[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56752-56759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25779]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Chapter II
[Docket No. CPSC-2017-0044]
Clothing Storage Unit Tip Overs; Request for Comments and
Information
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission is contemplating
developing a rule to address the risk of injury and death associated
with clothing storage unit furniture tipping over. This advance notice
of proposed rulemaking initiates a rulemaking proceeding under the
Consumer Product Safety Act. We invite comments concerning the risk of
injury associated with clothing storage units tipping over, the
alternatives discussed in this notice, and other possible alternatives
for addressing the risk. We also invite interested parties to submit
existing voluntary standards or a statement of intent to modify or
develop a voluntary standard that addresses the risk of injury
described in this notice.
DATES: Submit comments by January 29, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-
0044, electronically or in writing (hard copy), using the methods
described below. The Commission encourages you to submit comments
electronically, by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments provided on the Web site. The
Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail
(Email), except through www.regulations.gov.
Written Submissions: Submit written comments by mail, hand
delivery, or courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this rulemaking proceeding. The Commission may post
all comments, without change, including any personal identifiers,
contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information,
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at
all, such information should be submitted by mail, hand delivery, or
courier.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket
number, CPSC-2017-0044, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the
prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Taylor, Project Manager,
Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: (301)
987-2338; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is
aware of numerous injuries and deaths resulting from furniture tip
overs. To address this risk, Commission staff reviewed incident data
for furniture tip overs and determined that clothing storage units
(CSUs), consisting of chests, bureaus, and dressers, were the primary
furniture category involved in fatal and injury incidents. There were
195 deaths related to CSU tip overs between 2000 and 2016, which were
reported to CPSC. An estimated 65,200 injuries related to CSU tip overs
were treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments between 2006 and
2016. These incident reports indicate that the vast majority of fatal
and injury incidents resulting from CSUs tipping over involve children.
Eighty-six percent of the reported fatalities involved children under
18 years old, most of which were under 6 years old. Seventy-three
percent of the emergency department-treated injuries involved children
under 18 years old, most of which were also under 6 years old.
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, and an informational Web
site (www.AnchorIt.gov) explaining the nature of the risk and safety
tips for avoiding furniture and television tip overs. In addition, CPSC
staff prepared a briefing package in September 2016,\1\
[[Page 56753]]
to identify hazard patterns involved in tip-over incidents, assess
existing voluntary standards that address CSU tip overs, and identify
factors that may reduce the likelihood of CSUs tipping over. As part of
that effort, Commission staff tested a convenience sample of CSUs. The
Commission has also pursued corrective actions with several CSU
manufacturers and conducted several voluntary recalls of CSUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Staff Briefing
Package on Furniture Tipover (September 30, 2016), available at:
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Staff%20Briefing%20Package%20on%20Furniture%20Tipover%20-%20September%2030%202016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is considering developing a mandatory standard to
reduce the risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs. Commission
staff prepared a briefing package to describe the products at issue,
further assess the relevant incident data, examine relevant voluntary
standards, and discuss options for addressing the risk associated with
CSU tip overs. That briefing package is available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ANPR%20-%20Clothing%20Storage%20Unit%20Tip%20Overs%20-%20November%2015%202017.pdf?5IsEEdW_Cb3ULO3TUGJiHEl875Adhvsg.
II. Relevant Statutory Provisions
To address the risk of injury associated with CSUs tipping over,
the Commission is considering developing a mandatory safety standard.
The rulemaking falls under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA; 15
U.S.C. 2051-2089). Under section 7 of the CPSA, the Commission may
issue a consumer product safety standard if the requirements of the
standard are ``reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an
unreasonable risk of injury associated with [a] product.'' Id. 2056(a).
The safety standard may consist of performance requirements or
requirements for warnings and instructions. Id. However, if there is a
voluntary standard that would adequately reduce the risk of injury the
Commission seeks to address, and there is likely to be substantial
compliance with that standard, then the Commission must rely on the
voluntary standard, instead of issuing a mandatory standard. Id.
2056(b)(1). To issue a mandatory standard under section 7, the
Commission must follow the procedural and substantive requirements in
section 9 of the CPSA. Id. 2056(a).
Under section 9 of the CPSA, the Commission may begin rulemaking by
issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR). Id. 2058(a).
The ANPR must identify the product and the nature of the risk of injury
associated with it; summarize the regulatory alternatives the
Commission is considering; and include information about any relevant
existing standards, and why the Commission preliminarily believes those
standards would not adequately reduce the risk of injury associated
with the product. The ANPR also must invite comments concerning the
risk of injury and regulatory alternatives and invite the public to
submit existing standards or a statement of intent to modify or develop
a voluntary standard to address the risk of injury. Id. 2058(a).
After publishing an ANPR, the Commission may proceed with
rulemaking by reviewing the comments received in response to the ANPR,
and publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR). An NPR must
include the text of the proposed rule, alternatives the Commission is
considering, a preliminary regulatory analysis describing the costs and
benefits of the proposed rule and the alternatives, and an assessment
of any submitted standards. Id. 2058(c). The Commission would then
review comments on the NPR and decide whether to issue a final rule,
along with a final regulatory analysis.
III. The Product and Market
CSUs are freestanding furniture intended for storing clothing. CSUs
are typically bedroom furniture, but may be used elsewhere. CSUs are
available in a variety of designs (e.g., vertical or horizontal
dressers), sizes (e.g., weights and heights), and materials (e.g.,
wood, plastic, leather). CSUs usually have a flat surface on top and
commonly include doors, or drawers for consumers to store clothing or
other items. Examples of CSUs include chests of drawers, bureaus,
dressers, armoires, wardrobes, portable closets, and clothing storage
lockers. CSUs do not include products that are permanently attached or
built into a structure or products that are not typically intended to
store clothing, such as bookcases, shelves, cabinets, entertainment
furniture, office furniture, or jewelry armoires. Additional factors
may be relevant for the Commission to define CSUs in a mandatory
standard, such as the height of products and design features. The
Commission seeks comments about the appropriate parameters of a
definition for CSUs.
CSUs are available through various distribution channels. The
retail price of CSUs varies, with the least expensive products
retailing for less than $100, and the most expensive selling for
several thousand dollars. Less expensive CSUs are usually mass
produced, while more expensive products are often handmade. The
lifespans of CSUs vary as well. Consumers may use less expensive CSUs
for only a few years, while more expensive products may last for
generations.
The Commission has not been able to determine the share of CSUs in
the overall furniture market because of a lack of information about
sales of specific furniture product types or models. However, according
to U.S. Census Bureau information, there are approximately 22,600 U.S.
firms that manufacture, import, distribute, or retail household
furniture, of which CSUs are a subset. Some manufacturers are large and
use mass-production techniques; others are smaller and manufacture
products individually or for custom orders. The Commission also has
been unable to identify information about the number of CSUs that are
in use in U.S. households. The Commission requests information about
the CSU market, CSU sales, and the number of CSUs in U.S. households.
IV. Risk of Injury
Commission staff reviewed fatal and nonfatal incidents involving
CSU tip overs to determine the age of people involved in these
incidents, the types of CSUs and other items involved, the hazard
patterns (hazard patterns include activities, behaviors, circumstances,
or factors that are associated with incidents) involved, and the types
of injuries and deaths that result from these incidents. As the fatal
and nonfatal incidents discussed below indicate, the vast majority of
CSU tip-over incidents involve children. For that reason, the
Commission largely focused its analysis on incidents involving
children.
A. Fatal Incidents
To identify fatal incidents that involved CSU tip overs, Commission
staff reviewed CPSC's Death Certificates database, In-Depth
Investigations database, Injury and Potential Injury Incidents
database, and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
(NEISS) database.\2\ Staff identified 195 fatalities related to CSU tip
overs that occurred between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2016 that
were reported to CPSC. Of those fatalities, 22 (11 percent) involved
seniors age 60 years and older; 6 (3 percent) involved adults between
18 and 59 years old; and 167 (86 percent) involved children under 18
[[Page 56754]]
years old, of which the oldest child was 8 years old. Of the 167 fatal
incidents involving children, 159 (95 percent) were under 6 years old
and 142 (85 percent) were under 4 years old. Table 1 provides the
number of child fatalities in age categories, broken out by 6-month
increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Staff reviewed incidents that were in these databases as of
June 1, 2017. Reporting is ongoing for these databases, so the
reported number of incidents may change. Percentages may not sum to
100, due to rounding.
Table 1--Fatal Incidents Involving Children Under 18 Years Old, by Age,
Between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Age fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to less than 0.5 years................................... 1
0.5 to less than 1 year.................................... 5
1 to less than 1.5 years................................... 21
1.5 to less than 2 years................................... 28
2 to less than 2.5 years................................... 31
2.5 to less than 3 years................................... 23
3 to less than 3.5 years................................... 25
3.5 to less than 4 years................................... 8
4 to less than 4.5 years................................... 7
4.5 to less than 5 years................................... 4
5 to less than 5.5 years................................... 5
5.5 to less than 6 years................................... 1
6 to less than 6.5 years................................... 3
6.5 to less than 7 years................................... 1
7 to less than 7.5 years................................... 0
7.5 to less than 8 years................................... 1
8 to less than 8.5 years................................... 3
8.5 to less than 9 years................................... 0
Greater than 9 years....................................... 0
------------
Total.................................................... 167
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children in a sample of 89 of these incidents ranged in weight from 18
to 66 pounds.
Of the 195 total fatal incidents involving all ages, nearly all
involved a chest, bureau, or dresser; some of these involved a
television falling with the chest, bureau or dresser. Of the 167 fatal
incidents involving children, 164 (98 percent) involved a chest,
bureau, or dresser, 2 (1 percent) involved a wardrobe, and 1 (less than
1 percent) involved an armoire. Of the 167 child fatalities, 89 (53
percent) involved a television falling in addition to the CSU.
B. Nonfatal Incidents
To identify nonfatal incidents that involved CSU tip overs,
Commission staff reviewed the NEISS database. The NEISS database
contains reports of injuries treated in emergency departments of U.S.
hospitals selected as a probability sample of all U.S. hospitals with
emergency departments. Using the surveillance information in this
database, CPSC can estimate the number of injuries, nationwide, that
are associated with specific consumer products. An estimated 65,200
injuries related to CSU tip overs were treated in U.S. hospital
emergency departments between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2016. Of
these, 47,700 estimated injuries (73 percent) were to children under 18
years old. Of the injuries involving children, 94 percent involved
children under 9 years old and 83 percent involved children under 6
years old. Table 2 provides the estimated number of child injuries
treated in hospital emergency departments, by age.
Table 2--Estimated Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments
Involving Children Under 18 Years Old, by Age, Between January 1, 2006
and December 31, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age Estimated injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 1 year.................. The number of cases is too small to
produce an estimate.
1 year............................ 6,300.
2 years........................... 13,200.
3 years........................... 11,200.
4 years........................... 5,800.
5 years........................... 2,300.
6 years........................... 2,300.
7 years........................... 1,800.
8 years........................... The number of cases is too small to
produce an estimate.
9 years........................... The number of cases is too small to
produce an estimate.
10 years.......................... The number of cases is too small to
produce an estimate.
11 years.......................... The number of cases is too small to
produce an estimate.
12 years.......................... The number of cases is too small to
produce an estimate.
13 years.......................... The number of cases is too small to
produce an estimate.
14 years.......................... The number of cases is too small to
produce an estimate.
15 years.......................... The number of cases is too small to
produce an estimate.
16 years.......................... The number of cases is too small to
produce an estimate.
17 years.......................... The number of cases is too small to
produce an estimate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the estimated 47,700 incidents involving children, 99 percent
involved a chest, bureau, or dresser; the remainder involved armoires,
a portable closet, a wardrobe, and a product that was either an armoire
or a dresser. In about 30 percent of injuries involving children, a
television fell with the CSU.
C. Severity and Consequences of Injuries
The types of injuries that can result from CSUs tipping over can
range from scratches, cuts, bruises, joint injuries, and bone fractures
to potentially fatal injuries, such as skull fractures, closed-head
injuries, internal organ injuries, collapsed lungs, spinal injuries, or
mechanical asphyxia (which is a form of suffocation that results from a
mechanical force (such as furniture) preventing muscle movement
necessary for breathing). The severity of injuries depends on various
factors, such as the body part hit or trapped by the CSU, the weight
and nature of the stationary forces involved (i.e., the CSU and the
floor), the magnitude and duration of the force the CSU applies, the
duration of oxygen deprivation from mechanical asphyxia, and the
ability to call for help or self-rescue. Blunt head trauma can result
in death or severe injuries, and oxygen deprivation can lead to
permanent brain damage, organ and tissue injury, or death.
Children are particularly vulnerable to the risk of injury and
death associated with CSU tip overs because of their physical and
cognitive abilities, the circumstances often involved in CSU tip overs,
and their susceptibility to severe injury. Children generally are not
strong enough to move heavy furniture when trapped underneath, do not
react quickly enough to avoid falling furniture, and lack cognitive
awareness of hazards. In addition, many incidents occur when a child is
left unattended, reducing the likelihood that a caregiver could quickly
rescue the child. Children, in particular, can suffer long-term harm
from head injuries, which can affect their motor and emotional
development, speech, cognitive ability, and overall quality of life.
Commission staff reviewed fatal incidents and NEISS incidents
involving children to identify the types of fatal and nonfatal injuries
associated with CSU tip overs. Of the 167 fatal incidents involving
children and CSU tip overs that occurred between 2000 and 2016, 71 (43
percent) were the result of head injuries, skull fractures, and brain
hemorrhage from blunt head trauma (including crushing injuries and deep
scalp hemorrhage). The remaining 96 fatal incidents (57 percent) were
the result of chest compression from a child being pinned under a CSU.
In 13 of the 167 fatal incidents involving children, the child died
despite receiving medical care.
CSU tip-over injuries to children that are treated in hospital
emergency departments ranged in severity, including contusions,
abrasions, lacerations, fractures, and internal injuries. Of the
estimated 47,700 emergency department-treated injuries to children that
were associated with CSUs between January 1, 2006 and December 31,
2016, an estimated 17,700 injuries (37 percent) involved contusions or
abrasions; an estimated 12,500 injuries (26 percent) involved internal
injuries (including closed head injuries); an estimated 6,600 injuries
(14 percent) involved lacerations; and an estimated 4,500 injuries (9
percent)
[[Page 56755]]
involved fractures. Injuries to children that were reported through
NEISS impacted numerous body parts, but the most common was the head
(42 percent), followed by the face (15 percent), and trunk (10
percent). Four percent of NEISS injuries involving children and CSU tip
overs required hospitalization, whereas 92 percent were treated and
released, and 1 percent were observed.
When a television was involved in a CSU tip over, children's
injuries were more likely to require hospitalization and involve
internal injuries and head injuries than when no television was
involved. When a television was involved in a CSU tip over that
resulted in injury to a child, 7 percent of injuries required
hospitalization (compared with 3 percent when only a CSU was involved);
36 percent of injuries were internal injuries (compared with 22 percent
when only a CSU was involved); and 58 percent were head injuries
(compared with 36 percent when only a CSU was involved).
D. Hazard Patterns
CPSC staff analyzed fatal and nonfatal incident reports to identify
factors that are associated with CSU tip-over incidents. This analysis
revealed that certain user interactions (such as opening multiple
drawers) and surroundings (such as specific flooring) were associated
with CSU tip overs. To assess relevant incidents in detail, staff
reviewed 369 nonfatal incidents involving CSU tip overs that occurred
between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015, and were reported to
CPSC.\3\ This data set is useful to identify hazard patterns, but it
cannot be used to draw statistical conclusions because it does not
include the most recent incident reports, and many of the reports do
not include detailed information about circumstances surrounding the
incidents.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Staff reviewed incidents that were in CPSC's In-Depth
Investigations database, Injury and Potential Injury Incidents
database, and NEISS database, as of January 15, 2016.
\4\ In addition to the more common hazard patterns described in
this section, there were also incident reports that indicated other
scenarios were involved in CSU tip overs, such as moving the CSU,
pulling on a portion of the CSU, and no consumer interaction before
the incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Televisions
As the incident data discussed above indicates, in some incidents,
televisions tipped over with a CSU, often resulting in more serious
injuries. Of the 167 child fatalities between 2000 and 2016, 89 (53
percent) involved a television falling in addition to the CSU. Of the
estimated emergency department-treated injuries to children between
2006 and 2016, approximately 30 percent involved a television falling
with a CSU. In many of these incidents, children were using the CSU
like a ladder or step stool, climbing or standing in a lower drawer, to
reach the television or other media device (e.g., DVD player, video
game system) on top of the CSU.
In the majority of incidents that involved a television and CSU
tipping over, the television was a cathode-ray tube (CRT) television,
rather than a flat-screen television. CRT televisions are front-heavy,
with the majority of their weight in the screen portion facing front.
This type of television is no longer manufactured. The Commission
continues to consider how best to address the hazard of televisions
tipping over. A mandatory Commission rule can only apply to products
manufactured after the rule takes effect. Thus, the Commission may not
be able to address the hazard discontinued CRT televisions present
through rulemaking. To assess the relevance of televisions and
regulatory options, the Commission requests comments about the extent
to which consumers put televisions on top of CSUs, the types of
televisions involved in tip-over incidents, and the impact of
televisions on the stability of CSUs.
2. Opening Multiple Drawers
Several incident reports indicated that a CSU tipped over when a
consumer opened one or more drawers. Of the 369 nonfatal incidents
staff reviewed, 50 reported this scenario.
3. Climbing
Several reports indicated that a child was climbing on the CSU at
the time of the tip over incident. In some cases, a child was climbing
onto or into the CSU to play, and in others, the child was climbing
with a purpose other than playing. Examples of play behaviors evidenced
in the data include playing hide-and-go-seek, climbing for a challenge
or to jump, and sitting in a lower drawer for fun. Examples of purpose-
based behaviors include climbing or standing on a lower drawer to reach
a television or other item on top of the CSU, standing on a lower
drawer to reach or see into an upper drawer, using the CSU to pull into
a standing position, scaling the CSU to reach into a crib, and opening
drawers to remove clothing.
These behaviors are developmentally expected for children under 6
years old. It is developmentally normal and foreseeable for children in
this age group to interact with furniture, such as CSUs, to play by
climbing, sitting, or hiding on or in the CSU. It is also
developmentally normal and foreseeable for children to interact with
CSUs to dress themselves, place and remove items on top of the CSU, and
exercise developing problem-solving skills by stepping on lower drawers
to reach items in upper drawers or on top of the CSU.
4. Location, Flooring, and Contents
Of the 369 nonfatal incident reports staff reviewed, all of the
reports that included enough information to identify the location of
the CSU indicated that the CSU was in a bedroom. Of those reports that
specified the flooring surface involved, most occurred on carpet; a
smaller number of incidents occurred on wood and tile. Of the reports
that indicated the CSU tip over happened on carpeting, nearly all of
the incidents involved general stability, such as opening a drawer or
no consumer interaction. Of the reports that described the contents of
the CSU, most contained only clothing, and very few were empty.
V. Existing Voluntary and International Standards
A. Description of Existing Standards
There are five voluntary or international standards that address
CSU or storage unit furniture tip overs:
ASTM F2057-17, Standard Safety Specification for Clothing
Storage Units (ASTM F2057-17);
ASTM F3096-14, Standard Performance Specification for
Tipover Restraint(s) Used with Clothing Storage Unit(s) (ASTM F3096-
14);
ISO 7171:1988, International Organization for
Standardization, Furniture--Storage units--Determination of stability
(ISO 7171);
AS/NZS 4935:2009, Australia/New Zealand Standard, Domestic
furniture--Freestanding chests of drawers, wardrobes and bookshelves/
bookcases--Determination of stability (AS/NZS 4935); and
EN 14749:2016, European Standard, Furniture--Domestic and
kitchen storage units and kitchen-worktops--Safety requirements and
test methods (EN 14749).
The products within the scope of each of these standards vary. ASTM
F2057-17 applies to furniture intended for clothing storage, typical of
bedroom furniture, and more than 30 inches in height, but excludes
built-in furniture and shelving furniture, such as bookcases, office
furniture, entertainment furniture, and dining room furniture. ISO 7171
applies to
[[Page 56756]]
freestanding storage furniture, including cupboards, cabinets, and
bookshelves that are fully assembled and ready for use, but excludes
wall-mounted and built-in products. AS/NZS 4935 applies to domestic
freestanding chests, drawers, and wardrobes over 19.7 inches in height,
as well as bookshelves and bookcases more than 23.6 inches. EN-14749
applies to all kitchen, bathroom, and domestic storage units with
movable and non-moveable parts.
ASTM International approved ASTM F2057-17 on October 1, 2017, and
published it in October 2017.\5\ The scope of ASTM F2057-17 specifies
that the standard is intended to cover ``children up to and including
age five.'' ASTM F2057-17 includes requirements for stability,
labeling, and tip over restraint devices (TRDs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Although ASTM F2057-17 was published shortly before this
ANPR and staff's accompanying briefing package, Commission staff was
able to review and assess the standard based on the previous
version, ASTM F2057-14, which was largely the same as ASTM F2057-17.
The only changes in ASTM F2057-17 were to non-substantive provisions
(introduction, caveats, and principles on standardization) and
warning label requirements. The changes to warning label
requirements were the addition of performance requirements for label
permanence and the addition of a pictogram in the warning label.
Staff considered these changes in their review and assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the stability of a CSU, ASTM F2057-17 requires that the
unit withstand two performance tests--one when the unit is loaded, and
one when the unit is unloaded. For the loaded test, the CSU must not
tip over when each drawer (or door) is open, one at a time, and
weighted with 50 pounds. For the unloaded test, the CSU must not tip
over when all of the drawers (or doors) are open at the same time. For
both stability tests, testing is on a ``hard, level, flat surface'' and
drawers must be open to the outstop (a feature that limits the outward
movement of a drawer) or, when there is no outstop, to \2/3\ of the
operational sliding length, and doors must be open 90 degrees. The
standard specifies that if part of the CSU fails, that part should be
repaired or replaced and the test repeated.
ASTM F2057-17 also requires a permanent label on CSUs, in a
``conspicuous location when in use,'' and includes an example label
showing warning content and formatting. The standard also includes a
test for assessing label permanence.
ASTM F2057-17 requires that TRDs be provided with all products that
fall within the scope of the standard and that they comply with ASTM
F3096-14. TRDs are supplementary devices that help prevent tip overs.
One example of a TRD is a strap that users attach to the back of a CSU
and the wall, to stabilize the CSU. ASTM F3096-14 requires TRDs to be
tested for strength by affixing one end of the assembled restraint to a
fixed structure and applying a 50-pound weight to the opposite end.
ASTM F3096-14 also requires instructional literature that includes
illustrations of installation methods, step-by-step instructions, and a
list of parts with pictures.
The three international standards--ISO 7171, AS/NZS 4935, and EN
14749--address many of the same key performance requirements as the
voluntary ASTM standards. Table 3 compares the key elements in each of
the standards.
Table 3--Key Performance Requirements in Voluntary and International Standards Addressing Storage Unit Furniture Tip Overs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum
Test mass furniture Element Element TRDs Warning labels Load and
height breakage extension force test
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM F2057-17................. 50 lbs........... 30 in........... Repair, if To outstop or 2/ Required........ Required........ None.
possible. 3.
ISO 7171...................... Not specified \6\ Not specified... Not specified... 2/3 extension... Not mentioned... Not mentioned... None.
AS/NZS 4935................... 29 kg (63.88 lbs) 500 mm (19.7 in) Fail............ 2/3 extension... Strongly Required........ None.
recommended.
EN 14749...................... 75 N (16.8 lbs).. Not specified... Not specified... To outstop or 2/ Not mentioned... Not mentioned... Yes.
3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISO 7171 testing requirements address only stability. ASTM F2057-17
and AS/NZA 4935 include requirements for both stability testing and
warnings. EN 14749 includes stability requirements, as well as strength
and durability requirements. The stability test requirements in ASTM
F2057-17 and AS/NZA 4935 are similar in that both require one empty
drawer to be open for loaded testing. In contrast, EN 14749 requires
that all drawers in a row (not column) be open simultaneously, but
specifies a lower force than ASTM F2057-17 and AS/NZA 4935. EN 14749
also includes two further stability tests to assess a vertical force
and a loaded test with force applied. ASTM F2057-17 is the only
standard that requires TRDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ISO 7171 does not include pass/fail criteria for loaded
stability testing. Instead, it directs testers to continue to
increase the force until a portion of the product ``just lifts away
from the floor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Assessment of Existing Standards
Commission staff assessed the requirements in each of the existing
standards and determined that the two ASTM standards are the most
effective existing standards. Nevertheless, Commission staff
preliminarily believes that the existing standards do not adequately
reduce the risk of CSU tip overs. Staff believes that the two ASTM
standards are more effective than the international requirements
primarily for two reasons. First, although it may appear that EN 14749
is the most stringent standard because it requires additional stability
tests, the additional tests are not as severe as applying a larger
force to the front edge of an empty unit, as ASTM F2057-17 and AS/NZA
4935 require. Second, ASTM F2057-17 is the only standard that requires
TRDs. The Commission's Division of Mechanical Engineering staff
believes that TRDs are an important component to effectively prevent
CSU tip overs. For these reasons, Commission staff believes that the
ASTM standards are the most stringent existing standards, and
therefore, focused on these standards when assessing the effectiveness
of existing standards that address CSU tip overs. However, as discussed
below, there are several provisions in the ASTM standards that staff
preliminarily believes do not adequately address the risk of CSU tip
overs.
1. Scope
The scope of ASTM F2057-17, which limits the height of CSUs and age
of children it addresses, may not adequately reduce the risk of injury
associated with CSU tip overs. First, the scope of the standard is
limited to addressing CSUs that are more than 30 inches in height.
However, there have been incidents involving CSUs that are 30 inches
tall or less. These products may present a hazard particularly to
children because low-height CSUs may be intended for children and these
[[Page 56757]]
products can weigh as much as 100 pounds.
Second, the scope of ASTM F2057-17 states that that the target
population for injury reduction is ``children up to and including age
five.'' However, as the incident data demonstrate, children as old as 8
years old have been killed and injured by CSU tip overs. In particular,
children under age 6 are most commonly involved in incidents. The ``age
five'' specified in the standard appears to include only children up to
exactly age five (i.e., 60 months), however, and not children between
their fifth and sixth birthdays (based on the 50-pound stability test
weight, which represents the weight of children 60 months old). In
addition, hazard patterns, such as opening multiple drawers, present a
risk of injury to users of any age.
2. Stability
There are also several components of the stability testing
provisions in ASTM F2057-17 that staff preliminarily believes are not
adequate to reduce the risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs.
First, the standard requires that stability testing occur on a
``hard, level, flat surface.'' This does not reflect the surfaces on
which CSUs may rest in consumers' homes. For example, floors in a home
may not be level, and carpeting is not flat. As the incident reports
suggest, when a flooring type was reported, carpeting was more commonly
involved in CSU tip-over incidents than other types of flooring.
Assessing the impact of alternate surfaces on stability may be
necessary to accurately assess the stability of a product. In addition,
the standard does not provide a detailed definition of a ``hard, level,
flat surface.'' Relevant details may include a surface flatness
tolerance (e.g., 0.1[deg]) over a certain area or a
specific type of flooring surface (e.g., Type IV vinyl tile).
Second, the requirement that testing occur with drawers open to the
outstop or, if there is no outstop, to \2/3\ of the operational sliding
length, is unclear and creates testing inconsistencies. For example,
staff has tested CSUs with outstops that are significantly less than
\2/3\ of the operational sliding length, the location of the outstop
can impact proper placement of the test weight on the drawer, the
standard does not address CSUs with multiple outstops, and the standard
does not specify a minimum operational sliding length, which would
facilitate testing.
Third, the unloaded stability test procedure may not reflect
conditions during actual consumer use. This test requires that all
drawers are empty and open simultaneously. However, when contents were
reported in CSU tip-over incidents, CSUs generally contained clothing.
Fourth, staff has several concerns with the loaded stability test
procedure. The 50-pound test weight is not consistent with the age and
weight of victims. The majority of reported CSU tip-over incidents
involved children under 6 years old. As such, the test weight in the
standard does not reflect the weight of children involved in the
majority of incidents, which is approximately 60 pounds (for the 95th
percentile weight of children just under six years old, according to
Centers for Disease Control growth charts). In addition, the test
weight tolerances may impact the repeatability of testing. ASTM F2057-
17 allows a tolerance of 1 pound for each of the two 25-
pound test weights, which means the total weight can range from 48 to
52 pounds, plus the weight of the fastening hardware and strap. Such a
wide tolerance may produce variation in test outcomes, which could
result in the same CSU passing and failing during multiple tests.
Fifth, the standard's allowance for the replacement or repair of a
failed component may be problematic. For example, this provision does
not include a testability requirement, does not account for a failure
that cannot be repaired or replaced, and does not account for design-
to-fail features that prevent tip overs.
Sixth, during CPSC testing, staff identified several additional
issues related to the specificity and clarity of the test procedures in
ASTM F2057-17. For example, the standard does not address how to apply
test weights to drawers with center components (e.g., handles), does
not include a timeframe in which to apply and maintain the test weight,
and does not address how to place weights in shallow drawers to avoid
contact with the drawer bottom.
3. Labeling
Commission staff has concerns with the location and content
requirements for warning labels in ASTM F2057-17.\7\ With respect to
location, the standard specifies that a label must be in a
``conspicuous location when in use'' but does not provide further
details. For a warning label to be effective, it must be in a location
where users will see it. For example, users are not likely to notice or
read a label in a lower drawer because it is outside their line-of-
sight and they would have to crouch to read it. In contrast, if a label
is in a drawer at eye level, an adult, parent, or caregiver is more
likely to notice and read the label. For this reason, the label
placement provision in the standard may not be adequate for the label
to be effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Staff also expressed concerns with the label permanence
requirements in ASTM F2057-14 in the 2016 briefing package (U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Staff Briefing Package on
Furniture Tipover (September 30, 2016)). However, those concerns
have been resolved with the label permanence requirements added to
ASTM F2057-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff also has concerns with the hazard communication statements
ASTM F2057-17 requires on a label. First, the label does not allow for
customization of hazard avoidance statements for different unit
designs. Second, the warning messages may not reflect the hazard
patterns demonstrated in the incident data. Third, the warning language
may not be easy to understand, may not motivate consumers to comply,
and contradicts typical CSU uses. For example, the warning label states
that consumers should not open multiple drawers simultaneously, but
this contradicts common consumer use. Another example is the warning
label statement that users should not place a television on a CSU,
unless it is specifically designed to accommodate one. The CSU
manufacturer, not the consumer, is in the best position to determine
whether a CSU is designed to accommodate a television.
4. TRDs
Commission staff believes that the TRD requirements in ASTM F3096-
14 do not adequately assess the strength of TRDs under conditions in
which they are commonly used. Staff believes the following provisions
are inadequate. First, the test method in ASTM F3096-14 only addresses
TRD designs that have a linear connection to the means of attachment
(strap-style TRDs). This test does not account for varied or innovative
TRD designs. Second, the test does not examine the strength of all of
the components of a TRD (e.g., brackets, fastener). Third, the test
does not simulate the types of materials to which consumers are likely
to secure TRDs. Fourth, the standard does not include explicit criteria
for determining whether a TRD passes or fails the test.
VI. Regulatory Alternatives the Commission Is Considering
The Commission is considering several alternatives to address the
risk of death and injury associated with CSU tip overs.
[[Page 56758]]
A. Mandatory Standard
The Commission could issue a mandatory standard addressing the
hazard associated with CSU tip overs. A mandatory standard could
include performance requirements, warning and instructional
requirements, or both. However, warning and instructional requirements
alone may not be adequate to address the risk because they rely on
consumers noticing, reading, and following the warning. The Commission
may consider the following factors in developing performance and
warning requirements:
1. Scope and Definition of CSUs
In developing a mandatory standard, the Commission would need to
consider the appropriate scope for the standard, including the types of
products the standard would cover, the hazard scenarios it would
address, and whether to focus on a particular target population for
injury reduction. For example, CPSC would need to consider whether to
limit the scope of a standard to the CSU tip-over hazard posed to
children under 6 years old. Such a scope may be appropriate because the
large majority of CSU tip over injuries and deaths involve children
under 6 years old. However, it may also be appropriate not to limit the
scope of the standard because some injuries and fatalities have
involved older children and adults, and some demonstrated hazard
patterns (e.g., opening multiple drawers) involve a risk of injury to
all ages.
Similarly, CPSC also must consider how to define CSUs that are
subject to a mandatory rule. Defining CSUs by certain characteristics
may be appropriate. Such characteristics could include product height
or weight, product types, or product features, reflecting the
characteristics of products involved in incidents.
2. Stability
The Commission believes that it may be appropriate to consider
performance requirements and test methods that simulate actual use,
including weighting a CSU to represent common use, dynamic testing to
represent a child climbing (exerting a downward force), and testing
that reflects actual floor surfaces in homes. In developing a mandatory
standard, the Commission would consider ways to address the hazard
patterns demonstrated in the incident data, such as:
A child under 6 years old (weighing approximately 60
pounds) climbing on a CSU to play;
A child under 6 years old (weighing approximately 60
pounds) standing on a lower drawer to reach into an upper drawer;
A consumer (of any age) fully opening multiple drawers
simultaneously that contain items typically stored in a CSU; and
A CSU on a soft surface that simulates average carpet.
3. Labeling
Clear and explicit requirements regarding the content and placement
of warning labels may assist in reducing the risk of injury associated
with CSU tip overs. This may include identifying a conspicuous location
on CSUs for a warning label; allowing for customization of hazard-
avoidance statements, based on unit designs; comparing warning messages
with incident data to make sure that the known hazardous situations are
addressed; and including warning content that is easy to understand and
consistent with the way consumers typically use CSUs.
4. TRDs
TRDs are an important feature for reducing the risk of CSU tip
overs. To assess the effectiveness of TRDs at preventing tip overs,
performance requirements and test methods that assess the strength of
the entire TRD system and reflect the circumstances under which TRDs
are likely to be used (including the materials to which consumers are
likely to attach them and the forces to which they are likely to be
subjected) would be useful.
B. Rely on Voluntary Standards
The Commission could rely on the voluntary ASTM standards--ASTM
F2057-17 and ASTM F3096-14--that address CSU tip overs. If the
Commission determines that the voluntary standards adequately reduce
the risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs, and it finds that
there is substantial industry compliance with the standards, then the
Commission must rely on the voluntary standards, instead of issuing a
mandatory standard. 15 U.S.C. 2058(b)(2).
However, as discussed above, the Commission preliminarily believes
that the ASTM standards do not adequately reduce the risk of injury
associated with CSU tip overs. The Commission is assessing the level of
compliance with the voluntary standards.
C. No Regulatory Action
The Commission could rely on methods other than mandatory or
voluntary standards to address the risk of injuries associated with CSU
tip overs. This may include relying on product recalls or promoting the
ongoing Anchor It! educational campaign. These alternatives may not be
as effective at reducing the risk of injury as a mandatory standard.
Recalls only apply to an individual manufacturer and product and do not
extend to similar products. Recalls also can only address products that
are already on the market, and cannot prevent unsafe products from
entering the market. As for educational campaigns, staff does not have
information regarding the effectiveness of the Commission's education
campaign to date.
VII. Request for Comments and Information
The Commission requests comments on all aspects of this ANPR, but
specifically requests comments regarding:
Data about the risk of injury associated with CSU tip
overs;
studies, tests, or surveys analyzing furniture tip-over
injuries, including the severity and costs associated with injuries;
the alternatives the Commission is considering, as well as
additional alternatives for addressing the risk of injury;
the appropriate scope of a mandatory standard and
definition of CSUs, including the type of products it should address
(e.g., other furniture; televisions; all CSUs; CSUs with certain
features or over a certain height, such as 30 inches) and the ages it
should address (e.g., children under 6 years old, all children, or all
ages);
the effectiveness of the stability, warning, and TRD
requirements being considered;
studies, tests, or surveys analyzing the number and type
of televisions (i.e., CRT or flat screen) or other large objects placed
on top of CSUs and the impact of those objects on the stability of the
CSU;
studies, tests, or surveys analyzing the use of
aftermarket products that address tip-over hazards (e.g., wall straps,
anchors) and their effectiveness at reducing tip overs;
information or studies about how characteristics of the
flooring surface under a CSU may impact the stability of the CSU and
the effectiveness of a stability standard;
a suitable definition for a soft surface that could serve
as a surrogate for ``average'' or typical carpet;
the effectiveness of voluntary or international standards
at reducing the risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs;
compliance with ASTM F2057-17 and ASTM F3096-14;
[[Page 56759]]
CSU retail sales or shipments, especially information
about the type of CSUs sold and the number of units sold in recent
years;
the number of CSUs in use;
studies, tests, or descriptions of technologies or design
changes that address tip-over injuries and estimates of costs
associated with those features, including manufacturing costs and
wholesale prices;
the expected impact of technologies or design changes that
address tip-over injuries on manufacturing costs or wholesale prices;
the potential impact of design changes to address CSU
stability on consumer utility; and
information about whether any stability requirements for
CSUs in ether a voluntary standard or potential mandatory rule could
have a disparate impact on small entities, such as small manufacturers
or importers.
In addition, the Commission invites interested parties to submit
any existing standards, or portions of them, for consideration as a
consumer product safety standard. The Commission also invites
interested persons to submit a statement of intention to modify or
develop a voluntary consumer product safety standard addressing the
risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs, including a description
of the plan to develop or modify such a standard.
Please submit comments in accordance with the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this ANPR.
Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-25779 Filed 11-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P