[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56289-56318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19505]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1610
[Docket No. CPSC-2019-0008]
Standard for the Flammability of Clothing Textiles; Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or
CPSC) is proposing to amend the Standard for the Flammability of
Clothing Textiles. The proposed revisions would clarify existing
provisions, expand permissible equipment and materials, and update
equipment requirements that are outdated. The Commission is providing
an opportunity for interested parties to present written and oral
comments on this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR). Both written and
oral comments will be part of the rulemaking record.
DATES: Deadline for Written Comments: Submit comments by November 14,
2022.
Deadline for Request to Present Oral Comments: Any person
interested in making an oral presentation must send an email indicating
this intent to the Office of the Secretary at [email protected] by
October 31, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2019-0008, by
any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. CPSC typically does not accept
comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except as described
below. CPSC encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal.
Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier Written Submissions: Submit comments by
mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone: (301) 504-7479. If you wish to submit confidential business
information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected
information that you do not want to be available to the public, you may
submit such comments by mail, hand delivery, or courier, or you may
email them to: [email protected].
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice. CPSC may post all comments without
change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or
other personal information provided, to: https://www.regulations.gov.
Do not submit electronically: confidential business information, trade
secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that
you do not want to be available to the public. If you wish to submit
such information, please submit it according to the instructions for
mail/hand delivery/courier written submissions.
Docket: To read background documents or comments regarding this
proposed rulemaking, go to: https://www.regulations.gov, insert docket
number CPSC-2019-0008 in the ``Search'' box, and follow the prompts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Witzen, Project Manager, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD
20852; telephone (301) 987-2029; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. History of the Standard for the Flammability of Clothing Textiles
Congress enacted the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA; 15 U.S.C. 1191-
1204) in 1953, to prohibit the importation, manufacture for sale, or
the sale in commerce of any fabric or article of wearing apparel that
is ``so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals.''
\1\ The FFA of 1953 required that a test, first published by the
Department of Commerce as a voluntary commercial standard, then called
``Flammability of Clothing Textiles, Commercial Standard 191-53'' (CS
191-53), be used to determine if fabric or clothing is ``so highly
flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals.'' In 1975, the
Commission codified CS 191-53 as the Standard for the Flammability of
Clothing Textiles at 16 CFR part 1610 (Standard). 40 FR 59884 (Dec. 30,
1975).\2\ The Commission has since amended 16 CFR part 1610 several
times to clarify requirements and update outdated materials, equipment,
and technologies.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 83-88, 67 Stat. 111 (June 30, 1953).
\2\ In 1967, Congress amended the FFA to allow for rulemaking to
issue flammability standards. Public Law 90-189, 67 Stat. 112 (Dec.
14, 1967). Congress transferred the authority to administer the FFA,
including issuing regulations, to CPSC in 1972. 15 U.S.C. 2079(b).
\3\ See, e.g., 59 FR 33193 (June 28, 1994) (removing the names
of firms that supplied components of the test apparatus and
equipment because additional firms had since entered the market); 73
FR 15636 (Mar. 25, 2008) (revising definitions and the test
procedure to reduce confusion, updating test equipment and methods
to reflect currently available materials, and revising burn codes to
improve accuracy and consistency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Current Standard
The purpose of the Standard is to reduce the risk of injury and
death by providing a national standard for testing and rating the
flammability of textiles and textile products used for clothing. 16 CFR
1610.1(a). The Standard includes test equipment, materials, and
procedures for testing the flammability of clothing textiles. As a
general
[[Page 56290]]
overview,\4\ the Standard includes specifications for a flammability
test apparatus, which consists of a chamber that contains an ignition
mechanism, sample rack, and timing mechanism. The test procedure
generally involves placing a specimen in the test apparatus, stringing
stop thread across the top of the specimen, activating a trigger device
that impinges a flame, and recording the time it takes to sever the
stop thread and observations of the burn behavior of the specimen. This
test is performed before and after refurbishing the specimen, which
involves specified methods of dry cleaning and laundering, and must be
performed on multiple specimens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 16 CFR part 1610 for details regarding test equipment,
materials, and procedures, as well as exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After testing, the burn time (i.e., the time elapsed from ignition
until the stop thread is severed) and burn behavior are used to
identify appropriate test result codes (i.e., burn codes) and determine
the classification of the textile. Class 1 textiles exhibit normal
flammability and are acceptable for use in clothing; Class 2 textiles
exhibit intermediate flammability and may be used for clothing; and
Class 3 textiles exhibit rapid and intense burning, are dangerously
flammable, and are not permitted for clothing. The criteria for each
classification differ for plain surface textile fabrics and raised
surface textile fabrics.
Section 1610.40 of the Standard permits the use of alternative
apparatus, procedures, or criteria for tests for guaranty purposes. The
FFA states that no person will be subject to prosecution for failing to
comply with flammability requirements if that person has a guaranty,
meeting specific requirements, that indicates that reasonable and
representative tests confirmed compliance with flammability
requirements issued under the statute. 15 U.S.C. 1197. For purposes of
supporting guaranties, Sec. 1610.40(c) of the Standard states that
``reasonable and representative tests'' could be either the
flammability tests required in the Standard or ``alternate tests which
utilize apparatus or procedures other than those'' in the Standard. The
Standard specifies that for persons or firms issuing guaranties to use
an alternative apparatus or procedure, the alternative must be ``as
stringent as, or more stringent than'' the test in the Standard, which
the Commission will consider met ``if, when testing identical
specimens, the alternative test yields failing results as often as, or
more often than,'' the test in the Standard.
Section 1610.40 sets out conditions for using this allowance. A
person or firm using the allowance ``must have data or information to
demonstrate that the alternative test is as stringent as, or more
stringent than,'' the test in the Standard, and retain that information
while using the alternative and for one year after. 16 CFR
1610.40(d)(1), (2), (3), and (f). Section 1610.40 specifies that the
Commission will test fabrics in accordance with the Standard and will
consider any failing results evidence of non-compliance and a false
guaranty. Id. 1610.40(e), (g).
C. History of This Rulemaking
In 2019, the Commission published a Request for Information (RFI),
seeking information about the equipment and procedures in the Standard
and possible ways to update those provisions to reduce testing burdens,
improve clarity, and reflect current industry practices and
technologies. 85 FR 16797 (Apr. 23, 2019). The RFI requested
information about the clarity of the test result codes, availability
and clarity of the stop thread specification, restrictions on the dry
cleaning solvent, and availability of machines meeting the laundering
specifications in the Standard.\5\ Based on feedback received in
response to the RFI, as well as CPSC staff's testing and other
information, the Commission now proposes to amend the Standard to
update and clarify these provisions.\6\ For additional details, see
CPSC staff's briefing package supporting this notice.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The RFI also sought input on the possibility of adding
spandex to the list of fabrics that are exempt from testing
requirements in 16 CFR part 1610. However, comments on the RFI and
additional staff research did not provide sufficient information to
justify such an exemption at this time. See Status Update: 16 CFR
part 1610 Rule Update and Consideration for Adding Spandex Fibers to
the List of Currently Exempted Fibers from Testing (Sep. 30, 2020),
available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/StatusUpdate-16CFRPart1610RuleUpdateandConsiderationforAddingSpandexFiberstotheListofCurrentlyExemptedFibers-from-Testing.pdf.
\6\ The Commission voted 5-0 to issue this document.
\7\ Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed-Rule-to-Amend-the-Standard-for-the-Flammability-of-Clothing-Textiles-16-CFR-part-1610.pdf?VersionId=4QrYt7W05qY5gEiFf_ohdwT4j8.FGDoR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The Product and Risk of Injury 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For detailed information about the risk of injury, see Tab A
of staff's briefing package supporting this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Standard applies to all items of clothing and fabrics intended
to be used for clothing (i.e., articles of wearing apparel), whether
for adults or children, for daywear or nightwear,\9\ with certain
listed exclusions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Other regulations governing the flammability of children's
sleepwear, in 16 CFR parts 1615 and 1616, are more stringent than
the general wearing apparel flammability standard in 16 CFR part
1610. The proposed changes discussed in this document would not
affect the children's sleepwear standards.
\10\ Excluded products include certain hats, gloves, footwear,
interlining fabrics, plain surface fabrics meeting specified
criteria, and fabrics made from certain fibers that, from years of
experience, have been shown to consistently yield acceptable results
when tested in accordance with the Standard. 16 CFR 1610.1(c) and
(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020 (the most recent
year for which data are available), there were an average of 81 deaths
annually in the United States that involved ignition of clothing. An
average of 2.2 of these fatalities involved ignition or melting of
nightwear, and an average of 78.2 of these fatalities involved ignition
or melting of other clothing. Between 2000 and 2020, the number of
clothing fire deaths declined, overall. In addition, using CPSC's
National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS),\11\ staff
estimates that between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021 (the most
recent year for which data are complete), there were an average of
5,300 nonfatal injuries annually that were associated with clothing
ignition treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NEISS uses a probability sample of about 100 hospitals in
the United States that represent all U.S. hospitals with emergency
departments to identify and generate national estimates of nonfatal
injuries treated in emergency departments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Statutory Requirements for Revising the Standard
The FFA specifies the requirements for the Commission to issue or
amend a flammability standard. The Commission may initiate rulemaking
by issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) or an NPR.
15 U.S.C. 1193(g). The Commission is initiating this rulemaking with an
NPR. The FFA requires that an NPR include the text of the proposed
rule, any alternatives the Commission proposes, and a preliminary
regulatory analysis. Id. 1193(i). The preliminary regulatory analysis
must include:
a preliminary description of the potential benefits and
costs of the proposed rule, including benefits and costs that cannot be
quantified, and who is likely to receive the benefits and bear the
costs;
a discussion of the reasons the Commission did not publish
any standard or portion of a standard submitted in response to an ANPR
as the proposed rule or part of it;
a discussion of the reasons for the Commission's
preliminary
[[Page 56291]]
determination that efforts submitted to the Commission in response to
an ANPR to develop or modify a voluntary standard would not be likely,
within a reasonable period, to result in a voluntary standard that
would eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury at issue; and
a description of reasonable alternatives to the proposed
rule, a summary of their potential costs and benefits, and a brief
explanation of the reasons the Commission did not choose the
alternatives.
Id.
To issue a final rule, the Commission must publish a final
regulatory analysis and make certain findings. Id. 1193(b), (j)(1),
(j)(2). At the NPR stage, the Commission makes these findings on a
preliminary basis to allow the public to comment on them. The
Commission must find that each regulation or amendment:
is needed to adequately protect the public from
unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death, injury,
or significant property damage;
is reasonable, technologically practicable, and
appropriate;
is limited to fabrics, related materials, or products that
present such unreasonable risks; and
is stated in objective terms.
Id. 1193(b). In addition, to promulgate a regulation, the
Commission must make the following findings and include them in the
rule:
if a voluntary standard addressing the risk of injury has
been adopted and implemented, that either compliance with the voluntary
standard is not likely to result in the elimination or adequate
reduction of the risk or injury, or it is unlikely that there will be
substantial compliance with the voluntary standard;
that the benefits expected from the rule bear a reasonable
relationship to its costs; and
that the rule imposes the least burdensome requirement
that prevents or adequately reduces the risk of injury.
Id. 1193(j)(2).
When issuing an NPR under the FFA, the Commission also must comply
with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C.
551-559), which requires the Commission to provide notice of a rule and
the opportunity for interested parties to submit written data, views,
or arguments on it. 5 U.S.C. 553(c); 15 U.S.C. 1193(d). In addition,
the FFA requires the Commission to provide interested parties with an
opportunity to make oral presentations of data, views, or arguments.
Id. 1193(d).
III. Description of and Basis for the Proposed Revisions
A. Test Result Codes 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For additional information regarding burn codes and the
proposed revisions to them, see Tab B of staff's briefing package
supporting this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Current Requirements
As described above, the burn time and burn behavior of tested
specimens are used to determine the classification of a textile, and
classifications determine whether the fabric may be used for clothing.
Section 1610.8 of the Standard lists test result codes (i.e., burn
codes) that are used to record burn time and burn behavior results and
help determine the appropriate classification.\13\ The burn codes and
classification criteria are different for plain and raised surface
textile fabrics. Section 1610.2(l) and (k) define ``plain surface
textile fabrics'' and ``raised surface textile fabrics.'' In general,
plain surface textile fabrics do not have intentionally raised fiber or
yarn surfaces, whereas, raised surface textile fabrics have
intentionally raised fiber or yarn surfaces and consist of the base of
the fabric, which is the fabric's structure, and the surface fibers
that are raised from the base. Common examples of raised surface
textile fabrics include velvet or terry cloth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Criteria for classifications are provided in Table 1 to
Sec. 1610.4, and in Sec. 1610.7. Because multiple specimens must
be tested under the Standard, both before and after refurbishing,
burn codes and classifications are based on the results of multiple
tested specimens. The Standard specifies how to determine
appropriate burn codes and classifications in light of these
multiple results. See Sec. Sec. 1610.7 and 1610.8 for details on
these determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For plain surface textile fabrics, classification is based
primarily on burn times. The Standard provides three possible burn
codes for plain surface textile fabrics:
DNI (did not ignite);
IBE (ignited, but extinguished); and
_._sec. (indicating the burn time).
Fabrics that yield DNI or IBE burn codes have no recordable burn
time and are considered Class 1 fabrics. Plain surface textile fabrics
with a burn time of 3.5 seconds or more are Class 1; those with a burn
time of less than 3.5 seconds are Class 3; and there is no Class 2
option for plain surface fabrics.
For raised surface textile fabrics, classification is based on burn
time and the intensity of the surface burning. Burn behaviors for
raised surface textile fabrics fall into two general categories of
intensity--surface flashes and base burns--and each category has
specific burn codes associated with it. As described above, raised
surface textile fabrics consist of a base and intentionally raised
surface fibers. Burn behavior that involves only surface fibers is
called surface flash, whereas, burn behavior that burns through the
base is called a base burn, which involves the base fabric igniting or
fusing. Both burn time and burn behavior are relevant to classification
of these fabrics because a rapid surface flash that quickly breaks the
stop thread but does not burn through the base of the fabric is not
considered dangerously flammable; it is the combination of burning
rapidly and through the base that results in a dangerously flammable
fabric.
The Standard provides eight possible burn codes for raised surface
textile fabrics:
SF uc (surface flash under the stop thread);
SF pw (surface flash part way, meaning it did not reach
the stop thread);
SF poi (surface flash at the point of impingement only);
_._sec. (indicating the burn time);
_._SF only (surface flash with a burn time);
_._SFBB (surface flash with a base burn starting somewhere
other than the point of impingement);
_._SFBB poi (surface flash with base burn starting at the
point of impingement); and
_._SFBB poi* (surface flash with base burn where the base
burn possibly started at the point of impingement, but testing was
unable to make an absolute determination of the origin of the base
burn).
Burn codes SF uc, SF pw, SF poi, and _._SF only apply when there is
a surface flash and no base burn. Burn codes SFBB, SFBB poi, and SFBB
poi* apply when the surface fiber and the base of the fabric are
involved in the burning behavior (i.e., both surface flash and base
burn occur). Burn code _._sec. provides only the burn time, with no
indication of burning behavior.
Raised surface textile fabrics are Class 1 if they either have a
burn time greater than 7.0 seconds or they have a burn time of 0-7
seconds with no base burns (i.e., the fabric exhibits only surface
flash and no base burn). These fabrics are Class 2 if they have a burn
time of 4 to 7 seconds (inclusive) and exhibit a base burn. These
fabrics are Class 3 if they have a burn time of less than 4.0 seconds
and exhibit a base burn.
[[Page 56292]]
2. Proposed Amendments and Rationale
The Commission proposes to update the burn code provisions in the
Standard for raised surface textile fabrics to consolidate redundant
codes, eliminate unnecessary and unclear codes, and to improve clarity.
In response to the RFI, the Commission received several comments
indicating that burn code information for raised surface textile
fabrics is unclear. Because the burn codes help determine whether a
fabric is permissible for use in clothing, a lack of clarity in these
provisions could lead to misclassifications, which could impact
consumer safety.
First, the Commission proposes several revisions to Table 1 to
Sec. 1610.4 to clarify the existing criteria for classifications of
raised surface textile fabrics. In this table, the Commission proposes
to replace the wording ``with no base burns (SFBB)'' in the Class 1
description with ``with no SFBB burn code.'' As the Class 1 description
for raised surface fabrics in this table indicates, a fabric falls in
this class only if it either has a longer burn time (more than 7
seconds) or if it exhibits rapid surface flash only, and no base burns.
As explained above, there are three burn codes that indicate that a
base burn occurred--SFBB, SFBB poi, and SFBB poi*. SFBB applies when
the base burn occurs as a result of the surface flash, rather than from
the point of impingement of the burner, whereas SFBB poi and SFBB poi*
only have a base burn due to the flame that impinges on the fabric, not
from the intensity of the surface of the fabric itself burning. As
such, only fabrics with burn code SFBB, and not SFBB poi and SFBB poi*,
are excluded from being Class 1. The proposed revision would retain
this criterion, while clarifying the specific burn code--SFBB--being
referenced.
Similarly, the Commission proposes to add a note to Table 1 to
Sec. 1610.4, stating that burn codes SFBB poi and SFBB poi* are not
considered a base burn for purposes of determining Class 2 and 3
fabrics. Class 2 and 3 descriptions for raised surface textile fabrics
in this table specify that fabrics in these classes exhibit base burns
(SFBB). Like above, only fabrics with a burn code of SFBB, and not SFBB
poi and SFBB poi*, have a base burn that occurs as a result of the
surface flash rather than from the point of impingement of the burner.
Although the table already references burn code SFBB for the Class 2
and 3 descriptions, the added note will make clear that SFBB refers
only to that specific code, and not the other two base burn codes.
The Commission also proposes to add the classification names--
Normal Flammability, Intermediate Flammability, and Rapid and Intense
Burning--to the descriptions of raised surface textile classifications
in the table. This addition is both for clarity and to highlight that,
although both Class 1 and 2 fabrics are permissible for use in
clothing, Class 2 fabrics are more flammable, which indicates that
caution should be taken when using them.
Second, consistent with the clarification above in Sec. 1610.4,
the Commission proposes to revise the definition of ``base burn'' in
Sec. 1610.2(a) to clarify that base burns are used to establish Class
2 and 3 (not just Class 3) and to reference burn code SFBB for clarity.
Third, and also consistent with the changes above, the Commission
proposes to revise the description of Class 2 for raised surface
textile fabrics in Sec. 1610.4(b)(2) to add the clarification that
``base fabric starts burning at places other than the point of
impingement as a result of the surface flash (test results code
SFBB).''
Fourth, the Commission proposes to amend the provisions on raised
surface textile fabrics in Sec. 1610.7(b)(3) and (4), which describes
classification criteria in detail. The Commission proposes to add
``(SFBB)'' anywhere that the words ``base burn'' appear to make clear
what burn code is being referenced, consistent with the revision in
Table 1 to Sec. 1610.4.
Fifth, the Commission proposes to revise Sec. 1610.8, which lists
the burn codes and requirements relevant to them, to streamline the
codes by consolidating similar codes and removing unnecessary and
confusing codes. The Commission proposes to combine burn codes SF uc,
SF pw, and SF poi into a single new burn code, SF ntr (no time
recorded, does not break stop thread). The three existing codes all
describe burning behavior that does not have enough intensity to break
the stop thread and, accordingly, have no burn time and all result in a
fabric being Class 1. Because the purpose of burn codes is to determine
the classification of fabrics, it is unnecessary to have all three of
these codes; instead, a single code, indicating that there was no burn
time recorded, is sufficient and clearer.
Similarly, the Commission proposes to remove from the list of
raised surface textile fabric burn codes in Sec. 1610.8, the code that
lists only a burn time (_._sec.). Because burn time, alone, generally
does not determine the classification of raised surface textile
fabrics, this code does not help identify the appropriate
classification, is confusing, and may result in misclassification.
Finally, the Commission proposes to amend the times provided in the
Standard so they all include one decimal place. Currently, some
references to time use one decimal place (e.g., 7.0 seconds) and others
use no decimal place (e.g., 4 seconds). For consistency, the Commission
proposes to include a single decimal place, without altering the times
specified in the Standard.
None of these proposed changes would alter the testing
requirements, classification criteria, or classification results under
the Standard. Rather, they clarify existing requirements and
consolidate codes to streamline the provisions. The Commission requests
comments on each of these proposed revisions and, in particular, on
whether they improve clarity, as intended.
[[Page 56293]]
B. Stop Thread 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For additional information regarding stop thread and the
proposed revisions, see Tab C of staff's briefing package supporting
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Current Requirements
As discussed above, the test apparatus required for flammability
testing includes, as part of the necessary components, stop thread,
which is used to determine burn time. Section 1610.2(p) includes a
definition of ``stop thread,'' and Sec. 1610.5(a)(2)(ii) specifies the
test apparatus and materials that must be used for flammability
testing, both of which state that the stop thread must be ``No. 50,
white, mercerized, 100% cotton sewing thread.''
2. Proposed Amendments and Rationale
CPSC has a supply of the required thread for testing. It is a 3-ply
cotton thread. However, ``No. 50'' is not currently a common or clear
method of describing thread. Lack of clarity or availability regarding
the stop thread in the Standard potentially introduces variability in
test results, depending on the thread testing laboratories use. This is
problematic because the stop thread is used to determine burn time,
which is used to determine the classification of a fabric and whether
it is acceptable for use in clothing. The Standard needs to provide
clear reference to a thread that is currently available on the market
so that testing laboratories can acquire the necessary thread and use
it to obtain consistent test results and classifications.
To identify a stop thread description that is available on the
market and comparable to the current thread specified in the Standard,
CPSC staff assessed the thread supply they currently use to test under
the Standard, assessed an alternative thread that is marketed as
complying with the Standard, considered threads required in other
clothing flammability standards, and conducted testing of several
threads. Currently, the industry (including internationally) commonly
uses the Tex system to define thread size. ``Tex'' is defined as the
weight, in grams, of 1,000 meters of yarn and is determined by
measuring and weighing cotton threads and calculating linear density.
Because of the wide recognition and use of the Tex system, staff
considered the Tex size of the various stop threads assessed. For a
detailed explanation of how CPSC staff determined the Tex sizes of
these threads, see the briefing package staff prepared following the
RFI.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Tab B of staff's status update briefing package, ``Status
Update: 16 CFR part 1610 Rule Update and Consideration for Adding
Spandex Fibers to the List of Currently Exempted Fibers from
Testing,'' Sep. 30, 2020, available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/StatusUpdate-16CFRPart1610RuleUpdateandConsiderationforAddingSpandexFiberstotheListofCurrentlyExemptedFibers-from-Testing.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff determined that the current thread supply CPSC uses to test
under the Standard has a Tex size of 36. CPSC staff also assessed a
commercially available thread (Item Code 1502002, CFR1610, #50
mercerized cotton thread, lot 12308) that is marketed as complying with
the Standard. Although CPSC does not use this thread, some commercial
laboratories and manufacturers use this thread when testing to the
Standard. Staff determined that this thread has a Tex size of 44. Staff
also considered the stop thread required in the Canadian General
Standards Board's standard, CAN/CGSB-4.2 No. 27.5, Textile Test Method
Flame Resistance--45[deg] Angle Test--One Second Flame Impingement.
This stop thread specification is similar to the Standard and is
described as R 35 Tex/3 (No.50, 3-ply), mercerized cotton, indicating a
Tex size of 35.\16\ Based on these assessments, the thread CPSC
currently uses, and potentially comparable threads on the market, have
Tex sizes ranging from 35 to 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Staff also considered the stop thread required in ASTM
International's standard, ASTM D1230-17, Standard Test Method for
Flammability of Apparel Textiles. However, this standard describes
the thread as ``Cotton Sewing Thread, No. 50, mercerized'' and,
therefore, does not provide any further detail than the Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff conducted a thread comparison study to determine whether
differences in threads, such as fiber type and size (linear density),
had a significant effect on burn times and flammability classifications
under the Standard, and to identify the range of Tex sizes that yield
flammability results comparable to the current Standard. Because the
purpose of updating the stop thread specification is to improve clarity
about the thread required and ensure there is such a thread available
on the market, and not to alter the results under the Standard, staff
aimed to identify Tex sizes that would yield flammability results
comparable to those using the thread currently specified in the
Standard. This section provides information about the comparison study
and results.
Staff tested five threads with varying Tex sizes, as indicated in
Table 1.
Table 1--Thread Descriptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tex (g/1,000
Thread Description meters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.............................. Thread CPSC uses to 36
test to the Standard.
B.............................. Commercially available 44
thread, sold as
meeting the Standard.
C.............................. Polyester core spun 87
thread.
D.............................. Spun polyester thread.. 24
E.............................. Cotton thread.......... 37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56294]]
Threads A, B, and E were cotton, and Threads C and D were polyester
and had more divergent Tex sizes than the cotton threads. Staff used
two plain surface cotton fabrics for testing--cotton organdy (Fabric 1)
and cotton batiste (Fabric 2)--each with a fabric weight of 2.06 oz/
yd\2\. Staff selected these fabrics for testing because they have burn
times exceeding the 3.5-second burn time limit for plain surface
textile fabrics in the Standard, had sufficient burn times (between 4
and 7 seconds) to yield a range of measurements for comparison, and did
not produce many test result codes of DNI or IBE. Staff tested 30
specimens for each combination of thread and fabric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Specimen results of DNI or IBE were excluded since these
did not provide a burn time. These were excluded because this
testing was designed to evaluate how sensitive the burn time
measurements are to the properties of a stop thread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figures 1 and 2 provide the results of staff's testing.\17\
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14SE22.008
[[Page 56295]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14SE22.009
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
As these figures show, the burn times for all of the thread options
for each fabric were very similar. As explained above, for plain
surface textile fabrics, classification depends on whether the burn
time is 3.5 seconds or more, or shorter than that. For both fabrics,
and all threads, the burn times were well above this 3.5-second
threshold, indicating that all of the results were Class 1 and that any
of the alternative threads would yield classifications consistent with
the current Standard. In addition, because the burn times were all well
above the 3.5-second threshold, slight variations in burn times across
thread options would not alter the classifications. Moreover, there was
little variation in the burn times of the different threads, with the
median burn time for all threads being within 0.4 seconds for Fabric 1
and 0.3 seconds for Fabric 2. For comparison, the variability in burn
times from specimen to specimen within the same fabric and thread type
was wider, at about 1.0 second of variation between the slowest and
fastest burn times. These results show that any of these alternative
threads and Tex sizes would not result in changes in a fabric's
classification when compared to the current Standard.
Based on staff's assessments and testing, the Commission proposes
to amend the stop thread description in the Standard from ``No. 50,
white, mercerized, 100% cotton sewing thread,'' to state that it must
consist of a spool of ``3-ply, white, mercerized, 100% cotton sewing
thread, with a Tex size of 35 to 45 Tex.'' This amendment would remove
the reference to ``No. 50'' since the meaning of this is no longer
clear, and it would add to the description that the thread is ``3-ply''
because this is consistent with thread that complies with the current
Standard. This would also maintain the requirement that the thread be
``white, mercerized, 100% cotton sewing thread,'' as this maintains
consistency with the current Standard and does not require
clarification or updates due to product availability. In addition, it
is preferable to continue to require cotton for the stop thread because
some polyester threads are designed to be flame resistant, making
cotton thread more appropriate for flammability testing.
The Commission proposes to add to the description that the range of
permissible Tex sizes is 35 to 45. Staff's test results indicate that a
stop thread description that allows a range of acceptable Tex sizes
would yield flammability results that are consistent across that range
and in line with the results obtained using the stop thread in the
current Standard. Because of the wide recognition and use of the Tex
system, specifying a Tex size for the stop thread in the Standard would
allow testing laboratories to purchase compliant thread and obtain
repeatable and reliable test results. Allowing a range of Tex sizes,
instead of specifying a specific Tex size, would give testing
laboratories greater flexibility in identifying and obtaining stop
threads that comply with the Standard, while retaining consistent burn
times and flammability classifications.
The proposed range reflects the array of Tex sizes for the three
cotton threads that yielded burn times that were consistent with the
current Standard (Thread A with Tex size 36, Thread B with Tex size 44,
and Thread E with Tex size 37). As such, the proposed revision would
allow testing laboratories to use the thread CPSC currently uses
(Thread A) and the thread currently marketed as complying with the
Standard (Thread B), and it would also allow the use of thread that
complies with the Canadian standard, which specifies a Tex size of 35.
Although Threads C and D also yielded comparable burn times, these two
threads were polyester, which is potentially problematic because some
polyester threads are designed to be flame resistant, and they had much
higher and lower Tex sizes (87 and 24, respectively). Therefore, the
Commission is not proposing to include
[[Page 56296]]
these Tex size within the permissible range.
The Commission seeks comments on these proposed revisions and the
justifications for them. In particular, the Commission seeks comments
on the use of Tex sizes; whether a range of Tex sizes is appropriate,
rather than a specific size; whether the range should be limited to
those of cotton thread or include the Tex sizes of polyester or other
thread; and the range of sizes that should be permissible and why.
C. Refurbishing 18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ For additional information regarding refurbishing and the
proposed revisions, see Tabs D and E of the briefing package
supporting this NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Current Requirements and Need for Amendments
The Standard requires that flammability testing be performed on
samples in their original state and again after refurbishing. 16 CFR
1610.3, 1610.6. The Standard defines ``refurbishing'' as ``dry cleaning
and laundering in accordance with Sec. 1610.6.'' Id. 1610.2(m). After
testing samples in their original state, they must be dry cleaned
following the procedures in Sec. 1610.6(b)(1)(i), and then laundered
(i.e., washed and dried) following the procedures in Sec.
1610.6(b)(1)(ii), before testing again. The purpose of the refurbishing
requirements is to remove any non-durable or water-soluble treatments
or finishes that are on the fabric that may affect the flammability of
the fabric. These requirements are not meant to replicate how consumers
would care for or use the garment. The specific requirements for dry
cleaning and laundering, as well as the need for updating these
provisions, are discussed below.
a. Dry Cleaning
The Standard defines ``dry cleaning'' as ``the cleaning of samples
in a commercial dry cleaning machine under the conditions described in
Sec. 1610.6.'' Id. 1610.2(c). Section 1610.6 specifies that samples
must be dry cleaned in a commercial dry cleaning machine using the
solvent ``perchloroethylene, commercial grade,'' and it provides
specific parameters regarding detergent class, cleaning time,
extraction time, drying temperature, drying time, and cool down/
deodorization time. Id. 1610.6(b)(1)(i). Likewise, the requirements
regarding the test apparatus and materials specify that the dry
cleaning solvent must be ``perchloroethylene, commercial grade,'' and
the commercial dry cleaning machine must be capable of a complete
automatic dry-to-dry cycle using perchloroethylene solvent. Id.
1610.5(b)(6), (b)(7).
In recent years, there have been increasing restrictions on the use
of perchloroethylene in dry cleaning. In 2007, California adopted
regulations that took incremental steps to phase out the use of
perchloroethylene in the dry cleaning industry over time, and require
that, by January 1, 2023, existing facilities remove all
perchloroethylene dry cleaning machines from service.\19\ In addition,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is
considering steps to address the risks associated with
perchloroethylene, including potentially regulating, limiting, or
prohibiting production or use of the chemical.\20\ With increasing
limitations on the use of perchloroethylene in dry cleaning, the
Standard needs to be updated to include an alternative dry cleaning
specification so that testing laboratories that cannot use
perchloroethylene can conduct compliant testing and obtain consistent,
reliable, and accurate test results and classifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 17 CA ADC section 93109, available at: https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I3065E480D60811DE88AEDDE29ED1DC0A?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default
).
\20\ See EPA Releases Final Chemical Risk Evaluation for
Perchloroethylene (Dec. 14, 2020), available at: https://www.epa.gov/chemicals-under-tsca/epa-releases-final-chemical-risk-evaluation-perchloroethylene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Laundering
The Standard defines ``laundering'' as ``washing with an aqueous
detergent solution and includes rinsing, extraction and tumble drying
as described in Sec. 1610.6.'' 16 CFR 1610.2(i). Section 1610.6
specifies that, for laundering, a sample be washed and dried one time
in accordance with sections 8.2.2, 8.2.3, and 8.3.1(A) of AATCC Test
Method 124-2006, Appearance of Fabrics after Repeated Home Laundering
(TM 124-2006), which is incorporated by reference into the regulations
in section 1610.6(b)(1)(iii). Sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 of TM 124-2006
address washing requirements, and section 8.3.1(A) addresses drying.
For washing, the Standard requires the use of specific washing
procedures (by referencing sections 8.2.2 and 8.2.3 of TM 124-2006);
the use of washing machines that meet criteria for wash temperature (by
referencing Table II, provision (IV) in TM 124-2006) and water level,
agitator speed, washing time, spin speed, and final spin cycle (by
referencing Table III, provisions for ``Normal/Cotton Sturdy'' in TM
124-2006); and maximum wash loads and contents. For drying, the
Standard requires the test method described in TM 124-2006 for Tumble
Dry (section 8.3.1(A)), with the use of machines that meet specified
exhaust temperatures and cool down temperatures (by referencing Table
IV, provisions for ``Durable Press'' in TM 124-2006).
Washing machines have changed substantially over the past 15 years
to reduce water use and improve energy efficiency. One key element of
washing machines that has evolved is agitation speed. Currently, the
Standard requires the use of a washing machine with an agitation speed
of 179 2 strokes per minute (spm) (by referencing Table
III, provisions for ``Normal/Cotton Sturdy'' in TM 124-2006). However,
washing machines available on the market are no longer able to meet
this requirement because they have reduced agitation speeds. Although
CPSC still has washing machines that meet the required agitation speed,
when these machines reach the end of their useful lives, CPSC will not
be able to replace them with machines that comply with the Standard.
Likewise, CPSC expects that many washing machines that testing
laboratories use to test for conformance with the Standard have
reached, or soon will reach, the end of their useful lives, at which
point, the labs will be unable to obtain the machines necessary to test
to the Standard. As such, the Standard needs to be updated to include
washing machine specifications that can be met by machines that are
available on the market, and yield consistent, reliable, and accurate
test results and classifications.
Unlike washing machines, there has been little change in the design
of dryers in recent years, and dryers that meet the requirements in the
Standard are still available on the market. Nevertheless, the
Commission proposes to update the specifications for dryers in the
Standard to align with the necessary updates for washing machines, for
the reasons discussed below.
2. Comparison Study
Staff considered several options to update the dry cleaning and
laundering specifications in the Standard and conducted comparison
testing to determine whether these options would yield flammability
results comparable to the current Standard. Staff sought to identify
options that would not alter the flammability results of fabrics
because the Standard has a long history and has been effective at
addressing clothing flammability. As such, staff aimed to
[[Page 56297]]
identify alternatives that would provide a comparable level of consumer
safety, by providing comparable flammability classifications. In
addition, alternatives that provide flammability results comparable to
the Standard, reduce the costs associated with these updates because
they would not change whether fabrics subject to the Standard are
permissible for use in clothing. Finally, staff sought to identify
comparable alternatives because the purpose of these amendments is to
update outdated equipment and methods, not to alter the classifications
of fabrics tested under the Standard.
This section provides information about the comparison study and
results; for additional information, see Tabs D and E of staff's
briefing package supporting this NPR.
a. Options
i. Dry Cleaning
Staff considered several dry cleaning solvents as alternatives to
perchloroethylene. Staff considered hydrocarbon solvent because it is
becoming the most commonly used alternative to perchloroethylene in the
dry cleaning industry; it has a long history of use; it is low in cost;
and it is more widely available than many other alternatives. Staff
also considered silicone and butylal solvents because they are also
widely available. Staff did not consider carbon dioxide dry cleaning
because it is more expensive than other options and is not widely
available. Staff also did not consider professional wet cleaning
because it would not accomplish the purpose of the dry cleaning
requirement in the Standard. The purpose of the refurbishing
requirements in the Standard is to remove finishes that may affect the
flammability of a fabric, and both dry cleaning and laundering are
necessary for that purpose. Because fabrics are already exposed to
water-based cleaning under the separate laundering requirements in the
Standard, water-soluble finishes would be removed by that process, and
professional wet cleaning would not provide additional finishing
removal. As such, a non-water-based dry cleaning method, like the one
currently in the Standard, is appropriate. Based on these assessments,
staff tested three potential dry cleaning solvent options--hydrocarbon,
silicone, and butylal--as part of the comparison study.
In selecting an alternative dry cleaning solvent for the Standard,
it is not sufficient to change the solvent alone; the parameters
surrounding the dry cleaning procedure need to be adjusted, as well,
because of the nature of different solvent systems, dry cleaning
processes, and equipment requirements. As such, in assessing
alternative procedures, staff selected an appropriate detergent class,
cleaning time, extraction time, cooling time, drying time, and drying
temperature, for each alternative solvent, based on typical procedures
used for that solvent system. For all of the options, samples were dry
cleaned in a commercial dry cleaning machine at 80 percent of the
machine's capacity.\21\ The parameters staff used for the comparison
study are in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Consistent with Sec. 1610.6(b)(1)(i)(B), staff used 80
percent wool and 20 percent cotton ballast, in addition to the
sample, to achieve 80 percent of the machine's capacity.
Table 2--Dry Cleaning Procedures Used in Comparison Study
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solvent Perchloroethylene Hydrocarbon Silicone Butylal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detergent Class Cationic............ Cationic.......... Anionic........... Cationic
Cleaning Time.................. 10-15 minutes....... 20-25 minutes..... 14-17 minutes..... 2 mins (bath 1)
11 minutes (bath
2) (13 minutes
total).
Extraction Time................ 3 minutes........... 4 minutes......... 6 minutes......... 5 minutes (bath
1) 5 minutes
(bath 2) (10
minutes total).
Drying Temperature............. 60-66[deg]C (140- 60-66[deg]C (140- 70[deg]C 66-71[deg]C (150-
150[deg]F). 150[deg]F). (158[deg]F). 160[deg]F).
Drying Time.................... 18-20 minutes....... 20-25 minutes..... 18-20 minutes..... 40 minutes.
Cool Down/Deodorization Time... 5 minutes........... 5 minutes......... 5 minutes......... 4 minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Laundering
Staff also considered several options as alternatives to the
laundering specifications in TM 124-2006. Because agitation speed is
the primary element of the current specification that can no longer be
met by machines on the market, one alternative staff considered was
requiring the continued use of the laundering procedures in TM 124-
2006, but allowing a lower agitation speed.\22\ Staff considered this
option because it is the alternative most similar to the current
Standard--with all of the washing parameters remaining the same except
for agitation speed--that washing machines on the market can meet. When
comparison testing this option, the agitation speed was the only
washing parameter changed from the current Standard, and the drying
procedures remained the same as the current Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Agitation speed alone is not a measure of how rough a wash
cycle is on textiles. Rather, agitation speed and stroke length need
to be considered in combination when comparing washing parameters.
Stroke length is a measurement of the degrees of rotation of the
agitator. However, in considering this alternative, staff did not
alter the stroke length because, although older washing machines
have higher agitation speeds, they also typically have lower stroke
lengths (typically up to 90 degrees). In contrast, washing machines
currently on the market, which have lower agitation speeds, also
have larger stroke lengths (typically up to 220 degrees), thereby
achieving the same wash results with lower agitation speeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess this lower agitation speed option, CPSC purchased a
washing machine designed for testing laboratories that offers
preprogrammed wash cycles or allows the user to program cycle
parameters, subject to the machine's physical specification limits. All
of the machine's programmable cycle parameters can meet the
specifications in the Standard, except for the agitation speed. The
maximum programmable agitation speed for the washing machine is 120
spm, lower than the 179 2 spm required in the Standard.
This option is referred to as ``reduced agitation speed'' in this
notice because it has a reduced agitation speed, as compared to the
Standard (although the agitation speed is higher than the second
option, discussed below).
A second option staff considered to update the washing machine
specifications was to follow the parameters in AATCC's Laboratory
Procedure 1, Home Laundering: Machine Washing (LP1-2021), instead of
the parameters in TM 124-2006. LP1-
[[Page 56298]]
2021 is a voluntary standard that many testing laboratories already use
for testing to other standards. A comment on the RFI recommended the
use of this standard because it is similar to the current Standard;
machines that meet it are readily available on the market; and the
machines and standard are not expected to change significantly for some
time.
LP1-2021 includes a lower agitation speed than the current
Standard, but it also includes other differences in the washing and
drying parameters. For this alternative, staff conducted comparison
testing using washing machine parameters that conform to the provisions
in:
section 9.2 of LP1-2021, which includes a lower wash load
size of 1.8 0.1 kg (4.0 0.2 pounds), compared
to the current Standard;
section 9.4 of LP1-2021, which requires the same detergent
as the current Standard; and
``(1) Normal'' and ``(IV) Hot'' in Table 1, Standard
Washing Machine Parameters, of LP1-2021, which specify the water level,
agitation rate, stroke length, washing time, final spin speed and time,
and wash temperature.
Staff used the drying parameters that conform to the provisions in:
section 12.2(A) of LP1-2021, which are the same as those
in the current Standard; and
``(Aiii) Permanent Press'' in Table VI, Standard Tumble
Dryer Parameters, of LP1-2021, which specifies the maximum exhaust
temperature and cool down time.
Based on these assessments, staff tested two potential laundering
options as part of the comparison study. The first option was the
reduced agitation speed for laundering (i.e., the laundering
specification in TM 124-2006, but with a reduced agitation speed) and
the drying specifications in the Standard. The second was both the
laundering and drying specifications stated above in LP1-2021. Note
that when this notice references LP1-2021, it is referring only to the
specific sections and tables stated above (i.e., sections 9.2, 9.4,
12.2(A), Table 1 ((1) Normal and (IV) Hot), and Table VI ((Aiii)
Permanent Press)), and not the entire LP1-2021 standard, which includes
additional and alternative provisions. Table 3 provides a comparison of
the washing and drying parameters in the current Standard, and the two
alternatives staff assessed in comparison testing.
Table 3--Laundering Procedure Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced agitation
Standard speed LP1-2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washing Machine Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agitation Speed, spm.......................... 179 2 120 2 86 2
Water Level, L (gal).......................... 68 4 68 4 72 4
(18 1) (18 1) (19 1)
Washing Time, min............................. 12 12 16 1
Spin Speed, rpm \23\.......................... 645 15 645 15 660 15
Final Spin Time, min.......................... 6 6 5 1
Wash Temperature, [deg]C ([deg]F)............. 49 3 49 3 49 3
(120 5) (120 5) (120 5)
Load size, kg (lbs)........................... <= 3.63 (<= 8) <= 3.63 (<= 8) 1.8 0.1
(4 0.2)
AATCC 1993 Standard Reference Detergent, g 66 0.1 66 0.1 66 0.1
(oz)......................................... (2.3 (2.3 (2.3
0.004) 0.004) 0.004)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dryer Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max. Dryer Exhaust Temperature, [deg]C 66 5 66 5 68 6
([deg]F)..................................... (150 (150 (155
10) 10) 10)
Cool Down Time, min........................... 10 10 <=10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Test Methods
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ``Rpm'' refers to revolutions per minute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To identify options that would yield flammability results
comparable to the Standard, staff developed a comparison testing study
that assessed the three alternative dry cleaning solvent options and
the two alternative laundering options discussed above, in comparison
to the dry cleaning and laundering provisions in the Standard.
Staff selected 11 fabrics for testing, including six plain surface
textile fabrics and five raised surface textile fabrics. Staff included
both plain and raised surface textile fabrics in the study because the
Standard provides different criteria for classifying these fabric
types. Staff chose samples that are representative of fabrics that
typically require flammability testing \24\ and yield both results that
permit their use in clothing (Class 1 and 2) and do not (Class 3).
Table 4 lists the fabrics used in the comparison study, as well as
their characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Staff excluded fabrics that are exempt from flammability
testing under the Standard. Staff also excluded blends from the
study, for simplicity.
Table 4--Fabrics Used in Comparison Study
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate
Fabric Description Fabric weight Surface type fabric width
(oz/yd \2\) (cm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................................. Silk, Chiffon, White. 0.58 Plain................ 112
B................................. Silk, Habutae, White. 1.06 Plain................ 114
C................................. Silk, Chiffon, Black. 0.87 Plain................ 112
D................................. Rayon, Chiffon, white 2.0 Plain................ 137
E................................. Cotton, Batiste...... 2.06 Plain................ 114
F................................. Cotton, Organdy...... 2.06 Plain................ 152
G................................. Cotton, Brushed, 7.24 Raised............... 100
White.
[[Page 56299]]
H................................. Cotton Terry......... 9.02 Raised............... 152
I................................. Cotton, Chenille, 10.0 Raised............... 142
White.
J................................. Cotton, Chenille, 10.0 Raised............... 142
Black.
K................................. Rayon, Brushed, Black 3.08 Raised............... 152
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff purchased at least 14 yards of each fabric, with widths
between 40 and 60 inches, and they cut these into four 2-yard sections
and one 6-yard section. One of the 2-yard sections of each fabric was
tested in its original state, without refurbishing, in accordance with
the Standard.
To examine the dry cleaning options, each of the three 2-yard
sections for each fabric was dry cleaned using one of the three dry
cleaning procedures under consideration (i.e., hydrocarbon, silicone,
and butylal), and then laundered using the procedures required in the
Standard. Staff used the laundering method in the Standard so that only
one variable in the refurbishing process was changed (i.e., dry
cleaning), to allow clear comparisons of the effects of different dry
cleaning methods on flammability test results.
To examine the laundering options, the 6-yard section of each
fabric was dry cleaned in perchloroethylene, in accordance with the
Standard, and then cut into three 2-yard sections, each of which
underwent one of the three laundering procedures under consideration
(i.e., the Standard, reduced agitation speed, and LP1-2021). Staff used
the dry cleaning method in the Standard so that only one variable in
the refurbishing process was changed (i.e., laundering), to allow clear
comparisons of the effects of different laundering methods on
flammability test results.
After these refurbishing procedures, staff cut each 2-yard section
(including the 6 refurbished sections and 1 section in its original
state) into thirty 2-by-6-inch specimens and performed flammability
testing on those specimens, in accordance with the Standard. In total,
this resulted in staff testing 2,310 specimens (11 fabrics x 7 sections
of each fabric x 30 specimens of each sample).\25\ Staff recorded the
burn times and applicable burn codes for each specimen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Staff tested 11 fabrics, which were each divided into seven
sections (1 original state, 3 for dry cleaning options, and 3 for
laundering options), which were each divided into 30 specimens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Results
Overall, the results of the comparison study indicate that all of
the alternative dry cleaning specifications and laundering
specifications yield flammability results comparable to the Standard.
Key results for the dry cleaning and laundering alternatives are
provided in this section.
In understanding these results, it is important to note that, under
the Standard, multiple specimens of a fabric must be tested, and burn
codes and classifications are based on the results of these multiple
specimens. The Standard specifies how to determine appropriate burn
codes and classifications in light of these multiple specimens.
Typically, fabric classification is determined by testing at least five
specimens of a fabric. Thus, the results of a single specimen of fabric
are not necessarily indicative of the final classification of the
fabric. For example, if the results of a single specimen meet the
criteria for Class 2 (i.e., burn time of 4.0 to 7.0 seconds, with a
burn code of SFBB), the final classification of the fabric may not be
Class 2 because the final classification will depend on the results of
the additional specimens of that fabric. Accordingly, the final
classification of some fabrics discussed in this section cannot always
be determined by the results presented here, but the range of possible
classifications is determined. Particularly because the comparison
testing assessed multiple specimens of the tested fabrics, these
results provide a good indication of the final classification of the
fabrics.
i. Dry Cleaning
The comparison study results for the three alternative dry cleaning
specifications and the dry cleaning specifications in the Standard are
presented below. Table 5 provides the aggregated results for all plain
surface textile fabrics. Table 6 provides the results for the
individual plain surface textile fabrics and includes the number of
samples tested that resulted in burn times,\26\ mean burn times,
standard deviations, minimum burn times, and maximum burn times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Although staff tested 30 specimens of each fabric/procedure
combination, the number of samples with results in Tables 5 and 6 is
not 30 because only samples with burn times, rather than DNI
results, are provided in these tables. For DNI results, see Tab E of
the briefing package supporting this NPR.
Table 5--Burn Times for Plain Surface Textile Fabrics, Aggregated, by Dry Cleaning Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Procedure samples with a Mean burn time Standard Minimum burn Maximum burn
burn time (seconds) deviation time (seconds) time (seconds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 104 6.15 0.77 4.70 8.10
Hydrocarbon..................... 94 6.05 0.88 4.90 9.40
Silicone........................ 86 6.15 0.88 4.80 8.90
Butylal......................... 115 6.09 0.77 4.80 7.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56300]]
Table 6--Burn Times for Plain Surface Textile Fabrics (A Through F), by Dry Cleaning Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Procedure samples with a Mean burn time Standard Minimum burn Maximum burn
burn time (seconds) deviation time (seconds) time (seconds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 26 6.75 0.50 5.90 7.90
Hydrocarbon..................... 16 6.83 0.37 6.20 7.60
Silicone........................ 4 6.85 0.50 6.30 7.50
Butylal......................... 27 6.31 0.30 5.70 6.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 16 6.49 0.26 6.00 7.00
Hydrocarbon..................... 9 6.53 0.35 6.10 7.00
Silicone........................ 6 7.52 0.26 7.10 7.90
Butylal......................... 7 7.29 0.43 6.70 7.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 28 5.24 0.38 4.70 6.10
Hydrocarbon..................... 29 5.28 0.32 4.90 6.60
Silicone........................ 29 5.25 0.27 4.80 5.90
Butylal......................... 3 5.38 0.34 4.90 6.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 24 6.03 0.41 5.20 7.50
Hydrocarbon..................... 27 5.62 0.28 4.90 6.20
Silicone........................ 23 6.13 0.44 5.40 6.80
Butylal......................... 27 5.54 0.40 4.80 6.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 4 7.03 0.72 6.60 8.10
Hydrocarbon..................... 4 7.58 1.22 6.80 9.40
Silicone........................ 3 7.23 0.32 7.00 7.60
Butylal......................... 6 6.98 0.29 6.70 7.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric F
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 6 6.92 0.69 6.30 8.10
Hydrocarbon..................... 9 7.23 0.66 6.40 8.10
Silicone........................ 21 6.73 0.72 5.50 8.90
Butylal......................... 18 6.99 0.40 6.40 7.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Table 5 shows, for plain surface textile fabrics, all three of
the alternative dry cleaning options yielded very similar burn times to
the Standard, including the mean, minimum, and maximum burn times.
Table 6 shows the same is true for each plain surface textile fabric
tested, with very similar mean, minimum, and maximum burn times for
each alternative and the dry cleaning specification in the Standard.
For plain surface textile fabrics, burn time alone determines a
fabric's classification, and a burn time of 3.5 seconds or more is
Class 1, while a burn time of less than 3.5 seconds is Class 3. As
Tables 5 and 6 show, for both the aggregated results and the individual
fabric results, the Standard and all three alternative dry cleaning
procedures yielded mean, minimum, and maximum burn times above the 3.5
second threshold and, therefore, yielded the same classification--Class
1--for all of the fabrics. Moreover, the mean, minimum, and maximum
burn times were all sufficiently above the 3.5-second threshold that,
even with some variability in burn times, the alternatives would not
alter the classifications of these fabrics, when compared to the
classifications under the Standard.\27\ This demonstrates that, for
plain surface textile fabrics, all three alternative dry cleaning
procedures yield flammability results comparable to the Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Staff also considered the extent to which each of the three
alternative dry cleaning options yielded DNI results versus burn
times, as compared to the Standard. For plain surface textile
fabrics, DNI results generally result in a fabric being Class 1.
Because all of the plain surface textile fabrics in the comparison
study of dry cleaning options yielded either DNI results or burn
times of more than 3.5 seconds, they were all Class 1. Consequently,
the results of DNI versus burn times for these fabrics are not
presented here, since they do not alter the classifications.
Moreover, it is expected that there will be variation in whether
multiple specimens yield DNI or burn time results even when they are
specimens of the same fabric that underwent the same refurbishing
procedure. For details on these results, see Tab E of the briefing
package supporting this NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7 provides the aggregated results for all raised surface
textile fabrics, and Table 8 provides the results for the individual
raised surface textile fabrics.
[[Page 56301]]
Table 7--Burn Times for Raised Surface Textile Fabrics, Aggregated, by Dry Cleaning Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Procedure samples with a Mean burn time Standard Minimum burn Maximum burn
burn time (seconds) deviation time (seconds) time (seconds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 150 11.87 7.45 2.30 27.30
Hydrocarbon..................... 150 11.01 7.65 1.60 27.80
Silicone........................ 150 10.57 7.08 1.90 32.70
Butylal......................... 150 10.34 6.56 1.80 27.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--Burn Times for Raised Surface Textile Fabrics (G Through K), by Dry Cleaning Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Procedure samples with a Mean burn time Standard Minimum burn Maximum burn
burn time (seconds) deviation time (seconds) time (seconds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric G
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 30 19.66 2.25 16.60 27.30
Hydrocarbon..................... 30 16.77 2.55 11.10 25.10
Silicone........................ 30 15.91 1.32 13.60 19.20
Butylal......................... 30 13.72 1.59 8.20 15.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric H
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 30 21.16 2.62 16.00 26.00
Hydrocarbon..................... 30 22.25 3.10 13.30 27.80
Silicone........................ 30 20.60 5.00 13.90 32.70
Butylal......................... 30 20.76 2.83 15.00 27.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 30 7.18 1.45 5.00 12.70
Hydrocarbon..................... 30 5.91 1.45 4.00 8.80
Silicone........................ 30 6.00 1.13 4.30 10.10
Butylal......................... 30 6.53 1.21 4.80 9.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric J
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 30 2.84 0.28 2.30 3.40
Hydrocarbon..................... 30 2.23 1.60 1.60 3.20
Silicone........................ 30 2.60 1.90 1.90 4.20
Butylal......................... 30 2.48 1.80 1.80 3.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 30 8.51 0.77 7.10 10.50
Hydrocarbon..................... 30 7.88 0.88 6.60 10.50
Silicone........................ 30 7.74 0.69 6.50 9.40
Butylal......................... 30 8.18 0.88 6.00 10.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Table 7 shows, for raised surface textile fabrics, all three of
the alternative dry cleaning options yielded burn times very similar to
the Standard, including the mean, minimum, and maximum burn times.
Table 8 shows the same is true for each raised surface textile fabric
tested, with similar mean, minimum, and maximum burn times for each
alternative and the dry cleaning specification in the Standard. Tables
7 and 8 also illustrate the wide variability in burn times for raised
surface textile fabrics, even when testing the same fabric with the
same dry cleaning procedure. This variation is expected, particularly
for raised surface textile fabrics, both within results for a single
fabric and across different fabric types.
For raised surface textile fabrics, classifications are generally
based on both burn time and burn behavior, as indicated by burn
codes.\28\ However, one classification for raised surface textile
fabrics is based solely on burn time--specifically, a raised surface
textile fabric is Class 1 if it has an average burn time greater than
7.0 seconds, regardless of burn behavior. For raised surface textile
fabrics with an average burn time of 7.0 seconds or less,
classifications depend on both burn behavior and burn time. If a fabric
has an average burn time of 7.0 seconds or less and does not have a
burn code of SFBB, then it is Class 1. If it has an average burn time
of 4.0 to 7.0 seconds, and multiple specimens of the fabric have a burn
code of SFBB, then it is Class 2. If it has an average burn time of
less than 4.0 seconds, and multiple specimens have a burn code of SFBB,
then it is Class 3. As discussed in the proposed revisions to burn
codes, above, only a burn code of SFBB--not SFBB poi or SFBB poi*--
determines the classification of the fabric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 16 CFR 1610.7 for details on requirements for testing
multiple specimens of a fabric and determining classifications based
on the results of those multiple specimens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the results in Table 7 show, using the mean burn times, all of
the alternative dry cleaning procedures yielded the same Class 1
results as the Standard. These mean results were also sufficiently
above the 7.0-second threshold that, even with some
[[Page 56302]]
variability in burn times, the alternatives would not alter the
classifications when compared to the classifications under the
Standard. The wide range of minimum and maximum burn times in Table 7
is the result of variations in different raised surface textile
fabrics. The results of individual fabrics are discussed below.
The results for Fabric G, in Table 8, show that the mean, minimum,
and maximum burn times for this fabric were all above the 7.0-second
threshold and, therefore, Class 1, using any of the three alternatives
or the Standard. Even with some variability in burn times, the burn
times were sufficiently above the 7.0-second threshold that this would
not alter the classifications. In addition, staff found that all of the
specimens tested under the three alternatives and the Standard yielded
burn codes of SFBB poi. The same is true of the burn time and burn code
results for Fabric H, in Table 8. This demonstrates that the
classifications for Fabrics G and H would be the same under any of the
three alternative dry cleaning procedures as they are under the
Standard, making them all comparable alternatives.
The results for Fabric I illustrate that the mean and range of burn
times for the three alternative dry cleaning procedures are similar to
that of the Standard, but that all four methods have some variability
clustered close to the burn time thresholds for different
classifications. This makes burn codes relevant for purposes of
determining classifications. Staff found that all 30 specimens of
Fabric I tested using the Standard, silicone, and butylal had burn
codes of SFBB poi, and that hydrocarbon yielded burn codes of SFBB (8
specimens), SFBB poi (17 specimens), and SFBB poi* (5 specimens). As
such, Fabric I was Class 1 under the Standard, silicone, and butylal,
but 8 of the specimens could potentially yield Class 2 or 3 results
under the hydrocarbon option, depending on the burn time and the
results of additional specimens. Although the hydrocarbon alternative
could potentially result in different classifications than the
Standard, these divergent results were limited to a small proportion of
the hydrocarbon results, and most hydrocarbon results aligned with the
classifications under the Standard.
The results for Fabric J also illustrate that the mean and range of
burn times for the three alternative dry cleaning procedures are
similar to that of the Standard. However, because the mean, minimum,
and maximum are all well below the 7.0-second threshold for which
classification can be determined solely by burn times, burn codes are
relevant for determining the classifications of these specimens.
Staff found that, under the dry cleaning procedure in the Standard,
27 of the specimens of Fabric J had a burn code of SFBB poi (making
them Class 1) and 3 had a burn code of SFBB (potentially making them
Class 2 or 3, depending on burn time and results of other specimens).
The hydrocarbon alternative yielded 22 specimens with a burn code of
SFBB poi (making them Class 1) and 8 with burn code of SFBB
(potentially making them Class 2 or 3, depending on burn time and
results of other specimens). In total, 11 specimens tested under the
hydrocarbon alternative yielded different burn codes than the Standard
and 19 specimens yielded the same burn codes under both methods. The
silicone alternative yielded 24 specimens with a burn code of SFBB poi
and 1 with a burn code of SFBB poi* (making them Class 1), along with 5
with burn code of SFBB (potentially making them Class 2 or 3, depending
on burn time and results of other specimens). In total, 9 specimens
tested under the silicone alternative yielded different burn codes than
the Standard and 21 specimens yielded the same burn codes under both
methods. The butylal alternative yielded 16 specimens with a burn code
of SFBB poi (making them Class 1), and 14 with a burn code of SFBB
(potentially making them Class 2 or 3, depending on burn time and
results of other specimens). In total, 17 specimens tested under
butylal alternative yielded different burn codes than the Standard and
13 specimens yielded the same burn codes under both methods.
This indicates that, for Fabric J, all three alternative dry
cleaning options could result in different classifications than the
Standard. However, it also indicates that, overall, a small proportion
of the classifications under hydrocarbon and silicone have the
potential to yield different classifications than the Standard, and
most hydrocarbon and silicone results aligned with the classifications
in the Standard. In addition, the number of hydrocarbon and silicone
results that diverged from the Standard were similar, whereas divergent
classifications were far more common for butylal.
The results for Fabric K illustrate that the mean and range of burn
times for the three alternative dry cleaning procedures are similar to
that of the Standard, but that all four methods have some variability
clustered close to the burn time thresholds for different
classifications. Staff found that all 30 specimens of Fabric K tested
using the Standard, hydrocarbon, silicone, and butylal had burn codes
of SFBB poi, making them all Class 1 under every option. This
demonstrates that the classifications for Fabric K would be the same
under any of the three alternative dry cleaning procedures as they are
under the Standard, making them all comparable alternatives.
ii. Laundering
The comparison study results for the two alternative laundering
specifications and the laundering specifications in the Standard are
presented below. Table 9 provides the aggregated results for all plain
surface textile fabrics. Table 10 provides the results for the
individual plain surface textile fabrics and includes the number of
samples tested that resulted in burn times,\29\ mean burn times,
standard deviations, minimum burn times, and maximum burn times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Although staff tested 30 specimens of each fabric/procedure
combination, the number of samples with results in Table 10 is not
30 because only samples with burn times, rather than DNI results,
are provided in the table. For DNI results, see Tab E of the
briefing package supporting this NPR.
Table 9--Burn Times for Plain Surface Textile Fabrics, Aggregated, by Laundering Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Procedure samples with a Mean burn time Standard Minimum burn Maximum burn
burn time (seconds) deviation time (seconds) time (seconds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 104 6.15 0.77 4.70 8.10
Reduced Agitation Speed......... 126 6.25 0.71 4.80 8.20
LP1-2021........................ 86 6.12 0.92 4.60 9.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56303]]
Table 10--Burn Times for Plain Surface Textile Fabrics (A Through F), by Laundering Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Procedure samples with a Mean burn time Standard Minimum burn Maximum burn
burn time (seconds) deviation time (seconds) time (seconds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard...................... 26 6.75 0.50............ 5.90 7.90
Reduced Agitation Speed....... 24 6.79 0.27............ 6.20 7.30
LP1-2021...................... 18 7.12 0.27............ 6.80 7.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard...................... 16 6.49 0.26............ 6.00 7.00
Reduced Agitation Speed....... 28 6.43 0.32............ 5.60 7.10
LP1-2021...................... 22 6.38 0.32............ 5.80 7.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard...................... 28 5.24 0.38............ 4.70 6.10
Reduced Agitation Speed....... 30 5.30 0.34............ 4.80 6.20
LP1-2021...................... 29 5.12 0.35............ 4.60 6.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard...................... 24 6.03 0.41............ 5.20 7.50
Reduced Agitation Speed....... 26 6.16 0.41............ 5.60 7.10
LP1-2021...................... 12 5.98 0.36............ 5.60 7.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard...................... 4 7.03 0.72............ 6.60 8.10
Reduced Agitation Speed....... 6 7.53 0.42............ 7.20 8.20
LP1-2021...................... 4 7.75 1.20............ 6.80 9.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric F
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard...................... 6 6.92 0.69............ 6.30 8.10
Reduced Agitation Speed....... 12 6.94 0.52............ 6.20 7.90
LP1-2021...................... 1 6.60 Not applicable.. 6.60 6.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Table 9 shows, for plain surface textile fabrics, both of the
alternative laundering options yielded very similar burn times to the
Standard, including the mean, minimum, and maximum burn times. Table 10
shows the same is true for each plain surface textile fabric tested,
with very similar mean, minimum, and maximum burn times for each
alternative and the laundering specification in the Standard. As Tables
9 and 10 show, for both the aggregated results and the individual
fabric results, the Standard and both alternative laundering procedures
yielded mean, minimum, and maximum burn times above the 3.5-second
threshold for plain surface textile fabrics and, therefore, yielded the
same classification--Class 1--for all of the fabrics. Moreover, the
mean, minimum, and maximum burn times were all sufficiently above the
3.5-second threshold that, even with some variability in burn times,
the alternatives would not alter the classifications of these fabrics,
when compared to the classifications under the Standard.\30\ This
demonstrates that, for plain surface textile fabrics, both alternative
laundering procedures are comparable to the Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Like the dry cleaning results, staff also considered the
extent to which both of the alternative laundering options yielded
DNI results versus burn times, as compared to the Standard. Again,
because all of the plain surface textile fabrics in the comparison
study of laundering options yielded either DNI results or burn times
of more than 3.5 seconds, they were all Class 1. Consequently, the
results of DNI versus burn times for these fabrics are not presented
here, since they do not alter the classifications. Moreover, it is
expected that there will be variation in whether multiple specimens
yield DNI or burn time results even when they are specimens of the
same fabric that underwent the same refurbishing procedure. For
details on these results, see Tab E of the briefing package
supporting this NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 11 provides the aggregated results for all raised surface
textile fabrics, and Table 12 provides the results for the individual
raised surface textile fabrics.
Table 11--Burn Times for Raised Surface Textile Fabrics, Aggregated, by Laundering Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Procedure samples with a Mean burn time Standard Minimum burn Maximum burn
burn time (seconds) deviation time (seconds) time (seconds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 150 11.87 7.45 2.30 27.30
Reduced Agitation Speed......... 150 10.86 6.55 2.20 24.90
LP1-2021........................ 150 10.76 6.72 2.00 31.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56304]]
Table 12--Burn Times for Raised Surface Textile Fabrics (G Through K), by Laundering Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Procedure samples with a Mean burn time Standard Minimum burn Maximum burn
burn time (seconds) deviation time (seconds) time (seconds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric G
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 30 19.66 2.25 16.60 27.30
Reduced Agitation Speed......... 30 17.93 2.30 10.10 22.50
LP1-2021........................ 30 16.80 2.13 13.80 22.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric H
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 30 21.16 2.62 16.00 26.00
Reduced Agitation Speed......... 30 18.54 2.90 10.90 24.90
LP1-2021........................ 30 19.55 3.82 11.40 31.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 30 7.18 1.45 5.0 12.70
Reduced Agitation Speed......... 30 6.38 1.00 4.80 8.70
LP1-2021........................ 30 6.31 1.03 4.30 9.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric J
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 30 2.84 0.28 2.30 3.40
Reduced Agitation Speed......... 30 2.89 0.34 2.20 3.50
LP1-2021........................ 30 2.74 0.37 2.00 3.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard........................ 30 8.51 0.77 7.10 10.50
Reduced Agitation Speed......... 30 8.58 0.81 7.40 11.20
LP1-2021........................ 30 8.38 1.10 7.20 12.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Table 11 shows, for raised surface textile fabrics, the
alternative laundering options yielded very similar burn times to the
Standard, including the mean, minimum, and maximum burn times. Table 12
shows that, for each raised surface textile fabric tested, there were
also similar mean, minimum, and maximum burn times for each alternative
and the laundering specification in the Standard. Tables 11 and 12 also
illustrate the wide variability in burn times for raised surface
textile fabrics, even when testing the same fabric with the same
laundering procedure. As explained above, this variation is expected,
particularly for raised surface textile fabrics, both within results
for a single fabric and across different fabric types.
As the results in Table 11 show, both of the alternative laundering
procedures yielded the same Class 1 results as the Standard since they
all had mean burn times above 7.0 seconds. These mean results were also
sufficiently above the 7.0 second threshold that, even with some
variability in burn times, the alternatives would not alter the
classifications when compared to the classifications under the
Standard. The wide range of minimum and maximum burn times in Table 11
is the result of variations in different raised surface textile
fabrics, which behaved similarly for the laundering alternatives and
the dry cleaning alternatives. The results of individual fabrics are
discussed below.
The results for Fabric G, in Table 12, show that the mean, minimum,
and maximum burn times for this fabric were all well above the 7.0-
second threshold and, therefore, Class 1 using either of the
alternatives or the Standard. Even with some variability in burn times,
the burn times were sufficiently above the 7.0-second threshold that
this would not alter the classifications. In addition, all of the
specimens tested under both alternatives and the Standard yielded burn
codes of SFBB poi. The same is true of the burn time and burn code
results for Fabric H, in Table 12. This demonstrates that the
classifications for Fabrics G and H would be the same under either of
the alternative laundering procedures as they are under the Standard,
making them both comparable alternatives.
The results for Fabric I illustrate that the mean and range of burn
times for the two alternative laundering procedures are similar to that
of the Standard, but that all three methods have some variability
clustered close to the burn time thresholds for different
classifications. This makes burn codes relevant for purposes of
determining classifications. Staff found that all 30 specimens of
Fabric I tested using the Standard and both laundering alternatives had
burn codes of SFBB poi, making all of them Class 1, regardless of burn
time. This demonstrates that the classification for Fabric I would be
the same under either of the alternative laundering procedures as they
are under the Standard, making them both comparable alternatives.
The results for Fabric J also illustrate that the mean and range of
burn times for the two alternative laundering procedures are very
similar to that of the Standard. Because the mean, minimum, and maximum
are all well below the 7.0-second threshold for which classification
can be determined solely by burn times, burn codes are relevant for
determining the classifications of these specimens. Staff found that,
under the laundering procedure in the Standard, 27 specimens of Fabric
J had a burn code of SFBB poi (making them Class 1) and 3 had a burn
code of SFBB (potentially making them Class 3 depending on the results
of other specimens because all burn times were less than 4.0 seconds).
The reduced agitation speed alternative yielded 24 specimens with a
burn code of SFBB poi (making them Class 1) and 6 with a burn code of
SFBB (potentially making them Class 3 depending on the results of other
specimens because all burn times
[[Page 56305]]
were less than 4.0 seconds). In total, 5 specimens tested under the
reduced agitation speed alternative yielded different burn codes than
the Standard. The LP1-2021 alternative yielded 27 specimens with a burn
code of SFBB poi (making them Class 1) and 3 with a burn code of SFBB
(potentially making them Class 3 depending on the results of other
specimens because all burn times were less than 4.0 seconds). In total,
6 specimens tested under LP1-2021 yielded different burn codes than the
Standard.
This indicates that although both alternative laundering options
could result in different classifications than the Standard, only a
very small proportion of the results indicate this, and most results
align with the classifications in the Standard. In addition, the number
of reduced agitation speed and LP1-2021 burn code results that diverged
from the Standard were nearly identical, indicating they provide
similar equivalency to the Standard. Also, there were fewer
classifications that differed when comparing LP1-2021 results and those
under the Standard than when comparing the reduced agitation speed
option to the Standard.
The results for Fabric K show that the mean, minimum, and maximum
burn times for this fabric were all above the 7.0-second threshold and,
therefore, Class 1 using either of the laundering alternatives or the
Standard. However, because some of the burn times were close to this
threshold, staff also considered their burn behavior. Staff found that
all 30 specimens of Fabric K tested using the Standard, the reduced
agitation speed alternative, and the LP1-2021 alternative had burn
codes of SFBB poi. As such, even if burn times had been below the 7.0-
second threshold, they would all still be Class 1 under every option.
This demonstrates that the classifications for Fabric K would be the
same under either of the alternative laundering procedures as they are
under the Standard, making them all comparable alternatives.
3. Proposed Amendments and Rationale
a. Dry Cleaning
Based on staff's assessment and testing, the Commission proposes to
amend the dry cleaning solvent requirements in the Standard to include,
as an alternative to commercial grade perchloroethylene, commercial
grade hydrocarbon solvent. Specifically, the Commission proposes to
specify that the following conditions are permissible:
hydrocarbon solvent,
cationic detergent class,
20-25 minutes cleaning time,
4 minutes extraction time,
60-66 [deg]C (140-150 [deg]F) drying temperature,
20-25 minutes drying time, and
5 minutes cool down/deodorization time.
The Commission is not proposing to remove the perchloroethylene
option from the Standard because this procedure is still available and
widely used. However, because of the increasing restrictions on the use
of perchloroethylene, the Commission proposes to also allow hydrocarbon
as an alternative dry cleaning method. This would allow testing
laboratories to continue to use perchloroethylene where it is available
and permissible but accommodate testing laboratories that can no longer
access or use this method.
As the comparison testing indicates, all three alternative dry
cleaning procedures that staff tested would provide comparable and
acceptable alternatives to the dry cleaning procedures in the Standard.
Overall, fabrics yielded the same classifications under the hydrocarbon
alternative as they did under the Standard. Although a small portion of
the raised surface textile fabrics showed the potential to result in
different classifications using hydrocarbon solvent, compared to the
Standard, this was true for all three alternatives considered, and less
so for hydrocarbon and silicone than for butylal; this only applied to
a small portion of the fabrics and hydrocarbon results; variability in
results was evident even in the results under the current Standard; and
variability in flammability results is expected across specimens of the
same fabric using the same procedure, particularly for raised surface
fabrics. As such, in general, hydrocarbon solvent yields comparable
flammability results to the Standard and is among the best options
available to provide the needed alternative to perchloroethylene for
testing laboratories that can no longer use that solvent. In addition,
the Commission proposes to allow the use of hydrocarbon solvent, rather
than silicone or butylal, because it is the most commonly used
alternative to perchloroethylene, has a long history of use, and is
less expensive than other alternatives. Also, several companies
manufacture hydrocarbon solvents for dry cleaning, whereas silicone and
butylal are newer technologies and patented, making their availability
more limited.
However, CPSC also considered several variations on this proposal,
including whether perchloroethylene should remain an option, and
whether some other alternative or combination of alternatives including
hydrocarbon, silicone, and butylal, should be permissible. The
Commission requests comments on the proposed revision, including the
solvent and associated parameters, the comparison testing, and the
justifications for the proposed requirement. The Commission also
requests comments on the alternatives considered and the justifications
for them.
b. Laundering
Proposed amendments. Based on staff's assessment and testing, the
Commission proposes to amend the laundering specifications in the
Standard to remove the incorporation by reference of TM 124-2006 and,
instead, incorporate by reference LP1-2021. Specifically, the
Commission proposes to require that:
washing conform to the provisions in section 9.2 and 9.4,
and the provisions for ``(1) Normal'' and ``(IV) Hot'' in Table 1,
Standard Washing Machine Parameters, of LP1-2021; and
drying conform to the provisions in section 12.2(A), and
the provisions for ``(Aiii) Permanent Press'' in Table VI, Standard
Tumble Dryer Parameters, of LP1-2021.
These specifications are those staff used during comparison testing
and are shown in Table 3, above.
In addition, for purposes of 16 CFR 1610.40, the Commission
preliminarily concludes that the testing CPSC staff conducted that is
provided in this notice and in full detail in Tabs D and E of the
briefing package supporting this proposed rule \31\ constitutes
information demonstrating that the washing procedure specified in the
current Standard--that is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed-Rule-to-Amend-the-Standard-for-the-Flammability-of-Clothing-Textiles-16-CFR-part-1610.pdf?VersionId=4QrYt7W05qY5gEiFf_ohdwT4j8.FGDoR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in compliance with sections 8.2.2, 8.2.3 and 8.3.1(A) of
TM 124-2006,
using AATCC 1993 Standard Reference Detergent, powder,
with wash water temperature (IV) (120[deg] 5
[deg]F; 49[deg] 3 [deg]C) specified in Table II of TM 124-
2006,
using water level, agitation speed, washing time, spin
speed and final spin cycle for ``Normal/Cotton Sturdy'' in Table III of
TM 124-2006, and
with a maximum wash load of 8 pounds (3.63 kg) and
consisting of any combination of test samples and dummy pieces--
is as stringent as the washing procedure in LP1-2021 that is proposed
to be required in this NPR. If firms rely on
[[Page 56306]]
this information and conform to the other requirements in section
1610.40, this will provide an option for them to continue to use
washing machines that comply with the provisions in TM 124-2006 in the
current Standard.
Likewise, for purposes of 16 CFR 1610.40, the Commission
preliminarily concludes that the testing CPSC staff conducted that is
provided in this notice and in full detail in Tabs D and E of the
briefing package supporting this proposed rule \32\ constitutes
information demonstrating that the drying procedure specified in the
current Standard--that is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed-Rule-to-Amend-the-Standard-for-the-Flammability-of-Clothing-Textiles-16-CFR-part-1610.pdf?VersionId=4QrYt7W05qY5gEiFf_ohdwT4j8.FGDoR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in compliance with section 8.3.1(A), Tumble Dry, of TM
124-2006,
using the exhaust temperature (150[deg] 10
[deg]F; 66[deg] 5 [deg]C) specified in Table IV, ``Durable
Press,'' of TM 124-2006, and
with a cool down time of 10 minutes specified in Table IV,
``Durable Press,'' of TM 124-2006--
is as stringent as the drying procedure in LP1-2021 that is proposed to
be required in this NPR. If firms rely on this information and conform
to the other requirements in section 1610.40, this will provide an
option for them to continue to use dryers that comply with the
provisions in TM 124-2006 in the current Standard.
Allowance in 16 CFR 1610.40. Although the Commission is proposing
to require the use of laundering machines that comply with specified
provisions in LP1-2021, testing laboratories could continue to use
machines that comply with the provisions of TM 124-2006 referenced in
the current Standard, in accordance with 16 CFR 1610.40.
As discussed above, section 1610.40 allows the use of alternative
apparatus, procedures, or criteria for tests for guaranty purposes when
reasonable and representative tests that use apparatus or procedures
other than those in the Standard confirm compliance with the Standard,
under specified conditions. This allowance specifies that an
alternative must be as stringent as, or more stringent than the
Standard, and that the Commission considers an alternative to meet this
requirement ``if, when testing identical specimens, the alternative
test yields failing results as often as, or more often than, the test''
in the Standard. Anyone using an alternative under this allowance must
have data or information demonstrating this required stringency and
retain it while the alternative is used to support a guaranty and for
one year after. See 16 CFR part 1610 for full details regarding this
allowance.
If the Commission finalizes this proposed rule and requires the use
of laundering specifications in LP1-2021, then testing laboratories
that want to continue to use laundering specifications that meet the
specifications of TM 124-2006 that are referenced in the current
Standard could use the results of staff's comparison testing to
demonstrate that the laundering specification in TM 124-2006 that is
referenced in the current Standard is as stringent as or more stringent
than the specifications in LP1-2021 referenced in the proposed
amendment. The following summarizes how staff's comparison testing
demonstrates that the laundering specification in TM 124-2006 yields
failing results as often as, or more often than the laundering
specification in LP 1-2021, when testing identical specimens.
As discussed above, the aggregated results for both plain and
raised surface textile fabrics (Tables 9 and 11) show that the mean
burn times and classifications are comparable when specimens are
laundered in accordance with the relevant specifications in TM 124-2006
or LP1-2021. More specifically, all of the individual plain surface
textile fabrics yielded the same classifications--Class 1--whether
tested in accordance with the relevant laundering procedures in TM 124-
2006 or LP1-2021 and had sufficiently high burn times to consistently
yield the same classifications, even if there was slight variability in
burn times (Table 10). This demonstrates that, for plain surface
textile fabrics, the relevant specifications in TM 124-2006 are as
stringent as LP1-2021 since they yield failing results as often as LP1-
2021.
Similarly, of the raised surface textile fabrics, Fabrics G, H, I,
and K yielded the same classifications--Class 1--whether tested in
accordance with the relevant laundering specifications in TM 124-2006
or LP1-2021 and had sufficiently high burn times and identical burn
codes to consistently yield the same classifications, even if there was
slight variability in burn times (Table 12). Only Fabric J had some
deviations in burn codes, but even with these deviations, the
classifications were the same. Specifically, although 6 of the 30
specimens of Fabric J tested under the laundering specification in LP1-
2021 yielded different burn codes than those specimens tested under TM
124-2006, both laundering procedures still resulted in 27 of the 30
specimens tested under them having burn codes and burn times that would
yield Class 1 results and three specimens with burn codes and burn
times that could yield Class 3 results depending on the results of
other specimens. Because flammability results are based on the final
classification, and not just burn codes, this demonstrates that, for
raised surface textile fabrics, the relevant laundering specifications
in TM 124-2006 are as stringent as those in LP1-2021 since they yield
failing results as often as LP1-2021.
Based on this information, the Commission preliminarily concludes
that this NPR and the information provided in Tabs D and E of the
briefing package supporting this proposed rule \33\ satisfy the
documentation requirements in section 1610.40 by demonstrating the
necessary equivalency of the laundering specifications in TM 124-2006
that are referenced in the current Standard and those in LP1-2021 that
the Commission proposes to adopt. If firms rely on this information and
conform to the other requirements in section 1610.40, this will provide
an option for them to continue to use laundering machines that comply
with TM 124-2006 after the effective date of a final rule amending
these provisions. This would minimize the impact of the proposed
amendments on testing laboratories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Available at: https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Proposed-Rule-to-Amend-the-Standard-for-the-Flammability-of-Clothing-Textiles-16-CFR-part-1610.pdf?VersionId=4QrYt7W05qY5gEiFf_ohdwT4j8.FGDoR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison. As explained above, the laundering parameters in LP1-
2021 differ somewhat from those in the Standard. Table 13 shows a
comparison of the parameters. Although agitation speed is the only
parameter of the Standard that machines can no longer meet, the
Commission is proposing to require additional parameters from LP1-2021
as well, all of which were used during comparison testing. As explained
above, certain parameters must be adjusted to accommodate other
parameter changes, as certain parameters work in concert (e.g.,
agitation speed and stroke length). In addition, certain parameters
must be adjusted to reflect parameters for which LP1-2021 washing
machines are designed (e.g., load size). Finally, using all relevant
parameters from a single standard provides for better clarity and ease
of use.
[[Page 56307]]
Table 13--Comparison of Laundering Procedure Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard LP1-2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washing Machine Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AATCC 1993 Standard Reference 66 66 1
Detergent. 0.1 g (2.3 0.004 oz). minus> 0.004 oz).
Water Level..................... 68 4 72 4
L (18 1 gal). minus> 1 gal).
Agitation Speed................. 179 2 86 2
spm. spm.
Stroke Length................... Not specified..... Up to 220[deg].
Washing Time.................... 12 min............ 16 1
min.
Spin Speed...................... 645 660
15 rpm. 15 rpm.
Final Spin Time................. 6 min............. 5 1
min.
Wash Temperature................ 49 3 49 3
[deg]C (120 5 [deg]F). minus> 5 [deg]F).
Load size....................... Maximum 8 lbs 4 0.2
(3.63 kg). lbs (1.8 0.1 kg)
Note that the
proposed rule
sets this as a
maximum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dryer Parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Dryer Exhaust 66 5 68 6
Temperature. [deg]C (150 10 [deg]F). minus> 10
[deg]F).
Cool Down Time.................. 10 min............ <=10 min.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale. The Commission proposes to incorporate by reference the
laundering specifications in LP1-2021, instead of requiring the reduced
agitation speed alternative (i.e., maintaining the requirement to meet
specifications in TM 124-2006, but with a reduced agitation speed), for
several reasons. For one, LP1-2021 is a standard that is commonly used
by testing laboratories to launder samples for other tests. As such,
testing laboratories are likely to already have this standard, be
familiar with it, and have machines that comply with it. Also, there
are more washing machines on the market that meet the specifications in
LP1-2021 than the reduced agitation speed parameters staff examined. It
is likely that only programmable washing machines where the agitation
speed can be set by the user would be able to meet the reduced
agitation speed parameters, whereas, both programmable machines and
those with set parameters built to meet LP1-2021 specifications would
be able to meet the proposed requirement.
Finally, as the comparison study results show, both the reduced
agitation speed and LP1-2021 alternatives yield nearly identical
classifications as the Standard, with only one raised surface textile
fabric--Fabric J--having slightly different results when comparing the
Standard and the alternatives. However, even for that fabric, the
Standard and LP1-2021 yielded the same number of Class 1 results (27
specimens), while the reduced agitation speed alternative yielded 26
Class 1 results. As such, overall, fabrics yielded the same
classifications under the LP1-2021 alternative as they did under the
Standard and LP1-2021 is among the best options available to provide
the needed alternative to TM 124-2006 since testing laboratories can no
longer obtain washing machines that comply with that standard.
In addition to updating the washing machine specifications stated
in section 1610.6(b)(1)(ii), the Commission proposes to update the
drying specifications in that section to also incorporate by reference
LP1-2021, for consistency and simplicity. Although clothes dryers have
not changed significantly in recent years and machines that comply with
TM 124-2006 are still available on the market, the Commission proposes
to update this requirement for several reasons. For one, it is
preferable for testing to follow the procedures and specifications in
one standard for the entire laundering process, rather than using
components of different standards for washing and drying, to ensure
consistent and compatible testing. In addition, using two separate
standards for washing and drying could lead to confusion or errors in
testing, which could affect flammability results. Also, obtaining and
maintaining two separate standards potentially would be cumbersome and
slightly more costly for testing laboratories. Because many testing
laboratories likely already have and are familiar with LP1-2021 to test
for compliance with other standards, requiring the use of only this
standard would be simpler, clearer, and less costly.
Finally, the dryer specifications in TM 124-2006 and LP1-2021 are
nearly identical, which means the proposed update is unlikely to
require testing laboratories to replace dryers that comply with the
current Standard. As explained above, the Standard currently requires
that drying be performed in accordance with section 8.3.1(A) of TM 124-
2006 using the exhaust temperature and cool down time specified in
``Durable Press'' of Table IV of that standard. The Commission proposes
to require that drying be performed in accordance with section 12.2(A)
of LP1-2021 using the exhaust temperature and cool down time specified
in ``(Aiii) Permanent Press'' of Table VI of that standard. These
requirements are nearly identical--the comparison is discussed below.
Section 8.3.1(A) of TM 124-2006 and section 12.2(A) of LP1-2021
include essentially identical requirements that simply require tumble
drying and immediate removal of samples. Similarly, reference to
``Permanent Press'' instead of ``Durable Press'' does not alter any
requirements because the two terms have the same meaning--permanent
press is simply the term more commonly used by industry currently.
As for exhaust temperature, in TM 124-2006, ``Durable Press'' of
Table IV specifies that the dryer exhaust temperature is 66 5 [deg]C, whereas, in LP1-2021, (Aiii) ``Permanent Press'' of
Table VI specifies that the maximum dryer exhaust temperature is 68
6[deg]C. As such, the range of exhaust temperatures is
nearly identical in both standards, with TM 124-2006 allowing a range
of 61-71 [deg]C and LP1-2021 allowing a range of 62-74 [deg]C. Thus, by
updating the Standard to require the use of LP1-2021, only dryers with
an exhaust temperature of precisely 61 [deg]C would no longer be
permissible, and dryers with exhaust temperatures of 72-74 [deg]C would
become permissible. Because most dryers are designed to target the mid-
range of permissible temperatures, staff does not expect many dryers to
fall outside the range that is permissible under both standards. To the
extent that a dryer
[[Page 56308]]
complies with the current Standard, but not the exhaust temperature
range in LP1-2021, Table VI, (Aiii) Permanent Press, testing
laboratories would have section 1610.40 as an option to continue using
their existing dryers.
Similarly, with respect to cool down time, TM 124-2006, ``Durable
Press'' of Table IV specifies that the cool down time is 10 minutes,
whereas in LP1-2021, (Aiii) ``Permanent Press'' of Table VI specifies
that the cool down time is 10 minutes or less. As such, by updating the
Standard to require the use of LP1-2021, there is a wider allowance for
cool down time, including that specified in TM 124-2006.
Based on the very minor differences between the dryer
specifications in TM 124-2006 and LP1-2021, staff expects that this
proposed update would not require testing laboratories to replace any
dryers because all machines that comply with TM 124-2006 are likely to
also comply with LP1-2021, and the allowance in 16 CFR 1610.40 is
available for the small number of machines that may become non-
compliant.
Alternatives. The Commission considered several variations on this
proposal. One alternative the Commission considered is to update the
incorporation by reference in the Standard from TM 124-2006 to the most
recent version of that standard, TM 124-2018. AATCC has updated TM 124
several times since 2006 (in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2018) to
reflect the evolving specifications of machines available on the
market. In the 2010 and 2011 versions of the standard, AATCC removed
the table specifying the washing machine parameters that is referenced
in the Commission's regulations, instead referencing AATCC Monograph 6
``Standardization of Home Laundry Test Conditions.'' AATCC later
replaced the reference to Monograph 6 with reference to LP1, and then
later revised TM 124 again to include a table specifying washing
machine parameters.
The washing and drying specifications in TM 124-2018 are the same
as those the Commission proposes to incorporate by reference from LP1-
2021, but the Commission is not proposing to incorporate by reference
TM 124-2018 for several reasons. For one, unlike LP1-2021 and the
relevant provisions in the Standard, TM 124 is not just a laundering
procedure--it is primarily intended to evaluate the smoothness
appearance of fabrics after laundering and, accordingly, has procedures
addressing that purpose. In contrast, the Standard is intended only for
flammability assessments, and LP1-2021 is intended to be a stand-alone
laundering protocol that can be used for flammability testing. In
addition, because AATCC has referenced laundering specifications in
several different ways over multiple revisions to TM 124, referencing
TM 124 is a less reliable way of incorporating by reference these
laundering requirements. In contrast, LP1-2021 is not expected to
significantly change the laundering procedures the Commission proposes
to incorporate by reference.
Another alternative the Commission considered is allowing both the
continued use of the laundering specifications in the Standard (i.e.,
TM 124-2006) and, as an alternative, the specifications in LP1-2021.
The Commission is not proposing that option for several reasons. For
one, when CPSC's washing machines that meet TM 124-2006 reach the end
of their useful lives, CPSC will be unable to replace them with
machines that meet that specification. At that point, CPSC will be
unable to assess compliance with the Standard under TM 124-2006.
Moreover, retaining a specification in the regulations that can no
longer be met by machines available on the market leaves the
regulations outdated. Instead, the Commission highlights 16 CFR
1610.40, which already provides an allowance for firms to use
alternative apparatus for testing, under specific conditions. The
Commission is facilitating the use of this allowance by providing in
this notice and supporting materials the information supporting the use
of 16 CFR 1610.40. Alternatively, the Commission could require firms to
supply their own supporting information for section 1610.40.
Similarly, the Commission considered amending the Standard to
include the specifications in LP1-2021, while allowing for the
continued use of TM 124-2006 for a limited phase-out period. The
Commission is not proposing this option because it would create the
same problems as allowing continued use of TM 124-2006 indefinitely,
and staff does not have information about an appropriate phase-out
period for machines that comply with TM 124-2006. Although these
machines have not been available on the market for many years, some
testing laboratories have maintained existing machines, and it is
difficult to determine when all such machines will be out of use.
In addition, the Commission considered only updating the washing
machine specifications in the Standard, and not the dryer
specifications, since only the washing machine specifications can no
longer be met my machines available on the market. However, the
Commission is proposing to also update the dryer specifications for the
reasons discussed above.
Comments. The Commission requests comments on the proposed
amendments, including the laundering specifications, comparison
testing, use of the allowance in 16 CFR 1610.40, and the justifications
for the proposed requirements. The Commission also requests comments on
the alternatives considered and the justifications for them, including
the reduced agitation speed, LP1-2021, TM 124-2018, allowing both TM
124-2006 and LP1-2021, providing a phase-out period for TM 124-2006,
and the dryer specification. In addition, the Commission seeks
information or data regarding the options the Commission has
considered, such as how many testing laboratories use washing machines
that comply with TM 124-2006, how many such machines testing
laboratories use, the expected useful life remaining on these machines,
and the extent to which testing laboratories' dryers comply with TM
124-2006 but would not comply with LP1-2021.
IV. Relevant Existing Standards
CPSC staff reviewed and assessed several voluntary and
international standards that are relevant to clothing flammability:
TM 124;
LP1-2021;
ASTM D1230-22, Standard Test Method for Flammability of
Apparel Textiles; and
Canadian General Standards Board Standard CAN/CGSB-4.2 No.
27.5, Textile Test Method Flame Resistance--45[deg] Angle Test--One-
Second Flame Impingement.
As explained above, TM 124-2006 is currently incorporated by
reference into the Standard as part of the laundering requirements, but
washing machines that meet this specification are no longer available
on the market. The current version, TM 124-2018, includes washing and
drying specifications that are the same as LP1-2021. However, TM 124 is
not a flammability standard; rather, it is intended to evaluate the
smoothness appearance of fabrics after repeated home laundering. As
such, it contains provisions that are not relevant to flammability
testing and lacks provisions that are necessary for flammability
testing.
Similarly, the Commission is proposing to incorporate by reference
portions of LP1-2021, but this standard also does not include full
flammability testing and classification requirements because it is
intended as a stand-alone
[[Page 56309]]
laundering protocol, for use with other test methods. ASTM D1230 is
similar to the Standard but contains similar issues to those this
proposed rule aims to address (e.g., same stop thread description as
the Standard), and it contains different laundering specifications,
terminology, and burn codes. The Canadian standard also is similar to
the Standard, but also has some differences (e.g., allows a single Tex
size for stop thread).
V. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
The Commission is proposing to amend a rule under the FFA, which
requires that an NPR include a preliminary regulatory analysis. 15
U.S.C. 1193(i). The following discussion is extracted from staff's
preliminary regulatory analysis, available in Tab F of the NPR briefing
package.
A. Preliminary Description of Potential Costs and Benefits of the
Proposed Rule
The preliminary regulatory analysis must include a description of
the potential benefits and costs of the proposed rule, including
unquantifiable benefits and costs.
1. Potential Benefits
The primary benefit of the proposed amendments is a reduction of
burdens for testing laboratories by clarifying existing requirements
and updating the specifications for stop thread, dry cleaning, and
laundering to include options that are identifiable, permissible for
use, and currently available on the market. In addition, the proposed
amendments should improve consumer safety. The proposed amendments
provide comparable flammability results to the current Standard but
would improve testing laboratories' abilities to conduct testing and
obtain consistent and reliable results. This should improve consumer
safety by ensuring that textiles intended for use in clothing are
properly tested and classified so that dangerously flammable textiles
are not used in clothing. Staff is unable to quantify these potential
benefits because of the difficulty of measuring the extent of testing
laboratories' burden reduction and possible improvements to consumer
safety. However, staff estimates that these benefits are likely to be
small.
Burn Codes. The proposed amendments to burn codes would clarify and
streamline these provisions, which staff expects would improve the
consistency and reliability of flammability testing results and
classifications. This, in turn, may provide some safety benefit to
consumers, and reduce testing burdens for testing laboratories. Because
these proposed amendments are intended to clarify existing provisions
and would not change current requirements for testing or
classification, staff expects that they would provide a small amount of
unquantifiable benefits.
Stop Thread. The proposed amendments to the stop thread
specification would clarify the type of thread required by using the
Tex system, which is commonly used and understood by the industry, to
define the thread size. The proposed amendments would also expand the
range of threads permissible for use under the Standard by providing a
range of permissible Tex sizes, rather than specifying a single thread
specification, as the current Standard does. As such, the proposed
amendments would clarify the requirements, which may have consumer
safety benefits by yielding more consistent and reliable test results.
However, these benefits are expected to be small since the proposed
amendments would provide comparable test results and classifications to
the current Standard. The proposed amendments also may ease burdens on
testing laboratories, by making it easier to identify compliant thread
and by making more threads permissible for use. Therefore, staff
expects that these proposed amendments would provide a small amount of
unquantifiable benefits.
Dry Cleaning Specification. The proposed amendments to the dry
cleaning specification would allow for the continued use of the
existing specification using perchloroethylene solvent, and also add an
additional specification, as an alternative, to accommodate testing
laboratories that will soon be unable to use the solvent currently
specified in the Standard. The alternative specification, using
hydrocarbon solvent, provides comparable flammability results to the
current solvent specified in the Standard and staff notes that the cost
of hydrocarbon solvent is comparable (or lower) in cost than other
alternatives. Therefore, staff expects the proposed amendments to
reduce burdens on testing laboratories by providing an additional
alternative dry cleaning specification and allowing testing
laboratories that are subject to restrictions on the use of
perchloroethylene to continue to test to the Standard.
Laundering Specification. The proposed amendments to the washing
specifications would provide a specification that can be met by
machines that are currently on the market. Staff expects that this will
reduce burdens on testing laboratories because it would allow testing
laboratories that can no longer maintain or obtain washing machines
that comply with the Standard to continue to test to the Standard, and
it would eliminate their need to maintain and repair older outdated
machines. Staff expects the proposed amendments to the drying
specifications would provide benefits as well. By requiring the use of
the same standard for both washing and drying, these amendments would
streamline the requirements for testing laboratories, making it less
cumbersome and less costly than obtaining and following two standards.
Moreover, LP1-2021 is already familiar to many testing laboratories
since it is used for other standards as well; as such, using this
standard should be clear and low cost. In addition, by requiring the
use of a widely familiar standard for both washing and drying, the
proposed amendments should provide for consistent and reliable test
results and classifications, and requiring the use of a single standard
should reduce the risk of confusion or testing errors from referencing
two standards, both of which may have some safety benefits for
consumers.
2. Potential Costs
Burn Codes. The proposed amendments regarding burn codes only
clarify and streamline existing requirements, and would not change any
testing, flammability results, or classification criteria. As such,
staff does not expect these proposed amendments to have any notable
costs.
Stop Thread. The proposed amendments regarding the stop thread
specification clarify and expand the range of permissible threads. They
would not change any testing, flammability results, or classification
criteria. As staff's testing indicates, thread that meets the current
specification in the Standard would comply with the proposed
amendments, and the proposed amendments would allow for the use of a
wider range of threads than the current Standard. This would allow
testing laboratories to continue to use their existing thread or more
easily obtain compliant thread by providing a wider range of options.
Therefore, staff does not expect these proposed amendments to have any
notable costs.
Dry Cleaning Specification. The proposed amendments regarding the
dry cleaning specification allow for the continued use of the existing
specification (using perchloroethylene solvent), but also provides an
additional alternative specification (using hydrocarbon solvent). The
proposed amendments would not change any
[[Page 56310]]
testing requirements or criteria and, as staff's testing demonstrates,
the hydrocarbon alternative provides comparable flammability results
and classifications to the perchloroethylene specification. As such,
testing laboratories could continue to use the existing specification,
but would also have an additional option for complying with the
Standard. Therefore, staff does not expect these proposed amendments to
have any notable costs.
Laundering Specification. The proposed amendments regarding the
washing specification would require different washing machines than
those that currently comply with the Standard, since those machines are
no longer available on the market. However, firms have the option to
continue using machines that comply with the current Standard under 16
CFR 1610.40, thereby avoiding the need to obtain new washing machines.
In this notice, the Commission preliminary concludes that, for purposes
of 16 CFR 1610.40, the testing CPSC staff conducted that is provided in
this notice and in full detail in Tabs D and E of the briefing package
supporting this proposed rule constitutes information demonstrating
that the washing procedure specified in the current Standard is as
stringent as the washing procedure in LP1-2021 that is proposed to be
required in this NPR. Therefore, if firms rely on this information and
conform to the other requirements in section 1610.40, this will provide
an option for them to continue to use washing machines that comply with
the provisions in TM 124-2006 in the current Standard. This alternative
would impose no costs, as testing laboratories could continue to use
their existing compliant machines.
Although staff does not expect the proposed amendments to the
washing specifications to impose any costs, staff examined potential
costs associated with obtaining machines that comply with the proposed
amendments to assess the costs to firms that choose to do so, rather
than continue to use existing machines in accordance with the allowance
in 16 CFR 1610.40. One potential cost to firms that choose to obtain
new machines would be the cost of buying a copy of LP1-2021, which is
approximately $50 for AATCC members and $70 for non-members. Staff does
not consider this a significant cost and firms will not incur this cost
if they already have LP1-2021 to comply with other standards.
The primary cost to firms that choose to obtain new machines would
be the cost of new washing machines that comply with LP1-2021. Staff
estimates that these machines cost an average of $4,300 (excluding tax
but including certified calibration, packaging, and shipping). However,
this cost would be offset by the reduced costs of no longer needing to
repair or maintain existing, outdated machines. Staff estimates that
the cost of maintaining and repairing the outdated machines is $300
annually and assumes that if a laboratory chooses to upgrade machines,
it expects to receive benefits from the upgrade that outweigh the
acquisition costs.
Staff was unable to determine the number of testing laboratories
that test to the Standard and that would, therefore, by subject to the
proposed amendments. At a minimum, staff notes that there currently are
more than 300 testing laboratories that are CPSC-accepted third party
laboratories that test to the Standard for purposes of children's
product certifications. However, that is an underestimate of the number
of firms impacted by the proposed rule because testing laboratories
need not be CPSC-accepted third party laboratories to test to the
Standard for non-children's products. At a maximum, staff notes that
there are a total of 7,389 testing laboratories in the United States,
according to the Census Bureau. However, this is an overestimate of the
number of firms in the United States impacted by the proposed rule
because this number includes testing laboratories that do not test to
the Standard. Staff estimates that each testing laboratory that tests
to the Standard has three washing machines that do not meet LP1-2021.
The proposed amendments regarding the drying specification are
unlikely to require different dryers than those that currently comply
with the Standard, since most dryers can comply with both
specifications. However, to the extent that dryers that meet the
current Standard would not meet the proposed amendments, firms would
again have the option to continue to use their existing compliant
dryers in accordance with 16 CFR 1610.40. Therefore, this alternative
would eliminate any potential costs associated with the proposed
amendments. Moreover, because most dryers comply with both the current
Standard and LP1-2021, staff does not expect that most firms would need
to replace their dryers even if they chose to comply with LP1-2021,
instead of using 16 CFR 1610.40 to continue to comply with TM 124-2006.
B. Reasons for Not Relying on a Voluntary Standard
When the Commission issues an ANPR under the FFA, it must invite
interested parties to submit existing standards or provide a statement
of intention to modify or develop a standard that would address the
hazard at issue. 15 U.S.C. 1193(g). When CPSC receives such standards
or statements in response to an ANPR, the preliminary regulatory
analysis must provide reasons that the proposed rule does not include
such standards. Id. 1193(i). In the present rulemaking, the Commission
did not issue an ANPR. Accordingly, CPSC did not receive submissions of
standards or statements of intention to develop standards regarding
clothing flammability.
C. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
A preliminary regulatory analysis must describe reasonable
alternatives to the proposed rule, their potential costs and benefits,
and a brief explanation of the reasons the alternatives were not
chosen. 15 U.S.C. 1193(i). CPSC considered several alternatives to the
proposed rule. These alternatives, their potential costs and benefits,
and the reasons the Commission did not select them, are described in
detail in section VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule, below, and Tab
F of the NPR briefing package.
VI. Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
Burn Codes. CPSC could retain the current burn code provisions in
the Standard, rather than updating them. This alternative would not
create any costs, but also would not provide any benefits. In
comparison, the proposed amendments also would not create any costs,
but would have benefits. Based on staff's assessment of needed
clarifications, and comments on the RFI indicating the need for these
clarifications, CPSC did not select this option.
Stop Thread Specification. As one alternative, CPSC could update
the stop thread specification to require the use of a stop thread with
the specific Tex size of the thread currently required in the Standard.
This would not create any costs since thread that meets the current
Standard would meet this alternative. However, this alternative would
be more restrictive than the proposed amendment by providing fewer
options of stop threads. Because staff determined that the range of Tex
sizes in the proposed amendment would provide comparable flammability
results to the Standard, while providing a broader range of options,
CPSC did not select this alternative.
Another alternative is to allow a wider range of Tex sizes, such as
the full range staff assessed during flammability testing and found to
yield comparable flammability results to the Standard.
[[Page 56311]]
This would further reduce burdens on testing laboratories by providing
even more options. However, staff concluded that it is more appropriate
to limit the range of Tex sizes to those of cotton threads that yielded
comparable flammability results to the Standard because some polyester
threads are designed to be flame resistant.
Dry Cleaning Specification. In addition to the hydrocarbon
alternative proposed in this NPR, CPSC considered two additional dry
cleaning specifications--silicone, and butylal. As staff's testing
indicates, both of these alternatives also yield comparable
flammability results to the current Standard and, therefore, are likely
to offer similar benefits to the hydrocarbon specification proposed.
Staff identified estimated costs of the four dry cleaning solvent
specifications using comparisons provided by the Toxic Use Reduction
Institute (TURI). These comparisons estimate that dry cleaning with
perchloroethylene involves equipment costs between $40,000 and $65,000
and solvent costs of $17; dry cleaning with hydrocarbon involves
equipment costs between $38,000 and $75,000 and solvent costs of $14 to
$17; dry cleaning with silicone involves equipment costs between
$30,500 and $55,000 and solvent costs of $22 to $28; and dry cleaning
with butylal involves equipment costs between $50,000 and $100,000 and
solvent costs of $28 to $34. CPSC did not select the silicone or
butylal alternatives because butylal yielded slightly more different
classifications than the current Standard during comparison testing;
hydrocarbon is the most commonly used alternative to perchloroethylene;
hydrocarbon has a long history of use; and several companies
manufacture hydrocarbon solvents for dry cleaning, whereas silicone and
butylal are newer technologies and patented, making their availability
more limited.
CPSC also considered requiring the use of only the hydrocarbon
specification, rather than continuing to allow the use of the
perchloroethylene specification in the current Standard. However, this
alternative may increase costs by requiring all testing laboratories to
change their dry cleaning specifications. CPSC did not select this
option because, although perchloroethylene is being restricted in some
locations, it is still available and widely used in the dry cleaning
industry.
Laundering Specification. In addition to the LP1-2021 alternative
proposed in this NPR, CPSC considered an alternative of continuing to
require compliance with the laundering specification in TM 124-2006,
but with a reduced agitation speed. As staff's testing indicates, this
alternative also yields comparable flammability results to the current
Standard and, therefore, is likely to offer similar benefits to the
LP1-2021 specification proposed. However, this alternative may have
higher costs than the proposed amendment because laboratory-grade
washing machines are not sold pre-programmed to the reduced agitation
speed settings, but they are sold pre-programmed with the LP1-2021
settings. Consequently, additional time and skilled labor resources
would be necessary to program machines to meet the reduced agitation
speed alternative, and there would be the potential for testing errors.
CPSC did not select this option because testing laboratories are likely
to already have and be familiar with LP1-2021 and have machines that
comply with it since it is required for other standards and there are
more washing machines on the market that meet the specifications in
LP1-2021 than the reduced agitation speed parameters.
CPSC also considered amending the Standard to allow the use of LP1-
2021 specifications or TM 124-2006 specifications. Similarly, CPSC
considered amending the Standard to include the specifications in LP1-
2021, while allowing for the continued use of TM 124-2006 for a limited
phase-out period. These alternatives would have minimal, if any, costs
because they would allow testing laboratories to continue to use
existing machines, while providing an option to obtain machines that
are available on the market. CPSC did not select these options because
this would leave CPSC unable to test for compliance in accordance with
one of the procedures in the Standard when CPSC's TM 124-2006-
compliance machines reach the end of their useful lives; this would
retain in the Standard an outdated and obsolete specification that is
no longer possible to meet with products available on the market; and
staff does not have information about an appropriate phase-out period
for machines that comply with TM 124-2006.
Although the CPSC did not select either of these alternatives,
firms would still be able to continue to use TM 124-2006-compliant
machines, instead of LP1-2021-compliant machines, under the provisions
in 16 CFR 1610.40. The Commission is facilitating this option by
providing, in this notice and the briefing package supporting it, the
documentation necessary to support that alternative.
For dryers, CPSC considered retaining the current provisions in the
Standard, which reference TM 124-2006, since dryers that meet this
standard are still available on the market. This alternative would
eliminate any costs associated with the proposed amendment to dryer
specifications. CPSC did not select this option because requiring the
use of a single standard ensures compatible washing and drying
requirements and reduces confusion and costs associated with obtaining
and following two separate standards. In addition, because the dryer
specifications in TM 124-2006 and LP1-2021 are nearly identical,
testing laboratories are unlikely to need to replace their dryers to
meet the proposed amendments and, for those that do, the allowance in
16 CFR 1610.40 would mitigate or eliminate that need.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not involve any new information collection
requirements, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501-3521). The Standard does contain recordkeeping provisions, but
this proposed rule would not alter the estimated burden hours to
establish or maintain associated records from the information
collection approved previously.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 3041-
0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ For additional information regarding the Regulatory
Flexibility Act analysis, see Tab F of the briefing package
supporting this NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When an agency is required to publish a proposed rule, section 603
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires that the
agency prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA),
containing specific content, that describes the impact that the
proposed rule would have on small businesses and other entities. 5
U.S.C. 603(a). However, an IRFA is not required if the head of the
agency certifies that the proposed rule ``will not, if promulgated,
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603, 605(b). The agency must publish the
certification in the Federal Register along with the NPR or final rule,
include the factual basis for the certification, and provide the
certification and statement to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. Id.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ For additional details regarding certifications, see A
Guide for Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, SBA Office of Advocacy (Aug. 2017), available at:
https://advocacy.sba.gov/2017/08/31/a-guide-for-government-agencies-how-to-comply-with-the-regulatory-flexibility-act/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56312]]
The Commission certifies that the proposed amendments, if adopted,
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This is because there are little to no estimated costs
associated with the rule since the proposed amendments reduce burdens
on industry, maintain or expand existing requirements, or firms may
rely on the allowance in 16 CFR 1610.40 to continue to use equipment
that is being updated in the proposed amendments. The factual basis for
the certification for this proposed rule is available in Tab F of the
NPR briefing package; this section provides an overview.
A. Small Entities to Which the Rule Would Apply
The proposed rule would amend requirements for testing laboratories
that test for compliance with the Standard. According to the small
business size standards set by the Small Business Administration,
testing laboratories are considered small if their average annual
receipts are less than $16.5 million per year. Staff estimates that 70
percent of testing laboratories would be considered small.
Staff identified a possible minimum and maximum number of testing
laboratories that would be subject to the proposed rule, but notes that
the upper and lower bounds of these estimates are unlikely to represent
the number of impacted firms. As explained above, at a minimum, there
currently are more than 300 testing laboratories that are CPSC-accepted
third party laboratories that test to the Standard for purposes of
children's product certifications. However, this is an underestimate of
the number of firms impacted by the proposed rule because this number
only includes testing laboratories that test to the Standard for
children's products. Using this minimum estimate and the assumption
that 70 percent are small firms, there are a minimum of 210 CPSC-
accepted third party laboratories that qualify as small businesses. To
identify a possible maximum, staff determined that there are a total of
7,389 testing laboratories in the United States, according to the
Census Bureau. However, this is an overestimate of the number of firms
impacted by the proposed rule because this number includes testing
laboratories that do not test to the Standard. Using this maximum
estimate and the assumption that 70 percent are small firms, there are
a maximum of 5,172 small testing laboratories could theoretically be
impacted by the proposed rule.
B. Criteria Supporting Certification
In considering whether certification is justified, staff
established criteria for what constitutes a ``significant economic
impact'' and a ``substantial number.'' Staff determined that a
reasonable threshold for a ``significant economic impact'' is costs in
excess of 1 percent of the small firm's gross annual revenue, and a
``substantial number'' is 20 percent or more of small domestic firms.
C. Potential Economic Impacts on Small Entities
The estimated economic impacts of the proposed rule are the same
for small entities as for all firms and are discussed in section V.
Preliminary Regulatory Analysis of this notice.
Staff does not anticipate any significant costs associated with the
proposed amendments regarding burn codes because these amendments would
merely clarify existing requirements. Staff does not anticipate any
significant costs associated with the proposed amendments regarding
stop thread or dry cleaning specifications because these amendments
would continue to allow the use thread and dry cleaning under the
current Standard. Staff also does not anticipate any significant costs
associated with the proposed amendments regarding drying specifications
because most dryers comply with both the current drying specifications
and the proposed amendments, and any machines that do not comply with
the amendments could be addressed through the allowance in 16 CFR
1610.40.
As discussed in the preliminary regulatory analysis, staff also
does not expect significant costs associated with the proposed
amendments regarding washing specifications because firms could
continue to use existing machines under the allowance in 16 CFR
1610.40. In addition, any economic impact of these amendments on small
firms would be offset by reducing the repair and maintenance costs to
these firms to continue to use outdated machines required in the
current Standard. Therefore, because there is no expected cost
associated with the proposed rule, the economic impact is expected to
be lower than the thresholds for ``significant economic impact'' and
``substantial number.''
However, even if small firms choose to obtain new laundering
machines, rather than continue to use existing machines under the
allowance in 16 CFR 1610.40, staff expects these incremental costs to
be well below 1 percent of the annual revenue of a small firm. Among
domestic CPSC-accepted testing laboratories that are considered small
and for which data was available, the average gross annual revenue was
$2,930,192. As such, a cost would only be a ``significant economic
impact'' if it totaled more than $29,301 (i.e., 1 percent of the small
firm's gross annual revenue). Staff estimates that acquiring a washing
machine that complies with LP1-2021 is $4,300, minus $300 for the cost
of maintaining a washing machine that complies with TM 124-2006, for a
total incremental cost of $4,000. Staff assumes that testing
laboratories each have three washing machines to test to the Standard.
Thus, even replacing all three washing machines would result in a total
cost of approximately $12,000 and would not constitute a ``significant
economic impact'' for small entities. Staff does not expect all small
entities to replace their washing machines, as some may use the
allowance in 16 CFR 1610.40 to continue to use their existing machines.
As such, a ``substantial number'' of small entities would not have
significant economic impacts, even if they choose to upgrade their
machines.
D. Assumptions and Uncertainties
Assumptions and uncertainties regarding the number of small
entities affected by the proposed rule are discussed above. Assumptions
and uncertainties regarding staff's assessment of the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities are described in section V. Preliminary
Regulatory Analysis of this notice.
E. Request for Comments
The Commission requests comments on the certification, the factual
basis for it, the threshold economic analysis, and the underlying
assumptions and uncertainties.
IX. Incorporation by Reference
The proposed rule incorporates by reference LP1-2021. The Office of
the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations regarding incorporation by
reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, in the preamble of
the NPR, an agency must summarize the incorporated material, and
discuss the ways in which the material is reasonably available to
interested parties or how the agency worked to make the materials
reasonably available. 1 CFR 51.5(a). In accordance with the OFR
requirements, this preamble summarizes the provisions of LP1-2021 that
the
[[Page 56313]]
Commission proposes to incorporate by reference.
The standard is reasonably available to interested parties and
interested parties can purchase a copy of LP1-2021 from the American
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists, P.O. Box 12215, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709; telephone (919) 549-8141;
www.aatcc.org. Additionally, during the NPR comment period, a copy of
LP1-2021 is available for viewing on AATCC's website at: https://members.aatcc.org/store/lp001/2212/. Once a final rule takes effect, a
read-only copy of the standard will be available for viewing on the
AATCC website. Interested parties can also schedule an appointment to
inspect a copy of the standard at CPSC's Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda,
MD 20814, telephone: 301-504-7479; email: [email protected].
X. Testing, Certification, and Notice of Requirements
Because the Standard applies to clothing and textiles intended to
be used for clothing, it applies to both non-children's products and
children's products. Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act
(CPSA; 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089) includes requirements for testing and
certifying that non-children's products and children's products comply
with applicable mandatory standards issued under any statute the
Commission administers, including the FFA. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). The
Commission's regulations on certificates of compliance are codified at
16 CFR part 1110.
Section 14(a)(1) addresses required testing and certifications for
non-children's products and requires every manufacturer of a non-
children's product, which includes the importer,\37\ that is subject to
a rule enforced by the Commission and imported for consumption or
warehousing or distributed in commerce, to issue a certificate. The
manufacturer must certify, based on a test of each product or upon a
reasonable testing program, that the product complies with all rules,
bans, standards, or regulations applicable to the product under
statutes enforced by the Commission. The certificate must specify each
such rule, ban, standard, or regulation that applies to the product. 15
U.S.C. 2063(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The CPSA defines a ``manufacturer'' as ``any person who
manufactures or imports a consumer product.'' 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 14(a)(2) and (a)(3) address testing and certification
requirements specific to children's products. A ``children's product''
is a consumer product that is ``designed or intended primarily for
children 12 years of age or younger.'' 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(2). The CPSA
and CPSC's regulations provide factors to consider when determining
whether a product is a children's product. 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(2); 16 CFR
1200.2. An accredited third party conformity assessment body (third-
party lab) must test any product that is subject to a children's
product safety rule \38\ for compliance with the applicable rule. 15
U.S.C. 2063(a)(2)(A). After this testing, the manufacturer or private
labeler of the product must certify that, based on the third-party
lab's testing, the product complies with the children's product safety
rule. Id. 2063(a)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ The Commission has previously stated that because the
definition of ``children's product safety rule'' in section 14(f)(1)
of the CPSA includes any consumer product safety rule issued under
any statute enforced by the Commission, third-party testing is
required to support a certification under the Standard since the
Standard applies to children's products as well as non-children's
products. See 77 FR 31086, 31105 (May 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission must publish a notice of requirements (NOR) for
third-party labs to obtain accreditation to assess conformity with a
children's product safety rule. Id. 2063(a)(3)(A). The Commission must
publish an NOR for new or revised children's products standards not
later than 90 days before such rules or revisions take effect. Id.
2063(a)(3)(B)(vi). The Commission previously published an NOR for the
Standard.\39\ The NOR provided the criteria and process for CPSC to
accept accreditation of third-party labs for testing products to 16 CFR
part 1610. Part 1112 provides requirements for third-party labs to
obtain accreditation to test for conformance with a children's product
safety rule, including the Standard. 16 CFR 1112.15(b)(20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 75 FR 51016 (Aug. 18, 2010), amended at 76 FR 22608
(Apr. 22, 2011); 78 FR 15836 (Mar. 12, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule does not require third-party labs to change the
way they test products for compliance with the Standard. The proposed
amendments to burn codes do not alter test protocols; they merely
clarity existing requirements. The proposed amendments regarding stop
thread and dry cleaning specifications continue to allow the use of the
specifications that comply with the current Standard. Although the
proposed amendments regarding laundering specifications differ from the
current Standard, 16 CFR 1610.40 provides an allowance for the
continued use of laundering specifications under the current Standard.
Accordingly, if the Commission issues a final rule, the existing
accreditations that the Commission has accepted for testing to the
Standard would cover testing to the revised Standard, and CPSC-accepted
third party conformity assessment bodies would be expected to update
the scope of their accreditations to reflect the revised Standard in
the normal course of renewing their accreditations. Accordingly, the
Commission does not propose to revise the NOR for testing to the
Standard.
The Commission seeks comments on this assessment and implications
of the proposed rule on testing and certifications.
XI. Environmental Considerations
The Commission's regulations address whether CPSC is required to
prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact
statement (EIS). 16 CFR 1021.5. Those regulations list CPSC actions
that ``normally have little or no potential for affecting the human
environment,'' and, therefore, fall within a ``categorical exclusion''
under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4231-4370h) and
the regulations implementing it (40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508) and do
not require an EA or EIS. 16 CFR 1021.5(c). Among those actions are
rules that provide design or performance requirements for products, or
revisions to such rules. Id. 1021.5(c)(1). Because this proposed rule
would make minimal revisions to the equipment and materials used for
flammability testing in the Standard, and make minor revisions for
clarity, the proposed rule falls within the categorical exclusion, and
thus, no EA or EIS is required.
XII. Preemption
Executive Order (E.O.) 12988, Civil Justice Reform (Feb. 5, 1996),
directs agencies to specify the preemptive effect of a regulation. 61
FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), section 3(b)(2)(A). In accordance with E.O.
12988, CPSC states the preemptive effect of the proposed rule, as
follows:
The proposed revision to the Standard for the Flammability of
Clothing Textiles falls under the authority of the FFA. Section 16 of
the FFA provides that ``whenever a flammability standard or other
regulation for a fabric, related material, or product is in effect
under this Act, no State or political subdivision of a State may
establish or continue in effect a flammability standard or other
regulation for such fabric, related material or product if the standard
or other regulation is designed to protect against the same risk of
occurrence of fire with respect to which
[[Page 56314]]
the standard or other regulation under this Act is in effect unless the
State or political subdivision standard or other regulation is
identical to the Federal standard or other regulation.'' 15 U.S.C.
1203(a). The Federal Government, or a state or local government, may
establish or continue in effect a non-identical requirement for its own
use that is designed to protect against the same risk as the CPSC
standard if the Federal, state, or local requirement provides a higher
degree of protection than the CPSC requirement. Id. 1203(b). In
addition, states or political subdivisions of a state may apply for an
exemption from preemption regarding a flammability standard or other
regulation applicable to a fabric, related material, or product subject
to a standard or other regulation in effect under the FFA. Upon such
application, the Commission may issue a rule granting the exemption if
it finds that: (1) compliance with the state or local standard would
not cause the fabric, related material, or product to violate the
Federal standard; (2) the state or local standard provides a
significantly higher degree of protection from the risk of occurrence
of fire than the CPSC standard; and (3) the state or local standard
does not unduly burden interstate commerce. Id. 1203(c).
XIII. Effective Date
Section 4(b) of the FFA specifies that an amendment to a
flammability standard shall take effect 12 months after the date the
amendment is promulgated unless the Commission finds, for good cause
shown, that an earlier or later effective date is in the public
interest and publishes the reasons for that finding. 15 U.S.C. 1193(b).
The Commission proposes that the amendments to the Standard take
effect 6 months after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. However, the Commission seeks comments on whether a different
effective date is justified and, if so, the appropriate date and
justification for it. The Commission preliminarily finds that this
shorter effective date is in the public interest because the Standard
provides an important safety benefit and the proposed amendments would
provide some improvement to those benefits, with little to no costs.
Moreover, a shorter effective date is justified given that the proposed
amendments should have minimal impacts, improve clarity, and relieve
burdens; that the prohibition on the use of perchloroethylene in dry
cleaning in California will take effect in January 2023; and that
washing machines that meet the Standard are no longer available.
Section 4(b) of the FFA also requires that an amendment of a
flammability standard exempt fabrics, related materials, and products
``in inventory or with the trade'' on the date the amendment becomes
effective, unless the Commission prescribes, limits, or withdraws that
exemption because it finds that the product is ``so highly flammable as
to be dangerous when used by consumers for the purpose for which it is
intended.'' Because the proposed amendments are intended to have
minimal impacts, the Commission proposes that products ``in inventory
or with the trade'' on the date the amendment becomes effective be
exempt from the amended Standard.
XIV. Proposed Findings
As discussed in section II. Statutory Provisions, above, the FFA
requires the Commission to make certain findings when it issues or
amends a flammability standard. 15 U.S.C. 1193(b), (j)(2). This section
discusses preliminary support for those findings.
The amendments are needed to adequately protect the public against
unreasonable risk of fire leading to death, injury, or significant
property damage. Since the requirements in the Standard were
promulgated in 1953, industry practices, equipment, materials, and
procedures have evolved, making some parts of the Standard outdated,
unavailable, or unclear. Because the Standard determines whether a
fabric is safe for use in clothing, it is necessary to replace outdated
and unavailable equipment, materials, and procedures and clarify
unclear provisions, to ensure that flammability testing can be
performed and that the results of the testing yield consistent,
reliable, and accurate flammability classifications to ensure that
dangerously flammable fabrics are not used in clothing.
The amendments are reasonable, technologically practicable, and
appropriate, and are stated in objective terms. The amendments reflect
clarifications that industry members requested, streamline existing
requirements, and update outdated equipment, materials, and procedures.
The proposed amendments reflect changes recommended by industry
members, and allow for the use of equipment, materials, and procedures
that are commonly used by industry members, recognized in standards
developed by industry, and are readily available, and stated in
objective terms.
The amendments are limited to fabrics, related materials, and
products that present an unreasonable risk. The proposed amendments do
not alter the textiles or products that are subject to the Standard,
which addresses products that present an unreasonable risk.
Voluntary standards. CPSC identified four relevant voluntary
standards. AATCC Test Method 124-2018, Appearance of Fabrics after
Repeated Home Laundering, includes provisions that are relevant to
flammability testing and is similar to portions of the Standard, but is
not a flammability standard. Rather, it is intended to evaluate the
smoothness appearance of fabrics after repeated home laundering. As
such, it contains provisions that are not relevant to flammability
testing and lacks provisions that are necessary for flammability
testing. AATCC's Laboratory Procedure 1-2021, Home Laundering: Machine
Washing, also includes provisions that are relevant to flammability
testing and is similar to portions of the Standard but is not a
flammability standard. Rather, it is intended as a stand-alone
laundering protocol, for use with other test methods, such as a
flammability standard. Therefore, it contains provisions that are not
relevant to flammability testing and lacks provisions that are
necessary for flammability testing. ASTM D1230-22, Standard Test Method
for Flammability of Apparel Textiles, is similar to the Standard, but
contains different laundering specifications, terminology, and burn
codes, and it does not address issues identified in this proposed rule,
such as clarification of the stop thread specification. Canadian
General Standards Board Standard CAN/CGSB-4.2 No. 27.5, Textile Test
Method Flame Resistance--45[deg] Angle Test--One-Second Flame
Impingement, also is similar to the Standard, but includes several
differences from longstanding provisions in the Standard, such as stop
thread specifications. Compliance with these voluntary standards is not
likely to result in the elimination or adequate reduction of the risk
of injury identified by the Commission. The proposed amendments will
provide better clarity and updates than these voluntary standards and,
therefore, better address the risk of injury.
Relationship of benefits to costs. Because the proposed amendments
reflect current industry practices and provide needed clarifications,
the anticipated benefits and costs are expected to be small and bear a
reasonable relationship to each other.
Least burdensome requirement. The proposed amendments do not
substantively change the Standard but provide changes that are
necessary for
[[Page 56315]]
clarity and so that testing laboratories may obtain necessary materials
and equipment to conduct testing. Several proposed amendments expand
the permissible range of materials or equipment to reduce burdens. For
revisions that include new equipment or materials, the proposed
amendments either provide these new equipment and materials as
additional alternatives, or the Commission provides information to
support the continued use of equipment or materials in the current
Standard under 16 CFR 1610.40.
XV. Request for Comments
The Commission requests comments on all aspects of the proposed
rule. Comments should be submitted in accordance with the instructions
in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice. The following
are specific comment topics that the Commission would find particularly
helpful:
Burn Codes:
[cir] The proposed amendments to the test result code provisions,
whether they improve clarity, and whether additional revisions are
necessary;
Stop Thread:
[cir] The proposed revisions to the stop thread specification and
whether additional revisions are necessary and why;
[cir] The equivalency of the proposed revisions and information and
data supporting such comments;
[cir] The use of Tex size as part of the stop thread specification,
as well as the appropriate size and range and justifications for them;
[cir] Alternatives to the proposed revisions, along with
information and data supporting them;
Comparison Testing:
[cir] The comparison testing supporting this NPR, including the
fabrics selected, test methods, results, and conclusions regarding
comparability to the Standard;
Dry Cleaning Specifications:
[cir] The proposed revisions to the dry cleaning specifications;
[cir] The equivalency of the proposed revisions and information and
data supporting such comments;
[cir] Whether perchloroethylene should be retained as an option in
the Standard;
[cir] Whether hydrocarbon solvent should be the alternative
provided, or whether other options should be provided instead of or in
addition to hydrocarbon and, if so, information, data, and
justifications for doing so;
Washing Specifications:
[cir] The proposed revisions to the washing specifications;
[cir] The equivalency of the proposed revisions and information and
data supporting such comments;
[cir] Whether TM 124-2006 should be retained as an option in the
Standard and, if so, for how long and the justifications for doing so;
[cir] Additional alternatives, including reduced agitation speed
and TM 124-2018, and other appropriate alternatives, along with
information, data, and justifications for such alternatives;
[cir] The allowance in 16 CFR 1610.40 and its utility for the
continued use of washing specifications required in the current
Standard;
Drying Specifications:
[cir] The proposed revisions to the drying specifications;
[cir] The equivalency of the proposed revisions and information and
data supporting such comments;
[cir] Whether TM 124-2006 should be retained as an option in the
Standard and, if so, for how long and the justifications for doing so;
[cir] Additional alternatives, including TM 124-2018 or the use of
different standards for washing and drying, and other appropriate
alternatives, along with information, data, and justifications for such
alternatives;
[cir] The allowance in 16 CFR 1610.40 and its utility for the
continued use of drying specifications required in the current
Standard;
Effective Date:
[cir] The reasonableness of the proposed effective date, and
recommendations and justifications for a different effective date;
[cir] The reasonableness of the proposed effective date for the
amendments regarding burn codes and stop thread, and whether another
effective date would be in the public interest, and why;
[cir] The reasonableness of the proposed effective date for the
amendments regarding dry cleaning, and whether a shorter effective date
would be in the public interest, particularly given the prohibition on
the use of perchloroethylene in certain locations, beginning in 2023;
[cir] The reasonableness of the proposed effective date for the
amendments regarding laundering, including whether labs will need to
obtain new machines and the time needed to obtain and test with new
machines;
Economic Analyses:
[cir] The accuracy of the estimated benefits associated with the
proposed rule, and whether additional benefits should be considered,
particularly for testing laboratories that are affected by restrictions
on dry cleaning and the market availability of laundering equipment;
[cir] The accuracy of the estimated costs associated with the
proposed rule, and whether additional costs should be considered,
particularly for testing laboratories that maintain, use, or need new
laundering equipment to test to the Standard;
[cir] Information and data regarding the benefits and costs
associated with the proposed rule;
[cir] The number of firms that would be impacted by the proposed
rule and the extent to which they would be impacted;
[cir] The number of small entities that would be impacted by the
proposed rule and the benefits and costs to them; and
[cir] The alternatives to the proposed rule and the benefits and
costs associated with them.
Consistent with the FFA requirement to provide interested parties
with an opportunity to make oral presentations of data, views, or
arguments, the Commission requests that anyone who would like to make
an oral presentation concerning this rulemaking contact CPSC's Office
of the Secretary (contact information is provided in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice) within 45 days of publication of this notice.
If the Commission receives requests to make oral comments, a date will
be set for a public meeting for that purpose and notice of the meeting
will be provided in the Federal Register.
XVI. Conclusion
For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission proposes to
amend the Standard for the Flammability of Clothing Textiles.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1610
Clothing, Consumer protection, Flammable materials, Incorporation
by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Textiles,
Warranties.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission proposes
to amend title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by revising part
1610 to read as follows:
PART 1610--STANDARD FOR THE FLAMMABILITY OF CLOTHING TEXTILES
0
1. The authority citation for part 1610 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1191-1204.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1610.2 by revising paragraphs (a) and (p) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1610.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(a) Base burn (also known as base fabric ignition or fusing) means
the point at which the flame burns the ground (base) fabric of a raised
surface textile fabric and provides a self-
[[Page 56316]]
sustaining flame. Base burns, used to establish a Class 2 or 3 fabric,
are those burns resulting from surface flash that occur on specimens in
places other than the point of impingement (test result code SFBB) when
the warp and fill yarns of a raised surface textile fabric undergo
combustion. Base burns can be identified by an opacity change,
scorching on the reverse side of the fabric, or when a physical hole is
evident.
* * * * *
(p) Stop thread supply means 3-ply, white, mercerized, 100% cotton
sewing thread, with a Tex size of 35 to 45.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 1610.4 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2), (c)(2),
and Table 1 to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.4 Requirements for classifying textiles.
(a) * * *
(2) Raised surface textile fabric. Such textiles in their original
state and/or after being refurbished as described in Sec. 1610.6(a)
and (b), when tested as described in Sec. 1610.6, shall be classified
as Class 1, Normal flammability, when the burn time is more than 7.0
seconds, or when they burn with a rapid surface flash (0.0 to 7.0
seconds), provided the intensity of the flame is so low as not to
ignite or fuse the base fabric.
(b) * * *
(2) Raised surface textile fabric. Such textiles in their original
state and/or after being refurbished as described in Sec. 1610.6(a)
and (b), when tested as described in Sec. 1610.6, shall be classified
as Class 2, Intermediate flammability, when the burn time is from 4.0
through 7.0 seconds, both inclusive, and the base fabric starts burning
at places other than the point of impingement as a result of the
surface flash (test result code SFBB).
(c) * * *
(2) Raised surface textile fabric. Such textiles in their original
state and/or after refurbishing as described in Sec. 1610.6(a) and
Sec. 1610.6(b), when tested as described in Sec. 1610.6, shall be
classified as Class 3 Rapid and Intense Burning when the time of flame
spread is less than 4.0 seconds, and the base fabric starts burning at
places other than the point of impingement as a result of the surface
flash (test result code SFBB).
Table 1 to Sec. 1610.4--Summary of Test Criteria for Specimen
Classification
[See Sec. 1610.7]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plain surface textile Raised surface textile
Class fabric fabric
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Burn time is 3.5 (1) Burn time is greater
seconds or more. than 7.0 seconds; or
ACCEPTABLE (3.5 (2) Burn time is less than
seconds is a pass). or equal to 7.0 seconds
with no SFBB test result
code. Exhibits rapid
surface flash only.
ACCEPTABLE--Normal
Flammability.
2 Class 2 is not Burn time is 4.0 to 7.0
applicable to plain seconds (inclusive) with
surface textile base burn (SFBB).
fabrics. ACCEPTABLE--Intermediate
Flammability.
3 Burn time is less than Burn time is less than 4.0
3.5 seconds. NOT seconds with base burn
ACCEPTABLE. (SFBB).
NOT ACCEPTABLE--Rapid and
Intense Burning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: SFBB poi and SFBB poi* are not considered a base burn for
determining Class 2 and 3 fabrics.
0
4. Amend Sec. 1610.5 by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(ii), (b)(6) and (7)
to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.5 Test apparatus and materials.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Stop thread supply. This supply, consisting of a spool of 3-
ply, white, mercerized, 100% cotton sewing thread, with a Tex size of
35 to 45 Tex, shall be fastened to the side of the chamber and can be
withdrawn by releasing the thumbscrew holding it in position.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Commercial dry cleaning machine. The commercial dry cleaning
machine shall be capable of providing a complete automatic dry-to-dry
cycle using perchloroethylene solvent or hydrocarbon solvent and a
cationic dry cleaning detergent as specified in Sec. 1610.6(b)(1)(i).
(7) Dry cleaning solvent. The solvent shall be perchloroethylene,
commercial grade, or hydrocarbon solvent, commercial grade.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 1610.6 by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A), (B)(1)(ii)
and (iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.6 Test procedure.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) All samples shall be dry cleaned before they undergo the
laundering procedure. Samples shall be dry cleaned in a commercial dry
cleaning machine, using one of the following prescribed conditions:
(1) For perchloroethylene:
(i) Solvent: Perchloroethylene, commercial grade.
(ii) Detergent class: Cationic.
(iii) Cleaning time: 10-15 minutes.
(iv) Extraction time: 3 minutes.
(v) Drying Temperature: 60-66 [deg]C (140-150 [deg]F).
(vi) Drying Time: 18-20 minutes.
(vii) Cool Down/Deodorization time: 5 minutes.
(2) For hydrocarbon:
(i) Solvent: Hydrocarbon.
(ii) Detergent Class: Cationic.
(iii) Cleaning Time: 20-25 minutes.
(iv) Extraction Time: 4 minutes.
(v) Drying Temperature: 60-66 [deg]C (140-150 [deg]F).
(vi) Drying Time: 20-25 minutes.
(vii) Cool Down/Deodorization Time: 5 minutes.
Samples shall be dry cleaned in a load that is 80% of the machine's
capacity.
(B) * * *
(ii) Laundering procedure. The sample, after being subjected to the
dry cleaning procedure, shall be washed and dried one time in
accordance with section 9.2, section 9.4, section 12.2(A), Table I
``(1) Normal,'' ``(IV) Hot,'' and Table VI ``(Aiii) Permanent Press''
of AATCC LP1-2021, ``Laboratory Procedure for Home Laundering: Machine
Washing'' (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 1610.6(b)(1)(iii)).
Washing shall be performed in accordance with the detergent (powder)
specified in section 9.4 of AATCC LP1-2021; parameters for water level,
agitator speed, stroke length, washing time, spin speed, spin time, and
wash temperature specified in Table I, ``Standard Washing Machine
Parameters,'' ``(1) Normal'' and ``(IV) Hot'' of AATCC LP1-2021; and a
maximum wash load as specified in section 9.2 of AATCC LP1-2021, which
may consist of any combination of test samples and dummy pieces. Drying
shall be performed in accordance with section 12.2(A) of AATCC LP1-
2021, Tumble Dry, using the exhaust temperature and cool down time
[[Page 56317]]
specified in Table VI, ``Standard Tumble Dryer Parameters,'' ``(Aiii)
Permanent Press'' of AATCC LP1-2021.
(iii) AATCC LP1-2021, ``Laboratory Procedure for Home Laundering:
Machine Washing,'' is incorporated by reference. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. A read-only copy of the
standard is available for viewing on the AATCC website. You may obtain
a copy from the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists,
P.O. Box 12215, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709; telephone
(919) 549-8141; www.aatcc.org. You may inspect a copy at the Division
of the Secretariat, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820,
4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone (301) 504-7479,
email [email protected], or at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email [email protected], or go to:
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 1610.7 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.7 Test sequence and classification criteria.
* * * * *
(b) Test sequence and classification criteria. (1) Step 1, Plain
Surface Textile Fabrics in the original state.
(i) Conduct preliminary tests in accordance with Sec.
1610.6(a)(2)(i) to determine the fastest burning direction of the
fabric.
(ii) Prepare and test five specimens from the fastest burning
direction. The burn times determine whether to assign the preliminary
classification and proceed to Sec. 1610.6(b) or to test five
additional specimens.
(iii) Assign the preliminary classification of Class 1, Normal
Flammability and proceed to Sec. 1610.6(b) when:
(A) There are no burn times; or
(B) There is only one burn time, and it is equal to or greater than
3.5 seconds; or
(C) The average burn time of two or more specimens is equal to or
greater than 3.5 seconds.
(iv) Test five additional specimens when there is either only one
burn time, and it is less than 3.5 seconds; or there is an average burn
time of less than 3.5 seconds. Test these five additional specimens
from the fastest burning direction as previously determined by the
preliminary specimens. The burn times for the 10 specimens determine
whether to:
(A) Stop testing and assign the final classification as Class 3,
Rapid and Intense Burning only when there are two or more burn times
with an average burn time of less than 3.5 seconds; or
(B) Assign the preliminary classification of Class 1, Normal
Flammability and proceed to Sec. 1610.6(b) when there are two or more
burn times with an average burn time of 3.5 seconds or greater.
(v) If there is only one burn time out of the 10 test specimens,
the test is inconclusive. The fabric cannot be classified.
(2) Step 2, Plain Surface Textile Fabrics after refurbishing in
accordance with Sec. 1610.6(b)(1).
(i) Conduct preliminary tests in accordance with Sec.
1610.6(a)(2)(i) to determine the fastest burning direction of the
fabric.
(ii) Prepare and test five specimens from the fastest burning
direction. The burn times determine whether to stop testing and assign
the preliminary classification or to test five additional specimens.
(iii) Stop testing and assign the preliminary classification of
Class 1, Normal Flammability, when:
(A) There are no burn times; or
(B) There is only one burn time, and it is equal to or greater than
3.5 seconds; or
(C) The average burn time of two or more specimens is equal to or
greater than 3.5 seconds.
(iv) Test five additional specimens when there is only one burn
time, and it is less than 3.5 seconds; or there is an average burn time
less than 3.5 seconds. Test five additional specimens from the fastest
burning direction as previously determined by the preliminary
specimens. The burn times for the 10 specimens determine the
preliminary classification when:
(A) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time of
3.5 seconds or greater. The preliminary classification is Class 1,
Normal Flammability; or
(B) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time of
less than 3.5 seconds. The preliminary and final classification is
Class 3, Rapid and Intense Burning; or
(v) If there is only one burn time out of the 10 specimens, the
test results are inconclusive. The fabric cannot be classified.
(3) Step 1, Raised Surface Textile Fabric in the original state.
(i) Determine the area to be most flammable per Sec.
1610.6(a)(3)(i).
(ii) Prepare and test five specimens from the most flammable area.
The burn times and visual observations determine whether to assign a
preliminary classification and proceed to Sec. 1610.6(b) or to test
five additional specimens.
(iii) Assign the preliminary classification and proceed to Sec.
1610.6(b) when:
(A) There are no burn times. The preliminary classification is
Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(B) There is only one burn time and it is less than 4.0 seconds
without an SFBB test result code, or it is 4.0 seconds or greater with
or without am SFBB test result code. The preliminary classification is
Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(C) There are no base burns (SFBB) regardless of the burn time(s).
The preliminary classification is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(D) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time of
0.0 to 7.0 seconds with a surface flash only. The preliminary
classification is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(E) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time
greater than 7.0 seconds with any number of base burns (SFBB). The
preliminary classification is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(F) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time of
4.0 through 7.0 seconds (both inclusive) with no more than one base
burn (SFBB). The preliminary classification is Class 1, Normal
Flammability; or
(G) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time less
than 4.0 seconds with no more than one base burn (SFBB). The
preliminary classification is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(H) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time of
4.0 through 7.0 seconds (both inclusive) with two or more base burns
(SFBB). The preliminary classification is Class 2, Intermediate
Flammability.
(iv) Test five additional specimens when the tests of the initial
five specimens result in either of the following: There is only one
burn time and it is less than 4.0 seconds with a base burn (SFBB); or
the average of two or more burn times is less than 4.0 seconds with two
or more base burns (SFBB). Test these five additional specimens from
the most flammable area. The burn times and visual observations for the
10 specimens will determine whether to:
(A) Stop testing and assign the final classification only if the
average burn time for the 10 specimens is less than 4.0 seconds with
three or more base burns (SFBB). The final classification is Class 3,
Rapid and Intense Burning; or
[[Page 56318]]
(B) Assign the preliminary classification and continue on to Sec.
1610.6(b) when:
(1) The average burn time is less than 4.0 seconds with no more
than two base burns (SFBB). The preliminary classification is Class 1,
Normal Flammability; or
(2) The average burn time is 4.0 to 7.0 seconds (both inclusive)
with no more than 2 base burns (SFBB). The preliminary classification
is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(3) The average burn time is greater than 7.0 seconds. The
preliminary classification is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(4) The average burn time is 4.0 to 7.0 seconds (both inclusive)
with three or more base burns (SFBB). The preliminary classification is
Class 2, Intermediate Flammability; or
(v) If there is only one burn time out of the 10 specimens, the
test is inconclusive. The fabric cannot be classified.
(4) Step 2, Raised Surface Textile Fabric After Refurbishing in
accordance with Sec. 1610.6(b).
(i) Determine the area to be most flammable in accordance with
Sec. 1610.6(a)(3)(i).
(ii) Prepare and test five specimens from the most flammable area.
Burn times and visual observations determine whether to stop testing
and determine the preliminary classification or to test five additional
specimens.
(iii) Stop testing and assign the preliminary classification when:
(A) There are no burn times. The preliminary classification is
Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(B) There is only one burn time, and it is less than 4.0 seconds
without an SFBB test result code; or it is 4.0 seconds or greater with
or without an SFBB test result code. The preliminary classification is
Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(C) There are no base burns (SFBB) regardless of the burn time(s).
The preliminary classification is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(D) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time of
0.0 to 7.0 seconds with a surface flash only. The preliminary
classification is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(E) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time
greater than 7.0 seconds with any number of base burns (SFBB). The
preliminary classification is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(F) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time of
4.0 to 7.0 seconds (both inclusive) with no more than one base burn
(SFBB). The preliminary classification is Class 1, Normal Flammability;
or
(G) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time less
than 4.0 seconds with no more than one base burn (SFBB). The
preliminary classification is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(H) There are two or more burn times with an average burn time of
4.0 to 7.0 seconds (both inclusive) with two or more base burns (SFBB).
The preliminary classification is Class 2, Intermediate Flammability.
(iv) Test five additional specimens when the tests of the initial
five specimens result in either of the following: There is only one
burn time, and it is less than 4.0 seconds with a base burn (SFBB); or
the average of two or more burn times is less than 4.0 seconds with two
or more base burns (SFBB).
(v) If required, test five additional specimens from the most
flammable area. The burn times and visual observations for the 10
specimens determine the preliminary classification when:
(A) The average burn time is less than 4.0 seconds with no more
than two base burns (SFBB). The preliminary classification is Class 1,
Normal Flammability; or
(B) The average burn time is less than 4.0 seconds with three or
more base burns (SFBB). The preliminary and final classification is
Class 3, Rapid and Intense Burning; or
(C) The average burn time is greater than 7.0 seconds. The
preliminary classification is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(D) The average burn time is 4.0 to 7.0 seconds (both inclusive),
with no more than two base burns (SFBB). The preliminary classification
is Class 1, Normal Flammability; or
(E) The average burn time is 4.0 to 7.0 seconds (both inclusive),
with three or more base burns (SFBB). The preliminary classification is
Class 2, Intermediate Flammability; or
(vi) If there is only one burn time out of the 10 specimens, the
test is inconclusive. The fabric cannot be classified.
0
7. Amend Sec. 1610.8 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1610.8 Reporting results.
* * * * *
(b) Test result codes. The following are definitions for the test
result codes, which shall be used for recording flammability results
for each specimen that is burned.
(1) For Plain Surface Textile Fabrics:
(i) DNI Did not ignite.
(ii) IBE Ignited, but extinguished.
(iii) _._sec. Actual burn time measured and recorded by the timing
device.
(2) For Raised Surface Textile Fabrics:
(i) SF ntr Surface flash, does not break the stop thread. No time
recorded.
(ii) _._SF only Time in seconds, surface flash only. No damage to
the base fabric.
(iii) _._SFBB Time in seconds, surface flash base burn starting at
places other than the point of impingement as a result of surface
flash.
(iv) _._SFBB poi Time in seconds, surface flash base burn starting
at the point of impingement.
(v) _._SFBB poi* Time in seconds, surface flash base burn possibly
starting at the point of impingement. The asterisk is accompanied by
the following statement: ``Unable to make absolute determination as to
source of base burns.'' This statement is added to the result of any
specimen if there is a question as to origin of the base burn.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2022-19505 Filed 9-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P