16 CFR Part 1634

Tuesday,
March 4, 2008
Part II
Consumer Product
Safety Commission
16 CFR Part 1634
Standard for the Flammability of
Residential Upholstered Furniture;
Proposed Rule
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:09 Mar 03, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\04MRP2.SGM 04MRP2
11702 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY Commission asks commenters to defer action on the cigarette ignition
COMMISSION provide copies of such comments to the portion of the 1993 NASFM petition
Commission’s Office of the Secretary, pending a decision on open flame
16 CFR Part 1634 with a caption or cover letter identifying ignition. On October 5, 2001, NASFM
the materials as comments submitted to withdrew the portion of the petition
Standard for the Flammability of OMB on the proposed collection of seeking Commission action with respect
Residential Upholstered Furniture information requirements for the to cigarette-ignited fires.
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety proposed upholstered furniture In July of 2003 the CPSC staff
Commission. flammability standard. recommended that the Commission
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The public may also request an issue an ANPR to expand the
opportunity to present comments orally. upholstered furniture proceeding to
SUMMARY: The United States Consumer Such requests should be submitted to address ignition of upholstered
Product Safety Commission the Office of the Secretary of the furniture by both small open flames and
(‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘CPSC’’) is proposing Commission by e-mail, mail, fax or in by smoldering cigarettes. The
flammability standards for residential person at the addresses or phone Commission accepted the staff’s
upholstered furniture under the numbers listed above for the CPSC. recommendation, and the ANPR was
Flammable Fabrics Act (‘‘FFA’’). The FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale published on October 23, 2003. 68 FR
proposal would establish performance R. Ray, Project Manager, Directorate for 60,619. The 2003 ANPR sought
requirements and certification and Economic Analysis, Consumer Product comment on issues relating to the kinds
labeling requirements for upholstered Safety Commission, 4330 East West of standard provisions that might best
furniture. Manufacturers of upholstered Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; address the upholstered furniture fire
furniture would choose one of two telephone (301) 504–7704. risk in its entirety.
possible methods of compliance: They SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission received 13 written
could use cover materials that are comments during the 60-day formal
sufficiently smolder resistant to meet a A. Background comment period following publication
cigarette ignition performance test; or Regulatory/technical activity. In 1993 of the ANPR. Interested parties
they could place fire barriers that meet the National Association of State Fire subsequently provided additional
smoldering and open flame resistance Marshals (‘‘NASFM’’) petitioned the written submissions in the form of
tests between the cover fabric and Commission to issue regulations under letters, position statements or
interior filling materials. Manufacturers the FFA addressing upholstered presentations of technical data at
of upholstered furniture would be furniture fire risks. NASFM requested meetings. A detailed discussion of
required to certify compliance with the that the Commission adopt three significant comments received is
standard and to comply with certain existing state of California standards. provided in Section G of this preamble.
recordkeeping requirements as specified The Commission granted the petition In October 2004, the staff held a public
in the proposal. in part, and issued an advance notice of meeting to present the direction of what
DATES: Comments in response to this proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) on June would become the staff’s 2005 draft
document must be received by the 15, 1994 on the specific risk of small standard. The staff analyzed comments
Commission not later than May 19, open flame-ignited fires. 59 FR 30,735 received at that meeting as well. The
2008. (1994). The Commission denied the proposed standard takes account of that
Comments on elements of the petition with respect to large open analysis. Staff received comments on its
proposed rule that, if issued in final flame-ignited fires, and deferred action 2005 draft standard, continued its
form would constitute collection of on the petition with respect to cigarette- research and analysis and developed a
information requirements under the ignited fires pending a CPSC staff revised, 2007 draft proposal that
Paperwork Reduction Act, may be filed evaluation of: (1) The level of voluntary focused primarily on preventing
with the Office of Management and conformance to existing voluntary smoldering ignitions and reducing the
Budget (‘‘OMB’’) and with the industry guidelines, and (2) the overall need for flame retardant chemicals.1
Commission. Comments will be level of cigarette ignition resistance This notice presents the 2007 draft as
received by OMB until May 5, 2008. among products on the market. the Commission’s proposed standard.2
ADDRESSES: Comments should be filed Following issuance of the 1994 ANPR, Overview of the proposed standard.
by e-mail to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. CPSC staff developed a draft The proposed standard establishes two
Comments also may be filed by performance standard and a test method possible approaches. Upholstered
telefacsimile to (301) 504–0127 or to evaluate the small open flame furniture can meet the proposed
mailed, preferably in five copies, to the performance of upholstered furniture. In standard by having either (1) upholstery
Office of the Secretary, Consumer October 1997, the staff forwarded a cover material that complies with the
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East briefing package to the Commission prescribed smoldering ignition
West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, or concluding that a small open flame
1 The Commission staff briefing package
delivered to the Office of the Secretary, standard was feasible and could
discussing this proposal, Briefing Package:
Consumer Product Safety Commission, effectively reduce the risk to consumers, Regulatory Alternatives for Upholstered Furniture
Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, including both small open flame and Flammability, November 2007, (the ‘‘Staff Briefing
Bethesda, Maryland; telephone (301) cigarette ignitions. The staff Package’’) is available on the Internet at: http://
recommended that the Commission www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia08/brief/
504–7530. Comments should be
briefing.html. Copies may also be requested from

captioned ‘‘Upholstered Furniture defer action until the agency could the Commission’s Office of the Secretary at the
NPR.’’ gather additional scientific information address shown above.
Comments to OMB should be directed to ensure that flame retardant (‘‘FR’’) 2 Acting Chairman Nancy Nord and
to the Desk Officer for the Consumer upholstery fabric treatments that Commissioner Thomas H. Moore issued statements
which are available from the Commission’s Office
Product Safety Commission, Office of manufacturers might use would not of the Secretary (see ADDRESSES section of this
Information and Regulatory Affairs, result in adverse health effects. The staff notice) or from the Commission’s Web site,
OMB, Washington, DC 20503. The recommended that the Commission http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/statements.html.
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 11703
resistance test (referred to as ‘‘Type I’’ persons to present their views orally. Id. sold solely for use in hotels and other
furniture) or (2) an interior fire barrier 1193(d). short-term lodging and hospitality
that complies with specified smoldering The Commission cannot issue a final establishments; futons, flip chairs, the
and small open flame ignition resistance rule unless it makes certain findings and mattress portions of sleep sofas, and
tests (‘‘Type II’’ furniture). No includes these in the regulation. The non-furniture infant or juvenile
requirements are prescribed for filling Commission must find: (1) If an products such as walkers, strollers, high
materials. The standard would become applicable voluntary standard has been chairs or pillows.
effective one year after issued in final adopted and implemented, that Commission staff estimates that the
form and would apply to upholstered compliance with the voluntary standard proposed standard would affect more
furniture manufactured or imported on is not likely to adequately reduce the than 1,600 manufacturers and importers
or after that date. risk of injury, or compliance with the of upholstered furniture and the 100–
The performance tests prescribed in voluntary standard is not likely to be 200 textile manufacturers that derive a
the proposed standard are conducted substantial; (2) that benefits expected significant share of their revenues from
with the tested material installed in from the regulation bear a reasonable household furniture fabrics. The staff
mockups that simulate the intersection relationship to its costs; and (3) that the estimates that the average useful life of
of the seating area of an item of regulation imposes the least upholstered furniture ranges from 15 to
upholstered furniture. In addition to the burdensome alternative that would 17 years. Assuming that the expected
material under test, the mockup is adequately reduce the risk of injury. 15 life of a piece of upholstered furniture
assembled using standardized U.S.C. 1193(j)(2). In addition, the is about 16 years, the average number of
upholstery test materials as defined in Commission must find that the standard upholstered furniture items in
the proposed standard. (1) is needed to adequately protect the household use during 2002–2004 was
Manufacturers (including importers) public against the risk of the occurrence about 447 million pieces. Upholstered
of upholstered furniture would be of fire leading to death, injury or furniture products and manufacturers
required to certify that the article of significant property damage, (2) is are discussed in greater detail in section
upholstered furniture complies with the reasonable, technologically practicable, H, Preliminary Regulatory Analysis, of
proposed standard and to maintain and appropriate, (3) is limited to fabrics, this preamble.
records demonstrating compliance with related materials or products which The top four companies accounted for
the applicable portions of the proposed present unreasonable risks, and (4) is nearly 35 percent of the total value of
standard. Upholstered furniture subject stated in objective terms. Id. 1193(b). household upholstered furniture
to the proposed standard would be shipments in 2002; the 50 largest
required to be labeled with information C. The Product companies accounted for about 67
identifying the manufacturer, the date of The proposed standard applies to percent. The industry also includes
manufacture, the item and type of residential upholstered furniture. The many small companies. The staff
furniture, and a statement certifying that proposal specifically requires testing of estimates that nearly all of the affected
the article complies with applicable cover fabrics and, alternatively, barrier firms (over 97 percent) would be
requirements of the standard. materials if they are used as a means of classified as small businesses under
complying with the proposed standard. Small Business Administration
B. Statutory Authority Upholstered furniture is defined for guidelines. The staff’s initial analysis of
This proceeding is conducted purposes of the proposed standard to the potential impact of the proposed
pursuant to Section 4 of the Flammable include articles of interior seating standard on such ‘‘small entities’’ is
Fabrics Act (‘‘FFA’’), which authorizes furnishing intended for indoor use in a provided in section I., Initial Regulatory
the Commission to initiate proceedings home or other residential occupancy Flexibility Analysis, of this preamble.
for a flammability standard when it that: (1) Consist in whole or in part of As discussed in section D of this
finds that such a standard is ‘‘needed to resilient cushioning materials (such as preamble, the majority of deaths and
protect the public against unreasonable foam, batting, or related materials) injuries resulting from fires involving
risk of the occurrence of fire leading to covered by fabric or related materials; upholstered furniture were started by
death or personal injury, or significant and (2) are constructed with a smoldering ignition sources (such as
property damage.’’ 15 U.S.C. 1193(a). contiguous upholstered seat and back or cigarettes). The staff’s test data show
Section 4 also sets forth the process arms. Included within the definition are that furniture covered with
by which the Commission may issue a products that are intended or promoted predominantly cellulosic fabrics (such
flammability standard. As required in for indoor residential use for sitting or as cotton and rayon) is much more
section 4(g), the Commission has issued reclining upon, such as: Chairs, sofas, likely to be involved in cigarette-ignited
an ANPR. 68 FR 60629. 15 U.S.C. motion furniture, sleep sofas, home fires than furniture covered with
1193(g). The Commission has reviewed office furniture customarily offered for predominantly thermoplastic fabrics
the comments submitted in response to sale through retailers or otherwise (such as polyester, polyolefin, and
the ANPR and now is issuing a notice available for residential use, and nylon). The proposed standard focuses
of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) upholstered furniture intended for use primarily on reducing deaths and
containing the text of the proposed rule in dormitories or other residential injuries from smoldering ignited fires.
along with alternatives the Commission occupancies. Items excluded from the Staff estimates that about 14 percent of
has considered and a preliminary definition are: Furniture, such as patio currently-produced furniture items are
regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C. 1193(i). chairs, intended solely for outdoor use; likely to fail the proposed standard’s
The Commission will consider furniture without contiguous smoldering ignition test for cover
comments provided in response to the upholstered seating and backs and/or fabrics. These would primarily be items
NPR and decide whether to issue a final arm surfaces, such as ottomans, pillows constructed with certain predominantly
rule along with a final regulatory or pads that are not sold with the article cellulosic fabrics; staff believes most of
analysis. Id. 1193(j). The FFA also of furniture; commercial or industrial these fabrics could be modified to meet
requires that when issuing a standard or furniture not offered for sale through the proposed standard. Staff anticipates
regulation the Commission must retailers or not otherwise available for that most manufacturers are likely to
provide an opportunity for interested residential use; furniture intended or bring these furniture items into
compliance by modifying the physical and Thermal Insulation (BHFTI) also been incorporated into some state
characteristics of the cover fabrics rather released a draft revision of TB–117. This and local fire codes. Some industry
than by using flame retardant (FR) fabric draft revision contained upgraded groups have suggested that the
treatments. Alternatively, manufacturers performance requirements for small Commission should adopt the UFAC
would have the option to meet the open flame ignition resistance of filling program as a proposed rule. As
proposed standard by using barrier materials, and a cover material test discussed in section G.1 of this
materials that pass open flame and similar to that developed by the preamble, the Commission concludes
smoldering ignition tests rather than Commission staff in its 2001 draft small that mandating the UFAC guidelines
changing the cover fabric. open flame standard. The TB–117 would have little effect on reducing
smoldering resistance provisions were deaths and injuries related to
D. Risk of Injury
not changed. upholstered furniture fires.
Annual estimates of national fires and The California BHFTI has not
fire losses involving ignition of proposed amendments to TB–117 to F. The Proposed Standard
upholstered furniture are based on data incorporate the 2002 draft revision. The In developing the proposed
from the U.S. Fire Administration’s BHFTI’s comment on the Commission’s flammability standard to address
National Fire Incident Reporting System October 23, 2003 ANPR expressed ignitions of residential upholstered
(‘‘NFIRS’’) and the National Fire support for a uniform national standard. furniture, the Commission considered
Protection Administration’s (‘‘NFPA’’) BHFTI recommended that the the available hazard information,
annual survey of fire departments. Commission consider adopting existing standards development
National fire loss estimates for 2002– appropriate elements of the 2002 draft research together with the latest CPSC
2004 indicated that upholstered revised TB–117 into a proposed laboratory data, and technical
furniture was the first item to ignite in Commission rule. The proposed information developed by other
an average 7,800 residential fires standard contains some requirements organizations. Economic, health and
attended by the fire service annually similar to provisions of TB–117. environmental factors were also
during that period. These fires resulted considered.
in an average of 540 deaths, 870 injuries 2. United Kingdom Regulations
and $250 million in property loss each The U.K. Department of Trade and 1. Scope
year. Industry (‘‘DTI’’) enforces the U.K. The proposed standard contains
Of these fires, the staff considers an Furniture and Furnishings flammability performance requirements
estimated 3,500 fires, 280 deaths, 500 (Flammability) Regulations, issued in for most residential upholstered
injuries, and $112 million property loss 1990. These regulations contain furniture. The proposed standard
annually to be addressable by the smoldering and open flame resistance applies to:
proposed standard. Addressable here requirements for residential upholstered • Residential seating products
means the incidents were of a type that furniture based on test methods in intended for indoor use and constructed
would be affected by the proposed British Standard BS 5852. The CPSC with contiguous upholstered seats and
standard (i.e., a fire that ignited proposed standard’s fire barrier open backs, such as chairs and sofas
upholstered furniture and that had a flame test uses the apparatus and (including motion furniture and sleep
smoking material or small open flame ignition source from the U.K. sofas);
heat source). Approximately 90% of regulations. • Some home office furniture sold
estimated deaths, 65% of estimated through retailers or otherwise available
injuries and 59% of property damage 3. Voluntary Standards Activity
for household use; and
resulted from ignition by smoking Since the Commission’s original • Upholstered furniture used in
materials, almost always cigarettes. The ANPR on upholstered furniture was dormitories or other residential
remaining addressable fires were started published in 1994, industry groups have occupancies.
by small open flame sources. Among the been encouraged to develop voluntary The proposed standard does not apply
addressable casualties, smoking flammability requirements through a to:
materials accounted for about 260 recognized standards organization. The • Outdoor furniture, such as patio
deaths and 320 injuries annually. Small Upholstered Furniture Action Council chairs;
open flame fires accounted for about 30 (‘‘UFAC’’) voluntary industry program • Articles without contiguous
deaths and 170 injuries annually.3 of cigarette ignition tests developed in upholstered seating surfaces, such as
the 1970s is embodied in ASTM E–1353 ottomans, decorative pillows or pads,
E. Other Upholstered Furniture
and other voluntary test methods. and many office chairs and dining
Flammability Standards
Commission staff estimates voluntary chairs;
1. California Regulatory Activity UFAC conformance at about 90% of • Commercial or industrial furniture
California Technical Bulletin 117 furniture production. The UFAC not intended or sold for household use;
(‘‘TB–117’’), the mandatory regulation voluntary program does not address • Furniture intended or sold solely
for all upholstered furniture sold in that small open flame ignitions. Aspects of for use in hotels and other temporary
state, contains both smoldering and the UFAC cigarette ignition resistance lodging and hospitality establishments;
small open flame resistance test methods, California BHF Technical • Futons, flip chairs, and the mattress
performance requirements. Complying Bulletins (TB) 116, 117, and 133, and components of sleep sofas; and
upholstered furniture is generally British Standard BS–5852 have been • Non-furniture juvenile products
similar to furniture sold in other states, adopted by various consensus voluntary such as walkers, strollers, high chairs
except that California furniture is standards organizations and industry and pillows.
typically made with FR resilient foam groups, including ASTM International,
the International Standards 2. General Requirements
filling materials. In early 2002, the
California Bureau of Home Furnishings Organization, the National Fire The proposed standard addresses
Protection Association and the Business resistance to ignition and limited fire
3 Numbers do not add up to totals due to and Institutional Furniture growth by means of performance tests
rounding. Manufacturers of America, and have for cover fabrics and, alternatively, for
barriers. The principal performance 5. Interior Fire Barrier Open Flame specifying the location and month and
requirements of the proposed standard Resistance Test year of manufacture and model and lot
are intended to reduce the risk of fire The proposed standard also contains number or other identifier applicable to
from smoldering ignition. If barriers are provisions for the open flame resistance the item. This information would be
chosen as the means of compliance, of barriers. In addition to providing required to be separate from other label
they must meet both small open flame protection from small flame ignition, the information. The label would help
and smoldering resistance requirements. open flame performance test contributes retailers and consumers identify
The proposal adapts elements and products in the event of a recall or other
to the protection of materials from the
variations of existing standards, corrective action.
progression of smoldering to flaming
including California Technical Bulletin combustion. G. Response to Comments on the ANPR
117, ASTM E–1353 (tests from the In this test, the barrier is placed and Subsequent Submissions
UFAC voluntary industry guidelines) between a standard rayon cover fabric The Commission received 13 written
and United Kingdom regulations (based and standard foam substrate on a metal comments during the 60-day formal
on British Standard BS–5852). test frame. An open flame ignition comment period following publication
source is applied to the seat/back of the ANPR in October 2003. Since that
The upholstered furniture tests are
crevice of the mockup. The mockup time, interested parties provided about
conducted using seating mockups of
must not exceed 20% mass loss by the 20 additional written submissions in the
fabric and filling materials. The goal is end of the 45 minute test. Again, 10
to reduce the smolder propensity of form of letters, position statements or
initial samples are tested. If there is a technical presentations at public
cover materials and limit the mass loss failure with any of the 10 specimens, an
from combustion (smoldering, melting, meetings. Further, the staff held or
additional 20 specimens are tested, and attended several public meetings with
or flaming) of the mockup’s interior at least 25 of the 30 must meet the stakeholders to discuss issues of
filling materials. Pass/fail criteria are criteria for the sample barrier to pass. interest.
based on maximum acceptable Many of the public comments
combustion time and mass loss 6. Administrative Requirements
addressed similar issues. These issues
percentages within a 45 minute test In addition to flammability generally involved: (a) The scope, test
period. performance requirements, the proposed methods and acceptance criteria of a
standard contains provisions relating to possible proposed rule; (b) the potential
3. Cover Fabric Smoldering Resistance certification and recordkeeping, testing
Test benefits and costs of various
to support guaranties, and labeling of alternatives; and (c) the potential use of
In this test, fabrics are tested in finished articles of upholstered flame retardant (FR) chemicals to
combination with a standard furniture. These requirements are comply with those alternatives. Some of
intended to help manufacturers, the comments dealt specifically with the
polyurethane foam substrate. A lighted
importers and suppliers ensure that staff’s 2001 and 2005 draft standards,
cigarette is placed in the seat/back
their products comply, and to help the options that contained more open flame
crevice of the mockup and is allowed to
CPSC staff enforce the proposed performance requirements for
burn its entire length. The mockup must performance standard. These provisions
not continue to smolder at the end of upholstery materials than the proposed
are contained in Subpart B of the rule. A few of the comments dealt with
the 45 minute test or transition to proposed standard. the staff’s 2007 draft proposal, which
flaming at any time during the test, and Under § 8 of the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1197, became the agency’s proposed standard.
the foam substrate must not exceed the producers of finished articles of The Commission considered all of the
mass loss limit of 10%. Ten initial upholstered furniture, i.e., comments received since 2003 in
specimens are tested. If the 10 initial manufacturers and importers, may rely developing the proposed rule.
specimens meet these criteria, the cover on guaranties of compliance issued by
fabric sample passes. If there is a failure material suppliers to avoid criminal 1. Scope and Test Methods
in any one of the 10 initial specimens, prosecution in certain instances. Comment. Several industry,
the test must be repeated on an However, manufacturers and importers government and fire safety organizations
additional 20 specimens. At least 25 of are ultimately responsible under the provided comments on the general
the 30 specimens must meet the criteria. proposal for compliance of the scope of a standard, mainly with respect
upholstered furniture products they to cigarette versus open flame ignition
4. Interior Fire Barrier Smoldering produce and introduce into commerce. performance.
Resistance Test It is unlawful under the FFA to provide Under the 2003 ANPR, the staff
In this test, the barrier is placed a false guaranty. While there are no developed multiple draft standards
specific sampling or production testing containing both smoldering and open
between a standard foam substrate and
requirements in the proposed standard, flame requirements. The proposed rule
a standard cotton velvet cover fabric. A
the FFA requires that any guaranties be places primary emphasis on smoldering
lighted cigarette is placed in the seat/ ignition resistance, as a substantial
supported by reasonable and
back crevice of the mockup. The foam representative tests sufficient to majority of upholstered furniture-related
substrate must not exceed 1% mass loss establish that production units of deaths, injuries and property losses
by the end of the 45 minute test, and the materials meet the applicable tests. result from smoldering fires. Several
mockup must not transition to open The proposed standard requires that furniture industry groups commented
flaming at any time during the test. Ten each finished article of upholstered that the fire risk associated with open
initial specimens are tested. If all 10 furniture carry a permanent label: (1) flame ignition has become so small that
initial specimens meet these criteria, the Containing a statement certifying that it regulation in that area is unnecessary.
barrier sample passes. If any one of the complies with the standard, identifying They also commented that the science
ten fails, an additional 20 specimens are the ‘‘Type’’ of furniture (i.e., Type I or of open flame ignition behavior is so
tested, and at least 25 of the 30 must Type II); (2) identifying the complex that substantial further
meet the criteria. manufacturer or importer; and (3) research would be needed to support
any reasonable conclusions about the injuries could be averted, even under flame performance requirements for
effectiveness and technical adequacy of highly effective open flame barriers; these barriers must protect
any performance requirements. In requirements. The Commission notes, interior filling materials from smolder-
addition, they opposed open flame however, that large numbers of deaths prone fabrics that may otherwise cause
ignition requirements on the basis that and injuries remain. Since a substantial furniture to transition from smoldering
compliance costs would be majority of these losses result from to flaming combustion.
unreasonably high. These groups cigarette-ignited fires, the Commission
recommended that the Commission agrees that a rule with primary 2. Standardized Test Materials
proceed with rulemaking on smoldering emphasis on smoldering can have Comment. In addition to the CPSC
ignition only, and that CPSC adopt the substantial safety benefits. Based on
performance tests in the ASTM/UFAC staff’s extensive studies on the
CPSC’s laboratory research, the
voluntary guidelines in the proposed suitability of various standard test
Commission also agrees that the ASTM/
rule. materials, industry groups contributed
UFAC test method provides a useful
Other stakeholders, including basis for a standard, but does not agree research and submitted comments on
representatives of fire safety that the ASTM/UFAC tests as the performance of standard cover
organizations, state government and implemented in the UFAC voluntary fabrics and standard polyurethane
chemical industry groups, program would adequately achieve foams specified in the CPSC staff’s draft
recommended that a federal rule contain those benefits. While UFAC has standards. Both the staff and industry
both smoldering and open flame contributed to fire safety by encouraging noted the potential effects of
requirements, and stated that solutions the use of smolder-resistant materials, interdependency of standard test
are technically and economically the program allows the use of smolder- materials, and the potential impact on
feasible. Some commenters opposed any prone cover fabrics with polyurethane test results of the observed variability in
course that would reduce the current foam, and allows highly smolder-prone the performance of certain test
level of safety provided by the existing fabrics in combination with more materials. This variability chiefly
California regulation, Technical Bulletin smolder-resistant materials (e.g., related to a standard cotton velvet fabric
(TB) 117. Other industry groups polyester batting) underneath. These specified in the open flame tests of the
supported adoption of a smoldering conforming combinations are not always CPSC staff’s 2005 draft standard; to a
standard and eventual consideration of adequate to prevent fire growth from lesser extent, variability was observed in
open flame requirements in the future. smoldering ignitions. the behavior of the standard FR test
The California Bureau of Home foam used in the smoldering tests of the
Furnishings and Thermal Insulation CPSC laboratory testing demonstrated
that smolder-prone fabrics can defeat staff’s 2005 draft. The comments
(BHFTI) recommended that CPSC
the inherent smolder resistance of generally recommended changes to the
consider adopting elements of the draft
polyester batting, and that furniture standard test materials or the test
revised TB–117 published by BHFTI in
2002. mockup assemblies with highly methods to eliminate the undesirable
In 2004, an industry ‘‘coalition’’ of smolder-prone fabrics can transition effects of standard material variability.
furniture producers and material from smoldering to flaming combustion Response. The staff’s research
suppliers developed a set of over time. Further, some lower-priced concluded that the variability identified
performance requirements for furniture may use UFAC-conforming but in the performance of the standard
Commission consideration. The smolder-prone fabrics without smolder fabric (and, in some cases, the standard
coalition proposal included: a small resistant batting. In addition, the UFAC non-FR foam) could adversely affect the
open flame test for cover fabrics, based tests may not be adequate to
repeatability and reproducibility of
on a modification of the Commission’s characterize the smoldering behavior of
open flame tests, and could yield
Standard for the Flammability of all upholstery materials; for example,
unacceptably inconsistent results.
Clothing Textiles (16 CFR Part 1610); UFAC’s vertical char length
Similar inconsistencies were observed
smoldering and open flame tests for performance metric does not always
reflect the downward burning that in the standard FR foam used in
filling materials, based on the 2002 draft smoldering tests. Therefore, the staff
revision of California TB–117; an open typically occurs in polyurethane foam
fillings. Additionally, the ASTM/UFAC revised the qualification requirements
flame test for fibrous (non-foam) for standard test materials to ensure
‘‘cushion wraps,’’ based on an existing method employs a draft-limiting
enclosure that was designed to improve consistency. Further, in view of the
U.K. regulation provision; ASTM/UFAC
test repeatability but artificially restricts hazard data and the complexity
smoldering tests for cushion wraps; and
burning of the most smolder-prone (including standard materials
an unspecified barrier test to be
developed by CPSC. The staff evaluated fabrics. The non-time-limited UFAC variability) of the open flame tests, the
the industry coalition proposal and tests may also adversely affect the proposed rule eliminates the open flame
questioned the effectiveness of some of repeatability of the test results. The tests for filling materials entirely, and
the performance elements. Coalition Commission concludes that adopting retains standard fabrics for barrier tests
members withdrew support for their the ASTM/UFAC tests without only. This approach not only simplifies
proposal in 2005 as the CPSC staff was significant modification would have the proposed standard, but also
continuing its evaluation and little effect on currently-produced eliminates the interdependency and
considering other alternatives. upholstered furniture, and would variability issues raised by the
Response. The Commission therefore probably have negligible safety commenters. The standard cotton velvet
recognizes that estimated residential benefits beyond those already achieved test fabric performs consistently in
upholstered furniture fire losses have under the voluntary industry program. barrier smoldering tests, as does the
declined over time, and that relatively Thus, the proposed rule has smoldering standard rayon test fabric in barrier
few losses—e.g., about 10% of the ignition requirements that are somewhat open flame tests. Since FR foam would
addressable deaths—are attributable to different from, and more stringent than, not be needed to comply with the
open flame-ignited fires. Thus, those of the UFAC guidelines. The proposed rule, the rule specifies only
relatively few open flame deaths and proposed standard also contains open standard non-FR foam in all tests.
3. Stringency of Requirements resistance of synthetic filling materials 5. Potential Benefits and Costs
Comment. Some industry groups like polyurethane foam or polyester
batting. Thus, the proposed Comment. Some industry groups
opposed the CPSC staff’s 2005 draft submitted comments about the CPSC
standard’s open flame filling material requirements are applied to those
materials whose ignition behavior is the staff’s draft preliminary regulatory
tests in the absence of an open flame analysis of potential benefits and costs
fabric test, and asserted that the 2005 primary contributor to the risk.
associated with various regulatory
draft’s smoldering and open flame The proposed standard would not alternatives. Most of these comments
filling material requirements were too prohibit fabric suppliers from using FR- were from organizations that opposed
stringent for some lower-density foams treated fabrics to comply. However, various aspects of the CPSC staff’s 2005
to meet, even with FR treatment. furniture and textile industry draft standard; some of the comments
Furniture industry commenters representatives have stated a desire to related to the staff’s draft proposal that
subsequently opposed any requirements avoid such products for aesthetic and became the proposed standard.
that would be more stringent than those cost reasons. Given the availability of
The comments on the staff’s analysis
of the UFAC guidelines. Many non-FR alternatives, it is unlikely that
of the 2005 draft standard generally
commenters supported the concept of a fabric suppliers would use the FR
asserted that the staff had overestimated
barrier test option to afford flexibility to treatments they said consumers would
potential benefits and understated
manufacturers and fabric suppliers, reject.
potential costs. A 2006 furniture
although some furniture industry groups The Commission agrees that reduced industry report on the staff’s analysis of
opposed an open flame requirement for ignition propensity cigarettes may be an the 2005 draft standard and alternatives
barriers and supported the UFAC effective means of reducing consumer criticized the statistical methodology
smoldering requirement instead. product-related smoldering fires. Such used to develop national fire loss
Regarding the staff’s 2007 draft proposal reductions would likely occur estimates, and recommended different
that became this proposed standard, irrespective of CPSC action on methods that would generally result in
some commenters argued that the upholstered furniture. An increasing lower estimates of potential benefits of
stringent fabric smoldering number of states (and Canada) have a flammability rule. The report also
requirements would require substantial ‘‘fire safe cigarette’’ laws that now questioned other aspects of the staff’s
re-engineering or FR treatment of require or will require that only estimation of potential economic
fabrics. A number of commenters also reduced-IP cigarettes be available for benefits of a standard, positing that staff
recommended that CPSC study the sale. Complying cigarettes would likely overstated benefits by using
effectiveness of reduced ignition reduce, but would not eliminate, the effectiveness estimates and value-of-life
propensity (IP), or ‘‘fire-safe,’’ cigarettes risk of smoldering ignited upholstered estimates that were too high, discount
before proposing any flammability furniture fires. The extent of any such rates that were too low, and incorrect
requirements for upholstered furniture. reduction is unknown. The staff has assumptions about the distribution of
Response. Many of these comments initiated a study to review available smolder-prone furniture fabrics among
pertained to specific provisions of the state data and to conduct laboratory smoking vs. non-smoking households.
open flame requirements of the CPSC tests to evaluate the reduction in
staff’s 2005 draft standard. The The 2006 industry report also asserted
smoldering ignition propensity that the staff understated costs to filling
proposed standard does not contain associated with reduced-IP cigarettes
open flame requirements for fabrics or material suppliers and furniture
compared to conventional cigarettes. manufacturers and importers, and
fillings. As noted previously, CPSC’s This work will help the Commission
laboratory research on smoldering recommended that the staff’s sensitivity
evaluate the potential effect of reduced- analysis consider all combinations of
ignition indicates that several elements IP cigarettes on upholstered furniture
of the ASTM/UFAC voluntary approach factors affecting benefits and costs
fire losses. unless those factors were mutually
would not be very effective at reducing
the risk. The UFAC guidelines allow 4. Large Scale Validation Testing exclusive. Manufacturers of
smolder-prone combinations of polyurethane foam raised some of the
upholstery materials that would not Comment. Some stakeholders same cost issues, and discussed
adequately limit fire growth, either from recommended that CPSC establish a anticipated difficulties in producing
smoldering or transition to flaming correlation between its bench scale tests consistently-complying foams at the
combustion. Since the proposed rule in the proposed rule and the lower densities often used in
relies substantially on cover fabrics or performance of complying materials in upholstered arms and other areas of
barriers to protect interior filling larger or ‘‘full’’ scale tests that more furniture.
materials, the proposed standard reasonably represent the seating areas of Regarding the CPSC staff’s 2007 draft
contains very stringent smoldering finished articles of upholstered proposal, some textile industry
requirements, and requires that barriers furniture. These large scale tests would representatives criticized the emphasis
provide protection regardless of cover help validate the results and potential on cover fabric performance, and
fabric ignitability. effectiveness of the bench scale tests. expressed concern that the standard
The Commission agrees that a Response. The Commission agrees would not regulate filling material
significant proportion of predominantly that large scale testing is a valuable performance. They also expressed
cellulosic fabrics (i.e., chiefly cotton source of information to help concern that difficulties in modifying
fiber content) would have to be demonstrate the increased safety the many fabrics, combined with the cost of
modified or eliminated under the proposed standard would provide. To ‘‘double-upholstering’’ furniture to
proposed standard. The Commission supplement the CPSC staff’s bench scale incorporate interior barriers, may lead
notes that these fabrics are the most testing and limited large scale testing suppliers to use FR treatments to
smolder-prone materials used in performed previously, the staff plans to comply. One report prepared for an
upholstered furniture, and that many sponsor such large scale tests. The environmental group recommended that
smolder-prone fabrics can sometimes Commission can use the results of these CPSC include in its analysis of the 2007
overwhelm the inherent smolder tests in developing a possible final rule. draft estimates of economic losses from
increased cancer risks associated with the U.K. regulations to a CPSC rule. proposed standard. Cost estimates were
FR filling material additives. Further, the sensitivity analysis in the generally reported directly as provided
Several stakeholders recommended preliminary regulatory analysis by firms in the industry sectors affected
that CPSC consider the effect of reduced accounts for uncertainty in the although some cost estimates varied
ignition propensity (IP), or ‘‘fire-safe’’ estimates. significantly among firms. The
cigarettes on the potential benefits of a The Commission staff estimated the preliminary regulatory analysis
possible upholstered furniture present value of future safety benefits recognized several areas of cost concern,
flammability standard. One report using discount rates (3% and 7%) including low-density polyurethane
prepared for an environmental group recommended by the Office of foam and loose filling materials (for the
presented an alternative calculation of Management and Budget in its guidance staff’s 2005 draft standard) and certain
benefits incorporating some different on regulatory analyses. Also, CPSC’s 100% cotton fabrics (for the 2007 draft).
assumptions about reduced-IP cigarette statistical value of life estimate ($5 The staff analysis noted that while most
effectiveness than those made by the million) and sensitivity analysis range upholstered furniture fabrics would
CPSC staff in 2006. Some industry ($3–7 million) is consistent with values meet the proposed standard without
commenters suggested that as reduced- cited in the economic literature and modification, more than half of all
IP cigarettes came into wider use, a widely used in regulatory decision- predominantly cellulosic fabrics may
standard for upholstered furniture making. fail the proposed standard fabric
would no longer have net benefits to the Regarding the distribution of smoldering test. These smolder-prone
public. upholstered furniture constructed with fabrics are typically used with synthetic
Response. Regarding fire loss smolder prone fabrics among smoking filling materials that would otherwise be
estimation methodologies, the CPSC vs. non-smoking households, the generally smolder resistant; thus, the
staff noted several biases and errors in preliminary regulatory analysis assumed proposed standard targets those fabrics
the industry report’s approach that that furniture fabric types are contributing most to the risk of
would misrepresent the estimates of fire distributed evenly among households. smoldering ignition.
losses. The 2006 industry report’s Smolder prone fabrics are often, but not The staff also noted that some of the
criticism of the staff’s method did not always, used on the very high-priced, more expensive decorator fabrics that
consider the proper allocation of fire decorator furniture more commonly would fail the proposed fabric
incidents with unknown fire causes. found in higher-income households that smoldering test already are used in
Further, the indirect estimating method tend less often to be smoking furniture that employs multiple layers
recommended by the industry report households. However, anticipated of upholstery materials, or ‘‘double
incorrectly used estimates of the market trends include potential future upholstering.’’ Decorative fabric
number of fires to estimate death and increases in predominantly-cotton suppliers have long supported a barrier
injuries, thereby introducing bias and fabrics in more moderately-priced option for use with non-complying
understating deaths. The CPSC staff’s furniture, especially among imports, fabrics. For most articles of upholstered
method correctly used death and injury which tends to be lower in price than furniture, the barrier option
counts weighted with probability-based domestic products. To the extent that incorporated into the proposed standard
estimates for fire deaths and injuries. furniture with smolder prone fabrics is would involve substituting complying
Another method suggested by the more often found in higher-income barriers for existing interior fabrics or
industry report wrongly excluded some households with lower smoking battings; this would amount to a ‘‘drop-
in-scope deaths from the body of data prevalence, the benefits of a in replacement’’ of existing components
used to make the estimates. The use of flammability rule could be reduced for most barriered furniture, and would
these recommended alternative methods somewhat. The preliminary regulatory not require significant additional
would significantly understate fire analysis notes in its sensitivity analysis assembly labor costs.
losses, and would thereby understate that the likely impact on benefits would The preliminary regulatory analysis
the potential benefits of a flammability be small. estimates costs based on the assumption
rule. The sensitivity analysis in the that some or all non-complying fabrics
Regarding benefits projections, the preliminary regulatory analysis not used with barriers would be FR
preliminary regulatory analysis of the considers the impact of a variety of treated; however, it is unlikely that a
proposed rule estimated the monetary factors on potential benefits and costs. significant proportion of fabrics would
value of potential benefits using Varying more than one factor at a time actually be treated; thus, material costs
estimates of effectiveness based on is generally appropriate when those may be lower than estimated in the
CPSC laboratory tests of upholstered factors are highly correlated, rather than analysis. Compliance costs associated
furniture mockup assemblies whenever they are not mutually with re-engineering some heavier-
constructed with ignition resistant exclusive, as the 2006 industry report weight, 100% cellulosic fiber fabrics
fabrics or barriers, and using suggested. The sensitivity analysis does may be significant for some firms,
adjustments to reflect the projected mix take into account some combinations of although fiber content modifications are
of products on the market and other factors, but not all factors that could made routinely by producers
factors. Large scale tests will help conceivably affect benefits and costs. (sometimes as often as every six
support the effectiveness estimates. However, even if all of the combinations months) to reflect style trends in the
However, the Commission staff has of possible factors were considered market. Blended-fiber fabrics in
ample experience to date with together, estimated net benefits of the particular could probably be readily
upholstery material testing to estimate proposed standard would still total $100 modified without difficulty or
that the proposed rule would likely be million or more from a year’s significant disruption.
highly effective (about 60%) at reducing production of complying upholstered Under the staff’s draft 2005 standard,
fire deaths, injuries and property furniture. FR foam fillings would likely be used to
damage. Even considering the The staff considered likely cost comply. One of the FRs currently used
effectiveness estimates for the CPSC impacts on fabric, filling material and in foams meeting the existing California
staff’s 2005 draft standard, there is no other upholstery material suppliers in TB–117 may pose cancer and non-
basis for applying effectiveness rates for analyzing the potential impacts of the cancer chronic health risks. Pending
further study of these and other FR humans, and since there is a lack of data identified significant data gaps; the risk
chemicals, the preliminary regulatory on some aspects of the potential effects assessment further indicated that
analysis of alternatives assumed that on human health and environmental another currently used filling material
hazardous FRs would not be used to risks, the Commission should not FR may present both cancer and non-
comply, and therefore did not include a encourage the use of these chemicals. cancer risks to consumers. On the other
calculation of possible disbenefits Some of these groups supported the hand, the CPSC staff’s health risk
associated with potential use of any furniture industry position that CPSC assessment for barriers concluded that
potentially hazardous filling material should impose only smoldering ignition several commercially available
FRs. The proposed standard would not requirements, on the presumption that technologies, including inherently-FR
require the use of any FRs in foam or FRs would not be needed to meet these fiber products, could be used without
other interior filling materials. requirements. The environmental presenting appreciable health risks to
The Commission considered the groups strongly supported the staff’s the public.
potential impact of reduced-IP 2007 draft proposal that became this Under the proposed standard, neither
cigarettes, and continues to study this proposed standard. fabrics nor filling materials would need
matter. State requirements for such Furniture and filling material to incorporate FR additives to achieve
cigarettes may reduce upholstered producers opposed significant increases compliance. While FR-treated fabrics
furniture fire losses over time in FR usage on the basis that their would not be prohibited, many fabric
irrespective of CPSC action. The extent workers could be exposed to more FRs suppliers have indicated they would
of the reduction is unknown. The released from component materials. likely either modify the fiber content or
preliminary regulatory analysis does They were also concerned that state and construction of their most smolder
specifically account for possible risk local environmental regulations may prone fabrics, or continue to offer non-
reductions associated with reduced-IP curtail the availability of economically complying fabrics for use exclusively
cigarettes. If, for example, reduced-IP feasible FRs and may adversely affect with complying barriers in the finished
cigarettes reduced the level of benefits manufacturers’ ability to recycle scrap article of furniture. Thus, the
of the proposed rule to half the materials. Furniture and fabric Commission anticipates that FR fabrics
estimated level, then projected net manufacturers also contended that, in would be the least likely means of
benefits would be reduced from $367– view of recent adverse publicity, compliance with the proposed rule.
387 million to $155–177 million per consumers would prefer not to risk Barriers could incorporate FR
year’s worth of complying furniture exposure to potentially toxic FRs. Some treatments, but barrier suppliers have
production. Even at a 70% benefit representatives of fabric suppliers have reported that they would likely offer
reduction, estimated net benefits of the also expressed concern that any smolder inherently-FR fiber materials that do not
proposed rule would still approach resistance requirements more stringent pose a risk of potential exposure for
$100 million. than those in the UFAC voluntary upholstered furniture applications,
guidelines would force many firms to similar to those products designed to
6. Potential Use of FR Chemicals
use FR treatments on predominantly meet the Commission’s open flame rule
Comment. The Commission received cotton fabrics to comply. for mattresses (16 CFR part 1633).
a number of comments either opposing Chemical producers stated that safe Barriers are projected to be used in only
or supporting the potential use of FR and effective FR solutions are available about 5% of all upholstered furniture;
chemical technologies to meet a to address the furniture risk. They noted most of this usage would be in designer
possible flammability rule. Most of that non-halogenated alternatives for or higher-priced furniture for which the
these comments related to the staff’s filling materials are currently being relatively higher cost of barriers would
previous, 2005 draft standard, which offered or developed, as are ‘‘inherently- not be a significant factor.
would have required that resilient, FR’’ fiber barriers that do not present a The Commission plans to monitor the
fibrous and loose filling materials significant likelihood of consumer progress of ongoing studies on FR
(typically made of polyurethane foam or exposure. chemicals and to consider the results of
polyester fiber) be open flame resistant. Response. CPSC developed the those studies as the regulatory process
Some comments specifically opposed proposed standard mindful of the continues. At the request of the staff, the
the use of polybrominated diphenyl continuing uncertainty about potential National Toxicology Program (NTP) of
ethers (PBDEs), and cited studies on the health and environmental effects of FR the Department of Health and Human
potential health and environmental chemical usage, with an objective of Services has undertaken a review of
risks related to these compounds. At achieving significant reductions in fire several FRs that could be used to meet
least one of the major filling material deaths and injuries from upholstered CPSC flammability rules. The NTP
FRs, penta-BDE, that was previously furniture fires caused by smoking review will be a relatively long-term
used to meet California TB–117’s open materials while minimizing reliance on project that contributes to the overall
flame requirements, has been FR additives in fabrics and filling level of knowledge about FR chemicals
discontinued. While most fillings would materials to meet that objective. While among scientists and regulators.
be FR-treated under the 2005 draft, the the available scientific data are
proposed standard does not contain sufficient to show that some FRs would H. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
filling material requirements, and FR not present significant health or The Commission has preliminarily
additives would not be needed to environmental risks, the Commission determined to issue a rule establishing
comply. agrees that insufficient data are a flammability standard addressing the
Some environmental groups opposed available to be reasonably sure that ignition of upholstered furniture.
any new regulations that may add to the other FRs would not present health risks Section 4(i) of the FFA requires that the
environmental burden of FR chemicals, if used in upholstered furniture. The Commission prepare a preliminary
especially halogenated FRs containing staff’s health risk assessment for foam regulatory analysis for this action and
bromine or chlorine. They contended filling materials concluded that the that it be published with the proposed
that since some FRs are persistent in the polyurethane foam FR most widely used rule. 15 U.S.C. 1193(i). The following
environment, bioaccumulative in to meet California TB–117 may not discussion, extracted from the staff’s
animals and potentially toxic to present chemical risks to consumers but memorandum titled ‘‘Preliminary
Regulatory Analysis of a Draft Proposed affected products include upholstered it acquired were previously part of
Flammability Rule to Address Ignitions metal frame, reed, and rattan furniture. number four-ranked LifeStyle
of Upholstered Furniture,’’ addresses Products referred to as ‘‘Household Furnishings, International, Ltd.
this requirement. Upholstered Furniture’’ by the Census The industry also includes many
Bureau are classified in code 337121 of small companies and establishments.
1. Introduction the North American Industrial The 2002 Economic Census reports that
The history of this rulemaking is Classification System (NAICS). This only 29 percent of upholstered furniture
discussed in Section A, Background, of classification includes production of establishments (564 of 1,946) had 20 or
this preamble. This Preliminary upholstered furniture on frames made of more employees, and only 10 percent
Regulatory Analysis discusses the wood, metal, or other materials, as well (200 establishments) had 100 or more.
impacts of provisions specified in the as dual-purpose sleep furniture, such as By some measures, such as the U.S.
Commission’s proposed standard for convertible sofa beds. The 2002 Small Business Administration’s
upholstered furniture. It provides Economic Census reports that 1,686 U.S. (SBA’s) definition for qualification for
information on the products and companies (with 1,946 establishments) small business loans, a furniture
industries that are likely to be affected manufactured upholstered household manufacturing company is considered
by actions taken to reduce upholstered furniture or dual-purpose sleep to be ‘‘small’’ if it has fewer than 500
furniture fires. The analysis also furniture as their primary product.4 employees (at all of its establishments).
discusses potential costs and benefits Many other firms may also produce This definition encompassed more than
associated with requirements of the upholstered furniture as secondary 97 percent of firms in the industry in
proposed standard and reasonable products. 2002.7
alternatives. This analysis also discusses The Economic Census reports that the Exports of upholstered furniture had
potential effects on small firms and value of shipments of upholstered a value of about $285 million in 2005,
other market impacts. household furniture by U.S. firms in or almost 3 percent of the total value of
2002 was $10.3 billion. The Annual shipments.8 The value of imports of
2. The Proposed Standard: Scope and Survey of Manufactures reported value products categorized by the Census
Provisions of product shipments of $10.0 billion in Bureau as NAICS 337121 was $2,792
The proposed standard contains 2003 and $9.55 billion in 2004.5 The million in 2005.9 Therefore, there were
smoldering ignition performance value of product shipments for 2005 net imports of about $2.5 billion. With
requirements for cover fabrics, and was reported by the Census Bureau to estimated domestic shipments of $9.9
smoldering and open flame performance have totaled $9.9 billion. billion, these net imports resulted in
requirements for interior fire barriers (if Although there are a large number of total apparent consumption of
they are used as the method of upholstered furniture manufacturers, upholstered furniture in 2005 (domestic
compliance). The proposed standard the top four companies accounted for shipments plus imports, minus the
applies to finished or ready-to-assemble nearly 35 percent of the total value of value of exports) of about $12.4 billion.
household upholstered furniture Imports have grown in recent years,
articles of upholstered furniture (such as
shipments in 2002 (the latest year for accounting for about 22 percent of the
upholstered sofas, loveseats, sofa beds,
which industry concentration ratio data value of total apparent consumption of
rockers, recliners, and other chairs) that
are available); the 50 largest companies residential upholstered furniture in
are: primarily intended for indoor use in
accounted for about 67 percent.6 2005. By way of comparison, about 10
residences; constructed with an
Reports from the trade press indicate percent of the value of apparent
upholstered seating area, comprised of a
that the industry has become more consumption of upholstered household
contiguous upholstered seat and back or
concentrated in the last ten years. furniture in 1999 was imported. The
arm(s); and manufactured or imported
Several firms have ceased operations; leading country of origin is China,
after the effective date.
others have merged with larger which accounted for about 52 percent of
The proposed standard offers the value of imports in 2005 and nearly
manufacturers two alternative methods companies through buyouts. The
consolidation included Furniture 63 percent of the value of imports in
to produce complying furniture. 2006. Mexico accounted for about 11
Furniture items can comply by being Brands International’s acquisition of
HDM Furniture Industries (which percent of imports in 2006; Italy about
made with upholstery cover materials 8 percent, and; Canada about 5 percent.
that pass the cover material smoldering included Henredon and Drexel Heritage)
in 2001, and La-Z-Boy’s acquisition of These four countries accounted for 86
ignition resistance test (designated as percent of the total value of imported
‘‘Type I upholstered furniture’’ in the Ladd in January 2000 and Bauhaus and
Alexvale in 1999. La-Z-Boy is the upholstered furniture in 2006.
proposed standard). Alternatively, The importance of China as a source
manufacturers may comply with the number one upholstered furniture
manufacturer (by dollar volume), and for imports has grown significantly in
proposed standard by using a barrier recent years. China supplanted Italy as
material under the upholstery fabric that Ladd, Bauhaus, and Alexvale all
previously ranked in the top 30. the leading country of origin in 2003,
passes the standard’s applicable barrier and by 2006 the value of imports from
tests (‘‘Type II upholstered furniture’’). Furniture Brands International is the
second-leading domestic manufacturer China was almost 6 times that of the
This option allows manufacturers to use second-ranked country of origin,
non-complying upholstery fabrics. of upholstered furniture, and companies
Mexico. Italy had been the number one
3. Products and Industries Potentially 4 U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of source for upholstered furniture imports
Affected
Commerce, 2002 Economic Census, report EC02–

311–337121, ‘‘Upholstered Household Furniture 7 Based on 2002 firm size data compiled by the
The largest class of furniture products Manufacturing: 2002,’’ September 2004. United States Small Business Administration’s
that would be affected is upholstered 5 U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Office of Advocacy which is available online at
Commerce, Value of Product Shipments: 2005, http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html.
furniture on wood frames and dual
Annual Survey of Manufactures, November 2006. 8 U.S. Department of Commerce data.
purpose sleep furniture such as sofa 6 U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of 9 U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S.
beds, commonly bought for use in living Commerce, 2002 Economic Census, report EC02– International Trade Commission data (c.i.f. cost
rooms and family rooms. Other types of 31SR–1, ‘‘Concentration Ratios: 2002,’’ May 2006. basis).
for many years. The majority of units upholstered dining furniture. Given the furniture.14 This number includes
from both China and Italy in 2004 limitations of the market data, the textile mills that produce finished
reportedly were upholstered in number of dining chairs produced upholstery fabric and textile finishers
leather.10 Although much of the gain in annually that fall within the scope of that purchase unfinished goods and
China’s market share has been at the the proposed standard cannot be perform additional processes, such as
expense of Italian imports, some of the estimated with much precision, printing and dyeing. Like the
furniture imported from China is from although the total number of units is upholstered furniture manufacturing
plants that have been established by thought to be relatively small. industry, the 1990s saw consolidation of
several major Italian firms. China has Annual domestic retail sales of all firms specializing in upholstery fabric
been the leading source of wood (non- types of living room and family room production, with larger firms buying out
upholstered) furniture imports and its upholstered furniture total about 30 to competitors or divisions of competitors.
growth as a source of upholstered 33 million units with a value of over However, in just the last few years the
furniture is expected to continue. $20 billion. Furniture manufacturers, U.S. industry has been shaken by the
In addition to affecting manufacturers especially smaller firms, commonly decreased demand for domestically-
of residential upholstered furniture market their products through produced fabric as a result of increased
typically found in living room and independent sales representatives who competition from imported upholstery
family rooms, the proposed standard provide information on the market, and fabric, the increased popularity of
also includes dining room and kitchen get and service new retail accounts for leather upholstery, and the dramatic
chairs within its scope if they are made manufacturers. Recently, some increase in consumption of upholstered
with contiguously upholstered seats and manufacturers have reduced their furniture imported from China. One of
backs. Similarly upholstered desk chairs reliance on independent representatives the largest marketers of upholstery
purchased for household use are also by employing their own salespeople. fabrics in the U.S. reported that the
covered by the standard. Dining chairs Besides purchasing from trend to greater foreign competition and
are generally products of firms classified manufacturers through independent the entry of more converters of
in the wood household furniture sales representatives or the upholstery fabric (companies that
industry, NAICS 337122. The Economic manufacturers’ own sales staff, retailers purchase and resell fabrics) has resulted
Census reports that 4.8 million wood may purchase furniture from wholesale in greater fragmentation of the
dining room chairs were shipped in furniture distributors. These upholstery fabric industry in recent
1997, with a value of shipments totaling wholesalers purchase from perhaps 25 years, with lower barriers to entry, and
about $526 million. In 2002, shipments to 30 manufacturers of different types an increase in competition based on
fell to 2.9 million chairs, with a value and styles of furniture. The sales staffs price.15
of about $446 million. The decline in of the wholesalers then call on retailers Interior fabric revenues of the top 10
domestic shipments is attributable to within their areas. Dealing through local
firms totaled more than $1.9 billion in
significant increases in imports of wood wholesalers that stock an assortment of
2002, based on a trade press survey.16
furniture from China and other furniture, and that also offer competitive
These revenues included sales of fabrics
countries. prices, credit, and other services, is
other than those used in residential
Census data are not reported advantageous to many retailers,
upholstery. A similar survey found that
separately for upholstered and non- particularly smaller firms.12
According to the 2002 Census of the top 10 upholstery fabric mills had
upholstered dining chairs. In 1994, an
Retail Trade, 19,403 retail combined revenues from interior fabric
industry-sponsored study surveyed
establishments carried upholstered shipments of $2.4 billion.17 In addition
participants in the voluntary industry
furniture as a product line.13 Retail to declining sales for the leading U.S.
program to improve the cigarette
ignition resistance of furniture that was prices of upholstered furniture fall into upholstery fabric manufacturers, the
developed by the Upholstered Furniture a very broad range, depending on difficult state of the industry is
Action Council (UFAC). Among the materials and manufacturing techniques evidenced by recent bankruptcies of
firms surveyed were manufacturers of used. Larger retailers are more likely to firms that were once industry leaders,
upholstered dining room and kitchen purchase directly from furniture such as Joan Fabrics (previously the
seating. The study report estimated that manufacturers, and smaller firms are number one upholstery manufacturer)
the total value of shipments of such more likely to purchase through and Quaker Fabric (previously the
furniture that complied with the UFAC wholesale distributors. Increasingly in number three firm). Both of these firms
Program (and, therefore, had recent years, retailers have reportedly ceased operations and their production
upholstered seats) was about $250 devoted more floor space to private facilities were liquidated in 2007.
million for 1993.11 Based on the value labeled furniture imported directly from Textile mills that make upholstery
of 1992 shipments ($580 million), foreign manufacturers. In response, fabrics as their primary products are
perhaps 3 to 4 million upholstered several of the larger domestic furniture included in the North American NAICS
dining chairs were shipped by these manufacturers have opened or code 313210. Of 663 firms in NAICS
UFAC participants. A great majority of expanded their own retail outlets. 313210 in 2002, only 63 (about 10
these items may not have had A review of trade publications percent) had 500 or more employees.
upholstered backs, or they had indicates that approximately 100 to 200 About 65 percent of the firms had fewer
upholstered backs that were not domestic manufacturers derive a 14 Including the Directory of Manufacturers
contiguous with upholstered seats. significant share of their revenues from published by the former industry association, the
Other firms that are not participants in fabric for residential upholstered American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI).
the UFAC Program also manufacture 15 Culp, Inc., Annual Company report for the
12 Handbook of Furniture Manufacturing & fiscal year ended April 29, 2007.
10 Industryanalyst, Jerry Epperson, reported in Marketing, Volume 9, Wholesaling, AKTRIN 16 ‘‘U.S. fabric producers still standing despite
Furniture Today, December 12, 2005. p. 66. Research Institute and High Point University, May import wave.’’ Furniture/Today, Cahners
11 Heiden Associates, Inc., ‘‘Report on Survey of 1994. Publishing, Greensboro, NC, June 2, 2003.
UFAC Members re: Compliance with Upholstered 13 U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of 17 ‘‘Mastercraft buy puts Joan at top.’’ Furniture/
Furniture Cigarette Ignition Flammability Commerce, 2002 Economic Census, report EC02– Today, Cahners Publishing, Greensboro, NC, June
Standard,’’ December 15, 1994. 441–09 ‘‘Furniture Stores: 2002,’’ August 2004. 1998.
than 20 employees.18 The SBA percent of all furniture upholstery (located primarily in China) have
considers firms with fewer than 1,000 materials used in 2001. Therefore, total expanded operations and imports of
employees to be small businesses for the upholstery use for the domestic upholstery fabrics have grown
purposes of programs administered by manufacture of residential upholstered substantially.
that agency. Although these data are furniture was about 333 million linear Much of the foreign production is
indicative of the sizes of firms involved yards. Estimates of total annual from facilities that are owned or
in the production of furniture upholstery fabric consumption based on operated in partnership with U.S. textile
upholstery fabrics, NAICS 313210 average requirements for chairs and firms. For example, Culp, Inc., reported
encompasses many firms that produce sofas/loveseats are 225 million linear that almost 60 percent of their sales of
fabrics other than furniture upholstery. yards.23 upholstery fabrics in their fiscal year
Nevertheless, it is likely that nearly all The U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic ended April 29, 2007, consisted of
manufacturers of upholstery fabrics Census report, Upholstered Household fabrics produced in plants outside the
could be considered small businesses Furniture Manufacturing: 2002, U.S., compared to 17 percent of sales
under SBA guidelines. included information on the costs of just two years before.27 Culp owns and
Fabric finishers also tend to be small. upholstery fabrics and other materials operates four upholstery plants in
Finishers are firms that receive used in the production of upholstered Shanghai, China, and markets other
unfinished fabrics (‘‘greige goods’’ or household furniture in that year. The fabrics from third party sources which
‘‘gray goods’’) and perform additional report placed the delivered cost of are also located in China. The firm only
manufacturing processes (e.g., printing, woven cotton upholstery fabrics has one remaining upholstery fabric
dyeing, backcoating, needle-punching, (excluding ticking) at $312 million and plant in the U.S., down from fourteen in
and stain-guarding). Fabrics may be the delivered cost of other woven 2000.28 Culp’s experience in shifting
purchased by the finishers, or finished upholstery fabrics, such as those made production to foreign plants has also
under contract to other firms that of rayon, nylon, and polyester been reported by other U.S. upholstery
supply the fabrics. Fabric finishers are (excluding ticking) at $802 million.24 fabric manufacturers. In January 2007
classified in NAICS code 313311. Of The combined total delivered cost of Richloom Fabrics Group shifted
1,016 broadwoven fabric finishing firms upholstery fabric of $1,114 million was production of its Berkshire Weaving
in NAICS 313311 in 2002, only 30 (3 about 22 percent of the total delivered upholstery line from its South Carolina
percent) had 500 or more employees.19 cost of all materials used in upholstered plant to a facility in Shanghai.29 Quaker
Only a few firms currently apply FR furniture manufacturing in 2002 (which Fabric Corporation also entered into
treatments to upholstery fabrics. was, according to the Census Bureau, business agreements in recent years
The U.S. Census Bureau reported that $5,107 million). Other upholstery cover with Asian firms to produce fabrics it
U.S. upholstery fabric production in materials include leather, which is not designs. Quaker estimated that,
2004 was 284 million square yards industry-wide, about 42 percent of total
reported as a separate material category
(which is the equivalent of 189 million domestic upholstery fabric sales
by the Bureau of the Census, and coated
linear yards).20 This production was 43 (excluding automotive fabrics) were
and laminated fabrics, which had a
percent lower than 2002’s reported imported in 2004, versus only 11
delivered cost of about $185 million in
production of 499 million square yards percent in 2002. The company’s
2002. In its 2007 Annual Report, La-Z-
(332 million linear yards) of upholstery management believed it was likely that
Boy, the largest manufacturer of
fabric.21 The number of looms in the trend continued, and it estimated
upholstered furniture in the U.S.,
operation for the production of these that about 60 percent of furniture
reported that purchased cover materials
fabrics totaled 2,610 at the end of 2004, upholstery fabric sales were imported
(primarily fabric and leather) accounted
down 20 percent from 3,098 looms at by the end of 2006.30 As noted above,
for about 28 percent of the total cost of
the end of 2002. The major end-use Quaker Fabric, which had long been a
raw materials for its upholstery group.25
markets for upholstery production are in major U.S. producer of upholstery
Until recent years, relatively little
upholstered furniture and automobile fabric, could not successfully adjust its
upholstery fabric was imported. A
manufacturing. Upholstery fabrics are operations to meet the recent market
report by Keyser Ciprus, Ltd., estimated
also used in the manufacture of window shifts, and the firm liquidated its
that 8 million linear yards of residential
treatments and other home textiles. operations in 2007.
upholstery fabric were imported in At least until recent years, exports of
Based on a survey of upholstered
1997. That accounted for approximately upholstery fabric were significant for
furniture manufacturers by Ciprus, Ltd.,
2 percent of total consumption of many U.S. manufacturers. In the late
about 233 million linear yards of
upholstery fabric for residential 1990s as much as 20 percent of the
upholstery fabric were consumed in the
furniture production in that year.26 upholstery fabric production by U.S.
production of household furniture in
2001.22 This total does not include However, as noted above, foreign manufacturers in recent years may have
upholstery fabric production facilities been exported. As noted above, more
leather and vinyl upholstery, which are
estimated to have comprised about 30 23 According to industry sources, an average of
upholstery fabric is being imported from
approximately 7 linear yards of fabric is needed to
China and other foreign sources in more
18 Based on 2002 firm size data compiled by the
upholster chairs and 11 to 15 yards are needed for recent years, and some major U.S. fabric
United States Small Business Administration’s sofas. Based on about 31.5 million annual unit
Office of Advocacy which is available online at shipments (of which perhaps about 53 percent are 27 Culp, Inc. Annual company report for the fiscal
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html. sofas, sofabeds, and loveseats and about 47 percent year ended April 29, 2007. (Reportedly includes
19 Ibid. are other chairs), estimated annual upholstery fabrics produced at Culp’s Shanghai manufacturing
material requirements are about 321 million linear plant and production sourced from other Asian
20 U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports,
Broadwoven Fabrics (Gray): 2004. MQ313T(04)–5. yards (about 217 million yards for sofas, sofabeds firms.)
June 2005. and loveseats plus 104 million yards for chairs). 28 Culp, Inc. Annual company report for the fiscal
24 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census,
21 U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, year ended April 23, 2000.
Broadwoven Fabrics (Gray): 2002. MQ313T(02)–5. Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing: 29 Andrews, Susan M. ‘‘Richloom moves
June 2003. 2002, EC02–311–313311. September 2004. production to China.’’ Furniture/Today, December
22 Ciprus Limited, LLC. The North American 25 La-Z-Boy, Inc. Annual Report for the Fiscal 18, 2006.
Market for Contract & Residential Upholstery Year Ended April 28, 2007 (Form 10–K.) Page 5. 30 Quaker Fabric Corp. Annual Report for the
Fabric, 2001. 26 Keyser Ciprus Limited, op. cit., p. 40. Fiscal Year Ended December 30, 2006 (Form 10–K.).
manufacturers have established 2006 Ciprus Limited survey, cellulosic the Department of Commerce in the
production facilities in China, or have fabrics currently account for about 25 Annual Survey of Manufactures.37
established business relationships with percent of upholstered furniture The CPSC’s Product Population
Chinese firms to produce fabrics to their upholstery covering materials. Model uses sales data and information
specifications and designs. These Thermoplastic fabrics account for 45 on the average product life to estimate
market changes could be expected to percent; leather, wool and vinyl-coated the numbers of items remaining in use
reduce exports by domestic firms from fabrics account for about 30 percent in the years following their purchase by
previous levels. (mostly leather). consumers. The estimated average
There is a growing practice, especially Review of the data on material types useful life of upholstered furniture
for leather, to purchase fully cut and from the surveys conducted since 1981 reportedly ranges from 15 to 17 years.38
sewn parts from areas outside of the indicates that the most notable changes Based on the assumption that the
United States including but not limited over the years have been the increase in expected life of a piece of upholstered
to: Argentina, Brazil, China, Italy, use of leather at the expense of both furniture is 16 years, the average
Thailand and Uruguay. This trend cellulosic and thermoplastic fibers. The number of upholstered items in
should continue given the lower labor Ciprus survey in 2001 found that about household use during 2002–2004 was
costs in some of these areas and other 30 percent of furniture covering about 447 million pieces.
existing economic conditions. La-Z-Boy materials used in that year was leather, Surveys of furniture manufacturers in
reports that importing cut and sewn significantly greater than found in the the last several years show the shift
leather parts results in savings of 10 to earlier surveys.35 Fabrics made from towards thermoplastic fabrics peaked
20 percent compared to domestic predominantly cellulosic fibers include during the period of the mid-1980’s to
purchases and fabrication of these heavier-weight fabrics (such as the mid-1990’s. Information provided to
parts.31 Cut and sewn ‘‘kits’’ reportedly cellulosic jacquards and velvets) and the CPSC by the Upholstered Furniture
are manufactured to the specifications lighter-weight fabrics (mainly cotton Action Council (UFAC) showed that a
of furniture manufacturers at facilities prints). Analysis of survey data since significant shift to greater use of
maintained by foreign fabric producers. 1981 indicates that heavier cellulosic thermoplastic fabrics began in the
Culp reports that it rapidly expanded its fabrics have usually comprised about 15 1950’s, and became more pronounced in
cut and sew operations in its Shanghai to 20 percent of all upholstery covering the 1970’s.39 These data on usage of
plants.32 yardage. different types of fabrics over the years
CPSC-sponsored surveys of furniture can be used to characterize upholstery
4. Characteristics of Furniture in U.S.
manufacturers in 1981, 1984, and 1995, fabrics found on furniture in U.S.
Households
and commercial surveys in 1997, 2001, households. An estimated 31.2 percent
and 2006 33 provided information on The number of furniture units in use of furniture in use in U.S. households
two characteristics of fabrics: fabric type is estimated with the CPSC Product during the period 2002–2004 was
and principal fiber (or material) type. Population Model, based on available covered with fabrics predominantly
Fabric Type refers to commonly- annual sales data and industry estimates made with cellulosic fabrics; an
accepted descriptions of the ways in of the average product life of furniture.36 estimated 50.2 percent were covered
which fabrics are manufactured or of Estimates are for sofas, loveseats, with predominantly thermoplastic
their distinctive characteristics. For the armchairs, recliners, convertible sofas fabrics, and 18.6 percent were covered
period covered by these surveys, and other upholstered furniture with other materials (mainly leather,
manufacturers increased their use of commonly found in residential living wool, and vinyl-coated fabrics).
jacquard and dobby fabrics, and rooms, family rooms, and guest rooms.
Sales are defined as shipments from 5. Expected Benefits of the Proposed
decreased their use of velvet fabrics.34
U.S. manufacturers plus net imports. Standard
Usage of cotton prints and flocks
fluctuated within fairly narrow ranges Annual shipment data are available The expected benefits of the proposed
during the period, according to the from the Economic Census published standard are estimated as the reduction
surveys. every five years (i.e., 2002, 1997, 1992 in the societal costs associated with
Fiber (or material) Type refers to the * * *) by the Bureau of the Census. For upholstered furniture fires that would
fibers or materials used in the upholstered wood furniture and dual- be prevented by the standard. We
manufacture of the fabrics or purpose sleep furniture, the Economic estimate the benefits in several steps.
upholstery. Most upholstery fabric Census usually provides information on First, the average annual societal costs
fibers are classified as cellulosic (e.g. unit shipments, by type (such as sofas, of upholstered furniture fires are
cotton and rayon) or thermoplastic (e.g., sleep sofas, rockers, recliners, and other estimated, based on estimates of the
polyester, polyolefin, and nylon); other chairs). For product categories for which aggregate annual costs of fire-related
materials used to make upholstery unit shipment data were not available, deaths, injuries, and property damage.
include vinyl (which is coated on a base we estimated unit shipments by These costs are differentiated by
fabric), wool, and leather. Based on the assigning average per unit values to the ignition source (i.e., cigarette vs. open
Census data on value of shipments. flame ignition) and by fabric covering
31 La-Z-Boy. op. cit., p. 4.
Finally, estimates of net imports were type (since different fabrics exhibit
32 Culp, Inc. Annual Company report for the fiscal added to shipments to estimate the total different ignition propensities). Societal
year ended April 29, 2007. number of upholstered units sold to costs are also estimated on a ‘‘per
33 Keyser-Ciprus, Ltd. survey (1997) and Ciprus U.S. households. For the years in which product in use’’ basis, based on
Limited, LLC, surveys (2001 and 2006). Economic Census data are not available,
34 ‘‘Jacquards’’ and ‘‘dobbies’’ refer to the types of

shipment estimates were based on 37 Estimated shipments before 1967 were based
looms and weaves used to produce fabrics.
Brocades, damasks, velvets, tapestry weaves, and furniture shipment values published by on the Federal Reserve’s annual furniture
matelasses are often jacquard-woven. Dobbie looms production index.
35 Ciprus 38 Based on discussions between industry officials
enable weaving of small, geometric figures as a Limited. op. cit.
regular pattern. Dobby looms produce patterns that 36 M.L.Lahr and B.B. Gordon, Final Report on and Department of Commerce personnel.
are beyond the range of simple looms, but are Product Life Model Feasibility and Development 39 Report to the CPSC on the UFAC Voluntary
somewhat limited compared to a jacquard loom, Study, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, July 14, Program, Upholstered Furniture Action Council,
which has a wider range of pattern capabilities. 1980. March 21, 1978.
estimates of the numbers of furniture 2004 time period. Societal cost As noted above, the proposed
items in use. estimates are also differentiated by standard would also address about $70
Second, since each furniture item is fabric cover types, which (as described million annually in property losses from
expected to remain in use for an average below) exhibit different cigarette fires started by cigarettes, based on
of 15 to 17 years, the present value of ignition propensities. estimates for the 2002–2004 period.
the product’s estimated lifetime fire According to the CPSC’s Directorate Consequently, the total annual costs of
costs is estimated by summing the for Epidemiology, there was an average cigarette-ignited fires addressed by the
discounted annual costs over the item’s of 260 addressable civilian deaths and proposed standard amounted to an
expected useful life. The estimated 320 nonfatal civilian injuries annually annual average of about $1,420 million
annual societal costs that are expected from fires started by cigarettes during ($1,300 million + $47 million + $73
to accrue over the furniture item’s the 2002–2004 time frame.41 There was million) during the 2002–2004 time
useful life are discounted at an annual also an average of about $73 million period.
rate of 3 percent. This rate is consistent annually (in 2005 dollars) in property Information on the number of
with recommendations in the economic losses from cigarette-ignited fires.42 By furniture items (i.e., separate pieces of
literature for discounting the costs and combining the costs associated with furniture) in use provides a basis for
consequences of health programs.40 deaths, injuries, and property damage, estimating the costs of cigarette ignition
Societal costs have also been estimated total societal costs can be estimated. fires on a per unit basis. The average
using a 7 percent discount rate, as For analytic purposes staff assigns a estimated number of items of residential
recommended by the Office of value of $5 million as the value of a living room and family room
Management and Budget (in addition to statistical life for the calculation of upholstered furniture in use during the
3 percent) in its guidance to Federal societal costs. The $5 million estimate is 2002–2004 time period was about 447
agencies on the use of discounting in consistent with the general range of the million units, based on an expected
regulatory analysis (Circular A–4). value of a statistical life published in useful product life of 15–17 years. Given
Third, the expected effectiveness of the literature, which generally falls in the annual societal costs and the
the proposed standard (i.e., the the $3 million to $7 million range.43 number of furniture units in use, the
percentage reduction in fire losses) is Multiplying the annual estimate of annual societal cost per unit of furniture
estimated for each ignition source and about 260 deaths by the value of a in use, resulting from cigarette ignition,
upholstery cover type. As discussed statistical life of $5 million yields amounted to about $3.18 ($1,420
below, effectiveness of the standard at annual fatality costs of $1.3 billion. million/447 million units of furniture).
reducing societal costs is based on Nonfatal injuries were assigned an This per unit societal cost estimate
judgments regarding improvements average cost of $146,740 each. The basis represents an average across all
attributed to fabric treatments and for this estimate was the analysis of furniture items in use. However,
effectiveness of barrier materials. burn injury costs reported in the August because different fabric coverings for
We begin the analysis by evaluating furniture exhibit different ignition
1993 report ‘‘Societal Costs of Cigarette
the societal costs of cigarette fires and propensities, we can develop more
Fires,’’ part of the research sponsored by
the expected benefits associated with precise estimates of per unit societal
the CPSC under the Fire Safe Cigarette
preventing these fires. This is followed costs by accounting for the fabric cover.
Act of 1990.44 45 The $146,740 figure
with an evaluation of the societal costs Ignition testing of chairs by CPSC staff
represents a weighted average of injury
and likely benefits associated with the and others over the years has shown
costs (including pain and suffering) for
prevention of open-flame ignited fires. that the cigarette ignition hazard of
both hospitalized injuries and injuries
a. Expected Benefits From Reducing treated and released. The estimate of furniture mainly involves chairs
Cigarette Fire Losses 320 injuries annually results in societal covered with fabrics that are
costs of about $47 million. predominantly woven from cellulosic
Societal costs of furniture fires started
fibers, i.e., cotton and rayon. Chair
by cigarettes. The purpose of this
41 Miller, David. ‘‘2002–2004 Fire Loss Estimates testing done by the CPSC staff and
section is to estimate the societal costs
for Upholstered Furniture.’’ Directorate for California’s Bureau of Home
of cigarette-related upholstered Epidemiology, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Furnishings has shown that chairs
furniture fires to use as the basis for Commission, August 3, 2007 (Draft). The covered with predominantly
estimating the cigarette benefits. In the Directorate for Epidemiolgy based its estimates on
a methodology that was refined to address concerns thermoplastic fabrics (e.g., polyester,
next section, benefits are estimated as
raised by the General Accounting Office (GAO) in polypropylene, and nylon) are much
avoided societal costs. These costs are a 1999 report, ‘‘Consumer Product Safety less likely to ignite from cigarettes.
based on fire losses (deaths, injuries and Commission: Additional Steps Needed to Assess Chairs covered with some materials,
property loss) estimated by the CPSC Fire Hazards of Upholstered Furniture.’’
42 Estimated average property losses of about $65 such as leather, vinyl-coated fabrics,
Directorate for Epidemiology, which
million for 2002–2004 (Miller, op. cit.) are and wool fabrics are resistant to ignition
relies on fire loss data acquired from the expressed in 2004 dollars ($70 million) based on from cigarettes. Given the disparity of
National Fire Protection (NFPA) annual changes in the Producer Price Index for ignition propensities, some types of
survey of fire departments and the U.S. construction materials.
furniture would be expected to result in
Fire Administration (USFA) National 43 Viscusi, W. Kip, ‘‘The Value of Risks to Life
and Health,’’ Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. greater societal costs from fires.
Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS).
XXXI, December 1993, pp. 1912–1946. Information relevant to the
The most recent fire data available to 44 Zamula, William W., ‘‘Costs for Non-Fatal,
determination of average ignitability
make such estimates was for the 2002– Addressable Residential Civilian Injuries and estimation of societal costs for
Associated with Upholstered Furniture Fires.’’

40 For example: Viscusi, W.K., ‘‘Discounting (Memorandum to Gregory B. Rodgers, AED, EC)
furniture covered with different types of
Health Effects for Medical Decisions,’’ in Valuing Directorate for Economic Analysis, U.S. Consumer materials is discussed below.
Health Care: Costs, Benefits, and Effectiveness of Product Safety Commission. September 6, 2007. The results of the analysis described
Pharmaceuticals and Medical Technologies, ed. (Costs are estimated in 2005 dollars.) in this section (including estimates of
F.A. Sloan, 123–24. New York: Cambridge 45 Miller, Ted R., et al., ‘‘Societal Costs of
University Press. 1995. Also, Gold, Marthe R., et al., Cigarettes Fires,’’ prepared for the U.S. Consumer
market shares by fabric covering,
Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New Product Safety Commission under the Cigarette estimates of ignition propensities and
York: Oxford University Press. 1996. Safety Act of 1984, August 1993. risk by fabric type, and estimates of
annual societal costs) are summarized in

Table 1.
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
BILLING CODE 6355–01–C

EP04MR08.000</GPH>
Estimates of the types of upholstery developed by NBS (which classifies inches when tested over glass
on furniture pieces found in households fabrics according to char length when fiberboard). The Class C fabrics
during 2002–2004 were derived from tested over a glass fiberboard substrate) accounted for an estimated 5.8 percent
historical data from surveys in various have been used to categorize the of fabrics found on furniture in 2002–
years, estimates of annual sales of ignition performance of cellulosic 2004 (22.5 percent of UFAC Class I
upholstered furniture, and calculations fabrics in this analysis. CPSC laboratory cellulosic fabrics according to CPSC
of the survival of furniture in years after analyses since 1980 found that about 82 staff testing). These fabrics are
purchase (using the CPSC’s Product percent of cellulosic fabrics tested were designated as ‘‘Moderately Ignition-
Population Model). Based on these Class I fabrics according to the fabric Prone Cellulosics’’ in Table 1. More
sources, the Directorate for Economic classification test of the UFAC Program ignition-resistant NBS Class B fabrics
Analysis estimates that 50.2 percent of (i.e., having a vertical char length of less are estimated to have comprised 52.5
the 447 million upholstered furniture than 1.75 inches), and 18 percent of percent of UFAC Class I cellulosic
items that were in use during 2002– cellulosic fabrics were UFAC Class II fabrics, or 13.4 percent of all fabrics and
2004 were covered with thermoplastic fabrics (i.e., having a vertical char length covering materials found on upholstered
fabrics, 31.2 percent were covered with of 1.75 inches or greater). Assuming the items in 2002–2004. These fabrics are
cellulosic fabrics, and 18.6 percent were tested fabrics were representative of designated as ‘‘Lower Ignition-Prone
covered with leather, vinyl-coated cellulosic fabrics, 25.6 percent of all Cellulosics’’ in Table 1.
fabrics, or wool fabrics. These market fabrics on furniture in use during 2002– Estimated ignition propensities for
shares are shown in Table 1, column 1. 2004 were UFAC Class I (31.2% that furniture covered with cellulosic fabrics
Note that the market shares in the first were covered with cellulosic fabrics × are based on chair testing that was done
three rows sum to the 31.2 percent of 82%) and 5.6 percent were UFAC Class in 1984 and 1994. Evaluating chair test
the furniture in use covered with II (31.2% × 18%). results according to UFAC and NBS
cellulosic fabrics. However, because Laboratory testing shows that the fabric classifications, 58.3 percent of test
extensive testing data show that some cover material smoldering resistance cigarettes were estimated to lead to
cellulosic fabrics are more likely to test of the proposed standard is more ignitions for chairs covered with UFAC
ignite than others, this analysis also severe than the UFAC Fabric Class II fabrics. The estimated ignition
separates cellulosic fabrics into three Classification Test.47 Therefore, for the propensity for test cigarettes on chairs
categories according to their ignition purposes of this analysis, UFAC Class II covered with UFAC Class I, NBS Class
propensities. The next several fabrics are assumed to fail the proposed D fabrics was 46.6 percent. Combining
paragraphs describe this sub- fabric test without changes that would these two severely-ignition-prone fabric
categorization of cellulosic fabric improve their ignition resistance. classes yields an average estimated
coverings. Limited testing also indicates that some ignition propensity of 52.1 percent
Testing by the CPSC laboratory using portion of UFAC Class I fabrics will fail (weighted by their 2002–2004 market
the proposed Upholstery Fabric the fabric test of the proposed standard. shares). Cigarettes placed on furniture
Smoldering Ignition Test 46 indicates Twenty-five percent of the Class I covered with moderately ignition-prone
that upholstery cover materials which fabrics tested by the CPSC staff in 1980 fabrics had an estimated 32.2 percent
are most likely to fail the test are fabrics and 1984 were found to be generally likelihood of resulting in ignition.48
woven entirely of cellulosic fibers that more ignition-prone Class D fabrics About 10.5 percent of test cigarettes
are heavier than eight ounces per square according to the NBS fabric were estimated to lead to ignitions for
yard. These fabrics are assumed to classification test (i.e., sustaining chars chairs covered with less ignition-prone
include all fabrics that would be of greater than 3 inches when tested cellulosic fabrics.49 (See column 2 of
classified as Class II fabrics under the over glass fiberboard). If we assume that Table 1.)
UFAC Program as well as such fabrics would fail the proposed Because of less concern with the
predominantly cellulosic fabrics that standard’s fabric test, an estimated 12 ignition propensity of thermoplastic
would be classified as Class I fabrics percent of fabrics found on furniture in fabrics, ignition testing data for such
under the UFAC Program and Class C 2002–2004 would have failed the test materials are more limited. Expanding
and D fabrics according to the proposed (5.6 percent which were UFAC Class II, chair test data to include tests
furniture flammability standard fabric plus 25 percent of the 25.6 percent of conducted in 1980 led to an estimate
test method developed by the National other cellulosic fabrics which were that 1.5 percent of test cigarettes would
Bureau of Standards (NBS, now the UFAC Class I. (Designated as ‘‘Severely result in ignition for furniture covered
National Institute of Standards and Ignition-Prone Cellulosics’’ in Table 1.) with thermoplastic fabrics.
Technology) in the 1970s. Estimation of Fabrics assumed to pass the proposed Additionally, based on limited
the percentage of fabrics that would fail standard include more moderately laboratory ignition testing data,
the fabric test of the proposed standard, ignition-prone fabrics that are Class I materials such as leather, wool fabrics,
and assessment of the societal costs according to the UFAC Fabric and vinyl-coated fabrics are assumed to
presented by different types of Classification test and Class C according be highly resistant to ignition from
upholstery cover materials are, to the NBS fabric test (i.e., sustaining cigarettes.
therefore, based on fabric and chair test chars of 1.5—3 inches when tested over The calculation of weighted ignition
data accumulated over the years. glass fiberboard), and more ignition- propensities of furniture covered with
Classification of cellulosic fabrics resistant Class B cellulosic fabrics different types of fabrics is the product
according to the test developed by according to the NBS fabric test (which of the estimated market share of
UFAC (which classifies fabrics sustain char lengths of less than 1.5 furniture in use in 2002–2004 for each
according to char length on the vertical type of fabric and its estimated ignition
surface when tested over standard non- 47 Tao, Weiying, Ph.D. ‘‘Evaluation of Test propensity. The estimated weighted
Method and Performance Criteria for Cigarette ignition propensity was 0.063 for items
FR polyurethane foam) and the test Ignition (Smoldering) Resistance of Upholstered
Furniture Materials.’’ Division of Electrical and
covered with severely ignition-prone
46 The Upholstery Fabric Smoldering Ignition Test Flammability Engineering, Directorate for
48 UFAC Class I, NBS Class C cellulosic fabrics.
is cigarette ignition testing of fabrics over a standard Laboratory Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
non-flame-retardant polyurethane foam substrate. Commission. May 2005. 49 NBS Class B cellulosic fabrics.
cellulosic fabrics (i.e., 12.0% share of for items covered with thermoplastic covered with thermoplastic fabrics. (See
the market × 52.1% ignition propensity); fabrics (7.3% × $1,420 million/447 column 6 in Table 1.)
0.019 for items covered with moderately million × 50.2%). (See column 5 of
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics (5.8% × Table 1.) b. Expected Benefits
32.2%); 0.014 for items covered with The estimated lifetime societal costs The analysis described above
less ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics per unit of furniture were calculated as
estimated the per unit hazard costs
(13.4% × 10.5%); and .008 for items the present value of the estimated
associated with the upholstery materials
covered with thermoplastic fabrics annual societal costs over the expected
of different ignition propensities, based
(50.2% × 1.5%). (See column 3 of Table product life of the item of furniture. The
on the furniture in use during 2002–
1.) annual expected societal costs of
2004, the most recent time period for
The percent of total risk presented by cigarette ignition were assumed to apply
furniture covered with different fabric each year that an item of furniture which fire data is available. However, as
types was derived by dividing estimated remains in household use. The CPSC’s discussed in Section 4, the types of
weighted ignition propensities by the Product Population Model was used to upholstery materials used in the
sum of all weighted ignition calculate the likelihood that furniture production of furniture have changed
propensities (which was about .103 for items would remain in use in years after over the years. Since the proposed
furniture in use in 2002–2004). Thus, as purchase. Annual societal costs per unit standard would address risks associated
shown in the table, the more severely were multiplied by estimated with current production, projection of
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics 50 were probability of survival in subsequent benefits requires estimating the societal
estimated to account for 60.9 percent of years. The estimated stream of future costs associated with materials now
the total risk (.063/.103); moderately expected societal costs were discounted being used to manufacture furniture.
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics 51 to their present values, using a discount This is accomplished by estimating the
accounted for an estimated 18.0 percent rate of 3 percent. percentage of furniture items currently
of the risk (.019/.103); less ignition- Available data suggest that other made with covering materials of
prone cellulosic fabrics accounted for factors (in addition to changes in differing ignition propensities.
about 13.7 percent of the risk (.014/ fabrics) have contributed to a decline in A 2006 survey of furniture
.103); and thermoplastic fabrics fires resulting from cigarette ignition of manufacturers by Ciprus Limited
accounted for about 7.3 percent of the upholstered furniture over time. These provides information on consumption of
risk (.008/.103). (See column 4 of Table factors include changes in smoking- cellulosic, thermoplastic, and leather
1.) 52 related behavior of individuals, covering materials in the production of
The average annual societal costs increased presence of smoke alarms, furniture.53 Using CPSC staff test data
associated with cigarette ignitions of and changes in furniture filling discussed above, the percentages of
each fabric type were estimated by materials. The present value estimates current production (as indicated by the
dividing the product of estimated were further adjusted to account for an Ciprus data) made with materials
percent of total risk (above) and the total expected future decline in smoking- ranging from severely ignition-prone
estimated average annual societal costs related fire incidents. This was done by cellulosic fabrics to ignition resistant
associated with cigarette ignition of forecasting future fire deaths by year, materials such as leather were
furniture ($1,420 million) by the based on trends in deaths from cigarette
estimated. These estimates are shown in
estimated number of units in use during ignitions of upholstered furniture
column 1 of Table 2. The estimated
2002–2004 with each fabric type (447 during 1980–2004, and reducing the
percentage of upholstered items now
million units in use × estimated market expected societal costs of cigarette
made with severely ignition-prone
share). The average annual societal costs ignited fires by the projected percentage
were estimated to be $16.08 for items reduction. This analysis found that cellulosic fabrics has fallen to 9.6
covered with severely ignition-prone expected lifetime societal costs, percent of annual production, from 12.0
cellulosic fabrics (60.9% × $1,420 discounted to their present value using percent estimated for furniture in use
million/447 million × 12.0%); $9.94 for a 3 percent discount rate, should be during 2002–2004. This is a 20 percent
items covered with moderately ignition- reduced by approximately 28 percent. decrease in the relative use of the most
prone cellulosic fabrics (18.0% × $1,420 Thus, expected lifetime societal costs ignition-prone class of fabrics. The use
million/447 million × 5.8%); $3.24 for per unit of $195.31 for items covered of other ignition-prone fabrics has also
items covered with less ignition-prone with severely ignition-prone cellulosic declined, in relative terms, while the
cellulosic fabrics (13.4% × $1,420 fabrics were reduced to $140.04 after use of generally ignition-resistant
million/447 million × 13.7%); and $.46 incorporating the trend data. Similar materials such as leather (estimated to
calculations led to estimates of lifetime be about 30 percent of current
50 UFAC Class II and UFAC Class I/NBS Class D
societal costs of $86.60 for items production) is 62 percent greater than
fabrics. covered with moderately ignition-prone found in household use in 2002–2004.
51 NBS Class C cellulosic fabrics.
52 Percent of total risk for each fabric type was
cellulosic fabrics; $28.24 for items BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
calculated from estimates of market share and covered with less ignition-prone
ignition propensity that were not rounded. cellulosic fabrics; and $4.06 for items 53 Ciprus Limited, op. cit.

EP04MR08.001</GPH>
Column 2 of Table 2 shows the standard societal costs estimated for discounting in regulatory analysis
expected number of furniture units moderately ignition-prone cellulosic recommends that future benefits (and
produced annually, by type of covering fabrics (which are also expected to fail costs) of federal regulations be
material, based on the market shares of the proposed cover fabric test) would presented using discount rates of 3
the various fabric coverings (column 1) also likely fall to the level of estimated percent and 7 percent. Projected
and an estimated 30.5 million furniture hazard costs associated with furniture benefits from reductions in smoldering
units produced. Column 3 provides the covered with less ignition-prone fabrics. ignitions have an estimated present
estimates of per unit lifetime societal The estimated reduction from estimated value of $309.1 million if future benefits
costs derived in Table 1. lifetime societal costs of $86.60 to are discounted at a 7% discount rate.
Based on current estimates of the $28.24 would be a 67.4 percent
types and quantity of furniture reduction in the hazard presented (also In addition to cigarette losses, the
produced, the estimated total present shown in column 5). Since upholstered Directorate for Epidemiology estimated
value of the expected societal costs from furniture items covered with less fire losses from small open-flame
cigarette fires is $681 million for ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics and ignitions for the years 2002–2004.54
furniture produced in a year, in the thermoplastic fabrics are expected to During this time period, there were an
absence of a standard. (See column 4 of pass the proposed cover fabric test, and average of 30 deaths and 170 nonfatal
Table 2.) Total estimated societal costs there are no requirements for filing injuries annually from fires started by
involving furniture covered with materials under the proposed standard, small open flames. There was also an
severely ignition-prone cellulosic furniture covered with those fabrics average of about $50 million annually in
fabrics account for $411 million, or would not be expected to be associated property losses from small open flame-
about 60 percent of the total. In contrast, with any reduction in their expected ignited fires during this time frame.55
thermoplastic fabrics, which are used to societal costs. Assuming a value of statistical life of
cover about 45 percent of all The estimated benefits per unit were
upholstered furniture produced, calculated for each fabric class. (See $5 million,56 the societal costs
account for an estimated $55.5 million column 6 of Table 2.) Per unit benefits associated with the 30 deaths annually
in societal costs, or only about 8 percent of the proposed standard range from $0 amounted to about $150 million. The
of the total. for furniture covered with ignition- 170 nonfatal injuries were assigned an
A comparison of the ignition resistant fabrics such as thermoplastic average cost of $146,740 each,57
performance of upholstered chairs made or lower cigarette-ignition-prone resulting in societal costs of about $25
with current fabrics with that of chairs cellulosics to an estimated $111.80 per million. Adding in the $50 million
made in compliance with the proposed unit for items currently covered by annually in property losses from fires
standard would provide data to assess severely ignition-prone cellulosic started from small open-flame ignition,
the likely reduction in ignition fabrics. The benefits from ignition the total annual costs of open-flame
propensity that would result from the resistant materials such as leather, wool, ignited fires addressed by the proposed
proposed standard. In the absence of and vinyl-coated fabrics are also standard amount to about $225 million
such data, we can estimate the benefits expected to be $0. ($150 million + $25 million + $50
of the standard by making reasonable The total estimated benefits of the million).
judgments about improvements in proposed standard are calculated by
As in Table 1, these annual estimates
ignition performance that would result multiplying estimated per unit benefits
of the open-flame losses are used to
from the use of complying materials. (shown in column 6) by the estimated
Furniture currently manufactured annual units produced with each class develop estimates of the lifetime
with severely ignition-prone cellulosic of covering material (column 2). Based societal costs of open-flame hazards per
fabrics could realize a reduction in on these calculations, estimated benefits unit of furniture in use during 2002–
societal costs per unit under the of the standard, in the form of expected 2004, for each of the five fabric
proposed standard to the equivalent of lifetime reduction in societal costs categories. The results are presented in
that now estimated for furniture covered associated with production of furniture Table 3.
by less ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics. in one year, discounted to their present BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
This reduction would be attributable to value using a discount rate of 3 percent,
improved ignition performance of total $410.2 million. About 80 percent 54 Miller,David. op. cit.
fabrics or from the use of qualifying of total estimated benefits are associated 55 Estimated average property losses for 2002–
barriers. The reduction in lifetime 2004 are expressed in 2005 dollars, based on
with the approximately 10 percent of
changes in the Producer Price Index for
societal costs per unit from $140.04 to furniture currently made with severely construction materials.
$28.24 amounts to a hazard reduction of ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics. 56 Viscusi, W. Kip, op. cit.
79.8 percent (shown in column 5 of As noted previously, OMB guidance 57 Zamula, William W., op. cit. Injury costs are
Table 2). We likewise assume that pre- to Federal agencies on the use of expressed in 2005 dollars.

EP04MR08.002</GPH>
Column 1 of Table 3 shows the cellulosic fabrics accounted for an million /447 million × 50.2%) and about
proportions of furniture in each fabric estimated 38 percent of the risk. While $.61 for items covered with
material category, and is identical to the Table 3 separates cellulosic fabrics predominantly cellulosic fabrics (38% ×
corresponding column in Table 1. according to differences in their $225 million/447 million × 31.2%). (See
Column 2 describes open-flame ignition cigarette ignition propensities, for this column 5 of Table 3.)
propensities, based on small open flame analysis all cellulosic fabrics are Finally, the lifetime societal costs (per
ignition testing by the CPSC laboratory assumed to have the same small open unit of furniture) were estimated as the
in 1996. In that testing, cellulosic and flame ignition propensity. The present value of the annual per unit
thermoplastic fabrics had nearly the estimated percent of overall risk for societal costs over the expected product
same ignition propensity when each type of cellulosic fabric is, life of a furniture item. This present
subjected to a small flame for 20 therefore, determined by market share. value estimate (shown in column 6),
seconds. Ignitions in 20 seconds or less As with the risk of ignition by cigarettes, discounted at a rate of 3 percent, is
were observed for 27 of 29 furniture covered by leather, wool, and about $7.55 for items covered with
predominantly cellulosic fabrics (about vinyl-coated fabrics is assumed to be predominantly thermoplastic fabrics
93 percent) and 17 of 18 predominantly resistant to ignition from a 20-second and $7.44 for items covered with
thermoplastic fabrics (about 94 exposure to a small open flame. predominantly cellulosic fabrics.
percent).58 Following the same methodology
Based on these ignition propensities described in Table 1, the average annual The estimated benefits associated
and the estimated percentages of societal costs associated with small with the prevention of open-flame fires
furniture in use comprised by open flame ignitions of each fabric type are described in Table 4. The
upholstered items with cellulosic and were estimated by dividing the products methodology is similar to that described
thermoplastic fabrics, furniture covered of estimated percent of total risk and the for Table 2. Column 1 shows the current
with thermoplastic fabrics accounted for total estimated average annual societal market shares, by fabric type, and
an estimated 62 percent of the overall costs associated with small open flame Column 2 shows annual sales based on
risk of small open flame ignitions ignition of furniture ($225 million) by annual furniture shipments of 30.5
during 2002–2004; items covered with the estimated number of units in use million units. Column 3 provides the
during 2002–2004 with each fabric type estimates of per unit lifetime societal
58 Based on testing data presented in Directorate (447 million units in use × estimated costs derived in Table 3, and Column 4
for Laboratory Sciences memoranda dated October market share). This approach resulted in provides estimates of the aggregate
3, 1996, through September 19, 1997, Tab D, societal costs of fires associated with
‘‘Upholstered Furniture Flammability: Regulatory
estimated average annual societal costs
Options for Small Open Flame & Smoking Material of about $.62 for items covered with open-flame ignition.
Ignited Fires,’’ October 24, 1997. thermoplastic fabrics (62% × $225 BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

EP04MR08.003</GPH>
For the purposes of this analysis, we achieve compliance. Lacking this Based on the assumed range of
assume that about 40 percent of additional contribution to fire- furniture units that would be made with
furniture currently manufactured with retardance, the effectiveness of FR fabric FR-treated fabrics, aggregate open flame
severely cigarette ignition-prone treatments under the proposed standard benefits from the proposed standard
cellulosic fabrics (accounting for about at reducing the small open flame fire range from about $9 million to $13.8
1.17 million units, or 3.8 percent of all hazard probably would be lower. million, as shown in column 7 of Table
furniture items) would be made with Consequently, the hazard reduction for 4. In accordance with OMB guidance
barrier materials. Complying barriers furniture with FR-treated fabrics may be that future benefits (and costs) of federal
may reduce the open flame ignition about 25 percent under the proposed regulations be presented using discount
hazards by about 90 percent, or $6.70 standard. Per unit open flame ignition
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, open
per unit, and benefits could total $7.9 benefits would be about $1.86, and
flame benefits of the proposed standard
million for furniture made with aggregate open flame benefits would be
complying barriers. about $5.9 million, if manufacturers have also been estimated to have a
Based on the assumption that 40 resort to FR treatment for all of the present value of $6.4 million to $9.9
percent of severely cigarette ignition- nearly 3.2 million units. From the million if future benefits are discounted
prone cellulosic fabrics would be used standpoint of fabric type, the average at a 7 percent discount rate.
with complying barriers, the remaining hazard reduction for severely cigarette 6. Expected Costs of the Proposed
60 percent of furniture currently ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics would Standard
manufactured with severely cigarette be 51 percent,60 and the reduction for
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics moderately cigarette ignition-prone a. Costs Related to Upholstery Fabrics
(accounting for 5.8 percent of all cellulosic fabrics would be 25 percent. and Barrier Materials
furniture items) and the 4.6 percent of (See column 5 of Table 4.)
fabric yardage that is moderately Alternatively, manufacturers would Upholstery fabric and FR treatments.
cigarette ignition prone (combining for have the options of using fabrics that are This section of the analysis presents
nearly 3.2 million units) would require reformulated with different fibers or information about the expected resource
other modifications or they would have dropping non-complying fabrics from costs associated with the proposed
to be dropped from use as upholstery use as furniture covers. In fact, this may standard. These costs include
cover materials. The methods of be the preferred option for most manufacturing costs incurred for
compliance chosen by manufacturers manufacturers, given concerns with materials, labor, testing, and
likely would affect the level of costs, FR exposure, aesthetic effects, and recordkeeping, and distribution costs to
reduction in open flame ignition other issues. Open flame benefits would wholesalers, distributors, and retailers.
hazards. The implications of these not be expected for such furniture items. The estimates are expressed in 2005
decisions are discussed below. If the use of FR-treatments of fabrics is dollars (as were estimated benefits).
Fabrics that do not pass the 80 percent lower than assumed above, Cost estimates are limited to
upholstery cover fabric smoldering the number of units made with FR- upholstered household furniture that
ignition resistance test could be brought treated fabrics would total about may commonly be found in living
into compliance through treatments 630,000 and aggregate open flame
with FR chemicals. FR treatment of rooms and family rooms. A relatively
benefits from furniture using FR-treated
fabrics and filling materials to achieve small number of other types of chairs
fabrics would be about $1.2 million, and
compliance with the staff’s 2005 draft total open flame benefits would be that fall within the scope of the
standard might result in a 50 percent about $9 million. If all 630,000 units standard, such as a small percentage of
reduction in small open flame fire with FR fabric treatments involved dining chairs and desk chairs purchased
losses.59 However, unlike the 2005 draft severely cigarette ignition-prone fabrics, by consumers, are excluded from this
standard, the current proposed standard the average estimated hazard reduction analysis.62 Cost estimates are
does not include provisions related to for that category of fabrics would be summarized in Table 5.
open flame ignition performance of about 41 percent.61 BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
filling materials, which in many cases
would have required FR treatments to 60 Based on 25% effectiveness x 60% of the
fabrics being FR-treated and 90% x 40% that are

59 Smith, Charles, Directorate for Economic made with barriers. 62 Those other items probably would incur
Analysis, CPSC, Preliminary Regulatory Analysis of 61 Based on 25% effectiveness x 21.6% of the
relatively minor increases in costs because of the
a Draft Proposed Flammability Rule to Address fabrics being FR-treated and 90% x 40% that are types of materials used, and smaller material
Ignitions of Upholstered Furniture, November 2007. made with barriers. requirements per unit of furniture.

EP04MR08.004</GPH>
Fabrics failing the fabric test of the $4.55 to $7.77 for chairs and $8.45 to manufacturers. For seat cushions, the
proposed standard could be treated with $14.43 for sofas and loveseats.64 barrier alternative would result in a
FR chemicals or be reformulated with Considering estimates of unit shipments change in the interior fabric used by the
fibers that enable passing results. of chairs and sofas (based on an analysis cushion fabricators. For such items,
Manufacturers would also be able to of Department of Commerce Economic barrier costs would be offset by the costs
continue using fabrics without Census data), the average manufacturing of the untreated materials, about $.30
modifications if they use an acceptable cost increase per item of furniture per yard for standard interliner fabrics
barrier material (i.e., one that passes the resulting from FR treatments of fabric is and $.80 per yard for down-proof
proposed barrier tests) between the estimated to range from $6.61 to interliner fabrics. Net increases in
fabric and filling materials. For $11.28.65 (See column 1 of Table 5.) material costs, including costs for
purposes of this analysis, the highly Barrier materials. Some furniture testing, would be about $1.71 to $2.18
cigarette ignition-prone fabrics and manufacturers may choose to offer per yard for standard fabrics and $1.88
moderately cigarette ignition-prone fabrics that do not pass the fabric to $2.15 per yard for down-proof fabrics.
fabrics, estimated to combine for about classification test by using an acceptable Cushions typically have sides that are
14.2 percent of total upholstery cover barrier material under the cover fabric. about 24 inches long, and they are about
materials, are assumed to require Based on barriers used in the UK to 5 inches thick. Therefore, about one
modifications if their use is to continue comply with the barrier test of that linear yard of 54-inch wide interior
under the proposed standard. As country’s furniture flammability fabric would be used per seat cushion,
discussed previously, these standard, the cost to manufacturers and the cost increases per linear yard of
modifications could include the use of could range from $2.00 to $2.47 per material would also hold true for cost
FR treatments or barriers, or linear yard (reportedly 54 to 59 inches increases per cushion.
reformulating the fabrics in a way (such in width) for standard FR barriers, and Barrier materials required for other
as increasing the thermoplastic fiber about $2.67 to $2.94 per linear yard for parts of the seating areas of furniture
content) that will allow the fabrics to down-proof barriers (i.e. having yarns items might require about two yards of
pass the smoldering test of the proposed and weaves suitable for encasing material per chair and four yards per
standard. down).66 As with FR-treated cover sofa. These areas may be less likely to
Based on fabrics that have been tested fabrics, testing would be done to assure have interliner fabrics currently than is
by the CPSC laboratory, many of the compliance with the barrier test of the the case with seat cushions. Therefore,
fabrics that would fail the fabric test of proposed standard. However, given increased material costs probably would
the proposed standard are heavier expected large production runs of be $2.01 to $2.48 per linear yard for
weight (over eight ounces per square barriers and the greater degree of standard FR barriers. These materials
yard) fabrics that are made entirely of uniformity of barrier materials would increase material costs by about
cellulosic fibers, such as cotton or compared to cover fabrics, additional $4.02 to $4.96 for chairs and $8.04 to
rayon. Many of these fabrics could be testing costs to furniture manufacturers $9.92 for sofas. Adding the
treated with FR chemicals to enable could be about $.01 per yard of barrier approximately $1.71 to $2.18 per
them to pass the fabric test. Typically, fabric. cushion material cost increases from
fully upholstered chairs require about 7 The decision to use barriers as a substituting the use of FR barriers for
linear yards of fabric, and sofas require means to comply with the standard is standard interliner materials, total
11 to 15 yards, depending on factors more likely to be taken by firms that increased material costs might be about
such as the need to match patterns serve the upper-end furniture market. $5.73 to $7.14 for chairs and $13.17 to
(which results in more fabric waste in These furniture items are more likely to $16.46 for sofas.
pattern cutting). The average increase in be manufactured with interior fabrics In addition to increased material
fabric costs could range from $.62 to between the cushioning materials and costs, manufacturers would also be
$1.05 per linear yard for manufacturers, the upholstery covers. In a 1995 survey faced with additional costs related to
based on previous estimates for FR of furniture manufacturers, the CPSC labor needed to include FR barriers on
backcoating to achieve resistance to found that about one-third of the seat, parts of the upholstered items that are
ignition from small open flames.63 Also, arm and back cushions were made with not currently made with interliner
although the proposed standard does interior fabrics. Interior fabrics were fabrics or battings. The additional labor
not specify frequency of testing to used in an average of about 50 percent required might average about 15 to 20
assure compliance of treated fabrics of cushions made by smaller firms, minutes per item.67 Hourly labor costs,
with the fabric test, we assume that which are more likely to serve the including benefits, are estimated to
testing will be done to provide upper-end market. To the extent that range from about $25 to $30.68
guaranties to furniture manufacturers. manufacturers already enclose filling Therefore, labor costs for the additional
This testing could increase fabric costs materials in interliner fabrics, the FR upholstery work could be about $6.25 to
an additional $.03 to $.06 per linear barriers could be replacing untreated $10.00. Total increases in
yard of fabric, on average. Therefore, materials.
total average manufacturing cost Cushions are usually purchased from 67 Based on a telephone conversation between a
increases for furniture made with FR- fabricators that make them to the representative of Vanguard Furniture, and Charles
Smith, Directorate for Economic Analysis, CPSC, on
treated upholstery fabrics under the specifications of the furniture February 23, 2001.
proposed standard could range from 68 Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics
64 Assuming average fabric yardage for sofas and
National Compensation Survey reports that average
63 Smith, Charles. Directorate for Economic loveseats is 13 linear yards. upholsterer wages for the Hickory-Morganton-
65 We estimate that in 1997, upholstered living
Analysis, CPSC, Economic Analysis of Regulatory Lenoir, NC area were $17.03 per hour in 2005, we
Options to Address Small Open Flame Ignitions of room and family rooms furniture purchased for assume that wages and other labor costs are
Upholstered Furniture, October 2001. Note: Bureau consumer use was comprised of about 15.6 million typically higher ($25-$30) for upholsterers that
of Labor Statistics reports virtually no change in sofas, sofabeds, and loveseats (52.7%), and 14.0 work for manufacturers using expensive decorative
Producer Price Index for job or commission million chairs (47.3%). Therefore: ($4.55 × 47.3%) fabrics (which are more likely to be used with
finishing of cotton broadwoven fabrics from 2001– + ($8.45 × 52.7%) = $6.61; and ($7.77 × 47.3%) + barrier materials). This assumption is supported by
2005. Therefore, previous estimates are used in this ($14.43 × 52.7%) = $11.28. labor cost information provided by Vanguard
analysis. 66 Smith, Charles. op. cit. Furniture, op. cit.
manufacturing costs (material and labor) ignition test for cover materials. If these costs. Since furniture items that would
are estimated to range from $11.98 to units (accounting for an estimated 4.6% be produced under the standard are not
$17.14 for chairs and $19.42 to $26.46 of current furniture purchases by likely to be larger or heavier than pre-
for sofas and loveseats. The average consumers) are also made with FR fabric standard items, added storage and
increase in manufacturing costs per item treatments, material costs per unit transportation costs are likely to be
of upholstered furniture that would be would increase by $6.61 to $11.28, for negligible. However, inventory
made with FR barriers is estimated to an increase in estimated aggregate costs financing costs will increase by the
range from $15.90 to $22.05.69 (See ranging from $9.3 million to $15.9 average cost of borrowing money,
column 2 of Table 5.) million annually. Total estimated applied to the increase in the wholesale
As noted above, highly cigarette material cost increases related to FR price of a furniture item over the
ignition-prone fabrics, estimated to treatment of fabrics or the use of average inventory holding time period.
comprise 9.6 percent of total upholstery complying barriers would, therefore, Since most furniture producers use just-
cover materials, could require the use of range from about $39.6 million to $61.6 in-time production and have small
FR treatments or barriers if their use is million annually. inventories of finished items, this
to continue under the proposed It should be noted that these cost additional cost will probably not exceed
standard. The use of barriers is more estimates could be considered to be the 10 percent of the increase in
economically feasible with more upper bound for material costs of the manufacturing costs. A 10 percent
expensive fabrics, such as those proposed standard, since manufacturers markup, therefore, is being used to
produced by members of the Decorative would have the less expensive measure these distribution costs. This
Fabrics Association (DFA). The DFA alternative of substituting upholstery yields a resource cost to the firms in the
estimates that fabrics marketed by its fabrics that pass the smoldering distribution chain averaging about
members comprise perhaps 1.5 percent requirements for those that do not, $0.67–$1.14 per furniture item made
of total upholstery fabric yardage used without the application of FR chemicals with FR-treated fabrics and $1.60 to
to make furniture.70 If 40 percent of or the use of barrier materials. If $2.22 per item made with barriers. The
highly cigarette ignition-prone fabrics choosing these options were to reduce weighted range of estimated resource
(3.8% of all upholstery cover materials, reliance on FR-treatments of fabric by 80 costs for furniture made with severely
i.e., more than just the 1.5 percent of percent from that assumed in the above cigarette ignition-prone fabrics is $1.04
fabric yardage reportedly marketed by analysis, FR-treatment costs under the to $1.57 per unit of furniture.74 (See
DFA members) are assumed to be used proposed standard could total about column 4 of Table 5.) Aggregate costs
with acceptable barrier materials under $6.3 million annually. Under this associated with estimated increased
a standard, about 1.17 million furniture assumption, an estimated 2.1 percent of inventory financing costs range from
pieces annually might be made with furniture items would be made with FR- $4.2 million to $6.4 million annually.
barriers under a standard. The aggregate treated fabrics; 3.8 percent would be As discussed in Section 7 of this
manufacturing cost increase related to made with barrier materials, and; 8.3 analysis, the proposed standard may
use of complying barrier fabrics under percent would be units in which fabrics lead to increases in retail prices of
these assumptions would range from were reformulated with more ignition- furniture greater than the 10 percent
about $18.7 million to $25.9 million.71 resistant fibers or otherwise switched to markup.
If 60 percent of highly cigarette ignition- fabrics/covers that comply without d. Summary of Expected Costs
prone fabric yardage (covering 5.8% of treatments or barriers. In this scenario,
all furniture items) is assumed to be aggregate costs of FR-treatment of Table 5 summarizes the results of the
treated with FR chemicals, the fabrics and the use of barriers would be cost analyses. It illustrates the differing
estimated aggregate increase in about $30.8 million. costs estimated to be incurred under the
manufacturing costs from FR treatment standard by furniture items covered
of fabrics would range from $11.6 b. Costs Related to Compliance with the different classifications of
million to $19.9 million annually.72 The Verification upholstery materials previously
combined aggregate costs of fabric Costs related to compliance discussed in the societal costs and
treatments and barriers would total verification will result from benefits section of this analysis. The
$30.3 million to $45.7 million annually. requirements placed on furniture estimated 14.2 percent of furniture
In addition to costs associated with manufacturers to maintain records and items covered by severely and
furniture covered with severely cigarette to apply a permanent label to the moderately cigarette-ignition-prone
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics, fabrics items.73 Other resource costs of cellulosics would incur greater total and
that are moderately cigarette ignition- compliance verification include the per unit costs under the proposed
prone could also be expected to require costs of compliance and enforcement standard. We assume these fabrics
modifications in order to comply with activities undertaken by CPSC staff. For would fail the upholstery cover fabric
the proposed standard’s smoldering purposes of this analysis we assume smoldering ignition resistance test of the
compliance verification costs of about proposed standard. Therefore, their
69 We estimate that in 1997, upholstered living
$.10 per furniture unit. (See column 5 continued use in furniture production
room and family rooms furniture purchased for of Table 5.) would require the use of barrier
consumer use was comprised of about 15.6 million
sofas, sofabeds, and loveseats (52.7%), and 14.0
materials that pass the barrier test of the
c. Distribution Costs proposed standard or other treatments.
million chairs (47.3%). Therefore: ($11.98 × 47.3%)
+ ($19.42 × 52.7%) = $15.90; and ($17.14 × 47.3%) An additional cost of the proposed Furniture items covered with other
+ ($26.46 × 52.7%) = $22.05. standard could be increases in costs to types of upholstery materials should not
70 Information provided to the staff at a June 29,

wholesalers, distributors, and retailers require FR-treated fabrics or barriers.
2000, public meeting.
71 (30.5 million units × 3.8% × $15.90) = $18.7
in the form of added storage, However, all units would incur minor
million; (30.5 million units × 3.8% × $22.05) = transportation, and inventory financing compliance verification costs.
$25.9 million.
72 (30.5 million units × 5.8% × $6.61) = $11.6 73 Costs related to production testing are 74 Based on the assumption that 60% of these
million; (30.5 million units × 5.8% × $11.28) = incorporated in the estimated material costs of the units will use FR-treated fabrics and 40% will use
$19.9 million. draft standard. barriers.
Based on the estimated increases in about $34 million for one year’s $115.59 per unit (comprised of $111.80
manufacturing costs associated with production of complying furniture. from reduced losses from furniture fires
changes in fabrics and the use of started by cigarettes and $3.08 to $3.79
barriers, costs of compliance 7. Comparison of Costs and Benefits from reduced losses from fires started by
verification, and distribution costs, a. Benefits and Costs of Proposed small open flames). The projected
aggregate costs under the proposed Standard benefits resulting from modifications to
standard are estimated to range from furniture covered with moderately
about $47 million to $71 million The expected benefits of the proposed cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic
annually. The midpoints of the standard, which will vary depending on fabrics range from $58.36 to $60.22 per
estimated ranges of costs total $59.1 the cigarette ignition propensity of the unit. For both groups of fabrics the
million. As noted above, since changes upholstery cover material used, were range in benefits is attributable to the
in fiber contents of fabrics or dropping discussed in Section 5 of this analysis effect of different assumptions of use of
fabrics from selections offered by (and shown in Tables 2 and 4) and are FR fabric treatments on open flame
manufacturers will be an option summarized in Table 6. Table 6 shows ignition benefits. Other types of
available to manufacturers, the aggregate the estimated benefits (per unit of covering materials are not expected to
manufacturing costs related to FR furniture) in columns 1, 2, and 3. The be associated with either cigarette or
treatments and barriers could be lower. benefits associated with bringing open flame benefits, since no
Under an alternative assumption that furniture pieces now covered with modifications to fabrics or filling
the reliance on FR treatments of fabrics severely cigarette ignition-prone materials would be required to comply
will be 80 percent lower, aggregate costs cellulosic fabrics into compliance are with the proposed standard.
of the proposed standard would be estimated to range from $114.88 to BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

EP04MR08.005</GPH>
Table 6 also shows (in column 4) the b. Sensitivity Analysis discount rate) and $376 million to $396
midpoints of the ranges of estimated per The previous discussion compares million (at a 7% discount rate).
unit costs of compliance with the benefits and costs of the proposed Estimated benefits of the proposed
proposed standard, which were standard are based on an average
standard using discount rates of 3
discussed in Section 6 of this analysis. societal cost of $146,740 per injury.
percent and 7 percent to express
Estimated costs per unit of furniture Changing the estimate used for the cost
expected benefits accruing in the future
covered with severely and moderately of injury will have minimal impact on
in their present value, an estimated
cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic the results, because the share of benefits
value of a statistical life of $5 million,
fabrics are expressed as ranges based on from reduced injuries is less than 4
and an estimated average cost of injury
different assumptions of the extent to percent of total benefits. Hence, even if
of $146,740. Net benefits were also
which FR treatment would be used to there were no reduction in injuries from
estimated based on estimated increases
achieve compliance. The higher cost the proposed standard, the total
in costs of producing and marketing
estimates reflect the midpoint of costs estimated benefits would be about $404
furniture that complies with the million to $409 million and total net
estimated using an assumption that all proposed standard. In addition to these
of the affected fabrics are either FR benefits would be $350 million to $370
factors, the estimation of benefits was million using a 3 percent discount rate.
treated or used with complying barriers. based on assumptions regarding the
The lower cost estimates assume that Using a 7 percent discount rate,
effectiveness of the standard at reducing estimated benefits would range from
reliance on FR treatments is reduced by losses from cigarette and small open
80 percent, as manufacturers comply about $305 million to $308 million and
flame ignitions. This section examines estimated net benefits would range from
through fabric fiber reformulation or the effect of changing any of these
dropping noncomplying fabrics from about $249 million to $271 million.
assumptions on the expected net Section 6 of this analysis addresses
use as upholstery covers. benefits that would result from the expected costs of the standard.
Table 6 also shows aggregate and compliance with the proposed standard. Estimates of costs are based on
cumulative net benefits associated with In all cases, the estimated net benefits judgments regarding changes to
the proposed standard. The total net of the proposed standard remain materials that will be required to meet
benefits shown in column 7 are the positive. performance tests of the proposed
product of per unit net benefits and Discount rates of 3 percent and 7 standard, the costs of those changes per
number of units produced annually by percent were used to express expected unit, and the number of affected
type of cover material. For example, the benefits accruing in the future in their furniture items produced annually.
total estimated net benefits from present value. Using a 3 percent rate, Based on the midpoints of ranges of
furniture covered with moderately total estimated benefits of the standard estimated cost impacts of material
cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic range from about $419 million to $424 changes, and different assumptions of
fabrics range from $70.7 million to $81.9 million, the range of estimated total reliance on FR fabric treatments as a
million, given by the product of 1.4 costs is about $34 million to $59 means to compliance, aggregate costs of
million units produced and per unit net million, and total estimated net benefits the standard were estimated to be $34
benefits of $50.27 to $58.25. The range from about $365 million to $385 million to $59 million for annual
cumulative net benefits (shown in million. Using a 7 percent discount rate, production of upholstered household
column 8 of Table 6) are calculated by the present value of benefits would furniture. With these costs, total
the vertical summation of the ‘‘Total Net range from about $316 million to $319 estimated net benefits of the proposed
Benefits’’ column. Total net benefits of million, and total net benefits would standard range from about $365 million
the proposed standard are estimated to range from about $260 million to $281 to $385 million using a 3 percent
range from $364.9 million to $385.1 million. discount rate and $260 million to $281
million. Estimated benefits of the proposed million using a 7 percent discount rate.
As noted in Table 6 and in previous standard were based on a value of a Even if we assume that the costs of the
sections of this analysis on benefits, statistical life of $5 million. If benefits standard are twice those estimated in
expected benefits accruing in future are calculated based on a lower bound Section 6 (i.e., $68 million to $118
years have been discounted to their of $3 million as the value for a statistical million) the standard would still have
present value using a 3 percent discount life,76 total estimated benefits of the estimated net benefits ranging from
rate to reflect society’s time preference. standard would range from about $267 about $306 million to $351 million from
In accordance with OMB guidelines on million to $270 million using a 3 annual production of upholstered
benefits calculations, calculations have percent discount rate and about $201 furniture if future benefits are
also been made using a 7 percent million to $203 million using a 7 discounted at 3 percent, and about $190
discount rate. Using this higher rate, percent discount rate. Total estimated million to $237 million if a 7 percent
total net benefits of the proposed net benefits would range from about discount rate is used.
$211 million to $233 million using a 3 Estimated benefits of the proposed
standard are estimated to range from
percent discount rate and $144 million standard were based on assumptions
about $260 million to $281 million over
to $167 million using a 7 percent regarding the effectiveness at reducing
the life of complying upholstered
discount rate. Alternatively, if a value of societal costs of cigarette and small
furniture produced in a year.75 Analyses
$7 million is assigned to a statistical open flame ignitions of furniture.
using both discount rates assume that
life, the total estimated benefits would However, if we assume that the standard
manufacturers would use FR treatments
range from about $572 million to $578 will have one-half the effectiveness that
in a manner that poses no additional
million (at a 3% discount rate) and our estimated benefits are based upon,
risk of injury or adverse health effects to
about $430 million to $435 million (at aggregate benefits would still range from
consumers.
a 7% discount rate) and total estimated about $210 million to $212 million, and
75 Aggregate benefits ranging from about $316
net benefits would range from about net benefits would range from about
million to $319 million minus aggregate costs $519 million to $538 million (at a 3% $153 million to $176 million, using a 3
ranging from about $34 million to $59 million percent discount rate. Using a 7 percent
(midpoint of range). 76 Viscusi, W. Kip. op. cit. discount rate, estimated benefits would
range from about $158 million to $160 price impact of the proposed standard briefing package submitted to the
million, and net benefits would range on furniture items made with FR treated Commission in October 2001.
from about $100 million to $124 fabrics could be about $23 (for perhaps Compliance with the draft small open
million. 2 to 10 percent of all items), and the flame standard would require the use of
average retail price impact for furniture upholstery cover materials that do not
c. Impact of the Proposed Standard on
produced with barrier materials could sustain combustion following exposure
Retail Prices
be about $48 (for perhaps 4% of to a small flame for 20 seconds, or,
The estimated costs of the proposed furniture items). The average retail price alternatively, the use of materials that
standard include the increased costs of impact for furniture that will not be would pass an open flame barrier test.
materials, labor, and distribution made with FR fabric treatments or The staff estimated that most fabrics
directly attributable to the rule. It is barriers under fabrics (perhaps 86 to would fail the 20-second flame test
likely that manufacturers will pass on at 94% of units), could be under $1 per unless they would be treated with FR
least some of the costs of complying unit. The average increase in retail chemicals. Although the FR treatments
with the standard to the consumer, in prices for all upholstered furniture is under that standard specifically
the form of higher retail prices. The estimated to be less than $5 per item, addressed small open flame ignition
actual increase in retail prices will based on the traditional industry hazards, CPSC staff testing data also
depend on the price elasticity of markup rates. showed substantial improvement in
demand for furniture products (i.e., the cigarette ignition resistance. In fact,
responsiveness of quantity demanded to 8. Alternatives to the Proposed Standard most of the estimated benefits of the
the change in price). If demand is highly a. The Staff’s 2005 Draft Standard small open flame standard were
price elastic, then manufacturers will projected to result from reductions in
experience a relatively large decrease in The aggregate benefits of the staff’s societal losses from cigarette ignitions.
sales of upholstered furniture products 2005 draft standard (i.e., the reduction Based on estimated costs of
in response to a price increase, and their in the societal costs associated with compliance and estimated reductions in
ability to pass on increased regulatory complying furniture), based on the both small open flame and cigarette
costs to the consumer is limited. If annual sales of a little over 30 million ignition hazards, adoption of the 2001
demand is price inelastic, consumers furniture items, are expected to be about draft small open flame standard would
respond less intensely to price $597 million. Total aggregate costs of result in estimated aggregate benefits
increases, enabling producers to the 2005 draft standard for each year’s totaling $651 million and aggregate
successfully pass through cost increases. production are estimated to range from costs of about $272 million from annual
Regarding the market for upholstered about $167 million to $184 million, production of about 30.5 million pieces
furniture, it is anticipated that demand with a midpoint of about $176 million. of upholstered furniture.77 Therefore,
is relatively price elastic in the short Although the 2005 draft standard would estimated aggregate net benefits of the
run, because consumers can usually be expected to increase the use of FR small open flame standard would be
postpone the purchase of a durable chemicals in the production of urethane $379 million. This compares with
good. Increases in retail prices are thus foam cushioning and fabrics to achieve estimated net benefits of $365 million to
likely to be limited. In the long run, compliance, estimates assumed that $385 million for the proposed
demand is less elastic and any attempt these chemicals would be selected and standard.78
to pass through increased costs is more used in a way that would not lead to While the estimated net benefits of
likely to succeed. Consequently, appreciable societal costs. If the use of the proposed standard are relatively
increases in retail prices are more likely these chemicals would have adverse close to those estimated for the staff’s
to be observed. health or environmental impacts, the 2001 draft small open flame standard,
In the absence of information on the costs of the 2005 draft standard are the costs associated with the proposed
price elasticity of demand for understated. Estimated benefits and standard are substantially less. In fact,
upholstered furniture products, it is costs per unit would vary greatly the estimated costs of the proposed
possible to make use of traditional depending on cover materials. Most standard (ranging from $34 million to
industry markup rates to provide an units would incur costs related to FR- $59 million) are 78 to 87 percent lower
upper bound estimate for retail price treatment of filling materials, and an than the costs of the 2001 draft ($272
increases. Such estimates may be estimated 10 percent of units covered million). The difference is related, in
viewed as upper bound estimates with more ignition-prone fabrics would large part, to the reduced level of
because they do not reflect the price require modifications (FR-fabric treatment of upholstery fabric with FR
elasticity of demand. Moreover, treatment or FR barriers) that would chemicals. Unlike the proposed
traditional markups do not factor in the lead to higher costs of compliance. standard, which would result in the
role of competition, which can also Projected annual net benefits to society treatment of perhaps 2 to 10 percent of
influence attempts to increase prices. from the staff’s 2005 draft standard total
Rather, the markup simply reflects the $421.5 million. A sensitivity analysis of 77 Smith, Charles, 2001 op. cit. Based on ‘‘Best
price that producers will want to charge several factors (value of life, injury Estimates’’ of reductions in ignition propensity and
midpoints of estimated increases in manufacturing
based on historical accounting costs. As costs, effectiveness, and costs) showed costs; as with the current analysis, distribution
noted above, an increase in price will that alternative assumptions still yield costs are estimated to be an additional 10 percent.
result in a reduction in sales and in the substantially positive net benefits. The best estimate for cigarette ignition reduction
case of highly elastic demand, revenues involving cellulosic fabrics is 75%, based on 2003
will decline as well, which will tend to b. The Draft Small Open Flame Ignition estimates made by Mark Levenson, EPHA, CPSC.
moderate attempts to increase retail Standard 78 The net benefits of the staff’s 2007 draft
standard may also be underestimated. The

prices. As an alternative to the proposed difference does not take into account the likely
According to industry sources, higher standard, the Commission could adopt heavier (and hence more costly) loadings of FR
production costs for materials and labor the standard drafted by CPSC staff in chemicals that would be needed to meet the 20-
second open flame test of the alternative 2001 draft
could result in retail prices that are 2001 that focused on small open flame open flame standard. (For purposes of comparison,
higher by a factor of 2.5, or 150 percent. ignition of upholstered furniture. That the FR treatment costs between these two
Based on this markup, the average retail draft standard was the subject of a staff alternatives were assumed to be the same.)
upholstery fabric coverings, nearly 66 program in 1993. The program requires $500,000.81 Non-UFAC establishments
percent of the upholstery covers would classification of upholstery cover fabrics surveyed in 1995 were found to be less
likely receive FR treatments to pass the into either ‘‘Class I’’ or ‘‘Class II,’’ based likely than UFAC program participants
20-second open flame test of the CPSC on a cigarette ignition performance test. to use heat-conducting welt cords in
staff’s 2001 draft standard. All conforming furniture must comply seat cushions. Welt cord that conforms
It should also be noted that retail with specified construction criteria for to the UFAC program reportedly costs
price impacts of the proposed standard, welt cords, decking substrates, filling furniture manufacturers less than one
reflecting the lower underlying costs, materials, and interior fabrics; and more cent more per yard, compared to
would also be substantially lower than cigarette ignition-prone Class II fabrics comparable welt cord that does not
under the staff’s 2001 small open flame used with polyurethane foam seat conform to the UFAC program.82
draft standard. Increases in the retail cushions must have a barrier material Incremental costs could be less than
price of furniture may have some between the fabric and foam that passes $.04 per seat cushion and $.07 or less
negative impact on sales. Higher prices a barrier smoldering performance test. per chair and $.15 or less per sofa, for
may lead some consumers to delay the Conforming furniture is to be labeled items made with welt cord. Given what
purchase of new furniture or lead them with a UFAC tag. is believed to be the current high
to buy it less frequently, and could conformance rate, and the absence of
The staff’s last market evaluation of
potentially result in secondary impacts welt cord in a substantial portion of
UFAC conformance was conducted in
on the sales of furniture components upholstered furniture styles,
1996. At that time, based on ignition incremental costs to substitute UFAC-
and industry employment; such effects testing of chairs purchased by the CPSC,
are likely to be more pronounced in the compliant welt cord might total less
the staff estimated that about 90 percent than $200,000.83 Other costs associated
short run. While the impact of these of upholstered furniture may have been
price increases cannot be predicted with with changes in construction materials
produced in conformance with the associated with the adoption of the
certainty, the higher costs of the 2001 UFAC program (including a majority of
open flame standard would likely have UFAC program as a mandatory rule
units produced by firms that did not should be very minor. Incremental costs
more pronounced effects. Additionally, participate in the UFAC program).
while the retail price impact of the related to compliance enforcement
Although the UFAC program is should be low, since materials are
proposed standard will tend to fall most designed to prevent the use of furniture
heavily on generally more expensive already subject to verification testing to
components that may be more likely to qualify as acceptable materials under
furniture items (i.e., those with the more lead to cigarette ignition of the finished
expensive cellulosic fabrics), the the UFAC program and manufacturers
items, the program is not designed to already incur labeling costs under the
alternative open flame standard would predict the ignition performance of all
fall disproportionately on the more UFAC program. However, it is possible
UFAC furniture. CPSC staff testing that somewhat higher recordkeeping
inexpensive furniture with found that some chairs that conformed
thermoplastic fabrics, the fabrics less costs could be one of the major cost
to the UFAC program ignited from elements of mandating the UFAC
prone to cigarette ignition. cigarettes, and some nonconforming
Finally, while FR chemicals could be program, given the minor costs related
chairs resisted ignition. The findings to materials. Total costs of compliance
used under both the proposed standard illustrated that cigarette-ignition
and the 2001 draft open flame standard, for adoption of the UFAC program as a
resistance of upholstered furniture is mandatory standard could be under $5
usage under the draft small open flame more dependent on the fabrics and
standard is likely to be much greater. million.
filling materials used, rather than on Benefits that would result from
Under the 2001 open flame standard the conformance with all aspects of the mandating compliance with the UFAC
staff estimated that up to about 300 UFAC Program.80 program would also be much smaller
million linear yards of fabric could be
Costs of mandating the requirements than estimated for other alternative
FR-treated annually. Under the
of the UFAC program should be performance standards discussed in this
proposed standard, however, an
minimal. Perhaps the major program analysis. Most furniture covered with
estimated maximum of 65 million yards
element associated with costs is the fabrics that would benefit most from a
could potentially be treated.79
requirement for a smolder-resistant barrier of polyester fiberfill over
c. A Mandatory Standard Based on the barrier to be used under Class II fabrics urethane foam already are manufactured
UFAC Voluntary Program when the seat cushion core is standard in that way. The cigarette-ignition
urethane foam. The primary barrier resistance of nearly all upholstered
As an alternative to the proposed
material for this purpose under the items would not be significantly
standard, the Commission could adopt
UFAC program is polyester fiberfill improved under this alternative.
the provisions of the UFAC Voluntary
cushion wrap. Based on analysis of Although a minimal reduction in the
Action Program as a mandatory
standard. The Upholstered Furniture market data, fewer than 5 percent of
81 Based on the assumption that 5% of seat
Action Council, or UFAC, was formed upholstered furniture items are cushions with Class II fabrics (perhaps 150,000
by major furniture industry associations currently produced with Class II fabrics. cushions) would require polyester wraps.
in 1974, largely as a response to The great majority of the seat cushions 82 A representative of welt cord manufacturer,
prospective CPSC actions on on these items already is made with Petco-Sackner, reported during an October 17, 2007,
polyester wraps, and, therefore, are telephone conversation with Charles Smith,
upholstered furniture. The UFAC Directorate for Economic Analysis, that UFAC welt
Voluntary Action Program was conforming to the UFAC program. cord is sold to furniture manufacturers for $32 per
Incremental costs of using polyester
developed in the late 1970’s and 1,000 yard reel, versus $25 per 1,000 yards for
amended as ‘‘Phase 2’’ in 1983. Tests for wraps on all seat cushions covered with similar non-UFAC welt cord.
83 If current UFAC conformance is about 90% and
decorative trim were added to the Class II fabrics could total less than
about 55% of units are made with welt cord (based
on 1995 survey of manufacturers), average
79 Franklin, Robert. Preliminary Environmental 80 Charles Smith, Directorate for Economic incremental welt cord costs of about $.11 per item
Assessment of a Draft Proposed Flammability Analysis, CPSC, and Linda Fansler, Directorate for would be applied to approximately 1.7 million
Standard for Residential Upholstered Furniture. Laboratory Sciences, Cigarette Ignition Propensity units annually, with aggregate costs of about $185
November 2007. of Upholstered Furniture, November 1996. million.
overall smoldering hazard (of less than materials (such as leather, wool, and resulting range of costs would be about
1%) could result in positive net vinyl-coated coverings) and some of the $7.83 per item of furniture. Therefore,
benefits, the expected net benefits of heavier-weight cellulosic fabrics. the aggregate costs of the FR treatment
adoption of the UFAC program as a Consequently, for purposes of of fabrics might amount to about $151
mandatory standard would be minimal, evaluating the costs and benefits of this million ($7.83 per item × 19.3 million
and substantially below any other alternative, we assume that two-thirds items).
alternative performance standards of the approximately 10 percent of cover In summary, the costs of treating the
discussed in this analysis. materials that are severely ignition- filling materials and fabrics under TB–
prone cellulosic fabrics (which cover 117 could amount to about $330 million
d. A Mandatory Furniture Standard about 2 million units of furniture annually or more ($178 million for
Based on the Revised Draft Provisions of annually, or about 6% of all fabric filling materials and $151 million for
California Technical Bulletin 117 coverings) would pass the draft TB–117 fabrics). The associated compliance and
In February 2002, California’s Bureau open flame fabric test. The remaining distribution costs could bring the total
of Home Furnishings published draft severely ignition-prone cellulosic up to about $370 million annually. This
revisions to the state’s Technical fabrics (covering about 1 million would be more than 6 times the
Bulletin (TB–117) that contains furniture items) will be assumed to fail estimated costs of the proposed
mandatory requirements for materials the test and therefore require FR standard, estimated to range from $34
used in the manufacture of upholstered treatment. An additional assumption is million to $59 million.
furniture sold in the state. Unlike the that all of the moderate- and lower- The likely benefits that would result
proposed standard, the revised ignition prone cellulosics and from adoption of the revised draft of
California draft standard specifies open thermoplastic cover materials (covering TB–117 as a mandatory standard vary
flame and smoldering ignition tests for about 18 million furniture items by cover material type. First consider
filling materials (including urethane annually, or about 60% of all furniture the furniture covered by severely
foam and loose filling materials). These items produced) would fail the open cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic
filling materials requirements apply to flame fabric test and have to be treated. fabrics (2.9 million units). Based on the
all furniture items, including those Thus, a total of about 19 million units assumptions described above, about 1
covered in ignition resistant fabrics such of furniture would be covered in fabrics million of these furniture items will fail
as leather, wool and vinyl. that would have to be treated in order the open flame fabric test of the revised
In addition, the revised draft TB–117 to comply with the revised draft TB– draft TB–117 and have to be treated.
specifies a small open flame test for 117. Since these furniture items will have
upholstery fabrics. The open flame test The primary costs of the revised draft fabric treatments as well as complying
requires the 20 second application of a TB–117 would be the costs of treating filling materials, it may be reasonable to
small open-flame to the crevice of a the filling materials (e.g., urethane foam assume that the benefits under the
seat/back mock-up assembly of fabric and loose fill) and the cover fabrics that revised draft TB–117 would be
over a standard flame-retardant fail the open flame test. The per-unit comparable to those of the CPSC staff’s
polyurethane foam pad. The specimen costs of treating urethane foam and the 2005 draft standard (which would also
fails if (1) weight loss exceeds 4 percent loose fill could be similar to those have treated filling materials), about
in the first 10 minutes, or (2) the estimated for the 2005 standard drafted $118 per unit. Thus, the benefits from
specimen burns progressively before 10 by the CPSC staff. Consequently, the these items would amount to about $115
minutes. filling materials costs per item of million ($118.05 per item × 978,300
In the view of the Directorate for furniture might amount to about $5.85 items). Additionally, for the remaining
Engineering Sciences (ES), the open per unit. Since the TB–117 filling 2.0 million units covered with severely
flame fabric test is less stringent than materials requirements would apply to cigarette ignition-prone fabrics that are
the open flame test for fabrics that was all furniture items produced (including not treated, the benefits would probably
part of the CPSC staff’s 2001 draft items using ignition resistant cover be no more than about half of the
standard.84 Nevertheless, ES believes fabrics), the total filling materials costs benefits associated with the treated
that the great majority of fabrics would amount to about $178 million units, or about $59 per unit. Thus, the
currently used by the furniture industry ($5.85 per unit × 30.5 million units). It benefits associated with these 2.0
would require modification in order to is possible that additional costs would million units with untreated fabrics
comply with the draft TB–117 test. This be required to treat fibrous filling might amount to about $115 million
judgment is shared by the California materials under the revised draft TB– ($59.03 per unit × 1,956,600 units).
Bureau of Home furnishings personnel, 117, since the open flame test for that Therefore, the total estimated benefits
based on their testing experience.85 material could be more stringent than resulting from annual production of
Based on testing by California’s that drafted by the CPSC staff in 2005. complying furniture upholstered with
Bureau of Home Furnishings and the Based on the assumptions described severely cigarette ignition-prone
CPSC laboratory, it is reasonable to above, approximately 19 million units cellulosic fabrics would be about $231
of furniture would be covered in fabrics million.
assume that the majority of cover
that fail the open flame fabric test and About 18.3 million units of furniture
materials are likely to fail the revised
would therefore have to be treated. The covered in moderately- and lower-
draft TB–117 open flame test, with the ignition prone cellulosic fabrics and
estimated costs of FR treatments based
exception of ignition resistant cover thermoplastic fabrics will also likely fail
on the 2001 CPSC staff draft open flame
standard ranged from about $6.61 to the open flame fabric test of the revised
84 The 2001 CPSC draft standard required that
there be no continuing combustion 15 minutes after $11.28 per average unit of furniture, draft TB–117 and have to be treated.
a 20-second small flame application to a composite with a midpoint of about $8.95 per item. Under the staff’s 2005 draft proposed
consisting of the fabric to be tested and non-FR If we assume that the incremental costs standard, these furniture items would
urethane foam. of FR-treated fabrics under TB–117 have treated filling materials, but not
85 Said Nurbakhsh, PhD, California Bureau of
Home Furnishings, in a November 14, 2005, e-mail

amount to about 75 to 100 percent of the treated fabric coverings. For purposes of
to Charles Smith, Directorate for Economic costs estimated for the 2001 draft open this analysis, we will assume that the
Analysis, CPSC. flame standard, the midpoint of the benefits associated with the filling
materials tests of the revised draft TB– Additionally, a warning label would not leather, could reduce fires over time.
117 are similar to those of the CPSC be likely to prevent fires started by Also, the state of California might adopt
staff’s 2005 draft standard. children playing with lighters and the draft revisions to its mandatory
Consequently, the estimated benefits matches, who are unlikely to read the standard for upholstered furniture.
associated with the revised draft TB– statements provided. Those revisions could result in reduced
117 would be greater because the cover f. Alternative Effective Date fire losses in that state, which accounts
fabrics would also be treated. In other for perhaps 15 percent of the furniture
words, unlike the 2005 CPSC staff’s Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics market. Some furniture manufacturers
draft standard, the benefits of treated Act states that standards or regulations might use materials that comply with
filling materials would be augmented by shall become effective 12 months from some or all provisions of the California
the use of FR-treated fabrics under the the date of promulgation, unless the revised standard for all of their furniture
revised draft TB–117. Since the Commission finds that a different production, which could reduce fire
estimated benefits for these furniture effective date is in the public interest. losses in other areas. Additionally, other
items under the staff’s 2005 draft Because of the need for FR treatment of political jurisdictions could impose
standard amount to about $251 million, some fabrics used in the manufacture of requirements that would reduce future
the gross benefits associated with the furniture and the fact that furniture
losses from furniture fires.
revised draft TB–117 would be greater manufacturers carry stocks of fabrics, a
longer period before the rule becomes Factors other than furniture materials
than $251 million. If we assume that the
effective, such as 18 months, could will also determine fire losses in the
fabric treatments would reduce the
provide some firms additional time to future. Some of these will tend to
remaining societal costs by about 50
use inventories of fabrics that would not increase future losses (such as projected
percent, then the gross benefits for these
pass the proposed standard’s fabric test annual increases of about 1% in
18.3 million units might amount to
without FR treatment. However, given population and households) and others
about $329 million ($251 million + 0.5
the small percentage of fabrics that will might decrease future losses (such as
× ($408 million¥$251 million)).86
Based on this analysis, the total need to be treated (under 10%), it is continued reductions in rates of
benefits associated with the revised unlikely that limiting the effective date smoking and alcohol consumption,
draft TB–117 might amount to about to 12 months would substantially increasing smoke alarm operability,
$560 million ($231 million from burden firms. information and education efforts, and
furniture covered with severely ignition Additionally, several options might be installation of sprinkler systems in new
available to furniture manufacturers that construction).
prone fabrics and $329 million from
have fabric that does not comply with Particularly noteworthy is the
furniture covered with other fabrics).
a regulatory alternative adopted by the
These estimated benefits are greater expected growth in the availability of
CPSC as the effective date for the action
than those associated with the proposed cigarettes that reduce the probability of
approaches. They might send the
standard (estimated to range from $419 igniting upholstered furniture. Effective
remaining fabric yardage to contract
million to $424 million). on June 28, 2004, the State of New York
In summary, the estimated annual finishers for backcoating with FR
chemicals. They could use FR barrier required all cigarettes sold in the state
costs associated with the revised draft to self-extinguish if they are left
TB–117 may amount to about $370 materials beneath the untreated fabric,
as allowed by that alternative method of unattended. Such cigarettes are
million, and the estimated benefits may expected to reduce greatly, but not
amount to about $560 million. compliance with the proposed standard.
Also, they might sell the fabric to eliminate, residential fires started by
Therefore, the estimated net benefits of cigarettes. Similar legislation became
this regulatory alternative are about jobbers who would market it to
furniture manufacturers that use FR effective in Vermont in 2006 and
$190 million. This compares to $365 California, Oregon, and New Hampshire
million to $385 million in net benefits barriers with untreated upholstery
fabrics and for other end-uses that are in 2007, and has been signed into law
estimated to result from the proposed in 17 other states, with effective dates
standard. not within the scope of the regulation.
In view of the relatively small ranging from January 1, 2008, to January
e. A Labeling Rule percentage of fabrics estimated to 1, 2010. Legislation has also been
require FR treatments or other introduced in nine other states. By 2010,
A rule requiring hazard information to more than half of the U.S. population
be presented on labels could be adopted modifications, and other options
available to furniture manufacturers, an will be living in states with mandatory
by the Commission in addition to, or in
effective date longer than 12 months laws addressing the ignition propensity
lieu of, a standard. The costs of labeling
from the date of promulgation might not of cigarettes.87 In addition to state
would be just a few cents per item
be in the public interest. actions, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
(based on reported labeling costs under
Company, the second-largest cigarette
the UFAC Voluntary Action Program g. Taking No Action manufacturer with about one-third of
and estimates provided by a label
The Commission could determine that the U.S. market, recently announced its
manufacturer). However, the impacts of
no rule is reasonably necessary to intention to only market reduced
such labeling on product safety are
reduce the risk of fires associated with ignition propensity cigarettes in the U.S.
likely to be minimal. Labeling that
ignitions of upholstered furniture. by the end of 2009.88 This policy,
warns of cigarette ignition hazards is
Under this alternative, future societal combined with the increased imposition
unlikely to be effective, because labels
losses would be determined by factors of state requirements, could spur other
are unlikely to be seen by consumers
that affect the likelihood that ignition

when the upholstered item is in use,
sources come in contact with upholstery 87 Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes, Legislative
and because there already is general
and the ignition resistance of upholstery Updates. http://www.firesafecigarettes.org
public awareness of these hazards. (referenced on September 19, 2007).
materials used by furniture 88 Payne, Tommy J., Executive Vice President—
86 Based on estimates from tables 2, 4, and 6 in manufacturers. For example, the Public Affairs, Reynolds American Inc., in a letter
the November 2007 Preliminary Regulatory apparently increasing use of ignition- to James M. Shannon, National Fire Protection
Analysis. resistant upholstery materials, such as Association, October 25, 2007.
cigarette manufacturers to make similar proposed standard by using a barrier U.S. Small Business Administration
business decisions. material under the upholstery fabric that (SBA) considered a furniture
If the Commission does not adopt a passes the standard’s applicable barrier manufacturing company to be ‘‘small’’
mandatory rule to address furniture tests (‘‘Type II upholstered furniture’’). for purposes of qualification for small
flammability it is possible that a This option allows manufacturers to use business loans if it has fewer than 500
voluntary standard (perhaps through non-complying upholstery fabrics. employees (at all of its establishments).
modifications to the existing UFAC In addition to flammability This definition encompassed more than
Voluntary Action Program) could be performance requirements, the proposed 97 percent of firms in the industry in
developed based on the proposed standard contains provisions relating to 2002.
standard, or based on other provisions, certification and recordkeeping, testing The proposed standard will also affect
to address these hazards. However, no to support guaranties issued by material manufacturers and finishers of
such voluntary standard currently suppliers, and labeling of finished upholstery fabrics and barrier materials
exists. Moreover, the effort begun in articles of upholstered furniture. These used in the production of furniture.
1996 through ASTM to establish a requirements are intended to help Although their products are not directly
voluntary standard is currently inactive. manufacturers, importers and suppliers regulated by the draft proposed
Furthermore, comments submitted in ensure that their products comply, and standard, it is expected that they will
response to the October 23, 2003, ANPR to help the CPSC staff to enforce the provide guaranties to furniture
representing all segments of the affected performance standard. manufacturers regarding fabric ignition
industries supported mandatory federal The proposed standard provides that resistance. It is expected that about 10
regulation to address upholstered finished articles of upholstered percent of upholstery cover fabric
furniture flammability. furniture must carry a permanent label yardage will require changes in
Thus, while furniture fires might containing the manufacturer or importer production, such as the incorporation of
decline with no CPSC action, there is no name and location; month and year of flame retardant (FR) chemicals or
reason to believe that the decline would manufacture; model identification; and changes in fibers, in order to pass the
approach the proportion of fire losses type identification indicating the means fabric test of the draft proposed
that could be prevented with the of compliance (i.e., ‘‘Type I’’ or ‘‘Type standard. As noted above, non-
proposed standard, or some of the other II’’). This information must be separate complying fabrics could still be used
performance standard alternatives from other label information. The label with complying barrier materials. As
described in this analysis. would help retailers and consumers with furniture manufacturers, the great
identify products and materials, e.g., in majority of upholstery fabric
I. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis the event of a recall or other corrective manufacturers and fabric finishers are
1. Introduction action. small businesses under SBA definitions.
In summary, all manufacturers and The usual means of compliance with
The Regulatory Flexibility Act importers of upholstered furniture
(‘‘RFA’’) requires that rules proposed by the proposed standard will be the use of
would be subject to the standard if it is fabrics that do not need FR treatments
the Commission be reviewed for the adopted as a rule by the Commission.
potential economic impact on small or barriers. More than 85 percent of all
However, it is likely that the great
entities, including small businesses. upholstered furniture items made under
majority of testing would be done by or
Section 603 of the RFA requires the the proposed standard would be made
for upholstery fabric suppliers. These
Commission to prepare and make with such materials. For these items,
results would then be used to support
available for public comment an Initial estimated average increased costs of the
guaranties of compliance that will be
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis standard would be minor costs of a few
provided to furniture manufacturers.
describing the impact of the proposed cents per unit that are largely associated
Records would be prepared by those
rule on small entities and identifying with compliance verification. For those
conducting tests (fabric and filling
impact-reducing alternatives. units that comply as a result of FR
material manufacturer personnel or
Accordingly, staff prepared an initial outside testing facilities); copies of treatment of fabrics or the use of
regulatory flexibility analysis for the reports and records would be barriers, estimated costs are higher, but
proposed rule on upholstered furniture. maintained by upholstered furniture are only estimated to involve less than
A summary of the analysis follows. manufacturers and furniture importers. 15 percent of total production. The
No special skills that are not already increased resource costs associated with
2. Impact on Small Businesses and furniture using treated FR fabrics (i.e.,
available to manufacturers and
Other Small Entities the costs associated with materials,
importers would be required to establish
Summary of proposed requirements. or verify compliance with the proposed labor, and distribution) are expected to
The proposed standard will apply to rule. average about $9.95 per item of
finished or ready-to-assemble articles of Impact on small businesses. The furniture; the increased costs associated
upholstered furniture, as discussed proposed standard would apply to with the use of barriers may amount to
earlier in this document. The proposed manufacturers and importers of about $21 per unit.89
standard contains smoldering ignition upholstered furniture intended for sale The cost impacts faced by firms using
performance requirements for cover to consumers. According to the Census treated materials, including smaller
fabrics, and smoldering and open flame Bureau’s 2002 Economic Census, 1,686 manufacturers, would be proportionate
performance requirements for interior U.S. companies (with 1,946 to the yardage of treated upholstery
fire barriers (if they are used as the establishments) manufactured fabrics or barrier materials used.
method of compliance). Furniture items upholstered household furniture or Therefore, the costs of these methods of
can comply by being made with dual-purpose sleep furniture as their compliance are not expected to be borne
upholstery cover materials that pass the primary product. Only 29 percent of disproportionately by smaller
cover material cigarette ignition test upholstered furniture establishments 89 Cost estimates are weighted based on shipment
(designated as ‘‘Type I upholstered (564 of 1,946) had 20 or more data of larger items such as sofas and sofabeds (with
furniture’’). Alternatively, employees, and only 10 percent (200 higher costs) and smaller items such as chairs (with
manufacturers may comply with the establishments) had 100 or more. The lower costs).
manufacturers of furniture. In addition, broad product lines. In summary, the manufacturers should be able to pass at
they should be able to pass at least some recordkeeping requirements of the least some of the additional costs of
of these increased costs on to residential proposed rule would not likely place a testing to furniture producers and
consumers. Small businesses that substantial burden on small businesses. jobbers that purchase their products.
manufacture relatively inexpensive The proposed standard was also This information suggests that the
furniture that will require no fabric designed to minimize testing costs that testing necessary to provide guaranties
modifications should face only modest would be imposed on small furniture of compliance by small manufacturers
increases in expenses related to manufacturers. Since they may rely on of fabrics and filling materials will not
compliance verification, estimated to guaranties provided by fabric and result in a substantial impact on such
average $.11 per unit. For these reasons, barrier material suppliers, the proposed firms.
it seems unlikely that the rule would rule does not require firms to test
composites of their fabrics and the range 3. Alternatives and Their Possible Effect
have a significant impact on small
of actual cushioning materials. Such on Small Businesses
furniture manufacturers.
Many of the fabrics currently used by testing would significantly increase Alternatives considered by the
small furniture manufacturers that costs of the proposed standard, and Commission are discussed in the
would fail the fabric test of the proposed would likely disproportionately affect Preliminary Regulatory Analysis section
standard are likely to be relatively small manufacturers of upholstered of this preamble, Section H. As
expensive decorative fabrics. The furniture. Nor does the proposed discussed therein, four alternative
proposed standard’s option of using FR standard include a requirement for a standards were considered by the
barrier materials would be a likely small open flame test of cover fabrics. Commission: A standard based on
means of compliance for furniture made An open flame test requirement similar requirements drafted by the CPSC staff
with such fabrics, and this option was to the 2001 CPSC staff draft furniture in 2005 that includes smoldering and
requested by the segment of the industry flammability standard would have open flame ignition performance tests
using the more expensive decorative added substantially to costs faced by for filling materials, in addition to
fabrics when the CPSC staff was drafting small furniture manufacturers. smoldering tests for cover fabrics and
an open flame standard in 2001. Other Many of the fabrics that would fail the tests for barrier materials; the 2001 draft
fabrics used by these small furniture fabric test of the proposed standard are small open flame standard developed by
manufacturers could be brought into likely to be more expensive decorative the CPSC staff; a standard based on
compliance with FR treatments at lower fabrics. Based on information provided mandating the provisions of the UFAC
per unit costs, if their aesthetic qualities by the Decorative Fabrics Association, voluntary program, and; a standard
would not be significantly degraded by its members are generally among the based on the 2002 revised draft
the processes. These alternative means smaller establishments that will be California furniture regulation (TB–117).
of compliance would allow decorative affected by the proposed rule. Partially Other regulatory options were also
fabrics to remain available to the in response to comments received from evaluated that might lessen the potential
upholstered furniture industry and the this segment of the industry, the CPSC burden on industry, including small
consuming public. Since the prices of staff included the provision for use of firms. These regulatory alternatives
fabrics that would be treated or used acceptable barrier materials as an include extending the effective date
with barriers, and the furniture made alternative means of compliance. This beyond 12 months after promulgation,
with them, are likely to be considerably alternative was sought by the industry and adoption of warning label
higher than average, the relative because of concerns that aesthetic requirements. Another alternative for
increases in per unit costs would be qualities of many decorative fabrics consideration was the reliance on a
moderated for the small furniture would be adversely affected by FR voluntary standard or taking no action.
manufacturers that use them. treatments. This alternative allows all The CPSC staff’s 2005 draft standard
Additionally, discussions with upholstery fabrics manufactured by would require the use of cover fabrics
upholstered furniture manufacturers small textile firms to be used under the that meet cigarette ignition performance
producing the more expensive furniture proposed standard, and is expected to tests, and the use of urethane foam and
using decorative fabrics suggest that the substantially mitigate the impact of the fibrous filling materials that meet both
barrier option will substantially address proposed standard on their businesses. cigarette ignition and open flame
their concerns with likely adverse Under the proposed standard, ignition performance tests. Under this
aesthetic effects of FR treatments for manufacturers are required to conduct alternative, manufacturers would have
many of these fabrics. reasonable and representative tests to the option of using fire blocking barriers
The estimated per unit costs of the support initial guaranties of compliance which pass tests of smoldering and open
proposed standard discussed above for their materials. However, the costs flame ignition resistance instead of
include relatively modest costs for associated with these requirements are using complying fabrics and filling
recordkeeping (included in the expected to be minimal since many of materials. Under the staff’s 2005 draft
estimated average compliance these costs are now incurred for standard, the cost impacts faced by
verification costs of about $.11 per item products marketed for use as complying firms using treated materials, including
of furniture). The proposed standard with voluntary standards or mandatory smaller manufacturers, would be
would require furniture manufacturers standards enforced by California and proportionate to the amounts of treated
to maintain records for a period of three other jurisdictions. Manufacturers of cushioning materials used, and yardage
years after items are produced. The upholstery fabrics already classify their of treated upholstery fabrics or barrier
records will include identification and fabrics using the UFAC fabric materials used. Therefore, the costs of
description of the furniture items and classification test, which is similar to these methods of compliance would not
materials used in their manufacture, the fabric test of the proposed standard. be expected to be borne
contact information for material Thus, small manufacturers of fabrics disproportionately by smaller
suppliers, and results of relevant should only face minor incremental manufacturers of furniture. In addition,
material tests. Smaller firms with costs for testing under the proposed small manufacturers should be able to
limited product lines are expected to standard, compared to current industry pass at least some of their increased
bear lower costs than larger firms with practices. Furthermore, small costs on to residential consumers. For
these reasons, it is unlikely that this proposed standard. The estimated net standard urethane foam. The primary
alternative would have a significant benefits of the 2001 draft small open barrier material for this purpose under
impact on these small furniture flame standard are substantial, and in the UFAC program is polyester fiberfill
manufacturers. the range of total net benefits estimated cushion wrap. Based on analysis of
Like the proposed standard, many of for the proposed standard. However, the market data, fewer than 5 percent of
the fabrics used by small furniture estimated costs of the alternative small upholstered furniture items are
manufacturers that would fail the fabric open flame standard are perhaps 5-to-8 currently produced with Class II fabrics.
test of the staff’s 2005 draft standard are times those estimated for the proposed The great majority of the seat cushions
likely to be relatively expensive standard. The higher estimated costs of on these items already are made with
decorative fabrics. Therefore, the compliance for the draft small open polyester wraps, and, therefore, are
statements made above regarding flame standard would place greater conforming to the UFAC program. Total
impacts of the proposed standard would burdens on all manufacturers, including annual costs of compliance for adoption
also apply under this regulatory smaller firms. of the UFAC program as a mandatory
alternative. Also like the proposed Unlike the proposed standard, the standard could be under $5 million.
standard, the Directorate for Economic small open flame draft standard would Benefits that would result from
Analysis does not believe that the require substantial production testing, mandating compliance with the UFAC
recordkeeping requirements of the 2005 which could disproportionately affect program would also be much smaller
draft standard place a substantial small upholstered furniture than estimated for the proposed
burden on small businesses, and the manufacturers with smaller production standard and other alternative
2005 draft was also designed to runs. Additionally, since up to 70 performance standards considered by
minimize testing costs that would be percent of upholstery fabric yardage the Commission. Most furniture covered
imposed on small furniture could require FR treatments under the with fabrics that would benefit most
manufacturers. draft small open flame standard, there from a barrier of polyester fiberfill over
Under the 2005 draft standard, would be greater competition for the urethane foam already are manufactured
processes and materials will be readily available fabric backcoating capacity. in that way. The cigarette-ignition
available to small businesses that Smaller furniture and fabric producers, resistance of nearly all upholstered
manufacture cushioning materials for with smaller lots of fabrics to be treated, items would not be significantly
the furniture industry.90 The Directorate reportedly would be faced with improved under this alternative. The
for Economic Analysis believes that difficulties in competing with larger expected net benefits of adoption of the
consequently, since at least some of the firms for timely access to fabric UFAC program as a mandatory standard
cost increases are likely to be passed on finishing services for necessary FR would be minimal, and substantially
to the furniture manufacturers that treatments. below any other alternative performance
purchase the materials, a rule based on As another alternative, the standards discussed in this analysis.
the 2005 draft standard would probably Commission could adopt the provisions In summary, a mandatory standard
not have a significant impact on a of the UFAC Voluntary Action Program based on the UFAC voluntary program
substantial number of small businesses as a mandatory standard. The would have a minimal impact on small
that manufacture cushioning materials Upholstered Furniture Action Council, businesses; much smaller than the
subject to the rule. Nevertheless, or UFAC, was formed by major furniture proposed standard. However, this
ignition performance requirements for industry associations in 1974, and the regulatory alternative would not be
filling materials were not included in UFAC Voluntary Action Program was expected to lead to a significant
the proposed standard, which results in developed in the late 1970’s and reduction in smoldering or open flame
somewhat lower costs of compliance amended in later years. The program ignition hazards of upholstered
compared to the 2005 draft alternative. requires classification of upholstery furniture.
Another alternative considered by the cover fabrics into either ‘‘Class I’’ or Another alternative standard
Commission was the standard drafted ‘‘Class II,’’ based on a cigarette ignition considered by the Commission was a
by the CPSC staff in 2001 that focused performance test. All conforming revised draft standard for upholstered
on small open flame ignition of furniture must comply with specified furniture published by California’s
upholstered furniture. That draft construction criteria for welt cords, Bureau of Home Furnishings in 2002.
standard was the subject of a staff decking substrates, filling materials, and The draft would revise the state’s
briefing package submitted to the interior fabrics; and more cigarette Technical Bulletin (TB–117) which
Commission in October 2001. ignition-prone Class II fabrics used with contains mandatory requirements for
Compliance with the small open flame polyurethane foam seat cushions must materials used in the manufacture of
standard would require the use of have a barrier material between the upholstered furniture sold in the state.
upholstery cover materials that do not fabric and foam that passes a barrier Unlike the proposed standard, the
sustain combustion (over standard performance test. Conforming furniture revised California draft standard
urethane foam) following exposure to a is to be labeled with a UFAC tag. In specifies open flame and smoldering
small flame for 20 seconds, or, 1996 the CPSC staff estimated that about ignition tests for filling materials
alternatively, the use of materials that 90 percent of upholstered furniture may (including urethane foam and loose
would pass a barrier test. have been produced in conformance filling materials). However, unlike the
Based on current market data, the with the UFAC program (including a staff’s 2005 draft (which did include
2001 draft small open flame standard majority of units produced by firms that such requirements), the filling materials
probably would require FR treatments did not participate in the UFAC requirements apply to all furniture
for about 70 percent of all upholstery program). Costs of mandating the items, including those covered in
cover materials, or the use of acceptable requirements of the UFAC program ignition-resistant fabrics such as leather,
barrier materials, compared with less should be minimal. Perhaps the major wool and vinyl.
than 10 percent of cover materials program element associated with costs In addition to tests for filling
requiring such modifications under the is the requirement for a smolder- materials, the revised draft TB–117
resistant barrier to be used under Class specifies a small open flame test for
90 Smith, op. cit. II fabrics when the seat cushion core is upholstery fabrics. The great majority of
fabrics currently used by the furniture treated, it seems unlikely that setting an provisions of the California revised
industry probably would require effective date of 12 months from the standard for all of their furniture
modification in order to comply with date of promulgation will substantially production, which could reduce fire
the draft TB–117 test. For purposes of burden firms. losses in other areas. Additionally, other
evaluating the costs and benefits of this The Commission could also require political jurisdictions could impose
alternative, the Directorate for Economic hazard information to be presented on requirements that would reduce future
Analysis assumes that about 60 percent labels in addition to, or in lieu of, a losses from furniture fires.
of all furniture items produced would standard. The costs of labeling would be Factors other than furniture materials
be covered in fabrics that would have to just a few cents per item (based on will also determine fire losses in the
be treated in order to pass the fabric test reported labeling costs under the UFAC future. Some of these will tend to
specified in the revised draft TB–117. Voluntary Action Program and estimates increase future losses (such as projected
The combined costs of treating the provided by a label manufacturer), and annual increases of about 1% in
filling materials and fabrics under the thus, should not present significant population and households) and others
revised draft TB–117 and the associated costs to small furniture manufacturers. might decrease future losses (such as
compliance and distribution costs could However, the impacts of such labeling continued reductions in rates of
total more than six times the estimated on product safety are likely to be smoking and alcohol consumption,
costs of the proposed standard. The minimal. Labeling that warns of increasing smoke alarm operability,
higher estimated costs of compliance of cigarette ignition hazards probably information and education efforts, and
a standard based on the revised draft would not be effective, because labels installation of sprinkler systems in new
TB–117 regulation would place greater are unlikely to be seen by consumers construction).
burdens on all manufacturers, including when the upholstered item is in use, Particularly noteworthy is the
smaller firms. and because there already is public expected growth in the availability of
Additionally, since about 60 percent awareness of these hazards. cigarettes that reduce the probability of
of upholstery fabric yardage could Additionally, a warning label would not igniting upholstered furniture. Effective
require FR treatments in order to be likely to prevent fires started by on June 28, 2004, the State of New York
comply with the open flame fabric test children playing with lighters and
required all cigarettes sold in the state
of the revised draft TB–117, there would matches, who are unlikely to read, or be
to self-extinguish if they are left
be greater competition for the available affected by, the statements provided.
If the Commission does not adopt a unattended. Such cigarettes are
fabric backcoating capacity, which
mandatory rule to address furniture expected to reduce greatly, but not
could cause smaller furniture and fabric
flammability it is possible that a eliminate, residential fires started by
producers, with smaller lots of fabrics to
voluntary standard (perhaps through cigarettes. Similar legislation became
be treated, to be faced with difficulties
modifications to the existing UFAC effective in Vermont in 2006 and
in competing with larger firms for
Voluntary Action Program) could be California, Oregon, and New Hampshire
timely access to fabric finishing services
developed based on the proposed in 2007, and has been signed into law
for necessary FR treatments.
In summary, a standard based on the standard or based on other provisions, in 17 other states, with effective dates
revised draft California furniture such as the industry recommendations, ranging from January 1, 2008, to January
flammability regulation, TB–117, to address these hazards. However, no 1, 2010. Legislation has also been
probably would have a more substantial such voluntary effort is currently introduced in nine other states. By 2010,
and more disproportionate impact on ongoing. Moreover, the effort begun in more than half of the U.S. population
small businesses than the proposed 1996 through ASTM to establish a will be living in states with mandatory
standard. The Directorate for Economic voluntary open flame standard is laws addressing the ignition propensity
Analysis estimates that the greater currently inactive. Furthermore, of cigarettes.91 In addition to state
burden would not result in higher comments submitted in response to the actions, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
benefits than the proposed standard, October 23, 2003, ANPR representing all Company, the second-largest cigarette
and estimated net benefits from one segments of the affected industries manufacturer with about one-third of
year’s production of upholstered supported mandatory federal regulation the U.S. market, recently announced its
furniture under the regulatory to address upholstered furniture intention to only market reduced
alternative are close to $200 million flammability. ignition propensity cigarettes in the U.S.
lower than the net benefits estimated to The Commission also could have by the end of 2009.92 This policy,
result from the proposed standard. chosen to take no action. In this combined with the increased imposition
Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics situation, future societal losses would of state requirements, could spur other
Act states that standards or regulations be determined by factors that affect the cigarette manufacturers to make similar
shall become effective 12 months from likelihood that ignition sources come in business decisions.
the date of promulgation, unless the contact with upholstery and the ignition While furniture fires might decline
Commission finds that a different resistance of upholstery materials used with no CPSC action, there is no reason
effective date is in the public interest. by furniture manufacturers. For to believe that the decline would
Because of the need for FR treatment of example, the apparently increasing use approach the proportion of fire losses
some fabrics used in the manufacture of of ignition-resistant upholstery that could be prevented with the
furniture and the fact that furniture materials, such as leather, could reduce proposed standard, or some of the other
manufacturers carry stocks of fabrics, a fires over time. Also, the state of performance standard alternatives
longer period before the rule becomes California might adopt the draft described in this analysis.
effective, such as 18 months, could revisions to its mandatory standard for

provide some firms (including smaller upholstered furniture. Those revisions 91 Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes, Legislative
firms) additional time to use inventories could result in reduced fire losses in Updates. http://www.firesafecigarettes.org
of fabrics that would not pass the that state, which accounts for perhaps (referenced on September 19, 2007).
92 Payne, Tommy J., Executive Vice President—
proposed standard’s fabric test without 15 percent of the furniture market. Some Public Affairs, Reynolds American Inc., in a letter
FR treatment. However, given the small furniture manufacturers might use to James M. Shannon, National Fire Protection
percentage of fabrics that will need to be materials that comply with some or all Association, October 25, 2007.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act ignition resistance test and 10 for the an average of about 40 hours per firm
The proposed standard will require smoldering ignition resistance test), would be required to maintain records
manufacturers (including importers) of total testing costs per barrier material under the proposed standard. According
upholstered furniture to perform testing marketed for use under the standard to the 2002 Economic Census, 1,686
and maintain records of testing. For this would be about $2,500. If barrier firms manufactured upholstered
reason, the proposed rule contains material manufacturers market an furniture as their primary product. At
‘‘collection of information average of four guarantied products for approximately $26 per hour, these firms
requirements,’’ as that term is used in use as barriers, total testing costs per would incur average costs of about
firm would be about $10,000. If 15 firms $1,000 per firm to maintain records, and
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
issue guaranties for complying barriers, aggregate annual costs may be about
3501–3520. Therefore, the proposed rule
total costs related to barrier testing $1.75 million. Thus, the total costs of
is being submitted to the Office of
would be about $150,000. Thus, total information collection and
Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) in
testing costs for upholstery fabric and recordkeeping could amount to about
accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and
barrier materials could amount to about $2.0 million to $2.3 million.
implementing regulations codified at 5
$2.65 million to $5.15 million.
CFR 1320.11. The estimated costs of Since firms could continue to market K. Environmental Considerations
these requirements are discussed below. qualified fabrics and barriers without Usually, CPSC rules establishing
1. Costs of Testing the need for additional testing, testing performance requirements are
costs per firm could be lower in considered to ‘‘have little or no
The proposed standard specifies that
subsequent years under the standard.
initial samples of 10 test specimens for potential for affecting the human
each tested upholstery fabric and barrier 2. Cost of Information Collection and environment,’’ and environmental
material (or 25 of 30 total specimens if Recordkeeping assessments are not usually prepared for
failures are recorded among the first 10), In addition to upholstery fabric and these rules (see 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1)).
must pass the applicable tests in order barrier material testing, the proposed However, because some alternatives to
to qualify the materials for use in standard will require manufacturers to the proposed rule could result in more
upholstered furniture. Manufacturers of maintain detailed documentation of the materials incorporating flame retardant
fabrics and barrier materials are test results and details of each test (FR) chemicals, the Commission
expected to either perform the tests in performed by or for that manufacturer. determined that a more thorough
their own facilities or send materials to Records are required to be in English consideration of the potential for
third party testing facilities in order to and kept at a location in the United environmental impacts was warranted.
support guaranties of compliance to States for a period of at least three years The staff prepared a memorandum
furniture manufacturers. Some after production of the article of ‘‘Environmental Assessment of
manufacturers of decorative fabrics that upholstered furniture certified by the Regulatory Alternatives for Addressing
could not pass the proposed cover fabric test results ceases. Upholstered Furniture Flammability’’
test without FR treatments may choose Costs of detailed testing (available on the Commission’s Web
to forego the costs of testing and market documentation are included in the site) which discusses the potential
their products with the understanding estimated costs of testing. Maintaining environmental effects of several
that they would be used with complying the testing documentation by regulatory alternatives for addressing
barrier materials. manufacturers of fabrics and barrier the flammability of upholstered
As noted above, approximately 100 to materials could require an additional furniture. The staff’s analysis concludes
200 domestic manufacturers derive a two hours of labor for each material that that, although available scientific data
significant share of their revenues from is certified or guarantied. As discussed are lacking on some FR chemicals, there
fabric they produce or import for above, maintaining records for perhaps appears to be a number of promising
residential upholstered furniture. An 5,000 to 10,000 guarantied upholstery methods that manufacturers could use
average of about 50 samples per firm fabrics and 60 barrier materials could be to meet an upholstered furniture
could support guaranties for fabrics sold required under the proposed standard. flammability standard without posing
to upholstered furniture manufacturers. Perhaps two hours of labor could be an unacceptable health risk to
A substantial majority of fabrics that required at a cost of about $26 per hour consumers or significantly affecting the
would be subjected to tests would likely to maintain these records for each environment. The staff’s analysis was
be qualified by passing results on the guarantied material. Therefore, total initiated when the primary regulatory
initial sample of 10 specimens. If the recordkeeping costs incurred by alternative being considered was the
average cost per test were $50, the cost upholstery fabric and barrier material staff’s 2005 draft standard which would
of testing a single fabric would amount manufacturers could range from about likely have caused manufacturers to use
to about $500, and the average testing $263,000 to $523,000 ($52 times 5,060 FR chemicals to meet certain provisions
costs per firm would be about $25,000. to 10,060 guaranties). Recordkeeping of that draft standard. As noted
Aggregate fabric testing costs for the 100 costs could average $2,600 for each previously, the standard that the
to 200 domestic manufacturers would upholstery fabric manufacturer and Commission is proposing was
be $2.5 million to $5 million. $208 for each barrier material developed, in part, to minimize the
Guaranties for barrier materials would manufacturer. need for manufacturers to use FR
be supported by passing results on the Upholstered furniture manufacturers chemicals to comply with the standard.
proposed barrier tests for (1) open flame would also maintain records of testing Only about 14 percent of the cover
ignition resistance and (2) smoldering results for fabrics and barrier materials fabrics would require some modification
ignition resistance. Average costs to used in their production. Incremental to pass the proposed standard. The staff
conduct each of these tests could be costs related to recordkeeping would anticipates that most manufacturers will
approximately $125 per test. Assuming depend, in part, on the extent to which likely rely primarily on modifying cover
barrier materials are qualified by the firms currently maintain records fabrics (without using FR chemicals) or
testing results for the initial samples of identifying upholstery fabrics and filling on barriers to meet the proposed
20 specimens (10 for the open flame materials with finished items. Perhaps performance requirements.
In accordance with the National and injuries (320 annually) over the action alternative are unlikely to result
Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’), period 2002–2004 that could be in adequate reduction or elimination of
the Executive Director of CPSC has addressed by the proposed rule remain. the risk. Therefore, the Commission
issued a Finding of No Significant Moreover, CPSC laboratory testing has finds that the proposed upholstered
Impact (‘‘FONSI’’) for the proposed found that UFAC-conforming furniture furniture flammability standard is the
upholstered furniture flammability can nevertheless ignite and burn when least burdensome requirement that
standard. The FONSI is based on the exposed to smoldering cigarettes. The would prevent or adequately reduce the
staff’s Environmental Assessment and Commission is unaware of any other risk of injury for which the regulation is
concludes that there will be no adopted and implemented voluntary being promulgated.
significant impacts on the quality of the standards that address the risk of fire
human environment as a result of the from upholstered furniture ignitions. O. Conclusion
proposed upholstered furniture Accordingly, the Commission finds that
flammability standard. The Commission compliance with any adopted and For the reasons stated in this
requests comments on both the implemented voluntary upholstered preamble, the Commission preliminarily
Environmental Assessment and the furniture flammability standard is not finds that a flammability standard for
FONSI.93 likely to result in the elimination or upholstered furniture is needed to
adequate reduction of the risk of injury adequately protect the public against the
L. Executive Order 12988
from such fires. unreasonable risk of the occurrence of
According to Executive Order 12988 3. Relationship of benefits to costs. fire leading to death, injury, and
(February 5, 1996), agencies must state The Commission estimates the potential significant property damage. The
the preemptive effect, if any, of new discounted benefits of a year’s Commission also preliminarily finds
regulations. The preemptive effect of production of upholstered furniture that the standard is reasonable,
this proposed regulation is as stated in complying with the standard to range technologically practicable, and
section 16 of the FFA. 15 U.S.C. 1203(a). from about $419 million to $424 million appropriate. The Commission further
M. Effective Date (based on a 3 percent discount rate). finds that the standard is limited to the
Compliance costs range from an
The Commission proposes that the fabrics, related materials and products
estimated $34 million to $59 million
rule would become effective one year which present such unreasonable risks.
annually. Thus, projected net benefits of
from publication of a final rule in the the proposed standard range from $363 List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1634
Federal Register and would apply to million to $385 million. On this basis,
upholstered furniture manufactured on the Commission finds that the expected Consumer protection, Flammable
or after that date. The Commission benefits from the regulation bear a materials, Labeling, Upholstered
believes that a one-year effective date reasonable relationship to its costs. furniture, Upholstered furniture
should allow sufficient time for 4. Least burdensome requirement. The materials, Records, Textiles, Warranties.
manufacturers to develop products for Commission considered proposing the
nationwide markets that will meet the following alternatives: the staff’s 2005 For the reasons stated in the
proposed requirements. The draft standard, the staff’s 2001 draft preamble, the Commission proposes to
Commission requests comments, small open flame standard, revised amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal
especially from small businesses, on the requirements drafted by California, a Regulations by adding part 1634 to read
proposed effective date and the impact rule based on the industry’s voluntary as follows:
it would have. program, and a ‘‘no action’’ alternative
under which the status quo would PART 1634—STANDARD FOR THE
N. Proposed Findings FLAMMABILITY OF UPHOLSTERED
continue to prevail. Although the staff’s
1. General. In order to issue a 2005 draft standard could result in FURNITURE AND UPHOLSTERED
flammability standard under the FFA, substantial net benefits, it would impose FURNITURE MATERIALS
the Commission must make certain significantly higher costs and would
findings and include these in the necessitate the increased use of FR Subpart A—General, Definitions,
regulation, 15 U.S.C. 1193(j)(2). These chemicals. While the staff’s 2001 draft Performance Requirements
findings are discussed in this section. small open flame standard would likely
2. Voluntary standards. In the 1970s Sec.
be more effective in reducing small
the Upholstered Furniture Action 1634.1 Purpose, scope and effective date.
open flame fire losses, it would also
Council (UFAC) developed a voluntary 1634.2 Definitions.
impose greater costs and necessitate an
industry program to assess the cigarette 1634.3 General requirements.
increase in FR chemicals (nearly 66
ignition propensity of upholstered 1634.4 Upholstery cover fabric smoldering
percent of upholstery covers would
furniture. The substance of the UFAC ignition resistance test.
likely need to receive FR treatments to 1634.5 Interior fire barrier material
tests was then adopted in the ASTM E– pass). A proposal based on California’s
1353 test method. CPSC staff estimates smoldering ignition resistance test.
TB 117 requirements, which contains 1634.6 Interior fire barrier material open
that approximately 90% of furniture provisions for both fabrics and filling
production conforms to the UFAC flame ignition resistance test.
materials, would likely have substantial
voluntary program/ASTM E–1353 annual costs (about $370 million) and Subpart B—Requirements Applicable
standards. However, while fire losses would result in significantly lower net
from cigarette-ignited upholstered to Manufacturers, Labeling, Guaranties
benefits (about $190 million) than the
furniture fires have been declining, a proposed standard. The fact that 1634.7 Requirements applicable to
large number of deaths (260 annually) significant levels of annual deaths and upholstered furniture material
injuries remain despite the existence of manufacturers.
93 Both of these documents are available from the
the voluntary standard and a high level 1634.8 Labeling.
Commission’s Office of the Secretary (see
ADDRESSES section above) or from the Commission’s
of compliance with it demonstrate that 1634.9 Requirements applicable to
Web site at: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/ both the alternatives of a rule based on guaranties under Section 8 of the FFA,
foia08/brief/briefing.html. the voluntary standard and the no 15 U.S.C. § 1197.
Subpart C—Test Apparatus and reupholstered on or after the effective (c) Type II upholstered furniture
Materials for Smoldering Ignition date of this standard is subject to the means upholstered furniture that is
Resistance Tests requirements of this part. constructed with an interior fire barrier
(c) Effective date. The standard shall material that:
1634.10 Test room. become effective on [the effective date (1) Is located directly beneath the
1634.11 Specimen holder. external covering material;
1634.12 Ignition source.
of this standard] and shall apply to all
upholstered furniture, as defined in (2) Completely encases the filling
1634.13 Sheeting material.
1634.14 Standard polyurethane foam 1643.2(a), manufactured or material used in the seating area of the
substrate. reupholstered on or after that date. item of upholstered furniture; and
1634.15 Standard cotton velvet cover fabric. (3) Is certified to meet the
1634.16 Conditioning. § 1634.2 Definitions. performance requirements of §§ 1634.5
In addition to the definitions given in and 1634.6.
Subpart D—Test Facility, Exhaust section 2 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (d) Manufacturer means any entity
System, and Cautions as amended (15 U.S.C. 1191), the that produces or reupholsters
following definitions apply for purposes upholstered furniture or manufactures
1634.17 Test facility and exhaust system. upholstered furniture materials subject
1634.18 Cautions. of this part 1634.
(a) Upholstered furniture means, for to this part 1634. For purposes of this
Subpart E—Test Facility and Materials purposes of this part 1634, an article of part, an importer of upholstered
for Open Flame Ignition Resistance seating furnishing intended for indoor furniture is also a manufacturer. See
Tests use in a home or other residential subpart F of this part for additional
occupancy that: consists in whole or in information on reupholstering.
1634.19 Test room. part of resilient cushioning materials (e) Produced means, for the purposes
1634.20 Butane gas flame ignition source. of this part 1634, manufactured or
(such as foam, batting, or related
1634.21 Metal test frame. imported.
1634.22 Standard rayon cover fabric. materials) enclosed within a covering
consisting of fabric or related materials, (f) Upholstery cover fabric means the
1634.23 Open flame tests fabric cut-out outermost layer of attached fabric or
dimensions. such as leather; and is constructed with
contiguous upholstered seat and back or other material, such as leather, used to
1634.24 Standard polyurethane foam
substrate. arms(s). cover the seating area of the upholstered
1634.25 Conditioning. (1) Items included in the scope of furniture item.
(g) Crevice means the location in the
paragraph (a) of this section include, but
Subpart F—Reupholstering mockup formed by the intersection of
are not limited to, products that are
the vertical and horizontal surfaces of
1634.26 Requirements applicable to intended or promoted for indoor
the test mockup.
reupholstering. residential use for sitting or reclining
(h) Interior fire barrier means a fire-
upon, such as: chairs, sofas, motion
Figures resistant material which is interposed
furniture, sleep sofas, home office
between the upholstery cover fabric and
Figure 1 to Part 1634—Cigarette Ignition furniture customarily offered for sale
any interior filling material.
Specimen Holder—Base through retailers or otherwise available
Figure 2 to Part 1634—Cigarette Ignition
(i) Fire-resistant material means a
for residential use, and upholstered material capable of reducing the
Specimen Holder—Movable Horizontal furniture intended for use in
Support Panel likelihood of ignition or delaying fire
dormitories or other residential growth.
Figure 3 to Part 1634—Mockup Assembly for
Upholstery Cover Fabric Smoldering
occupancies. This includes the (j) Flame retardant means having a
Ignition Resistance Test unattached cushions or pillows on such chemical coating or treatment added
Figure 4 to Part 1634—Mockup Assembly for items if they are sold with the item of that imparts greater fire resistance.
Interior Fire Barrier Material Smoldering upholstered furniture. (k) Ignition (for open flame testing)
Ignition Resistance Test (2) Items excluded from the scope of means continuous, self-sustaining
Figure 5 to Part 1634—Cut-Out Template paragraph (a) of this section consist of: combustion, characterized by the
Dimensions for Open Flame Test furniture, such as patio chairs, intended
Figure 6 to Part 1634—Open Flame Metal
presence of any visible flaming,
solely for outdoor use; furniture without glowing, or smoldering, after removal of
Test Frame
contiguous upholstered seating and the ignition source.
Figure 7 to Part 1634—Mockup Assembly for
Interior Fire Barrier Materials Open Flame backs and/or arm surfaces, such as (l) Metal test frame means the
Ignition Resistance Test ottomans; pillows or pads that are not apparatus consisting of two rectangular
sold with an article of furniture; metal frames used for assembly of
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1193.
commercial or industrial furniture not seating area mockups in open flame
Subpart A—General, Definitions, offered for sale through retailers or not ignition resistance tests. See subpart E
Performance Requirements otherwise available for residential use; of this part.
furniture intended or sold solely for use (m) Mockup assembly means the
§ 1634.1 Purpose, scope, and effective in hotels and other short-term lodging seating area mockup consisting of the
date. and hospitality establishments; futons, component material to be evaluated and
(a) Purpose. This part 1634 establishes flip chairs, the mattress portions of all required standard test materials,
flammability limits that all upholstered sleep sofas; and infant or juvenile fully assembled in the appropriate
furniture subject to this part must meet products such as walkers, strollers, high specimen holder or metal test frame.
before sale or introduction into chairs, or pillows. (n) Sample means a material to be
commerce. The purpose of these (b) Type I upholstered furniture tested for use in upholstered furniture
requirements is to reduce deaths and means upholstered furniture that is subject to this part.
injuries associated with upholstered constructed with an upholstery cover (o) Seating area means those portions
furniture fires. fabric or other material that covers the of an item of upholstered furniture
(b) Scope. All upholstered furniture as seating area and is certified to meet the which a person may sit upon, or rest
defined in § 1634.2(a) manufactured or performance requirements of § 1634.4. against while sitting, including the seat
and the inside of the back and arms of the typical construction of upholstered (e) Ignition source. The ignition
the item. The seating area includes such furniture. source is the standard cigarette specified
surfaces of any loose pillows or (d) Standard cover fabric cutting—(1) in subpart C of this part.
cushions that are not attached to the Smoldering test. The vertical panel (f) Sheeting material. Sheeting
item of upholstered furniture but are pieces shall be cut with the long material shall be used to cover the
sold with it. dimension being in the warp direction standard test cigarettes. For testing, the
(p) Self-extinguishment means the and the top edge is defined such that the fabric shall be cut into squares 127 ×
unassisted termination of any visible pile lays smooth when brushed from top 127 mm (5.0 × 5.0 in). Use the sheeting
combustion within a defined time to bottom. The horizontal panel pieces material specified in subpart C of this
period after ignition source removal and shall be cut with the long dimension part.
before the specimen is completely being in the warp direction and the top (g) Standard polyurethane foam
consumed. edge is defined such that the pile lays substrate. Upholstery cover materials
(q) Sheeting material means cotton smooth when brushed from top to shall be tested in a specimen holder
sheeting fabric used to cover the bottom. using standard polyurethane foam
cigarette ignition source in smoldering (2) Open flame test. The open flame (SPUF) substrate. Use the SPUF
ignition resistance tests. See subpart C test specimens shall be cut with the long substrate specified in subpart C of this
of this part. dimension being in the warp direction Part.
(r) Smolder means combustion (if applicable). (1) The SPUF substrate shall be cut
characterized by smoke production, into 203 × 203 × 76 mm (8.0 × 8.0 × 3.0
without visible flame or glowing. § 1634.4 Upholstery cover fabric in) pieces for vertical panels and 127 ×
(s) Specimen means an individual
smoldering ignition resistance test. 203 × 76 mm (5.0 × 8.0 × 3.0 in) pieces
piece of upholstery fabric or barrier (a) Scope. This test method is for horizontal panels.
material, as defined in paragraph (n) of intended to measure the cigarette (2) Each SPUF substrate piece shall be
this section, used in a mockup assembly ignition resistance of upholstery cover hand crushed before use by wadding or
for smoldering or open flame ignition fabrics used in upholstered furniture. balling up one time in the fist.
This test applies to all upholstery cover (3) On the data sheet, record the
testing.
fabrics to be used in Type I upholstered initial mass of each horizontal and
(t) Specimen holder means the two vertical SPUF substrate piece to the
wooden panels used for assembly of furniture.
(b) Summary of test method. Ten nearest 0.1 grams.
seating area mockups in smoldering (h) Specimen holder. The specimen
ignition resistance tests. See subpart C initial test specimens are required for
holder shall consist of two wooden
of this part. the upholstery cover fabrics sample.
panels, each a nominal 203 × 203 mm
(u) Standard polyurethane foam Vertical and horizontal panels of a
(8.0 × 8.0 in) and nominal 19 mm (0.75
(SPUF) substrate means the standard standard foam substrate are covered,
in) thickness, joined together at one
substrate used for the assembly of using the upholstery cover fabric to be
edge. A moveable horizontal panel
seating area mockups to evaluate tested. These panels are placed in the
support shall be positioned on a
materials used in upholstered furniture specimen holders, and a lighted
centrally located guide. See subpart C
construction. See subparts C and E of cigarette is placed in the crevice formed
and Figures 1 and 2.
this part. by the intersection of vertical and
(i) Test facility and cautions. The test
(v) Substrate means the innermost horizontal panels of each test assembly.
facility, exhaust system, and cautions
material of the tested seating area Each cigarette is covered with a piece of
are detailed in subpart D of this part.
mockup, representing the filling sheeting fabric. The cigarettes are (j) Conditioning. All test specimens
material used in upholstered furniture. allowed to burn their entire length. Test and standard test materials (including
(w) Warp or machine direction of the measurements and observations are SPUF substrates, cigarettes, and
fabric means the direction of yarns that recorded during and after the 45-minute sheeting material) shall be conditioned
run lengthwise, i.e., parallel to selvage, test duration. The mockup must not in accordance with subpart C of this
in woven fabrics. continue to smolder at the end of the part.
test or transition to flaming at any time (k) Test specimens—(1) Specimen
§ 1634.3 General requirements. during the test, and the substrate must requirements. (i) From the upholstery
(a) Upholstered furniture. Each item not exceed the mass loss limit. If the 10 cover fabric sample to be tested, initially
of upholstered furniture subject to this initial specimens meet the performance 10 specimens shall be cut, comprised of
part shall comply with the performance criteria in paragraph (m) of this section, vertical panels, each 203 × 432 mm (8.0
requirements of this part applicable to the cover fabric sample passes. If a × 17.0 in), and horizontal panels, each
the upholstered furniture materials failure is recorded in any of the 10 203 × 280 mm (8.0 × 11.0 in).
required for that ‘‘Type’’ of upholstered initial specimens, the test shall be (ii) The vertical and horizontal panel
furniture and all other applicable repeated on an additional 20 specimens. cover fabric pieces shall be cut with the
requirements of this part. At least 25 of the 30 specimens tested long dimension in the warp direction
(b) Guaranties. Each guaranty issued must meet the performance criteria of and such that the major areas of fabric
under this part shall be in accordance paragraph (m) of this section. variation will lie in the crevice of the
with the applicable requirements of (c) Significance and use. This test mockup assembly.
§ 1634.9. method is designed to measure the (iii) The horizontal panel cover fabric
(c) Summary of § 1634.4 through resistance of an upholstery cover fabric pieces shall be mounted warp to warp
§ 1634.6 tests. The test methods set forth to a smoldering ignition source when with the vertical panel pieces such that
in §§ 1634.4 through 1634.6 measure the the fabric is placed over a standard the major areas of fabric variation will
flammability performance (resistance to polyurethane foam substrate. lie in the crevice of the mockup
smoldering or small open flame (d) Test apparatus and materials. The assembly.
ignition) of cover fabrics and fire barrier test apparatus and materials used in this (2) Specimen mounting. (i) For
materials through a series of tests using test are detailed in subpart C of this vertical panels, place the cover fabric on
small scale mockups representative of part. the 203 × 203 × 76 mm (8.0 × 8.0 × 3.0
in) SPUF substrate pieces, taking care (6) Remove cotton sheeting fabric and (b) Summary of test method. Ten
that any areas of fabric variation remains of upholstery fabric from the initial test specimens are required for
mentioned in paragraph (k)(1) of this substrate pieces. the interior fire barrier sample. Vertical
section are positioned such that they (7) Carefully remove the SPUF and horizontal panels of the interior fire
will form the crevice of the assembled substrate pieces, clean all carbonaceous barrier material to be tested are placed
mockup. The warp or machine direction char from panels with a brush. between a standard foam substrate and
of the fabric should run front to back on (8) If the application of an a standard cover fabric. The panels are
the mockup assembly. Attach the cover extinguishing agent was not necessary placed in the specimen holders and a
fabric to the SPUF substrate pieces with or a gaseous extinguishing agent (e.g., lighted cigarette is placed in the crevice
straight pins and pull the cover fabric carbon dioxide or nitrogen) was applied formed by the intersection of the
smooth so that no air gaps exist between to the SPUF substrate, record the mass vertical and horizontal panels in each
the fabric and SPUF substrate. Attach of the un-charred portions of the SPUF test assembly. Each cigarette is covered
the cotton sheeting material to the substrate pieces to the nearest 0.1 grams with a piece of sheeting fabric. The
vertical panels with straight pins so that within 15 minutes and proceed to cigarettes are allowed to burn their full
the sheeting material will cover the paragraph (m) of this section. length. Test measurements and
cigarette when placed in the crevice, (m) Pass/fail criteria. (1) The sample observations are recorded during and
approximately 50 mm (2 in) from the passes the requirements of this test after the 45-minute test duration. The
top of the 203 mm (8.0 in) dimension. procedure if the following criteria are substrate must not exceed the mass loss
(ii) For horizontal panels, place the met: limit at the end of the test and the
cover fabric on the 127 x 203 x 76 mm (i) No mockup continues to smolder mockup assembly must not transition to
(5.0 x 8.0 x 3.0 in) SPUF substrate after the 45 minute test duration; open flaming at anytime during the test.
pieces, taking care that any areas of (ii) No mockup transitions to open If the initial 10 specimens meet the
fabric variation mentioned in paragraph flaming; and performance criteria in paragraph (n) of
(iii) No SPUF substrate (i.e., sum of
(k)(1) of this section are on the edge this section, the interior fire barrier
both horizontal and vertical pieces) of
which will form the crevice of the sample passes. If a failure is recorded in
any mockup assembly has more than
assembled mockup. The warp direction any of the 10 initial specimens, the test
10% mass loss.
of the cover fabric shall run front to (2) If the 10 initial specimens meet the shall be repeated on an additional 20
back on the mockup assembly. Attach performance criteria of this paragraph specimens. The performance criteria of
the cover fabric to the SPUF substrate (m), the cover fabric sample passes. If a paragraph (n) of this section must be
pieces with straight pins and pull the failure is recorded in any of the 10 met on at least 25 of the 30 specimens
fabric smooth so that no air gaps exist initial specimens, the test shall be tested.
between the fabric and foam substrate. repeated on an additional 20 specimens. (c) Significance and use. This test
(iii) Place the assembled vertical and At least 25 of the 30 specimens tested method is designed to measure the
horizontal panels in the specimen must meet the criteria of this paragraph. resistance of an interior fire barrier
holder. Press the horizontal panel (n) Test report. The test report shall material to a smoldering ignition source
against the vertical panel to create a include, at a minimum, the following when the barrier is placed between a
straight-line crevice at the intersection. information: standard cover fabric and a standard
See Figure 3. (1) Name and address of test foam substrate.
(l) Test procedure. (1) Place the laboratory; (d) Test apparatus and materials. The
assembled mockups a sufficient (2) Date of the test(s); test apparatus and materials are detailed
distance apart from each other to avoid (3) Name of the operator conducting in subpart C of this part.
heat transfer between samples. the test; (e) Ignition source. The ignition
(2) Light cigarettes so that no more (4) Complete description of the test source is the standard cigarette specified
than 4 mm (0.16 inch) is burned away specimens; in subpart C of this part.
and place one cigarette on each mockup (5) Applicable smoldering and mass (f) Sheeting material. Sheeting
crevice created by the intersection of the and data for each SPUF substrate piece material shall be used to cover the
vertical and horizontal panels, such that from each mockup including: standard test cigarettes. For testing, the
the cigarette contacts both surfaces and (i) Mockup smoldering at 45 minutes fabric shall be cut into squares 127 x
is equidistant from the side edges of the (Yes/No); 127 mm (5.0 x 5.0 in). Use the sheeting
test panels. (ii) Pre-test mass; material specified in subpart C of this
(3) Immediately after placement in the (iii) Post-test mass; and part.
(iv) The percent mass loss of the
crevice of each mockup, cover cigarettes (g) Standard cover fabric. (1) The
SPUF substrate of each mockup
with cotton sheeting and run one finger standard cover fabric represents a
assembly.
over the sheet along the length of the (6) Statement of overall pass/fail smolder-prone fabric. Use the standard
covered cigarette to ensure good cover results. cover fabric specified in subpart C of
sheeting-to-cigarette contact and begin this part.
timer. If a test is inadvertently § 1634.5 Interior fire barrier material (2) From the standard cover fabric,
interrupted or a cigarette self- smoldering ignition resistance test. initially 10 pieces shall be cut for
extinguishes on lighting, it shall be (a) Scope. This test method is vertical panels each 203 x 432 mm (8.0
repeated from the beginning with a new intended to measure the cigarette x 17.0 in) and initially 10 pieces for
cigarette. ignition resistance of interior fire barrier horizontal panels each 203 x 280 mm
(4) Continue testing for 45 minutes. materials used in upholstered furniture (8.0 x 11.0 in).
(5) At 45 minutes, if the mockup to be used in Type II upholstered (h) Standard polyurethane foam
assembly is smoldering, record a failure furniture. This test method applies to substrate. (1) Fire barrier materials shall
for the mockup and extinguish with fire-resistant materials including, but be tested in a specimen holder using
appropriate means and proceed to not limited to, all interior fabrics or high standard polyurethane foam (SPUF)
paragraph (m) of this section. See loft battings to be qualified as fire substrate. Use the SPUF substrate
Subparts C and D of this part. barriers. specified in subpart C of this part.
(2) The SPUF substrate shall be cut straight pins and pull smooth so that no 0.1 gram and compare the measurement
into pieces 203 x 203 x 76 mm (8.0 x air gaps exist. with the previous one.
8.0 x 3.0 in) for vertical panels and 127 (iii) Place the assembled vertical and (v) Repeat this procedure every three
x 203 x 76 mm (5.0 x 8.0 x 3.0 in) for horizontal panels in the specimen hours until the mass of the substrate
horizontal panels. holders. Press the horizontal panel pieces remains within a tolerance of
(3) Each SPUF substrate piece shall be against the vertical panel to create a 0.5% from the previous reading.
hand crushed before use by wadding or straight-line crevice at the intersection. (vi) Re-condition the SPUF pieces
balling up one time in the fist. See Figure 4. according to paragraph (k) of this
(4) Record the initial mass to the (m) Test procedure. (1) Place the section.
nearest 0.1 grams of each horizontal and assembled mockups a sufficient (vii) Record the mass of the un-
vertical SPUF substrate piece in the data distance apart from each other to avoid charred portions of the SPUF substrate
sheet. heat transfer between samples. pieces to the nearest 0.1 grams.
(i) Specimen holder. The specimen (2) Light cigarettes so that no more (n) Pass/fail criteria. (1) The sample
holder shall consist of two wooden than 4 mm (0.16 inch) is burned away passes the requirements of this test
panels, each a nominal 203 x 203 mm and place one cigarette on each mockup procedure if the following criteria are
(8.0 x 8.0 in) and nominal 19 mm (0.75 crevice created by the intersection of the met:
in) thickness, joined together at one vertical and horizontal panels, such that (i) No SPUF substrate (i.e., sum of
edge. A moveable horizontal panel the cigarette contacts both surfaces and both horizontal and vertical pieces) of
support is positioned on a centrally is equidistant from the side edges of the any specimen from a mockup assembly
located guide. See subpart C and Figures has more than 1% mass loss; and
test panels.
1 and 2. (ii) No mockup assembly transitions
(j) Test facility and cautions. The test (3) Immediately after placement in the
crevice of each mockup, cover cigarettes to open flaming.
facility, exhaust system, and cautions (2) If the 10 initial specimens meet the
are detailed in subpart D of this part. with cotton sheeting and run one finger
over the sheet along the length of the performance criteria of this paragraph
(k) Conditioning. All test specimens (n), the interior fire-barrier sample
and standard test materials (including covered cigarette to ensure good cover
sheeting-to-cigarette contact and begin passes. If a failure is recorded in any of
SPUF substrates, cigarettes, and the 10 initial specimens, the test shall
sheeting material) shall be conditioned timer. If a test is inadvertently
interrupted or cigarette self extinguishes be repeated on an additional 20
in accordance with subpart C of this specimens. At least 25 of the 30
part. on lighting, it shall be repeated from the
beginning with a new cigarette. specimens tested must meet the
(l) Test specimens–(1) Test specimen performance criteria of this paragraph
requirements. From the interior fire- (4) Continue testing for 45 minutes.
(5) At 45 minutes, if the mockup (n).
barrier material sample to be tested, (o) Test report. The test report shall
initially 10 specimens shall be cut, assembly is smoldering, extinguish with
appropriate means. See subparts C and include, at a minimum, the following
comprised of vertical panels each 203 x information:
356 mm (8.0 x 14.0 in) and horizontal D of this part.
(6) Remove cotton sheeting fabric, (1) Name and address of test
panels each 203 x 229 mm (8.0 x 9.0 in). laboratory;
If the interior fire-barrier material is remains of standard cover fabric, and
interior fire-barrier material from the (2) Date of the test(s);
directional, the vertical panel pieces (3) Name of the operator conducting
shall be cut with the long dimension substrate panels.
the test;
being in the warp direction. The (7) Carefully remove the SPUF
(4) Complete description of the test
horizontal panel specimens shall be cut substrate test panels and clean all
specimens;
such that the short dimension is in the carbonaceous char from panels with a
(5) Mass data for each SPUF substrate
warp direction. brush.
piece from each mockup including:
(2) Specimen mounting. (i) For (8) If the mockup has self- (i) Pre-test mass;
vertical panels, place the 203 x 432 mm extinguished by the end of the 45 (ii) Post-test mass; and
(8.0 x 17.0 in) standard cover fabric over minute test, or if a gaseous (iii) The percent mass loss of the
the fire-barrier material on a 203 x 203 extinguishing agent (e.g. carbon dioxide SPUF substrate of each mockup
x 76 mm (8.0 x 8.0 x 3.0 in) SPUF or nitrogen) was applied to the mockup, assembly.
substrate piece. The standard cover record the mass of the un-charred (6) Statement of overall pass/fail
fabric and interior fire-barrier shall be portions of the SPUF substrate pieces to results.
oriented such that the top edges of these the nearest 0.1 grams within 15 minutes
materials run from top to bottom. Attach and proceed to § 1634.5(n). § 1634.6 Interior fire barrier material open
with straight pins and pull smooth so (9) If a mass-adding extinguishing flame ignition resistance test.
that no air gaps exist. Attach the cotton agent (e.g., water-based agent) was (a) Scope. This test procedure is
sheeting material to the vertical panels applied to the substrate, re-condition intended to measure the open flame
with straight pins so that the sheeting the SPUF substrate pieces as follows. ignition resistance of interior fire-barrier
material will cover the cigarette when (i) Place the SPUF substrate pieces in materials to be used in Type II
placed in the crevice, approximately 50 the active flow of a laboratory air hood upholstered furniture. This test applies
mm (2.0 in) from the top of the panel. to dry for at least 24 hours. to materials including, but not limited
(ii) For horizontal panels, place the (ii) Measure and record the mass of to, interior fabrics or high loft battings
203 x 280 mm (8.0 x 11.0 in) standard the SPUF substrate pieces to the nearest to qualify them as fire-barriers.
cover fabric over the interior fire-barrier 0.1 gram. (b) Summary of test method. Ten
on the 127 x 203 x 76 mm (5.0 x 8.0 x (iii) Place the SPUF substrate pieces initial test specimens are required for
3.0 in) SPUF substrate pieces. The in the active flow of the laboratory air the interior fire-barrier sample. The
standard cover fabric and interior fire- hood to dry for at least three additional interior fire-barrier material to be tested
barrier shall be oriented such that the hours. is placed between a standard cover
top edges of these materials run from (iv) Measure and record the mass of fabric and standard foam substrate and
the crevice to the front. Attach with the SPUF substrate pieces to the nearest assembled on a metal test frame. An
open flame ignition source is applied to conditioned in accordance with subpart (9) Starting at the lowest part of the
the crevice formed by the intersection of E of this part. vertical section on one side, clip both
the seat/back surfaces of the mockup. (k) Test specimens. (1) The interior the fire-barrier specimen and standard
Test measurements and observations are fire-barrier specimen needed for each cover fabric to the frame. At the top
recorded during the 45-minute test test is 1020 x 700 ± 10 mm (40 x 27.5 corner, make a diagonal fold of the fire-
duration. The mockup assembly must ± 0.4 in). From the interior fire-barrier barrier specimen separate from the
not exceed the mass loss limit. If the 10 specimen, cut triangular cut-outs standard cover fabric. Make a similar
initial specimens meet the performance centered 575 mm (22.5 in) from the top fold with the standard cover fabric and
criteria of paragraph (n) of this section, edge on both sides. The size of these secure all the folded layers (both fire-
the interior fire-barrier sample passes. If cut-outs shall be approximately 55 x 135 barrier and standard cover fabric) to the
a failure is recorded in any of the 10 ± 5 mm (2.1 x 5.25 ± 0.2 in) high. See frame with metal clips to the side of the
initial specimens, the test shall be subpart E of this part and Figure 5. test frame. Repeat for the other side.
repeated on an additional 20 specimens. (2) If the interior fire-barrier material (10) When the back section is
At least 25 of the 30 specimens tested is directional, the specimen shall be cut completed, place the frame down so that
must meet the performance criteria of with the long dimension (1020 mm, 40 the back of the frame is on the table.
paragraph (n) of this section. in) being in the warp direction and the (11) Lift up the smaller portion of the
(c) Significance and use. This test top edge is defined as appropriate. standard cover fabric and fire-barrier
method is designed to measure the (l) Mockup assembly. (1) Position the specimen and lay them flat on the back
resistance of an interior fire-barrier seat frame in the upright position. panel.
material to an open flame ignition Adjust the horizontal and vertical (seat (12) Place the smaller SPUF block
source when the barrier is placed and back) panels by loosening the with the 83 mm (3.25 in) side flush
between a standard cover fabric and a screws holding the two panels in place. against the seat section of the metal
standard foam substrate. Pull the horizontal panel forward and frame and press against the back panel.
(d) Test apparatus and materials. The the vertical panel upwards creating a Loosen the screw holding the horizontal
test apparatus and materials are detailed larger gap between the two panels at the panel and move the panel until the
in subpart E of this part. crevice. Temporarily secure the two panel is flush with the smaller SPUF
(e) Ignition source. The ignition panels in place (expanded position). foam block. Tighten the screws so that
source is the nominal 240 mm butane (2) Lay the interior fire-barrier the horizontal panel is secure.
gas flame described in subpart E of this specimen flat and face up on the table.
(13) Pull the smaller section of the
part. Lay the standard cover fabric on top,
fire-barrier specimen and standard cover
(f) Standard cover fabric. (1) The face up.
fabric over the SPUF seat block and
standard cover fabric represents a (3) Fold the two sides of the top secure them to bottom front edge of the
moderately flammable upholstery cover (larger) section of fabric and fire-barrier metal frame using metal clips.
fabric. Use the standard cover fabric specimen (from the cutout upwards)
specified in subpart E of this part. over the face of the standard cover (14) Re-position the assembly in the
(2) The standard cover fabric size fabric. upright position.
needed for each test is 1020 x 700 ± 10 (4) Thread the folded standard cover (15) On one side, fold the unsecured
mm (40 x 27.5 ± 0.4 in). From the fabric and fire-barrier specimen under front edge of the fire-barrier specimen
standard cover fabric, cut triangular cut- the horizontal rod and pull them out back against the SPUF block. Then,
outs centered 575 mm (22.5 in) from the from the back of the metal test frame make a diagonal fold with the
top edge on both sides. The size of these until the cutouts are lined up with the unsecured top edge of fire-barrier
cut-outs shall be approximately 55 x 135 horizontal rod. specimen down on top of it. Repeat with
± 5 mm (2.1 x 5.25 ± 0.2 in) high. See (5) Thread the folded standard cover the unsecured edges of standard cover
subpart E of this part and Figure 5. fabric and fire-barrier specimen back fabric and clip to the bottom of the
(g) Standard polyurethane foam over the rod and pull them out from the metal test frame. Repeat on the other
substrate. (1) Interior fire-barrier front of the frame. side.
materials shall be tested with a standard (6) Line up and pull both the top and (16) Ensure that the standard cover
polyurethane foam (SPUF) substrate. bottom sections of the standard cover fabric and fire-barrier specimens are
Use the SPUF substrate specified in fabric and fire-barrier specimen so that smooth and under uniform tension at all
subpart E of this part. the cutouts are lined up with the metal locations to eliminate air gaps between
(2) Two panels of the SPUF substrate rod on both sides and the standard the standard cover fabric, fire-barrier
shall be used. The vertical (back) block cover fabric and fire-barrier specimen specimen, and the SPUF blocks. Do not
shall be 457 x 305 ± 5 mm (18.0 x 12.0 are laying flat and free of folds and allow a gap exceeding 3 mm (0.125
± 0.2 in) x 76 ± 2 mm (3.0 ± 0.08 in) wrinkles. inch) along the seat/back crevice. See
thick. The horizontal (seat) block shall (7) Place the larger SPUF block flush Figure 7.
be 457 x 83 ± 5 mm (18.0 x 3.25 ± 0.2 against the back metal frame and resting (m) Test procedure. Have a means for
in) x 76 ± 2 mm (3.0 ± 0.08 in) thick. on the fire-barrier specimen. Loosen the extinguishing the specimen close at
(h) Metal test frame. The metal test screws holding the vertical (back) panel hand. A hand-held carbon dioxide
frame shall consist of two rectangular and lower the panel until the top of the extinguisher is adequate for most
metal frames locked at right angles to panel is flush with the top of the larger specimens; however, a water spray
each other. A rod shall be continuous SPUF foam block. Tighten the screws so system should be available as a back-up,
across the back of the metal test frame. that the vertical panel is secure. in case the carbon dioxide fails to
See subpart E of this part and Figure 6. (8) Lift the larger portion of both the completely extinguish the fire.
(i) Test facility and cautions. The test fire-barrier specimen and standard cover (1) Pretest. (i) Tare the scale with the
facility, exhaust system and cautions are fabric over the SPUF back block and empty metal test frame and clips or, if
detailed in subpart D of this part. secure them to the top of the back the scale does not have tare capability,
(j) Conditioning. All test specimens section of the metal frame using metal record the mass of metal test frame and
and standard test materials shall be clips. clips.
(ii) Assemble the mockup as Subpart B—Requirements Applicable available to Commission staff upon
described in paragraph (l) of this to Manufacturers, Labeling, Guaranties request.
section. (f) Cessation of production. If the
(iii) Record the initial mass of the § 1634.7 Requirements applicable to
upholstered furniture manufacturers. manufacturer becomes aware of any
fabric/specimen/substrate assembly information that indicates that any
directly (if tared) or by subtraction (if (a) General. Each manufacturer
(including importers) of upholstered article of upholstered furniture
not tared). manufactured by that manufacturer fails
(iv) Calculate and record the mass furniture subject to this part shall
ensure that each article of upholstered to comply with this part, the
corresponding to 20% mass loss of manufacturer shall cease production
initial mass of the mockup assembly. furniture it manufactures or imports for
introduction into commerce complies and distribution of such upholstered
(2) Lighting the igniter flame. (i) Open furniture until corrective action has
the butane tank slowly and light the end with all applicable requirements of this
part. been taken to ensure that further
of the burner tube. Adjust the gas flow production will conform to all
to the appropriate rate to achieve a 240 (b) Label. Each article of upholstered
furniture subject to this part shall bear applicable requirements of this part.
mm flame. See subpart E of this part.
(ii) Allow the flame to stabilize for at a label conforming to the requirements (g) Notification to upholstered
least 2 minutes. of § 1634.8. furniture material suppliers. An
(3) Starting and performing the test. (c) Certification. The certification upholstered furniture manufacturer who
(i) Place the lit burner tube in the statement specified on the label becomes aware of information
crevice of the mockup so that the end required by paragraph (b) of this section indicating that any cover or barrier
of the igniter is at the center of the constitutes the manufacturer’s material used, or intended to be used, in
mockup equidistant from either edge. certification that the article of upholstered furniture produced by it
(ii) Apply the flame for 70 ± 1 upholstered furniture to which it is fails to meet any applicable requirement
seconds, then immediately remove affixed complies with all applicable of this part shall promptly inform the
ignition source from the mockup. requirements of this part. supplier of that material of the
Observe the mockup combustion (d) Basis for certification. The deficiency. (Upholstered furniture
behavior for 45 minutes. manufacturer shall have an objectively manufacturers are also reminded of the
(iii) Terminate a test run if any of the reasonable basis for the certification reporting requirements of § 15 of the
following conditions occurs: required by paragraph (c) of this section. Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C.
(A) The mockup self-extinguishes; Examples of an objectively reasonable 2064, and implementing regulations at
(B) The 45 minute test duration has basis for certification are: 16 CFR part 1115.)
elapsed; or (1) Records of reasonable and
(C) The mass of the mockup reaches representative tests demonstrating § 1634.8 Labeling.
more than 20% mass loss of the initial compliance with all applicable (a) Each article of upholstered
mass before 45 minutes have elapsed. requirements of this part for each cover furniture subject to this part shall bear
(n) Pass/fail criterion. (1) The sample or barrier material required for the Type a permanent, conspicuous, and legible
passes if no mockup assembly has more of furniture specified on the label label containing:
than 20% mass loss at the end of the 45- required by § 1634.8; or
(2) Possession of guaranties meeting (1) Name of the manufacturer (and
minute test.
the requirements of § 1634.9 for each importer, if any);
(2) If the 10 initial specimens meet the
performance criterion, the interior fire- cover or barrier material required for the (2) Location of the manufacturer (and
barrier sample passes. If a failure is Type of furniture specified on the label importer, if any), including street
recorded in any of the 10 initial required by § 1634.8 and maintaining address, city and state;
specimens, the test shall be repeated on that the manufacturer has not, by further (3) Month and year of manufacture;
an additional 20 specimens. At least 25 processing, negatively affected the fire
performance of any such cover or barrier (4) Model identification;
of the 30 specimens tested must meet
the performance criterion of this material. (5) Type identification (i.e., ‘‘Type I’’
paragraph. (e) Records. (1) Every upholstered or ‘‘Type II’’); and
(o) Test report. The test report shall furniture manufacturer (including (6) The statement ‘‘The manufacturer
include, at a minimum, the following importers) subject to this part shall hereby certifies that this article of
information: maintain records of the test results and upholstered furniture complies with all
(1) Name and address of the test details of each test performed by or for applicable requirements of 16 CFR part
laboratory; that manufacturer (including failures) 1634’’.
(2) Date of the test(s); intended to support certification in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this (b) The information required by
(3) Name of operator conducting the
section. Details shall include all the paragraph (a) of this section shall be set
test;
information required in the Test Report forth separately from any other
(4) Complete description of the test
in accordance with §§ 1634.4(n), information appearing on the label.
specimens;
(5) Mass data for the mockup 1634.5(o) and 1634.6(o). Other information, representations, or
including: (2) Records required by this paragraph disclosures, appearing on labels
(i) Initial mass; (e) shall be in English and kept at a required by this section or elsewhere on
(ii) Mass corresponding to 20% mass location in the United States. the item, shall not interfere with,
loss of initial mass; (3) Records required by this paragraph minimize, detract from, or conflict with,
(iii) Time to reach the mass equal to (e) shall be maintained by the the required information.
20% mass loss of the initial mass; manufacturer during production of the (c) No person shall remove or
(iv) The percent mass loss of the upholstered furniture and for a period of mutilate, or cause or participate in the
mockup at 45 minutes. at least three (3) years after production removal or mutilation of, any label
(6) Statement of overall pass/fail of the article of upholstered furniture required by this section to be affixed to
results. ceases. These records shall be made any article of upholstered furniture.
§ 1634.9 Requirements applicable to § 1634.13 Sheeting material. (1) Density: 1.8 lb/ft3
guaranties under section 8 of the FFA, 15 (a) The specifications of the sheeting (2) Indentation Load Deflection (ILD):
U.S.C. 1197. material are as follows: 25 to 30
(a) General. Either the manufacturer (1) Fiber content: 100% cotton (3) Air permeability: Greater than 4.0
of a finished article of upholstered (2) Color: White ft3/min
furniture subject to this part or the (3) Construction: Plain weave, 19–33 (4) No flame-retardant chemical
manufacturer of any cover or barrier threads per square centimeter (120–210 treatment as determined by post-
material subject to this part may issue threads per square inch) production chemical analysis.
a guaranty in accordance with this (4) Weight/square yard: 125 ± 28 g/m2
§ 1634.15 Standard cover fabric (cotton
section. The guaranty shall specify the (3.7 ± 0.8 oz/yd2). velvet) smoldering qualification for barrier
classification(s) (Type I or II) of (b) The sheeting shall be refurbished test.
upholstered furniture for which the once before use with the following
(a) Flammability properties. The
guaranty is intended to be valid. laundering procedure. The sheeting
(b) Tests to support guaranties. standard cover fabric used in
material shall be washed and dried one
Section 8 of the Flammable Fabrics Act, smoldering tests for interior fire barriers
time in accordance with sections 8.2.2
15 U.S.C. 1197, requires that a guaranty in accordance with § 1634.5, shall meet
and 8.2.3 of American Association of
thereunder ultimately be supported by the following requirements: when tested
Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC)
reasonable and representative tests. directly over a qualified SPUF foam
Test Method 124–2001 ‘‘Appearance of
Reasonable and representative tests for substrate following the procedure in
Fabrics after Repeated Home
purposes of this part shall be tests § 1634.4, the substrate mass loss average
Laundering.’’ Washing shall be
performed sufficiently to demonstrate of 10 test results shall be 50 ± 5%.
performed in accordance with sections (b) The standard cover fabric shall
that the tested item conforms with each 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 of AATCC Test Method
applicable requirement of this part. also have weight/square yard: 10 oz/yd2.
124–2001 using wash temperature (V) (c) A 100% cotton, velvet pile fabric
60 ± 3 °C (140 ± 5 °F) specified in Table of beige color, with no backcoating and
Subpart C—Apparatus and Materials II of that method, and the water level,
for Smoldering Ignition Resistance treated with certain finishing chemicals
agitator speed, washing time, spin speed involving a resin catalyst that contains
Tests and final spin cycle specified in small amounts of melamine, generally
§ 1634.10 Test room. ‘‘Normal/Cotton Sturdy’’ in Table III of demonstrates the desired flammability
(a) The test room shall have an the method. A maximum wash load performance characteristics specified.
appropriate fire protection suppression shall be 8 pounds. Drying shall be
system. A suitable extinguishment performed in accordance with section § 1634.16 Conditioning.
system such as a water bottle fitted with 8.3.1(A) of that test method, Tumble (a) All test specimens and standard
a spray nozzle shall be provided to Dry, using the exhaust temperature (66° test materials (including SPUF
extinguish any ignited portions of the ± 5 °C; 150° ± 10 °F) and cool down time substrates, cigarettes, and sheeting
mockup assembly. Dry chemical of 10 minutes specified in the ‘‘Durable material) shall be conditioned at a
extinguishing agents shall not be used to Press’’ conditions of Table IV of the temperature of 21° ± 3 °C (70° ± 5 °F)
extinguish or suppress smoldering method. and between 50% and 66% relative
combustion since the chemicals add humidity for at least 24 hours prior to
§ 1634.14 Standard polyurethane foam
mass therefore increasing the post-test substrate.
testing.
mass of the mockup remains. In (b) If conditions in the test room do
(a) The SPUF substrate is used for not meet these specifications, then
addition, straight pins, staples, a razor,
assembly of the mockups for evaluation testing must be initiated within 10
knife or scissors, a scale, and a brush
of upholstery cover fabric and interior minutes after the specimens are
and/or tongs may be needed to perform
fire barriers and to qualify standard removed from the conditioning room.
the tests.
(b) If conditions in the test room do cover fabrics.
(b) Flammability performance. (1) Subpart D—Test facility, exhaust
not meet the conditioning
Open flame performance. The SPUF system, and hazards
specifications, then testing must be
shall be tested in accordance with the
initiated within 10 minutes after the § 1634.17 Test facility and exhaust system.
test procedures specified in § 1634.6,
specimens are removed from the The room in which tests under this
but without the use of the standard
conditioning room. part are conducted shall have a volume
cover fabric and using a 5-second
§ 1634.11 Specimen holder. impingement of the 35 mm butane flame greater than 20 m3 in order to contain
The specimen holder shall consist of specified in § 1634.20(d). In three sufficient oxygen for testing, or if
two wooden panels, each nominal 203 consecutive trials, using SPUF from the smaller, the room shall have a
x 203 mm (8.0 x 8.0 in) and nominal 19 production lot to be qualified, the SPUF ventilation system permitting the
mm (0.75 in) thickness, joined together substrate shall have a mass loss that is necessary flow of air. During the pretest
at one edge. A moveable horizontal greater than 20 percent in less than 120 and testing period, airflow rates shall be
panel support is positioned on a seconds after removal of the ignition maintained below 0.1 m/s, measured in
centrally located guide. See Figures 1 source. the locality of the mockup assembly to
and 2. (2) Smoldering performance. The provide adequate air movement without
SPUF shall be tested in accordance with disturbing the burning behavior. Room
§ 1634.12 Ignition source. the test procedures specified in ventilation rates before and during tests
The ignition source for all smoldering § 1634.4, but without the use of a cover shall be maintained at about 200 ft3/
tests shall be cigarettes without filter fabric. In three consecutive trials, using min. Airflow rates in this range have
tips made from natural tobacco, 85 ± 2 SPUF from the production lot to be been shown to provide adequate oxygen
mm (3.3 ± 0.1 in) long and with a qualified the SPUF substrate shall have without physically disturbing the
packing density of 0.27 ± 0.02 g/cm3 a mass loss less than 1%. burning behavior of the ignition source
(0.16 ± 0.01 oz/in3) and a total weight (c) The SPUF substrate shall have the or the mockup assembly. In addition,
of 1.1 ± 0.1 g (0.039 ± 0.004 oz). following specifications: the ventilation system of the test facility
shall be capable of extracting smoke and (e) Flame height is measured from the without the use of a cover fabric. In
toxic combustion products generated center end of the burner tube when held three consecutive trials, using SPUF
during testing for health and safety horizontally and the flame is allowed to from the production lot to be qualified
reasons. burn freely in air. the SPUF substrate shall have a mass
loss less than 1%.
§ 1634.18 Hazards. § 1634.21 Metal test frame. (b) The SPUF substrate shall have the
(a) Health and safety risks associated (a) The metal test frame shall consist following specifications:
with conducting the required testing in of two rectangular steel frames locked at (1) Density: 1.8 lb/ft3
accordance with this part 1634 exist. It right angles to each other (See Figure 6). (2) Indentation Load Deflection (ILD):
is essential that suitable precautions be (b) The frames shall be made of 25 to 30
taken, which include the use of nominal 25 mm x 25 mm (1 x 1 inch) (3) Air permeability: Greater than 4.0
breathing apparatus and protective steel angle 3 mm (0.125 inch) thick, and ft3/min
clothing. Products of combustion can be shall securely hold platforms of steel (4) No flame-retardant chemical
irritating and dangerous to test mesh set 6 ± 1 mm (0.25 ± 0.05 inch) treatment as determined by post
personnel. Test personnel should avoid below the front face of each test frame. production chemical analysis.
exposure to smoke and gases produced (c) An optional standard edging
during testing. section around the steel mesh will § 1634.25 Conditioning.
(b) A suitable means of fire provide protection and greater rigidity. (a) All test specimens and standard
extinguishment shall be at hand. When The rod shall be continuous across the test materials shall be conditioned at a
the termination point of the test has back of the apparatus. temperature of 21° ± 3 °C (70° ± 5 °F)
been reached and the fire is and between 50% and 66% relative
§ 1634.22 Standard cover fabric (rayon)
extinguished, the presence of a back-up open flame qualification for barrier test. humidity for at least 24 hours prior to
fire extinguisher is recommended. It is testing.
(a) The standard cover fabric used in
often difficult to determine when (b) If conditions in the test room do
open flame tests for interior fire barriers
combustion in a mockup assembly has not meet the conditioning
shall be tested in accordance with the
ceased, even after an extinguishment specifications, then testing must be
test procedures specified in § 1634.6
action is taken, due to burning deep initiated within 10 minutes after the
using a 20 second application of the 35
inside the specimens. Care should be specimens are removed from the
mm butane gas flame specified in
taken that specimens are disposed of conditioning room.
§ 1634.20. In five consecutive trials, the
only when completely inert. assembly mass loss must be greater than Subpart F—Reupholstering
Subpart E—Test Facility and Materials 40% at 5 minutes when tested with a
for Open Flame Ignition Resistance qualified SPUF. § 1634.26 Requirements applicable to
(b) The standard rayon cover fabric reupholstering.
Tests
shall also: (a) Section 3 of the Flammable Fabrics
§ 1634.19 Test room. (1) Be 100% bright regular rayon, Act (15 U.S.C. 1192) prohibits, among
The test room shall be draft protected scoured, 20/2 ring spun basket weave other things, the ‘‘manufacture for sale’’
and equipped with a suitable ventilation construction; and of any product which fails to conform
system for exhausting smoke and any (2) Have weight/square yard: 8.0 ± 0.5 to an applicable standard issued under
toxic gases generated during testing. oz/yd2. the FFA.
§ 1634.23 Open flame tests fabric cut-out
(b) Reupholstering upholstered
§ 1634.20 Butane gas flame ignition furniture for sale is manufacturing
dimensions.
source. upholstered furniture for sale and,
The fabric cut-out dimensions needed
(a) The butane gas flame ignition therefore, is subject to the FFA and all
for installing in the mockup assembly to
source shall be in accordance with the applicable requirements of this part.
conduct open flame tests are shown in
following specifications or equivalent: (c) Reupholstering is any replacing of
Figure 5.
(1) The burner tube shall consist of a upholstered furniture material that is
stainless steel tube, 8.0 ± 0.1 mm (5/16 § 1634.24 Standard polyurethane foam subject to any applicable performance
± 0.004 inch) outside diameter, 6.5 ± 0.1 substrate. requirements of §§ 1634.4 through
mm (0.256 ± 0.004 inch) internal (a) The SPUF substrate used for 1634.6.
diameter. assembly of mockups shall meet the (d) If the person who reupholsters the
(2) The butane shall be ‘‘C.P. Grade’’ following flammability performance upholstered furniture intends to retain
(chemically pure) butane, 99.0% purity. requirements. the reupholstered furniture for his or
(b) There shall be a means to control (1) The SPUF shall be tested in her own use, or if a customer hires the
the flow rate of butane. accordance with the open flame test services of the reupholsterer and
(c) In the open flame test of section procedures specified in § 1634.6, but intends to take back the reupholstered
1634.6 a nominal 240 mm flame butane without the use of the standard cover furniture for his or her own use,
is required. The nominal 240 mm fabric and using a 5-second ‘‘manufacture for sale’’ has not occurred
butane flame is obtained by establishing impingement of the 35 mm butane flame and such an article of reupholstered
a flow rate of butane gas that is 350 ± specified in § 1634.20(d). In three furniture is not subject to this part.
10 ml/min at 25 °C (77 °F) and 101.3 consecutive trials, using SPUF from the (e) If an article of reupholstered
kPa (14.7 psi). production lot to be qualified, the SPUF furniture is sold or intended for sale,
(d) In standard material qualification substrate shall have a mass loss that is either by the reupholsterer or the owner
tests for SPUF and Rayon, a nominal 35 greater than 20 percent in less than 120 of the upholstered furniture who hires
mm butane is required. The nominal 35 seconds after removal of the ignition the services of the reupholsterer, such a
mm butane flame is obtained by source. transaction is considered to be
establishing a flow rate of butane gas (2) The SPUF shall be tested in ‘‘manufacture for sale’’ and the article of
that is 45 ± 2 ml/min at 25 °C (77 °F) accordance with the smoldering test upholstered furniture is subject to all
and 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi). procedures specified in § 1634.4, but applicable requirements of this part.
Dated: February 14, 2008. Project Manager, Directorate for Economic Economic Analysis, ‘‘Ignition of Upholstered
Alberta E. Mills, Analysis, ‘‘Analysis of Laboratory Data for Furniture by Small Open Flames and/or
Upholstered Furniture,’’ November 16, 2007. Smoldering Cigarettes,’’ List of Comments on
Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
4. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, EC, CF 04–2, December 29, 2003, revised October
Commission.
to Dale R. Ray, Project Manager, Directorate 19, 2004.
Note: The following appendix will not for Economic Analysis, Environmental 8. Memorandum from A. Bernatz, L.
appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. Assessment of a Draft Proposed Flammability Fansler & L. Scott, to Dale R. Ray, Project
Standard for Residential Upholstered Manager, Directorate for Economic Analysis,
List of Relevant Documents Furniture,’’ November 2007. ‘‘Test Program for Upholstery Fabrics and
5. Memorandum from Charles L. Smith, Fire Barriers,’’ November 8, 2007.
1. Briefing memorandum from Dale R. Ray,
Directorate for Economic Analysis, to Dale R. 9. Memorandum from P. Semple, Executive
Project Manager, Directorate for Economic
Ray, Project Manager, ‘‘Preliminary Director, to the Commission, ‘‘Finding of No
Analysis, to the Commission, ‘‘Regulatory
Regulatory Analysis of a Draft Proposed Significant Impact from Implementation of
Alternatives for Upholstered Furniture the Proposed Flammability Standard for
Flammability Rule to Address Ignitions of
Flammability,’’ November 20, 2007. Residential Upholstered Furniture,’’
Upholstered Furniture,’’ December 2007.
2. Memorandum from Rohit Khanna & S. 6. Memorandum from Charles L. Smith, November 19, 2007.
Mehta, Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Directorate for Economic Analysis, to Dale R. 10. Memorandum from W. Zamula,
to Dale R. Ray, Project Manager, Directorate Ray, Project Manager, Directorate for Directorate for Economic Analysis, to Dale R.
for Economic Analysis, ‘‘Technical Rationale Economic Analysis, ‘‘Proposed Rulemaking Ray, Project Manager, Directorate for
Report for the Draft Standard for the on Upholstered Furniture Flammability, Economic Analysis, ‘‘Costs for Non-Fatal,
Flammability of Upholstered Furniture,’’ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,’’ Addressable Residential Civilian Injuries
November 2007. December 2007. Associated with Upholstered Furniture
3. Memorandum from D. Miller, 7. Memorandum from Martha A. Kosh, Fires,’’ September 6, 2007.
Directorate for Epidemiology, to Dale R. Ray, Office of the Secretary, to Directorate for BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
EP04MR08.006</GPH>
EP04MR08.007</GPH>
EP04MR08.009</GPH>
EP04MR08.008</GPH>
EP04MR08.010</GPH>
[FR Doc. 08–768 Filed 3–3–08; 8:45 am]

EP04MR08.011</GPH>

16 CFR Part 1634

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

16 CFR Part 1634

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tuesday,

briefing.html. Copies may also be requested from

Commerce, 2002 Economic Census, report EC02–

20 U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports,

34 ‘‘Jacquards’’ and ‘‘dobbies’’ refer to the types of

Associated with Upholstered Furniture Fires.’’

annual societal costs) are summarized in

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C

fabrics being FR-treated and 90% x 40% that are

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C

70 Information provided to the staff at a June 29,

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C

standard may also be underestimated. The

84 The 2001 CPSC draft standard required that

Home Furnishings, in a November 14, 2005, e-mail

that affect the likelihood that ignition

effective, such as 18 months, could revisions to its mandatory standard for

[FR Doc. 08–768 Filed 3–3–08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–C

You might also like