[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equipment requirements that are outdated.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