Safety Standard for Clothing Storage Units

Federal RegisterNov 25, 2022

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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:

AHairstonporter@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

CSUs generally are freestanding furniture items, typically used for storing clothes. Examples of CSUs include chests, bureaus, dressers, chests of drawers, drawer chests, door chests, chifforobes, armoires, and wardrobes. CPSC is aware of numerous deaths and injuries resulting from CSUs tipping over, particularly onto children. To address the hazard associated with CSU tip overs, the Commission has taken several steps.

In June 2015, the Commission launched the Anchor It! campaign. This educational campaign includes print and broadcast public service announcements; information distribution at targeted venues, such as childcare centers; social media; blog posts; videos; and an informational website (

www.AnchorIt.gov

). The campaign explains the nature of the risk, provides safety tips for avoiding furniture and television tip overs, and promotes the use of tip restraints to anchor furniture and televisions.

In addition, CPSC's Office of Compliance and Field Operations has investigated and recalled CSUs.

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.

These recalls involved 38 firms and affected approximately 21,530,000 CSUs.

For further information about recalls, see Tab J of the briefing package supporting this final rule.

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.

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).

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.

Massale, J., Staff Briefing Package on Furniture Tipover, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (2016), available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Staff%20Briefing%20Package%20on%20Furniture%20Tipover%20-%20September%2030%202016.pdf.

The briefing package supporting the ANPR is available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ANPR%20-%20Clothing%20Storage%20Unit%20Tip%20Overs%20-%20November%2015%202017.pdf?5IsEEdW_Cb3ULO3TUGJiHEl875Adhvsg.

After issuing the ANPR, the Commission extended the comment period on the ANPR. 82 FR 2382 (Jan. 17, 2018).

The Commission voted 3-1 to approve this document.

This preamble provides key information to explain and support the rule, derived from the following materials. For more detailed information, see these additional materials:

• CPSC staff's briefing package supporting the NPR;

The briefing package supporting the NPR is available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed%20Rule-%20Safety%20Standard%20for%20Clothing%20Storage%20Units.pdf.

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

A recording of the public briefing is available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIY1wfyOwDk.

• the NPR;

The NPR is available at:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/02/03/2022-01689/safety-standard-for-clothing-storage-units.

• information provided in the docket for this rulemaking;

The docket for this rulemaking, CPSC-2017-0044, is available at:

www.regulations.gov.

• information obtained at a public hearing on the NPR;

and

A public hearing was held on April 6, 2022. Submissions forwarded to the agency by presenters before the public hearing, and the transcript of the hearing are available in the docket for this rulemaking, CPSC-2017-0044, at

www.regulations.gov.

The public hearing is available for viewing at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/Public-Calendar/2022-04-06-100000/Public-Hearing-Safety-Standard-for-Clothing-Storage-Units.

• CPSC staff's briefing package supporting this final rule.

The briefing package supporting the final rule is available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Final-Rule-Safety-Standrd-for-Clothing-Storage-Units.pdf?VersionId=X2prG3G0cqqngUwZh3rk01mkmFB40Gjf.

II. Statutory Authority

CSUs are “consumer products” that the Commission can regulate under the authority of the CPSA.

See

15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5). In this document, the Commission issues a final rule under sections 7 and 9 of the CPSA, regarding performance requirements, warnings, and stockpiling, and under section 27(e) of the CPSA, regarding performance and technical data.

A. Performance and Warning Requirements

Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue a mandatory consumer product safety standard that consists of performance requirements or requirements that the product be marked with, or accompanied by, warnings or instructions.

Id.

2056(a). Any requirement in the standard must be “reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury” associated with the product.

Id.

Section 7 requires the Commission to issue such a standard in accordance with section 9 of the CPSA.

Id.

Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the procedure the Commission must follow to issue a consumer product safety standard under section 7.

Id.

2058. Under section 9, the Commission may initiate rulemaking by issuing an ANPR

or NPR; must promulgate the rule in accordance with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553); and must publish an NPR that contains the text of the proposed rule, alternatives the Commission considered, and a preliminary regulatory analysis. The Commission also must provide an opportunity for interested parties to submit written and oral comments on the proposed rule.

Id.

2058(a), (c), (d)(2). Accordingly, the Commission initiated this rulemaking with an ANPR in November 2017 and published an NPR in February 2022, which included the required content and sought written comments on all aspects of the proposed rule. The Commission also provided the opportunity for interested parties to make oral presentations of data, views, or arguments on the proposed rule at an online public hearing on April 6, 2022.

To issue a final rule under section 9 of the CPSA, the Commission must make certain findings and publish a final regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C. 2058(f). Under section 9(f)(1) of the CPSA, the Commission must consider, and make appropriate findings to be included in the rule, concerning the following issues:

• the degree and nature of the risk of injury the rule is designed to eliminate or reduce;

• the approximate number of consumer products subject to the rule;

• the need of the public for the products subject to the rule and the probable effect the rule will have on the cost, availability, and utility of such products; and

• the means to achieve the objective of the rule while minimizing adverse effects on competition, manufacturing, and commercial practices.

Id.

2058(f)(1). Under section 9(f)(3) of the CPSA, the Commission may not issue a consumer product safety rule unless it finds (and includes in the rule):

• the rule, including the effective date, is reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with the product;

• that issuing the rule is in the public interest;

• if a voluntary standard addressing the risk of injury has been adopted and implemented, that either compliance with the voluntary standard is not likely to result in the elimination or adequate reduction of the risk or injury, or there is unlikely to be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard;

• that the benefits expected from the rule bear a reasonable relationship to its costs; and

• that the rule imposes the least burdensome requirement that prevents or adequately reduces the risk of injury.

Id.

2058(f)(3). The final regulatory analysis must include:

• a description of the potential benefits and costs of the rule, including benefits and costs that cannot be quantified, and those likely to receive the benefits and bear the costs;

• a description of alternatives to the final rule that the Commission considered, a summary description of their potential benefits and costs, and a brief explanation of the reason the alternatives were not chosen; and

• a summary of any significant issues raised by commenters in response to the preliminary regulatory analysis, and a summary of the Commission's assessment of those issues.

Id.

2058(f)(2).

B. Stockpiling

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

Id.

The Commission is to define what constitutes a “significantly greater” rate and the base period in the rule addressing stockpiling.

Id.

C. Performance and Technical Data

Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes the Commission to issue a rule to require manufacturers of consumer products to provide “such performance and technical data related to performance and safety as may be required to carry out the purposes of [the CPSA].”

Id.

2076(e). The Commission may require manufacturers to provide this information to the Commission or, at the time of original purchase, to prospective purchasers and the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, as necessary to carry out the purposes of the CPSA.

Id.

Section 2(b) of the CPSA states the purposes of the CPSA, including:

• protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products; and

• assisting consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of consumer products.

Id.

2051(b)(1), (b)(2).

III. The Product and Market

A. Description of the Product

This rule defines a “CSU” as a consumer product that is a freestanding furniture item, with drawer(s) and/or door(s), that may be reasonably expected to be used for storing clothing, that is designed to be configured to greater than or equal to 27 inches in height, has a mass greater than or equal to 57 pounds with all extendable elements filled with at least 8.5 pounds/cubic foot times their functional volume, and that has a total functional volume of the closed storage greater than 1.3 cubic feet and greater than the sum of the total functional volume of the open storage and the total volume of the open space. Definitions of many of the terms used in this definition are provided in the rule. Common names for CSUs include, but are not limited to: chests, bureaus, dressers, armoires, wardrobes, chests of drawers, drawer chests, chifforobes, and door chests. CSUs are available in a variety of designs (

e.g.,

vertical or horizontal dressers), sizes (

e.g.,

weights and heights), dimensions, and materials (

e.g.,

wood, plastic, leather, manufactured wood or fiber board). Consumers may purchase CSUs that have been assembled by the manufacturer, or they may purchase CSUs as ready-to-assemble (RTA) furniture.

The CSU definition includes several criteria to help distinguish CSUs from other furniture. Details regarding these criteria are discussed in section IX. Description of and Basis for the Rule. Key features include that, as freestanding furniture items, CSUs remain upright without needing to be attached to a wall or other structure, when fully assembled and empty, with all extendable elements and doors closed. As such, built-in units are not considered freestanding. In addition, CSUs typically are intended and used for storing clothing and, therefore, they are commonly used in bedrooms. However, consumers may also use CSUs in rooms other than bedrooms and to store items other than clothing in them. For this reason, whether a product is a CSU depends on whether it meets the criteria in the definition, rather than what the name of the product is or the marketed use for the product. The criteria in the definition regarding height and closed storage volume aim to address the utility of a unit for holding multiple clothing items. Some examples of furniture items that, depending on their design, may not meet the criteria

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

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

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.

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

(NEISS), which includes reports of injuries treated in EDs, and the Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System

(CPSRMS). For this rulemaking, staff focused on incidents that involved products that would be considered CSUs.

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.

These annual reports are available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/Furniture-and-Decor-1.

Data from NEISS is based on a nationally representative probability sample of about 100 hospitals in the United States and its territories. NEISS data can be accessed from the CPSC website under the “Access NEISS” link at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data.

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.

Staff considered incidents that involved chests, bureaus, dressers, armoires, wardrobes, portable clothes lockers, and portable closets.

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.

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.

Of the 199 reported CSU tip-over child fatalities, 95 (48 percent) involved only a CSU (with no television)

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.

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.

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

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

for the remaining 322 (43 percent).

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

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

there were an estimated 6,800 ED-treated injuries.

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

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

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

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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),

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.

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.

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

https://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/clinical_charts.htm.

Among the 366 nonfatal CPSRMS incidents involving children and only CSUs, the weights of 60 children were reported, ranging from 20 pounds to 125 pounds. Where it was not reported, staff again estimated the weight of the children using the 50th percentile values of weight that correspond to the victims' ages from the most recent CDC Anthropometric Reference. The estimated child weights for the 195 nonfatal CPSRMS incidents without a reported child weight, but with a reported age (which included a 17-year-old), ranged from 19.6 pounds to 158.9 pounds.

Although nonfatal NEISS incident data did not include the children's weights, staff again estimated the children's weights by age, determining that for tip overs involving only CSUs, the estimated weights of the children ranged from 15.8 pounds to 158.9 pounds (this covered children from 3 months to 17 years old).

Overall, the mean reported children's weight for CPSRMS incidents was 34.7 pounds and the median was 32.0 pounds; the mean estimated children's weight was 38.7 pounds and the median was 32.8 pounds. For nonfatal NEISS incidents, the mean estimated children's weight was 40.1 pounds and the median was 32.8 pounds.

The weight of a child is particularly relevant for climbing incidents because weight is a factor in determining the force a child generates when climbing. For this reason, in the NPR, CPSC staff looked at the weights of children involved in climbing incidents, specifically. Of the 35 fatal CPSRMS child climbing incidents, the weight of the child was reported for 23 incidents, and ranged from 21.5 to 45 pounds. For the remaining 12 climbing incidents in which the child's weight was not reported, CPSC staff estimated their weights, based on age, and the weights ranged from 23.8 to 39 pounds. New fatal incidents CPSC identified since the NPR data set involved 2 additional climbing incidents, one of which involved a 29-pound child and the other involved a 31-pound child.

For the NPR data set, of the 32 nonfatal CPSRMS child climbing incidents, the weight of the child was reported in 8 incidents, and ranged from 26 to 80 pounds. For the remaining 24 incidents, staff estimated the weights based on age, and the weights ranged from 25.2 to 45.1 pounds. Weight was not reported in the nonfatal NEISS data, however, using the ages of the children in the 412 nonfatal NEISS child climbing incidents (9 months to 13 years old), staff estimates that their weights ranged from 19.6 to 122 pounds.

V. Relevant Existing Standards

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

In the United States, the primary voluntary standard that addresses CSU stability is ASTM F2057-19,

Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units.

In addition, CPSC staff identified three international consumer safety standards and one domestic standard that are relevant to CSUs:

• AS/NZS 4935: 2009, the Australian/New Zealand Standard for

Domestic furniture—Freestanding chests of drawers, wardrobes and bookshelves/bookcases—determination of stability;

• ISO 7171 (2019), the International Organization for Standardization

International Standard for Furniture—Storage Units—Determination of stability;

• EN14749 (2016), the European Standard,

European Standard for Domestic and kitchen storage units and worktops—Safety requirements and test methods;

and

• ANSI/BIFMA X6.5-2022,

Home Office and Occasional-Use Desk, Table and Storage Products.

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

all drawers and pull-out shelves to the outstop

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.

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

The second stability requirement is in section 7.2 of the standard,

Stability with Load.

This test consists of placing an empty CSU on a hard, level, flat surface, and gradually applying a test weight of 50 ± 2 pounds. The test weight is intended to represent the weight of a 5-year-old child. For this test, only one door or drawer is open at a time and the test weight is applied to that open feature. Each drawer or door is tested individually, and all other drawers and doors remain closed. If the CSU tips over in this configuration, or is supported by any component that was not specifically designed for that purpose, it does not meet this requirement.

3. Tip Restraint Requirements

ASTM F2057-19 requires CSUs to include a tip restraint that complies with ASTM F3096-14,

Standard Performance Specification for Tipover Restraint(s) Used with Clothing Storage Unit(s).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

label would make the warning more effective.

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,

staff tested 61 CSU samples and found that 50 percent (31 of 61) did not comply with the stability requirements in ASTM F2057.

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;

and 17 units assessed as part of previous test data provided to CPSC.

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.

Although this testing involved ASTM F2057-14, the stability requirements were the same as in ASTM F2057-19. The test results are available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/2016-Tipover-Briefing-Package-Test-Results-Update-August-16-2017.pdf?yMCHvzY_YtOZmBAAj0GJih1lXE7vvu9K.

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.

Staff tested exemplar units, meaning the model of CSU involved in the incident, but not the actual unit involved in the incident.

The CSUs were identified from the Consumer Reports study “Furniture Tip-Overs: A Hidden Hazard in Your Home” (Mar. 22, 2018), available at:

https://www.consumerreports.org/furniture/furniture-tip-overs-hidden-hazard-in-your-home/.

B. AS/NZS 4935: 2009

AS/NZS 4935 is a voluntary standard prepared by Standards Australia's and Standards New Zealand's Joint Technical Committee CS-088/CS-091, Commercial/Domestic Furniture. There is only one version of the standard, the current version AS/NZA 4935:2009, which was approved on behalf of the Council of Standards Australia on August 28, 2009, and on behalf of the Council of Standards New Zealand on October 23, 2009. It was published on November 17, 2009.

1. Scope

AS/NZS 4935 aims to address furniture tip-over hazards to children. It describes test methods for determining the stability of domestic freestanding chests of drawers over 500 mm (19.7 inch) high, freestanding wardrobes over 500 mm high (19.7 inch), and freestanding bookshelves/bookcases over 600 mm (23.6 inch) high. It defines “chest of drawers” as containing one or more drawers or other extendible elements and intended for the storage of clothing, and may have one or more doors or shelves. It defines “wardrobe” as a furniture item primarily intended for hanging clothing that may also have one or more drawers, doors or other extendible elements, or fixed shelves. It defines bookshelves and bookcases as sets of shelves primarily intended for storing books, and may contain doors, drawers or other extendible elements.

2. Stability Requirements

Similar to ASTM F2057-19, AS/NZS 4935 includes two stability requirements. The first requires the unit, when empty, to not tip over when a 29-kilogram (64-pound) test weight is applied to a single open drawer. The 64-pound test weight is intended to represent the weight of a 5-year-and-11-month-old child, adjusted upward to reflect trends of increasing body mass. The test weight is applied to the top face of a drawer, with the drawer opened to two-thirds of its full extension length. The second test requires the unit not tip over when all of the extension elements are open and the unit is empty. Each drawer or extendible element is open to two-thirds of its extension length, and doors are open perpendicular to the furniture. Units do not pass the stability requirements if they cannot support the test weight, if they tip over, or if they are only prevented from tipping by an extendible element.

3. Tip Restraint Requirements

The standard does not require, but recommends, that tip restraints be included with units, along with attachment instructions.

4. Labeling Requirements

The standard requires a warning label and provides example text that addresses the tip-over hazard. The standard also requires a warning tag with specific text and formatting. The label and tag include statements informing consumers about the hazard, warning of tip overs and resulting injuries, and indicating how to avoid the hazard. These requirements do not address the use of televisions. The standard includes label permanency requirements and mandates that the warning label be placed “inside of a top drawer within clear view when the drawer is empty and partially opened, or on the inside face of a drawer” for chests of drawers and wardrobes.

5. Assessment of Adequacy

The Commission concludes that the stability requirements in AS/NZS 4935 are not adequate to address the CSU tip-over hazard because they do not account for multiple open and filled drawers, carpeted flooring, and dynamic forces generated by children's interactions with the CSU, such as climbing or pulling on the top drawer. As discussed in this preamble, these factors are commonly involved in CSU tip-over incidents and testing indicates that they decrease the stability of CSUs.

AS/NZS 4935 requires drawer extension to only two-thirds of extension length for both stability tests. This partial extension does not represent real-world use because children are able to open drawers fully, incidents involve fully open drawers, and opening a drawer further decreases the stability of a CSU. In addition, it does not account for filled drawers, which are expected during real-world use, are common in tip-over incidents, and contribute to instability when multiple drawers are open. It also does not account for carpeted floors, which are common in incidents and contribute to instability. Although AS/NZS 4935 uses a heavier test weight than ASTM F2057-19, it is inadequate because neither stability test accounts for the moments children can exert on CSUs during interactions, such as climbing. Considering additional moments, the 64 pounds of weight on the drawer face is approximately equivalent to a 40-pound child climbing the extended drawer. A 40-pound weight corresponds to a 75th percentile 3-year-old child, 50th percentile 4-year-old child, and 25th percentile 5-year-old child.

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.

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

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

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.

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)

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.

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

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

and vertical forces F

. 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.

ER25NO22.000

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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

furniture stability.

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

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:

“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.

ER25NO22.001

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

ER25NO22.002

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

CPSC staff worked with UMTRI researchers to develop a set of scripted interactions. Staff focused on realistic interactions in which the child's position and/or dynamic interactions were the most likely to cause a CSU to tip over. The interactions were based on incident data and online videos of children interacting with CSUs and other furniture items. The interactions UMTRI researchers evaluated included:

•

Ascend:

climb up onto the test fixture;

•

Bounce:

bounce vigorously without leaving the bar;

•

Lean back:

lean back as far as possible while keeping both hands and feet on the bars;

•

Yank:

from the lean back position, pull on the bar as hard as possible;

•

1 hand & 1 foot:

take one hand and foot (from the same side of the body) off the bars and then lean as far away from the bars as possible;

•

Hop up:

hold the upper bar and try to jump from the floor to a position where the arms are straight and the hips are in front of the upper bar, an action similar to hoisting oneself out of a swimming pool;

•

Hang:

hold onto the upper bar, lift feet off the floor by bending knees, hang still for a few seconds, and then straighten legs to return to the floor; and

•

Descend:

climb down from the test fixture.

As described above, the ascend interaction best models the climbing behavior commonly seen in incidents, and is analogous to a child's initial step to climb up on to the CSU, which is an integral climbing interaction. The other, more extreme interactions, such as bounce, lean, and yank, were identified as plausible interactions, based on child behavior; but these interactions were not directly observed in the incident data.

After the children performed the interaction, the researchers reviewed video from each trial to isolate and characterize interactions of interest. Researchers analyzed forces from each extracted behavior to identify peak forces and moments. Participant postures have strong effects on the horizontal forces exerted by the child and the subsequent calculated moments, due to the location of the child's CM during each behavior. Thus, the CM of the child is important when evaluating the stability or tip-over propensity of the child/CSU-combined system. UMTRI researchers used the images of the subjects to estimate the location of the child's CM. The UMTRI researchers extracted video frames at time points of interest (typically when the child produced the maximum moment during the interaction) and manually digitized the series of landmarks on the image of the child. The location of the CM was estimated, based on anthropometric information on children,

as 33 percent of the distance from the buttock landmark to the top-of-head landmark.

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.

ER25NO22.003

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).

ER25NO22.004

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.

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).

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.

ER25NO22.005

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.

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

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

ER25NO22.006

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.

ER25NO22.007

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

) 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.

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.

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).

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:

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

Equation 1.

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

Equation 1 can be multiplied by a child's weight to estimate the moment

generated by the child ascending, as shown in Equation 2:

Equation 2.

M = {1.08 × [1 ft] + 0.52 ft} × 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:

= {1.08 × [1 ft] + 0.52 ft} × 50 lb= 54 lb-ft + 26 lb-ft

= 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Staff used the results from this study to determine a test method that approximated the effect of carpet on CSU stability by tilting the unit forward (Tab D of the NPR briefing package). Using the CSUs that were involved in CSU tip-over incidents (Tab M of the NPR briefing package), staff compared 9 tip weights on carpet with tip weights for the same units in the same test configuration when tilted at 0, 1, 2, and 3 degrees in the forward direction on an otherwise hard, level, and flat surface.

The tip weight of CSUs on carpet corresponded with tilting the CSUs 0.8 to 3 degrees forward, depending on the CSU; the mean tilt angle that corresponded to the CSU tip weights on carpet was 1.48 degrees. This suggests that a forward tilt of 0.8 to 3 degrees replicated the test results on carpet. Staff also conducted a mechanical analysis of the carpet and pad used in

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

D. Incident Recreation and Modeling

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.

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.

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

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

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

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;

and 17 units assessed as part of previous test data provided to CPSC.

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.

Staff tested exemplar units, using the model of CSU involved in the incident, but not the actual incident unit.

The CSUs were identified from the Consumer Reports study “Furniture Tip-Overs: A Hidden Hazard in Your Home” (Mar. 22, 2018), available at:

https://www.consumerreports.org/furniture/furniture-tip-overs-hidden-hazard-in-your-home/.

Of the 188 CSUs staff tested, 98 (52 percent) held the 60-pound weight without tipping over. The mean weight at which the CSUs tipped over was 61.7 pounds and the median was 62 pounds.

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.

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

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.

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).

Kalsher, M., CPSC Gather Consumer Feedback: Final Report (2019), available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC%20Gather%20Consumer%20Feedback%20-%20Final%20Report%20with%20CPSC%20Staff%20Statement%20-%20REDACTED%20and%20CLEARED.pdf?GTPK5CxkCRmftdywdDGXJyVIVq.GU2Tx.

One of the existing symbols the contractor evaluated is the child climbing symbol from the warning label in ASTM F2057-19. The symbol showed passing comprehension (87.5 percent) when scored with lenient (

i.e.,

partially correct) scoring criteria, but poor comprehension (63.8 percent) when scored with strict scoring criteria. There was no critical confusion with the symbol.

The contractor conducted focus groups consisting of 40 of the 80 comprehension study participants. Based on the feedback received in the comprehension study and in focus groups, the contractor developed two new symbol variants, shown in Figure 8.

ER25NO22.008

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.

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.

Kalsher & Associates, LLC.

CPSC Warning Label Safety Symbol Research: Final Report.

Oct. 27, 2021. Available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Warning-Label-Safety-Symbol-Research-Final-Report-with-CPSC-Staff-Statement.pdf?VersionId=qCnIivtD0HRs3dEW69p.UVSDxTxvvESq.

H. Tip Restraints and Anchoring

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).

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.

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

), as the overall rate of anchoring furniture found in the study.

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

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/Tipover-Prevention-Project-Anchors-without-Tools.pdf.

Three consumers identified the furniture as an “armoire,” and 19 consumers identified the furniture as a “dresser, chest of drawers, or bureau.”

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

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.

Consumer Reports, Furniture Wall Anchors: A Nationally Representative Multi-Mode Survey (2018), available at:

https://article.images.consumerreports.org/prod/content/dam/surveys/Consumer_Reports_Wall_Anchors_Survey_2018_Final.

As discussed earlier in this preamble, the Commission launched the education campaign—Anchor It!—in 2015 to promote consumer use of tip restraints to anchor furniture and televisions. In 2020, a CPSC-commissioned study assessed consumer awareness, recognition, and behavior change as a result of the Anchor It! campaign.

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.

The report for this study, Fors Marsh Group, CPSC Anchor It! Campaign: Main Report (July 10, 2020), is available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Anchor-It-Campaign-Effectiveness-Survey-Main-Report_Final_9_2_2020....pdf?gC1No.oOO2FEXV9wmOtdJVAtacRLHIMK.

These results indicate that one of the primary reasons parents and caregivers of young children do not anchor furniture is a belief that it does not need to be anchored if children are supervised. However, research shows that 2- to 5-year-old children are out of view of a supervising parent for about 20 percent of the time that they are awake, and are left alone significantly longer in bedrooms, playrooms, and living room areas.

CSUs are likely to be in bedrooms, where children are expected to have unsupervised time, including during naps and overnight. Many of the CSU tip-over incidents occurred in children's bedrooms during these unsupervised times. According to the Consumer Reports study, 76 percent of consumers with children under 6 years old reported that dressers are present in rooms where children sleep or play; and the UMTRI study found that nearly all (95 percent) of child participants had dressers in their bedrooms. Notably, among the 89 fatal incidents, 55 occurred in a child's bedroom, 11 occurred in a bedroom, 2 occurred in a parent's bedroom, and 2 occurred in a sibling's bedroom. None of the fatal incidents occurred when the child was under direct adult supervision. However, some nonfatal incidents occurred during supervised time when parents were in the room with the child. As this indicates, supervision is neither a practical, nor

effective way to prevent tip-over incidents.

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

Another common reason caregivers provided for not anchoring furniture was the perception that the furniture was stable. CPSC staff testing and modeling found that there is a large difference in stability of CSUs, depending on the number of drawers open. Adults are likely to open only one or a couple of drawers at a time on a CSU; as such, adults may only have experience with the CSUs in their more stable configurations and may underestimate the tip-over hazard. In contrast, incident analysis shows that some children open multiple or all drawers on a CSU simultaneously, potentially putting the CSU in a much less stable configuration; and children contribute further to instability by climbing the CSU.

CPSC staff also has concerns about the effectiveness of tip restraints and identified tip-over incidents in which tip restraints detached or broke. Overall, given the low rates of anchoring, the barriers to anchoring, and concerns about the effectiveness of tip restraints, CPSC concludes that tip restraints are not effective as the primary method of preventing CSU tip overs. Effective tip restraints may be useful as a secondary safety system to enhance stability, such as for interactions that generate particularly strong forces (

e.g.,

bouncing, jumping), or to address interactions from older/heavier children. In addition, tip restraints may help reduce the risk of tip overs for CSUs that are already in homes, since this rule only applies to CSUs manufactured after the effective date. In future work, CPSC may evaluate appropriate requirements for tip restraints, and will continue to work with ASTM to update its tip restraint requirements.

VIII. Response to Comments

CPSC received 66 written comments during the NPR comment period and 8 oral comments during the public hearing. The comments are available on:

www.regulations.gov,

by searching under docket number CPSC-2017-0044. This section describes key comments CPSC received on the substantive requirements in the NPR and responds to them. For more details about the comments CPSC received on the NPR, and CPSC's response to them, see Tab K of the final rule briefing package.

A. Incident Data

Comment:

CPSC received comments regarding the rates of CSU tip-over incidents. Some commenters noted the decline in tip-over injuries reported in the NPR and most recent stability report, while others noted that the number of incidents is still too high.

Response:

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

Schroeder, T., Cowhig, M. (2021). Effect of Novel Coronavirus Pandemic on 2020 NEISS Estimates (March-December, 2020), available at:

https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Covid-19-and-final-2020-NEISS-estimates-March-December-6b6_edited20210607_0.pdf.

B. Scope and Definitions

Comment:

Several commenters requested that specific products be excluded from the scope of the rule. These included comments to exclude wardrobes from the rule because they are covered by an ANSI standard, to exclude file cabinets, and to exclude nightstands.

Response:

The final rule does not exclude wardrobes from the definition of a CSU because wardrobes have been involved in tip-over incidents and it is reasonable to address children putting their body weight on doors and drawers of such units, based on physical and cognitive abilities and demonstrated interactions in incidents. Moreover, staff reviewed existing standards and determined that they do not adequately reduce the hazard and the ANSI standard is not mandatory. The final rule does not explicitly exclude file cabinets from the scope, although some file cabinets may not meet the criteria in the CSU definition (

e.g.,

reasonably expected to be used for storing clothing). The rule does not exclude file cabinets generally because some may meet the criteria in the definition and, as consumer studies indicate, consumers use products as CSUs when they serve the functions identified for such products. The final rule also does not exclude nightstands because staff has identified products that are sold as nightstands but feature all of the characteristics of a CSU; consumer studies found that consumers identified and would use such products as CSUs; and CPSC is aware of incidents in which children climbed on nightstands. However, any nightstands that do not meet the criteria in the CSU definition (

e.g.,

under 27 inches tall, insufficient closed storage, reasonable expected use, or extendable elements/doors) would not fall within the scope of the rule.

As explained, the criteria for determining whether a product is a CSU are based on specific factors that contribute to instability and indicate that consumers are likely to perceive and use the product as a CSU. As explained, products that look and function just like a CSU may be marketed as something else, but consumers will still use it as a CSU. Accordingly, the final rule relies on criteria, rather than product names, to determine scope.

Comment:

A commenter suggested excluding pull-out shelves from the scope of the rule because of a lack of reported tip-over incidents involving CSUs with such features. The commenter also suggested that, if included in the rule, the fill weight for pull-out shelves should be reduced to 4.25 pounds per cubic feet, representing half of the 8.5 pounds used for a drawer's fill weight.

Response:

The final rule includes testing of pull-out shelves because these are elements that extend outward from the case of the CSU and are reasonably likely to be loaded with a clothing weight. As such, when open and loaded, a pull-out shelf would increase the instability of a CSU like an open and filled drawer.

As explained above, the NPR proposed to use the same fill weight of 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of functional volume for drawers and pull-out shelves, but raised the possibility that fill weight for pull-out shelves may be lower than for drawers (

e.g.,

4.25 pounds per cubic foot) if pull-out shelves can hold less clothing fill than a drawer while remaining operable and containing the clothing when the shelf moves. CPSC did not receive any data regarding this in comments on the NPR. However, staff has further assessed this possibility and found that pull-out shelves can hold the same volume of

clothing as drawers and remain fully functional and sufficiently contain the clothing content when moving the shelf.

Accordingly, the final rule retains the 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of functional volume fill density for pull-out shelves.

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.

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.

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

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.