 And we are live afternoon, welcome to this public meeting of consumer product safety commission. Before we start, can I confirm that all of the commissioners are here? Commissioner Felden. Thank you. Commissioner Trump, they need to unmute. Mr. Trump, Commissioner Trump, I think you were just muted. So I see you. And commissioner Boyle. Yeah, good afternoon. Afternoon. Seeing all the commissioners today, CPC staff will be brief will brief the commission on a draft final rule to establish a consumer product safety standard for clothing storage units or CSUs. This draft final rules intended to address risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs. Particularly involving children between January, 2000, April 2022, CPC identified 199 CSU tip over fatalities involving children with most reported CSU tip over. Desk involving children 3 years and younger. This has for pattern effects are most vulnerable population primary, very young children. Almost 5 years ago in November of 2017, the commission began the process of considering a mandatory safety standard for CSUs when a published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. February this year, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would require CSUs to be tested for stability, be marked and labeled with safety information for hang tag, hang tag variety data about the stability of the unit. Significant staff time and resources have gone into the 600 page briefing package as currently before the commission today that CPC staff will brief us on their draft final rule, including the modifications they recommended in response to the public comments received during those proposed rulemaking. Uh, one of the per comment in a moment, I'll turn this meeting over to staff so that they can brief us once they've completed the briefing. Each commissioner will have 10 minutes to ask questions. The staff with multiple rounds necessary as a reminder. If you have any questions that address the agency's legal authority, please hold them till the executive session has been requested to be held following this public briefing briefing. That's today our project manager. Division of human factors directed for engineering sciences. Meredith Kelsch attorney regulatory affairs division, which you see also joining our. Wayne Boniface assistant executive director office of hazard analysis induction. Alice, excuse me, Alex. Uh, must also, uh, sec, associate executive director director for economic analysis. Jason Levine, CPSC executive director lost at schlick mental council and. A bill of murder mills commission secretary that I will now turn to dr. Talcott and Kelsch for their briefing. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Kristen Talcott and I'm the lead for the story unit of over project today. The project attorney Meredith Kelsch and I will be briefing on the draft final rule for floating storage units. Meredith will start covering the legal framework and then I'll provide an overview of the draft final rule and putting analysis. Good afternoon. My name is Meredith Kelsch. I'm an attorney with the regulatory affairs division in the office of the general council. Starting with slide 2, please. I will be giving a brief overview of the dash story framework for issuing a standard under the consumer product safety act. This rule making falls under section section 7 and 9 and section 27 E of the CPSA section 7 and 9 applied to the performance requirements regarding stability and the labeling requirements and section 27 E applies to the hang tag requirements next slide. 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 standards that consist 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 standards must be issued in accordance with the requirements in section 9 of the statute. Next slide. Section 9 of the CPSA provides procedural and substantive requirements for issuing a consumer product safety standard. Under section 9, a final rule must comply with section 5, 5, 3 of the administrative procedure act, which requires agencies to give interested parties notice of a proposed rule and the opportunity to comment on it. It also requires that the rule include a final regulatory analysis and that it includes certain findings that the commission must make to issue the final rule. Next slide. As I mentioned, one requirement required component of a final rule is a final regulatory analysis. Section 9 of the CPSA provides specific elements that must be included in the final regulatory analysis. It must discuss potential benefits and costs of the rule and who is likely to receive and bear them. Alternatives the commission considered their potential benefits and costs and reasons they were not chosen and significant issues raised by commenters on the preliminary regulatory analysis, which is published with the proposed rule and a summary assessment of those issues. In addition to supporting the final regulatory analysis, information about costs and benefits associated with the rule helps form the basis for several of the required findings for a final rule. Next slide. 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. This slide shows 8 of the 9 required findings. Next slide please. The final finding deals with voluntary standards. If a voluntary standard that addresses the risk of injury at issue 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 it is unlikely that there will be substantial compliance with the voluntary standard. Next slide. The hang tie requirement in the final rule falls under section 27 E of the CPSA. Under section 27 E, the commission may issue a rule to require manufacturers of consumer products to provide performance and technical data related to performance and safety to purchasers at the time of original purchase when necessary to carry out the purposes of the CPSA. Section 2 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 consumer products. I will now turn it over to Christian who will provide further information about the briefing package and the draft final rule. Thank you, Meredith. Now I will present the findings of the next slide please. Now I will present the findings in the draft briefing package. This draft final rule addresses the risk particularly to children's associated with clothing storage units, abbreviated CFUs, tipping over. Analysis presented in the NPR and affirmed in this package shows the factors leading to tip over include multiple open and filled drawers, placement of a CFU on carpet, and child's interaction with the CFU, for example, by climbing and pulling. The existing voluntary standards do not adequately address the risk. This draft final rule includes CSU stability requirements that count for all of the factors leading to a tip over, and a single test then includes all extendable elements, which are drawers and fill out shelves, and doors open, a closing representative fill, CSU tilted forward to simulate the effect of carpet, and forces from a child climbing or pulling on the CFU. The draft final rule also requires safety and identification information labeling and technical information on the CSU stability of the point of sale through a hang tag. Next slide please. To address the hazards associated with CSU tip overs, the commission has taken several steps, including bankrupt campaigns, 43 recalls to address CSU tip over hazards, a briefing package looking at compliance with and advocacy of the voluntary standards, and advances of proposed rulemaking or NPR, and the notice of proposed rulemaking or NPR. The commission is now considering a final rule, which is the subject of this briefing. Next slide please. This slide shows the definition of CSU in the draft final rule. Common names for CSUs include chest, burrows, mattresses, armors, and wardrobes. This definition differs somewhat from that in NPR, but notably the draft final rule definition only includes units with a mass or a total combined weight, further than or equal to 57 pounds, and all of the extendable elements are filled to the closing representative load. This changes based on back response to public comments, which I will discuss in more detail in upcoming slides. Next slide please. This slide includes pictures of some products that fall within the scope of the draft final rule. As you can see, the scope includes units with a variety of designs. Next slide please. As in the NPR, staff recommends excluding closed lockers and portable storage closets from the draft final rule, because of lack of incidents associated with these products. Next slide please. That updated the market information of the draft final rule to reflect information provided by commenters and provide a more accurate representation of revenue, average prices, and unit sales as of the end of 2021. Changes include an updated average U of U price, which led to a reduction in the number of units sold and then used. Next slide please. The draft final rule includes analysis of new data, received from the timeframe analyzed in the NPR. Staff is aware of a total of 234 fatalities caused by U of U tip-over instability from 2000 through April 2022. Eight of these fatalities, including six child fatalities, were reported since the NPR. Most fatalities involve children one, two, or three-year-olds. Next slide please. Staff also analyzed reported non-fatal CSU tip-over incidents from the Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System, the Pre-PAPS RMS. In this time period, staff is aware of 1,154 CSUs tip-over instability incidents, including 743 injuries. This includes 152 additional incidents and 91 additional injuries beyond those reported in the NPR. Staff also analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, abbreviated NICE. Staff estimates an average of 5,300 injuries per year, 72% of these were injuries for children. Overall, the new data reported in this briefing package are consistent with those reported in the NPR. Next slide please. The injuries caused by CSU tip-over include soft tissue and skeletal injuries, bone fracture, skull fracture, closed head injuries, compression and mechanical asphyxia, and internal organ crushing leading to hemorrhage. Overall, the injury analysis in the draft final rule is consistent with that in the NPR. As is the NPR, staff focus on incidents involving children and CSUs about televisions. This is because children are most at risk and because CSU incidents involving televisions of CSUs be decreasing. The main hazards associated with CSUs tip-over are multiple open drawers and doors to our fill, placements of the CSU on carpet, and children's interactions with the CSU. These are the same as those before the NPR. Incidents often involve a combination of these factors. For example, in one of the non-fatal incidents, a three-year-old child climbs on the CSU with all seven drawers open and filled, and the CSU is on carpet. Next slide please. This slide shows examples of children's interactions with CSUs from online videos. The videos show a variety of climbing techniques. They also show children pulling on drawers and opening multiple drawers. Next slide please. Open and filled drawers are important because they can shift the CSU's center of gravity forward, making it less stable. In the draft final rule, staff uses the same approximation as the weight of closing fill as in the NPR, which is 8.5 pounds cubic foot of functional volume. In the NPR, staff provide analysis of the closing fill weight in drawer. In response to comments, staff conducted a follow-up testing for the draft final rule that confirms this is a reasonable fill weight for pull-out shelves as well. Carpet is also an important factor because it can considerably decrease the weight of which a CSU sits. Assessing an analysis in the NPR shows that closing the CSU forward can replicate the effect of carpet on stability. On the right of this slide is a free-body diagram showing the forces on a CSU from the child's interaction. The horizontal and vertical forces create rotational force, called a moment, that acts about a pivot point, also called a pull-from. In the CSU, this pull-from is generally the front leg. The moment is created by force of acting at a distance, also called a moment arm, away from the pull-from. For horizontal forces, the moment arm is the vertical distance to the pull-from, and for vertical forces, the moment arm is the horizontal distance. Applying the same force to the longer moment arm will create a larger moment, making it easier to cause rotation. Next slide, please. Research and analysis in the NPR shows that children stepping onto a CSU to climb create moments that are over 1.6 times those from body weight alone for an average for extension. 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 recreating the force of 51.2 pounds at 95 percentile three-year-old climbing, which is the weight that's used in the NPR and draft final rule, would require over 80 pounds of weight on an average extension for a front. Next slide, please. With regards to pulling on the CSU, the mean pull strength for two five-year-old children is 17.2 pounds, and the 95 percentile over high reach for three-year-old children is 4.12 feet. Overall, staff analysis of the climbing and pull forces for the draft final rule are unchanged from those in the NPR. Next slide, please. The primary voluntary standard that addresses the CSU is ASTM S2057. The current version of the standard was published in 2019. ASTM S2057-19 has two stability requirements. The first requires the unit not to tip over when all extension elements are open and no additional force is applied. The second requires that the unit not tip over when a 50-pound test weight is applied to a single open extension element. Both of the tests are conducted on flat surface and with extendable elements empty. Next slide, please. For the NPR briefing package, staff tested a market sample of over 180 PSUs and found the majority met the ASTM S2057 stability requirement. Staff assessment compliance for the draft final rule is the same as that in the NPR. However, as in the NPR, staff concludes the stability requirements in the ASTM S2057-19 are not adequate to address the CSU tip-over hazards because they do not account for multiple open and tilt drawers, carpet exploring, and forces generated by children's dynamic interactions with the CSU. In addition, staff is aware of fatal and non-fatal incidents involving CSUs that meet the ASTM S2057-19 stability requirements. In the updated analysis for the draft final rule with the new incident data, staff found more than two times the number of incidents with CSUs that met the ASTM S2057-19 stability requirements than incidents with those that did not. Next slide, please. In November 2021, ASTM started a discussion of possible changes to the voluntary standards. The valid changes include adding a fill weight to the extendable elements in the first test. The test would still be conducted on flat-level surface, no forces from children's interactions. Increasing the 50-pound test weight to 60-pound, angling the unit with simulating the effects of carpet, and opening all extendable elements indoors in the second test. The extendable elements would still not have a fill weight for this test. Adding a 30-test with a 10-pound outward force on the floor and all extendable elements indoors open. This test would be conducted on flat-level surface, and extendable elements would not have a fill weight. ASTM has not yet published a new version of the F2057 standards, and staff does not know if, when, or in what form any updated standards will be published. Next slide, please. Furthermore, staff assessed that the valid changes, if enacted, would not adequately address the tip-over hazards because they failed to address real-world conditions, which is multiple factors at once, and they failed to apply an adequate tip moment to account for child climbing or pulling on a CSU. Staff also looked at three additional CSU-related voluntary standards, and an additional standard with requirements for interlock systems. As in the NPR, staff assessed that these standards were also inadequate to address the tip-over hazards. Next slide, please. Based on staff analysis and public comment, staff recommended changes in several areas of staff's proposed rule. I'll briefly describe the changes to the requirements. Full analysis of comments and recommended changes are in the briefing package. With scope and definitions, the biggest change is to modify the definition of CSU to include only units that weigh 57 pounds or more when all expendable elements are filled with the closing representative load. This changed staff's comments that later weight CSUs should be excluded from the rule, while accounting for real-world CSU use, which includes the unit filled with clothing, and the hazard presented by the total weight of the CSU with that clothing, as opposed to an empty CSU. The units based on the lightest known total weight of a non-modified CSU have fatal tip-over incidents. Additional changes to the scope and definitions are listed on the slide. Next slide, please. For the test method, to address comments regarding the repeatability and reproducibility of the stability test, the draft kind of rule now includes, now specifies which test method to use for a CSU without overlap between test methods. The test method blend was also revised to specify that forces to be applied using weights, instead of leaving the method up to the tester. In response, the comments recommended an easier method of simulating the effect of carpet. The 1.5-degree forward tilt angle was replaced by a .43-inch fixed test block at the rear of the CSU. The test block also simulates the effect of carpet and the range of angles discussed in the NPR. Additional changes to the test method are listed on the slide. Next slide, please. For the requirements for marking and labeling, to increase warning label comprehension, the child's climbing symbol was replaced with a three-panel child's climbing symbol from the CPSD contractor report, specifically NPR. Additional changes to the marking and labeling requirements are listed on the slide. For the hang tag, the scale is narrowed from a maximum of five to a maximum of two. This is based on comments regarding the modifications needed to products currently on the market to reach a rating of one. And the low likelihood that products will exceed a rating of two in the near term. To address comments on consumer's ability to reduce ability ratings at the time of online purchase, the requirements now require the hang tag information to be displayed on the manufacturer's online sales interfaces, for example, WebCypher Act. An additional change to the hang tag is also listed on the slide. Drag-con and room requirements also include editorial changes that will improve readability, fix typographical errors, and remove redundant language. In addition to the changes to the requirements, staff also recommends an effective date of 180 days. This is based on comments that stress and concern that 30-day effective days proposed in the NPR leads to long lead times for redesigning, testing, manufacturing, and delivering compliance to CSU's consumers. Next slide, please. The disability requirements in the draft final rule account for multiple open and filled drawers and carpet through the test configuration, or how the CSU is set for testing. The CSU is tested with all extension elements open and filled, unless the CSU has an effective interlock system. The CSU is tested while angles simulate the effective carpet. The main difference in configuration from the NPR is the use of the .43 inch block to create the angle. The requirements include a single stability test, which is used to determine the tip-over moment or force required to tip the CSU. As discussed earlier, to address comments on repeatability, these requirements differ from what's in the NPR in two key ways. First is that the force application method is now specified based on the design of the unit. There's no overlap between the two methods. The second is that the requirement is specified to use weights to apply the vertical force. Testers calculate the tip-over moment by multiplying the force required to tip the CSU by the horizontal distance to the pull-from for test method one, and by the vertical distance to the pull-from for test method two. Next slide, please. The tip-over moment is compared to the threshold moment, which is the greatest of three applicable moments. The moments are based on the forces from a child's climbing CSU-expendable element hanging on a door and pulling on the CSU. The moments account for the effective expendable element and draw extension to the height of the unit and the forces from these interactions. There are no significant changes to these moments to hold from the NPR. Next slide, please. The draft final rule has requirements for placement, contents, symbols, format, and permanency for the warning label. As discussed earlier, the warning label includes a different child's climbing symbol from that NPR requirement, which is shown in the examples on the right. There are also requirements for identification, information, and CSU which have been revised from the NPR to clarify that mark or label of the test rule. Next slide, please. The draft final rule also has requirements for a hang tag with performance and textual information. An example is shown in the bottom of the slide. As discussed earlier, the hang tag scale is changed from that NPR, and there are additional requirements for display at online points of sale. It estimates that 83.9 percent non-fatal CSU-tipover instance involving children are addressable with the final rule. The draft estimates that the annual profile of benefits from the final rule will be approximately $307 million, which includes $41 million in reduced debt and over $255 million in reduced injuries. The draft estimates that the total annual cost of the final rule will be around $251 million. Next slide, please. The draft examines five less stringent alternatives to the draft final rule. They are no regulatory action, require performance and textual data, but not a minimum stability. Mandate is TMS 2057-19, but with a 60-pound best weight. Weight for potential updates is TMS 2057, and an effective date longer than the 180 days in the draft final rule. The draft did not recommend any of these less stringent alternatives because they have not likely reduced deaths and injuries from CSU-tipovers nearly the same extent as the draft final rule, and they would generate lower net benefits per society. The draft examines one more stringent alternative, which was to adopt more rigorous performance standards, like the one in the draft final rule, based on the interaction forces from a 60-pound child to a 51.2-pound child. The draft did not recommend this alternative because it would likely only increase the benefits slightly while it might increase the cost of its implementation disproportionately. The draft determines that the draft final rule would have significant adverse impact on some small manufacturers or importers of CSU. To reduce impact, the draft examines possible alternatives to the draft final rule that could reduce the expected impact of the rule on small businesses. However, the draft assessment of these alternatives found that their adoption would not result in a rule that adequately addresses the risk of serious injury or death caused by CSU-tipovers. Next slide, please. In conclusion, child interactions, including climbing and pulling, and opening multiple drawers, still drawers, and carpet are present in many CSU-tipover incidents and contribute to instability. It is important to consider the effects of these factors simultaneously. Children ages one, two, and three-year-olds are the most at risk for death and severe injuries from CSU-tipovers. The current voluntary standards for CSU-tipilities not adequately reduce the risk of injury associated with tipovers. Next slide, please. Staff recommends that the submission publish a final rule for CSU that includes specific requirements on stability, marking, labeling, and hang tags. Technical analysis shows that the recommended requirements will reduce CSU deaths and injuries by reducing the terms of CSU-tipovers. Staff recommends that the commission propose an effective date of 180 days after publication of the final rule for manufacturers in five of the disability requirements and include an anti-stockpiling provision. Staff also recommends publishing an NOR for children's products. Next slide, please. That concludes the presentation, and we're happy answering questions from the commission. Thank you for the presentation. Thanks to you and the rest of the staff for what is a comprehensive proposal. Now it's time to turn to press commissioners and recognize myself for 10 minutes. So, as you noted, there are ongoing efforts to update the existing ASTM standard. While there's no final proposal or no final update, can you expand on how the current version of what's been proposed differs from the performance standards proposed in the final draft final rule? Sure. Thank you for the question. The balance changes to the ASTM standard still doesn't address rural world scenarios. We've seen instances that include children interacting with CSUs with multiple open and filled drawers and CSUs on carpet, and we've seen these factors occur simultaneously. The draft final rule accounts for these factors simultaneously in a single test, whereas the validated changes to the ASTM standards look at them separately. For example, the test of 60 pounds in the validated ASTM standards doesn't include filled drawers, and the test of filled drawers doesn't include the effect of carpet or child's infraction. In addition, the changes that ASTM validated don't account for the moments in children's infractions. Research has shown that children can exert moments while climbing their over 1.6 times those from their body weight alone. So a 51.2 pound child, like we use in the draft final rule, can exert tipping force with a clip length to over 80 pound static weight on the drawer front. ASTM also doesn't use a sufficient full force. The draft final rule uses 17.2 pound full force, which is based on existing child's strength data, whereas the potential value of the ASTM standard uses a 10 pound full force. Thank you. As you mentioned, it's valid, but it's not final. So we don't really know what the final, but a final updated standard would look like. Is that correct? That's correct. You mentioned in your presentation about tip over moments, and can you explain a little bit more about what that is and why the final rule uses a tip over moment instead of a set weight, which is in the ASTM standard? Sure. The tip over moment is the rotational force that will cause the CSU to tip over. Past disability test requirements in the draft final rule, the tip over moment of a specific CSU has to exceed three calculated comparison moments, and those represent the moments associated with the child interacting with the CSU, including climbing on the CSU, climbing or hanging on a CSU door, and pulling on a CSU. Those moments are key to whether the CSU tips over. For a child ascending a CSU, the tip over moment calculation specified in the rules accounts for the child's center of gravity extending about six inches beyond the CSU extension, and the dynamic force is created by a child climbing up to open extendable elements. For a child pulling on a CSU, the moment counts for the height of the pulse. The use of moments also accounts for the CSU, which is for extension the location of the feet, CSU height, all the factors impact stability during child interaction. By contrast, a way with the value at the end of the drawer doesn't account for the moments from a child interacting with the specific CSU. Thank you. And one other thing I just wanted to highlight, I was pleased to see that in the proposed final rule there was a reference for an online hang tag function. It's been a priority for me from my perspective to make sure that consumers are going online. They're not facing war hazards that they would see in a brick and mortar store. Can you explain a little bit more about the online sales, the requirements from the online perspective and the basis for that? Sure. So the purpose of the hang tag is to help consumers evaluate the comparative safety of products when making buying decisions at the time of purchase and protect the public from unreasonable risk of injuries. Because consumers often buy CFUs online, this is an important point at which to provide that comparative safety information in addition to physical points of sale. Multiple commenters recommend online hang tags for the same reason. The content in the format of the hang tag is the same for physical and online hang tags. Online provisions aim to ensure visibility on the sales website similar to what you have with physical hang tags. Thank you. Thank you for all your work on this. In return to my fellow commissioners at this point in time, Commissioner Feldman you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you both for the presentation today. I guess this question is directed at both of you but I did have some questions about the anti-stockpiling provision that's included in the draft final rule and specifically how that would be enforced. So as we've done in other rules this talks about basing the anti-stockpiling limits on median numbers across 13 months and how would that apply to firms that import maybe only one or two months a year with the median number be based solely on the months that they're importing or it would still extend over 13. Good afternoon my name is Alex Mascosa I'm the Associate Executive Director for Econop analysis and I can answer your question Commissioner. So the as is written the meeting would be just the meeting of the preceding 13 months so it would be as currently written just the middle number there we previously we did put it out for comments we received generally supportive comments about it from the public comments so we kept it as is when it was amended in the NPR. Okay. So I to firms on a skew by skew basis that you would be calculating the anti-stockpiling limits based on individual skews or would it be across sort of the entire selection that might be imported across that 13 month period so I my understanding is that it's applied to the in scope CSU's sales and based off their historical sales in the on the in scope products. On the in scope products but again the median number would be a median of all of the in scope products that an individual firm might be importing or manufacturing or based on the individual in scope I'm just I'm curious what the denominator is the median month within the 13 months of sales and then I believe it's 105% level above that median month. Okay, but based on individual skewed products or across all the potential in scope products that as written all models would be included. Okay. And thank you and there are as I understand the industry there are and as I understand how the rules currently drafted right now it matters whether you are a manufacturer or an importer and as I understand this industry there are a number of entities that occupy both positions right now you know what about firms that are both manufacturer that may be manufacturing abroad and importing does that create a situation where the company might be able to double dip or choose sort of the most preferable limit against which to figure out what their entire stockpiling limit would be. So I can't really say on a case by case basis I think that's that would be determined on a case by case basis but as written it applies again to the median month and it applies on all models manufacturers and importers of clothing storage units I'm trying to sorry I'm reading it shall not import clothing storage units that do not comply with requirements right but what I'm asking is what happens when you're the manufacturer and the importer it applies to both so again on a case by case basis I can't say on a case by case basis but as I've written it applies to both importers and manufacturers how that works out I think that would be a case by case basis I really can't say on okay maybe this is yep please go ahead yes this is Dwayne Brown Dwayne Brown so the the draft role as written applies in aggregates for the manufacturer and imports so it doesn't really specify any kind of breakouts between the importers or the models imported or manufactured okay okay that's I appreciate that that answers my question lastly the draft final rule references built-in units and it's my understanding that we had offered some clarity about what we meant by built-ins as I'm reading through the draft final rule I'm not seeing that as a defined term but I was hoping staff could discuss and provide some color on sort of common characteristics of built-in units so that we get a better sense of exactly what it is that we're talking about here sure so the definition of free-standing in the draft final rule is that the unit remains upright without needing attachments to the wall or upright for digital structure when it's fully assembled and emptied with all expendable elements and doors closed built-in units are not considered free-standing the MPR and the draft final rule both explain that CSUs need to be inherently stable rather than rely on tip restraints because of various reasons that can be used and solved properly or be effective the MPR and draft final rule also notes that how a manufacturer intends to probably be used or installed for example, a tip restraints is not determinative of whether it is a CSU because consumers will use products that function CSUs as CSUs with card lists of marketing or manufacturing intent so as such, tip restraints and similar features does not make a unit free-standing but building units are generally those that are built into the house so like a dresser that's integrated into a wall and they aren't generally something that can be easily removed or relocated OK, I appreciate that answer thank you very much I have no further questions at this time but I appreciate the presentation Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Chopka Thank you Well, first of all, thank you to everybody who worked on this rule and who worked on this final briefing package and the presentation today you deliver the role that we needed to protect kids from unstable dressers dipping over and killing members sending them to the hospital it solves a problem that the furniture industry has known about for decades one that we entrusted them to solve and with the problem so fundamental why not trust that they would be able to solve it but unfortunately here the public stress was misplaced and for 24 years industry went through the motions of multiple dresser voluntary standards while failing to ever adequately address the problem and so this agency stepped up and the people who worked on this stepped up and are working to solve this once and for all right now and I'm incredibly happy with the rule that we put forward I only have a few questions about it I think the first thing you mentioned in your presentation already that the current voluntary standard does not adequately protect children from tip overs and staff went even farther and analyzed the proposed rule that hasn't been adopted yet and also found that that failed to adequately protect kids from tip overs is that right that's correct we analyze the potential changes to the standard that's invalid so far that is the type of a bone beyond work that is much appreciated here and again it points out that standard will not protect kids adequately but this rule will and it will protect significantly more kids from that risk of tip over which is really encouraging to see I guess I pulled down my book because Commissioner Spellman's last question prompted a follow up for me on that on page 382 the bolded numbers at the top of the briefing package we go through the staff's changes between the NPR and the final rule and there's one that we had an example of units that are intended to be permanently installed and we say that that was like kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities that was deleted from the NPR into the final rule is there a reason that we got rid of the examples so the reason for the modification to the definition of freestanding for public comment we specifically received comments that people were kind of confused by the definition that we have provided in the NPR specifically those examples that were provided a built in unit weren't something that would be considered a CSU anyhow of course based on the design you'd have to still look at whether it met the definition so that's why we removed those examples within the definition okay and I'm glad that we got Dwayne thank you for stepping in and helping to explain the stockpiling amendment there so the fact that we have resolved it matches the definition of imported or manufactured it borrows that from the previous iteration of stockpiling that we used we just redefined base period on the stockpiling amount so I don't think we present any new issues and certainly the commenters agreed with that sentiment by supporting it so good to hear that one seems resolved I wanted to turn briefly to our analysis of the benefits and the costs of the rule and one thing that jumped out of me is that the estimate that 20.64 million CSUs were sold in 2021 and so that's about 5.16 million dressers sold every three months and there's also an assumption that the dressers stay in homes for 15 years on average and my thought here is if we decided to move the effective date we had 30 days in the roll we're proposing 180 days here if we move that effective date to something 190 days that would prevent over 5 million non-compliant dressers from entering homes and staying there for 15 years and I think it's fair to say that the benefit of that speed in terms of preventing injuries and deaths and those additional dangerous dressers would be substantial and so when we think about the effective date of the rule I think we should consider that benefit and on the cost side there were several comments that mentioned disruptions to supply chain under various effective dates and we certainly have to consider those too and assuming those comments are accurate shortening the effective date could mean that some unstable dressers would be unavailable for a few months sooner while companies work towards selling compliant dressers and so we've got a tough call and we don't quantify in this package we don't quantify the trade-off between those particular costs and benefits but we talk about them qualitatively and I think that's probably the best we can hear so I'm struggling with how we weigh that trade-off and my question is would you agree that determining that right trade-off is ultimately going to have to be a policy decision that we make as a commission? Commissioner, yes it is a trade-off and it's a decision for the commission I would just add as you mentioned the comments had significant concerns with meeting with the 30-day effective date being feasible you're offering it in 90 days as an example here but in the comments they stated that the manufacturer from retailers would need 180 days to be compliant with the rule some stated as high as 360 days staff's assessment was 180 days would be which is the highest range allowed in the CPSA available that would give manufacturers enough time to be compliant also I do want to state that you mentioned the benefits of the rules about an earlier effective date and to put a point on it it's about expected gross benefits per compliance CSUs 12 to 20 dollars each compliance CSU that replaces a non-compliance CSU avoids societal costs from deaths and injuries of about 12 to 20 dollars over the 15-year product life and so a shorter effective date would bring those benefits sooner if the manufacturers and suppliers are able to bring those compliance CSUs under that timeline but staff those benefits are only realized if they're available and the assessment was that the risk of shortages and supplies was credible given the examples provided by the commenters and how it comports so we understand about the supply chain well I appreciate that and I appreciate that you were going to agree with me that this fell on the commission shoulders to decide the right path forward because I think it is a tough call I think the one thing I'm getting feedback any any better if everybody so I just thank you and I think that took care of it I appreciate that and I think you know the one thing I would say there is yes I do appreciate you pointing out the 12 to 20 dollar savings if we swap a more stable dresser for an existing dresser but the other benefit that I'm talking about there is not putting more unstable dressers in commerce and that 90 days means that 5.14 million unstable dressers never end up in commerce and in people's homes and I think that's a benefit that we can only really qualitatively evaluate and so that's the one I'll be thinking about right now I appreciate the feedback I appreciate the work that everyone's done on this and I think the result is exemplary this is a great rule and I'm very happy that we are where we are in it right now so thank you thank you Commissioner Boyle thank you Mr. Chair and thank you Dr. Topod and Ms. Kelsch for the presentation and for all the work over we've been doing it for years and I appreciate it very much just have a couple of questions I do want to ask a couple of data questions if you don't mind I think in the package it says that other than 2010 there were three tip-over fatalities involving children every year for the period that you looked at except that in 2021 for which the data is not yet complete there were five fatalities that you've identified and I'm just wondering given that I think the trend lines are actually dipping down what would account for that spike in that most recent year if you know the number of reported fatalities are anecdotal in nature to provide a minimum account for the number of incidents that have occurred no trend analysis can be done on the anecdotal reporting and we can't make it cause a relationship determination based on higher or lower volume reporting of fatal and non-fail incidents on the other hand the nice data probability and sample base and specifically used for the purpose of generating national estimates and trends however in the draft final rule briefing package staff cautions of estimated of injuries treated in emergency departments are currently reduced by the COVID-19 pandemic for the years 2020 and 2021 so it's a little bit difficult to draw conclusions from that data right now all right but it's ongoing and I think that's one point for the picture okay thank you I also wanted to ask about seniors it's all over the 24 important fatalities involving seniors and I just wanted to ask about the hazard patterns involved with seniors and techniques that you saw in the final age how the rule might address those kinds so with regards to the hazard patterns for seniors in the fatal incidents the ages of victims as well as some of the incident narratives support the assumption that the victims were likely losing their balance and reaching for the DSEA to balance themselves among the non-fail TPS which includes seniors there are private interactions included opening and getting items from drawers pushing down, leaning or falling on the CSU in addition to pulling on the CSU so even though we focus our analysis and our requirements on the hazard children we still concluded that improving the stability of TPSU should reduce the substantial proportion of the non-fatal incidents and fatal incidents involving adults including seniors assuming that the interactions in the non-fatal incidents of adults are similar to the interactions in the fatal incidents and that's because the majority of the incidents involve adults interacting with the CSU the same kind of interactions that we're seeing opening drawers getting items in and out drawers leaning on the CSU and those are all scenarios that are expected to be less or equally severe compared to the incidents of children climbing with the drawers filled and open that's helpful and for adults and seniors was there a gender differential that you could see in the date? So we don't have a gender breakdown of injuries seniors in the NPR or the draft final rule so unfortunately I can't answer that question at this time Okay because I just looking at the 2022 report and it looks like it's 1550 in terms of males or females and tell me if I'm reading this data but it looks like for children the overwhelming number of incidents and fatalities involve males but for adults and seniors the trans-reversed and the majority involve females with that accurate affirmation of that data? So I can't really comment on the annual tipover report that's a CTSC document describing incidents for a variety of projects and that includes CSUs only under the chess bureau stress or there are more categories but it also includes other non-TSU products like shelving units and tables so while there is an overlap the data set and the annual tipover report is different from that in the NPR and draft final rule including differences in products and the reports time frame I will say that neither the CSU NPR or draft final rule includes a breakdown of incidents by gender and we also have the heavier of the male and female weights and the higher frank values for the requirements in order to ensure an appropriate coverage of the rule for both genders. That's very helpful. Thank you. Just moving on from that I just wanted to ask a little bit about warning labels and the decision to somehow influence raised whether we should have warning labels That's how I got the information to proceed. Sure. So the MPR and the draft on rules do specify an English language label. That is that adding additional content or language to the same label could attract from the effectiveness of the label by overloading consumers with information or reducing disability and comprehension. However, that doesn't prevent manufacturers from providing additional separate labels, including labels in Spanish. And it's already fairly common for manufacturers selling to the North American market to include labels in English, French and Spanish. The labels also include practical symbols, including the child climbing symbol. They're designed to communicate information without tax. Do we have any data on where incidents occur in terms of the household that are on English speaking? Do we have a breakdown in that way? We don't have information on that. Another data question in terms of second human market. Do we have a sense of what the second hand market for these types of products? That's really good. And it's a reference second hand market and other possible ways she provide information that serve more of the permanent nature so that the second hand market users would have the information. So, I don't have information on the percentage of the market that second hand goods at this time, but there are permanent requirements for the warning label and identification mark for label and the draft final rule. Those permanent requirements are from the standards and we've assessed that they're adequate. Therefore, information from those labels should be available to consumers to purchase their second hand. Just one last question on the hang tag. Is there at this time any sense of how we would be evaluating the efficacy of the rating system and going forward. Sorry, I missed the last part of that question. Just in terms of the hang tag, looking forward, how will we be evaluating how effective that. You know, it's often that we have done all that frequently until I'm just wondering at this time and making sure. So, there's some evidence of car purchasing decisions that the second highest reasons provided for not purchasing a particular car is because consumers thought that a car is not safe as other models. That's indicating that consumers evaluate similar models and consider the comparative safety information in their car purchasing decision. And we expect to see a similar outcome in CSU purchase that in addition to the steady increase in stability rating for similar to what needs to serve after they implemented their rating system. We plan to monitor the incident data to determine if there's a decline in the incident and if there is part of that decline may be attributable to consumers making informed choice and purchasing more stable units. Although it's not possible to individually affect individually affect the hang tag on the reduction of incident. Thank you very much. Again, Dr. talk not for it was excellent work and for the patient today. Thank you, commissioner. This point in time, I don't think anybody went over their 10 minutes. I'd ask if anybody. Is asking for a second round the open session hearing none. Then I thank the staff for this informer briefing and for the commission for the active participation. As noted at the beginning, we have had a request for a closed session to follow this session. So commissioners to staff. Please immediately reconvene the close portion of this briefing. There was an email that was sent during the briefing with the information in it. So at this point in time, I'm going to close this part of the briefing. Thanks.