6246 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1Reporting is considered incomplete for the years 

2018–2020 because reporting is ongoing. 

2For the remaining incidents, either no injury 

resulted from the incident, or the report did not 

indicate whether an injury occurred. 

3Massale, 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. 

4The 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). 

5The Commission voted 4–0 to approve this 

notice. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 1112 and 1261 

[Docket No. CPSC–2017–0044] 

Safety Standard for Clothing Storage 

Units 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (Commission or 

CPSC) has determined preliminarily 

that there is an unreasonable risk of 

injury and death, particularly to 

children, associated with clothing 

storage units (CSUs) tipping over. To 

address this risk, the Commission 

proposes a rule addressing the stability 

of CSUs. Specifically, the proposed rule 

would require CSUs to be tested for 

stability, exceed minimum stability 

requirements, be marked and labeled 

with safety information, and bear a hang 

tag providing performance and technical 

data about the stability of the CSU. The 

Commission issues this proposed rule 

under the authority of the Consumer 

Product Safety Act (CPSA). The 

Commission requests comments about 

all aspects of this notice, including the 

risk of injury, the proposed 

requirements, alternatives to the 

proposed rule, and the economic 

impacts of the proposed rule and 

alternatives. 

DATES: Submit comments by April 19, 

2022. 

ADDRESSES: Direct comments related to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of 

the proposed rule to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, the 

Office of Management and Budget, Attn: 

CPSC Desk Officer, fax to: 202–395– 

6974, or email oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov. Submit other comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2017– 

0044, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

CPSC does not accept comments 

submitted by electronic mail (email), 

except through https://

www.regulations.gov, and as described 

below. CPSC encourages you to submit 

electronic comments by using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, as 

described above. 

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier Written 

Submissions: Submit comments by 

mail/hand delivery/courier to: Division 

of the Secretariat, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission 4330 East-West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone: (301) 504–7479. 

Alternatively, as a temporary option 

during the COVID–19 pandemic, you 

can email such submissions to: cpsc-os@

cpsc.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this notice. CPSC may post 

all comments without change, including 

any personal identifiers, contact 

information, or other personal 

information provided, to: https://

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

electronically: Confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If you wish to submit such 

information, please submit it according 

to the instructions for mail/hand 

delivery/courier written submissions. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments regarding this 

proposed rulemaking, go to: https://

www.regulations.gov, insert docket 

number CPSC–2017–0044 in the 

‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristen Talcott, Project Manager, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20852; 

telephone (301) 987–2311; email: 

KTalcott@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

CSUs are freestanding furniture items, 

typically used for storing clothes. 

Examples of CSUs include chests, 

bureaus, dressers, chests of drawers, 

drawer chests, door chests, chifforobes, 

armoires, and wardrobes. CPSC is aware 

of numerous deaths and injuries 

resulting from CSUs tipping over, 

particularly onto children. CPSC 

identified 226 fatalities associated with 

CSUs tipping over that were reported to 

have occurred between January 1, 2000 

and December 31, 2020.1 Of these, 193 

(85 percent) involved children (i.e., 

under 18 years old), 11 (5 percent) 

involved adults (i.e., 18 to 64 years old), 

and 22 (10 percent) involved seniors 

(i.e., 65 years and older). In addition, 

there were an estimated 78,200 nonfatal 

CSU tip-over injuries that were treated 

in U.S. hospital emergency departments 

(EDs) between January 1, 2006 and 

December 31, 2019. Of these, an 

estimated 56,400 (72 percent) involved 

children, and the remaining estimated 

21,800 (28 percent) involved adults and 

seniors. 

To address the hazard associated with 

CSU tip overs, the Commission has 

taken several steps. In June 2015, the 

Commission launched the Anchor It! 

campaign. This educational campaign 

includes print and broadcast public 

service announcements; information 

distribution at targeted venues, such as 

childcare centers; social media; blog 

posts; videos; and an informational 

website (www.AnchorIt.gov). The 

campaign explains the nature of the 

risk, provides safety tips for avoiding 

furniture and television tip overs, and 

promotes the use of tip restraints to 

anchor furniture and televisions. 

In addition, CPSC’s Office of 

Compliance and Field Operations has 

investigated and recalled CSUs. 

Between January 1, 2000 and March 31, 

2021, 40 consumer-level recalls 

occurred to address CSU tip-over 

hazards. The recalled products were 

responsible for 328 tip-over incidents, 

including reports of 149 injuries and 12 

fatalities.2 These recalls involved 34 

firms and affected approximately 

21,500,000 CSUs. 

In 2016, CPSC staff prepared a 

briefing package on furniture tip overs, 

looking at then-current levels of 

compliance with the voluntary 

standards, and the adequacy of the 

voluntary standards.3

In 2017, the Commission issued an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPR), discussing the possibility of 

developing a rule to address the risk of 

injury and death associated with CSU 

tip overs. 82 FR 56752 (Nov. 30, 2017).4

The ANPR began a rulemaking 

proceeding under the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 

2051–2089). CPSC received 18 

comments during the comment period, 

as well as five additional 

correspondences after the comment 

period, which staff also considered. 

The Commission is now issuing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), 

proposing to establish requirements for 

CSU stability.5 The information 

discussed in this preamble is derived 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6247 

from CPSC staff’s briefing package for 

the NPR, which is available on CPSC’s 

website at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fspublic/Proposed%20Rule-%

20Safety%20Standard

%20for%20Clothing

%20Storage%20Units.pdf. This 

preamble provides key information to 

explain and support the rule; however, 

for a more comprehensive and detailed 

discussion, see the NPR briefing 

package. 

II. Statutory Authority 

CSUs are ‘‘consumer products’’ that 

the Commission can regulate under the 

authority of the CPSA. See 15 U.S.C. 

2052(a)(5). Section 7 of the CPSA 

authorizes the Commission to issue a 

mandatory consumer product safety 

standard that consists of performance 

requirements or requirements that the 

product be marked with, or 

accompanied by, warnings or 

instructions. Id. 2056(a). Any 

requirement in the standard must be 

‘‘reasonably necessary to prevent or 

reduce an unreasonable risk of injury’’ 

associated with the product. Id. Section 

7 requires the Commission to issue such 

a standard in accordance with section 9 

of the CPSA. Id. 

Section 9 of the CPSA specifies the 

procedure the Commission must follow 

to issue a consumer product safety 

standard under section 7. Id. 2058. 

Under section 9, the Commission may 

initiate rulemaking by issuing an ANPR 

or NPR. Id. 2058(a). As noted above, the 

Commission issued an ANPR on CSU 

tip overs in November 2017. 82 FR 

56752 (Nov. 30, 2017). When issuing an 

NPR, the Commission must comply 

with section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), which 

requires the Commission to provide 

notice of a rule and the opportunity to 

submit written comments on it. 15 

U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). In addition, the 

Commission must provide interested 

parties with an opportunity to make oral 

presentations of data, views, or 

arguments. Id. 

Under section 9 of the CPSA, an NPR 

must include the text of the proposed 

rule, any alternatives the Commission 

proposes, and a preliminary regulatory 

analysis. 15 U.S.C. 2058(c). The 

preliminary regulatory analysis must 

include: 

• A preliminary description of the 

potential costs and benefits of the rule, 

including costs and benefits that cannot 

be quantified, and the analysis must 

identify who is likely to receive the 

benefits and bear the costs; 

• a discussion of the reasons any 

standard or portion of a standard 

submitted to the Commission in 

response to the ANPR was not 

published by the Commission as the 

proposed rule or part of the proposed 

rule; 

• a discussion of the reasons for the 

Commission’s preliminary 

determination that efforts submitted to 

the Commission in response to the 

ANPR to develop or modify a voluntary 

standard would not be likely, within a 

reasonable period of time, to result in a 

voluntary standard that would eliminate 

or adequately reduce the risk of injury 

addressed by the proposed rule; and 

• a description of alternatives to the 

proposed rule that the Commission 

considered and a brief explanation of 

the reason the alternatives were not 

chosen. 

Id. 

In addition, to issue a final rule, the 

Commission must make certain findings 

and include them in the rule. Id. 

2058(f)(1), (f)(3). Under section 9(f)(1) of 

the CPSA, before promulgating a 

consumer product safety rule, the 

Commission must consider, and make 

appropriate findings to be included in 

the rule, concerning the following 

issues: 

• The degree and nature of the risk of 

injury the rule is designed to eliminate 

or reduce; 

• the approximate number of 

consumer products subject to the rule; 

• the need of the public for the 

products subject to the rule and the 

probable effect the rule will have on the 

cost, availability, and utility of such 

products; and 

• the means to achieve the objective 

of the rule while minimizing adverse 

effects on competition, manufacturing, 

and commercial practices. 

Id. 2058(f)(1). Under section 9(f)(3) of 

the CPSA, the Commission may not 

issue a consumer product safety rule 

unless it finds (and includes in the 

rule): 

• The rule, including the effective 

date, is reasonably necessary to 

eliminate or reduce an unreasonable 

risk of injury associated with the 

product; 

• that issuing the rule is in the public 

interest; 

• if a voluntary standard addressing 

the risk of injury has been adopted and 

implemented, that either compliance 

with the voluntary standard is not likely 

to result in the elimination or adequate 

reduction of the risk or injury, or there 

is unlikely to be substantial compliance 

with the voluntary standard; 

• that the benefits expected from the 

rule bear a reasonable relationship to its 

costs; and 

• that the rule imposes the least 

burdensome requirement that prevents 

or adequately reduces the risk of injury. 

Id. 2058(f)(3). At the NPR stage, the 

Commission is making these findings on 

a preliminary basis to allow the public 

to comment on the findings. 

Section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA allows the 

Commission to prohibit manufacturers 

of a consumer product from stockpiling 

products subject to a consumer product 

safety rule to prevent manufacturers 

from circumventing the purpose of the 

rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2). The statute 

defines ‘‘stockpiling’’ as manufacturing 

or importing a product between the date 

a rule is promulgated and its effective 

date at a rate that is significantly greater 

than the rate at which the product was 

produced or imported during a base 

period ending before the date the rule 

was promulgated. Id. The Commission 

is to define what constitutes a 

‘‘significantly greater’’ rate and the base 

period in the rule addressing 

stockpiling. Id. 

Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes 

the Commission to issue a rule to 

require manufacturers of consumer 

products to provide ‘‘such performance 

and technical data related to 

performance and safety as may be 

required to carry out the purposes of 

[the CPSA].’’ 15 U.S.C. 2076(e). The 

Commission may require manufacturers 

to provide this information to the 

Commission or, at the time of original 

purchase, to prospective purchasers and 

the first purchaser for purposes other 

than resale, as necessary to carry out the 

purposes of the CPSA. Id. Section 2(b) 

of the CPSA states the purposes of the 

CPSA, including: 

• Protecting the public from 

unreasonable risks of injury associated 

with consumer products; and 

• assisting consumers in evaluating 

the comparative safety of consumer 

products. 

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

III. The Product and Market 

A. Description of the Product 

The proposed rule defines a ‘‘CSU’’ as 

a freestanding furniture item, with 

drawer(s) and/or door(s), that may be 

reasonably expected to be used for 

storing clothing, that is greater than or 

equal to 27 inches in height, and that 

has a total functional volume of the 

closed storage greater than 1.3 cubic feet 

and greater than the sum of the total 

functional volume of the open storage 

and the total volume of the open space. 

Common names for CSUs include, but 

are not limited to: Chests, bureaus, 

dressers, armoires, wardrobes, chests of 

drawers, drawer chests, chifforobes, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6248 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

6For more details about incident data, see Tab A 

of the NPR briefing package. 

7These annual reports are available at: https://

www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/Furniture-andDecor-1. 

8 Data from NEISS is based on a nationally 

representative probability sample of about 100 

hospitals in the United States and its territories. 

NEISS data can be accessed from the CPSC website 

under the ‘‘Access NEISS’’ link at: https://

www.cpsc.gov/Research--Statistics/NEISS-InjuryData. 

9CPSRMS is the epidemiological database that 

houses all anecdotal reports of incidents received 

by CPSC, ‘‘external cause’’-based death certificates 

purchased by CPSC, all in-depth investigations of 

these anecdotal reports, as well as investigations of 

select NEISS injuries. Examples of documents in 

CPSRMS include: Hotline reports, internet reports, 

news reports, medical examiner’s reports, death 

certificates, retailer/manufacturer reports, and 

documents sent by state/local authorities, among 

others. 

10Staff considered incidents that involved chests, 

bureaus, dressers, armoires, wardrobes, portable 

clothes lockers, and portable closets. 

11This section refers to tip-over incidents and 

instability incidents collectively as tip-over 

incidents. 

door chests. CSUs are available in a 

variety of designs (e.g., vertical or 

horizontal dressers), sizes (e.g., weights 

and heights), dimensions, and materials 

(e.g., wood, plastic, leather, 

manufactured wood or fiber board). 

Consumers may purchase CSUs that 

have been assembled by the 

manufacturer, or they may purchase 

CSUs as ready-to-assemble furniture. 

The proposed definition includes 

several criteria to help distinguish CSUs 

from other furniture. As freestanding 

furniture items, CSUs remain upright 

without requiring attachment to a wall, 

when fully assembled and empty, with 

all extension elements closed. As such, 

built-in units or units intended to be 

permanently attached to a building 

structure (other than by tip restraints) 

are not considered freestanding. In 

addition, CSUs are typically intended 

and used for storing clothing and, 

therefore, they are commonly used in 

bedrooms. However, consumers may 

also use CSUs in rooms other than 

bedrooms and to store items other than 

clothing in them. For this reason, 

whether a product is a CSU depends on 

whether it meets the criteria in the 

proposed definition, rather than what 

the name of the product is or what is the 

marketed use for the product. The 

criteria in the proposed definition 

regarding height and closed storage 

volume (i.e., storage space inside a 

drawer or behind an opaque door) aim 

to address the utility of a unit for 

holding multiple clothing items. Some 

examples of furniture items that, 

depending on their design, may not 

meet the criteria in the proposed 

definition and, therefore, may not be 

considered CSUs are: Shelving units, 

office furniture, dining room furniture, 

laundry hampers, built-in closets, and 

single-compartment closed rigid boxes 

(storage chests). 

CSUs may be marketed, packaged, or 

displayed as intended for children 12 

years old and younger. Examples of 

such products include CSUs with 

pictures or designs on them that would 

appeal to children; CSU designs that 

would be useful for children; or CSUs 

that are part of a matching set with a 

crib, or similar infant product. However, 

CSUs are more commonly general-use 

products that are not specifically 

intended for children 12 years old and 

younger. The proposed rule applies to 

both children’s products and nonchildren’s products. 

B. The Market 

CPSC staff estimated the annual 

revenues and shipments of CSUs, using 

estimates of manufacturer and importer 

revenue, and estimated sales, by using 

data on retail sales. The shipment value 

of chests of drawers and dressers 

combined for an estimated $5.15 billion 

in 2018, and combined shipments of 

dressers and chests totaled 43.6 million 

units. Average manufacturer shipment 

value was $118 per unit in 2018 (about 

$104 for chests of drawers and $144 for 

dressers). 

Retail prices of CSUs vary 

substantially. The least expensive units 

retail for less than $100, while more 

expensive units may retail for several 

thousand dollars. The estimated retail 

value of U.S. bedroom furniture sales in 

2019 totaled $60.3 billion, of which 

$20.8 billion was sales of closets (which 

likely includes wardrobes and 

armoires), nightstands (some of which 

may be considered CSUs), and dressers 

(which likely includes chests of 

drawers). 

According to data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau, in 2017, there were a 

total of 3,404 firms classified in the 

North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) as nonupholstered wood household furniture 

manufacturing, upholstered household 

furniture manufacturing, metal 

household furniture manufacturing, or 

household furniture (except wood and 

metal) manufacturing. Of these firms, 

2,024 were primarily categorized in the 

non-upholstered wood furniture 

category. However, these categories are 

broad and include manufacturers of 

furniture other than CSUs, such as 

tables, chairs, bed frames, and sofas. As 

such, it is likely that not all of the firms 

in these categories manufacture CSUs. 

Production methods and efficiencies 

vary among manufacturers; some use 

mass production techniques, and others 

manufacture their products one at a 

time or on a custom-order basis. 

The number of U.S. firms that are 

primarily classified as manufacturers of 

non-upholstered wood household 

furniture has declined over the last few 

decades, as retailers have turned to 

international sources of CSUs and other 

wood furniture. Additionally, some 

firms that formerly produced all of their 

CSUs domestically have shifted 

production to foreign plants. More than 

half (64 percent) of the value of 

apparent consumption of nonupholstered wood furniture (net imports 

plus domestic production for the U.S. 

market) in 2019 was comprised of 

imported furniture, which may be true 

for CSUs as well. In addition to 

manufacturers, according to the Census 

Bureau data, in 2017, there were 5,117 

firms involved in household furniture 

importation and distribution. According 

to the Census Bureau, there were 13,826 

furniture retailers in 2017. Wholesalers 

and retailers may obtain their products 

from domestic sources or import them 

from foreign manufacturers. 

IV. Risk of Injury 

A. Incident Data 6

CPSC staff analyzed reported 

fatalities, reported nonfatal incidents 

and injuries, and calculated national 

estimates of injuries treated in EDs that 

were associated with CSU instability or 

tip overs. Each year, CPSC issues an 

annual report on furniture instability 

and tip overs.7 The information 

provided for this rulemaking is drawn 

from a subset of data from those annual 

reports, as well as from the National 

Electronic Injury Surveillance System 8

(NEISS), which includes reports of 

injuries treated in U.S. EDs, and the 

Consumer Product Safety Risk 

Management System 9 (CPSRMS). For 

this rulemaking, staff focused on 

incidents that involved products that 

would be considered CSUs.10 Staff 

considered incidents that involved the 

CSU tipping over, as well as incidents 

of CSU instability with indications of 

impending tip over. Tip-over incidents 

are a subset of product instability 

incidents, and involve CSUs actually 

falling over. Product instability 

incidents are a broader category that 

includes tip-over incidents, but may 

also include incidents where CSUs did 

not fully tip over. Staff considered 

instability incidents relevant because 

product instability can lead to a tip 

over, and the same factors, such as 

product design, can contribute to 

instability and tip overs.11

The data presented here represent the 

minimum number of incidents or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6249 

12Among other things, CPSRMS houses all indepth investigation reports, as well as the followup 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. 

13Of the 193 reported fatalities, there was one tipover incident that resulted in two deaths, making 

the number of fatal incidents 192. 

14 Different time frames are presented for NEISS, 

CPSRMS, fatal, and nonfatal data because of the 

timeframes in which staff collected, received, 

retrieved, and analyzed the data. One example of 

the reason for varied timeframes is that staff drew 

data from previous annual reports and other datacollection reports (which used varied start dates), 

and then updated the data set to include more 

recent data. Another example is that CPSRMS data 

are available on an ongoing basis, whereas NEISS 

data are not available until several months after the 

end of the previous calendar year. 

15Nonfatal incident reports submitted to CPSC 

come from reports entered into CPSC’s CPSRMS 

database no later than December 31, 2020, and 

includes completed NEISS investigations. All of the 

investigation reports based on NEISS injuries that 

occurred from 2006 through 2020 appear in the 

reported nonfatal incidents. 

16These reports include bruising, bumps on the 

head, cuts, lacerations, scratches, application of 

first-aid, or other indications of at least a minor 

injury that occurred, without any mention of aid 

rendered by a medical professional. There were 

three NEISS cases in which the victim went to the 

ED, but then left without being seen. 17 Incidents involving children include those in 

which the age of the victim was reported as well 

as those in which the age was not reported, but the 

report included indications that the victim was a 

child (e.g., a sibling of a small child, or referred to 

as a ‘‘child,’’ ‘‘daughter,’’ or ‘‘son’’). For the 

remaining incidents, the victim was either an adult, 

or the age was unknown. 

fatalities during the time frames 

described. Data collection is ongoing for 

CPSRMS, and is considered incomplete 

for 2018 and after, so CPSC may receive 

additional reports for those years in the 

future.12

1. Fatal Incidents 

Based on NEISS and CPSRMS, CPSC 

staff identified 193 reported CSU tipover fatalities to children (i.e., under 18 

years old),13 11 reported fatalities to 

adults (i.e., ages 18 through 64 years), 

and 22 reported fatalities to seniors (i.e., 

ages 65 years and older) that were 

reported to have occurred between 

January 1, 2000 and December 31, 

2020.14 Of the 193 reported CSU tipover child fatalities, 89 (46 percent) 

involved only a CSU tipping over, 

whereas, 104 (54 percent) involved a 

CSU and a television tipping over. Of 

the child fatalities, 190 (98 percent) 

involved a chest, bureau, or dresser, 2 

involved a wardrobe, and 1 involved an 

armoire. Of the 33 reported adult and 

senior fatalities, 32 (97 percent) 

involved only a CSU tipping over, 

whereas, 1 (9 percent) involved both a 

CSU and a television tipping over. Of 

the adult and senior fatalities, 29 

involved a chest, bureau, or dresser, 2 

involved a wardrobe, 1 involved an 

armoire, and 1 involved a portable 

storage closet. 

For the years for which reporting is 

considered complete—2000 through 

2017—there have been from 3 to 21 

child fatalities each year from CSU tip 

overs, and from 0 to 5 fatalities each 

year to adults and seniors. 

Of the 193 reported child fatalities 

from tip overs, 166 involved children 3 

years old or younger; 12 involved 4- 

year-olds; 7 involved 5-year-olds; 4 

involved 6-year-olds; 1 involved a 7- 

year-old; and 3 involved 8-year-olds. Of 

the 89 reported child fatalities from tip 

overs involving only CSUs (i.e., no 

televisions), 84 involved children 3 

years old or younger; 2 involved 4-yearolds; 1 involved a 5-year-old; 1 involved 

a 6-year-old; and 1 involved a 7-yearold. Thus, 94 percent of these fatalities 

were children 3 years old and younger; 

97 percent were 4 years old and 

younger; 98 percent were 5 years old 

and younger; and 99 percent were 6 

years old and younger. Therefore, 

regardless of television involvement, the 

most reported CSU tip-over fatalities 

happened to children 3 years old or 

younger. Among children 4 years and 

older, a television was more frequently 

involved than not involved. 

CSU tip-over fatalities to children 

were most commonly caused by torso 

injuries when only a CSU was involved, 

and were more commonly caused by 

head injuries when both a CSU and 

television tipped over. For the 89 child 

fatalities not involving a television, 58 

resulted from torso injuries (chest 

compression); 13 resulted from head/ 

torso injuries; 12 resulted from head 

injuries; 4 involved unknown injuries; 

and 2 involved a child’s head, torso, and 

limbs pinned under the CSU. For the 

104 child fatalities that involved both a 

CSU and television tipping over, 91 

resulted from head injuries (blunt head 

trauma); 6 resulted from torso injuries 

(chest compression resulting from the 

child being pinned under the CSU); 2 

resulted from head/torso injuries; 4 

involved unknown injuries; and 1 

involved head/torso/limbs. 

2. Reported Nonfatal Incidents 

CPSC staff identified 1,002 reported 

nonfatal CSU tip-over incidents for all 

ages that were reported to have occurred 

between January 1, 2005 and December 

31, 2020.15 CPSRMS reports are 

considered anecdotal because, unlike 

NEISS data, they cannot be used to 

identify statistical estimates or year-toyear 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 1,002 reported incidents, 64 

percent (639 incidents) involved only a 

CSU, and 36 percent (363 incidents) 

involved both a CSU and television 

tipping over. Of the 1,002 incidents, 

99.5 percent (997 incidents) involved a 

chest, bureau, or dresser; less than 1 

percent (4 incidents) involved an 

armoire; and less than 1 percent (1 

incident) involved a wardrobe. 

For the years for which reporting is 

considered complete—2005 through 

2017—there were from 6 to 256 reported 

nonfatal CSU tip-over incidents each 

year, with 2016 (256 incidents) and 

2017 (101 incidents) reporting the 

highest number of incidents. Each year, 

there were from 5 to 232 reported 

nonfatal incidents involving only a 

CSU, with the highest number (232 

incidents) occurring in 2016. 

Of the 1,002 nonfatal CSU tip-over 

incidents reported, 362 did not mention 

any specific injuries; 628 reported one 

injury; and 12 reported two injuries, 

resulting in a total of 652 injuries 

reported among all of the reported 

nonfatal incidents. Of these 652 

reported injuries, 64 (10 percent) 

resulted in hospital admission; 296 (45 

percent) were treated in EDs; 28 (4 

percent) were seen by medical 

professionals; and the level of care is 

unknown 16 for the remaining 264 (40 

percent). Of 293 reports of nonfatal CSU 

tip-over injuries where only a CSU was 

involved; 7 resulted in hospital 

admission (of which 6 were children 17); 

23 were treated in the ED (of which 22 

were children); 27 were seen by a 

medical professional (of which 19 were 

children); and the level of care is 

unknown for the remaining 236. 

Of the victims whose ages were 

known, there were more injuries 

suffered by children 3 years old and 

younger, than to older victims; and the 

injuries suffered by these young 

children tended to be more severe, 

compared to older children and adults/ 

seniors. The severity of injury ranged 

from cuts and bumps to concussions 

and skull fractures. Of the 7 victims 

admitted to the hospital, 5 were 3 years 

old or younger; 1 was a child of 

unknown age; and 1 was an adult. Of 

the 23 victims treated in the ED, 8 were 

3 years old or younger; 4 were 4 to 5 

years old; 4 were 6 to 17 years old; and 

6 were children of unknown age. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6250 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

18Estimates are rounded to the nearest hundred 

and may not sum to total, due to rounding. NEISS 

estimates are reportable, provided the sample count 

is greater than 20, the national estimate is 1,200 or 

greater, and the coefficient of variation (CV) is less 

than 0.33. 

19Sample size = 2,629, coefficient of variation = 

.0667. 

20 Data on armoires, wardrobes, portable closets, 

and clothes lockers were insufficient to support 

reliable statistical estimates. 

21There were not enough CSU ED-treated 

incidents to children involving both a CSU and a 

television to make reliable estimates for the most 

recent 5 years, 2015 through 2019. 22An estimated 6,300 involved only a CSU and 

the remaining 1,600 involved a CSU and television. 

23An estimated 10,600 involved only a CSU, and 

the remaining 4,400 involved a CSU and television. 

24An estimated 9,200 involved only a CSU, and 

the remaining 3,800 involved a CSU and television. 

25An estimated 5,100 involved only a CSU, and 

the remaining 2,400 involved a CSU and television. 

26These ages are grouped together because data 

were insufficient to generate estimates for any 

single age within that range. 

27Seventy-six percent of these involved only a 

CSU, and the remainder involved a CSU and 

television tipping over. 

28Sixty-one percent of these involved only a CSU, 

and the remainder involved a CSU and television 

tipping over. 

29Eighty-two percent of these involved only a 

CSU, and the remainder involved a CSU and 

television tipping over. 

30Sixty-nine percent of these involved only a 

CSU, and the remainder involved a CSU and 

television tipping over. 

31For more details about injuries, see Tab B of the 

NPR briefing package. 

3. National Estimates of ED-Treated 

Injuries 18

According to NEISS, there were an 

estimated 78,200 injuries,19 an annual 

average of 5,600 estimated injuries, 

related to CSU tip overs for all ages that 

were treated in U.S. hospital EDs from 

January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2019. 

Of the estimated 78,200 injuries, 56,400 

(72 percent) were to children, which is 

an annual average of 4,000 estimated 

injuries to children over the 14-year 

period. For the remaining estimated 

21,800 injuries to adults and seniors, 

about 3,200 (15 percent) were to seniors 

(i.e., 65 years and older). 

An estimated 61,700 (79 percent) of 

ED-treated injuries involved only a CSU 

tipping over, whereas, an estimated 

16,500 (21 percent) involved both a CSU 

and television tipping over. This ratio 

was similar for injuries to children, with 

an estimated 40,700 (72 percent) of 

child incidents involving only a CSU, 

and an estimated 15,700 (28 percent) 

involving both a CSU and a television. 

In contrast, nearly all (an estimated 

21,000 or 96 percent) of the estimated 

injuries to adults and seniors involved 

only a CSU. For each year from 2006 

through 2019, there have been more 

estimated ED-treated injuries to children 

involving only a CSU tipping over, 

compared to incidents involving a CSU 

and a television tipping over. 

For all ages, an estimated 77,000 (98 

percent) of the ED-treated injuries 

involved a chest, bureau, or dresser. 

Similarly, for child injuries, an 

estimated 55,800 (99 percent) involved 

a chest, bureau, or dresser.20 Of the EDtreated injuries to all ages, 93 percent 

were treated and released, and 4 percent 

were hospitalized. Among children, 93 

percent were treated and released, and 

3 percent were hospitalized. 

For each year from 2006 through 

2019, there were an estimated 2,500 to 

5,900 ED-treated injuries to children 

from CSU tip overs. The estimated 

annual number of ED-treated injuries to 

adults and seniors from CSU tip overs 

is fairly consistent over most of the 14- 

year period, with an overall yearly 

average of 1,600 estimated injuries, 

although data were insufficient to 

support reliable statistical estimates for 

adults and seniors for 2014, 2015, and 

2019. 

CPSC focused on ED-treated injuries 

involving children because these make 

up the majority of ED-treated CSU tipover injuries. For 2010 through 2019, 

there is a statistically significant linear 

decline in child injuries involving CSU 

tip overs (both with and without 

televisions); 21 however, there is no 

linear trend detected in injuries to 

children involving only CSUs tipping 

over. This indicates that the statistically 

significant decrease in all CSU tip overs 

involving children is driven by the 

decline in tip overs involving 

televisions, while the rate of ED-treated 

incidents involving CSUs without 

televisions has remained stable. 

Of the estimated ED-treated injuries to 

children, most involved 2- and 3-yearolds, followed by 1- and 4-year-olds. An 

estimated 7,900 ED-treated injuries 

involved 1-year-olds; 22 an estimated 

15,000 involved 2-year-olds; 23 an 

estimated 13,000 involved 3-yearolds; 24 and an estimated 7,500 involved 

4-year-olds.25 There were an estimated 

2,300 injuries to 5-year-olds that 

involved only a CSU, and an estimated 

1,800 injuries to 6-year-olds that 

involved only a CSU, but data were 

insufficient to support reliable statistical 

estimates for incidents involving CSUs 

and televisions for these ages. For 

children 7 to 17 years old,26 there were 

an estimated 4,700 ED-treated injuries 

involving only a CSU, and an estimated 

1,600 involving a CSU and a television. 

Of the estimated 56,400 ED-treated 

CSU tip-over injuries to children, an 

estimated 20,800 (37 percent) resulted 

in contusions/abrasions; 27 an estimated 

14,900 (26 percent) resulted in internal 

organ injury (including closed head 

injuries); 28 an estimated 7,600 (13 

percent) resulted in lacerations; 29 an 

estimated 5,200 (9 percent) resulted in 

fractures; 30 and the remaining 

estimated 7,800 (14 percent) resulted in 

other diagnoses. 

Overall, an estimated 33,700 (60 

percent) of ED-treated tip-over injuries 

to children were to the head, neck, or 

face; and an estimated 10,300 (18 

percent) were to the leg, foot, or toe. The 

injuries to children were more likely to 

be head injuries when a television was 

involved than when no television was 

involved. Of the estimated number of 

ED-treated injuries to children involving 

a CSU and a television, 73 percent were 

head injuries, compared to 55 percent of 

injuries involving only a CSU. In 

addition, of the estimated injuries to 

children involving only a CSU, 20 

percent were leg, foot, or toe injuries, 

and 14 percent were trunk or torso 

injuries. Data were insufficient to 

generate estimates of trunk/torso or arm/ 

hand/finger injuries when both a CSU 

and television tipped over. 

B. Details Concerning Injuries 31

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6251 

32For additional information about hazard 

patterns, see Tab C of the NPR briefing package. 

33Nonfatal NEISS incident reports did not 

contain information on drawer fill level or contents. 

respiratory and circulatory system 

impairment. 

Head injuries are produced by highimpact 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 tipover 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 nontelevision CSU fatalities. External 

pressure on the chest that compromises 

the ability to breathe by restricting 

respiratory movement or on the neck 

can cause oxygen deprivation (hypoxia). 

Oxygen deprivation to the brain can 

cause unconsciousness in less than 

three minutes and may result in 

permanent brain damage or death when 

pressure is applied directly on the neck 

by the CSU or a component of the CSU 

(such as the edge of a drawer). The 

prognosis for a hypoxic victim depends 

on the degree of oxygen deprivation, the 

duration of unconsciousness, and the 

speed at which cardiovascular 

resuscitation attempts are initiated 

relative to the timing of 

cardiopulmonary arrest. Rapid reversal 

of the hypoxic state is essential to 

prevent or limit the development of 

pulmonary and cerebral edema that can 

lead to death or other serious 

consequences. The sooner the CSU 

(compression force) is removed and 

resuscitation initiated, the greater the 

likelihood that the patient will regain 

consciousness and recover from 

injuries. 

In addition to chest compression, 

pressure on the neck by a component of 

the CSU can also result in rapid 

strangulation due to pressure on the 

blood vessels in the neck. The blood 

vessels that take blood to and from the 

brain are relatively unprotected in the 

soft tissues of the neck and are 

vulnerable to external forces. Sustained 

compression of either the jugular veins 

or the carotid arteries can lead to death. 

Petechial hemorrhages of the head, 

neck, chest, and the periorbital area 

were reported in autopsy reports of CSU 

tip-over incidents. 

Pediatric thoracic trauma has unique 

features that differ from adult thoracic 

trauma, because of differences in size, 

structure, posture, and muscle tone. 

While the elasticity of a child’s chest 

wall reduces the likelihood of rib 

fracture, it also provides less protection 

from external forces. Impact to the 

thorax of an infant or small child can 

produce significant chest wall 

deflection and transfer large kinetic 

energy forces to vital thoracic organs 

such as the lungs and heart, which can 

cause organ deflection and distention 

and lead to traumatic asphyxia, or 

respiratory and circulatory system 

impairment or failure. In addition, a 

relatively small blood volume loss in a 

child, due to internal organ injuries and 

bleeding, can lead to decreased blood 

circulation and shock. 

The severity of the injury or 

likelihood of death can be reduced if a 

child is quickly rescued. However, 

children’s ability to self-rescue is 

limited because of their limited 

cognitive awareness of hazards, limited 

skills to react quickly, and limited 

strength to remove the fallen CSU. 

Moreover, many injuries can result in 

immediate death or loss of 

consciousness, making self-rescue 

impossible. 

C. Hazard Characteristics 32

To identify hazard patterns associated 

with CSU tip overs, CPSC focused on 

incidents involving children and CSUs 

without televisions because the majority 

of fatal and nonfatal incidents involve 

children and, in recent years, there has 

been a statistically significant decrease 

in the overall number of ED-treated CSU 

tip-over incidents that appears to be 

driven by a decline in incidents 

involving CSUs with televisions, while 

the rate of ED-treated incidents 

involving CSUs without televisions has 

remained stable. Staff used NEISS and 

CPSRMS reports to identify hazard 

patterns, including In-DepthInvestigation (IDI) reports, and also 

considered child development and 

capabilities, as well as online videos of 

real-life child interactions with CSUs 

and similar furniture items (including 

videos of tip-over incidents). 

1. Filled Drawers 

Of the 89 fatal CPSRMS incidents 

involving children and only CSUs, 53 

(59 percent) provided information about 

whether the CSU drawers contained 

items at the time of the tip over. Of 

those 53 incidents, 51 (96 percent) 

involved partially filled or full drawers. 

Of the 263 nonfatal CPSRMS tip overs 

involving children and only CSUs, 

drawer fill level was reported for 67 

incidents (25 percent). Of these 67 

incidents, 60 (90 percent) involved 

partially filled or full drawers.33

CPSRMS incidents show that most 

items in the drawers were clothing, 

although a few mentioned other items 

along with clothing (e.g., diaper bag, 

toys, papers). 

2. Interactions 

Of the 89 fatal CPSRMS tip overs 

involving children and only a CSU, 47 

reported the type of interaction the 

child had with the CSU at the time of 

the incident. Of these 47 incidents, 35 

(74 percent) involved a child climbing 

on the CSU; 8 (17 percent) involved a 

child sitting, laying, or standing in a 

drawer; and 4 (9 percent) involved a 

child opening drawers. Climbing was 

the most common reported interaction 

for children 3 years old and younger. 

Of the 263 nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over 

incidents involving children and only 

CSUs, the type of interaction was 

reported in 160 incidents. Of these, 101 

(63 percent) involved opening drawers; 

32 (20 percent) involved climbing on 

the CSU; 10 (6 percent) involved putting 

items in/taking them out of a drawer; 9 

(6 percent) involved pulling on the CSU; 

5 (3 percent) involved leaning or 

pushing down on an open drawer; 2 (1 

percent) involved another interaction; 

and 1 (less than 1 percent) involved a 

child in the drawer. Opening drawers 

was the most common reported 

interaction for children 6 years old and 

younger, and was particularly common 

for 2- and 3-year-olds. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6252 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

34CPSC 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. 

Of the 1,463 nonfatal NEISS incidents 

involving children and only CSUs, the 

type of interaction was reported in 559 

incidents. Of these, the child was 

injured because of another person’s 

interaction with the CSU in 22 

incidents; the remaining 537 incidents 

involved the child interacting with the 

CSU. Of these 537 incidents, 412 (77 

percent) involved climbing on the CSU; 

42 (8 percent) involved opening 

drawers; and the remaining 83 incidents 

(15 percent) involved a child in the 

drawer, pulling on the CSU, putting 

items in or taking items out of a drawer, 

reaching, hitting, jumping, a child on 

top of the CSU, playing in a drawer, 

pulling up, swinging, or other 

interaction. For children 3 years old or 

younger, climbing constituted almost 80 

percent of reported interactions. 

Overall, 81 percent (438 of 537) of the 

reported interactions in the nonfatal 

NEISS tip-over incidents involving 

children and only CSUs are those in 

which the child’s weight was supported 

by the CSU (e.g., climbing, in drawer, 

jump, on top, swinging), and 12 percent 

(64 of 537) were interactions in which 

the child’s strength determines the force 

(e.g., hit, opening drawers, pulled on, 

pulled up). 

Thus, in fatal incidents, a child 

climbing on the CSU was, by far, the 

most common reported interaction; and 

in nonfatal incidents, opening drawers 

and climbing were the most common 

reported interactions. These interactions 

are examined further, below. 

To learn more about children’s 

interactions with CSUs during tip-over 

incidents, CPSC staff also reviewed 

videos, available from news sources, 

articles, and online, that involved 

children interacting with CSUs and 

similar products, and CSU tip overs. 

Videos of children climbing on CSUs 

and similar items show a variety of 

climbing techniques, including stepping 

on the top of the drawer face, stepping 

on drawer knobs, using the area 

between drawers as a foothold, gripping 

the top of an upper drawer with their 

hands, pushing up using the top of a 

drawer, and using items to help climb. 

Videos of children in drawers of CSUs 

and other similar products include 

children leaning forward and backward 

out of a drawer; sitting, lying, and 

standing in a drawer; and bouncing in 

a drawer. Some videos also show 

multiple children climbing a CSU or in 

a drawer simultaneously. 

a. Climbing 

As discussed above, climbing on the 

CSU was one of the primary interactions 

involved in CSU tip overs involving 

children and only a CSU. It was the 

most common reported interaction (74 

percent) in fatal CPSRMS incidents; it 

was the most common reported 

interaction (77 percent) in nonfatal 

NEISS incidents; and it was the second 

most common reported interaction (20 

percent) in nonfatal CPSRMS incidents. 

Children as young as 9 months, and 

up to 13 years old were involved in 

climbing incidents. Fatal climbing 

incidents most often involved 1-, 2-, and 

3-year-old children, and nonfatal 

climbing incidents most often involved 

2- and 3-year-old children. Of climbing 

incidents with a reported age, the 

children were 3 years old or younger in 

94 percent (33 of 35) of the fatal 

CPSRMS incidents; 73 percent (301 of 

412) of the nonfatal NEISS incidents; 

and 63 percent (17 of 27) of the nonfatal 

CPSRMS incidents. 

The prevalence of children climbing 

during CSU tip overs is consistent with 

the expected motor development of 

children. Between approximately 1 and 

2 years old, children can climb on and 

off of furniture without assistance, use 

climbers, and begin to use playground 

apparatuses independently; and 2-yearolds commonly climb. The University of 

Michigan Transportation Research 

Institute (UMTRI) focus groups on child 

climbing (the UMTRI study is described 

in section VII.B. Forces and Moments 

During Child Interactions with CSUs of 

this preamble) demonstrated these 

abilities, with child participants 

showing interest in climbing CSUs and 

other furniture. 

b. Opening Drawers 

As discussed above, opening the 

drawers of a CSU was a common 

interaction in CSU tip overs involving 

children and only a CSU. It was the 

most common reported interaction (63 

percent) in nonfatal CPSRMS incidents; 

it was the second most common 

reported interaction (8 percent) in 

nonfatal NEISS incidents; and it was the 

third most common reported interaction 

(9 percent) in fatal CPSRMS incidents. 

Children as young as 11 months, and 

up to 14 years old were involved in 

incidents where the child was opening 

one or more drawers of the CSU. In 

nonfatal CPSRMS incidents, opening 

drawer incidents most commonly 

involved 2-year-olds; in nonfatal NEISS 

incidents, opening drawer incidents 

most commonly involved 3-year-olds, 

followed by 2-year-olds, followed by 4- 

year-olds, followed by children under 2 

years old; and in nonfatal CPSRMS 

incidents, opening drawer incidents 

most commonly involved 3-year-olds, 

followed by 2-year-olds. Children of all 

ages were able to open at least one 

drawer. 

Looking at both fatal and nonfatal 

CPSRMS tip overs involving children 

and only CSUs, where the interaction 

involved opening drawers, overall, 

about 53 percent involved children 

opening one drawer, 10 percent 

involved opening two drawers, and 

almost 17 percent involved opening 

‘‘multiple’’ drawers. In several incidents 

(23 CPSRMS incidents), children 

opened ‘‘all’’ of the drawers; it is 

possible that additional incidents, 

mentioning a specific number of open 

drawers (between 2 and 8), also 

involved all the drawers being opened. 

In incidents where all of the drawers 

were open, the CSUs ranged from 2- 

drawer to 8-drawer units. The youngest 

child reported to have opened all 

drawers was 13 months old. 

Consistent with these incident data, 

the UMTRI child climbing study found 

that caregivers commonly reported that 

their children opened and closed 

drawers when interacting with 

furniture. 

It is possible for CSUs to tip over from 

the forces generated by open drawers 

and their contents, alone, without 

additional interaction forces. However, 

pulling on a drawer to open it can apply 

increased force that contributes to 

instability. Once a drawer is fully 

opened, any additional pulling is on the 

CSU as a whole. The pull force, and the 

height of the drawer pull location, 

relative to the floor, are relevant 

considerations. To examine this factor, 

staff assessed 15 child incidents in 

which the height of the force 

application could be calculated based 

on descriptions of the incidents. Force 

application heights ranged from less 

than one foot to almost four feet (46.5 

inches), and children pulled on the 

lowest, highest, and drawers in 

between. 

c. Opening Drawers and Climbing 

Simultaneously 

CPSC staff also examined incidents in 

which both climbing and open drawers 

occurred simultaneously. Of the 35 fatal 

CPSRMS climbing incidents, 13 

reported the number of drawers open; in 

all of these incidents, the reported 

number of drawers open was one, 

although, based on further analysis, the 

number of open drawers could be as 

high as 8 in one incident.34 Of the 32 

nonfatal CPSRMS climbing incidents, 

15 gave some indication of the number 

of open drawers. Of these, 7 reported 

that one drawer was open, 2 reported 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6253 

35Flooring type was not reported in nonfatal 

NEISS incident reports. 

36Fryar, 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. 

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. 

There is limited information in the 

incident data about children’s 

interaction with doors on CSUs, as 

opposed to interactions with drawers. 

Staff found two fatal CPSRMS and four 

nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents 

involving wardrobes and armoires, 

which include doors. In one of the fatal 

incidents, the victim was found inside 

a wardrobe that had two doors and one 

drawer, suggesting that the child opened 

the doors of the wardrobe. In the other 

fatal incident, the victim was found 

under a two-door wardrobe. In most of 

the nonfatal incidents involving 

wardrobes or armoires, children were 

reportedly interacting with items inside 

the unit, which would require them to 

open the doors. The ages of the children 

in these incidents ranged from 3 to 11 

years, although opening doors is easily 

within the physical and cognitive 

abilities of younger children. 

These incidents indicate that children 

can and do open CSU doors. There is no 

direct evidence in the incident data that, 

once CSU doors are open, children put 

their body weight on the open doors 

(i.e., open and climbing). However, this 

is a plausible interaction based on child 

capabilities, provided that the child has 

a sufficient hand hold. 

d. Differences in Interactions by Age 

Based on the incident data, children 

3 years old and younger climb, open 

drawers without climbing, get items in 

and out of drawers, lean on open 

drawers, push down on open drawers, 

sit or lie in bottom drawers, or stand on 

open bottom drawers. Among fatal 

CPSRMS tip-over incidents involving 

children and only CSUs, climbing was 

the most common interaction for 

children 3 years old and younger; this 

drops off sharply for 4-year-olds. 

Starting at 4 years old, children do not 

appear to sit or lie in bottom drawers of 

a CSU. Among nonfatal CPSRMS tipover incidents involving children and 

only CSUs, opening drawers was, by far, 

the most common interaction for 

children 7 years old and younger; and 

climbing was also common among 3- 

year-olds and, to a lesser extent, among 

2- and 4-year-olds. Among nonfatal 

NEISS tip overs involving children and 

only CSUs, climbing was common for 2- 

and 3-year-olds, slightly less common 

for 4-year-olds and children under 2 

years, and dropped off further for 

children 5 years and older. 

3. Flooring 

Of the 89 fatal CPSRMS tip overs 

involving children and only CSUs, the 

type of flooring under the CSU was 

reported for 55 incidents. Of these, 45 

(82 percent) involved carpeting, which 

includes rugs; 8 (15 percent) involved 

wood, hardwood, or laminate wood 

flooring; and 2 (4 percent) involved tile 

or linoleum flooring. The reports for 30 

of the fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents 

involving carpet included photos with 

visible carpet. All carpet in these 

pictures appeared to be typical wall-towall carpeting. Four appeared to be a 

looped pile carpet, and 26 appeared to 

be cut pile. Staff also identified two 

incidents with reported ‘‘shag’’ 

carpeting, including one fatal incident. 

Staff found one report mentioning a rug, 

although the thickness of the rug is 

unknown. 

Of the 263 nonfatal CPSRMS tip overs 

involving children and only CSUs, the 

type of flooring under the CSU was 

reported for 60 incidents. Of these, 48 

(80 percent) involved carpeting, which 

includes rugs; 10 (17 percent) involved 

wood, hardwood, or laminate wood 

flooring; 1 (2 percent) involved tile or 

linoleum flooring; and 1 (2 percent) 

indicated that the front legs of the CSU 

were on carpet while the back legs were 

on wood flooring.35

Thus, for incidents where flooring 

type was reported, carpet was, by far, 

the most prevalent flooring type. 

4. Characteristics of Children in TipOver Incidents 

a. Age of Children 

Children in fatal CPSRMS tip-over 

incidents involving only CSUs were 11 

months through 7 years old. A total of 

33 fatal incidents involved children 

under 2 years old; 30 involved 2-yearold children; 21 involved 3-year-olds; 2 

involved 4-year-olds; and 1 incident 

each involved 5-, 6-, and 7-year-old 

children. Among the nonfatal CPSRMS 

tip-over incidents involving children 

and only CSUs where age was reported, 

3-year-olds were involved in the highest 

number of incidents (59 incidents), 

followed by 2-year-olds (47 incidents). 

Nonfatal NEISS tip-over incidents 

involving children and only CSUs 

follow a similar distribution, with the 

highest number of reported incidents 

involving 2-year-olds, followed by 3- 

year-olds, and children less than 2 

years. Further details regarding the age 

of children involved in CSU tip overs is 

available in the discussion of incident 

data, above. 

b. Weight of Children 

Among the 89 fatal CPSRMS tip-over 

incidents involving children and CSUs 

without televisions, the child’s weight 

was reported in 49 incidents and ranged 

from 18 pounds to 45 pounds. Where 

weight was not reported, staff used the 

most recent Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC) Anthropometric 

Reference to estimate the weight of the 

children.36 Staff used the 50th 

percentile values of weight that 

correspond to the victims’ ages to 

estimate the weight range of the 

children. For the remaining 40 fatal 

CPSRMS incidents without a reported 

weight, the estimated weight range was 

19.6 pounds to 45.1 pounds. 

Among the 263 nonfatal CPSRMS 

incidents involving children and only 

CSUs, the weights of 47 children were 

reported, ranging from 26 pounds to 80 

pounds. Where it was not reported, staff 

again estimated the weight of the 

children using the 50th percentile 

values of weight that correspond to the 

victims’ ages from the most recent CDC 

Anthropometric Reference. The 

estimated child weights for the 164 

nonfatal CPSRMS incidents without a 

reported child weight, but with a 

reported age (which included a 17-yearold), 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6254 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

37Weighted average is equal to the sum of the 

product of the number of reported incidents for that 

age times the estimated weight for that age divided 

by the total number of reported incidents. 

38For additional information about relevant 

existing standards, see Tab C, Tab D, Tab F, and Tab 

N of the NPR briefing package. 

months to 17 years old). The weighted 

average of children’s estimated weight 

in nonfatal NEISS incidents was 40.26 

pounds.37

Overall, the weighted average of 

children’s reported weight for CPSRMS 

incidents is 34.23 pounds; whereas, the 

weighted average of children’s 

estimated weight was 38.8 pounds. 

The weight of a child is particularly 

relevant for climbing incidents because 

weight is a factor in determining the 

force a child generates when climbing. 

For this reason, CPSC staff looked at the 

weights of children involved in 

climbing incidents, specifically. Of the 

35 fatal CPSRMS child climbing 

incidents, the weight of the child was 

reported for 23 incidents, and ranged 

from 21.5 to 45 pounds. For the 

remaining 12 climbing incidents in 

which the child’s weight was not 

reported, CPSC staff estimated their 

weights, based on age, and the weights 

ranged from 23.8 to 39 pounds. Of the 

32 nonfatal CPSRMS child climbing 

incidents, the weight of the child was 

reported in 8 incidents, and ranged from 

26 to 80 pounds. For the remaining 24 

incidents, staff estimated the weights 

based on age, and the weights ranged 

from 25.2 to 45.1 pounds. Weight was 

not reported in the nonfatal NEISS data, 

however, using the ages of the children 

in the 412 nonfatal NEISS child 

climbing incidents (9 months to 13 

years old), staff estimates that their 

weights ranged from 19.6 to 122 

pounds, and the weighted average was 

34.2 pounds. 

5. Televisions 

Of the 104 child fatalities involving a 

CSU and television tipping over, 85 (90 

percent) involved a box or cathode ray 

tube (CRT) television, 2 involved a flatpanel television, and 16 did not provide 

information about the television. Of the 

incidents that provided information 

about television size, the most common 

television size was 27 inches. The 

approximate weight range of the CRT 

televisions, when provided, was 

between 70 pounds and 150 pounds. 

Although televisions are involved in 

CSU tip overs, and the Commission 

raised the possibility of addressing 

televisions in the ANPR, the proposed 

rule does not focus on television 

involvement. This is primarily because, 

in recent years, there has been a decline 

in the overall number of CSU tip-over 

incidents that appears to be driven by a 

decrease in tip overs involving 

televisions, while the rate of ED-treated 

incidents involving CSUs without 

televisions has remained stable. 

V. Relevant Existing Standards 38

In the United States, the primary 

voluntary standard that addresses CSU 

stability is ASTM F2057–19, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for 

Clothing Storage Units. In addition, 

CPSC staff identified three international 

consumer safety standards and one 

domestic standard that are relevant to 

CSUs: 

• AS/NZS 4935: 2009, the Australian/ 

New Zealand Standard for Domestic 

furniture—Freestanding chests of 

drawers, wardrobes and bookshelves/ 

bookcases—determination of stability; 

• ISO 7171 (2019), the International 

Organization for Standardization 

International Standard for Furniture— 

Storage Units—Determination of 

stability; 

• EN14749 (2016), the European 

Standard, European Standard for 

Domestic and kitchen storage units and 

worktops—Safety requirements and test 

methods; and 

• ANSI/SOHO S6.5–2008 (R2013), 

Small Office/Home Office Furniture— 

Tests American National Standard for 

Office Furnishings. 

This section describes these standards 

and provides CPSC staff’s assessment of 

their adequacy to address CSU tip-over 

injuries and deaths. 

A. ASTM F2057–19 

ASTM first approved and published 

ASTM F2057 in 2000, and has since 

revised the standard seven times. The 

current version, ASTM F2057–19, was 

approved on August 1, 2019, and 

published in August 2019. ASTM 

Subcommittee F15.42, Furniture Safety, 

is responsible for this standard. Since 

the first publication of ASTM F2057, 

CPSC staff has participated in the 

F15.42 subcommittee and task group 

meetings and worked with ASTM to 

improve the standards; however, ASTM 

has not addressed several issues CPSC 

has identified. 

1. Scope 

ASTM F2057–19 is intended to 

reduce child injuries and deaths from 

hazards associated with CSUs tipping 

over and aims ‘‘to cover children up to 

and including age five.’’ The standard 

covers CSUs that are 27 inches or more 

in height, freestanding, and defines 

CSUs as: ‘‘furniture item[s] with 

drawers and/or hinged doors intended 

for the storage of clothing typical with 

bedroom furniture.’’ Examples of CSUs 

provided in the standard include: 

Chests, chests of drawers, drawer chests, 

armoires, chifforobes, bureaus, door 

chests, and dressers. The standard does 

not cover ‘‘shelving units, such as 

bookcases or entertainment furniture, 

office furniture, dining room furniture, 

underbed drawer storage units, 

occasional/accent furniture not 

intended for bedroom use, laundry 

storage/sorting units, nightstands, or 

built-in units intended to be 

permanently attached to the building, 

nor does it cover ‘Clothing Storage 

Chests’ as defined in Consumer Safety 

Specification F2598.’’ 

2. Stability Requirements 

ASTM F2057–19 includes two 

performance requirements for stability. 

The first is in section 7.1 of the 

standard, Stability of Unloaded Unit. 

This test consists of placing an empty 

CSU on a hard, level, flat surface, 

opening all doors (if any) to 90 degrees, 

and extending all drawers and pull-out 

shelves to the outstop (which is a 

feature that limits outward motion of 

drawers or pull-out shelves). In the 

absence of an outstop, all drawers and 

pull-out shelves are opened to twothirds of the operational sliding length 

(which is the length from the inside face 

of the drawer back to the inside face of 

the drawer). All flaps and drop fronts 

are opened to their horizontal position 

or as near to horizontal as possible. If 

the CSU tips over in this configuration, 

or is supported by any component that 

was not specifically designed for that 

purpose, it does not meet the 

requirement. 

The second stability requirement is in 

section 7.2 of the standard, Stability 

with Load. This test consists of placing 

an empty CSU on a hard, level, flat 

surface, and gradually applying a 50±2- 

pound test weight. The 50-pound test 

weight is intended to represent the 

weight of a 5-year-old child. For units 

with drawers, the test requires opening 

one drawer to the outstop, or in the 

absence of an outstop, to two-thirds of 

its operational sliding length, and 

gradually applying the test weight to the 

front face of the drawer. For units with 

doors, the test requires opening one 

door to 90 degrees and gradually 

applying the test weight. All other 

drawers and doors remain closed, 

unless they must be opened to access 

other components behind them (e.g., a 

drawer behind a door). Each drawer and 

door is tested individually. If the CSU 

tips over in this configuration, or is 

supported by any component that was 

not specifically designed for that 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6255 

39Approved October 1, 2014 and published 

October 2014. 

40Moment, or torque, is an engineering term to 

describe rotational force acting about a pivot point, 

or fulcrum. 

41Staff did not assess whether NEISS incidents 

involved ASTM-compliant CSUs because the 

reports do not contain specific information about 

the products. 

purpose, it does not meet this 

requirement. 

3. Tip Restraint Requirements 

ASTM F2057–19 requires CSUs to 

include a tip restraint that complies 

with ASTM F3096–14, Standard 

Performance Specification for Tipover 

Restraint(s) Used with Clothing Storage 

Unit(s).39 ASTM F2057–19 and F3096– 

14 define a tip restraint as a 

‘‘supplemental device that aids in the 

prevention of tip over.’’ ASTM F3096– 

14 provides a test protocol to assess the 

strength of tip restraints, but does not 

evaluate the attachment to the wall or 

CSU. The test method specifies that the 

tester attach the tip restraint to a fixed 

structure and apply a 50-pound static 

load. 

4. Labeling Requirements 

ASTM F2057–19 requires CSUs to be 

permanently marked in a conspicuous 

location with warnings that meet 

specified content and formatting. The 

warning statements address the risk of 

children dying from furniture tip overs; 

not allowing children to stand, climb, or 

hang on CSUs; not opening more than 

one drawer at a time; placing the 

heaviest items in the bottom drawer; 

and installing tip restraints. For CSUs 

that are not intended to hold a 

television, this is also addressed in the 

warning. Additionally, units with 

interlock systems must include a 

warning not to defeat or remove the 

interlock system. An interlock system is 

a device that prevents simultaneous 

opening of more drawers than intended 

by the manufacturer (like is common on 

file cabinets). The standard requires that 

labels be formatted in accordance with 

ANSI Z535.4, American National 

Standard for Product Safety Signs and 

Labels. 

The standard also includes a 

performance requirement and test 

method for label permanence, which are 

consistent with requirements in other 

ASTM juvenile furniture product 

standards. The warning must be ‘‘in a 

conspicuous location when in use’’ and 

the back of the unit is not considered 

conspicuous; the standard does not 

define ‘‘conspicuous location when in 

use.’’ 

5. Assessment of Adequacy 

CPSC does not consider the stability 

requirements in ASTM F2057–19 

adequate to address the CSU tip-over 

hazard because they do not account for 

multiple open and filled drawers, 

carpeted flooring, and dynamic forces 

generated by children’s interactions 

with the CSU, such as climbing or 

pulling on the top drawer. As discussed 

earlier in this preamble, these factors are 

commonly involved in CSU tip-over 

incidents; and, as discussed later in this 

preamble, testing indicates that these 

factors decrease the stability of CSUs. 

Although ASTM F2057–19 includes a 

test with all drawers/doors open, the 

unit is empty and no additional force is 

applied during this test. Consumers are 

likely to fill drawers with clothing, 

since that is the intended purpose of the 

product, and a CSU with filled drawers 

is likely to be less stable than an empty 

unit when more than half of the drawers 

are open. In addition, although ASTM 

F2057–19 includes a static weight 

applied to the top of one open drawer 

or door (intended to represent a 5-yearold child), this 50-pound weight does 

not include the additional moment 40

due to the center of gravity of a child 

climbing, dynamic forces, and 

horizontal forces when a child climbs, 

even when only considering the forces 

generated by very young children. As 

the UMTRI study described in this 

preamble found, the forces children can 

exert while climbing a CSU exceed their 

static weights. Finally, the testing does 

not account for the effect of carpeting, 

which is common flooring in homes 

(particularly in bedrooms), is commonly 

present in tip-over incidents, and 

decreases CSU stability. Thus, by testing 

CSUs with open drawers empty, a 50- 

pound static weight, and on a hard, 

level, flat surface, ASTM F2057–19 does 

not reflect real-world use conditions 

that decrease the stability of CSUs. 

Staff also looked at whether CSUs 

involved in tip-over incidents complied 

with ASTM F2057–19 because it would 

give an indication of whether F2057 is 

effective at preventing tip overs and, by 

extension, whether it is adequate. Of the 

89 fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents 

involving children and only CSUs, 

CPSC staff determined that 1 of the 

CSUs complied with the ASTM F2057– 

19 stability requirements, 1 CSU met the 

stability requirements when a test 

weight at the lower permissible weight 

range was used, and 11 units did not 

meet the stability requirements. For the 

remaining 76 units, staff was unable to 

determine whether they met the ASTM 

F2057–19 stability requirements, 

although staff did determine that an 

exemplar of one of these CSUs complied 

with the requirements. Of 263 nonfatal 

CPSRMS incidents involving children 

and CSUs without televisions for which 

staff assessed the compliance of the 

CSU, staff determined that 20 met the 

ASTM F2057–19 stability requirements, 

and 95 did not. For the remaining 148 

units, staff was unable to determine 

whether the units met the ASTM 

F2057–19 stability requirements.41

Based on a limited review of the tip 

restraint requirements in ASTM F2057– 

19 and ASTM F3096–14, CPSC is 

concerned that these requirements may 

not be adequate either. ASTM F3096–14 

does not address the whole tip-restraint 

system, which includes the connection 

to the CSU and the connection to the 

wall. The standard assumes an ideal 

connection to both the furniture and the 

wall, but incidents suggest that both of 

these are potential points of failure. In 

addition, ASTM F3096–14 uses a 50- 

pound static force. Based on the UMTRI 

study, this force may not represent the 

force on a tip restraint from child 

interactions, especially for interactions 

that can generate large amounts of force, 

including from older children. For 

example, the UMTRI study found that 

when a child bounced, leaned, or 

yanked on a CSU, the forces generated 

were equivalent to 2.7, 2.7, and 3.9 

times the child’s body weight, 

respectively, at a distance of 1 foot from 

the fulcrum. However, staff did not 

evaluate the tip restraint requirements 

in ASTM F2057–19 and ASTM F3096– 

14 because, as discussed in this 

preamble, several research studies show 

that a large number of consumers do not 

anchor furniture, including CSUs, and 

there are several barriers to the use of 

tip restraints. As such, even if tip 

restraint requirements were effective, 

CSUs should be inherently stable to 

account for the lack of consumer use of 

tip restraints and additional barriers to 

proper installation and use of tip 

restraints. 

CPSC also has some concerns with the 

effectiveness of the content in the 

warning labels required in ASTM 

F2057–19. For example, the meaning of 

‘‘tipover restraint’’ may not be clear to 

consumers, and directing consumers not 

to open more than one drawer at a time 

is not consistent with consumer use. In 

addition, focus group testing discussed 

in this preamble indicated that 

consumers had trouble understanding 

the child climbing symbol required by 

the standard. CPSC staff also believes 

that greater clarity about the required 

placement of the label would make the 

warning more effective. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6256 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

42Although 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-TipoverBriefing-Package-Test-Results-Update-August-16- 

2017.pdf?yMCHvzY_YtOZmBAAj0GJih1lXE7vvu9K. 

43This 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. 

44Staff tested exemplar units, meaning the model 

of CSU involved in the incident, but not the actual 

unit involved in the incident. 

45The 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/. 

46Fryar, 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). 

6. Compliance With ASTM F2057 

CPSC staff assessed compliance with 

the stability requirements in ASTM 

F2057–19. In 2016,42 staff tested 61 CSU 

samples and found that 50 percent (31 

of 61) did not comply with the stability 

requirements in ASTM F2057.43 In 

2018, CPSC staff assessed a total of 188 

CSUs, including 167 CSUs selected from 

among the best sellers from major 

retailers, using a random number 

generator; 4 CSU models that were 

involved in incidents; 44 and 17 units 

assessed as part of previous test data 

provided to CPSC.45 Of the 188 CSUs, 

171 (91 percent) complied with the 

stability requirements in ASTM F2057. 

One CSU (0.5 percent) did not comply 

with the Stability of Unloaded Unit test, 

and 17 (9 percent) did not meet the 

Stability with Load test. The unit that 

did not meet the requirements of the 

Stability of Unloaded Unit test also did 

not meet the requirements of the 

Stability with Load test. 

In addition, as part of staff’s incident 

recreation and modeling (discussed in 

section VII.D. Incident Recreation and 

Modeling of this preamble), staff 

determined that two of the seven tested 

CSU models that had been involved in 

tip-over incidents complied with the 

stability requirements in ASTM F2057, 

and one additional CSU was borderline 

on whether it complied with the 

standard. This suggests that the stability 

requirements in ASTM F2057–19 do not 

adequately reduce the risk of tip overs. 

B. AS/NZS 4935: 2009 

AS/NZS 4935 is a voluntary standard 

prepared by Standards Australia’s and 

Standards New Zealand’s Joint 

Technical Committee CS–088/CS–091, 

Commercial/Domestic Furniture. There 

is only one version of the standard, the 

current version AS/NZA 4935:2009, 

which was approved on behalf of the 

Council of Standards Australia on 

August 28, 2009, and on behalf of the 

Council of Standards New Zealand on 

October 23, 2009. It was published on 

November 17, 2009. 

1. Scope 

AS/NZS 4935 aims to address 

furniture tip-over hazards to children. It 

describes test methods for determining 

the stability of domestic freestanding 

chests of drawers over 500 mm (19.7 

inch) high, freestanding wardrobes over 

500 mm high (19.7 inch), and 

freestanding bookshelves/bookcases 

over 600 mm (23.6 inch) high. It defines 

‘‘chest of drawers’’ as containing one or 

more drawers or other extendible 

elements and intended for the storage of 

clothing, and may have one or more 

doors or shelves. It defines ‘‘wardrobe’’ 

as a furniture item primarily intended 

for hanging clothing that may also have 

one or more drawers, doors or other 

extendible elements, or fixed shelves. It 

defines bookshelves and bookcases as 

sets of shelves primarily intended for 

storing books, and may contain doors, 

drawers or other extendible elements. 

2. Stability Requirements 

Similar to ASTM F2057–19, AS/NZS 

4935 includes two stability 

requirements. The first requires the unit, 

when empty, to not tip over when a 29- 

kilogram (64-pound) test weight is 

applied to a single open drawer. The 64- 

pound test weight is based on the 95th 

percentile body mass of a 5-year-and-11- 

month-old child (which is 27 kilograms 

or 59.5 pounds), adjusted to reflect 

trends of increasing body mass. The test 

weight is applied to the top face of a 

drawer, with the drawer opened to twothirds 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 twothirds of its extension length, and doors 

are open perpendicular to the furniture. 

Units do not pass the stability 

requirements if they cannot support the 

test weight, if they tip over, or if they 

are only prevented from tipping by an 

extendible element. 

3. Tip Restraint Requirements 

The standard does not require, but 

recommends, that tip restraints be 

included with units, along with 

attachment instructions. 

4. Labeling Requirements 

The standard requires a warning label, 

and provides example text that 

addresses the tip-over hazard. The 

standard also requires a warning tag 

with specific text and formatting. The 

label and tag include statements 

informing consumers about the hazard, 

warning of tip overs and resulting 

injuries, and indicating how to avoid 

the hazard. These requirements do not 

address the use of televisions. The 

standard includes label permanency 

requirements and mandates that the 

warning label be placed ‘‘inside of a top 

drawer within clear view when the 

drawer is empty and partially opened, 

or on the inside face of a drawer’’ for 

chests of drawers and wardrobes. 

5. Assessment of Adequacy 

CPSC does not consider the stability 

requirements in AS/NZS 4935 adequate 

to address the CSU tip-over hazard 

because they do not account for 

multiple open and filled drawers, 

carpeted flooring, and dynamic forces 

generated by children’s interactions 

with the CSU, such as climbing or 

pulling on the top drawer. As discussed 

in this preamble, these factors are 

commonly involved in CSU tip-over 

incidents and testing indicates that they 

decrease the stability of CSUs. 

AS/NZS 4935 requires drawer 

extension to only two-thirds of 

extension length for both stability tests. 

This partial extension does not 

represent real-world use because 

children are able to open drawers fully, 

incidents involve fully open drawers, 

and opening a drawer further decreases 

the stability of a CSU. In addition, it 

does not account for filled drawers, 

which are expected during real-world 

use, are common in tip-over incidents, 

and contribute to instability when 

multiple drawers are open. It also does 

not account for carpeted floors, which 

are common in incidents and contribute 

to instability. Although AS/NZS 4935 

uses a heavier test weight than ASTM 

F2057–19, it is inadequate because 

neither stability test accounts for the 

moments children can exert on CSUs 

during interactions, such as climbing. 

Considering additional moments, the 64 

pounds of weight on the drawer face is 

equivalent to a 40-pound child climbing 

the extended drawer. A 40-pound 

weight corresponds to a 75th percentile 

3-year-old child, 50th percentile 4-yearold child, and 25th percentile 5-year-old 

child.46

C. ISO 7171 (2019) 

The International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) developed the 

voluntary standard ISO 7171 through 

the Technical Committee ISO/TC 136, 

Furniture and published the first 

version in May 1988. The current 2019 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6257 

version was published in February 

2019. 

1. Scope 

ISO 7171 (2019) describes methods 

for determining the stability of 

freestanding storage furniture, including 

bookcases, wardrobes, and cabinets, but 

the standard does not define these 

terms. 

2. Stability Requirements 

ISO 7171 (2019) includes three 

stability tests, all of which occur on a 

level test surface. The first uses a 

weight/load on an open drawer. The 

second involves all drawers being filled 

and a load/weight placed on a single 

open drawer. In the loaded test, one 

drawer is opened to the outstop, and if 

no outstops exist, the drawer is opened 

to two-thirds of its full extension length. 

The test weight is applied to the top face 

of the opened drawer, and varies 

depending on the height of the unit 

(either 200 N (44 pounds) or 250 N (55 

pounds)). The fill weight is also 

variable, depending on the clearance 

height and volume of the drawer (fill 

density ranges from 6.25 lb/ft3 to 12.5 

lb/ft3). The third test is an unloaded test 

with all drawers open. For this test, 

drawers and extendible elements are 

open to the outstop and doors are open 

90 degrees. If there are no outstops, then 

the extension elements are open to twothirds of their extension length. Existing 

interlock systems are not bypassed for 

this test. 

ISO 7171 (2019) does not include 

criteria for determining whether a unit 

passed or failed the loaded stability test. 

However, it includes a table of 

‘‘suggested’’ forces, depending on the 

height of the unit. 

An additional unfilled, closed drawer 

test is required for units greater than 

1000 mm in height, where a vertical 

force of 350 N (77 pounds) along with 

a simultaneous 50 N (11 pounds) 

outward horizontal force is applied to 

the top surface of the unit. 

3. Tip Restraint Requirements 

ISO 7171 (2019) does not require tip 

restraints to be provided with units, but 

does specify a test method for them. The 

tip restraints are installed in both the 

wall and unit during the test and a 300 

N (67.4 lbf) horizontal force is applied 

in the direction most likely to overturn 

the unit. The force is maintained 

between 10 and 15 seconds. 

4. Labeling Requirements 

The standard does not have any 

requirements or test methods related to 

warning labels. 

5. Assessment of Adequacy 

CPSC does not consider the stability 

requirements in ISO 7171 (2019) 

adequate to address the CSU tip-over 

hazard because they do not account for 

carpeted flooring, or dynamic and 

horizontal forces generated by 

children’s interactions with the CSU, 

such as climbing or pulling on the top 

drawer. In addition, although ISO 7171 

(2019) includes a stability test with 

filled drawers, the multiple open drawer 

test does not include filled drawers, and 

the simultaneous conditions of multiple 

open and filled drawers during a child 

interaction are not tested. As discussed 

in this preamble, these factors are 

commonly involved in CSU tip-over 

incidents and testing indicates that they 

decrease the stability of CSUs. Finally, 

test weights are provided only as 

recommendations and there are no 

criteria for determining whether a unit 

passes. 

D. EN 14749: 2016 

EN 14749: 2016 is a European 

Standard that was prepared by 

Technical Committee CEN/TC 207 

‘‘Furniture.’’ This standard was 

approved by the European Committee 

for Standardization (CEN) on November 

21, 2015, and supersedes EN 

14749:2005, which was approved on 

July 8, 2005, as the original version. EN 

14749:2016 is a mandatory standard and 

applies to all CEN members. 

1. Scope 

EN 14749: 2016 describes methods for 

determining the stability of domestic 

and non-domestic furniture with a 

height ≥ 600 mm (23.6 in) and a 

potential energy, based on mass and 

height, exceeding 60 N-m (44.25 ft-lbs). 

Kitchen worktops and television 

furniture are the only furniture types 

defined. The test methods in this 

standard are taken from EN 16122: 2012, 

Domestic and non-domestic storage 

furniture-test methods for the 

determination of strength, durability 

and stability, which covers ‘‘all types of 

domestic and non-domestic storage 

furniture including domestic kitchen 

furniture.’’ 

2. Stability Requirements 

EN 14749: 2016 includes three 

stability tests, which are conducted with 

the units freestanding. In the first 

loaded test, a 75 N (16.9 lbf) test weight 

is applied to the top of the drawer face, 

when pulled to the outstop. However, if 

no outstops exist, the extension element 

is open to two-thirds of its full 

extension length. In the second test, all 

drawers and extendible elements are 

open to the outstop and doors are open 

90 degrees. If no outstops are present, 

then the extension elements are open to 

two-thirds of their extension lengths. 

Existing interlock systems are not 

bypassed for this test. The third test 

involves filled drawers and a load; all 

storage areas are filled with weight and 

the loaded test procedure (above) is 

carried out but with a test weight that 

is 20 percent of the mass of the unit, 

including the drawer fill, not exceeding 

300 N (67.4 pounds). Similar to ISO 

7171, an additional unfilled, closed 

drawer test is required for units greater 

than 1000 mm in height, where a 

vertical force of 350 N (77 pounds) 

along with a simultaneous 50 N (11 

pounds) outward horizontal force are 

applied to the top surface of the unit. 

Relevant to the portions of stability 

testing that involve opening drawers, 

the standard also accounts for interlock 

systems, requiring one extension 

element to be open to its outstop, or in 

the absence of an outstop, two-thirds of 

its operational sliding length, and a 100 

N (22 lbf) horizontal force to be applied 

to the face of all other extension 

elements. This is repeated 10 times on 

each extension element and all 

combinations of extension elements are 

tested. 

3. Tip Restraint Requirements 

EN 14749: 2016 does not include any 

requirements regarding tip restraints. 

4. Labeling Requirements 

EN 14749: 2016 does not include any 

requirements regarding warning labels. 

5. Assessment of Adequacy 

CPSC does not consider the stability 

requirements in EN 14749: 2016 

adequate to address the CSU tip-over 

hazard because they do not account for 

carpeted flooring, or dynamic and 

horizontal forces generated by 

children’s interactions with the CSU, 

such as climbing or pulling on the top 

drawer. In addition, although the 

standard includes a stability test with 

filled drawers, the multiple open drawer 

test does not include filled drawers, and 

the simultaneous conditions of multiple 

open and filled drawers during a child 

interaction are not tested. Moreover, the 

fill weight ranges from 6.25 lb/ft3 to 12.5 

lb/ft3, which includes fill weights lower 

than staff identified for drawers filled 

with clothing (discussed in section 

VII.A. Multiple Open and Filled 

Drawers of this preamble). As discussed 

in this preamble, these factors are 

commonly involved in CSU tip-over 

incidents and testing indicates that they 

effect the stability of CSUs. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6258 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

47Excluding doors, writing shelves, equipment 

surfaces, and keyboard surfaces. 

48For CSU-sized objects, CG and CM are 

effectively the same. Therefore, CG and CM are 

used interchangeably in this preamble. 

E. ANSI/BIFMA SOHO S6.5–2008 

(R2013) 

ANSI/SOHO S6.5 does not address 

CSUs, but rather, applies to office 

furniture, such as file cabinets. 

However, CPSC considered this 

standard because it addresses interlock 

systems, which some CSUs include and 

are relevant to stability testing. This 

standard was completed by BIFMA 

Engineering Committee and its 

subcommittee on Small Office/Home 

Office Products in 2000. The first 

version was approved by ANSI on 

August 4, 2008. The current version of 

the standard was approved on 

September 17, 2013. 

This standard specifies tests for 

‘‘evaluating the safety, durability, and 

structural adequacy of storage and desktype furniture intended for use in the 

small office and/or home office.’’ ANSI/ 

BIFMA SOHO S6.5 includes testing to 

evaluate interlock systems. The test 

procedure calls for one extendable 

element to be fully extended while a 30 

lbf horizontal pull force is applied to all 

other fully closed extendable elements. 

Every combination of open/closed 

extendable elements 47 must be tested. 

The interlock system must be fully 

functional at the completion of this test 

and no extendable element may bypass 

the interlock system. 

As discussed in section VIII.B.2.a.ii 

Interlocks of this preamble, child 

strength studies show that children 

between 2 and 5 years old can achieve 

a mean pull force of 17.2 pounds. 

Therefore, CPSC considers a 30-pound 

horizontal pull force adequate to 

evaluate the strength of an interlock 

system. However, because ANSI/SOHO 

S6.5 does not include stability tests or 

requirements reflecting the real-world 

factors involved in CSU tip overs, the 

standard would not adequately address 

the CSU tip-over hazard. 

VI. Technical Background 

This preamble and the NPR briefing 

package include technical discussions 

of engineering concepts, such as center 

of gravity (also referred to as center of 

mass), moments, and fulcrums. Tab D of 

the NPR briefing package provides 

detailed background information on 

each of these terms, including how staff 

applies them to CSU tip-over analysis. 

This section provides a brief overview 

of that information; for further 

information, see Tab D of the NPR 

briefing package. 

A. Center of Gravity and Center of Mass 

Center of Gravity (CG) or Center of 

Mass (CM) 48 is a single point in an 

object, about which its weight (or mass) 

is completely balanced. In terms of 

freestanding CSU stability, if the CSU’s 

CG is located behind the front foot, the 

CSU is stable and will not tip over on 

its own. Alternatively, if the CSU’s CG 

is in front of the front foot, the CSU is 

unstable and will tip over. The CG (and 

CM) of an object is dependent on its 

geometry and materials. For example, 

CSU drawers typically have a front that 

is thicker and larger than the back, 

which causes the drawer’s CG to be 

closer to the front. The CSU’s CG is 

defined by the position and weight of 

the CSU cabinet (without drawers), 

combined with the position and weight 

of each drawer. A CSU’s CG is equal to 

the sum of the products of the position 

and the weight of each component, 

divided by the total weight. 

The CG of a CSU will change as a 

result of the position of the drawers, 

doors, and pull-out shelves (open or 

closed). Opening extendable elements, 

such as drawers, shifts the CG towards 

the front of the CSU. The closer the CG 

is to the front leg, the easier it is to tip 

forward if a force is applied to the 

drawer. Therefore, CSUs will tip more 

easily as more drawers are opened. The 

CG of a CSU will also change depending 

on the position and amount of clothing 

in each drawer. Closed drawers filled 

with clothing tend to stabilize a CSU, 

but as each filled drawer is pulled out, 

the CSU’s CG will shift further towards 

the front. 

B. Moment and Fulcrum 

Moment, or torque, is an engineering 

term to describe rotational force acting 

about a pivot point, or fulcrum. The 

moment is created by a force or forces 

acting at a distance, or moment arm, 

away from a fulcrum. One simple 

example is the moment or torque 

created by a wrench turning a nut. The 

moment or torque about the nut is due 

to the perpendicular force on the end of 

the wrench applied at a distance 

(moment arm) from the fulcrum (nut). 

Likewise, a downward force on an open 

CSU drawer creates a moment about the 

fulcrum (front leg) of the CSU. A CSU 

will tip over about the fulcrum due to 

a force (e.g., weight of a child positioned 

over the front of a drawer) and the 

moment arm (e.g., extended drawer). 

Downward force or weight applied to 

the drawer tends to tip the CSU forward 

around the fulcrum at the base of the 

unit, while the weight of the CSU 

opposes this rotation. The CSU’s weight 

can be modeled as concentrated at a 

single point: The CSU’s CG. The CSU’s 

stability moment is created by its 

weight, multiplied by the horizontal 

distance of its CG from the fulcrum. A 

child can produce a moment opposing 

the weight of the CSU, by pushing down 

or sitting in an open drawer. This 

moment is created by the vertical force 

of the child, multiplied by the 

horizontal distance to the fulcrum. The 

CSU becomes unbalanced and tips over 

when the moments applied at the front 

of the CSU exceed the CSU’s stability 

moment. 

Horizontal forces applied to pull on a 

drawer also tend to tip the CSU forward 

around the front leg (pivot point or 

fulcrum) at the base of the unit, while 

the weight of the CSU opposes this 

rotation. In this case, the moment 

produced by the child is the horizontal 

pull force transmitted to the CSU (for 

example, through a drawer stop), 

multiplied by the vertical distance to 

the fulcrum. The CSU becomes 

unbalanced and tips over when the 

moments applied at the front of the CSU 

exceed the CSU’s stability moment. 

When a child climbs a CSU, both 

horizontal forces and vertical forces 

acting at the hands and feet contribute 

to CSU tip over. Figure 1 shows a 

typical combination of forces acting on 

a CSU while a child is climbing, and it 

describes how those forces contribute to 

a tip-over moment. Note that when the 

horizontal force at the hands and feet 

are approximately equal, which will 

occur when the child’s CM is balanced 

in front of the drawers, the height of the 

bottom drawer becomes irrelevant when 

determining the tip-over moment. In 

this case, only the height of the hands 

above the feet matters. As Figure 1 

shows, a child climbing on drawers 

opened distance A1 from the fulcrum, 

with feet at height B1 from the ground 

and hands at height B2 above the feet, 

will act on the CSU with horizontal 

forces FH and vertical forces FV. The 

CSU’s weight at a distance A2 from the 

CSU’s front edge touching the ground 

creates a stabilizing moment. The CSU 

will tip if Moment 1 is greater than 

Moment 2. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6259 

49Further details about the effect of open and 

filled drawers on CSU stability is available in Tab 

D, Tab L, and Tab O of the NPR briefing package. 

50Because of the limited number of units tested, 

this study provides useful information, but the 

results are limited to the tested units. 

VII. Technical Analysis Supporting the 

Proposed Rule 

In addition to reviewing incident 

data, CPSC staff conducted testing and 

analysis, analyzed tip-over incidents, 

and commissioned several contractor 

studies to further examine factors 

relevant to CSU tip overs. This section 

describes that testing and analysis. 

A. Multiple Open and Filled Drawers 49

Staff’s technical analysis, as 

confirmed by testing, indicates that 

multiple open drawers decrease the 

stability of a CSU, and filled drawers 

further decrease stability when more 

than half of the drawers by volume are 

open, but increase stability when more 

than half of the drawers by volume are 

closed. Thus, while multiple open 

drawers, alone, can make a unit less 

stable, whether the drawers are full 

when open is also a relevant 

consideration. When filled drawers are 

closed, the clothing weight contributes 

to the stability of the CSU, because the 

clothing weight is behind the front legs 

(fulcrum). However, open drawers 

contribute to the CSU being less stable, 

because the clothing weight is shifted 

forward in front of the front legs 

(fulcrum). 

To assess the effect of open drawers 

and filled drawers on CSU stability, 

CPSC staff conducted testing to evaluate 

the effect of various combinations of 

open/closed and filled/empty drawers 

using a convenience sample of CSUs.50

Staff conducted two phases of testing 

(Phase I and Phase II). The purpose of 

the testing was to assess the weight at 

which a CSU became unstable and 

tipped over with various configurations 

of drawers open/closed and filled/ 

empty. 

The primary variable of interest in the 

Phase I study was the influence of 

multiple open/closed drawers. The 11 

CSUs tested in Phase I were primarily 

units with a single column of drawers. 

The Phase II study examined the 

influence of multiple open/closed 

drawers and filled/empty drawers. The 

15 CSUs tested in Phase II included 

more complex units with multiple 

columns of drawers. Staff used the 

stability test methods in ASTM F2057– 

19, with some alterations, to collect 

information about variables that ASTM 

F2057–19 does not address (i.e., the 

effect of open/closed drawers, filled/ 

empty drawers, and tip weight). Filled 

drawers contained weight bags to 

simulate a drawer filled with clothing, 

based on the interior volume of the 

drawer and 8.5 pounds per cubic foot 

(the explanation for this fill volume is 

provided below). In addition to various 

configurations of open/closed and 

filled/empty drawers, staff also varied 

the drawer on which the tip weight 

mechanism was applied, referred to as 

the ‘‘tip weight application location.’’ 

The primary goal of the Phase I study 

was to gain insight into the influence of 

multiple open or closed drawers on CSU 

stability as a function of tip weight. 

Additionally, this study was designed to 

test and ideally confirm that identical 

drawer open/closed patterns (e.g., two 

open drawers) yielded nearly identical 

tip weights, particularly when drawers 

were identical in size, regardless of the 

specific configuration (drawers open/ 

closed and tip weight application 

location). The Phase I study confirmed 

that comparable tip weights existed for 

similar open/closed drawer 

configurations in the tested CSUs when 

considering a simple single column of 

drawers that are identically sized. 

The primary goal of the Phase II study 

was to examine additional complexities 

with respect to real-world scenarios of 

CSUs. This included more complex 

CSUs and combinations of filled and/or 

empty drawers (including partially filed 

configurations, in which some drawers 

were filled and some were empty) 

within the same CSU, in addition to 

open/closed drawers. Staff also 

modified the test method to decrease 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.000</GPH>

B2 

Bl 

Moment 1 = (Fv1+Fvi)Al+FH2(Bl+B2)-FH1B1 

Note-When FH1=FH2= FH: Moment 1 = {Fvi+FV2)Al+FHB2 

Figure 1: An example of opposing moments acting on a CSU. 
6260 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

51Staff excluded some data points for reasons 

explained in Tab O of the NPR briefing package. 

52 Kids in Danger and Shane’s Foundation (2016). 

Dresser Testing Protocol and Data. Data set 

provided to CPSC staff by Kids in Danger, January 

29, 2021. 

53 ‘‘Clearance height’’ is the height from the 

interior bottom surface of the drawer to the closest 

vertical obstruction in the CSU frame. ‘‘Functional 

height’’ is clearance height minus 1⁄8 inch. 

test-to-test variability, for example, by 

adding cross hatches on the drawer and 

the weight bag to ensure weight bags 

were centered within drawers. 

Based on this testing, lighter and 

shorter units appear to be less stable, 

although a taller and heavier unit was 

also unstable; and similar units passed 

and failed ASTM’s stability 

requirements. This suggests that specific 

heights or weights of a CSU do not 

correlate with stability or instability. 

Similarly, the footprint ratio (depth-towidth ratio) of the CSU, alone, did not 

appear to affect tip weight. 

From the 26 CSUs tested, CPSC staff 

analyzed 1,777 data points for a variety 

of combinations (filled/empty drawers, 

open/closed drawers, and tip weight 

application location),51 and 

supplemented this data with results 

from other CSU testing CPSC staff had 

performed. The results of this testing 

indicated that individual CSUs vary in 

stability, depending on the 

configuration of open/closed drawers, 

and filled/empty drawers, and that 

different CSU drawer structures (e.g., 

number of columns, relative drawer 

sizes) have an influence on tip weight. 

In general, the results indicated that 

CSUs were less stable as more drawers 

were opened, and that filled drawers 

have a variable effect on stability. A 

filled closed drawer contributes to 

stability, while a filled open drawer 

decreases stability. Depending on the 

percent of drawers that are open and 

filled, having multiple drawers open 

decreased the stability of the CSU. 

To determine the appropriate method 

for simulating CSU drawers that are 

partially filled or fully filled, staff 

considered previous analyses, and 

conducted additional testing. Although 

ASTM F2057–19 does not include filled 

drawers as part of its stability testing, 

the ASTM F15.42 subcommittee has 

considered a ‘‘loaded’’ (filled) drawer 

requirement and test method. The 

ASTM task group used an assumed 

clothing weight of 8.5 pounds per cubic 

foot in testing and other discussions of 

filled drawers. Kids in Danger and 

Shane’s Foundation found a similar 

density (average of 8.9 pounds per cubic 

foot) when they filled CSU drawers with 

boys’ t-shirts in a 2016 study on 

furniture stability.52

To assess whether 8.5 pounds per 

cubic foot reasonably represents the 

weight of clothing in a drawer, CPSC 

staff conducted testing. As part of this 

assessment, staff looked at four drawer 

fill conditions. Staff considered folded 

and unfolded clothing with a total 

weight equal to 8.5 pounds per cubic 

foot of functional drawer volume in the 

drawer; and the maximum amount of 

folded and unfolded clothing that could 

be put into a drawer that would still 

allow the drawer to open and close. For 

these tests, staff used an assortment of 

boys’ clothing in sizes 4, 5, and 6. Staff 

used a CSU with a range of drawer sizes 

to assess small, medium, and large 

drawers; the functional drawer volume 

of these 3 drawer sizes was 0.76 cubic 

feet, 1.71 cubic feet, and 2.39 cubic feet, 

respectively. Staff determined the 

calculated clothing weight for the 8.5 

pounds per cubic foot drawer fill 

conditions by multiplying 8.5 by the 

drawer’s functional volume, defined 

as: 53

For all three drawer sizes, staff was 

able to fit 8.5 pounds per cubic foot of 

folded and unfolded clothing in the 

drawers. When the clothing was 

unfolded, the clothing fully filled the 

drawers, but still allowed the drawer to 

close. Because the unfolded clothing 

was stuffed into the drawer fairly 

tightly, it was not easy to see and access 

clothing below the top layer. When the 

clothing was folded, the clothing also 

fully filled the drawers and still allowed 

the drawer to close. The folded clothing 

was tightly packed, but allowed for 

additional space when compressed. The 

maximum unfolded clothing fill weight 

was 6.52, 14.64, and 21.20 pounds for 

the three drawer sizes, respectively; and 

the maximum folded clothing fill weight 

was 7.72, 16.08, and 22.88 pounds for 

the three drawer sizes, respectively. 

Staff also compared the calculated 

clothing weight (i.e., using 8.5 pounds 

per cubic foot), maximum unfolded 

drawer fill weight, and maximum folded 

drawer fill weight for each drawer. The 

maximum unfolded clothing fill weight 

was slightly higher than the calculated 

clothing fill weight for all tested 

drawers. The difference between the 

maximum unfolded clothing fill weight 

and the calculated clothing weight 

ranged from 0.08 pounds to 0.87 

pounds. The maximum unfolded 

clothing fill weight was 101 to 104 

percent of the calculated clothing 

weight, depending on the drawer. The 

maximum folded clothing fill weight 

was higher than both the maximum 

unfolded clothing fill weight and the 

calculated clothing fill weight for all 

tested drawers; however, the differences 

were relatively small. The difference 

between the maximum folded clothing 

fill weight and the calculated clothing 

weight ranged from 1.28 to 2.55 pounds. 

The maximum unfolded clothing fill 

weight was 111 to 120 percent of the 

calculated clothing weight, depending 

on the drawer. The maximum unfolded 

clothing fill density was slightly higher 

than 8.5 pounds per cubic foot for all 

tested drawers; and the maximum 

unfolded clothing fill density ranged 

from 8.56 to 8.87 pounds per cubic foot, 

depending on the drawer. The 

maximum folded clothing fill density 

was higher than both the maximum 

unfolded clothing fill density and 8.5 

pounds per cubic foot for all tested 

drawers. The maximum folded clothing 

fill density ranged from 9.40 to 10.16 

pounds per cubic foot, depending on the 

drawer. Thus, there does not appear to 

be a large difference in clothing fill 

density based on drawer size. 

Based on this testing, staff found that 

8.5 pounds per cubic foot of clothing 

will fill a drawer; however, this amount 

of clothing is less than the absolute 

maximum amount of clothing that can 

be put into a drawer, especially if the 

clothing is folded. The maximum 

amount of unfolded clothing that could 

be put into the tested drawers was only 

slightly higher than 8.5 pounds per 

cubic foot. Although staff achieved a 

clothing density as high as 10.16 

pounds per cubic foot with folded 

clothing, consumers may be unlikely to 

fill a drawer to this level because it 

requires careful folding, and it is 

difficult to remove and replace 

individual pieces of clothing. On 

balance, staff concluded that 8.5 pounds 

per cubic foot of functional drawer 

volume is a reasonable approximation of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.001</GPH>

Functional Volume = { [Interior Area](ft2 ) [clearance Height-1⁄4] (in) [tzl e~)} 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6261 

54Further information about the study described 

in this section, and forces and moments generated 

by children’s interactions with CSUs, is available in 

Tab C, Tab D, and Tab R of the NPR briefing 

package. 

55CPSC 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. 

56Ascending is a subcategory of climbing, and is 

described as a child’s initial step to climb up on to 

a CSU. Therefore, ascending is an integral part of 

climbing. The UMTRI study provided information 

about forces children generate during ascent, 

because that testing measured forces children 

generate during an initial step onto the CSU test 

fixture. Those forces can be used to model children 

climbing because ascent is the first and integral step 

to climbing, but not all climbing interactions can be 

modeled with ascent, as forces associated with 

some other behaviors can exceed those for ascent. 

The term ‘‘climbing’’ is often used in this preamble 

and the NPR briefing package because that is the 

general behavior described in many incidents. Both 

climbing and ascending are used to refer to the 

force children generate on a CSU, for purposes of 

the proposed rule. 

the weight of clothing in a fully filled 

drawer. 

B. Forces and Moments During Child 

Interactions With CSUs 54

As indicated above, some of the 

common themes that staff identified in 

CSU tip-over incident data involve 

children interacting with CSUs, 

including climbing on them and 

opening drawers. To determine the 

forces and other relevant factors that 

exist during these expected interactions 

between children and CSUs, CPSC 

contracted with UMTRI to conduct 

research. The researchers at UMTRI, in 

collaboration with CPSC staff, designed 

a study to collect information about 

children’s measurements and 

proportions, interest in climbing and 

climbing behaviors, and the forces and 

moments children can generate during 

various interactions with a CSU. Forty 

children, age 20 months to 65 months 

old, participated in the study. For 

additional details about the study, see 

UMTRI’s full report in Tab R of the NPR 

briefing package. 

1. Overview of Interaction Portion of 

UMTRI Study 

The interaction portion of the study 

included children interacting with a 

CSU test apparatus with instrumented 

handles and a simulated drawer and 

tabletop (to simulate the top of a CSU 

or other tabletop or furniture unit). 

Researchers measured the forces of the 

children acting on the test apparatus 

and calculated moments generated by 

the children based on the location of the 

CSU’s front leg tip point (fulcrum). The 

researchers based the fulcrum’s location 

on a dataset of CSU drawer extensions 

and heights provided by CPSC staff.55

The interaction portion of the study 

looked at forces associated with several 

climbing-related interactions of interest, 

which staff and researchers selected 

based on CSU tip-over incidents, videos 

of children interacting with CSUs and 

similar furniture items, and plausible 

interactions based on children’s 

developmental abilities. Staff focused 

on the ascent/climbing 56 interaction for 

this rulemaking because climbing 

incidents were the most common 

interaction among fatal CPSRMS 

incidents and nonfatal NEISS incidents, 

where the interaction was reported, and 

they were the second most common 

interaction in nonfatal CPSRMS 

incidents, where the interaction was 

reported; and because climbing begins 

with ascent, which is a child’s initial 

step to climb up on to the CSU, and 

therefore, is considered an integral part 

of all climbing interactions. 

2. Test Apparatus and Data Acquisition 

UMTRI researchers created the test 

apparatus shown in Figure 2, which 

used a padded force plate to measure 

interactions with the floor and included 

a column to which the various 

instrumented test fixtures were 

attached. Tests were conducted with a 

pair of handlebars (simulating drawer 

handles or fronts), a simulated drawer, 

and a simulated tabletop. In preparation 

for the study, CPSC staff worked with 

UMTRI researchers to develop a test 

fixture that modeled the climbing 

surfaces of a CSU. CPSC staff provided 

information to UMTRI researchers on 

drawer extension and heights from the 

sample of dressers used in CPSC staff’s 

evaluation (Tab N of the NPR briefing 

package). Researchers selected and 

constructed a parallel bar test fixture, 

representing a lower foothold and an 

upper handhold. These bars represent a 

best-case CSU climbing surface, similar 

to the top of a drawer. 

UMTRI researchers configured the test 

fixtures based on each child’s 

anthropometric measurements. 

Researchers set the upper bar to three 

different heights relative to the padded 

floor surface: Low (50 percent of the 

child’s upward grip reach), mid (75 

percent of the child’s upward grip 

reach), and high (100 percent of the 

child’s upward grip reach); researchers 

set the lower bar to two different 

heights: Low (4.7 inches from the 

padded floor surface) and high (the 

child’s maximum step height above the 

padded floor). The heights for the bars 

were within plausible heights for CSU 

drawers. Researchers set the horizontal 

position of the upper bar to two 

different positions: ‘‘aligned’’ with the 

lower bar, or ‘‘offset’’ from the lower 

bar, at a distance equal to 20 percent of 

the child’s upward grip height. Tabs C 

and R of the NPR briefing package 

contain more information about the test 

fixture configurations. The bars, drawer, 

and tabletop, as well as the floor in front 

of the test fixture, had force 

measurement instrumentation that 

recorded forces over time in the 

horizontal (fore-aft, x) and vertical (z) 

directions. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6262 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3. Target Behaviors of Children 

Interacting With a CSU 

CPSC staff worked with UMTRI 

researchers to develop a set of scripted 

interactions. Staff focused on realistic 

interactions in which the child’s 

position and/or dynamic interactions 

were the most likely to cause a CSU to 

tip over. The interactions were based on 

incident data and online videos of 

children interacting with CSUs and 

other furniture items. The interactions 

UMTRI researchers evaluated included: 

• Ascend: Climb up onto the test 

fixture; 

• Bounce: Bounce vigorously without 

leaving the bar; 

• Lean back: Lean back as far as 

possible while keeping both hands and 

feet on the bars; 

• Yank: From the lean back position, 

pull on the bar as hard as possible; 

• 1 hand & 1 foot: Take one hand and 

foot (from the same side of the body) off 

the bars and then lean as far away from 

the bars as possible; 

• Hop up: Hold the upper bar and try 

to jump from the floor to a position 

where the arms are straight and the hips 

are in front of the upper bar, an action 

similar to hoisting oneself out of a 

swimming pool; 

• Hang: Hold onto the upper bar, lift 

feet off the floor by bending knees, hang 

still for a few seconds, and then 

straighten legs to return to the floor; and 

• Descend: Climb down from the test 

fixture. 

As described above, the ascend 

interaction best models the climbing 

behavior commonly seen in incidents, 

and is analogous to a child’s initial step 

to climb up on to the CSU, which is an 

integral climbing interaction. The other, 

more extreme interactions, such as 

bounce, lean, and yank, were identified 

as plausible interactions, based on child 

behavior; but these interactions were 

not directly observed in the incident 

data. 

After the children performed the 

interaction, the researchers reviewed 

video from each trial to isolate and 

characterize interactions of interest. 

Interactions of interest for the handle 

trials were categorized as: Ascent, 

Bounce, Lean (lean back), Yank, and 

One Hand (see Figure 3). Researchers 

analyzed forces from each extracted 

behavior to identify peak forces and 

moments. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.002</GPH>

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). 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6263 

57Snyder, 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). 

4. Image-Based Posture Analysis 

Participant postures have strong 

effects on the horizontal forces exerted 

by the child and the subsequent 

calculated moments, due to the location 

of the child’s CM during each behavior. 

Thus, the CM of the child is important 

when evaluating the stability or tip-over 

propensity of the child/CSU-combined 

system. UMTRI researchers used the 

images of the subjects to estimate the 

location of the child’s CM. The UMTRI 

researchers extracted video frames at 

time points of interest (typically when 

the child produced the maximum 

moment during the interaction) and 

manually digitized the series of 

landmarks on the image of the child, as 

shown in Figure 4. The location of the 

CM was estimated, based on 

anthropometric information on 

children,57 as 33 percent of the distance 

from the buttock landmark to the top-ofhead landmark. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.003</GPH> EP03FE22.004</GPH>

Ascent Bounce Lean Back Yank One Hand 

Figure 3: Children were instructed to climb on (ascend) the test fixture and perform 

certain targeted behaviors. The Ascent image on the left also shows markers that were used 

to find the CM location, discussed in the next section. 

Figure 4: The photo on the left shows the right side of the body as it is digitized. The photo 

on the right shows the resulting body segments and the estimated location of the CM for a 

different child and test condition. 
6264 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

58 Graphs are available in Tab R of the NPR 

briefing package (page 59, Figure 54). 

The UMTRI researchers estimated the 

location of the child’s CM by examining 

the side-view images from the times of 

maximum moment, as shown in Figure 

5. Table 1 shows the average estimated 

CM location for each behavior.58 The 

children in the study extended their CM 

an average of about 6 inches from the 

handle/foothold while ascending. 

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED CM HORIZONTAL OFFSET FROM THE HANDLES FOR ALIGNED TRIALS

[Inches] 

Behavior N subjects N trials Mean SD 10th 

percentile 

50th 

percentile 

90th 

percentile 

Ascent .......................... 36 109 6.1 2.0 4.3 6.1 8.6 

Bounce ......................... 32 80 6.0 2.5 4.0 5.8 9.1 

Lean Back .................... 30 81 11.3 3.4 8.5 11.6 15.9 

Yank ............................. 25 53 10.9 3.4 7.3 11.5 15.9 

5. Handle Trial Force Results 

Figure 6 shows side-view images of 

examples of children interacting with 

the handle fixture. The frames were 

taken at the time of peak tip-over 

moment. Forces exerted by the child at 

the hands and feet are illustrated using 

scaled vectors (longer lines indicate 

greater force magnitude; arrow direction 

indicates force direction). Digitized 

landmarks and estimated CM locations 

are shown. The images demonstrate that 

forces at both the hands and feet often 

have substantial horizontal components, 

and usually, but not always, the foot 

forces are larger than the hand forces. 

The horizontal components at the hands 

and feet are also in opposite directions: 

The horizontal foot forces are forward 

(toward the test fixture), while the hand 

forces are rearward (toward the child). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.005</GPH>

Figure 5. 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. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6265 

59Here, 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. 

Figure 17 in Tab D of the NPR briefing 

package shows an exemplar time-history 

plot of the horizontal and vertical forces 

for the Ascent behavior of the depicted 

child. As that figure illustrates, the 

child’s body weight transitions from the 

force plate to the bars, with the lower 

bar bearing nearly all of the weight. The 

horizontal forces on the upper and 

lower bars are approximately equal in 

magnitude and opposite in direction, 

consistent with the posture being 

approximately static toward the end of 

the test, where the child completed the 

ascend maneuver. Under these 

conditions, the behavior is no longer 

dynamic, and the vertical forces sum to 

body weight. 

UMTRI researchers modeled a child 

interacting with a CSU with opened 

drawers, by measuring forces at 

instrumented bars representing a drawer 

front or handle. Figure 7 is the free-body 

diagram of the child climbing the CSU. 

The horizontal and vertical forces at the 

hands and feet correspond to the 

positive direction of the measured 

forces. The CSU drawers were modeled 

using the top handle and bottom handle 

height, and the drawer extension was 

modeled from 0 inches to 12 inches.59

The UMTRI researchers calculated the 

moment about the CSU’s front foot or 

fulcrum, using the measured forces, 

vertical location of the top and bottom 

handles, and the defined drawer 

extension length (Fulcrum X). 

Figure 7 shows that the child’s body 

weight will generally be distributed 

between the two bars, but that the 

child’s CM location will also typically 

be outboard of the bars (farther from the 

fulcrum than the bars). The quasi-static 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.006</GPH> EP03FE22.007</GPH>

Ascent Bounce Lean Back Yank 

Figure 6: Depicts examples of interactions. Arrows illustrate the directions and relative 

magnitudes of forces at the hands and feet. 

Figure 7. Free-body diagram of a child climbing a CSU. 
6266 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

60The top handle varied from 7.4 to 47.3 inches 

above the bottom handle. 

climbing moment is approximately 

equal to the location of the child’s CM 

(the horizontal distance of the CM to the 

fulcrum), multiplied by the child’s 

weight. In reality, the moment created 

by dynamic forces generated by the 

child during the activities in the UMTRI 

study, such as during ascend, exceed 

the moment created by body weight 

alone as a result of the greater 

magnitude horizontal and vertical 

forces. 

6. Moment About the Fulcrum 

UMTRI researchers analyzed the force 

data as generating a moment around a 

tip-over fulcrum. The UMTRI 

researchers calculated the maximum 

moment about a virtual fulcrum, based 

on the measured force data for each test 

and the location of the force. Figure 8 

shows the test setup and the forces 

measured. Note that the test setup 

mimics a CSU with the drawers closed 

and the Fulcrum X = 0. UMTRI 

researchers defined the horizontal 

Fulcrum X distance of 1-foot (based on 

the 90th percentile drawer extension) to 

simulate a 1-foot drawer extension. The 

bottom handle vertical Fulcrum Z was 

set to 16 inches (based on the 90th 

percentile drawer height from the floor), 

and the Top Handle Z varied, 

depending on the size of the child.60

Researchers calculated the moment that 

would be generated for a child 

interacting on a 1-foot extended CSU 

drawer, as shown in Figure 8, where 

Fulcrum X = 1 foot. 

Figure 20 in Tab D of the NPR briefing 

package (also Figure 44 in Tab R) shows 

the calculated maximum moment for 

each interaction of interest versus the 

child’s body weight, and shows that the 

maximum moment tends to increase 

with body weight. UMTRI researchers 

normalized the moment by dividing the 

calculated moment by the child’s body 

weight to enable the effects of the 

behaviors to be examined independent 

of body weight, as shown in Figure 21 

in Tab D of the NPR briefing package 

(also Figure 46 in Tab R). As the figure 

illustrates, the greatest moments were 

generated in the Yank interaction, 

followed in descending order by Lean, 

Bounce, 1 Hand, and Ascend. As the 

weight of the child increased, so did the 

maximum moment. For all of the 

interactions, the maximum moment 

exceeded the weight of the child. For 

Ascend and Bounce, the slopes are close 

to zero, indicating that the difference in 

the moment generated for the Ascend 

and Bounce interaction is primarily due 

to the child’s weight. A weak positive 

relationship can be seen for Lean and 

Yank. This suggests a difference in the 

Lean and Yank behavior for heavier 

children that is not accounted for by 

body weight. This difference for the 

Lean and Yank behavior is consistent 

with the heavier children also having 

longer arms and legs that would allow 

them to shift their CM further away 

from the handles, as well as being 

relatively stronger, leading to greater 

magnitude dynamic forces. 

The preceding analysis was based on 

a 12-inch (one foot) horizontal distance 

between the location of force exertion 

and the fulcrum. The following analysis 

shows the effects of varying the Fulcrum 

X value, which is equivalent to a CSU’s 

drawer extension from the fulcrum. 

The net moment can be calculated 

using a Fulcrum X = 0 position, as 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.008</GPH>

Test configuration consists of force transducers on upper and 

lower bars. Video image analysis is used to determine the 

center of mass of the child. 

Test configuration: force data collected on bars, F1opx, F1opz, 

AottomX and Aottom Z, Image analysis determines the Estimated 

Center of Mass Offset. 

Note: For aligned trials, the top bar is directly under the 

bottom bar and Top Handle X = 0. 

The child's moment is calculated based on 

input values for Fulcrum X "virtual fulcrum" 

multiplied by the measured vertical force 

data. Horizontal force data multiplied by 

hei ht Z also contributes to the moment. 

Figure 8. These diagrams illustrate how the test configuration was used to determine the 

child's moment acting on the CSU. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6267 

61 Drawer extension data provided by CPSC staff 

to UMTRI researchers was measured from the 

extended drawer to the front of the CSU, and did 

not account for how the fulcrum position will vary 

with foot geometry and position. UMTRI 

researchers assumed that the fulcrum was aligned 

with the front of the CSU to simplify their analysis. 

62UMTRI researchers reported that the average 

CM offset was 6.1 inches (0.51 feet) during ascent 

at the time the maximum moment was measured. 

shown in Figure 9, to bound the effects 

of drawer extension. Placing the 

fulcrum directly under the hands and 

feet in the aligned conditions eliminates 

the effects of vertical forces on moment, 

while amplifying the relative effects of 

horizontal forces. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 

UMTRI researchers analyzed the 

effects of the Fulcrum X (which 

corresponds to the drawer extension) 61

on the tip-over moment for the targeted 

behaviors. Since the moment about the 

fulcrum was calculated based on 

measured force data and input values 

for Fulcrum X distance, the authors 

were able to analyze the effects of the 

fulcrum position by varying the 

Fulcrum X value from 0 to 12 inches. 

UMTRI researcher used this virtual 

Fulcrum X value to calculate the 

corresponding maximum moment. 

Figure 23 in Tab D of the NPR briefing 

package (also Figure 51 in Tab R) shows 

the maximum moments versus the 

Fulcrum X values of 0 and 12 inches 

across behaviors for aligned conditions. 

For example, the calculated moment for 

Ascend at X=0 is about 17.5 pound-feet. 

The moment when X=0 is due entirely 

to horizontal forces. These horizontal 

forces exerted by the child on the top 

and bottom handles of the test apparatus 

are necessary to balance his/her 

outboard CM. UMTRI researchers 

concluded that the child’s CM due to 

their postures have strong effects on the 

horizontal forces exerted and the 

calculated moments. Consequently, the 

location of the child’s CM during the 

behavior is an important variable. 

As previously discussed, the UMTRI 

researchers normalized the moment by 

dividing the calculated moment of each 

trial by the child’s body weight to 

enable the effects of the behaviors to be 

examined independent of body weight. 

The graphs of Figure 23 in Tab D of the 

NPR briefing package show how the 

moments and the normalized moments 

increase with the fulcrum distance 

(which corresponds to the drawer 

extension). For the normalized moments 

shown in the bottom graph, this can be 

interpreted as the effective CM location 

outboard of the front foot of the CSU 

(fulcrum), in feet. For example, a child 

climbing on a drawer extended 12 

inches (1 foot) from the front foot 

fulcrum will have an effective CM that 

is about 19 inches (1.6 feet) from the 

fulcrum. At Fulcrum X = 0, the 

contribution of vertical forces to the 

moment are eliminated, and only the 

horizontal forces exerted at the hands 

and feet contribute to the moment. The 

horizontal forces exerted by the child on 

the top and bottom handles are 

necessary to balance his/her outboard 

CM. The effective moment where the 

fulcrum = 0 is about 6 inches (0.5 feet) 

for the Ascend behavior, and it is 

primarily due to the outboard CM 

position of the child about 6 inches (0.5 

feet) from the fulcrum.62

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.009</GPH>

Figure 9. Depicts a schematic of effects of reducing FulcrumX to zero (compare with 

Figure 7, which depicts a non-zero FulcrumX distance). 
6268 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

63Refer to Figure 48 in the UMTRI report (Tab R 

of the NPR briefing package). 

64 Details regarding staff’s assessment of the effect 

of flooring on CSU stability is available in Tab D 

and Tab P of the NPR briefing package. 

65 Furniture Stability: A Review of Data and 

Testing Results (Kids in Danger and Shane’s 

Foundation, August 2016). 

66To 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. 

moment during ascent, the average 

(median) vertical force, divided by the 

child’s body weight, was close to 1 (staff 

estimates this value is approximately 

1.08 for aligned handle trials).63 This 

suggests child body weight is the most 

significant vertical force, although 

dynamic forces also contribute. 

Based on the Normalized Moment for 

Ascend shown in the bottom graph of 

Figure 23 in Tab D of the NPR briefing 

package, CPSC staff estimated the 

Ascend line with the following equation 

1: 

Equation 1. Normalized Moment for 

Ascend = 1.08 × [Fulcrum X (ft)] + 

0.52 ft. 

Equation 1 can be multiplied by a 

child’s weight to estimate the moment 

M generated by the child ascending, as 

shown in Equation 2: 

Equation 2. M = {1.08 × [Fulcrum X (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: 

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

M = 80 lb-ft 

The child in the example above 

produces a total moment of 80 poundfeet 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 quasistatic horizonal force used to balance 

the child’s CM in front of the extended 

drawer and dynamic forces, is 26 

pound-feet. 

Similar climbing behaviors for drawer 

and table trials (e.g., climbing into the 

drawer or climbing onto the tabletop) 

generated lower moments than ascent. 

Therefore, the equation for ascend is 

expected to cover those behaviors as 

well. 

7. Summary of Findings From the 

Interaction Portion of the Study 

UMTRI researchers found that the 

moments caused by children climbing 

furniture exceed the effects of body 

weight alone. CPSC staff used the 

findings to develop an equation that 

could be used to calculate the moment 

generated by children ascending a CSU, 

based on the child’s body weight and 

the drawer extension from the CSU 

fulcrum, shown in Equation 2. This 

equation, combined with the weight for 

the children involved in CSU tip-over 

incidents, is the basis for the moment 

requirements in the proposed rule. 

8. Focus Group Portion of UMTRI Study 

In addition to examining the forces 

children generate when interacting with 

a CSU, in the UMTRI study, the 

researchers also asked participants and 

their caregivers questions about 

participants’ typical climbing behaviors. 

This portion of the study identified 

many household items that children 

showed interest in climbing, including: 

CSUs, tables, desks, counters, cabinets, 

shelves, windows, sofas, chairs, and 

beds. In the same study, six children 

climbed dressers, based on caregivers’ 

reports. Caregivers described various 

tactics the children used for climbing, 

such as ‘‘jumped up,’’ ‘‘hands and feet,’’ 

‘‘ladder style,’’ and ‘‘grab and pull up,’’ 

but the most common strategy was 

stepping into or onto the lowest drawer. 

Caregivers also mentioned children 

using chairs, stools, and other objects to 

facilitate climbing, including pulling 

out dresser drawers. 

C. Flooring 64

To examine the effect of flooring on 

the stability of CSUs, staff reviewed 

existing information and conducted 

testing. As background, staff considered 

a 2016 study on CSU stability, 

conducted by Kids in Danger (KID) and 

Shane’s Foundation.65 In that study, 

researchers tested the stability of 19 

CSUs, using the stability tests in ASTM 

F2057–19 on both a hard, flat surface, 

and on carpeting. The results showed 

that some CSUs that passed on the hard 

surface, tipped over when tested on 

carpet. 

To further examine the effect of 

carpeting on the stability of CSUs, staff 

tested 13 CSUs, with a variety of designs 

and stability, on a carpeted test surface. 

For this testing, staff used a section of 

wall-to-wall tufted polyester carpeting 

with polypropylene backing from a 

major home-supply retailer and typical 

of wall-to-wall carpeting, based on 

staff’s review of carpeting on the market. 

Staff installed and secured the carpet, 

with a carpet pad, on a plywood 

platform, and conditioned the CSU and 

carpeting by weighting the unit for 15 

minutes. Staff then tested the unit using 

the same methods and CSU 

configurations (i.e., number and 

position of open and filled drawers) as 

used with these units in the Multiple 

Open and Filled Drawers testing 

conducted on the hard surface (Tab O of 

the NPR briefing package). 

Using the 1,221 pairs of tip weights 

(i.e., tip weight on the flat surface and 

on the carpet, with various 

configurations of multiple open and 

filled drawers), staff calculated the 

difference in tip weight when on the 

hard surface, compared to the carpeted 

surface for each CSU (tip weight 

difference). A CSU had a positive tip 

weight difference if the tip weight was 

higher on the hard surface than on the 

carpet, indicating that CSUs are less 

stable on carpet. The testing showed the 

CSUs tended to be more stable on the 

hard surface than they were on carpet. 

Of the 1,221 tip-over weight differences, 

the tip weight difference was positive 

for 1,149 (94 percent) of them; negative 

for 33 (3 percent) of them; and was zero 

(i.e., the tip-over weights were equal) for 

39 (3 percent). For all 1,221 

combinations, the mean tip weight 

difference was 7.6 pounds, but for 

individual units, the mean tip weight 

difference ranged from 4.1 to 16.0 

pounds. For all 1,221 combinations, the 

median tip weight difference was 7 

pounds, but for individual units, the 

median ranged from 2 to 16 pounds. 

The standard deviation for the entire 

1,221 data set was 5.1 pounds, but was 

smaller for individual units, ranging 

from 1.8 to 4.7 pounds, indicating that 

most of the variability in tip weight 

differences was between units, as 

opposed to within units, which suggests 

that some units are affected more than 

others by carpeting. 

Staff also analyzed the relationship 

between tip weight difference and open/ 

closed drawers and filled/empty 

drawers. The mean tip weight difference 

was 7.6 pounds (median was 7 pounds) 

when most of the drawers on the unit 

were open, and 8.5 pounds (median was 

8 pounds) when most of the drawers 

were closed, indicating that the units 

were more stable (required more weight 

to tip over) when more drawers were 

closed. The mean tip weight difference 

was 7.2 pounds (median was 6 pounds) 

when most of the drawers on the unit 

were empty, and 7.7 pounds (median 

was 7 pounds) when most of the 

drawers were filled.66 This shows that, 

in general, CSUs are less stable on 

carpet. All units tested, under various 

conditions, tended to tip with less 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6269 

67 Details about staff’s incident recreation and 

modeling are in Tab D and Tab M of the NPR 

briefing package. 

68Staff tested this model two separate times. In 

one case, the tip weight just exceeded the ASTM 

F2057–19 minimum acceptable test fixture weight. 

In another case, the model tipped over just below 

the minimum allowed test fixture weight. These 

results are consistent with earlier staff testing that 

found that the model tipped when tested with a 

49.66-pound test fixture; but did comply when 

tested with a 48.54-pound test fixture. 

69The full report from FMG, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission: Furniture Tipover Report (Mar. 

13, 2020), is available in Tab Q of the NPR briefing 

package. 

weight on the carpet than on the hard 

surface. 

Staff used the results from this study 

to determine a test method that 

approximated the effect of carpet on 

CSU stability by tilting the unit forward 

(Tab D of the NPR briefing package). 

Using the CSUs that were involved in 

CSU tip-over incidents (Tab M of the 

NPR briefing package), staff compared 9 

tip weights on carpet with tip weights 

for the same units in the same test 

configuration when tilted at 0, 1, 2, and 

3 degrees in the forward direction on an 

otherwise hard, level, and flat surface. 

The tip weight of CSUs on carpet 

corresponded with tilting the CSUs 0.8 

to 3 degrees forward, depending on the 

CSU; the mean tilt angle that 

corresponded to the CSU tip weights on 

carpet was 1.48 degrees. This suggests 

that a forward tilt of 0.8 to 3 degrees 

replicated the test results on carpet. 

Staff also conducted a mechanical 

analysis of the carpet and pad used in 

the test assembly, and found a similar 

forward tilt of 1.5 to 2.0 degrees would 

replicate the effects of carpet for one 

CSU. 

D. Incident Recreation and Modeling 67

CPSC staff analyzed incidents and 

tested products that were involved in 

CSU tip-over incidents to better 

understand the real-world factors that 

contribute to tip overs. Staff analyzed 7 

CSU models, associated with 13 tip-over 

incidents. The CSUs ranged in height 

from 27 to 50 inches and weighed 

between 45 and 195 pounds. Two of 

these CSU models did not comply with 

the stability requirements in ASTM 

F2057–19; one complied with the 

requirements in section 7.1, but not 

section 7.2; two complied with both 

sections 7.1 and 7.2; and one was 

borderline.68 Through testing and 

analysis, staff recreated the incident 

scenarios described in the investigations 

and determined the weight that caused 

the unit to tip over in a variety of use 

scenarios, such as a child climbing or 

pulling on the dresser, multiple open 

drawers, filled and unfilled drawers, 

and the flooring under the CSU. 

Based on this analysis and testing, 

staff identified several factors that 

contributed to the tip-over incidents. 

One factor was whether multiple 

drawers were open simultaneously. 

Opening multiple drawers decreased the 

stability of the CSU. A related factor was 

whether the drawers of the CSU were 

filled, and to what extent. Staff’s testing 

indicated that the weight of filled 

drawers increases the stability of a CSU 

when more drawers are closed, and 

reduces overall stability when more 

drawers are open. Generally, when more 

than half of filled drawers were open 

(by volume), the CSU was less stable. 

Another factor was the child’s 

interaction with the CSU at the time of 

the incident. In some incidents, the 

child was likely exerting both a 

horizontal and vertical force on the 

CSU. Staff found that, for some CSUs, 

either a vertical or horizontal force, 

alone, could cause the CSU to tip over, 

but that the presence of both forces 

significantly increased the tip-over 

moment acting on the CSU. These 

forces, in combination with the other 

factors staff identified, further 

contributed to the instability of CSUs. 

Some of the incident recreations 

indicated that the force on the edge of 

an open drawer associated with tipping 

the CSU was greater than the static 

weight of the child standing on the edge 

of an open drawer of the CSU. The 

equivalent force consists of the child’s 

weight, the dynamic force on the edge 

of the drawer due to climbing, and the 

effects of the child’s CG extending 

beyond the edge of the drawer. Some of 

the incident recreations indicated that a 

child pulling on a drawer could have 

contributed to the CSU tipping over. 

Another factor that contributed to 

instability was flooring. Staff’s testing 

indicated that the force needed to tip a 

unit over was less when the CSU was on 

carpet/padding than when it was on a 

hard, level floor. 

E. Consumer Use Study 69

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 CSUlike 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6270 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

70A full discussion of this testing and the results 

is available in Tab N of the NPR briefing package. 

71Staff tested exemplar units, using the model of 

CSU involved in the incident, but not the actual 

incident unit. 

72The 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/. 

73This is based on the results for 185 of the units; 

staff omitted the test weight for 3 of the CSUs 

because of data discrepancies. 

74Further details regarding staff’s analysis of 

warning label symbols are available in Tab C of the 

NPR briefing package. 

75 Kalsher, M., CPSC Gather Consumer Feedback: 

Final Report (2019), available at: https://

www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC%20Gather

%20Consumer%20Feedback%20-%20Final

%20Report%20with%20CPSC%20Staff

%20Statement%20-%20REDACTED%20and%20

CLEARED.pdf?GTPK5CxkCRmftdywd

DGXJyVIVq.GU2Tx. 

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 nonclothing, and had changed the location 

and use of products over time, moving 

them between rooms and storing 

clothing or other items in them, 

depending on location. 

Focusing on units that the 

participants’ children interacted with 

the most, the researchers noted that 

CSUs in children’s rooms held clothing 

and were 70 to 80 percent full of folded 

clothing. Participants reported that the 

children’s primary interaction with 

CSUs was opening them to reach 

clothing, but also reported children 

climbing units to reach into a drawer or 

to reach something on top of the unit. 

A few participants reported having 

anchored a CSU. As reasons for not 

anchoring furniture, participants stated 

that they thought the unit was unlikely 

to tip over, particularly smaller and 

lighter units used in children’s rooms, 

and they do not want to damage walls 

in a rental unit. 

F. Tip Weight Testing 70

As discussed earlier in this preamble, 

in 2016 and 2018–2019, CPSC staff 

tested CSUs to assess compliance with 

requirements in ASTM F2057. As part 

of the 2018–2019 testing, staff also 

assessed whether CSUs could hold 

weights higher than the 50-pound 

weight required in ASTM F2057, testing 

the CSUs with both a 60-pound test 

weight, and to the maximum test weight 

they could hold before tipping over. For 

this testing, staff assessed 188 CSUs, 

including 167 CSUs selected from 

among the best sellers from major 

retailers, using a random number 

generator; 4 CSU models that were 

involved in incidents; 71 and 17 units 

assessed as part of previous test data 

provided to CPSC.72 Appendix A to Tab 

N in the NPR briefing package describes 

the test procedure staff followed. To 

summarize, after recording information 

about the weight, dimensions, and 

design of the CSU, staff used a test 

procedure similar to section 7.2 in 

ASTM F2057–19 (loaded weight 

testing), but with a 60-pound test 

fixture, and with test fixtures that 

allowed staff to add additional weight, 

in 1-pound increments, up to a 

maximum of 134 pounds. 

Of the 188 CSUs staff tested, 98 (52 

percent) held the 60-pound weight 

without tipping over. The mean weight 

at which the CSUs tipped over was 61.7 

pounds and the median was 62 

pounds.73 The lowest weight that 

caused a CSU to tip over was 12.5 

pounds. The next lowest tip weights 

were 22.5 pounds (2 CSUs), 25 pounds 

(6 CSUs), and 27.5 pounds (3 CSUs). 

One CSU did not tip over when the 

maximum 134-pound test weight was 

applied. The next highest tip weights 

were 117.5 pounds (1 CSU), 112.5 

pounds (1 CSU), 102.5 pounds (1 CSU), 

97.5 pounds (1 CSU), 95 pounds (1 

CSU), and 90 pounds (4 CSUs). Most 

CSUs tipped over with between 45 and 

90 pounds of weight. 

G. Warning Label Symbols 74

In 2019, CPSC contracted a study to 

evaluate a set of 20 graphical safety 

symbols for comprehension, in an effort 

to develop a family of graphical symbols 

that can be used in multiple standards 

to communicate safety-related 

information to diverse audiences.75 The 

contractor developed 10 new symbols 

for the project, including one showing 

the CSU tip-over hazard and one 

showing the CSU tip-over hazard with 

a tip restraint; the remaining 10 symbols 

already existed. The contractor recruited 

80 adults and used the open 

comprehension test procedures 

described in ANSI Z535.3, American 

National Standard Criteria for Safety 

Symbols (2011). 

One of the existing symbols the 

contractor evaluated is the child 

climbing symbol from the warning label 

in ASTM F2057. The symbol showed 

poor comprehension (63.8 percent) with 

strict (i.e., fully correct) scoring criteria, 

but passing comprehension (87.5 

percent), when scored with lenient (i.e., 

partially correct) scoring criteria. ANSI 

Z535.3 defines the criteria for ‘‘passing’’ 

as at least 85 percent correct 

interpretations (strict), with fewer than 

5 percent critical confusions (i.e., the 

opposite action is conveyed). There was 

no critical confusion with the symbol. 

The contractor conducted focus 

groups consisting of 40 of the 80 

individuals who went through the 

comprehension study. Based on the 

feedback received in the comprehension 

study and in focus groups, the 

contractor developed the two new 

symbol variants shown in Figure 10. 

CPSC staff is currently working with the 

contractor to test these new symbol 

variants using the same methodology 

applied in the previous study. CPSC 

staff plans to assess whether one of the 

two variants performed better in 

comprehension testing than the F2057 

child climbing symbol, and thereafter, 

will determine whether any changes to 

the symbol proposed in this NPR should 

be modified for the final rule. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6271 

76Further information about tip restraints and 

anchoring is in Tab C of the NPR briefing package. 

77Butturini, 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-PreventionProject-Anchors-without-Tools.pdf. 

78Three consumers identified the furniture as an 

‘‘armoire,’’ and 19 consumers identified the 

furniture as a ‘‘dresser, chest of drawers, or 

bureau.’’ 

79Although 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. 

80Consumer 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. 

81The report for this study, Fors Marsh Group, 

CPSC Anchor It! Campaign: Main Report (July 10, 

2020), is available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fspublic/CPSC-Anchor-It-Campaign-EffectivenessSurvey-Main-Report_Final_9_2_2020....pdf?

gC1No.oOO2FEXV9wmOtdJVAtacRLHIMK. 

H. Tip Restraints and Anchoring 76

CPSC considered several studies 

regarding consumer anchoring of 

furniture to evaluate the potential 

effectiveness of tip restraints to help 

address the tip-over hazard. These 

studies indicate that a large number of 

consumers do not anchor furniture, 

including CSUs, in their homes, and 

that there are several barriers to 

anchoring, including consumer beliefs, 

and lack of knowledge about what 

anchoring hardware to use or how to 

properly install it. 

A CPSC Consumer Opinion Forum 

survey in 2010, with a convenience 

sample of 388 consumers, found that 

only 9 percent of those who responded 

to the question on whether they 

anchored the furniture under their 

television had done so (27 of 295).77

Although a majority of respondents 

reported that the furniture under their 

television was an entertainment center, 

television stand, or cart, 7 percent of 

respondents who answered this 

question (22 of 294) reported using a 

CSU to hold their television.78 The 

consumers who reported using a CSU to 

hold their television had approximately 

the same rate of anchoring the CSU, 10 

percent (2 of 21),79 as the overall rate of 

anchoring furniture found in the study. 

In 2018, Consumer Reports conducted 

a nationally representative survey 80 of 

1,502 U.S. adults, and found that only 

27 percent of consumers overall, and 40 

percent of consumers with children 

under 6 years old at home, had 

anchored furniture in their homes. The 

study also found that 90 percent of 

consumers have a dresser in their 

homes, but only 10 percent of those 

with a dresser have anchored it. 

Similarly, although 50 percent of 

consumers have a tall chest or wardrobe 

in their homes, only 10 percent of those 

with a tall chest or wardrobe have 

anchored it. The most common reasons 

consumers provided for not anchoring 

furniture, in declining order, included 

that their children were not left alone 

around furniture; they perceived the 

furniture to be stable; they did not want 

to put holes in the walls; they did not 

want to put holes in the furniture; the 

furniture did not come with anchoring 

hardware; they did not know what 

hardware to use; and they had never 

heard of anchoring furniture. 

As discussed earlier in this preamble, 

the Commission launched the education 

campaign—Anchor It!—in 2015 to 

promote consumer use of tip restraints 

to anchor furniture and televisions. In 

2020, a CPSC-commissioned study 

assessed consumer awareness, 

recognition, and behavior change as a 

result of the Anchor It! campaign.81 The 

study included 410 parents and 292 

caregivers of children 5 years or younger 

from various locations in the United 

States. The survey sought information 

about whether participants had ever 

anchored furniture in their homes, and 

their reasons for not anchoring 

furniture. The study found that 55 

percent of respondents reported ever 

having anchored furniture, with a 

greater percentage of parents reporting 

anchoring furniture (59 percent) than 

other caregivers (50 percent), and a 

greater percentage of homeowners 

reporting ever having anchored 

furniture (57 percent) than renters (51 

percent). For participants who did not 

report anchoring furniture or 

televisions, the most common reasons 

respondents gave for not anchoring, in 

declining order, were that they did not 

believe it was necessary, they watch 

their children, they have not gotten to 

it yet, it would damage walls, and they 

do not know what anchors to use. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.010</GPH>

Variant 1 

Variant 2 

Figure 10: 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. 
6272 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

82Morrongiello, B.A., Corbett, M., McCourt, M., 

Johnston, N. Understanding unintentional injuryrisk 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). 

These results indicate that one of the 

primary reasons parents and caregivers 

of young children do not anchor 

furniture is a belief that it does not need 

to be anchored if children are 

supervised. However, research shows 

that 2- to 5-year-old children are out of 

view of a supervising parent for about 

20 percent of the time that they are 

awake, and are left alone significantly 

longer in bedrooms, playrooms, and 

living room areas.82 CSUs are likely to 

be in bedrooms, where children are 

expected to have unsupervised time, 

including during naps and overnight. 

Many of the CSU tip-over incidents 

occurred in children’s bedrooms during 

these unsupervised times. According to 

the Consumer Reports study, 76 percent 

of consumers with children under 6 

years old reported that dressers are 

present in rooms where children sleep 

or play; and the UMTRI study found 

that nearly all (95 percent) of child 

participants had dressers in their 

bedrooms. Notably, among the 89 fatal 

incidents, 55 occurred in a child’s 

bedroom, 11 occurred in a bedroom, 2 

occurred in a parent’s bedroom, and 2 

occurred in a sibling’s bedroom. None of 

the fatal incidents occurred when the 

child was under direct adult 

supervision. However, some nonfatal 

incidents occurred during supervised 

time when parents were in the room 

with the child. As this indicates, 

supervision is neither a practical, nor 

effective way to prevent tip-over 

incidents. 

Another common reason caregivers 

provided for not anchoring furniture 

was the perception that the furniture 

was stable. CPSC staff testing and 

modeling found that there is a large 

difference in stability of CSUs, 

depending on the number of drawers 

open. Adults are likely to open only one 

or a couple of drawers at a time on a 

CSU; as such, adults may only have 

experience with the CSUs in their more 

stable configurations and may 

underestimate the tip-over hazard. In 

contrast, incident analysis shows that 

some children open multiple or all 

drawers on a CSU simultaneously, 

potentially putting the CSU in a much 

less stable configuration; and children 

contribute further to instability by 

climbing the CSU. 

CPSC staff also has concerns about the 

effectiveness of tip restraints and 

identified tip-over incidents in which 

tip restraints detached or broke. Overall, 

given the low rates of anchoring, the 

barriers to anchoring, and concerns 

about the effectiveness of tip restraints, 

CPSC concludes that tip restraints are 

not effective as the primary method of 

preventing CSU tip overs. Effective tip 

restraints may be useful as a secondary 

safety system to enhance stability, such 

as for interactions that generate 

particularly strong forces (e.g., 

bouncing, jumping), or to address 

interactions from older/heavier 

children. In addition, tip restraints may 

help reduce the risk of tip overs for 

CSUs that are already in homes, since a 

rule would only apply to CSUs 

manufactured and imported on or after 

the effective date. In future work, CPSC 

may evaluate appropriate requirements 

for tip restraints, and will continue to 

work with ASTM to update its tip 

restraint requirements. 

VIII. Description of and Basis for the 

Proposed Rule 

A. Scope and Definitions 

1. Proposed Requirements 

The proposed rule applies to CSUs, 

defined as a freestanding furniture item, 

with drawer(s) and/or door(s), that may 

be reasonably expected to be used for 

storing clothing, that is greater than or 

equal to 27 inches in height, and with 

a total functional volume of the closed 

storage greater than 1.3 cubic feet and 

greater than the sum of the total 

functional volume of the open storage 

and the total volume of the open space. 

Several terms in that definition, as well 

as additional terms in the proposed rule, 

are also defined in the proposed rule. 

For example, for purposes of the 

proposed stability testing, tip over is 

defined as the point at which a CSU 

pivots forward such that the rear feet or, 

if there are no feet, the edge of the CSU 

lifts at least 1/4 inch from the floor or 

is supported by a non-support element. 

The proposed rule specifically states 

that whether a product is a CSU 

depends on whether it meets this 

definition. However, to demonstrate 

which products may meet the definition 

of a CSU, the proposed standard 

provides names of common CSU 

products, including chests, bureaus, 

dressers, armoires, wardrobes, chests of 

drawers, drawer chests, chifforobes, and 

door chests. Similarly, it names 

products that generally do not meet the 

criteria in the proposed CSU definition, 

including shelving units, office 

furniture, dining room furniture, 

laundry hampers, built-in closets, and 

single-compartment closed rigid boxes 

(storage chests). 

Additionally, the proposed rule 

exempts from its scope two products 

that would meet the proposed definition 

of a CSU—clothes lockers and portable 

storage closets. It defines clothes locker 

as a predominantly metal furniture item 

without exterior drawers and with one 

or more doors that either locks or 

accommodates an external lock; and 

defines portable storage closet as a 

freestanding furniture item with an 

open frame that encloses hanging 

clothing storage space and/or shelves, 

which may have a cloth case with a 

curtain(s), flap(s), or door(s) that 

obscures the contents from view. 

2. Basis for Proposed Requirements 

To determine the scope of products 

that the proposed rule should address, 

in order to adequately reduce the risk of 

injury from CSU tip overs, staff 

considered the nature of the hazard, 

assessed what products were involved 

in tip-over incidents, and assessed the 

characteristics of those products in 

relation to stability and children’s 

interactions. 

a. The Hazard 

The CSU tip-over hazard relates to the 

function of CSUs, where they are used 

in the home, and their design features. 

A primary feature of CSUs is that 

typically they are used for clothing 

storage; however, putting clothing in a 

furniture item does not create the tipover hazard on its own. Rather, the 

function of CSUs as furniture items that 

store clothing means that consumers 

and children are likely to have easy 

access to the unit and interact with it 

daily, resulting in increased exposure 

and familiarity. In addition, caregivers 

may encourage children to use a CSU on 

their own as part of developing 

independent skills. As a result, children 

are likely to know how to open drawers 

of a CSU, and are likely to be aware of 

their contents, which may motivate 

them to interact with the CSU. For this 

reason, one element of the proposed 

definition of CSUs is that they be 

reasonably expected to be used for 

storing clothing. 

CSUs are commonly used in 

bedrooms, an area of the home where 

children are more likely to have 

unsupervised time. As stated, most CSU 

tip-over incidents occur in bedrooms: 

Among the 89 fatal tip-over incidents 

involving children and CSUs without 

televisions, 99 percent of the incidents 

with a reported location (70 of 71 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6273 

83Fifty-five incidents were in a child’s bedroom; 

11 were in a bedroom; 2 were in a parent’s 

bedroom; 2 were in a sibling’s bedroom; and 1 

occurred in a hallway. The location in 18 incidents 

was not clear. 

84The product is marketed as a ‘‘chest,’’ but was 

called a ‘‘nightstand’’ in the consumer’s report. 

85The mean standing shoulder height of a 2-yearold male is 28.9 inches and 27.4 inches for a 2-yearold female. Pheasant, S., Bodyspace 

Anthropometry, Ergonomics & Design. London: 

Taylor & Francis (1986). 

86 Industrial Economics, Incorporated (2019). 

Final Clothing Storage Units (CSUs) Market 

Research Report. CPSC Contractor Report. 

Researchers analyzed the characteristics of 890 

CSUs, and found a height range of 18 to 138 inches. 

incidents) occurred in a bedroom.83

This use means that children have more 

opportunity to interact with the unit 

unsupervised, including in ways more 

likely to cause tip over (e.g., opening 

multiple drawers and climbing) that a 

caregiver may discourage. 

Another primary feature of CSUs is 

closed storage, which is storage within 

drawers or behind doors. These drawers 

and doors are extension elements, 

which allow children to exert vertical 

force further from the tip point 

(fulcrum) than they would be able to 

without extension elements and that 

make it more likely that a child will tip 

the product during interactions. In 

addition, these features may make the 

product more appealing to children as a 

play item. Children can open and close 

the drawers and doors and use them to 

climb, bounce, jump, or hang; they can 

play with items in the drawers, or get 

inside the drawers or cabinet. Children 

can also use the CSU extension 

elements for functional purposes, such 

as climbing to reach an item on top of 

the CSU. Accordingly, the proposed 

definition of CSUs includes a minimum 

amount of closed storage and the 

presence of drawers and/or doors as an 

element. The element of the definition 

that indicates that a CSU has a total 

functional volume of the closed storage 

greater than 1.3 cubic feet and greater 

than the sum of the total functional 

volume of the open storage and the total 

volume of the open space is based on 

the total functional drawer volume for 

the shortest/lightest reported CSU 

involved in a nonfatal incident without 

a television. CPSC rounded the volume 

down, so that the CSU would be 

included in the proposed definition. 

The proposed CSUs definition also 

states that the products are freestanding 

furniture items, which means that they 

remain upright, without requiring 

attachment to the wall, in their normal 

use position. The lack of permanent 

attachment to the building structure 

means that CSUs are more susceptible to 

tip over than built-in storage items in 

the home, such as kitchen cabinets and 

bathroom vanities. 

b. Product Categories in Incident Data 

For this rulemaking, staff focused on 

product categories that commonly meet 

the general elements of the definition of 

a CSU, in analyzing incident data; these 

included chests, bureaus, dressers, 

armoires, wardrobes, portable storage 

closets, and clothes lockers. As detailed 

in the discussion of incident data, of the 

89 fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents 

involving children and CSUs without 

televisions, 87 involved chests, bureaus, 

or dressers, and 2 involved wardrobes; 

none involved an armoire, portable 

storage closet, or clothes locker. Of the 

263 nonfatal CPSRMS incidents with 

children and CSUs without televisions, 

259 involved chests, bureaus, or 

dressers, 1 involved an armoire, and 3 

involved wardrobes. Of the estimated 

40,700 ED-treated injuries to children 

from CSU tip overs (without a 

television) between January 1, 2006 and 

December 31, 2019, an estimated 40,200 

involved ‘‘chests, bureaus, and 

dressers.’’ There were not enough 

incidents involving armoires, 

wardrobes, portable storage closets, or 

clothes lockers to make estimates for 

these CSU categories. 

Based on these data, the proposed 

definition of CSUs names chests, 

bureaus, dressers, wardrobes, and 

armoires as examples of CSUs that are 

subject to the standard. The proposed 

rule exempts clothes lockers and 

portable storage closets from the scope 

of the standard because there are no 

reported tip-over fatalities or injuries to 

children that involved those products. 

Compared to chests, bureaus, and 

dressers, wardrobes and armoires have 

been involved in fewer tip-over 

incidents. However, the proposed rule 

includes these products because there 

are some tip-over fatalities and injuries 

involving them, they are similar in 

design to the other CSUs included in the 

scope (unlike portable storage closets), 

and they are more likely to be used in 

homes than clothes lockers. 

c. Product Height 

ASTM F2057–19 applies to CSUs that 

are ‘‘27 in. (686 mm) and above in 

height.’’ Previously, the ASTM standard 

had applied to CSUs taller than 30 

inches. However, CPSC staff identified 

tip-over incidents involving CSUs that 

were 30 inches in height and shorter, 

and worked with the ASTM F15.42 

Furniture Subcommittee to lower the 

minimum height of CSUs covered by the 

standard. This same 27-inch height is 

used in the proposed rule’s definition of 

a CSU, consistent with this incident 

data and additional information 

regarding product heights. 

The height of the CSU was reported 

for 53 fatal and 72 nonfatal CPSRMS tipover incidents involving children and 

CSUs without televisions. The shortest 

reported CSU involved in a fatal 

incident without a television is a 27.5- 

inch-tall, 3-drawer chest, which tipped 

over onto a 2-year-old child. The 

shortest reported CSU involved in a 

nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incident 

without a television is a 26-inch-tall, 2- 

drawer chest.84 NEISS data do not 

provide information about the height of 

CSUs involved in incidents. 

Results from the FMG’s CSU focus 

group (Tab Q of the NPR briefing 

package) suggest that consumers seek 

out low-height CSUs for use in 

children’s rooms ‘‘because participants 

would like a unit that is an appropriate 

height (i.e., short enough) for their 

children to easily access their clothes.’’ 

The average shoulder height of a 2-yearold is about 27.4 to 28.9 inches.85 In the 

in-home interviews, researchers 

observed that CSUs in children’s rooms 

typically were low to the ground and 

wide. Based on this information, 

children may have more access and 

exposure to low-height CSUs than taller 

CSUs. 

Additionally, staff is aware of shorter 

CSUs on the market, as short as 18 

inches.86 For example, a major furniture 

retailer currently sells more than 10 

products marketed as ‘‘chests’’ or 

‘‘dressers,’’ ranging in height from 19.25 

inches to 26.75 inches, including a 

25.25-inch-tall, 3-drawer chest 

advertised for use in a child’s room. 

ESHF staff believes that children may 

still be motivated to climb or otherwise 

interact with shorter units: Home 

interview participants in the FMG CSU 

use study said that children climbed 

short furniture items in the home, such 

as nightstands and ottomans. For these 

reasons, the Commission seeks 

comments on the 27-inch height 

specified in the proposed CSU 

definition. 

d. Children’s Products 

As discussed in section III.A. 

Description of the Product, section 14(a) 

of the CPSA includes requirements for 

certifying that children’s products and 

non-children’s products comply with 

applicable mandatory standards, and 

additional requirements apply to 

children’s products. That section also 

explains what constitutes a ‘‘children’s 

product.’’ To summarize, a ‘‘children’s 

product’’ is a consumer product that is 

‘‘designed or intended primarily for 

children 12 years of age or younger.’’ 15 

U.S.C. 2052(a)(2). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6274 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

CPSC is aware of CSUs that are 

marketed, packaged, displayed, 

promoted, or advertised as being for 

children under 12 years old. These 

CSUs may be sold as part of matching 

nursery or children’s bedroom furniture 

sets, or have features or themes that 

appeal to children, such as bright colors 

and cartoons. CSUs may be sold at 

children’s retailers, or by manufacturers 

that specialize in children’s furniture. 

However, some children’s furniture is 

similar in appearance to general-use 

furniture. In addition, some CSUs 

convert from a child-specific design, 

such as a CSU with an integrated 

changing table, to a more general-use 

design. Children’s furniture with a more 

general-use design or with the ability to 

convert may be appealing to consumers 

who want furniture that they can 

continue to use as a child gets older. 

CSUs that are children’s products 

have been involved in fatal and nonfatal 

incidents, and are among recalled CSUs. 

However, CSUs that are general-use 

products make up more of the CSUs in 

the tip-over incident data. Additionally, 

the CSU study shows that CSUs that 

children interact with are not limited to 

CSUs intended for children. For these 

reasons, the proposed rule applies to 

both children’s products and nonchildren’s products. 

e. Product Names and Marketed Use 

The proposed definition of CSUs 

relies on characteristics of the unit to 

identify covered products, rather than 

product names or the manufacturer’s 

marketed use of the product. This is 

because, as this preamble discusses, 

there are various products that 

consumers identify and use as CSUs, 

and that pose the same tip-over hazard, 

regardless of how the product is named 

or marketed. 

In the FMG CSU use study (Tab Q of 

the NPR briefing package), participants 

showed flexibility in how they used 

CSUs and other similar furniture in the 

home, depending on their needs, 

aesthetics, and where the unit was 

placed within the home. For example, 

one participant put a large vintage 

dresser in their living room and used it 

for non-clothing storage; one participant 

said that their dresser was used as a 

changing station and held diapers, 

wipes, creams, and medical supplies, 

but is now used to store clothes; and a 

participant said that the dresser in their 

child’s room was originally used to store 

dishes. 

Some participants in the in-home 

interviews and focus groups used 

nightstands for clothing storage, 

including for shirts; socks; pajamas; 

slippers; underwear; smaller/lighter 

items, such as tights or nightwear; 

seasonal items; and accessories. Some 

participants also reported storing 

clothing (e.g., seasonal clothing items, 

underwear, pajamas, pants) in shelving 

units with removable bins (including 

those with cloth, canvas, or basket 

material). Consumers also had a wide 

variety of interpretations of the 

marketing term ‘‘accent piece,’’ with 

some participants saying that they use 

accent pieces for clothing storage, and 

one identifying a specific accent piece 

in their home as a CSU. 

As part of the study, researchers asked 

focus group participants to fill out a 

worksheet with pictures of unnamed 

furniture items with dimensions. 

Participants were asked to provide a 

product label (category of product) and 

answer the question: ‘‘What would you 

store in this piece of furniture?’’ ‘‘Where 

would you put this piece of furniture in 

your home?’’ Participants then 

discussed the items as a group. Results 

suggest that there is wide variety in how 

people perceive a unit. For example, 

one unit in the study was classified by 

participants as a cabinet, television 

stand, accent/occasional/entryway piece 

or table, side table/sideboard, 

nightstand, kitchen storage/hutch/ 

drawer, and dresser. Another was 

classified as an accent piece, buffet/ 

sideboard, dresser, entry/hall/side table, 

chest/chest of drawers, kitchen storage 

unit/cabinet, sofa table, bureau, and 

china cabinet. One interesting item of 

discussion was the glass doors on one 

of the worksheet furniture items. 

Participants came to a general 

consensus that glass doors are typically 

used to display items, and thus, an item 

with glass doors is not a CSU. 

Overall, the results from the study 

suggest that there is not a distinct line 

between units that people will use for 

clothing storage, as opposed to other 

purposes; and even within a unit, the 

use can vary, depending on the 

consumer’s needs at the time. 

Moreover, staff is aware of products 

that are named and advertised as 

generic storage products with multiple 

uses around the house, or they are 

advertised without context suggesting a 

particular use. Many of these items 

clearly share the design features of 

CSUs, including closed storage behind 

drawers or doors. In addition, staff is 

aware of products that appear, based on 

design, to be CSUs, but are named and 

advertised for other purposes (e.g., an 

‘‘accent piece’’ with drawers staged in a 

foyer, and large multi-drawer 

‘‘nightstands’’ over 27-inches tall). Staff 

is also aware of hybrid products that 

combine features of CSUs with features 

of other product categories; for example, 

bookshelf storage products with 

shelving and closed storage behind 

drawers or doors; desks or tables with 

large amounts of attached closed 

storage; bedroom media furniture with 

an electronics slot and drawers for 

clothing; and beds with integrated CSU 

storage. 

Using the criteria in the proposed 

definition of a CSU, products typical of 

shelving units, office furniture, dining 

room furniture, laundry hampers, builtin units, and single-compartment closed 

rigid boxes likely would not be CSUs. 

The proposed rule excludes these 

products, by including in the definition 

of ‘‘CSUs’’ that a CSU is freestanding; 

has a minimum closed storage 

functional volume greater than 1.3-cubic 

feet; and a closed storage functional 

volume greater than the sum of the open 

storage functional volume and open 

space volume; has drawer(s) and/or 

door(s); and is reasonably expected to be 

used for clothing. Staff assesses that 

some underbed drawer storage units, 

occasional/accent furniture, and 

nightstands could be CSUs. The criteria 

for identifying a CSU in the proposed 

rule would keep some of these products 

within scope, and exclude others, 

depending on their closed storage, 

reasonable expected use, and the 

presence of doors/drawers, such that 

those products that may be used as 

CSUs and present the same hazard, 

would be within the scope of the 

standard, while those that would not, 

would be excluded. 

Because consumers select units for 

clothing storage based on their utility, 

not necessarily their marketing, and 

there are products that are not named or 

advertised as CSUs, but are 

indistinguishable from CSUs, based on 

their design, the proposed scope and 

CSU definition do not rely on how a 

product is named or advertised by a 

manufacturer. 

f. Number of Drawers 

CPSC also considered including, as an 

element of the proposed CSU definition, 

the number of drawers in the unit, but 

did not ultimately do so. The FMG CSU 

use study (Tab Q of the NPR briefing 

package) examined how consumers 

define CSUs and what they use to store 

clothing in their homes. Focus group 

participants defined CSUs as anything 

that can hold clothing; dressers, closets, 

and armoires were the most common 

example product categories that 

participants provided. Participants said 

that CSUs are used ‘‘for organization 

and the protection of clothing (e.g., 

drawers of various sizes, dividers to 

help with organization, and doors to 

keep clothing out of sight).’’ Researchers 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6275 

87The drawers of the current model of the 

product are 121⁄2 inches deep x 133⁄8-inch-wide, and 

the clearance height is 71⁄4 inches. The functional 

drawer volume of each drawer is 0.69 cubic feet, 

using the equation in Tab L of the NPR briefing 

package; the total functional drawer volume for the 

2-drawer CSU is 1.38 cubic feet. 

88This is the same unit as the shortest known 

CSU involved in a fatal tip-over incident involving 

a child and CSU without a television. 

89This is the same unit, identified by the 

consumer as a ‘‘nightstand,’’ but marketed as a 

‘‘chest,’’ as the shortest known CSU involved in a 

nonfatal tip-over incident involving a child and 

CSU without a television. 

90For this analysis, staff only considered 

lightweight units with drawers and/or doors. Staff 

is also aware that consumers use storage bins with 

lids to store clothing; however, staff does not 

consider these to be CSUs, based on the proposed 

definition. 

reported that ‘‘the majority of 

participants reported that they generally 

think of a CSU as having at least three 

drawers. However, a few participants 

noted that a CSU could have four 

drawers, whereas others mentioned that, 

to be considered a CSU, a unit only 

needed one drawer. Participants often 

considered a unit with two drawers or 

fewer to be a nightstand.’’ Because of 

the varied perceptions about the number 

of drawers for a unit to be considered 

or used as a CSU, CPSC did not include 

this as an element of the definition. 

g. Overall Size and Storage Volume 

Apart from the functional volume of 

closed storage, which is included in the 

proposed CSU definition, CPSC also 

considered the overall size of units as a 

potential element of the CSU definition, 

but did not ultimately include this. 

In the FMG CSU focus groups (Tab Q 

of the NPR briefing package), 

participants discussed how the size of a 

unit influenced their perception of 

whether a unit is a CSU. Researchers 

found: ‘‘[t]he majority of participants 

noted that if a unit is too small, they 

will not store clothing in it, because the 

clothing will not fit’’; however, 

participant’s perception of ‘‘too small’’ 

varied. Researchers found: ‘‘a few 

participants noted that CSUs in their 

children’s room are smaller than their 

typical definitions. The units are shorter 

so that their children can more easily 

access drawers, and drawers are smaller 

to fit smaller clothing.’’ Although there 

was no consensus on drawer size for a 

CSU, participants preferred ‘‘to have 

drawers that are large enough (e.g., 

bigger than a shirt) and deep enough to 

hold clothing.’’ They also showed 

flexibility on drawer volume: ‘‘[o]ne 

participant mentioned that there is a 

difference between what they would 

ideally like in terms of drawer size and 

what they will accept.’’ They said 

ideally, they would like drawers deep 

enough to easily store clothing; 

however, participants noted that the 

current dresser they have requires them 

to shove or stuff their clothing inside. 

Furthermore, the specific size of the 

drawers was reported to vary, based on 

the needs of each person and the size of 

the home. 

The minimum drawer size that could 

reasonably accommodate clothing is 

fairly small. For example, the functional 

volume of each drawer of the shortest/ 

lightest reported CSU involved in a 

nonfatal CSU tip-over incident without 

a television—a 26-inch-high by 15-inchdeep by 21.25-inch-wide, 2-drawer 

chest—is slightly less than 0.7 cubic 

feet; 87 and the manufacturer states that 

the drawer holds about 5 pairs of folded 

pants or 10 t-shirts. Furthermore, except 

for the extremes (i.e., very short, very 

narrow, very shallow), the shape of the 

drawer should not have an effect on the 

amount of clothing that can be stored in 

the drawer because clothing can be 

folded or stuffed to match the drawer 

dimensions. 

Because small units and small 

drawers can be used to hold clothing, 

the proposed CSU definition does not 

include additional requirements for 

overall size and storage volume. 

h. Product Weight 

CPSC also considered whether to 

include a weight criterion in the 

proposed CSU definition, but did not do 

so. The weight of the CSU was reported 

for 17 fatal and 25 nonfatal CPSRMS tipover incidents with a child and no 

television. The lightest-weight reported 

CSU involved in a fatal tip-over incident 

without a television was a 5-drawer 

CSU with the bottom 3 drawers missing, 

which tipped over on a 2-year-old child. 

The unit weighed 34 pounds without 

the 3 drawers, the configuration at the 

time of the incident. The lightest weight 

reported, non-modified CSU involved in 

a fatal tip-over incident without a 

television was a 57 pound, 3-drawer 

chest, which tipped over onto a 2-yearold child.88 Other fatal incidents 

involving light-weight CSUs include a 

57.5 pound, 4-drawer wicker dresser 

without a television that tipped over 

onto an 18-month-old child and a 68- 

pound, 3-drawer chest that tipped over 

in three separate fatal incidents without 

televisions, resulting in the death of a 

23-month-old child, and two 2-year-old 

children. 

The reported lightest weight CSU 

involved in a nonfatal incident without 

a television is a 31-pound, 2-drawer 

chest, which tipped over and pinned a 

13-month-old child.89 In another 

nonfatal incident with no television, a 

45-pound, 3-drawer chest tipped onto a 

3-year-old child. 

Staff is aware of some lightweight 

plastic units marketed and used as 

CSUs.90 Staff found many lightweight 

frame and drawer units marketed online 

as CSUs. Staff also found many online 

videos showing consumers using 

lightweight plastic units to store 

children’s clothing. In addition, one of 

the participants in the CSU use study 

said they used a plastic stackable 

drawer unit to store children’s clothing. 

Based on this information, consumers 

will perceive and use lightweight units 

as CSUs. 

With an assumed clothing load of 8.5 

pounds per cubic foot of storage 

volume, many lightweight units could 

be filled to the same weight as the 

incident-involved units. The 34-pound 

unit referenced above had minimal 

clothing in it, and the 57-pound unit 

was reportedly empty at the time of the 

fatal incident. Staff did not identify any 

tip-over incidents involving plastic 

units in the fatal and nonfatal CSPRMS 

data involving children without a 

television; however, staff cautions that 

in 64 fatal and 20 nonfatal incidents, 

model names were not obtained and 

could have included plastic units. 

Because consumers will perceive and 

use lightweight units as CSUs, and it is 

possible to fill lightweight units with 

clothing loads that exceed the lowest 

product weights seen in the incident 

data, these units are included in the 

proposed rule. 

B. Stability Requirements 

1. Proposed Requirements 

The proposed requirements for 

stability of CSUs consist of configuring 

the CSU for testing, performing testing 

using a prescribed procedure, and 

determining whether the performance 

results comply with the criteria for 

passing the standard. 

To configure the CSU for testing, the 

proposed rule requires the CSU to be 

placed on a hard, level, flat surface, 

which the standard defines. If the CSU 

has a levelling device, the device is 

adjusted to the lowest level and then 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions. The CSU is then tipped 

forward 1.5 degrees, and if there is a 

levelling device intended for a carpeted 

surface, the device is adjusted in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions for a carpeted surface. 

All doors (as defined in the standard) 

are then open to a specified position 

and fill weights are placed in drawers 

and pull-out shelves, depending on 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6276 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

whether there are interlocks on the unit. 

Because the test configuration differs, 

depending on the presence of interlocks, 

the proposed rule requires testing the 

interlocks before conducting the 

stability testing. 

The interlock testing consists of 

placing the CSU on a hard, level, flat 

surface (as defined in the standard), 

levelling according to manufacturer 

instructions, securing the unit to 

prevent sliding or tip over, and opening 

the number of drawers necessary to 

engage the interlock. A 30-pound 

horizontal pull force is then applied on 

each locked drawer, one at a time, over 

a period of 5 seconds, and held for at 

least 10 seconds. This pull test is 

repeated until all possible combinations 

of drawers have been tested. If any 

locked drawer opens or the interlock is 

damaged, during this testing, then the 

interlock is to be disabled or bypassed 

for the stability testing. 

For the stability testing, for units 

without an interlock or that did not pass 

the interlock test, all drawers and pullout shelves are open to their maximum 

extension (as defined in the standard), 

and a fill weight of 8.5 pounds per cubic 

foot times the functional volume (in 

cubic feet) is placed in the center of 

each drawer or pull-out shelf. For units 

with an interlock that passed the 

interlock test, all drawers that are not 

locked by the interlock are open to the 

maximum extension (as defined in the 

standard), in the configuration most 

likely to cause a tip over (typically the 

largest drawers in the highest position 

open). If 50 percent or more of the 

drawers and pull-out shelves by 

functional volume are open, a fill 

weight is placed in the center of each 

drawer or pull-out shelf, including those 

that remain closed. The fill weight is 8.5 

pounds per cubic foot times the 

functional volume (cubic feet). If less 

than 50 percent of the drawers and pullout shelves by functional volume are 

open, no fill weight is placed in any 

drawers or pull-out shelves. 

The proposed rule provides two test 

methods for the tip-over test. Test 

Method 1 is most appropriate for CSUs 

with drawers or pull-out shelves. It 

involves applying a vertical force to the 

face of the uppermost extended drawer 

or pull-out shelf to cause the unit to tip 

over (defined as the point at which a 

CSU pivots forward such that the rear 

feet (or edge) lifts at least 1⁄4 inch from 

the floor or is supported by a nonsupport element). At that point, the tipover moment of the unit is calculated by 

multiplying the tip-over force (as 

defined in the standard) by the 

horizontal distance from the force 

application point to the fulcrum (as 

defined in the standard). If a drawer 

breaks during the test due to the force, 

Test Method 2 should be used or the 

drawer can be secured or reinforced, as 

long as the modifications do not 

increase the tip-over moment. 

Test Method 2 is appropriate for any 

CSU. It involves applying a horizontal 

force to the back of the CSU orthogonal 

(i.e., at a right angle) to the fulcrum to 

cause the unit to tip over. The tip-over 

moment is then calculated by 

multiplying the tip-over force by the 

vertical distance from the force 

application point to the fulcrum. 

Once the tip-over moment for the CSU 

has been determined, that value must be 

greater than several comparison 

moments, as applicable, depending on 

the design of the CSU. The first 

comparison moment applies to CSUs 

with drawers or pull-out shelves and is 

55.3 pounds times the drawer or pullout shelf extension form the fulcrum 

distance (as defined in the standard), 

plus 26.6 pounds feet. The second 

comparison moment is for units with 

doors and is 51.2 pounds times the door 

extension from fulcrum distance (as 

defined in the standard, in feet), minus 

12.8. The third comparison moment 

applies to all CSUs and is 17.2 pounds 

times the maximum handhold height (as 

defined in the standard, in feet). The 

greatest of these three comparison tipover moments is considered the 

threshold moment, which the tested 

CSU’s tip-over moment must exceed. 

2. Basis for Proposed Requirements 

As described in this preamble and the 

NPR briefing package, there are several 

factors that are commonly involved in 

CSU tip-over incidents that contribute 

to the instability of CSUs, and a number 

of these factors often occur 

simultaneously. These include multiple 

open and filled drawers, carpeting, and 

forces generated by children’s 

interactions with the CSU (such as 

climbing and opening/pulling on 

drawers). The proposed rule includes 

requirements to simulate or account for 

all of these factors, in order to 

accurately assess the stability of CSUs 

during real-world use. 

The stability testing in the proposed 

rule simulates these factors 

simultaneously (e.g., all drawers open 

and filled, on carpet, and accounting for 

child interaction forces). This is because 

incident data indicate that these factors 

commonly exist at the same time. For 

example, incidents include children 

climbing on open drawers, filled with 

clothing. 

a. Multiple Open and Filled Drawers 

As discussed in section IV.C. Hazard 

Characteristics, opening drawers of a 

CSU was a common interaction in CSU 

tip overs involving children and only a 

CSU. It was the most common reported 

interaction (63 percent) in nonfatal 

CPSRMS incidents; it was the second 

most common reported interaction (8 

percent) in nonfatal NEISS incidents; 

and it was the third most common 

reported interaction (9 percent) in fatal 

CPSRMS incidents. Children as young 

as 11 months were involved in incidents 

where the child was opening one or 

more drawers of the CSU, and the 

incidents commonly involved 2- and 

3-year-olds. In numerous incidents, the 

children opened multiple or all of the 

drawers. The youngest child reported to 

have opened all drawers was 13 months 

old. 

The incident analysis also indicates 

that, of the CSU tip overs involving 

children and only CSUs for which the 

reports indicated the contents of the 

CSU, 96 percent of fatal CPSRMS 

incidents involved partially filled or full 

drawers; and 90 percent of the nonfatal 

CPSRMS incidents involved partially 

filled or full drawers. Most items in the 

drawers were clothing. 

As this preamble explains, opening 

extendable elements (drawers, doors, 

pull-out shelves) shifts the CG towards 

the front of the CSU, and the closer the 

CG is to the front leg, the easier it is to 

tip forward if a force is applied to the 

drawer. Therefore, CSUs will tip more 

easily as more drawers are opened. The 

CG of a CSU will also change depending 

on the position and amount of clothing 

in each drawer. Closed drawers filled 

with clothing tend to stabilize a CSU, 

but as each filled drawer is pulled out, 

the CG of the CSU will further shift 

towards the front. Staff’s testing 

demonstrates this principle, finding that 

multiple open drawers decrease the 

stability of a CSU, and filled drawers 

further decrease stability when more 

than half of the drawers by volume are 

open, but increase stability when more 

than half of the drawers by volume are 

closed. 

Taken together, this information 

indicates that children commonly open 

multiple filled drawers simultaneously 

during CSU tip-over incidents, and that 

doing so decreases the stability of the 

CSU if half or more of the drawers by 

volume are open. Accordingly, the 

proposed rule includes multiple open 

and filled drawers as part of the unit 

configuration for stability testing, and 

varies whether drawers are filled 

depending on how many of the drawers 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6277 

91 Kids in Danger and Shane’s Foundation (2016). 

Dresser Testing Protocol and Data. Data set 

provided to CPSC staff by Kids in Danger, January 

29, 2021. 

92 DTI (2000). Strength Data for Design Safety— 

Phase 1 (DTI/URN 00/1070). London: Department of 

Trade and Industry. 

and pull-out shelves can open, as 

determined by an interlock system. 

As staff testing showed, when all CSU 

drawers are pulled out and filled, the 

unit is more unstable. However, when 

CSU drawers have interlocks or other 

means that prevent more than half the 

drawers by volume from being pulled 

out simultaneously, the CSU tips more 

easily with all drawers empty. 

Accordingly, when an interlock or other 

means prevents more than half the 

drawers and pull-out shelves by interior 

volume from being opened 

simultaneously, the proposed rule 

requires that no fill weight be placed in 

the drawers. 

Although fewer incidents involved 

CSUs with doors, those incidents 

indicate that children opened the doors 

of the CSU. Moreover, in many CSUs 

with doors, the doors must be open to 

access the drawers. Given these 

considerations, and that opening doors 

makes a CSU less stable, the proposed 

rule also requires doors to be open 

during stability testing. 

i. Fill Density 

As discussed in section VII.A. 

Multiple Open and Filled Drawers, staff 

assessed the appropriate method for 

simulating CSU drawers that are 

partially filled or fully filled (Tab L of 

the NPR briefing package). To do this, 

staff looked at the standard that ASTM 

considered (8.5 pounds per cubic foot) 

and the results of the Kids in Danger 

and Shane’s Foundation study 91 (which 

found an average density of 8.9 pounds 

per cubic foot). To assess whether the 

8.5 pounds per-cubic-foot measure 

reasonably represents the weight of 

clothing in a drawer, CPSC staff 

conducted testing with folded and 

unfolded children’s clothing on drawers 

of different sizes. For all three drawer 

sizes, staff was able to fit 8.5 pounds per 

cubic foot of unfolded and folded 

clothing fill in the drawers. When the 

clothing was folded and unfolded, the 

clothing fully filled the drawers, but 

still allowed the drawer to close. The 

maximum unfolded clothing fill density 

was slightly higher than 8.5 pounds per 

cubic foot for all tested drawers; and the 

maximum unfolded clothing fill density 

ranged from 8.56 to 8.87 pounds per 

cubic foot, depending on the drawer. 

The maximum folded clothing fill 

density ranged from 9.40 to 10.16 

pounds per cubic foot, depending on the 

drawer. 

Based on this testing, staff found that 

8.5 pounds per cubic foot of clothing 

will fill a drawer. This amount of 

clothing is less than the absolute 

maximum amount of clothing that can 

be put into a drawer, especially if the 

clothing is folded, however, the 

maximum amount of unfolded clothing 

that could be put into the tested drawers 

was only slightly higher than 8.5 

pounds per cubic foot. Although staff 

achieved a clothing density as high as 

10.16 pounds per cubic foot with folded 

clothing, consumers may be unlikely to 

fill a drawer to this level because it 

requires careful folding, and it is 

difficult to remove and replace 

individual pieces of clothing. On 

balance, CPSC considers 8.5 pounds per 

cubic foot of functional drawer volume 

a reasonable approximation of the 

weight of clothing in a fully filled 

drawer. 

Because CSUs are reasonably likely to 

be used to store clothing, and incident 

data indicates that CSUs involved in tipover incidents commonly include 

drawers filled with clothing, the 

proposed rule requires 8.5 pounds per 

cubic foot as fill weight when more than 

half of the drawers by volume are open. 

ii. Interlocks 

Because the fill level, as well as the 

stability of a CSU, depends on how 

many drawers can open, the standard 

also includes a requirement that the 

interlock system withstand a 30-pound 

horizontal pull force. Without such a 

requirement, consumers may be able to 

disengage the interlock, or the interlock 

may break, resulting in more filled 

drawers being open during real-world 

use, and less stability, than assessed 

during stability testing. 

Staff assessed the pull strength of 

children to determine an appropriate 

pull force requirement for the interlock 

test (and the comparison moment for 

pulling open a CSU), and found that the 

mean pulling strength of 2- to 5-year-old 

children on a convex knob (diameter 40 

mm) at their elbow height is 59.65 

Newton (13.4 pound-force) for males 

and 76.43 Newton (17.2 pound-force) 

for females.92 In the study from which 

staff drew these values, participants 

were asked to exert their maximum 

strength at all times, described as the 

highest force they could exert without 

causing injury. Participants were 

instructed to build up to their maximum 

strength in the first few seconds, and to 

maintain maximum strength for an 

additional few seconds. Participants 

were instructed to use their dominant 

hand. Based on this, children between 

2 and 5 years old can achieve a mean 

pull force of 17.2 pounds. ANSI/SOHO 

S6.5 includes a slightly higher 

horizontal pull force of 30-pounds in its 

stability requirements. To ensure that 

the standard adequately assesses the 

integrity of interlock systems, the 

proposed rule includes a 30-pound 

horizontal pull force. 

iii. Maximum Extension 

The proposed rule requires that all 

extension elements—including drawers, 

doors, and pull-out shelves—be opened 

to the maximum extension and leaststable configuration. The proposed rule 

defines maximum extension. The 

general conceptual framework is that all 

drawers are opened fully, or if there is 

an interlock, the worst-case drawers that 

can be opened at the same time are 

opened fully. Maximum extension for 

drawers and pull-out shelves is the 

furthest manufacturer recommended use 

position, as indicated by way of a stop; 

if there are multiple stops, they are open 

to the stop that allows the furthest 

extension; if there is no stop, they are 

open to 2⁄3 of the shortest internal length 

of the drawer or 2⁄3 of the length of the 

pull-out shelf. 

b. Carpeting 

As discussed in section IV.C. Hazard 

Characteristics, of the fatal CPSRMS tipover incidents involving children and 

only CSUs that reported the type of 

flooring the CSU was on, 82 percent 

involved carpeting. Of the incidents that 

provided photos, the carpet was typical 

wall-to-wall carpet, with most being cut 

pile, and a few being looped pile. Of the 

nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents 

involving children and only CSUs that 

reported the type of flooring, 80 percent 

involved carpeting. Thus, for incidents 

where flooring type was reported, carpet 

was by far the most prevalent flooring 

type. 

As discussed earlier, staff testing 

showed that CSUs with a variety of 

designs and stability levels were more 

stable on a hard flooring surface than 

they were on carpeting. Consistent with 

incident data, staff used wall-to-wall 

carpet for this testing and tested the 

CSU stability with various 

configurations of open and filled 

drawers. For 94 percent of the 

comparison weights (including multiple 

variations of open and filled drawers), 

the units were more stable on the hard 

surface than on carpet, with a mean 

difference in tip weight of 7.6 pounds. 

Therefore, based on incident data and 

testing, CSUs are commonly on carpet 

during CSU tip-over incidents, and 

carpet increases the instability of the 

CSU. Accordingly, the proposed rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6278 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

93For CSUs with circular pads on the feet, CPSC 

staff typically found higher numerical correlation 

between test results and numerical analysis when 

the tip-over fulcrum in the calculation was placed 

at the center of the pads on the front feet (rather 

than the front of the pads). The difference between 

the two results was small. Staff does not consider 

foot pad geometry a significant factor in 

determining the tip-over moment of a CSU. 

includes a requirement that simulates 

the effect of carpet in order to accurately 

mimic real-world factors that contribute 

to CSU instability. To determine how to 

simulate the effect of carpet, section 

VII.C. Flooring explains that staff 

compared the tip weights of CSUs on 

carpet with the tip weights for the same 

units when tilted forward to various 

degrees on a hard, level, flat surface. 

Staff found that the tip weight of CSUs 

on carpet corresponded with tilting the 

CSUs forward 0.8 to 3 degrees, 

depending on the CSU, with the mean 

tilt angle that corresponded to the CSU 

tip weights on carpet being 1.48 degrees. 

Therefore, a forward tilt of 1.5 degrees 

replicates the effect of carpet on CSU 

stability, and this is included in the 

CSU configuration requirements for the 

stability testing in the proposed rule. 

c. Test Methods 

The proposed rule provides two test 

methods for applying force to a CSU to 

determine its tip-over moment. The first 

test method involves applying a vertical 

load to the top surface of a fully 

extended drawer on the CSU; the 

second test method involves applying a 

horizontal load to the rear of the CSU, 

causing it to tip forward. Based on 

staff’s testing (Tab M of the NPR briefing 

package), these methods produce 

approximately equal tip-over moments. 

For this reason, the proposed rule 

allows either test method to be used. 

However, because the first test method 

requires the use of a drawer, the 

proposed rule specifies that the first test 

method is appropriate for such 

products. The second test involves 

applying force to the back of a CSU and, 

as such, it can be used for any design. 

Both test methods require the location 

of the fulcrum to be determined and the 

distance from the open drawer face to 

the fulcrum to be measured. Intuitively, 

the fulcrum is located at the front of the 

bottom-most surface of the CSU.93 This 

is the point or line about which the CSU 

pivots when it tips forward. Therefore, 

the proposed rule defines the fulcrum as 

the bottom point or line of the CSU 

touching the ground about which the 

CSU pivots when a tip-over force is 

applied. The fulcrum is typically 

located at the line connecting the front 

feet. However, for CSUs without feet, or 

for CSUs with an irregular pattern of 

feet, the fulcrum may be in a different 

location. Some CSUs may have multiple 

fulcrums that will vary, depending on 

the direction the tip-over force is 

applied. The fulcrum that results in the 

smallest tip-over moment should be 

determined. If testers choose to use a 

horizontal load, the load should be 

applied such that the tip-over moment 

is minimized (typically orthogonal to 

the fulcrum). For this reason, the 

proposed rule requires the horizontal 

force to be applied to the back of the 

unit orthogonal to the fulcrum. 

d. Performance Requirements 

i. Pass-Fail Criteria 

Once the tip-over moment has been 

calculated using one of the methods 

above, the proposed rule specifies that 

the tip-over moment of the CSU must be 

greater than several comparison tip-over 

moments (the greatest of which is 

considered the threshold moment). 

These comparison tip-over moments 

determine whether the tip-over moment 

of the CSU is sufficient to withstand 

tipping over when child interactions 

identified in incidents and measured by 

UMTRI occur. Staff developed three 

pass-fail criteria based on three child 

interactions that can lead to CSU tipover incidents. The first interaction is a 

child climbing (ascending) a CSU; the 

second is a child pulling on a handhold 

of a CSU while opening or attempting to 

open a drawer; and the third is a child 

climbing (hanging) on the door of a 

CSU. 

Staff expects that the comparison tipover moment for ascending the CSU will 

be the most onerous requirement for 

most CSUs. However, some CSUs with 

particular geometric features, or without 

drawers, may have greater tip-over 

moments associated with the alternative 

criteria, based on children’s interactions 

with the CSU. 

ii. Climbing 

As described earlier in this preamble, 

of the fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents 

involving children and only a CSU that 

reported the type of interaction, 74 

percent involved a child climbing on 

the CSU. Climbing was the most 

common reported interaction for 

children 3 years old and younger. Of the 

nonfatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents 

involving children and only a CSU that 

reported the type of interaction, 20 

percent involved a child climbing on 

the CSU. Of the nonfatal NEISS CSU tipover incidents involving children and 

only CSUs that reported the type of 

interaction the child was engaged in, 77 

percent involved climbing on the CSU. 

For children 3 years old or younger, 

climbing constituted almost 80 percent 

of reported interactions. Overall, 81 

percent of the reported interactions in 

the nonfatal NEISS tip-over incidents 

involving children and only CSUs are 

those in which the child’s weight was 

supported by the CSU (e.g., climbing, in 

drawer, jump, on top, swinging). Thus, 

in fatal and nonfatal incidents, a child 

climbing on the CSU was one of the 

most common reported interactions. 

Of climbing incidents with a reported 

age, the children were 3 years old or 

younger in 94 percent of the fatal 

CPSRMS incidents; 73 percent of the 

nonfatal NEISS incidents; and 60 

percent of the nonfatal CPSRMS 

incidents. Climbing behavior is 

consistent with expected motor 

development of children this age. 

CPSC staff’s analyses of tip-over 

incidents in Tab M of the NPR briefing 

package outline several scenarios where 

children climbing or interacting with 

the front of a CSU caused the CSU to tip 

over. In some of the scenarios, the force 

on the edge of an open drawer 

associated with tipping the CSU was 

greater than the static weight of a child 

standing on the edge of an open drawer 

of the CSU. The equivalent force 

consists of the child’s weight, the 

dynamic force on the edge of the drawer 

due to climbing, and the effects of the 

child’s CG extending beyond the edge of 

the drawer. Based on the UMTRI study, 

staff estimated the equivalent force to be 

more than 1.6 times the weight of the 

child for typical drawer extensions. 

Therefore, these tip-over incidents 

occurred because the forces and 

moments associated with children 

climbing on a CSU exceeded the static 

body weight of a child standing on the 

edge of an open drawer. 

Staff determined that the ascend 

interaction from the UMTRI child 

climbing study was the most 

representative of a child climbing 

interaction seen in the incident data. As 

discussed in Tab D of the NPR briefing 

package, based on the UMTRI study of 

child climbing behaviors (Tab R of the 

NPR briefing package), ascent can be 

described by the following equation: 

M = {1.08 [Fulcrum X (ft)] + 0.52 ft} × Weight 

of Child (lb) 

In this equation, Fulcrum X is the 

horizontal distance from the front of the 

extended drawer to the fulcrum. 

In the UMTRI study, other measured 

climbing interactions involving 

climbing into drawers and climbing 

onto the tabletop generated lower 

moments than ascent; thus, they are 

included within performance 

requirements based on ascent. 

Because most climbing incidents 

involved children 3 years old and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6279 

94Fryar, C.D., Carroll, M.D., Gu, Q., Afful, J., 

Ogden, C.L. (2021). Anthropometric reference data 

for children and adults: United States, 2015–2018. 

National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health 

Stat 3(46). Three years of age covers children who 

are at least 36 months old and under 48 months old. 

95For a CSU without drawers, X is measured from 

the fulcrum to the front edge of the farthest 

extended element, excluding doors. If the CSU has 

no extension elements (other than doors), X is 

measured from the fulcrum to the front of the CSU. 

96Pheasant, S. (1986). Bodyspace Anthropometry, 

Ergonomics & Design. London: Taylor & Francis. 

97Staff 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. 

98 DTI, Strength Data for Design Safety—Phase 1 

(DTI/URN 00/1070). London: Department of Trade 

and Industry. (2000). 

younger, the proposed rule uses the 

95th percentile weight of 3-year-old 

children (51.2 pounds) in this equation 

to generate the first comparison tip-over 

moment. The 95th percentile weight of 

3-year-old boys is 51.2 pounds and the 

95th percentile weight of 3-year-old 

girls is 42.5 pounds.94 To address the 

heaviest of these children, the proposed 

rule uses 51.2 pounds. Moreover, as 

described earlier in this preamble, this 

is consistent with the weight of children 

involved in tip-over incidents, 

particularly for climbing incidents, 

when known, or when estimated by 

their age. 

Based on these considerations, to pass 

the moment requirement for a child 

ascending a CSU, the tip-over moment 

(Mtip) of the CSU must meet the 

following criterion: Mtip (lb-ft) > 51.2 

(1.08X + 0.52), where X is the horizontal 

distance (in feet) from the front of the 

extended drawer to the fulcrum.95

Simplified, this is Mtip (lb-ft) > 55.3X + 

26.6. 

CPSC staff calculates that CSUs that 

meet a requirement based on the 

climbing force generated by a 51.2- 

pound child, and that considers the 

effects of all drawers (or doors) open 

and drawers filled, plus the effect of 

carpet on stability, likely will protect 95 

percent of 3-year-old boys by weight 

and more than 95 percent of 3-year-old 

girls, and virtually all younger children. 

For example, with the proposed test 

requirements, virtually all climbing 

incidents are presumably addressable 

involving 2-year-old children because 

they are all well under 51.2 pounds 

(95th percentile 2-year-old boys weigh 

38.8 pounds and girls weigh 34.7 

pounds). This requirement would also 

protect more than 90 percent of 4-yearold boys and 95 percent of 4-year-old 

girls who also engaged in this climbing 

scenario. This testing would protect 75 

percent of 5-year-old boys and more 

than 50 percent of 5-year-old girls. It 

would also protect 50 percent of 6-yearold children; 25 percent of 7-year-old 

children; and 7.1 percent of 8-year-old 

children. 

Overall, staff calculates that 91.2 

percent of all nonfatal NEISS incidents 

involving climbing interactions are 

likely to be addressed with the proposed 

rule. Staff notes that this number is a 

low estimate, because it assumes that all 

climbing incidents occurred with all 

open and filled drawers on CSUs 

located on a carpeted surface, which is 

a worst-case stability condition. 

iii. Opening Drawers 

As described in this preamble, of the 

fatal CPSRMS tip-over incidents 

involving children and only a CSU that 

reported the type of interaction, 17 

percent involved a child sitting, laying, 

or standing in an open drawer, and 9 

percent involved a child opening 

drawers. Of the nonfatal CPSRMS tipover incidents involving children and 

only a CSU that reported the type of 

interaction, 63 percent involved 

opening drawers, 6 percent involved 

putting items in/taking them out of a 

drawer; 6 percent involved pulling on 

the CSU; and 3 percent involved leaning 

or pushing down on an open drawer. 

Opening drawers was the most common 

reported interaction for children six 

years old and younger. 

Of the nonfatal NEISS CSU tip-over 

incidents involving children and only 

CSUs that reported the type of 

interaction the child was engaged in, 8 

percent involved opening drawers, and 

15 percent involved a child in the 

drawer, pulling on the CSU, putting 

items in or taking items out of a drawer, 

reaching, hitting, jumping, a child on 

top of the CSU, playing in a drawer, 

pulling up, and swinging. Overall, 12 

percent of the reported interactions in 

the nonfatal NEISS tip-over incidents 

involving children and only CSUs are 

those in which the child’s strength 

determines the force (e.g., hit, opening 

drawers, pulled on, pulled up). Thus, in 

nonfatal incidents, opening drawers was 

one of the most common reported 

interactions. 

Moreover, looking at both fatal and 

nonfatal CPSRMS tip overs involving 

children and only CSUs, where the 

interaction involved opening drawers, 

overall, about 53 percent involved 

children opening one drawer, 10 

percent involved opening two drawers, 

and almost 17 percent involved opening 

‘‘multiple’’ drawers. Children as young 

as 11 months were involved in incidents 

where the child was opening one or 

more drawers of the CSU, and the 

youngest child reported to have opened 

all drawers was 13 months old. 

Incidents involving opening drawers 

most commonly involved children 3 

years old and younger. 

As discussed earlier, it is possible for 

CSUs to tip over from the forces 

generated by open drawers and their 

contents, alone, without additional 

interaction forces. However, pulling on 

a drawer to open it applies an increased 

force that contributes to instability. The 

moment generated with a horizontal 

force is higher as the location of the 

force application gets farther from the 

floor. Therefore, the proposed rule 

includes as the second required 

comparison tip-over moment, the 

moment associated with a child pulling 

horizontally on the CSU at the top 

reachable extension element handhold 

within the overhead reach dimension of 

a 95th percentile 3-year-old. This is 

because children 3 years old and 

younger are most commonly involved in 

these incidents. 

The proposed rule applies the 

horizontal pull force to the top of an 

extended drawer in the top row of 

drawers, or to another potential 

handhold, that is less than or equal to 

4.12 feet high (49.44 inches). The 4.12- 

foot height limit is based on the 

overhead reach height for a 95th 

percentile 3-year-old male; the proposed 

rule uses the overhead reach height of 

3-year-olds because most children 

involved in opening drawer incidents 

were 3 years old or younger.96

Consistent with this overhead reach 

height, staff’s analysis of 15 incidents 

shows that the highest pull location was 

46 inches from the floor.97

The proposed rule includes a 17.2 

pound-force of horizontal pull force. 

This pull force is based on the mean 

pull strength of 2- to 5-year-old females 

exerted at elbow level on a convex knob. 

The mean pulling strength of 2- to 5- 

year-old females is 76.43 Newton (17.2 

pound-force), and 59.65 Newton (13.4 

pound-force) for males.98 In the study 

that provided these pull strengths, 

participants were 2 to 5 years old, and 

the mean participant weight was 16.3 

kilograms (36 pounds). Participants 

were asked to exert their maximum 

strength at all times, described as the 

highest force they could exert without 

causing injury, using their dominant 

hand. Participants were instructed to 

build up to their maximum strength in 

the first few seconds, and to maintain 

maximum strength for an additional few 

seconds. 

The proposed rule uses this 17.2 

pound-force pull strength because, in 

the study, females had a higher mean 

strength than males, and these incidents 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6280 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

most commonly involve children 3 

years old and younger. The weight of 

children in the study (36 pounds) is 

over the 50th percentile weight of 3- 

year-old children. Therefore, the pull 

force test requirement will address 

drawer opening and pulling on CSU 

incidents for 50 percent of 3-year-olds, 

95 percent of 2-year-olds, 100 percent of 

children under 2 years, 25 percent of 4- 

year-olds, 10 percent of 5-year-olds, and 

will not address these incidents for 

children 6 years old and older. 

Based on this 17.2-pound horizontal 

force on a handhold at a height of up to 

4.12 feet, the moment created by this 

interaction can be described with the 

equation M (lb-ft) = 17.2 (lb) × Z (ft), 

where Z is the vertical distance (in feet) 

from the fulcrum to the highest 

handhold that is less than or equal to 

4.12 feet high. Using this equation, the 

tip-over moment of the CSU in the 

second comparison value in the 

proposed rule is Mtip (lb-ft) > 17.2Z. 

iv. Climbing on Doors 

As discussed in IV. Risk of Injury, two 

fatal CPSRMS and four nonfatal 

CPSRMS tip-over incidents involved 

wardrobes and armoires, which include 

doors. In most of these incidents, 

children were interacting with things 

inside the CSU, indicating that the 

doors were open. The ages of the 

children in these incidents ranged from 

3 to 11 years, although opening doors is 

easily within the physical and cognitive 

abilities of younger children. Once CSU 

doors are open, children are capable of 

putting their body weight on the open 

doors (i.e., open and climbing/hanging), 

provided the child has a sufficient hand 

hold. For this reason, the third 

comparison tip-over moment in the 

proposed rule represents the force from 

a 95th percentile 3-year-old child 

hanging on an open door of the CSU. 

UMTRI researchers found that the 

vertical forces associated with children 

hanging by the hands were close to the 

body weight of the child (Figure 48 in 

Tab R of the NPR briefing package). For 

this reason, the third comparison tipover moment, representing a child 

hanging on an open door, uses the 

weight of a 95th percentile 3-year-old 

child, or 51.2 pounds. Staff considers 

the weight placement location for 

testing doors in ASTM F2057–19 

(section 7.2) reasonable. Therefore, the 

proposed rule uses the test location 

from the voluntary standard, which is 

approximately half the width of the test 

fixture, or 3 inches, from the edge of the 

door, to obtain the equation describing 

a 95th percentile weight 3-year-old 

child hanging from an open door of a 

CSU: M (lb-ft) = 51.2 (lb) × [Y¥0.25 (ft)], 

where Y is the horizontal distance (in 

feet) from the fulcrum to the edge of the 

door in its most extended position. 

Based on this equation, the tip-over 

moment of a CSU with doors must meet 

the following criterion: Mtip (lb-ft) > 

51.2(Y¥0.25). Simplified, this is Mtip

(lb-ft) > 51.2Y¥12.8. 

v. Additional Interactions 

For the reasons described above, the 

proposed rule focuses on the 

interactions of children climbing on and 

opening CSUs. Although other plausible 

climbing-associated behaviors (e.g., 

yank, lean, bounce, one hand) included 

in the UMTRI study generated higher 

moments, there was no direct evidence 

of these interactions in the incident 

data. However, depending on the child’s 

age, weight, and strength, some of these 

interactions could be addressable with 

the proposed performance requirements. 

Other measured climbing interactions, 

for example, including hop up, hang, in 

drawer, and climbing onto the tabletop, 

generated lower moments than ascent. 

Similarly, staff expects that putting 

items in/taking items out of a drawer, 

reaching, pulling up, and hitting the 

CSU (all indicated in the incident data) 

would also generate lower moments 

than those included in the proposed 

rule. As such, these additional 

interactions are addressed by the 

proposed performance requirements. In 

addition, staff evaluated each of the 

seven incidents involving children 

jumping, falling from the top of the 

CSU, or swinging, considering the 

possible moment and reported age of the 

child and determined that five of the 

seven would be addressed by the 

proposed rule. 

Although the proposed rule focuses 

on addressing the CSU tip-over hazard 

to children, improving the stability of 

CSUs should also reduce a substantial 

portion of the incidents involving 

adults. This is because a majority of the 

incidents involved consumers 

interacting with the CSU by opening 

drawers and/or getting items in and out 

of drawers, or leaning on the CSU, all 

scenarios that are expected to be less 

than or equally severe compared to 

incidents of children climbing with all 

drawers filled and opened. 

C. Marking and Labeling 

1. Proposed Requirements 

The proposed rule includes 

requirements for a warning label. The 

proposed warning label requirements 

address the size, content, symbol, and 

format of the label. The proposed 

warning statements address the CSU tipover hazard, and how to avoid it. They 

indicate that children have died from 

furniture tipping over, and direct 

consumers how to reduce the risk of tip 

overs, by securing furniture to the wall; 

not allowing children to stand, climb, or 

hang on units; not defeating interlock 

systems (if the unit has them); placing 

heavier items in lower drawers; and not 

putting a television on CSUs (when the 

manufacturer indicates they are not 

designed for that purpose). The 

proposed format, font, font size, and 

color requirements incorporate by 

reference the provisions in ASTM 

F2057–19. The proposed rule also 

includes requirements for the location 

of the warning label, addressing 

placement in drawers or doors, and the 

height of the label in the unit. The 

proposed rule also requires the warning 

label to be legible and attached after it 

is tested using the methods specified in 

ASTM F2057–19. 

The proposed rule also includes 

requirements for an informational label. 

It requires the label to include the name 

and address of the manufacturer, 

distributor, or retailer; the model 

number; the month and year of 

manufacture; and state that the product 

complies with the proposed rule. There 

are size, content, format, location, and 

permanency requirements as well. The 

label must be visible from the back of 

the unit when the unit is fully 

assembled, and must be legible and 

attached after it is tested using the 

methods specified in ASTM F2057–19. 

2. Basis for Proposed Requirements 

a. Warning Requirements, Generally 

The proposed rule requires a warning 

label to inform consumers of the hazard 

and motivate them to install tip 

restraints as a secondary safety 

mechanism. However, there are 

limitations to the effectiveness of 

warning labels to address the risk of 

CSU tip overs. Risk perception is greatly 

influenced by product familiarity, 

hazardousness of the product, 

likelihood of injury, and severity of 

injury. Risk perception is also 

influenced by people’s beliefs about 

their ability to control the hazard and 

whether they believe the warning 

message. An inherent problem with 

CSUs and the tip-over hazard is that 

people are less likely to recognize 

potential hazards associated with 

products that they use more frequently. 

CSUs are products with high familiarity 

because they are found in most 

households, and consumers are likely to 

interact with them daily. 

Therefore, even well-designed 

warnings have limited effectiveness in 

changing a CSU user’s behavior. In 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6281 

99Nesteruk, H.E.J. (2017). Human Factors 

Analysis of Clothing Storage Unit Tipover Incidents 

and Hazard Communication. In Staff Briefing 

Package Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 

Clothing Storage Units. Available at: https://

www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ANPR%20-%20Clothing

%20Storage%20Unit%20Tip%20Overs%20- 

%20November%2015%202017.pdf. 

100An additional CSU was identified as 

handmade. 

addition, although the warning may 

impact adult behavior, children would 

not read or comprehend the warnings. 

b. Warning Label Placement 

In the FMG CSU use study (Tab Q of 

the NPR briefing package), researchers 

evaluated warning labels in in-home 

interviews and focus groups. They 

found that participants indicated that 

they had not paid attention to or noticed 

warning labels on the units in their 

children’s rooms, even when the 

researchers noted they were present. 

Participants also indicated that, even if 

they had seen a warning label on a CSU, 

they probably would not pay attention 

to it. Focus group participants identified 

the following as potential locations 

where a warning label could be seen 

easily and be more likely to grab their 

attention: top of the unit in the corner, 

on the handle of a unit, inside the top 

drawer of a unit, and in the instruction 

manual. Participants said the back of the 

unit was not an acceptable place for the 

warning label because it would not be 

visible. Participants also expressed that 

they would remove labels that were too 

conspicuous (e.g., on the outside or top 

of a unit). 

An effective warning label must be 

visible and noticeable, and it must 

capture and maintain consumers’ 

attention. The proposed rule requires 

the warning label to be placed in the 

uppermost clothing storage drawer or in 

one drawer in the uppermost row that 

is entirely below 56 inches, which is the 

5th percentile standing eye height of 

women in the United States.99 This is 

consistent with the information CPSC 

obtained from the FMG study, regarding 

placement of warnings. 

c. Warning Label Content 

After noticing a warning label, 

consumers must read the message, 

comprehend the message, and decide 

whether the message is consistent with 

their beliefs and attitudes. In addition, 

consumers must be motivated enough to 

spend the effort to comply with the 

warning-directed safe behavior. 

Warnings should allow for 

customization of hazard avoidance 

statements based on unit design, to 

reflect incident data (e.g., television 

use). Similarly, the warning text should 

be understandable, not contradict 

typical CSU use, and be expressed in a 

way that motivates consumers to 

comply. 

In the FMG CSU use study, focus 

group participants evaluated the ASTM 

F2057–19 warning label text. 

Participants had mixed opinions about 

the statement: ‘‘Children have died from 

furniture tip over.’’ Some participants 

found it motivating, others believed that 

it was hyperbole and seemed likely to 

disregard it. The majority of participants 

said that they do not follow the 

instruction to install a tip restraint, 

especially if the tip restraint is not 

included with the CSU. Participants 

wanted more information about why 

they should not put a television on a 

CSU, and some thought consumers 

would disregard the warning if putting 

a television on top of a CSU fit their 

needs. A majority of participants said 

that they open more than one drawer at 

a time, and that children typically open 

one or two drawers. Participants 

believed that placing the heaviest items 

in the lowest drawers was common 

sense, and was a warning they would 

follow. 

Based on this information, the 

proposed warning label includes 

warnings about the hazard, television 

use (where appropriate for the product), 

and placing heavier items in lower 

drawers, but does not include a 

statement to not open multiple drawers 

because that is inconsistent with 

consumer use. In addition, the proposed 

tip-restraint warning explicitly directs 

the consumer to secure the CSU to the 

wall and uses a term for tip restraint 

that consumers will likely understand. 

‘‘Tipover restraint,’’ used in ASTM 

F2057–19, might confuse some 

consumers because restraints generally 

describe what they contain (e.g., child 

restraint), rather than what they prevent. 

Terminology such as ‘‘anti-tip device’’ is 

clearer. 

a. Warning Label Format and Style 

The proposed rule requires the 

warning label to be at least 2 inches 

wide by 2 inches tall. This size is 

consistent with the required content and 

format for the label, and it ensures that 

the label is not too narrow or short. 

The proposed rule also requires the 

child climbing symbol that is ASTM 

F2057–19. However, as discussed in 

section VII.G. Warning Label Symbols, if 

one of the two variants being considered 

performs better in comprehension 

testing than the ASTM F2057–19 child 

climbing symbol, the Commission may 

consider requiring one of those variants 

in the final rule. The proposed rule also 

requires the ASTM F2057–19 no 

television symbol for CSUs that are not 

designed to hold a television. 

CPSC staff regularly uses ANSI 

Z535.4, American National Standard for 

Product Safety Signs and Labels—the 

primary U.S. voluntary consensus 

standard for the design, application, 

use, and placement of on-product 

warning labels—when developing or 

assessing the adequacy of warning 

labels. The proposed rule uses the 

warning format in ASTM F2057–19, 

which is consistent with ANSI Z535.4. 

To be effective, a warning label must 

remain present. Label permanency 

requirements are intended to prevent 

the warning label from being removed 

inadvertently and to provide resistance 

to purposeful removal by the consumer. 

CPSC staff evaluated the ASTM F2057– 

19 label permanency requirements (Tab 

F of the NPR briefing package) and 

concluded that they are adequate. 

Accordingly, the proposed rule includes 

the permanency testing prescribed in 

ASTM F2057–19. 

b. Informational Label 

Staff was able to identify the 

manufacturer and model of CSU 

associated with only 22 of the 89 fatal 

CPSRMS incidents involving children 

and CSUs without televisions 100 and 

230 of the 263 nonfatal CPSRMS 

incidents involving children and CSUs 

without televisions. In the case of 

recalls, consumers must be able to 

identify whether their CSU is subject to 

the recall and is potentially unsafe. 

Accordingly, an identification label that 

provides the model, manufacturer 

information, date of manufacture, and a 

statement of compliance with the 

proposed rule is important to facilitate 

identification and removal of potentially 

unsafe CSUs. This label would also 

allow for easier identification of 

compliant and noncompliant CSUs by 

consumers and CPSC, and would 

provide information that would assist in 

identifying the CSU, allowing staff to 

assess more easily hazards associated 

with specific designs. 

The proposed rule requires the 

informational label to be at least 2- 

inches wide by 1-inch tall, which is 

consistent with the required content and 

format, and ensures that the label is not 

too narrow or short. The proposed rule 

requires text size that is consistent with 

ANSI Z535.4. The proposed rule 

requires the identification label to be 

visible from the back of the unit when 

the unit is fully assembled because it is 

not necessary for the label to be visible 

to the consumer during normal use, but 

it should be visible to anyone inspecting 

the unit. In addition, the proposed rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6282 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

101E.g., 16 CFR 1401.5, 1402.4, 1404.4, 1406.4, 

1407.3, and 1420.3. 

102E.g., the Federal Trade Commission’s 

EnergyGuide label for appliances in 16 CFR part 

305, requiring information about capacity and 

estimated annual operating costs; and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s New Car 

Assessment Program star-rating for automobiles, 

providing comparative information on vehicle 

crashworthiness. 

103EurekaFacts, LLC, Evaluation of Recreational 

Off-Highway (ROV) Vehicle Hangtag: Cognitive 

Interview and Focus Group Testing Final Report 

(Aug. 31, 2015), available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/ 

s3fs-public/pdfs/ROVHangtagEvaluationReport.pdf. 

104National Research Council. Shopping for 

Safety: Providing Consumer Automotive Safety 

Information—Special Report 248. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press (1996). 

105Wogalter, M., Dejoy, D., Laughery, K., 

Warnings and Risk Communication. Philadelphia, 

PA: Taylor & Francis, Inc. (1999). 

106The minimally acceptable rating is just above 

1 because the tested moment of a CSU must be 

greater than the threshold moment, however, for 

simplicity, the proposed hang tag marks the 

minimally acceptable rating as 1. 

107The equation is Moment tested/Moment threshold. 

If Moment tested = Moment threshold, then Moment 

tested/Moment threshold = 1. But the 

proposedperformance requirement is that Moment 

tested exceed Moment threshold. Therefore, all units 

must have a ratio greater than 1, although it may 

be only a small fraction over 1. 

requires permanency testing prescribed 

in ASTM F2057–19 to increase the 

likelihood that the label remains 

attached to the CSU. 

D. Hang Tags 

1. Proposed Requirements 

As discussed above, section 27(e) of 

the CPSA authorizes the Commission to 

issue a rule to require manufacturers of 

consumer products to provide ‘‘such 

performance and technical data related 

to performance and safety as may be 

required to carry out the purposes of 

[the CPSA].’’ 15 U.S.C. 2076(e). The 

Commission may require manufacturers 

to provide this information to the 

Commission or, at the time of original 

purchase, to prospective purchasers and 

the first purchaser for purposes other 

than resale, as necessary to carry out the 

purposes of the CPSA. Id. 

The proposed rule sets out 

requirements for providing performance 

and technical data related to 

performance and safety to consumers at 

the time of original purchase and to the 

first purchaser of the CSU (other than 

resale) in the form of a hang tag. The 

hang tag provides a stability rating, 

displayed on a scale of 0 to 5, that is 

based on the ratio of tip-over moment 

(as determined in the testing required in 

the proposed rule) to the minimally 

allowed tip-over moment (provided in 

the proposed rule). The proposed rule 

includes size, content, icon, and format 

requirements for the hang tag. It also 

includes a requirement that the hang tag 

be attached to the CSU and clearly 

visible to a person standing in front of 

the unit; that lost or damaged hang tags 

must be replaced such that they are 

attached and provided, as required by 

the rule; and that the hang tags may be 

removed only by the first purchaser. In 

addition, the proposed rule includes 

placement requirements that the hang 

tag appear on the product and the 

immediate container of the product in 

which the product is normally offered 

for sale at retail; that for ready-toassemble furniture, the hang tag must 

appear on the main panel of consumerlevel packaging; and that any units 

shipped directly to consumers shall 

contain the hang tag on the immediate 

container of the product. For a detailed 

description of the proposed 

requirement, see the proposed 

regulatory text. 

2. Basis for Proposed Requirements 

a. Purpose 

Consistent with the requirements in 

section 27(e) of the CPSA, the proposed 

hang tag requirements help carry out the 

purpose of the CPSA by ‘‘assisting 

consumers in evaluating the 

comparative safety of consumer 

products.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2051(b)(2). The 

proposed rule would require CSUs to 

meet a minimum level of stability (i.e., 

exceed a threshold tip-over moment). 

However, above that minimum level, 

CSUs may have varying levels of 

stability. A hang tag provided on the 

CSU would offer consumers 

comparative information about the 

stability of products, based on the tiptesting protocol in the proposed rule. By 

providing product information at the 

point of purchase, the hang tag would 

inform consumers who are evaluating 

the comparative safety of different CSUs 

and making buying decisions. This 

information may also improve consumer 

safety by incentivizing manufacturers to 

produce CSUs with higher levels of 

stability, to better compete in the 

market, thereby increasing the overall 

stability of CSUs on the market. 

b. Background 

CPSC based the formatting and 

information requirements in the 

proposed hang tag on work CPSC has 

done previously to develop performance 

and technical data requirements,101 as 

well as the work of other federal 

agencies that require comparative safety 

information on products.102 As part of 

CPSC’s development of a similar 

requirement for recreational off-highway 

vehicles (ROVs), CPSC issued a contract 

for cognitive interviews and focus group 

evaluation to refine the proposed ROV 

hang tag. The contractor developed 

recommendations regarding the content, 

format, size, style, and rating scale, 

based on consumer feedback during this 

work.103

Studies on the usefulness and 

comprehension of point-of-sale product 

information intended to help consumers 

evaluate products and make buying 

decisions support the effectiveness of 

hang tags, and linear scale graphs, in 

particular. For example, a study on the 

EnergyGuide label for appliances, which 

also uses a linear scale, indicated that 

the label increased consumer awareness 

of energy efficiency as an important 

purchasing criterion.104

c. Specific Elements of the Proposed 

Requirements 

One element of the proposed hang tag 

is a symbol depicting a CSU tipping 

over. This symbol identifies the product 

and hazard. Research studies have 

found that warning labels with pictorial 

symbols are more noticeable to 

consumers.105 To allow consumers to 

identify exactly what product the label 

describes, the proposed hang tag 

requires the manufacturer’s name and 

the model number of the unit. The 

proposed requirement also includes text 

to explain the importance of the graph, 

and the significance and meaning of the 

tip-over resistance value of the CSU. 

The proposed graph indicates the 

minimally acceptable tip rating, which 

is 1,106 so that consumers can evaluate 

the extent to which the rating of a 

particular CSU meets or exceeds the 

minimal permissible rating. In addition, 

the proposal requires the front of the 

hang tag to be yellow, to increase the 

likelihood consumers attend to the tag, 

and also consistent with EurekaFacts 

research recommendations (discussed 

below) and the EnergyGuide hang tag 

for household appliances, which is 

‘‘process yellow.’’ 

The performance criteria in the 

proposed stability requirement requires 

the tested moment of a CSU to be greater 

than a calculated threshold moment 

requirement. The tip rating number on 

the hang tag is the ratio of tested 

moment to threshold requirement. This 

provides a simple calculation that 

results in a number greater than 1,107

which can be easily represented on a 

scale. Additionally, due to the nature of 

a ratio, a rating of 2 means the unit can 

withstand twice the threshold moment, 

a rating of 3 is three times the threshold 

moment, and so forth. As an example: 

Unit A has an acceptable moment of 10 

ft-lbs. When A is tested, the test 

engineer finds it tips at 25 ft-lbs. Unit 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6283 

108Wogalter, M., Dejoy, D., Laughery, K. (1999). 

Warnings and Risk Communication. Philadelphia, 

PA: Taylor & Francis, Inc. 

109Smith, T.P. (2003). Developing consumer 

product instructions. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

110Further detail regarding the preliminary 

regulatory analysis is available in Tab H of the NPR 

briefing package. 

A’s ratio is 25:10, for a rating of 2.5. 

Unit B also has an acceptable moment 

of 10 ft-lbs. Testing on Unit B found it 

tipped at 50 ft-lbs. Unit B’s ratio is 

50:10, or a rating of 5. Unit C has an 

acceptable moment of 5 ft-lbs. Testing 

on Unit C found it tipped at 20 ft-lbs. 

Its ratio is 20:5, or a rating of 4. 

Therefore, Unit A is 2.5 times more 

stable than required; Unit B is 5 times 

more stable than required; and Unit C is 

4 times more stable than required. Also, 

unit B is twice as stable as unit A. Unit 

C lies between units A and B in terms 

of stability. 

Because the linear scale on the 

proposed hang tag is a graphical 

representation of the stability 

information, it is important to include 

labels so that consumers understand the 

data on the tag. To make clear the 

meaning of the information on the linear 

scale, CPSC staff placed the label ‘‘high’’ 

at the right side of the scale to identify 

for the consumer that the higher value 

equates to better stability or higher tipover resistance. The proposed hang tag 

also includes a technical explanation of 

the graph and rating to explain how to 

interpret and use the graphic and 

number. 

When EurekaFacts conducted 

research on CPSC’s proposed ROV hang 

tag, focus group participants preferred 

to have whole numbers anchoring the 

scale, such as 1 to 10, to communicate 

comparative information. CPSC staff 

testing suggests that, although few CSUs 

currently meet the proposed 

requirement, many CSUs on the market 

today would achieve ratings between 1 

and 2, with appropriate modifications. 

Therefore, using a 10-point scale may be 

difficult for consumers to differentiate 

between units. To minimize this 

difficulty, the proposed requirement 

uses a 5-point scale. CPSC expects that, 

over time, there may be units with a 

broader range of scores (beyond the 

current 1 and 2), as consumers desire 

more stable units, and manufacturers 

build more stable units. Although some 

units theoretically could have a 

normalized value over 5, representing 

this as a 5, or the highest point on the 

scale, would be reasonably interpreted 

by consumers as a high stability. If, in 

the future, many CSUs exceed 5, the 

Commission can revisit the scale. 

In the proposed rule, the scale begins 

at 0. EurekaFacts found focus group 

participants preferred whole numbers as 

anchor points on the scale range and 

expressed confusion with decimals. 

Zero is lower than the minimal 

acceptable rating of 1 to provide a 

common anchor point in consumers’ 

mental models of a scale, and the whole 

numbers allow for better relative 

comparisons. In addition, allowing the 

display of a rating lower than the 

requirement allows simple 

identification that CSUs at least meet 

the minimum requirement. 

Research has shown that pictorial 

symbols and icons make warnings more 

noticeable and easier to detect than 

warnings without such symbols and 

icons.108 Additionally, including a 

graphic before introducing text may 

serve as a valuable reference for 

consumers, by maintaining attention 

and encouraging further reading.109 For 

these reasons, the proposed hang tag 

requirement includes a symbol of a CSU 

at a slight angle to identify the product 

and tipping characteristics. In addition, 

presenting information both graphically 

and textually offers a better chance of 

comprehension by a wide range of 

users, such as non-English-literate users. 

The size, placement, and attachment 

specifications in the proposed hang tag 

requirement are consistent with the 

recommendations by EurekaFacts and 

similar requirements in other standards. 

The EurekaFacts report found that 

participants preferred hang tags to be 

large because they were more noticeable 

and easier to read. In addition, 

participants preferred a vertical 

orientation. Based on this information, 

the proposed hang tag must be 5-inches 

wide by 7-inches tall. 

Consistent with similar standards, the 

proposed hang tag provision requires 

the tag to be provided at the time of 

original purchase, that it be replaced if 

lost or damaged, that it appear on the 

product and packaging, that it be clearly 

visible to a person standing in front of 

the unit, and that it be removable only 

with deliberate effort. These 

requirements facilitate the tag staying on 

the product so that consumers see and 

use the information on the hang tag 

when making purchasing decisions. 

Because the proposed stability 

performance criteria are based on 

moments, which are not easily 

understood forces, CPSC expects that 

some consumers may wish to better 

understand the information provided. 

For this reason, the reverse side of the 

hang tag provides additional 

information about the test used to 

calculate the stability rating on the front 

of the hang tag and what the rating 

means. The required font sizes are 

intended to facilitate ease of reading. 

E. Prohibited Stockpiling 

1. Proposed Requirements 

As explained earlier in this preamble, 

section 9(g)(2) of the CPSA allows the 

Commission to prohibit manufacturers 

of a consumer product from stockpiling 

products subject to a consumer product 

safety rule to prevent manufacturers 

from circumventing the purpose of the 

rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(2). The proposed 

rule prohibits manufacturers and 

importers of CSUs from manufacturing 

or importing CSUs that do not comply 

with the requirements of the proposed 

rule in any 1-month period between the 

date a rule is promulgated and the 

effective date of the rule at a rate that 

is greater than 105 percent of the rate at 

which they manufactured or imported 

CSUs during the base period for the 

manufacturer. The proposed rule 

defines the base period as the calendar 

month with the median manufacturing 

or import volume within the last 13 

months immediately preceding the 

month of promulgation of the final rule. 

2. Basis for Proposed Requirements 

The proposed stockpiling limit is 

intended to allow manufacturers and 

importers sufficient flexibility to meet 

normal levels and fluctuations in 

demand for CSUs, while limiting their 

ability to stockpile large quantities of 

CSUs that do not comply with the rule 

for sale after the effective date. Because 

most firms will need to modify their 

CSUs to comply with the proposed 

requirements, and the modifications 

may be costly, CPSC believes it is 

appropriate to prevent stockpiling of 

noncompliant products. 

IX. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis 110

The Commission is proposing to issue 

a rule under sections 7 and 9 of the 

CPSA. The CPSA requires that the 

Commission prepare a preliminary 

regulatory analysis and that the 

preliminary regulatory analysis be 

published with the text of the proposed 

rule. 15 U.S.C. 2058(c). The following 

discussion is extracted from staff’s 

memorandum, ‘‘Draft Preliminary 

Regulatory Analysis of the Proposed 

Clothing Storage Unit Stability Rule,’’ 

available in Tab H of the NPR briefing 

package. 

A. Preliminary Description of Potential 

Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Rule 

The preliminary regulatory analysis 

must include a description of the 

potential benefits and potential costs of 

the proposed rule. The benefits of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6284 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

111For this preliminary regulatory analysis, staff 

used the data for 2001 to 2016, rather than the more 

recent data provided in the full incident data, in 

order to calculate an annual average. Data collection 

is ongoing for more recent years. If the data 

included the years for which data collection is 

ongoing, the calculated annual average would be 

low. 

rule are measured as the expected 

reduction in the societal costs of deaths 

and injuries that would result from 

adoption of the proposed rule and any 

benefits that cannot be quantified. The 

costs of the rule are defined as the 

added costs associated with modifying 

CSUs to comply with the requirements 

of the rule, including any impacts on 

the utility of the CSUs for consumers, as 

well as any costs that cannot be 

quantified. 

Deaths and Injuries Related to Tip 

Overs of CSUs. CPSC identified 179 

deaths related to CSU tip-over incidents 

involving children that occurred from 

2001 through 2016.111 This results in an 

average of 11.2 deaths per year over this 

16-year period. These are the deaths 

associated with CSU tip-over incidents 

of which CPSC staff is aware. The actual 

number of deaths from CSU tip-over 

deaths during this period could be 

higher. 

Ninety-seven of the 179 deaths also 

involved television sets that had been 

placed on top of the CSU. Of the 97 

deaths involving televisions, 80 (82 

percent) involved older, heavy CRT 

televisions, and only one of the deaths 

is known to have involved a flat-screen 

television. The older CRT televisions are 

usually substantially heavier than the 

newer flat-screen televisions, which 

may pose more serious injuries during 

a tip over, and may shift the center of 

gravity of the CSU forward, making it 

less stable. Based on this, as the number 

of CRT televisions in use decreases, staff 

expects the number of tip-over incidents 

and their severity to decrease. In 2010, 

about 55 percent of all televisions in use 

were CRT televisions. By 2020, that 

percentage was expected to be about 9 

percent; and it is expected to decline to 

less than 1 percent by 2030. Thus, 

incidents involving CRT televisions are 

not considered in the main analysis. 

Considering only those cases for which 

staff know that a CRT television was not 

involved, there were 99 fatalities (179 

deaths less 80 that involved a CRT 

television) during the 16-year period, or 

an average of 6.2 per year. 

Although the proposed standard is 

intended to address CSU fatalities 

involving children, during the same 

period from 2001 through 2016, there 

were 29 fatalities involving adults and 

CSUs tipping over, or an average of 1.8 

a year. Fourteen of these victims were 

age 80 years or older, and none were 

younger than 40. It is possible that some 

of these or similar deaths could have 

been prevented had the CSUs involved 

met the stability requirements of the 

proposed rule. 

Based on NEISS, there were an 

estimated 14,900 nonfatal injuries to 

children involving CSU tip overs during 

the 5-year period from 2015 through 

2019 that were treated in hospital EDs. 

About 2,300 of these estimated injuries 

(16 percent) involved televisions that 

had been placed on top of the CSUs. 

However, staff is not making any 

adjustments for nonfatal injuries that 

also involved a television set because 

there is generally less information 

available about the nonfatal injuries 

than for the fatality cases, making it 

more difficult to determine if the 

television involved was a CRT or a flat 

screen. 

In addition to injuries initially treated 

in hospital EDs, many product-related 

injuries are treated in other medical 

settings, such as physicians’ offices, 

clinics, and ambulatory surgery centers. 

Some injuries also result in direct 

hospital admission, bypassing the 

hospital ED entirely. The number of 

CSU-related injuries treated outside of 

hospital EDs can be estimated with the 

CPSC’s Injury Cost Model (ICM), which 

uses empirical relationships between 

the characteristics of injuries (diagnosis 

and body part) and victims (age and sex) 

initially treated in hospital EDs and the 

characteristics of those initially treated 

in other settings. 

The ICM estimate of injuries treated 

outside of hospitals or hospital EDs 

(e.g., in doctors’ offices, clinics) is based 

on data from the Medical Expenditure 

Panel Survey (MEPS). The MEPS is a 

nationally representative survey of the 

civilian, non-institutionalized 

population that quantifies individuals’ 

use of health services and 

corresponding medical expenditures. To 

project the number of direct hospital 

admissions that bypass hospital EDs, the 

ICM uses data from the Nationwide 

Inpatient Sample of the Healthcare Cost 

and Utilization Project (HCUP–NIS). 

HCUP is a family of healthcare 

databases and related software tools and 

products developed through a federalstate-industry partnership and 

sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality (part of the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services). The HCUP–NIS provides 

information annually on approximately 

3 million to 4 million in-patient stays 

from about 1,000 hospitals. 

Based on the NEISS estimate of 

14,900 ED-treated injuries in 2015 

through 2019, the ICM projects 

approximately 19,300 CSU tip-over 

injuries treated in other settings during 

the same 5-year period, or an average of 

3,900 per year. Combining the NEISS 

estimate of injuries treated in hospital 

EDs with the ICM estimate of medically 

attended injuries treated in other 

settings brings the estimate of all 

nonfatal, medically attended CSU tipover injuries to children under the age 

of 18 years to 34,100 during the years 

2015 through 2019. 

During the same 2015 to 2019 period, 

there were an estimated 7,000 adults 

and seniors that were treated in EDs 

because of injuries received when CSUs 

tipped over. Although the proposed rule 

is intended to reduce injuries to 

children, some portion of the injuries to 

adults would probably have been 

prevented had the CSUs involved met 

the stability requirements of the 

proposed rule. Based on the NEISS 

estimate of 7,000 injuries to adults 

treated in EDs, the ICM projects that 

there were 15,700 injuries treated in 

other medical settings, for a total of 

22,700 medically attended injuries to 

adults involving CSU tip overs. 

Societal Costs of Deaths and Injuries. 

To estimate the societal costs of CSUrelated deaths, staff applied an estimate 

of the value of statistical life (VSL), an 

estimate used in benefit-cost analysis to 

place a value on reductions in the 

likelihood of premature deaths. For this 

analysis, staff applied estimates of the 

VSL developed by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). In 2018 dollars, the EPA estimate 

of the VSL is about $9.2 million, 

suggesting the societal cost of the 

fatalities is about $57.0 million 

annually, if only those deaths to 

children reported not to involve a CRT 

television are included (6.2 × $9.2 

million). If all deaths are included, the 

societal costs of the fatalities would be 

$103.0 million annually ($9.2 million × 

11.2 deaths per year). The societal cost 

of the adult fatalities would be $16.6 

million a year (1.8 deaths × $9.2 

million). 

The societal costs of the nonfatal CSU 

injuries are quantified with the ICM. 

The ICM is fully integrated with NEISS, 

and in addition to providing estimates 

of the societal costs of injuries reported 

through NEISS, the ICM also estimates 

the costs of medically treated injuries 

that are initially treated outside of 

hospital EDs. The aggregated societal 

cost components provided by the ICM 

include medical costs, work losses, and 

the intangible costs associated with lost 

quality of life, or pain and suffering. 

Information on the societal costs 

associated with nonfatal CSU injuries to 

children are presented in Table 2, and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6285 

the societal costs of the nonfatal injuries 

to adults are presented in Table 3. The 

estimates are the average annual costs 

for the 5-year period from 2015 through 

2019. The national estimates of 

medically attended injuries described 

above are presented in column 2, and 

include not only the 3,000 injuries to 

children initially treated in hospital EDs 

(1,400 in the case of adults), but also the 

3,900 other medically attended injuries 

initially treated outside of hospital EDs 

(3,100 in the case of adults). The 

estimated injury costs range from about 

$15,015 per injury treated in physicians’ 

offices, to about $34,522 for injuries to 

patients treated and released from a 

hospital ED, to about $323,296 for 

hospital admitted injuries (averaging the 

costs associated with those admitted 

from the ED and those admitted to the 

hospital bypassing the ED). The average 

cost of injuries to adults was slightly 

lower than the average cost of injuries 

to children: $28,344 vs. $31,757. 

Altogether, the societal costs of nonfatal 

injuries to children involving CSUs 

averaged $216,747,160 annually, from 

2015 through 2019. The cost of injuries 

to adults averaged $128,710,471 

annually over the same period. 

TABLE 2—AVERAGE ANNUAL NONFATAL INJURY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CSU TIP OVERS TO CHILDREN UNDER THE

AGE OF 18 (2015–2019) 

Place of treatment National 

estimate Medical cost Work loss Pain and suffering 

Average total 

cost Total cost 

Doctor/Clinic ............................................. 3,804 $653 $1,521 $12,842 $15,015 $57,112,589 

Emergency Department ........................... 2,830 2,886 1,767 29,899 34,552 97,786,129 

Hospital-Adm Direct ................................. 53 31,157 105,672 160,347 297,176 15,654,763 

Hospital-Adm via ED ................................ 139 34,371 116,072 182,813 333,256 46,193,679 

Average ............................................. ........................ 2,499 4,753 24,505 31,757 ........................

Total ........................................... 6,825 17,057,479 32,438,983 167,250,698 ........................ 216,747,160 

Source: CPSC Injury Cost Model and NEISS cases involving CSU tip overs for the years 2015 through 2019. 

TABLE 3—AVERAGE ANNUAL NONFATAL INJURY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CSU TIP OVERS TO ADULTS 18 YEARS OF

AGE AND OLDER (2015–2019) 

Place of treatment National 

estimate Medical cost Work loss Pain and suffering 

Average total 

cost Total cost 

Doctor/Clinic ............................................. 3,094 $837 $2,692 $13,800 $17,329 $53,613,046 

Emergency Department ........................... 1,284 2,519 2,516 21,247 26,281 33,731,304 

Hospital-Adm Direct ................................. 37 38,728 72,391 139,589 250,707 9,396,404 

Hospital-Adm via ED ................................ 126 40,739 69,784 142,870 253,393 31,969,717 

Average ............................................. ........................ 2,734 5,081 20,529 28,344 ........................

Total ........................................... 4,541 12,412,977 23,074,265 93,223,230 ........................ 128,710,471 

Source: CPSC Injury Cost Model and NEISS cases involving CSU tip overs for the years 2015 through 2019. 

Potential Benefits of Stability 

Requirements for CSUs. The proposed 

rule would require that the tip-over 

moment of a CSU, as determined by the 

method in the proposed standard, 

exceed the moment that would be 

produced by a 51.2-pound child 

climbing up a drawer or hanging on a 

door, or a child pulling on drawers and 

doors of the CSU. The following 

discussion estimates the projected 

reduction in the societal costs of deaths 

and injuries under the proposed rule. 

Table 4 summarizes the annual 

societal costs of deaths and injuries by 

age of the victims. Staff used this 

information to estimate the anticipated 

reduction in the societal costs of injuries 

that can be anticipated if the proposed 

regulation is finalized. The costs 

associated with fatalities are based on 

the fatalities known to CPSC staff that 

occurred from 2001 through 2016, and 

excludes those fatalities in which CRT 

televisions were known to be involved. 

Incidents known to involve a CRT 

television were excluded for the reasons 

described above, however, cases for 

which the type of television involved 

could not be determined were included 

because some of these incidents might 

have involved a flat-screen television. 

The societal costs of nonfatal injuries 

are based on NEISS cases occurring 

from 2015 through 2019. No adjustment 

for the potential involvement of CRT 

televisions has been made in the 

nonfatal estimates for the reasons 

described above. 

Given the multiple real-world factors 

that contribute to tip overs that the 

proposed rule accounts for, CPSC staff 

concludes that the proposed rule should 

prevent CSU tip-over incidents caused 

by children climbing up, hanging on, or 

pulling on drawers and doors of the 

CSU, provided that the child weighs 

51.2 pounds or less. The proposed rule 

is also expected to prevent other 

common, but less severe scenarios such 

as opening drawers without climbing, 

putting items in and out of drawers, or 

playing in a drawer. CPSC staff believes 

that the proposed rule could prevent 

virtually all of these tip-over incidents 

involving children who are most at risk 

and probably many similar incidents 

involving older children and adult 

victims. The proposed rule would be 

less effective in reducing tip overs in 

some severe, but less common 

scenarios, such as bouncing and 

yanking; however, these scenarios were 

not directly observed in the incident 

data. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6286 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

112Staff assumes that all deaths involving 

children 2 years old and younger would be 

prevented and about 95 percent of the deaths 

involving 3-year-old children would be prevented. 

113Staff estimates that the proposed rule could 

prevent about 94 percent of the fatalities involving 

children (5.5 deaths prevented/6.2 total deaths). If 

the proposed rule prevents adult fatalities at onehalf this rate, then about 47 percent of the 1.8 

annual deaths to adults might be prevented. 

TABLE 4—ANNUAL SOCIETAL COSTS OF INJURIES AND DEATHS BY AGE (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) 

Age 

(in years) Fatalities* Societal cost fatalities Injuries 

Societal cost 

of nonfatal 

injuries 

Societal costs 

of injuries and 

deaths 

Less Than 2 ......................................................................... 2.4 $22.1 1,039 $29.3 $51.4 

2 ........................................................................................... 1.9 17.5 1,498 58.7 76.2 

3 ........................................................................................... 1.4 12.9 1,346 43.5 56.4 

4 ........................................................................................... 0.1 0.9 980 41.1 42.0 

5 ........................................................................................... 0.1 0.9 582 13.9 14.8 

6 ........................................................................................... 0.1 0.9 532 13.7 14.6 

7 ........................................................................................... 0.1 0.9 172 5.7 6.6 

8 ........................................................................................... 0.1 0.9 244 2.9 3.8 

9 to 17 .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 431 8.1 8.1 

Total Children ....................................................................... 6.2 57.0 6,824 216.9 273.9 

18 and Over ......................................................................... 1.8 16.6 4,541 128.7 145.3 

Total .............................................................................. 8.0 73.6 11,366 345.6 419.2 

* Average fatalities per year from 2001 through 2016. 

** Average number of medically attended injuries from 2015 through 2019. 

Benefits from Reduced Fatalities. A 

review of the fatal CSU tip-over 

incidents involving children and used 

in this analysis found that all of the 

victims weighed less than 51.2 pounds. 

Given staff’s conclusion that the 

proposed requirements would prevent 

nearly all tip overs involving children 

who weigh less than 51.2 pounds, staff 

believes that all of these fatalities could 

have been prevented if the CSUs 

involved had complied with these 

requirements. More than 90 percent of 

the child fatalities involved children 3 

years old or younger. The vast majority 

of children of this age weigh less than 

51.2 pounds. However, there were a few 

fatalities, an average of about 1 every 

other year, to older children who could 

weigh more than 51.2 pounds. 

Therefore, for purposes of projecting the 

benefits of the proposed rule, although 

staff predicts that almost all fatalities 

involving children 3 years old and 

younger could be prevented,112 staff 

estimates that only about 48 percent of 

the deaths to children 4 through 8 years 

old would be prevented. These 

calculations are based on analysis by the 

Division of Human Factors staff 

concerning the potential of the proposed 

rule to prevent tip-over deaths by age. 

Therefore, based on the fatalities 

between 2001 and 2016, staff estimates 

that, had all CSUs met the requirements 

of the proposed rule, about 94 percent 

of the deaths to children could have 

been prevented, or an average of 5.8 

deaths could have been prevented each 

year. Assuming a VSL of $9.2 million, 

the benefit of the proposed rule in terms 

of reduced child deaths could be $53.4 

million annually. 

As noted above, there are also an 

average of 1.8 fatalities to adults each 

year from CSU tip-over incidents. There 

is less information available regarding 

the tip-over incidents involving adults. 

Many of the available narratives of these 

incidents suggest that victims were 

losing their balance and grabbed the 

CSU in an effort to balance themselves. 

Although adults weigh more than 51.2 

pounds, because the adults were not 

attempting to climb the CSUs, the full 

weight of the adult victim was probably 

not on the CSU when the incident 

occurred. Moreover, many of the 

nonfatal cases involved adults 

interacting with the CSU, by opening 

drawers, getting items in and out of 

drawers, or leaning on the CSU. In many 

cases, these scenarios are expected to be 

less or equally severe scenarios, 

compared to children climbing with all 

drawers filled and opened. Therefore, 

CPSC staff has concluded that a 

substantial portion of the CSU tip-over 

incidents involving adults would be 

prevented if the stability of the CSUs 

was improved. Although staff cannot 

estimate the exact portion of the 

incidents involving adults that would be 

prevented, for purposes of attempting to 

quantify the benefits of the proposed 

rule, this analysis assumes that the 

proposed rule would prevent adult tipover incidents at about one-half the rate 

that it prevents child tip-over incidents. 

On average, this is approximately 0.8 

adult fatalities prevented annually or a 

societal benefit of about $7.4 million 

annually.113

Together, the potential benefits of the 

proposed rule from reducing fatal tipover incidents to both adults and 

children is estimated to be $60.8 million 

annually, if all CSUs were to comply 

with the requirements. This consists of 

an estimated $53.4 million from 

reducing approximately 5.8 child 

fatalities a year and $7.4 million from 

reducing an average of 0.8 adult 

fatalities a year. Staff emphasizes that 

the annual benefits would not actually 

reach this level until most CSUs in use 

meet the requirements of the proposed 

rule. Using the historical sales estimates 

and an estimated average product life of 

15 years, CPSC staff estimates that about 

463.5 million CSUs were in use in 2017 

and 466 million CSUs were in use in 

2018. Given that staff estimates there are 

approximately 460 million CSUs in use, 

annual sales are about 44 million units, 

and the average useful life of CSUs is 15 

years, it would likely be more than 10 

years after such a requirement goes into 

effect before the annual benefits 

approach this level. 

Benefits from Reduced Injuries. To 

evaluate the effectiveness of the 

proposed rule in reducing nonfatal 

injuries, CPSC staff examined 1,463 

NEISS records to determine what the 

child was doing when the tip-over 

incident occurred. In 925 incidents, it 

was not possible to determine the 

interaction involved in the incident. 

The remaining 538 incidents were 

reviewed to determine whether it was 

likely that the proposed rule would 

have prevented the incident. A 

summary of staff’s conclusions 

regarding these incidents is available in 

Tab H of the NPR briefing package 

(Table 3), but the following provides key 

insights. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6287 

Most of the incidents involved a child 

climbing the CSU—this interaction 

accounted for 412 incidents (74 

percent). Because the proposed rule is 

intended to prevent furniture tip overs 

involving children 51.2 pounds or less 

climbing on CSUs, staff assumed that all 

of these incidents would be prevented if 

the victim weighed less than 51.2 

pounds. The NEISS record does not 

include the weight of the victim, so staff 

used the age of the victims and data on 

the distribution of weight by age and sex 

to estimate the number of incidents that 

the proposed rule might have prevented. 

Staff assumed that all incidents 

involving children 2 years old and 

younger that involved climbing a CSU 

would have been prevented by the 

proposed rule because the 95th 

percentile weight for boys is only about 

75 percent of 51.2 pounds. Therefore, it 

is safe to conclude that virtually all 

children 2 years old and younger weigh 

less than 51.2 pounds and would be 

protected by the proposed rule. For 3- 

year-old children, the 95th percentile 

weight for boys is 51.2 pounds, which 

means that an estimated 5 percent of 3- 

year-old boys weigh more than 51.2 

pounds and might not be protected by 

the proposed rule. To account for this, 

staff assumed that only 95 percent of the 

incidents involving 3-year-old children 

would have been prevented by the 

proposed rule. For 4-year-old children, 

based on the percentile weights from the 

CDC, the 90th percentile weight for boys 

is 49.1 pounds and the 95th percentile 

weight is greater than 51.2 pounds. For 

4-year-old girls, the 95th percentile 

weight is 50.1 pounds. Based on these 

percentile weights, staff assumed that 

92.5 percent of the climbing-related 

incidents involving 4-year-old children 

would have been prevented. Staff 

followed the same procedure to estimate 

the percentage of incidents to children 

ages 5 years through 8 years. For 

example, for children 6 years old, the 

75th percentile weight for both boys and 

girls is greater than 51.2 pounds. The 

50th percentile weights for boys and 

girls are 50.3 and 48.6 pounds, 

respectively. Based on these weights, 

staff estimated that the proposed rule 

would have prevented 50 percent of the 

climbing incidents that involved 6-yearold children. Based on the percentile 

weights from the CDC, virtually all 

children 9 years old and older would be 

expected to weigh more than 51.2 

pounds. Therefore, staff cannot be 

confident that any of the climbing 

incidents involving children older than 

8 years would have been prevented by 

the proposed rule. 

Another 49 tip-over incidents 

involved children who were reaching 

into the CSU, or placing items in, or 

retrieving items from, the CSU. In a few 

cases, the victim was playing in the 

bottom drawer of the CSU, or was hit by 

the CSU when it tipped over. None of 

these scenarios would be expected to 

cause as much rotational force on a CSU 

as climbing a CSU. Staff believes that 

CSUs that meet the requirements of the 

proposed rule, which is intended to 

prevent tip overs in more severe 

circumstances, would not tip over in 

these incidents. Therefore, staff believes 

that all of these incidents would have 

been prevented by the proposed rule. 

A total of 58 incidents involved 

children pulling on the CSU, or opening 

drawers. Staff analyzed these incidents 

based on children’s pull strength ability 

and determined that 62 percent of these 

incidents would be prevented by the 

proposed rule. 

Finally, there were 19 incidents that 

involved activities such as the victim 

‘‘swinging’’ on the CSU, jumping from 

the CSU, and being on top of the CSU. 

Based on staff’s analysis, staff assumed 

that 47 percent of these incidents would 

be prevented by the proposed rule. 

Staff considered 22 incidents in 

which some ‘‘other person’’ caused the 

tip over as part of the unknown 

scenarios, because details on ‘‘other 

person’’ are not available to make an 

estimate. 

In total, staff believes that the 

proposed rule would have prevented 

about 87 percent of NEISS tip-over 

injuries involving children 17 years of 

age and under, including about 91 

percent of the tip-over incidents 

involving children climbing on CSUs. 

As Table 2 in Tab H of the NPR briefing 

package indicates, the average annual 

societal cost of nonfatal injuries to 

children from CSU tip-over incidents is 

about $216.9 million. If the proposed 

rule can prevent 87 percent of these 

injuries, the annual benefit from the 

reduction of nonfatal injuries to 

children would be $188.7 million. 

As with the adult fatality victims, 

there is less information available on the 

activities of the adult victims in the 

nonfatal incidents. In many cases, the 

narrative in the NEISS record simply 

contains a statement such as ‘‘dresser 

fell onto hand,’’ with no description of 

the interaction. Some narratives indicate 

that the victim might have grabbed onto 

the CSU for balance, was falling and hit 

the CSU, or may have been attempting 

to move the CSU. Staff also assumes that 

some CSUs tipped over when the adult 

was opening drawers to place items in 

or remove items from the unit, given 

that these interactions were in some 

incidents involving children. Given the 

very limited information on the 

activities of the adult victims at the time 

of the tip-over incident, staff does not 

have a basis for making strong estimates 

of the number of incidents that would 

have been prevented by the proposed 

rule. However, it is reasonable to expect 

that a rule that requires CSUs to be more 

stable would reduce nonfatal injuries to 

adults. In this analysis, staff assumes 

that nonfatal incidents involving adults 

would be reduced by half the percentage 

that nonfatal incidents to children 

would be reduced. Because staff 

believes that the proposed rule will 

reduce nonfatal tip-over injuries to 

children by 87 percent, staff assumes 

that nonfatal adult tip-over injuries will 

decline by 43.5 percent. Because the 

average annual societal cost of nonfatal 

tip-over injuries to adults is estimated to 

be $128.7, if all CSUs comply with the 

proposed rule, the societal cost of the 

injuries would be reduced by $56.0 

million annually. 

Summary of Expected Benefits. In 

summary, if the proposed rule is 

finalized, once all CSUs in use comply 

with the requirements, staff expects that 

there will be virtually no fatal tip-over 

injuries to children 8 years old and 

under and fatal injuries to adults will be 

reduced by one half. Staff expects 

nonfatal injuries to children to be 

reduced by 83 percent and nonfatal 

injuries to adults to be reduced by 41.5 

percent. The total reduction in societal 

costs (or benefit from the proposed rule) 

would be $305.5 million annually and 

is summarized in Table 5. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF EXPECTED ANNUAL BENEFITS

Description 

Current annual 

number of 

incidents 

Current 

societal cost 

(millions) 

Expected 

reduction in 

incidents 

Expected 

annual 

benefit 

(millions) 

Child Fatalities ................................................................................................. 6.2 $57.0 5.8 $53.4 

Adult Fatalities ................................................................................................. 1.8 16.6 0.8 7.4 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6288 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF EXPECTED ANNUAL BENEFITS—Continued 

Description 

Current annual 

number of 

incidents 

Current 

societal cost 

(millions) 

Expected 

reduction in 

incidents 

Expected 

annual 

benefit 

(millions) 

Non-Fatal Child Injuries ................................................................................... 6,824 216.9 5,937 188.7 

Non-Fatal Adult Injuries ................................................................................... 4,541 128.7 1,975 56.0 

Total .......................................................................................................... ........................ 419.2 ........................ 305.5 

Benefits Per CSU in Use. Generally, it 

is useful to discuss the benefits of a rule 

on a per-unit basis. This facilitates the 

comparison of the benefits of a rule to 

the costs when the costs are also 

expressed on a per-unit basis. To 

calculate the benefits of a standard on 

a per-unit basis, staff divided the 

estimated annual benefit by the number 

of units in use during the year. The 

result is the benefit per unit per year. 

The present values of expected annual 

benefits over the expected life of the 

product are summed to obtain the perunit benefit. In general, this should 

include only those injuries that 

occurred on products that do not meet 

the requirements of the standard, and 

divide that number by the units in use 

that do not meet the standard. In this 

analysis, however, given that staff has 

only identified one CSU that would 

meet the requirements of the proposed 

rule without some modifications, staff 

assumes that all injuries and deaths to 

children occurred with CSUs that did 

not meet the requirements of the 

proposed rule. 

Staff estimates that there were 463.5 

million CSUs in use in 2017, which 

because staff is using the NEISS data 

from 2015 through 2019 to calculate the 

societal cost of injuries, this is 

approximately the average number of 

CSUs in use during the period. Using 

these estimates, the estimated annual 

benefit per unit of the proposed rule 

would be $0.66. As noted, staff has 

assumed that the average product life of 

a CSU is 15 years. However, this 

includes the generally less expensive 

ready-to-assemble (RTA) CSUs that 

might have expected useful lives that 

are less than 15 years and the generally 

more expensive factory-assembled CSUs 

that could have expected lives greater 

than 15 years. Assuming the average 

CSU has a product life of 15 years, 

benefit per unit of the proposed rule is 

the present value of the annual benefits 

per unit summed over the expected 15- 

year life of a CSU. Table 6 gives the 

estimated benefits per unit of the 

proposed rule using the 3 percent and 

7 percent discount rates recommended 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget in Circular A–4: Regulatory 

Analysis (Sep. 17, 2003). However, 

because interest rates have declined 

significantly since Circular A–4 was 

issued in 2003, staff also included the 

undiscounted values. As shown in 

Table 6, the benefits per unit of the 

proposed rule range from $6.01 to $9.90, 

depending on the discount rate 

considered appropriate. 

TABLE 6—BENEFITS PER UNIT BY DISCOUNT RATE

Discount rate Annual 

benefit/unit 

Benefit/unit 

over the 

15-year life 

of the CSU 

Undiscounted ........................................................................................................................................................... $0.66 $9.90 

3 Percent ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.66 7.88 

7 Percent ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.66 6.01 

Costs Associated with the Proposed 

Rule. This section discusses the costs 

the proposed rule would impose on 

society. The costs include the costs that 

would be incurred to redesign and 

modify CSUs so that they meet the 

requirements of each of the standards. 

These costs include the increased cost 

to manufacture and distribute compliant 

CSUs. The costs also include the costs 

and impacts on consumers. These 

include the cost of additional time to 

assemble RTA furniture and the loss of 

utility if certain desired characteristics 

or styles are no longer available, or if 

compliant CSUs are less convenient to 

use. The costs of designing, 

manufacturing, and distributing 

compliant CSUs would be initially 

incurred by the manufacturers and 

suppliers, but most of these costs would 

likely be passed on to the consumers via 

higher prices. The costs involving the 

added assembly time for RTA CSUs or 

the loss of utility because CSUs with 

certain features or characteristics are no 

longer available would be borne directly 

by those consumers who desired CSUs 

with those characteristics or features. 

To ensure that they comply with a 

mandatory standard, furniture 

manufacturers must first determine 

whether their models comply with the 

standard. This would involve testing 

their models for compliance. Because a 

voluntary standard exists, with which 

staff believes that most CSUs on the 

market already comply, most 

manufacturers are probably already 

conducting stability testing similar to 

the testing in the proposed rule. 

Manufacturers would replace their 

current test methods with the 

requirements of the proposed rule. Even 

though the new tests would include 

additional steps (e.g., weighting 

drawers, pull tests on interlock 

mechanisms, and testing the CSU on a 

1.5-degree angle), on a per-unit basis, 

any increase in the cost of testing due 

to the proposed rule is likely to be very 

small, and therefore, the cost of 

compliance testing will not be 

considered further in this analysis. 

Manufacturers would also need to add 

a stability rating to a hang tag that 

would be included on each CSU, which 

would be derived from the testing. Staff 

expects that the cost of deriving the 

stability rating and adding the hang tag 

to each unit would also be small on a 

per-unit basis and will not be 

considered further in this analysis. 

Additionally, the cost of providing the 

certificates of conformity would be very 

low on a per-unit basis. In the case of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6289 

114Tab D of the NPR briefing package discusses 

staff’s testing and analysis of potential 

modifications to CSUs to improve stability and 

comply with the proposed rule. 

115The purpose of this testing was to assess 

options manufacturers would have for modifying 

CSUs to meet the performance requirements in the 

proposed rule; none of these potential 

modifications would be requirements. Some of 

these modifications could be applied to existing 

CSUs without extensive design changes. Staff did 

not evaluate structural design changes, such as 

increasing the depth of the CSU or using lighter 

materials for drawers because staff could not easily 

modify existing CSUs to implement these changes. 

However, such design modifications could also 

help increase the stability of CSUs. 

116Staff does not have direct estimates of the 

additional labor time that would be required to 

manufacture and add one or two interlock 

mechanisms to a CSU, but 5 minutes seems like a 

reasonably low estimate, if much of the work is 

manual. The cost of 5 minutes of labor is based on 

the total employer cost for employee compensation 

for private industry manufacturing workers in 

goods producing industries, published by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (December 2020). 

117One manufacturer estimated that an 

interlocking drawer could add $12 to the cost of a 

CSU and increase the retail price by as much as 

$39. 

118Cost based on observed prices for furniture 

feet available on the internet. 

CSUs that are children’s products, 

which are thought to constitute a very 

small portion of the market for CSUs, 

the cost of the certification testing could 

be somewhat higher because an 

accredited third-party testing laboratory 

would be required to conduct the 

certification testing. 

The number of CSU models currently 

on the market that would comply with 

the requirements of the proposed rule is 

very low. CPSC staff collected and 

examined 186 CSU models intended to 

be a representative sample of the 

available CSUs, and only identified one 

model that would meet the 

requirements of the proposed rule 

without modification. For each model 

that does not comply with a mandatory 

standard, manufacturers must decide 

whether to stop offering that model or 

modify the model so that it would 

comply with the standard. If the 

manufacturer ceases to offer a 

noncomplying model, the cost of this 

decision would be the lost utility to the 

consumer. This cost cannot be 

quantified, but it would be mitigated to 

the extent that other CSUs with similar 

characteristics and features are available 

that comply with the standard. 

Costs of Potential Modifications to 

Increase CSU Stability.114 CPSC staff 

tested and analyzed CSUs to identify 

several ways units could be modified to 

increase their stability.115 The 

modifications staff assessed were: (1) 

Adding drawer interlock mechanisms to 

limit the number of drawers that can be 

opened at one time; (2) reducing the 

maximum drawer extensions; (3) 

extending the feet or front edge of the 

CSU forward; (4) raising the front of the 

unit; and (5) adding additional 

counterweight to the CSU. 

Manufacturers can use combinations of 

more than one method to increase the 

stability of a single CSU model. 

One potential modification staff 

evaluated was drawer interlock systems. 

A drawer interlock system prevents 

multiple drawers from being open 

simultaneously. Typically, an interlock 

allows one drawer in a column of 

drawers to be open at a time, while 

locking or blocking the other drawers 

from opening, although some interlock 

systems allow more than one drawer to 

open at a time. Interlock systems are 

common in file cabinets, and they are 

included in some CSUs. An interlock 

system can improve the stability of a 

CSU because a CSU is less stable as 

more of the drawers are opened, causing 

the weight of the CSU to move forward. 

By preventing multiple drawers from 

opening, the CG of the drawers remains 

behind the tip point and shifts the 

CSU’s CG back, improving its stability. 

Based on staff’s testing, a drawer 

interlock system is one of the most 

effective options to improve stability, 

raising the tip-over moment of the CSU 

more than any other modification that 

staff evaluated. Interlocks were 

particularly effective at improving 

instability when paired with other 

modifications. However, the benefit of 

interlocks assumes that they are 

effective and cannot be bypassed. 

The cost of a drawer interlock 

mechanism includes the cost of design, 

materials, and labor required to 

manufacture the mechanism. It would 

also include the cost of warehousing the 

parts, the logistics involved in getting 

the parts to the factory floor, and the 

cost of incorporating the mechanism 

into the CSU. In the case of an RTA 

CSU, some of these costs could fall 

directly on the consumer. The value of 

the extra time that might be required of 

a consumer to assemble a CSU with a 

drawer interlock is another cost of 

adding a drawer interlock mechanism. 

Based on information provided by a 

manufacturer, the cost of adding a 

drawer interlock mechanism to a CSU 

would be around $12. On the 

assumption that a manufacturer does 

not have an incentive to provide CPSC 

with a low estimate, in this analysis, 

staff are assuming that this could be a 

high estimate. Nevertheless, if adding an 

interlock mechanism requires an 

additional 5 minutes in labor time to 

assemble the mechanism and 

incorporate it into the CSU, then the 

cost could be $3.34 in labor costs alone. 

Considering the added cost of materials 

and the fact that some CSUs could 

require two mechanisms, or may need 

new mechanisms to meet their 

particular needs, a minimum cost for 

adding a single interlock mechanism 

could be $6.00.116 The cost could be $12 

or more, especially if more than one 

mechanism were required, or a new 

design were required.117

Another potential modification is to 

reduce the travel length of drawer 

extensions, such as with new drawer 

slides. Reducing the drawer travel 

decreases the moment arm, which 

increases stability. When comparing two 

drawers on the same unit, the force 

required to tip over the CSU is more for 

drawers with shorter extensions. 

The manufacturing costs of reducing 

the maximum drawer extensions is low 

because it does not necessarily require 

additional parts or labor time. Perhaps 

the largest cost is the potential impact 

on consumer utility if it is less 

convenient to use CSUs with drawers 

that cannot open as widely. Staff cannot 

quantify this cost with the information 

available. 

Another potential modification is to 

extend the front feet of the CSU forward 

to extend the fulcrum towards the edge 

of the drawer. This could be done by 

extending the front feet forward with an 

attachment or replacement foot, or by 

attaching a platform to the bottom of the 

CSU. However, based on staff’s testing, 

for CSUs with poor stability, the 

extension or platform may need to be 

long enough that it could introduce a 

tripping hazard. 

The cost of extending the feet or the 

front edge of the CSU forward can be 

very low. In some cases, no additional 

parts would be required, and the only 

cost would be the time it takes for the 

manufacturer to make the change in the 

manufacturing procedure. This would 

be the case where already-present feet or 

glides are simply shifted forward an 

inch or so. In these cases, the cost of 

shifting the front edge forward could be 

less than $1 per unit. In other cases, feet 

might need to be added or redesigned. 

If these feet or glides could be used on 

multiple CSU models, the costs could be 

up to $5 per CSU unit.118 The cost of 

adding a base to the unit could be more 

expensive. In addition to the cost of the 

materials, there would be manufacturing 

costs to form the material used for the 

base and attach it to the unit. For RTA 

manufacturers, adding a base could 

involve additional costs to redesign the 

shipping packages to accommodate the 

base, and could impact the shipping 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6290 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

119Furniture manufacturers presumably would be 

able to obtain materials at less than retail prices. 

However, staff used retail prices in this analysis 

because, as noted above, there would be costs 

involved, for which staff does not have estimates, 

in forming and handling the heavier material. In the 

absence of estimates for these costs, staff believes 

that using the retail prices would provide a better 

estimate of the cost to manufacturers of using 

heavier materials. 

costs. This could add costs significantly 

over the $1 to $5 estimated here. 

Another potential option is to raise 

the front of the CSU to tilt the unit back, 

thereby making it less likely to tip 

forward. Tilting the CSU and drawers 

back increases the distance from the 

CSU CG location to the fulcrum, and 

reduces the distance from the fulcrum to 

the location where the tip force is 

applied to the CSU. Several existing 

CSU designs have adjustable front feet 

to allow for these level adjustments. 

Currently, manufacturers typically 

instruct consumers to adjust the feet as 

necessary to become level on an unlevel 

surface. Manufacturers could instruct 

consumers to tilt the CSU back further 

on carpet, or other surfaces, such that 

the CSU is not level, but has more 

resistance to tipping forward. Similar 

outcomes could be achieved by 

replacing the front legs with longer legs, 

or placing an object under them. 

However, there are potential issues 

with this option. While raising the front 

feet makes tipping the CSU forward 

more difficult, it also makes tipping the 

CSU backward less difficult. 

Additionally, any manual foot 

adjustment system requires action by 

consumers to determine the appropriate 

level, and it risks the CSU not being 

used as intended by the manufacturer. 

Raised front legs also may not be 

practical on CSUs that are intended to 

have a level top surface. 

According to one manufacturer, 

leveling devices could cost $5 per CSU. 

Observed retail prices for leveling 

devices can be as little as 30 cents each 

(at least two would be required for a 

CSU). If the front of a CSU must be 

raised a significant amount, other 

changes might be required to the CSU to 

keep the top and drawers of the CSU 

relatively level. The full cost of such 

changes cannot be quantified with the 

information available. 

The final potential modification staff 

evaluated was adding additional weight 

to the CSU. Currently, the back of many 

CSUs is a thin sheet of fiberboard or 

other light material. A heavier material 

could be substituted. Alternatively, 

manufacturers could add weights to the 

back or other sections of the CSU to 

increase stability. Depending on the 

amount of weight added, there could be 

an unquantifiable cost to consumers, 

due to the added weight that they must 

manage in assembling and moving the 

CSU. Based on retail prices observed on 

July 2, 2020, medium-density fiberboard 

costs approximately $0.24 per pound, 

which is a starting point for estimating 

the additional cost of adding weight to 

the back of a CSU.119 If the additional 

weight required is low, it could be the 

only additional cost, because the 

heavier material would replace a lighter 

material, and the manufacturing process 

would require minimal changes. In the 

case where the added weight that would 

be required is significant, the costs 

could be higher, because attaching the 

back to the CSU could require different 

hardware, the reinforcement of the sides 

of the CSU, or different manufacturing 

procedures might be required to 

manipulate the heavier weight (e.g., an 

additional worker or machine to handle 

the heavier board). In the case of RTA 

furniture, the cost of packaging and 

shipping could increase, and there 

would be an unquantifiable cost to the 

consumer in the form of the need to 

handle more weight. Potentially, 

manufacturers could offset the 

additional weight by using lowerdensity or thinner materials for other 

components, such as drawer fronts or 

cabinet tops. The Commission requests 

comments on the cost and other impacts 

of adding weight to the rear of the CSU 

to meet the requirements of the 

proposed rule. 

Annual Cost of the Proposed Rule. Of 

the potential modifications for which 

staff was able to estimate the potential 

cost, the lowest costs were about $5.80 

per unit. Several were significantly 

higher. Even assuming the low cost of 

about $5.80 per unit, assuming annual 

sales of at least 43 million units, the 

annual cost of the proposed rule would 

be around $250 million. 

Other Impacts on Consumers. The 

costs discussed above are the costs to 

manufacture CSUs that could comply 

with the proposed rule. Even where staff 

has used retail prices to estimate the 

costs, the retail price was used in an 

attempt to capture other costs that 

would be incurred by manufacturers, 

including the logistics of acquiring the 

parts, getting them to the factory floor, 

and the labor involved in installing 

them; or in the case of RTA CSUs, the 

costs of packaging the added parts and 

the cost to consumers, in time and 

trouble, of installing the added parts. 

The change in retail prices due to these 

costs could be greater if manufacturers, 

wholesalers, and retailers add a markup 

to their costs. Markups can vary among 

manufacturers and subsets of the 

market, but can be 2 to 4 times the cost 

to the manufacturer. However, it is not 

certain that the retail prices would 

increase from the proposed rule by the 

same factor. It is possible that 

competition among manufacturers and 

different models could prevent retail 

prices from rising by the usual mark-up 

over cost. 

Some manufacturers may withdraw 

some CSU models from the market if the 

cost or difficulty of modifying the 

models to meet the requirements of the 

proposed rule are too great in relation to 

their expected sales. For a small and 

light CSU, the modifications required 

could be so substantial that the model 

no longer has the character of the 

original model and is simply withdrawn 

from the market. Consumers who 

desired those particular models would 

suffer an unquantifiable loss, which is 

mitigated to the extent that other CSUs 

exist that are reasonable substitutes. If 

the CSU models that are withdrawn are 

disproportionately the lower-cost 

models, which are likely to include 

many lighter and RTA models, the 

proposed rule could disproportionately 

impact lower-income consumers or 

those seeking low-cost models. These 

consumers might keep using their older, 

non-compliant CSUs, purchase a 

previously owned CSU, or even choose 

other products for clothes storage in 

place of CSUs, such as shelving, boxes, 

or storage bins. Although these impacts 

would be costs associated with the 

proposed rule, they are not quantifiable. 

General Conclusions. Staff found that 

the societal costs of deaths and injuries 

from CSU tip-over incidents is about 

$419.2 million annually. This includes 

injuries to children and adults and is 

based on known fatalities from 2001 

through 2016, and NEISS injuries from 

2015 through 2019. If all CSUs had met 

the requirements of the proposed rule, 

however, the societal cost of these 

incidents would have been reduced by 

$305.5 million annually. This then 

would be the estimated benefit of the 

proposed rule. On a per-CSU-in-use 

basis, the benefit estimate is $0.66 cents 

per unit annually. Assuming CSUs have 

an expected useful life of 15 years, the 

average benefit of the proposed rule 

would be $6.01 per unit, assuming a 7 

percent discount rate, $7.88 assuming a 

3 percent discount rate, and $9.90 

without discounting. 

The costs of the proposed rule highly 

depend on the actual modifications that 

are required for CSUs to comply with 

the rule. The costs would be higher for 

some models than for others. In some 

cases, the required modifications could 

change the character of a CSU model to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6291 

120For more details about the comments CPSC 

received on the ANPR, and CPSC’s response to 

them, see Tab K of the NPR briefing package. 

121This testing assessed compliance with thencurrent ASTM F2057–17. ASTM F2057–17 

included the same stability requirements as ASTM 

F2057–19, except that F2057–17 applied to units 

more than 30 inches in height; whereas, F2057–19 

applies to units 27 inches or taller. Some of the 

tested units were 27 to 30 inches tall. 

122This testing assessed compliance with ASTM 

F2057–14. ASTM F2057–14 included the same 

stability requirements as ASTM F2057–19, except 

that F2057–14 applied to units more than 30 inches 

in height; whereas, F2057–19 applies to units 27 

inches or taller. One of the tested units was 27 to 

30 inches tall. 

the extent that it is not viable and will 

be withdrawn from the market. 

In its analysis, staff used the cost to 

modify existing CSUs in ways that 

would allow them to comply with the 

proposed rule as a measure of the cost 

of manufacturing CSUs that would 

comply with the proposed rule. The 

estimates used in the analysis are 

reasonable approximations of the costs 

involved, but in some instances, they 

could be underestimates because they 

do not include all of the expected 

monetary costs (e.g., the costs that 

would be associated with an interlock 

system that has not yet been developed), 

and they do not consider the 

nonmonetary cost to consumers of the 

added weight, the decreased maximum 

drawer extensions, or similar losses 

associated with the other modifications. 

Potentially, there could be lower cost 

options for modifying CSUs to meet the 

requirements not considered in the 

analysis. CPSC welcomes comments on 

any other potential options for 

modifying or manufacturing CSUs to 

meet the requirements of the proposed 

rule. 

Sensitivity Analysis. Staff’s analysis 

depends on certain estimates and 

assumptions. In conducting the 

analysis, staff used values that it 

believed best reflected reality. However, 

in many cases, the basis was weak or 

lacked strong empirical evidence. To 

address this, staff examined how other 

reasonable assumptions could affect the 

results of the analysis. A description of 

staff’s sensitivity analysis is available in 

Tab H of the NPR briefing package. 

B. Reasons for Not Relying on a 

Voluntary Standard 

No standard, or statement of intention 

to modify or develop a standard, was 

submitted to the Commission in 

response to the ANPR. However, staff 

did evaluate existing standards relevant 

to CSU tip overs and determined that 

these standards would not adequately 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

CSU tip overs because they do not 

account for the real-world factors staff 

identified in CSU tip-over incidents that 

contribute to instability, including 

multiple open and filled drawers, 

children’s interactions with the CSU 

(such as climbing and opening drawers), 

or carpeting. A detailed discussion of 

these standards, and why staff considers 

them inadequate, is in section V. 

Relevant Existing Standards. 

With respect to the primary standard 

in the United States that addresses CSU 

tip overs—ASTM F2057—CPSC staff 

has worked with ASTM on this standard 

since its inception in 2000, but has not 

been successful, to date, in revising the 

standard to account for the relevant 

factors. For these reasons, the 

Commission is not relying on an 

existing standard. 

C. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

CPSC considered several alternatives 

to the proposed rule. These alternatives, 

their potential costs and benefits, and 

the reasons CPSC did not select them, 

are described in detail in section XI. 

Alternatives to the Proposed Rule, 

below, and Tab H of the NPR briefing 

package. 

X. Response to Comments 120

This section describes the comments 

CPSC received on the ANPR, and 

responds to them. CPSC received 18 

comments during the ANPR comment 

period, as well as 5 additional 

correspondences after the comment 

period, which staff also considered. The 

comments are available on: 

www.regulations.gov, by searching 

under docket number CPSC–2017–0044. 

A. Voluntary Standards 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for ASTM F2057 and 

felt the voluntary standard process 

would create a robust standard. Other 

commenters stated that a mandatory 

standard is necessary to address the 

hazard, citing incident data and 

numerous flaws with ASTM F2057 and 

ASTM F3096. 

Response: ASTM F2057 does not 

account for forces associated with the 

weight of clothing in filled drawers, the 

impact of multiple open and filled 

drawers, children’s interactions with 

CSUs (such as climbing), or CSUs 

placed on carpet, all of which contribute 

to instability. Incident reports show that 

incidents often combine these variables 

(e.g., a child opening multiple filled 

drawers and climbing, or a child 

standing on an open drawer of a unit 

placed on carpet). The UMTRI child 

climbing study shows that children 

climbing can impart rotational forces 

(tip moments) on CSUs beyond the 

forces of the child’s weight alone. CPSC 

staff has worked closely with the ASTM 

F15.42 committee to improve the 

voluntary standard; staff has attempted 

and continues to attempt to help revise 

the ASTM standard to reflect these 

additional factors that contribute to 

instability, but, to date, has been 

unsuccessful. 

The proposed rule focuses on 

inherent stability of CSUs, rather than 

tip restraints, because the current rate of 

tip restraint use is low, and staff has 

identified several factors that make it 

unlikely that consumers will use tip 

restraints. Given this, staff did not 

evaluate ASTM F3096 in detail for this 

proposed rule because, even if it was 

effective at ensuring the strength of tip 

restraints, low rates of consumer use 

make tip restraints an ineffective way to 

address the hazard. However, based on 

a limited review of ASTM F3096, staff 

shares the commenters’ concerns that 

ASTM F3096–14 may not be adequate 

because: (1) The assumed forces may be 

too low to represent forces from 

children’s interactions, and (2) the 

standard does not address the whole tiprestraint system, which includes the 

connection to the CSU and the 

connection to the wall. 

Comments: Some commenters 

provided test data regarding compliance 

with ASTM F2057, or commented on 

these reports. One commenter submitted 

data sets indicating that about 20 to 23 

percent of the CSUs it tested did not 

comply with the voluntary standard.121

Another commenter’s report contained 

test data for dressers and chests, 

indicating that more than half of the 

tested units did not comply with the 

voluntary standard.122

Response: CPSC staff conducted a 

market survey of 188 CSUs purchased in 

2018 and found that 91 percent met the 

stability requirements in ASTM F2057– 

17, which has the same stability 

requirements and test methods as 

F2057–19 (Tab N of the NPR briefing 

package). Since publication of the 

ANPR, CPSC has issued 20 recalls for 

CSUs that did not comply with the 

ASTM F2057 stability requirements. 

However, regardless of compliance 

levels, CPSC considers ASTM F2057–19 

inadequate to address the hazard of CSU 

tip overs. 

B. Hazard Communication: Warnings 

and Public Awareness 

Comments: Several commenters 

supported the use of hazard 

communication, including the labeling 

requirement in ASTM F2057, displaying 

the warning as a handout at furniture 

stores, and mandating labeling 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6292 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

123Sixty pounds is the approximate 95th 

percentile weight of a 72-month-old male or 72- 

month-old female (the 95th percentile weight of a 

child just before his or her 6th birthday). 

124The average drawer extension was 9.75 inches, 

for the purpose of this estimate, this extension was 

provisions that are ‘‘effective, seen, 

understood, reflect real world use,’’ and 

‘‘accurately and clearly describe hazard 

patterns.’’ One commenter advocated for 

education campaigns to educate parents 

about the hazard and promote the use of 

tip restraints. Other commenters 

indicated that warning labels and 

education campaigns are insufficient to 

address the hazard because children do 

not comprehend warning labels; 

incidents occur when children are 

unattended (e.g., while left alone to 

nap); and renters may not be allowed to 

anchor products. 

Response: Warnings, on their own, are 

unlikely to adequately address the 

hazard because they are unlikely to 

prevent a child from opening multiple 

drawers or climbing on a CSU, and 

consumers are unlikely to heed 

warnings, including warnings to anchor 

CSUs. Nevertheless, warning labels may 

have some benefit. Accordingly, the 

proposed rule requires a warning label 

on CSUs to inform consumers about the 

tip-over hazard; encourage the use of tip 

restraints as a secondary safety 

mechanism; and provide other safety 

information. The proposed warning 

label requirement addresses the child 

climbing hazard, tip restraint use, 

interlocks (if the product includes 

them), drawer loading (place the 

heaviest items in the lowest drawers), 

and CSU use with a television. 

In addition, the proposed rule 

requires a hang tag label to provide 

consumers with meaningful information 

on the stability of a particular CSU, 

using a graphical representation of tipover resistance, combined with an icon 

and text explanation, to allow 

consumers to make more informed 

purchasing decisions. This hang tag 

would provide a rating of the stability 

of the specific CSU that consumers 

could use to compare CSUs. 

CPSC staff agrees that education 

campaigns could increase consumer 

knowledge of the CSU tip-over hazard 

and increase rates of anchoring. In June 

2015, the Commission launched the 

Anchor It! campaign to educate 

consumers about the risk of injury or 

death from furniture, television, and 

appliance tip overs, and to promote the 

use of tip restraints to anchor furniture 

and televisions. However, educational 

campaigns, alone, have not adequately 

reduced the CSU tip-over hazard. As 

incident data demonstrates, there has 

not been a statistically significant 

decline in CSU tip-over incidents 

without televisions while these efforts 

have been in place. In addition, CPSC 

commissioned a study to assess 

consumer awareness, recognition, and 

behavior change as a result of the 

Anchor It! Campaign. The 2020 report 

providing the results of this study 

indicates that the survey included 600 

parents and caregivers of children 5 

years old or younger and showed that 

only 55 percent of participants reported 

ever having anchored furniture. 

C. Scope and Definitions 

Comments: Comments about the 

scope of a rule varied. Several 

commenters suggested including in the 

scope furniture less than 30 inches in 

height, and others supported limiting 

the scope to furniture more than 30 

inches in height. One commenter 

recommended limiting the scope of a 

rule to chests, bureaus, and dressers, 

because the CPSC annual tip-over and 

instability reports indicate that most 

incidents involve those products. One 

commenter recommended covering 

‘‘freestanding chests, bureaus & dressers 

intended for clothing storage in a 

bedroom, with height dimensions over 

30 inches (762 mm), consisting of a 

solid top and side panels and containing 

at least one drawer,’’ and suggested 

definitions for chests, bureaus, and 

dressers. 

Response: In August 2019, ASTM 

published F2057–19, which revised the 

scope from including CSUs above 30 

inches in height, to including CSUs 

equal to or above 27 inches in height. 

This change was based on incidents 

involving units 30 inches in height and 

under, including a fatal incident with a 

27.5-inch-high unit. However, CPSC is 

aware of products that are marketed as 

CSUs and are under 27 inches high, and 

is aware of a fatal incident involving a 

24-inch-high CSU with a television. On 

balance, staff considers it reasonable to 

include in the scope CSUs that are 27- 

inches high or more, and seeks 

comments on this issue. 

Although most CSU tip-over incidents 

involve chests, bureaus, and dressers, 

additional furniture items, with the 

same/similar design and function as 

chests, bureaus, and dressers present the 

same hazard because the tip-over hazard 

relates to the design and use of the 

products. Similar products include 

wardrobes and armoires, as well as 

other products that consumers 

commonly recognize as CSUs, 

regardless of marketing. The FMG study 

(Tab Q of the NPR briefing package) 

indicates that consumers consider a 

variety of products suitable for use as 

CSUs. The ASTM F2057 definition of 

CSUs may exclude items that consumers 

use as CSUs. For this reason, the scope 

of the proposed rule uses criteria to 

distinguish between in-scope and outof-scope products. 

D. Test Parameters 

Comments: Several commenters 

recommended using a test weight of at 

least 60 pounds to address children 

younger than 6 years old. Commenters 

noted that covering children up to 6 

years old would be consistent with the 

age and weight of victims in incidents 

and account for developmentally 

expected behaviors for children that age 

that are associated with incidents (e.g., 

climbing). Several comments also noted 

that victims as old as 8 years have been 

killed by falling furniture. One 

commenter urged CPSC to consider the 

90th percentile child at their 6th and 

8th birthdays ‘‘to better understand the 

risks posed to children older than 5.’’ 

One commenter supported the ASTM 

test weight of 50 pounds, stating: ‘‘the 

most at-risk age group are children 1 to 

4 years old’’ and the 50-pound test 

weight ‘‘appropriately reflects the age 

and weight of the most at-risk children 

based on the reported IDI data.’’ 

Response: Staff agrees that the 50- 

pound test weight in ASTM F2057 is 

inadequate; however, the data and 

staff’s assessment have evolved since 

the ANPR. The ANPR discussed 

increasing the test weight to 60 pounds 

to represent the weight of ‘‘children up 

to and including age five,’’ which is the 

age group that ASTM F2057 aims to 

cover. After the ANPR, staff worked 

with the F15.42 Furniture 

Subcommittee to provide evidence to 

increase the test weight to 60 pounds, 

based on updated 95th percentile 

weight data. ASTM balloted the weight 

increase, but it did not pass. The 

primary data source for the 60-pound 

weight recommendation was the 2000 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) Growth Charts.123 In 

the updated 2021 CDC Anthropometric 

Reference, children’s weights tend to be 

higher than those in the 2000 CDC 

Growth Charts. 

After the ANPR, the UMTRI child 

climbing study (Tab R of the NPR 

briefing package) quantified forces and 

moments children generate when 

interacting with a simulated CSU. Staff 

focused on the ascent forces because 

CSU tip-over incident data indicates 

that children climbing CSUs is the most 

common hazard scenario in these 

incidents, and ascent is an integral 

climbing interaction. For the ascent 

interaction and an average drawer 

extension,124 staff determined that a 50- 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6293 

assumed to be the same as the distance of the 

extended drawer to the fulcrum. 

125This weight is based on the 2021 CDC 

Anthropometric Reference for a 95th percentile 3- 

year-old male. The 95th percentile weight for a 3- 

year-old female is 42.5 pounds. A stability 

requirement based on the 51.2-pound male would 

also cover the 95th percentile 3-year-old female. 

126Two fatal incidents involved 45-pound 

children, one involving a 2-year-old child, and one 

involving a 7-year-old child (the oldest CSU tipover fatality without a television). 

127The proposed requirements distinguish 

between child weight and test weight. The child 

weight is used in an equation, along with the 

distance from the fulcrum, that estimates the 

moment (rotational force) that a child will exert on 

a CSU while climbing. 

128See CPSC staff letter to ASTM from Nesteruk, 

H.E.J., Re: Update to CPSC Staff letter dated August 

24, 2018 (Oct. 12, 2018), available at: https://

cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ 

TipoverASTMLetter%20October18%20Update.pdf. 

pound child climbing could exert forces 

equivalent to those from an 80-pound 

test weight on the face of a drawer 

opened 12 inches. These results show 

that the 50-pound test weight in F2057 

or even a 60-pound test weight would 

be inadequate to replicate the forces of 

a 50-pound child climbing. 

For this NPR, staff also evaluated the 

ages and weights of children in CSU tipover incidents. Most tip-over incidents 

involving children and CSUs without 

televisions involve 1, 2, and 3-year-old 

children. These are also the ages of 

children who are most involved in 

climbing incidents (the dominant 

hazard pattern). The 95th percentile 

weight of 3-year-old children is 51.2 

pounds.125 The children involved in 

fatal incidents with CSUs and no 

televisions weighed 45 pounds and 

under.126

Based on this information, the 

proposed rule simulates a 95th 

percentile 3-year-old (51.2 pounds) 

climbing on a CSU and generating 

associated dynamic and horizontal 

forces, rather than the 60-pound 5-yearold. When the relevant forces are 

considered, the 51.2-pound child weight 

is approximately equivalent to an 82- 

pound test weight on the face of a 

drawer opened 12 inches.127 In 

addition, the proposed requirements 

simulate real-world conditions, such as 

multiple open and filled drawers, a 

carpeted surface, and a child pulling on 

the CSU. These factors are present in 

many tip-over incidents and contribute 

to the instability of a CSU. Staff 

determined that the proposed 

requirements would address all of the 

fatal incidents and the majority of the 

nonfatal incidents involving children 

and CSUs without televisions. The 

proposed requirements should also 

reduce incidents involving CSUs with 

televisions and incidents involving 

adults. 

Comments: One commenter suggested 

a tiered test weight system, based on the 

height of the product, recommending 

that products less than 40 inches in 

height be tested with 50 pounds of 

weight, and products more than 40 

inches in height be tested with 60 

pounds of weight. The commenter 

reasoned that older children (who weigh 

more) are less likely to climb shorter 

products because they can reach the top 

without climbing.’’ One comment 

supported a tolerance of ± 1 pound for 

the test weight, consistent with the 

ASTM standard. 

Response: Regarding a tiered test 

weight protocol, staff does not support 

using different tip forces for different 

height units because incident analysis 

indicates that there is not a strong 

relationship between unit height and 

child weight for fatal tip-over 

incidents.128

For test weight tolerance, CPSC staff 

considers a tolerance of ±1 pound for 

each of the two test weight blocks 

required in ASTM F2057–19 to be too 

large. Based on the tolerance, the total 

weight of the test blocks can range from 

48–52 pounds, an 8 percent variability 

between the lowest and highest allowed 

test weights. Staff has previously 

worked with the ASTM F15.42 

Furniture Subcommittee to propose 

tighter tolerances for each test weight 

and for the total test weight. However, 

the proposed rule does not require a 

fixed test weigh—rather, it consists of a 

tip-over moment measurement—making 

it unnecessary to specify a test weight 

tolerance. 

Comments: Two commenters stated 

that more specificity is needed in the 

voluntary standard regarding the time 

frame to apply and maintain the test 

weight and contact of the test fixture 

with the drawer bottom. 

Response: ASTM F2057–19 does not 

specify a time requirement to apply the 

50-pound test weight or a specific 

amount of time that the CSU must 

support the weight without tipping 

over. Test methods in other ASTM 

standards (e.g., F963–17, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for Toy 

Safety, F2236–16a, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Soft Infant and 

Toddler Carriers, and F2194–16e1, 

Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Bassinets and Cradles) 

state to apply a weight or force over a 

specific period to avoid imparting an 

impulse force on the product. To 

address this, the proposed rule specifies 

that the force must be applied gradually 

over a period of at least 5 seconds to 

avoid a potential impulse force. 

Comment: Several commenters 

addressed open drawers during testing. 

Commenters emphasized that testing 

should reflect real-world conditions, 

and that opening one empty drawer at 

a time, as the ASTM standard requires, 

does not do this. Suggestions included 

multiple drawers being open 

simultaneously, loaded drawers, and 

testing drawers ‘‘at all stages of open.’’ 

Response: CPSC agrees that stability 

testing should reflect real-world use, 

which includes opening more than one 

drawer at a time (unless the CSU 

prevents this, such as with an interlock 

system) and drawers filled with 

clothing. Staff tested a number of 

different types and sizes of CSUs with 

various configurations of open and 

filled drawers, and modeled CSUs 

involved in tip-over incidents. Staff 

concluded that having multiple open 

drawers decreases stability, and having 

filled drawers has a variable effect on 

stability, depending on whether the 

filled drawers are open or closed. Filled 

drawers make a CSU less stable if the 

drawers are open; whereas, filled 

drawers make the CSU more stable if the 

drawers are closed. Thus, the least 

stable configuration is when all drawers 

are filled and open. If less than half of 

the drawers are open, the least stable 

configuration (assuming that the drawer 

fill is consistent across drawers) is when 

all drawers are empty. The test method 

in the proposed rule includes all 

drawers open and filled to reflect the 

worst-case configuration. The test 

method also accounts for interlock 

systems that would prevent multiple 

drawers from being opened 

simultaneously and allows for a 

modified test configuration for these 

units. If the interlock allows fewer than 

half of the drawers to open, the 

proposed requirements involve the CSU 

being tested with all drawers empty, 

which reflects a worst-case 

configuration for these units. These 

recommendations reflect incident data, 

which include children opening all of 

the drawers in CSUs and incidents 

involving empty and filled CSU 

drawers. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that testing involve 

carpeting or a surface that mimics the 

effects of carpet, to reflect real-world 

use conditions and common incident 

conditions, and because this may 

decrease stability. Some commenters 

suggested using a standardized material, 

or some other way of ensuring carpet 

testing would be reliable and repeatable. 

One commenter submitted a report 

containing test data for dressers and 

chests tipping that found that CSUs 

were less stable on carpet than on hard 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6294 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

129CPSC report on Preliminary Evaluation of 

Anchoring Furniture and Televisions without Tools 

(Technical Report CPSC/EXHR/TR—15/001), 

Butturini, R., Massale, J., Midgett, J., Snyder, S. 

(May 2015), available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fspublic/pdfs/Tipover-Prevention-Project-Anchorswithout-Tools.pdf. 

130Peachman, R.R. Furniture Anchors Not an 

Easy Fix, as Child Tip-Over Deaths Persist (Nov. 5, 

2018), available at: https://www.consumer

reports.org/furniture/furniture-anchors-not-an-easyfix-as-child-tip-over-deaths-persist/. 

131CPSC Anchor It! Campaign: Main Report, 

FMG (Sep. 2, 2020), available at: https://

www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/CPSC-Anchor-ItCampaign-Effectiveness-Survey-Main-Report_Final_

9_2_2020....pdf?gC1No.

oOO2FEXV9wmOtdJVAtacRLHIMK. 

floors. Another commenter asked for a 

clear definition of ‘‘a hard, level, flat 

surface,’’ specified in ASTM F2057, and 

suggested evaluating floor materials, 

including carpet, but recommended 

using a standardized material. 

Response: Incident data indicates that 

consumers commonly place CSUs on 

carpet, and testing indicates that carpet 

decreases CSU stability. CPSC staff 

tested CSUs on carpet to learn what 

effect a flooring surface can have on the 

stability of CSUs (Tab P of the NPR 

briefing package). Staff found that, in 

general, CSUs were less stable on carpet. 

Accordingly, the proposed rule includes 

an element to simulate the effect of 

carpet as part of the stability testing. 

Staff agrees with the concern that testing 

on actual carpet may present challenges 

and may not be repeatable. Staff testing 

(Tab D of the NPR briefing package) 

indicates that an incline of 1.5 degrees 

was the average angle that replicated tip 

weight on carpet. Accordingly, to 

provide a repeatable method, the 

proposed rule includes a 1.5-degree 

incline to simulate the effect of carpet 

during stability testing. For the testing 

on a ‘‘hard, flat, and level’’ surface, the 

proposed rule provides a definition of 

this phrase. 

Comments: Several commenters 

mentioned operational sliding length 

with regard to how far to extend 

drawers during stability testing. One 

commenter provided specific 

suggestions for testing three different 

types of drawer slides: (1) Drawers 

without an outstop should be tested at 

2⁄3 of the drawer extension; (2) drawers 

with an outstop should be tested with 

the drawer extended to the ‘‘valid 

outstop’’ (meaning an outstop that meets 

certain pull force and timing criteria); 

and (3) drawers with a self-closing 

feature should be tested with the drawer 

extended to the ‘‘static outstop’’ 

(meaning a position where the drawer 

remains in a static open position for a 

set time). Another commenter suggested 

clarifying the requirement in the 

voluntary standard that drawers are to 

be extended to 2⁄3 of the operational 

sliding length if there is no outstop 

because, with no minimum operational 

sliding length specified, the procedure 

for testing products with multiple 

outstops is unclear. 

Response: Drawer extension is a key 

component of a tip event because the 

distance from the force application site 

to the fulcrum (pivot point) determines 

the moment (rotational forces) on a 

CSU. The proposed test method uses a 

moment calculation based on full 

drawer extension for drawers with an 

outstop, and requires 2⁄3 extension for 

drawers without an outstop. The 

proposed rule requires that, for stability 

testing, drawers be open to the 

‘‘maximum extension,’’ which is 

defined as: 

Maximum extension means a condition 

when a drawer or pull-out shelf is open to 

the furthest manufacturer recommended use 

position, as indicated by way of a stop. In the 

case of slides with multiple intermediate 

stops, this is the stop that allows the drawer 

or pull-out shelf to extend the furthest. In the 

case of slides with a multi-part stop, such as 

a stop that extends the drawer or pull-out 

shelf to the furthest manufacturer 

recommended use position with an 

additional stop that retains the drawer or 

pull-out shelf in the case, this is the stop that 

extends the drawer or pull-out shelf to the 

manufacturer recommended use position. If 

the manufacturer does not provide a 

recommended use position by way of a stop, 

this is 2⁄3 the shortest internal length of the 

drawer measured from the inside face of the 

drawer front to the inside face of the drawer 

back or 2⁄3 the length of the pull-out shelf. 

This definition addresses the issue of 

multiple outstops. The Commission 

requests comments on self-closing 

drawers. 

E. Tip Restraints 

Comments: Comments about 

anchoring systems generally supported 

the position that furniture should be 

stable on its own, without the need for 

tip restraints. Reasons included: 

Consumers may not have the option to 

anchor products (e.g., rentals that do not 

allow holes in walls, or brick/concrete 

walls); consumers may not have the 

skills to anchor furniture correctly; 

some consumers are not aware of the 

need to anchor furniture; and the 

burden should not be placed on 

consumers to make products safe. 

However, commenters noted that 

anchors could be useful for used or 

older furniture, but that consumers need 

to be informed about proper installation. 

In addition, commenters noted that 

ASTM F3096–14 is inadequate because 

requirements for anchors should 

‘‘adequately assess the strength of all 

designs of anchoring devices and the 

components of such devices in real 

world use conditions’’ with clear pass/ 

fail tests. 

Response: Staff agrees that tip 

restraints should not be the primary 

method of preventing CSU tip overs and 

that CSUs should be inherently stable. 

Several research studies show that a 

large number of consumers do not 

anchor furniture, including CSUs. A 

2010 CPSC Consumer Opinion Forum 

survey found that only 9 percent of 

participants had anchored the furniture 

under their televisions; for participants 

that had a CSU under their televisions, 

the anchoring rate was 10 percent of 

participants.129 A 2018 Consumer 

Reports nationally representative survey 

found that only 27 percent of consumers 

overall, and 40 percent of consumers 

with children under 6 years old at 

home, have an anchored piece of 

furniture in their homes.130 A 2020 

CPSC study on the Anchor It! campaign 

found that 55 percent of respondents 

reported ever having anchored 

furniture.131 As the 2020 FMG study on 

furniture tip overs indicates (Tab Q of 

the NPR briefing package), reasons that 

consumers do not anchor furniture 

include: The belief that furniture does 

not need to be anchored if children are 

supervised; a perception that the 

furniture was stable enough; potential 

damage to walls; lack of knowledge 

about products; and difficulty installing 

tip restraints. For these reasons, the 

proposed rule does not include 

requirements for tip restraints, and 

focuses, instead, on inherent stability. 

However, tip restraints may be useful 

as a secondary safety system, to improve 

the stability of existing CSUs or address 

additional child interactions. In future 

work, outside of this rulemaking effort, 

CPSC may evaluate appropriate 

requirements for tip restraints, and may 

work with ASTM to update its tiprestraint requirements. Based on a 

preliminary analysis, CPSC staff agrees 

that ASTM F3096–14 does not 

adequately address tip restraints in realworld use conditions. Staff believes that 

an appropriate test should assess the 

strength of the connection between the 

CSU and the wall, the attachment to the 

CSU and the wall, and test the tip 

restraint with common wall surfaces. In 

addition, as with ASTM F2057–19, 

ASTM F3096–14 uses a 50-pound static 

force to test the strength of the tip 

restraint, which may not represent the 

force on the tip restraint from a child 

and the CSU, especially for interactions 

that can generate dynamic forces, 

including those from older children. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6295 

132The oldest child in a tip-over fatality involving 

a CSU with a television was 8 years old. 

F. Televisions 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed the involvement of CRT 

televisions in CSU tip-over incidents. 

Commenters stated that manufacturers 

stopped producing CRT televisions 

around 2008–2010. One commenter 

provided information regarding the 

transition from CRT televisions to flat 

screens, and suggested that this 

transition ‘‘has significantly reduced the 

potential hazard posed by TVs being 

placed on CSUs.’’ In addition, the 

commenter stated that ‘‘99 percent of 

TVs are taken out of service after 16 

years, meaning the number of CRTs in 

consumers’ homes should be nearing 

zero by 2027.’’ Commenters also noted 

that the discontinued production of CRT 

televisions means that CPSC would be 

unable to regulate these products, 

making it difficult to address the hazard 

they present. One commenter stated that 

television involvement in tip-over 

incidents should not undermine CPSC’s 

efforts to focus on CSUs because the 

common denominator in incidents is a 

CSU. 

Response: CPSC agrees that 

manufacturers’ widespread shift from 

CRT televisions to flat-panel televisions 

is likely to result in decreased use in 

homes and an associated decrease in 

tip-over incidents involving CSUs with 

CRT televisions. NEISS data indicates 

that, for 2010 through 2019, there is a 

statistically significant linear decline in 

child injuries involving all CSUs 

(including televisions); however, there 

is no linear trend detected in injuries to 

children involving CSU tip-over 

incidents without televisions. Therefore, 

the decline in estimated CSU tip-over 

injuries during that period was driven 

by a decrease in ED-treated tip-over 

injuries involving CSUs with 

televisions. It is important to note that 

the CPSC tip-over data include 

incidents with a variety of television 

types, including CRT televisions and 

flat-panel televisions. Because flat-panel 

televisions are generally much lighter 

than CRT televisions, staff believes they 

are less likely to cause severe injury. 

Staff also agrees that television 

involvement in CSU tip-over incidents 

should not undermine CPSC’s efforts to 

focus on CSUs. 

The proposed rule focuses on tip-over 

hazards involving CSUs without 

televisions. However, increasing CSU 

stability should also decrease deaths 

and injuries from tip-over incidents 

involving CSUs with televisions. 

G. Incidents/Risk 

Comments: One comment compared 

the deaths due to CSU tip overs to the 

number of children who drown, 

suggesting that deaths due to CSU tip 

overs were relatively low, by 

comparison. Another comment 

provided a lengthy discussion of 

incident data, suggesting that incidents 

were declining, televisions are the 

primary hazard, and that the majority of 

incidents affect children younger than 5 

years old, rather than less than 6 years 

of age. This commenter stated: ‘‘for 

children 13 to 59-months, there has 

been a 34% reduction in reported IDIs 

for the 4-year period between 2011– 

2015.’’ Another commenter stated that 

CSU tip overs present a particular risk 

to children under 6 years old, due to 

physical and mental abilities and 

behaviors at these ages, noting that 

children under 6 years old are involved 

in 95 percent of deaths and 83 percent 

of injuries to children. 

Response: The existence of other 

hazards, such as drowning deaths, does 

not diminish the need to address tipover hazards. There were 193 reported 

CSU tip-over fatalities involving 

children and CSUs that occurred 

between January 1, 2000 and December 

31, 2020. With the exception of 2010, 

there were at least three reported fatal 

tip-over incidents involving children 

and CSUs without televisions, each year 

from 2001 through 2017 (the last year 

for which death reporting is considered 

complete). Based on data from NEISS, 

CPSC staff estimates that there were 

78,200 injuries from CSU tip overs (an 

estimated annual average of 5,600 

injuries) treated in EDs from January 1, 

2006 to December 31, 2019. Of these, an 

estimated 72 percent (an estimated 

56,400 total and an estimated annual 

average of 4,000) were injuries to 

children. The estimated number of EDtreated injuries to children involving 

CSU tip overs was between about 2,500 

and 5,900 injuries for each year from 

2006 through 2019. 

Incident data indicates that younger 

children are the most affected age group. 

In 91 percent of the tip-over fatalities 

involving children and CSUs without 

televisions (81 of 89), the victim was 1, 

2, or 3 years old. An estimated 76 

percent of ED-treated injuries to 

children involving CSU tip overs 

without televisions were to children 1 

through 4 years old (an estimated 31,100 

of 40,700), and an estimated 64 percent 

were to children 1 through 3 years old 

(an estimated 26,100 of 40,700). The 

oldest child in a tip-over fatality 

involving a CSU without a television 

was 7 years old; the oldest child with a 

reported ED-treated tip-over injury 

involving a CSU without a television 

was 17 years old.132

With respect to the comment stating 

that CSU incidents are declining, CPSC 

staff found a statistically significant 

linear decline in ED-treated CSU tipover injuries to children from 2010 to 

2019. However, this trend is driven by 

the decline in CSU tip-over incidents 

that involve televisions; there was no 

detected decline in tip-over injuries to 

children involving CSUs without 

televisions during the same time frame. 

With respect to the comment that 

there has been a 34 percent reduction in 

reported IDIs, CPSC notes that IDIs are 

not reported, but are based on staff 

assignments; that is, when CPSC 

receives a report of an incident, staff can 

request an IDI. Therefore, the raw 

number of IDIs is not a meaningful 

number for comparison; it only 

represents example scenarios for which 

staff has sought and compiled 

additional information through an 

investigation, and is not a representative 

number of annual incidents. Any 

increase or decrease in the number of 

IDIs is a function of various factors and 

not necessarily a reflection of the 

seriousness of the hazard or rate of 

incidents. Moreover, IDIs are based on 

many types of source documents, and it 

is not clear to which IDIs the commenter 

is referring. 

H. Costs and Small Business Impacts 

Comments: One commenter stated 

that increasing test weights would 

create costs because many CSUs do not 

comply with the existing test weight 

requirement in the ASTM standard. 

Another commenter stated that it is 

possible to alter designs to improve 

stability in an affordable way. The Small 

Business Administration (SBA) met 

with CPSC staff regarding the ANPR on 

February 7, 2018. The SBA expressed 

that its small business contacts are 

comfortable with the existing ASTM 

standard, but are concerned about a 

mandatory rule that differs from or is 

more stringent than the voluntary 

standard. Those concerns include the 

impacts a rule would have on existing 

inventories and when compliance with 

the mandatory standard would be 

required. 

Response: CPSC believes that the 

proposed rule would require 

modifications or redesign of most CSUs 

on the market. To estimate the cost of 

modifying CSUs to comply with the 

proposed requirements, CPSC staff 

examined five CSU models (Tab H of 

the NPR briefing package). In some 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6296 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

cases, the cost to modify a particular 

CSU could be around $5.80 per unit; but 

in other cases, the costs could exceed 

$25 per unit. The cost of modifying 

lighter or taller CSUs could be greater 

than for heavier CSUs. Changes in the 

design of CSUs could impose other costs 

on consumers in the form of altered 

utility or convenience, including 

increased weight, reductions in the 

maximum drawer extensions, changes 

in the storage capacity of the CSU, or 

changes in the footprint of the CSU. 

The initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for this rule (Tab I of the 

NPR briefing package) specifically 

considers the impact of the proposed 

rule on small businesses. The analysis 

concludes that the proposed rule would 

likely have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

I. Technical Feasibility 

Comments: Several commenters 

addressed the technical feasibility of 

designing CSUs that could reduce 

stability issues. Comments regarding 

feasibility primarily consisted of: (1) 

Comments that used test data showing 

a proportion of CSUs could pass certain 

tests as proof that it was feasible, and (2) 

comments that proposed specific 

solutions to address furniture tipping 

over. Suggestions included drawer 

slides that automatically close drawers 

or that require users to apply force 

continually to keep a drawer open; 

reducing the maximum extension length 

of drawers; wider CSU bases; bins in 

place of bottom drawers; and interlock 

systems that limit how many drawers 

can be open simultaneously. One 

commenter recommended that test 

requirements account for interlock 

systems. 

Response: CPSC staff is aware of one 

CSU that meets the stability 

requirements in the proposed rule 

without modification. To address CSUs 

that do not already meet the proposed 

requirements, staff examined five CSUs 

to determine what modifications would 

allow them to meet the proposed 

requirements. Several modifications, 

including in combination, may improve 

the stability of CSUs, such as adding 

drawer interlocks, adding weight to the 

rear of the unit, decreasing the 

maximum drawer extensions, and 

shifting the front edge or feet (the 

fulcrum) of the CSU forward. Of the 

potential modifications for which staff 

was able to estimate the potential cost, 

the lowest costs were about $5.80 per 

unit, but in other cases, the costs may 

exceed $25. However, the extent of the 

modifications required would depend 

upon the characteristics of the CSU, 

such as its weight, dimensions, and 

center of gravity. 

Regarding the comments that provide 

specific design solutions, under section 

7 of the CPSA, the Commission may 

issue performance requirements, or 

requirements for warnings and 

instructions; the Commission may not 

issue design requirements. Accordingly, 

the Commission cannot require the use 

of particular designs. However, these 

suggestions demonstrate that it is 

feasible to design more stable CSUs, and 

these or other design changes may be 

useful in modifying CSUs to comply 

with performance requirements. 

J. Stories of Loss 

Comments: Three commenters shared 

their personal experiences with tragic 

incidents where a CSU tipped over and 

killed a child. These comments 

included valuable information about the 

activities and conditions involved in the 

tip-over incidents they described, 

including the loading of drawers, 

flooring, and how the child was 

interacting with the CSU. These 

comments also provided useful 

information about user knowledge of the 

risk, and the presence of warning labels 

and tip restraints. 

These commenters expressed that 

safety needs to be built into the design 

of CSUs, rather than relying on 

consumer knowledge of the hazard, 

consumer installation of anchors, or 

warning labels. The commenters noted 

several factors that make it ineffective to 

rely on consumer knowledge and 

actions. For example, the commenters 

noted that children are exposed to the 

CSU hazard outside their homes, so 

anchors may not be installed; 

consumers buy used CSUs, which may 

not have anchors, instructions, or labels; 

and consumers may not be permitted to 

anchor products to a wall in a rental, or 

may lack the technical skills to anchor 

CSUs properly. The commenters stated 

that a mandatory standard should 

mimic real-life circumstances that have 

been involved in CSU incidents, 

including less stable flooring and loaded 

drawers. 

Response: CPSC appreciates the 

courage of these parents in sharing their 

stories. To each of these parents, we 

thank you for sharing these stories and 

we are deeply sorry for your loss. CPSC 

staff has considered the information 

about the interactions and conditions 

involved in the tip-over incidents in 

developing this NPR. The performance 

criteria were based on the children’s 

interactions seen in fatal and nonfatal 

incident reports, and they are based on 

measured child climbing forces and 

child strength data. The performance 

criteria also are based on real-life CSU 

use, as seen in the incident reports, 

including opening multiple drawers, 

drawers filled with clothing, and 

placing the CSU on a carpeted floor. The 

incidents described in these comments 

are captured in the incident data set and 

have been incorporated into staff’s 

analyses. 

CPSC agrees that CSUs should be 

inherently stable and should not require 

a tip restraint to prevent tip overs. As 

explains above, there are several barriers 

to the use of tip restraints and research 

that suggests that the rate of anchoring 

CSUs is low. Additionally, although the 

proposed rule includes a warning label 

requirement to inform consumers of the 

hazard and to motivate them to install 

tip restraints as a secondary safety 

mechanism, warnings have limited 

effectiveness in addressing the tip-over 

hazard. 

XI. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

The Commission considered several 

alternatives to reduce the risk of injuries 

and death related to CSU tip overs. 

However, as discussed below, the 

Commission concludes that none of 

these alternatives would adequately 

reduce the risk of injury. 

A. No Regulatory Action 

One alternative to the proposed rule 

is to take no regulatory action and, 

instead, rely on voluntary recalls, 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard, and education campaigns. The 

Commission has relied on these 

alternatives to address the CSU tip-over 

hazard to date. 

Between January 1, 2000 and March 

31, 2021, 40 consumer-level recalls 

occurred in response to CSU tip-over 

hazards. The recalled products were 

responsible for 328 tip-over incidents, 

involved 34 firms, and affected 

approximately 21,500,000 CSUs. ASTM 

F2057 has included stability 

requirements for unloaded and loaded 

CSUs since its inception in 2000 and, 

based on CPSC testing, there is a high 

rate of compliance with the standard; 

CPSC’s market survey of 188 CSUs 

found that 91 percent complied with the 

stability requirements in ASTM F2057. 

In addition, CPSC’s Anchor It! 

campaign—an education campaign 

intended to inform consumers about the 

risk of CSU tip overs, provide safety tips 

for avoiding tip overs, and promote the 

use of tip restraints—has been in effect 

since 2015. 

Given that this alternative primarily 

relies on existing CPSC actions, the 

primary costs staff estimates for this 

alternative are associated with tip 

restraints. However, this alternative is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6297 

133Staff estimates that the proposed rule would 

reduce nonfatal climbing injuries by 91 percent, 

addressing 375.48 of the 412 climbing NEISS cases 

reviewed. Staff estimates that a rule that protects 

children weighing 29.1 pounds or less would 

address only 110.08 of the incidents or about 27 

percent. 

134Based on NEISS estimates for 2015 through 

2019. 

unlikely to provide additional benefits 

to adequately reduce the risk of CSU tip 

overs. For one, CPSC does not consider 

ASTM F2057 adequate to address the 

hazard because it does not account for 

several factors involved in tip-over 

incidents that contribute to instability, 

including multiple open and filled 

drawers, carpeting, and forces generated 

by children’s interactions with the CSU. 

Based on the UMTRI studies of the 

dynamic forces imparted by children 

climbing on CSUs and staff testing of 

CSUs on carpeting, staff estimates that, 

even if all CSUs complied with ASTM 

F2057–19, that would only protect 

children weighing less than 29.1 pounds 

when climbing on a CSU, providing 70 

percent of the benefits expected from 

the proposed rule.133

In addition, as Tab C of the NPR 

briefing package explains, several 

studies indicate that the rate of 

consumer anchoring of furniture, 

including CSUs, is low. A 2010 CPSC 

survey found that 9 percent of 

participants who responded to a 

question about anchoring furniture 

under their television indicated that 

they had; the same survey found that 10 

percent of consumers who used a CSU 

to hold their television reported 

anchoring the CSU. A 2018 Consumer 

Reports study found that 27 percent of 

consumers overall, and 40 percent of 

consumers with children under 6 years 

old in the home, had anchored 

furniture; the same study found that 10 

percent of those with a dresser, tall 

chest, or wardrobe had anchored it. 

CPSC’s 2020 study on the Anchor It! 

campaign found that 55 percent of 

respondents (which included parents 

and caregivers of children 5 years old 

and younger) reported anchoring 

furniture. As such, on their own, these 

options have limited ability to further 

reduce the risk of injury and death 

associated with CSU tip overs. CPSC’s 

use of this alternative to date illustrates 

this since, despite these efforts, there 

has been no declining trend in child 

injuries from CSU tip overs (without 

televisions). 

B. Require Performance and Technical 

Data 

Another alternative is to adopt a 

standard that requires only performance 

and technical data, similar to or the 

same as the hang tag requirements in the 

proposed rule, with no performance 

requirements for stability. This could 

consist of a test method to assess the 

stability of a CSU model, a calculation 

for determining a stability rating based 

on the test results, and a requirement 

that the rating be provided for each CSU 

on a hang tag. A stability rating would 

give consumers information on the 

stability of CSU models they are 

considering, to inform their buying 

decisions, and potentially give 

manufacturers an incentive to achieve a 

higher stability rating to increase their 

competitiveness or increase their appeal 

to consumers that desire more stable 

CSUs. The hang tag could also connect 

the stability rating to safety concerns, 

providing consumers with information 

about improving stability. 

Because this alternative would not 

establish a minimum safety standard, it 

would not require manufacturers to 

discontinue or modify CSUs. Therefore, 

the only direct cost of this alternative 

would be the cost to manufacturers of 

testing their CSUs to establish their 

stability rating and labeling their CSUs 

in accordance with the required 

information. Any changes in the design 

of the CSUs would be the result of 

manufacturers responding to changes in 

consumer demand for particular 

models. 

However, the Commission does not 

consider this alternative adequate, on its 

own, to reduce the risk of injury from 

CSU tip overs. Similar to tip restraints, 

this alternative relies on consumers, 

rather than making CSUs inherently 

stable. This assumes that consumers 

will consider the stability rating, and 

accurately assess their need for more 

stable CSUs. However, this is not a 

reliable approach to address this hazard, 

based on the low rates of anchoring, and 

the FMG focus group, which suggests 

that caregivers may underestimate the 

potential for a CSU to tip over, and 

overestimate their ability to prevent tip 

overs by watching children. In addition, 

this alternative would not address the 

risk to children outside their homes 

(where the stability of CSUs may not 

have been considered), or CSUs 

purchased before a child’s birth. The 

long service life of CSUs and the 

unpredictability of visitors or family 

changes in that timespan, and these 

potential future risks might not be 

considered at the time of the original 

purchase. 

C. Adopt a Performance Standard 

Addressing 60-Pound Children 

Another alternative is to adopt a 

mandatory standard with the same 

requirements as the proposed rule, but 

addressing 60-pound children, rather 

than 51.2-pound children. This 

alternative would be more stringent 

than the proposed rule. 

About 74 percent of CSU tip-over 

injuries to children involve children 4 

years old and younger,134 and these are 

addressed by the proposed rule, because 

the 95th percentile weight for 4-year-old 

children is approximately 52 pounds. 

The proposed rule would also address 

some of the injuries to children who are 

5 and 6 years old, as well, because many 

of these children also weigh less than 

51.2 pounds. Mandating a rule that 

would protect 60-pound children would 

increase the benefit associated with 

child fatal and nonfatal injuries by 

about $10.9 million, and the rule could 

increase the benefits associated with 

reductions in adult fatal and nonfatal 

injuries by $3.2 million or a total of 

$14.1 million annually. This comes to 

about 3 cents per unit on an annual 

basis. Over an assumed 15-year life of a 

CSU, this comes to 7 cents per unit, 

assuming a 7 percent discount rate, 36 

cents assuming a 3 percent discount 

rate, or 45 cents without discounting. 

Therefore, increasing the weight of the 

child protected to 60 pounds would 

only increase benefits by about 4.5 

percent over the benefits that could be 

obtained by the proposed rule. 

Presumably, the cost of manufacturing 

furniture that complies with this more 

rigorous alternative would be somewhat 

higher than the costs of manufacturing 

CSUs that comply with the proposed 

rule, using similar, but somewhat more 

extensive modifications. Because this 

alternative would provide only a limited 

increase in benefits, but a higher level 

of costs than the proposed rule, the 

Commission did not select this 

alternative. 

D. Mandate ASTM F2057 With a 60- 

Pound Test Weight 

Another alternative would be to 

mandate a standard like ASTM F2057– 

19, but replace the 50-pound test weight 

with a 60-pound test weight. Sixty 

pounds approximately represents the 

95th percentile weight of 5-year-old 

children, which is the age ASTM 

F2057–19 claims to address. This 

alternative was discussed in the ANPR. 

This alternative would be less costly 

than the proposed rule, because, based 

on CPSC testing, about 57 percent of 

CSUs on the market would already meet 

this requirement. The cost of modifying 

CSUs that do not comply is likely to be 

less than modifying them to comply 

with the proposed rule, which is more 

stringent. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6298 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

By increasing the test weight, it is 

possible that this alternative would 

prevent some CSU tip overs. However, 

this alternative still would not account 

for the factors that occur during CSU 

tip-over incidents that contribute to 

instability, including multiple open and 

filled drawers, carpeting, and the 

horizontal and dynamic forces from 

children’s interactions with the CSU. As 

this preamble and the NPR briefing 

package explain, a 60-pound test weight 

does not equate to protecting a 60- 

pound child. The UMTRI study 

demonstrates that children generate 

forces greater than their weight during 

certain interactions with a CSU, 

including interactions that are common 

in CSU tip-over incidents. Because this 

alternative does not account for these 

factors, staff estimates that it may only 

protect children who weigh around 38 

pounds or less, which is approximately 

the 75th percentile weight of 3-year-old 

children. For these reasons, the 

Commission does not believe this 

alternative would adequately reduce the 

CSU tip-over hazard, and did not select 

this alternative. 

E. Longer Effective Date 

Another alternative would be to 

provide a longer effective date than the 

30-day effective date in the proposed 

rule. It is likely that hundreds of 

manufacturers, including importers, 

will have to modify potentially several 

thousand CSU models to comply with 

the proposed rule, which will require 

understanding the requirements, 

redesigning the CSUs, and 

manufacturing compliant units. Delays 

in meeting the effective date could 

result in disruptions to the supply 

chain, or fewer choices being available 

to consumers, at least in the short term. 

A longer effective date could reduce the 

costs associated with the rule and 

mitigate potential disruption to the 

supply chain. However, delaying the 

effective date would delay the safety 

benefits of the rule as well. As such, the 

Commission did not select this 

alternative. However, the Commission 

requests comments about the proposed 

effective date. 

XII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to public comment and 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 

3501–3521). Under the PRA, an agency 

must publish the following information: 

• A title for the collection of 

information; 

• a summary of the collection of 

information; 

• a brief description of the need for 

the information and the proposed use of 

the information; 

• a description of the likely 

respondents and proposed frequency of 

response to the collection of 

information; 

• an estimate of the burden that will 

result from the collection of 

information; and 

• notice that comments may be 

submitted to OMB. 

44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D). In accordance 

with this requirement, the Commission 

provides the following information: 

Title: Safety Standard for Clothing 

Storage Units. 

Summary, Need, and Use of 

Information: The proposed consumer 

product safety standard prescribes the 

safety requirements, including labeling 

and hang tag requirements, for CSUs. 

These requirements are intended to 

reduce or eliminate an unreasonable 

risk of death or injury to consumers 

from CSU tip overs. 

Requirements for marking and 

labeling, in the form of warning labels, 

and requirements to provide 

performance and technical data by 

labeling, in the form of a hang tag, will 

provide information to consumers. 

Warning labels on CSUs will provide 

warnings to the consumer regarding 

product use. Hang tags will provide 

information to the consumer regarding 

the stability of the unit. These 

requirements fall within the definition 

of ‘‘collection of information,’’ as 

defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). 

Section 27(e) of the CPSA authorizes 

the Commission to require, by rule, that 

manufacturers of consumer products 

provide to the Commission performance 

and technical data related to 

performance and safety as may be 

required to carry out the purposes of the 

CPSA, and to give notification of such 

performance and technical data at the 

time of original purchase to prospective 

purchasers and to the first purchaser of 

the product. 15 U.S.C. 2076(e). Section 

2 of the CPSA provides that one purpose 

of the CPSA is to ‘‘assist consumers in 

evaluating the comparative safety of 

consumer products.’’ 15 U.S.C. 

2051(b)(2). 

Section 14 of the CPSA requires 

manufacturers, importers, or private 

labelers of a consumer product subject 

to a consumer product safety rule to 

certify, based on a test of each product 

or a reasonable testing program, that the 

product complies with all rules, bans or 

standards applicable to the product. In 

the case that a CSU could be considered 

to be a children’s product, the 

certification must be based on testing by 

an accredited third-party conformity 

assessment body. The proposed rule for 

CSUs specifies the test procedure be 

used to determine whether a CSU 

complies with the requirements. For 

products that manufacturers certify, 

manufacturers would issue a general 

certificate of conformity (GCC). 

Identification and labeling 

requirements will provide information 

to consumers and regulators needed to 

locate and recall noncomplying 

products. Identification and labeling 

requirements include content such as 

the name and address of the 

manufacturer. 

Warning labels will provide 

information to consumers on hazards 

and risks associated with product use. 

Warning label requirements include 

size, content, format, location, and 

permanency. 

The standard requires that CSU 

manufacturers provide technical 

information for consumers on a hang tag 

at the point of purchase. The 

information provided on the hang tag 

would allow consumers to make 

informed decisions on the comparative 

stability of CSUs when making a 

purchase and would provide a 

competitive incentive for manufactures 

to improve the stability of CSUs. 

Specifically, the manufacturer of a CSU 

would provide a hang tag with every 

CSU that explains the stability of the 

unit. CSU hangtag requirements 

include: 

• Size: Every hangtag shall be at least 

5 inches wide by 7 inches tall. 

• Content: Every CSU shall be offered 

for sale with a hang tag that states the 

stability rating for the CSU model. 

• Attachment: Every hang tag shall be 

attached to the CSU and clearly visible. 

The hang tag shall be attached to the 

CSU and lost or damaged hang tags 

must be replaced. The hang tags may be 

removed only by the first purchaser. 

• Placement: The hang tag shall 

appear on the product and immediate 

container of the product in which the 

product is normally offered for sale at 

retail. Ready-to-assemble furniture shall 

display the hang tag on the main panel 

of consumer-level packaging. Any units 

shipped directly to consumers shall 

contain the hang tag on the immediate 

container of the product. 

• Format: The format of the hang tag 

is provided in the proposed rule and the 

hang tag shall include the elements 

shown in the example provided. 

The requirements for the GCC are 

stated in section 14 of the CPSA. Among 

other requirements, each certificate 

must identify the manufacturer or 

private labeler issuing the certificate 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6299 

and any third-party conformity 

assessment body, on whose testing the 

certificate depends, the date and place 

of manufacture, the date and place 

where the product was tested, each 

party’s name, full mailing address, 

telephone number, and contact 

information for the individual 

responsible for maintaining records of 

test results. The certificates must be in 

English. The certificates must be 

furnished to each distributor or retailer 

of the product and to CPSC, if 

requested. 

Respondents and Frequency: 

Respondents include manufacturers and 

importers of CSUs. Manufacturers and 

importers will have to comply with the 

information collection requirements 

when the CSUs are manufactured or 

imported; this is addressed further in 

the discussion of estimated burden. 

Estimated Burden: CPSC has 

estimated the respondent burden in 

hours, and the estimated labor costs to 

the respondent. The hourly burden for 

labeling can be divided into two parts. 

The first part includes designing the 

label and the hang tag that will be used 

for each model. The second part 

includes physically attaching the label 

and hang tag to each CSU. Additionally, 

the burden for third-party testing is 

estimated for a subset of CSUs. 

Manufacturers will have to place a 

hang tag on each CSU sold. In 2018, 

about 43.6 million CSUs were sold in 

the United States. This would be a 

reasonable estimate of the number of 

responses per year. CPSC estimates 

there to be 7,000 suppliers of CSUs for 

which there would be an hourly burden, 

as defined by the PRA. CPSC estimates 

that there are about 35,000 different 

models of CSUs, or an average of 5 

models per manufacturer. 

Estimate of Respondent Burden. The 

hourly reporting burden imposed on 

firms includes the time it will take them 

to design and update hang tags, and 

identification labeling, including 

warning labels, as well as the hourly 

burden of attaching them to all CSUs 

sold domestically. 

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN

Burden type Type of supplier Total annual 

reponses 

Length of 

response 

Annual burden 

(hours) 

Labeling, design and update .......................... Manufacturer or Importer ............................... 35,000 ............ 12 min ............ 7,000 

Labeling, attachment ...................................... Manufacturer, Importer, or Retailer ................ 43.6 million .... .06 min ........... 43,600 

Total Labeling Burden ............................. ......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 50,600 

Third-party recordkeeping, certification .......... Manufacturers of Children’s CSUs ................ 21,800 ............ 3 hours ........... 65,400 

Total Hourly Burden ................................ ......................................................................... ........................ ........................ 116,000 

CPSC estimates that it could take an 

hour for a supplier to design the hang 

tags and identification labeling, and that 

the design could be used for a period of 

five years, or until the CSU is 

redesigned. At 60 minutes per hang tag, 

and an average of 5 models per firm, the 

hourly burden for designing a hang tag 

that will be used for five years is 1 hour 

(60 min × 5 models ÷ 5 years). 

Therefore, for 7,000 firms, the annual 

burden would be 7,000 hours. 

CPSC estimates it could take 0.06 

minutes (3.6 seconds) for a supplier to 

attach the hang tag to the CSU, for each 

of the 43.6 million units sold in the 

United States annually. Attaching the 

hang tag to the CSU would amount to 

an hourly burden of 43,600 hours (0.06 

min × 43,600,000 CSUs). 

In addition, three types of third-party 

testing of children’s products are 

required: Certification testing, material 

change testing, and periodic testing. 

Requirements state that manufacturers 

conduct sufficient testing to ensure that 

they have a high degree of assurance 

that their children’s products comply 

with all applicable children’s product 

safety rules before such products are 

introduced into commerce. If a 

manufacturer conducts periodic testing, 

it is required to keep records that 

describe how the samples of periodic 

testing are selected. The hour burden of 

recordkeeping requirements will likely 

vary greatly from product to product, 

depending on such factors as the 

complexity of the product and the 

amount of testing that must be 

documented. Therefore, estimates of the 

hour burden of the recordkeeping 

requirements are somewhat speculative. 

CPSC estimates that 0.05 percent of 

all CSUs sold annually, 21,800 CSUs, 

are children’s products and would be 

subject to third-party testing, for which 

3 hours of recordkeeping and record 

maintenance will be required. Thus, the 

total hourly burden of the recordkeeping 

associated with certification is 65,400 

hours (3 × 21,800). 

Labor Cost of Respondent Burden. 

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS), Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation, the total 

compensation cost per hour worked for 

all private industry workers was $36.64 

(March 2021, Table 4, https://

www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ 

ecec.pdf). Based on this analysis, CPSC 

staff estimates that the labor cost of 

respondent burden would impose a cost 

to industry of approximately $4,250,240 

annually (116,000 hours × $36.64 per 

hour). 

Respondent Costs Other Than Burden 

Hour Costs. In addition to the labor 

burden costs addressed above, the hang 

tag requirement imposes additional 

annualized costs. These costs include 

capital costs for cardstock used for each 

hang tag to be displayed and the wire or 

string used to attach the hang tag to the 

CSU. CPSC estimates the cost of the 

printed hang tag and wire for attaching 

the hang tag to the CSU will be about 

$0.10. Therefore, the total cost of 

materials to industry would be about 

$4.36 million per year ($0.10 × 43.6 

million units). 

Cost to the Federal Government. The 

estimated annual cost of the information 

collection requirements to the federal 

government is approximately $4,172, 

which includes 60 staff hours to 

examine and evaluate the information as 

needed for Compliance activities. This 

is based on a GS–12, step 5 level 

salaried employee. The average hourly 

wage rate for a mid-level salaried GS– 

12 employee in the Washington, DC 

metropolitan area (effective as of 

January 2021) is $47.35 (GS–12, step 5). 

This represents 68.1 percent of total 

compensation (U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation,’’ March 2021, 

Table 2, percentage of wages and 

salaries for all civilian management, 

professional, and related employees: 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

ecec.t02.htm). Adding an additional 

31.9 percent for benefits brings average 

annual compensation for a mid-level 

salaried GS–12 employee to $69.53 per 

hour. Assuming that approximately 60 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6300 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

135Further details about the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis are available in Tab I of the NPR 

briefing package. Additional information about 

costs associated with the rule are available in Tab 

H of the NPR briefing package. 

136U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of 

Small Business Size Standards Matched to North 

American Industry Classification System Codes 

(2019), available at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2019-08/SBA%20Table%20

of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20Aug%2019

%2C%202019_Rev.pdf. 

hours will be required annually, this 

results in an annual cost of $4,172 

($69.53 per hour × 60 hours = 

$4,171.80). 

Comments. CPSC has submitted the 

information collection requirements of 

this rule to OMB for review, in 

accordance with PRA requirements. 44 

U.S.C. 3507(d). CPSC requests that 

interested parties submit comments 

regarding information collection to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, OMB (see the ADDRESSES section 

at the beginning of this NPR). 

Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), 

the Commission invites comments on: 

• Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of CPSC’s functions, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; 

• the accuracy of CPSC’s estimate of 

the burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

• ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information the 

Commission proposes to collect; 

• ways to reduce the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques, when 

appropriate, and other forms of 

information technology; 

• the estimated burden hours 

associated with labels and hang tags, 

including any alternative estimates; and 

• the estimated respondent cost other 

than burden hour cost. 

XIII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 135

This section provides an analysis of 

the impact on small businesses of a 

proposed rule that would establish a 

mandatory safety standard for CSUs. 

Whenever an agency is required to 

publish a proposed rule, section 603 of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601–612) requires that the agency 

prepare an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) that describes the 

impact that the rule would have on 

small businesses and other entities. An 

IRFA is not required if the head of an 

agency certifies that the proposed rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 5 U.S.C. 605. The IRFA must 

contain: 

(1) A description of why action by the 

agency is being considered; 

(2) a succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

(3) a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply; 

(4) a description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities which will 

be subject to the requirement and the 

type of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

(5) identification, to the extent 

practicable, of relevant Federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap or conflict 

with the proposed rule. 

An IRFA must also describe any 

significant alternatives that would 

accomplish the stated objectives of the 

applicable statutes and that would 

minimize any significant economic 

impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities. Alternatives could include: (1) 

Establishing different compliance or 

reporting requirements that consider the 

resources available to small businesses; 

(2) clarification, consolidation, or 

simplification of compliance and 

reporting requirements for small 

entities; (3) use of performance rather 

than design standards; and (4) an 

exemption from coverage of the rule, or 

any part of the rule thereof, for small 

entities. 

A. Reason for Agency Action 

The intent of this rulemaking is to 

reduce deaths and injuries resulting 

from CSUs tipping over on children. 

These tip-over incidents commonly 

result when young children attempt to 

climb on the CSU or open drawers; the 

weight and interaction of the child 

combined with the weight of any open 

and filled drawers causes the CSU to tip 

forward and fall on the child. Children 

can be killed or injured from the impact 

of the CSU falling on them or by being 

trapped beneath the CSU, restricting 

their ability to breathe. This preamble, 

and Tab A of the NPR briefing package, 

provide incident data for CSU tip overs. 

In addition, the Preliminary Regulatory 

Analysis, above, and in Tab H of the 

NPR briefing package, provide further 

information about medically treated 

CSU tip-over injuries from the ICM. 

That data demonstrates the need for 

agency action, and staff considered that 

data for the IRFA. 

B. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the 

Rule 

The objective of the proposed rule is 

to reduce deaths and injuries resulting 

from tip-over incidents involving CSUs. 

The Commission published an ANPR in 

November 2017, which initiated this 

proceeding to evaluate regulatory 

options and potentially develop a 

mandatory standard to address the risks 

of CSU tip-over deaths and injuries. The 

proposed rule would be issued under 

the authority of the CPSA. 

C. Small Entities to Which the Rule Will 

Apply 

The proposed rule would apply to 

small entities that manufacture or 

import CSUs. Manufacturers of CSUs 

are principally classified in the North 

American Industrial Classification 

(NAICS) category 337122 (nonupholstered wood household furniture 

manufacturing), but may also be 

categorized in NAICS codes 337121 

(upholstered household furniture 

manufacturing), 337124 (metal 

household furniture manufacturing), or 

337125 (household furniture (except 

wood and metal) manufacturing). 

According to data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau, in 2017, there were a total of 

3,404 firms classified in these four 

furniture categories. Of these firms, 

2,024 were primarily categorized in the 

non-upholstered wood furniture 

category. More than 99 percent of the 

firms primarily categorized as 

manufacturers of non-upholstered wood 

furniture would be considered small 

businesses, as were 97 percent of firms 

in the other furniture categories, 

according to the U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards.136

CPSC notes that these categories are 

broad and include manufacturers of 

other types of furniture, such as tables, 

chairs, bed frames, and sofas. It is also 

likely that not all of the firms in these 

categories manufacture CSUs. 

Production methods and efficiencies 

vary among manufacturers; some make 

use of mass-production techniques, and 

others manufacture their products one 

at a time, or on a custom-order basis. 

The number of U.S. firms that are 

primarily classified as manufacturers of 

non-upholstered wood household 

furniture has declined over the last few 

decades because retailers have turned to 

international sources of CSUs and other 

wood furniture. Additionally, firms that 

formerly produced all of their CSUs 

domestically have shifted production to 

foreign plants. Well over half (64 

percent) of the value of apparent 

consumption of non-upholstered wood 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6301 

137 Israel, J., Cahill, A., Baxter, J., Final Clothing 

Storage Units Cost Impact Analysis, Industrial 

Economics, Incorporated contract report (June 7, 

2019), available at: https://ecpsc.cpsc.gov/apps/6bTemp/Section%206b%20Tracking/ 

Final%20Clothing%20Storage%20Units%20

(CSUs)%20Cost%20Impact%20Analysis.pdf. 

furniture (net imports plus domestic 

production for the U.S. market) in 2019 

was comprised of imported furniture, 

and this likely was true for CSUs, as 

well. Firms that import furniture would 

likely be impacted by any rule that the 

Commission might promulgate 

regulating CSUs because they would 

have to ensure that any products that 

they import meet the requirements of 

the rule. 

Under the NAICS classification 

system, importers are classified as either 

wholesalers or retailers. Furniture 

wholesalers are classified in NAICS 

category 423210 (Furniture Merchant 

Wholesalers). According to the Census 

Bureau data, in 2017, there were 5,117 

firms involved in household furniture 

importation and distribution. A total of 

4,920 of these (or 96 percent) are 

classified as small businesses because 

they employ fewer than 100 employees 

(which is the SBA size standard for 

NAICS category 423210). Furniture 

retailers are classified in NAICS 

category 442110 (Furniture Stores). 

According to the Census Bureau, there 

were 13,826 furniture retailers in 2017. 

The SBA considers furniture retailers to 

be small businesses if their gross 

revenue is less than $22 million. Using 

these criteria, at least 97 percent of the 

furniture retailers are small (based on 

revenue data from the 2012 Economic 

Census of the United States). 

Wholesalers and retailers may obtain 

their products from domestic sources or 

import them from foreign 

manufacturers. 

D. Compliance, Reporting, and 

Recordkeeping Requirements in the 

Proposed Rule 

The proposed rule would establish a 

mandatory standard that all CSUs 

would have to meet to be sold in the 

United States. The requirements of the 

proposed standard are described, in 

detail, in this preamble, and the 

proposed regulatory text is at the end of 

this notice. 

In addition to performance, labeling, 

and performance and technical 

information requirements, the proposed 

rule would also prohibit any person 

from manufacturing or importing 

noncomplying CSUs in any 1-month 

between the date of promulgation of the 

final rule and the effective date, at a rate 

that is greater than 105 percent of the 

rate at which they manufactured or 

imported CSUs during the base period 

for the manufacturer. The base period is 

the calendar month with the median 

manufacturing or import volume within 

the last 13 months immediately 

preceding the month of promulgation of 

the final rule. 

In addition, section 14 of the CPSA 

requires manufacturers, importers, or 

private labelers of a consumer product 

subject to a consumer product safety 

rule to certify, based on a test of each 

product or a reasonable testing program, 

that the product complies with all rules, 

bans or standards applicable to the 

product. The proposed rule specifies the 

test procedure to use to determine 

whether a CSU complies with the 

requirements. For products that 

manufacturers certify, manufacturers 

would issue a general certificate of 

conformity (GCC). In the case of CSUs 

that could be considered children’s 

products, the certification must be based 

on testing by an accredited third-party 

conformity assessment body. 

The requirements for the GCC are 

stated in section 14 of the CPSA. Among 

other requirements, each certificate 

must identify the manufacturer or 

private labeler issuing the certificate 

and any third-party conformity 

assessment body, on whose testing the 

certificate depends, the date and place 

of manufacture, the date and place 

where the product was tested, each 

party’s name, full mailing address, 

telephone number, and contact 

information for the individual 

responsible for maintaining records of 

test results. The certificates must be in 

English. The certificates must be 

furnished to each distributor or retailer 

of the product and to CPSC, if 

requested. 

1. Costs of the Proposed Rule That 

Would Be Incurred by Small 

Manufacturers 

CPSC staff evaluated potential 

modifications that could be made to 

CSUs to improve their stability and 

comply with the proposed rule. These 

potential modifications represent 

changes that could be made to existing 

CSU designs, rather than design 

changes, and were merely intended as 

an example of potential options 

manufacturers could use to comply with 

the proposed rule. The potential 

modifications are described in detail in 

Tab D of the NPR briefing package. The 

most effective modification staff 

identified for improving CSU stability 

was interlock systems, which limit the 

number of drawers that can be open 

simultaneously. Additional options 

include adding a counterweight to the 

CSU; extending the front legs or edge of 

the CSU; reducing the distance that 

drawers may be extended; and 

increasing the height of the front legs to 

tilt the CSU backwards. Most CSUs may 

require a combination of these 

modifications. 

Based on an analysis of how five 

CSUs could be modified to meet the cost 

of the proposed rule, CPSC staff 

estimated the potential cost increases to 

CSU manufacturers. For four of the 

CSUs, the cost estimates were $13 or 

more per unit, and in some cases 

exceeded $25, which exceeds the 

estimated average benefits per unit. For 

the fifth CSU, the estimated cost 

estimates of the modifications were in 

the same range as the estimated benefits 

per unit. Firms may choose other 

methods or different combinations 

resulting in lower or higher costs. In 

addition to costs of product 

modifications, any reductions in utility 

that might be caused by modifications 

such as reductions in the drawer 

extensions or significantly higher 

weights have not been quantified; nor 

have any aesthetic costs or the 

possibility of a tripping hazard that 

might result from the addition of 

significant foot extensions. Some 

models could require such substantial 

modifications that they no longer have 

the characteristics of the original models 

and manufacturers might withdraw 

them from the market, creating some 

unquantified loss of consumer utility. 

The above estimates include the 

variable costs related to changes such as 

additional hardware, materials that 

increase the weight, and increased 

shipping costs. They also include the 

fixed costs associated with the research 

and development required to redesign 

CSUs and tooling costs. If products have 

to be completely redesigned to meet the 

proposed standard (e.g., if adding 

weight or other minor modifications are 

not sufficient, and suppliers need to 

make drawers deeper and add new 

drawer slides), the changes could add 

substantial costs, or they could be offset 

with lighter weight front panels or tops. 

One supplier contacted by Industrial 

Economics Corporation, on behalf of 

CPSC, estimated the cost of redesigning 

a CSU model as $18,000, including 

prototype, testing, engineering, and 

design.137

Costs of model redesign per unit 

produced would be greater for smaller 

manufacturers with lower production 

volumes. For smaller, lower-volume 

producers, the per-unit costs of the 

components necessary to modify their 

CSUs might also be higher than those 

for higher volume producers. CSUs that 

meet the requirements of the proposed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6302 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

138 Industrial Economics, Incorporated (2019). 

Final Clothing Storage Units (CSUs) Market 

Research Report. CPSC Contractor Report. 

Researchers analyzed the characteristics of 890 

CSUs, and found a height range of 18 to 138 inches. 

rule may incorporate hardware designed 

to limit the ability of consumers to open 

multiple drawers at a time. Therefore, 

manufacturers would incur the costs of 

adding such drawer-interlock 

components. Based on information 

obtained from a CSU manufacturer, the 

cost of these components might average 

$6 to $12 per unit if the CSU only has 

one column of drawers. Component 

suppliers are likely to charge higher per 

unit prices to manufacturers that 

purchase fewer units. Also, larger 

companies with vertically integrated 

operations that own or operate suppliers 

can more easily adapt to changes in 

design and manufacturing, and 

therefore, may experience fewer impacts 

than smaller manufacturers without 

vertical integration. 

Manufacturers would likely incur 

some additional costs to certify that 

their CSUs meet the requirements of the 

proposed rule as required by section 14 

of the CPSA. The certification must be 

based on a test of each product or a 

reasonable testing program. The costs of 

the testing might be minimal, especially 

for small manufacturers that currently 

conduct testing for conformance to the 

current voluntary standard, ASTM 

F2057–19. Importers may also rely on 

testing completed by other parties, such 

as their foreign suppliers, if those tests 

provide sufficient information for the 

manufacturers or importers to certify 

that the CSUs comply with the proposed 

rule. In the case of CSUs that are 

children’s products, which are thought 

to constitute a very small portion of the 

market for CSUs, the cost of the 

certification testing could be somewhat 

higher because it would be required to 

be conducted by an accredited thirdparty testing laboratory. 

Small manufacturers and importers 

will also incur added costs of required 

warning labels and hang tags with 

comparative tip ratings. Those 

manufacturers currently using 

permanent warning labels in 

conformance with ASTM F2057–19, 

should not face significant incremental 

costs for the replacement labels 

specified by the proposed rule. The 

required hang tags showing tip ratings 

for each CSU would involve some 

incremental costs, although likely to be 

minor in relation to other product 

modifications required for compliance. 

The testing costs needed to generate the 

tip ratings will be incurred to comply 

with the performance testing of the 

proposed rule. 

2. Impacts on Small Businesses 

Average manufacturer shipment value 

for CSUs was $118 per unit in 2018 

(about $104 for chests of drawers and 

$144 for dressers). The estimated costs 

to manufacturers for product 

modifications to comply with the 

proposed rule range from about $5.80 

(in one case) up to $30 or more per unit. 

Generally, staff considers impacts that 

exceed one percent of a firm’s revenue 

to be potentially significant. Because the 

estimated average cost per CSU could be 

between about 5 percent and 25 percent 

of the average revenue per unit for 

CSUs, staff believes that the proposed 

rule could have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small 

manufacturers and importers that 

receive a significant portion of their 

revenue from the sale of CSUs. 

For many small importers, the impact 

of the proposed rule would be expected 

to be similar to the impact on small 

domestic manufacturers. Foreign 

suppliers may pass much of the cost of 

redesigning and manufacturing CSUs 

that comply with the proposed rule to 

their domestic distributors. Therefore, 

the cost increases experienced by small 

importers would be similar to those 

experienced by small manufacturers. 

Small importers would be responsible 

for issuing a GCC certifying that their 

CSUs comply with the rule. However, 

importers may rely upon testing 

performed and GCCs issued by their 

suppliers in complying with this 

requirement. In the case of CSUs that 

are children’s products, the certification 

must be based on testing by an 

accredited third-party conformity 

assessment body, which may involve 

additional costs. 

E. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

CPSC did not identify any federal 

rules that duplicate or conflict with the 

proposed rule. 

F. Alternatives Considered To Reduce 

the Burden on Small Entities 

As discussed in XI. Alternatives to the 

Proposed Rule, above, CPSC examined 

several alternatives to the proposed rule, 

which could reduce the burden on 

firms, including small entities. For the 

reasons described in that section, the 

Commission concluded that those 

alternatives would not adequately 

reduce the risk of injury and death 

associated with CSU tip overs, and is 

not proposing those alternatives. 

As part of that analysis, staff 

considered alternatives that could 

reduce the impact on small entities, 

specifically. One such alternative that 

could be specific to small entities could 

be variations on the proposed standard, 

such as reducing the required tip 

moment or testing units with weight in 

closed drawers of units with drawer 

interlock systems. Such modifications 

might reduce the need for other product 

changes, such as foot extensions, raising 

front feet, and added weight in the 

backs of CSUs. However, while perhaps 

reducing costs for manufacturers, such 

lessening of requirements would reduce 

the stability of units complying with the 

standard, thereby reducing the benefits 

of the standard. 

Another alternative that could be 

specific to small entities would be a 

longer effective date for the rule. In its 

report on potential cost impacts, 

Industrial Economics, Incorporated 138

concluded from its limited subset of 

interviews that it appears likely that, 

unlike larger firms involved in ASTM 

standards development, ‘‘many small 

furniture makers are not aware of the 

potential regulations under 

consideration.’’ Smaller firms may, 

therefore, find it much more difficult to 

meet an effective date of 30 days after 

the rule is published. As discussed in 

XI. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule, 

extending the period before the rule 

becomes effective could reduce costs, 

but would also delay the benefits of the 

rule. 

See Tab I of the NPR briefing package 

for further discussion of alternatives to 

the proposed rule. The Commission 

seeks comments on any alternatives that 

would reduce the impact on small 

entities, while adequately reducing the 

risk of injury and death associated with 

CSU tip overs. 

G. Request for Comments 

The Commission invites comments on 

this IRFA and the potential impact of 

the proposed rule on small entities, 

especially small businesses. In 

particular, the Commission seeks 

comments on: 

• The types and magnitude of 

manufacturing costs that might 

disproportionately impact small 

businesses or were not considered in 

this analysis; 

• the costs of the testing and 

certification, warning label, and hang 

tag requirements in the proposed rule; 

• the different impacts on small 

businesses associated with different 

effective dates; 

• different impacts of the proposed 

rule on small manufacturers or 

suppliers that compete in different 

segments of the CSU market; and 

• other alternatives that would 

minimize the impact on small 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6303 

139The CPSA defines a ‘‘manufacturer’’ as ‘‘any 

person who manufactures or imports a consumer 

product.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11). 

businesses but would still reduce the 

risk of CSU tip-over incidents. 

XIV. Incorporation by Reference 

The proposed rule incorporates by 

reference ASTM F2057–19. The Office 

of the Federal Register (OFR) has 

regulations regarding incorporation by 

reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these 

regulations, in the preamble of the NPR, 

an agency must summarize the 

incorporated material, and discuss the 

ways in which the material is 

reasonably available to interested 

parties or how the agency worked to 

make the materials reasonably available. 

1 CFR 51.5(a). In accordance with the 

OFR requirements, this preamble 

summarizes the provisions of ASTM 

F2057–19 that the Commission proposes 

to incorporate by reference. 

The standard is reasonably available 

to interested parties and interested 

parties can purchase a copy of ASTM 

F2057–19 from ASTM International, 100 

Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428–2959 USA; 

telephone: 610–832–9585; 

www.astm.org. Additionally, during the 

NPR comment period, a read-only copy 

of ASTM F2057–19 is available for 

viewing on ASTM’s website at: https:// 

www.astm.org/CPSC.htm. Once a final 

rule takes effect, a read-only copy of the 

standard will be available for viewing 

on the ASTM website at: https://

www.astm.org/READINGLIBRARY/. 

Interested parties can also schedule an 

appointment to inspect a copy of the 

standard at CPSC’s Division of the 

Secretariat, U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, 4330 East-West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, 

telephone: 301–504–7479; email: cpscos@cpsc.gov. 

XV. Testing, Certification, and Notice of 

Requirements 

Section 14(a) of the CPSA includes 

requirements for certifying that 

children’s products and non-children’s 

products comply with applicable 

mandatory standards. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). 

Section 14(a)(1) addresses required 

certifications for non-children’s 

products, and sections 14(a)(2) and 

(a)(3) address certification requirements 

specific to children’s products. 

A ‘‘children’s product’’ is a consumer 

product that is ‘‘designed or intended 

primarily for children 12 years of age or 

younger.’’ Id. 2052(a)(2). The following 

factors are relevant when determining 

whether a product is a children’s 

product: 

• Manufacturer statements about the 

intended use of the product, including 

a label on the product if such statement 

is reasonable; 

• whether the product is represented 

in its packaging, display, promotion, or 

advertising as appropriate for use by 

children 12 years of age or younger; 

• whether the product is commonly 

recognized by consumers as being 

intended for use by a child 12 years of 

age or younger; and 

• the Age Determination Guidelines 

issued by CPSC staff in September 2002, 

and any successor to such guidelines. 

Id. ‘‘For use’’ by children 12 years and 

younger generally means that children 

will interact physically with the product 

based on reasonably foreseeable use. 16 

CFR 1200.2(a)(2). Children’s products 

may be decorated or embellished with a 

childish theme, be sized for children, or 

be marketed to appeal primarily to 

children. Id. 1200.2(d)(1). 

As discussed above, some CSUs are 

children’s products and some are not. 

Therefore, a final rule on CSUs would 

subject CSUs that are not children’s 

products to the certification 

requirements under section 14(a)(1) of 

the CPSA and would subject CSUs that 

are children’s products to the 

certification requirements under section 

14(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the CPSA. The 

Commission’s requirements for 

certificates of compliance are codified at 

16 CFR part 1110. 

Non-Children’s Products. Section 

14(a)(1) of the CPSA requires every 

manufacturer (which includes 

importers 139) of a non-children’s 

product that is subject to a consumer 

product safety rule under the CPSA or 

a similar rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation under any other law enforced 

by the Commission to certify that the 

product complies with all applicable 

CPSC-enforced requirements. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(a)(1). 

Children’s Products. Section 14(a)(2) 

of the CPSA requires the manufacturer 

or private labeler of a children’s product 

that is subject to a children’s product 

safety rule to certify that, based on a 

third-party conformity assessment 

body’s testing, the product complies 

with the applicable children’s product 

safety rule. Id. 2063(a)(2). Section 14(a) 

also requires the Commission to publish 

a notice of requirements (NOR) for a 

third-party conformity assessment body 

(i.e., testing laboratory) to obtain 

accreditation to assess conformity with 

a children’s product safety rule. Id. 

2063(a)(3)(A). Because some CSUs are 

children’s products, the proposed rule is 

a children’s product safety rule, as 

applied to those products. Accordingly, 

if the Commission issues a final rule, it 

must also issue an NOR. 

The Commission published a final 

rule, codified at 16 CFR part 1112, 

entitled Requirements Pertaining to 

Third Party Conformity Assessment 

Bodies, which established requirements 

and criteria concerning testing 

laboratories. 78 FR 15836 (Mar. 12, 

2013). Part 1112 includes procedures for 

CPSC to accept a testing laboratory’s 

accreditation and lists the children’s 

product safety rules for which CPSC has 

published NORs. When CPSC issues a 

new NOR, it must amend part 1112 to 

include that NOR. Accordingly, as part 

of this NPR, the Commission proposes 

to amend part 1112 to add CSUs to the 

list of children’s product safety rules for 

which CPSC has issued an NOR. 

Testing laboratories that apply for 

CPSC acceptance to test CSUs that are 

children’s products for compliance with 

the new rule would have to meet the 

requirements in part 1112. When a 

laboratory meets the requirements of a 

CPSC-accepted third party conformity 

assessment body, the laboratory can 

apply to CPSC to include 16 CFR part 

1261, Safety Standard for Clothing 

Storage Units, in the laboratory’s scope 

of accreditation of CPSC safety rules 

listed on the CPSC website at: 

www.cpsc.gov/labsearch. 

XVI. Environmental Considerations 

The Commission’s regulations address 

whether CPSC is required to prepare an 

environmental assessment (EA) or an 

environmental impact statement (EIS). 

16 CFR 1021.5. Those regulations list 

CPSC actions that ‘‘normally have little 

or no potential for affecting the human 

environment,’’ and therefore, fall within 

a ‘‘categorical exclusion’’ under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4231–4370h) and the regulations 

implementing it (40 CFR parts 1500– 

1508) and do not require an EA or EIS. 

16 CFR 1021.5(c). Among those actions 

are rules that provide performance 

standards for products. Id. 1021.5(c)(1). 

Because this proposed rule would create 

performance requirements for CSUs, the 

proposed rule falls within the 

categorical exclusion, and thus, no EA 

or EIS is required. 

XVII. Preemption 

Executive Order (E.O.) 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform (Feb. 5, 1996), directs 

agencies to specify the preemptive effect 

of a rule in the regulation. 61 FR 4729 

(Feb. 7, 1996), section 3(b)(2)(A). In 

accordance with E.O. 12988, CPSC 

states the preemptive effect of the 

proposed rule, as follows: 

The regulation for CSUs is proposed 

under authority of the CPSA. 15 U.S.C. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6304 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

2051–2089. Section 26 of the CPSA 

provides that ‘‘whenever a consumer 

product safety standard under this Act 

is in effect and applies to a risk of injury 

associated with a consumer product, no 

State or political subdivision of a State 

shall have any authority either to 

establish or to continue in effect any 

provision of a safety standard or 

regulation which prescribes any 

requirements as to the performance, 

composition, contents, design, finish, 

construction, packaging or labeling of 

such product which are designed to deal 

with the same risk of injury associated 

with such consumer product, unless 

such requirements are identical to the 

requirements of the Federal Standard.’’ 

15 U.S.C. 2075(a). The federal 

government, or a state or local 

government, may establish or continue 

in effect a non-identical requirement for 

its own use that is designed to protect 

against the same risk of injury as the 

CPSC standard if the federal, state, or 

local requirement provides a higher 

degree of protection than the CPSA 

requirement. Id. 2075(b). In addition, 

states or political subdivisions of a state 

may apply for an exemption from 

preemption regarding a consumer 

product safety standard, and the 

Commission may issue a rule granting 

the exemption if it finds that the state 

or local standard: (1) Provides a 

significantly higher degree of protection 

from the risk of injury or illness than the 

CPSA standard, and (2) does not unduly 

burden interstate commerce. Id. 2075(c). 

Thus, the CSU requirements proposed 

in today’s Federal Register would, if 

finalized, preempt non-identical state or 

local requirements for CSUs designed to 

protect against the same risk of injury 

and prescribing requirements regarding 

the performance, composition, contents, 

design, finish, construction, packaging 

or labeling of CSUs. 

XVIII. Effective Date 

The CPSA requires that consumer 

product safety rules take effect at least 

30 days after the date the rule is 

promulgated, but not later than 180 days 

after the date the rule is promulgated 

unless the Commission finds, for good 

cause shown, that an earlier or a later 

effective date is in the public interest 

and, in the case of a later effective date, 

publishes the reasons for that finding. 

15 U.S.C. 2058(g)(1). The Commission 

proposes that this rule become effective 

30 days after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register. The rule 

would apply to all CSUs manufactured 

or imported on or after that effective 

date. Consistent with that, the 

Commission also proposes that the 

amendment to part 1112 become 

effective 30 days after publication of the 

final rule. The Commission requests 

comments on the proposed effective 

date. 

XIX. Proposed Findings 

The CPSA requires the Commission to 

make certain findings when issuing a 

consumer product safety standard. 

Specifically, the CPSA requires the 

Commission to consider and make 

findings about the following: 

• The degree and nature of the risk of 

injury the rule is designed to eliminate or 

reduce; 

• the approximate number of consumer 

products subject to the rule; 

• the need of the public for the products 

subject to the rule and the probable effect the 

rule will have on the cost, availability, and 

utility of such products; 

• any means to achieve the objective of the 

rule while minimizing adverse effects on 

competition, manufacturing, and commercial 

practices; 

• that the rule, including the effective date, 

is reasonably necessary to eliminate or 

reduce an unreasonable risk of injury 

associated with the product; 

• that issuing the rule is in the public 

interest; 

• if a voluntary standard addressing the 

risk of injury has been adopted and 

implemented, that either compliance with 

the voluntary standard is not likely to result 

in the elimination or adequate reduction of 

the risk or injury, or it is unlikely that there 

will be substantial compliance with the 

voluntary standard; 

• that the benefits expected from the rule 

bear a reasonable relationship to its costs; 

and 

• that the rule imposes the least 

burdensome requirement that prevents or 

adequately reduces the risk of injury. 

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

discusses these findings. 

A. Degree and Nature of the Risk of 

Injury 

Based on incident data available 

through NEISS and CPSRMS, there were 

193 reported CSU tip-over fatalities to 

children (i.e., under 18 years old), 11 

reported fatalities to adults (i.e., ages 18 

through 64 years), and 22 reported 

fatalities to seniors (i.e., ages 65 years 

and older) that were reported to have 

occurred between January 1, 2000 and 

December 31, 2020. Of the 193 reported 

child fatalities from CSU tip overs, 86 

percent (166 fatalities) involved 

children 3 years old or younger, 6 

percent (12 fatalities) involved 4-yearolds, 4 percent (7 fatalities) involved 5- 

year-olds, 2 percent (4 fatalities) 

involved 6-year-olds, less than one 

percent (1 fatality) involved a 7-yearold, and 2 percent (3 fatalities) involved 

8-year-olds. 

Based on NEISS, there were an 

estimated 78,200 injuries, an annual 

average of 5,600 estimated injuries, 

related to CSU tip overs for all ages that 

were treated in U.S. hospital EDs from 

January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2019. 

Of the estimated 78,200 injuries, 56,400 

(72 percent) were to children, which is 

an annual average of 4,000 estimated 

injuries to children over the 14-year 

period. In addition, the ICM projects 

that there were approximately 19,300 

CSU tip-over injuries treated in other 

settings from 2015 through 2019, or an 

average of 3,900 per year. Combining 

the NEISS estimate of injuries treated in 

hospital EDs with the ICM estimate of 

medically attended injuries treated in 

other settings brings the estimate of all 

nonfatal, medically attended CSU tipover injuries to children to 34,100 

during the years 2015 through 2019. 

Injuries to children, resulting from 

CSUs tipping over, include soft tissue 

injuries, skeletal injuries and bone 

fractures, and fatalities resulting from 

skull fractures, closed-head injuries, 

compressional and mechanical 

asphyxia, and internal organ crushing 

leading to hemorrhage. 

B. Number of Consumer Products 

Subject to the Proposed Rule 

In 2017, there were approximately 

463.5 million CSUs in use. In 2018, 

combined shipments of dressers and 

chests totaled 43.6 million units. 

Annual sales of CSUs total about 44 

million units. 

C. The Public Need for CSUs and the 

Effects of the Proposed Rule on Their 

Utility, Cost, and Availability 

Consumers commonly use CSUs to 

store clothing in their homes. The 

proposed rule provides a performance 

standard that requires CSUs to meet a 

minimum stability threshold, but does 

not restrict the design of CSUs. As such, 

CSUs that meet the standard would 

continue to serve the purpose of storing 

clothing in consumers’ homes. There 

may be a negative effect on the utility 

of CSUs if CSUs that comply with the 

standard are less convenient to use, 

such as altered designs to limit drawer 

extensions, an increase in the footprint 

of the product, or a reduction in storage 

capacity. Another potential effect on 

utility could occur if, in order to comply 

with the standard, manufacturers 

modify CSUs to eliminate certain 

desired characteristics or styles, or 

discontinue models. However, this loss 

of utility would be mitigated to the 

extent that other CSUs with similar 

characteristics and features are available 

that comply with the standard. 

Retail prices of CSUs vary 

substantially. The least expensive units 

retail for less than $100, while some 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6305 

more expensive units may retail for 

several thousand dollars. Of the 

potential modifications to comply with 

the standard for which CPSC staff was 

able to estimate the potential cost, the 

lowest costs were about $5.80 per unit; 

however, several were significantly 

higher. CSU prices may increase to 

reflect the added cost of modifying or 

redesigning products to comply with the 

standard, or to account for increased 

distribution costs if CSUs are heavier or 

include additional parts. In addition, 

consumers may incur a cost in the form 

of additional time to assemble CSUs if 

additional safety features are included. 

If the costs associated with 

redesigning or modifying a CSU model 

to comply with the standard results in 

the manufacturer discontinuing that 

model, there would be some loss in 

availability of CSUs. 

D. Other Means To Achieve the 

Objective of the Proposed Rule, While 

Minimizing Adverse Effects on 

Competition and Manufacturing 

The Commission considered 

alternatives to achieving the objective of 

the rule of reducing unreasonable risks 

of injury and death associated with CSU 

tip overs. For example, the Commission 

considered relying on voluntary recalls, 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard, and education campaigns, 

rather than issuing a standard. Because 

this is the approach CPSC has relied on, 

to date, this alternative would have 

minimal costs; however, it is unlikely to 

further reduce the risk of injury from 

CSU tip overs. 

The Commission also considered 

issuing a standard that requires only 

performance and technical data, with no 

performance requirements for stability. 

This would impose lower costs on 

manufacturers, but is unlikely to 

adequately reduce the risk of injury 

from CSU tip overs because it relies on 

manufacturers choosing to offer more 

stable units; consumer assessment of 

their need for more stable units (which 

CPSC’s research indicates consumers 

underestimate); and does not account 

for CSUs outside a child’s home or 

purchased before a child was born. 

The Commission also considered 

mandating a standard like ASTM 

F2057–19, but replacing the 50-pound 

test weight with a 60-pound test weight. 

This alternative would be less costly 

than the proposed rule, because many 

CSUs already meet such a requirement, 

and it would likely cost less to modify 

noncompliant units to meet this less 

stringent standard. However, this 

alternative is unlikely to adequately 

reduce the risk of CSU tip overs because 

it does not account for factors that are 

present in CSU tip-over incidents that 

contribute to CSU instability, including 

multiple open and filled drawers, 

carpeting, and forces generated by a 

child interacting with the CSU. 

Another alternative the Commission 

considered was providing a longer 

effective date. This may reduce the costs 

of the rule by spreading them over a 

longer period, but it would also delay 

the benefits of the rule, in the form of 

reduced deaths and injuries. 

Another alternative the Commission 

considered is adopting a mandatory 

standard with the requirements in the 

proposed rule, but addressing 60-pound 

children, rather than 51.2-pound 

children. However, this alternative 

would be more stringent than the 

proposed rule and, therefore, would 

likely increase the costs associated with 

the rule, while only increasing the 

benefits of the rule by about 4.5 percent. 

E. Unreasonable Risk 

As described above, incident data 

from NEISS and CPSRMS indicates that 

there were 226 reported CSU tip-over 

fatalities that were reported to have 

occurred between January 1, 2000 and 

December 31, 2020, of which 85 percent 

(193 incidents) were children, 5 percent 

(11 incidents) were adults, and 10 

percent (22 incidents) were seniors. Of 

the reported child fatalities from CSU 

tip overs, 86 percent (166 fatalities) 

involved children 3 years old or 

younger. 

Based on NEISS, there were an 

estimated 78,200 injuries, an annual 

average of 5,600 estimated injuries, 

related to CSU tip overs that were 

treated in U.S. hospital EDs from 

January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2019. 

Of these, 72 percent (56,400) were to 

children, which is an annual average of 

4,000 estimated injuries to children over 

the 14-year period. In addition, the ICM 

projects that there were approximately 

19,300 CSU tip-over injuries treated in 

other settings from 2015 through 2019, 

or an average of 3,900 per year. 

Combining the NEISS estimate of 

injuries treated in hospital EDs with the 

ICM estimate of medically attended 

injuries treated in other settings brings 

the estimate of all nonfatal, medically 

attended CSU tip-over injuries to 

children to 34,100 during the years 2015 

through 2019. 

Injuries to children when CSUs tip 

over can be serious. They include fatal 

injuries resulting from skull fractures, 

closed-head injuries, compressional and 

mechanical asphyxia, and internal organ 

crushing leading to hemorrhage; they 

also include serious nonfatal injuries, 

including skeletal injuries and bone 

fractures. 

The Commission estimates that the 

rule would result in aggregate benefits 

of about $305.5 million annually. Of the 

potential modifications for which staff 

was able to estimate the potential cost, 

the lowest costs were about $5.80 per 

unit. Several were significantly higher. 

Even assuming the low cost of about 

$5.80 per unit, assuming annual sales of 

at least 43 million units, the annual cost 

of the proposed rule would be around 

$250 million. In addition, there is an 

unquantifiable cost to consumers 

associated with lost utility and 

availability, and increased costs. 

The Commission concludes 

preliminarily that CSU tip overs pose an 

unreasonable risk of injury and finds 

that the proposed rule is reasonably 

necessary to reduce that unreasonable 

risk of injury 

F. Public Interest 

This proposed rule is intended to 

address an unreasonable risk of injury 

and death posed by CSUs tipping over. 

The Commission believes that 

adherence to the requirements of the 

proposed rule will significantly reduce 

CSU tip-over deaths and injuries in the 

future; thus, the rule is in the public 

interest. 

G. Voluntary Standards 

The Commission is aware of four 

voluntary and international standards 

that are applicable to CSUs: ASTM 

F2057–19, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Clothing Storage Units; 

AS/NZS 4935: 2009, the Australian/ 

New Zealand Standard for Domestic 

furniture—Freestanding chests of 

drawers, wardrobes and bookshelves/ 

bookcases—determination of stability; 

ISO 7171 (2019), the International 

Organization for Standardization 

International Standard for Furniture— 

Storage Units—Determination of 

stability; and EN14749 (2016), the 

European Standard, European Standard 

for Domestic and kitchen storage units 

and worktops—Safety requirements and 

test methods. The Commission does not 

consider the standards adequate because 

they do not account for the multiple 

factors that are commonly present 

simultaneously in CSU tip-over 

incidents and that testing indicates 

decrease the stability of the CSU. These 

factors include multiple open and filled 

drawers, carpeted flooring, and dynamic 

forces generated by children’s 

interactions with the CSU, such as 

climbing or pulling on the top drawer. 

H. Relationship of Benefits to Costs 

The aggregate benefits of the rule are 

estimated to be about $305.5 million 

annually; and the cost of the rule is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6306 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

estimated to be about $250 million 

annually (based on the lowest estimated 

cost of potential modifications to the 

units staff evaluated). On a per unit 

basis, the Commission estimates the 

expected benefits per unit to be $6.01, 

assuming a 7 percent discount rate; 

$7.88 assuming a 3 percent discount 

rate; and $9.90 without discounting. 

The Commission’s lowest estimated 

expected cost to manufacturers per unit 

is $5.80 (based on the CSUs evaluated), 

plus an unquantifiable cost to 

consumers associated with lost utility 

and availability, and increased costs. 

Based on this analysis, the Commission 

preliminarily finds that the benefits 

expected from the rule bear a reasonable 

relationship to the anticipated costs of 

the rule. 

I. Least Burdensome Requirement That 

Would Adequately Reduce the Risk of 

Injury 

The Commission considered lessburdensome alternatives to the 

proposed rule, but preliminarily 

concludes that none of these 

alternatives would adequately reduce 

the risk of injury. 

The Commission considered relying 

on voluntary recalls, compliance with 

the voluntary standard, and education 

campaigns, rather than issuing a 

mandatory standard. This alternative 

would have minimal costs, but would 

be unlikely to reduce the risk of injury 

from CSU tip overs. The Commission 

has relied on these efforts to date, but 

despite these efforts, there has been no 

declining trend in child injuries from 

CSU tip overs (without televisions) from 

2006 to 2019. 

The Commission considered issuing a 

standard that requires only performance 

and technical data, with no performance 

requirements for stability. This would 

impose lower costs on manufacturers, 

but is unlikely to adequately reduce the 

risk of injury because it relies on 

manufacturers choosing to offer more 

stable units; consumer assessment of 

their need for more stable units (which 

CPSC’s research indicates consumers 

underestimate); and does not account 

for CSUs outside a child’s home or 

purchased before a child was born. 

The Commission considered 

mandating a standard like ASTM 

F2057–19, but replacing the 50-pound 

test weight with a 60-pound test weight. 

This alternative would be less costly 

than the proposed rule, because many 

CSUs already meet such a requirement, 

and it would likely cost less to modify 

noncompliant units to meet this less 

stringent standard. However, this 

alternative is unlikely to adequately 

reduce the risk of CSU tip overs because 

it does not account for several factors 

that are simultaneously present in CSU 

tip-over incidents and contribute to 

instability, including multiple open and 

filled drawers, carpeting, and forces 

generated by a child interacting with the 

CSU. 

The Commission considered 

providing a longer effective date. This 

may reduce the costs of the rule by 

spreading them over a longer period, but 

it would also delay the benefits of the 

rule, in the form of reduced deaths and 

injuries. 

XX. Request for Comments 

The Commission invites comments on 

all aspects of the proposed rule. 

Comments should be submitted in 

accordance with the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice. The following are specific 

comment topics that the Commission 

would find helpful: 

A. Scope and Definitions 

• The scope of the proposed standard, 

including the products covered, and the 

characteristics used to define and 

identify CSUs; 

• the listed exclusions, including 

whether the excluded products should 

be included, or whether other products 

should be excluded; 

• whether the scope of the proposed 

rule should include CSUs under 27 

inches, or all CSUs, regardless of height; 

• whether lightweight units, 

including lightweight plastic units, 

should be excluded from the scope of 

the rule, and if so, the safety 

justification for doing so, and what the 

weight threshold should be and why; 

• whether all freestanding items 

marketed and/or advertised as suitable 

for clothing storage should be included 

in the scope of the standard, even if they 

would otherwise be excluded based on 

their design; 

• whether nightstands with drawers 

and/or doors should be included in the 

scope and what design features and 

safety considerations distinguish 

nightstands from CSUs; 

• design features that distinguish 

non-CSU cabinets from door chests and 

other similar CSUs; and 

• the proposed definitions, including 

whether any definitions should be 

modified, or any additional terms 

should be defined. 

B. Fill Requirements 

• Whether the fill amounts for 

drawers and pull-out shelves at 8.5 

pounds per cubic foot are reasonable or 

should be revised; 

• data on the weight of clothes in 

drawers; and 

• whether pull-out shelves should be 

tested with the same storage density as 

drawers, or would a lower fill weight for 

pull-out drawers be appropriate (e.g., 

4.25 pounds per cubic foot). 

C. Performance Requirements 

• The stability requirements, and 

whether they are adequate, or should be 

modified; 

• whether the moment requirements 

should be increased (e.g., the same 

stability requirements as in the 

proposed rule, but with a 60-pound 

child interaction, or simulating more 

aggressive behavior) or decreased (e.g., 

use different force/moment values to 

simulate climbing); 

• the proposed test methods and any 

alternatives; 

• whether a 1.5-degree forward tilt 

adequately replicates the effects of a 

CSU resting on carpet; 

• whether an inclined surface test 

should be added to account for sloped 

floors; 

• whether ANSI/BIFMA SOHO S6.5– 

2008 (R2013) requirements for 

interlocks are appropriate to consider 

for CSU interlocks, or what different 

requirements to consider and why; 

• whether the 30-pound proposed 

performance requirement is adequate to 

assess that the drawer interlock design 

cannot be easily defeated or overridden 

by consumers; 

• whether drawer interlocks should 

be subject to a performance requirement 

to ensure designs cannot be easily 

defeated or overridden by consumers; 

• whether labeling or instructions for 

proper leveling on carpet should be a 

requirement; 

• whether levelling devices should be 

non-adjustable to account for carpeting; 

• whether levelling devices should be 

allowed to be adjusted per the 

manufacturer instructions during 

stability testing; 

• whether levelling devices should 

include preset heights to account for 

carpeting; 

• whether levelling devices should 

require a permanent adjustment mark 

that indicates the position 

recommended for use on a carpeted 

surface; 

• whether the criteria to measure the 

maximum tip-over load should be the 

rear of the CSU lifting off at least 1⁄4 inch 

from the test surface; 

• whether interlocks for ready-toassemble furniture should be preassembled and/or automatically engage; 

• how to test interlock systems that 

have an override, such as two drawers 

opened simultaneously, and how to 

determine whether children can engage 

an override, and associated test 

methods; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6307 

• whether interlocks on other 

extendible elements besides drawers 

should be considered (e.g., doors, 

shelves); 

• whether and how to test 

automatically closing drawers; 

• whether all three of the comparison 

tip-over moments should be included in 

the standard, whether any should not be 

included, or whether any additional 

forces or interactions should be 

included; 

• pull force and force application 

location; and 

• drawer extension requirements 

during testing. 

D. Child Interactions and Associated 

Forces 

• Whether the test method should 

account for pull forces on the CSU, and 

the assumptions of pull force and force 

application location (e.g., is the 17.2- 

pound horizontal force applied at 

maximum 4.12 feet vertical distance 

appropriate to simulate a child pulling 

a drawer or pulling on a CSU); 

• assumptions relating to children’s 

interactions with doors and associated 

forces, including whether interactions 

involving opening doors and climbing 

on doors should be addressed; and 

• the adequacy of the proposed 

requirement regarding opening and 

climbing on doors. 

E. Marking and Labeling 

• Whether the proposed warning 

requirements are adequate, or should be 

modified; 

• suggestions for the language and 

format of the warning label; 

• suggestions for the language and 

format of the informational label; 

• whether the graphical symbols 

being studied, as well as the symbols 

included in ASTM F2057–19 are 

appropriate, effective, and 

understandable; 

• the size, content, symbols, format, 

location, and permanency of marking 

and labeling; 

• whether there should there be a 

warning on CSUs to anchor the 

television, when the CSU is suitable for 

holding a television; 

• whether labeling or instructions for 

proper levelling on carpet should be a 

requirement, especially for CSUs with 

levelers to tilt the unit backwards on 

carpet; and 

• whether the product and packaging 

should contain a label that states: 

‘‘meets CPSC stability requirements.’’ 

F. Hang Tags 

• All aspects of the proposed hang tag 

requirements; 

• whether the hang tag rating and 

explanatory text is understandable; 

• suggestions for the language or 

format of the hang tag; 

• potential rating calculations, and 

suggestions for other ratings; and 

• improvements in the graphic 

quality that maintain symbolic, iconic 

representation of a tip-over event. 

G. Tip Restraints 

• Tip restraints, including their 

adequacy and suggestions for improving 

the tip restraint requirements outlined 

in ASTM F3096–14 and ASTM F2057– 

19; 

• whether there should be a 

requirement that all CSUs come with a 

tip restraint and/or whether there 

should be a requirement that CSUs 

intended for use with televisions should 

include a television restraint device 

and/or means to anchor a television 

(including a flat panel televisions) on 

the CSU, such as a universal attachment 

point; 

• potential test methods related to tip 

restraints, including whether 

requirements should address designs 

where tip restraint installation is 

mandatory to unlock drawers; and 

• whether the Commission should 

develop tip restraint requirements, such 

as restraints permanently attached to the 

CSU or an attachment point, such as a 

D-ring, that will not fail when pulled at 

a specified force. 

H. Economic Analysis (Preliminary 

Regulatory Analysis and IRFA) 

• The annual unit sales of CSUs; 

• the accuracy and reasonableness of 

the benefits estimates; 

• the accuracy or reasonableness of 

the cost estimates for manufacturers and 

importers (if available, sales or other 

shipment data would be helpful); 

• costs of the testing and certification 

requirements; 

• costs associated with the warning 

label and hang tag requirements; 

• the cost and other impacts of 

adding weight to the rear of the CSU to 

meet the requirements of the proposed 

rule; 

• the practicality and costs of using 

levelers or other means of raising the 

front of a CSU to meet the requirements 

of the proposed rule; 

• the potential modifications 

discussed in this preamble and the NPR 

briefing package, and their estimated 

costs; 

• other ways CSUs could be modified 

to comply with the requirements of the 

proposed rule, including the potential 

cost of the modifications and other 

impacts on the CSUs or their utility. 

CPSC is particularly interested in ways 

that the cost of the modifications could 

be offset by making other changes in the 

design of the CSUs or the manufacturing 

processes used; 

• the sensitivity analysis and any 

other valuations used in CPSC’s 

analysis; 

• the types and magnitude of 

manufacturing costs that might 

disproportionately impact small 

businesses or were not considered in the 

agency’s analysis; 

• the different impacts on small 

businesses associated with different 

effective dates; 

• the differential impacts of the 

proposed rule on small manufacturers 

or suppliers that compete in different 

segments of the CSU market; and 

• other alternatives that would 

minimize the impact on small 

businesses but would still reduce the 

risk of CSU tip-over incidents. 

I. Stockpiling 

• The need for an anti-stockpiling 

requirement; 

• the proposed manufacture and 

import limits; and 

• the proposed base period for the 

stockpiling provision. 

J. Effective Date 

• The reasonableness of the proposed 

30-day effective date and 

recommendations for a different 

effective date, if justified; and 

• comments recommending a longer 

effective date should describe the 

problems associated with meeting the 

proposed effective date and the 

justification for a longer one. 

XXI. Promulgation of a Final Rule 

Section 9(d)(1) of the CPSA requires 

the Commission to promulgate a final 

consumer product safety rule within 60 

days of publishing a proposed rule. 15 

U.S.C. 2058(d)(1). Otherwise, the 

Commission must withdraw the 

proposed rule, if it determines that the 

rule is not reasonably necessary to 

eliminate or reduce an unreasonable 

risk of injury associated with the 

product, or is not in the public interest. 

Id. However, the Commission can 

extend the 60-day period for good cause 

shown, if it publishes the reasons for 

doing so in the Federal Register. Id. 

The Commission finds there is good 

cause to extend the 60-day period for 

this rulemaking. Under both the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 

U.S.C. 551–559) and the CPSA, the 

Commission must provide an 

opportunity for interested parties to 

submit written comments on a proposed 

rule. 5 U.S.C. 553; 15 U.S.C. 2058(d)(2). 

The Commission typically provides 75 

days for interested parties to submit 

written comments. Because of the size, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6308 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

complexity, and potential impacts of 

this proposed rule, the Commission 

considers it appropriate to provide a 75- 

day comment period. In addition, the 

CPSA requires the Commission to 

provide interested parties with an 

opportunity to make oral presentations 

of data, views, or arguments. 15 U.S.C. 

2058. This requires time for the 

Commission to arrange a public meeting 

for this purpose, and provide notice to 

interested parties in advance of that 

meeting. After receiving written and 

oral comments, CPSC staff must have 

time to review and evaluate those 

comments. 

These factors make it impossible for 

the Commission to issue a final rule 

within 60 days of this proposed rule. 

Accordingly, the Commission finds 

there is good cause to extend the 60-day 

period. 

XXII. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated in this 

preamble, the Commission proposes 

requirements for CSUs to address an 

unreasonable risk of injury associated 

with CSU tip overs. 

List of Subjects 

16 CFR Part 1112 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Audit, Consumer protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Third-party conformity 

assessment body. 

16 CFR Part 1261 

Consumer protection, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, Information, 

Labeling, Safety. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend chapter II, subchapter B, title 16 

of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 1112—REQUIREMENTS 

PERTAINING TO THIRD PARTY 

CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT BODIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1112 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 110–314, section 3, 122 

Stat. 3016, 3017 (2008); 15 U.S.C. 2063. 

■ 2. Amend § 1112.15 by adding 

paragraph (b)(54) to read as follows: 

§ 1112.15 When can a third party 

conformity assessment body apply for 

CPSC acceptance for a particular CPSC rule 

or test method? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(54) 16 CFR part 1261, Safety 

Standard for Clothing Storage Units. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add part 1261 to read as follows: 

PART 1261—SAFETY STANDARD FOR 

CLOTHING STORAGE UNITS 

Sec. 

1261.1 Scope, purpose, application, and 

exemptions. 

1261.2 Definitions. 

1261.3 Requirements for interlocks. 

1261.4 Requirements for stability. 

1261.5 Requirements for marking and 

labeling. 

1261.6 Requirements to provide 

performance and technical data by 

labeling. 

1261.7 Prohibited stockpiling. 

1261.8 Findings. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2051(b), 2056, 2058, 

2063(c), 2076(e) 

§ 1261.1 Scope, purpose, application, and 

exemptions. 

(a) Scope and purpose. This part, a 

consumer product safety standard, 

prescribes the safety requirements, 

including labeling and hang tag 

requirements, for clothing storage units, 

as defined in § 1261.2(a). These 

requirements are intended to reduce or 

eliminate an unreasonable risk of death 

or injury to consumers from clothing 

storage unit tip overs. 

(b) Application. Except as provided in 

paragraph (c) of this section, all clothing 

storage units that are manufactured in 

the Unites States, or imported, on or 

after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 

RULE], are subject to the requirements 

of this part 1261, if they are consumer 

products. Section 3(a)(1) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 

2052(a)(1)) defines the term consumer 

product as an ‘‘article, or component 

part thereof, produced or distributed. 

(1) For sale to a consumer for use in 

or around a permanent or temporary 

household or residence, a school, in 

recreation, or otherwise, or 

(2) For the personal use, consumption 

or enjoyment of a consumer in or 

around a permanent or temporary 

household or residence, a school, in 

recreation, or otherwise.’’ The term does 

not include products that are not 

customarily produced or distributed for 

sale to, or for the use or consumption 

by, or enjoyment of, a consumer. 

(c) Exemptions. The following 

products are exempt from this part: 

(1) Clothes lockers, as defined in 

§ 1261.2(b), and 

(2) Portable storage closets, as defined 

in § 1261.2(s). 

§ 1261.2 Definitions. 

In addition to the definitions given in 

section 3 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052), the 

following definitions apply for purposes 

of this part: 

(a) Clothing storage unit means a 

freestanding furniture item, with 

drawer(s) and/or door(s), that may be 

reasonably expected to be used for 

storing clothing, that is greater than or 

equal to 27 inches in height, and with 

a total functional volume of the closed 

storage greater than 1.3 cubic feet and 

greater than the sum of the total 

functional volume of the open storage 

and the total volume of the open space. 

Common names for clothing storage 

units include, but are not limited to: 

Chests, bureaus, dressers, armoires, 

wardrobes, chests of drawers, drawer 

chests, chifforobes, and door chests. 

Whether a product is a clothing storage 

unit depends on whether it meets this 

definition. Some products that generally 

do not meet the criteria in this 

definition and, therefore, likely are not 

considered clothing storage units are: 

Shelving units, office furniture, dining 

room furniture, laundry hampers, builtin closets, and single-compartment 

closed rigid boxes (storage chests). 

(b) Clothes locker means a 

predominantly metal furniture item 

without exterior drawers and with one 

or more doors that either locks or 

accommodates an external lock. 

(c) Closed storage means storage space 

inside a drawer and/or behind an 

opaque door. For this part, both sliding 

and hinged doors are considered in the 

definition of closed storage. 

(d) Door means a hinged furniture 

component that can be opened or 

closed, typically outward or downward, 

to form a barrier; or a sliding furniture 

component that can be opened or closed 

by sliding across the face or case of the 

furniture item. This does not include 

vertically opening hinged lids. 

(e) Door extension from fulcrum 

distance means the horizontal distance 

measured from the farthest point of a 

hinged door that opens outward or 

downward, while the door is in a 

position where the center of mass of the 

door is extended furthest from the front 

face of the unit (typically 90 degrees), to 

the fulcrum, while the CSU is on a hard, 

level, and flat test surface. See figure 1 

to this paragraph (e). Sliding doors that 

remain within the CSU case are not 

considered to have a door extension. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6309 

(f) Drawer means a furniture 

component intended to contain or store 

items that slides horizontally in and out 

of the furniture case and may be 

attached to the case by some means, 

such as glides. 

(g) Drawer or pull-out shelf extension 

from fulcrum distance means the 

horizontal distance measured from the 

centerline of the front face of the drawer 

or the outermost surface of the pull-out 

shelf to the fulcrum, when the drawer or 

pull-out shelf is at the maximum 

extension and the CSU is on a hard, 

level, and flat test surface. For a curved 

or angled surface this measurement is 

taken where the distance is at its 

greatest. See figure 2 to this paragraph 

(g). 

(h) Freestanding means that the unit 

remains upright, without requiring 

attachment to the wall, when it is fully 

assembled and empty, with all 

extension elements closed. Built-in 

units or units intended to be 

permanently attached to the building 

structure, other than by tip restraints, 

are not considered freestanding. 

Examples of units that are intended to 

be permanently installed include, but 

are not limited to, kitchen cabinets and 

bathroom vanities. 

(i) Functional volume of a drawer or 

pull-out shelf means the interior bottom 

surface area multiplied by the effective 

drawer/pull-out shelf height, which is 

distance from the bottom surface of the 

drawer/pull-out shelf to the top of the 

drawer/pull-out shelf compartment 

minus 1⁄8 inches (see figure 3 to this 

paragraph (i)). Functional volume 

behind a door means the interior bottom 

surface area behind the door, when the 

door is closed, multiplied by the height 

of the storage compartment (see figure 4 

to this paragraph (i)). Functional volume 

of open storage means the interior 

bottom surface area multiplied by the 

effective open storage height, which is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.011</GPH> EP03FE22.012</GPH>

Figure 1 to paragraph (e)-(Top View) The door extension from fulcrum distance, 

illustrated by the letter Y. 

Figure 2 to paragraph (g)-The drawer extension from fulcrum distance, illustrated by the 

letter X. 
6310 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

distance from the bottom surface of the open storage to the top of the open 

storage compartment minus 1⁄8 inches. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.013</GPH>

Figure 3 to paragraph (i~Functional volume of drawer or pull-out shelf. 

--------1Botte1n surface Area 

I Top\l'iew I 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6311 

(j) Fulcrum means the point or line at 

the base of the CSU about which the 

CSU pivots when a tip-over force is 

applied (typically the front feet). 

(k) Hard, level, and flat test surface 

means a test surface that is 

(1) Sufficiently hard to not bend or 

break under the weight of a clothing 

storage unit and any loads associated 

with testing the unit; 

(2) Level with no more than 0.5 

degrees of variation; and 

(3) Smooth and even. 

(l) Interlock means a device that 

restricts simultaneous opening of 

drawers. An interlock may allow only 

one drawer to open at a time, or may 

allow more than one drawer, but fewer 

than all the drawers, to open 

simultaneously. 

(m) Levelling device means an 

adjustable device intended to adjust the 

level of the clothing storage unit. 

(n) Maximum extension means a 

condition when a drawer or pull-out 

shelf is open to the furthest 

manufacturer recommended use 

position, as indicated by way of a stop. 

In the case of slides with multiple 

intermediate stops, this is the stop that 

allows the drawer or pull-out shelf to 

extend the furthest. In the case of slides 

with a multipart stop, such as a stop 

that extends the drawer or pull-out shelf 

to the furthest manufacturer 

recommended use position with an 

additional stop that retains the drawer 

or pull-out shelf in the case, this is the 

stop that extends the drawer or pull-out 

shelf to the manufacturer recommended 

use position. If the manufacturer does 

not provide a recommended use 

position by way of a stop, this is 2⁄3 the 

shortest internal length of the drawer 

measured from the inside face of the 

drawer front to the inside face of the 

drawer back or 2⁄3 the length of the pullout shelf. See figure 5 to this paragraph 

(n). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.014</GPH>

Figure 4 to paragraph (i}---Functional volume behind a door. 
6312 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(o) Maximum handhold height means 

the highest position at which a child 

may grab hold of the CSU. This includes 

the top of the CSU. This height is 

limited to a maximum of 4.12 feet from 

the ground, while the CSU is on a flat 

and level surface. See figure 6 to this 

paragraph (o). 

(p) Moment means a moment of a 

force, which is a measure of the 

tendency to cause a body to rotate about 

a specific point or axis. It is measured 

in pound-feet, representing a force 

multiplied by a lever arm, or distance 

from the force to the point of rotation. 

(q) Open storage means storage space 

enclosed on at least 5 sides by a frame 

or panel(s) and/or behind a non-opaque 

door and with a flat bottom surface. 

(r) Open space means space enclosed 

within the frame or panels, but without 

a bottom surface. For example, under 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.015</GPH> EP03FE22.016</GPH>

Figure 5 to paragraph (n)-Example of maximum extension on drawers and pull-out shelves 

with stops and without stops. 

With Stops Without Stops 

Intermediate Stop l Multi~part Stop 

Side View 

Top View 

Figure 6 to paragraph ( o )-The maximum handhold height, illustrated by the letter Z. 

4.12 feet 

Maximum 

z 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6313 

legs or between storage components, as 

with a vanity. 

(s) Portable storage closet means a 

freestanding furniture item with an 

open frame that encloses hanging 

clothing storage space and/or shelves. 

This item may have a cloth case with 

curtain(s), flap(s), or door(s) that 

obscure the contents from view. 

(t) Pull-out shelf means a furniture 

component with a horizontal flat surface 

that slides horizontally in and out of the 

furniture case and may be attached to 

the case by some means, such as glides. 

(u) Tip over means the point at which 

a clothing storage unit pivots forward 

such that the rear feet or, if there are no 

feet, the edge of the CSU lifts at least 1⁄4

inch from the floor and/or is supported 

by a non-support element. 

(v) Tip-over force means the force 

required to cause tip over of the clothing 

storage unit. 

(w) Tip-over moment means the 

minimum moment in pounds-feet about 

the fulcrum that causes tip over. 

§ 1261.3 Requirements for interlocks. 

(a) General. For all clothing storage 

units, including consumer-assembled 

units, the interlock components must be 

pre-installed, and automatically engage 

when the consumer installs the drawers 

in the unit. All interlocks must engage 

automatically as part of normal use. 

(b) Interlock pull test. (1) If the unit 

is not fully assembled, assemble the unit 

according to the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(2) Place the unit on a hard, level, and 

flat test surface. 

(3) If the unit has a levelling device, 

adjust the levelling device to the lowest 

level; then adjust the levelling device in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(4) Secure the unit to prevent sliding 

or tip over. 

(5) Open any doors in front of the 

interlocked drawers. 

(6) Engage the interlock by opening a 

drawer, or the number of drawers 

necessary to engage the interlock, to the 

maximum extension. 

(7) Gradually apply over a period of 

at least 5 seconds a 30-pound horizontal 

pull force on each locked drawer, one 

drawer at a time, and hold the force for 

at least 10 seconds. 

(8) Repeat this test until all possible 

combinations of drawers have been 

tested. 

(c) Performance requirement. During 

the testing specified in paragraph (b) of 

this section, if any locked drawer opens 

or the interlock is damaged, then the 

interlock will be disabled or bypassed 

for the stability testing in § 1261.4(c). 

§ 1261.4 Requirements for stability. 

(a) General. Clothing storage units 

shall be configured as described in 

paragraph (b) of this section, and tested 

in accordance with the procedure in 

paragraph (c) of this section. Clothing 

storage units shall meet the requirement 

for tip-over stability based on the 

minimum tip-over moment as specified 

in paragraph (d) of this section. 

(b) Test configuration. The clothing 

storage unit used for tip-over testing 

shall be configured in the following 

manner: 

(1) If the unit is not fully assembled, 

assemble the unit according to the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

(2) Place the unit on a hard, level, and 

flat test surface. 

(3) If the CSU has a levelling device, 

adjust the levelling device to the lowest 

level; then adjust the levelling device in 

accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions. 

(4) Tilt the CSU forward to 1.5 degrees 

by one of the following methods: 

(i) Raise the rear of the unit until the 

unit has a 1.5-degree forward tilt, or 

(ii) Place the unit on a hard and flat 

1.5-degree inclined surface, with the 

high point at the rear of the unit surface, 

or 

(iii) Other means to achieve a 1.5- 

degree forward tilt. 

(5) If the CSU has a levelling device 

intended for a carpeted surface, adjust 

the level in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions for a 

carpeted surface. 

(6) Open all hinged doors that open 

outward or downward to the position 

where the center of mass of the door is 

extended furthest from the front face of 

the unit (typically 90 degrees). 

(7) For units without an interlock: 

(i) Open all drawers and pull-out 

shelves to the maximum extension. 

(ii) Place a fill weight in the center of 

each drawer or pull-out shelf consisting 

of a uniformly distributed mass in 

pounds that is 8.5 (pounds/cubic foot) 

times the functional volume (cubic feet). 

(8) For units with an interlock: 

(i) If, during the testing specified in 

§ 1261.3(b), any locked drawer opens or 

the interlock is damaged, then disable or 

bypass the interlock for the stability 

testing required in this section, and 

follow the requirements for units 

without an interlock. 

(ii) If, during the testing specified in 

§ 1261.3(b), no locked drawer opens and 

the interlock is not damaged, then: 

(A) Open all drawers that are not 

locked by the interlock system to the 

maximum extension, in the 

configuration most likely to cause tip 

over (typically the configuration with 

the largest drawers in the highest 

position open). 

(B) If 50 percent or more of the 

drawers and pull-out shelves by 

functional volume are open, place a fill 

weight in the center of each drawer or 

pull-out shelf, including those that 

remain closed (see figure 1 to this 

paragraph (b)(8)), consisting of a 

uniformly distributed mass in pounds 

that is 8.5 (pounds/cubic foot) times the 

functional volume (cubic feet). Secure 

the fill weights to prevent sliding. 

(C) If less than 50 percent of the 

drawers and pull-out shelves by 

functional volume are open, do not 

place a fill weight in any drawers or on 

any pull-out shelves (see figure 2 to this 

paragraph (b(8)). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6314 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Test procedure to determine tipover moment of the unit. Perform one of 

the following two tip-over tests (Test 

Method 1 or Test Method 2), whichever 

is the most appropriate for the unit: 

(1) Test Method 1 can be used for 

units with drawers or pull-out shelves. 

Gradually apply over a period of at least 

5 seconds a vertical force to the face of 

the uppermost extended drawer/pullout shelf of the unit to cause the unit to 

tip over. Record the tip-over force and 

horizontal distance from the force 

application point to the fulcrum. 

Calculate the tip-over moment of the 

unit by multiplying the tip-over force 

(pounds) by the horizontal distance 

from the force application point to the 

fulcrum (feet). See figure 3 to this 

paragraph (c)(1). NOTE: If a drawer 

breaks during the test due to the force, 

use Test Method 2 or secure or reinforce 

the drawer, as long as the modifications 

do not increase the tip-over moment. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.017</GPH> EP03FE22.018</GPH>

Figure 1 to paragraph (b )(8}-If 50 percent or more of the drawers/pull-out shelves open, 

clothing storage units tested with rdl weights in all drawers. 

Figure 2 to paragraph (b )(8}-If less than 50 percent of the drawers/pull-out shelves open, 

clothing storage units tested empty. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6315 

(2) Test Method 2 can be used for any 

unit. Gradually apply over a period of 

at least 5 seconds a horizontal force to 

the back of the unit orthogonal to the 

fulcrum to cause the unit to tip over. 

Record the force and the vertical 

distance from the force application 

point to the fulcrum. Calculate the tipover moment of the unit by multiplying 

the tip-over force (pounds) by the 

vertical distance from the force 

application point to the fulcrum (feet). 

See figure 4 to this paragraph (c)(2). 

(d) Performance requirement. The tipover moment of the clothing storage unit 

must be greater than the threshold 

moment, which is the greatest of all of 

the applicable moments in paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (3) of this section: 

(1) For units with a drawer(s) or pullout shelf(ves): 55.3 pounds times the 

drawer or pull-out shelf extension from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.019</GPH> EP03FE22.020</GPH>

Figure 3 to paragraph (c)(l)-Illustration of force application methods for Test 

Method 1 with vertical load Lv (tilt angle not to scale). 

Figure 4 to paragraph (c)(2)-Illustration of force application methods for Test Method 2 

with horizontal load LH (tilt angle not to scale). 
6316 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

fulcrum distance in feet + 26.6 pounds 

feet; 

(2) For units with a door(s): 51.2 

pounds times the door extension from 

fulcrum distance in feet—12.8; and 

(3) For all units: 17.2 pounds times 

maximum handhold height in feet. 

§ 1261.5 Requirements for marking and 

labeling. 

(a) Warning label requirements. The 

clothing storage unit shall have a 

warning label, as defined below and as 

shown in figure 1 to this paragraph (a). 

(1) Size. The warning label shall be at 

least 2 inches wide by 2 inches tall. 

(2) Content. (i) The warning label 

shall contain the following text: 

Children have died from furniture tip 

over. To reduce the risk of tip over: 

• ALWAYS secure this furniture to the 

wall using an anti-tip device 

• NEVER allow children to stand, climb, or 

hang on drawers, doors or shelves. 

• [for units with interlocks only] Do not 

defeat or remove the drawer interlock system 

• Place heaviest items in the lowest 

drawers 

• [for units that are not designed to hold 

a television only] NEVER put a TV on this 

furniture 

(ii) The warning label shall contain 

the child climbing symbol displayed in 

figure 1 to this paragraph (a), with the 

prohibition symbol in red. For units that 

are not designed to hold a television, the 

warning label shall contain the no 

television symbol displayed in figure 1, 

with the prohibition symbol in red. 

(3) Format. The warning label shall 

use the signal word panel content and 

format specified in Section 8.2.2 of 

ASTM F2057–19, Standard Safety 

Specification for Clothing Storage Units, 

and the font, font size, and color 

specified in Section 8.2.3 of ASTM 

F2057–19 (incorporated by reference, 

see paragraph (c) of this section). Each 

safety symbol shall measure at least 1 

in. by 1 in. See figure 1 to this paragraph 

(a). 

(4) Location. (i) For units with one or 

more drawer(s): 

(A) The warning label shall be located 

on the interior side panel of a drawer in 

the upper most drawer row, or if the top 

of the drawer(s) in the upper most 

drawer row is more than 56 inches from 

the floor, on the interior side panel of 

a drawer in the upper most drawer row 

below 56 inches from the floor, as 

measured from the top of the drawer. 

(B) The top left corner of the warning 

label shall be positioned within 1 inch 

of the top of the drawer side panel and 

within the front 1⁄3 of the interior drawer 

depth. 

(ii) For units with only doors: The 

warning label shall be located on an 

interior side or back panel of the cabinet 

behind the door(s), or on the interior 

door panel. The warning label shall not 

be obscured by a shelf or other interior 

element. 

(iii) For consumer-assembled units: 

The warning label shall be pre-attached 

to the panel, and the assembly 

instructions shall direct the consumer to 

place the panel with the warning label 

according to the placement 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and 

(ii) of this section. 

(5) Permanency. The warning label 

shall be legible and attached after it is 

tested using the methods specified in 

Section 7.3 of ASTM F2057–19, 

Standard Safety Specification for 

Clothing Storage Units (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (c) of this 

section). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6317 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 

(b) Identification labeling 

requirements. The clothing storage unit 

shall have an identification label, as 

defined in this paragraph (b) 

(1) Size. The identification label shall 

be at least 2 inches wide by 1 inch tall. 

(2) Content. The identification label 

shall contain the following: 

(i) Name and address (city, state, and 

zip code) of the manufacturer, 

distributor, or retailer; the model 

number; and the month and year of 

manufacture. 

(ii) The statement ‘‘Complies with 

U.S. CPSC Safety Standard for Clothing 

Storage Units,’’ as appropriate; this label 

may spell out ‘‘U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission’’ instead of ‘‘U.S. 

CPSC.’’ 

(3) Format. The identification label 

text shall not be less than 0.1 in. (2.5 

mm) capital letter height. The text and 

background shall be contrasting colors 

(e.g., black text on a white background). 

(4) Location. The identification label 

shall be visible from the back of the unit 

when the unit is fully assembled. 

(5) Permanency. The identification 

label shall be legible and attached after 

it is tested using the methods specified 

in Section 7.3 of ASTM F2057–19, 

Standard Safety Specification for 

Clothing Storage Units (incorporated by 

reference, see paragraph (c) of this 

section). 

(c) Incorporation by reference. Certain 

portions, identified in this section, of 

ASTM F2057–19, Standard Safety 

Specification for Clothing Storage Units, 

approved on August 1, 2019, are 

incorporated by reference into this part 

with the approval of the Director of the 

Federal Register in accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You 

may obtain a copy from ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO 

Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959; phone: (610) 832–9585; 

www.astm.org. A read-only copy of the 

standard is available for viewing on the 

ASTM website at https://www.astm.org/ 

READINGLIBRARY/. You may inspect a 

copy at the Division of the Secretariat, 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone (301) 

504–7479, email: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov, or 

at the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email fr.inspection@

nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.021</GPH>

Figure 1 to paragraph (a}--Example warning label for a clothing storage unit with 

an interlock system and not designed to hold a television (top) and for a clothing storage 

unit without an interlock system and designed to hold a television (bottom). 

Children have died from furniture tip over. 

To reduce the risk of tip over: 

• ALWAYS secure this furniture to the wall 

using an anti-tip device 

• NEVER allow children to stand, climb. or 

hang on drawers, doors or shelves. 

• Do not defeat or remove the drawer 

interlock system 

• Place heaviest items in the lowest 

drawers 

• NEVER put a 1V on this furniture 

Children have died from furniture tip over. 

To reduce the risk of tip over: 

• ALWAYS secure this furniture to the wall 

using an anti-tip device 

• NEVER allow children to stand. climb, or 

hang on drawers. doors or shelves. 

• Place heaviest items in the lowest 

drawers 
6318 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

§ 1261.6 Requirements to provide 

performance and technical data by labeling. 

Manufacturers of clothing storage 

units shall give notification of 

performance and technical data related 

to performance and safety to prospective 

purchasers of such products at the time 

of original purchase and to the first 

purchaser of such product for purposes 

other than resale, in the manner set 

forth in this section: 

(a) Consumer information 

requirements. The manufacturer shall 

provide a hang tag with every clothing 

storage unit that provides the ratio of 

tip-over moment as tested to the 

minimally allowed tip-over moment of 

that model clothing storage unit. The 

label must conform in content, form, 

and sequence to the hang tag shown in 

figure 1 to this paragraph (a). 

(1) Size. Every hang tag shall be at 

least 5 inches wide by 7 inches tall. 

(2) Side 1 Content. The front of every 

hang tag shall contain the following: 

(i) The title—‘‘TIP OVER GUIDE.’’ 

(ii) The icon: 

(iii) The statement—‘‘Stability 

Rating.’’ 

(iv) The manufacturer’s name and 

model number of the unit. 

(v) Ratio of tip-over moment, as tested 

per § 1261.4(c), to the threshold 

moment, as determined per § 1261.4(d), 

of that model clothing storage unit, 

displayed on a progressive scale. This 

value shall be the rating. 

(vi) The scale shall start at 0 and end 

at 5. 

(vii) ‘‘Less’’ and ‘‘More’’ on the left 

and right sides of the scale, respectively. 

(viii) A rating of 1 shall be indicated 

by the text ‘‘Minimum rating’’ and a 

vertical dotted line. 

(ix) A solid horizontal line from 0 to 

the calculated rating. 

(x) The statement—‘‘Compare with 

other units before you buy.’’ 

(xi) The statement—‘‘This is a guide 

to compare the unit’s resistance to 

tipping over.’’ 

(xii) The statement—‘‘Higher numbers 

represent more stable units.’’ 

(xiii) The statement—‘‘No unit is 

completely safe from tip over.’’ 

(xiv) The statement—‘‘Always secure 

the unit to the wall.’’ 

(xv) The statement—‘‘Tell children 

not to climb furniture.’’ 

(xvi) The statement—‘‘See back side 

of this tag for more information.’’ 

(xvii) The statement—‘‘THIS TAG 

NOT TO BE REMOVED EXCEPT BY 

THE CONSUMER.’’ 

(3) Side 2 Content. The reverse of 

every hang tag shall contain the 

following: 

(i) The statement—‘‘Stability Rating 

Explanation.’’ 

(ii) The icon in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of 

this section. 

(iii) The tip rating determined in 

paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section. 

(iv) The statement—‘‘Test data on this 

unit indicated it withstood [insert rating 

determined in paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this 

section] times the minimally acceptable 

moment, per tests required by the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(see below).’’ 

(v) The statement—‘‘Deaths or serious 

crushing injuries have occurred from 

furniture tipping over onto people.’’ 

(vi) The statement—‘‘To reduce tipover incidents, the U.S. Consumer 

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 

requires that clothing storage units, such 

as dressers, chests, bureaus, and 

armoires, resist certain tip-over forces. 

The test that CPSC requires measures 

the stability of a clothing storage unit 

and its resistance to rotational forces, 

also known as moments. This test is 

based on threshold rotational forces of 

a 3-year-old child climbing up, hanging 

on, or pulling on drawers and/or doors 

of this unit. These actions create 

rotational forces (moments) that can 

cause the unit to tip forward and fall 

over. The stability rating on this tag is 

the ratio of this unit’s tip-over moment 

(using CPSC’s test) and the threshold 

tip-over moment. More information on 

the test method can be found in 16 CFR 

part 1261.’’ 

(4) Format. The hang tag shall be 

formatted as shown in Figure 9. The 

background of the front of the tag shall 

be printed in full bleed process yellow 

or equivalent; the background of the 

back of the tag shall be white. All type 

and graphics shall be printed in process 

black. 

(5) Attachment. Every hang tag shall 

be attached to the CSU and be clearly 

visible to a person standing in front of 

the unit. The hang tag shall be attached 

to the CSU and lost or damaged hang 

tags must be replaced such that they are 

attached and provided, as required by 

this section, at the time of original 

purchase to prospective purchasers and 

to the first purchaser other than resale. 

The hang tags may be removed only by 

the first purchaser. 

(6) Placement. The hang tag shall 

appear on the product and the 

immediate container of the product in 

which the product is normally offered 

for sale at retail. Ready-to-assemble 

furniture shall display the hang tag on 

the main panel of consumer-level 

packaging. The hang tag shall remain on 

the product/container/packaging until 

the time of original purchase. Any units 

shipped directly to consumers shall 

contain the hang tag on the immediate 

container of the product. 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6319 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.023</GPH>

Figure 1 to paragraph (a)-Hang tag example shown for a unit with a tip rating of 2.8. 

FRONT 
6320 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 1261.7 Prohibited stockpiling. 

(a) Prohibited acts. Manufacturers and 

importers of clothing storage units shall 

not manufacture or import clothing 

storage units that do not comply with 

the requirements of this part in any 1- 

month period between [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE] and 

[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] at 

a rate that is greater than 105 percent of 

the rate at which they manufactured or 

imported clothing storage units during 

the base period for the manufacturer. 

(b) Base period. The base period for 

clothing storage units is the calendar 

month with the median manufacturing 

or import volume within the last 13 

months immediately preceding the 

month of promulgation of the final rule. 

§ 1261.8 Findings. 

(a) General. Section 9(f) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 

2058(f)) requires the Commission to 

make findings concerning the following 

topics and to include the findings in the 

rule. Because the findings are required 

to be published in the rule, they reflect 

the information that was available to the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(Commission, CPSC) when the standard 

was issued on [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE]. 

(b) Degree and nature of the risk of 

injury. The standard is designed to 

reduce the risk of death an injury from 

clothing storage units tipping over onto 

children. The Commission has 

identified 193 clothing storage unit tipover fatalities to children that were 

reported to have occurred between 

January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2020. 

There were an estimated 56,400 injuries, 

an annual average of 4,000 estimated 

injuries, to children related to clothing 

storage unit tip overs that were treated 

in U.S. hospital emergency departments 

from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 

2019. Injuries to children, resulting from 

clothing storage units tipping over, 

include soft tissue injuries, skeletal 

injuries and bone fractures, and 

fatalities resulting from skull fractures, 

closed-head injuries, compressional and 

mechanical asphyxia, and internal organ 

crushing leading to hemorrhage. 

(c) Number of consumer products 

subject to the rule. In 2017, there were 

approximately 463.5 million clothing 

storage units in use. In 2018, combined 

shipments of dressers and chests totaled 

43.6 million units. Annual sales of 

clothing storage units total about 44 

million units. 

(d) The need of the public for clothing 

storage units and the effects of the rule 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP03FE22.024</GPH>

Stability 

Rating: 

2.8 

REVERSE 

Stability Rating Explanation 

Test data on this unit indicated it withstood 2.8 times the 

threshold tip over rotational force/moment, per tests 

required by the Consumer Product Safety Commission {see 

below) 

Deaths and serious crushing injuries have occurred from 

fUmiture tipping over onto people. 

To reduce tip-over incidents, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC) requires that clothing storage writs, such as 

dressers, chests, bureaus, and armoires, resist certain tip-over forces. 

The test that CPSC requires measures the stability of a clothing 

storage unit and its resistance to rotational forces, also known as 

moments. This test is based on threshold rotational forces of 3-yearold child climbing up, hanging on, or pulling on drawers and/or 

doors of this writ. These actions create rotational forces (moments) 

that can cause the unit to tip forward and fall over. The stability 

rating on this tag is the ratio of this unit's tip-over moment (using 

CPSC's test) and the threshold tip-over moment. More information 

on the test method can be found in 16 CFR XXXX. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 6321 

on their cost, availability, and utility. (1) 

Consumers commonly use clothing 

storage units to store clothing in their 

homes. The standard requires clothing 

storage units to meet a minimum 

stability threshold, but does not restrict 

the design of clothing storage units. As 

such, clothing storage units that meet 

the standard would continue to serve 

the purpose of storing clothing in 

consumers’ homes. There may be a 

negative effect on the utility of clothing 

storage units if products that comply 

with the standard are less convenient to 

use. Another potential effect on utility 

could occur if, in order to comply with 

the standard, manufacturers modify 

clothing storage units to eliminate 

certain desired characteristics or styles, 

or discontinue models. However, this 

loss of utility would be mitigated to the 

extent that other clothing storage units 

with similar characteristics and features 

are available that comply with the 

standard. 

(2) Retail prices of clothing storage 

units vary widely. The least expensive 

units retail for less than $100, while 

some more expensive units retail for 

several thousand dollars. Of the 

potential modifications to comply with 

the standard for which CPSC was able 

to estimate the potential cost, the lowest 

costs were about $5.80 per unit; 

however, several were significantly 

higher. Clothing storage unit prices may 

increase to reflect the added cost of 

modifying or redesigning products to 

comply with the standard, or to account 

for increased distribution costs. In 

addition, consumers may incur a cost in 

the form of additional time to assemble 

clothing storage units if additional 

safety features are included. 

(3) If the costs associated with 

redesigning or modifying a clothing 

storage unit model to comply with the 

standard results in the manufacturer 

discontinuing that model, there would 

be some loss in availability of clothing 

storage units. 

(e) Other means to achieve the 

objective of the rule while minimizing 

adverse effects on competition, 

manufacturing, and commercial 

practices. (1) The Commission 

considered alternatives to achieving the 

objective of the rule of reducing 

unreasonable risks of injury and death 

associated with clothing storage unit tip 

overs. For example, the Commission 

considered relying on voluntary recalls, 

compliance with the voluntary 

standard, and education campaigns, 

rather than issuing a standard. This 

alternative would have minimal costs; 

however, it is unlikely to further reduce 

the risk of injury from clothing storage 

unit tip overs because the Commission 

has relied on these efforts to date. 

(2) The Commission also considered 

issuing a standard that requires only 

performance and technical data, with no 

performance requirements for stability. 

This would impose lower costs on 

manufacturers, but is unlikely to 

adequately reduce the risk of injury 

from clothing storage unit tip overs 

because it relies on manufacturers 

choosing to offer more stable units; 

consumer assessment of their need for 

more stable units (which CPSC’s 

research indicates consumers 

underestimate); and does not account 

for units outside a child’s home or 

purchased before a child was born. 

(3) The Commission also considered 

mandating a standard like the voluntary 

standard, but replacing the 50-pound 

test weight with a 60-pound test weight. 

This alternative would be less costly 

than the proposed rule, because many 

clothing storage units already meet such 

a requirement, and it would likely cost 

less to modify noncompliant units to 

meet this less stringent standard. 

However, this alternative is unlikely to 

adequately reduce the risk of clothing 

storage unit tip overs because it does not 

account for factors that are present in 

tip-over incidents that contribute to 

clothing storage unit instability, 

including multiple open and filled 

drawers, carpeting, and forces generated 

by a child interacting with the unit. 

(4) Another alternative the 

Commission considered was providing a 

longer effective date. This may reduce 

the costs of the rule by spreading them 

over a longer period, but it would also 

delay the benefits of the rule, in the 

form of reduced deaths and injuries. 

(5) Another alternative the 

Commission considered is adopting a 

mandatory standard with the 

requirements in the proposed rule, but 

addressing 60-pound children, rather 

than 51.2-pound children. However, 

this alternative would be more stringent 

than the proposed rule and, therefore, 

would likely increase the costs 

associated with the rule, while only 

increasing the benefits of the rule by 

about 4.5 percent. 

(f) Unreasonable risk. (1) Incident 

data indicates that there were 226 

reported tip-over fatalities involving 

clothing storage units that were reported 

to have occurred between January 1, 

2000 and December 31, 2020, of which 

85 percent (193 incidents) were 

children, 5 percent (11 incidents) were 

adults, and 10 percent (22 incidents) 

were seniors. Of the reported child 

fatalities, 86 percent (166 fatalities) 

involved children 3 years old or 

younger. 

(2) There were an estimated 78,200 

injuries, an annual average of 5,600 

estimated injuries, related to clothing 

storage unit tip overs that were treated 

in U.S. hospital emergency departments 

from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 

2019. Of these, 72 percent (56,400) were 

to children, which is an annual average 

of 4,000 estimated injuries to children 

over the 14-year period. In addition, 

there were approximately 19,300 tipover injuries involving clothing storage 

units treated in other settings from 2015 

through 2019, or an average of 3,900 per 

year. Therefore, combined, there were 

an estimated 34,100 nonfatal, medically 

attended tip-over injuries to children 

from clothing storage units during the 

years 2015 through 2019. 

(3) Injuries to children when clothing 

storage units tip over can be serious. 

They include fatal injuries resulting 

from skull fractures, closed-head 

injuries, compressional and mechanical 

asphyxia, and internal organ crushing 

leading to hemorrhage; they also 

include serious nonfatal injuries, 

including skeletal injuries and bone 

fractures. 

(g) Public interest. This rule is 

intended to address an unreasonable 

risk of injury and death posed by 

clothing storage units tipping over. The 

Commission believes that adherence to 

the requirements of the rule will 

significantly reduce clothing storage 

unit tip-over deaths and injuries in the 

future; thus, the rule is in the public 

interest. 

(h) Voluntary standards. The 

Commission is aware of four voluntary 

and international standards that are 

applicable to clothing storage units: 

ASTM F2057–19, Standard Consumer 

Safety Specification for Clothing Storage 

Units; AS/NZS 4935: 2009, the 

Australian/New Zealand Standard for 

Domestic furniture—Freestanding 

chests of drawers, wardrobes and 

bookshelves/bookcases—determination 

of stability; ISO 7171 (2019), the 

International Organization for 

Standardization International Standard 

for Furniture—Storage Units— 

Determination of stability; and EN14749 

(2016), the European Standard, 

European Standard for Domestic and 

kitchen storage units and worktops— 

Safety requirements and test methods. 

The Commission does not consider the 

standards adequate because they do not 

account for the multiple factors that are 

commonly present simultaneously 

during clothing storage unit tip-over 

incidents and that testing indicates 

decrease the stability of clothing storage 

units. These factors include multiple 

open and filled drawers, carpeted 

flooring, and dynamic forces generated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
6322 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 23 / Thursday, February 3, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

by children’s interactions with the 

clothing storage unit, such as climbing 

or pulling on the top drawer. 

(i) Relationship of benefits to costs. 

The aggregate net benefits of the rule are 

estimated to be about $305.5 million 

annually; and the cost of the rule is 

estimated to be about $250 million 

annually. On a per unit basis, the 

Commission estimates the expected 

benefits per unit to be $6.01, assuming 

a 7 percent discount rate; $7.88 

assuming a 3 percent discount rate; and 

$9.90 without discounting. The 

Commission estimates the expected 

costs to manufacturers per unit to be 

$5.80 (based on the lowest estimated 

potential cost), plus an unquantifiable 

cost to consumers associated with lost 

utility and availability, and increased 

costs. Based on this analysis, the 

Commission preliminarily finds that the 

benefits expected from the rule bear a 

reasonable relationship to the 

anticipated costs of the rule. 

(j) Least burdensome requirement that 

would adequately reduce the risk of 

injury. (1) The Commission considered 

less-burdensome alternatives to the 

proposed rule, but preliminarily 

concluded that none of these 

alternatives would adequately reduce 

the risk of injury. 

(2) The Commission considered 

relying on voluntary recalls, compliance 

with the voluntary standard, and 

education campaigns, rather than 

issuing a mandatory standard. This 

alternative would be less burdensome 

by having minimal costs, but would be 

unlikely to reduce the risk of injury 

from clothing storage unit tip overs. The 

Commission has relied on these efforts 

to date, but despite these efforts, there 

has been no declining trend in child 

injuries from clothing storage unit tip 

overs (without televisions) from 2006 to 

2019. 

(3) The Commission considered 

issuing a standard that requires only 

performance and technical data, with no 

performance requirements for stability. 

This would be less burdensome by 

imposing lower costs on manufacturers, 

but is unlikely to adequately reduce the 

risk of injury because it relies on 

manufacturers choosing to offer more 

stable units; consumer assessment of 

their need for more stable units (which 

CPSC’s research indicates consumers 

underestimate); and does not account 

for clothing storage units outside a 

child’s home or purchased before a 

child was born. 

(4) The Commission considered 

mandating a standard like ASTM 

F2057–19, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Clothing Storage Units, 

but replacing the 50-pound test weight 

with a 60-pound test weight. This 

alternative would be less burdensome in 

terms of costs than the proposed rule, 

because many clothing storage units 

already meet such a requirement, and it 

would likely cost less to modify 

noncompliant units to meet this less 

stringent standard. However, this 

alternative is unlikely to adequately 

reduce the risk of tip overs because it 

does not account for several factors that 

are simultaneously present in clothing 

storage unit tip-over incidents and 

contribute to instability, including 

multiple open and filled drawers, 

carpeting, and forces generated by a 

child interacting with the unit. 

(5) The Commission considered 

providing a longer effective date. This 

may reduce the cost burden of the rule 

by spreading the costs over a longer 

period, but it would also delay the 

benefits of the rule, in the form of 

reduced deaths and injuries. 

(6) Therefore, the Commission 

concludes that the rule is the least 

burdensome requirement that would 

adequately reduce the risk of injury. 

Alberta E. Mills, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2022–01689 Filed 2–2–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2