82_FR_56981 82 FR 56752 - Clothing Storage Unit Tip Overs; Request for Comments and Information

82 FR 56752 - Clothing Storage Unit Tip Overs; Request for Comments and Information

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 229 (November 30, 2017)

Page Range56752-56759
FR Document2017-25779

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is contemplating developing a rule to address the risk of injury and death associated with clothing storage unit furniture tipping over. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking initiates a rulemaking proceeding under the Consumer Product Safety Act. We invite comments concerning the risk of injury associated with clothing storage units tipping over, the alternatives discussed in this notice, and other possible alternatives for addressing the risk. We also invite interested parties to submit existing voluntary standards or a statement of intent to modify or develop a voluntary standard that addresses the risk of injury described in this notice.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56752-56759]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25779]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Chapter II

[Docket No. CPSC-2017-0044]


Clothing Storage Unit Tip Overs; Request for Comments and 
Information

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission is contemplating 
developing a rule to address the risk of injury and death associated 
with clothing storage unit furniture tipping over. This advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking initiates a rulemaking proceeding under the 
Consumer Product Safety Act. We invite comments concerning the risk of 
injury associated with clothing storage units tipping over, the 
alternatives discussed in this notice, and other possible alternatives 
for addressing the risk. We also invite interested parties to submit 
existing voluntary standards or a statement of intent to modify or 
develop a voluntary standard that addresses the risk of injury 
described in this notice.

DATES: Submit comments by January 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-
0044, electronically or in writing (hard copy), using the methods 
described below. The Commission encourages you to submit comments 
electronically, by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal.
    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments provided on the Web site. The 
Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail 
(Email), except through www.regulations.gov.
    Written Submissions: Submit written comments by mail, hand 
delivery, or courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 
20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number for this rulemaking proceeding. The Commission may post 
all comments, without change, including any personal identifiers, 
contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, 
trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information 
that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at 
all, such information should be submitted by mail, hand delivery, or 
courier.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket 
number, CPSC-2017-0044, into the ``Search'' box, and follow the 
prompts.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Taylor, Project Manager, 
Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: (301) 
987-2338; email: MTaylor@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) is 
aware of numerous injuries and deaths resulting from furniture tip 
overs. To address this risk, Commission staff reviewed incident data 
for furniture tip overs and determined that clothing storage units 
(CSUs), consisting of chests, bureaus, and dressers, were the primary 
furniture category involved in fatal and injury incidents. There were 
195 deaths related to CSU tip overs between 2000 and 2016, which were 
reported to CPSC. An estimated 65,200 injuries related to CSU tip overs 
were treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments between 2006 and 
2016. These incident reports indicate that the vast majority of fatal 
and injury incidents resulting from CSUs tipping over involve children. 
Eighty-six percent of the reported fatalities involved children under 
18 years old, most of which were under 6 years old. Seventy-three 
percent of the emergency department-treated injuries involved children 
under 18 years old, most of which were also under 6 years old.
    To address the hazard associated with CSU tip overs, the Commission 
has taken several steps. In June 2015, the Commission launched the 
Anchor It! campaign. This educational campaign includes print and 
broadcast public service announcements, information distribution at 
targeted venues, such as childcare centers, and an informational Web 
site (www.AnchorIt.gov) explaining the nature of the risk and safety 
tips for avoiding furniture and television tip overs. In addition, CPSC 
staff prepared a briefing package in September 2016,\1\

[[Page 56753]]

to identify hazard patterns involved in tip-over incidents, assess 
existing voluntary standards that address CSU tip overs, and identify 
factors that may reduce the likelihood of CSUs tipping over. As part of 
that effort, Commission staff tested a convenience sample of CSUs. The 
Commission has also pursued corrective actions with several CSU 
manufacturers and conducted several voluntary recalls of CSUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Staff Briefing 
Package on Furniture Tipover (September 30, 2016), available at: 
https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Staff%20Briefing%20Package%20on%20Furniture%20Tipover%20-%20September%2030%202016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is considering developing a mandatory standard to 
reduce the risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs. Commission 
staff prepared a briefing package to describe the products at issue, 
further assess the relevant incident data, examine relevant voluntary 
standards, and discuss options for addressing the risk associated with 
CSU tip overs. That briefing package is available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ANPR%20-%20Clothing%20Storage%20Unit%20Tip%20Overs%20-%20November%2015%202017.pdf?5IsEEdW_Cb3ULO3TUGJiHEl875Adhvsg.

II. Relevant Statutory Provisions

    To address the risk of injury associated with CSUs tipping over, 
the Commission is considering developing a mandatory safety standard. 
The rulemaking falls under the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA; 15 
U.S.C. 2051-2089). Under section 7 of the CPSA, the Commission may 
issue a consumer product safety standard if the requirements of the 
standard are ``reasonably necessary to prevent or reduce an 
unreasonable risk of injury associated with [a] product.'' Id. 2056(a). 
The safety standard may consist of performance requirements or 
requirements for warnings and instructions. Id. However, if there is a 
voluntary standard that would adequately reduce the risk of injury the 
Commission seeks to address, and there is likely to be substantial 
compliance with that standard, then the Commission must rely on the 
voluntary standard, instead of issuing a mandatory standard. Id. 
2056(b)(1). To issue a mandatory standard under section 7, the 
Commission must follow the procedural and substantive requirements in 
section 9 of the CPSA. Id. 2056(a).
    Under section 9 of the CPSA, the Commission may begin rulemaking by 
issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR). Id. 2058(a). 
The ANPR must identify the product and the nature of the risk of injury 
associated with it; summarize the regulatory alternatives the 
Commission is considering; and include information about any relevant 
existing standards, and why the Commission preliminarily believes those 
standards would not adequately reduce the risk of injury associated 
with the product. The ANPR also must invite comments concerning the 
risk of injury and regulatory alternatives and invite the public to 
submit existing standards or a statement of intent to modify or develop 
a voluntary standard to address the risk of injury. Id. 2058(a).
    After publishing an ANPR, the Commission may proceed with 
rulemaking by reviewing the comments received in response to the ANPR, 
and publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR). An NPR must 
include the text of the proposed rule, alternatives the Commission is 
considering, a preliminary regulatory analysis describing the costs and 
benefits of the proposed rule and the alternatives, and an assessment 
of any submitted standards. Id. 2058(c). The Commission would then 
review comments on the NPR and decide whether to issue a final rule, 
along with a final regulatory analysis.

III. The Product and Market

    CSUs are freestanding furniture intended for storing clothing. CSUs 
are typically bedroom furniture, but may be used elsewhere. CSUs are 
available in a variety of designs (e.g., vertical or horizontal 
dressers), sizes (e.g., weights and heights), and materials (e.g., 
wood, plastic, leather). CSUs usually have a flat surface on top and 
commonly include doors, or drawers for consumers to store clothing or 
other items. Examples of CSUs include chests of drawers, bureaus, 
dressers, armoires, wardrobes, portable closets, and clothing storage 
lockers. CSUs do not include products that are permanently attached or 
built into a structure or products that are not typically intended to 
store clothing, such as bookcases, shelves, cabinets, entertainment 
furniture, office furniture, or jewelry armoires. Additional factors 
may be relevant for the Commission to define CSUs in a mandatory 
standard, such as the height of products and design features. The 
Commission seeks comments about the appropriate parameters of a 
definition for CSUs.
    CSUs are available through various distribution channels. The 
retail price of CSUs varies, with the least expensive products 
retailing for less than $100, and the most expensive selling for 
several thousand dollars. Less expensive CSUs are usually mass 
produced, while more expensive products are often handmade. The 
lifespans of CSUs vary as well. Consumers may use less expensive CSUs 
for only a few years, while more expensive products may last for 
generations.
    The Commission has not been able to determine the share of CSUs in 
the overall furniture market because of a lack of information about 
sales of specific furniture product types or models. However, according 
to U.S. Census Bureau information, there are approximately 22,600 U.S. 
firms that manufacture, import, distribute, or retail household 
furniture, of which CSUs are a subset. Some manufacturers are large and 
use mass-production techniques; others are smaller and manufacture 
products individually or for custom orders. The Commission also has 
been unable to identify information about the number of CSUs that are 
in use in U.S. households. The Commission requests information about 
the CSU market, CSU sales, and the number of CSUs in U.S. households.

IV. Risk of Injury

    Commission staff reviewed fatal and nonfatal incidents involving 
CSU tip overs to determine the age of people involved in these 
incidents, the types of CSUs and other items involved, the hazard 
patterns (hazard patterns include activities, behaviors, circumstances, 
or factors that are associated with incidents) involved, and the types 
of injuries and deaths that result from these incidents. As the fatal 
and nonfatal incidents discussed below indicate, the vast majority of 
CSU tip-over incidents involve children. For that reason, the 
Commission largely focused its analysis on incidents involving 
children.

A. Fatal Incidents

    To identify fatal incidents that involved CSU tip overs, Commission 
staff reviewed CPSC's Death Certificates database, In-Depth 
Investigations database, Injury and Potential Injury Incidents 
database, and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System 
(NEISS) database.\2\ Staff identified 195 fatalities related to CSU tip 
overs that occurred between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2016 that 
were reported to CPSC. Of those fatalities, 22 (11 percent) involved 
seniors age 60 years and older; 6 (3 percent) involved adults between 
18 and 59 years old; and 167 (86 percent) involved children under 18

[[Page 56754]]

years old, of which the oldest child was 8 years old. Of the 167 fatal 
incidents involving children, 159 (95 percent) were under 6 years old 
and 142 (85 percent) were under 4 years old. Table 1 provides the 
number of child fatalities in age categories, broken out by 6-month 
increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Staff reviewed incidents that were in these databases as of 
June 1, 2017. Reporting is ongoing for these databases, so the 
reported number of incidents may change. Percentages may not sum to 
100, due to rounding.

 Table 1--Fatal Incidents Involving Children Under 18 Years Old, by Age,
              Between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Total
                            Age                               fatalities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to less than 0.5 years...................................            1
0.5 to less than 1 year....................................            5
1 to less than 1.5 years...................................           21
1.5 to less than 2 years...................................           28
2 to less than 2.5 years...................................           31
2.5 to less than 3 years...................................           23
3 to less than 3.5 years...................................           25
3.5 to less than 4 years...................................            8
4 to less than 4.5 years...................................            7
4.5 to less than 5 years...................................            4
5 to less than 5.5 years...................................            5
5.5 to less than 6 years...................................            1
6 to less than 6.5 years...................................            3
6.5 to less than 7 years...................................            1
7 to less than 7.5 years...................................            0
7.5 to less than 8 years...................................            1
8 to less than 8.5 years...................................            3
8.5 to less than 9 years...................................            0
Greater than 9 years.......................................            0
                                                            ------------
  Total....................................................          167
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Children in a sample of 89 of these incidents ranged in weight from 18 
to 66 pounds.
    Of the 195 total fatal incidents involving all ages, nearly all 
involved a chest, bureau, or dresser; some of these involved a 
television falling with the chest, bureau or dresser. Of the 167 fatal 
incidents involving children, 164 (98 percent) involved a chest, 
bureau, or dresser, 2 (1 percent) involved a wardrobe, and 1 (less than 
1 percent) involved an armoire. Of the 167 child fatalities, 89 (53 
percent) involved a television falling in addition to the CSU.

B. Nonfatal Incidents

    To identify nonfatal incidents that involved CSU tip overs, 
Commission staff reviewed the NEISS database. The NEISS database 
contains reports of injuries treated in emergency departments of U.S. 
hospitals selected as a probability sample of all U.S. hospitals with 
emergency departments. Using the surveillance information in this 
database, CPSC can estimate the number of injuries, nationwide, that 
are associated with specific consumer products. An estimated 65,200 
injuries related to CSU tip overs were treated in U.S. hospital 
emergency departments between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2016. Of 
these, 47,700 estimated injuries (73 percent) were to children under 18 
years old. Of the injuries involving children, 94 percent involved 
children under 9 years old and 83 percent involved children under 6 
years old. Table 2 provides the estimated number of child injuries 
treated in hospital emergency departments, by age.

  Table 2--Estimated Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments
 Involving Children Under 18 Years Old, by Age, Between January 1, 2006
                          and December 31, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Age                          Estimated injuries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 1 year..................  The number of cases is too small to
                                     produce an estimate.
1 year............................  6,300.
2 years...........................  13,200.
3 years...........................  11,200.
4 years...........................  5,800.
5 years...........................  2,300.
6 years...........................  2,300.
7 years...........................  1,800.
8 years...........................  The number of cases is too small to
                                     produce an estimate.
9 years...........................  The number of cases is too small to
                                     produce an estimate.
10 years..........................  The number of cases is too small to
                                     produce an estimate.
11 years..........................  The number of cases is too small to
                                     produce an estimate.
12 years..........................  The number of cases is too small to
                                     produce an estimate.
13 years..........................  The number of cases is too small to
                                     produce an estimate.
14 years..........................  The number of cases is too small to
                                     produce an estimate.
15 years..........................  The number of cases is too small to
                                     produce an estimate.
16 years..........................  The number of cases is too small to
                                     produce an estimate.
17 years..........................  The number of cases is too small to
                                     produce an estimate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the estimated 47,700 incidents involving children, 99 percent 
involved a chest, bureau, or dresser; the remainder involved armoires, 
a portable closet, a wardrobe, and a product that was either an armoire 
or a dresser. In about 30 percent of injuries involving children, a 
television fell with the CSU.

C. Severity and Consequences of Injuries

    The types of injuries that can result from CSUs tipping over can 
range from scratches, cuts, bruises, joint injuries, and bone fractures 
to potentially fatal injuries, such as skull fractures, closed-head 
injuries, internal organ injuries, collapsed lungs, spinal injuries, or 
mechanical asphyxia (which is a form of suffocation that results from a 
mechanical force (such as furniture) preventing muscle movement 
necessary for breathing). The severity of injuries depends on various 
factors, such as the body part hit or trapped by the CSU, the weight 
and nature of the stationary forces involved (i.e., the CSU and the 
floor), the magnitude and duration of the force the CSU applies, the 
duration of oxygen deprivation from mechanical asphyxia, and the 
ability to call for help or self-rescue. Blunt head trauma can result 
in death or severe injuries, and oxygen deprivation can lead to 
permanent brain damage, organ and tissue injury, or death.
    Children are particularly vulnerable to the risk of injury and 
death associated with CSU tip overs because of their physical and 
cognitive abilities, the circumstances often involved in CSU tip overs, 
and their susceptibility to severe injury. Children generally are not 
strong enough to move heavy furniture when trapped underneath, do not 
react quickly enough to avoid falling furniture, and lack cognitive 
awareness of hazards. In addition, many incidents occur when a child is 
left unattended, reducing the likelihood that a caregiver could quickly 
rescue the child. Children, in particular, can suffer long-term harm 
from head injuries, which can affect their motor and emotional 
development, speech, cognitive ability, and overall quality of life.
    Commission staff reviewed fatal incidents and NEISS incidents 
involving children to identify the types of fatal and nonfatal injuries 
associated with CSU tip overs. Of the 167 fatal incidents involving 
children and CSU tip overs that occurred between 2000 and 2016, 71 (43 
percent) were the result of head injuries, skull fractures, and brain 
hemorrhage from blunt head trauma (including crushing injuries and deep 
scalp hemorrhage). The remaining 96 fatal incidents (57 percent) were 
the result of chest compression from a child being pinned under a CSU. 
In 13 of the 167 fatal incidents involving children, the child died 
despite receiving medical care.
    CSU tip-over injuries to children that are treated in hospital 
emergency departments ranged in severity, including contusions, 
abrasions, lacerations, fractures, and internal injuries. Of the 
estimated 47,700 emergency department-treated injuries to children that 
were associated with CSUs between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 
2016, an estimated 17,700 injuries (37 percent) involved contusions or 
abrasions; an estimated 12,500 injuries (26 percent) involved internal 
injuries (including closed head injuries); an estimated 6,600 injuries 
(14 percent) involved lacerations; and an estimated 4,500 injuries (9 
percent)

[[Page 56755]]

involved fractures. Injuries to children that were reported through 
NEISS impacted numerous body parts, but the most common was the head 
(42 percent), followed by the face (15 percent), and trunk (10 
percent). Four percent of NEISS injuries involving children and CSU tip 
overs required hospitalization, whereas 92 percent were treated and 
released, and 1 percent were observed.
    When a television was involved in a CSU tip over, children's 
injuries were more likely to require hospitalization and involve 
internal injuries and head injuries than when no television was 
involved. When a television was involved in a CSU tip over that 
resulted in injury to a child, 7 percent of injuries required 
hospitalization (compared with 3 percent when only a CSU was involved); 
36 percent of injuries were internal injuries (compared with 22 percent 
when only a CSU was involved); and 58 percent were head injuries 
(compared with 36 percent when only a CSU was involved).

D. Hazard Patterns

    CPSC staff analyzed fatal and nonfatal incident reports to identify 
factors that are associated with CSU tip-over incidents. This analysis 
revealed that certain user interactions (such as opening multiple 
drawers) and surroundings (such as specific flooring) were associated 
with CSU tip overs. To assess relevant incidents in detail, staff 
reviewed 369 nonfatal incidents involving CSU tip overs that occurred 
between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015, and were reported to 
CPSC.\3\ This data set is useful to identify hazard patterns, but it 
cannot be used to draw statistical conclusions because it does not 
include the most recent incident reports, and many of the reports do 
not include detailed information about circumstances surrounding the 
incidents.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Staff reviewed incidents that were in CPSC's In-Depth 
Investigations database, Injury and Potential Injury Incidents 
database, and NEISS database, as of January 15, 2016.
    \4\ In addition to the more common hazard patterns described in 
this section, there were also incident reports that indicated other 
scenarios were involved in CSU tip overs, such as moving the CSU, 
pulling on a portion of the CSU, and no consumer interaction before 
the incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Televisions
    As the incident data discussed above indicates, in some incidents, 
televisions tipped over with a CSU, often resulting in more serious 
injuries. Of the 167 child fatalities between 2000 and 2016, 89 (53 
percent) involved a television falling in addition to the CSU. Of the 
estimated emergency department-treated injuries to children between 
2006 and 2016, approximately 30 percent involved a television falling 
with a CSU. In many of these incidents, children were using the CSU 
like a ladder or step stool, climbing or standing in a lower drawer, to 
reach the television or other media device (e.g., DVD player, video 
game system) on top of the CSU.
    In the majority of incidents that involved a television and CSU 
tipping over, the television was a cathode-ray tube (CRT) television, 
rather than a flat-screen television. CRT televisions are front-heavy, 
with the majority of their weight in the screen portion facing front. 
This type of television is no longer manufactured. The Commission 
continues to consider how best to address the hazard of televisions 
tipping over. A mandatory Commission rule can only apply to products 
manufactured after the rule takes effect. Thus, the Commission may not 
be able to address the hazard discontinued CRT televisions present 
through rulemaking. To assess the relevance of televisions and 
regulatory options, the Commission requests comments about the extent 
to which consumers put televisions on top of CSUs, the types of 
televisions involved in tip-over incidents, and the impact of 
televisions on the stability of CSUs.
2. Opening Multiple Drawers
    Several incident reports indicated that a CSU tipped over when a 
consumer opened one or more drawers. Of the 369 nonfatal incidents 
staff reviewed, 50 reported this scenario.
3. Climbing
    Several reports indicated that a child was climbing on the CSU at 
the time of the tip over incident. In some cases, a child was climbing 
onto or into the CSU to play, and in others, the child was climbing 
with a purpose other than playing. Examples of play behaviors evidenced 
in the data include playing hide-and-go-seek, climbing for a challenge 
or to jump, and sitting in a lower drawer for fun. Examples of purpose-
based behaviors include climbing or standing on a lower drawer to reach 
a television or other item on top of the CSU, standing on a lower 
drawer to reach or see into an upper drawer, using the CSU to pull into 
a standing position, scaling the CSU to reach into a crib, and opening 
drawers to remove clothing.
    These behaviors are developmentally expected for children under 6 
years old. It is developmentally normal and foreseeable for children in 
this age group to interact with furniture, such as CSUs, to play by 
climbing, sitting, or hiding on or in the CSU. It is also 
developmentally normal and foreseeable for children to interact with 
CSUs to dress themselves, place and remove items on top of the CSU, and 
exercise developing problem-solving skills by stepping on lower drawers 
to reach items in upper drawers or on top of the CSU.
4. Location, Flooring, and Contents
    Of the 369 nonfatal incident reports staff reviewed, all of the 
reports that included enough information to identify the location of 
the CSU indicated that the CSU was in a bedroom. Of those reports that 
specified the flooring surface involved, most occurred on carpet; a 
smaller number of incidents occurred on wood and tile. Of the reports 
that indicated the CSU tip over happened on carpeting, nearly all of 
the incidents involved general stability, such as opening a drawer or 
no consumer interaction. Of the reports that described the contents of 
the CSU, most contained only clothing, and very few were empty.

V. Existing Voluntary and International Standards

A. Description of Existing Standards

    There are five voluntary or international standards that address 
CSU or storage unit furniture tip overs:
     ASTM F2057-17, Standard Safety Specification for Clothing 
Storage Units (ASTM F2057-17);
     ASTM F3096-14, Standard Performance Specification for 
Tipover Restraint(s) Used with Clothing Storage Unit(s) (ASTM F3096-
14);
     ISO 7171:1988, International Organization for 
Standardization, Furniture--Storage units--Determination of stability 
(ISO 7171);
     AS/NZS 4935:2009, Australia/New Zealand Standard, Domestic 
furniture--Freestanding chests of drawers, wardrobes and bookshelves/
bookcases--Determination of stability (AS/NZS 4935); and
     EN 14749:2016, European Standard, Furniture--Domestic and 
kitchen storage units and kitchen-worktops--Safety requirements and 
test methods (EN 14749).
    The products within the scope of each of these standards vary. ASTM 
F2057-17 applies to furniture intended for clothing storage, typical of 
bedroom furniture, and more than 30 inches in height, but excludes 
built-in furniture and shelving furniture, such as bookcases, office 
furniture, entertainment furniture, and dining room furniture. ISO 7171 
applies to

[[Page 56756]]

freestanding storage furniture, including cupboards, cabinets, and 
bookshelves that are fully assembled and ready for use, but excludes 
wall-mounted and built-in products. AS/NZS 4935 applies to domestic 
freestanding chests, drawers, and wardrobes over 19.7 inches in height, 
as well as bookshelves and bookcases more than 23.6 inches. EN-14749 
applies to all kitchen, bathroom, and domestic storage units with 
movable and non-moveable parts.
    ASTM International approved ASTM F2057-17 on October 1, 2017, and 
published it in October 2017.\5\ The scope of ASTM F2057-17 specifies 
that the standard is intended to cover ``children up to and including 
age five.'' ASTM F2057-17 includes requirements for stability, 
labeling, and tip over restraint devices (TRDs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although ASTM F2057-17 was published shortly before this 
ANPR and staff's accompanying briefing package, Commission staff was 
able to review and assess the standard based on the previous 
version, ASTM F2057-14, which was largely the same as ASTM F2057-17. 
The only changes in ASTM F2057-17 were to non-substantive provisions 
(introduction, caveats, and principles on standardization) and 
warning label requirements. The changes to warning label 
requirements were the addition of performance requirements for label 
permanence and the addition of a pictogram in the warning label. 
Staff considered these changes in their review and assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the stability of a CSU, ASTM F2057-17 requires that the 
unit withstand two performance tests--one when the unit is loaded, and 
one when the unit is unloaded. For the loaded test, the CSU must not 
tip over when each drawer (or door) is open, one at a time, and 
weighted with 50 pounds. For the unloaded test, the CSU must not tip 
over when all of the drawers (or doors) are open at the same time. For 
both stability tests, testing is on a ``hard, level, flat surface'' and 
drawers must be open to the outstop (a feature that limits the outward 
movement of a drawer) or, when there is no outstop, to \2/3\ of the 
operational sliding length, and doors must be open 90 degrees. The 
standard specifies that if part of the CSU fails, that part should be 
repaired or replaced and the test repeated.
    ASTM F2057-17 also requires a permanent label on CSUs, in a 
``conspicuous location when in use,'' and includes an example label 
showing warning content and formatting. The standard also includes a 
test for assessing label permanence.
    ASTM F2057-17 requires that TRDs be provided with all products that 
fall within the scope of the standard and that they comply with ASTM 
F3096-14. TRDs are supplementary devices that help prevent tip overs. 
One example of a TRD is a strap that users attach to the back of a CSU 
and the wall, to stabilize the CSU. ASTM F3096-14 requires TRDs to be 
tested for strength by affixing one end of the assembled restraint to a 
fixed structure and applying a 50-pound weight to the opposite end. 
ASTM F3096-14 also requires instructional literature that includes 
illustrations of installation methods, step-by-step instructions, and a 
list of parts with pictures.
    The three international standards--ISO 7171, AS/NZS 4935, and EN 
14749--address many of the same key performance requirements as the 
voluntary ASTM standards. Table 3 compares the key elements in each of 
the standards.

               Table 3--Key Performance Requirements in Voluntary and International Standards Addressing Storage Unit Furniture Tip Overs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Minimum
                                    Test mass          furniture          Element           Element            TRDs         Warning  labels    Load and
                                                        height           breakage          extension                                          force test
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASTM F2057-17.................  50 lbs...........  30 in...........  Repair, if        To outstop or 2/  Required........  Required........  None.
                                                                      possible.         3.
ISO 7171......................  Not specified \6\  Not specified...  Not specified...  2/3 extension...  Not mentioned...  Not mentioned...  None.
AS/NZS 4935...................  29 kg (63.88 lbs)  500 mm (19.7 in)  Fail............  2/3 extension...  Strongly          Required........  None.
                                                                                                          recommended.
EN 14749......................  75 N (16.8 lbs)..  Not specified...  Not specified...  To outstop or 2/  Not mentioned...  Not mentioned...  Yes.
                                                                                        3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISO 7171 testing requirements address only stability. ASTM F2057-17 
and AS/NZA 4935 include requirements for both stability testing and 
warnings. EN 14749 includes stability requirements, as well as strength 
and durability requirements. The stability test requirements in ASTM 
F2057-17 and AS/NZA 4935 are similar in that both require one empty 
drawer to be open for loaded testing. In contrast, EN 14749 requires 
that all drawers in a row (not column) be open simultaneously, but 
specifies a lower force than ASTM F2057-17 and AS/NZA 4935. EN 14749 
also includes two further stability tests to assess a vertical force 
and a loaded test with force applied. ASTM F2057-17 is the only 
standard that requires TRDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ISO 7171 does not include pass/fail criteria for loaded 
stability testing. Instead, it directs testers to continue to 
increase the force until a portion of the product ``just lifts away 
from the floor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Assessment of Existing Standards

    Commission staff assessed the requirements in each of the existing 
standards and determined that the two ASTM standards are the most 
effective existing standards. Nevertheless, Commission staff 
preliminarily believes that the existing standards do not adequately 
reduce the risk of CSU tip overs. Staff believes that the two ASTM 
standards are more effective than the international requirements 
primarily for two reasons. First, although it may appear that EN 14749 
is the most stringent standard because it requires additional stability 
tests, the additional tests are not as severe as applying a larger 
force to the front edge of an empty unit, as ASTM F2057-17 and AS/NZA 
4935 require. Second, ASTM F2057-17 is the only standard that requires 
TRDs. The Commission's Division of Mechanical Engineering staff 
believes that TRDs are an important component to effectively prevent 
CSU tip overs. For these reasons, Commission staff believes that the 
ASTM standards are the most stringent existing standards, and 
therefore, focused on these standards when assessing the effectiveness 
of existing standards that address CSU tip overs. However, as discussed 
below, there are several provisions in the ASTM standards that staff 
preliminarily believes do not adequately address the risk of CSU tip 
overs.
1. Scope
    The scope of ASTM F2057-17, which limits the height of CSUs and age 
of children it addresses, may not adequately reduce the risk of injury 
associated with CSU tip overs. First, the scope of the standard is 
limited to addressing CSUs that are more than 30 inches in height. 
However, there have been incidents involving CSUs that are 30 inches 
tall or less. These products may present a hazard particularly to 
children because low-height CSUs may be intended for children and these

[[Page 56757]]

products can weigh as much as 100 pounds.
    Second, the scope of ASTM F2057-17 states that that the target 
population for injury reduction is ``children up to and including age 
five.'' However, as the incident data demonstrate, children as old as 8 
years old have been killed and injured by CSU tip overs. In particular, 
children under age 6 are most commonly involved in incidents. The ``age 
five'' specified in the standard appears to include only children up to 
exactly age five (i.e., 60 months), however, and not children between 
their fifth and sixth birthdays (based on the 50-pound stability test 
weight, which represents the weight of children 60 months old). In 
addition, hazard patterns, such as opening multiple drawers, present a 
risk of injury to users of any age.
2. Stability
    There are also several components of the stability testing 
provisions in ASTM F2057-17 that staff preliminarily believes are not 
adequate to reduce the risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs.
    First, the standard requires that stability testing occur on a 
``hard, level, flat surface.'' This does not reflect the surfaces on 
which CSUs may rest in consumers' homes. For example, floors in a home 
may not be level, and carpeting is not flat. As the incident reports 
suggest, when a flooring type was reported, carpeting was more commonly 
involved in CSU tip-over incidents than other types of flooring. 
Assessing the impact of alternate surfaces on stability may be 
necessary to accurately assess the stability of a product. In addition, 
the standard does not provide a detailed definition of a ``hard, level, 
flat surface.'' Relevant details may include a surface flatness 
tolerance (e.g., 0.1[deg]) over a certain area or a 
specific type of flooring surface (e.g., Type IV vinyl tile).
    Second, the requirement that testing occur with drawers open to the 
outstop or, if there is no outstop, to \2/3\ of the operational sliding 
length, is unclear and creates testing inconsistencies. For example, 
staff has tested CSUs with outstops that are significantly less than 
\2/3\ of the operational sliding length, the location of the outstop 
can impact proper placement of the test weight on the drawer, the 
standard does not address CSUs with multiple outstops, and the standard 
does not specify a minimum operational sliding length, which would 
facilitate testing.
    Third, the unloaded stability test procedure may not reflect 
conditions during actual consumer use. This test requires that all 
drawers are empty and open simultaneously. However, when contents were 
reported in CSU tip-over incidents, CSUs generally contained clothing.
    Fourth, staff has several concerns with the loaded stability test 
procedure. The 50-pound test weight is not consistent with the age and 
weight of victims. The majority of reported CSU tip-over incidents 
involved children under 6 years old. As such, the test weight in the 
standard does not reflect the weight of children involved in the 
majority of incidents, which is approximately 60 pounds (for the 95th 
percentile weight of children just under six years old, according to 
Centers for Disease Control growth charts). In addition, the test 
weight tolerances may impact the repeatability of testing. ASTM F2057-
17 allows a tolerance of 1 pound for each of the two 25-
pound test weights, which means the total weight can range from 48 to 
52 pounds, plus the weight of the fastening hardware and strap. Such a 
wide tolerance may produce variation in test outcomes, which could 
result in the same CSU passing and failing during multiple tests.
    Fifth, the standard's allowance for the replacement or repair of a 
failed component may be problematic. For example, this provision does 
not include a testability requirement, does not account for a failure 
that cannot be repaired or replaced, and does not account for design-
to-fail features that prevent tip overs.
    Sixth, during CPSC testing, staff identified several additional 
issues related to the specificity and clarity of the test procedures in 
ASTM F2057-17. For example, the standard does not address how to apply 
test weights to drawers with center components (e.g., handles), does 
not include a timeframe in which to apply and maintain the test weight, 
and does not address how to place weights in shallow drawers to avoid 
contact with the drawer bottom.
3. Labeling
    Commission staff has concerns with the location and content 
requirements for warning labels in ASTM F2057-17.\7\ With respect to 
location, the standard specifies that a label must be in a 
``conspicuous location when in use'' but does not provide further 
details. For a warning label to be effective, it must be in a location 
where users will see it. For example, users are not likely to notice or 
read a label in a lower drawer because it is outside their line-of-
sight and they would have to crouch to read it. In contrast, if a label 
is in a drawer at eye level, an adult, parent, or caregiver is more 
likely to notice and read the label. For this reason, the label 
placement provision in the standard may not be adequate for the label 
to be effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Staff also expressed concerns with the label permanence 
requirements in ASTM F2057-14 in the 2016 briefing package (U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Staff Briefing Package on 
Furniture Tipover (September 30, 2016)). However, those concerns 
have been resolved with the label permanence requirements added to 
ASTM F2057-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Staff also has concerns with the hazard communication statements 
ASTM F2057-17 requires on a label. First, the label does not allow for 
customization of hazard avoidance statements for different unit 
designs. Second, the warning messages may not reflect the hazard 
patterns demonstrated in the incident data. Third, the warning language 
may not be easy to understand, may not motivate consumers to comply, 
and contradicts typical CSU uses. For example, the warning label states 
that consumers should not open multiple drawers simultaneously, but 
this contradicts common consumer use. Another example is the warning 
label statement that users should not place a television on a CSU, 
unless it is specifically designed to accommodate one. The CSU 
manufacturer, not the consumer, is in the best position to determine 
whether a CSU is designed to accommodate a television.
4. TRDs
    Commission staff believes that the TRD requirements in ASTM F3096-
14 do not adequately assess the strength of TRDs under conditions in 
which they are commonly used. Staff believes the following provisions 
are inadequate. First, the test method in ASTM F3096-14 only addresses 
TRD designs that have a linear connection to the means of attachment 
(strap-style TRDs). This test does not account for varied or innovative 
TRD designs. Second, the test does not examine the strength of all of 
the components of a TRD (e.g., brackets, fastener). Third, the test 
does not simulate the types of materials to which consumers are likely 
to secure TRDs. Fourth, the standard does not include explicit criteria 
for determining whether a TRD passes or fails the test.

VI. Regulatory Alternatives the Commission Is Considering

    The Commission is considering several alternatives to address the 
risk of death and injury associated with CSU tip overs.

[[Page 56758]]

A. Mandatory Standard

    The Commission could issue a mandatory standard addressing the 
hazard associated with CSU tip overs. A mandatory standard could 
include performance requirements, warning and instructional 
requirements, or both. However, warning and instructional requirements 
alone may not be adequate to address the risk because they rely on 
consumers noticing, reading, and following the warning. The Commission 
may consider the following factors in developing performance and 
warning requirements:
1. Scope and Definition of CSUs
    In developing a mandatory standard, the Commission would need to 
consider the appropriate scope for the standard, including the types of 
products the standard would cover, the hazard scenarios it would 
address, and whether to focus on a particular target population for 
injury reduction. For example, CPSC would need to consider whether to 
limit the scope of a standard to the CSU tip-over hazard posed to 
children under 6 years old. Such a scope may be appropriate because the 
large majority of CSU tip over injuries and deaths involve children 
under 6 years old. However, it may also be appropriate not to limit the 
scope of the standard because some injuries and fatalities have 
involved older children and adults, and some demonstrated hazard 
patterns (e.g., opening multiple drawers) involve a risk of injury to 
all ages.
    Similarly, CPSC also must consider how to define CSUs that are 
subject to a mandatory rule. Defining CSUs by certain characteristics 
may be appropriate. Such characteristics could include product height 
or weight, product types, or product features, reflecting the 
characteristics of products involved in incidents.
2. Stability
    The Commission believes that it may be appropriate to consider 
performance requirements and test methods that simulate actual use, 
including weighting a CSU to represent common use, dynamic testing to 
represent a child climbing (exerting a downward force), and testing 
that reflects actual floor surfaces in homes. In developing a mandatory 
standard, the Commission would consider ways to address the hazard 
patterns demonstrated in the incident data, such as:
     A child under 6 years old (weighing approximately 60 
pounds) climbing on a CSU to play;
     A child under 6 years old (weighing approximately 60 
pounds) standing on a lower drawer to reach into an upper drawer;
     A consumer (of any age) fully opening multiple drawers 
simultaneously that contain items typically stored in a CSU; and
     A CSU on a soft surface that simulates average carpet.
3. Labeling
    Clear and explicit requirements regarding the content and placement 
of warning labels may assist in reducing the risk of injury associated 
with CSU tip overs. This may include identifying a conspicuous location 
on CSUs for a warning label; allowing for customization of hazard-
avoidance statements, based on unit designs; comparing warning messages 
with incident data to make sure that the known hazardous situations are 
addressed; and including warning content that is easy to understand and 
consistent with the way consumers typically use CSUs.
4. TRDs
    TRDs are an important feature for reducing the risk of CSU tip 
overs. To assess the effectiveness of TRDs at preventing tip overs, 
performance requirements and test methods that assess the strength of 
the entire TRD system and reflect the circumstances under which TRDs 
are likely to be used (including the materials to which consumers are 
likely to attach them and the forces to which they are likely to be 
subjected) would be useful.

B. Rely on Voluntary Standards

    The Commission could rely on the voluntary ASTM standards--ASTM 
F2057-17 and ASTM F3096-14--that address CSU tip overs. If the 
Commission determines that the voluntary standards adequately reduce 
the risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs, and it finds that 
there is substantial industry compliance with the standards, then the 
Commission must rely on the voluntary standards, instead of issuing a 
mandatory standard. 15 U.S.C. 2058(b)(2).
    However, as discussed above, the Commission preliminarily believes 
that the ASTM standards do not adequately reduce the risk of injury 
associated with CSU tip overs. The Commission is assessing the level of 
compliance with the voluntary standards.

C. No Regulatory Action

    The Commission could rely on methods other than mandatory or 
voluntary standards to address the risk of injuries associated with CSU 
tip overs. This may include relying on product recalls or promoting the 
ongoing Anchor It! educational campaign. These alternatives may not be 
as effective at reducing the risk of injury as a mandatory standard. 
Recalls only apply to an individual manufacturer and product and do not 
extend to similar products. Recalls also can only address products that 
are already on the market, and cannot prevent unsafe products from 
entering the market. As for educational campaigns, staff does not have 
information regarding the effectiveness of the Commission's education 
campaign to date.

VII. Request for Comments and Information

    The Commission requests comments on all aspects of this ANPR, but 
specifically requests comments regarding:
     Data about the risk of injury associated with CSU tip 
overs;
     studies, tests, or surveys analyzing furniture tip-over 
injuries, including the severity and costs associated with injuries;
     the alternatives the Commission is considering, as well as 
additional alternatives for addressing the risk of injury;
     the appropriate scope of a mandatory standard and 
definition of CSUs, including the type of products it should address 
(e.g., other furniture; televisions; all CSUs; CSUs with certain 
features or over a certain height, such as 30 inches) and the ages it 
should address (e.g., children under 6 years old, all children, or all 
ages);
     the effectiveness of the stability, warning, and TRD 
requirements being considered;
     studies, tests, or surveys analyzing the number and type 
of televisions (i.e., CRT or flat screen) or other large objects placed 
on top of CSUs and the impact of those objects on the stability of the 
CSU;
     studies, tests, or surveys analyzing the use of 
aftermarket products that address tip-over hazards (e.g., wall straps, 
anchors) and their effectiveness at reducing tip overs;
     information or studies about how characteristics of the 
flooring surface under a CSU may impact the stability of the CSU and 
the effectiveness of a stability standard;
     a suitable definition for a soft surface that could serve 
as a surrogate for ``average'' or typical carpet;
     the effectiveness of voluntary or international standards 
at reducing the risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs;
     compliance with ASTM F2057-17 and ASTM F3096-14;

[[Page 56759]]

     CSU retail sales or shipments, especially information 
about the type of CSUs sold and the number of units sold in recent 
years;
     the number of CSUs in use;
     studies, tests, or descriptions of technologies or design 
changes that address tip-over injuries and estimates of costs 
associated with those features, including manufacturing costs and 
wholesale prices;
     the expected impact of technologies or design changes that 
address tip-over injuries on manufacturing costs or wholesale prices;
     the potential impact of design changes to address CSU 
stability on consumer utility; and
     information about whether any stability requirements for 
CSUs in ether a voluntary standard or potential mandatory rule could 
have a disparate impact on small entities, such as small manufacturers 
or importers.
    In addition, the Commission invites interested parties to submit 
any existing standards, or portions of them, for consideration as a 
consumer product safety standard. The Commission also invites 
interested persons to submit a statement of intention to modify or 
develop a voluntary consumer product safety standard addressing the 
risk of injury associated with CSU tip overs, including a description 
of the plan to develop or modify such a standard.
    Please submit comments in accordance with the instructions in the 
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this ANPR.

Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-25779 Filed 11-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P



                                                  56752               Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                  to the attention of the person identified in            CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY                               confidential business information, trade
                                                  paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information may            COMMISSION                                            secret information, or other sensitive or
                                                  be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-                                                                                protected information that you do not
                                                  REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using any                      16 CFR Chapter II                                     want to be available to the public. If
                                                  approved AMOC, notify your appropriate                                                                        furnished at all, such information
                                                  principal inspector, or lacking a principal             [Docket No. CPSC–2017–0044]
                                                                                                                                                                should be submitted by mail, hand
                                                  inspector, the manager of the local flight                                                                    delivery, or courier.
                                                  standards district office/certificate holding           Clothing Storage Unit Tip Overs;
                                                                                                          Request for Comments and                                 Docket: For access to the docket to
                                                  district office.                                                                                              read background documents or
                                                    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any              Information
                                                                                                                                                                comments, go to: http://
                                                  requirement in this AD to obtain corrective
                                                                                                          AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety                       www.regulations.gov, and insert the
                                                  actions from a manufacturer, the action must
                                                                                                          Commission.                                           docket number, CPSC–2017–0044, into
                                                  be accomplished using a method approved
                                                  by the Manager, International Section,                  ACTION: Advance notice of proposed                    the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the
                                                  Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the                 rulemaking.                                           prompts.
                                                  European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or                                                                    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
                                                  Airbus’s EASA Design Organization                       SUMMARY:   The Consumer Product Safety                Michael Taylor, Project Manager,
                                                  Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA,                 Commission is contemplating                           Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, U.S.
                                                  the approval must include the DOA-                      developing a rule to address the risk of              Consumer Product Safety Commission,
                                                  authorized signature.                                   injury and death associated with                      5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850;
                                                    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any              clothing storage unit furniture tipping               telephone: (301) 987–2338; email:
                                                  service information contains procedures or              over. This advance notice of proposed                 MTaylor@cpsc.gov.
                                                  tests that are identified as RC, those                  rulemaking initiates a rulemaking                     SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                                                  procedures and tests must be done to comply             proceeding under the Consumer Product
                                                  with this AD; any procedures or tests that are          Safety Act. We invite comments                        I. Background
                                                  not identified as RC are recommended. Those             concerning the risk of injury associated                 The Consumer Product Safety
                                                  procedures and tests that are not identified            with clothing storage units tipping over,             Commission (Commission or CPSC) is
                                                  as RC may be deviated from using accepted               the alternatives discussed in this notice,            aware of numerous injuries and deaths
                                                  methods in accordance with the operator’s               and other possible alternatives for                   resulting from furniture tip overs. To
                                                  maintenance or inspection program without               addressing the risk. We also invite
                                                  obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
                                                                                                                                                                address this risk, Commission staff
                                                                                                          interested parties to submit existing                 reviewed incident data for furniture tip
                                                  the procedures and tests identified as RC can
                                                                                                          voluntary standards or a statement of                 overs and determined that clothing
                                                  be done and the airplane can be put back in
                                                  an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or
                                                                                                          intent to modify or develop a voluntary               storage units (CSUs), consisting of
                                                  changes to procedures or tests identified as            standard that addresses the risk of                   chests, bureaus, and dressers, were the
                                                  RC require approval of an AMOC.                         injury described in this notice.                      primary furniture category involved in
                                                                                                          DATES: Submit comments by January 29,                 fatal and injury incidents. There were
                                                  (m) Related Information                                                                                       195 deaths related to CSU tip overs
                                                                                                          2018.
                                                    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing                     ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,                   between 2000 and 2016, which were
                                                  Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA
                                                                                                          identified by Docket No. CPSC–2017–                   reported to CPSC. An estimated 65,200
                                                  Airworthiness Directive 2017–0091R2, dated                                                                    injuries related to CSU tip overs were
                                                                                                          0044, electronically or in writing (hard
                                                  June 2, 2017, for related information. This                                                                   treated in U.S. hospital emergency
                                                  MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
                                                                                                          copy), using the methods described
                                                                                                          below. The Commission encourages you                  departments between 2006 and 2016.
                                                  Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by                                                                     These incident reports indicate that the
                                                  searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–              to submit comments electronically, by
                                                                                                          using the Federal eRulemaking Portal.                 vast majority of fatal and injury
                                                  2017–1096.                                                                                                    incidents resulting from CSUs tipping
                                                    (2) For more information about this AD,                 Electronic Submissions: Submit
                                                                                                          electronic comments to the Federal                    over involve children. Eighty-six
                                                  contact Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,                                                                    percent of the reported fatalities
                                                  International Section, Transport Standards              eRulemaking Portal at: http://
                                                                                                          www.regulations.gov. Follow the                       involved children under 18 years old,
                                                  Section, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
                                                                                                          instructions for submitting comments                  most of which were under 6 years old.
                                                  Renton, WA 98057–3356; telephone 425–
                                                                                                                                                                Seventy-three percent of the emergency
                                                  227–1405; fax 425–227–1149.                             provided on the Web site. The
                                                                                                                                                                department-treated injuries involved
                                                    (3) For service information identified in             Commission does not accept comments
                                                  this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness                                                                    children under 18 years old, most of
                                                                                                          submitted by electronic mail (Email),
                                                  Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,                                                                    which were also under 6 years old.
                                                                                                          except through www.regulations.gov.                      To address the hazard associated with
                                                  31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33                Written Submissions: Submit written
                                                  5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email                                                                   CSU tip overs, the Commission has
                                                                                                          comments by mail, hand delivery, or                   taken several steps. In June 2015, the
                                                  airworthiness.A330-A340@airbus.com;                     courier to: Office of the Secretary,
                                                  Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may                                                                       Commission launched the Anchor It!
                                                                                                          Consumer Product Safety Commission,                   campaign. This educational campaign
                                                  view this service information at the FAA,
                                                                                                          Room 820, 4330 East-West Highway,                     includes print and broadcast public
                                                  Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind
                                                  Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
                                                                                                          Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301)                   service announcements, information
                                                  on the availability of this material at the             504–7923.                                             distribution at targeted venues, such as
                                                  FAA, call 425–227–1221.                                   Instructions: All submissions must                  childcare centers, and an informational
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                          include the agency name and docket                    Web site (www.AnchorIt.gov) explaining
                                                    Issued in Renton, Washington, on                      number for this rulemaking proceeding.
                                                  November 22, 2017.                                                                                            the nature of the risk and safety tips for
                                                                                                          The Commission may post all                           avoiding furniture and television tip
                                                  Jeffrey E. Duven,                                       comments, without change, including                   overs. In addition, CPSC staff prepared
                                                  Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft           any personal identifiers, contact
                                                  Certification Service.
                                                                                                                                                                a briefing package in September 2016,1
                                                                                                          information, or other personal
                                                  [FR Doc. 2017–25747 Filed 11–29–17; 8:45 am]            information provided, to: http://                       1 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,

                                                  BILLING CODE 4910–13–P                                  www.regulations.gov. Do not submit                    Staff Briefing Package on Furniture Tipover



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:27 Nov 29, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00004   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM   30NOP1


                                                                      Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                                  56753

                                                  to identify hazard patterns involved in                 with it; summarize the regulatory                     more expensive products are often
                                                  tip-over incidents, assess existing                     alternatives the Commission is                        handmade. The lifespans of CSUs vary
                                                  voluntary standards that address CSU                    considering; and include information                  as well. Consumers may use less
                                                  tip overs, and identify factors that may                about any relevant existing standards,                expensive CSUs for only a few years,
                                                  reduce the likelihood of CSUs tipping                   and why the Commission preliminarily                  while more expensive products may last
                                                  over. As part of that effort, Commission                believes those standards would not                    for generations.
                                                  staff tested a convenience sample of                    adequately reduce the risk of injury                     The Commission has not been able to
                                                  CSUs. The Commission has also                           associated with the product. The ANPR                 determine the share of CSUs in the
                                                  pursued corrective actions with several                 also must invite comments concerning                  overall furniture market because of a
                                                  CSU manufacturers and conducted                         the risk of injury and regulatory                     lack of information about sales of
                                                  several voluntary recalls of CSUs.                      alternatives and invite the public to                 specific furniture product types or
                                                     The Commission is considering                        submit existing standards or a statement              models. However, according to U.S.
                                                  developing a mandatory standard to                      of intent to modify or develop a                      Census Bureau information, there are
                                                  reduce the risk of injury associated with               voluntary standard to address the risk of             approximately 22,600 U.S. firms that
                                                  CSU tip overs. Commission staff                         injury. Id. 2058(a).                                  manufacture, import, distribute, or retail
                                                  prepared a briefing package to describe                    After publishing an ANPR, the                      household furniture, of which CSUs are
                                                  the products at issue, further assess the               Commission may proceed with                           a subset. Some manufacturers are large
                                                  relevant incident data, examine relevant                rulemaking by reviewing the comments                  and use mass-production techniques;
                                                  voluntary standards, and discuss                        received in response to the ANPR, and                 others are smaller and manufacture
                                                  options for addressing the risk                         publishing a notice of proposed                       products individually or for custom
                                                  associated with CSU tip overs. That                     rulemaking (NPR). An NPR must                         orders. The Commission also has been
                                                  briefing package is available at: https://              include the text of the proposed rule,                unable to identify information about the
                                                  www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/ANPR%20-                       alternatives the Commission is                        number of CSUs that are in use in U.S.
                                                  %20Clothing%20Storage%20Unit                            considering, a preliminary regulatory                 households. The Commission requests
                                                  %20Tip%20Overs%20-%20November                           analysis describing the costs and                     information about the CSU market, CSU
                                                  %2015%202017.pdf?5IsEEdW_                               benefits of the proposed rule and the                 sales, and the number of CSUs in U.S.
                                                  Cb3ULO3TUGJiHEl875Adhvsg.                               alternatives, and an assessment of any                households.
                                                                                                          submitted standards. Id. 2058(c). The
                                                  II. Relevant Statutory Provisions                                                                             IV. Risk of Injury
                                                                                                          Commission would then review
                                                     To address the risk of injury                        comments on the NPR and decide                           Commission staff reviewed fatal and
                                                  associated with CSUs tipping over, the                  whether to issue a final rule, along with             nonfatal incidents involving CSU tip
                                                  Commission is considering developing a                  a final regulatory analysis.                          overs to determine the age of people
                                                  mandatory safety standard. The                                                                                involved in these incidents, the types of
                                                  rulemaking falls under the Consumer                     III. The Product and Market                           CSUs and other items involved, the
                                                  Product Safety Act (CPSA; 15 U.S.C.                        CSUs are freestanding furniture                    hazard patterns (hazard patterns include
                                                  2051–2089). Under section 7 of the                      intended for storing clothing. CSUs are               activities, behaviors, circumstances, or
                                                  CPSA, the Commission may issue a                        typically bedroom furniture, but may be               factors that are associated with
                                                  consumer product safety standard if the                 used elsewhere. CSUs are available in a               incidents) involved, and the types of
                                                  requirements of the standard are                        variety of designs (e.g., vertical or                 injuries and deaths that result from
                                                  ‘‘reasonably necessary to prevent or                    horizontal dressers), sizes (e.g., weights            these incidents. As the fatal and
                                                  reduce an unreasonable risk of injury                   and heights), and materials (e.g., wood,              nonfatal incidents discussed below
                                                  associated with [a] product.’’ Id.                      plastic, leather). CSUs usually have a                indicate, the vast majority of CSU tip-
                                                  2056(a). The safety standard may consist                flat surface on top and commonly                      over incidents involve children. For that
                                                  of performance requirements or                          include doors, or drawers for consumers               reason, the Commission largely focused
                                                  requirements for warnings and                           to store clothing or other items.                     its analysis on incidents involving
                                                  instructions. Id. However, if there is a                Examples of CSUs include chests of                    children.
                                                  voluntary standard that would                           drawers, bureaus, dressers, armoires,
                                                                                                                                                                A. Fatal Incidents
                                                  adequately reduce the risk of injury the                wardrobes, portable closets, and
                                                  Commission seeks to address, and there                  clothing storage lockers. CSUs do not                    To identify fatal incidents that
                                                  is likely to be substantial compliance                  include products that are permanently                 involved CSU tip overs, Commission
                                                  with that standard, then the                            attached or built into a structure or                 staff reviewed CPSC’s Death Certificates
                                                  Commission must rely on the voluntary                   products that are not typically intended              database, In-Depth Investigations
                                                  standard, instead of issuing a mandatory                to store clothing, such as bookcases,                 database, Injury and Potential Injury
                                                  standard. Id. 2056(b)(1). To issue a                    shelves, cabinets, entertainment                      Incidents database, and the National
                                                  mandatory standard under section 7, the                 furniture, office furniture, or jewelry               Electronic Injury Surveillance System
                                                  Commission must follow the procedural                   armoires. Additional factors may be                   (NEISS) database.2 Staff identified 195
                                                  and substantive requirements in section                 relevant for the Commission to define                 fatalities related to CSU tip overs that
                                                  9 of the CPSA. Id. 2056(a).                             CSUs in a mandatory standard, such as                 occurred between January 1, 2000 and
                                                     Under section 9 of the CPSA, the                     the height of products and design                     December 31, 2016 that were reported to
                                                  Commission may begin rulemaking by                      features. The Commission seeks                        CPSC. Of those fatalities, 22 (11 percent)
                                                  issuing an advance notice of proposed                   comments about the appropriate                        involved seniors age 60 years and older;
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  rulemaking (ANPR). Id. 2058(a). The                     parameters of a definition for CSUs.                  6 (3 percent) involved adults between
                                                  ANPR must identify the product and the                     CSUs are available through various                 18 and 59 years old; and 167 (86
                                                  nature of the risk of injury associated                 distribution channels. The retail price of            percent) involved children under 18
                                                                                                          CSUs varies, with the least expensive
                                                  (September 30, 2016), available at: https://                                                                    2 Staff reviewed incidents that were in these
                                                                                                          products retailing for less than $100,
                                                  www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Staff%20                                                                             databases as of June 1, 2017. Reporting is ongoing
                                                  Briefing%20Package%20on%20Furniture
                                                                                                          and the most expensive selling for                    for these databases, so the reported number of
                                                  %20Tipover%20-%20September%2030%202016                  several thousand dollars. Less expensive              incidents may change. Percentages may not sum to
                                                  .pdf.                                                   CSUs are usually mass produced, while                 100, due to rounding.



                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:27 Nov 29, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00005   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM   30NOP1


                                                  56754                     Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                                                     between January 1, 2006 and December
                                                  years old, of which the oldest child was                                                                                   for breathing). The severity of injuries
                                                                                     31, 2016. Of these, 47,700 estimated
                                                  8 years old. Of the 167 fatal incidents                                                                                    depends on various factors, such as the
                                                                                     injuries (73 percent) were to children
                                                  involving children, 159 (95 percent)                                                                                       body part hit or trapped by the CSU, the
                                                  were under 6 years old and 142 (85 under 18 years old. Of the injuries                                                     weight and nature of the stationary
                                                                                     involving children, 94 percent involved
                                                  percent) were under 4 years old. Table                                                                                     forces involved (i.e., the CSU and the
                                                                                     children under 9 years old and 83
                                                  1 provides the number of child fatalities                                                                                  floor), the magnitude and duration of
                                                                                     percent involved children under 6 years
                                                  in age categories, broken out by 6-month                                                                                   the force the CSU applies, the duration
                                                  increments.                        old. Table 2 provides the estimated                                                     of oxygen deprivation from mechanical
                                                                                     number of child injuries treated in                                                     asphyxia, and the ability to call for help
                                                   TABLE 1—FATAL INCIDENTS INVOLVING hospital emergency departments, by age.                                                 or self-rescue. Blunt head trauma can
                                                     CHILDREN           UNDER 18 YEARS OLD,                                                                                  result in death or severe injuries, and
                                                     BY AGE,             BETWEEN JANUARY 1,                             TABLE 2—ESTIMATED INJURIES TREAT-                    oxygen deprivation can lead to
                                                     2000 AND           DECEMBER 31, 2016                                ED IN HOSPITAL EMERGENCY DE-                        permanent brain damage, organ and
                                                                                                                         PARTMENTS INVOLVING CHILDREN                        tissue injury, or death.
                                                                                                                                                                                Children are particularly vulnerable
                                                                      Age                                Total           UNDER 18 YEARS OLD, BY AGE, BE-                     to the risk of injury and death associated
                                                                                                       fatalities
                                                                                                                         TWEEN JANUARY 1, 2006 AND DE-                       with CSU tip overs because of their
                                                  0 to less than 0.5 years ............                           1      CEMBER 31, 2016                                     physical and cognitive abilities, the
                                                  0.5 to less than 1 year .............                           5                                                          circumstances often involved in CSU tip
                                                  1 to less than 1.5 years ............                          21         Age                Estimated injuries            overs, and their susceptibility to severe
                                                  1.5 to less than 2 years ............                          28                                                          injury. Children generally are not strong
                                                  2 to less than 2.5 years ............                          31    Less than        The number of cases is too
                                                  2.5 to less than 3 years ............                          23      1 year.          small to produce an estimate.      enough to move heavy furniture when
                                                  3 to less than 3.5 years ............                          25    1 year ......    6,300.                               trapped underneath, do not react
                                                  3.5 to less than 4 years ............                           8    2 years .....    13,200.                              quickly enough to avoid falling
                                                  4 to less than 4.5 years ............                           7    3 years .....    11,200.                              furniture, and lack cognitive awareness
                                                  4.5 to less than 5 years ............                           4    4 years .....    5,800.                               of hazards. In addition, many incidents
                                                  5 to less than 5.5 years ............                           5    5 years .....    2,300.                               occur when a child is left unattended,
                                                  5.5 to less than 6 years ............                           1    6 years .....    2,300.                               reducing the likelihood that a caregiver
                                                  6 to less than 6.5 years ............                           3    7 years .....    1,800.                               could quickly rescue the child.
                                                  6.5 to less than 7 years ............                           1    8 years .....    The number of cases is too
                                                                                                                                                                             Children, in particular, can suffer long-
                                                  7 to less than 7.5 years ............                           0                       small to produce an estimate.
                                                                                                                       9 years .....    The number of cases is too           term harm from head injuries, which
                                                  7.5 to less than 8 years ............                           1
                                                  8 to less than 8.5 years ............                           3                       small to produce an estimate.      can affect their motor and emotional
                                                  8.5 to less than 9 years ............                           0    10 years ...     The number of cases is too           development, speech, cognitive ability,
                                                  Greater than 9 years ................                           0                       small to produce an estimate.      and overall quality of life.
                                                                                                                       11 years ...     The number of cases is too              Commission staff reviewed fatal
                                                     Total ......................................                167                      small to produce an estimate.      incidents and NEISS incidents
                                                                                                                       12 years ...     The number of cases is too           involving children to identify the types
                                                  Children in a sample of 89 of these                                                     small to produce an estimate.      of fatal and nonfatal injuries associated
                                                  incidents ranged in weight from 18 to 66                             13 years ...     The number of cases is too           with CSU tip overs. Of the 167 fatal
                                                  pounds.                                                                                 small to produce an estimate.      incidents involving children and CSU
                                                     Of the 195 total fatal incidents                                  14 years ...     The number of cases is too
                                                                                                                                                                             tip overs that occurred between 2000
                                                                                                                                          small to produce an estimate.
                                                  involving all ages, nearly all involved a                                                                                  and 2016, 71 (43 percent) were the
                                                                                                                       15 years ...     The number of cases is too
                                                  chest, bureau, or dresser; some of these                                                small to produce an estimate.      result of head injuries, skull fractures,
                                                  involved a television falling with the                               16 years ...     The number of cases is too           and brain hemorrhage from blunt head
                                                  chest, bureau or dresser. Of the 167 fatal                                              small to produce an estimate.      trauma (including crushing injuries and
                                                  incidents involving children, 164 (98                                17 years ...     The number of cases is too           deep scalp hemorrhage). The remaining
                                                  percent) involved a chest, bureau, or                                                   small to produce an estimate.      96 fatal incidents (57 percent) were the
                                                  dresser, 2 (1 percent) involved a                                                                                          result of chest compression from a child
                                                  wardrobe, and 1 (less than 1 percent)                                  Of the estimated 47,700 incidents                   being pinned under a CSU. In 13 of the
                                                  involved an armoire. Of the 167 child                                involving children, 99 percent involved               167 fatal incidents involving children,
                                                  fatalities, 89 (53 percent) involved a                               a chest, bureau, or dresser; the                      the child died despite receiving medical
                                                  television falling in addition to the CSU.                           remainder involved armoires, a portable               care.
                                                                                                                       closet, a wardrobe, and a product that                   CSU tip-over injuries to children that
                                                  B. Nonfatal Incidents                                                was either an armoire or a dresser. In                are treated in hospital emergency
                                                    To identify nonfatal incidents that                                about 30 percent of injuries involving                departments ranged in severity,
                                                  involved CSU tip overs, Commission                                   children, a television fell with the CSU.             including contusions, abrasions,
                                                  staff reviewed the NEISS database. The                                                                                     lacerations, fractures, and internal
                                                  NEISS database contains reports of                                   C. Severity and Consequences of Injuries              injuries. Of the estimated 47,700
                                                  injuries treated in emergency                                           The types of injuries that can result              emergency department-treated injuries
                                                  departments of U.S. hospitals selected                               from CSUs tipping over can range from                 to children that were associated with
                                                  as a probability sample of all U.S.                                  scratches, cuts, bruises, joint injuries,             CSUs between January 1, 2006 and
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  hospitals with emergency departments.                                and bone fractures to potentially fatal               December 31, 2016, an estimated 17,700
                                                  Using the surveillance information in                                injuries, such as skull fractures, closed-            injuries (37 percent) involved
                                                  this database, CPSC can estimate the                                 head injuries, internal organ injuries,               contusions or abrasions; an estimated
                                                  number of injuries, nationwide, that are                             collapsed lungs, spinal injuries, or                  12,500 injuries (26 percent) involved
                                                  associated with specific consumer                                    mechanical asphyxia (which is a form of               internal injuries (including closed head
                                                  products. An estimated 65,200 injuries                               suffocation that results from a                       injuries); an estimated 6,600 injuries (14
                                                  related to CSU tip overs were treated in                             mechanical force (such as furniture)                  percent) involved lacerations; and an
                                                  U.S. hospital emergency departments                                  preventing muscle movement necessary                  estimated 4,500 injuries (9 percent)


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014        15:27 Nov 29, 2017          Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00006    Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM   30NOP1


                                                                      Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                         56755

                                                  involved fractures. Injuries to children                treated injuries to children between                  CSUs, to play by climbing, sitting, or
                                                  that were reported through NEISS                        2006 and 2016, approximately 30                       hiding on or in the CSU. It is also
                                                  impacted numerous body parts, but the                   percent involved a television falling                 developmentally normal and foreseeable
                                                  most common was the head (42                            with a CSU. In many of these incidents,               for children to interact with CSUs to
                                                  percent), followed by the face (15                      children were using the CSU like a                    dress themselves, place and remove
                                                  percent), and trunk (10 percent). Four                  ladder or step stool, climbing or                     items on top of the CSU, and exercise
                                                  percent of NEISS injuries involving                     standing in a lower drawer, to reach the              developing problem-solving skills by
                                                  children and CSU tip overs required                     television or other media device (e.g.,               stepping on lower drawers to reach
                                                  hospitalization, whereas 92 percent                     DVD player, video game system) on top                 items in upper drawers or on top of the
                                                  were treated and released, and 1 percent                of the CSU.                                           CSU.
                                                  were observed.                                             In the majority of incidents that
                                                    When a television was involved in a                   involved a television and CSU tipping                 4. Location, Flooring, and Contents
                                                  CSU tip over, children’s injuries were                  over, the television was a cathode-ray                  Of the 369 nonfatal incident reports
                                                  more likely to require hospitalization                  tube (CRT) television, rather than a flat-            staff reviewed, all of the reports that
                                                  and involve internal injuries and head                  screen television. CRT televisions are                included enough information to identify
                                                  injuries than when no television was                    front-heavy, with the majority of their               the location of the CSU indicated that
                                                  involved. When a television was                         weight in the screen portion facing                   the CSU was in a bedroom. Of those
                                                  involved in a CSU tip over that resulted                front. This type of television is no                  reports that specified the flooring
                                                  in injury to a child, 7 percent of injuries             longer manufactured. The Commission                   surface involved, most occurred on
                                                  required hospitalization (compared with                 continues to consider how best to                     carpet; a smaller number of incidents
                                                  3 percent when only a CSU was                           address the hazard of televisions tipping             occurred on wood and tile. Of the
                                                  involved); 36 percent of injuries were                  over. A mandatory Commission rule can                 reports that indicated the CSU tip over
                                                  internal injuries (compared with 22                     only apply to products manufactured                   happened on carpeting, nearly all of the
                                                  percent when only a CSU was                             after the rule takes effect. Thus, the                incidents involved general stability,
                                                  involved); and 58 percent were head                     Commission may not be able to address                 such as opening a drawer or no
                                                  injuries (compared with 36 percent                      the hazard discontinued CRT televisions               consumer interaction. Of the reports
                                                  when only a CSU was involved).                          present through rulemaking. To assess                 that described the contents of the CSU,
                                                                                                          the relevance of televisions and                      most contained only clothing, and very
                                                  D. Hazard Patterns
                                                                                                          regulatory options, the Commission                    few were empty.
                                                    CPSC staff analyzed fatal and nonfatal                requests comments about the extent to
                                                  incident reports to identify factors that               which consumers put televisions on top                V. Existing Voluntary and International
                                                  are associated with CSU tip-over                        of CSUs, the types of televisions                     Standards
                                                  incidents. This analysis revealed that                  involved in tip-over incidents, and the               A. Description of Existing Standards
                                                  certain user interactions (such as                      impact of televisions on the stability of
                                                  opening multiple drawers) and                           CSUs.                                                   There are five voluntary or
                                                  surroundings (such as specific flooring)                                                                      international standards that address
                                                  were associated with CSU tip overs. To                  2. Opening Multiple Drawers                           CSU or storage unit furniture tip overs:
                                                  assess relevant incidents in detail, staff                 Several incident reports indicated that              • ASTM F2057–17, Standard Safety
                                                  reviewed 369 nonfatal incidents                         a CSU tipped over when a consumer                     Specification for Clothing Storage Units
                                                  involving CSU tip overs that occurred                   opened one or more drawers. Of the 369                (ASTM F2057–17);
                                                  between January 1, 2005 and December                    nonfatal incidents staff reviewed, 50                   • ASTM F3096–14, Standard
                                                  31, 2015, and were reported to CPSC.3                   reported this scenario.                               Performance Specification for Tipover
                                                  This data set is useful to identify hazard                                                                    Restraint(s) Used with Clothing Storage
                                                  patterns, but it cannot be used to draw                 3. Climbing                                           Unit(s) (ASTM F3096–14);
                                                  statistical conclusions because it does                    Several reports indicated that a child               • ISO 7171:1988, International
                                                  not include the most recent incident                    was climbing on the CSU at the time of                Organization for Standardization,
                                                  reports, and many of the reports do not                 the tip over incident. In some cases, a               Furniture—Storage units—
                                                  include detailed information about                      child was climbing onto or into the CSU               Determination of stability (ISO 7171);
                                                  circumstances surrounding the                           to play, and in others, the child was                   • AS/NZS 4935:2009, Australia/New
                                                  incidents.4                                             climbing with a purpose other than                    Zealand Standard, Domestic furniture—
                                                                                                          playing. Examples of play behaviors                   Freestanding chests of drawers,
                                                  1. Televisions
                                                                                                          evidenced in the data include playing                 wardrobes and bookshelves/
                                                     As the incident data discussed above                 hide-and-go-seek, climbing for a                      bookcases—Determination of stability
                                                  indicates, in some incidents, televisions               challenge or to jump, and sitting in a                (AS/NZS 4935); and
                                                  tipped over with a CSU, often resulting                 lower drawer for fun. Examples of                       • EN 14749:2016, European Standard,
                                                  in more serious injuries. Of the 167                    purpose-based behaviors include                       Furniture—Domestic and kitchen
                                                  child fatalities between 2000 and 2016,                 climbing or standing on a lower drawer                storage units and kitchen-worktops—
                                                  89 (53 percent) involved a television                   to reach a television or other item on top            Safety requirements and test methods
                                                  falling in addition to the CSU. Of the                  of the CSU, standing on a lower drawer                (EN 14749).
                                                  estimated emergency department-                         to reach or see into an upper drawer,                   The products within the scope of each
                                                                                                          using the CSU to pull into a standing                 of these standards vary. ASTM F2057–
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                    3 Staff reviewed incidents that were in CPSC’s In-
                                                                                                          position, scaling the CSU to reach into               17 applies to furniture intended for
                                                  Depth Investigations database, Injury and Potential
                                                  Injury Incidents database, and NEISS database, as       a crib, and opening drawers to remove                 clothing storage, typical of bedroom
                                                  of January 15, 2016.                                    clothing.                                             furniture, and more than 30 inches in
                                                    4 In addition to the more common hazard patterns         These behaviors are developmentally                height, but excludes built-in furniture
                                                  described in this section, there were also incident     expected for children under 6 years old.              and shelving furniture, such as
                                                  reports that indicated other scenarios were involved
                                                  in CSU tip overs, such as moving the CSU, pulling
                                                                                                          It is developmentally normal and                      bookcases, office furniture,
                                                  on a portion of the CSU, and no consumer                foreseeable for children in this age                  entertainment furniture, and dining
                                                  interaction before the incident.                        group to interact with furniture, such as             room furniture. ISO 7171 applies to


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:27 Nov 29, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00007   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM   30NOP1


                                                  56756                      Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                  freestanding storage furniture, including                                  the unit is unloaded. For the loaded test,                                    ASTM F2057–17 requires that TRDs
                                                  cupboards, cabinets, and bookshelves                                       the CSU must not tip over when each                                        be provided with all products that fall
                                                  that are fully assembled and ready for                                     drawer (or door) is open, one at a time,                                   within the scope of the standard and
                                                  use, but excludes wall-mounted and                                         and weighted with 50 pounds. For the                                       that they comply with ASTM F3096–14.
                                                  built-in products. AS/NZS 4935 applies                                     unloaded test, the CSU must not tip                                        TRDs are supplementary devices that
                                                  to domestic freestanding chests,                                           over when all of the drawers (or doors)                                    help prevent tip overs. One example of
                                                  drawers, and wardrobes over 19.7                                           are open at the same time. For both                                        a TRD is a strap that users attach to the
                                                  inches in height, as well as bookshelves                                   stability tests, testing is on a ‘‘hard,                                   back of a CSU and the wall, to stabilize
                                                  and bookcases more than 23.6 inches.                                       level, flat surface’’ and drawers must be                                  the CSU. ASTM F3096–14 requires
                                                  EN–14749 applies to all kitchen,                                           open to the outstop (a feature that limits                                 TRDs to be tested for strength by
                                                  bathroom, and domestic storage units                                       the outward movement of a drawer) or,                                      affixing one end of the assembled
                                                  with movable and non-moveable parts.                                       when there is no outstop, to 2⁄3 of the                                    restraint to a fixed structure and
                                                     ASTM International approved ASTM                                        operational sliding length, and doors                                      applying a 50-pound weight to the
                                                  F2057–17 on October 1, 2017, and                                           must be open 90 degrees. The standard                                      opposite end. ASTM F3096–14 also
                                                  published it in October 2017.5 The                                         specifies that if part of the CSU fails,                                   requires instructional literature that
                                                  scope of ASTM F2057–17 specifies that                                                                                                                 includes illustrations of installation
                                                                                                                             that part should be repaired or replaced
                                                  the standard is intended to cover                                                                                                                     methods, step-by-step instructions, and
                                                                                                                             and the test repeated.
                                                  ‘‘children up to and including age five.’’                                                                                                            a list of parts with pictures.
                                                  ASTM F2057–17 includes requirements                                           ASTM F2057–17 also requires a                                              The three international standards—
                                                  for stability, labeling, and tip over                                      permanent label on CSUs, in a                                              ISO 7171, AS/NZS 4935, and EN
                                                  restraint devices (TRDs).                                                  ‘‘conspicuous location when in use,’’                                      14749—address many of the same key
                                                     To assess the stability of a CSU,                                       and includes an example label showing                                      performance requirements as the
                                                  ASTM F2057–17 requires that the unit                                       warning content and formatting. The                                        voluntary ASTM standards. Table 3
                                                  withstand two performance tests—one                                        standard also includes a test for                                          compares the key elements in each of
                                                  when the unit is loaded, and one when                                      assessing label permanence.                                                the standards.
                                                    TABLE 3—KEY PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS IN VOLUNTARY AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ADDRESSING STORAGE
                                                                                       UNIT FURNITURE TIP OVERS
                                                                                                                    Minimum                        Element                         Element                                                Warning              Load and
                                                                                    Test mass                       furniture                                                                                  TRDs
                                                                                                                                                   breakage                       extension                                                labels              force test
                                                                                                                     height

                                                  ASTM F2057–17 ...           50 lbs .....................   30 in ......................   Repair, if possible              To outstop or 2/3 ...     Required ................   Required ................   None.
                                                  ISO 7171 ...............    Not specified 6 .......        Not specified .........        Not specified .........          2/3 extension .........   Not mentioned .......       Not mentioned .......       None.
                                                  AS/NZS 4935 .........       29 kg (63.88 lbs) ...          500 mm (19.7 in) ...           Fail .........................   2/3 extension .........   Strongly rec-               Required ................   None.
                                                                                                                                                                                                         ommended.
                                                  EN 14749 ...............    75 N (16.8 lbs) ......         Not specified .........        Not specified .........          To outstop or 2/3 ...     Not mentioned .......       Not mentioned .......       Yes.



                                                     ISO 7171 testing requirements address                                   ASTM standards are the most effective                                      stringent existing standards, and
                                                  only stability. ASTM F2057–17 and AS/                                      existing standards. Nevertheless,                                          therefore, focused on these standards
                                                  NZA 4935 include requirements for                                          Commission staff preliminarily believes                                    when assessing the effectiveness of
                                                  both stability testing and warnings. EN                                    that the existing standards do not                                         existing standards that address CSU tip
                                                  14749 includes stability requirements,                                     adequately reduce the risk of CSU tip                                      overs. However, as discussed below,
                                                  as well as strength and durability                                         overs. Staff believes that the two ASTM                                    there are several provisions in the
                                                  requirements. The stability test                                           standards are more effective than the                                      ASTM standards that staff preliminarily
                                                  requirements in ASTM F2057–17 and                                          international requirements primarily for                                   believes do not adequately address the
                                                  AS/NZA 4935 are similar in that both                                       two reasons. First, although it may                                        risk of CSU tip overs.
                                                  require one empty drawer to be open for                                    appear that EN 14749 is the most                                           1. Scope
                                                  loaded testing. In contrast, EN 14749                                      stringent standard because it requires
                                                  requires that all drawers in a row (not                                                                                                                  The scope of ASTM F2057–17, which
                                                                                                                             additional stability tests, the additional                                 limits the height of CSUs and age of
                                                  column) be open simultaneously, but
                                                                                                                             tests are not as severe as applying a                                      children it addresses, may not
                                                  specifies a lower force than ASTM
                                                                                                                             larger force to the front edge of an empty                                 adequately reduce the risk of injury
                                                  F2057–17 and AS/NZA 4935. EN 14749
                                                  also includes two further stability tests                                  unit, as ASTM F2057–17 and AS/NZA                                          associated with CSU tip overs. First, the
                                                  to assess a vertical force and a loaded                                    4935 require. Second, ASTM F2057–17                                        scope of the standard is limited to
                                                  test with force applied. ASTM F2057–17                                     is the only standard that requires TRDs.                                   addressing CSUs that are more than 30
                                                  is the only standard that requires TRDs.                                   The Commission’s Division of                                               inches in height. However, there have
                                                                                                                             Mechanical Engineering staff believes                                      been incidents involving CSUs that are
                                                  B. Assessment of Existing Standards                                        that TRDs are an important component                                       30 inches tall or less. These products
                                                    Commission staff assessed the                                            to effectively prevent CSU tip overs. For                                  may present a hazard particularly to
                                                  requirements in each of the existing                                       these reasons, Commission staff believes                                   children because low-height CSUs may
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  standards and determined that the two                                      that the ASTM standards are the most                                       be intended for children and these
                                                    5 Although ASTM F2057–17 was published                                   substantive provisions (introduction, caveats, and                         considered these changes in their review and
                                                  shortly before this ANPR and staff’s accompanying                          principles on standardization) and warning label                           assessment.
                                                  briefing package, Commission staff was able to                             requirements. The changes to warning label                                   6 ISO 7171 does not include pass/fail criteria for
                                                  review and assess the standard based on the                                requirements were the addition of performance                              loaded stability testing. Instead, it directs testers to
                                                  previous version, ASTM F2057–14, which was
                                                                                                                             requirements for label permanence and the addition                         continue to increase the force until a portion of the
                                                  largely the same as ASTM F2057–17. The only
                                                  changes in ASTM F2057–17 were to non-                                      of a pictogram in the warning label. Staff                                 product ‘‘just lifts away from the floor.’’




                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014      15:27 Nov 29, 2017           Jkt 244001       PO 00000         Frm 00008        Fmt 4702         Sfmt 4702     E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM           30NOP1


                                                                      Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                           56757

                                                  products can weigh as much as 100                       requires that all drawers are empty and               warning label to be effective, it must be
                                                  pounds.                                                 open simultaneously. However, when                    in a location where users will see it. For
                                                     Second, the scope of ASTM F2057–17                   contents were reported in CSU tip-over                example, users are not likely to notice
                                                  states that that the target population for              incidents, CSUs generally contained                   or read a label in a lower drawer
                                                  injury reduction is ‘‘children up to and                clothing.                                             because it is outside their line-of-sight
                                                  including age five.’’ However, as the                      Fourth, staff has several concerns                 and they would have to crouch to read
                                                  incident data demonstrate, children as                  with the loaded stability test procedure.             it. In contrast, if a label is in a drawer
                                                  old as 8 years old have been killed and                 The 50-pound test weight is not                       at eye level, an adult, parent, or
                                                  injured by CSU tip overs. In particular,                consistent with the age and weight of                 caregiver is more likely to notice and
                                                  children under age 6 are most                           victims. The majority of reported CSU                 read the label. For this reason, the label
                                                  commonly involved in incidents. The                     tip-over incidents involved children                  placement provision in the standard
                                                  ‘‘age five’’ specified in the standard                  under 6 years old. As such, the test                  may not be adequate for the label to be
                                                  appears to include only children up to                  weight in the standard does not reflect
                                                  exactly age five (i.e., 60 months),                                                                           effective.
                                                                                                          the weight of children involved in the
                                                  however, and not children between                       majority of incidents, which is                          Staff also has concerns with the
                                                  their fifth and sixth birthdays (based on               approximately 60 pounds (for the 95th                 hazard communication statements
                                                  the 50-pound stability test weight,                     percentile weight of children just under              ASTM F2057–17 requires on a label.
                                                  which represents the weight of children                 six years old, according to Centers for               First, the label does not allow for
                                                  60 months old). In addition, hazard                     Disease Control growth charts). In                    customization of hazard avoidance
                                                  patterns, such as opening multiple                      addition, the test weight tolerances may              statements for different unit designs.
                                                  drawers, present a risk of injury to users              impact the repeatability of testing.                  Second, the warning messages may not
                                                  of any age.                                             ASTM F2057–17 allows a tolerance of                   reflect the hazard patterns demonstrated
                                                  2. Stability                                            ±1 pound for each of the two 25-pound                 in the incident data. Third, the warning
                                                                                                          test weights, which means the total                   language may not be easy to understand,
                                                     There are also several components of                 weight can range from 48 to 52 pounds,                may not motivate consumers to comply,
                                                  the stability testing provisions in ASTM                plus the weight of the fastening                      and contradicts typical CSU uses. For
                                                  F2057–17 that staff preliminarily                       hardware and strap. Such a wide                       example, the warning label states that
                                                  believes are not adequate to reduce the                 tolerance may produce variation in test               consumers should not open multiple
                                                  risk of injury associated with CSU tip                  outcomes, which could result in the                   drawers simultaneously, but this
                                                  overs.
                                                                                                          same CSU passing and failing during                   contradicts common consumer use.
                                                     First, the standard requires that
                                                                                                          multiple tests.                                       Another example is the warning label
                                                  stability testing occur on a ‘‘hard, level,
                                                                                                             Fifth, the standard’s allowance for the            statement that users should not place a
                                                  flat surface.’’ This does not reflect the
                                                                                                          replacement or repair of a failed                     television on a CSU, unless it is
                                                  surfaces on which CSUs may rest in
                                                                                                          component may be problematic. For                     specifically designed to accommodate
                                                  consumers’ homes. For example, floors
                                                                                                          example, this provision does not                      one. The CSU manufacturer, not the
                                                  in a home may not be level, and
                                                                                                          include a testability requirement, does               consumer, is in the best position to
                                                  carpeting is not flat. As the incident
                                                                                                          not account for a failure that cannot be              determine whether a CSU is designed to
                                                  reports suggest, when a flooring type
                                                                                                          repaired or replaced, and does not                    accommodate a television.
                                                  was reported, carpeting was more
                                                                                                          account for design-to-fail features that
                                                  commonly involved in CSU tip-over                                                                             4. TRDs
                                                                                                          prevent tip overs.
                                                  incidents than other types of flooring.                    Sixth, during CPSC testing, staff
                                                  Assessing the impact of alternate                       identified several additional issues                    Commission staff believes that the
                                                  surfaces on stability may be necessary to               related to the specificity and clarity of             TRD requirements in ASTM F3096–14
                                                  accurately assess the stability of a                    the test procedures in ASTM F2057–17.                 do not adequately assess the strength of
                                                  product. In addition, the standard does                 For example, the standard does not                    TRDs under conditions in which they
                                                  not provide a detailed definition of a                  address how to apply test weights to                  are commonly used. Staff believes the
                                                  ‘‘hard, level, flat surface.’’ Relevant                 drawers with center components (e.g.,                 following provisions are inadequate.
                                                  details may include a surface flatness                  handles), does not include a timeframe                First, the test method in ASTM F3096–
                                                  tolerance (e.g., ±0.1°) over a certain area             in which to apply and maintain the test               14 only addresses TRD designs that
                                                  or a specific type of flooring surface                  weight, and does not address how to                   have a linear connection to the means
                                                  (e.g., Type IV vinyl tile).                             place weights in shallow drawers to                   of attachment (strap-style TRDs). This
                                                     Second, the requirement that testing                                                                       test does not account for varied or
                                                                                                          avoid contact with the drawer bottom.
                                                  occur with drawers open to the outstop                                                                        innovative TRD designs. Second, the
                                                  or, if there is no outstop, to 2⁄3 of the               3. Labeling                                           test does not examine the strength of all
                                                  operational sliding length, is unclear                     Commission staff has concerns with                 of the components of a TRD (e.g.,
                                                  and creates testing inconsistencies. For                the location and content requirements                 brackets, fastener). Third, the test does
                                                  example, staff has tested CSUs with                     for warning labels in ASTM F2057–17.7                 not simulate the types of materials to
                                                  outstops that are significantly less than               With respect to location, the standard
                                                  2⁄3 of the operational sliding length, the
                                                                                                                                                                which consumers are likely to secure
                                                                                                          specifies that a label must be in a                   TRDs. Fourth, the standard does not
                                                  location of the outstop can impact                      ‘‘conspicuous location when in use’’ but              include explicit criteria for determining
                                                  proper placement of the test weight on
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                                                                          does not provide further details. For a               whether a TRD passes or fails the test.
                                                  the drawer, the standard does not
                                                  address CSUs with multiple outstops,                      7 Staff also expressed concerns with the label      VI. Regulatory Alternatives the
                                                  and the standard does not specify a                     permanence requirements in ASTM F2057–14 in           Commission Is Considering
                                                  minimum operational sliding length,                     the 2016 briefing package (U.S. Consumer Product
                                                  which would facilitate testing.                         Safety Commission, Staff Briefing Package on             The Commission is considering
                                                                                                          Furniture Tipover (September 30, 2016)). However,
                                                     Third, the unloaded stability test                   those concerns have been resolved with the label
                                                                                                                                                                several alternatives to address the risk of
                                                  procedure may not reflect conditions                    permanence requirements added to ASTM F2057–          death and injury associated with CSU
                                                  during actual consumer use. This test                   17.                                                   tip overs.


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:27 Nov 29, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00009   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM   30NOP1


                                                  56758               Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules

                                                  A. Mandatory Standard                                   lower drawer to reach into an upper                   product recalls or promoting the
                                                    The Commission could issue a                          drawer;                                               ongoing Anchor It! educational
                                                  mandatory standard addressing the                         • A consumer (of any age) fully                     campaign. These alternatives may not be
                                                  hazard associated with CSU tip overs. A                 opening multiple drawers                              as effective at reducing the risk of injury
                                                  mandatory standard could include                        simultaneously that contain items                     as a mandatory standard. Recalls only
                                                  performance requirements, warning and                   typically stored in a CSU; and                        apply to an individual manufacturer
                                                  instructional requirements, or both.                      • A CSU on a soft surface that                      and product and do not extend to
                                                  However, warning and instructional                      simulates average carpet.                             similar products. Recalls also can only
                                                  requirements alone may not be adequate                  3. Labeling                                           address products that are already on the
                                                  to address the risk because they rely on                                                                      market, and cannot prevent unsafe
                                                                                                             Clear and explicit requirements                    products from entering the market. As
                                                  consumers noticing, reading, and
                                                                                                          regarding the content and placement of                for educational campaigns, staff does
                                                  following the warning. The Commission
                                                                                                          warning labels may assist in reducing                 not have information regarding the
                                                  may consider the following factors in
                                                                                                          the risk of injury associated with CSU                effectiveness of the Commission’s
                                                  developing performance and warning
                                                                                                          tip overs. This may include identifying               education campaign to date.
                                                  requirements:
                                                                                                          a conspicuous location on CSUs for a
                                                  1. Scope and Definition of CSUs                         warning label; allowing for                           VII. Request for Comments and
                                                                                                          customization of hazard-avoidance                     Information
                                                     In developing a mandatory standard,
                                                  the Commission would need to consider                   statements, based on unit designs;                       The Commission requests comments
                                                  the appropriate scope for the standard,                 comparing warning messages with                       on all aspects of this ANPR, but
                                                  including the types of products the                     incident data to make sure that the                   specifically requests comments
                                                  standard would cover, the hazard                        known hazardous situations are                        regarding:
                                                  scenarios it would address, and whether                 addressed; and including warning                         • Data about the risk of injury
                                                  to focus on a particular target                         content that is easy to understand and                associated with CSU tip overs;
                                                  population for injury reduction. For                    consistent with the way consumers                        • studies, tests, or surveys analyzing
                                                  example, CPSC would need to consider                    typically use CSUs.                                   furniture tip-over injuries, including the
                                                  whether to limit the scope of a standard                                                                      severity and costs associated with
                                                                                                          4. TRDs
                                                  to the CSU tip-over hazard posed to                                                                           injuries;
                                                  children under 6 years old. Such a                         TRDs are an important feature for                     • the alternatives the Commission is
                                                  scope may be appropriate because the                    reducing the risk of CSU tip overs. To                considering, as well as additional
                                                  large majority of CSU tip over injuries                 assess the effectiveness of TRDs at                   alternatives for addressing the risk of
                                                  and deaths involve children under 6                     preventing tip overs, performance                     injury;
                                                  years old. However, it may also be                      requirements and test methods that                       • the appropriate scope of a
                                                  appropriate not to limit the scope of the               assess the strength of the entire TRD                 mandatory standard and definition of
                                                  standard because some injuries and                      system and reflect the circumstances                  CSUs, including the type of products it
                                                  fatalities have involved older children                 under which TRDs are likely to be used                should address (e.g., other furniture;
                                                  and adults, and some demonstrated                       (including the materials to which                     televisions; all CSUs; CSUs with certain
                                                  hazard patterns (e.g., opening multiple                 consumers are likely to attach them and               features or over a certain height, such as
                                                  drawers) involve a risk of injury to all                the forces to which they are likely to be             30 inches) and the ages it should
                                                  ages.                                                   subjected) would be useful.                           address (e.g., children under 6 years old,
                                                     Similarly, CPSC also must consider                                                                         all children, or all ages);
                                                                                                          B. Rely on Voluntary Standards
                                                  how to define CSUs that are subject to                                                                           • the effectiveness of the stability,
                                                  a mandatory rule. Defining CSUs by                         The Commission could rely on the                   warning, and TRD requirements being
                                                  certain characteristics may be                          voluntary ASTM standards—ASTM                         considered;
                                                  appropriate. Such characteristics could                 F2057–17 and ASTM F3096–14—that                          • studies, tests, or surveys analyzing
                                                  include product height or weight,                       address CSU tip overs. If the                         the number and type of televisions (i.e.,
                                                  product types, or product features,                     Commission determines that the                        CRT or flat screen) or other large objects
                                                  reflecting the characteristics of products              voluntary standards adequately reduce                 placed on top of CSUs and the impact
                                                  involved in incidents.                                  the risk of injury associated with CSU                of those objects on the stability of the
                                                                                                          tip overs, and it finds that there is                 CSU;
                                                  2. Stability                                            substantial industry compliance with                     • studies, tests, or surveys analyzing
                                                     The Commission believes that it may                  the standards, then the Commission                    the use of aftermarket products that
                                                  be appropriate to consider performance                  must rely on the voluntary standards,                 address tip-over hazards (e.g., wall
                                                  requirements and test methods that                      instead of issuing a mandatory standard.              straps, anchors) and their effectiveness
                                                  simulate actual use, including weighting                15 U.S.C. 2058(b)(2).                                 at reducing tip overs;
                                                  a CSU to represent common use,                             However, as discussed above, the                      • information or studies about how
                                                  dynamic testing to represent a child                    Commission preliminarily believes that                characteristics of the flooring surface
                                                  climbing (exerting a downward force),                   the ASTM standards do not adequately                  under a CSU may impact the stability of
                                                  and testing that reflects actual floor                  reduce the risk of injury associated with             the CSU and the effectiveness of a
                                                  surfaces in homes. In developing a                      CSU tip overs. The Commission is                      stability standard;
                                                  mandatory standard, the Commission                      assessing the level of compliance with                   • a suitable definition for a soft
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  would consider ways to address the                      the voluntary standards.                              surface that could serve as a surrogate
                                                  hazard patterns demonstrated in the                                                                           for ‘‘average’’ or typical carpet;
                                                                                                          C. No Regulatory Action                                  • the effectiveness of voluntary or
                                                  incident data, such as:
                                                     • A child under 6 years old (weighing                  The Commission could rely on                        international standards at reducing the
                                                  approximately 60 pounds) climbing on                    methods other than mandatory or                       risk of injury associated with CSU tip
                                                  a CSU to play;                                          voluntary standards to address the risk               overs;
                                                     • A child under 6 years old (weighing                of injuries associated with CSU tip                      • compliance with ASTM F2057–17
                                                  approximately 60 pounds) standing on a                  overs. This may include relying on                    and ASTM F3096–14;


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:27 Nov 29, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00010   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM   30NOP1


                                                                      Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Proposed Rules                                          56759

                                                    • CSU retail sales or shipments,                      DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND                              Electronic Submissions
                                                  especially information about the type of                HUMAN SERVICES                                          Submit electronic comments in the
                                                  CSUs sold and the number of units sold                                                                        following way:
                                                  in recent years;                                        Food and Drug Administration
                                                                                                                                                                  • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
                                                    • the number of CSUs in use;                                                                                https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
                                                    • studies, tests, or descriptions of                  21 CFR Part 15
                                                                                                                                                                instructions for submitting comments.
                                                  technologies or design changes that                     [Docket No. FDA–2017–N–6529]                          Comments submitted electronically,
                                                  address tip-over injuries and estimates                                                                       including attachments, to https://
                                                  of costs associated with those features,                The Food and Drug Administration’s                    www.regulations.gov will be posted to
                                                  including manufacturing costs and                       Approach To Evaluating Nicotine                       the docket unchanged. Because your
                                                  wholesale prices;                                       Replacement Therapies; Public                         comment will be made public, you are
                                                    • the expected impact of technologies                 Hearing; Request for Comments                         solely responsible for ensuring that your
                                                  or design changes that address tip-over                                                                       comment does not include any
                                                  injuries on manufacturing costs or                      AGENCY:    Food and Drug Administration,
                                                                                                          HHS.                                                  confidential information that you or a
                                                  wholesale prices;                                                                                             third party may not wish to be posted,
                                                    • the potential impact of design                      ACTION: Notification of public hearing;
                                                                                                          request for comments.                                 such as medical information, your or
                                                  changes to address CSU stability on                                                                           anyone else’s Social Security number, or
                                                  consumer utility; and                                   SUMMARY:    The Food and Drug                         confidential business information, such
                                                    • information about whether any                       Administration (FDA or the Agency) is                 as a manufacturing process. Please note
                                                  stability requirements for CSUs in ether                announcing a public hearing on FDA’s                  that if you include your name, contact
                                                  a voluntary standard or potential                       approach to evaluating the safety and                 information, or other information that
                                                  mandatory rule could have a disparate                   efficacy of nicotine replacement therapy              identifies you in the body of your
                                                  impact on small entities, such as small                 (NRT) products, including how they                    comments, that information will be
                                                  manufacturers or importers.                             should be used and labeled.                           posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
                                                    In addition, the Commission invites                   DATES: The public hearing will be held                  • If you want to submit a comment
                                                  interested parties to submit any existing               on Friday, January 26, 2018, from 9 a.m.              with confidential information that you
                                                  standards, or portions of them, for                     to 5 p.m. The public hearing may be                   do not wish to be made available to the
                                                  consideration as a consumer product                     extended or may end early depending                   public, submit the comment as a
                                                  safety standard. The Commission also                    on the level of public participation.                 written/paper submission and in the
                                                  invites interested persons to submit a                  Persons seeking to attend or to present               manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper
                                                  statement of intention to modify or                     at the public hearing must register by                Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’).
                                                  develop a voluntary consumer product                    Tuesday, January 2, 2018. Section II
                                                  safety standard addressing the risk of                  provides attendance and registration                  Written/Paper Submissions
                                                  injury associated with CSU tip overs,                   information. Electronic or written                      Submit written/paper submissions as
                                                  including a description of the plan to                  comments will be accepted after the                   follows:
                                                  develop or modify such a standard.                      public hearing until Thursday, February                 • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for
                                                    Please submit comments in                             15, 2018.                                             written/paper submissions): Dockets
                                                  accordance with the instructions in the                 ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be                 Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and
                                                  ADDRESSES section at the beginning of                   held at the FDA White Oak Campus,                     Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
                                                  this ANPR.                                              10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31                    Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
                                                  Alberta E. Mills,                                       Conference Center, the Great Room A,                    • For written/paper comments
                                                  Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety               Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002.                         submitted to the Dockets Management
                                                  Commission.                                             Entrance for public hearing participants              Staff, FDA will post your comment, as
                                                  [FR Doc. 2017–25779 Filed 11–29–17; 8:45 am]            (non-FDA employees) is through                        well as any attachments, except for
                                                                                                          Building 1 where routine security check               information submitted, marked, and
                                                  BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
                                                                                                          procedures will be performed. For                     identified as confidential if submitted as
                                                                                                          parking and security information, please              detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’
                                                                                                          refer to https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/                  Instructions: All submissions received
                                                  DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY                                                                                          must include the Docket No. FDA–
                                                                                                          WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/
                                                  Federal Energy Regulatory                               WhiteOakCampusInformation/                            2017–N–6529 for ‘‘FDA’s Approach to
                                                  Commission                                              ucm241740.htm.                                        Evaluating Nicotine Replacement
                                                                                                             You may submit comments as                         Therapies’’; Public Hearing; Request for
                                                  18 CFR Part 40                                          follows. Please note that late, untimely              Comments. Received comments will be
                                                                                                          filed comments will not be considered.                placed in the docket and, except for
                                                  [Docket No. RM16–22–000]                                Electronic comments must be submitted                 those submitted as ‘‘Confidential
                                                                                                          on or before February 15, 2018. The                   Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at
                                                  Coordination of Protection Systems for                  https://www.regulations.gov electronic                https://www.regulations.gov or at the
                                                  Performance During Faults and                           filing system will accept comments                    Division of Dockets Management
                                                  Specific Training for Personnel                         until midnight Eastern Time at the end                between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
                                                  Reliability Standards                                   of February 15, 2018. Comments                        through Friday.
nshattuck on DSK9F9SC42PROD with PROPOSALS




                                                  Correction                                              received by mail/hand delivery/courier                  • Confidential Submissions—To
                                                                                                          (for written/paper submissions) will be               submit a comment with confidential
                                                    Proposed Rule document 2017–25586                     considered timely if they are                         information that you do not wish to be
                                                  beginning on page 56186 was                             postmarked or the delivery service                    made publicly available, submit your
                                                  incorrectly published in the issue of                   acceptance receipt is on or before that               comments only as a written/paper
                                                  Tuesday, November 28, 2017.                             date.                                                 submission. You should submit two
                                                  [FR Doc. C1–2017–25586 Filed 11–29–17; 8:45 am]            You may submit comments as                         copies total. One copy will include the
                                                  BILLING CODE 1505–01–D                                  follows:                                              information you claim to be confidential


                                             VerDate Sep<11>2014   15:27 Nov 29, 2017   Jkt 244001   PO 00000   Frm 00011   Fmt 4702   Sfmt 4702   E:\FR\FM\30NOP1.SGM   30NOP1



Document Created: 2017-11-30 00:34:43
Document Modified: 2017-11-30 00:34:43
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionProposed Rules
ActionAdvance notice of proposed rulemaking.
DatesSubmit comments by January 29, 2018.
ContactMichael Taylor, Project Manager, Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: (301) 987-2338; email: [email protected]
FR Citation82 FR 56752 

2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR