Section 1261.8 - Findings(a)General. Section 9(f) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058(f) ) requires the Commission to make findings concerning the following topics and to include the findings in the rule. Because the findings are required to be published in the rule, they reflect the information that was available to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission, CPSC) when the standard was issued on November 25, 2022.(b)Degree and nature of the risk of injury. The standard is designed to reduce the risk of death an injury from clothing storage units tipping over onto children. The Commission has identified 199 clothing storage unit tip-over fatalities to children that were reported to have occurred between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2022. There were an estimated 60,100 injuries, an annual average of 3,800 estimated injuries, to children related to clothing storage unit tip overs that were treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2021. Injuries to children, resulting from clothing storage units tipping over, include soft tissue injuries, skeletal injuries and bone fractures, and fatalities resulting from skull fractures, closed-head injuries, compressional and mechanical asphyxia, and internal organ crushing leading to hemorrhage.(c)Number of consumer products subject to the rule. In 2021, there were approximately 229.94 million clothing storage units in use and about 20.64 million clothing storage units sold.(d)The need of the public for clothing storage units and the effects of the rule on their cost, availability, and utility.(1) Consumers commonly use clothing storage units to store clothing in their homes. The standard requires clothing storage units to meet a minimum stability threshold, but does not restrict the design of clothing storage units. As such, clothing storage units that meet the standard would continue to serve the purpose of storing clothing in consumers' homes. There may be a negative effect on the utility of clothing storage units if products that comply with the standard are less convenient to use. Another potential effect on utility could occur if, in order to comply with the standard, manufacturers modify clothing storage units to eliminate certain desired characteristics or styles, or discontinue models. However, this loss of utility would be mitigated to the extent that other clothing storage units with similar characteristics and features are available that comply with the standard.(2) Retail prices of clothing storage units vary widely. The least expensive units retail for less than $100, while some more expensive units retail for several thousand dollars. CPSC estimates that the cost, per unit, to modify a clothing storage unit to comply with the rule is between $10.21 and $17.64, which includes the cost to redesign, modify (labor and materials), and test. Clothing storage unit prices may increase to reflect the added cost of modifying or redesigning products to comply with the standard, or to account for increased distribution costs. In addition, consumers may incur a cost in the form of additional time to assemble clothing storage units if additional safety features are included.(3) If the costs associated with redesigning or modifying a clothing storage unit model to comply with the standard results in the manufacturer discontinuing that model, there would be some loss in availability of clothing storage units.(e)Other means to achieve the objective of the rule while minimizing adverse effects on competition, manufacturing, and commercial practices.(1) The Commission considered alternatives to achieving the objective of the rule of reducing unreasonable risks of injury and death associated with clothing storage unit tip overs. For example, the Commission considered relying on voluntary recalls, anti-tip devices, compliance with the voluntary standard, and education campaigns, rather than issuing a standard. This alternative would have minimal costs; however, it is unlikely to further reduce the risk of injury from clothing storage unit tip overs because the Commission has relied on these efforts to date.(2) The Commission also considered issuing a standard that requires only performance and technical data, with no performance requirements for stability. This would impose lower costs on manufacturers, but is unlikely to adequately reduce the risk of injury from clothing storage unit tip overs because it relies on manufacturers choosing to offer more stable units; consumer assessment of their need for more stable units (which CPSC's research indicates consumers underestimate); and does not account for units outside a child's home or purchased before a child was born.(3) The Commission also considered mandating a standard like the voluntary standard, but replacing the 50-pound test weight with a 60-pound test weight. This alternative would be less costly than the rule because many clothing storage units already meet such a requirement, and it would likely cost less to modify noncompliant units to meet this less stringent standard. However, this alternative is unlikely to adequately reduce the risk of clothing storage unit tip overs because it does not account for factors that are present in tip-over incidents that contribute to clothing storage unit instability, including multiple open and filled drawers, carpeting, and forces generated by a child interacting with the unit.(4) Another alternative the Commission considered was providing a longer effective date. This may reduce the costs of the rule by spreading them over a longer period, but it would also delay the benefits of the rule, in the form of reduced deaths and injuries.(f)Unreasonable risk.(1) Incident data indicates that there were 234 reported tip-over fatalities involving clothing storage units that were reported to have occurred between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2022, of which 199 involved children, 11 involved adults, and 24 involved seniors. Of the reported child fatalities, 86 percent (171 fatalities) involved children 3 years old or younger.(2) There were an estimated 84,100 injuries, an annual average of 5,300 estimated injuries, related to clothing storage unit tip overs that were treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2021. Of these, 72 percent (60,100) were to children, which is an annual average of 3,800 estimated injuries to children over the 16-year period. In addition, there were approximately 58,351 tip-over injuries involving clothing storage units and children treated in other settings from 2007 through 2021, or an average of 3,890 per year. Therefore, combined, there were an estimated 103,100 nonfatal, medically attended tip-over injuries to children from clothing storage units during the years 2007 through 2021.(3) Injuries to children when clothing storage units tip over can be serious. They include fatal injuries resulting from skull fractures, closed-head injuries, compressional and mechanical asphyxia, and internal organ crushing leading to hemorrhage; they also include serious nonfatal injuries, including skeletal injuries and bone fractures.(g)Public interest. This rule is intended to address an unreasonable risk of injury and death posed by clothing storage units tipping over. The Commission believes that adherence to the requirements of the rule will significantly reduce clothing storage unit tip-over deaths and injuries in the future; thus, the rule is in the public interest.(h)Voluntary standards. The Commission is aware of four voluntary and international standards that are applicable to clothing storage units: ASTM F2057-19, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units (incorporated by reference, see § 1261.5(c) ) ; AS/NZS 4935: 2009, the Australian/New Zealand Standard for Domestic furniture-Freestanding chests of drawers, wardrobes and bookshelves/bookcases-determination of stability; ISO 7171 (2019), the International Organization for Standardization International Standard for Furniture-Storage Units-Determination of stability; and EN14749 (2016), the European Standard, European Standard for Domestic and kitchen storage units and worktops-Safety requirements and test methods. The Commission finds that these standards are not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury associated with clothing storage unit tip overs because they do not account for the multiple factors that are commonly present simultaneously during clothing storage unit tip-over incidents and that testing indicates decrease the stability of clothing storage units. These factors include multiple open and filled drawers, carpeted flooring, and dynamic forces generated by children's interactions with the clothing storage unit, such as climbing or pulling on the top drawer.(i)Relationship of benefits to costs. The aggregate benefits of the rule are estimated to be about $307.17 million annually and the cost of the rule is estimated to be about $250.90 during the first year the rule is in effect. Based on this analysis, the Commission finds that the benefits expected from the rule bear a reasonable relationship to the anticipated costs of the rule.(j)Least burdensome requirement that would adequately reduce the risk of injury.(1) The Commission considered less-burdensome alternatives to the rule, but concluded that none of these alternatives would adequately reduce the risk of injury.(2) The Commission considered relying on voluntary recalls, anti-tip devices, compliance with the voluntary standard, and education campaigns, rather than issuing a mandatory standard. This alternative would be less burdensome by having minimal costs, but would be unlikely to reduce the risk of injury from clothing storage unit tip overs. The Commission has relied on these efforts to date, but despite these efforts, there continue to be a high number of child injuries from clothing storage unit tip overs.(3) The Commission considered issuing a standard that requires only performance and technical data, with no performance requirements for stability. This would be less burdensome by imposing lower costs on manufacturers, but is unlikely to adequately reduce the risk of injury because it relies on manufacturers choosing to offer more stable units; consumer assessment of their need for more stable units (which CPSC's research indicates consumers underestimate); and does not account for clothing storage units outside a child's home or purchased before a child was born.(4) The Commission considered mandating a standard like ASTM F2057-19, Standard Consumer Safety Specification for Clothing Storage Units (incorporated by reference, see § 1261.5(c) ), but replacing the 50-pound test weight with a 60-pound test weight. This alternative would be less burdensome than the rule because many clothing storage units already meet such a requirement, and it would likely cost less to modify noncompliant units to meet this less stringent standard. However, this alternative is unlikely to adequately reduce the risk of tip overs because it does not account for several factors that are simultaneously present in clothing storage unit tip-over incidents and contribute to instability, including multiple open and filled drawers, carpeting, and forces generated by a child interacting with the unit.(5) The Commission considered providing a longer effective date. This may reduce the cost burden of the rule by spreading the costs over a longer period, but it would also delay the benefits of the rule, in the form of reduced deaths and injuries.(6) Therefore, the Commission concludes that the rule is the least burdensome requirement that would adequately reduce the risk of injury.