with at least 8.5 pounds/cubic foot times
their functional volume (cubic feet), has a total functional volume of
the closed storage greater than 1.3 cubic feet, and has a total
functional volume of the closed storage greater than the sum of the
total functional volume of the open storage and the total volume of the
open space.
The rule specifically states that whether a product is a CSU
depends on whether it meets this definition. However, to demonstrate
which products may meet the definition of a CSU, the standard provides
names of common CSU products, including chests, bureaus, dressers,
armoires, wardrobes, chests of drawers, drawer chests, chifforobes, and
door chests. Similarly, it names products that, depending on their
design, generally do not meet the criteria in the CSU definition,
including shelving units, office furniture, dining room furniture,
laundry hampers, built-in closets, and single-compartment closed rigid
boxes (storage chests).
Additionally, the rule exempts from its scope two products that
generally would meet the definition of a CSU--clothes lockers and
portable storage closets. It defines ``clothes locker'' as a
predominantly metal furniture item without exterior drawers and with
one or more doors that either lock or accommodate an external lock; and
defines ``portable storage closet'' as a freestanding furniture item
with an open frame that encloses hanging clothing storage space and/or
shelves, which may have a cloth case with a curtain(s), flap(s), or
door(s) that obscures the contents from view.
2. Basis for Final Rule Requirements
To determine the scope of products that the rule should address to
adequately reduce the risk of injury from CSU tip overs, CPSC
considered the nature of the hazard, assessed what products were
involved in tip-over incidents, and assessed the characteristics of
those products in relation to stability and children's interactions.
a. The Hazard
The CSU tip-over hazard relates to the function of CSUs, where they
are used in the home, and their design features. A primary feature of
CSUs is that typically they are used for clothing storage; however,
putting clothing in a furniture item does not create the tip-over
hazard on its own. Rather, the function of CSUs as furniture items that
store clothing means that consumers and children are likely to have
easy access to the unit and interact with it daily, resulting in
increased exposure and familiarity. In addition, caregivers may
encourage children to use a CSU on their own as part of developing
independent skills. As a result, children are likely to know how to
open drawers of a CSU, and are likely to be aware of their contents,
which may motivate them to interact with the CSU. For this reason, one
element of the definition of ``CSUs'' is that they are reasonably
expected to be used for storing clothing.
CSUs are commonly used in bedrooms, an area of the home where
children are more likely to have unsupervised time. As stated in the
NPR, most CSU tip-over incidents occur in bedrooms: among the 89 fatal
tip-over incidents reviewed in the NPR involving children and CSUs
without televisions, 99 percent of the incidents with a reported
location (70 of 71 incidents) occurred in a bedroom. This use means
that children have more opportunity to interact with the unit
unsupervised, including in ways more likely to cause tip over (e.g.,
opening multiple drawers and climbing) that a caregiver may discourage.
Another primary feature of CSUs is closed storage, which is storage
within drawers or behind doors. These drawers and doors are elements
that can extend from the furniture case, which allow children to exert
vertical force further from the tip point (fulcrum) than they would be
able to without drawers and doors and that make it more likely that a
child will tip the product during interactions. In addition, these
features may make the product more appealing to children as a play
item. Children can open and close the drawers and doors and use them to
climb, bounce, jump, or hang; they can play with items in the drawers
or get inside the drawers or cabinet. Children can also use the CSU
drawers and doors for fu

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on November 25, 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.