[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 4, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11702-11752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 08-768]



[[Page 11701]]

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

Part II





Consumer Product Safety Commission





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



16 CFR Part 1634



Standard for the Flammability of Residential Upholstered Furniture; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 4, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 11702]]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1634


Standard for the Flammability of Residential Upholstered 
Furniture

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission 
(``Commission'' or ``CPSC'') is proposing flammability standards for 
residential upholstered furniture under the Flammable Fabrics Act 
(``FFA''). The proposal would establish performance requirements and 
certification and labeling requirements for upholstered furniture. 
Manufacturers of upholstered furniture would choose one of two possible 
methods of compliance: They could use cover materials that are 
sufficiently smolder resistant to meet a cigarette ignition performance 
test; or they could place fire barriers that meet smoldering and open 
flame resistance tests between the cover fabric and interior filling 
materials. Manufacturers of upholstered furniture would be required to 
certify compliance with the standard and to comply with certain 
recordkeeping requirements as specified in the proposal.

DATES: Comments in response to this document must be received by the 
Commission not later than May 19, 2008.
    Comments on elements of the proposed rule that, if issued in final 
form would constitute collection of information requirements under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, may be filed with the Office of Management and 
Budget (``OMB'') and with the Commission. Comments will be received by 
OMB until May 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be filed by e-mail to [email protected]. 
Comments also may be filed by telefacsimile to (301) 504-0127 or 
mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office of the Secretary, 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
MD 20814, or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product 
Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland; telephone (301) 504-7530. Comments should be captioned 
``Upholstered Furniture NPR.''
    Comments to OMB should be directed to the Desk Officer for the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503. The Commission asks 
commenters to provide copies of such comments to the Commission's 
Office of the Secretary, with a caption or cover letter identifying the 
materials as comments submitted to OMB on the proposed collection of 
information requirements for the proposed upholstered furniture 
flammability standard.
    The public may also request an opportunity to present comments 
orally. Such requests should be submitted to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission by e-mail, mail, fax or in person at the 
addresses or phone numbers listed above for the CPSC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale R. Ray, Project Manager, 
Directorate for Economic Analysis, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7704.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    Regulatory/technical activity. In 1993 the National Association of 
State Fire Marshals (``NASFM'') petitioned the Commission to issue 
regulations under the FFA addressing upholstered furniture fire risks. 
NASFM requested that the Commission adopt three existing state of 
California standards.
    The Commission granted the petition in part, and issued an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking (``ANPR'') on June 15, 1994 on the 
specific risk of small open flame-ignited fires. 59 FR 30,735 (1994). 
The Commission denied the petition with respect to large open flame-
ignited fires, and deferred action on the petition with respect to 
cigarette-ignited fires pending a CPSC staff evaluation of: (1) The 
level of voluntary conformance to existing voluntary industry 
guidelines, and (2) the overall level of cigarette ignition resistance 
among products on the market.
    Following issuance of the 1994 ANPR, CPSC staff developed a draft 
performance standard and a test method to evaluate the small open flame 
performance of upholstered furniture. In October 1997, the staff 
forwarded a briefing package to the Commission concluding that a small 
open flame standard was feasible and could effectively reduce the risk 
to consumers, including both small open flame and cigarette ignitions. 
The staff recommended that the Commission defer action until the agency 
could gather additional scientific information to ensure that flame 
retardant (``FR'') upholstery fabric treatments that manufacturers 
might use would not result in adverse health effects. The staff 
recommended that the Commission defer action on the cigarette ignition 
portion of the 1993 NASFM petition pending a decision on open flame 
ignition. On October 5, 2001, NASFM withdrew the portion of the 
petition seeking Commission action with respect to cigarette-ignited 
fires.
    In July of 2003 the CPSC staff recommended that the Commission 
issue an ANPR to expand the upholstered furniture proceeding to address 
ignition of upholstered furniture by both small open flames and by 
smoldering cigarettes. The Commission accepted the staff's 
recommendation, and the ANPR was published on October 23, 2003. 68 FR 
60,619. The 2003 ANPR sought comment on issues relating to the kinds of 
standard provisions that might best address the upholstered furniture 
fire risk in its entirety.
    The Commission received 13 written comments during the 60-day 
formal comment period following publication of the ANPR. Interested 
parties subsequently provided additional written submissions in the 
form of letters, position statements or presentations of technical data 
at meetings. A detailed discussion of significant comments received is 
provided in Section G of this preamble. In October 2004, the staff held 
a public meeting to present the direction of what would become the 
staff's 2005 draft standard. The staff analyzed comments received at 
that meeting as well. The proposed standard takes account of that 
analysis. Staff received comments on its 2005 draft standard, continued 
its research and analysis and developed a revised, 2007 draft proposal 
that focused primarily on preventing smoldering ignitions and reducing 
the need for flame retardant chemicals.\1\ This notice presents the 
2007 draft as the Commission's proposed standard.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission staff briefing package discussing this 
proposal, Briefing Package: Regulatory Alternatives for Upholstered 
Furniture Flammability, November 2007, (the ``Staff Briefing 
Package'') is available on the Internet at: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia08/brief/briefing.html. Copies may also be 
requested from the Commission's Office of the Secretary at the 
address shown above.
    \2\ Acting Chairman Nancy Nord and Commissioner Thomas H. Moore 
issued statements which are available from the Commission's Office 
of the Secretary (see Addresses section of this notice) or from the 
Commission's Web site, http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/statements.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overview of the proposed standard. The proposed standard 
establishes two possible approaches. Upholstered furniture can meet the 
proposed standard by having either (1) upholstery cover material that 
complies with the prescribed smoldering ignition

[[Page 11703]]

resistance test (referred to as ``Type I'' furniture) or (2) an 
interior fire barrier that complies with specified smoldering and small 
open flame ignition resistance tests (``Type II'' furniture). No 
requirements are prescribed for filling materials. The standard would 
become effective one year after issued in final form and would apply to 
upholstered furniture manufactured or imported on or after that date.
    The performance tests prescribed in the proposed standard are 
conducted with the tested material installed in mockups that simulate 
the intersection of the seating area of an item of upholstered 
furniture. In addition to the material under test, the mockup is 
assembled using standardized upholstery test materials as defined in 
the proposed standard.
    Manufacturers (including importers) of upholstered furniture would 
be required to certify that the article of upholstered furniture 
complies with the proposed standard and to maintain records 
demonstrating compliance with the applicable portions of the proposed 
standard. Upholstered furniture subject to the proposed standard would 
be required to be labeled with information identifying the 
manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the item and type of furniture, 
and a statement certifying that the article complies with applicable 
requirements of the standard.

B. Statutory Authority

    This proceeding is conducted pursuant to Section 4 of the Flammable 
Fabrics Act (``FFA''), which authorizes the Commission to initiate 
proceedings for a flammability standard when it finds that such a 
standard is ``needed to protect the public against unreasonable risk of 
the occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or 
significant property damage.'' 15 U.S.C. 1193(a).
    Section 4 also sets forth the process by which the Commission may 
issue a flammability standard. As required in section 4(g), the 
Commission has issued an ANPR. 68 FR 60629. 15 U.S.C. 1193(g). The 
Commission has reviewed the comments submitted in response to the ANPR 
and now is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') containing 
the text of the proposed rule along with alternatives the Commission 
has considered and a preliminary regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C. 
1193(i). The Commission will consider comments provided in response to 
the NPR and decide whether to issue a final rule along with a final 
regulatory analysis. Id. 1193(j). The FFA also requires that when 
issuing a standard or regulation the Commission must provide an 
opportunity for interested persons to present their views orally. Id. 
1193(d).
    The Commission cannot issue a final rule unless it makes certain 
findings and includes these in the regulation. The Commission must 
find: (1) If an applicable voluntary standard has been adopted and 
implemented, that compliance with the voluntary standard is not likely 
to adequately reduce the risk of injury, or compliance with the 
voluntary standard is not likely to be substantial; (2) that benefits 
expected from the regulation bear a reasonable relationship to its 
costs; and (3) that the regulation imposes the least burdensome 
alternative that would adequately reduce the risk of injury. 15 U.S.C. 
1193(j)(2). In addition, the Commission must find that the standard (1) 
is needed to adequately protect the public against the risk of the 
occurrence of fire leading to death, injury or significant property 
damage, (2) is reasonable, technologically practicable, and 
appropriate, (3) is limited to fabrics, related materials or products 
which present unreasonable risks, and (4) is stated in objective terms. 
Id. 1193(b).

C. The Product

    The proposed standard applies to residential upholstered furniture. 
The proposal specifically requires testing of cover fabrics and, 
alternatively, barrier materials if they are used as a means of 
complying with the proposed standard. Upholstered furniture is defined 
for purposes of the proposed standard to include articles of interior 
seating furnishing intended for indoor use in a home or other 
residential occupancy that: (1) Consist in whole or in part of 
resilient cushioning materials (such as foam, batting, or related 
materials) covered by fabric or related materials; and (2) are 
constructed with a contiguous upholstered seat and back or arms. 
Included within the definition are products that are intended or 
promoted for indoor residential use for sitting or reclining upon, such 
as: Chairs, sofas, motion furniture, sleep sofas, home office furniture 
customarily offered for sale through retailers or otherwise available 
for residential use, and upholstered furniture intended for use in 
dormitories or other residential occupancies. Items excluded from the 
definition are: Furniture, such as patio chairs, intended solely for 
outdoor use; furniture without contiguous upholstered seating and backs 
and/or arm surfaces, such as ottomans, pillows or pads that are not 
sold with the article of furniture; commercial or industrial furniture 
not offered for sale through retailers or not otherwise available for 
residential use; furniture intended or sold solely for use in hotels 
and other short-term lodging and hospitality establishments; futons, 
flip chairs, the mattress portions of sleep sofas, and non-furniture 
infant or juvenile products such as walkers, strollers, high chairs or 
pillows.
    Commission staff estimates that the proposed standard would affect 
more than 1,600 manufacturers and importers of upholstered furniture 
and the 100-200 textile manufacturers that derive a significant share 
of their revenues from household furniture fabrics. The staff estimates 
that the average useful life of upholstered furniture ranges from 15 to 
17 years. Assuming that the expected life of a piece of upholstered 
furniture is about 16 years, the average number of upholstered 
furniture items in household use during 2002-2004 was about 447 million 
pieces. Upholstered furniture products and manufacturers are discussed 
in greater detail in section H, Preliminary Regulatory Analysis, of 
this preamble.
    The top four companies accounted for nearly 35 percent of the total 
value of household upholstered furniture shipments in 2002; the 50 
largest companies accounted for about 67 percent. The industry also 
includes many small companies. The staff estimates that nearly all of 
the affected firms (over 97 percent) would be classified as small 
businesses under Small Business Administration guidelines. The staff's 
initial analysis of the potential impact of the proposed standard on 
such ``small entities'' is provided in section I., Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, of this preamble.
    As discussed in section D of this preamble, the majority of deaths 
and injuries resulting from fires involving upholstered furniture were 
started by smoldering ignition sources (such as cigarettes). The 
staff's test data show that furniture covered with predominantly 
cellulosic fabrics (such as cotton and rayon) is much more likely to be 
involved in cigarette-ignited fires than furniture covered with 
predominantly thermoplastic fabrics (such as polyester, polyolefin, and 
nylon). The proposed standard focuses primarily on reducing deaths and 
injuries from smoldering ignited fires. Staff estimates that about 14 
percent of currently-produced furniture items are likely to fail the 
proposed standard's smoldering ignition test for cover fabrics. These 
would primarily be items constructed with certain predominantly 
cellulosic fabrics; staff believes most of these fabrics could be 
modified to meet the proposed standard. Staff anticipates that most 
manufacturers are likely to bring these furniture items into

[[Page 11704]]

compliance by modifying the physical characteristics of the cover 
fabrics rather than by using flame retardant (FR) fabric treatments. 
Alternatively, manufacturers would have the option to meet the proposed 
standard by using barrier materials that pass open flame and smoldering 
ignition tests rather than changing the cover fabric.

D. Risk of Injury

    Annual estimates of national fires and fire losses involving 
ignition of upholstered furniture are based on data from the U.S. Fire 
Administration's National Fire Incident Reporting System (``NFIRS'') 
and the National Fire Protection Administration's (``NFPA'') annual 
survey of fire departments.
    National fire loss estimates for 2002-2004 indicated that 
upholstered furniture was the first item to ignite in an average 7,800 
residential fires attended by the fire service annually during that 
period. These fires resulted in an average of 540 deaths, 870 injuries 
and $250 million in property loss each year.
    Of these fires, the staff considers an estimated 3,500 fires, 280 
deaths, 500 injuries, and $112 million property loss annually to be 
addressable by the proposed standard. Addressable here means the 
incidents were of a type that would be affected by the proposed 
standard (i.e., a fire that ignited upholstered furniture and that had 
a smoking material or small open flame heat source). Approximately 90% 
of estimated deaths, 65% of estimated injuries and 59% of property 
damage resulted from ignition by smoking materials, almost always 
cigarettes. The remaining addressable fires were started by small open 
flame sources. Among the addressable casualties, smoking materials 
accounted for about 260 deaths and 320 injuries annually. Small open 
flame fires accounted for about 30 deaths and 170 injuries annually.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Numbers do not add up to totals due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Other Upholstered Furniture Flammability Standards

1. California Regulatory Activity

    California Technical Bulletin 117 (``TB-117''), the mandatory 
regulation for all upholstered furniture sold in that state, contains 
both smoldering and small open flame resistance performance 
requirements. Complying upholstered furniture is generally similar to 
furniture sold in other states, except that California furniture is 
typically made with FR resilient foam filling materials. In early 2002, 
the California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation 
(BHFTI) released a draft revision of TB-117. This draft revision 
contained upgraded performance requirements for small open flame 
ignition resistance of filling materials, and a cover material test 
similar to that developed by the Commission staff in its 2001 draft 
small open flame standard. The TB-117 smoldering resistance provisions 
were not changed.
    The California BHFTI has not proposed amendments to TB-117 to 
incorporate the 2002 draft revision. The BHFTI's comment on the 
Commission's October 23, 2003 ANPR expressed support for a uniform 
national standard. BHFTI recommended that the Commission consider 
adopting appropriate elements of the 2002 draft revised TB-117 into a 
proposed Commission rule. The proposed standard contains some 
requirements similar to provisions of TB-117.

2. United Kingdom Regulations

    The U.K. Department of Trade and Industry (``DTI'') enforces the 
U.K. Furniture and Furnishings (Flammability) Regulations, issued in 
1990. These regulations contain smoldering and open flame resistance 
requirements for residential upholstered furniture based on test 
methods in British Standard BS 5852. The CPSC proposed standard's fire 
barrier open flame test uses the apparatus and ignition source from the 
U.K. regulations.

3. Voluntary Standards Activity

    Since the Commission's original ANPR on upholstered furniture was 
published in 1994, industry groups have been encouraged to develop 
voluntary flammability requirements through a recognized standards 
organization. The Upholstered Furniture Action Council (``UFAC'') 
voluntary industry program of cigarette ignition tests developed in the 
1970s is embodied in ASTM E-1353 and other voluntary test methods. 
Commission staff estimates voluntary UFAC conformance at about 90% of 
furniture production. The UFAC voluntary program does not address small 
open flame ignitions. Aspects of the UFAC cigarette ignition resistance 
test methods, California BHF Technical Bulletins (TB) 116, 117, and 
133, and British Standard BS-5852 have been adopted by various 
consensus voluntary standards organizations and industry groups, 
including ASTM International, the International Standards Organization, 
the National Fire Protection Association and the Business and 
Institutional Furniture Manufacturers of America, and have also been 
incorporated into some state and local fire codes. Some industry groups 
have suggested that the Commission should adopt the UFAC program as a 
proposed rule. As discussed in section G.1 of this preamble, the 
Commission concludes that mandating the UFAC guidelines would have 
little effect on reducing deaths and injuries related to upholstered 
furniture fires.

F. The Proposed Standard

    In developing the proposed flammability standard to address 
ignitions of residential upholstered furniture, the Commission 
considered the available hazard information, existing standards 
development research together with the latest CPSC laboratory data, and 
technical information developed by other organizations. Economic, 
health and environmental factors were also considered.

1. Scope

    The proposed standard contains flammability performance 
requirements for most residential upholstered furniture. The proposed 
standard applies to:
     Residential seating products intended for indoor use and 
constructed with contiguous upholstered seats and backs, such as chairs 
and sofas (including motion furniture and sleep sofas);
     Some home office furniture sold through retailers or 
otherwise available for household use; and
     Upholstered furniture used in dormitories or other 
residential occupancies.
    The proposed standard does not apply to:
     Outdoor furniture, such as patio chairs;
     Articles without contiguous upholstered seating surfaces, 
such as ottomans, decorative pillows or pads, and many office chairs 
and dining chairs;
     Commercial or industrial furniture not intended or sold 
for household use;
     Furniture intended or sold solely for use in hotels and 
other temporary lodging and hospitality establishments;
     Futons, flip chairs, and the mattress components of sleep 
sofas; and
     Non-furniture juvenile products such as walkers, 
strollers, high chairs and pillows.

2. General Requirements

    The proposed standard addresses resistance to ignition and limited 
fire growth by means of performance tests for cover fabrics and, 
alternatively, for

[[Page 11705]]

barriers. The principal performance requirements of the proposed 
standard are intended to reduce the risk of fire from smoldering 
ignition. If barriers are chosen as the means of compliance, they must 
meet both small open flame and smoldering resistance requirements. The 
proposal adapts elements and variations of existing standards, 
including California Technical Bulletin 117, ASTM E-1353 (tests from 
the UFAC voluntary industry guidelines) and United Kingdom regulations 
(based on British Standard BS-5852).
    The upholstered furniture tests are conducted using seating mockups 
of fabric and filling materials. The goal is to reduce the smolder 
propensity of cover materials and limit the mass loss from combustion 
(smoldering, melting, or flaming) of the mockup's interior filling 
materials. Pass/fail criteria are based on maximum acceptable 
combustion time and mass loss percentages within a 45 minute test 
period.

3. Cover Fabric Smoldering Resistance Test

    In this test, fabrics are tested in combination with a standard 
polyurethane foam substrate. A lighted cigarette is placed in the seat/
back crevice of the mockup and is allowed to burn its entire length. 
The mockup must not continue to smolder at the end of the 45 minute 
test or transition to flaming at any time during the test, and the foam 
substrate must not exceed the mass loss limit of 10%. Ten initial 
specimens are tested. If the 10 initial specimens meet these criteria, 
the cover fabric sample passes. If there is a failure in any one of the 
10 initial specimens, the test must be repeated on an additional 20 
specimens. At least 25 of the 30 specimens must meet the criteria.

4. Interior Fire Barrier Smoldering Resistance Test

    In this test, the barrier is placed between a standard foam 
substrate and a standard cotton velvet cover fabric. A lighted 
cigarette is placed in the seat/back crevice of the mockup. The foam 
substrate must not exceed 1% mass loss by the end of the 45 minute 
test, and the mockup must not transition to open flaming at any time 
during the test. Ten initial specimens are tested. If all 10 initial 
specimens meet these criteria, the barrier sample passes. If any one of 
the ten fails, an additional 20 specimens are tested, and at least 25 
of the 30 must meet the criteria.

5. Interior Fire Barrier Open Flame Resistance Test

    The proposed standard also contains provisions for the open flame 
resistance of barriers. In addition to providing protection from small 
flame ignition, the open flame performance test contributes to the 
protection of materials from the progression of smoldering to flaming 
combustion.
    In this test, the barrier is placed between a standard rayon cover 
fabric and standard foam substrate on a metal test frame. An open flame 
ignition source is applied to the seat/back crevice of the mockup. The 
mockup must not exceed 20% mass loss by the end of the 45 minute test. 
Again, 10 initial samples are tested. If there is a failure with any of 
the 10 specimens, an additional 20 specimens are tested, and at least 
25 of the 30 must meet the criteria for the sample barrier to pass.

6. Administrative Requirements

    In addition to flammability performance requirements, the proposed 
standard contains provisions relating to certification and 
recordkeeping, testing to support guaranties, and labeling of finished 
articles of upholstered furniture. These requirements are intended to 
help manufacturers, importers and suppliers ensure that their products 
comply, and to help the CPSC staff enforce the proposed performance 
standard. These provisions are contained in Subpart B of the proposed 
standard.
    Under Sec.  8 of the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1197, producers of finished 
articles of upholstered furniture, i.e., manufacturers and importers, 
may rely on guaranties of compliance issued by material suppliers to 
avoid criminal prosecution in certain instances. However, manufacturers 
and importers are ultimately responsible under the proposal for 
compliance of the upholstered furniture products they produce and 
introduce into commerce. It is unlawful under the FFA to provide a 
false guaranty. While there are no specific sampling or production 
testing requirements in the proposed standard, the FFA requires that 
any guaranties be supported by reasonable and representative tests 
sufficient to establish that production units of materials meet the 
applicable tests.
    The proposed standard requires that each finished article of 
upholstered furniture carry a permanent label: (1) Containing a 
statement certifying that it complies with the standard, identifying 
the ``Type'' of furniture (i.e., Type I or Type II); (2) identifying 
the manufacturer or importer; and (3) specifying the location and month 
and year of manufacture and model and lot number or other identifier 
applicable to the item. This information would be required to be 
separate from other label information. The label would help retailers 
and consumers identify products in the event of a recall or other 
corrective action.

G. Response to Comments on the ANPR and Subsequent Submissions

    The Commission received 13 written comments during the 60-day 
formal comment period following publication of the ANPR in October 
2003. Since that time, interested parties provided about 20 additional 
written submissions in the form of letters, position statements or 
technical presentations at public meetings. Further, the staff held or 
attended several public meetings with stakeholders to discuss issues of 
interest.
    Many of the public comments addressed similar issues. These issues 
generally involved: (a) The scope, test methods and acceptance criteria 
of a possible proposed rule; (b) the potential benefits and costs of 
various alternatives; and (c) the potential use of flame retardant (FR) 
chemicals to comply with those alternatives. Some of the comments dealt 
specifically with the staff's 2001 and 2005 draft standards, options 
that contained more open flame performance requirements for upholstery 
materials than the proposed rule. A few of the comments dealt with the 
staff's 2007 draft proposal, which became the agency's proposed 
standard. The Commission considered all of the comments received since 
2003 in developing the proposed rule.

1. Scope and Test Methods

    Comment. Several industry, government and fire safety organizations 
provided comments on the general scope of a standard, mainly with 
respect to cigarette versus open flame ignition performance.
    Under the 2003 ANPR, the staff developed multiple draft standards 
containing both smoldering and open flame requirements. The proposed 
rule places primary emphasis on smoldering ignition resistance, as a 
substantial majority of upholstered furniture-related deaths, injuries 
and property losses result from smoldering fires. Several furniture 
industry groups commented that the fire risk associated with open flame 
ignition has become so small that regulation in that area is 
unnecessary. They also commented that the science of open flame 
ignition behavior is so complex that substantial further research would 
be needed to support

[[Page 11706]]

any reasonable conclusions about the effectiveness and technical 
adequacy of any performance requirements. In addition, they opposed 
open flame ignition requirements on the basis that compliance costs 
would be unreasonably high. These groups recommended that the 
Commission proceed with rulemaking on smoldering ignition only, and 
that CPSC adopt the performance tests in the ASTM/UFAC voluntary 
guidelines in the proposed rule.
    Other stakeholders, including representatives of fire safety 
organizations, state government and chemical industry groups, 
recommended that a federal rule contain both smoldering and open flame 
requirements, and stated that solutions are technically and 
economically feasible. Some commenters opposed any course that would 
reduce the current level of safety provided by the existing California 
regulation, Technical Bulletin (TB) 117. Other industry groups 
supported adoption of a smoldering standard and eventual consideration 
of open flame requirements in the future. The California Bureau of Home 
Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (BHFTI) recommended that CPSC 
consider adopting elements of the draft revised TB-117 published by 
BHFTI in 2002.
    In 2004, an industry ``coalition'' of furniture producers and 
material suppliers developed a set of performance requirements for 
Commission consideration. The coalition proposal included: a small open 
flame test for cover fabrics, based on a modification of the 
Commission's Standard for the Flammability of Clothing Textiles (16 CFR 
Part 1610); smoldering and open flame tests for filling materials, 
based on the 2002 draft revision of California TB-117; an open flame 
test for fibrous (non-foam) ``cushion wraps,'' based on an existing 
U.K. regulation provision; ASTM/UFAC smoldering tests for cushion 
wraps; and an unspecified barrier test to be developed by CPSC. The 
staff evaluated the industry coalition proposal and questioned the 
effectiveness of some of the performance elements. Coalition members 
withdrew support for their proposal in 2005 as the CPSC staff was 
continuing its evaluation and considering other alternatives.
    Response. The Commission recognizes that estimated residential 
upholstered furniture fire losses have declined over time, and that 
relatively few losses--e.g., about 10% of the addressable deaths--are 
attributable to open flame-ignited fires. Thus, relatively few open 
flame deaths and injuries could be averted, even under highly effective 
open flame requirements. The Commission notes, however, that large 
numbers of deaths and injuries remain. Since a substantial majority of 
these losses result from cigarette-ignited fires, the Commission agrees 
that a rule with primary emphasis on smoldering can have substantial 
safety benefits. Based on CPSC's laboratory research, the Commission 
also agrees that the ASTM/UFAC test method provides a useful basis for 
a standard, but does not agree that the ASTM/UFAC tests as implemented 
in the UFAC voluntary program would adequately achieve those benefits. 
While UFAC has contributed to fire safety by encouraging the use of 
smolder-resistant materials, the program allows the use of smolder-
prone cover fabrics with polyurethane foam, and allows highly smolder-
prone fabrics in combination with more smolder-resistant materials 
(e.g., polyester batting) underneath. These conforming combinations are 
not always adequate to prevent fire growth from smoldering ignitions.
    CPSC laboratory testing demonstrated that smolder-prone fabrics can 
defeat the inherent smolder resistance of polyester batting, and that 
furniture mockup assemblies with highly smolder-prone fabrics can 
transition from smoldering to flaming combustion over time. Further, 
some lower-priced furniture may use UFAC-conforming but smolder-prone 
fabrics without smolder resistant batting. In addition, the UFAC tests 
may not be adequate to characterize the smoldering behavior of all 
upholstery materials; for example, UFAC's vertical char length 
performance metric does not always reflect the downward burning that 
typically occurs in polyurethane foam fillings. Additionally, the ASTM/
UFAC method employs a draft-limiting enclosure that was designed to 
improve test repeatability but artificially restricts burning of the 
most smolder-prone fabrics. The non-time-limited UFAC tests may also 
adversely affect the repeatability of the test results. The Commission 
concludes that adopting the ASTM/UFAC tests without significant 
modification would have little effect on currently-produced upholstered 
furniture, and would therefore probably have negligible safety benefits 
beyond those already achieved under the voluntary industry program. 
Thus, the proposed rule has smoldering ignition requirements that are 
somewhat different from, and more stringent than, those of the UFAC 
guidelines. The proposed standard also contains open flame performance 
requirements for barriers; these barriers must protect interior filling 
materials from smolder-prone fabrics that may otherwise cause furniture 
to transition from smoldering to flaming combustion.

2. Standardized Test Materials

    Comment. In addition to the CPSC staff's extensive studies on the 
suitability of various standard test materials, industry groups 
contributed research and submitted comments on the performance of 
standard cover fabrics and standard polyurethane foams specified in the 
CPSC staff's draft standards. Both the staff and industry noted the 
potential effects of interdependency of standard test materials, and 
the potential impact on test results of the observed variability in the 
performance of certain test materials. This variability chiefly related 
to a standard cotton velvet fabric specified in the open flame tests of 
the CPSC staff's 2005 draft standard; to a lesser extent, variability 
was observed in the behavior of the standard FR test foam used in the 
smoldering tests of the staff's 2005 draft. The comments generally 
recommended changes to the standard test materials or the test methods 
to eliminate the undesirable effects of standard material variability.
    Response. The staff's research concluded that the variability 
identified in the performance of the standard fabric (and, in some 
cases, the standard non-FR foam) could adversely affect the 
repeatability and reproducibility of open flame tests, and could yield 
unacceptably inconsistent results. Similar inconsistencies were 
observed in the standard FR foam used in smoldering tests. Therefore, 
the staff revised the qualification requirements for standard test 
materials to ensure consistency. Further, in view of the hazard data 
and the complexity (including standard materials variability) of the 
open flame tests, the proposed rule eliminates the open flame tests for 
filling materials entirely, and retains standard fabrics for barrier 
tests only. This approach not only simplifies the proposed standard, 
but also eliminates the interdependency and variability issues raised 
by the commenters. The standard cotton velvet test fabric performs 
consistently in barrier smoldering tests, as does the standard rayon 
test fabric in barrier open flame tests. Since FR foam would not be 
needed to comply with the proposed rule, the rule specifies only 
standard non-FR foam in all tests.

[[Page 11707]]

3. Stringency of Requirements

    Comment. Some industry groups opposed the CPSC staff's 2005 draft 
standard's open flame filling material tests in the absence of an open 
flame fabric test, and asserted that the 2005 draft's smoldering and 
open flame filling material requirements were too stringent for some 
lower-density foams to meet, even with FR treatment. Furniture industry 
commenters subsequently opposed any requirements that would be more 
stringent than those of the UFAC guidelines. Many commenters supported 
the concept of a barrier test option to afford flexibility to 
manufacturers and fabric suppliers, although some furniture industry 
groups opposed an open flame requirement for barriers and supported the 
UFAC smoldering requirement instead. Regarding the staff's 2007 draft 
proposal that became this proposed standard, some commenters argued 
that the stringent fabric smoldering requirements would require 
substantial re-engineering or FR treatment of fabrics. A number of 
commenters also recommended that CPSC study the effectiveness of 
reduced ignition propensity (IP), or ``fire-safe,'' cigarettes before 
proposing any flammability requirements for upholstered furniture.
    Response. Many of these comments pertained to specific provisions 
of the open flame requirements of the CPSC staff's 2005 draft standard. 
The proposed standard does not contain open flame requirements for 
fabrics or fillings. As noted previously, CPSC's laboratory research on 
smoldering ignition indicates that several elements of the ASTM/UFAC 
voluntary approach would not be very effective at reducing the risk. 
The UFAC guidelines allow smolder-prone combinations of upholstery 
materials that would not adequately limit fire growth, either from 
smoldering or transition to flaming combustion. Since the proposed rule 
relies substantially on cover fabrics or barriers to protect interior 
filling materials, the proposed standard contains very stringent 
smoldering requirements, and requires that barriers provide protection 
regardless of cover fabric ignitability.
    The Commission agrees that a significant proportion of 
predominantly cellulosic fabrics (i.e., chiefly cotton fiber content) 
would have to be modified or eliminated under the proposed standard. 
The Commission notes that these fabrics are the most smolder-prone 
materials used in upholstered furniture, and that many smolder-prone 
fabrics can sometimes overwhelm the inherent smolder resistance of 
synthetic filling materials like polyurethane foam or polyester 
batting. Thus, the proposed requirements are applied to those materials 
whose ignition behavior is the primary contributor to the risk.
    The proposed standard would not prohibit fabric suppliers from 
using FR-treated fabrics to comply. However, furniture and textile 
industry representatives have stated a desire to avoid such products 
for aesthetic and cost reasons. Given the availability of non-FR 
alternatives, it is unlikely that fabric suppliers would use the FR 
treatments they said consumers would reject.
    The Commission agrees that reduced ignition propensity cigarettes 
may be an effective means of reducing consumer product-related 
smoldering fires. Such reductions would likely occur irrespective of 
CPSC action on upholstered furniture. An increasing number of states 
(and Canada) have ``fire safe cigarette'' laws that now require or will 
require that only reduced-IP cigarettes be available for sale. 
Complying cigarettes would likely reduce, but would not eliminate, the 
risk of smoldering ignited upholstered furniture fires. The extent of 
any such reduction is unknown. The staff has initiated a study to 
review available state data and to conduct laboratory tests to evaluate 
the reduction in smoldering ignition propensity associated with 
reduced-IP cigarettes compared to conventional cigarettes. This work 
will help the Commission evaluate the potential effect of reduced-IP 
cigarettes on upholstered furniture fire losses.

4. Large Scale Validation Testing

    Comment. Some stakeholders recommended that CPSC establish a 
correlation between its bench scale tests in the proposed rule and the 
performance of complying materials in larger or ``full'' scale tests 
that more reasonably represent the seating areas of finished articles 
of upholstered furniture. These large scale tests would help validate 
the results and potential effectiveness of the bench scale tests.
    Response. The Commission agrees that large scale testing is a 
valuable source of information to help demonstrate the increased safety 
the proposed standard would provide. To supplement the CPSC staff's 
bench scale testing and limited large scale testing performed 
previously, the staff plans to sponsor such large scale tests. The 
Commission can use the results of these tests in developing a possible 
final rule.

5. Potential Benefits and Costs

    Comment. Some industry groups submitted comments about the CPSC 
staff's draft preliminary regulatory analysis of potential benefits and 
costs associated with various regulatory alternatives. Most of these 
comments were from organizations that opposed various aspects of the 
CPSC staff's 2005 draft standard; some of the comments related to the 
staff's draft proposal that became the proposed standard.
    The comments on the staff's analysis of the 2005 draft standard 
generally asserted that the staff had overestimated potential benefits 
and understated potential costs. A 2006 furniture industry report on 
the staff's analysis of the 2005 draft standard and alternatives 
criticized the statistical methodology used to develop national fire 
loss estimates, and recommended different methods that would generally 
result in lower estimates of potential benefits of a flammability rule. 
The report also questioned other aspects of the staff's estimation of 
potential economic benefits of a standard, positing that staff 
overstated benefits by using effectiveness estimates and value-of-life 
estimates that were too high, discount rates that were too low, and 
incorrect assumptions about the distribution of smolder-prone furniture 
fabrics among smoking vs. non-smoking households.
    The 2006 industry report also asserted that the staff understated 
costs to filling material suppliers and furniture manufacturers and 
importers, and recommended that the staff's sensitivity analysis 
consider all combinations of factors affecting benefits and costs 
unless those factors were mutually exclusive. Manufacturers of 
polyurethane foam raised some of the same cost issues, and discussed 
anticipated difficulties in producing consistently-complying foams at 
the lower densities often used in upholstered arms and other areas of 
furniture.
    Regarding the CPSC staff's 2007 draft proposal, some textile 
industry representatives criticized the emphasis on cover fabric 
performance, and expressed concern that the standard would not regulate 
filling material performance. They also expressed concern that 
difficulties in modifying many fabrics, combined with the cost of 
``double-upholstering'' furniture to incorporate interior barriers, may 
lead suppliers to use FR treatments to comply. One report prepared for 
an environmental group recommended that CPSC include in its analysis of 
the 2007 draft estimates of economic losses from

[[Page 11708]]

increased cancer risks associated with FR filling material additives.
    Several stakeholders recommended that CPSC consider the effect of 
reduced ignition propensity (IP), or ``fire-safe'' cigarettes on the 
potential benefits of a possible upholstered furniture flammability 
standard. One report prepared for an environmental group presented an 
alternative calculation of benefits incorporating some different 
assumptions about reduced-IP cigarette effectiveness than those made by 
the CPSC staff in 2006. Some industry commenters suggested that as 
reduced-IP cigarettes came into wider use, a standard for upholstered 
furniture would no longer have net benefits to the public.
    Response. Regarding fire loss estimation methodologies, the CPSC 
staff noted several biases and errors in the industry report's approach 
that would misrepresent the estimates of fire losses. The 2006 industry 
report's criticism of the staff's method did not consider the proper 
allocation of fire incidents with unknown fire causes. Further, the 
indirect estimating method recommended by the industry report 
incorrectly used estimates of the number of fires to estimate death and 
injuries, thereby introducing bias and understating deaths. The CPSC 
staff's method correctly used death and injury counts weighted with 
probability-based estimates for fire deaths and injuries. Another 
method suggested by the industry report wrongly excluded some in-scope 
deaths from the body of data used to make the estimates. The use of 
these recommended alternative methods would significantly understate 
fire losses, and would thereby understate the potential benefits of a 
flammability rule.
    Regarding benefits projections, the preliminary regulatory analysis 
of the proposed rule estimated the monetary value of potential benefits 
using estimates of effectiveness based on CPSC laboratory tests of 
upholstered furniture mockup assemblies constructed with ignition 
resistant fabrics or barriers, and using adjustments to reflect the 
projected mix of products on the market and other factors. Large scale 
tests will help support the effectiveness estimates. However, the 
Commission staff has ample experience to date with upholstery material 
testing to estimate that the proposed rule would likely be highly 
effective (about 60%) at reducing fire deaths, injuries and property 
damage. Even considering the effectiveness estimates for the CPSC 
staff's 2005 draft standard, there is no basis for applying 
effectiveness rates for the U.K. regulations to a CPSC rule. Further, 
the sensitivity analysis in the preliminary regulatory analysis 
accounts for uncertainty in the estimates.
    The Commission staff estimated the present value of future safety 
benefits using discount rates (3% and 7%) recommended by the Office of 
Management and Budget in its guidance on regulatory analyses. Also, 
CPSC's statistical value of life estimate ($5 million) and sensitivity 
analysis range ($3-7 million) is consistent with values cited in the 
economic literature and widely used in regulatory decision-making.
    Regarding the distribution of upholstered furniture constructed 
with smolder prone fabrics among smoking vs. non-smoking households, 
the preliminary regulatory analysis assumed that furniture fabric types 
are distributed evenly among households. Smolder prone fabrics are 
often, but not always, used on the very high-priced, decorator 
furniture more commonly found in higher-income households that tend 
less often to be smoking households. However, anticipated market trends 
include potential future increases in predominantly-cotton fabrics in 
more moderately-priced furniture, especially among imports, which tends 
to be lower in price than domestic products. To the extent that 
furniture with smolder prone fabrics is more often found in higher-
income households with lower smoking prevalence, the benefits of a 
flammability rule could be reduced somewhat. The preliminary regulatory 
analysis notes in its sensitivity analysis that the likely impact on 
benefits would be small.
    The sensitivity analysis in the preliminary regulatory analysis 
considers the impact of a variety of factors on potential benefits and 
costs. Varying more than one factor at a time is generally appropriate 
when those factors are highly correlated, rather than whenever they are 
not mutually exclusive, as the 2006 industry report suggested. The 
sensitivity analysis does take into account some combinations of 
factors, but not all factors that could conceivably affect benefits and 
costs. However, even if all of the combinations of possible factors 
were considered together, estimated net benefits of the proposed 
standard would still total $100 million or more from a year's 
production of complying upholstered furniture.
    The staff considered likely cost impacts on fabric, filling 
material and other upholstery material suppliers in analyzing the 
potential impacts of the proposed standard. Cost estimates were 
generally reported directly as provided by firms in the industry 
sectors affected although some cost estimates varied significantly 
among firms. The preliminary regulatory analysis recognized several 
areas of cost concern, including low-density polyurethane foam and 
loose filling materials (for the staff's 2005 draft standard) and 
certain 100% cotton fabrics (for the 2007 draft). The staff analysis 
noted that while most upholstered furniture fabrics would meet the 
proposed standard without modification, more than half of all 
predominantly cellulosic fabrics may fail the proposed standard fabric 
smoldering test. These smolder-prone fabrics are typically used with 
synthetic filling materials that would otherwise be generally smolder 
resistant; thus, the proposed standard targets those fabrics 
contributing most to the risk of smoldering ignition.
    The staff also noted that some of the more expensive decorator 
fabrics that would fail the proposed fabric smoldering test already are 
used in furniture that employs multiple layers of upholstery materials, 
or ``double upholstering.'' Decorative fabric suppliers have long 
supported a barrier option for use with non-complying fabrics. For most 
articles of upholstered furniture, the barrier option incorporated into 
the proposed standard would involve substituting complying barriers for 
existing interior fabrics or battings; this would amount to a ``drop-in 
replacement'' of existing components for most barriered furniture, and 
would not require significant additional assembly labor costs.
    The preliminary regulatory analysis estimates costs based on the 
assumption that some or all non-complying fabrics not used with 
barriers would be FR treated; however, it is unlikely that a 
significant proportion of fabrics would actually be treated; thus, 
material costs may be lower than estimated in the analysis. Compliance 
costs associated with re-engineering some heavier-weight, 100% 
cellulosic fiber fabrics may be significant for some firms, although 
fiber content modifications are made routinely by producers (sometimes 
as often as every six months) to reflect style trends in the market. 
Blended-fiber fabrics in particular could probably be readily modified 
without difficulty or significant disruption.
    Under the staff's draft 2005 standard, FR foam fillings would 
likely be used to comply. One of the FRs currently used in foams 
meeting the existing California TB-117 may pose cancer and non-cancer 
chronic health risks. Pending

[[Page 11709]]

further study of these and other FR chemicals, the preliminary 
regulatory analysis of alternatives assumed that hazardous FRs would 
not be used to comply, and therefore did not include a calculation of 
possible disbenefits associated with potential use of any potentially 
hazardous filling material FRs. The proposed standard would not require 
the use of any FRs in foam or other interior filling materials.
    The Commission considered the potential impact of reduced-IP 
cigarettes, and continues to study this matter. State requirements for 
such cigarettes may reduce upholstered furniture fire losses over time 
irrespective of CPSC action. The extent of the reduction is unknown. 
The preliminary regulatory analysis does specifically account for 
possible risk reductions associated with reduced-IP cigarettes. If, for 
example, reduced-IP cigarettes reduced the level of benefits of the 
proposed rule to half the estimated level, then projected net benefits 
would be reduced from $367-387 million to $155-177 million per year's 
worth of complying furniture production. Even at a 70% benefit 
reduction, estimated net benefits of the proposed rule would still 
approach $100 million.

6. Potential Use of FR Chemicals

    Comment. The Commission received a number of comments either 
opposing or supporting the potential use of FR chemical technologies to 
meet a possible flammability rule. Most of these comments related to 
the staff's previous, 2005 draft standard, which would have required 
that resilient, fibrous and loose filling materials (typically made of 
polyurethane foam or polyester fiber) be open flame resistant. Some 
comments specifically opposed the use of polybrominated diphenyl ethers 
(PBDEs), and cited studies on the potential health and environmental 
risks related to these compounds. At least one of the major filling 
material FRs, penta-BDE, that was previously used to meet California 
TB-117's open flame requirements, has been discontinued. While most 
fillings would be FR-treated under the 2005 draft, the proposed 
standard does not contain filling material requirements, and FR 
additives would not be needed to comply.
    Some environmental groups opposed any new regulations that may add 
to the environmental burden of FR chemicals, especially halogenated FRs 
containing bromine or chlorine. They contended that since some FRs are 
persistent in the environment, bioaccumulative in animals and 
potentially toxic to humans, and since there is a lack of data on some 
aspects of the potential effects on human health and environmental 
risks, the Commission should not encourage the use of these chemicals. 
Some of these groups supported the furniture industry position that 
CPSC should impose only smoldering ignition requirements, on the 
presumption that FRs would not be needed to meet these requirements. 
The environmental groups strongly supported the staff's 2007 draft 
proposal that became this proposed standard.
    Furniture and filling material producers opposed significant 
increases in FR usage on the basis that their workers could be exposed 
to more FRs released from component materials. They were also concerned 
that state and local environmental regulations may curtail the 
availability of economically feasible FRs and may adversely affect 
manufacturers' ability to recycle scrap materials. Furniture and fabric 
manufacturers also contended that, in view of recent adverse publicity, 
consumers would prefer not to risk exposure to potentially toxic FRs. 
Some representatives of fabric suppliers have also expressed concern 
that any smolder resistance requirements more stringent than those in 
the UFAC voluntary guidelines would force many firms to use FR 
treatments on predominantly cotton fabrics to comply.
    Chemical producers stated that safe and effective FR solutions are 
available to address the furniture risk. They noted that non-
halogenated alternatives for filling materials are currently being 
offered or developed, as are ``inherently-FR'' fiber barriers that do 
not present a significant likelihood of consumer exposure.
    Response. CPSC developed the proposed standard mindful of the 
continuing uncertainty about potential health and environmental effects 
of FR chemical usage, with an objective of achieving significant 
reductions in fire deaths and injuries from upholstered furniture fires 
caused by smoking materials while minimizing reliance on FR additives 
in fabrics and filling materials to meet that objective. While the 
available scientific data are sufficient to show that some FRs would 
not present significant health or environmental risks, the Commission 
agrees that insufficient data are available to be reasonably sure that 
other FRs would not present health risks if used in upholstered 
furniture. The staff's health risk assessment for foam filling 
materials concluded that the polyurethane foam FR most widely used to 
meet California TB-117 may not present chemical risks to consumers but 
identified significant data gaps; the risk assessment further indicated 
that another currently used filling material FR may present both cancer 
and non-cancer risks to consumers. On the other hand, the CPSC staff's 
health risk assessment for barriers concluded that several commercially 
available technologies, including inherently-FR fiber products, could 
be used without presenting appreciable health risks to the public.
    Under the proposed standard, neither fabrics nor filling materials 
would need to incorporate FR additives to achieve compliance. While FR-
treated fabrics would not be prohibited, many fabric suppliers have 
indicated they would likely either modify the fiber content or 
construction of their most smolder prone fabrics, or continue to offer 
non-complying fabrics for use exclusively with complying barriers in 
the finished article of furniture. Thus, the Commission anticipates 
that FR fabrics would be the least likely means of compliance with the 
proposed rule. Barriers could incorporate FR treatments, but barrier 
suppliers have reported that they would likely offer inherently-FR 
fiber materials that do not pose a risk of potential exposure for 
upholstered furniture applications, similar to those products designed 
to meet the Commission's open flame rule for mattresses (16 CFR part 
1633). Barriers are projected to be used in only about 5% of all 
upholstered furniture; most of this usage would be in designer or 
higher-priced furniture for which the relatively higher cost of 
barriers would not be a significant factor.
    The Commission plans to monitor the progress of ongoing studies on 
FR chemicals and to consider the results of those studies as the 
regulatory process continues. At the request of the staff, the National 
Toxicology Program (NTP) of the Department of Health and Human Services 
has undertaken a review of several FRs that could be used to meet CPSC 
flammability rules. The NTP review will be a relatively long-term 
project that contributes to the overall level of knowledge about FR 
chemicals among scientists and regulators.

H. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission has preliminarily determined to issue a rule 
establishing a flammability standard addressing the ignition of 
upholstered furniture. Section 4(i) of the FFA requires that the 
Commission prepare a preliminary regulatory analysis for this action 
and that it be published with the proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 1193(i). The 
following discussion, extracted from the staff's memorandum titled 
``Preliminary

[[Page 11710]]

Regulatory Analysis of a Draft Proposed Flammability Rule to Address 
Ignitions of Upholstered Furniture,'' addresses this requirement.

1. Introduction

    The history of this rulemaking is discussed in Section A, 
Background, of this preamble. This Preliminary Regulatory Analysis 
discusses the impacts of provisions specified in the Commission's 
proposed standard for upholstered furniture. It provides information on 
the products and industries that are likely to be affected by actions 
taken to reduce upholstered furniture fires. The analysis also 
discusses potential costs and benefits associated with requirements of 
the proposed standard and reasonable alternatives. This analysis also 
discusses potential effects on small firms and other market impacts.

2. The Proposed Standard: Scope and Provisions

    The proposed standard contains smoldering ignition performance 
requirements for cover fabrics, and smoldering and open flame 
performance requirements for interior fire barriers (if they are used 
as the method of compliance). The proposed standard applies to finished 
or ready-to-assemble articles of upholstered furniture (such as 
upholstered sofas, loveseats, sofa beds, rockers, recliners, and other 
chairs) that are: primarily intended for indoor use in residences; 
constructed with an upholstered seating area, comprised of a contiguous 
upholstered seat and back or arm(s); and manufactured or imported after 
the effective date.
    The proposed standard offers manufacturers two alternative methods 
to produce complying furniture. Furniture items can comply by being 
made with upholstery cover materials that pass the cover material 
smoldering ignition resistance test (designated as ``Type I upholstered 
furniture'' in the proposed standard). Alternatively, manufacturers may 
comply with the proposed standard by using a barrier material under the 
upholstery fabric that passes the standard's applicable barrier tests 
(``Type II upholstered furniture''). This option allows manufacturers 
to use non-complying upholstery fabrics.

3. Products and Industries Potentially Affected

    The largest class of furniture products that would be affected is 
upholstered furniture on wood frames and dual purpose sleep furniture 
such as sofa beds, commonly bought for use in living rooms and family 
rooms. Other types of affected products include upholstered metal 
frame, reed, and rattan furniture.
    Products referred to as ``Household Upholstered Furniture'' by the 
Census Bureau are classified in code 337121 of the North American 
Industrial Classification System (NAICS). This classification includes 
production of upholstered furniture on frames made of wood, metal, or 
other materials, as well as dual-purpose sleep furniture, such as 
convertible sofa beds. The 2002 Economic Census reports that 1,686 U.S. 
companies (with 1,946 establishments) manufactured upholstered 
household furniture or dual-purpose sleep furniture as their primary 
product.\4\ Many other firms may also produce upholstered furniture as 
secondary products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002 
Economic Census, report EC02-311-337121, ``Upholstered Household 
Furniture Manufacturing: 2002,'' September 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Economic Census reports that the value of shipments of 
upholstered household furniture by U.S. firms in 2002 was $10.3 
billion. The Annual Survey of Manufactures reported value of product 
shipments of $10.0 billion in 2003 and $9.55 billion in 2004.\5\ The 
value of product shipments for 2005 was reported by the Census Bureau 
to have totaled $9.9 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Value of 
Product Shipments: 2005, Annual Survey of Manufactures, November 
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although there are a large number of upholstered furniture 
manufacturers, the top four companies accounted for nearly 35 percent 
of the total value of household upholstered furniture shipments in 2002 
(the latest year for which industry concentration ratio data are 
available); the 50 largest companies accounted for about 67 percent.\6\ 
Reports from the trade press indicate that the industry has become more 
concentrated in the last ten years. Several firms have ceased 
operations; others have merged with larger companies through buyouts. 
The consolidation included Furniture Brands International's acquisition 
of HDM Furniture Industries (which included Henredon and Drexel 
Heritage) in 2001, and La-Z-Boy's acquisition of Ladd in January 2000 
and Bauhaus and Alexvale in 1999. La-Z-Boy is the number one 
upholstered furniture manufacturer (by dollar volume), and Ladd, 
Bauhaus, and Alexvale all previously ranked in the top 30. Furniture 
Brands International is the second-leading domestic manufacturer of 
upholstered furniture, and companies it acquired were previously part 
of number four-ranked LifeStyle Furnishings, International, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002 
Economic Census, report EC02-31SR-1, ``Concentration Ratios: 2002,'' 
May 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The industry also includes many small companies and establishments. 
The 2002 Economic Census reports that only 29 percent of upholstered 
furniture establishments (564 of 1,946) had 20 or more employees, and 
only 10 percent (200 establishments) had 100 or more. By some measures, 
such as the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA's) definition for 
qualification for small business loans, a furniture manufacturing 
company is considered to be ``small'' if it has fewer than 500 
employees (at all of its establishments). This definition encompassed 
more than 97 percent of firms in the industry in 2002.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Based on 2002 firm size data compiled by the United States 
Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy which is 
available online at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exports of upholstered furniture had a value of about $285 million 
in 2005, or almost 3 percent of the total value of shipments.\8\ The 
value of imports of products categorized by the Census Bureau as NAICS 
337121 was $2,792 million in 2005.\9\ Therefore, there were net imports 
of about $2.5 billion. With estimated domestic shipments of $9.9 
billion, these net imports resulted in total apparent consumption of 
upholstered furniture in 2005 (domestic shipments plus imports, minus 
the value of exports) of about $12.4 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. Department of Commerce data.
    \9\ U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. International Trade 
Commission data (c.i.f. cost basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Imports have grown in recent years, accounting for about 22 percent 
of the value of total apparent consumption of residential upholstered 
furniture in 2005. By way of comparison, about 10 percent of the value 
of apparent consumption of upholstered household furniture in 1999 was 
imported. The leading country of origin is China, which accounted for 
about 52 percent of the value of imports in 2005 and nearly 63 percent 
of the value of imports in 2006. Mexico accounted for about 11 percent 
of imports in 2006; Italy about 8 percent, and; Canada about 5 percent. 
These four countries accounted for 86 percent of the total value of 
imported upholstered furniture in 2006.
    The importance of China as a source for imports has grown 
significantly in recent years. China supplanted Italy as the leading 
country of origin in 2003, and by 2006 the value of imports from China 
was almost 6 times that of the second-ranked country of origin, Mexico. 
Italy had been the number one source for upholstered furniture imports

[[Page 11711]]

for many years. The majority of units from both China and Italy in 2004 
reportedly were upholstered in leather.\10\ Although much of the gain 
in China's market share has been at the expense of Italian imports, 
some of the furniture imported from China is from plants that have been 
established by several major Italian firms. China has been the leading 
source of wood (non-upholstered) furniture imports and its growth as a 
source of upholstered furniture is expected to continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Industry analyst, Jerry Epperson, reported in Furniture 
Today, December 12, 2005. p. 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to affecting manufacturers of residential upholstered 
furniture typically found in living room and family rooms, the proposed 
standard also includes dining room and kitchen chairs within its scope 
if they are made with contiguously upholstered seats and backs. 
Similarly upholstered desk chairs purchased for household use are also 
covered by the standard. Dining chairs are generally products of firms 
classified in the wood household furniture industry, NAICS 337122. The 
Economic Census reports that 4.8 million wood dining room chairs were 
shipped in 1997, with a value of shipments totaling about $526 million. 
In 2002, shipments fell to 2.9 million chairs, with a value of about 
$446 million. The decline in domestic shipments is attributable to 
significant increases in imports of wood furniture from China and other 
countries.
    Census data are not reported separately for upholstered and non-
upholstered dining chairs. In 1994, an industry-sponsored study 
surveyed participants in the voluntary industry program to improve the 
cigarette ignition resistance of furniture that was developed by the 
Upholstered Furniture Action Council (UFAC). Among the firms surveyed 
were manufacturers of upholstered dining room and kitchen seating. The 
study report estimated that the total value of shipments of such 
furniture that complied with the UFAC Program (and, therefore, had 
upholstered seats) was about $250 million for 1993.\11\ Based on the 
value of 1992 shipments ($580 million), perhaps 3 to 4 million 
upholstered dining chairs were shipped by these UFAC participants. A 
great majority of these items may not have had upholstered backs, or 
they had upholstered backs that were not contiguous with upholstered 
seats. Other firms that are not participants in the UFAC Program also 
manufacture upholstered dining furniture. Given the limitations of the 
market data, the number of dining chairs produced annually that fall 
within the scope of the proposed standard cannot be estimated with much 
precision, although the total number of units is thought to be 
relatively small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Heiden Associates, Inc., ``Report on Survey of UFAC Members 
re: Compliance with Upholstered Furniture Cigarette Ignition 
Flammability Standard,'' December 15, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Annual domestic retail sales of all types of living room and family 
room upholstered furniture total about 30 to 33 million units with a 
value of over $20 billion. Furniture manufacturers, especially smaller 
firms, commonly market their products through independent sales 
representatives who provide information on the market, and get and 
service new retail accounts for manufacturers. Recently, some 
manufacturers have reduced their reliance on independent 
representatives by employing their own salespeople.
    Besides purchasing from manufacturers through independent sales 
representatives or the manufacturers' own sales staff, retailers may 
purchase furniture from wholesale furniture distributors. These 
wholesalers purchase from perhaps 25 to 30 manufacturers of different 
types and styles of furniture. The sales staffs of the wholesalers then 
call on retailers within their areas. Dealing through local wholesalers 
that stock an assortment of furniture, and that also offer competitive 
prices, credit, and other services, is advantageous to many retailers, 
particularly smaller firms.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Handbook of Furniture Manufacturing & Marketing, Volume 9, 
Wholesaling, AKTRIN Research Institute and High Point University, 
May 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the 2002 Census of Retail Trade, 19,403 retail 
establishments carried upholstered furniture as a product line.\13\ 
Retail prices of upholstered furniture fall into a very broad range, 
depending on materials and manufacturing techniques used. Larger 
retailers are more likely to purchase directly from furniture 
manufacturers, and smaller firms are more likely to purchase through 
wholesale distributors. Increasingly in recent years, retailers have 
reportedly devoted more floor space to private labeled furniture 
imported directly from foreign manufacturers. In response, several of 
the larger domestic furniture manufacturers have opened or expanded 
their own retail outlets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002 
Economic Census, report EC02-441-09 ``Furniture Stores: 2002,'' 
August 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A review of trade publications indicates that approximately 100 to 
200 domestic manufacturers derive a significant share of their revenues 
from fabric for residential upholstered furniture.\14\ This number 
includes textile mills that produce finished upholstery fabric and 
textile finishers that purchase unfinished goods and perform additional 
processes, such as printing and dyeing. Like the upholstered furniture 
manufacturing industry, the 1990s saw consolidation of firms 
specializing in upholstery fabric production, with larger firms buying 
out competitors or divisions of competitors. However, in just the last 
few years the U.S. industry has been shaken by the decreased demand for 
domestically-produced fabric as a result of increased competition from 
imported upholstery fabric, the increased popularity of leather 
upholstery, and the dramatic increase in consumption of upholstered 
furniture imported from China. One of the largest marketers of 
upholstery fabrics in the U.S. reported that the trend to greater 
foreign competition and the entry of more converters of upholstery 
fabric (companies that purchase and resell fabrics) has resulted in 
greater fragmentation of the upholstery fabric industry in recent 
years, with lower barriers to entry, and an increase in competition 
based on price.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Including the Directory of Manufacturers published by the 
former industry association, the American Textile Manufacturers 
Institute (ATMI).
    \15\ Culp, Inc., Annual Company report for the fiscal year ended 
April 29, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interior fabric revenues of the top 10 firms totaled more than $1.9 
billion in 2002, based on a trade press survey.\16\ These revenues 
included sales of fabrics other than those used in residential 
upholstery. A similar survey found that the top 10 upholstery fabric 
mills had combined revenues from interior fabric shipments of $2.4 
billion.\17\ In addition to declining sales for the leading U.S. 
upholstery fabric manufacturers, the difficult state of the industry is 
evidenced by recent bankruptcies of firms that were once industry 
leaders, such as Joan Fabrics (previously the number one upholstery 
manufacturer) and Quaker Fabric (previously the number three firm). 
Both of these firms ceased operations and their production facilities 
were liquidated in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``U.S. fabric producers still standing despite import 
wave.'' Furniture/Today, Cahners Publishing, Greensboro, NC, June 2, 
2003.
    \17\ ``Mastercraft buy puts Joan at top.'' Furniture/Today, 
Cahners Publishing, Greensboro, NC, June 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Textile mills that make upholstery fabrics as their primary 
products are included in the North American NAICS code 313210. Of 663 
firms in NAICS 313210 in 2002, only 63 (about 10 percent) had 500 or 
more employees. About 65 percent of the firms had fewer

[[Page 11712]]

than 20 employees.\18\ The SBA considers firms with fewer than 1,000 
employees to be small businesses for the purposes of programs 
administered by that agency. Although these data are indicative of the 
sizes of firms involved in the production of furniture upholstery 
fabrics, NAICS 313210 encompasses many firms that produce fabrics other 
than furniture upholstery. Nevertheless, it is likely that nearly all 
manufacturers of upholstery fabrics could be considered small 
businesses under SBA guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Based on 2002 firm size data compiled by the United States 
Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy which is 
available online at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fabric finishers also tend to be small. Finishers are firms that 
receive unfinished fabrics (``greige goods'' or ``gray goods'') and 
perform additional manufacturing processes (e.g., printing, dyeing, 
backcoating, needle-punching, and stain-guarding). Fabrics may be 
purchased by the finishers, or finished under contract to other firms 
that supply the fabrics. Fabric finishers are classified in NAICS code 
313311. Of 1,016 broadwoven fabric finishing firms in NAICS 313311 in 
2002, only 30 (3 percent) had 500 or more employees.\19\ Only a few 
firms currently apply FR treatments to upholstery fabrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Census Bureau reported that U.S. upholstery fabric 
production in 2004 was 284 million square yards (which is the 
equivalent of 189 million linear yards).\20\ This production was 43 
percent lower than 2002's reported production of 499 million square 
yards (332 million linear yards) of upholstery fabric.\21\ The number 
of looms in operation for the production of these fabrics totaled 2,610 
at the end of 2004, down 20 percent from 3,098 looms at the end of 
2002. The major end-use markets for upholstery production are in 
upholstered furniture and automobile manufacturing. Upholstery fabrics 
are also used in the manufacture of window treatments and other home 
textiles. Based on a survey of upholstered furniture manufacturers by 
Ciprus, Ltd., about 233 million linear yards of upholstery fabric were 
consumed in the production of household furniture in 2001.\22\ This 
total does not include leather and vinyl upholstery, which are 
estimated to have comprised about 30 percent of all furniture 
upholstery materials used in 2001. Therefore, total upholstery use for 
the domestic manufacture of residential upholstered furniture was about 
333 million linear yards. Estimates of total annual upholstery fabric 
consumption based on average requirements for chairs and sofas/
loveseats are 225 million linear yards.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, Broadwoven 
Fabrics (Gray): 2004. MQ313T(04)-5. June 2005.
    \21\ U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, Broadwoven 
Fabrics (Gray): 2002. MQ313T(02)-5. June 2003.
    \22\ Ciprus Limited, LLC. The North American Market for Contract 
& Residential Upholstery Fabric, 2001.
    \23\ According to industry sources, an average of approximately 
7 linear yards of fabric is needed to upholster chairs and 11 to 15 
yards are needed for sofas. Based on about 31.5 million annual unit 
shipments (of which perhaps about 53 percent are sofas, sofabeds, 
and loveseats and about 47 percent are other chairs), estimated 
annual upholstery material requirements are about 321 million linear 
yards (about 217 million yards for sofas, sofabeds and loveseats 
plus 104 million yards for chairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The U.S. Census Bureau's Economic Census report, Upholstered 
Household Furniture Manufacturing: 2002, included information on the 
costs of upholstery fabrics and other materials used in the production 
of upholstered household furniture in that year. The report placed the 
delivered cost of woven cotton upholstery fabrics (excluding ticking) 
at $312 million and the delivered cost of other woven upholstery 
fabrics, such as those made of rayon, nylon, and polyester (excluding 
ticking) at $802 million.\24\ The combined total delivered cost of 
upholstery fabric of $1,114 million was about 22 percent of the total 
delivered cost of all materials used in upholstered furniture 
manufacturing in 2002 (which was, according to the Census Bureau, 
$5,107 million). Other upholstery cover materials include leather, 
which is not reported as a separate material category by the Bureau of 
the Census, and coated and laminated fabrics, which had a delivered 
cost of about $185 million in 2002. In its 2007 Annual Report, La-Z-
Boy, the largest manufacturer of upholstered furniture in the U.S., 
reported that purchased cover materials (primarily fabric and leather) 
accounted for about 28 percent of the total cost of raw materials for 
its upholstery group.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Upholstered 
Household Furniture Manufacturing: 2002, EC02-311-313311. September 
2004.
    \25\ La-Z-Boy, Inc. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended 
April 28, 2007 (Form 10-K.) Page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Until recent years, relatively little upholstery fabric was 
imported. A report by Keyser Ciprus, Ltd., estimated that 8 million 
linear yards of residential upholstery fabric were imported in 1997. 
That accounted for approximately 2 percent of total consumption of 
upholstery fabric for residential furniture production in that 
year.\26\ However, as noted above, foreign upholstery fabric production 
facilities (located primarily in China) have expanded operations and 
imports of upholstery fabrics have grown substantially.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Keyser Ciprus Limited, op. cit., p. 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Much of the foreign production is from facilities that are owned or 
operated in partnership with U.S. textile firms. For example, Culp, 
Inc., reported that almost 60 percent of their sales of upholstery 
fabrics in their fiscal year ended April 29, 2007, consisted of fabrics 
produced in plants outside the U.S., compared to 17 percent of sales 
just two years before.\27\ Culp owns and operates four upholstery 
plants in Shanghai, China, and markets other fabrics from third party 
sources which are also located in China. The firm only has one 
remaining upholstery fabric plant in the U.S., down from fourteen in 
2000.\28\ Culp's experience in shifting production to foreign plants 
has also been reported by other U.S. upholstery fabric manufacturers. 
In January 2007 Richloom Fabrics Group shifted production of its 
Berkshire Weaving upholstery line from its South Carolina plant to a 
facility in Shanghai.\29\ Quaker Fabric Corporation also entered into 
business agreements in recent years with Asian firms to produce fabrics 
it designs. Quaker estimated that, industry-wide, about 42 percent of 
total domestic upholstery fabric sales (excluding automotive fabrics) 
were imported in 2004, versus only 11 percent in 2002. The company's 
management believed it was likely that the trend continued, and it 
estimated that about 60 percent of furniture upholstery fabric sales 
were imported by the end of 2006.\30\ As noted above, Quaker Fabric, 
which had long been a major U.S. producer of upholstery fabric, could 
not successfully adjust its operations to meet the recent market 
shifts, and the firm liquidated its operations in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Culp, Inc. Annual company report for the fiscal year ended 
April 29, 2007. (Reportedly includes fabrics produced at Culp's 
Shanghai manufacturing plant and production sourced from other Asian 
firms.)
    \28\ Culp, Inc. Annual company report for the fiscal year ended 
April 23, 2000.
    \29\ Andrews, Susan M. ``Richloom moves production to China.'' 
Furniture/Today, December 18, 2006.
    \30\ Quaker Fabric Corp. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended 
December 30, 2006 (Form 10-K.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At least until recent years, exports of upholstery fabric were 
significant for many U.S. manufacturers. In the late 1990s as much as 
20 percent of the upholstery fabric production by U.S. manufacturers in 
recent years may have been exported. As noted above, more upholstery 
fabric is being imported from China and other foreign sources in more 
recent years, and some major U.S. fabric

[[Page 11713]]

manufacturers have established production facilities in China, or have 
established business relationships with Chinese firms to produce 
fabrics to their specifications and designs. These market changes could 
be expected to reduce exports by domestic firms from previous levels.
    There is a growing practice, especially for leather, to purchase 
fully cut and sewn parts from areas outside of the United States 
including but not limited to: Argentina, Brazil, China, Italy, Thailand 
and Uruguay. This trend should continue given the lower labor costs in 
some of these areas and other existing economic conditions. La-Z-Boy 
reports that importing cut and sewn leather parts results in savings of 
10 to 20 percent compared to domestic purchases and fabrication of 
these parts.\31\ Cut and sewn ``kits'' reportedly are manufactured to 
the specifications of furniture manufacturers at facilities maintained 
by foreign fabric producers. Culp reports that it rapidly expanded its 
cut and sew operations in its Shanghai plants.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ La-Z-Boy. op. cit., p. 4.
    \32\ Culp, Inc. Annual Company report for the fiscal year ended 
April 29, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CPSC-sponsored surveys of furniture manufacturers in 1981, 1984, 
and 1995, and commercial surveys in 1997, 2001, and 2006 \33\ provided 
information on two characteristics of fabrics: fabric type and 
principal fiber (or material) type. Fabric Type refers to commonly-
accepted descriptions of the ways in which fabrics are manufactured or 
of their distinctive characteristics. For the period covered by these 
surveys, manufacturers increased their use of jacquard and dobby 
fabrics, and decreased their use of velvet fabrics.\34\ Usage of cotton 
prints and flocks fluctuated within fairly narrow ranges during the 
period, according to the surveys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Keyser-Ciprus, Ltd. survey (1997) and Ciprus Limited, LLC, 
surveys (2001 and 2006).
    \34\ ``Jacquards'' and ``dobbies'' refer to the types of looms 
and weaves used to produce fabrics. Brocades, damasks, velvets, 
tapestry weaves, and matelasses are often jacquard-woven. Dobbie 
looms enable weaving of small, geometric figures as a regular 
pattern. Dobby looms produce patterns that are beyond the range of 
simple looms, but are somewhat limited compared to a jacquard loom, 
which has a wider range of pattern capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fiber (or material) Type refers to the fibers or materials used in 
the manufacture of the fabrics or upholstery. Most upholstery fabric 
fibers are classified as cellulosic (e.g. cotton and rayon) or 
thermoplastic (e.g., polyester, polyolefin, and nylon); other materials 
used to make upholstery include vinyl (which is coated on a base 
fabric), wool, and leather. Based on the 2006 Ciprus Limited survey, 
cellulosic fabrics currently account for about 25 percent of 
upholstered furniture upholstery covering materials. Thermoplastic 
fabrics account for 45 percent; leather, wool and vinyl-coated fabrics 
account for about 30 percent (mostly leather).
    Review of the data on material types from the surveys conducted 
since 1981 indicates that the most notable changes over the years have 
been the increase in use of leather at the expense of both cellulosic 
and thermoplastic fibers. The Ciprus survey in 2001 found that about 30 
percent of furniture covering materials used in that year was leather, 
significantly greater than found in the earlier surveys.\35\ Fabrics 
made from predominantly cellulosic fibers include heavier-weight 
fabrics (such as cellulosic jacquards and velvets) and lighter-weight 
fabrics (mainly cotton prints). Analysis of survey data since 1981 
indicates that heavier cellulosic fabrics have usually comprised about 
15 to 20 percent of all upholstery covering yardage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Ciprus Limited. op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Characteristics of Furniture in U.S. Households

    The number of furniture units in use is estimated with the CPSC 
Product Population Model, based on available annual sales data and 
industry estimates of the average product life of furniture.\36\ 
Estimates are for sofas, loveseats, armchairs, recliners, convertible 
sofas and other upholstered furniture commonly found in residential 
living rooms, family rooms, and guest rooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ M.L. Lahr and B.B. Gordon, Final Report on Product Life 
Model Feasibility and Development Study, Battelle Columbus 
Laboratories, July 14, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sales are defined as shipments from U.S. manufacturers plus net 
imports. Annual shipment data are available from the Economic Census 
published every five years (i.e., 2002, 1997, 1992 * * *) by the Bureau 
of the Census. For upholstered wood furniture and dual-purpose sleep 
furniture, the Economic Census usually provides information on unit 
shipments, by type (such as sofas, sleep sofas, rockers, recliners, and 
other chairs). For product categories for which unit shipment data were 
not available, we estimated unit shipments by assigning average per 
unit values to the Census data on value of shipments. Finally, 
estimates of net imports were added to shipments to estimate the total 
number of upholstered units sold to U.S. households. For the years in 
which Economic Census data are not available, shipment estimates were 
based on furniture shipment values published by the Department of 
Commerce in the Annual Survey of Manufactures.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Estimated shipments before 1967 were based on the Federal 
Reserve's annual furniture production index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CPSC's Product Population Model uses sales data and information 
on the average product life to estimate the numbers of items remaining 
in use in the years following their purchase by consumers. The 
estimated average useful life of upholstered furniture reportedly 
ranges from 15 to 17 years.\38\ Based on the assumption that the 
expected life of a piece of upholstered furniture is 16 years, the 
average number of upholstered items in household use during 2002-2004 
was about 447 million pieces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Based on discussions between industry officials and 
Department of Commerce personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Surveys of furniture manufacturers in the last several years show 
the shift towards thermoplastic fabrics peaked during the period of the 
mid-1980's to the mid-1990's. Information provided to the CPSC by the 
Upholstered Furniture Action Council (UFAC) showed that a significant 
shift to greater use of thermoplastic fabrics began in the 1950's, and 
became more pronounced in the 1970's.\39\ These data on usage of 
different types of fabrics over the years can be used to characterize 
upholstery fabrics found on furniture in U.S. households. An estimated 
31.2 percent of furniture in use in U.S. households during the period 
2002-2004 was covered with fabrics predominantly made with cellulosic 
fabrics; an estimated 50.2 percent were covered with predominantly 
thermoplastic fabrics, and 18.6 percent were covered with other 
materials (mainly leather, wool, and vinyl-coated fabrics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Report to the CPSC on the UFAC Voluntary Program, 
Upholstered Furniture Action Council, March 21, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Expected Benefits of the Proposed Standard

    The expected benefits of the proposed standard are estimated as the 
reduction in the societal costs associated with upholstered furniture 
fires that would be prevented by the standard. We estimate the benefits 
in several steps. First, the average annual societal costs of 
upholstered furniture fires are estimated, based on estimates of the 
aggregate annual costs of fire-related deaths, injuries, and property 
damage. These costs are differentiated by ignition source (i.e., 
cigarette vs. open flame ignition) and by fabric covering type (since 
different fabrics exhibit different ignition propensities). Societal 
costs are also estimated on a ``per product in use'' basis, based on

[[Page 11714]]

estimates of the numbers of furniture items in use.
    Second, since each furniture item is expected to remain in use for 
an average of 15 to 17 years, the present value of the product's 
estimated lifetime fire costs is estimated by summing the discounted 
annual costs over the item's expected useful life. The estimated annual 
societal costs that are expected to accrue over the furniture item's 
useful life are discounted at an annual rate of 3 percent. This rate is 
consistent with recommendations in the economic literature for 
discounting the costs and consequences of health programs.\40\ Societal 
costs have also been estimated using a 7 percent discount rate, as 
recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (in addition to 3 
percent) in its guidance to Federal agencies on the use of discounting 
in regulatory analysis (Circular A-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ For example: Viscusi, W.K., ``Discounting Health Effects 
for Medical Decisions,'' in Valuing Health Care: Costs, Benefits, 
and Effectiveness of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Technologies, ed. 
F.A. Sloan, 123-24. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1995. 
Also, Gold, Marthe R., et al., Cost-Effectiveness in Health and 
Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press. 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the expected effectiveness of the proposed standard (i.e., 
the percentage reduction in fire losses) is estimated for each ignition 
source and upholstery cover type. As discussed below, effectiveness of 
the standard at reducing societal costs is based on judgments regarding 
improvements attributed to fabric treatments and effectiveness of 
barrier materials.
    We begin the analysis by evaluating the societal costs of cigarette 
fires and the expected benefits associated with preventing these fires. 
This is followed with an evaluation of the societal costs and likely 
benefits associated with the prevention of open-flame ignited fires.
a. Expected Benefits From Reducing Cigarette Fire Losses
    Societal costs of furniture fires started by cigarettes. The 
purpose of this section is to estimate the societal costs of cigarette-
related upholstered furniture fires to use as the basis for estimating 
the cigarette benefits. In the next section, benefits are estimated as 
avoided societal costs. These costs are based on fire losses (deaths, 
injuries and property loss) estimated by the CPSC Directorate for 
Epidemiology, which relies on fire loss data acquired from the National 
Fire Protection (NFPA) annual survey of fire departments and the U.S. 
Fire Administration (USFA) National Fire Incident Reporting System 
(NFIRS). The most recent fire data available to make such estimates was 
for the 2002-2004 time period. Societal cost estimates are also 
differentiated by fabric cover types, which (as described below) 
exhibit different cigarette ignition propensities.
    According to the CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology, there was an 
average of 260 addressable civilian deaths and 320 nonfatal civilian 
injuries annually from fires started by cigarettes during the 2002-2004 
time frame.\41\ There was also an average of about $73 million annually 
(in 2005 dollars) in property losses from cigarette-ignited fires.\42\ 
By combining the costs associated with deaths, injuries, and property 
damage, total societal costs can be estimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Miller, David. ``2002-2004 Fire Loss Estimates for 
Upholstered Furniture.'' Directorate for Epidemiology, U.S. Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, August 3, 2007 (Draft). The Directorate 
for Epidemiolgy based its estimates on a methodology that was 
refined to address concerns raised by the General Accounting Office 
(GAO) in a 1999 report, ``Consumer Product Safety Commission: 
Additional Steps Needed to Assess Fire Hazards of Upholstered 
Furniture.''
    \42\ Estimated average property losses of about $65 million for 
2002-2004 (Miller, op. cit.) are expressed in 2004 dollars ($70 
million) based on changes in the Producer Price Index for 
construction materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For analytic purposes staff assigns a value of $5 million as the 
value of a statistical life for the calculation of societal costs. The 
$5 million estimate is consistent with the general range of the value 
of a statistical life published in the literature, which generally 
falls in the $3 million to $7 million range.\43\ Multiplying the annual 
estimate of about 260 deaths by the value of a statistical life of $5 
million yields annual fatality costs of $1.3 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Viscusi, W. Kip, ``The Value of Risks to Life and Health,'' 
Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXI, December 1993, pp. 1912-
1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonfatal injuries were assigned an average cost of $146,740 each. 
The basis for this estimate was the analysis of burn injury costs 
reported in the August 1993 report ``Societal Costs of Cigarette 
Fires,'' part of the research sponsored by the CPSC under the Fire Safe 
Cigarette Act of 1990.44 45 The $146,740 figure represents a 
weighted average of injury costs (including pain and suffering) for 
both hospitalized injuries and injuries treated and released. The 
estimate of 320 injuries annually results in societal costs of about 
$47 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Zamula, William W., ``Costs for Non-Fatal, Addressable 
Residential Civilian Injuries Associated with Upholstered Furniture 
Fires.'' (Memorandum to Gregory B. Rodgers, AED, EC) Directorate for 
Economic Analysis, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 
September 6, 2007. (Costs are estimated in 2005 dollars.)
    \45\ Miller, Ted R., et al., ``Societal Costs of Cigarettes 
Fires,'' prepared for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission 
under the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984, August 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposed standard would also address about $70 
million annually in property losses from fires started by cigarettes, 
based on estimates for the 2002-2004 period. Consequently, the total 
annual costs of cigarette-ignited fires addressed by the proposed 
standard amounted to an annual average of about $1,420 million ($1,300 
million + $47 million + $73 million) during the 2002-2004 time period.
    Information on the number of furniture items (i.e., separate pieces 
of furniture) in use provides a basis for estimating the costs of 
cigarette ignition fires on a per unit basis. The average estimated 
number of items of residential living room and family room upholstered 
furniture in use during the 2002-2004 time period was about 447 million 
units, based on an expected useful product life of 15-17 years. Given 
the annual societal costs and the number of furniture units in use, the 
annual societal cost per unit of furniture in use, resulting from 
cigarette ignition, amounted to about $3.18 ($1,420 million/447 million 
units of furniture). This per unit societal cost estimate represents an 
average across all furniture items in use. However, because different 
fabric coverings for furniture exhibit different ignition propensities, 
we can develop more precise estimates of per unit societal costs by 
accounting for the fabric cover.
    Ignition testing of chairs by CPSC staff and others over the years 
has shown that the cigarette ignition hazard of furniture mainly 
involves chairs covered with fabrics that are predominantly woven from 
cellulosic fibers, i.e., cotton and rayon. Chair testing done by the 
CPSC staff and California's Bureau of Home Furnishings has shown that 
chairs covered with predominantly thermoplastic fabrics (e.g., 
polyester, polypropylene, and nylon) are much less likely to ignite 
from cigarettes. Chairs covered with some materials, such as leather, 
vinyl-coated fabrics, and wool fabrics are resistant to ignition from 
cigarettes. Given the disparity of ignition propensities, some types of 
furniture would be expected to result in greater societal costs from 
fires. Information relevant to the determination of average 
ignitability and estimation of societal costs for furniture covered 
with different types of materials is discussed below.
    The results of the analysis described in this section (including 
estimates of market shares by fabric covering, estimates of ignition 
propensities and risk by fabric type, and estimates of

[[Page 11715]]

annual societal costs) are summarized in Table 1.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.000

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C

[[Page 11716]]

    Estimates of the types of upholstery on furniture pieces found in 
households during 2002-2004 were derived from historical data from 
surveys in various years, estimates of annual sales of upholstered 
furniture, and calculations of the survival of furniture in years after 
purchase (using the CPSC's Product Population Model). Based on these 
sources, the Directorate for Economic Analysis estimates that 50.2 
percent of the 447 million upholstered furniture items that were in use 
during 2002-2004 were covered with thermoplastic fabrics, 31.2 percent 
were covered with cellulosic fabrics, and 18.6 percent were covered 
with leather, vinyl-coated fabrics, or wool fabrics. These market 
shares are shown in Table 1, column 1.
    Note that the market shares in the first three rows sum to the 31.2 
percent of the furniture in use covered with cellulosic fabrics. 
However, because extensive testing data show that some cellulosic 
fabrics are more likely to ignite than others, this analysis also 
separates cellulosic fabrics into three categories according to their 
ignition propensities. The next several paragraphs describe this sub-
categorization of cellulosic fabric coverings.
    Testing by the CPSC laboratory using the proposed Upholstery Fabric 
Smoldering Ignition Test \46\ indicates that upholstery cover materials 
which are most likely to fail the test are fabrics woven entirely of 
cellulosic fibers that are heavier than eight ounces per square yard. 
These fabrics are assumed to include all fabrics that would be 
classified as Class II fabrics under the UFAC Program as well as 
predominantly cellulosic fabrics that would be classified as Class I 
fabrics under the UFAC Program and Class C and D fabrics according to 
the proposed furniture flammability standard fabric test method 
developed by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS, now the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology) in the 1970s. Estimation of the 
percentage of fabrics that would fail the fabric test of the proposed 
standard, and assessment of the societal costs presented by different 
types of upholstery cover materials are, therefore, based on fabric and 
chair test data accumulated over the years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The Upholstery Fabric Smoldering Ignition Test is cigarette 
ignition testing of fabrics over a standard non-flame-retardant 
polyurethane foam substrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Classification of cellulosic fabrics according to the test 
developed by UFAC (which classifies fabrics according to char length on 
the vertical surface when tested over standard non-FR polyurethane 
foam) and the test developed by NBS (which classifies fabrics according 
to char length when tested over a glass fiberboard substrate) have been 
used to categorize the ignition performance of cellulosic fabrics in 
this analysis. CPSC laboratory analyses since 1980 found that about 82 
percent of cellulosic fabrics tested were Class I fabrics according to 
the fabric classification test of the UFAC Program (i.e., having a 
vertical char length of less than 1.75 inches), and 18 percent of 
cellulosic fabrics were UFAC Class II fabrics (i.e., having a vertical 
char length of 1.75 inches or greater). Assuming the tested fabrics 
were representative of cellulosic fabrics, 25.6 percent of all fabrics 
on furniture in use during 2002-2004 were UFAC Class I (31.2% that were 
covered with cellulosic fabrics x 82%) and 5.6 percent were UFAC Class 
II (31.2% x 18%).
    Laboratory testing shows that the cover material smoldering 
resistance test of the proposed standard is more severe than the UFAC 
Fabric Classification Test.\47\ Therefore, for the purposes of this 
analysis, UFAC Class II fabrics are assumed to fail the proposed fabric 
test without changes that would improve their ignition resistance. 
Limited testing also indicates that some portion of UFAC Class I 
fabrics will fail the fabric test of the proposed standard. Twenty-five 
percent of the Class I fabrics tested by the CPSC staff in 1980 and 
1984 were found to be generally more ignition-prone Class D fabrics 
according to the NBS fabric classification test (i.e., sustaining chars 
of greater than 3 inches when tested over glass fiberboard). If we 
assume that such fabrics would fail the proposed standard's fabric 
test, an estimated 12 percent of fabrics found on furniture in 2002-
2004 would have failed the test (5.6 percent which were UFAC Class II, 
plus 25 percent of the 25.6 percent of other cellulosic fabrics which 
were UFAC Class I. (Designated as ``Severely Ignition-Prone 
Cellulosics'' in Table 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Tao, Weiying, Ph.D. ``Evaluation of Test Method and 
Performance Criteria for Cigarette Ignition (Smoldering) Resistance 
of Upholstered Furniture Materials.'' Division of Electrical and 
Flammability Engineering, Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, U.S. 
Consumer Product Safety Commission. May 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fabrics assumed to pass the proposed standard include more 
moderately ignition-prone fabrics that are Class I according to the 
UFAC Fabric Classification test and Class C according to the NBS fabric 
test (i.e., sustaining chars of 1.5--3 inches when tested over glass 
fiberboard), and more ignition-resistant Class B cellulosic fabrics 
according to the NBS fabric test (which sustain char lengths of less 
than 1.5 inches when tested over glass fiberboard). The Class C fabrics 
accounted for an estimated 5.8 percent of fabrics found on furniture in 
2002-2004 (22.5 percent of UFAC Class I cellulosic fabrics according to 
CPSC staff testing). These fabrics are designated as ``Moderately 
Ignition-Prone Cellulosics'' in Table 1. More ignition-resistant NBS 
Class B fabrics are estimated to have comprised 52.5 percent of UFAC 
Class I cellulosic fabrics, or 13.4 percent of all fabrics and covering 
materials found on upholstered items in 2002-2004. These fabrics are 
designated as ``Lower Ignition-Prone Cellulosics'' in Table 1.
    Estimated ignition propensities for furniture covered with 
cellulosic fabrics are based on chair testing that was done in 1984 and 
1994. Evaluating chair test results according to UFAC and NBS fabric 
classifications, 58.3 percent of test cigarettes were estimated to lead 
to ignitions for chairs covered with UFAC Class II fabrics. The 
estimated ignition propensity for test cigarettes on chairs covered 
with UFAC Class I, NBS Class D fabrics was 46.6 percent. Combining 
these two severely-ignition-prone fabric classes yields an average 
estimated ignition propensity of 52.1 percent (weighted by their 2002-
2004 market shares). Cigarettes placed on furniture covered with 
moderately ignition-prone fabrics had an estimated 32.2 percent 
likelihood of resulting in ignition.\48\ About 10.5 percent of test 
cigarettes were estimated to lead to ignitions for chairs covered with 
less ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics.\49\ (See column 2 of Table 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ UFAC Class I, NBS Class C cellulosic fabrics.
    \49\ NBS Class B cellulosic fabrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because of less concern with the ignition propensity of 
thermoplastic fabrics, ignition testing data for such materials are 
more limited. Expanding chair test data to include tests conducted in 
1980 led to an estimate that 1.5 percent of test cigarettes would 
result in ignition for furniture covered with thermoplastic fabrics. 
Additionally, based on limited laboratory ignition testing data, 
materials such as leather, wool fabrics, and vinyl-coated fabrics are 
assumed to be highly resistant to ignition from cigarettes.
    The calculation of weighted ignition propensities of furniture 
covered with different types of fabrics is the product of the estimated 
market share of furniture in use in 2002-2004 for each type of fabric 
and its estimated ignition propensity. The estimated weighted ignition 
propensity was 0.063 for items covered with severely ignition-prone

[[Page 11717]]

cellulosic fabrics (i.e., 12.0% share of the market x 52.1% ignition 
propensity); 0.019 for items covered with moderately ignition-prone 
cellulosic fabrics (5.8% x 32.2%); 0.014 for items covered with less 
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics (13.4% x 10.5%); and .008 for items 
covered with thermoplastic fabrics (50.2% x 1.5%). (See column 3 of 
Table 1.)
    The percent of total risk presented by furniture covered with 
different fabric types was derived by dividing estimated weighted 
ignition propensities by the sum of all weighted ignition propensities 
(which was about .103 for furniture in use in 2002-2004). Thus, as 
shown in the table, the more severely ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics 
\50\ were estimated to account for 60.9 percent of the total risk 
(.063/.103); moderately ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics \51\ 
accounted for an estimated 18.0 percent of the risk (.019/.103); less 
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics accounted for about 13.7 percent of 
the risk (.014/.103); and thermoplastic fabrics accounted for about 7.3 
percent of the risk (.008/.103). (See column 4 of Table 1.) \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ UFAC Class II and UFAC Class I/NBS Class D fabrics.
    \51\ NBS Class C cellulosic fabrics.
    \52\ Percent of total risk for each fabric type was calculated 
from estimates of market share and ignition propensity that were not 
rounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The average annual societal costs associated with cigarette 
ignitions of each fabric type were estimated by dividing the product of 
estimated percent of total risk (above) and the total estimated average 
annual societal costs associated with cigarette ignition of furniture 
($1,420 million) by the estimated number of units in use during 2002-
2004 with each fabric type (447 million units in use x estimated market 
share). The average annual societal costs were estimated to be $16.08 
for items covered with severely ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics 
(60.9% x $1,420 million/447 million x 12.0%); $9.94 for items covered 
with moderately ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics (18.0% x $1,420 
million/447 million x 5.8%); $3.24 for items covered with less 
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics (13.4% x $1,420 million/447 million x 
13.7%); and $.46 for items covered with thermoplastic fabrics (7.3% x 
$1,420 million/447 million x 50.2%). (See column 5 of Table 1.)
    The estimated lifetime societal costs per unit of furniture were 
calculated as the present value of the estimated annual societal costs 
over the expected product life of the item of furniture. The annual 
expected societal costs of cigarette ignition were assumed to apply 
each year that an item of furniture remains in household use. The 
CPSC's Product Population Model was used to calculate the likelihood 
that furniture items would remain in use in years after purchase. 
Annual societal costs per unit were multiplied by estimated probability 
of survival in subsequent years. The estimated stream of future 
expected societal costs were discounted to their present values, using 
a discount rate of 3 percent.
    Available data suggest that other factors (in addition to changes 
in fabrics) have contributed to a decline in fires resulting from 
cigarette ignition of upholstered furniture over time. These factors 
include changes in smoking-related behavior of individuals, increased 
presence of smoke alarms, and changes in furniture filling materials. 
The present value estimates were further adjusted to account for an 
expected future decline in smoking-related fire incidents. This was 
done by forecasting future fire deaths by year, based on trends in 
deaths from cigarette ignitions of upholstered furniture during 1980-
2004, and reducing the expected societal costs of cigarette ignited 
fires by the projected percentage reduction. This analysis found that 
expected lifetime societal costs, discounted to their present value 
using a 3 percent discount rate, should be reduced by approximately 28 
percent. Thus, expected lifetime societal costs per unit of $195.31 for 
items covered with severely ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics were 
reduced to $140.04 after incorporating the trend data. Similar 
calculations led to estimates of lifetime societal costs of $86.60 for 
items covered with moderately ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics; $28.24 
for items covered with less ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics; and 
$4.06 for items covered with thermoplastic fabrics. (See column 6 in 
Table 1.)
b. Expected Benefits
    The analysis described above estimated the per unit hazard costs 
associated with the upholstery materials of different ignition 
propensities, based on the furniture in use during 2002-2004, the most 
recent time period for which fire data is available. However, as 
discussed in Section 4, the types of upholstery materials used in the 
production of furniture have changed over the years. Since the proposed 
standard would address risks associated with current production, 
projection of benefits requires estimating the societal costs 
associated with materials now being used to manufacture furniture. This 
is accomplished by estimating the percentage of furniture items 
currently made with covering materials of differing ignition 
propensities.
    A 2006 survey of furniture manufacturers by Ciprus Limited provides 
information on consumption of cellulosic, thermoplastic, and leather 
covering materials in the production of furniture.\53\ Using CPSC staff 
test data discussed above, the percentages of current production (as 
indicated by the Ciprus data) made with materials ranging from severely 
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics to ignition resistant materials such 
as leather were estimated. These estimates are shown in column 1 of 
Table 2. The estimated percentage of upholstered items now made with 
severely ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics has fallen to 9.6 percent of 
annual production, from 12.0 percent estimated for furniture in use 
during 2002-2004. This is a 20 percent decrease in the relative use of 
the most ignition-prone class of fabrics. The use of other ignition-
prone fabrics has also declined, in relative terms, while the use of 
generally ignition-resistant materials such as leather (estimated to be 
about 30 percent of current production) is 62 percent greater than 
found in household use in 2002-2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Ciprus Limited, op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 11718]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.001

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C

[[Page 11719]]

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

    \54\ Miller, David. op. cit.
    \55\ Estimated average property losses for 2002-2004 are 
expressed in 2005 dollars, based on changes in the Producer Price 
Index for construction materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming a value of statistical life of $5 million,\56\ the 
societal costs associated with the 30 deaths annually amounted to about 
$150 million. The 170 nonfatal injuries were assigned an average cost 
of $146,740 each,\57\ resulting in societal costs of about $25 million. 
Adding in the $50 million annually in property losses from fires 
started from small open-flame ignition, the total annual costs of open-
flame ignited fires addressed by the proposed standard amount to about 
$225 million ($150 million + $25 million + $50 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Viscusi, W. Kip, op. cit.
    \57\ Zamula, William W., op. cit. Injury costs are expressed in 
2005 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in Table 1, these annual estimates of the open-flame losses are 
used to develop estimates of the lifetime societal costs of open-flame 
hazards per unit of furniture in use during 2002-2004, for each of the 
five fabric categories. The results are presented in Table 3.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 11720]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.002

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C

[[Page 11721]]

    Column 1 of Table 3 shows the proportions of furniture in each 
fabric material category, and is identical to the corresponding column 
in Table 1. Column 2 describes open-flame ignition propensities, based 
on small open flame ignition testing by the CPSC laboratory in 1996. In 
that testing, cellulosic and thermoplastic fabrics had nearly the same 
ignition propensity when subjected to a small flame for 20 seconds. 
Ignitions in 20 seconds or less were observed for 27 of 29 
predominantly cellulosic fabrics (about 93 percent) and 17 of 18 
predominantly thermoplastic fabrics (about 94 percent).\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Based on testing data presented in Directorate for 
Laboratory Sciences memoranda dated October 3, 1996, through 
September 19, 1997, Tab D, ``Upholstered Furniture Flammability: 
Regulatory Options for Small Open Flame & Smoking Material Ignited 
Fires,'' October 24, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these ignition propensities and the estimated percentages 
of furniture in use comprised by upholstered items with cellulosic and 
thermoplastic fabrics, furniture covered with thermoplastic fabrics 
accounted for an estimated 62 percent of the overall risk of small open 
flame ignitions during 2002-2004; items covered with cellulosic fabrics 
accounted for an estimated 38 percent of the risk. While Table 3 
separates cellulosic fabrics according to differences in their 
cigarette ignition propensities, for this analysis all cellulosic 
fabrics are assumed to have the same small open flame ignition 
propensity. The estimated percent of overall risk for each type of 
cellulosic fabric is, therefore, determined by market share. As with 
the risk of ignition by cigarettes, furniture covered by leather, wool, 
and vinyl-coated fabrics is assumed to be resistant to ignition from a 
20-second exposure to a small open flame.
    Following the same methodology described in Table 1, the average 
annual societal costs associated with small open flame ignitions of 
each fabric type were estimated by dividing the products of estimated 
percent of total risk and the total estimated average annual societal 
costs associated with small open flame ignition of furniture ($225 
million) by the estimated number of units in use during 2002-2004 with 
each fabric type (447 million units in use x estimated market share). 
This approach resulted in estimated average annual societal costs of 
about $.62 for items covered with thermoplastic fabrics (62% x $225 
million /447 million x 50.2%) and about $.61 for items covered with 
predominantly cellulosic fabrics (38% x $225 million/447 million x 
31.2%). (See column 5 of Table 3.)
    Finally, the lifetime societal costs (per unit of furniture) were 
estimated as the present value of the annual per unit societal costs 
over the expected product life of a furniture item. This present value 
estimate (shown in column 6), discounted at a rate of 3 percent, is 
about $7.55 for items covered with predominantly thermoplastic fabrics 
and $7.44 for items covered with predominantly cellulosic fabrics.
    The estimated benefits associated with the prevention of open-flame 
fires are described in Table 4. The methodology is similar to that 
described for Table 2. Column 1 shows the current market shares, by 
fabric type, and Column 2 shows annual sales based on annual furniture 
shipments of 30.5 million units. Column 3 provides the estimates of per 
unit lifetime societal costs derived in Table 3, and Column 4 provides 
estimates of the aggregate societal costs of fires associated with 
open-flame ignition.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 11722]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.003

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C

[[Page 11723]]

    For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that about 40 percent 
of furniture currently manufactured with severely cigarette ignition-
prone cellulosic fabrics (accounting for about 1.17 million units, or 
3.8 percent of all furniture items) would be made with barrier 
materials. Complying barriers may reduce the open flame ignition 
hazards by about 90 percent, or $6.70 per unit, and benefits could 
total $7.9 million for furniture made with complying barriers.
    Based on the assumption that 40 percent of severely cigarette 
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics would be used with complying 
barriers, the remaining 60 percent of furniture currently manufactured 
with severely cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics (accounting 
for 5.8 percent of all furniture items) and the 4.6 percent of fabric 
yardage that is moderately cigarette ignition prone (combining for 
nearly 3.2 million units) would require other modifications or they 
would have to be dropped from use as upholstery cover materials. The 
methods of compliance chosen by manufacturers likely would affect the 
level of reduction in open flame ignition hazards. The implications of 
these decisions are discussed below.
    Fabrics that do not pass the upholstery cover fabric smoldering 
ignition resistance test could be brought into compliance through 
treatments with FR chemicals. FR treatment of fabrics and filling 
materials to achieve compliance with the staff's 2005 draft standard 
might result in a 50 percent reduction in small open flame fire 
losses.\59\ However, unlike the 2005 draft standard, the current 
proposed standard does not include provisions related to open flame 
ignition performance of filling materials, which in many cases would 
have required FR treatments to achieve compliance. Lacking this 
additional contribution to fire-retardance, the effectiveness of FR 
fabric treatments under the proposed standard at reducing the small 
open flame fire hazard probably would be lower. Consequently, the 
hazard reduction for furniture with FR-treated fabrics may be about 25 
percent under the proposed standard. Per unit open flame ignition 
benefits would be about $1.86, and aggregate open flame benefits would 
be about $5.9 million, if manufacturers resort to FR treatment for all 
of the nearly 3.2 million units. From the standpoint of fabric type, 
the average hazard reduction for severely cigarette ignition-prone 
cellulosic fabrics would be 51 percent,\60\ and the reduction for 
moderately cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics would be 25 
percent. (See column 5 of Table 4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Smith, Charles, Directorate for Economic Analysis, CPSC, 
Preliminary Regulatory Analysis of a Draft Proposed Flammability 
Rule to Address Ignitions of Upholstered Furniture, November 2007.
    \60\ Based on 25% effectiveness x 60% of the fabrics being FR-
treated and 90% x 40% that are made with barriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatively, manufacturers would have the options of using 
fabrics that are reformulated with different fibers or dropping non-
complying fabrics from use as furniture covers. In fact, this may be 
the preferred option for most manufacturers, given concerns with costs, 
FR exposure, aesthetic effects, and other issues. Open flame benefits 
would not be expected for such furniture items. If the use of FR-
treatments of fabrics is 80 percent lower than assumed above, the 
number of units made with FR-treated fabrics would total about 630,000 
and aggregate open flame benefits from furniture using FR-treated 
fabrics would be about $1.2 million, and total open flame benefits 
would be about $9 million. If all 630,000 units with FR fabric 
treatments involved severely cigarette ignition-prone fabrics, the 
average estimated hazard reduction for that category of fabrics would 
be about 41 percent.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Based on 25% effectiveness x 21.6% of the fabrics being FR-
treated and 90% x 40% that are made with barriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the assumed range of furniture units that would be made 
with FR-treated fabrics, aggregate open flame benefits from the 
proposed standard range from about $9 million to $13.8 million, as 
shown in column 7 of Table 4. In accordance with OMB guidance that 
future benefits (and costs) of federal regulations be presented using 
discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent, open flame benefits of the 
proposed standard have also been estimated to have a present value of 
$6.4 million to $9.9 million if future benefits are discounted at a 7 
percent discount rate.

6. Expected Costs of the Proposed Standard

a. Costs Related to Upholstery Fabrics and Barrier Materials
    Upholstery fabric and FR treatments. This section of the analysis 
presents information about the expected resource costs associated with 
the proposed standard. These costs include manufacturing costs incurred 
for materials, labor, testing, and recordkeeping, and distribution 
costs to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. The estimates are 
expressed in 2005 dollars (as were estimated benefits). Cost estimates 
are limited to upholstered household furniture that may commonly be 
found in living rooms and family rooms. A relatively small number of 
other types of chairs that fall within the scope of the standard, such 
as a small percentage of dining chairs and desk chairs purchased by 
consumers, are excluded from this analysis.\62\ Cost estimates are 
summarized in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Those other items probably would incur relatively minor 
increases in costs because of the types of materials used, and 
smaller material requirements per unit of furniture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 11724]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.004

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C

[[Page 11725]]

    Fabrics failing the fabric test of the proposed standard could be 
treated with FR chemicals or be reformulated with fibers that enable 
passing results. Manufacturers would also be able to continue using 
fabrics without modifications if they use an acceptable barrier 
material (i.e., one that passes the proposed barrier tests) between the 
fabric and filling materials. For purposes of this analysis, the highly 
cigarette ignition-prone fabrics and moderately cigarette ignition-
prone fabrics, estimated to combine for about 14.2 percent of total 
upholstery cover materials, are assumed to require modifications if 
their use is to continue under the proposed standard. As discussed 
previously, these modifications could include the use of FR treatments 
or barriers, or reformulating the fabrics in a way (such as increasing 
the thermoplastic fiber content) that will allow the fabrics to pass 
the smoldering test of the proposed standard.
    Based on fabrics that have been tested by the CPSC laboratory, many 
of the fabrics that would fail the fabric test of the proposed standard 
are heavier weight (over eight ounces per square yard) fabrics that are 
made entirely of cellulosic fibers, such as cotton or rayon. Many of 
these fabrics could be treated with FR chemicals to enable them to pass 
the fabric test. Typically, fully upholstered chairs require about 7 
linear yards of fabric, and sofas require 11 to 15 yards, depending on 
factors such as the need to match patterns (which results in more 
fabric waste in pattern cutting). The average increase in fabric costs 
could range from $.62 to $1.05 per linear yard for manufacturers, based 
on previous estimates for FR backcoating to achieve resistance to 
ignition from small open flames.\63\ Also, although the proposed 
standard does not specify frequency of testing to assure compliance of 
treated fabrics with the fabric test, we assume that testing will be 
done to provide guaranties to furniture manufacturers. This testing 
could increase fabric costs an additional $.03 to $.06 per linear yard 
of fabric, on average. Therefore, total average manufacturing cost 
increases for furniture made with FR-treated upholstery fabrics under 
the proposed standard could range from $4.55 to $7.77 for chairs and 
$8.45 to $14.43 for sofas and loveseats.\64\ Considering estimates of 
unit shipments of chairs and sofas (based on an analysis of Department 
of Commerce Economic Census data), the average manufacturing cost 
increase per item of furniture resulting from FR treatments of fabric 
is estimated to range from $6.61 to $11.28.\65\ (See column 1 of Table 
5.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Smith, Charles. Directorate for Economic Analysis, CPSC, 
Economic Analysis of Regulatory Options to Address Small Open Flame 
Ignitions of Upholstered Furniture, October 2001. Note: Bureau of 
Labor Statistics reports virtually no change in Producer Price Index 
for job or commission finishing of cotton broadwoven fabrics from 
2001-2005. Therefore, previous estimates are used in this analysis.
    \64\ Assuming average fabric yardage for sofas and loveseats is 
13 linear yards.
    \65\ We estimate that in 1997, upholstered living room and 
family rooms furniture purchased for consumer use was comprised of 
about 15.6 million sofas, sofabeds, and loveseats (52.7%), and 14.0 
million chairs (47.3%). Therefore: ($4.55 x 47.3%) + ($8.45 x 52.7%) 
= $6.61; and ($7.77 x 47.3%) + ($14.43 x 52.7%) = $11.28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Barrier materials. Some furniture manufacturers may choose to offer 
fabrics that do not pass the fabric classification test by using an 
acceptable barrier material under the cover fabric. Based on barriers 
used in the UK to comply with the barrier test of that country's 
furniture flammability standard, the cost to manufacturers could range 
from $2.00 to $2.47 per linear yard (reportedly 54 to 59 inches in 
width) for standard FR barriers, and about $2.67 to $2.94 per linear 
yard for down-proof barriers (i.e. having yarns and weaves suitable for 
encasing down).\66\ As with FR-treated cover fabrics, testing would be 
done to assure compliance with the barrier test of the proposed 
standard. However, given expected large production runs of barriers and 
the greater degree of uniformity of barrier materials compared to cover 
fabrics, additional testing costs to furniture manufacturers could be 
about $.01 per yard of barrier fabric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Smith, Charles. op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The decision to use barriers as a means to comply with the standard 
is more likely to be taken by firms that serve the upper-end furniture 
market. These furniture items are more likely to be manufactured with 
interior fabrics between the cushioning materials and the upholstery 
covers. In a 1995 survey of furniture manufacturers, the CPSC found 
that about one-third of the seat, arm and back cushions were made with 
interior fabrics. Interior fabrics were used in an average of about 50 
percent of cushions made by smaller firms, which are more likely to 
serve the upper-end market. To the extent that manufacturers already 
enclose filling materials in interliner fabrics, the FR barriers could 
be replacing untreated materials.
    Cushions are usually purchased from fabricators that make them to 
the specifications of the furniture manufacturers. For seat cushions, 
the barrier alternative would result in a change in the interior fabric 
used by the cushion fabricators. For such items, barrier costs would be 
offset by the costs of the untreated materials, about $.30 per yard for 
standard interliner fabrics and $.80 per yard for down-proof interliner 
fabrics. Net increases in material costs, including costs for testing, 
would be about $1.71 to $2.18 per yard for standard fabrics and $1.88 
to $2.15 per yard for down-proof fabrics. Cushions typically have sides 
that are about 24 inches long, and they are about 5 inches thick. 
Therefore, about one linear yard of 54-inch wide interior fabric would 
be used per seat cushion, and the cost increases per linear yard of 
material would also hold true for cost increases per cushion.
    Barrier materials required for other parts of the seating areas of 
furniture items might require about two yards of material per chair and 
four yards per sofa. These areas may be less likely to have interliner 
fabrics currently than is the case with seat cushions. Therefore, 
increased material costs probably would be $2.01 to $2.48 per linear 
yard for standard FR barriers. These materials would increase material 
costs by about $4.02 to $4.96 for chairs and $8.04 to $9.92 for sofas. 
Adding the approximately $1.71 to $2.18 per cushion material cost 
increases from substituting the use of FR barriers for standard 
interliner materials, total increased material costs might be about 
$5.73 to $7.14 for chairs and $13.17 to $16.46 for sofas.
    In addition to increased material costs, manufacturers would also 
be faced with additional costs related to labor needed to include FR 
barriers on parts of the upholstered items that are not currently made 
with interliner fabrics or battings. The additional labor required 
might average about 15 to 20 minutes per item.\67\ Hourly labor costs, 
including benefits, are estimated to range from about $25 to $30.\68\ 
Therefore, labor costs for the additional upholstery work could be 
about $6.25 to $10.00. Total increases in

[[Page 11726]]

manufacturing costs (material and labor) are estimated to range from 
$11.98 to $17.14 for chairs and $19.42 to $26.46 for sofas and 
loveseats. The average increase in manufacturing costs per item of 
upholstered furniture that would be made with FR barriers is estimated 
to range from $15.90 to $22.05.\69\ (See column 2 of Table 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Based on a telephone conversation between a representative 
of Vanguard Furniture, and Charles Smith, Directorate for Economic 
Analysis, CPSC, on February 23, 2001.
    \68\ Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics National 
Compensation Survey reports that average upholsterer wages for the 
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC area were $17.03 per hour in 2005, we 
assume that wages and other labor costs are typically higher ($25-
$30) for upholsterers that work for manufacturers using expensive 
decorative fabrics (which are more likely to be used with barrier 
materials). This assumption is supported by labor cost information 
provided by Vanguard Furniture, op. cit.
    \69\ We estimate that in 1997, upholstered living room and 
family rooms furniture purchased for consumer use was comprised of 
about 15.6 million sofas, sofabeds, and loveseats (52.7%), and 14.0 
million chairs (47.3%). Therefore: ($11.98 x 47.3%) + ($19.42 x 
52.7%) = $15.90; and ($17.14 x 47.3%) + ($26.46 x 52.7%) = $22.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, highly cigarette ignition-prone fabrics, estimated 
to comprise 9.6 percent of total upholstery cover materials, could 
require the use of FR treatments or barriers if their use is to 
continue under the proposed standard. The use of barriers is more 
economically feasible with more expensive fabrics, such as those 
produced by members of the Decorative Fabrics Association (DFA). The 
DFA estimates that fabrics marketed by its members comprise perhaps 1.5 
percent of total upholstery fabric yardage used to make furniture.\70\ 
If 40 percent of highly cigarette ignition-prone fabrics (3.8% of all 
upholstery cover materials, i.e., more than just the 1.5 percent of 
fabric yardage reportedly marketed by DFA members) are assumed to be 
used with acceptable barrier materials under a standard, about 1.17 
million furniture pieces annually might be made with barriers under a 
standard. The aggregate manufacturing cost increase related to use of 
complying barrier fabrics under these assumptions would range from 
about $18.7 million to $25.9 million.\71\ If 60 percent of highly 
cigarette ignition-prone fabric yardage (covering 5.8% of all furniture 
items) is assumed to be treated with FR chemicals, the estimated 
aggregate increase in manufacturing costs from FR treatment of fabrics 
would range from $11.6 million to $19.9 million annually.\72\ The 
combined aggregate costs of fabric treatments and barriers would total 
$30.3 million to $45.7 million annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Information provided to the staff at a June 29, 2000, 
public meeting.
    \71\ (30.5 million units x 3.8% x $15.90) = $18.7 million; (30.5 
million units x 3.8% x $22.05) = $25.9 million.
    \72\ (30.5 million units x 5.8% x $6.61) = $11.6 million; (30.5 
million units x 5.8% x $11.28) = $19.9 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to costs associated with furniture covered with 
severely cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics, fabrics that are 
moderately cigarette ignition-prone could also be expected to require 
modifications in order to comply with the proposed standard's 
smoldering ignition test for cover materials. If these units 
(accounting for an estimated 4.6% of current furniture purchases by 
consumers) are also made with FR fabric treatments, material costs per 
unit would increase by $6.61 to $11.28, for an increase in estimated 
aggregate costs ranging from $9.3 million to $15.9 million annually. 
Total estimated material cost increases related to FR treatment of 
fabrics or the use of complying barriers would, therefore, range from 
about $39.6 million to $61.6 million annually.
    It should be noted that these cost estimates could be considered to 
be the upper bound for material costs of the proposed standard, since 
manufacturers would have the less expensive alternative of substituting 
upholstery fabrics that pass the smoldering requirements for those that 
do not, without the application of FR chemicals or the use of barrier 
materials. If choosing these options were to reduce reliance on FR-
treatments of fabric by 80 percent from that assumed in the above 
analysis, FR-treatment costs under the proposed standard could total 
about $6.3 million annually. Under this assumption, an estimated 2.1 
percent of furniture items would be made with FR-treated fabrics; 3.8 
percent would be made with barrier materials, and; 8.3 percent would be 
units in which fabrics were reformulated with more ignition-resistant 
fibers or otherwise switched to fabrics/covers that comply without 
treatments or barriers. In this scenario, aggregate costs of FR-
treatment of fabrics and the use of barriers would be about $30.8 
million.
b. Costs Related to Compliance Verification
    Costs related to compliance verification will result from 
requirements placed on furniture manufacturers to maintain records and 
to apply a permanent label to the items.\73\ Other resource costs of 
compliance verification include the costs of compliance and enforcement 
activities undertaken by CPSC staff. For purposes of this analysis we 
assume compliance verification costs of about $.10 per furniture unit. 
(See column 5 of Table 5.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Costs related to production testing are incorporated in the 
estimated material costs of the draft standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Distribution Costs
    An additional cost of the proposed standard could be increases in 
costs to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers in the form of added 
storage, transportation, and inventory financing costs. Since furniture 
items that would be produced under the standard are not likely to be 
larger or heavier than pre-standard items, added storage and 
transportation costs are likely to be negligible. However, inventory 
financing costs will increase by the average cost of borrowing money, 
applied to the increase in the wholesale price of a furniture item over 
the average inventory holding time period. Since most furniture 
producers use just-in-time production and have small inventories of 
finished items, this additional cost will probably not exceed 10 
percent of the increase in manufacturing costs. A 10 percent markup, 
therefore, is being used to measure these distribution costs. This 
yields a resource cost to the firms in the distribution chain averaging 
about $0.67-$1.14 per furniture item made with FR-treated fabrics and 
$1.60 to $2.22 per item made with barriers. The weighted range of 
estimated resource costs for furniture made with severely cigarette 
ignition-prone fabrics is $1.04 to $1.57 per unit of furniture.\74\ 
(See column 4 of Table 5.) Aggregate costs associated with estimated 
increased inventory financing costs range from $4.2 million to $6.4 
million annually. As discussed in Section 7 of this analysis, the 
proposed standard may lead to increases in retail prices of furniture 
greater than the 10 percent markup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Based on the assumption that 60% of these units will use 
FR-treated fabrics and 40% will use barriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Summary of Expected Costs
    Table 5 summarizes the results of the cost analyses. It illustrates 
the differing costs estimated to be incurred under the standard by 
furniture items covered with the different classifications of 
upholstery materials previously discussed in the societal costs and 
benefits section of this analysis. The estimated 14.2 percent of 
furniture items covered by severely and moderately cigarette-ignition-
prone cellulosics would incur greater total and per unit costs under 
the proposed standard. We assume these fabrics would fail the 
upholstery cover fabric smoldering ignition resistance test of the 
proposed standard. Therefore, their continued use in furniture 
production would require the use of barrier materials that pass the 
barrier test of the proposed standard or other treatments. Furniture 
items covered with other types of upholstery materials should not 
require FR-treated fabrics or barriers. However, all units would incur 
minor compliance verification costs.

[[Page 11727]]

    Based on the estimated increases in manufacturing costs associated 
with changes in fabrics and the use of barriers, costs of compliance 
verification, and distribution costs, aggregate costs under the 
proposed standard are estimated to range from about $47 million to $71 
million annually. The midpoints of the estimated ranges of costs total 
$59.1 million. As noted above, since changes in fiber contents of 
fabrics or dropping fabrics from selections offered by manufacturers 
will be an option available to manufacturers, the aggregate 
manufacturing costs related to FR treatments and barriers could be 
lower. Under an alternative assumption that the reliance on FR 
treatments of fabrics will be 80 percent lower, aggregate costs of the 
proposed standard would be about $34 million for one year's production 
of complying furniture.

7. Comparison of Costs and Benefits

a. Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standard
    The expected benefits of the proposed standard, which will vary 
depending on the cigarette ignition propensity of the upholstery cover 
material used, were discussed in Section 5 of this analysis (and shown 
in Tables 2 and 4) and are summarized in Table 6. Table 6 shows the 
estimated benefits (per unit of furniture) in columns 1, 2, and 3. The 
benefits associated with bringing furniture pieces now covered with 
severely cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics into compliance 
are estimated to range from $114.88 to $115.59 per unit (comprised of 
$111.80 from reduced losses from furniture fires started by cigarettes 
and $3.08 to $3.79 from reduced losses from fires started by small open 
flames). The projected benefits resulting from modifications to 
furniture covered with moderately cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic 
fabrics range from $58.36 to $60.22 per unit. For both groups of 
fabrics the range in benefits is attributable to the effect of 
different assumptions of use of FR fabric treatments on open flame 
ignition benefits. Other types of covering materials are not expected 
to be associated with either cigarette or open flame benefits, since no 
modifications to fabrics or filling materials would be required to 
comply with the proposed standard.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 11728]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.005

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C

[[Page 11729]]

    Table 6 also shows (in column 4) the midpoints of the ranges of 
estimated per unit costs of compliance with the proposed standard, 
which were discussed in Section 6 of this analysis. Estimated costs per 
unit of furniture covered with severely and moderately cigarette 
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics are expressed as ranges based on 
different assumptions of the extent to which FR treatment would be used 
to achieve compliance. The higher cost estimates reflect the midpoint 
of costs estimated using an assumption that all of the affected fabrics 
are either FR treated or used with complying barriers. The lower cost 
estimates assume that reliance on FR treatments is reduced by 80 
percent, as manufacturers comply through fabric fiber reformulation or 
dropping noncomplying fabrics from use as upholstery covers.
    Table 6 also shows aggregate and cumulative net benefits associated 
with the proposed standard. The total net benefits shown in column 7 
are the product of per unit net benefits and number of units produced 
annually by type of cover material. For example, the total estimated 
net benefits from furniture covered with moderately cigarette ignition-
prone cellulosic fabrics range from $70.7 million to $81.9 million, 
given by the product of 1.4 million units produced and per unit net 
benefits of $50.27 to $58.25. The cumulative net benefits (shown in 
column 8 of Table 6) are calculated by the vertical summation of the 
``Total Net Benefits'' column. Total net benefits of the proposed 
standard are estimated to range from $364.9 million to $385.1 million.
    As noted in Table 6 and in previous sections of this analysis on 
benefits, expected benefits accruing in future years have been 
discounted to their present value using a 3 percent discount rate to 
reflect society's time preference. In accordance with OMB guidelines on 
benefits calculations, calculations have also been made using a 7 
percent discount rate. Using this higher rate, total net benefits of 
the proposed standard are estimated to range from about $260 million to 
$281 million over the life of complying upholstered furniture produced 
in a year.\75\ Analyses using both discount rates assume that 
manufacturers would use FR treatments in a manner that poses no 
additional risk of injury or adverse health effects to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Aggregate benefits ranging from about $316 million to $319 
million minus aggregate costs ranging from about $34 million to $59 
million (midpoint of range).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Sensitivity Analysis
    The previous discussion compares benefits and costs of the proposed 
standard using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent to express 
expected benefits accruing in the future in their present value, an 
estimated value of a statistical life of $5 million, and an estimated 
average cost of injury of $146,740. Net benefits were also estimated 
based on estimated increases in costs of producing and marketing 
furniture that complies with the proposed standard. In addition to 
these factors, the estimation of benefits was based on assumptions 
regarding the effectiveness of the standard at reducing losses from 
cigarette and small open flame ignitions. This section examines the 
effect of changing any of these assumptions on the expected net 
benefits that would result from compliance with the proposed standard. 
In all cases, the estimated net benefits of the proposed standard 
remain positive.
    Discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent were used to express 
expected benefits accruing in the future in their present value. Using 
a 3 percent rate, total estimated benefits of the standard range from 
about $419 million to $424 million, the range of estimated total costs 
is about $34 million to $59 million, and total estimated net benefits 
range from about $365 million to $385 million. Using a 7 percent 
discount rate, the present value of benefits would range from about 
$316 million to $319 million, and total net benefits would range from 
about $260 million to $281 million.
    Estimated benefits of the proposed standard were based on a value 
of a statistical life of $5 million. If benefits are calculated based 
on a lower bound of $3 million as the value for a statistical life,\76\ 
total estimated benefits of the standard would range from about $267 
million to $270 million using a 3 percent discount rate and about $201 
million to $203 million using a 7 percent discount rate. Total 
estimated net benefits would range from about $211 million to $233 
million using a 3 percent discount rate and $144 million to $167 
million using a 7 percent discount rate. Alternatively, if a value of 
$7 million is assigned to a statistical life, the total estimated 
benefits would range from about $572 million to $578 million (at a 3% 
discount rate) and about $430 million to $435 million (at a 7% discount 
rate) and total estimated net benefits would range from about $519 
million to $538 million (at a 3% discount rate) and $376 million to 
$396 million (at a 7% discount rate).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Viscusi, W. Kip. op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated benefits of the proposed standard are based on an average 
societal cost of $146,740 per injury. Changing the estimate used for 
the cost of injury will have minimal impact on the results, because the 
share of benefits from reduced injuries is less than 4 percent of total 
benefits. Hence, even if there were no reduction in injuries from the 
proposed standard, the total estimated benefits would be about $404 
million to $409 million and total net benefits would be $350 million to 
$370 million using a 3 percent discount rate. Using a 7 percent 
discount rate, estimated benefits would range from about $305 million 
to $308 million and estimated net benefits would range from about $249 
million to $271 million.
    Section 6 of this analysis addresses the expected costs of the 
standard. Estimates of costs are based on judgments regarding changes 
to materials that will be required to meet performance tests of the 
proposed standard, the costs of those changes per unit, and the number 
of affected furniture items produced annually. Based on the midpoints 
of ranges of estimated cost impacts of material changes, and different 
assumptions of reliance on FR fabric treatments as a means to 
compliance, aggregate costs of the standard were estimated to be $34 
million to $59 million for annual production of upholstered household 
furniture. With these costs, total estimated net benefits of the 
proposed standard range from about $365 million to $385 million using a 
3 percent discount rate and $260 million to $281 million using a 7 
percent discount rate. Even if we assume that the costs of the standard 
are twice those estimated in Section 6 (i.e., $68 million to $118 
million) the standard would still have estimated net benefits ranging 
from about $306 million to $351 million from annual production of 
upholstered furniture if future benefits are discounted at 3 percent, 
and about $190 million to $237 million if a 7 percent discount rate is 
used.
    Estimated benefits of the proposed standard were based on 
assumptions regarding the effectiveness at reducing societal costs of 
cigarette and small open flame ignitions of furniture. However, if we 
assume that the standard will have one-half the effectiveness that our 
estimated benefits are based upon, aggregate benefits would still range 
from about $210 million to $212 million, and net benefits would range 
from about $153 million to $176 million, using a 3 percent discount 
rate. Using a 7 percent discount rate, estimated benefits would

[[Page 11730]]

range from about $158 million to $160 million, and net benefits would 
range from about $100 million to $124 million.
c. Impact of the Proposed Standard on Retail Prices
    The estimated costs of the proposed standard include the increased 
costs of materials, labor, and distribution directly attributable to 
the rule. It is likely that manufacturers will pass on at least some of 
the costs of complying with the standard to the consumer, in the form 
of higher retail prices. The actual increase in retail prices will 
depend on the price elasticity of demand for furniture products (i.e., 
the responsiveness of quantity demanded to the change in price). If 
demand is highly price elastic, then manufacturers will experience a 
relatively large decrease in sales of upholstered furniture products in 
response to a price increase, and their ability to pass on increased 
regulatory costs to the consumer is limited. If demand is price 
inelastic, consumers respond less intensely to price increases, 
enabling producers to successfully pass through cost increases.
    Regarding the market for upholstered furniture, it is anticipated 
that demand is relatively price elastic in the short run, because 
consumers can usually postpone the purchase of a durable good. 
Increases in retail prices are thus likely to be limited. In the long 
run, demand is less elastic and any attempt to pass through increased 
costs is more likely to succeed. Consequently, increases in retail 
prices are more likely to be observed.
    In the absence of information on the price elasticity of demand for 
upholstered furniture products, it is possible to make use of 
traditional industry markup rates to provide an upper bound estimate 
for retail price increases. Such estimates may be viewed as upper bound 
estimates because they do not reflect the price elasticity of demand. 
Moreover, traditional markups do not factor in the role of competition, 
which can also influence attempts to increase prices. Rather, the 
markup simply reflects the price that producers will want to charge 
based on historical accounting costs. As noted above, an increase in 
price will result in a reduction in sales and in the case of highly 
elastic demand, revenues will decline as well, which will tend to 
moderate attempts to increase retail prices.
    According to industry sources, higher production costs for 
materials and labor could result in retail prices that are higher by a 
factor of 2.5, or 150 percent. Based on this markup, the average retail 
price impact of the proposed standard on furniture items made with FR 
treated fabrics could be about $23 (for perhaps 2 to 10 percent of all 
items), and the average retail price impact for furniture produced with 
barrier materials could be about $48 (for perhaps 4% of furniture 
items). The average retail price impact for furniture that will not be 
made with FR fabric treatments or barriers under fabrics (perhaps 86 to 
94% of units), could be under $1 per unit. The average increase in 
retail prices for all upholstered furniture is estimated to be less 
than $5 per item, based on the traditional industry markup rates.

8. Alternatives to the Proposed Standard

a. The Staff's 2005 Draft Standard
    The aggregate benefits of the staff's 2005 draft standard (i.e., 
the reduction in the societal costs associated with complying 
furniture), based on the annual sales of a little over 30 million 
furniture items, are expected to be about $597 million. Total aggregate 
costs of the 2005 draft standard for each year's production are 
estimated to range from about $167 million to $184 million, with a 
midpoint of about $176 million. Although the 2005 draft standard would 
be expected to increase the use of FR chemicals in the production of 
urethane foam cushioning and fabrics to achieve compliance, estimates 
assumed that these chemicals would be selected and used in a way that 
would not lead to appreciable societal costs. If the use of these 
chemicals would have adverse health or environmental impacts, the costs 
of the 2005 draft standard are understated. Estimated benefits and 
costs per unit would vary greatly depending on cover materials. Most 
units would incur costs related to FR-treatment of filling materials, 
and an estimated 10 percent of units covered with more ignition-prone 
fabrics would require modifications (FR-fabric treatment or FR 
barriers) that would lead to higher costs of compliance. Projected 
annual net benefits to society from the staff's 2005 draft standard 
total $421.5 million. A sensitivity analysis of several factors (value 
of life, injury costs, effectiveness, and costs) showed that 
alternative assumptions still yield substantially positive net 
benefits.
b. The Draft Small Open Flame Ignition Standard
    As an alternative to the proposed standard, the Commission could 
adopt the standard drafted by CPSC staff in 2001 that focused on small 
open flame ignition of upholstered furniture. That draft standard was 
the subject of a staff briefing package submitted to the Commission in 
October 2001. Compliance with the draft small open flame standard would 
require the use of upholstery cover materials that do not sustain 
combustion following exposure to a small flame for 20 seconds, or, 
alternatively, the use of materials that would pass an open flame 
barrier test. The staff estimated that most fabrics would fail the 20-
second flame test unless they would be treated with FR chemicals. 
Although the FR treatments under that standard specifically addressed 
small open flame ignition hazards, CPSC staff testing data also showed 
substantial improvement in cigarette ignition resistance. In fact, most 
of the estimated benefits of the small open flame standard were 
projected to result from reductions in societal losses from cigarette 
ignitions.
    Based on estimated costs of compliance and estimated reductions in 
both small open flame and cigarette ignition hazards, adoption of the 
2001 draft small open flame standard would result in estimated 
aggregate benefits totaling $651 million and aggregate costs of about 
$272 million from annual production of about 30.5 million pieces of 
upholstered furniture.\77\ Therefore, estimated aggregate net benefits 
of the small open flame standard would be $379 million. This compares 
with estimated net benefits of $365 million to $385 million for the 
proposed standard.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Smith, Charles, 2001 op. cit. Based on ``Best Estimates'' 
of reductions in ignition propensity and midpoints of estimated 
increases in manufacturing costs; as with the current analysis, 
distribution costs are estimated to be an additional 10 percent. The 
best estimate for cigarette ignition reduction involving cellulosic 
fabrics is 75%, based on 2003 estimates made by Mark Levenson, EPHA, 
CPSC.
    \78\ The net benefits of the staff's 2007 draft standard may 
also be underestimated. The difference does not take into account 
the likely heavier (and hence more costly) loadings of FR chemicals 
that would be needed to meet the 20-second open flame test of the 
alternative 2001 draft open flame standard. (For purposes of 
comparison, the FR treatment costs between these two alternatives 
were assumed to be the same.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the estimated net benefits of the proposed standard are 
relatively close to those estimated for the staff's 2001 draft small 
open flame standard, the costs associated with the proposed standard 
are substantially less. In fact, the estimated costs of the proposed 
standard (ranging from $34 million to $59 million) are 78 to 87 percent 
lower than the costs of the 2001 draft ($272 million). The difference 
is related, in large part, to the reduced level of treatment of 
upholstery fabric with FR chemicals. Unlike the proposed standard, 
which would result in the treatment of perhaps 2 to 10 percent of

[[Page 11731]]

upholstery fabric coverings, nearly 66 percent of the upholstery covers 
would likely receive FR treatments to pass the 20-second open flame 
test of the CPSC staff's 2001 draft standard.
    It should also be noted that retail price impacts of the proposed 
standard, reflecting the lower underlying costs, would also be 
substantially lower than under the staff's 2001 small open flame draft 
standard. Increases in the retail price of furniture may have some 
negative impact on sales. Higher prices may lead some consumers to 
delay the purchase of new furniture or lead them to buy it less 
frequently, and could potentially result in secondary impacts on the 
sales of furniture components and industry employment; such effects are 
likely to be more pronounced in the short run. While the impact of 
these price increases cannot be predicted with certainty, the higher 
costs of the 2001 open flame standard would likely have more pronounced 
effects. Additionally, while the retail price impact of the proposed 
standard will tend to fall most heavily on generally more expensive 
furniture items (i.e., those with the more expensive cellulosic 
fabrics), the alternative open flame standard would fall 
disproportionately on the more inexpensive furniture with thermoplastic 
fabrics, the fabrics less prone to cigarette ignition.
    Finally, while FR chemicals could be used under both the proposed 
standard and the 2001 draft open flame standard, usage under the draft 
small open flame standard is likely to be much greater. Under the 2001 
open flame standard the staff estimated that up to about 300 million 
linear yards of fabric could be FR-treated annually. Under the proposed 
standard, however, an estimated maximum of 65 million yards could 
potentially be treated.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Franklin, Robert. Preliminary Environmental Assessment of a 
Draft Proposed Flammability Standard for Residential Upholstered 
Furniture. November 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. A Mandatory Standard Based on the UFAC Voluntary Program
    As an alternative to the proposed standard, the Commission could 
adopt the provisions of the UFAC Voluntary Action Program as a 
mandatory standard. The Upholstered Furniture Action Council, or UFAC, 
was formed by major furniture industry associations in 1974, largely as 
a response to prospective CPSC actions on upholstered furniture. The 
UFAC Voluntary Action Program was developed in the late 1970's and 
amended as ``Phase 2'' in 1983. Tests for decorative trim were added to 
the program in 1993. The program requires classification of upholstery 
cover fabrics into either ``Class I'' or ``Class II,'' based on a 
cigarette ignition performance test. All conforming furniture must 
comply with specified construction criteria for welt cords, decking 
substrates, filling materials, and interior fabrics; and more cigarette 
ignition-prone Class II fabrics used with polyurethane foam seat 
cushions must have a barrier material between the fabric and foam that 
passes a barrier smoldering performance test. Conforming furniture is 
to be labeled with a UFAC tag.
    The staff's last market evaluation of UFAC conformance was 
conducted in 1996. At that time, based on ignition testing of chairs 
purchased by the CPSC, the staff estimated that about 90 percent of 
upholstered furniture may have been produced in conformance with the 
UFAC program (including a majority of units produced by firms that did 
not participate in the UFAC program). Although the UFAC program is 
designed to prevent the use of furniture components that may be more 
likely to lead to cigarette ignition of the finished items, the program 
is not designed to predict the ignition performance of all UFAC 
furniture. CPSC staff testing found that some chairs that conformed to 
the UFAC program ignited from cigarettes, and some nonconforming chairs 
resisted ignition. The findings illustrated that cigarette-ignition 
resistance of upholstered furniture is more dependent on the fabrics 
and filling materials used, rather than on conformance with all aspects 
of the UFAC Program.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Charles Smith, Directorate for Economic Analysis, CPSC, and 
Linda Fansler, Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, Cigarette 
Ignition Propensity of Upholstered Furniture, November 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs of mandating the requirements of the UFAC program should be 
minimal. Perhaps the major program element associated with costs is the 
requirement for a smolder-resistant barrier to be used under Class II 
fabrics when the seat cushion core is standard urethane foam. The 
primary barrier material for this purpose under the UFAC program is 
polyester fiberfill cushion wrap. Based on analysis of market data, 
fewer than 5 percent of upholstered furniture items are currently 
produced with Class II fabrics. The great majority of the seat cushions 
on these items already is made with polyester wraps, and, therefore, 
are conforming to the UFAC program. Incremental costs of using 
polyester wraps on all seat cushions covered with Class II fabrics 
could total less than $500,000.\81\ Non-UFAC establishments surveyed in 
1995 were found to be less likely than UFAC program participants to use 
heat-conducting welt cords in seat cushions. Welt cord that conforms to 
the UFAC program reportedly costs furniture manufacturers less than one 
cent more per yard, compared to comparable welt cord that does not 
conform to the UFAC program.\82\ Incremental costs could be less than 
$.04 per seat cushion and $.07 or less per chair and $.15 or less per 
sofa, for items made with welt cord. Given what is believed to be the 
current high conformance rate, and the absence of welt cord in a 
substantial portion of upholstered furniture styles, incremental costs 
to substitute UFAC-compliant welt cord might total less than 
$200,000.\83\ Other costs associated with changes in construction 
materials associated with the adoption of the UFAC program as a 
mandatory rule should be very minor. Incremental costs related to 
compliance enforcement should be low, since materials are already 
subject to verification testing to qualify as acceptable materials 
under the UFAC program and manufacturers already incur labeling costs 
under the UFAC program. However, it is possible that somewhat higher 
recordkeeping costs could be one of the major cost elements of 
mandating the UFAC program, given the minor costs related to materials. 
Total costs of compliance for adoption of the UFAC program as a 
mandatory standard could be under $5 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Based on the assumption that 5% of seat cushions with Class 
II fabrics (perhaps 150,000 cushions) would require polyester wraps.
    \82\ A representative of welt cord manufacturer, Petco-Sackner, 
reported during an October 17, 2007, telephone conversation with 
Charles Smith, Directorate for Economic Analysis, that UFAC welt 
cord is sold to furniture manufacturers for $32 per 1,000 yard reel, 
versus $25 per 1,000 yards for similar non-UFAC welt cord.
    \83\ If current UFAC conformance is about 90% and about 55% of 
units are made with welt cord (based on 1995 survey of 
manufacturers), average incremental welt cord costs of about $.11 
per item would be applied to approximately 1.7 million units 
annually, with aggregate costs of about $185 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Benefits that would result from mandating compliance with the UFAC 
program would also be much smaller than estimated for other alternative 
performance standards discussed in this analysis. Most furniture 
covered with fabrics that would benefit most from a barrier of 
polyester fiberfill over urethane foam already are manufactured in that 
way. The cigarette-ignition resistance of nearly all upholstered items 
would not be significantly improved under this alternative. Although a 
minimal reduction in the

[[Page 11732]]

overall smoldering hazard (of less than 1%) could result in positive 
net benefits, the expected net benefits of adoption of the UFAC program 
as a mandatory standard would be minimal, and substantially below any 
other alternative performance standards discussed in this analysis.
d. A Mandatory Furniture Standard Based on the Revised Draft Provisions 
of California Technical Bulletin 117
    In February 2002, California's Bureau of Home Furnishings published 
draft revisions to the state's Technical Bulletin (TB-117) that 
contains mandatory requirements for materials used in the manufacture 
of upholstered furniture sold in the state. Unlike the proposed 
standard, the revised California draft standard specifies open flame 
and smoldering ignition tests for filling materials (including urethane 
foam and loose filling materials). These filling materials requirements 
apply to all furniture items, including those covered in ignition 
resistant fabrics such as leather, wool and vinyl.
    In addition, the revised draft TB-117 specifies a small open flame 
test for upholstery fabrics. The open flame test requires the 20 second 
application of a small open-flame to the crevice of a seat/back mock-up 
assembly of fabric over a standard flame-retardant polyurethane foam 
pad. The specimen fails if (1) weight loss exceeds 4 percent in the 
first 10 minutes, or (2) the specimen burns progressively before 10 
minutes.
    In the view of the Directorate for Engineering Sciences (ES), the 
open flame fabric test is less stringent than the open flame test for 
fabrics that was part of the CPSC staff's 2001 draft standard.\84\ 
Nevertheless, ES believes that the great majority of fabrics currently 
used by the furniture industry would require modification in order to 
comply with the draft TB-117 test. This judgment is shared by the 
California Bureau of Home furnishings personnel, based on their testing 
experience.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ The 2001 CPSC draft standard required that there be no 
continuing combustion 15 minutes after a 20-second small flame 
application to a composite consisting of the fabric to be tested and 
non-FR urethane foam.
    \85\ Said Nurbakhsh, PhD, California Bureau of Home Furnishings, 
in a November 14, 2005, e-mail to Charles Smith, Directorate for 
Economic Analysis, CPSC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on testing by California's Bureau of Home Furnishings and the 
CPSC laboratory, it is reasonable to assume that the majority of cover 
materials are likely to fail the revised draft TB-117 open flame test, 
with the exception of ignition resistant cover materials (such as 
leather, wool, and vinyl-coated coverings) and some of the heavier-
weight cellulosic fabrics. Consequently, for purposes of evaluating the 
costs and benefits of this alternative, we assume that two-thirds of 
the approximately 10 percent of cover materials that are severely 
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics (which cover about 2 million units of 
furniture annually, or about 6% of all fabric coverings) would pass the 
draft TB-117 open flame fabric test. The remaining severely ignition-
prone cellulosic fabrics (covering about 1 million furniture items) 
will be assumed to fail the test and therefore require FR treatment. An 
additional assumption is that all of the moderate- and lower-ignition 
prone cellulosics and thermoplastic cover materials (covering about 18 
million furniture items annually, or about 60% of all furniture items 
produced) would fail the open flame fabric test and have to be treated. 
Thus, a total of about 19 million units of furniture would be covered 
in fabrics that would have to be treated in order to comply with the 
revised draft TB-117.
    The primary costs of the revised draft TB-117 would be the costs of 
treating the filling materials (e.g., urethane foam and loose fill) and 
the cover fabrics that fail the open flame test. The per-unit costs of 
treating urethane foam and the loose fill could be similar to those 
estimated for the 2005 standard drafted by the CPSC staff. 
Consequently, the filling materials costs per item of furniture might 
amount to about $5.85 per unit. Since the TB-117 filling materials 
requirements would apply to all furniture items produced (including 
items using ignition resistant cover fabrics), the total filling 
materials costs would amount to about $178 million ($5.85 per unit x 
30.5 million units). It is possible that additional costs would be 
required to treat fibrous filling materials under the revised draft TB-
117, since the open flame test for that material could be more 
stringent than that drafted by the CPSC staff in 2005.
    Based on the assumptions described above, approximately 19 million 
units of furniture would be covered in fabrics that fail the open flame 
fabric test and would therefore have to be treated. The estimated costs 
of FR treatments based on the 2001 CPSC staff draft open flame standard 
ranged from about $6.61 to $11.28 per average unit of furniture, with a 
midpoint of about $8.95 per item. If we assume that the incremental 
costs of FR-treated fabrics under TB-117 amount to about 75 to 100 
percent of the costs estimated for the 2001 draft open flame standard, 
the midpoint of the resulting range of costs would be about $7.83 per 
item of furniture. Therefore, the aggregate costs of the FR treatment 
of fabrics might amount to about $151 million ($7.83 per item x 19.3 
million items).
    In summary, the costs of treating the filling materials and fabrics 
under TB-117 could amount to about $330 million annually or more ($178 
million for filling materials and $151 million for fabrics). The 
associated compliance and distribution costs could bring the total up 
to about $370 million annually. This would be more than 6 times the 
estimated costs of the proposed standard, estimated to range from $34 
million to $59 million.
    The likely benefits that would result from adoption of the revised 
draft of TB-117 as a mandatory standard vary by cover material type. 
First consider the furniture covered by severely cigarette ignition-
prone cellulosic fabrics (2.9 million units). Based on the assumptions 
described above, about 1 million of these furniture items will fail the 
open flame fabric test of the revised draft TB-117 and have to be 
treated. Since these furniture items will have fabric treatments as 
well as complying filling materials, it may be reasonable to assume 
that the benefits under the revised draft TB-117 would be comparable to 
those of the CPSC staff's 2005 draft standard (which would also have 
treated filling materials), about $118 per unit. Thus, the benefits 
from these items would amount to about $115 million ($118.05 per item x 
978,300 items). Additionally, for the remaining 2.0 million units 
covered with severely cigarette ignition-prone fabrics that are not 
treated, the benefits would probably be no more than about half of the 
benefits associated with the treated units, or about $59 per unit. 
Thus, the benefits associated with these 2.0 million units with 
untreated fabrics might amount to about $115 million ($59.03 per unit x 
1,956,600 units). Therefore, the total estimated benefits resulting 
from annual production of complying furniture upholstered with severely 
cigarette ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics would be about $231 
million.
    About 18.3 million units of furniture covered in moderately- and 
lower-ignition prone cellulosic fabrics and thermoplastic fabrics will 
also likely fail the open flame fabric test of the revised draft TB-117 
and have to be treated. Under the staff's 2005 draft proposed standard, 
these furniture items would have treated filling materials, but not 
treated fabric coverings. For purposes of this analysis, we will assume 
that the benefits associated with the filling

[[Page 11733]]

materials tests of the revised draft TB-117 are similar to those of the 
CPSC staff's 2005 draft standard. Consequently, the estimated benefits 
associated with the revised draft TB-117 would be greater because the 
cover fabrics would also be treated. In other words, unlike the 2005 
CPSC staff's draft standard, the benefits of treated filling materials 
would be augmented by the use of FR-treated fabrics under the revised 
draft TB-117. Since the estimated benefits for these furniture items 
under the staff's 2005 draft standard amount to about $251 million, the 
gross benefits associated with the revised draft TB-117 would be 
greater than $251 million. If we assume that the fabric treatments 
would reduce the remaining societal costs by about 50 percent, then the 
gross benefits for these 18.3 million units might amount to about $329 
million ($251 million + 0.5 x ($408 million-$251 million)).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Based on estimates from tables 2, 4, and 6 in the November 
2007 Preliminary Regulatory Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this analysis, the total benefits associated with the 
revised draft TB-117 might amount to about $560 million ($231 million 
from furniture covered with severely ignition prone fabrics and $329 
million from furniture covered with other fabrics). These estimated 
benefits are greater than those associated with the proposed standard 
(estimated to range from $419 million to $424 million).
    In summary, the estimated annual costs associated with the revised 
draft TB-117 may amount to about $370 million, and the estimated 
benefits may amount to about $560 million. Therefore, the estimated net 
benefits of this regulatory alternative are about $190 million. This 
compares to $365 million to $385 million in net benefits estimated to 
result from the proposed standard.
e. A Labeling Rule
    A rule requiring hazard information to be presented on labels could 
be adopted by the Commission in addition to, or in lieu of, a standard. 
The costs of labeling would be just a few cents per item (based on 
reported labeling costs under the UFAC Voluntary Action Program and 
estimates provided by a label manufacturer). However, the impacts of 
such labeling on product safety are likely to be minimal. Labeling that 
warns of cigarette ignition hazards is unlikely to be effective, 
because labels are unlikely to be seen by consumers when the 
upholstered item is in use, and because there already is general public 
awareness of these hazards. Additionally, a warning label would not be 
likely to prevent fires started by children playing with lighters and 
matches, who are unlikely to read the statements provided.
f. Alternative Effective Date
    Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act states that standards or 
regulations shall become effective 12 months from the date of 
promulgation, unless the Commission finds that a different effective 
date is in the public interest. Because of the need for FR treatment of 
some fabrics used in the manufacture of furniture and the fact that 
furniture manufacturers carry stocks of fabrics, a longer period before 
the rule becomes effective, such as 18 months, could provide some firms 
additional time to use inventories of fabrics that would not pass the 
proposed standard's fabric test without FR treatment. However, given 
the small percentage of fabrics that will need to be treated (under 
10%), it is unlikely that limiting the effective date to 12 months 
would substantially burden firms.
    Additionally, several options might be available to furniture 
manufacturers that have fabric that does not comply with a regulatory 
alternative adopted by the CPSC as the effective date for the action 
approaches. They might send the remaining fabric yardage to contract 
finishers for backcoating with FR chemicals. They could use FR barrier 
materials beneath the untreated fabric, as allowed by that alternative 
method of compliance with the proposed standard. Also, they might sell 
the fabric to jobbers who would market it to furniture manufacturers 
that use FR barriers with untreated upholstery fabrics and for other 
end-uses that are not within the scope of the regulation. In view of 
the relatively small percentage of fabrics estimated to require FR 
treatments or other modifications, and other options available to 
furniture manufacturers, an effective date longer than 12 months from 
the date of promulgation might not be in the public interest.
g. Taking No Action
    The Commission could determine that no rule is reasonably necessary 
to reduce the risk of fires associated with ignitions of upholstered 
furniture. Under this alternative, future societal losses would be 
determined by factors that affect the likelihood that ignition sources 
come in contact with upholstery and the ignition resistance of 
upholstery materials used by furniture manufacturers. For example, the 
apparently increasing use of ignition-resistant upholstery materials, 
such as leather, could reduce fires over time. Also, the state of 
California might adopt the draft revisions to its mandatory standard 
for upholstered furniture. Those revisions could result in reduced fire 
losses in that state, which accounts for perhaps 15 percent of the 
furniture market. Some furniture manufacturers might use materials that 
comply with some or all provisions of the California revised standard 
for all of their furniture production, which could reduce fire losses 
in other areas. Additionally, other political jurisdictions could 
impose requirements that would reduce future losses from furniture 
fires.
    Factors other than furniture materials will also determine fire 
losses in the future. Some of these will tend to increase future losses 
(such as projected annual increases of about 1% in population and 
households) and others might decrease future losses (such as continued 
reductions in rates of smoking and alcohol consumption, increasing 
smoke alarm operability, information and education efforts, and 
installation of sprinkler systems in new construction).
    Particularly noteworthy is the expected growth in the availability 
of cigarettes that reduce the probability of igniting upholstered 
furniture. Effective on June 28, 2004, the State of New York required 
all cigarettes sold in the state to self-extinguish if they are left 
unattended. Such cigarettes are expected to reduce greatly, but not 
eliminate, residential fires started by cigarettes. Similar legislation 
became effective in Vermont in 2006 and California, Oregon, and New 
Hampshire in 2007, and has been signed into law in 17 other states, 
with effective dates ranging from January 1, 2008, to January 1, 2010. 
Legislation has also been introduced in nine other states. By 2010, 
more than half of the U.S. population will be living in states with 
mandatory laws addressing the ignition propensity of cigarettes.\87\ In 
addition to state actions, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, the second-
largest cigarette manufacturer with about one-third of the U.S. market, 
recently announced its intention to only market reduced ignition 
propensity cigarettes in the U.S. by the end of 2009.\88\ This policy, 
combined with the increased imposition of state requirements, could 
spur other

[[Page 11734]]

cigarette manufacturers to make similar business decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes, Legislative Updates. 
http://www.firesafecigarettes.org (referenced on September 19, 
2007).
    \88\ Payne, Tommy J., Executive Vice President--Public Affairs, 
Reynolds American Inc., in a letter to James M. Shannon, National 
Fire Protection Association, October 25, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the Commission does not adopt a mandatory rule to address 
furniture flammability it is possible that a voluntary standard 
(perhaps through modifications to the existing UFAC Voluntary Action 
Program) could be developed based on the proposed standard, or based on 
other provisions, to address these hazards. However, no such voluntary 
standard currently exists. Moreover, the effort begun in 1996 through 
ASTM to establish a voluntary standard is currently inactive. 
Furthermore, comments submitted in response to the October 23, 2003, 
ANPR representing all segments of the affected industries supported 
mandatory federal regulation to address upholstered furniture 
flammability.
    Thus, while furniture fires might decline with no CPSC action, 
there is no reason to believe that the decline would approach the 
proportion of fire losses that could be prevented with the proposed 
standard, or some of the other performance standard alternatives 
described in this analysis.

I. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') requires that rules 
proposed by the Commission be reviewed for the potential economic 
impact on small entities, including small businesses. Section 603 of 
the RFA requires the Commission to prepare and make available for 
public comment an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing 
the impact of the proposed rule on small entities and identifying 
impact-reducing alternatives. Accordingly, staff prepared an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis for the proposed rule on upholstered 
furniture. A summary of the analysis follows.

2. Impact on Small Businesses and Other Small Entities

    Summary of proposed requirements. The proposed standard will apply 
to finished or ready-to-assemble articles of upholstered furniture, as 
discussed earlier in this document. The proposed standard contains 
smoldering ignition performance requirements for cover fabrics, and 
smoldering and open flame performance requirements for interior fire 
barriers (if they are used as the method of compliance). Furniture 
items can comply by being made with upholstery cover materials that 
pass the cover material cigarette ignition test (designated as ``Type I 
upholstered furniture''). Alternatively, manufacturers may comply with 
the proposed standard by using a barrier material under the upholstery 
fabric that passes the standard's applicable barrier tests (``Type II 
upholstered furniture''). This option allows manufacturers to use non-
complying upholstery fabrics.
    In addition to flammability performance requirements, the proposed 
standard contains provisions relating to certification and 
recordkeeping, testing to support guaranties issued by material 
suppliers, and labeling of finished articles of upholstered furniture. 
These requirements are intended to help manufacturers, importers and 
suppliers ensure that their products comply, and to help the CPSC staff 
to enforce the performance standard.
    The proposed standard provides that finished articles of 
upholstered furniture must carry a permanent label containing the 
manufacturer or importer name and location; month and year of 
manufacture; model identification; and type identification indicating 
the means of compliance (i.e., ``Type I'' or ``Type II''). This 
information must be separate from other label information. The label 
would help retailers and consumers identify products and materials, 
e.g., in the event of a recall or other corrective action.
    In summary, all manufacturers and importers of upholstered 
furniture would be subject to the standard if it is adopted as a rule 
by the Commission. However, it is likely that the great majority of 
testing would be done by or for upholstery fabric suppliers. These 
results would then be used to support guaranties of compliance that 
will be provided to furniture manufacturers. Records would be prepared 
by those conducting tests (fabric and filling material manufacturer 
personnel or outside testing facilities); copies of reports and records 
would be maintained by upholstered furniture manufacturers and 
furniture importers. No special skills that are not already available 
to manufacturers and importers would be required to establish or verify 
compliance with the proposed rule.
    Impact on small businesses. The proposed standard would apply to 
manufacturers and importers of upholstered furniture intended for sale 
to consumers. According to the Census Bureau's 2002 Economic Census, 
1,686 U.S. companies (with 1,946 establishments) manufactured 
upholstered household furniture or dual-purpose sleep furniture as 
their primary product. Only 29 percent of upholstered furniture 
establishments (564 of 1,946) had 20 or more employees, and only 10 
percent (200 establishments) had 100 or more. The U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA) considered a furniture manufacturing company to be 
``small'' for purposes of qualification for small business loans if it 
has fewer than 500 employees (at all of its establishments). This 
definition encompassed more than 97 percent of firms in the industry in 
2002.
    The proposed standard will also affect manufacturers and finishers 
of upholstery fabrics and barrier materials used in the production of 
furniture. Although their products are not directly regulated by the 
draft proposed standard, it is expected that they will provide 
guaranties to furniture manufacturers regarding fabric ignition 
resistance. It is expected that about 10 percent of upholstery cover 
fabric yardage will require changes in production, such as the 
incorporation of flame retardant (FR) chemicals or changes in fibers, 
in order to pass the fabric test of the draft proposed standard. As 
noted above, non-complying fabrics could still be used with complying 
barrier materials. As with furniture manufacturers, the great majority 
of upholstery fabric manufacturers and fabric finishers are small 
businesses under SBA definitions.
    The usual means of compliance with the proposed standard will be 
the use of fabrics that do not need FR treatments or barriers. More 
than 85 percent of all upholstered furniture items made under the 
proposed standard would be made with such materials. For these items, 
estimated average increased costs of the standard would be minor costs 
of a few cents per unit that are largely associated with compliance 
verification. For those units that comply as a result of FR treatment 
of fabrics or the use of barriers, estimated costs are higher, but are 
only estimated to involve less than 15 percent of total production. The 
increased resource costs associated with furniture using treated FR 
fabrics (i.e., the costs associated with materials, labor, and 
distribution) are expected to average about $9.95 per item of 
furniture; the increased costs associated with the use of barriers may 
amount to about $21 per unit.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Cost estimates are weighted based on shipment data of 
larger items such as sofas and sofabeds (with higher costs) and 
smaller items such as chairs (with lower costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost impacts faced by firms using treated materials, including 
smaller manufacturers, would be proportionate to the yardage of treated 
upholstery fabrics or barrier materials used. Therefore, the costs of 
these methods of compliance are not expected to be borne 
disproportionately by smaller

[[Page 11735]]

manufacturers of furniture. In addition, they should be able to pass at 
least some of these increased costs on to residential consumers. Small 
businesses that manufacture relatively inexpensive furniture that will 
require no fabric modifications should face only modest increases in 
expenses related to compliance verification, estimated to average $.11 
per unit. For these reasons, it seems unlikely that the rule would have 
a significant impact on small furniture manufacturers.
    Many of the fabrics currently used by small furniture manufacturers 
that would fail the fabric test of the proposed standard are likely to 
be relatively expensive decorative fabrics. The proposed standard's 
option of using FR barrier materials would be a likely means of 
compliance for furniture made with such fabrics, and this option was 
requested by the segment of the industry using the more expensive 
decorative fabrics when the CPSC staff was drafting an open flame 
standard in 2001. Other fabrics used by these small furniture 
manufacturers could be brought into compliance with FR treatments at 
lower per unit costs, if their aesthetic qualities would not be 
significantly degraded by the processes. These alternative means of 
compliance would allow decorative fabrics to remain available to the 
upholstered furniture industry and the consuming public. Since the 
prices of fabrics that would be treated or used with barriers, and the 
furniture made with them, are likely to be considerably higher than 
average, the relative increases in per unit costs would be moderated 
for the small furniture manufacturers that use them. Additionally, 
discussions with upholstered furniture manufacturers producing the more 
expensive furniture using decorative fabrics suggest that the barrier 
option will substantially address their concerns with likely adverse 
aesthetic effects of FR treatments for many of these fabrics.
    The estimated per unit costs of the proposed standard discussed 
above include relatively modest costs for recordkeeping (included in 
the estimated average compliance verification costs of about $.11 per 
item of furniture). The proposed standard would require furniture 
manufacturers to maintain records for a period of three years after 
items are produced. The records will include identification and 
description of the furniture items and materials used in their 
manufacture, contact information for material suppliers, and results of 
relevant material tests. Smaller firms with limited product lines are 
expected to bear lower costs than larger firms with broad product 
lines. In summary, the recordkeeping requirements of the proposed rule 
would not likely place a substantial burden on small businesses.
    The proposed standard was also designed to minimize testing costs 
that would be imposed on small furniture manufacturers. Since they may 
rely on guaranties provided by fabric and barrier material suppliers, 
the proposed rule does not require firms to test composites of their 
fabrics and the range of actual cushioning materials. Such testing 
would significantly increase costs of the proposed standard, and would 
likely disproportionately affect small manufacturers of upholstered 
furniture. Nor does the proposed standard include a requirement for a 
small open flame test of cover fabrics. An open flame test requirement 
similar to the 2001 CPSC staff draft furniture flammability standard 
would have added substantially to costs faced by small furniture 
manufacturers.
    Many of the fabrics that would fail the fabric test of the proposed 
standard are likely to be more expensive decorative fabrics. Based on 
information provided by the Decorative Fabrics Association, its members 
are generally among the smaller establishments that will be affected by 
the proposed rule. Partially in response to comments received from this 
segment of the industry, the CPSC staff included the provision for use 
of acceptable barrier materials as an alternative means of compliance. 
This alternative was sought by the industry because of concerns that 
aesthetic qualities of many decorative fabrics would be adversely 
affected by FR treatments. This alternative allows all upholstery 
fabrics manufactured by small textile firms to be used under the 
proposed standard, and is expected to substantially mitigate the impact 
of the proposed standard on their businesses.
    Under the proposed standard, manufacturers are required to conduct 
reasonable and representative tests to support initial guaranties of 
compliance for their materials. However, the costs associated with 
these requirements are expected to be minimal since many of these costs 
are now incurred for products marketed for use as complying with 
voluntary standards or mandatory standards enforced by California and 
other jurisdictions. Manufacturers of upholstery fabrics already 
classify their fabrics using the UFAC fabric classification test, which 
is similar to the fabric test of the proposed standard.
    Thus, small manufacturers of fabrics should only face minor 
incremental costs for testing under the proposed standard, compared to 
current industry practices. Furthermore, small manufacturers should be 
able to pass at least some of the additional costs of testing to 
furniture producers and jobbers that purchase their products. This 
information suggests that the testing necessary to provide guaranties 
of compliance by small manufacturers of fabrics and filling materials 
will not result in a substantial impact on such firms.

3. Alternatives and Their Possible Effect on Small Businesses

    Alternatives considered by the Commission are discussed in the 
Preliminary Regulatory Analysis section of this preamble, Section H. As 
discussed therein, four alternative standards were considered by the 
Commission: A standard based on requirements drafted by the CPSC staff 
in 2005 that includes smoldering and open flame ignition performance 
tests for filling materials, in addition to smoldering tests for cover 
fabrics and tests for barrier materials; the 2001 draft small open 
flame standard developed by the CPSC staff; a standard based on 
mandating the provisions of the UFAC voluntary program, and; a standard 
based on the 2002 revised draft California furniture regulation (TB-
117). Other regulatory options were also evaluated that might lessen 
the potential burden on industry, including small firms. These 
regulatory alternatives include extending the effective date beyond 12 
months after promulgation, and adoption of warning label requirements. 
Another alternative for consideration was the reliance on a voluntary 
standard or taking no action.
    The CPSC staff's 2005 draft standard would require the use of cover 
fabrics that meet cigarette ignition performance tests, and the use of 
urethane foam and fibrous filling materials that meet both cigarette 
ignition and open flame ignition performance tests. Under this 
alternative, manufacturers would have the option of using fire blocking 
barriers which pass tests of smoldering and open flame ignition 
resistance instead of using complying fabrics and filling materials. 
Under the staff's 2005 draft standard, the cost impacts faced by firms 
using treated materials, including smaller manufacturers, would be 
proportionate to the amounts of treated cushioning materials used, and 
yardage of treated upholstery fabrics or barrier materials used. 
Therefore, the costs of these methods of compliance would not be 
expected to be borne disproportionately by smaller manufacturers of 
furniture. In addition, small manufacturers should be able to pass at 
least some of their increased costs on to residential consumers. For

[[Page 11736]]

these reasons, it is unlikely that this alternative would have a 
significant impact on these small furniture manufacturers.
    Like the proposed standard, many of the fabrics used by small 
furniture manufacturers that would fail the fabric test of the staff's 
2005 draft standard are likely to be relatively expensive decorative 
fabrics. Therefore, the statements made above regarding impacts of the 
proposed standard would also apply under this regulatory alternative. 
Also like the proposed standard, the Directorate for Economic Analysis 
does not believe that the recordkeeping requirements of the 2005 draft 
standard place a substantial burden on small businesses, and the 2005 
draft was also designed to minimize testing costs that would be imposed 
on small furniture manufacturers.
    Under the 2005 draft standard, processes and materials will be 
readily available to small businesses that manufacture cushioning 
materials for the furniture industry.\90\ The Directorate for Economic 
Analysis believes that consequently, since at least some of the cost 
increases are likely to be passed on to the furniture manufacturers 
that purchase the materials, a rule based on the 2005 draft standard 
would probably not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small businesses that manufacture cushioning materials subject to the 
rule. Nevertheless, ignition performance requirements for filling 
materials were not included in the proposed standard, which results in 
somewhat lower costs of compliance compared to the 2005 draft 
alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Smith, op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another alternative considered by the Commission was the standard 
drafted by the CPSC staff in 2001 that focused on small open flame 
ignition of upholstered furniture. That draft standard was the subject 
of a staff briefing package submitted to the Commission in October 
2001. Compliance with the small open flame standard would require the 
use of upholstery cover materials that do not sustain combustion (over 
standard urethane foam) following exposure to a small flame for 20 
seconds, or, alternatively, the use of materials that would pass a 
barrier test.
    Based on current market data, the 2001 draft small open flame 
standard probably would require FR treatments for about 70 percent of 
all upholstery cover materials, or the use of acceptable barrier 
materials, compared with less than 10 percent of cover materials 
requiring such modifications under the proposed standard. The estimated 
net benefits of the 2001 draft small open flame standard are 
substantial, and in the range of total net benefits estimated for the 
proposed standard. However, the estimated costs of the alternative 
small open flame standard are perhaps 5-to-8 times those estimated for 
the proposed standard. The higher estimated costs of compliance for the 
draft small open flame standard would place greater burdens on all 
manufacturers, including smaller firms.
    Unlike the proposed standard, the small open flame draft standard 
would require substantial production testing, which could 
disproportionately affect small upholstered furniture manufacturers 
with smaller production runs. Additionally, since up to 70 percent of 
upholstery fabric yardage could require FR treatments under the draft 
small open flame standard, there would be greater competition for the 
available fabric backcoating capacity. Smaller furniture and fabric 
producers, with smaller lots of fabrics to be treated, reportedly would 
be faced with difficulties in competing with larger firms for timely 
access to fabric finishing services for necessary FR treatments.
    As another alternative, the Commission could adopt the provisions 
of the UFAC Voluntary Action Program as a mandatory standard. The 
Upholstered Furniture Action Council, or UFAC, was formed by major 
furniture industry associations in 1974, and the UFAC Voluntary Action 
Program was developed in the late 1970's and amended in later years. 
The program requires classification of upholstery cover fabrics into 
either ``Class I'' or ``Class II,'' based on a cigarette ignition 
performance test. All conforming furniture must comply with specified 
construction criteria for welt cords, decking substrates, filling 
materials, and interior fabrics; and more cigarette ignition-prone 
Class II fabrics used with polyurethane foam seat cushions must have a 
barrier material between the fabric and foam that passes a barrier 
performance test. Conforming furniture is to be labeled with a UFAC 
tag. In 1996 the CPSC staff estimated that about 90 percent of 
upholstered furniture may have been produced in conformance with the 
UFAC program (including a majority of units produced by firms that did 
not participate in the UFAC program). Costs of mandating the 
requirements of the UFAC program should be minimal. Perhaps the major 
program element associated with costs is the requirement for a smolder-
resistant barrier to be used under Class II fabrics when the seat 
cushion core is standard urethane foam. The primary barrier material 
for this purpose under the UFAC program is polyester fiberfill cushion 
wrap. Based on analysis of market data, fewer than 5 percent of 
upholstered furniture items are currently produced with Class II 
fabrics. The great majority of the seat cushions on these items already 
are made with polyester wraps, and, therefore, are conforming to the 
UFAC program. Total annual costs of compliance for adoption of the UFAC 
program as a mandatory standard could be under $5 million.
    Benefits that would result from mandating compliance with the UFAC 
program would also be much smaller than estimated for the proposed 
standard and other alternative performance standards considered by the 
Commission. Most furniture covered with fabrics that would benefit most 
from a barrier of polyester fiberfill over urethane foam already are 
manufactured in that way. The cigarette-ignition resistance of nearly 
all upholstered items would not be significantly improved under this 
alternative. The expected net benefits of adoption of the UFAC program 
as a mandatory standard would be minimal, and substantially below any 
other alternative performance standards discussed in this analysis.
    In summary, a mandatory standard based on the UFAC voluntary 
program would have a minimal impact on small businesses; much smaller 
than the proposed standard. However, this regulatory alternative would 
not be expected to lead to a significant reduction in smoldering or 
open flame ignition hazards of upholstered furniture.
    Another alternative standard considered by the Commission was a 
revised draft standard for upholstered furniture published by 
California's Bureau of Home Furnishings in 2002. The draft would revise 
the state's Technical Bulletin (TB-117) which contains mandatory 
requirements for materials used in the manufacture of upholstered 
furniture sold in the state. Unlike the proposed standard, the revised 
California draft standard specifies open flame and smoldering ignition 
tests for filling materials (including urethane foam and loose filling 
materials). However, unlike the staff's 2005 draft (which did include 
such requirements), the filling materials requirements apply to all 
furniture items, including those covered in ignition-resistant fabrics 
such as leather, wool and vinyl.
    In addition to tests for filling materials, the revised draft TB-
117 specifies a small open flame test for upholstery fabrics. The great 
majority of

[[Page 11737]]

fabrics currently used by the furniture industry probably would require 
modification in order to comply with the draft TB-117 test. For 
purposes of evaluating the costs and benefits of this alternative, the 
Directorate for Economic Analysis assumes that about 60 percent of all 
furniture items produced would be covered in fabrics that would have to 
be treated in order to pass the fabric test specified in the revised 
draft TB-117. The combined costs of treating the filling materials and 
fabrics under the revised draft TB-117 and the associated compliance 
and distribution costs could total more than six times the estimated 
costs of the proposed standard. The higher estimated costs of 
compliance of a standard based on the revised draft TB-117 regulation 
would place greater burdens on all manufacturers, including smaller 
firms.
    Additionally, since about 60 percent of upholstery fabric yardage 
could require FR treatments in order to comply with the open flame 
fabric test of the revised draft TB-117, there would be greater 
competition for the available fabric backcoating capacity, which could 
cause smaller furniture and fabric producers, with smaller lots of 
fabrics to be treated, to be faced with difficulties in competing with 
larger firms for timely access to fabric finishing services for 
necessary FR treatments.
    In summary, a standard based on the revised draft California 
furniture flammability regulation, TB-117, probably would have a more 
substantial and more disproportionate impact on small businesses than 
the proposed standard. The Directorate for Economic Analysis estimates 
that the greater burden would not result in higher benefits than the 
proposed standard, and estimated net benefits from one year's 
production of upholstered furniture under the regulatory alternative 
are close to $200 million lower than the net benefits estimated to 
result from the proposed standard.
    Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act states that standards or 
regulations shall become effective 12 months from the date of 
promulgation, unless the Commission finds that a different effective 
date is in the public interest. Because of the need for FR treatment of 
some fabrics used in the manufacture of furniture and the fact that 
furniture manufacturers carry stocks of fabrics, a longer period before 
the rule becomes effective, such as 18 months, could provide some firms 
(including smaller firms) additional time to use inventories of fabrics 
that would not pass the proposed standard's fabric test without FR 
treatment. However, given the small percentage of fabrics that will 
need to be treated, it seems unlikely that setting an effective date of 
12 months from the date of promulgation will substantially burden 
firms.
    The Commission could also require hazard information to be 
presented on labels in addition to, or in lieu of, a standard. The 
costs of labeling would be just a few cents per item (based on reported 
labeling costs under the UFAC Voluntary Action Program and estimates 
provided by a label manufacturer), and thus, should not present 
significant costs to small furniture manufacturers. However, the 
impacts of such labeling on product safety are likely to be minimal. 
Labeling that warns of cigarette ignition hazards probably would not be 
effective, because labels are unlikely to be seen by consumers when the 
upholstered item is in use, and because there already is public 
awareness of these hazards. Additionally, a warning label would not be 
likely to prevent fires started by children playing with lighters and 
matches, who are unlikely to read, or be affected by, the statements 
provided.
    If the Commission does not adopt a mandatory rule to address 
furniture flammability it is possible that a voluntary standard 
(perhaps through modifications to the existing UFAC Voluntary Action 
Program) could be developed based on the proposed standard or based on 
other provisions, such as the industry recommendations, to address 
these hazards. However, no such voluntary effort is currently ongoing. 
Moreover, the effort begun in 1996 through ASTM to establish a 
voluntary open flame standard is currently inactive. Furthermore, 
comments submitted in response to the October 23, 2003, ANPR 
representing all segments of the affected industries supported 
mandatory federal regulation to address upholstered furniture 
flammability.
    The Commission also could have chosen to take no action. In this 
situation, future societal losses would be determined by factors that 
affect the likelihood that ignition sources come in contact with 
upholstery and the ignition resistance of upholstery materials used by 
furniture manufacturers. For example, the apparently increasing use of 
ignition-resistant upholstery materials, such as leather, could reduce 
fires over time. Also, the state of California might adopt the draft 
revisions to its mandatory standard for upholstered furniture. Those 
revisions could result in reduced fire losses in that state, which 
accounts for perhaps 15 percent of the furniture market. Some furniture 
manufacturers might use materials that comply with some or all 
provisions of the California revised standard for all of their 
furniture production, which could reduce fire losses in other areas. 
Additionally, other political jurisdictions could impose requirements 
that would reduce future losses from furniture fires.
    Factors other than furniture materials will also determine fire 
losses in the future. Some of these will tend to increase future losses 
(such as projected annual increases of about 1% in population and 
households) and others might decrease future losses (such as continued 
reductions in rates of smoking and alcohol consumption, increasing 
smoke alarm operability, information and education efforts, and 
installation of sprinkler systems in new construction).
    Particularly noteworthy is the expected growth in the availability 
of cigarettes that reduce the probability of igniting upholstered 
furniture. Effective on June 28, 2004, the State of New York required 
all cigarettes sold in the state to self-extinguish if they are left 
unattended. Such cigarettes are expected to reduce greatly, but not 
eliminate, residential fires started by cigarettes. Similar legislation 
became effective in Vermont in 2006 and California, Oregon, and New 
Hampshire in 2007, and has been signed into law in 17 other states, 
with effective dates ranging from January 1, 2008, to January 1, 2010. 
Legislation has also been introduced in nine other states. By 2010, 
more than half of the U.S. population will be living in states with 
mandatory laws addressing the ignition propensity of cigarettes.\91\ In 
addition to state actions, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, the second-
largest cigarette manufacturer with about one-third of the U.S. market, 
recently announced its intention to only market reduced ignition 
propensity cigarettes in the U.S. by the end of 2009.\92\ This policy, 
combined with the increased imposition of state requirements, could 
spur other cigarette manufacturers to make similar business decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes, Legislative Updates. 
http://www.firesafecigarettes.org (referenced on September 19, 
2007).
    \92\ Payne, Tommy J., Executive Vice President--Public Affairs, 
Reynolds American Inc., in a letter to James M. Shannon, National 
Fire Protection Association, October 25, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While furniture fires might decline with no CPSC action, there is 
no reason to believe that the decline would approach the proportion of 
fire losses that could be prevented with the proposed standard, or some 
of the other performance standard alternatives described in this 
analysis.

[[Page 11738]]

J. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed standard will require manufacturers (including 
importers) of upholstered furniture to perform testing and maintain 
records of testing. For this reason, the proposed rule contains 
``collection of information requirements,'' as that term is used in the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. Therefore, the proposed 
rule is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') in accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and implementing 
regulations codified at 5 CFR 1320.11. The estimated costs of these 
requirements are discussed below.

1. Costs of Testing

    The proposed standard specifies that initial samples of 10 test 
specimens for each tested upholstery fabric and barrier material (or 25 
of 30 total specimens if failures are recorded among the first 10), 
must pass the applicable tests in order to qualify the materials for 
use in upholstered furniture. Manufacturers of fabrics and barrier 
materials are expected to either perform the tests in their own 
facilities or send materials to third party testing facilities in order 
to support guaranties of compliance to furniture manufacturers. Some 
manufacturers of decorative fabrics that could not pass the proposed 
cover fabric test without FR treatments may choose to forego the costs 
of testing and market their products with the understanding that they 
would be used with complying barrier materials.
    As noted above, approximately 100 to 200 domestic manufacturers 
derive a significant share of their revenues from fabric they produce 
or import for residential upholstered furniture. An average of about 50 
samples per firm could support guaranties for fabrics sold to 
upholstered furniture manufacturers. A substantial majority of fabrics 
that would be subjected to tests would likely be qualified by passing 
results on the initial sample of 10 specimens. If the average cost per 
test were $50, the cost of testing a single fabric would amount to 
about $500, and the average testing costs per firm would be about 
$25,000. Aggregate fabric testing costs for the 100 to 200 domestic 
manufacturers would be $2.5 million to $5 million.
    Guaranties for barrier materials would be supported by passing 
results on the proposed barrier tests for (1) open flame ignition 
resistance and (2) smoldering ignition resistance. Average costs to 
conduct each of these tests could be approximately $125 per test. 
Assuming barrier materials are qualified by the testing results for the 
initial samples of 20 specimens (10 for the open flame ignition 
resistance test and 10 for the smoldering ignition resistance test), 
total testing costs per barrier material marketed for use under the 
standard would be about $2,500. If barrier material manufacturers 
market an average of four guarantied products for use as barriers, 
total testing costs per firm would be about $10,000. If 15 firms issue 
guaranties for complying barriers, total costs related to barrier 
testing would be about $150,000. Thus, total testing costs for 
upholstery fabric and barrier materials could amount to about $2.65 
million to $5.15 million.
    Since firms could continue to market qualified fabrics and barriers 
without the need for additional testing, testing costs per firm could 
be lower in subsequent years under the standard.

2. Cost of Information Collection and Recordkeeping

    In addition to upholstery fabric and barrier material testing, the 
proposed standard will require manufacturers to maintain detailed 
documentation of the test results and details of each test performed by 
or for that manufacturer. Records are required to be in English and 
kept at a location in the United States for a period of at least three 
years after production of the article of upholstered furniture 
certified by the test results ceases.
    Costs of detailed testing documentation are included in the 
estimated costs of testing. Maintaining the testing documentation by 
manufacturers of fabrics and barrier materials could require an 
additional two hours of labor for each material that is certified or 
guarantied. As discussed above, maintaining records for perhaps 5,000 
to 10,000 guarantied upholstery fabrics and 60 barrier materials could 
be required under the proposed standard. Perhaps two hours of labor 
could be required at a cost of about $26 per hour to maintain these 
records for each guarantied material. Therefore, total recordkeeping 
costs incurred by upholstery fabric and barrier material manufacturers 
could range from about $263,000 to $523,000 ($52 times 5,060 to 10,060 
guaranties). Recordkeeping costs could average $2,600 for each 
upholstery fabric manufacturer and $208 for each barrier material 
manufacturer.
    Upholstered furniture manufacturers would also maintain records of 
testing results for fabrics and barrier materials used in their 
production. Incremental costs related to recordkeeping would depend, in 
part, on the extent to which firms currently maintain records 
identifying upholstery fabrics and filling materials with finished 
items. Perhaps an average of about 40 hours per firm would be required 
to maintain records under the proposed standard. According to the 2002 
Economic Census, 1,686 firms manufactured upholstered furniture as 
their primary product. At approximately $26 per hour, these firms would 
incur average costs of about $1,000 per firm to maintain records, and 
aggregate annual costs may be about $1.75 million. Thus, the total 
costs of information collection and recordkeeping could amount to about 
$2.0 million to $2.3 million.

K. Environmental Considerations

    Usually, CPSC rules establishing performance requirements are 
considered to ``have little or no potential for affecting the human 
environment,'' and environmental assessments are not usually prepared 
for these rules (see 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1)). However, because some 
alternatives to the proposed rule could result in more materials 
incorporating flame retardant (FR) chemicals, the Commission determined 
that a more thorough consideration of the potential for environmental 
impacts was warranted. The staff prepared a memorandum ``Environmental 
Assessment of Regulatory Alternatives for Addressing Upholstered 
Furniture Flammability'' (available on the Commission's Web site) which 
discusses the potential environmental effects of several regulatory 
alternatives for addressing the flammability of upholstered furniture. 
The staff's analysis concludes that, although available scientific data 
are lacking on some FR chemicals, there appears to be a number of 
promising methods that manufacturers could use to meet an upholstered 
furniture flammability standard without posing an unacceptable health 
risk to consumers or significantly affecting the environment. The 
staff's analysis was initiated when the primary regulatory alternative 
being considered was the staff's 2005 draft standard which would likely 
have caused manufacturers to use FR chemicals to meet certain 
provisions of that draft standard. As noted previously, the standard 
that the Commission is proposing was developed, in part, to minimize 
the need for manufacturers to use FR chemicals to comply with the 
standard. Only about 14 percent of the cover fabrics would require some 
modification to pass the proposed standard. The staff anticipates that 
most manufacturers will likely rely primarily on modifying cover 
fabrics (without using FR chemicals) or on barriers to meet the 
proposed performance requirements.

[[Page 11739]]

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(``NEPA''), the Executive Director of CPSC has issued a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (``FONSI'') for the proposed upholstered furniture 
flammability standard. The FONSI is based on the staff's Environmental 
Assessment and concludes that there will be no significant impacts on 
the quality of the human environment as a result of the proposed 
upholstered furniture flammability standard. The Commission requests 
comments on both the Environmental Assessment and the FONSI.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Both of these documents are available from the Commission's 
Office of the Secretary (see ADDRESSES section above) or from the 
Commission's Web site at: http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia08/brief/briefing.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Executive Order 12988

    According to Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), agencies 
must state the preemptive effect, if any, of new regulations. The 
preemptive effect of this proposed regulation is as stated in section 
16 of the FFA. 15 U.S.C. 1203(a).

M. Effective Date

    The Commission proposes that the rule would become effective one 
year from publication of a final rule in the Federal Register and would 
apply to upholstered furniture manufactured on or after that date. The 
Commission believes that a one-year effective date should allow 
sufficient time for manufacturers to develop products for nationwide 
markets that will meet the proposed requirements. The Commission 
requests comments, especially from small businesses, on the proposed 
effective date and the impact it would have.

N. Proposed Findings

    1. General. In order to issue a flammability standard under the 
FFA, the Commission must make certain findings and include these in the 
regulation, 15 U.S.C. 1193(j)(2). These findings are discussed in this 
section.
    2. Voluntary standards. In the 1970s the Upholstered Furniture 
Action Council (UFAC) developed a voluntary industry program to assess 
the cigarette ignition propensity of upholstered furniture. The 
substance of the UFAC tests was then adopted in the ASTM E-1353 test 
method. CPSC staff estimates that approximately 90% of furniture 
production conforms to the UFAC voluntary program/ASTM E-1353 
standards. However, while fire losses from cigarette-ignited 
upholstered furniture fires have been declining, a large number of 
deaths (260 annually) and injuries (320 annually) over the period 2002-
2004 that could be addressed by the proposed rule remain. Moreover, 
CPSC laboratory testing has found that UFAC-conforming furniture can 
nevertheless ignite and burn when exposed to smoldering cigarettes. The 
Commission is unaware of any other adopted and implemented voluntary 
standards that address the risk of fire from upholstered furniture 
ignitions. Accordingly, the Commission finds that compliance with any 
adopted and implemented voluntary upholstered furniture flammability 
standard is not likely to result in the elimination or adequate 
reduction of the risk of injury from such fires.
    3. Relationship of benefits to costs. The Commission estimates the 
potential discounted benefits of a year's production of upholstered 
furniture complying with the standard to range from about $419 million 
to $424 million (based on a 3 percent discount rate). Compliance costs 
range from an estimated $34 million to $59 million annually. Thus, 
projected net benefits of the proposed standard range from $363 million 
to $385 million. On this basis, the Commission finds that the expected 
benefits from the regulation bear a reasonable relationship to its 
costs.
    4. Least burdensome requirement. The Commission considered 
proposing the following alternatives: the staff's 2005 draft standard, 
the staff's 2001 draft small open flame standard, revised requirements 
drafted by California, a rule based on the industry's voluntary 
program, and a ``no action'' alternative under which the status quo 
would continue to prevail. Although the staff's 2005 draft standard 
could result in substantial net benefits, it would impose significantly 
higher costs and would necessitate the increased use of FR chemicals. 
While the staff's 2001 draft small open flame standard would likely be 
more effective in reducing small open flame fire losses, it would also 
impose greater costs and necessitate an increase in FR chemicals 
(nearly 66 percent of upholstery covers would likely need to receive FR 
treatments to pass). A proposal based on California's TB 117 
requirements, which contains provisions for both fabrics and filling 
materials, would likely have substantial annual costs (about $370 
million) and would result in significantly lower net benefits (about 
$190 million) than the proposed standard. The fact that significant 
levels of annual deaths and injuries remain despite the existence of 
the voluntary standard and a high level of compliance with it 
demonstrate that both the alternatives of a rule based on the voluntary 
standard and the no action alternative are unlikely to result in 
adequate reduction or elimination of the risk. Therefore, the 
Commission finds that the proposed upholstered furniture flammability 
standard is the least burdensome requirement that would prevent or 
adequately reduce the risk of injury for which the regulation is being 
promulgated.

O. Conclusion

    For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission 
preliminarily finds that a flammability standard for upholstered 
furniture is needed to adequately protect the public against the 
unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death, injury, 
and significant property damage. The Commission also preliminarily 
finds that the standard is reasonable, technologically practicable, and 
appropriate. The Commission further finds that the standard is limited 
to the fabrics, related materials and products which present such 
unreasonable risks.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1634

    Consumer protection, Flammable materials, Labeling, Upholstered 
furniture, Upholstered furniture materials, Records, Textiles, 
Warranties.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to 
amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 1634 
to read as follows:

PART 1634--STANDARD FOR THE FLAMMABILITY OF UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE 
AND UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE MATERIALS

Subpart A--General, Definitions, Performance Requirements

Sec.
1634.1 Purpose, scope and effective date.
1634.2 Definitions.
1634.3 General requirements.
1634.4 Upholstery cover fabric smoldering ignition resistance test.
1634.5 Interior fire barrier material smoldering ignition resistance 
test.
1634.6 Interior fire barrier material open flame ignition resistance 
test.

Subpart B--Requirements Applicable to Manufacturers, Labeling, 
Guaranties

1634.7 Requirements applicable to upholstered furniture material 
manufacturers.
1634.8 Labeling.
1634.9 Requirements applicable to guaranties under Section 8 of the 
FFA, 15 U.S.C. Sec.  1197.

[[Page 11740]]

Subpart C--Test Apparatus and Materials for Smoldering Ignition 
Resistance Tests

1634.10 Test room.
1634.11 Specimen holder.
1634.12 Ignition source.
1634.13 Sheeting material.
1634.14 Standard polyurethane foam substrate.
1634.15 Standard cotton velvet cover fabric.
1634.16 Conditioning.

Subpart D--Test Facility, Exhaust System, and Cautions

1634.17 Test facility and exhaust system.
1634.18 Cautions.

Subpart E--Test Facility and Materials for Open Flame Ignition 
Resistance Tests

1634.19 Test room.
1634.20 Butane gas flame ignition source.
1634.21 Metal test frame.
1634.22 Standard rayon cover fabric.
1634.23 Open flame tests fabric cut-out dimensions.
1634.24 Standard polyurethane foam substrate.
1634.25 Conditioning.

Subpart F--Reupholstering

1634.26 Requirements applicable to reupholstering.

Figures

Figure 1 to Part 1634--Cigarette Ignition Specimen Holder--Base
Figure 2 to Part 1634--Cigarette Ignition Specimen Holder--Movable 
Horizontal Support Panel
Figure 3 to Part 1634--Mockup Assembly for Upholstery Cover Fabric 
Smoldering Ignition Resistance Test
Figure 4 to Part 1634--Mockup Assembly for Interior Fire Barrier 
Material Smoldering Ignition Resistance Test
Figure 5 to Part 1634--Cut-Out Template Dimensions for Open Flame 
Test
Figure 6 to Part 1634--Open Flame Metal Test Frame
Figure 7 to Part 1634--Mockup Assembly for Interior Fire Barrier 
Materials Open Flame Ignition Resistance Test

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1193.

Subpart A--General, Definitions, Performance Requirements


Sec.  1634.1  Purpose, scope, and effective date.

    (a) Purpose. This part 1634 establishes flammability limits that 
all upholstered furniture subject to this part must meet before sale or 
introduction into commerce. The purpose of these requirements is to 
reduce deaths and injuries associated with upholstered furniture fires.
    (b) Scope. All upholstered furniture as defined in Sec.  1634.2(a) 
manufactured or reupholstered on or after the effective date of this 
standard is subject to the requirements of this part.
    (c) Effective date. The standard shall become effective on [the 
effective date of this standard] and shall apply to all upholstered 
furniture, as defined in 1643.2(a), manufactured or reupholstered on or 
after that date.


Sec.  1634.2  Definitions.

    In addition to the definitions given in section 2 of the Flammable 
Fabrics Act as amended (15 U.S.C. 1191), the following definitions 
apply for purposes of this part 1634.
    (a) Upholstered furniture means, for purposes of this part 1634, an 
article of seating furnishing intended for indoor use in a home or 
other residential occupancy that: consists in whole or in part of 
resilient cushioning materials (such as foam, batting, or related 
materials) enclosed within a covering consisting of fabric or related 
materials, such as leather; and is constructed with contiguous 
upholstered seat and back or arms(s).
    (1) Items included in the scope of paragraph (a) of this section 
include, but are not limited to, products that are intended or promoted 
for indoor residential use for sitting or reclining upon, such as: 
chairs, sofas, motion furniture, sleep sofas, home office furniture 
customarily offered for sale through retailers or otherwise available 
for residential use, and upholstered furniture intended for use in 
dormitories or other residential occupancies. This includes the 
unattached cushions or pillows on such items if they are sold with the 
item of upholstered furniture.
    (2) Items excluded from the scope of paragraph (a) of this section 
consist of: furniture, such as patio chairs, intended solely for 
outdoor use; furniture without contiguous upholstered seating and backs 
and/or arm surfaces, such as ottomans; pillows or pads that are not 
sold with an article of furniture; commercial or industrial furniture 
not offered for sale through retailers or not otherwise available for 
residential use; furniture intended or sold solely for use in hotels 
and other short-term lodging and hospitality establishments; futons, 
flip chairs, the mattress portions of sleep sofas; and infant or 
juvenile products such as walkers, strollers, high chairs, or pillows.
    (b) Type I upholstered furniture means upholstered furniture that 
is constructed with an upholstery cover fabric or other material that 
covers the seating area and is certified to meet the performance 
requirements of Sec.  1634.4.
    (c) Type II upholstered furniture means upholstered furniture that 
is constructed with an interior fire barrier material that:
    (1) Is located directly beneath the external covering material;
    (2) Completely encases the filling material used in the seating 
area of the item of upholstered furniture; and
    (3) Is certified to meet the performance requirements of Sec. Sec.  
1634.5 and 1634.6.
    (d) Manufacturer means any entity that produces or reupholsters 
upholstered furniture or manufactures upholstered furniture materials 
subject to this part 1634. For purposes of this part, an importer of 
upholstered furniture is also a manufacturer. See subpart F of this 
part for additional information on reupholstering.
    (e) Produced means, for the purposes of this part 1634, 
manufactured or imported.
    (f) Upholstery cover fabric means the outermost layer of attached 
fabric or other material, such as leather, used to cover the seating 
area of the upholstered furniture item.
    (g) Crevice means the location in the mockup formed by the 
intersection of the vertical and horizontal surfaces of the test 
mockup.
    (h) Interior fire barrier means a fire-resistant material which is 
interposed between the upholstery cover fabric and any interior filling 
material.
    (i) Fire-resistant material means a material capable of reducing 
the likelihood of ignition or delaying fire growth.
    (j) Flame retardant means having a chemical coating or treatment 
added that imparts greater fire resistance.
    (k) Ignition (for open flame testing) means continuous, self-
sustaining combustion, characterized by the presence of any visible 
flaming, glowing, or smoldering, after removal of the ignition source.
    (l) Metal test frame means the apparatus consisting of two 
rectangular metal frames used for assembly of seating area mockups in 
open flame ignition resistance tests. See subpart E of this part.
    (m) Mockup assembly means the seating area mockup consisting of the 
component material to be evaluated and all required standard test 
materials, fully assembled in the appropriate specimen holder or metal 
test frame.
    (n) Sample means a material to be tested for use in upholstered 
furniture subject to this part.
    (o) Seating area means those portions of an item of upholstered 
furniture which a person may sit upon, or rest against while sitting, 
including the seat

[[Page 11741]]

and the inside of the back and arms of the item. The seating area 
includes such surfaces of any loose pillows or cushions that are not 
attached to the item of upholstered furniture but are sold with it.
    (p) Self-extinguishment means the unassisted termination of any 
visible combustion within a defined time period after ignition source 
removal and before the specimen is completely consumed.
    (q) Sheeting material means cotton sheeting fabric used to cover 
the cigarette ignition source in smoldering ignition resistance tests. 
See subpart C of this part.
    (r) Smolder means combustion characterized by smoke production, 
without visible flame or glowing.
    (s) Specimen means an individual piece of upholstery fabric or 
barrier material, as defined in paragraph (n) of this section, used in 
a mockup assembly for smoldering or open flame ignition testing.
    (t) Specimen holder means the two wooden panels used for assembly 
of seating area mockups in smoldering ignition resistance tests. See 
subpart C of this part.
    (u) Standard polyurethane foam (SPUF) substrate means the standard 
substrate used for the assembly of seating area mockups to evaluate 
materials used in upholstered furniture construction. See subparts C 
and E of this part.
    (v) Substrate means the innermost material of the tested seating 
area mockup, representing the filling material used in upholstered 
furniture.
    (w) Warp or machine direction of the fabric means the direction of 
yarns that run lengthwise, i.e., parallel to selvage, in woven fabrics.


Sec.  1634.3  General requirements.

    (a) Upholstered furniture. Each item of upholstered furniture 
subject to this part shall comply with the performance requirements of 
this part applicable to the upholstered furniture materials required 
for that ``Type'' of upholstered furniture and all other applicable 
requirements of this part.
    (b) Guaranties. Each guaranty issued under this part shall be in 
accordance with the applicable requirements of Sec.  1634.9.
    (c) Summary of Sec.  1634.4 through Sec.  1634.6 tests. The test 
methods set forth in Sec. Sec.  1634.4 through 1634.6 measure the 
flammability performance (resistance to smoldering or small open flame 
ignition) of cover fabrics and fire barrier materials through a series 
of tests using small scale mockups representative of the typical 
construction of upholstered furniture.
    (d) Standard cover fabric cutting--(1) Smoldering test. The 
vertical panel pieces shall be cut with the long dimension being in the 
warp direction and the top edge is defined such that the pile lays 
smooth when brushed from top to bottom. The horizontal panel pieces 
shall be cut with the long dimension being in the warp direction and 
the top edge is defined such that the pile lays smooth when brushed 
from top to bottom.
    (2) Open flame test. The open flame test specimens shall be cut 
with the long dimension being in the warp direction (if applicable).


Sec.  1634.4  Upholstery cover fabric smoldering ignition resistance 
test.

    (a) Scope. This test method is intended to measure the cigarette 
ignition resistance of upholstery cover fabrics used in upholstered 
furniture. This test applies to all upholstery cover fabrics to be used 
in Type I upholstered furniture.
    (b) Summary of test method. Ten initial test specimens are required 
for the upholstery cover fabrics sample. Vertical and horizontal panels 
of a standard foam substrate are covered, using the upholstery cover 
fabric to be tested. These panels are placed in the specimen holders, 
and a lighted cigarette is placed in the crevice formed by the 
intersection of vertical and horizontal panels of each test assembly. 
Each cigarette is covered with a piece of sheeting fabric. The 
cigarettes are allowed to burn their entire length. Test measurements 
and observations are recorded during and after the 45-minute test 
duration. The mockup must not continue to smolder at the end of the 
test or transition to flaming at any time during the test, and the 
substrate must not exceed the mass loss limit. If the 10 initial 
specimens meet the performance criteria in paragraph (m) of this 
section, the cover fabric sample passes. If a failure is recorded in 
any of the 10 initial specimens, the test shall be repeated on an 
additional 20 specimens. At least 25 of the 30 specimens tested must 
meet the performance criteria of paragraph (m) of this section.
    (c) Significance and use. This test method is designed to measure 
the resistance of an upholstery cover fabric to a smoldering ignition 
source when the fabric is placed over a standard polyurethane foam 
substrate.
    (d) Test apparatus and materials. The test apparatus and materials 
used in this test are detailed in subpart C of this part.
    (e) Ignition source. The ignition source is the standard cigarette 
specified in subpart C of this part.
    (f) Sheeting material. Sheeting material shall be used to cover the 
standard test cigarettes. For testing, the fabric shall be cut into 
squares 127 x 127 mm (5.0 x 5.0 in). Use the sheeting material 
specified in subpart C of this part.
    (g) Standard polyurethane foam substrate. Upholstery cover 
materials shall be tested in a specimen holder using standard 
polyurethane foam (SPUF) substrate. Use the SPUF substrate specified in 
subpart C of this Part.
    (1) The SPUF substrate shall be cut into 203 x 203 x 76 mm (8.0 x 
8.0 x 3.0 in) pieces for vertical panels and 127 x 203 x 76 mm (5.0 x 
8.0 x 3.0 in) pieces for horizontal panels.
    (2) Each SPUF substrate piece shall be hand crushed before use by 
wadding or balling up one time in the fist.
    (3) On the data sheet, record the initial mass of each horizontal 
and vertical SPUF substrate piece to the nearest 0.1 grams.
    (h) Specimen holder. The specimen holder shall consist of two 
wooden panels, each a nominal 203 x 203 mm (8.0 x 8.0 in) and nominal 
19 mm (0.75 in) thickness, joined together at one edge. A moveable 
horizontal panel support shall be positioned on a centrally located 
guide. See subpart C and Figures 1 and 2.
    (i) Test facility and cautions. The test facility, exhaust system, 
and cautions are detailed in subpart D of this part.
    (j) Conditioning. All test specimens and standard test materials 
(including SPUF substrates, cigarettes, and sheeting material) shall be 
conditioned in accordance with subpart C of this part.
    (k) Test specimens--(1) Specimen requirements. (i) From the 
upholstery cover fabric sample to be tested, initially 10 specimens 
shall be cut, comprised of vertical panels, each 203 x 432 mm (8.0 x 
17.0 in), and horizontal panels, each 203 x 280 mm (8.0 x 11.0 in).
    (ii) The vertical and horizontal panel cover fabric pieces shall be 
cut with the long dimension in the warp direction and such that the 
major areas of fabric variation will lie in the crevice of the mockup 
assembly.
    (iii) The horizontal panel cover fabric pieces shall be mounted 
warp to warp with the vertical panel pieces such that the major areas 
of fabric variation will lie in the crevice of the mockup assembly.
    (2) Specimen mounting. (i) For vertical panels, place the cover 
fabric on the 203 x 203 x 76 mm (8.0 x 8.0 x 3.0

[[Page 11742]]

in) SPUF substrate pieces, taking care that any areas of fabric 
variation mentioned in paragraph (k)(1) of this section are positioned 
such that they will form the crevice of the assembled mockup. The warp 
or machine direction of the fabric should run front to back on the 
mockup assembly. Attach the cover fabric to the SPUF substrate pieces 
with straight pins and pull the cover fabric smooth so that no air gaps 
exist between the fabric and SPUF substrate. Attach the cotton sheeting 
material to the vertical panels with straight pins so that the sheeting 
material will cover the cigarette when placed in the crevice, 
approximately 50 mm (2 in) from the top of the 203 mm (8.0 in) 
dimension.
    (ii) For horizontal panels, place the cover fabric on the 127 x 203 
x 76 mm (5.0 x 8.0 x 3.0 in) SPUF substrate pieces, taking care that 
any areas of fabric variation mentioned in paragraph (k)(1) of this 
section are on the edge which will form the crevice of the assembled 
mockup. The warp direction of the cover fabric shall run front to back 
on the mockup assembly. Attach the cover fabric to the SPUF substrate 
pieces with straight pins and pull the fabric smooth so that no air 
gaps exist between the fabric and foam substrate.
    (iii) Place the assembled vertical and horizontal panels in the 
specimen holder. Press the horizontal panel against the vertical panel 
to create a straight-line crevice at the intersection. See Figure 3.
    (l) Test procedure. (1) Place the assembled mockups a sufficient 
distance apart from each other to avoid heat transfer between samples.
    (2) Light cigarettes so that no more than 4 mm (0.16 inch) is 
burned away and place one cigarette on each mockup crevice created by 
the intersection of the vertical and horizontal panels, such that the 
cigarette contacts both surfaces and is equidistant from the side edges 
of the test panels.
    (3) Immediately after placement in the crevice of each mockup, 
cover cigarettes with cotton sheeting and run one finger over the sheet 
along the length of the covered cigarette to ensure good cover 
sheeting-to-cigarette contact and begin timer. If a test is 
inadvertently interrupted or a cigarette self-extinguishes on lighting, 
it shall be repeated from the beginning with a new cigarette.
    (4) Continue testing for 45 minutes.
    (5) At 45 minutes, if the mockup assembly is smoldering, record a 
failure for the mockup and extinguish with appropriate means and 
proceed to paragraph (m) of this section. See Subparts C and D of this 
part.
    (6) Remove cotton sheeting fabric and remains of upholstery fabric 
from the substrate pieces.
    (7) Carefully remove the SPUF substrate pieces, clean all 
carbonaceous char from panels with a brush.
    (8) If the application of an extinguishing agent was not necessary 
or a gaseous extinguishing agent (e.g., carbon dioxide or nitrogen) was 
applied to the SPUF substrate, record the mass of the un-charred 
portions of the SPUF substrate pieces to the nearest 0.1 grams within 
15 minutes and proceed to paragraph (m) of this section.
    (m) Pass/fail criteria. (1) The sample passes the requirements of 
this test procedure if the following criteria are met:
    (i) No mockup continues to smolder after the 45 minute test 
duration;
    (ii) No mockup transitions to open flaming; and
    (iii) No SPUF substrate (i.e., sum of both horizontal and vertical 
pieces) of any mockup assembly has more than 10% mass loss.
    (2) If the 10 initial specimens meet the performance criteria of 
this paragraph (m), the cover fabric sample passes. If a failure is 
recorded in any of the 10 initial specimens, the test shall be repeated 
on an additional 20 specimens. At least 25 of the 30 specimens tested 
must meet the criteria of this paragraph.
    (n) Test report. The test report shall include, at a minimum, the 
following information:
    (1) Name and address of test laboratory;
    (2) Date of the test(s);
    (3) Name of the operator conducting the test;
    (4) Complete description of the test specimens;
    (5) Applicable smoldering and mass and data for each SPUF substrate 
piece from each mockup including:
    (i) Mockup smoldering at 45 minutes (Yes/No);
    (ii) Pre-test mass;
    (iii) Post-test mass; and
    (iv) The percent mass loss of the SPUF substrate of each mockup 
assembly.
    (6) Statement of overall pass/fail results.


Sec.  1634.5  Interior fire barrier material smoldering ignition 
resistance test.

    (a) Scope. This test method is intended to measure the cigarette 
ignition resistance of interior fire barrier materials used in 
upholstered furniture to be used in Type II upholstered furniture. This 
test method applies to fire-resistant materials including, but not 
limited to, all interior fabrics or high loft battings to be qualified 
as fire barriers.
    (b) Summary of test method. Ten initial test specimens are required 
for the interior fire barrier sample. Vertical and horizontal panels of 
the interior fire barrier material to be tested are placed between a 
standard foam substrate and a standard cover fabric. The panels are 
placed in the specimen holders and a lighted cigarette is placed in the 
crevice formed by the intersection of the vertical and horizontal 
panels in each test assembly. Each cigarette is covered with a piece of 
sheeting fabric. The cigarettes are allowed to burn their full length. 
Test measurements and observations are recorded during and after the 
45-minute test duration. The substrate must not exceed the mass loss 
limit at the end of the test and the mockup assembly must not 
transition to open flaming at anytime during the test. If the initial 
10 specimens meet the performance criteria in paragraph (n) of this 
section, the interior fire barrier sample passes. If a failure is 
recorded in any of the 10 initial specimens, the test shall be repeated 
on an additional 20 specimens. The performance criteria of paragraph 
(n) of this section must be met on at least 25 of the 30 specimens 
tested.
    (c) Significance and use. This test method is designed to measure 
the resistance of an interior fire barrier material to a smoldering 
ignition source when the barrier is placed between a standard cover 
fabric and a standard foam substrate.
    (d) Test apparatus and materials. The test apparatus and materials 
are detailed in subpart C of this part.
    (e) Ignition source. The ignition source is the standard cigarette 
specified in subpart C of this part.
    (f) Sheeting material. Sheeting material shall be used to cover the 
standard test cigarettes. For testing, the fabric shall be cut into 
squares 127 x 127 mm (5.0 x 5.0 in). Use the sheeting material 
specified in subpart C of this part.
    (g) Standard cover fabric. (1) The standard cover fabric represents 
a smolder-prone fabric. Use the standard cover fabric specified in 
subpart C of this part.
    (2) From the standard cover fabric, initially 10 pieces shall be 
cut for vertical panels each 203 x 432 mm (8.0 x 17.0 in) and initially 
10 pieces for horizontal panels each 203 x 280 mm (8.0 x 11.0 in).
    (h) Standard polyurethane foam substrate. (1) Fire barrier 
materials shall be tested in a specimen holder using standard 
polyurethane foam (SPUF) substrate. Use the SPUF substrate specified in 
subpart C of this part.

[[Page 11743]]

    (2) The SPUF substrate shall be cut into pieces 203 x 203 x 76 mm 
(8.0 x 8.0 x 3.0 in) for vertical panels and 127 x 203 x 76 mm (5.0 x 
8.0 x 3.0 in) for horizontal panels.
    (3) Each SPUF substrate piece shall be hand crushed before use by 
wadding or balling up one time in the fist.
    (4) Record the initial mass to the nearest 0.1 grams of each 
horizontal and vertical SPUF substrate piece in the data sheet.
    (i) Specimen holder. The specimen holder shall consist of two 
wooden panels, each a nominal 203 x 203 mm (8.0 x 8.0 in) and nominal 
19 mm (0.75 in) thickness, joined together at one edge. A moveable 
horizontal panel support is positioned on a centrally located guide. 
See subpart C and Figures 1 and 2.
    (j) Test facility and cautions. The test facility, exhaust system, 
and cautions are detailed in subpart D of this part.
    (k) Conditioning. All test specimens and standard test materials 
(including SPUF substrates, cigarettes, and sheeting material) shall be 
conditioned in accordance with subpart C of this part.
    (l) Test specimens-(1) Test specimen requirements. From the 
interior fire-barrier material sample to be tested, initially 10 
specimens shall be cut, comprised of vertical panels each 203 x 356 mm 
(8.0 x 14.0 in) and horizontal panels each 203 x 229 mm (8.0 x 9.0 in). 
If the interior fire-barrier material is directional, the vertical 
panel pieces shall be cut with the long dimension being in the warp 
direction. The horizontal panel specimens shall be cut such that the 
short dimension is in the warp direction.
    (2) Specimen mounting. (i) For vertical panels, place the 203 x 432 
mm (8.0 x 17.0 in) standard cover fabric over the fire-barrier material 
on a 203 x 203 x 76 mm (8.0 x 8.0 x 3.0 in) SPUF substrate piece. The 
standard cover fabric and interior fire-barrier shall be oriented such 
that the top edges of these materials run from top to bottom. Attach 
with straight pins and pull smooth so that no air gaps exist. Attach 
the cotton sheeting material to the vertical panels with straight pins 
so that the sheeting material will cover the cigarette when placed in 
the crevice, approximately 50 mm (2.0 in) from the top of the panel.
    (ii) For horizontal panels, place the 203 x 280 mm (8.0 x 11.0 in) 
standard cover fabric over the interior fire-barrier on the 127 x 203 x 
76 mm (5.0 x 8.0 x 3.0 in) SPUF substrate pieces. The standard cover 
fabric and interior fire-barrier shall be oriented such that the top 
edges of these materials run from the crevice to the front. Attach with 
straight pins and pull smooth so that no air gaps exist.
    (iii) Place the assembled vertical and horizontal panels in the 
specimen holders. Press the horizontal panel against the vertical panel 
to create a straight-line crevice at the intersection. See Figure 4.
    (m) Test procedure. (1) Place the assembled mockups a sufficient 
distance apart from each other to avoid heat transfer between samples.
    (2) Light cigarettes so that no more than 4 mm (0.16 inch) is 
burned away and place one cigarette on each mockup crevice created by 
the intersection of the vertical and horizontal panels, such that the 
cigarette contacts both surfaces and is equidistant from the side edges 
of the test panels.
    (3) Immediately after placement in the crevice of each mockup, 
cover cigarettes with cotton sheeting and run one finger over the sheet 
along the length of the covered cigarette to ensure good cover 
sheeting-to-cigarette contact and begin timer. If a test is 
inadvertently interrupted or cigarette self extinguishes on lighting, 
it shall be repeated from the beginning with a new cigarette.
    (4) Continue testing for 45 minutes.
    (5) At 45 minutes, if the mockup assembly is smoldering, extinguish 
with appropriate means. See subparts C and D of this part.
    (6) Remove cotton sheeting fabric, remains of standard cover 
fabric, and interior fire-barrier material from the substrate panels.
    (7) Carefully remove the SPUF substrate test panels and clean all 
carbonaceous char from panels with a brush.
    (8) If the mockup has self-extinguished by the end of the 45 minute 
test, or if a gaseous extinguishing agent (e.g. carbon dioxide or 
nitrogen) was applied to the mockup, record the mass of the un-charred 
portions of the SPUF substrate pieces to the nearest 0.1 grams within 
15 minutes and proceed to Sec.  1634.5(n).
    (9) If a mass-adding extinguishing agent (e.g., water-based agent) 
was applied to the substrate, re-condition the SPUF substrate pieces as 
follows.
    (i) Place the SPUF substrate pieces in the active flow of a 
laboratory air hood to dry for at least 24 hours.
    (ii) Measure and record the mass of the SPUF substrate pieces to 
the nearest 0.1 gram.
    (iii) Place the SPUF substrate pieces in the active flow of the 
laboratory air hood to dry for at least three additional hours.
    (iv) Measure and record the mass of the SPUF substrate pieces to 
the nearest 0.1 gram and compare the measurement with the previous one.
    (v) Repeat this procedure every three hours until the mass of the 
substrate pieces remains within a tolerance of 0.5% from the previous 
reading.
    (vi) Re-condition the SPUF pieces according to paragraph (k) of 
this section.
    (vii) Record the mass of the un-charred portions of the SPUF 
substrate pieces to the nearest 0.1 grams.
    (n) Pass/fail criteria. (1) The sample passes the requirements of 
this test procedure if the following criteria are met:
    (i) No SPUF substrate (i.e., sum of both horizontal and vertical 
pieces) of any specimen from a mockup assembly has more than 1% mass 
loss; and
    (ii) No mockup assembly transitions to open flaming.
    (2) If the 10 initial specimens meet the performance criteria of 
this paragraph (n), the interior fire-barrier sample passes. If a 
failure is recorded in any of the 10 initial specimens, the test shall 
be repeated on an additional 20 specimens. At least 25 of the 30 
specimens tested must meet the performance criteria of this paragraph 
(n).
    (o) Test report. The test report shall include, at a minimum, the 
following information:
    (1) Name and address of test laboratory;
    (2) Date of the test(s);
    (3) Name of the operator conducting the test;
    (4) Complete description of the test specimens;
    (5) Mass data for each SPUF substrate piece from each mockup 
including:
    (i) Pre-test mass;
    (ii) Post-test mass; and
    (iii) The percent mass loss of the SPUF substrate of each mockup 
assembly.
    (6) Statement of overall pass/fail results.


Sec.  1634.6  Interior fire barrier material open flame ignition 
resistance test.

    (a) Scope. This test procedure is intended to measure the open 
flame ignition resistance of interior fire-barrier materials to be used 
in Type II upholstered furniture. This test applies to materials 
including, but not limited to, interior fabrics or high loft battings 
to qualify them as fire-barriers.
    (b) Summary of test method. Ten initial test specimens are required 
for the interior fire-barrier sample. The interior fire-barrier 
material to be tested is placed between a standard cover fabric and 
standard foam substrate and assembled on a metal test frame. An

[[Page 11744]]

open flame ignition source is applied to the crevice formed by the 
intersection of the seat/back surfaces of the mockup. Test measurements 
and observations are recorded during the 45-minute test duration. The 
mockup assembly must not exceed the mass loss limit. If the 10 initial 
specimens meet the performance criteria of paragraph (n) of this 
section, the interior fire-barrier sample passes. If a failure is 
recorded in any of the 10 initial specimens, the test shall be repeated 
on an additional 20 specimens. At least 25 of the 30 specimens tested 
must meet the performance criteria of paragraph (n) of this section.
    (c) Significance and use. This test method is designed to measure 
the resistance of an interior fire-barrier material to an open flame 
ignition source when the barrier is placed between a standard cover 
fabric and a standard foam substrate.
    (d) Test apparatus and materials. The test apparatus and materials 
are detailed in subpart E of this part.
    (e) Ignition source. The ignition source is the nominal 240 mm 
butane gas flame described in subpart E of this part.
    (f) Standard cover fabric. (1) The standard cover fabric represents 
a moderately flammable upholstery cover fabric. Use the standard cover 
fabric specified in subpart E of this part.
    (2) The standard cover fabric size needed for each test is 1020 x 
700  10 mm (40 x 27.5  0.4 in). From the 
standard cover fabric, cut triangular cut-outs centered 575 mm (22.5 
in) from the top edge on both sides. The size of these cut-outs shall 
be approximately 55 x 135  5 mm (2.1 x 5.25  
0.2 in) high. See subpart E of this part and Figure 5.
    (g) Standard polyurethane foam substrate. (1) Interior fire-barrier 
materials shall be tested with a standard polyurethane foam (SPUF) 
substrate. Use the SPUF substrate specified in subpart E of this part.
    (2) Two panels of the SPUF substrate shall be used. The vertical 
(back) block shall be 457 x 305  5 mm (18.0 x 12.0  0.2 in) x 76  2 mm (3.0  0.08 in) thick. 
The horizontal (seat) block shall be 457 x 83  5 mm (18.0 x 
3.25  0.2 in) x 76  2 mm (3.0  0.08 
in) thick.
    (h) Metal test frame. The metal test frame shall consist of two 
rectangular metal frames locked at right angles to each other. A rod 
shall be continuous across the back of the metal test frame. See 
subpart E of this part and Figure 6.
    (i) Test facility and cautions. The test facility, exhaust system 
and cautions are detailed in subpart D of this part.
    (j) Conditioning. All test specimens and standard test materials 
shall be conditioned in accordance with subpart E of this part.
    (k) Test specimens. (1) The interior fire-barrier specimen needed 
for each test is 1020 x 700  10 mm (40 x 27.5  
0.4 in). From the interior fire-barrier specimen, cut triangular cut-
outs centered 575 mm (22.5 in) from the top edge on both sides. The 
size of these cut-outs shall be approximately 55 x 135  5 
mm (2.1 x 5.25  0.2 in) high. See subpart E of this part 
and Figure 5.
    (2) If the interior fire-barrier material is directional, the 
specimen shall be cut with the long dimension (1020 mm, 40 in) being in 
the warp direction and the top edge is defined as appropriate.
    (l) Mockup assembly. (1) Position the seat frame in the upright 
position. Adjust the horizontal and vertical (seat and back) panels by 
loosening the screws holding the two panels in place. Pull the 
horizontal panel forward and the vertical panel upwards creating a 
larger gap between the two panels at the crevice. Temporarily secure 
the two panels in place (expanded position).
    (2) Lay the interior fire-barrier specimen flat and face up on the 
table. Lay the standard cover fabric on top, face up.
    (3) Fold the two sides of the top (larger) section of fabric and 
fire-barrier specimen (from the cutout upwards) over the face of the 
standard cover fabric.
    (4) Thread the folded standard cover fabric and fire-barrier 
specimen under the horizontal rod and pull them out from the back of 
the metal test frame until the cutouts are lined up with the horizontal 
rod.
    (5) Thread the folded standard cover fabric and fire-barrier 
specimen back over the rod and pull them out from the front of the 
frame.
    (6) Line up and pull both the top and bottom sections of the 
standard cover fabric and fire-barrier specimen so that the cutouts are 
lined up with the metal rod on both sides and the standard cover fabric 
and fire-barrier specimen are laying flat and free of folds and 
wrinkles.
    (7) Place the larger SPUF block flush against the back metal frame 
and resting on the fire-barrier specimen. Loosen the screws holding the 
vertical (back) panel and lower the panel until the top of the panel is 
flush with the top of the larger SPUF foam block. Tighten the screws so 
that the vertical panel is secure.
    (8) Lift the larger portion of both the fire-barrier specimen and 
standard cover fabric over the SPUF back block and secure them to the 
top of the back section of the metal frame using metal clips.
    (9) Starting at the lowest part of the vertical section on one 
side, clip both the fire-barrier specimen and standard cover fabric to 
the frame. At the top corner, make a diagonal fold of the fire-barrier 
specimen separate from the standard cover fabric. Make a similar fold 
with the standard cover fabric and secure all the folded layers (both 
fire-barrier and standard cover fabric) to the frame with metal clips 
to the side of the test frame. Repeat for the other side.
    (10) When the back section is completed, place the frame down so 
that the back of the frame is on the table.
    (11) Lift up the smaller portion of the standard cover fabric and 
fire-barrier specimen and lay them flat on the back panel.
    (12) Place the smaller SPUF block with the 83 mm (3.25 in) side 
flush against the seat section of the metal frame and press against the 
back panel. Loosen the screw holding the horizontal panel and move the 
panel until the panel is flush with the smaller SPUF foam block. 
Tighten the screws so that the horizontal panel is secure.
    (13) Pull the smaller section of the fire-barrier specimen and 
standard cover fabric over the SPUF seat block and secure them to 
bottom front edge of the metal frame using metal clips.
    (14) Re-position the assembly in the upright position.
    (15) On one side, fold the unsecured front edge of the fire-barrier 
specimen back against the SPUF block. Then, make a diagonal fold with 
the unsecured top edge of fire-barrier specimen down on top of it. 
Repeat with the unsecured edges of standard cover fabric and clip to 
the bottom of the metal test frame. Repeat on the other side.
    (16) Ensure that the standard cover fabric and fire-barrier 
specimens are smooth and under uniform tension at all locations to 
eliminate air gaps between the standard cover fabric, fire-barrier 
specimen, and the SPUF blocks. Do not allow a gap exceeding 3 mm (0.125 
inch) along the seat/back crevice. See Figure 7.
    (m) Test procedure. Have a means for extinguishing the specimen 
close at hand. A hand-held carbon dioxide extinguisher is adequate for 
most specimens; however, a water spray system should be available as a 
back-up, in case the carbon dioxide fails to completely extinguish the 
fire.
    (1) Pretest. (i) Tare the scale with the empty metal test frame and 
clips or, if the scale does not have tare capability, record the mass 
of metal test frame and clips.

[[Page 11745]]

    (ii) Assemble the mockup as described in paragraph (l) of this 
section.
    (iii) Record the initial mass of the fabric/specimen/substrate 
assembly directly (if tared) or by subtraction (if not tared).
    (iv) Calculate and record the mass corresponding to 20% mass loss 
of initial mass of the mockup assembly.
    (2) Lighting the igniter flame. (i) Open the butane tank slowly and 
light the end of the burner tube. Adjust the gas flow to the 
appropriate rate to achieve a 240 mm flame. See subpart E of this part.
    (ii) Allow the flame to stabilize for at least 2 minutes.
    (3) Starting and performing the test. (i) Place the lit burner tube 
in the crevice of the mockup so that the end of the igniter is at the 
center of the mockup equidistant from either edge.
    (ii) Apply the flame for 70  1 seconds, then 
immediately remove ignition source from the mockup. Observe the mockup 
combustion behavior for 45 minutes.
    (iii) Terminate a test run if any of the following conditions 
occurs:
    (A) The mockup self-extinguishes;
    (B) The 45 minute test duration has elapsed; or
    (C) The mass of the mockup reaches more than 20% mass loss of the 
initial mass before 45 minutes have elapsed.
    (n) Pass/fail criterion. (1) The sample passes if no mockup 
assembly has more than 20% mass loss at the end of the 45-minute test.
    (2) If the 10 initial specimens meet the performance criterion, the 
interior fire-barrier sample passes. If a failure is recorded in any of 
the 10 initial specimens, the test shall be repeated on an additional 
20 specimens. At least 25 of the 30 specimens tested must meet the 
performance criterion of this paragraph.
    (o) Test report. The test report shall include, at a minimum, the 
following information:
    (1) Name and address of the test laboratory;
    (2) Date of the test(s);
    (3) Name of operator conducting the test;
    (4) Complete description of the test specimens;
    (5) Mass data for the mockup including:
    (i) Initial mass;
    (ii) Mass corresponding to 20% mass loss of initial mass;
    (iii) Time to reach the mass equal to 20% mass loss of the initial 
mass;
    (iv) The percent mass loss of the mockup at 45 minutes.
    (6) Statement of overall pass/fail results.

Subpart B--Requirements Applicable to Manufacturers, Labeling, 
Guaranties


Sec.  1634.7  Requirements applicable to upholstered furniture 
manufacturers.

    (a) General. Each manufacturer (including importers) of upholstered 
furniture subject to this part shall ensure that each article of 
upholstered furniture it manufactures or imports for introduction into 
commerce complies with all applicable requirements of this part.
    (b) Label. Each article of upholstered furniture subject to this 
part shall bear a label conforming to the requirements of Sec.  1634.8.
    (c) Certification. The certification statement specified on the 
label required by paragraph (b) of this section constitutes the 
manufacturer's certification that the article of upholstered furniture 
to which it is affixed complies with all applicable requirements of 
this part.
    (d) Basis for certification. The manufacturer shall have an 
objectively reasonable basis for the certification required by 
paragraph (c) of this section. Examples of an objectively reasonable 
basis for certification are:
    (1) Records of reasonable and representative tests demonstrating 
compliance with all applicable requirements of this part for each cover 
or barrier material required for the Type of furniture specified on the 
label required by Sec.  1634.8; or
    (2) Possession of guaranties meeting the requirements of Sec.  
1634.9 for each cover or barrier material required for the Type of 
furniture specified on the label required by Sec.  1634.8 and 
maintaining that the manufacturer has not, by further processing, 
negatively affected the fire performance of any such cover or barrier 
material.
    (e) Records. (1) Every upholstered furniture manufacturer 
(including importers) subject to this part shall maintain records of 
the test results and details of each test performed by or for that 
manufacturer (including failures) intended to support certification in 
accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. Details shall include 
all the information required in the Test Report in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  1634.4(n), 1634.5(o) and 1634.6(o).
    (2) Records required by this paragraph (e) shall be in English and 
kept at a location in the United States.
    (3) Records required by this paragraph (e) shall be maintained by 
the manufacturer during production of the upholstered furniture and for 
a period of at least three (3) years after production of the article of 
upholstered furniture ceases. These records shall be made available to 
Commission staff upon request.
    (f) Cessation of production. If the manufacturer becomes aware of 
any information that indicates that any article of upholstered 
furniture manufactured by that manufacturer fails to comply with this 
part, the manufacturer shall cease production and distribution of such 
upholstered furniture until corrective action has been taken to ensure 
that further production will conform to all applicable requirements of 
this part.
    (g) Notification to upholstered furniture material suppliers. An 
upholstered furniture manufacturer who becomes aware of information 
indicating that any cover or barrier material used, or intended to be 
used, in upholstered furniture produced by it fails to meet any 
applicable requirement of this part shall promptly inform the supplier 
of that material of the deficiency. (Upholstered furniture 
manufacturers are also reminded of the reporting requirements of Sec.  
15 of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2064, and implementing 
regulations at 16 CFR part 1115.)


Sec.  1634.8  Labeling.

    (a) Each article of upholstered furniture subject to this part 
shall bear a permanent, conspicuous, and legible label containing:
    (1) Name of the manufacturer (and importer, if any);
    (2) Location of the manufacturer (and importer, if any), including 
street address, city and state;
    (3) Month and year of manufacture;
    (4) Model identification;
    (5) Type identification (i.e., ``Type I'' or ``Type II''); and
    (6) The statement ``The manufacturer hereby certifies that this 
article of upholstered furniture complies with all applicable 
requirements of 16 CFR part 1634''.
    (b) The information required by paragraph (a) of this section shall 
be set forth separately from any other information appearing on the 
label. Other information, representations, or disclosures, appearing on 
labels required by this section or elsewhere on the item, shall not 
interfere with, minimize, detract from, or conflict with, the required 
information.
    (c) No person shall remove or mutilate, or cause or participate in 
the removal or mutilation of, any label required by this section to be 
affixed to any article of upholstered furniture.

[[Page 11746]]

Sec.  1634.9  Requirements applicable to guaranties under section 8 of 
the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1197.

    (a) General. Either the manufacturer of a finished article of 
upholstered furniture subject to this part or the manufacturer of any 
cover or barrier material subject to this part may issue a guaranty in 
accordance with this section. The guaranty shall specify the 
classification(s) (Type I or II) of upholstered furniture for which the 
guaranty is intended to be valid.
    (b) Tests to support guaranties. Section 8 of the Flammable Fabrics 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1197, requires that a guaranty thereunder ultimately be 
supported by reasonable and representative tests. Reasonable and 
representative tests for purposes of this part shall be tests performed 
sufficiently to demonstrate that the tested item conforms with each 
applicable requirement of this part.

Subpart C--Apparatus and Materials for Smoldering Ignition 
Resistance Tests


Sec.  1634.10  Test room.

    (a) The test room shall have an appropriate fire protection 
suppression system. A suitable extinguishment system such as a water 
bottle fitted with a spray nozzle shall be provided to extinguish any 
ignited portions of the mockup assembly. Dry chemical extinguishing 
agents shall not be used to extinguish or suppress smoldering 
combustion since the chemicals add mass therefore increasing the post-
test mass of the mockup remains. In addition, straight pins, staples, a 
razor, knife or scissors, a scale, and a brush and/or tongs may be 
needed to perform the tests.
    (b) If conditions in the test room do not meet the conditioning 
specifications, then testing must be initiated within 10 minutes after 
the specimens are removed from the conditioning room.


Sec.  1634.11  Specimen holder.

    The specimen holder shall consist of two wooden panels, each 
nominal 203 x 203 mm (8.0 x 8.0 in) and nominal 19 mm (0.75 in) 
thickness, joined together at one edge. A moveable horizontal panel 
support is positioned on a centrally located guide. See Figures 1 and 
2.


Sec.  1634.12  Ignition source.

    The ignition source for all smoldering tests shall be cigarettes 
without filter tips made from natural tobacco, 85  2 mm 
(3.3  0.1 in) long and with a packing density of 0.27 
 0.02 g/cm\3\ (0.16  0.01 oz/in\3\) and a total 
weight of 1.1  0.1 g (0.039  0.004 oz).


Sec.  1634.13  Sheeting material.

    (a) The specifications of the sheeting material are as follows:
    (1) Fiber content: 100% cotton
    (2) Color: White
    (3) Construction: Plain weave, 19-33 threads per square centimeter 
(120-210 threads per square inch)
    (4) Weight/square yard: 125  28 g/m\2\ (3.7  0.8 oz/yd\2\).
    (b) The sheeting shall be refurbished once before use with the 
following laundering procedure. The sheeting material shall be washed 
and dried one time in accordance with sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 of 
American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) Test 
Method 124-2001 ``Appearance of Fabrics after Repeated Home 
Laundering.'' Washing shall be performed in accordance with sections 
8.2.2 and 8.2.3 of AATCC Test Method 124-2001 using wash temperature 
(V) 60  3 [deg]C (140  5 [deg]F) specified in 
Table II of that method, and the water level, agitator speed, washing 
time, spin speed and final spin cycle specified in ``Normal/Cotton 
Sturdy'' in Table III of the method. A maximum wash load shall be 8 
pounds. Drying shall be performed in accordance with section 8.3.1(A) 
of that test method, Tumble Dry, using the exhaust temperature (66[deg] 
 5 [deg]C; 150[deg]  10 [deg]F) and cool down 
time of 10 minutes specified in the ``Durable Press'' conditions of 
Table IV of the method.


Sec.  1634.14  Standard polyurethane foam substrate.

    (a) The SPUF substrate is used for assembly of the mockups for 
evaluation of upholstery cover fabric and interior fire barriers and to 
qualify standard cover fabrics.
    (b) Flammability performance. (1) Open flame performance. The SPUF 
shall be tested in accordance with the test procedures specified in 
Sec.  1634.6, but without the use of the standard cover fabric and 
using a 5-second impingement of the 35 mm butane flame specified in 
Sec.  1634.20(d). In three consecutive trials, using SPUF from the 
production lot to be qualified, the SPUF substrate shall have a mass 
loss that is greater than 20 percent in less than 120 seconds after 
removal of the ignition source.
    (2) Smoldering performance. The SPUF shall be tested in accordance 
with the test procedures specified in Sec.  1634.4, but without the use 
of a cover fabric. In three consecutive trials, using SPUF from the 
production lot to be qualified the SPUF substrate shall have a mass 
loss less than 1%.
    (c) The SPUF substrate shall have the following specifications:
    (1) Density: 1.8 lb/ft\3\
    (2) Indentation Load Deflection (ILD): 25 to 30
    (3) Air permeability: Greater than 4.0 ft\3\/min
    (4) No flame-retardant chemical treatment as determined by post-
production chemical analysis.


Sec.  1634.15  Standard cover fabric (cotton velvet) smoldering 
qualification for barrier test.

    (a) Flammability properties. The standard cover fabric used in 
smoldering tests for interior fire barriers in accordance with Sec.  
1634.5, shall meet the following requirements: when tested directly 
over a qualified SPUF foam substrate following the procedure in Sec.  
1634.4, the substrate mass loss average of 10 test results shall be 50 
 5%.
    (b) The standard cover fabric shall also have weight/square yard: 
10 oz/yd\2\.
    (c) A 100% cotton, velvet pile fabric of beige color, with no 
backcoating and treated with certain finishing chemicals involving a 
resin catalyst that contains small amounts of melamine, generally 
demonstrates the desired flammability performance characteristics 
specified.


Sec.  1634.16  Conditioning.

    (a) All test specimens and standard test materials (including SPUF 
substrates, cigarettes, and sheeting material) shall be conditioned at 
a temperature of 21[deg]  3 [deg]C (70[deg]  5 
[deg]F) and between 50% and 66% relative humidity for at least 24 hours 
prior to testing.
    (b) If conditions in the test room do not meet these 
specifications, then testing must be initiated within 10 minutes after 
the specimens are removed from the conditioning room.

Subpart D--Test facility, exhaust system, and hazards


Sec.  1634.17  Test facility and exhaust system.

    The room in which tests under this part are conducted shall have a 
volume greater than 20 m\3\ in order to contain sufficient oxygen for 
testing, or if smaller, the room shall have a ventilation system 
permitting the necessary flow of air. During the pretest and testing 
period, airflow rates shall be maintained below 0.1 m/s, measured in 
the locality of the mockup assembly to provide adequate air movement 
without disturbing the burning behavior. Room ventilation rates before 
and during tests shall be maintained at about 200 ft\3\/min. Airflow 
rates in this range have been shown to provide adequate oxygen without 
physically disturbing the burning behavior of the ignition source or 
the mockup assembly. In addition, the ventilation system of the test 
facility

[[Page 11747]]

shall be capable of extracting smoke and toxic combustion products 
generated during testing for health and safety reasons.


Sec.  1634.18  Hazards.

    (a) Health and safety risks associated with conducting the required 
testing in accordance with this part 1634 exist. It is essential that 
suitable precautions be taken, which include the use of breathing 
apparatus and protective clothing. Products of combustion can be 
irritating and dangerous to test personnel. Test personnel should avoid 
exposure to smoke and gases produced during testing.
    (b) A suitable means of fire extinguishment shall be at hand. When 
the termination point of the test has been reached and the fire is 
extinguished, the presence of a back-up fire extinguisher is 
recommended. It is often difficult to determine when combustion in a 
mockup assembly has ceased, even after an extinguishment action is 
taken, due to burning deep inside the specimens. Care should be taken 
that specimens are disposed of only when completely inert.

Subpart E--Test Facility and Materials for Open Flame Ignition 
Resistance Tests


Sec.  1634.19  Test room.

    The test room shall be draft protected and equipped with a suitable 
ventilation system for exhausting smoke and any toxic gases generated 
during testing.


Sec.  1634.20  Butane gas flame ignition source.

    (a) The butane gas flame ignition source shall be in accordance 
with the following specifications or equivalent:
    (1) The burner tube shall consist of a stainless steel tube, 8.0 
 0.1 mm (5/16  0.004 inch) outside diameter, 
6.5  0.1 mm (0.256  0.004 inch) internal 
diameter.
    (2) The butane shall be ``C.P. Grade'' (chemically pure) butane, 
99.0% purity.
    (b) There shall be a means to control the flow rate of butane.
    (c) In the open flame test of section 1634.6 a nominal 240 mm flame 
butane is required. The nominal 240 mm butane flame is obtained by 
establishing a flow rate of butane gas that is 350  10 ml/
min at 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F) and 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi).
    (d) In standard material qualification tests for SPUF and Rayon, a 
nominal 35 mm butane is required. The nominal 35 mm butane flame is 
obtained by establishing a flow rate of butane gas that is 45  2 ml/min at 25 [deg]C (77 [deg]F) and 101.3 kPa (14.7 psi).
    (e) Flame height is measured from the center end of the burner tube 
when held horizontally and the flame is allowed to burn freely in air.


Sec.  1634.21  Metal test frame.

    (a) The metal test frame shall consist of two rectangular steel 
frames locked at right angles to each other (See Figure 6).
    (b) The frames shall be made of nominal 25 mm x 25 mm (1 x 1 inch) 
steel angle 3 mm (0.125 inch) thick, and shall securely hold platforms 
of steel mesh set 6  1 mm (0.25  0.05 inch) 
below the front face of each test frame.
    (c) An optional standard edging section around the steel mesh will 
provide protection and greater rigidity. The rod shall be continuous 
across the back of the apparatus.


Sec.  1634.22  Standard cover fabric (rayon) open flame qualification 
for barrier test.

    (a) The standard cover fabric used in open flame tests for interior 
fire barriers shall be tested in accordance with the test procedures 
specified in Sec.  1634.6 using a 20 second application of the 35 mm 
butane gas flame specified in Sec.  1634.20. In five consecutive 
trials, the assembly mass loss must be greater than 40% at 5 minutes 
when tested with a qualified SPUF.
    (b) The standard rayon cover fabric shall also:
    (1) Be 100% bright regular rayon, scoured, 20/2 ring spun basket 
weave construction; and
    (2) Have weight/square yard: 8.0  0.5 oz/yd\2\.


Sec.  1634.23  Open flame tests fabric cut-out dimensions.

    The fabric cut-out dimensions needed for installing in the mockup 
assembly to conduct open flame tests are shown in Figure 5.


Sec.  1634.24  Standard polyurethane foam substrate.

    (a) The SPUF substrate used for assembly of mockups shall meet the 
following flammability performance requirements.
    (1) The SPUF shall be tested in accordance with the open flame test 
procedures specified in Sec.  1634.6, but without the use of the 
standard cover fabric and using a 5-second impingement of the 35 mm 
butane flame specified in Sec.  1634.20(d). In three consecutive 
trials, using SPUF from the production lot to be qualified, the SPUF 
substrate shall have a mass loss that is greater than 20 percent in 
less than 120 seconds after removal of the ignition source.
    (2) The SPUF shall be tested in accordance with the smoldering test 
procedures specified in Sec.  1634.4, but without the use of a cover 
fabric. In three consecutive trials, using SPUF from the production lot 
to be qualified the SPUF substrate shall have a mass loss less than 1%.
    (b) The SPUF substrate shall have the following specifications:
    (1) Density: 1.8 lb/ft\3\
    (2) Indentation Load Deflection (ILD): 25 to 30
    (3) Air permeability: Greater than 4.0 ft\3\/min
    (4) No flame-retardant chemical treatment as determined by post 
production chemical analysis.


Sec.  1634.25  Conditioning.

    (a) All test specimens and standard test materials shall be 
conditioned at a temperature of 21[deg]  3 [deg]C (70[deg] 
 5 [deg]F) and between 50% and 66% relative humidity for at 
least 24 hours prior to testing.
    (b) If conditions in the test room do not meet the conditioning 
specifications, then testing must be initiated within 10 minutes after 
the specimens are removed from the conditioning room.

Subpart F--Reupholstering


Sec.  1634.26  Requirements applicable to reupholstering.

    (a) Section 3 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1192) 
prohibits, among other things, the ``manufacture for sale'' of any 
product which fails to conform to an applicable standard issued under 
the FFA.
    (b) Reupholstering upholstered furniture for sale is manufacturing 
upholstered furniture for sale and, therefore, is subject to the FFA 
and all applicable requirements of this part.
    (c) Reupholstering is any replacing of upholstered furniture 
material that is subject to any applicable performance requirements of 
Sec. Sec.  1634.4 through 1634.6.
    (d) If the person who reupholsters the upholstered furniture 
intends to retain the reupholstered furniture for his or her own use, 
or if a customer hires the services of the reupholsterer and intends to 
take back the reupholstered furniture for his or her own use, 
``manufacture for sale'' has not occurred and such an article of 
reupholstered furniture is not subject to this part.
    (e) If an article of reupholstered furniture is sold or intended 
for sale, either by the reupholsterer or the owner of the upholstered 
furniture who hires the services of the reupholsterer, such a 
transaction is considered to be ``manufacture for sale'' and the 
article of upholstered furniture is subject to all applicable 
requirements of this part.


[[Page 11748]]


    Dated: February 14, 2008.
Alberta E. Mills,
Acting Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

List of Relevant Documents

    1. Briefing memorandum from Dale R. Ray, Project Manager, 
Directorate for Economic Analysis, to the Commission, ``Regulatory 
Alternatives for Upholstered Furniture Flammability,'' November 20, 
2007.

    2. Memorandum from Rohit Khanna & S. Mehta, Directorate for 
Engineering Sciences, to Dale R. Ray, Project Manager, Directorate 
for Economic Analysis, ``Technical Rationale Report for the Draft 
Standard for the Flammability of Upholstered Furniture,'' November 
2007.
    3. Memorandum from D. Miller, Directorate for Epidemiology, to 
Dale R. Ray, Project Manager, Directorate for Economic Analysis, 
``Analysis of Laboratory Data for Upholstered Furniture,'' November 
16, 2007.
    4. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, EC, to Dale R. Ray, Project 
Manager, Directorate for Economic Analysis, Environmental Assessment 
of a Draft Proposed Flammability Standard for Residential 
Upholstered Furniture,'' November 2007.
    5. Memorandum from Charles L. Smith, Directorate for Economic 
Analysis, to Dale R. Ray, Project Manager, ``Preliminary Regulatory 
Analysis of a Draft Proposed Flammability Rule to Address Ignitions 
of Upholstered Furniture,'' December 2007.
    6. Memorandum from Charles L. Smith, Directorate for Economic 
Analysis, to Dale R. Ray, Project Manager, Directorate for Economic 
Analysis, ``Proposed Rulemaking on Upholstered Furniture 
Flammability, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,'' December 
2007.
    7. Memorandum from Martha A. Kosh, Office of the Secretary, to 
Directorate for Economic Analysis, ``Ignition of Upholstered 
Furniture by Small Open Flames and/or Smoldering Cigarettes,'' List 
of Comments on CF 04-2, December 29, 2003, revised October 19, 2004.
    8. Memorandum from A. Bernatz, L. Fansler & L. Scott, to Dale R. 
Ray, Project Manager, Directorate for Economic Analysis, ``Test 
Program for Upholstery Fabrics and Fire Barriers,'' November 8, 
2007.
    9. Memorandum from P. Semple, Executive Director, to the 
Commission, ``Finding of No Significant Impact from Implementation 
of the Proposed Flammability Standard for Residential Upholstered 
Furniture,'' November 19, 2007.
    10. Memorandum from W. Zamula, Directorate for Economic 
Analysis, to Dale R. Ray, Project Manager, Directorate for Economic 
Analysis, ``Costs for Non-Fatal, Addressable Residential Civilian 
Injuries Associated with Upholstered Furniture Fires,'' September 6, 
2007.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.006


[[Page 11749]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.007


[[Page 11750]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.009


[[Page 11751]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.010


[[Page 11752]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.011

[FR Doc. 08-768 Filed 3-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C