 I'm pleased to open this hearing to receive oral comments and the commission's proposed safety standard clothing storage units. Before we start, let me take a moment to confirm that all commissioners are present. Commissioner Miyako, Commissioner Feldman. I'm present. I'm Commissioner Trump. Present. Good morning. Good morning. This role has been under development for several years. Please that we are moving the process forward for holding this hearing today with the participation of a wide range of stakeholders. CPSC has been warning consumers about the dangers from tip overs for many years over the past 20 years. Nearly 200 children have been killed and many others injured from dressers that fell on top of them. This is a hazard that must be addressed to the witness who will hear from today. Kimomoto, Lisa Seyford, Brazil's advocates, whose personal tragedies became calling to advance safety for everyone. Lisa Seyford founded Shane's Foundation in honor of her son, Shane, who died in a tip over in 2011. Kimomoto, where the pleasure of working with this mentor and anchor campaign, has been a leader of the group Parents Against Tip Overs in honor of her daughter, Megan, who was killed in 2006. These two women and other parents who have joined with them have worked tirelessly to push for safety standards that will prevent their tragedies from being repeated. Thank them for all their work and for this decision to join us today. I look forward to everyone's testimony to hear how we can best address clothing storage unit safety going forward. Each panelist will have 10 minutes for their presentations and I'll call upon my colleagues to ask questions again for 10 minute rounds. I'd like to remind all panelists to mute themselves when they're not speaking. Public comment periods open for written submissions until April 19th. I encourage members of the public who are listening today to put their own comments into the docket. Today, we'll have two panels of witnesses. Our first panel consists of Lisa Seyford, who I mentioned, who's the founder of Shane's Foundation, Rachel Weintraub, who's a legislative director in general council, consumer federation of America, Gabe Knight, policy analyst, consumer reports, and Neil Cohen, who's with Neil Cohen Law and is testifying on behalf of Sterilite Corporation. Turn to our panel, Ms. Seyford, who are recognized for 10 minutes. Okay, so thank you for introducing me. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule for clothing storage units. And Seyford, don't take your cameras on if you want it to be on. That's great. Thank you. Okay. My name is Lisa Seyford. Thank you again. I founded Shane's Foundation, a non-profit child safety organization and honor with my son Shane, who passed away from address her tip over. I'm co-founder of Parents Against Tip Overs. I've been working child safety, focusing on tip over prevention and awareness for 11 years now since his passing in 2011. I've spoken with the CPSC on numerous occasions telling Shane's story and also partnering with the CPSC for Anchor It as an Anchor It mom. The CPSC clearly has been aware of the dangers of tip overs for decades, and I applaud you for finally taking action. I support all the proposed changes in the NPR that are long overdue. The changes proposed in the NPR are changes previously suggested for the voluntary standard that we have been discussing for over 10 years in the ASTM F 2057 committee with no agreement. Real-world use has been a topic discussed at length and in depth that includes testing with all extension elements to be open to maximum extension, drawers loaded, carpet simulation, child interaction forces, and all the points included in the NPR. Such improvements were also stated in the Kids in Danger and Shane's Foundation testing report released August of 2016 that is cited in the NPR. I've worked with the ASTM F 2057 committee for over 10 years and I've witnessed delay tactics and outright refusal to strengthen the voluntary standard. I've even witnessed some verbal agreements to propose changes and then vote against it once it comes to ballot. We cannot rely on the ASTM to strengthen the standard evidenced by the past 22 years with the standard changing only seven times of which five times they were only very minor changes. This is why the NPR is necessary and must proceed swiftly toward a final rule. I fully support moving forward with the NPR. I believe all the CPSC testing generated data that demonstrates the voluntary standard is weak providing a need for strengthening and much needed improvement. A final rule will ensure safe CSU is sold to consumers. I plead with the CPSC to quickly pass this final rule to save children the fate that befell Shane and countless others and save families the pain that our family will endure forever. Thank you for allowing me to comment on the NPR. Excuse me. Thank you, Miss Seifert. Miss Weintraub, you will recognize for 10 minutes. Thank you. Chairman Hoon-Sarrick, commissioners Beoko, Feldman, and Trumpa. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am Rachel Weintraub, legislative director and general counsel at Consumer Federation of America. CFA is a nonprofit association of approximately 250 consumer organizations that was founded in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, education, and advocacy. Today I speak in strong support of the CPSC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would require CSUs to be tested for stability, exceed minimum stability requirements, be marked and labeled with safety information, and bear a hang tag, providing performance and technical data about the stability of the CSU. The hazard of unstable furniture, specifically clothing storage units has been well known to the CPSC and to too many families who have suffered from tragic losses as a result of tipping furniture for at least 20 years. And this morning you'll have the opportunity to hear from at least two representatives of these families who have suffered unbelievable losses and turn these losses into amazing articulate advocacy. The voluntary standard is not sufficient and a mandatory standard such as the one proposed by the CPSC in this NPR is needed. A strong enforceable standard is critical to protecting consumers from hazards posed by furniture tipovers. Consumers expect that furniture should be stable and that it should not be their responsibility to finish the job of manufacturers and ensure the stability of furniture in their home. The CPSC is aware of at least 226 fatalities related to clothing storage unit tipovers between 2000 and 2020. CPSC indicated that of these 85% or 193 incidents involve children under 18 years old and estimated 78,200 injuries related to CSU tipovers were treated in hospital emergency rooms between 2006 and 2019. The CPSC data indicate that 56,400 or 72% of these non fatal injuries involve children for each year from 2006 through 2019. There was an estimated 2,500 to 5,900 non fatal injuries treated in an emergency room. The CPSC has undertaking extensive research as part of this rulemaking process and has identified the hazard patterns involved in furniture deaths and injuries. This work has been critical. This serves as a very important basis for the notice of proposed rulemaking. The CPSC identified numerous hazard products involved in CSU tipover incidents, filled drawers, 51% of incidents involved partially filled or full drawers and interaction with the CSU. Of these incidents that include how the child interacted with the CSU, 74% involved a child climbing on the CSU, 17% involved a child sitting, laying or standing in a drawer, and 9% involved a child opening drawers. The CPSC found that climbing was the most common interaction of children three years old and younger. Specific interactions include climbing open drawers and open drawers and climbing simultaneously. CPSC also identified differences in interactions with CSUs by age and found that climbing is pervasive among children under three years old. The CPSC also identified that in incidents involving fatal tipover incidents with children and CSUs and where the type of flooring was identified, 82% of incidents involved carpeted floors. For non fatal incidents, the CPSC identified that 80% of incidents in which flooring was known involved a carpeted surface. The NPR defined CSUs as a freestanding furniture item with drawers and or doors that may be reasonably expected to be used for storing clothing that is greater than or equal to 27 inches in height. And that has a total functional volume of the closed storage greater than 1.3 cubic feet and greater than the sum of the open storage and total volume for the open space. The definition also includes that the CSU must remain upright without requiring attachment to a wall when fully assembled and empty with all extension elements enclosed. We appreciate that the definition includes CSUs 27 inches and taller, since the previous voluntary standard height of 30 inches. We fail to include CSUs involved in tipovers. We also appreciate that the definition of CSUs depends upon meeting the criteria of the definition and not upon the marketing strategy of the product. We also support that the definition includes both children's and general use CSUs as many general use CSUs are used for children's clothing storage. CFA has been involved in the ASTM voluntary standard process for furniture tipovers along with kids in danger, consumer reports and pairs against tipovers for many, many years. We believe that a strong mandatory standard is necessary to adequately protect children from the hazards posed by unstable furniture. The typical standard for the CPSC to move forward with a mandatory standard when an existing voluntary standard exists, press upon the adequacy of that standard to address the risk of injury, and whether there is substantial compliance with that standard. We believe that the voluntary standard is currently inadequate to address the risk of tipover incidents. ASTM F 2057 was first published in 2000 and was revised seven times, but has been mentioned. The CPSC did not adequately address the tipover hazard. The most current standard was revised in 2019. The CPSC found that the current ASTM voluntary standard is inadequate for a number of reasons. We agree. Broadly, we agree with the CPSC that any standard must better reflect the real world use of consumer interaction with furniture. The CPSC found that the stability requirement of the standard is inadequate because the standard does not account for multiple open and filled drawers, carpeted flooring and dynamic forces generated by children's interactions with the CSU, such as climbing or pulling on the front drawer. The ASTM standard does not require drawers to be loaded, which does not reflect actual use nor incident data. The standard does not reflect the dynamic forces involved in a child climbing a CSU. The CPSC also conducted analysis of whether CSUs involved in incidents complied with the standard. The CPSC found that 89 fatal tipover incidents involved children and only CSUs and only one of the CSUs complied with the standard stability requirements. One CSU met the stability requirements when a test weight at the lower permissible weight was used and 11 units did not meet the stability requirements. Of non-fatal incidents involving children and CSUs, staff found that 20 out of 263 met the standard stability requirements. The CPSC has determined that the tip restraint provision of the ASTM standard is inadequate because it does not address the whole tip restraint system, which includes the connection to the CSU and the connection to the wall. Nor does the 50 pound static force requirement adequately represent the real world force that a child may exert on a tip restraint. The CPSC has also determined that the warning labels of a voluntary standard could be made clearer to increase consumer understanding of terminology and of the hazards. We agree with this assessment. We believe that CSU should be designed to be stable and real world use conditions and should not need to be anchored to a wall in order not to tip over. However, we urge labeling provisions to require labels to be effective, seen, understood, reflect real world use and to accurately and clearly describe hazard patterns. We applaud the commission for including provisions that adequately assess the strength of all tethering points of anchoring devices and the components of such devices in real world use conditions, which is currently inadequate. In conclusion, we support the CPSC's NPR for the safety standard of CSUs. We believe that the voluntary standard does not adequately address the tip over hazard posed by these CSUs. We support the mandatory standard proposed in the NPR that includes numerous strengthening provisions that better reflect real world use of CSUs by children and all consumers. We support this NPR because it will significantly reduce the risk to children posed by unstable clothing storage units. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Montrave. Next, Ms. Ms. Knight, sorry. Thank you so much and thank you for the opportunity to be here today. On behalf of Consumer Reports, the independent nonprofit member organization, I welcome the opportunity to testify in support of the CPSC's rulemaking clothing storage units. Addressing furniture tip over hazards has been a priority for CR for more than a decade. We know firsthand how critical it is to implement a strong mandatory standard based on the results of our independent testing, our investigations, and our advocacy experience. We also know from the comparative stability we've seen from some CSUs that it is indeed feasible to make a safer product and the CPSC's rule would go a long way towards achieving this goal. As a persistent hidden hazard, furniture tip overs have taken a devastating toll on families across the country. Existing efforts, including the voluntary standards process, the promotion and use of anti-tip restraints, and safety messaging to the public are important, but they have unfortunately done far too little to reduce tip over deaths and injuries. It is clear that a strong mandatory stability rule, one that accounts for real world conditions and foreseeable child interactions with CSUs, is urgently needed. We commend the CPSC for proposing such a rule. Families have waited over 20 years for a solution to these preventable tragedies, and there is no more time to waste. While tip over incidents affect people of all ages, the vast majority of those who die are young children. It is devastating that hundreds of children have died in furniture tip over incidents since 2000 and that every year, thousands are rushed to the hospital. We were pleased to see in the CPSC's most recent report on tip over incident data that staff has identified a statistically significant decline in tip over injuries from 2011 to 2020. According to staff, this is due in large part to a reduction in tip overs related to a television, though we suspect that recent declines in injuries may also be attributable to the tireless work of parents against tip overs and others who have increased public awareness about this hazard. Yet, tip over injuries and deaths remain far too common. According to CPSC data, an estimated 22,500 people suffer a medically treated injury related to a tip over every year. An average of six children are rushed to the emergency department every day after a chest, bureau, or dressover tips over onto them. Not all of these children survive. These deaths and injuries are preventable. While we cannot bring back the children who are already gone, a strong and timely federal safety rule can help ensure that no other family has to suffer this unimaginable loss. The ASTM furniture safety subcommittee was formed over 20 years ago to address tip over hazards. Although CPSC staff, consumer groups, and parent advocates are active participants in the subcommittee, it is controlled primarily by furniture manufacturers. frustratingly, some manufacturers have a history of resisting changes to the standard that would make it better account for real world factors that contribute to CSU instability, such as known child interactions like climbing or pulling on drawers and placement on carpeting. Many revisions over the years have been relatively minor, notably to the very few significant revisions that have been approved requiring anchoring kits and extending a standard scope to address shorter units coincided with the introduction of legislation addressing CSU safety. Parent advocates and consumer groups have said for years that the voluntary standard is too weak to protect children. In the case of at least one incident where a dresser was linked to a child's death, the manufacturer told CR that it was not being recalled because it met the voluntary standard. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, CPSC staff determined the same about the current voluntary standard, because it fails to account for several relevant factors that are associated with tip overs, it is not adequate to protect children. The furniture industry has long emphasized the use of anti-tip restraints and the role consumers have in preventing tip overs, instead of manufacturing more stable furnitures. Of course, anchoring is important and CR recommends that everybody properly restrain their furniture. Among other materials, CR has created an article and a video to explain clearly how to properly anchor furniture to a wall. At the same time, anti-tip restraints are neither fail safe nor a viable option for everyone, and we know that many consumers do not anchor. In some cases, this is because they don't have the tools or knowledge necessary for proper installation, or in the case of some renters, they aren't allowed to drill holes in their walls. Even when installed correctly, anchors don't always hold. Noting that anti-tip restraints have proven ineffective as a primary method for preventing tip overs and educational campaigns have not adequately reduced tip overs on their own, CPSC staff has determined that CSUs should be inherently stable. The notice of proposed rulemaking in its related briefing package provide an unprecedented look into the issue of furniture tip overs. These materials contain groundbreaking research and exceptionally valuable insights into the ways children interact with CSUs and how those interactions affect furniture stability. As one example, CPSC staff found that young children are capable of exerting forces on CSUs that are greater than was previously understood. Staff found that when climbing a unit, a 50 pound child is capable of exerting forces equivalent to those from an 80 pound test rate on the face of a drawer open to 12 inches. The CPSC proposal provides two test methods for applying force to a CSU in order to determine its tip over moment, either of which can be used. While we understand the rationale for offering two test methods, we propose that the CPSC require a single test method, namely test method one, which is figure 9A and the NPR, which involves gradually applying a vertical force to the face of the uppermost extendable element of a CSU. Based on our ongoing discussions with furniture manufacturers, it is clear that the industry generally is best situated to perform a vertical load test, which better mirrors a simple hanging weight test rather than a horizontal load test. It has proven difficult for industry parties to reliably measure a horizontal force and therefore to consistently reproduce horizontal load tests. Using a single test method, test method one, to calculate a unit tip over moment would help standardize testing procedures. The CPSC has also proposed three comparison moments based on research into child interactions with CSUs. One comparison moment is based on a two to five year old child pulling on a CSU handhold while opening or attempting to open a drawer. Again, given the practical difficulty of measuring pull force consistently, we anticipate that this comparison moment could be particularly challenging for the furniture industry to implement. We would like to underscore the importance of requiring that all stability testing be conducted on products that are ready for retail distribution. Performing precalculations to determine whether a product's design will yield a relatively stable CSU is a necessary component of the design process. However, neither stability calculations on original designs nor evaluations of stability on prototypes should substitute for testing on a ready for retail product. While technical data about the stability of a CSU may provide useful information for consumers while shopping, CR's research indicates that consumers particularly value whether a unit in their home is tested for safety. Therefore, it is paramount that stability testing be performed on fully assembled finished products that are ready for distribution. We support the CPSC's proposed definition of clothing storage unit and the scope of the proposed rule. The CPSC's reasons for exempting certain types of furniture from their scope such as clothes lockers and portable storage closets are sensible. The CPSC's cost-benefit estimates strike us as fairly reached, although benefits may be underestimated as many tip-over injury and deaths likely go unreported. Staff estimated that the monetized net benefits of the rule as proposed would be more than $15 million per year annually per year. We find compelling CPSC's stats determination that several considered alternatives to the proposed rule, including no regulatory action, for example, relying on voluntary recalls and compliance with the 2019 voluntary standard, were requiring only performance and technical data, but no performance requirements for stability would fail to adequately reduce the risks posed to children. We agree with the agency that strong performance requirements for stability are essential and that CPSC simply need to be manufactured to be inherently more stable. Furniture tip-overs have already claimed hundreds of children's lives and they continue to send thousands more to the emergency department every year. Voluntary standards, tip restraints, warning labels, and infirmation campaigns have all proven inadequate to substantially reduce tip-over deaths and injuries. With these options already tried, the solution is clear. Families have waited long enough they deserve a strong, timely role with adequate performance standards for stability. That would help prevent the terrible toll that too many parents, caregivers, and children have suffered. As the independent agency that consumers rely on to help keep their families safe from unreasonable product hazards, it is critical for the CPSC to deliver. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Thank you, Ms. Knight. Now turn to Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Chairman Hoensareck, commissioners, Bayako, Feldman, and Trumpka, fellow panelists, on behalf of my client, I would like to thank the commission for hosting this public forum today and for providing us the opportunity to speak. My name is Neil Cohen. I'm a product safety attorney and I represent today the Sterilite Corporation, which is the largest plastic houseware manufacturing company in North America and as a private family-owned business. We will keep our comments brief as they relate to a very narrow and specific scope issue, namely the issue of lightweight units addressed in the commission's briefing package under section 2, subsection H, product weight. For the most part, the products that Sterilite manufacturers are not covered by the commission NPR to create a safety standard for clothing storage units. Sterilite manufactures items as diverse as laundry baskets, food storage bowls, waste baskets, and garage, laundry, kitchen and utility storage shelving and units. However, with recent changes to the industry consensus standard ASTM 2057 and with the proposed NPR to include products at a height equal to and greater than 27 inches, a small subset of Sterilite's products would fall under the scope of the NPR. These products, sample photos of which should be shown on your screen here in a moment if the commission staff could please do that. That would be very helpful. Would effectively result in a product ban because the forces and test weights proposed to be used in the test methods are heavier than the underlying weight of the plastic units themselves, leading to certain failure in both unloaded and loaded tests. I'm not sure if the image can be shown. I don't think it's been shown yet. Thank you so much. Of the plastic multi-purpose drawers manufactured by Sterilite, one such unit weighs 27.5 pounds and the remainder of the other units weigh less than 20 pounds. And now that you can see the units, as I said earlier, the test methods would, the test methods and weights are heavier than the underlying weight of the plastic units themselves, leading to certain failure and an effective product ban. You can remove that now. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Sterilite has been open and forthright about this issue and in seeking a reasonable outcome has raised this issue to the attention of the F-1542 standards development subcommittee in 2020. Sterilite takes consumer safety very seriously and in selling over approximately 15 million, okay, you can still see me here, 15 million of such units over 27 inches in height for over 25 years. It has never received a single report of a product tip over or near tip over event resulting in an injury or death. Since 2020, the ASTM scope task group has discussed this issue and proposed to exclude all CSUs weighing less than 30 pounds. This decision was the result of extensive conversations with all stakeholders from industry to consumer groups and including CPSC staff who participated in these discussions. Although Sterilite's initial proposal to exempt units manufactured exclusively using plastic materials was rejected by the subcommittee's scope group, a compromise was reached that settled on a definition around lightweight units that the subcommittee believed would protect consumer safety and prevent heavyweight plastic units from potentially skirting the requirements. A ballot on this proposal will be included again in the next round of ASTM balloting. The task group's recommendation is a sound one and is based on the available data. In fact, it's CPSC's own data which was provided by CPSC staff in ASTM meetings and which clearly demonstrate the lack of incidents associated with such products. CPSC staff reaffirmed the data in the NPR in section two, subsection H, which I will quote in part here. Noting that the lightest weight reported CSU involved in a fatal tip over incident weighed 34 pounds without the three drawers, the configuration at the time of the incident. The lightest weight reported non-modified CSU involved in a fatal tip over incident without a television is a 57 pound three drawer chest. Other fatal incidents involve lightweight CSUs involve a 57.5 pound four drawer chest and a 68 pound three drawer chest. The reported lightest weight CSU involving in a non-fatal incident is a 31 pound two drawer chest and a 45 pound three drawer chest. Staff went on to acknowledge the presence of products such as those made by Sterilite and in tab Q decided that consumers will perceive and use such units as CSUs. The staff acknowledges that CPSC staff did quote not identify any tip over incidents involving plastic units in the fatal and non-fatal CSPR MS data involving children without a television. The 2016 report furniture stability, excuse me, review of data and testing results by Kids in Danger and Shanes Foundation tested 19 units and subjected them to multiple tests of those units 18 weighed more than 60 pounds and one unit weighed 52 pounds. Despite these facts the conclusions in the NPR in the section on product weight unfortunately shift from that realm of observed data to a different realm of supposition. Staff speculate that with an assumed clothing load of eight and a half pounds per cubic foot of storage volume, many lightweight units could be filled to the same weight as the incident involved units. This carefully constructed statement equating lightweight units under load to incident involved units, even though CPSC data shows that there are no incident involved lightweight units. Misleadingly implies that lightweight units are dangerous and that anything could happen supporting CPSC's proposal to include these units in the proposed rule. But despite reviewing all the available data from CPSC Kids in Danger and Shanes Foundation, there are no documented cases of this actually happening. We believe that staff's analysis and the commission's rule should be limited to the available incident data that bears a reasonable relationship to the hazard which the rule seeks to address. Sterilite has manufactured and sold over 15 million such units over 27 inches and received zero reports of tip overs or near tip over incidents resulting in an injury or reported death. In conclusion, setting a minimum definitional weight for CSUs in the NPR is a reasonable data driven decision that properly balances the competing benefits and risks with the use and utility of these units. To do otherwise would effectively implement an overbroad and arbitrary ban on a class of products for which there is no clearly documented safety risk. Proceeding without making this reasonable adjustment to the NPR would unfortunately weaken confidence in the data underlying the rule, would potentially subject the rule to legal challenge, and would unnecessarily limit consumer choice for hazard that has not been shown to be present. Should a safety risk with such units be identified in future observed data, CPSC always reserves its right to revisit its regulation, but until and if such time the NPR is presently overbroad and should be revised. Sterilite urges the commission to focus its priorities and attention on solving the identified problem in traditional heavier weight wooden CSU units. Sterilite respectfully seeks the modification of the proposed rule to specifically exclude lightweight units weighing less than 30 pounds. Thank you very much for this opportunity to participate in this public hearing. I look forward to our continued participation and we are happy to address any questions the commission may have. Thank you chairman. Thank you Mr Cohen and thank you to the rest of the panel. We'll now turn to questions from the commissioners each question each commissioner will get 10 minutes to ask questions with multiple rounds, if needed. I'd like to start and recognize myself for 10 minutes. Ms Weintraub commented that you appreciate the definition of CS use in the NPR depends on meeting criteria of the definition and not on the marketing strategy of the product. You elaborate on that a bit as to why you feel marketing strategy should not be used to determine which products fall within the scope of the proposed rule. Sure. Thank you for the question. I think especially with CS use people use them based on literally what their capacity is how they can be used and I think it changes over time as children age out of certain rooms and certain pieces of furniture. So I think for furniture, people use them as they are able to be used, and the marketing of them becomes increasingly irrelevant over time, and people really will use them based on how much they can hold, and where they best fit in their home. So that is why I think the strategy of the agency to have specific criteria really makes sense in terms of real world use. Thank you. Ms Seifert, you say that you've been involved in the voluntary standards process for a decade at this point in time. In your statement, you were really negative about how industries approach this process. From your perspective as a parent as an advocate has worked on this for decades. Do you find that there's importance that the CPSC finished its work as opposed to simply relying on the voluntary standards process? Absolutely. It's time has proven that ASTM has not done enough for tip overs. I mean, the everything that I've witnessed in the last 10 years sitting on the committee. Everything that everyone says that they want to do and then don't do it just it's not working so the CPSC should and can step up. Thank you, Ms Seifert. I'm going to reserve the rest of my time and turn to my fellow commissioners. Commissioner Biacco. Thank you Chairman Hunsaric and thank all of you on the panel for your comments. I think this is another one of these issues that has been around way too long and needs to be addressed now and address properly. In my humble opinion, the issue cannot be addressed, whether it's voluntary or mandatory or whatever label you want to put on it until there is some part of the standard that involves dynamic testing. I just cannot get my head around the concept that some weight is laid into the top drawer and that's supposed to mimic or give us data that is comparable to a child climbing up regardless of their weight, climbing up and down furniture, which I understand is a big issue in a lot of the injuries. So I think we can disagree on different points and weights and what have you, but there has to be some dynamic testing and until that happens, I think that we're going to be struggling. I do also agree having listened to one of the ASTM meetings for this issue that the voluntary standard process with regard to this particular issue has failed. And a delay of 20 years under any set of circumstances is just not acceptable and you're never going to convince me that this problem cannot be fixed. It can be fixed. Now, how to what extent, I mean, I am from the school that every product, not every product, let me phrase this properly, every product is not perfect. There's always going to be way spectrum ends of things that happen, but the majority of these products and the problems that we see can and should be fixed. I am happy with the direction the CPSC is going. I'm happy that there is a mandatory standard coming down the road. I am concerned with the Sturdy Act that's floating out there that to my understanding doesn't involve any dynamic testing. So I'm interested to see how the Sturdy Act, which is progressing and our NPR, how they will, if at all, dovetail, giving my comments. I do have some questions for Mr. Cohen. Candidly, I, this is the first time I have really thought about or heard this issue with the plastic units and I have to tell you, you have a good point here. I find it hard to believe that the pictures that you showed us of these plastic units are equivalent to the clothing storage units that we have been addressing. And some of the data that you've quoted, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's all correct, seems to me that these units should not be part of this NPR. It seems to me that these units, because of the definition, are maybe interfering with us moving along and moving forward with some of the, for lack of a better term, heavier clothing storage units. So I do think you raised some good points. I know you mentioned this. I'm going to ask it again. For your client, have there been any associated injuries or deaths with your clients' products? Commissioner Beacot, no. They have checked their own data and they have no such reports. And you're telling me that there were 15 million in the field? That's right. Approximately 15 million, specifically greater than 27 inches, which is the only ones we're addressing here today. So I think, and are you aware of any data with regard to any of these plastic units that is associated with injuries or deaths beyond 50 pounds or underneath 50 pounds? I'm sorry. We're not aware of any such data. The Sterilite certainly doesn't make any units that weigh anything close to that amount. The heaviest weight is 27 and a half pounds, and that's only one of the units, although it's a popular unit. And it's used often in multipurpose rooms, garages, kitchens, laundry facilities, etc. So the way this is used is interesting to me. Has anybody seen recently the Aflac commercial where the guy is climbing up to the top of a shelving unit to get his step stool so he can reach the shelving unit? I think it's with Wanda Sykes. Anybody see that one? It's interesting to me that on television it's a little comedy routine about this man climbing up on his unit to get his step stool and the unit falls. And all I keep thinking, every time I see that commercial is this, you know, clearly they don't understand the parents and the tragedies that have been out in the field. But it does raise a very good point, and that is that it's not necessarily where you use it. It's how you use it. And in each one of these instances, I keep coming back to this, the thing doesn't just fall over on a kit. The child is climbing or in a drawer, or I mean there's some type of back to the dynamic issue. And I struggle with the fact that this is just not going to be fixed until the dynamic testing is part of the standard. I will follow up, Mr. Cohen. I am concerned that this rule will face some challenge when we're including plastic products and we have no data for it. That bothers me. And that is a concern. So thank you for raising that issue. And I definitely want to follow up on that. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Feldman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. And thank you to all of the participants for taking time to offer testimony today and comments to CPSC. I also want to thank CPSC staff for all the work that they've put in on this rule but also this presentation. The committee that's printed out the complete NPR knows just by the weight and height of the document that a significant amount of work did go into it and I think that's to be commended. We have a question for Ms. Weintraub and it's very much a follow on on the first question that the chairman Hansaric asked, but it has to do with the scope of the rule and the definition of CSU and the extent to which marketing strategy of a particular firm bears on what's in scope or out of scope. And Ms. Weintraub, you mentioned in your testimony that you're satisfied with the definition that we currently have in place and specifically pointing out that the definition is not dependent on a firm's marketing strategy. Is it therefore safe to say that you would oppose carve-outs for particular products that may have at a later date or anticipation of the rule altered their marketing strategy to present a product that otherwise meets the parameters to bring it within the scope of the proposed rule outside based on a change in marketing? I definitely think that the strategy that the CPSC used for the definition is the most accurate in terms of reflecting real world use because as I mentioned before in response to the chairman's question, I think use changes over time based on a family's needs. So I think it's incredibly important for the definition to reflect the capacity of a particular piece of furniture, because I think that's what consumers interact with. The marketing strategy influences the original purchase of a particular product if it does it all, but not the way that a consumer likely will use a product in the home. So separate from specific carve-outs, I would need to see what the response is, and generally I think this definition would be effective and strong and would not require such carve-outs, which I think it's likely better not to have them, but rather to really sort of run the definition with the way that consumers use the product. And I think that's one of the incredible strengths of this MPR, even broader than the specific definition that the way that the CPSC research did such an incredible amount of work, really reflecting how consumers and children interact with the product, I think is an incredible strength of this MPR. I appreciate that response, and I'm curious whether that's the consensus view among the advocacy community. Ms. Seifert, is this something that you and Shane's Foundation also support the scope of the MPR as it's currently drafted? I agree with Rachel, for sure. And Ms. Knight, CR? Yes, agreed. Ms. Amato? Excuse me? Ms. Amato? Oh, I'm sorry. Nancy, Ms. Coles? She's also going to expand a little bit. Got it. All right. My last question would be for Mr. Cohen. In your testimony, you do take some issue with staff's concern that the plastic CSUs that your client manufactures could reach the same weight as incident-involved CSUs. Are you saying that, do you take issue with staff's conclusion that you could load one of these plastic units to reach the same weight? Is that physically impossible or? Commissioner Feldman, thank you for the question. No, I don't take, we don't take issue with staff's assertion that you can load these drawers with that amount of weight. And in the scope subcommittee task group of the ASTM, the discussion and the reason that the plastic definition, which is what Starlight had proposed initially was rejected was because of concerns that even though there are no such units that currently weigh 50 or 60 or 70 pounds, that potentially if there was an exclusion based solely on materials that an unscrupulous manufacturer could try to skirt the intention of the narrow exclusion. And so instead after the discussion, it was focused on weight as opposed to materials used. Okay. So it is possible to load the unit up. It's not like if you were to overload one of these lighter weight plastic units that you would lose functionality to not be able to open the drawers or anything like that. I think it depends on the unit, Commissioner Feldman, and I'm not prepared to speak to all the units. I mean, some of the lighter weight and so the plastic drawer bottoms are thinner. So I don't have all of those details today. I understand. Final question, and I want to be respectful of time. In footnote two of your testimony, you indicate that your client is committed to removing images of clothing in its marketing strategy for these Starlight units going forward. Is there any evidence that you can point to that demonstrates that consumers will not use these units absent such images in a different marketing strategy? Commissioner, no, there is not. And that's really not, I think that's why we put it as a footnote. The, because the manufacturer Starlight views that use, if it exists as an ancillary use, they've indicated that they have no problem removing it because it's really not what that's primarily marketed for, not withstanding the staff's conclusions and this wine tropes comments. So if CSUs that are lightweight and plastic aren't a potential concern here. Why is your client making these commitments in the first place? Because they have no opposition to the rule as it stands and they're not trying to under they just want because there's no data to support that their particular units present a hazard. That it would be an unnecessary and a major reduction in availability to consumers of a very useful product that's not presenting an issue for safety, a safety issue. Excuse me. I appreciate that response. I have no further questions. I would be interested to hearing the reaction from panelists on the upcoming panel about whether or not this particular exclusion is appropriate. But again, thank all the panelists for their testimony today and thank everybody for their time and attention. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner, Commissioner trumpet. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank all the members of this first panel for testifying and I want to particularly thank Miss Seaford for sharing her perspective. And for Miss Amato, who will share a similar perspective on the next panel. I think that that is the perspective we need to be giving the most attention to today. I used to work for for a great man Elijah Cummings, who would say, take your pain, make it your passion and find your purpose. And I think both of you, particularly for doing that. So, thank you all. Thank you. Thank you commissioner. I don't believe anybody is asking for us next second round. So at which point in time, I will thank the first panel and recognize our second panel. And the second panel, we have Miss Kimberly Amato, who's founder of parents against tip overs, Stacey calls the executive director kids in danger. Bill Purdue, who's vice president of regulatory affairs at the American Home furnishings alliance and Mark Schumacher, who's the CEO of North America Home furnishings Association. Thank you all for being here. And this motto, you recognize for 10 minutes. Thank you. Good morning. I'd like to thank Chairman Hohen-Sarek and commissioners Feldman, Bayako and Trumka for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rule for clothing storage units this morning. I'd also like to thank the CPSC staff, and in particular, Dr. Kristen Telcott and her team for the mountain of research and testing that is informed this NPR. My name is Kimberly Amato, and I offer these comments today on behalf of parents against tip overs or PAT. PAT is a nationwide coalition of parents who have all lost children to furniture tip overs. And we want to see an end to the needless injuries and deaths from dressers and other clothing storage unit tip overs. I'm sure you remember the stories that other PAT parents like Brett Horn, Janet McGee, Megan DeLong, Lisa Seifert, Kerry Funk, and myself have previously shared with you about our children's deaths as a result of unstable and unsafe clothing storage units. We want to take this opportunity to applaud the commission for finally moving forward with this NPR, and we enthusiastically support it. We would also like to offer the following comments for your consideration. The CPSC's requirement to rely on voluntary standards, especially with regard to clothing storage units, has resulted in hundreds of deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries to children from CSU tip overs since 2000. The NPR clearly states that the current ASTM voluntary standard for CSUs is grossly inadequate. This is evidenced by your own data that shows tens of thousands of children are still being injured and several more are dying every single year. I'd also like to take this opportunity to remind the commission that every data point is somebody's child, a child that could just as easily have been yours or one that you love as it was ours. Every tip over is a potential death, even the ones that you don't know about. The CPSC was aware of the hazard that furniture tip overs posed to children as early as the 1990s, as evidenced by the agency's published safety alerts. The CPSC first published its annual tip over report in 2008 and has issued one every year since 2010. And yet, it took until 2017 for the CPSC to issue the ANPR and nearly four more years have passed before voting to move forward with the CSUNPR in 2021. This NPR has been far too long in coming. We would also like to remind the commission that the data you have is only the tip of the iceberg. Countless near misses and minor injuries go unreported every year. Yet we're the physics of those tip overs just slightly different. They could have resulted in a serious injury or death. Just because we don't know that a particular CSU was involved in an incident doesn't mean that it wasn't or that it won't be in the future. It just means you don't know about it. And that is why moving quickly toward a final rule is vitally important. It's quite literally a matter of life and death. The ASTM Voluntary Standard Committee to address CSU tip overs was established in 1998. And the first version of F-2057, the voluntary safety standard for clothing storage units was published in 2000, four years before my daughter Megan died. Since then, the standard has been updated seven times, but most were minor changes of a word here or there or clarifications of already written text. As you've already heard today, there were only two notable updates to the standard. The first notable change was in 2009 and required a warning label to be attached and a tip restraint to be included. The second significant revision was 10 years later in 2019 when the standard was updated to include CSU's 27 inches and taller. It had previously been 30 inches and taller. On that same ballot, a proposal to increase testing weight from 50 pounds to 60 pounds failed. Unfortunately, none of the updates to the voluntary standard have significantly changed the hazard pattern for CSU. As the commission is aware, we know of at least one death from a CSU that complies with the current version of F-2057-19, and yet that product has not been recalled and is still sold today. It is not coincidental that significant updates to F-2057 were all concurrent with proposed legislation regarding CSU safety. Once the threat of legislation had passed, many of the industry members returned to their often circular arguments resistance to change and repeatedly saying there was not enough data, which we as parents hear as there aren't enough dead children yet. Making forward progress toward a stronger voluntary standard, all but impossible. Pat is actively involved in the F-15.42 Furniture Safety Subcommittee, and we want you to be aware that this scenario is playing out again right now. The pressure on the furniture industry through the Sturdy Act currently in the Senate and the NPR has again brought momentum for positive change at the voluntary standards level. As soon as the draft NPR was issued, some key industry members of the committee claimed that the issuance of the draft NPR blindsided them, their words. And they were motivated to do their own testing, finally. And suddenly, for the very first time, they became very engaged in making significant and meaningful changes to the voluntary standard. For the first time in nearly two decades, we feel optimistic about the work that's been done by the motivated members of this committee. The unprecedented collaboration that's happening with key manufacturers, parents against tip overs, and other consumer members, and the very real potential that we might agree on a significant update to F-2057. That includes tests to address what causes CSUs to tip, multiple open and loaded drawers, the effects of carpet, and real-world dynamic forces that occur when a child climbs or otherwise interacts with a CSU. Unfortunately, history shows us that we cannot put our trust in this process. The F-15.42 ASTM furniture safety subcommittee is made up by many manufacturers. And although some key manufacturing members might agree to significant impactful and meaningful changes to the standard, there's absolutely no guarantee a ballot to make those changes will pass. And until those changes are actually validated, passed, and incorporated into the standard, there's no assurances this process will work or how long it might take. We ask, again, how many more children will have to die before this hazard in every household in America is adequately addressed. The reality is manufacturers already know how to solve this problem. And in failing to do so, our children and hundreds of others have needlessly died under one of their dressers. If the furniture industry is unable or unwilling to write an effective voluntary safety standard that addresses all of the reasons that tip overs happen. After 24 years, it's hard to believe that they ever will, which is why the NPR must rapidly proceed towards a final rule. We need this rule quickly to ensure the safety of children and to ensure that all manufacturers are required to make safe and stable CSUs that resist tipping over. Complying with the safety standard should not be optional. The proposed rule is long overdue. And on behalf of every family whose child has ever had a tip over near miss, had their child injured. And especially on behalf of the families of the nearly 200 children we know of who died from CSU tip overs, while the furniture industry failed to establish an effective voluntary standard. We beg of you to move forward quickly and decisively toward a robust and strong final rule that addresses all of the contributing factors to CSU tip overs. It will save lives. Had it existed 17 years ago, it would have saved my Maggie and the lives of every single member of parents against tip overs, not to mention hundreds of other children. A final rule will ensure that when consumers purchase a CSU, they can finally trust that it's safe and stable. As the commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, you all have the power to end tip over injuries and deaths right now. We ask that you please do so and as quickly as possible through issuing a final rule. So no other family ever has to know and live with the pain that we do. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Coles, you recognize for 10 minutes. Thank you very much for both holding this hearing and working to reduce the likelihood of child death and injury from clothing storage unit tip overs. I'm Nancy Coles, the executive director of Kids in Danger, where a nonprofit organization founded by parents who lost a child to another unsafe product. And our mission is to we're dedicated to protecting children by fighting for product safety on this and many other issues. The NPR has been a long time coming, even just counting since the NPR in 2017, almost five years. But we are very heartened by the amount of research, testing and review of other standards that CPSC staff accomplished in that time. The new study on child strength, review of injury data, and meticulous review of current standards puts this NPR on strong footing. We believe that the proposed standard will prevent most deaths from furniture tip over, especially in our target population of children five and younger, which covers 96% of the child victims of fatal tip over incidents. We believe this strong mandatory standard, which addresses the shortcomings in the voluntary standard would be a significant improvement and would reduce those injuries and deaths. The CPSC has authority to draft a mandatory standard, when an existing voluntary standard does not adequately address the risk of injury, and when there's not substantial compliance with that standard. We believe that that threshold has been met, as shown both by our testing of furniture in 2016, and especially CPSC's own extensive testing. 10 of the 19 units we tested, failed the voluntary standard, and all but two failed additional testing that addressed the conditions that CPSC addresses in the NPR, carpeted floor, loaded drawers, multiple drawers open, and that dynamic force a climbing child can exert. One of the products that passed all of our testing had interlocking drawers, and the other had a unique design that moved the center of gravity of the unit backwards. Numbers of injuries and deaths have decreased since our 2016 report, but as CPSC's latest statistics show, they can attribute some of that decline in fatalities to the decline in television related fatalities, likely due to the decrease in older heavier models of televisions. But the numbers are still too high for what we know to be a preventable hazard. Anchoring may have increased slightly, but most furniture in most homes is still unanchored. It is unreasonable to expect parents to finish the job of making a product safe by anchoring it once it is home. Dressers and other clothing storage units should be able to withstand the weight of a toddler or preschooler without requiring attachment to the wall. However, we do encourage CPSC to consider developing a strong standard for anti-tip devices as well, as they will continue to be needed for already produced furniture in most homes and as a child-proofing step even for new furniture. If a tip restraint is all that stands between a child and a tipping dresser, we need to assure it will work as attended both a few weeks after it is installed and years later as well. We support the NPR's analysis of the factors involved in tip overs and the inclusion of the impact of those factors in the test methodology. We encourage CPSC to continue to study their test methodology for ways to simplify the test without reducing the likelihood that it will weed out unstable units. Testing must account for flooring variances, especially carpeting, the interaction of children with clothing storage units including pulling out multiple drawers and climbing, as well as the usual state of clothing storage units in the home, and that's with loaded drawers. We believe this rigorous test or its successor will push manufacturers to consider new designs and methods to create more stable furniture, including interlocking, extendable elements such as drawers, designs that move the center of gravity farther from the front of the unit, even with drawers open, and building methods that move the weight in units towards the back. Many of you have heard Kit talk of our work with university level engineering students who through the years have presented many designs that would be at home in a child's room and resist tipping. Kit has been working with other consumer and parent advocates and industry representatives on the Sturdy Act, which will require CPSC to continue to work on a standard under a shorter timeline, but addressing the same conditions as are already included in the NPR. We hope CPSC will see this as a tool to get to a final rule and effective date sooner should it pass. We support CPSC's test methodology that tests for all real world use in one test, weight of the child, climbing, carpeting and multiple drawers open. The testing does seem to require much analysis of the data rather than a clear pass fail by site as the current testing does. We would urge CPSC to consider additional instructional guidance or simplification to share all testing is done and measured in the same way. We also encourage CPSC to clearly spell out that anti tip devices, often referred to as anchors or straps will not be allowed during any of the testing. It's not clear from the NPR that that is clear enough, given past experience. CPSC includes in their testing a setup to imitate the impact of carpeting on stability. We support this setup and the angle tilt. However, we do not support allowing the product to be leveled once on the angle according to the manufacturer's instructions for carpeting. This could allow the angle to be removed from the testing, eliminating the impact of carpeting from the test. Unless the leveling for carpeting is automatic or preset permanently, we cannot assume consumers will use the levelers, especially since currently very few clothing storage units have leveling devices. Allowing the test to take place in this ideal circumstance of a consumer who adjusts the levelers before use takes this test out of the real world use criteria we are trying to measure. We would ask CPSC to consider testing with levelers fully retracted as we have worked with the ASTM committee to conduct that testing. Kin is also supportive of the hang tag with stability information at the point of sale. We would ask that CPSC also consider using the back of the hang tag to include the same warnings that are required on the unit, giving consumers an additional chance to see and read them. Also, research shows that handling a warning label, such as removing the hang tag after purchase, will increase the likelihood of consumers seeing and reading the warnings. In response to CPSC's specific request for comment, Kidd offers these thoughts. While Kidd agrees that the limit of 27 inches and above for the standard based on current data, CPSC should review any new data prior to issuing the final rule to confirm that shorter dressers do not pose the same hazard. If necessary, shorter units should be added to the scope. Kidd is also supportive of the 8.5 pounds per cubic foot for the fill in drawers for the fill in drawers while testing. In the 2016 testing Kidd and Chains Foundation did, we came to the same weight based on a drawer filled with children's t-shirts. Kidd has been working on testing and requirements for interlocks as part of our work with the ASTM committee as we believe many manufacturers will turn to interlock to meet more rigorous testing. CPSC should continue to study interlock systems and children's ability to override them in some cases, as well as consumers use of interlocks and the potential for disengagement, which would leave children vulnerable if the product had previously only been tested with the interlocks in place. We have no opinion on lengthening the time between the passage and the effective data and the effective date of the rule as manufacturers and retailers would have to provide data to show what is feasible. Kidd supports CPSC moving forward to develop this final rule. Too much time has already been wasted with slow response to this hazard. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today. Next Mr. Perdue, Mr. Perdue, you may need to turn on your mic and your video. Perhaps while Mr. Perdue is working on that, I would turn it to Mr. Schumacher. Mr. Schumacher, go first and we can work on Mr. Perdue's. Yes, sir. Thank you for that. Absolutely. First of all, I want to say good morning, Mr. Chairman and the CPSC commissioners. My name is Mark Schumacher. I am the chief executive officer of the North American Home Furnishings Association. Just to give you an idea, our membership is made up of 1,500, slightly north of 1,500 furniture retail members across the country that really translates into more than 7,000 storefronts. And we capture every aspect of our industry from the largest retailer there is to the small generational corner furniture store in communities across the US. As noted in the NPR for clothing storage units, our industry, including our suppliers and vendors almost entirely made up of small businesses, which is why many would face a significant threat to their business survival under some of the current aspects of this proposal. I want to provide some light to that today. I want to point out just out of the gates here and it's important that for HFA and its member companies, consumer safety is was and will continue to be a top priority when they select products to sell. You have to remember their customers are members of their community, their coworkers, families, friends. So that's very, very important as an industry we have partnered with CPSC in the past on its anchor campaign. We have advocated for mandatory clothing storage units safety standard based on the current ASTM voluntary standard that's been something we've advocated for a long time. While providing customers in their communities with safe products is the focus of our members. We have significant concerns with many elements of this proposal predominantly with its implementation and I'd like to just provide some perspective on that today. First and foremost, the 30 day effective date. During consideration of this proposed rule, the Commission voted to reduce the effective date of final regulation just 30 days after publication that requirements would have been challenging pre pandemic. Well now it's virtually impossible for furniture retailers to meet. See because under normal conditions product lead times would exceed those 30 days by four to six weeks, and the current supply chain and logistics disruptions that are facing the US economy which are well documented furniture retailers are significantly impacted. Our members consistently report nine to 12 month timelines from order to production to delivery of the product to the customer. There is a significant gap between this 30 day effective date requirement and the reality for furniture businesses across the United States. The effect would be some empty showrooms with an inability for retailers to sell clothing storage units that comply with this new standard. We believe that goes directly against the intent of this shorter compliance period. Customers would be unable to purchase these units for an indefinite period of time to give you some perspective I want to quote one of our HFA members who said the following. I'm already waiting for this merchandise would cancel their orders since I could not legally deliver it to them if it arrives after the 30 day compliance window. Currently I have 10s of thousands of dollars worth of worthless inventory therefore I'd be forced to refund customers deposits on these bedrooms that no longer comply creating a double whammy effect financially for us and every other furniture retailer. So that's something that I think is worth consideration. Also there's additional costs that are not recognized by this NPR. Technically the NPR presents a significant challenge for furniture manufacturers. In connection to this proposed rule CPSC testing found that only one model out of 186 that would meet the proposed rule requirements without modification currently. There's also recognition that CSU models currently on the market that would meet that proposal are very, very low. The NPR to quickly overlooks the impact of this situation on furniture retailers and consumers. Obviously the makeup of our retail bases 99% small businesses and as proposed the safety standard from the CPSC would force them to reimagine and restock their stores at a significant cost just talking about inventory alone. There are also some consumer impacts to think about here on this implementation. Many of our members report serving customers with household incomes at $75,000 per year or less. They are very price sensitive so any increase in the cost to CSUs will impact their ability to purchase the CSUs that meet the safety requirement. And this will make it difficult. This will mean lost sales and it will devalue inventory that the retailers have in stock that they've invested in. Let's make it more difficult for the customer to actually have a compliant unit. We also talked a lot today about alternatives. It's been mentioned by a few other speakers. The first suggests drawer interlock systems could be an option to increase CSU stability and estimates the cost of purchasing and installing these systems would be around $12. Given hyperinflation in our industry which is currently 20% in recent BLS economic data, we're skeptical about the cost estimate. The availability of these interlocks given wide supply chains disruptions is also something that is suspect at this point. The NPR goes into effect. There's a potential for significant increases in orders to interlocks further impacting that availability. And furniture retailers by the way that are familiar with these systems have reported to HFA that devices can fail over time, reducing their safety benefit, which also creates a service and repair component that's not considered by this NPR. Let me just briefly talk about the hang tags and the confusion that these may create because the CPSU defined the annual CSU market at about 44 million units. That is a significant portion of retail showroom and the NPR creates this new hang tag requirement to explain the hazard to consumers and display a safety rating based on the calculations that are required. And through the level of consumer education necessary to allow them to distinguish between a unit with a safety rating of one compared to a safety rating of three perhaps. There will also be extensive staff training for retail associates to confidently explain the safety standard to consumers they are the frontline after all they need to be considered. That staff and consumer education impact will also be significantly delayed, giving the struggle to receive these new units, based on the supply chain constraints. So just to wrap up to stay within my time here. If the intent is to bring these new products to market quickly and affordably this NPR does not achieve that goal. As written it gives consumers few choices in the inventory of new CSUs will be limited for an extended period of time, leaving consumers to live with their current older furniture that may not meet that safety standard. Many consumers will be able to afford the new CSUs, which will be more expensive and out of their price range. The expected date will threaten many retail businesses almost exclusively small businesses with huge losses on inventory they'll be unable to sell that they've already invested in. They have survived this pandemic, while serving their communities with much needed home furnishings they've managed through hyperinflation, yet this could be the final straw for many. We would just ask the CPSC to rethink the rollout of this new rule and work with our members to create a process that makes sense. If a members after all are the conduit to the consumers that you're tasked to protect, and I believe very firmly that they need to be part of this discussion. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Schumacher. I believe Mr. Purdue's computer pros. I'm just going to check, Mr. Purdue, are you able to turn on your camera? Now that he's part of this, so I'm going to take a five minute break and allow him time to restart his computer if it doesn't restart. I can move on to our questions, but we'll just give him a minute to try and restart his computer. Mr. Purdue, but have you joined? We're waiting for Commissioner, Commissioner Trump is there. Mr. Purdue, can you say something so we can make sure that your audio is working? I still, can you hear me? I'm still having a very difficult time. Can you hear him? We can hear you. You can. Yeah, so I'm going to call this hearing back into session and recognize you for 10 minutes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my apologies for the computer issues. Good morning, I'm Bill Purdue, I'm Vice President Regulatory Affairs for the American Overnight Seems Alliance. I thank the CPSC for hosting this public forum and providing the opportunity for me to speak here today. The HFA is the world's largest and most influential trade association serving the home and furnishings industry. Our 350 member companies operate numerous domestic furniture manufacturing facilities, retail stores, and comprise an extensive global supply chain that provides a wide variety of home furnishings to the American consumer. Remember companies provide approximately 300,000 manufacturing jobs throughout the US and represent a $60.6 billion segment of the economy of the nation's economy. HFA member companies are mostly small businesses and located in communities across the United States. The NPR proposes two test methods that produce inconsistent results. As we have seen, test method one is the most appropriate for CSUs with drawers and pullout shelves and test method two is appropriate for any CSU. The two test methods compete and testing confirmed that the two test methods produce vastly different results for the same CSU. Based on testing by HFA, testing the same CSU to both test methods produce different ratios that vary by as much as 124%. In some instances the CSU passed using one test method but failed using the other. The demonstrated variability in results of the two test methods raise serious concerns regarding enforcement of the standard if it is to become effective. The possibility for and indeed certainty of inconsistent results between the two test methods creates uncertainty for CPSC consumers in the regulated industry and raises serious concerns regarding the enforceability to propose rule. In addition to the start differences in the results between the two different proposed test methods, each test method itself is also flawed based on the inherent variability in inputs. Performing the test method requires precise measurements of when the tip over moment occurs. Based on our testing, however, it has become evident that differences in who is performing the test, i.e. the height, weight of the test individual results in different results. The inability to repeat and reproduce the test and the variability of the data acquisition will likely render the regulation unenforceable. The preliminary description of potential cost and benefits of the proposed rule fails to account for all two true costs imposed by the proposed rule and thus does not meet the statutory requirements for assessing the cost and benefits of proposed regulation. For example, the following compliance costs are not considered in the cost associated with the proposed rule. For example, we designed, included but not limited to redesigning the operational sliding link of drawer guides, additional counterweight, for example, redesigning to accommodate a thicker MVF back panel. Packing and inter-pack design, for example, the additional weight will require additional packing materials and in many instances require an additional box. Increased shipping and transportation costs, the additional counterweight may eliminate the use of FedEx and UPS for dropped shipment, forcing manufacturers to utilize more expensive LTL shipment options and the cost of third party testing for all CSUs. All of these increase testing costs. The complexity of the testing and data gather will require manufacturers to move away from in-house testing. The redesign will be costlier than CPSC estimates. While the proposed rule anticipates the use of an interlock device, HBA testing and evaluation of CSUs across the board, broad array of price points reveals compliance and proposed rule will require additional measures beyond the addition of an interlock. Interlocks along are not enough to reach the A1 or greater ratio. HBA's testing confirms that in every instance reaching one or greater will require the interlock plus additional counterweight. Additionally, some CSUs require levelers and the restriction of the drawer operational sliding link. HBA has compiled actual manufacturing cost of compliance data. Review of that data has identified numerous challenges. One member company is reported based on evaluation of their best-selling clothing storage unit, a 44% increase to the manufacturing cost, and evaluating the top six clothing storage units for compliance. Again, a ratio of one or greater, a total cost of compliance of $4.8 million. This does not include transportation cost, which is estimated at $2 million. The NPR's underestimation of cost also assumes that a manufacturer will only take one of the suggested methods for compliance. However, to comply with the NPR, especially given the uncertainty caused by the variation in results within and between test methods, it is very likely that a manufacturer must use multiple compliance methods in redesigning their clothing storage units. The failure to include the cost of multiple sign changes makes the CPSC's preliminary cost-benefit analysis woefully inadequate. It should also be noted that the Commissioner voted to amend the effective date of the final rule from 180 days to 30 days. This compliance schedule is too compressed given the magnitude of what is being proposed and the realities of the supply chain for clothing storage units. It's not massive supply chain disruption because, as the agency is aware, personally no furniture manufacturer for sale in the United States currently complies with the proposed rule. The 180 days was already woefully insufficient, much less 30 days. Mr. Perdue, we lost your audio. You can also dial in for your cell phone to provide audio as an alternative. What I might suggest is that as you're dialing in on your cell phone, we turn to questions at least for the rest of the panel, and then we can loop you in with questions. Unfortunately, because I did have a number of questions for you, Mr. Trumka. Mr. Trumka, audio problems all around. Oh, there we go. It was reading muted by the organizer, so I'm not sure if the same issue is persisting, but either way, maybe someone can read the dial in number out loud for the dial in. I'm not sure Mr. Perdue has received it. I think we can text it to him because we have his cell phone number. We've been allowed to the public and then having an interesting rest of the hearing. So if that works for the rest of the commissioners, I would turn to questions for others and hopefully we'll have Mr. Perdue dial in on a cell phone momentarily. So, so I do think thank the rest of the panel for their, their testimony as well. We'll do 10 minute rounds of questions multiple rounds if we need it. I'm going to start and recognize myself for 10 minutes and ask, what's called ampere lays out the requirements to evaluate the stability of closing storage units and configuration that simulates the effect of carpet filled drawers multiple open drawers simultaneously. My understanding is that this doesn't appear to be where ASTM is headed and that the more limited ASTM combinations don't cover this full range of real world use we've seen in data. Is testing with the full universe of combinations of carpet filled drawer multiple open drawers needed in your view? I think it is needed to do all of them together because that is what would happen in the real world. And when we separate him out into separate tests, you know, which is how currently ASTM is one with drawers open another one with the weight and then even the additional testing we're talking about. They're not all being done as CPSC is with the carpeting or even all the other factors at once. So I think that obviously doing them as it would happen in the real world with them all applied at once is both the most effective, you know, to get what would happen in the real world, but also a simple test input to one test versus a series of them. Thank you. I doubt that. I believe that Mr. Perdue is here. Excellent. I'm going to pause myself whether or not you have additional. I'm close to finishing your testimony or whether you feel like you go questions. I've got a couple more things to say should take me longer than three minutes if that's if that's okay with the chair. That is fine. You can finish up and then thank you. Thank you. I think I was talking about the effective date we were talking about the hundred and eighty days. There's no practical way for industry to start making changes to CSU design now. In anticipation of the final rules, we noted above the two proposed test methods yield diverging results and even tested within each test method is not repeatable and reproducible. This means that even if the final rule is identical to the NPR, manufacturers will not have a way to reliably know whether their new designs will comply. The very foundation of the NPR space on the study by the U. M. T. R. I, which is known as tab are there are 32 direct references or footnotes related to this tab throughout the NPR. The study attempts to evaluate the dynamic forces of children interacting with clothing storage units and reviewing tab are the design of the study just not aligned with the objective. In the introduction, staff states the objective is to obtain data on possible interactions and to examine the forces of postures associated with climbing activities. However, behavior and posture were demonstrated to child climbers and limited by setup. For example, they were told we want you to climb. We'll show you how equipment and equipment was designed to elicit maximum forces. It should be noted that the forces measured were not reported in a meaningful way that could not be directly applied to various designs based on the results. In looking at the data, statistical significance of trends is not reported. Several comparisons are made that there's no scientific rationale provided for reference in the text. Finally, no clear reliable method emerges from the study that can be used to calculate the tip moment, loading and data analysis and statistical comparison are lacking. All these factors leave the study lacking scientific detail and render it deficient, and it's important to determine the effect of the child's interaction with the clothing storage unit and their impact on their stability. It also arose the capacity of the rules, math and calculating the ratio to determine compliance. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the public hearing. HPE looks forward to our continued participation in this process. And again, Mr. Chairman, my apologies for the technical difficulties this morning. That is my Mr. Purdue. Thank you for your testimony. We'll be able to slip back into my time for asking questions and actually Mr. Purdue, I had a couple for you. So you said that your testing revealed, in some cases, CSU passed one method but failed another. And then they later said that no CSU is evaluated to either test method one or to achieve the ratio of greater, of one or greater. So can you clarify whether tested units have passed the MPR stability requirement using one of the two methods or not? Yeah, thank you Mr. Chairman. Good question. What we were doing as we sort of went through our testing, we wanted to make sure that these test methods didn't compete one against the other. And so as we started initially, our testing showed that the test methods did compete with one another. We got vastly different results. We took one unit and brought it to compliance and tested it. And we even got a different test number from test method one and test method two. So, but did one of them pass one of the test methods? Well, but it passed Mr. Chairman because we made it pass. We looked at the compliance methodology in the MPR and we brought the CSU to a point of one, to the minimum ratio of one. It didn't pass on its own. None of the testing we did, none of the CSUs that we tested passed initially. And even staff states that of the testing that they've done, they only had I think one that passed the test methods. Can you share the information on design features of those units so we understand what you've found as we're considering this going forward? Certainly. What we have discovered in even reaching the minimum ratio of one while interlocks are an important consideration and even the MPR anticipates the use of interlocks. We've also discovered that we have to do some other design modifications. In some instances, we're having to use counterweight. Some instances, we have to use counterweight. We have to move the fulcrum forward and the redesign of the product. We've also had to decrease the drawer opening. So instead of having the drawer open full 12 inches, it would open 10 inches. All of this is in an effort to get the weight behind the fulcrum so it's more difficult to tip. And so while we have discovered that interlocks help, they get us closer to one interlocks don't get us beyond one. And so we're having to use other compliance methodologies to get there. So in the kit test that we were doing, we were using basically counterweight because we had the unit that had not been redesigned. We haven't moved the fulcrum forward or the drawer opening. So our fully extended element, our drawer was fully extended. We had the sort of a commonality of the fulcrum where it was and the design of the unit so we had to use counterweight. And in some cases we were using significant amount of counterweight in order to reach the minimum ratio of one. Once we got there, we tested that unit to test method two. And what we found is that we got a considerably different numbers ratio results in test method one and test method two. So if you can provide additional data as we're going forward, I think it would be useful just to understand what you had done and how you had done that. Also, I know you've raised issues with respect to testing and the repeatability and reproducibility of the testing methods. I recognize the commissioner, Bianco has raised issues with dynamic testing. Do you have recommendations on how to improve the repeatability and reproducibility of the test methods? Yes, sir. Those are detailed in our written comments. You will be receiving those in our written comments. But what we would like to see is one test that takes sort of the guesswork out of the data inputs that is more of an in line with the similar testing that we're currently doing on clothing storage units. So we would like to move away from the two test methods and look at a singular test method. However, I will say that in the work that we're doing at ASTM, we think that we are really close to providing test methods at ASTM that sort of break apart this test method that includes all of these elements at one time to simulate these real-world conditions, i.e. drawers that are open and loaded, simulated reaction of a clothing storage unit on carpet, and the simulated dynamic force. We think that Sturdy does ask that dynamic force be addressed. And in the proposed test methods at ASTM, we propose three tests, and the third test addresses dynamic stability. So we have, I think, a more repeatable test method than the way the current test method is designed and set up in the NPR. So I heard carpet, multiple drawers, dynamic testing, but not filled drawers. Yes, sir, it does. All three at the same time. Not all three at the same time. No, sir. They're three separate tests, but they address multiple drawers, open drawers, loaded, which is one of the primary, I think, considerations of what we're talking about. The carpet test is more of a combination test where all the drawers are open, and it's on a simulated carpet with a static weight of 60 pounds. And then the dynamic test is with all drawers open and the application of a dynamic force on the uppermost extendable element of the clothing storage unit. Given that in the real world, we often talk about clothing storage unit on carpet that's filled, the drawer open and a truck climbing on it, why not all four at the same time? Well, we've considered that in the ASTM and we've talked about those and we do mimic that combined test in the carpet. But as of today, the way the direction of the ASTM task group is moving forward, it would be three separate tests. I like to understand that better as why that is an adequate representation of the actual real world environment, but I also know that I am running out of time as well. So I am going to pause quickly and actually ask Ms. Coles what she thinks about what's going on the ASTM standard if you want to respond back to Mr. Perdue and then I'm going to go forward. Yes, thank you for the opportunity. And I think as Kamamato mentioned, we, the progress that we're seeing at ASTM is so far above and beyond that what we've seen for the 20 years that the standard has been working. So there is progress there again with the pressure of both the NPR and sturdy pending, but we agree and have brought that up repeatedly that we would like to see one test. There's no reason why all the tests couldn't be performed even if you're going to do three on a surface that mimics carpeting because as your research has shown, that's what's in most children's bedroom. But reducing it to one test that accounts for all the factors would be most likely to get at those real world use ones and cut down on the number of injuries that we might continue to see. Thank you Ms. Coles. I'm going to pause there. Turn to Commissioner Biacco. Thank you. Mr. Perdue, I just want to follow up on a question the chairman asked you. This singular test method that you're referring to. What was the first time that concept was presented at ASTM? That concept was presented before the NPR was released. We had done our work in and I think May before the July release of the NPR and we proposed our test method and our work to ASTM F1542 in advance of the publication of the NPR. And quite honestly we were surprised and thankful that the work that we had done at the UL test lab in Holland, Michigan, softly aligned with the work that was being presented in the NPR. When exactly did this work take place at the UL test lab? In May before the July release of the NPR. That is correct. Nothing preventing you from doing this work a long time ago, correct? That is correct. I have one question that I would like to get an answer from either Mr. Schumacher or Mr. Perdue. And that is, do you consider those plastic units to be furniture? Commissioner Biacco, I do not. And on the retail side, I'm just not in a position to even respond to that. I could not tell you. Okay. Thank you. I know that's sort of an offside question that I just wanted to hear your input on. Mr. Schumacher, I generally agreed with your comments. But the timing issue at this point, I just can't get behind. I am not, I think that this particular voluntary standard process has been one of the worst I have ever seen and I'm very disappointed in everyone because the voluntary standard procedures, they do work if you do them right. And they are very important to everyone. And I'm just, I understand what's been going on and frankly, I've heard a lot of particularly from Mr. Perdue of a no can do attitude. I mean, I heard that, you know, you seem to rely on what hasn't been presented in the study, but I haven't heard one time that the industry has come forward and said, here's how we think we can solve this problem. It's always a defensive approach. This can't be done. That can't be done. This is a problem. That's a problem. Mr. Schumacher, I completely get all the issues with the timing, the packaging, the supply chain. I get all of that. The problem here is that that is really watered down in this particular industry or this particular scenario, because it's just been 20 years and I know from my past experience that you all know how to solve this problem. You've had your experts and different manufacturers have looked into this. And yet you come forward with no attitude or no proposal as to how to solve it. In fact, I heard Mr. Perdue address a lot of the legal challenges to the regulation. I heard a lot of challenges, perhaps valid ones to the proposed rules and the flaws that relate there, but I didn't hear one proposal as to how to solve the issue. And that bothers me. I thought Ms. Coles provided a very practical and applicable summary of all of the issues here. And I know that you're not the only person on this call that understands the issues. But I do know. I just sent you a direct to the question to me and thank you for that, by the way. I think that it's key to delineate a few things here. When we talked earlier about the fact that that, you know, certainly our members partnered with CPSC related to anchor and things of that sort. The retail sector and home furnishings is not the determinant factor when it comes to all of this testing. They're the ones essentially that whatever this commission comes down with, they're the compliance piece, they're the final stop before the consumer. And in every case, they've always been supportive of doing what they can to comply and to move and to move forward because of the very, I would call it sacred relationship with the customer because it's everything everybody. So this for us is more a question of how does this impact their livelihood and, and they've always they've always answered the call. I didn't come through my comments and shame on me for not for not making that very, very clear. But I think this retail industry, when it comes to home furnishings and that intimate relationship with the customer and and furnishing the home in the last two years of the pandemic it's never been more evident about that. There is a willingness to do that, but we just have to explain the fact that even the best intentions can have really negative impacts, and I laid that out today and that is that is the concern but I would I would resist the, the perspective that this is this is a sector that doesn't doesn't care isn't trying to come up with come up with solutions it is in the best interest of home furnishing retailers to to represent the customer well because the customers every time and it is not my intention to suggest that the industry doesn't care it really is not. And I think what you had to say today, and what you just said, are all valid points, but what I can't get past is if this were my company. I would, I would go to my experts or get an outside expert and say, hey, this is a problem. And yes, we comply with the CPSC's rules. And yes, we comply with the voluntary standards. But I got to tell you, company. That's the floor, and that's the ceiling so we don't have to go above and beyond that and I think that's a mistake. I think that there should have been some industry leaders who came out and said, you know what with our particular piece of furniture that that falls into the category that may or has or can tip over under these circumstances let's go a step further because I know in the manufacturing industry, it is done all the time and can be done. What what I am struggling with here is in this particular instance and I, you know, put the pandemic aside because people have done a lot of things during the pandemic. This is going on for as long as I can remember. That the industry or individual members of the industry haven't come forward either with proposals as to how to fix this problem. Or some solution or some leader in the industry because all I've heard is we comply. This is what we think this is what this won't work or that won't work. And I just in this particular instance, and this is a rare position for me in this particular situation. I think it's just been beyond the pale. I've listened to these ASTM meetings. I know delay when I hear it. I get that the industry doesn't want to make these changes. I get the costs involved. I get all of that. But there was plenty of time over the years here to make some adjustments. And in this particular instance, I think the industry failed and it does bother me here. I don't want to speak for Bill Perdue and the manufacturers. The only thing that I would just say from my perspective is that what flies somewhat in the face of those comments is the fact that there have been key members of our industry who for a long time have wanted that voluntary standard ASTM to become mandatory. And I don't know how much clearer the intent of our industry could be to say we want mandatory. We want those types of requirements based on that voluntary standard. I think that says there has always been a willingness. It doesn't mean that the fixes are acceptable or even tenable when it comes to actually putting them into use. But I would resist that from the standpoint of saying I think that there's been a strong effort to say this industry wants mandatory standards that get the job done. It makes sense. So that's all I would say. And I'm not trying to be argumentative with you. I appreciate that. And I'm not trying to be argumentative either. But what I understand is that intent number one has not been the majority when the votes come up. And number two, wanting a mandatory standard is premised on the existence of a standard that actually works. And that is where the hole in all of this for me seems to be. And if you can correct my thinking on this, fine. But I haven't seen it yet. Ms. Bianco, if I may, one of the things that within the age of a membership, we have a strong representation on ASTM at 1542 and our member companies have worked very hard to be in compliance with 2057. But I think that's evident to the fact that member companies, ASTM member companies, have not had these incidents reported for hundreds of thousands of clothing storage units that they have produced and have sold into the marketplace. That is evidence of the fact that early on there was a full compliance evaluation of four of our member companies over a five year period and they came up with no instances of injuries or fatalities or near misses. They also found compliance to the ASTM at 2057 standard. So our member companies, yes, we have wanted a mandatory standard. We have wanted robust enforcement of the standard. We think that that would help level the playing field. And yes, there are companies that have been out there that have not complied with the ASTM at 2057 standard. And I think if you look at the data and the incidences, you will see that it's primarily a single company that has had a lot of these fatalities and incidents. So again, I don't want to be argumentative, but I do want to speak on behalf of the Association and our members. They have worked very hard to redesign, build and demonstrate compliance to F2057. Nobody wants an incident. None of our members wanted an incident. And I think the incident data and the compliance evaluations of our companies speak to that. We can agree to disagree. And I do believe you've made my point that, you know, talking about, you know, just running out these numbers and we're complying with it, you can comply with anything. But if it's not a vigorous enough standard, it doesn't matter if you're complying. You just get to throw your hands up in the air and say, well, we comply. That's what the CPSC wanted us to do. Or that's what the voluntary standard was. Again, here in this instance, I am disappointed. That this hasn't moved a faster be more on a more legitimate basis to fix this problem. One company, that's, you know, not two companies or what have you is irrelevant as long as this issue remains out there. And I have my own personal views of how this problem can be fixed. But what I heard today is, well, this will do this. Oh, well, this isn't practical. I haven't heard one time, not one time, the industry coming forward and saying, okay, this is how we're going to fix it. This is how we can address the majority of these issues. And, and, and your group complying. I just haven't heard that. And that's why that's your reaction. I apologize for interrupting, but we ran up to 10 minutes and happy to. I am. Commissioner Feldman. Are you positioned to start your questions? Yeah, Peter was giving you some warnings or issues, but if you're ready to go. I did receive some warnings on my computer. I did. If I drop off, please excuse me and my computer. But, but anyway, listen, I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. Mr. Schumacher, Mr. Purdue, it's good to see both of you. But I do share a number of the concerns that I've heard from my colleagues and from, from, from a number of the panelists today. This is an issue that has gone on for too long. And it's been 20 years and the commission hasn't stepped up and found a solution to it. And I think everybody's in agreement that there is a workable path forward. I think Commissioner Bianco and I, you know, one of the accomplishments that that we've checked off at this agency that that I am most proud of. In our first couple of weeks at the agency together came together to put together a proposal to jumpstart the mandatory rulemaking process on this issue in particular to once and forever solve the issue of tip overs and eliminate this risk. And, and to be frank, I am disappointed that the issue is is is as yet not solved. I am encouraged by where we are, you know, under our statute, where there is a voluntary standard that is is, you know, does not sufficiently address the risk involved or a standard where there's not substantial compliance, you know, in those instances, we are authorized and it is appropriate to move forward with a mandatory rule. That's where we are. It needs to be a workable rule. And absent that, you know, with with Sturdy Act where it is, you know, that there is a potential legislative solution that that exists in the background here. I believe that this is something that we are currently empowered to undertake under our own existing authorities. And that's the purpose of the meeting today. So, you know, I'm encouraged by the momentum. I'm happy where we are right now. But I want to move forward with a rule that's workable, which, you know, Mr. Purdue, Mr. Schumacher, I hear what you're saying. I take these comments to heart. And I think that these are issues that you're raising that need to inform where we ultimately get on a final rule here. You know, but but I also wanted to follow up on the questions that I asked to the first panel, which I would direct to Ms. Coles and Ms. Amato, and that has to do with with with some of the questions that we received about potential carve outs, you know, with respect to lightweight units and units that may be marketed as something other than clothing storage units. Ms. Coles, do you believe that those kinds of carve outs are appropriate? Are you satisfied with the scope of the rule as it's currently drafted? I think we have an, I'm not clear if you're just talking about the plastic units we heard about today or some other carve out that I haven't heard about, but so I'll speak to that. We have dealt with this as Mr. Cohen mentioned in the ASTM. There is a couple of solutions. One, I think that, you know, first of all, I want to make clear that that 27 inch three drawer dresser, however many drawers is commonly used in children's room. It's a cheap alternative. So I think we cannot say that it's not going to end up in a child's room with those drawers. You know, the company has sounds to me like has the option of reducing the height by a little over half an inch and it would no longer be in, this wouldn't even be an issue. So that's what appears to me to be an easy solution. But we do know that it is not involved in the kind of incidents that we have continued to see and are willing to look at it as ASTM did with the weight limit. So it's clear understanding that if we started to see additional hazards, we would need to raise those, you know, include them in the standard. Okay, and do you agree with staff assessment that while we have not seen those incidents or at least that we don't have a record of those immediately in front of us as part of the rulemaking here that those units could be loaded to a weight that presents a, a, a, a hazard. I tried to load them myself so I can't speak definitively, but of course they could be, they could be loaded with something heavy or even, you know, there could be some variations of clothing in a children's room, child's room that might, that might reach that and I do think that it's, you know, the, the issue of what the product is made of is, we don't want to go in that direction because obviously then that might exclude something that is always used for furniture and could tip over easily. Yeah, and if the carve out that it sounds like it's currently being pursued at ASTM and that has been suggested is something that we consider for a final rule were to be included. You know, have you given thought and do you have concerns about the door that that might open to potential gainsmanship. You know, that it may, you know, if it's solely based on on weight and interior volume that it create a situation where, you know, it, you know, in order to meet certain weight thresholds that that furniture be created that that's of a taller dimension, for example, to to to fall within the potential carve out a potential exemption, but that potentially exacerbates the tip of a risk. Commissioner Feldman, as I've learned with this industry, I'm always worried about game and ship and trying to gain the system we've seen it with the definition of nightstands we've seen it with all kinds of different things so that's always a concern. I am to and for those reasons I have some serious questions about about the carve out that's been suggested miss a motto. I would ask the same question you are you happy with the scope of this rule as it's drafted, or are you open to the potential carve that have been that have been raised today. We basically agree with Miss Kyle's on this issue. We're concerned about potential gaming of the system. And I think we need to see testing to, you know, get more information about what actually happens when these units are loaded and put under these tests. As far as the marketing question, just to respond to that. I definitely agree that, you know, just because a product is marketed for a child's room or for a bedroom or as a dresser that it doesn't mean that it's always going to be used as that. In fact, I have a what you would call a dresser in a room right now that's holding blankets and other betting. So, you know, it is basically how it's used in the home not what it's called. So, and I have a night stand that's currently holding socks and clothing. So I understand it. I hear both of you. I think we all share the same concern. But but bottom line, I appreciate both of you being here today. I appreciate all of you being here today. And thank you for your testimony. I have no further question. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Trump. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Schumacher, you mentioned that you represent the world's largest retail, furniture retailer. Who is that? The largest furniture retailer would be actually furniture. And but when I said large, I didn't just say that I didn't go and take that wrong. We I just face the same we represent from the largest of the smallest. Yes, actually as one of many of the larger retailers that we do have as members of the home first needs Who are a few other of the large retailers that you have. Oh, gosh, everything from mattress firm and Raymore and Flanagan and what you're putting me to the test here. It would almost be easier to tell you to do not but we have 100, you know 1500 overall members and we do represent, like I said, a lot of the largest down to the down to the mom and pop. Mr. Schumacher, I understand why you're here. I mean, you want to make sure that your members can keep their showrooms full of products to sell. And I wanted to address the quote that you said from one of your members who was concerned. And you said that quote customers would cancel their existing orders since member could not legally delivered if it arrives after the 30 day compliance window. I think you can put that specific member ease the draft rule would not do that. It only applies to when a product is manufactured or imported not when it arrives at a showroom or when it's sold. So your people will have products to sell but I want to make sure we don't lose sight of what we're talking about. If we issue a final rule here we'd be saying that dressers with certain characteristics are too unsafe to be sold. And those are the products that you're asking to sell for a longer period of time. You also make a troubling argument that low and moderate income families quote are very price sensitive so any increase in cost to CSUs will impact their ability to purchase CSUs. Meeting this new safety requirement that sounds like either you want safety for none or you want safety to be a luxury that only the rich can afford. Miss Coles are you okay with either of those outcomes. No I think that we can you know our students have shown through design that you can make very affordable furniture that would meet the toughest standard. Mr. Purdue you describe your organization as quote the largest and most influential influential trade association serving the home furnishings industry. Most influential on who. Well Mr. Commissioner Trump go we're just influential across the board where whether it's governmental agencies state agencies within our membership. With governmental agencies offshore. That's that's what we do we we try to be the voice of our industry and be influential across a broad spectrum of of environments. You know I looked I looked a little bit at that broad spectrum where you try to exert your influence. We've used that for things like fighting against clean water protections in California. And fighting against fundamental workers rights like the right to freely and fairly joining union and to bargain collectively. It's not your job to look out for people and I think your positions reflect that. But let's talk about dressers. Mr. Purdue you asked for the dimensions of the dresser that passed testing by CPSC staff. And I think it would help companies to determine how to comply with the rule and I support making that information public. Mr. Purdue I'm sure that you'll also provide our staff with the results of the testing that you and your members have done as well correct. That is correct Commissioner Trump it'll be in our written comments. Fantastic and I just want to make sure we're clear in our agreement there. You've tested over 1000 CSUs and you'll commit to providing the commission staff with that. With all of those test results with the make and model of the unit's test correct. We'll provide the data that we have that is correct. Mr. Purdue you stated that quote A H F A has compiled actual manufacturer cost of compliance data will you also commit to providing that data to the agency staff. Yes, Commissioner Trump it'll be concluded in our written comments. Great. And Mr. Purdue you point to one company that mapped out the cost of compliance for six of its different product lines, specifically breaking down how complying with the proposed rule would affect their, their manufacturing costs. Miss calls help me with this the only way that the manufacturers could have computed actual cost of compliance data for specific products as if they've already identified the design changes necessary to make dressers that comply with the proposed rule is that right. I would, I would think so. Yeah, or at least to, to, to put it above whatever margin they think the test is going to go to. In fact, Mr. Purdue you point out that beyond just identifying the necessary redesign your members are already doing it. You said that quote many companies are now reducing the maximum drawer extension redesigning CSUs to extend the front feet or front edge of the CSU forward to replicate relocate the fulcrum and adding leveling devices. Great initiative. You know I question where that's been over the last 22 years of voluntary standards but it's good that it's happening now. It sounds like your company's already know how to make safer dressers that comply with the proposed rule. But Mr. Purdue that puts you in a pretty tough spot doesn't it because you're also trying to delay the rule. And in your testimony you asked for that delay because quote there is no practical way for industry to start making changes and CSU design now. If we listen to your own words we know that statement's false. You're telling us it's it's directly contradicted by your testimony that many of your companies are already doing that redesign and they're doing it now. Mr. Purdue I also want to correct the record on another one of your misstatements you mischaracterized our staff's cost analysis of the proposed rule. You say that our staff didn't consider the cost of product redesign packaging redesign or shipping costs and you also say that our staff's cost analysis quote. It seems that a manufacturer only take one of the suggested methods for compliance rather than multiple methods both of those assertions are false. Our staff explicitly considered redesign cost packaging costs and shipping costs check pages 193 600 and 601 of the briefing package PDF and our staff also explicitly considered that manufacturers might use multiple methods to comply. You can check page 599 for that so Mr. Purdue. Would you be willing here to retract your statement about our staff's cost of compliance analysis. Mr. Trump without reviewing the information that you just provided I cannot retract or confirm that you know what that's fair but what I will encourage you to do is to please reread the rulemaking package. And check those pages and I encourage you to follow up with the retraction. Once you're comfortable that one is appropriate. Mr. Purdue for dressers with foot levelers. Ms. Coles alluded to this earlier. You know staff drafted this rule to require that those be positioned down so that the dresser was flat while on flat ground and for the feet to stay that way on the testing platform resulting in a dresser being tipped forward 1.5 degrees during testing. It's come to my attention that some unscrupulous manufacturers could actually take a different reading of that rule allowing them to raise the front foot levelers while on the testing platform to undo the 1.5 degree tilt of the testing platform. That would defeat the purpose of the test. You don't read the rule is allowing that work around do you. As I read the rule in its current draft that's what it states. Oh, I am. I did not think there was a reading that went that way so I'm glad I asked that question I think that's something we're going to have to address. Are you aware of any members specifically who have have discussed that point and had planned to use the 1.5 to offset the testing platform. That has come up in the htm test method discussions but that has not gone forward in the test methods that we're proposing. Are you aware of any specific companies that you can recall that said they would be doing that with the rule as drafted. The rule is drafted. I think we all considered that as the rule is drafted and as we got into it and we understood that that defeated the purpose of the test. Why level out the angle if we're trying to test a carpet with an angle. So you think we need to clarify in the rule that that can't be used to defeat the test. Is that right? Yes, sir. I do. So you've been active in the development of these voluntary standards as you mentioned. What are some of the common design changes that would be necessary for dressers to comply with the new standard as teams currently developing. We've looked at counterweights. We've looked at moving the front foot forward. To move the fulcrum forward. We've looked at shortening the drawer opening the operational sliding length of the drawer. Those are the major ones that we've looked at. And those are things that manufacturers are already going to have to do if they want to comply with the voluntary standard right. That is correct. They would have to do similar design changes to meet the testing requirements that we're proposing in the voluntary standard. Mr. Purdue, I have something else that it's, you know, a little bit of a different topic here, but maybe you can help me clarify something that I've seen among some members of the industry. And, and, you know, we're here discussing a rule for dresser tip overs. Obviously that means we don't have one right now. I did a quick search online for clothing storage dressers for kids and popular retailers and I saw a pretty dangerous trend. One company claimed that its dresser quote complies with all applicable federal anti tipping standards. We know there are none. Another said its dresser was quote tested to meter exceed government standards and others said it was quote a quote meets all North American safety standards. When a manufacturer tells consumers that its product meets a government safety standard where no such standard exists, that's that's designed to see if consumers to provide a false sense of security. Mr. Purdue, I assume you take issue with bad actors in your industry, making those kind of deceptive claims. I mean, what should we be doing about about those types of activities? Yes, I take great umbrage against companies who would mislead the consumer. And I think there should be action taken against consumers on their web manufacturer on the website that are stating things that are not true that are false. You know, the one of the children's dressers that we looked at it was marketed with the statement that the dresser quote adopts an anti toppling device in order to prevent it from falling down and hurting your kids. It is certified by CPSI and as we all know that claim cannot be true. I mean that is CPSI is a law that we enforce the consumer product safety improvement act. Product can't be certified by a law and it certainly gives the false impression that the agency has tested and certified the product, which we don't do. And that's an issue we're going to have to address Miss Coles. Do you have thoughts on those types of claims? I do have thoughts on those kind of claims and unfortunately we see them with many products. We see them with children's products as well where there's no federal standard. And it is very deceptive to consumers because they assume then that it's safe. So we would join Mr. Purdue in pushing for action against those for very clear statements and perhaps CPSC should consider a mark or a statement that goes on furniture if it meets the standard that is clear about what is being met to help consumers. Yeah, and you know, Mr. Purdue, it'd be great if you could work with us to help stamp out bad actors in the industry. Is that something you'd be able to do? Yes, sir. Mr. Trumka, Commissioner Trumka will work with Nancy and the group too. In any way we can. Mr. Purdue, I know. Sorry. We're getting our 10 minutes. I'm not sure if other other commissioners going to have another round of questions. Or. Actually, I'd like to hear. Mr. or Commissioner Trumka continue, but I'd like to point something out. I am sure I raised this issue about, you know, saying that something complies with the standard is not necessarily the answer if the safety standard is not strong enough. My colleagues here called me argumentative. They called Commissioner Trumka, sir, and had answers for how they were going to address that. So I just call that to your attention because it is really. It's not a, it's a personal matter, but it's, it's not very reflective. I hope of your industry. Rich continue. So before I go back to rich and miss. Noting that we do it in rounds. You didn't have any filming. Did you have one another round? I did not thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Trumka. And thank you, Commissioner Bianco for pointing that out. I think that's a very good point. I only have a few more questions. Mr. Purdue. I'd also like your commitment to produce certain information that you alluded to in your testimony. I'm sure you plan on in your comments, but. Will you commit to producing the following 4 items to the agency staff? The 1st, an estimate of the average cost per CSU model redesign and your basis for that estimate breaking out any additional costs of materials. We'll provide the cost information as we received it from our members. How did you receive it from your members? We had a spreadsheet that we put together and they filled out the spreadsheet. Do you know what items are on that spreadsheet? Yes, I do. Would you share the items, you know, the categories that are on that spreadsheet? Yes, we'll share the spreadsheet. Well, I mean, would you share like the categories that are covered now? So I understand if that's actually addressing what I'm asking for here. I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me. I'm not sure I understand the question. We'd appreciate the spreadsheet, but I'm wondering if my question actually asks for something that's not on the spreadsheet. And to the extent it does, I'd ask that you go back to your members and ask for that as well. I'm looking for an estimate of the average cost per CSU model redesign, your basis for that estimate, and a breakout of any additional cost of materials that are part of that cost. We can work with our members who provided that data and we would make our best effort to provide that information that you have suggested. I appreciate that. Thank you. The next category is an estimate of the number of new CSU models introduced every year and how many years on average these models are sold as new in stores. Just checking to see if you can work to provide that as well. We can work to provide it to the best of our estimate. The third category is estimates of shipping and transportation costs and the expected change in these costs due to modifications made in response to the proposed rule and your basis for those estimates. We'll work with our member companies to provide that data and provide it to the best of our ability. Right. Commissioner Tonka, if I may, just one point that I need to make is that we can only provide the information for our member companies. There are companies out there that are not age, they're members. So I can't provide this detailed, accurate data across the broad spectrum of all clothing storage units that are sold at retail. I can provide that data for our member companies. Understood. And thank you for the clarification. That's fair. The fourth category that I want to ask for is estimates on the cost of testing per CSU model and the basis for those estimates. We can work with third party certifiers and obtain a cost per testing. I do believe that in our written comments, we do provide a general cost estimate of third party testing. Great. And you know, if you could just provide any basis for those estimates as well, once you're getting back from those companies, that'd be great. So thank you. Ms. Schumacher on the hang tags, you claim that quote, there will also be extensive staff training for retail associates to confidently explain the safety standard to consumers. I'm having trouble picturing the difficulty with that training. I mean, the hang tag means addresses unlikely to tip over on a kid that climbs it. An address or with a five rating is more stable than address or with a one rating. But to the extent there's more to it than that, I would just invite you to provide written comments on exactly what that training might look like and detail how long it would take there. Happy to. Thank you. You know, the only way I could see that training needed to be extensive would be training sales staff to sell a more expensive model of a cheaper one safer. That would be tricky, but I think I may make a brief comment. No, thank you though. You said in your opening statement that safety is your priority when selecting products to sell. You know, I think you're looking the hang tag as a useful piece of how you actually achieve that, you know, it would give you the tools to make that assessment where one doesn't currently exist. And Mr. Purdue. I just read your argument in opposing hang tags because I found it disheartening. And you said that the hang tag proposal quote ignores the reality that no CSU will ever achieve a score of two, three, four or five. You said that you quote have no doubt about that. And I think that's a sad commentary. And I think Commissioner Bianco you pointed this out as well. I mean, our companies can achieve more. It's interesting that your members will never go beyond the absolute floor that we set for them. But thankfully, I think we think you're wrong there. I believe in the ingenuity and innovation of American companies and Mr. Purdue, I think they're capable of much greater things than you give them credit for. I have no further questions. I yield back Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner. Point of privilege slash at the risk of starting a third round of questions. I just wanted to share with Ms. motto. You haven't asked any questions yet. So I wanted to give you an opportunity if there was anything that you wanted to say before we close out. Thank you so much for the opportunity. And chair. I think I'm feeling like we finally been heard by the agency, and that warms my heart. And I have a long way to go. But I'm optimistic that the CPSC is committed to moving forward with this NPR and doing so quickly. And for that, I am grateful. So thank you. Thank you, Miss motto since I technically started a third round of questions I'll turn to the other commissioners and ask if they have any other questions for last round. None. I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming to testify in front of us today on this rulemaking. Your testimony was instructive. I'm looking forward to also reading your written comments coming forward. I encourage all stakeholders and those who are watching to follow written comments as well. And I'm sure the oral testimony and the written testimony is coming will be helpful staff to begin to develop a final rulemaking package, which I'd like to do as quickly as possible. And with that, this hearing is adjourned.