 Good morning and welcome to this public meeting of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Today's CPSC staff will brief the commission on a draft known as a proposed rule making to establish a safety standard for clothing storage units. This proposed rule is intended to address the risk associated with clothing storage units tip overs, particularly involving those involving children. Before we start today's briefing, however, I'd like to extend a warm welcome to our newest commissioner, Rich Trumka. On behalf of commission and CPSC staff, congratulations on your appointment and we all look forward to working with you. And I hope that, yeah, and personally it's up to that. I hope that we have our final colleague confirmed soon and we have a fully constituted commission. So welcome, Rich. Today is the last of a series of four briefings on important rule making packages. I truly appreciate the hard work of the staff over these past few weeks that they've put into preparing these packages briefings. The draft notice of proposed rule making will be briefed on today as intended to address the risk of injury associated with clothing storage unit tip overs. Between January 2000 and December 2020, CPSC staff identified 226 fatalities associated with clothing storage units tipping over. 85% of these deaths involve children and 10% involve seniors. And many more children and seniors are injured during this period. The proposed rule would require clothing storage units to be tested for stability, seed minimum stability standard requirements, be marked and labeled for safety information and bear a hang tag providing data about the stability of the unit. After staff briefs us on the specific of this proposed rule, each commissioner will have 10 minutes to ask questions to the staff with multiple rounds if necessary. The follow-up staff will brief the commission. Dr. Kirsten Talcott, Project Manager, Division of Human Factors, Director for Engineering Sciences. Meredith Kelch, Attorney in the Regulatory Affairs Division with the Office of General Counsel. Also in attendance are Mary Boyle, our Executive Director, Pam Stone, is Acting General Counsel and Roberta Mills, our Secretary. One final point before I turn the meeting over to staff. Any questions that address the agency's legal authority should be held until the closed executive session, which the commission will hold directly following this public briefing. With that, I will turn over to Dr. Talcott and Ms. Kelch for their presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you mentioned, Meredith Kelch and I will present the draft notice of proposed rulemaking for clothing storage units. We'll start the presentations with Meredith providing the overview of the legal elements. As I mentioned, I am Meredith Kelch. I'm going to turn it with the Office of the General Counsel in the Regulatory Affairs Division. And I will be giving a brief overview of statutory framework provision that's standard under the 16th of August. This rulemaking falls under Section 7 and 9 and Section 27e of the CPSA. Section 7 and 9 apply to performance requirements regarding stability and the labeling requirements. And Section 27e applies to the Shanghai requirement. Section 7 and 9 of the CPSA set out requirements for the commission to issue a consumer product safety standard. Section 7 of the CPSA authorizes the commission to issue consumer product safety standard that consists of performance requirements or requirements regarding warnings or instructions. Any requirements must be reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with the product. Section 7 of the CPSA also specifies that consumer product safety standard must be issued in accordance with the requirements in Section 9 of the statute. Section 9 of the CPSA provides procedural and substantive requirements for issuing a consumer product safety standard. The commission may begin a rulemaking with a notice of proposed rulemaking or NPR or with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking or ANPR. For closing storage units, the commission initiated rulemaking with an ANPR in November 2017. The briefing package and draft NPR summarize and respond to the comments that the CPSA received in response to the ANPR. Next slide, please. Under Section 9, an NPR must include the text of the proposed rule, alternatives to the proposed rule, and a preliminary regulatory analysis. Section 9 also requires that the commission make certain findings before issuing a final rule. In addition, the commission must provide two opportunities for comments. First, Section 9 requires that rulemaking be in accordance with Section 553 of the Administrative Schedule Act, which requires agencies to give notice of a proposed rule and the opportunity to submit written comments on it. Second, Section 9 requires the commission to provide an opportunity for interested parties to make oral presentations of data of use or arguments. Next slide, please. As I mentioned, one requirement for an NPR under Section 7 and 9 of the CPSA is the preliminary regulatory analysis. Section 9 of the CPSA provides specific elements that must be included in the preliminary regulatory analysis. It must discuss potential benefits and costs of the rule and who is likely to receive and bear them. Reasons the standard committed to the commission was not published as part of the proposed rule and alternatives to the proposed rule, their potential costs and benefits, and reasons they were not chosen. In addition to supporting the preliminary regulatory analysis, information about costs and benefits associated with the rule also helped form the basis for several of the required findings for a final rule. Next slide, please. As I mentioned, to issue a final rule, the commission must consider and make specific findings, and those findings must be included in the rule. Although the commission does not have to make these findings at the NPR stage, preliminary findings are included in an NPR because Section 9 requires that the findings be included in the regulatory test, which must be provided in an NPR, and because this provides an opportunity for interest rates to comment on the findings. This slide shows eight of the nine required findings. And next slide, please. The final finding deals with voluntary standards. If a voluntary standard that addresses the risk of injury at issues has been adopted and implemented, the commission must find that either compliance with the voluntary standard is not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury or that there is not likely to be substantial compliance with it. Next slide, please. The hang-tie requirement in the draft proposed rule holds under Section 27e of the CPSA. Under Section 27e, the commission may issue a rule to require manufacturers of consumer products to provide performance and technical data related to performance and safety purchasers when necessary to carry out the purposes of the CPSA. Section two of the CPSA states the purposes of the statute, which includes protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injury associated with consumer products and assisting consumers in evaluating the comparative safety of the system. I'll now turn it over to Kristen, who will provide further information about the briefing package and draft proposed rule. Thank you, Meredith. Now I will present findings in the draft briefing package. In this presentation, I will discuss the risks, particularly to young children associated with clothing storage units abbreviated as CPSUs. I'll describe the data in the staff analysis of the factors leading to tip-over, which includes the child's interaction with the CSU, for example, climbing and pulling, multiple open and filled drawers, and placement of the CSU on carpet. I will also discuss the existing voluntary standards and staff assessments that they are inadequate to address the tip-over hazards. Then I will describe the elements of the proposed rule which simulate the forces of children climbing or pulling on a CSU in a real-world configuration that includes multiple open and filled drawers and an angle-simulating carpet. I will also discuss the proposed labeling and hang tag requirements. Then I will provide an overview for the preliminary regulatory analysis and the initial regulatory flexibility analysis findings. Next slide, please. In the proposed rule, staff assigned to CSU as a freestanding furniture item withdrawers and or doors that may be reasonably expected to use 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. This scope was determined based on staff analysis of instance-involved units. Units that are marketed as CSUs and similar products on the market as well as a contractor study on CSU use. Common names for CSUs include tests, bureaus, dressers, armoires, wardrobes, chest drawers, drawer chests, shipper roads, and door chests. Some CSUs are marketed packaged or displayed as intended for children 12 years old and younger. However, most CSUs are more commonly general use products. Next slide, please. Here are some pictures of products that fall within the scope of the draft NPR. As you can see, scope encompasses a variety of products with closed storage space, including those with drawers only in a single column or multiple columns, products with a combination of drawers and doors like the product shown on the right, and those with drawers only. Next slide, please. In the draft NPR, staff recommends excluding two categories of products that would otherwise meet the definition of the CSU. The first is closed lockers. An example of which is shown on the left, which are defined as predominantly metal furniture items without exterior doors, and with one or more doors that either lock or accommodate an external lock. The second is portable storage closets, which are defined as free standing furniture items with an open frame that encloses hanging clothes and storage space and or shelves. These items may have a closet case with curtains slapped through doors that obscure the contents from views, as in the example shown on the right. Staff recommend excluding these products on scope because there are no known took over incidents associated with children in these products. Next slide, please. Staff found substantial variation in retail prices of CSUs, with the least expensive units retailing for less than $100, and some more expensive units that may retail for several thousand dollars. Staff estimated that shipments of dressers and chests totaled 43 million units in 2018, well over half the value of parents' consumption of non-apulterable furniture in 2019 was comprised of imported furniture, and this is likely true of CSUs as well. The estimated retail value of U.S. bedroom furniture sales in 2019 totaled over 60 billion dollars, of which approximately $21 billion was the sales of closets, nightstands, and dressers. In 2017, there were just over 2,000 manufacturers of non-apulterable furniture, over 5,000 firms involved in household furniture importation and distribution, and almost 14,000 furniture retailers. Next slide, please. In the draft NPR, staff analyzed CSUs took over fatality data from the year 2000 to 2020. In this time period, staff is aware of 226 total fatalities caused by CSUs took over or instability, including 193 child fatalities, 11 adult fatalities, and 22 senior fatalities. The graph at the bottom of this slide shows rough breakdown of fatal incidents by age and television involvement. The fatalities include 105 incidents in which both the CSU and television fell, and 121 incidents in which only a CSU fell. As you can see in the graph, regardless of television involvement, most reported CSUs took over fatalities involved children three years old or younger. For fatal incidents involving a CSU without a television, 94% involved children three years old or younger. Next slide, please. Staff also analyzed reported non-fatal CSUs took over incidents from the Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System, abbreviated CPSRMS, for the years 2005 to 2020. In this time period, staff is aware of 1002 CSUs took over or instability incidents for all ages, including 552 related injuries. Staff also analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, abbreviated NICE, from 2006 to 2019. These data come from a nationally representative probability sample for about 100 hospitals. During the analyzed time period, there was an estimated average of 5,600 emergency department treated CSUs took over injuries per year, including 4,000 child injuries. I want to note that for the years 2010 to 2019, the data show a statistically significant decrease in the overall number of estimated child injuries involving all CSUs, and that's including incidents with television. Disappearance driven by decline in injuries from CSU tip overs involving television because over the same time period, the rate of emergency department treated injuries of children from incidents involving CSUs only has remained stable. Because of this apparent decrease in CSU incidents with television, staff focused on the subject incidents involving CSUs without television. Staff also focused on incidents involving children because such a large percent of the fatal and non-fatal incidents involve children. Next slide, please. From January 2000 to March 2021, TPSC conducted 40 recalls of CSUs with tip over and entrapment hazards. These units were associated with 12 fatalities. The recalls involved 34 different firms and over 21 million CSUs. Next slide, please. The injuries caused by CSU tip over includes top tissue injuries such as custom bruises, electrical injuries, bone fracture, skull fracture, closed head injuries, compressional and mechanical asphyxia and internal organ crushing leading to hemorrhage. Most serious injuries in death are the result of blunt force trauma to the head and intense pressure on the chest that impairs the respiratory and circulatory system. Torso injuries are the most common form of injury for tip over fatalities involving CSUs without television. Next slide, please. As I said earlier, staff focused on incidents involving children and CSUs without television and their analysis of the tip over hazards. For instance, as reported to our fill level, most involved partially filled or fully filled drawers. 96% of fatal incidents and 90% of non-fatal incidents included those drawer fill levels. For instance, as reported flooring types under the CSU, a majority were on carpet, including over 82% of fatal incidents and 80% of non-fatal incidents. For instance, with the reported interaction type, finding the most common reported interaction in the fatal incident, making up 74% of those incidents. Finding was also the most common reported interaction for emergency department-treated incidents, making up 77% of those incidents. Finding was the second most common child interaction in the reported non-fatal incidents. The majority of child's timing incidents, including 94% of fatal incidents, involved children three years old or younger. Opening multiple drawers was the most common interaction in the non-fatal CPS RMS incidents. The data show that children are capable of opening all drawers. Staff identified full force application heights in incidents, ranging from less than a foot to almost four feet. Staff is also aware of incidents involving combinations of these factors, including a non-fatal tip over incidents involving a three-year-old child climbing on a CSU with all seven drawers open and filled and the CSU on carpet. Next slide, please. This slide shows some examples of children's interactions with CSUs. These are still images from online videos. The videos show a variety of climbing techniques, including stepping on the top of the drawer face, stepping on the drawer knob, gripping the top of the upper drawer with a hand, and pushing up using the top of the drawer. They also show children pulling on drawers and children inside drawers at the CSU. I'd also like to point out that in three of the videos shown here, the one on the top left, the top middle, and the bottom right, the child is interacting with the CSUs with all of the drawers open. Next slide, please. The primary voluntary standard that addresses CSUs in the United States is ASCAM F2057, the standard consumer safety specifications closing storage unit. The current version of the standard was published in 2019. ASCAM 2057-19 has two stability requirements. The first, called stability of unloaded units, requires that the unit not tip over when all extension elements are open and no additional force is applied. The second, called stability of unloaded, requires that the unit not tip over when a 50-pound test weight supplies a single open extension element. Both of the tests are conducted on flat surface with empty drawers. Next slide, please. For the draft NPR, staff tested 188 CSUs and found that 91% met the stability requirements in F2057-17, which are the same stability requirements as in the current version of the standard. Staff determined that the maximum weight that CSU could hold on a single open drawer before tipping over, range from as low as 12.5 pounds to over 134 pounds with an average of 62 pounds. Staff also looked at whether the units that could meet stability requirements in ASCAM F2057-19 were involved in tip-over incidents. Staff focused on incidents involving children without television. For the majority of incidents, staff did not have identifying information on the unit or a sample and thus could not make a determination. However, staff was able to identify one CSU that clearly met the stability requirements of the ASCAM standards and that was involved in a fatal tip-over incident, as well as one CSU that met the requirements in some conditions and was involved in a fatal tip-over incident. Staff identified 11 CSUs involved in fatal tip-over incidents that did not meet the stability requirements. Staff also identified 20 units involved in non-fatal tip-over incidents that met the stability requirements, as well as 95 CSUs that did not meet the requirements. Next slide, please. Based on technical analysis, staff concludes that ASCAM F2057-19 does not address the hazards pattern found in the incident data because it does not adequately account for the forces from child's interaction or multiple open drawers, filled drawers, and carpet. I'll get a bit more into that analysis in the upcoming slides. Next slide, please. Also looked at three additional CSU-related voluntary standards. The first is ASCAM NDS 4935, which is the Australian New Zealand Standard for Domestic Furniture that provides stability requirements for freestanding tests of drawers, board-driven bookshelves, slash bookcases. We also looked at ISO 7171, which is the International Standard for Furniture that provides stability tests for storage units. And EN 147-49, which is the European Standard that provides safety requirements and test methods for domestic and kitchen storage units. Staff also reviewed ANSI slash SOHO S6.5, a Small Office Home Office Furniture Standard, which is not CSU standards, but has requirements for interlock systems. Staff determined that these standards do not adequately address the TIP-over hazards because as with the ASCAM standards, they do not adequately account for the forces from children's interaction or multiple open drawers, filled drawers, and carpet. Next slide, please. Now I'm going to discuss the most technical analysis on the forces children can exert while interacting with CSUs. As part of the CSU TIP-over effort, CPSC commissioned a study with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute to collect information on how children interact with CSUs and the associated dynamic forces from these interactions. The in-lab research study involves 40 children aged 20 months to 65 months old, interacting with a test fixture with two bars, one representing the lower foot fold of the CSU, and one representing the upper hand fold of the CSU. The test fixture also had a simulated drawer and a simulated tabletop representing the top surface of the CSU. The test fixture instrumentation recorded forces over time in the horizontal and vertical directions. Study dynamic interactions included the send, which is a climbing up onto the test fixture and is analogous to a child stepping on CSU's climb, bounce, lean back, yanking while leaning back, taking one hand or foot off the bars and leaning away from the bar, chopping up using the arms to push up from the upper hand fold, hanging onto the upper bar and lifting the feet by bending the knees and the sending, which is climbing down from the test fixture. The bars were adjusted to various heights to represent different CSU designs and interactions. Next slide, please. This slide shows some example force data from the study collected during the child's dynamic interaction with the test fixture. You can see the downward force on the lower bar in yellow, which is similar to the child's body weight shown by the gray line at the top. Importantly, you can also see an outward and downward force on the upper bar, shown in red and green, as well as an inward force on the lower bar, shown in blue. On the right, there's a labeled picture of a child interacting with the test fixture. It's important to note that the position of the child's center of mass, which is near the stomach, is located outwards from the test fixture bars. This position can also be seen in the video stills of interactions from the earlier slide. Next slide, please. On the right of this slide is a pre-body diagram showing the forces on CSU from a child climbing. The horizontal and vertical forces create rotational force, called a moment, that acts about a tidbit point, also called a fulcrum. In that CSU, the fulcrum is generally the front leg of the CSU. The moment is created by forces acting at a distance, also called a moment arm, away from the fulcrum. For the horizontal forces, the moment arm is a vertical distance to the fulcrum. For vertical forces, the moment arm is a horizontal distance to the fulcrum. For the child interaction study, researchers calculated the dynamic moments using the forces measured from the instrumented test fixture. Next slide, please. Based on the data from the study, staffs included that children can exert moments while descending a CSU. There are over 1.6 times those from body weight alone for an average drawer extension. This is much more than the assumed climbing force used in the ASM standards, which is just the child's body weight. The moment is a result of the dynamic interaction with the CSU, including horizontal forces that allow the child to extend their center of gravity away from the CSU. This means that if you wanted to recreate the forces of the 50 pound child climbing for a given CSU configuration, and 50 pounds is the weight that's used in the ASM standards, you would need to use an approximately 80 pound weight on an extended drawer. Other interactions in the study, such as lean back, bounce, and yank, created higher moments. Next slide, please. Based on the data and analysis, staffs developed equations for two comparison moments related to climbing. One is a moment based on a child's climbing CSU with drawers or pull-out shelves. It uses the horizontal drawer or pull-out shelf extension and the ascended forces from a 95th percentile weight per a three-year-old child, which is 51.2 pounds. The second moment is based on a child climbing on the door of a CSU. It uses the horizontal drawer extension, minus three inches, and the hanged forces from a 51.2 pound child. Next slide, please. Because opening and pulling on a drawer was a key interaction observed in the incident, staffs developed an equation for a child pulling on a handful of the CSU while opening or attempting to open a drawer. For the stability requirements, staff recommends one comparison moment related to pulling, which is based on meaningful strength for two to five-year-old children, which is 17.2 pounds, based on the DTI-2000 reference, applied at up to a 95th percentile overhead reach height for three-year-old children, which is 4.12 feet from the pheasant 1996 reference. Next slide, please. Staff conducted testing on the weight of clothing and drawers using both unfolded clothing, shown in the top row of this picture, and folded clothing, shown in the bottom row. This testing looked at 8.5 pounds, cubic feet of clothing fill, which is a value that's been discussed within the ASM CSU task group. Staff also measured the weight of clothing in maximally filled drawers. Staff concluded that 8.5 pounds to cubic foot of functional drawer volume, which is what's shown in these pictures, is a reasonable approximation of the weight of clothing in a fully filled drawer. Next slide, please. Staff conducted in-law testing and instant recreation modeling to determine the effect of multiple open and filled drawers on CSU's stability. Staff found that CSUs are less stable as more drawers are open, and that filled drawers have a variable effect on stability, with a filled closed drawer contributing to stability, and a filled open drawer decreasing stability. The drawing in the bottom of the slide illustrates how the center of gravity of a CSU will move forward with multiple open drawers. Next slide, please. Staff also conducted in-law testing to determine the effect of a carpet surface on CSU's stability. Staff found that CSUs are less stable on carpet, with carpet reducing the tip weight of the test unit by a mean of 7.6 pounds and a median of seven pounds. Staff modeling showed that 1.5 degree forward tilt angle approximated the effects of carpet on CSU's stability. Next slide, please. Staff assesses that tip restraint should not be relied upon as the primary method of preventing CSU tipover. This is because there are several research studies that show a large number of consumers do not anchor furniture, including CSUs. The studies we cite in the package show rates of anchoring as low as about 10% and as high as about 55%. The rates continuously low despite CPSC's active education campaign anchor it, which has been active for over five years, and other pushes to raise awareness of tip restraints from consumer advocates and manufacturers. Staff also noted concerns about the effectiveness of tip restraints, including those that comply with the tip restraint standard ASTM F3096-14 in the staff freezing package. Staff is concerned that the standard does not address the interface between the tip restraint and the wall or the tip restraint in the CSU. And that the 50-pound pull force in the standard may not adequately account for the forces from children's interactions. However, staff still supports the use of effective tip restraints as a secondary safety system to enhance stability. Next slide, please. Based on their analysis, staff recommends that CSUs be tested in the configuration that takes carpet and multiple open extension elements, meaning storage doors and pull-out shelves, into account. During testing, staff recommends that CSU be tipped forward 1.5 degrees to simulate the effects of carpeting. Staff also recommends testing with all doors open to leave stable configuration and all drawers and pull-out shelves fully extended. Staff recommends accounting for interlocks, which are systems that prevent multiple drawers from opening simultaneously by having an interlock test and allowing a different test configuration for you in the past. For CSUs interlocks that pass interlock testing, the proposed test configuration with all drawers that are not locked by the interlock system opens the least stable configuration. To account for the decrease in stability related to closing fill, staff recommends filling all drawers and pull-out shelves with 8.5 pounds to give a foot of functional volume. If half or more of the drawers and pull-out shelves by volume are open. If less than half of the drawers and pull-out shelves by volume are open, staff recommends not placing a fill weight in any drawers or pull-out shelves. This represents a worst-case fill depending on drawer configuration. Next slide, please. For the stability test, staff propose using one or two methods to apply force to the CSUs to determine the force required to cause the CSUs to tip over. For the first method, which can be used for CSUs if drawers or pull-out shelves, apply a vertical load to the uppermost extended drawer for pull-out shelves. For the second method, which can be used for all CSUs, apply a force on the load to the back of the CSU. The tester should select the method that's most appropriate for the CSU. The specific method of force application is left up to the tester. After measuring the force, testers calculate the tip-over moment by multiplying the force by the horizontal distance to the fulcrum for method one and by the vertical distance to the fulcrum for method two. Next slide, please. The tip-over moment is compared to the threshold moment, which is the greatest of three applicable moments. These are the moments I discussed earlier. The first is a moment based on a child climbing a CSU with drawers or pull-out shelves. It uses the horizontal drawer or pull-out shelves extension and the extend forces from a 51.2 pound child. The second is based on a child climbing on the drawer of a CSU. It uses the horizontal drawer extension minus three inches and the hang forces from a 51.2 pound child. The third is based on a child pulling on a handful of the CSU while opening for attempting to open extension elements. It uses the hand pull height, which is a maximum of 4.12 inches, multiplied by the mean pull strength for two five-year-old children, which is 17.2 pounds. Next slide, please. Staff propose that units contain a warning label. Staff provide additional guidance on conspicuous placement of the label over what is in ASTM F2057-19. The content is similar with some modifications to the task and possible new symbols. The proposed format and permanency requirements are the same as those in ASTM F2057-19. On the right of this slide, you will see two variations of the proposed label. The top one is for units that are not designed to be used with the television and the bottom one is for units that are designed to be used with the television. Staff also propose a new identification label that provides the model, manufacturer information, date of manufacture, and a statement of compliance with the proposed rule. This label will allow for easier identification of units. Next slide, please. Staff also recommend requirements provide technical information for consumers on a hang tag attached to the CSU at the point of purchase. This hang tag will offer consumers comparative information about the stability of products and help them make informed buying decisions. This information may also improve consumer safety by incentivizing manufacturers to produce CSUs with higher levels of stability, thereby increasing the overall stability of the CSU market. At the bottom of the slide, you can see the front and reverse side of an example hang tag. The recommended hang tag includes a linear graphical tail representation of tip-over resistance, a tilted CSU icon, and further explanation of the rating on the reverse side of the hang tag. Next slide, please. In the preliminary regulatory analysis, staff analyzed the potential benefits of the rule. Staff determined that the total annual benefit of the draft proposed rule in terms of reducing the sale costs of injuries and deaths to children and adults could be about 305.5 million. Given that there were about 463.5 million CSUs in use in 2017, the benefit per unit would be about 66 cents per unit annually. Over the estimated 15-year useful life of the CSU, the benefit would be between $6.01 and $9.90, depending on the discount rate chosen. Chart at the bottom of the slide shows the calculated benefit based on the 3% and 7% discount rate recommended by OMB and an undiscounted value. Next slide, please. Staff also analyzed the potential costs of the rule. Cost estimates modify existing CSUs to meet proposed requirements were as low as $5.80 to over $25 per unit. Using the lower end of that cost and annual sales of 43 million units, the annual cost of the draft proposed rule would be around 250 million. The cost means the draft proposed rule would be considered a major rule under the Congressional Review Act. Staff also considers unquantified costs, which includes added weight that may make CSUs more difficult to move or assemble. In addition, modifications that require feet extending several inches in front of the CSU could create a surfing hazard. Staff also acknowledged that some CSUs may be difficult to modify to comply with the draft proposed rule requirements, and may be withdrawing from the market. Next slide, please. Staff examined regulatory alternatives to the draft proposed rule. First was no regulatory action. The second was develop a stability rating standard for CSUs. This could be similar to the proposed hang tags. The third was mandate a more rigorous standard. This is one similar to the draft proposed rule, but addressing a 60-pound child instead of 51.2-pound children. The fourth was mandate 8 p.m. of 2057, but with a 60-pound test rate. And the fifth was a longer effective date because it could be challenging for many firms to meet a 108-day effective date. Next slide, please. In the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, staff discusses the potential impact of the proposed rule on small businesses. Generally, staff considered impact to exceed 1% of firms revenue to potentially significant. From the analysis in the draft NPR, staff estimated that the average cost for CSUs could be between about 5% and 25% of the average revenue per unit for CSUs. Therefore, staff please suggest the proposed rule could have a significant impact on the substantial number of small manufacturers and importers that receive a significant portion of the revenue from the sale of CSUs. Next slide, please. In conclusion, staff identified the hazard patterns leading to CSU tipover, which are child climbing, a child opening multiple drawers, still drawers and carpet. They suggest that children ages one, two, and three years old are at most at risk for death and severe injury. Staff concludes that the current voluntary standards for CSU stability are not likely to eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injuries associated with tipovers. Staff recommend requirements that will reduce CSU deaths and injuries by reducing the occurrence of CSU tipovers. Staff also recommend including an anti-coft filing provision and an effective date of 180 days after the final rule is published in the federal register, which is the longest effective date permitted under the CPSA unless the commission for good cause determines the longer date is necessary. Now we'll show a video. The video starts with an example of testing the proposed method for the draft NPR using a CSU without interlock and one with interlock. Then it shows an example of the testing of the CSU standard. This is an example of how to conduct stability testing on a CSU using the method proposed in the draft NPR. Please note that the unit in this example has drawers only and does not have foot levelers. Additional or different steps are necessary for units with doors or pull-out shelves and those with levelers. The detailed test method is provided in tab G of the staff briefing package. To conduct stability testing, first place the unit on a hard level and flat test surface. Then tilt the unit forward 1.5 degrees. Raising the rear of the unit is one option for doing that. Open all drawers to the maximum extension and place a fill weight in the center of each drawer. Testers can use one of two methods to apply a tip over force to the CSU, whichever is more appropriate for the unit. For test method one, gradually apply over a period of at least five seconds a vertical force to the face of the uppermost extended drawer 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 by the horizontal distance. For test method two, gradually apply over a period of at least five 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 tip over moment of the unit by multiplying the tip over force by the vertical distance. If the unit has an interlock, conduct an interlock pull test before stability testing. In this example, we show testing with an interlock unit with drawers only and no foot levelers. Additional or different steps are necessary for units with doors or pull out shelves and those with levelers. To conduct the interlock pull test, place the unit on the test surface and secure the unit to prevent sliding or tip over. Engage the interlock by opening a drawer or the number of drawers necessary to the maximum extension. Then gradually apply over a period of at least five seconds a 30 pound horizontal pull force on each locked drawer. Test one drawer at a time and hold the force for at least 10 seconds. Repeat this test until all possible combinations of drawers have been tested. If any locked drawer opens during testing or the interlock is damaged, then disable or bypass the interlock for the stability testing. For the stability test, tilt the unit forward to 1.5 degrees. Then open all drawers that are not locked by the interlock system to the maximum extension in the configuration most likely to cause tip over. If 50% or more of the drawers by functional volume are open, place a fill weight in the center of each drawer. If less than 50% are open, do not place a fill weight in any drawer. Use either method one or method two to apply force to the CSU and calculate the tip over moment. The tip over moment of the clothing storage unit must be greater than three moments as applicable. These moments are based on child interactions that can lead to tip over incidents. The first moment applies to units with drawers or pull-out shelves. It is based on a child climbing or sending a unit. The second moment applies to units with doors and is based on a child climbing or hanging on the door. The third moment applies to all units and is based on a child pulling on a handhold of a unit. This is an example on how to conduct stability testing on a CSU using the method in ASTM F2057-19. ASTM F2057-19 has two stability tests. The first is stability of an unloaded unit in section 7.1. The detail test method is provided in ASTM F2057-19. Please note that the unit in this example has drawers only. Additional or different steps are necessary for units with doors or pull-out shelves and for units with drawers without outstops. Position the empty unit on a hard level flat surface. Extend all drawers to the outstop. During the test, the unit shall not tip over. The second stability test is stability with load in section 7.2. Position the empty unit on a hard level flat surface. Open one drawer to the outstop. All of the drawers not undergoing testing are closed. Gradually apply the 50-pound test weight over the front of the drawer. Close drawer or door and repeat until all drawers and doors have been tested. During the test, the unit shall not tip over or be supported by any component unless that component was specifically designed for that purpose. That concludes our presentation and we're happy answering questions from the commissioner. Thank you very much for a very comprehensive briefing. At this point in time, we will turn to questions from the commissioners in order of seniority starting with myself. Dr. Alcott, I'd like to take this back to you again. Staff had identified 226 deaths and many more injuries between 2000 and 2020. The bottom line, given the high number of deaths in industries associated with clothing storage unit tip overs, this proposed rule prevents deaths and injuries from future furniture tip overs. Thank you. Yes, we determined from the incident data that children three years of age and younger are the age group most affected in the fatal tip over incidents. 94% of the fatal incidents involving children and CSUs without television involve children three years of age and younger. The same age range is also the most impacted group in non-fatal nights tip over incidents involving children and CSUs without television and non-fatal CPS RMS incidents involving children and CSUs without television. There is also considerable overlap in child weight by age. For example, the 95% child three-year-old weight which is 51.2 pounds for males that we use in the draft NPR is similar to the 50% child six-year-old weight 49.6 pounds for males. This means that a number of older children will also be protected from the tested interaction and CSU configuration. For fatal incidents for the child's weight reported, the child's weight range from 18 pounds to 45 pounds. Therefore, staff believes that all of these fatalities could have been prevented if the CSU is involved and imply the staff's recommended performance requirements and test methods. Thank you. One of the things that struck me in the presentation is you do have children who often climb on open drawers full of clothes or swing or jump. Do you staff believe that the clothing storage unit proposed test actually reflects that real world use? So the test and comparison moments the staff proposed in the draft NPR were based on child climbing experience and performed by University of Michigan. Incident data, test and evaluation of CSU models involved in fatal and non-fatal tip-over incidents and naturalistic observations from online videos showing child's interaction, including opening all of the drawers and climbing. That proposed and combining multiple open drawers filled drawers and carpet is the CSU configuration and stability requirement because incident data demonstrates that children are opening multiple drawers, drawers are usually filled and the CSU is likely to be placed on carpet. These conditions combined with child climbing on CSU are reasonably worst case scenarios that we would like to protect again. Does the ASTM voluntary standards reflect the climbing that we see with children going up a clothing storage unit? Thank you for the question. So as outlined in the draft freezing package, the current ASTM standards and this is multiple key factors in real world use, including loaded multiple drawers being open, the effect of the sloping surface, for example, carpet, on which the CSU is placed and the impact of climbing and other behaviors, which we're all seeing in the incident data. So reading in the packet on page 144, it's based on staff testing a drawer airlock systems, one of the most effective options to improving stability, raising the tip over a moment for the clothing storage units, more than any modification, other modification staff that's evaluated. Why do you believe that interlocks are one of the most effective options to improve the stability of the storage units and believe that interlocks are so effective? Thank you for the question. Interlocks prevent multiple drawers and doors from being open simultaneously, which has been identified in the incident data and which was shown in CPSB testing cause many PSUs to tip. Can you expand a bit on the performance requirements and why they're important to ensure that the interlocks are working? Certainly. As described in the staff briefing package, the key requirement for interlocks is that they only allow one drawer to open at a time or they may allow more than one drawer to open at the time, but fewer than all the drawers in the unit. Specific requirements to build on this ensure that interlocks are effective, such as just in the interlocks to a 30 pounds full test to ensure it will not fail in use as we recommend in our performance requirements. Do you believe that a unit can meet the draft proposed standard using just the interlock system? Thanks. So it should be noted that staff's aware of one CSU that can meet their requirements in the draft proposed rule and doesn't use interlocks, although it uses a similar concept in that sliding door blocks the drawers from being open simultaneously. There was also one CSU included in economic analysis, which would be able to meet the proposed requirements with just an interlock limiting it to three drawers opening at one time. Well, thanks again to both of you. Those are my questions for the moment. I'm gonna turn to Commissioner Biacco. Thank you. First of all, Commissioner Trumka, welcome. Nice to have you here. Secondly, to the staff and your presentation, Dr. Talcott was excellent. This is the most comprehensive presentation and package I've seen since I've been here, particularly on this issue because I think it is a very difficult issue, so I appreciate you going all the extra steps because I think when I first arrived a few years ago, many of them were missing. So I was happy to see all the different testings and calculations and so forth. I do think that this new presentation and the additions of the testing that we've done address a lot of things, which brings me really to my first question. And it was a question that the chair asked and I just wanna put a finer point on it. I think the chair asked whether this would prevent the incidents and I think that as much as we want them, want this new standard to prevent all incidents, we can't ever guarantee that, correct? There's so many, just based on your presentation, there's so many different variables and factors that could go into a situation. Would you agree with that? What we looked at in establishing our stability requirements is we looked at combining these factors that we've seen in the incident data that we've seen in our analysis, that contributes instability. So the reason why we require all the drawers open, the fill in the drawers and the angling to simulate carpet is because those are all factors that contributes to instability that we've seen in the incident and in our analysis. So with using that is kind of a worst case configuration. I think we can protect from a lot of the potential configurations that a child may put a CSU into. In addition, we compensate for children's interactions by using this time interaction. And we use the weight for a three-year-old child with a 61.2-pound child. And the reason behind that is not because of some of the most extreme interactions. As you said, there are some things that you found in the University of Michigan data can produce larger forces on the CSU, but we see the climbing supported in the data. We feel that our analysis of how to address that is actually in terms of the forces that a child can exert climbing. And then combined with that configuration that we use, we feel that we can prevent a majority of the incidents, especially for three-year-olds and for some of those older children as well. And that's including some interactions that are more extreme than the climbing for lower-weight children or for that seam interaction for older children who are similar weight to the children that we've used for our calculation. And I follow all of that. And I think that you actually hit on the point I think I was trying to make. I just wanna make sure that we're not representing that this new standard as good as it may be and as many things as it'll account for, which is, they're all good, that they won't account for everyone. And I just, what I don't wanna see is the CPSC come out and say, oh yeah, we fixed the problem for 100% because I don't think anybody can ever represent that. It's not a criticism, it's just I wanna make sure that we're being fair in our representation. That's all, it's not meant to suggest that it's not good enough. I think this is a very comprehensive testing. And I think that you're right, all the different dynamic testing that we did and all the calculations and all the variables that were taken into consideration were all very important. And I'm glad that we did that. The one question that I do have is we never really accounted for actual carpet. We simulated it, right? We did it at an angle, but we never actually did our testing on different types of carpeting, correct? So we did do, in a POSAC briefing package, we did do testing on literal carpet. And we put the CSUs in different configurations with filled drawers, multiple open drawers. And we determined the effect on stability from real carpet. The reason why we aren't using literal carpet in the performance requirements is it's obsessed with an ASM quite a bit too. It's very difficult to standardize a test that involves real carpet because you have to have a carpet that everyone can have access to and make sure you're doing it properly. So using, in that case, using the angle which we found in testing to simulate the effects that we saw from the testing on the real carpet is a much more repeatable process. Okay. And I get that too. I'm just going back to my point about, there's always going to be one variable that perhaps this test doesn't catch or the standard doesn't catch. That happens in any type of performance standard or stability testing and so forth. And I get that. Again, it's maybe not articulating it well but it's not meant to be pointing out the negative. I just want to make sure that everyone understands this is a really strong presentation. It's a strong performance standard. It's a strong recommendation. But in any product, you're never going to fix every possible problem. And my lawyer and me is coming out ringing the alarm bells. I don't want to represent that every problem is fixed. But this sure fixes, I think, a lot more things than the current standard does. I see that. And I think that's what your presentation was meant to convey, correct? Yeah, thank you. Okay. And one last question and maybe this is a legal question. And if it is, I apologize and we can answer it later, but how does your recommendation here today, excuse me, differ from the proposed Sturdy Act? It seems like this is stronger and more comprehensive than the Sturdy Act. And will there be conflicts between the two? Or will one over replace the other? Not well, I'll take it. So the Sturdy Act was introduced in Congress in February 2021 and requires CPSU to create a mandatory standard for CSUs. I think it passed in the House in June and it's still under consideration in the Senate. It appears that there are similarities to the draft MPR. Specifically, the Sturdy Act requires CPSU considered the effect of multiple open and filled drawers and carpet, as well as the dynamic courses from interactions, which is what we looked at in the MPR. It also directs CPSU to stimulate the weight of children up to 60 pounds, which is based on a different source for child weight data than what we use in the draft MPR. But it doesn't specify any specific test methods or pass-dale requirements. Okay. In terms of capability requirements, it appears to be similar to the third option in the regulatory analysis, which is requirements similar to those in the draft MPR but using a 60 pound weight instead of a 51.2 pound weight. There are also some other differences, such as a different definition of CSU and scope of products covered, including that it includes all CSUs regardless of height where we have a height requirement. But yeah, in general, I feel that at least in terms of the factors we're considering, it's fairly well-aligned with what was done in the MPR. Okay. Okay, good. That's all I have. Thank you very much. Thank you. Turning to Mr. Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can everybody hear me okay? I apologize, I'm still having trouble with my video, so I'm just on audio today. I see people nodding. First off, I do want to put in a special note of welcome to our new colleague, Commissioner Trumka. Rich, we are all very excited to have you join us, and I'm glad you're ready to jump right into the work on day one. Your arrival comes at a time when the commission schedule is active, and I'm hopeful that we're gonna accomplish great things together. This is the final of the four public briefings that the commission's held over the last three weeks. I think that we've done a great job of scheduling. It looked forward to scheduling some decisional meetings in the coming months as well. It seems like we're back to work, and I believe that the American consumers deserve no less. But listen, regarding the current briefing on clothing storage units, I appreciate the hard work that staff has put into the briefing materials. These are perhaps the most comprehensive materials that I've seen in my time at the agency, and as anyone that has reviewed them can attest, there's just a lot of information regarding the analysis and some very complex technical issues here. And given this complexity, I do have questions today. I likely expect that I'm gonna have some follow-ups, but just as a general matter, I wanna say this rulemaking, this matter, has been in front of the agency for too long. It's perhaps the longest ongoing unresolved matter at the commission. That's why Commissioner Biacco and I, when I got to the agency, one of the first things that we worked on together was sponsoring an amendment to the 2020 operating plan to proceed with a mandatory standard to address CSU tipover hazards. And that's why I've been pushing to move this process along and share the frustration of many stakeholders that this matter today remains unresolved. As I said at the time, this rulemaking's a top priority, and I still believe that to be true. But as was the case in the recent prior briefings, the meeting today isn't just for the commissioner's benefit. It's an opportunity for stakeholders and the public to hear from staff. And because of that, I was hoping, could you discuss a little bit on why the CPSC's education campaigns and anchor it in particular, haven't achieved the safety outcomes in terms of reducing the tipover fatalities and injuries that we had hoped? Sure, I can certainly speak to tip or strain. So in the recent package, we did discuss quite a bit about the data that we had reviewed on the rate at which people use tip or strain. As I said, there are several research studies that show a large number of consumers don't anchor furniture, and that's including CSUs. And we see studies that show rates as low as about 10%. The more recent study actually commissioned by the CPSC for anchor it, show the higher rate of 55%. But there are reasons why we might not think that's really accurate in terms of how many people have their CSUs anchors in their homes. And we discussed that a bit more in CPSC. But in general, there are barriers to anchoring. A lot of these studies that have been done on why people don't anchor site reasons like people don't feel that they have the skills to anchor furniture. It does require some specialized schools. In addition, they may not be able to anchor a furniture item in an apartment because they're afraid to put holes in walls. They may not know where to get anchoring kits or exactly how to use them. So I think because of these barriers, we do see a fairly low rate of anchoring, which is why we think that we should focus on the inherent stability of CSUs and only anchoring a secondary system to enhance stability as opposed to create the stability that we need to address the hazards. I understand. Thank you for that response. I wanted to dive in a little bit to some of the specific proposals that are in front of the commission right now. And particularly with respect to the hang tag requirement. Is there a reason that staff chose also not to include an enforcement mechanism for this requirement under section 15J? Is that something that potentially could be on the table or that the commission might consider in the future? I think that may be a legal question. Now, do you have an answer for that? Sure. So as I think you're alluding to that provision is proposed under section 27E of the CPSA which has a much lower bar for rulemaking than section seven and nine. But it is more narrow in scope in that it doesn't allow general labeling. It requires a focus on performance and technical data. As far as the relative benefits of using section 27E or section 15, I think we can get into that and see if that gets a question. Okay, I appreciate that. I wanna be respectful of everybody's time. So let me skip ahead a little bit. In July, I received a letter from a number of safety advocates including parents against tip-overs who have been strong advocates on this issue, kids in danger, consumer federation and others outlining their belief that the testing requirements in the study act would resolve in a stronger, finer role. And listen, staff has done a good job today talking about how the testing differs or overlaps between what's being proposed today and study act. My question's a little bit more particular. If Congress passed the study act during the pendency of the rulemaking, can you talk a little bit about what effect that might have on the process and the timings in terms of promulgating a final CSU rule? Would we be in a put place in a position where we would have to stop work on a final rule in the study act and start all over again? So I think that's also, I'm sorry, I think that's also something best addressed in the executive session. Okay, I have no further questions. Thank you. I'll reserve the rest of my questions for executive session. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Tomka. Thank you. Thank you all for the warm welcome from my public commissioners and thank you for an excellent briefing. I'm really excited that the first meeting that I'm taking is on this really important topic. So happy to get to work on it. I'll just happen to a few questions. During the period analyzed, staff identified 193 CSU tip over deaths of children. And that's identified incidents, not projections. The briefing package suggested that the actual number could be even higher. Can you explain how and why it could be even higher? So the fail incident that we analyzed in the staff briefing package or from a data source called CPSRMS, and those are reported incidents. So I believe we get those, that incident information from a variety of sources. It may include news reports, it may include death certificates, but it's not a guarantee that it's full accounting of every death that has happened due to CSU. And that's why it may be undercounting the actual numbers. I'm sorry for that. I have a somewhat incomplete answer. There may be someone who can provide a little bit more full accounting of all the data sources that go into that source. Sure, I can add on if desired. So the... It's your topic. It's time for your topic to be noted. Unlike NICE, which is intended to provide a nationally representative characterization of the hazards, the CPSRMS data, which is gathered from death certificates, news clips, medical examiner corners reports and other sources. Again, we consider anecdotal data. We try to gather as much as we can, but we don't have the mechanisms to get all those reports in. So we do consider these and you'll see it represented in the briefing package as a minimum number of fatalities in that particular period. Thank you. So it appears that the vast majority of tip overs involved CSU set on carpet and you all talked a little bit about that and how your standard compensates for that. Current voluntary standard tests on hard flat surfaces. Do you have any understanding as to why it fails to account for carpet? Carpet is something that's been discussed within ASTM. There is a tax group that's looked into incorporating something that simulates carpet into the standards, but there haven't been any valid items accepted yet that would add requirements related to the effects of carpet on stability. Okay, I guess same question with loaded drawers. It seems like the majority of tip over incidents involved loaded drawers as well. Any particular reason that the voluntary standard doesn't account for that? So as a carpet, there have tax groups related to that. I should also mention that ASTM did have a subcommittee meeting that earlier in, I guess it was in November where they did propose some changes to the standards which are items that have been previously discussed like carpet, like multiple drawers, but that hadn't yet been added to a version of the standards. And those proposed requirements and if you'd like a bunch more detail on them would I think probably enhance the safety of the ASTM standards but they pull short of what we're recommending within the NPR. Yeah, I'm sorry, I should clarify that those changes have just been proposed. The tax groups are still working on refining the language and they haven't gone to ballot yet, but there is potential interest in some of these elements to the standards. Okay, so including a weight criteria for CSUs was considered but not pursued. And it looks like there was a conclusion even lighter CSUs are providing a tip over hazard. Could you just talk a little bit about how you came to that conclusion? I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? Sure, the weight criteria for CSUs was considered a minimum weight, I should say, but was not pursued and it seemed to be tied to the idea that even lighter CSUs are posing a tip over hazard. I just wanted to know how you came to that. Thank you. So we do provide an analysis of lightweight units in capacity of the briefing package. We looked at the lightest reported ways to involve an incident and we are aware of a fatal incident involving a unit that was 34 pounds in the configuration that was in at the time of the incident, which was with multiple drawers removed. We're also aware of a unit in a non-fatal incident that weighs 31 pounds. Staff is aware of some lightweight plastic units and lightweight frame and drawer units marked as online at CSUs and also have seen any online videos showing that consumers are using these products as CSUs. And staff also notes that with an assumed clothing load of 8.5 pounds per cubic foot, you could add weight in the drawers of CSUs, even if they're lightweight, to exceed some of those weights that we've seen in the incident data. And it was because people use lightweight units as CSUs and the potential to add weight that we in the staff briefing package didn't recommend excluding lightweight units for scope. Barbara, we did ask for comments on that decision. Thank you. You know, I don't have any more questions right now. I thank you for the briefing and for your time. I yield back. Thank you, commissioner. My understanding is that commissioner Feldman has more questions, but to go in order, I wanted to offer to see if commissioner Biacca wanted to start a second round. Then I'll go to commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Has staff looked at the incident data associated with the Australia, New Zealand, or the EU standard to see how the changes that they adopted their affected incident rates once those new standards were implemented? Thanks. So we did look at the stability requirements and the other requirements in the Australian New Zealand standard. However, we haven't looked at incident data from those countries. Okay, is that incident data available? Honestly, I'll have to get back to you on that. I'm not sure. Okay. Because I feel like that would be instructive to have a sense of sort of the overall efficacy in terms of safety outcomes of the various standards that exist. But yeah, that's something that you could get back that would be helpful for the record. Lastly, I'd like to explore a little bit more on staff analysis in the packet regarding the potential costs and benefits of the rulemaking. Again, understanding that there are ranges for both the cost and the benefit. I'm hoping that staff can walk us through a little bit more on their analysis. I wanna ask about the sensitivity analysis from the briefing materials so that we've got a good understanding of the benefits of the rule, including some of the ones that may be immeasurable. Thanks. So the annual benefits of the draft proposed rule, reducing societal costs of injuries and deaths of children and adults would be about 305.5 million. And given that there were about 463.5 million CSUs and youths in 2017, the benefit for unit that we calculated would be about 66 cents for unit annually. And we presented the discounts and estimated 15-year youthful life. It comes to about $6.01, $7.08 and $9.90. I apologize, I don't have the details on the sensitivity analysis available at this time, but we can get back to you with more detail if you'd like. Okay, I appreciate that. And my next question did have to do with the sensitivity analysis. And it seems to me as a non-economist reviewing that, frankly, that there's a wide range of outcomes that are contemplated in the sensitivity analysis. And when you're looking at the cost too, my question is, has staff identified a median cost here? And is that an appropriate method to understand the potential associated costs when we're looking at a sensitivity analysis that produces a cost curve that is just so wide and varied? Yeah, and I apologize, I don't have that data in front of me right now, but I'm happy to provide a more detailed explanation of the economic analysis as a follow-up to this conversation. Okay, I appreciate that. I will reserve my other questions for the executive section, but I appreciate everybody's hard work on this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Trump, did you have any more questions for the open session? None for me, thank you. All right, with that, once again, I'd like to thank the staff. I think as everybody pointed out, it's been an extremely comprehensive briefing and very helpful to us. At this point in time, close the open session, and as I noted at the start of the briefing, we're gonna take a short break and then reconvene in a closed session. Thank you. Thank you.