[Federal Register: March 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 43)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11701-11752]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04mr08-31]
[[Page 11701]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Consumer Product Safety Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16 CFR Part 1634
Standard for the Flammability of Residential Upholstered Furniture;
Proposed Rule
[[Page 11702]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1634
Standard for the Flammability of Residential Upholstered
Furniture
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission
(``Commission'' or ``CPSC'') is proposing flammability standards for
residential upholstered furniture under the Flammable Fabrics Act
(``FFA''). The proposal would establish performance requirements and
certification and labeling requirements for upholstered furniture.
Manufacturers of upholstered furniture would choose one of two possible
methods of compliance: They could use cover materials that are
sufficiently smolder resistant to meet a cigarette ignition performance
test; or they could place fire barriers that meet smoldering and open
flame resistance tests between the cover fabric and interior filling
materials. Manufacturers of upholstered furniture would be required to
certify compliance with the standard and to comply with certain
recordkeeping requirements as specified in the proposal.
DATES: Comments in response to this document must be received by the
Commission not later than May 19, 2008.
Comments on elements of the proposed rule that, if issued in final
form would constitute collection of information requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, may be filed with the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') and with the Commission. Comments will be received by
OMB until May 5, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be filed by e-mail to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.
Comments also may be filed by telefacsimile to (301) 504-0127 or
mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda,
MD 20814, or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda,
Maryland; telephone (301) 504-7530. Comments should be captioned
``Upholstered Furniture NPR.''
Comments to OMB should be directed to the Desk Officer for the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503. The Commission asks
commenters to provide copies of such comments to the Commission's
Office of the Secretary, with a caption or cover letter identifying the
materials as comments submitted to OMB on the proposed collection of
information requirements for the proposed upholstered furniture
flammability standard.
The public may also request an opportunity to present comments
orally. Such requests should be submitted to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission by e-mail, mail, fax or in person at the
addresses or phone numbers listed above for the CPSC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dale R. Ray, Project Manager,
Directorate for Economic Analysis, Consumer Product Safety Commission,
4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7704.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
Regulatory/technical activity. In 1993 the National Association of
State Fire Marshals (``NASFM'') petitioned the Commission to issue
regulations under the FFA addressing upholstered furniture fire risks.
NASFM requested that the Commission adopt three existing state of
California standards.
The Commission granted the petition in part, and issued an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (``ANPR'') on June 15, 1994 on the
specific risk of small open flame-ignited fires. 59 FR 30,735 (1994).
The Commission denied the petition with respect to large open flame-
ignited fires, and deferred action on the petition with respect to
cigarette-ignited fires pending a CPSC staff evaluation of: (1) The
level of voluntary conformance to existing voluntary industry
guidelines, and (2) the overall level of cigarette ignition resistance
among products on the market.
Following issuance of the 1994 ANPR, CPSC staff developed a draft
performance standard and a test method to evaluate the small open flame
performance of upholstered furniture. In October 1997, the staff
forwarded a briefing package to the Commission concluding that a small
open flame standard was feasible and could effectively reduce the risk
to consumers, including both small open flame and cigarette ignitions.
The staff recommended that the Commission defer action until the agency
could gather additional scientific information to ensure that flame
retardant (``FR'') upholstery fabric treatments that manufacturers
might use would not result in adverse health effects. The staff
recommended that the Commission defer action on the cigarette ignition
portion of the 1993 NASFM petition pending a decision on open flame
ignition. On October 5, 2001, NASFM withdrew the portion of the
petition seeking Commission action with respect to cigarette-ignited
fires.
In July of 2003 the CPSC staff recommended that the Commission
issue an ANPR to expand the upholstered furniture proceeding to address
ignition of upholstered furniture by both small open flames and by
smoldering cigarettes. The Commission accepted the staff's
recommendation, and the ANPR was published on October 23, 2003. 68 FR
60,619. The 2003 ANPR sought comment on issues relating to the kinds of
standard provisions that might best address the upholstered furniture
fire risk in its entirety.
The Commission received 13 written comments during the 60-day
formal comment period following publication of the ANPR. Interested
parties subsequently provided additional written submissions in the
form of letters, position statements or presentations of technical data
at meetings. A detailed discussion of significant comments received is
provided in Section G of this preamble. In October 2004, the staff held
a public meeting to present the direction of what would become the
staff's 2005 draft standard. The staff analyzed comments received at
that meeting as well. The proposed standard takes account of that
analysis. Staff received comments on its 2005 draft standard, continued
its research and analysis and developed a revised, 2007 draft proposal
that focused primarily on preventing smoldering ignitions and reducing
the need for flame retardant chemicals.\1\ This notice presents the
2007 draft as the Commission's proposed standard.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission staff briefing package discussing this
proposal, Briefing Package: Regulatory Alternatives for Upholstered
Furniture Flammability, November 2007, (the ``Staff Briefing
Package'') is available on the Internet at: http://www.cpsc.gov/
library/foia/foia08/brief/briefing.html. Copies may also be
requested from the Commission's Office of the Secretary at the
address shown above.
\2\ Acting Chairman Nancy Nord and Commissioner Thomas H. Moore
issued statements which are available from the Commission's Office
of the Secretary (see Addresses section of this notice) or from the
Commission's Web site, http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/statements.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview of the proposed standard. The proposed standard
establishes two possible approaches. Upholstered furniture can meet the
proposed standard by having either (1) upholstery cover material that
complies with the prescribed smoldering ignition
[[Page 11703]]
resistance test (referred to as ``Type I'' furniture) or (2) an
interior fire barrier that complies with specified smoldering and small
open flame ignition resistance tests (``Type II'' furniture). No
requirements are prescribed for filling materials. The standard would
become effective one year after issued in final form and would apply to
upholstered furniture manufactured or imported on or after that date.
The performance tests prescribed in the proposed standard are
conducted with the tested material installed in mockups that simulate
the intersection of the seating area of an item of upholstered
furniture. In addition to the material under test, the mockup is
assembled using standardized upholstery test materials as defined in
the proposed standard.
Manufacturers (including importers) of upholstered furniture would
be required to certify that the article of upholstered furniture
complies with the proposed standard and to maintain records
demonstrating compliance with the applicable portions of the proposed
standard. Upholstered furniture subject to the proposed standard would
be required to be labeled with information identifying the
manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the item and type of furniture,
and a statement certifying that the article complies with applicable
requirements of the standard.
B. Statutory Authority
This proceeding is conducted pursuant to Section 4 of the Flammable
Fabrics Act (``FFA''), which authorizes the Commission to initiate
proceedings for a flammability standard when it finds that such a
standard is ``needed to protect the public against unreasonable risk of
the occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or
significant property damage.'' 15 U.S.C. 1193(a).
Section 4 also sets forth the process by which the Commission may
issue a flammability standard. As required in section 4(g), the
Commission has issued an ANPR. 68 FR 60629. 15 U.S.C. 1193(g). The
Commission has reviewed the comments submitted in response to the ANPR
and now is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') containing
the text of the proposed rule along with alternatives the Commission
has considered and a preliminary regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C.
1193(i). The Commission will consider comments provided in response to
the NPR and decide whether to issue a final rule along with a final
regulatory analysis. Id. 1193(j). The FFA also requires that when
issuing a standard or regulation the Commission must provide an
opportunity for interested persons to present their views orally. Id.
1193(d).
The Commission cannot issue a final rule unless it makes certain
findings and includes these in the regulation. The Commission must
find: (1) If an applicable voluntary standard has been adopted and
implemented, that compliance with the voluntary standard is not likely
to adequately reduce the risk of injury, or compliance with the
voluntary standard is not likely to be substantial; (2) that benefits
expected from the regulation bear a reasonable relationship to its
costs; and (3) that the regulation imposes the least burdensome
alternative that would adequately reduce the risk of injury. 15 U.S.C.
1193(j)(2). In addition, the Commission must find that the standard (1)
is needed to adequately protect the public against the risk of the
occurrence of fire leading to death, injury or significant property
damage, (2) is reasonable, technologically practicable, and
appropriate, (3) is limited to fabrics, related materials or products
which present unreasonable risks, and (4) is stated in objective terms.
Id. 1193(b).
C. The Product
The proposed standard applies to residential upholstered furniture.
The proposal specifically requires testing of cover fabrics and,
alternatively, barrier materials if they are used as a means of
complying with the proposed standard. Upholstered furniture is defined
for purposes of the proposed standard to include articles of interior
seating furnishing intended for indoor use in a home or other
residential occupancy that: (1) Consist in whole or in part of
resilient cushioning materials (such as foam, batting, or related
materials) covered by fabric or related materials; and (2) are
constructed with a contiguous upholstered seat and back or arms.
Included within the definition are products that are intended or
promoted for indoor residential use for sitting or reclining upon, such
as: Chairs, sofas, motion furniture, sleep sofas, home office furniture
customarily offered for sale through retailers or otherwise available
for residential use, and upholstered furniture intended for use in
dormitories or other residential occupancies. Items excluded from the
definition are: Furniture, such as patio chairs, intended solely for
outdoor use; furniture without contiguous upholstered seating and backs
and/or arm surfaces, such as ottomans, pillows or pads that are not
sold with the article of furniture; commercial or industrial furniture
not offered for sale through retailers or not otherwise available for
residential use; furniture intended or sold solely for use in hotels
and other short-term lodging and hospitality establishments; futons,
flip chairs, the mattress portions of sleep sofas, and non-furniture
infant or juvenile products such as walkers, strollers, high chairs or
pillows.
Commission staff estimates that the proposed standard would affect
more than 1,600 manufacturers and importers of upholstered furniture
and the 100-200 textile manufacturers that derive a significant share
of their revenues from household furniture fabrics. The staff estimates
that the average useful life of upholstered furniture ranges from 15 to
17 years. Assuming that the expected life of a piece of upholstered
furniture is about 16 years, the average number of upholstered
furniture items in household use during 2002-2004 was about 447 million
pieces. Upholstered furniture products and manufacturers are discussed
in greater detail in section H, Preliminary Regulatory Analysis, of
this preamble.
The top four companies accounted for nearly 35 percent of the total
value of household upholstered furniture shipments in 2002; the 50
largest companies accounted for about 67 percent. The industry also
includes many small companies. The staff estimates that nearly all of
the affected firms (over 97 percent) would be classified as small
businesses under Small Business Administration guidelines. The staff's
initial analysis of the potential impact of the proposed standard on
such ``small entities'' is provided in section I., Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, of this preamble.
As discussed in section D of this preamble, the majority of deaths
and injuries resulting from fires involving upholstered furniture were
started by smoldering ignition sources (such as cigarettes). The
staff's test data show that furniture covered with predominantly
cellulosic fabrics (such as cotton and rayon) is much more likely to be
involved in cigarette-ignited fires than furniture covered with
predominantly thermoplastic fabrics (such as polyester, polyolefin, and
nylon). The proposed standard focuses primarily on reducing deaths and
injuries from smoldering ignited fires. Staff estimates that about 14
percent of currently-produced furniture items are likely to fail the
proposed standard's smoldering ignition test for cover fabrics. These
would primarily be items constructed with certain predominantly
cellulosic fabrics; staff believes most of these fabrics could be
modified to meet the proposed standard. Staff anticipates that most
manufacturers are likely to bring these furniture items into
[[Page 11704]]
compliance by modifying the physical characteristics of the cover
fabrics rather than by using flame retardant (FR) fabric treatments.
Alternatively, manufacturers would have the option to meet the proposed
standard by using barrier materials that pass open flame and smoldering
ignition tests rather than changing the cover fabric.
D. Risk of Injury
Annual estimates of national fires and fire losses involving
ignition of upholstered furniture are based on data from the U.S. Fire
Administration's National Fire Incident Reporting System (``NFIRS'')
and the National Fire Protection Administration's (``NFPA'') annual
survey of fire departments.
National fire loss estimates for 2002-2004 indicated that
upholstered furniture was the first item to ignite in an average 7,800
residential fires attended by the fire service annually during that
period. These fires resulted in an average of 540 deaths, 870 injuries
and $250 million in property loss each year.
Of these fires, the staff considers an estimated 3,500 fires, 280
deaths, 500 injuries, and $112 million property loss annually to be
addressable by the proposed standard. Addressable here means the
incidents were of a type that would be affected by the proposed
standard (i.e., a fire that ignited upholstered furniture and that had
a smoking material or small open flame heat source). Approximately 90%
of estimated deaths, 65% of estimated injuries and 59% of property
damage resulted from ignition by smoking materials, almost always
cigarettes. The remaining addressable fires were started by small open
flame sources. Among the addressable casualties, smoking materials
accounted for about 260 deaths and 320 injuries annually. Small open
flame fires accounted for about 30 deaths and 170 injuries annually.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Numbers do not add up to totals due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Other Upholstered Furniture Flammability Standards
1. California Regulatory Activity
California Technical Bulletin 117 (``TB-117''), the mandatory
regulation for all upholstered furniture sold in that state, contains
both smoldering and small open flame resistance performance
requirements. Complying upholstered furniture is generally similar to
furniture sold in other states, except that California furniture is
typically made with FR resilient foam filling materials. In early 2002,
the California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation
(BHFTI) released a draft revision of TB-117. This draft revision
contained upgraded performance requirements for small open flame
ignition resistance of filling materials, and a cover material test
similar to that developed by the Commission staff in its 2001 draft
small open flame standard. The TB-117 smoldering resistance provisions
were not changed.
The California BHFTI has not proposed amendments to TB-117 to
incorporate the 2002 draft revision. The BHFTI's comment on the
Commission's October 23, 2003 ANPR expressed support for a uniform
national standard. BHFTI recommended that the Commission consider
adopting appropriate elements of the 2002 draft revised TB-117 into a
proposed Commission rule. The proposed standard contains some
requirements similar to provisions of TB-117.
2. United Kingdom Regulations
The U.K. Department of Trade and Industry (``DTI'') enforces the
U.K. Furniture and Furnishings (Flammability) Regulations, issued in
1990. These regulations contain smoldering and open flame resistance
requirements for residential upholstered furniture based on test
methods in British Standard BS 5852. The CPSC proposed standard's fire
barrier open flame test uses the apparatus and ignition source from the
U.K. regulations.
3. Voluntary Standards Activity
Since the Commission's original ANPR on upholstered furniture was
published in 1994, industry groups have been encouraged to develop
voluntary flammability requirements through a recognized standards
organization. The Upholstered Furniture Action Council (``UFAC'')
voluntary industry program of cigarette ignition tests developed in the
1970s is embodied in ASTM E-1353 and other voluntary test methods.
Commission staff estimates voluntary UFAC conformance at about 90% of
furniture production. The UFAC voluntary program does not address small
open flame ignitions. Aspects of the UFAC cigarette ignition resistance
test methods, California BHF Technical Bulletins (TB) 116, 117, and
133, and British Standard BS-5852 have been adopted by various
consensus voluntary standards organizations and industry groups,
including ASTM International, the International Standards Organization,
the National Fire Protection Association and the Business and
Institutional Furniture Manufacturers of America, and have also been
incorporated into some state and local fire codes. Some industry groups
have suggested that the Commission should adopt the UFAC program as a
proposed rule. As discussed in section G.1 of this preamble, the
Commission concludes that mandating the UFAC guidelines would have
little effect on reducing deaths and injuries related to upholstered
furniture fires.
F. The Proposed Standard
In developing the proposed flammability standard to address
ignitions of residential upholstered furniture, the Commission
considered the available hazard information, existing standards
development research together with the latest CPSC laboratory data, and
technical information developed by other organizations. Economic,
health and environmental factors were also considered.
1. Scope
The proposed standard contains flammability performance
requirements for most residential upholstered furniture. The proposed
standard applies to:
Residential seating products intended for indoor use and
constructed with contiguous upholstered seats and backs, such as chairs
and sofas (including motion furniture and sleep sofas);
Some home office furniture sold through retailers or
otherwise available for household use; and
Upholstered furniture used in dormitories or other
residential occupancies.
The proposed standard does not apply to:
Outdoor furniture, such as patio chairs;
Articles without contiguous upholstered seating surfaces,
such as ottomans, decorative pillows or pads, and many office chairs
and dining chairs;
Commercial or industrial furniture not intended or sold
for household use;
Furniture intended or sold solely for use in hotels and
other temporary lodging and hospitality establishments;
Futons, flip chairs, and the mattress components of sleep
sofas; and
Non-furniture juvenile products such as walkers,
strollers, high chairs and pillows.
2. General Requirements
The proposed standard addresses resistance to ignition and limited
fire growth by means of performance tests for cover fabrics and,
alternatively, for
[[Page 11705]]
barriers. The principal performance requirements of the proposed
standard are intended to reduce the risk of fire from smoldering
ignition. If barriers are chosen as the means of compliance, they must
meet both small open flame and smoldering resistance requirements. The
proposal adapts elements and variations of existing standards,
including California Technical Bulletin 117, ASTM E-1353 (tests from
the UFAC voluntary industry guidelines) and United Kingdom regulations
(based on British Standard BS-5852).
The upholstered furniture tests are conducted using seating mockups
of fabric and filling materials. The goal is to reduce the smolder
propensity of cover materials and limit the mass loss from combustion
(smoldering, melting, or flaming) of the mockup's interior filling
materials. Pass/fail criteria are based on maximum acceptable
combustion time and mass loss percentages within a 45 minute test
period.
3. Cover Fabric Smoldering Resistance Test
In this test, fabrics are tested in combination with a standard
polyurethane foam substrate. A lighted cigarette is placed in the seat/
back crevice of the mockup and is allowed to burn its entire length.
The mockup must not continue to smolder at the end of the 45 minute
test or transition to flaming at any time during the test, and the foam
substrate must not exceed the mass loss limit of 10%. Ten initial
specimens are tested. If the 10 initial specimens meet these criteria,
the cover fabric sample passes. If there is a failure in any one of the
10 initial specimens, the test must be repeated on an additional 20
specimens. At least 25 of the 30 specimens must meet the criteria.
4. Interior Fire Barrier Smoldering Resistance Test
In this test, the barrier is placed between a standard foam
substrate and a standard cotton velvet cover fabric. A lighted
cigarette is placed in the seat/back crevice of the mockup. The foam
substrate must not exceed 1% mass loss by the end of the 45 minute
test, and the mockup must not transition to open flaming at any time
during the test. Ten initial specimens are tested. If all 10 initial
specimens meet these criteria, the barrier sample passes. If any one of
the ten fails, an additional 20 specimens are tested, and at least 25
of the 30 must meet the criteria.
5. Interior Fire Barrier Open Flame Resistance Test
The proposed standard also contains provisions for the open flame
resistance of barriers. In addition to providing protection from small
flame ignition, the open flame performance test contributes to the
protection of materials from the progression of smoldering to flaming
combustion.
In this test, the barrier is placed between a standard rayon cover
fabric and standard foam substrate on a metal test frame. An open flame
ignition source is applied to the seat/back crevice of the mockup. The
mockup must not exceed 20% mass loss by the end of the 45 minute test.
Again, 10 initial samples are tested. If there is a failure with any of
the 10 specimens, an additional 20 specimens are tested, and at least
25 of the 30 must meet the criteria for the sample barrier to pass.
6. Administrative Requirements
In addition to flammability performance requirements, the proposed
standard contains provisions relating to certification and
recordkeeping, testing to support guaranties, and labeling of finished
articles of upholstered furniture. These requirements are intended to
help manufacturers, importers and suppliers ensure that their products
comply, and to help the CPSC staff enforce the proposed performance
standard. These provisions are contained in Subpart B of the proposed
standard.
Under Sec. 8 of the FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1197, producers of finished
articles of upholstered furniture, i.e., manufacturers and importers,
may rely on guaranties of compliance issued by material suppliers to
avoid criminal prosecution in certain instances. However, manufacturers
and importers are ultimately responsible under the proposal for
compliance of the upholstered furniture products they produce and
introduce into commerce. It is unlawful under the FFA to provide a
false guaranty. While there are no specific sampling or production
testing requirements in the proposed standard, the FFA requires that
any guaranties be supported by reasonable and representative tests
sufficient to establish that production units of materials meet the
applicable tests.
The proposed standard requires that each finished article of
upholstered furniture carry a permanent label: (1) Containing a
statement certifying that it complies with the standard, identifying
the ``Type'' of furniture (i.e., Type I or Type II); (2) identifying
the manufacturer or importer; and (3) specifying the location and month
and year of manufacture and model and lot number or other identifier
applicable to the item. This information would be required to be
separate from other label information. The label would help retailers
and consumers identify products in the event of a recall or other
corrective action.
G. Response to Comments on the ANPR and Subsequent Submissions
The Commission received 13 written comments during the 60-day
formal comment period following publication of the ANPR in October
2003. Since that time, interested parties provided about 20 additional
written submissions in the form of letters, position statements or
technical presentations at public meetings. Further, the staff held or
attended several public meetings with stakeholders to discuss issues of
interest.
Many of the public comments addressed similar issues. These issues
generally involved: (a) The scope, test methods and acceptance criteria
of a possible proposed rule; (b) the potential benefits and costs of
various alternatives; and (c) the potential use of flame retardant (FR)
chemicals to comply with those alternatives. Some of the comments dealt
specifically with the staff's 2001 and 2005 draft standards, options
that contained more open flame performance requirements for upholstery
materials than the proposed rule. A few of the comments dealt with the
staff's 2007 draft proposal, which became the agency's proposed
standard. The Commission considered all of the comments received since
2003 in developing the proposed rule.
1. Scope and Test Methods
Comment. Several industry, government and fire safety organizations
provided comments on the general scope of a standard, mainly with
respect to cigarette versus open flame ignition performance.
Under the 2003 ANPR, the staff developed multiple draft standards
containing both smoldering and open flame requirements. The proposed
rule places primary emphasis on smoldering ignition resistance, as a
substantial majority of upholstered furniture-related deaths, injuries
and property losses result from smoldering fires. Several furniture
industry groups commented that the fire risk associated with open flame
ignition has become so small that regulation in that area is
unnecessary. They also commented that the science of open flame
ignition behavior is so complex that substantial further research would
be needed to support
[[Page 11706]]
any reasonable conclusions about the effectiveness and technical
adequacy of any performance requirements. In addition, they opposed
open flame ignition requirements on the basis that compliance costs
would be unreasonably high. These groups recommended that the
Commission proceed with rulemaking on smoldering ignition only, and
that CPSC adopt the performance tests in the ASTM/UFAC voluntary
guidelines in the proposed rule.
Other stakeholders, including representatives of fire safety
organizations, state government and chemical industry groups,
recommended that a federal rule contain both smoldering and open flame
requirements, and stated that solutions are technically and
economically feasible. Some commenters opposed any course that would
reduce the current level of safety provided by the existing California
regulation, Technical Bulletin (TB) 117. Other industry groups
supported adoption of a smoldering standard and eventual consideration
of open flame requirements in the future. The California Bureau of Home
Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (BHFTI) recommended that CPSC
consider adopting elements of the draft revised TB-117 published by
BHFTI in 2002.
In 2004, an industry ``coalition'' of furniture producers and
material suppliers developed a set of performance requirements for
Commission consideration. The coalition proposal included: a small open
flame test for cover fabrics, based on a modification of the
Commission's Standard for the Flammability of Clothing Textiles (16 CFR
Part 1610); smoldering and open flame tests for filling materials,
based on the 2002 draft revision of California TB-117; an open flame
test for fibrous (non-foam) ``cushion wraps,'' based on an existing
U.K. regulation provision; ASTM/UFAC smoldering tests for cushion
wraps; and an unspecified barrier test to be developed by CPSC. The
staff evaluated the industry coalition proposal and questioned the
effectiveness of some of the performance elements. Coalition members
withdrew support for their proposal in 2005 as the CPSC staff was
continuing its evaluation and considering other alternatives.
Response. The Commission recognizes that estimated residential
upholstered furniture fire losses have declined over time, and that
relatively few losses--e.g., about 10% of the addressable deaths--are
attributable to open flame-ignited fires. Thus, relatively few open
flame deaths and injuries could be averted, even under highly effective
open flame requirements. The Commission notes, however, that large
numbers of deaths and injuries remain. Since a substantial majority of
these losses result from cigarette-ignited fires, the Commission agrees
that a rule with primary emphasis on smoldering can have substantial
safety benefits. Based on CPSC's laboratory research, the Commission
also agrees that the ASTM/UFAC test method provides a useful basis for
a standard, but does not agree that the ASTM/UFAC tests as implemented
in the UFAC voluntary program would adequately achieve those benefits.
While UFAC has contributed to fire safety by encouraging the use of
smolder-resistant materials, the program allows the use of smolder-
prone cover fabrics with polyurethane foam, and allows highly smolder-
prone fabrics in combination with more smolder-resistant materials
(e.g., polyester batting) underneath. These conforming combinations are
not always adequate to prevent fire growth from smoldering ignitions.
CPSC laboratory testing demonstrated that smolder-prone fabrics can
defeat the inherent smolder resistance of polyester batting, and that
furniture mockup assemblies with highly smolder-prone fabrics can
transition from smoldering to flaming combustion over time. Further,
some lower-priced furniture may use UFAC-conforming but smolder-prone
fabrics without smolder resistant batting. In addition, the UFAC tests
may not be adequate to characterize the smoldering behavior of all
upholstery materials; for example, UFAC's vertical char length
performance metric does not always reflect the downward burning that
typically occurs in polyurethane foam fillings. Additionally, the ASTM/
UFAC method employs a draft-limiting enclosure that was designed to
improve test repeatability but artificially restricts burning of the
most smolder-prone fabrics. The non-time-limited UFAC tests may also
adversely affect the repeatability of the test results. The Commission
concludes that adopting the ASTM/UFAC tests without significant
modification would have little effect on currently-produced upholstered
furniture, and would therefore probably have negligible safety benefits
beyond those already achieved under the voluntary industry program.
Thus, the proposed rule has smoldering ignition requirements that are
somewhat different from, and more stringent than, those of the UFAC
guidelines. The proposed standard also contains open flame performance
requirements for barriers; these barriers must protect interior filling
materials from smolder-prone fabrics that may otherwise cause furniture
to transition from smoldering to flaming combustion.
2. Standardized Test Materials
Comment. In addition to the CPSC staff's extensive studies on the
suitability of various standard test materials, industry groups
contributed research and submitted comments on the performance of
standard cover fabrics and standard polyurethane foams specified in the
CPSC staff's draft standards. Both the staff and industry noted the
potential effects of interdependency of standard test materials, and
the potential impact on test results of the observed variability in the
performance of certain test materials. This variability chiefly related
to a standard cotton velvet fabric specified in the open flame tests of
the CPSC staff's 2005 draft standard; to a lesser extent, variability
was observed in the behavior of the standard FR test foam used in the
smoldering tests of the staff's 2005 draft. The comments generally
recommended changes to the standard test materials or the test methods
to eliminate the undesirable effects of standard material variability.
Response. The staff's research concluded that the variability
identified in the performance of the standard fabric (and, in some
cases, the standard non-FR foam) could adversely affect the
repeatability and reproducibility of open flame tests, and could yield
unacceptably inconsistent results. Similar inconsistencies were
observed in the standard FR foam used in smoldering tests. Therefore,
the staff revised the qualification requirements for standard test
materials to ensure consistency. Further, in view of the hazard data
and the complexity (including standard materials variability) of the
open flame tests, the proposed rule eliminates the open flame tests for
filling materials entirely, and retains standard fabrics for barrier
tests only. This approach not only simplifies the proposed standard,
but also eliminates the interdependency and variability issues raised
by the commenters. The standard cotton velvet test fabric performs
consistently in barrier smoldering tests, as does the standard rayon
test fabric in barrier open flame tests. Since FR foam would not be
needed to comply with the proposed rule, the rule specifies only
standard non-FR foam in all tests.
[[Page 11707]]
3. Stringency of Requirements
Comment. Some industry groups opposed the CPSC staff's 2005 draft
standard's open flame filling material tests in the absence of an open
flame fabric test, and asserted that the 2005 draft's smoldering and
open flame filling material requirements were too stringent for some
lower-density foams to meet, even with FR treatment. Furniture industry
commenters subsequently opposed any requirements that would be more
stringent than those of the UFAC guidelines. Many commenters supported
the concept of a barrier test option to afford flexibility to
manufacturers and fabric suppliers, although some furniture industry
groups opposed an open flame requirement for barriers and supported the
UFAC smoldering requirement instead. Regarding the staff's 2007 draft
proposal that became this proposed standard, some commenters argued
that the stringent fabric smoldering requirements would require
substantial re-engineering or FR treatment of fabrics. A number of
commenters also recommended that CPSC study the effectiveness of
reduced ignition propensity (IP), or ``fire-safe,'' cigarettes before
proposing any flammability requirements for upholstered furniture.
Response. Many of these comments pertained to specific provisions
of the open flame requirements of the CPSC staff's 2005 draft standard.
The proposed standard does not contain open flame requirements for
fabrics or fillings. As noted previously, CPSC's laboratory research on
smoldering ignition indicates that several elements of the ASTM/UFAC
voluntary approach would not be very effective at reducing the risk.
The UFAC guidelines allow smolder-prone combinations of upholstery
materials that would not adequately limit fire growth, either from
smoldering or transition to flaming combustion. Since the proposed rule
relies substantially on cover fabrics or barriers to protect interior
filling materials, the proposed standard contains very stringent
smoldering requirements, and requires that barriers provide protection
regardless of cover fabric ignitability.
The Commission agrees that a significant proportion of
predominantly cellulosic fabrics (i.e., chiefly cotton fiber content)
would have to be modified or eliminated under the proposed standard.
The Commission notes that these fabrics are the most smolder-prone
materials used in upholstered furniture, and that many smolder-prone
fabrics can sometimes overwhelm the inherent smolder resistance of
synthetic filling materials like polyurethane foam or polyester
batting. Thus, the proposed requirements are applied to those materials
whose ignition behavior is the primary contributor to the risk.
The proposed standard would not prohibit fabric suppliers from
using FR-treated fabrics to comply. However, furniture and textile
industry representatives have stated a desire to avoid such products
for aesthetic and cost reasons. Given the availability of non-FR
alternatives, it is unlikely that fabric suppliers would use the FR
treatments they said consumers would reject.
The Commission agrees that reduced ignition propensity cigarettes
may be an effective means of reducing consumer product-related
smoldering fires. Such reductions would likely occur irrespective of
CPSC action on upholstered furniture. An increasing number of states
(and Canada) have ``fire safe cigarette'' laws that now require or will
require that only reduced-IP cigarettes be available for sale.
Complying cigarettes would likely reduce, but would not eliminate, the
risk of smoldering ignited upholstered furniture fires. The extent of
any such reduction is unknown. The staff has initiated a study to
review available state data and to conduct laboratory tests to evaluate
the reduction in smoldering ignition propensity associated with
reduced-IP cigarettes compared to conventional cigarettes. This work
will help the Commission evaluate the potential effect of reduced-IP
cigarettes on upholstered furniture fire losses.
4. Large Scale Validation Testing
Comment. Some stakeholders recommended that CPSC establish a
correlation between its bench scale tests in the proposed rule and the
performance of complying materials in larger or ``full'' scale tests
that more reasonably represent the seating areas of finished articles
of upholstered furniture. These large scale tests would help validate
the results and potential effectiveness of the bench scale tests.
Response. The Commission agrees that large scale testing is a
valuable source of information to help demonstrate the increased safety
the proposed standard would provide. To supplement the CPSC staff's
bench scale testing and limited large scale testing performed
previously, the staff plans to sponsor such large scale tests. The
Commission can use the results of these tests in developing a possible
final rule.
5. Potential Benefits and Costs
Comment. Some industry groups submitted comments about the CPSC
staff's draft preliminary regulatory analysis of potential benefits and
costs associated with various regulatory alternatives. Most of these
comments were from organizations that opposed various aspects of the
CPSC staff's 2005 draft standard; some of the comments related to the
staff's draft proposal that became the proposed standard.
The comments on the staff's analysis of the 2005 draft standard
generally asserted that the staff had overestimated potential benefits
and understated potential costs. A 2006 furniture industry report on
the staff's analysis of the 2005 draft standard and alternatives
criticized the statistical methodology used to develop national fire
loss estimates, and recommended different methods that would generally
result in lower estimates of potential benefits of a flammability rule.
The report also questioned other aspects of the staff's estimation of
potential economic benefits of a standard, positing that staff
overstated benefits by using effectiveness estimates and value-of-life
estimates that were too high, discount rates that were too low, and
incorrect assumptions about the distribution of smolder-prone furniture
fabrics among smoking vs. non-smoking households.
The 2006 industry report also asserted that the staff understated
costs to filling material suppliers and furniture manufacturers and
importers, and recommended that the staff's sensitivity analysis
consider all combinations of factors affecting benefits and costs
unless those factors were mutually exclusive. Manufacturers of
polyurethane foam raised some of the same cost issues, and discussed
anticipated difficulties in producing consistently-complying foams at
the lower densities often used in upholstered arms and other areas of
furniture.
Regarding the CPSC staff's 2007 draft proposal, some textile
industry representatives criticized the emphasis on cover fabric
performance, and expressed concern that the standard would not regulate
filling material performance. They also expressed concern that
difficulties in modifying many fabrics, combined with the cost of
``double-upholstering'' furniture to incorporate interior barriers, may
lead suppliers to use FR treatments to comply. One report prepared for
an environmental group recommended that CPSC include in its analysis of
the 2007 draft estimates of economic losses from
[[Page 11708]]
increased cancer risks associated with FR filling material additives.
Several stakeholders recommended that CPSC consider the effect of
reduced ignition propensity (IP), or ``fire-safe'' cigarettes on the
potential benefits of a possible upholstered furniture flammability
standard. One report prepared for an environmental group presented an
alternative calculation of benefits incorporating some different
assumptions about reduced-IP cigarette effectiveness than those made by
the CPSC staff in 2006. Some industry commenters suggested that as
reduced-IP cigarettes came into wider use, a standard for upholstered
furniture would no longer have net benefits to the public.
Response. Regarding fire loss estimation methodologies, the CPSC
staff noted several biases and errors in the industry report's approach
that would misrepresent the estimates of fire losses. The 2006 industry
report's criticism of the staff's method did not consider the proper
allocation of fire incidents with unknown fire causes. Further, the
indirect estimating method recommended by the industry report
incorrectly used estimates of the number of fires to estimate death and
injuries, thereby introducing bias and understating deaths. The CPSC
staff's method correctly used death and injury counts weighted with
probability-based estimates for fire deaths and injuries. Another
method suggested by the industry report wrongly excluded some in-scope
deaths from the body of data used to make the estimates. The use of
these recommended alternative methods would significantly understate
fire losses, and would thereby understate the potential benefits of a
flammability rule.
Regarding benefits projections, the preliminary regulatory analysis
of the proposed rule estimated the monetary value of potential benefits
using estimates of effectiveness based on CPSC laboratory tests of
upholstered furniture mockup assemblies constructed with ignition
resistant fabrics or barriers, and using adjustments to reflect the
projected mix of products on the market and other factors. Large scale
tests will help support the effectiveness estimates. However, the
Commission staff has ample experience to date with upholstery material
testing to estimate that the proposed rule would likely be highly
effective (about 60%) at reducing fire deaths, injuries and property
damage. Even considering the effectiveness estimates for the CPSC
staff's 2005 draft standard, there is no basis for applying
effectiveness rates for the U.K. regulations to a CPSC rule. Further,
the sensitivity analysis in the preliminary regulatory analysis
accounts for uncertainty in the estimates.
The Commission staff estimated the present value of future safety
benefits using discount rates (3% and 7%) recommended by the Office of
Management and Budget in its guidance on regulatory analyses. Also,
CPSC's statistical value of life estimate ($5 million) and sensitivity
analysis range ($3-7 million) is consistent with values cited in the
economic literature and widely used in regulatory decision-making.
Regarding the distribution of upholstered furniture constructed
with smolder prone fabrics among smoking vs. non-smoking households,
the preliminary regulatory analysis assumed that furniture fabric types
are distributed evenly among households. Smolder prone fabrics are
often, but not always, used on the very high-priced, decorator
furniture more commonly found in higher-income households that tend
less often to be smoking households. However, anticipated market trends
include potential future increases in predominantly-cotton fabrics in
more moderately-priced furniture, especially among imports, which tends
to be lower in price than domestic products. To the extent that
furniture with smolder prone fabrics is more often found in higher-
income households with lower smoking prevalence, the benefits of a
flammability rule could be reduced somewhat. The preliminary regulatory
analysis notes in its sensitivity analysis that the likely impact on
benefits would be small.
The sensitivity analysis in the preliminary regulatory analysis
considers the impact of a variety of factors on potential benefits and
costs. Varying more than one factor at a time is generally appropriate
when those factors are highly correlated, rather than whenever they are
not mutually exclusive, as the 2006 industry report suggested. The
sensitivity analysis does take into account some combinations of
factors, but not all factors that could conceivably affect benefits and
costs. However, even if all of the combinations of possible factors
were considered together, estimated net benefits of the proposed
standard would still total $100 million or more from a year's
production of complying upholstered furniture.
The staff considered likely cost impacts on fabric, filling
material and other upholstery material suppliers in analyzing the
potential impacts of the proposed standard. Cost estimates were
generally reported directly as provided by firms in the industry
sectors affected although some cost estimates varied significantly
among firms. The preliminary regulatory analysis recognized several
areas of cost concern, including low-density polyurethane foam and
loose filling materials (for the staff's 2005 draft standard) and
certain 100% cotton fabrics (for the 2007 draft). The staff analysis
noted that while most upholstered furniture fabrics would meet the
proposed standard without modification, more than half of all
predominantly cellulosic fabrics may fail the proposed standard fabric
smoldering test. These smolder-prone fabrics are typically used with
synthetic filling materials that would otherwise be generally smolder
resistant; thus, the proposed standard targets those fabrics
contributing most to the risk of smoldering ignition.
The staff also noted that some of the more expensive decorator
fabrics that would fail the proposed fabric smoldering test already are
used in furniture that employs multiple layers of upholstery materials,
or ``double upholstering.'' Decorative fabric suppliers have long
supported a barrier option for use with non-complying fabrics. For most
articles of upholstered furniture, the barrier option incorporated into
the proposed standard would involve substituting complying barriers for
existing interior fabrics or battings; this would amount to a ``drop-in
replacement'' of existing components for most barriered furniture, and
would not require significant additional assembly labor costs.
The preliminary regulatory analysis estimates costs based on the
assumption that some or all non-complying fabrics not used with
barriers would be FR treated; however, it is unlikely that a
significant proportion of fabrics would actually be treated; thus,
material costs may be lower than estimated in the analysis. Compliance
costs associated with re-engineering some heavier-weight, 100%
cellulosic fiber fabrics may be significant for some firms, although
fiber content modifications are made routinely by producers (sometimes
as often as every six months) to reflect style trends in the market.
Blended-fiber fabrics in particular could probably be readily modified
without difficulty or significant disruption.
Under the staff's draft 2005 standard, FR foam fillings would
likely be used to comply. One of the FRs currently used in foams
meeting the existing California TB-117 may pose cancer and non-cancer
chronic health risks. Pending
[[Page 11709]]
further study of these and other FR chemicals, the preliminary
regulatory analysis of alternatives assumed that hazardous FRs would
not be used to comply, and therefore did not include a calculation of
possible disbenefits associated with potential use of any potentially
hazardous filling material FRs. The proposed standard would not require
the use of any FRs in foam or other interior filling materials.
The Commission considered the potential impact of reduced-IP
cigarettes, and continues to study this matter. State requirements for
such cigarettes may reduce upholstered furniture fire losses over time
irrespective of CPSC action. The extent of the reduction is unknown.
The preliminary regulatory analysis does specifically account for
possible risk reductions associated with reduced-IP cigarettes. If, for
example, reduced-IP cigarettes reduced the level of benefits of the
proposed rule to half the estimated level, then projected net benefits
would be reduced from $367-387 million to $155-177 million per year's
worth of complying furniture production. Even at a 70% benefit
reduction, estimated net benefits of the proposed rule would still
approach $100 million.
6. Potential Use of FR Chemicals
Comment. The Commission received a number of comments either
opposing or supporting the potential use of FR chemical technologies to
meet a possible flammability rule. Most of these comments related to
the staff's previous, 2005 draft standard, which would have required
that resilient, fibrous and loose filling materials (typically made of
polyurethane foam or polyester fiber) be open flame resistant. Some
comments specifically opposed the use of polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs), and cited studies on the potential health and environmental
risks related to these compounds. At least one of the major filling
material FRs, penta-BDE, that was previously used to meet California
TB-117's open flame requirements, has been discontinued. While most
fillings would be FR-treated under the 2005 draft, the proposed
standard does not contain filling material requirements, and FR
additives would not be needed to comply.
Some environmental groups opposed any new regulations that may add
to the environmental burden of FR chemicals, especially halogenated FRs
containing bromine or chlorine. They contended that since some FRs are
persistent in the environment, bioaccumulative in animals and
potentially toxic to humans, and since there is a lack of data on some
aspects of the potential effects on human health and environmental
risks, the Commission should not encourage the use of these chemicals.
Some of these groups supported the furniture industry position that
CPSC should impose only smoldering ignition requirements, on the
presumption that FRs would not be needed to meet these requirements.
The environmental groups strongly supported the staff's 2007 draft
proposal that became this proposed standard.
Furniture and filling material producers opposed significant
increases in FR usage on the basis that their workers could be exposed
to more FRs released from component materials. They were also concerned
that state and local environmental regulations may curtail the
availability of economically feasible FRs and may adversely affect
manufacturers' ability to recycle scrap materials. Furniture and fabric
manufacturers also contended that, in view of recent adverse publicity,
consumers would prefer not to risk exposure to potentially toxic FRs.
Some representatives of fabric suppliers have also expressed concern
that any smolder resistance requirements more stringent than those in
the UFAC voluntary guidelines would force many firms to use FR
treatments on predominantly cotton fabrics to comply.
Chemical producers stated that safe and effective FR solutions are
available to address the furniture risk. They noted that non-
halogenated alternatives for filling materials are currently being
offered or developed, as are ``inherently-FR'' fiber barriers that do
not present a significant likelihood of consumer exposure.
Response. CPSC developed the proposed standard mindful of the
continuing uncertainty about potential health and environmental effects
of FR chemical usage, with an objective of achieving significant
reductions in fire deaths and injuries from upholstered furniture fires
caused by smoking materials while minimizing reliance on FR additives
in fabrics and filling materials to meet that objective. While the
available scientific data are sufficient to show that some FRs would
not present significant health or environmental risks, the Commission
agrees that insufficient data are available to be reasonably sure that
other FRs would not present health risks if used in upholstered
furniture. The staff's health risk assessment for foam filling
materials concluded that the polyurethane foam FR most widely used to
meet California TB-117 may not present chemical risks to consumers but
identified significant data gaps; the risk assessment further indicated
that another currently used filling material FR may present both cancer
and non-cancer risks to consumers. On the other hand, the CPSC staff's
health risk assessment for barriers concluded that several commercially
available technologies, including inherently-FR fiber products, could
be used without presenting appreciable health risks to the public.
Under the proposed standard, neither fabrics nor filling materials
would need to incorporate FR additives to achieve compliance. While FR-
treated fabrics would not be prohibited, many fabric suppliers have
indicated they would likely either modify the fiber content or
construction of their most smolder prone fabrics, or continue to offer
non-complying fabrics for use exclusively with complying barriers in
the finished article of furniture. Thus, the Commission anticipates
that FR fabrics would be the least likely means of compliance with the
proposed rule. Barriers could incorporate FR treatments, but barrier
suppliers have reported that they would likely offer inherently-FR
fiber materials that do not pose a risk of potential exposure for
upholstered furniture applications, similar to those products designed
to meet the Commission's open flame rule for mattresses (16 CFR part
1633). Barriers are projected to be used in only about 5% of all
upholstered furniture; most of this usage would be in designer or
higher-priced furniture for which the relatively higher cost of
barriers would not be a significant factor.
The Commission plans to monitor the progress of ongoing studies on
FR chemicals and to consider the results of those studies as the
regulatory process continues. At the request of the staff, the National
Toxicology Program (NTP) of the Department of Health and Human Services
has undertaken a review of several FRs that could be used to meet CPSC
flammability rules. The NTP review will be a relatively long-term
project that contributes to the overall level of knowledge about FR
chemicals among scientists and regulators.
H. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has preliminarily determined to issue a rule
establishing a flammability standard addressing the ignition of
upholstered furniture. Section 4(i) of the FFA requires that the
Commission prepare a preliminary regulatory analysis for this action
and that it be published with the proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 1193(i). The
following discussion, extracted from the staff's memorandum titled
``Preliminary
[[Page 11710]]
Regulatory Analysis of a Draft Proposed Flammability Rule to Address
Ignitions of Upholstered Furniture,'' addresses this requirement.
1. Introduction
The history of this rulemaking is discussed in Section A,
Background, of this preamble. This Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
discusses the impacts of provisions specified in the Commission's
proposed standard for upholstered furniture. It provides information on
the products and industries that are likely to be affected by actions
taken to reduce upholstered furniture fires. The analysis also
discusses potential costs and benefits associated with requirements of
the proposed standard and reasonable alternatives. This analysis also
discusses potential effects on small firms and other market impacts.
2. The Proposed Standard: Scope and Provisions
The proposed standard contains smoldering ignition performance
requirements for cover fabrics, and smoldering and open flame
performance requirements for interior fire barriers (if they are used
as the method of compliance). The proposed standard applies to finished
or ready-to-assemble articles of upholstered furniture (such as
upholstered sofas, loveseats, sofa beds, rockers, recliners, and other
chairs) that are: primarily intended for indoor use in residences;
constructed with an upholstered seating area, comprised of a contiguous
upholstered seat and back or arm(s); and manufactured or imported after
the effective date.
The proposed standard offers manufacturers two alternative methods
to produce complying furniture. Furniture items can comply by being
made with upholstery cover materials that pass the cover material
smoldering ignition resistance test (designated as ``Type I upholstered
furniture'' in the proposed standard). Alternatively, manufacturers may
comply with the proposed standard by using a barrier material under the
upholstery fabric that passes the standard's applicable barrier tests
(``Type II upholstered furniture''). This option allows manufacturers
to use non-complying upholstery fabrics.
3. Products and Industries Potentially Affected
The largest class of furniture products that would be affected is
upholstered furniture on wood frames and dual purpose sleep furniture
such as sofa beds, commonly bought for use in living rooms and family
rooms. Other types of affected products include upholstered metal
frame, reed, and rattan furniture.
Products referred to as ``Household Upholstered Furniture'' by the
Census Bureau are classified in code 337121 of the North American
Industrial Classification System (NAICS). This classification includes
production of upholstered furniture on frames made of wood, metal, or
other materials, as well as dual-purpose sleep furniture, such as
convertible sofa beds. The 2002 Economic Census reports that 1,686 U.S.
companies (with 1,946 establishments) manufactured upholstered
household furniture or dual-purpose sleep furniture as their primary
product.\4\ Many other firms may also produce upholstered furniture as
secondary products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002
Economic Census, report EC02-311-337121, ``Upholstered Household
Furniture Manufacturing: 2002,'' September 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Census reports that the value of shipments of
upholstered household furniture by U.S. firms in 2002 was $10.3
billion. The Annual Survey of Manufactures reported value of product
shipments of $10.0 billion in 2003 and $9.55 billion in 2004.\5\ The
value of product shipments for 2005 was reported by the Census Bureau
to have totaled $9.9 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Value of
Product Shipments: 2005, Annual Survey of Manufactures, November
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there are a large number of upholstered furniture
manufacturers, the top four companies accounted for nearly 35 percent
of the total value of household upholstered furniture shipments in 2002
(the latest year for which industry concentration ratio data are
available); the 50 largest companies accounted for about 67 percent.\6\
Reports from the trade press indicate that the industry has become more
concentrated in the last ten years. Several firms have ceased
operations; others have merged with larger companies through buyouts.
The consolidation included Furniture Brands International's acquisition
of HDM Furniture Industries (which included Henredon and Drexel
Heritage) in 2001, and La-Z-Boy's acquisition of Ladd in January 2000
and Bauhaus and Alexvale in 1999. La-Z-Boy is the number one
upholstered furniture manufacturer (by dollar volume), and Ladd,
Bauhaus, and Alexvale all previously ranked in the top 30. Furniture
Brands International is the second-leading domestic manufacturer of
upholstered furniture, and companies it acquired were previously part
of number four-ranked LifeStyle Furnishings, International, Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002
Economic Census, report EC02-31SR-1, ``Concentration Ratios: 2002,''
May 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The industry also includes many small companies and establishments.
The 2002 Economic Census reports that only 29 percent of upholstered
furniture establishments (564 of 1,946) had 20 or more employees, and
only 10 percent (200 establishments) had 100 or more. By some measures,
such as the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA's) definition for
qualification for small business loans, a furniture manufacturing
company is considered to be ``small'' if it has fewer than 500
employees (at all of its establishments). This definition encompassed
more than 97 percent of firms in the industry in 2002.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Based on 2002 firm size data compiled by the United States
Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy which is
available online at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exports of upholstered furniture had a value of about $285 million
in 2005, or almost 3 percent of the total value of shipments.\8\ The
value of imports of products categorized by the Census Bureau as NAICS
337121 was $2,792 million in 2005.\9\ Therefore, there were net imports
of about $2.5 billion. With estimated domestic shipments of $9.9
billion, these net imports resulted in total apparent consumption of
upholstered furniture in 2005 (domestic shipments plus imports, minus
the value of exports) of about $12.4 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Department of Commerce data.
\9\ U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. International Trade
Commission data (c.i.f. cost basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imports have grown in recent years, accounting for about 22 percent
of the value of total apparent consumption of residential upholstered
furniture in 2005. By way of comparison, about 10 percent of the value
of apparent consumption of upholstered household furniture in 1999 was
imported. The leading country of origin is China, which accounted for
about 52 percent of the value of imports in 2005 and nearly 63 percent
of the value of imports in 2006. Mexico accounted for about 11 percent
of imports in 2006; Italy about 8 percent, and; Canada about 5 percent.
These four countries accounted for 86 percent of the total value of
imported upholstered furniture in 2006.
The importance of China as a source for imports has grown
significantly in recent years. China supplanted Italy as the leading
country of origin in 2003, and by 2006 the value of imports from China
was almost 6 times that of the second-ranked country of origin, Mexico.
Italy had been the number one source for upholstered furniture imports
[[Page 11711]]
for many years. The majority of units from both China and Italy in 2004
reportedly were upholstered in leather.\10\ Although much of the gain
in China's market share has been at the expense of Italian imports,
some of the furniture imported from China is from plants that have been
established by several major Italian firms. China has been the leading
source of wood (non-upholstered) furniture imports and its growth as a
source of upholstered furniture is expected to continue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Industry analyst, Jerry Epperson, reported in Furniture
Today, December 12, 2005. p. 66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to affecting manufacturers of residential upholstered
furniture typically found in living room and family rooms, the proposed
standard also includes dining room and kitchen chairs within its scope
if they are made with contiguously upholstered seats and backs.
Similarly upholstered desk chairs purchased for household use are also
covered by the standard. Dining chairs are generally products of firms
classified in the wood household furniture industry, NAICS 337122. The
Economic Census reports that 4.8 million wood dining room chairs were
shipped in 1997, with a value of shipments totaling about $526 million.
In 2002, shipments fell to 2.9 million chairs, with a value of about
$446 million. The decline in domestic shipments is attributable to
significant increases in imports of wood furniture from China and other
countries.
Census data are not reported separately for upholstered and non-
upholstered dining chairs. In 1994, an industry-sponsored study
surveyed participants in the voluntary industry program to improve the
cigarette ignition resistance of furniture that was developed by the
Upholstered Furniture Action Council (UFAC). Among the firms surveyed
were manufacturers of upholstered dining room and kitchen seating. The
study report estimated that the total value of shipments of such
furniture that complied with the UFAC Program (and, therefore, had
upholstered seats) was about $250 million for 1993.\11\ Based on the
value of 1992 shipments ($580 million), perhaps 3 to 4 million
upholstered dining chairs were shipped by these UFAC participants. A
great majority of these items may not have had upholstered backs, or
they had upholstered backs that were not contiguous with upholstered
seats. Other firms that are not participants in the UFAC Program also
manufacture upholstered dining furniture. Given the limitations of the
market data, the number of dining chairs produced annually that fall
within the scope of the proposed standard cannot be estimated with much
precision, although the total number of units is thought to be
relatively small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Heiden Associates, Inc., ``Report on Survey of UFAC Members
re: Compliance with Upholstered Furniture Cigarette Ignition
Flammability Standard,'' December 15, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual domestic retail sales of all types of living room and family
room upholstered furniture total about 30 to 33 million units with a
value of over $20 billion. Furniture manufacturers, especially smaller
firms, commonly market their products through independent sales
representatives who provide information on the market, and get and
service new retail accounts for manufacturers. Recently, some
manufacturers have reduced their reliance on independent
representatives by employing their own salespeople.
Besides purchasing from manufacturers through independent sales
representatives or the manufacturers' own sales staff, retailers may
purchase furniture from wholesale furniture distributors. These
wholesalers purchase from perhaps 25 to 30 manufacturers of different
types and styles of furniture. The sales staffs of the wholesalers then
call on retailers within their areas. Dealing through local wholesalers
that stock an assortment of furniture, and that also offer competitive
prices, credit, and other services, is advantageous to many retailers,
particularly smaller firms.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Handbook of Furniture Manufacturing & Marketing, Volume 9,
Wholesaling, AKTRIN Research Institute and High Point University,
May 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2002 Census of Retail Trade, 19,403 retail
establishments carried upholstered furniture as a product line.\13\
Retail prices of upholstered furniture fall into a very broad range,
depending on materials and manufacturing techniques used. Larger
retailers are more likely to purchase directly from furniture
manufacturers, and smaller firms are more likely to purchase through
wholesale distributors. Increasingly in recent years, retailers have
reportedly devoted more floor space to private labeled furniture
imported directly from foreign manufacturers. In response, several of
the larger domestic furniture manufacturers have opened or expanded
their own retail outlets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002
Economic Census, report EC02-441-09 ``Furniture Stores: 2002,''
August 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A review of trade publications indicates that approximately 100 to
200 domestic manufacturers derive a significant share of their revenues
from fabric for residential upholstered furniture.\14\ This number
includes textile mills that produce finished upholstery fabric and
textile finishers that purchase unfinished goods and perform additional
processes, such as printing and dyeing. Like the upholstered furniture
manufacturing industry, the 1990s saw consolidation of firms
specializing in upholstery fabric production, with larger firms buying
out competitors or divisions of competitors. However, in just the last
few years the U.S. industry has been shaken by the decreased demand for
domestically-produced fabric as a result of increased competition from
imported upholstery fabric, the increased popularity of leather
upholstery, and the dramatic increase in consumption of upholstered
furniture imported from China. One of the largest marketers of
upholstery fabrics in the U.S. reported that the trend to greater
foreign competition and the entry of more converters of upholstery
fabric (companies that purchase and resell fabrics) has resulted in
greater fragmentation of the upholstery fabric industry in recent
years, with lower barriers to entry, and an increase in competition
based on price.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Including the Directory of Manufacturers published by the
former industry association, the American Textile Manufacturers
Institute (ATMI).
\15\ Culp, Inc., Annual Company report for the fiscal year ended
April 29, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior fabric revenues of the top 10 firms totaled more than $1.9
billion in 2002, based on a trade press survey.\16\ These revenues
included sales of fabrics other than those used in residential
upholstery. A similar survey found that the top 10 upholstery fabric
mills had combined revenues from interior fabric shipments of $2.4
billion.\17\ In addition to declining sales for the leading U.S.
upholstery fabric manufacturers, the difficult state of the industry is
evidenced by recent bankruptcies of firms that were once industry
leaders, such as Joan Fabrics (previously the number one upholstery
manufacturer) and Quaker Fabric (previously the number three firm).
Both of these firms ceased operations and their production facilities
were liquidated in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``U.S. fabric producers still standing despite import
wave.'' Furniture/Today, Cahners Publishing, Greensboro, NC, June 2,
2003.
\17\ ``Mastercraft buy puts Joan at top.'' Furniture/Today,
Cahners Publishing, Greensboro, NC, June 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Textile mills that make upholstery fabrics as their primary
products are included in the North American NAICS code 313210. Of 663
firms in NAICS 313210 in 2002, only 63 (about 10 percent) had 500 or
more employees. About 65 percent of the firms had fewer
[[Page 11712]]
than 20 employees.\18\ The SBA considers firms with fewer than 1,000
employees to be small businesses for the purposes of programs
administered by that agency. Although these data are indicative of the
sizes of firms involved in the production of furniture upholstery
fabrics, NAICS 313210 encompasses many firms that produce fabrics other
than furniture upholstery. Nevertheless, it is likely that nearly all
manufacturers of upholstery fabrics could be considered small
businesses under SBA guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Based on 2002 firm size data compiled by the United States
Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy which is
available online at http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/data.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric finishers also tend to be small. Finishers are firms that
receive unfinished fabrics (``greige goods'' or ``gray goods'') and
perform additional manufacturing processes (e.g., printing, dyeing,
backcoating, needle-punching, and stain-guarding). Fabrics may be
purchased by the finishers, or finished under contract to other firms
that supply the fabrics. Fabric finishers are classified in NAICS code
313311. Of 1,016 broadwoven fabric finishing firms in NAICS 313311 in
2002, only 30 (3 percent) had 500 or more employees.\19\ Only a few
firms currently apply FR treatments to upholstery fabrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Census Bureau reported that U.S. upholstery fabric
production in 2004 was 284 million square yards (which is the
equivalent of 189 million linear yards).\20\ This production was 43
percent lower than 2002's reported production of 499 million square
yards (332 million linear yards) of upholstery fabric.\21\ The number
of looms in operation for the production of these fabrics totaled 2,610
at the end of 2004, down 20 percent from 3,098 looms at the end of
2002. The major end-use markets for upholstery production are in
upholstered furniture and automobile manufacturing. Upholstery fabrics
are also used in the manufacture of window treatments and other home
textiles. Based on a survey of upholstered furniture manufacturers by
Ciprus, Ltd., about 233 million linear yards of upholstery fabric were
consumed in the production of household furniture in 2001.\22\ This
total does not include leather and vinyl upholstery, which are
estimated to have comprised about 30 percent of all furniture
upholstery materials used in 2001. Therefore, total upholstery use for
the domestic manufacture of residential upholstered furniture was about
333 million linear yards. Estimates of total annual upholstery fabric
consumption based on average requirements for chairs and sofas/
loveseats are 225 million linear yards.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, Broadwoven
Fabrics (Gray): 2004. MQ313T(04)-5. June 2005.
\21\ U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, Broadwoven
Fabrics (Gray): 2002. MQ313T(02)-5. June 2003.
\22\ Ciprus Limited, LLC. The North American Market for Contract
& Residential Upholstery Fabric, 2001.
\23\ According to industry sources, an average of approximately
7 linear yards of fabric is needed to upholster chairs and 11 to 15
yards are needed for sofas. Based on about 31.5 million annual unit
shipments (of which perhaps about 53 percent are sofas, sofabeds,
and loveseats and about 47 percent are other chairs), estimated
annual upholstery material requirements are about 321 million linear
yards (about 217 million yards for sofas, sofabeds and loveseats
plus 104 million yards for chairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Census Bureau's Economic Census report, Upholstered
Household Furniture Manufacturing: 2002, included information on the
costs of upholstery fabrics and other materials used in the production
of upholstered household furniture in that year. The report placed the
delivered cost of woven cotton upholstery fabrics (excluding ticking)
at $312 million and the delivered cost of other woven upholstery
fabrics, such as those made of rayon, nylon, and polyester (excluding
ticking) at $802 million.\24\ The combined total delivered cost of
upholstery fabric of $1,114 million was about 22 percent of the total
delivered cost of all materials used in upholstered furniture
manufacturing in 2002 (which was, according to the Census Bureau,
$5,107 million). Other upholstery cover materials include leather,
which is not reported as a separate material category by the Bureau of
the Census, and coated and laminated fabrics, which had a delivered
cost of about $185 million in 2002. In its 2007 Annual Report, La-Z-
Boy, the largest manufacturer of upholstered furniture in the U.S.,
reported that purchased cover materials (primarily fabric and leather)
accounted for about 28 percent of the total cost of raw materials for
its upholstery group.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Upholstered
Household Furniture Manufacturing: 2002, EC02-311-313311. September
2004.
\25\ La-Z-Boy, Inc. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended
April 28, 2007 (Form 10-K.) Page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until recent years, relatively little upholstery fabric was
imported. A report by Keyser Ciprus, Ltd., estimated that 8 million
linear yards of residential upholstery fabric were imported in 1997.
That accounted for approximately 2 percent of total consumption of
upholstery fabric for residential furniture production in that
year.\26\ However, as noted above, foreign upholstery fabric production
facilities (located primarily in China) have expanded operations and
imports of upholstery fabrics have grown substantially.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Keyser Ciprus Limited, op. cit., p. 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the foreign production is from facilities that are owned or
operated in partnership with U.S. textile firms. For example, Culp,
Inc., reported that almost 60 percent of their sales of upholstery
fabrics in their fiscal year ended April 29, 2007, consisted of fabrics
produced in plants outside the U.S., compared to 17 percent of sales
just two years before.\27\ Culp owns and operates four upholstery
plants in Shanghai, China, and markets other fabrics from third party
sources which are also located in China. The firm only has one
remaining upholstery fabric plant in the U.S., down from fourteen in
2000.\28\ Culp's experience in shifting production to foreign plants
has also been reported by other U.S. upholstery fabric manufacturers.
In January 2007 Richloom Fabrics Group shifted production of its
Berkshire Weaving upholstery line from its South Carolina plant to a
facility in Shanghai.\29\ Quaker Fabric Corporation also entered into
business agreements in recent years with Asian firms to produce fabrics
it designs. Quaker estimated that, industry-wide, about 42 percent of
total domestic upholstery fabric sales (excluding automotive fabrics)
were imported in 2004, versus only 11 percent in 2002. The company's
management believed it was likely that the trend continued, and it
estimated that about 60 percent of furniture upholstery fabric sales
were imported by the end of 2006.\30\ As noted above, Quaker Fabric,
which had long been a major U.S. producer of upholstery fabric, could
not successfully adjust its operations to meet the recent market
shifts, and the firm liquidated its operations in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Culp, Inc. Annual company report for the fiscal year ended
April 29, 2007. (Reportedly includes fabrics produced at Culp's
Shanghai manufacturing plant and production sourced from other Asian
firms.)
\28\ Culp, Inc. Annual company report for the fiscal year ended
April 23, 2000.
\29\ Andrews, Susan M. ``Richloom moves production to China.''
Furniture/Today, December 18, 2006.
\30\ Quaker Fabric Corp. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended
December 30, 2006 (Form 10-K.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least until recent years, exports of upholstery fabric were
significant for many U.S. manufacturers. In the late 1990s as much as
20 percent of the upholstery fabric production by U.S. manufacturers in
recent years may have been exported. As noted above, more upholstery
fabric is being imported from China and other foreign sources in more
recent years, and some major U.S. fabric
[[Page 11713]]
manufacturers have established production facilities in China, or have
established business relationships with Chinese firms to produce
fabrics to their specifications and designs. These market changes could
be expected to reduce exports by domestic firms from previous levels.
There is a growing practice, especially for leather, to purchase
fully cut and sewn parts from areas outside of the United States
including but not limited to: Argentina, Brazil, China, Italy, Thailand
and Uruguay. This trend should continue given the lower labor costs in
some of these areas and other existing economic conditions. La-Z-Boy
reports that importing cut and sewn leather parts results in savings of
10 to 20 percent compared to domestic purchases and fabrication of
these parts.\31\ Cut and sewn ``kits'' reportedly are manufactured to
the specifications of furniture manufacturers at facilities maintained
by foreign fabric producers. Culp reports that it rapidly expanded its
cut and sew operations in its Shanghai plants.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ La-Z-Boy. op. cit., p. 4.
\32\ Culp, Inc. Annual Company report for the fiscal year ended
April 29, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPSC-sponsored surveys of furniture manufacturers in 1981, 1984,
and 1995, and commercial surveys in 1997, 2001, and 2006 \33\ provided
information on two characteristics of fabrics: fabric type and
principal fiber (or material) type. Fabric Type refers to commonly-
accepted descriptions of the ways in which fabrics are manufactured or
of their distinctive characteristics. For the period covered by these
surveys, manufacturers increased their use of jacquard and dobby
fabrics, and decreased their use of velvet fabrics.\34\ Usage of cotton
prints and flocks fluctuated within fairly narrow ranges during the
period, according to the surveys.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Keyser-Ciprus, Ltd. survey (1997) and Ciprus Limited, LLC,
surveys (2001 and 2006).
\34\ ``Jacquards'' and ``dobbies'' refer to the types of looms
and weaves used to produce fabrics. Brocades, damasks, velvets,
tapestry weaves, and matelasses are often jacquard-woven. Dobbie
looms enable weaving of small, geometric figures as a regular
pattern. Dobby looms produce patterns that are beyond the range of
simple looms, but are somewhat limited compared to a jacquard loom,
which has a wider range of pattern capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiber (or material) Type refers to the fibers or materials used in
the manufacture of the fabrics or upholstery. Most upholstery fabric
fibers are classified as cellulosic (e.g. cotton and rayon) or
thermoplastic (e.g., polyester, polyolefin, and nylon); other materials
used to make upholstery include vinyl (which is coated on a base
fabric), wool, and leather. Based on the 2006 Ciprus Limited survey,
cellulosic fabrics currently account for about 25 percent of
upholstered furniture upholstery covering materials. Thermoplastic
fabrics account for 45 percent; leather, wool and vinyl-coated fabrics
account for about 30 percent (mostly leather).
Review of the data on material types from the surveys conducted
since 1981 indicates that the most notable changes over the years have
been the increase in use of leather at the expense of both cellulosic
and thermoplastic fibers. The Ciprus survey in 2001 found that about 30
percent of furniture covering materials used in that year was leather,
significantly greater than found in the earlier surveys.\35\ Fabrics
made from predominantly cellulosic fibers include heavier-weight
fabrics (such as cellulosic jacquards and velvets) and lighter-weight
fabrics (mainly cotton prints). Analysis of survey data since 1981
indicates that heavier cellulosic fabrics have usually comprised about
15 to 20 percent of all upholstery covering yardage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Ciprus Limited. op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Characteristics of Furniture in U.S. Households
The number of furniture units in use is estimated with the CPSC
Product Population Model, based on available annual sales data and
industry estimates of the average product life of furniture.\36\
Estimates are for sofas, loveseats, armchairs, recliners, convertible
sofas and other upholstered furniture commonly found in residential
living rooms, family rooms, and guest rooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ M.L. Lahr and B.B. Gordon, Final Report on Product Life
Model Feasibility and Development Study, Battelle Columbus
Laboratories, July 14, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sales are defined as shipments from U.S. manufacturers plus net
imports. Annual shipment data are available from the Economic Census
published every five years (i.e., 2002, 1997, 1992 * * *) by the Bureau
of the Census. For upholstered wood furniture and dual-purpose sleep
furniture, the Economic Census usually provides information on unit
shipments, by type (such as sofas, sleep sofas, rockers, recliners, and
other chairs). For product categories for which unit shipment data were
not available, we estimated unit shipments by assigning average per
unit values to the Census data on value of shipments. Finally,
estimates of net imports were added to shipments to estimate the total
number of upholstered units sold to U.S. households. For the years in
which Economic Census data are not available, shipment estimates were
based on furniture shipment values published by the Department of
Commerce in the Annual Survey of Manufactures.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Estimated shipments before 1967 were based on the Federal
Reserve's annual furniture production index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CPSC's Product Population Model uses sales data and information
on the average product life to estimate the numbers of items remaining
in use in the years following their purchase by consumers. The
estimated average useful life of upholstered furniture reportedly
ranges from 15 to 17 years.\38\ Based on the assumption that the
expected life of a piece of upholstered furniture is 16 years, the
average number of upholstered items in household use during 2002-2004
was about 447 million pieces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Based on discussions between industry officials and
Department of Commerce personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveys of furniture manufacturers in the last several years show
the shift towards thermoplastic fabrics peaked during the period of the
mid-1980's to the mid-1990's. Information provided to the CPSC by the
Upholstered Furniture Action Council (UFAC) showed that a significant
shift to greater use of thermoplastic fabrics began in the 1950's, and
became more pronounced in the 1970's.\39\ These data on usage of
different types of fabrics over the years can be used to characterize
upholstery fabrics found on furniture in U.S. households. An estimated
31.2 percent of furniture in use in U.S. households during the period
2002-2004 was covered with fabrics predominantly made with cellulosic
fabrics; an estimated 50.2 percent were covered with predominantly
thermoplastic fabrics, and 18.6 percent were covered with other
materials (mainly leather, wool, and vinyl-coated fabrics).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Report to the CPSC on the UFAC Voluntary Program,
Upholstered Furniture Action Council, March 21, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Expected Benefits of the Proposed Standard
The expected benefits of the proposed standard are estimated as the
reduction in the societal costs associated with upholstered furniture
fires that would be prevented by the standard. We estimate the benefits
in several steps. First, the average annual societal costs of
upholstered furniture fires are estimated, based on estimates of the
aggregate annual costs of fire-related deaths, injuries, and property
damage. These costs are differentiated by ignition source (i.e.,
cigarette vs. open flame ignition) and by fabric covering type (since
different fabrics exhibit different ignition propensities). Societal
costs are also estimated on a ``per product in use'' basis, based on
[[Page 11714]]
estimates of the numbers of furniture items in use.
Second, since each furniture item is expected to remain in use for
an average of 15 to 17 years, the present value of the product's
estimated lifetime fire costs is estimated by summing the discounted
annual costs over the item's expected useful life. The estimated annual
societal costs that are expected to accrue over the furniture item's
useful life are discounted at an annual rate of 3 percent. This rate is
consistent with recommendations in the economic literature for
discounting the costs and consequences of health programs.\40\ Societal
costs have also been estimated using a 7 percent discount rate, as
recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (in addition to 3
percent) in its guidance to Federal agencies on the use of discounting
in regulatory analysis (Circular A-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ For example: Viscusi, W.K., ``Discounting Health Effects
for Medical Decisions,'' in Valuing Health Care: Costs, Benefits,
and Effectiveness of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Technologies, ed.
F.A. Sloan, 123-24. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1995.
Also, Gold, Marthe R., et al., Cost-Effectiveness in Health and
Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press. 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the expected effectiveness of the proposed standard (i.e.,
the percentage reduction in fire losses) is estimated for each ignition
source and upholstery cover type. As discussed below, effectiveness of
the standard at reducing societal costs is based on judgments regarding
improvements attributed to fabric treatments and effectiveness of
barrier materials.
We begin the analysis by evaluating the societal costs of cigarette
fires and the expected benefits associated with preventing these fires.
This is followed with an evaluation of the societal costs and likely
benefits associated with the prevention of open-flame ignited fires.
a. Expected Benefits From Reducing Cigarette Fire Losses
Societal costs of furniture fires started by cigarettes. The
purpose of this section is to estimate the societal costs of cigarette-
related upholstered furniture fires to use as the basis for estimating
the cigarette benefits. In the next section, benefits are estimated as
avoided societal costs. These costs are based on fire losses (deaths,
injuries and property loss) estimated by the CPSC Directorate for
Epidemiology, which relies on fire loss data acquired from the National
Fire Protection (NFPA) annual survey of fire departments and the U.S.
Fire Administration (USFA) National Fire Incident Reporting System
(NFIRS). The most recent fire data available to make such estimates was
for the 2002-2004 time period. Societal cost estimates are also
differentiated by fabric cover types, which (as described below)
exhibit different cigarette ignition propensities.
According to the CPSC's Directorate for Epidemiology, there was an
average of 260 addressable civilian deaths and 320 nonfatal civilian
injuries annually from fires started by cigarettes during the 2002-2004
time frame.\41\ There was also an average of about $73 million annually
(in 2005 dollars) in property losses from cigarette-ignited fires.\42\
By combining the costs associated with deaths, injuries, and property
damage, total societal costs can be estimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Miller, David. ``2002-2004 Fire Loss Estimates for
Upholstered Furniture.'' Directorate for Epidemiology, U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, August 3, 2007 (Draft). The Directorate
for Epidemiolgy based its estimates on a methodology that was
refined to address concerns raised by the General Accounting Office
(GAO) in a 1999 report, ``Consumer Product Safety Commission:
Additional Steps Needed to Assess Fire Hazards of Upholstered
Furniture.''
\42\ Estimated average property losses of about $65 million for
2002-2004 (Miller, op. cit.) are expressed in 2004 dollars ($70
million) based on changes in the Producer Price Index for
construction materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For analytic purposes staff assigns a value of $5 million as the
value of a statistical life for the calculation of societal costs. The
$5 million estimate is consistent with the general range of the value
of a statistical life published in the literature, which generally
falls in the $3 million to $7 million range.\43\ Multiplying the annual
estimate of about 260 deaths by the value of a statistical life of $5
million yields annual fatality costs of $1.3 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Viscusi, W. Kip, ``The Value of Risks to Life and Health,''
Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXI, December 1993, pp. 1912-
1946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonfatal injuries were assigned an average cost of $146,740 each.
The basis for this estimate was the analysis of burn injury costs
reported in the August 1993 report ``Societal Costs of Cigarette
Fires,'' part of the research sponsored by the CPSC under the Fire Safe
Cigarette Act of 1990.44 45 The $146,740 figure represents a
weighted average of injury costs (including pain and suffering) for
both hospitalized injuries and injuries treated and released. The
estimate of 320 injuries annually results in societal costs of about
$47 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Zamula, William W., ``Costs for Non-Fatal, Addressable
Residential Civilian Injuries Associated with Upholstered Furniture
Fires.'' (Memorandum to Gregory B. Rodgers, AED, EC) Directorate for
Economic Analysis, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
September 6, 2007. (Costs are estimated in 2005 dollars.)
\45\ Miller, Ted R., et al., ``Societal Costs of Cigarettes
Fires,'' prepared for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
under the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984, August 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the proposed standard would also address about $70
million annually in property losses from fires started by cigarettes,
based on estimates for the 2002-2004 period. Consequently, the total
annual costs of cigarette-ignited fires addressed by the proposed
standard amounted to an annual average of about $1,420 million ($1,300
million + $47 million + $73 million) during the 2002-2004 time period.
Information on the number of furniture items (i.e., separate pieces
of furniture) in use provides a basis for estimating the costs of
cigarette ignition fires on a per unit basis. The average estimated
number of items of residential living room and family room upholstered
furniture in use during the 2002-2004 time period was about 447 million
units, based on an expected useful product life of 15-17 years. Given
the annual societal costs and the number of furniture units in use, the
annual societal cost per unit of furniture in use, resulting from
cigarette ignition, amounted to about $3.18 ($1,420 million/447 million
units of furniture). This per unit societal cost estimate represents an
average across all furniture items in use. However, because different
fabric coverings for furniture exhibit different ignition propensities,
we can develop more precise estimates of per unit societal costs by
accounting for the fabric cover.
Ignition testing of chairs by CPSC staff and others over the years
has shown that the cigarette ignition hazard of furniture mainly
involves chairs covered with fabrics that are predominantly woven from
cellulosic fibers, i.e., cotton and rayon. Chair testing done by the
CPSC staff and California's Bureau of Home Furnishings has shown that
chairs covered with predominantly thermoplastic fabrics (e.g.,
polyester, polypropylene, and nylon) are much less likely to ignite
from cigarettes. Chairs covered with some materials, such as leather,
vinyl-coated fabrics, and wool fabrics are resistant to ignition from
cigarettes. Given the disparity of ignition propensities, some types of
furniture would be expected to result in greater societal costs from
fires. Information relevant to the determination of average
ignitability and estimation of societal costs for furniture covered
with different types of materials is discussed below.
The results of the analysis described in this section (including
estimates of market shares by fabric covering, estimates of ignition
propensities and risk by fabric type, and estimates of
[[Page 11715]]
annual societal costs) are summarized in Table 1.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.000
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
[[Page 11716]]
Estimates of the types of upholstery on furniture pieces found in
households during 2002-2004 were derived from historical data from
surveys in various years, estimates of annual sales of upholstered
furniture, and calculations of the survival of furniture in years after
purchase (using the CPSC's Product Population Model). Based on these
sources, the Directorate for Economic Analysis estimates that 50.2
percent of the 447 million upholstered furniture items that were in use
during 2002-2004 were covered with thermoplastic fabrics, 31.2 percent
were covered with cellulosic fabrics, and 18.6 percent were covered
with leather, vinyl-coated fabrics, or wool fabrics. These market
shares are shown in Table 1, column 1.
Note that the market shares in the first three rows sum to the 31.2
percent of the furniture in use covered with cellulosic fabrics.
However, because extensive testing data show that some cellulosic
fabrics are more likely to ignite than others, this analysis also
separates cellulosic fabrics into three categories according to their
ignition propensities. The next several paragraphs describe this sub-
categorization of cellulosic fabric coverings.
Testing by the CPSC laboratory using the proposed Upholstery Fabric
Smoldering Ignition Test \46\ indicates that upholstery cover materials
which are most likely to fail the test are fabrics woven entirely of
cellulosic fibers that are heavier than eight ounces per square yard.
These fabrics are assumed to include all fabrics that would be
classified as Class II fabrics under the UFAC Program as well as
predominantly cellulosic fabrics that would be classified as Class I
fabrics under the UFAC Program and Class C and D fabrics according to
the proposed furniture flammability standard fabric test method
developed by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS, now the National
Institute of Standards and Technology) in the 1970s. Estimation of the
percentage of fabrics that would fail the fabric test of the proposed
standard, and assessment of the societal costs presented by different
types of upholstery cover materials are, therefore, based on fabric and
chair test data accumulated over the years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The Upholstery Fabric Smoldering Ignition Test is cigarette
ignition testing of fabrics over a standard non-flame-retardant
polyurethane foam substrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classification of cellulosic fabrics according to the test
developed by UFAC (which classifies fabrics according to char length on
the vertical surface when tested over standard non-FR polyurethane
foam) and the test developed by NBS (which classifies fabrics according
to char length when tested over a glass fiberboard substrate) have been
used to categorize the ignition performance of cellulosic fabrics in
this analysis. CPSC laboratory analyses since 1980 found that about 82
percent of cellulosic fabrics tested were Class I fabrics according to
the fabric classification test of the UFAC Program (i.e., having a
vertical char length of less than 1.75 inches), and 18 percent of
cellulosic fabrics were UFAC Class II fabrics (i.e., having a vertical
char length of 1.75 inches or greater). Assuming the tested fabrics
were representative of cellulosic fabrics, 25.6 percent of all fabrics
on furniture in use during 2002-2004 were UFAC Class I (31.2% that were
covered with cellulosic fabrics x 82%) and 5.6 percent were UFAC Class
II (31.2% x 18%).
Laboratory testing shows that the cover material smoldering
resistance test of the proposed standard is more severe than the UFAC
Fabric Classification Test.\47\ Therefore, for the purposes of this
analysis, UFAC Class II fabrics are assumed to fail the proposed fabric
test without changes that would improve their ignition resistance.
Limited testing also indicates that some portion of UFAC Class I
fabrics will fail the fabric test of the proposed standard. Twenty-five
percent of the Class I fabrics tested by the CPSC staff in 1980 and
1984 were found to be generally more ignition-prone Class D fabrics
according to the NBS fabric classification test (i.e., sustaining chars
of greater than 3 inches when tested over glass fiberboard). If we
assume that such fabrics would fail the proposed standard's fabric
test, an estimated 12 percent of fabrics found on furniture in 2002-
2004 would have failed the test (5.6 percent which were UFAC Class II,
plus 25 percent of the 25.6 percent of other cellulosic fabrics which
were UFAC Class I. (Designated as ``Severely Ignition-Prone
Cellulosics'' in Table 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Tao, Weiying, Ph.D. ``Evaluation of Test Method and
Performance Criteria for Cigarette Ignition (Smoldering) Resistance
of Upholstered Furniture Materials.'' Division of Electrical and
Flammability Engineering, Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission. May 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabrics assumed to pass the proposed standard include more
moderately ignition-prone fabrics that are Class I according to the
UFAC Fabric Classification test and Class C according to the NBS fabric
test (i.e., sustaining chars of 1.5--3 inches when tested over glass
fiberboard), and more ignition-resistant Class B cellulosic fabrics
according to the NBS fabric test (which sustain char lengths of less
than 1.5 inches when tested over glass fiberboard). The Class C fabrics
accounted for an estimated 5.8 percent of fabrics found on furniture in
2002-2004 (22.5 percent of UFAC Class I cellulosic fabrics according to
CPSC staff testing). These fabrics are designated as ``Moderately
Ignition-Prone Cellulosics'' in Table 1. More ignition-resistant NBS
Class B fabrics are estimated to have comprised 52.5 percent of UFAC
Class I cellulosic fabrics, or 13.4 percent of all fabrics and covering
materials found on upholstered items in 2002-2004. These fabrics are
designated as ``Lower Ignition-Prone Cellulosics'' in Table 1.
Estimated ignition propensities for furniture covered with
cellulosic fabrics are based on chair testing that was done in 1984 and
1994. Evaluating chair test results according to UFAC and NBS fabric
classifications, 58.3 percent of test cigarettes were estimated to lead
to ignitions for chairs covered with UFAC Class II fabrics. The
estimated ignition propensity for test cigarettes on chairs covered
with UFAC Class I, NBS Class D fabrics was 46.6 percent. Combining
these two severely-ignition-prone fabric classes yields an average
estimated ignition propensity of 52.1 percent (weighted by their 2002-
2004 market shares). Cigarettes placed on furniture covered with
moderately ignition-prone fabrics had an estimated 32.2 percent
likelihood of resulting in ignition.\48\ About 10.5 percent of test
cigarettes were estimated to lead to ignitions for chairs covered with
less ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics.\49\ (See column 2 of Table 1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ UFAC Class I, NBS Class C cellulosic fabrics.
\49\ NBS Class B cellulosic fabrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of less concern with the ignition propensity of
thermoplastic fabrics, ignition testing data for such materials are
more limited. Expanding chair test data to include tests conducted in
1980 led to an estimate that 1.5 percent of test cigarettes would
result in ignition for furniture covered with thermoplastic fabrics.
Additionally, based on limited laboratory ignition testing data,
materials such as leather, wool fabrics, and vinyl-coated fabrics are
assumed to be highly resistant to ignition from cigarettes.
The calculation of weighted ignition propensities of furniture
covered with different types of fabrics is the product of the estimated
market share of furniture in use in 2002-2004 for each type of fabric
and its estimated ignition propensity. The estimated weighted ignition
propensity was 0.063 for items covered with severely ignition-prone
[[Page 11717]]
cellulosic fabrics (i.e., 12.0% share of the market x 52.1% ignition
propensity); 0.019 for items covered with moderately ignition-prone
cellulosic fabrics (5.8% x 32.2%); 0.014 for items covered with less
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics (13.4% x 10.5%); and .008 for items
covered with thermoplastic fabrics (50.2% x 1.5%). (See column 3 of
Table 1.)
The percent of total risk presented by furniture covered with
different fabric types was derived by dividing estimated weighted
ignition propensities by the sum of all weighted ignition propensities
(which was about .103 for furniture in use in 2002-2004). Thus, as
shown in the table, the more severely ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics
\50\ were estimated to account for 60.9 percent of the total risk
(.063/.103); moderately ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics \51\
accounted for an estimated 18.0 percent of the risk (.019/.103); less
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics accounted for about 13.7 percent of
the risk (.014/.103); and thermoplastic fabrics accounted for about 7.3
percent of the risk (.008/.103). (See column 4 of Table 1.) \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ UFAC Class II and UFAC Class I/NBS Class D fabrics.
\51\ NBS Class C cellulosic fabrics.
\52\ Percent of total risk for each fabric type was calculated
from estimates of market share and ignition propensity that were not
rounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average annual societal costs associated with cigarette
ignitions of each fabric type were estimated by dividing the product of
estimated percent of total risk (above) and the total estimated average
annual societal costs associated with cigarette ignition of furniture
($1,420 million) by the estimated number of units in use during 2002-
2004 with each fabric type (447 million units in use x estimated market
share). The average annual societal costs were estimated to be $16.08
for items covered with severely ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics
(60.9% x $1,420 million/447 million x 12.0%); $9.94 for items covered
with moderately ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics (18.0% x $1,420
million/447 million x 5.8%); $3.24 for items covered with less
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics (13.4% x $1,420 million/447 million x
13.7%); and $.46 for items covered with thermoplastic fabrics (7.3% x
$1,420 million/447 million x 50.2%). (See column 5 of Table 1.)
The estimated lifetime societal costs per unit of furniture were
calculated as the present value of the estimated annual societal costs
over the expected product life of the item of furniture. The annual
expected societal costs of cigarette ignition were assumed to apply
each year that an item of furniture remains in household use. The
CPSC's Product Population Model was used to calculate the likelihood
that furniture items would remain in use in years after purchase.
Annual societal costs per unit were multiplied by estimated probability
of survival in subsequent years. The estimated stream of future
expected societal costs were discounted to their present values, using
a discount rate of 3 percent.
Available data suggest that other factors (in addition to changes
in fabrics) have contributed to a decline in fires resulting from
cigarette ignition of upholstered furniture over time. These factors
include changes in smoking-related behavior of individuals, increased
presence of smoke alarms, and changes in furniture filling materials.
The present value estimates were further adjusted to account for an
expected future decline in smoking-related fire incidents. This was
done by forecasting future fire deaths by year, based on trends in
deaths from cigarette ignitions of upholstered furniture during 1980-
2004, and reducing the expected societal costs of cigarette ignited
fires by the projected percentage reduction. This analysis found that
expected lifetime societal costs, discounted to their present value
using a 3 percent discount rate, should be reduced by approximately 28
percent. Thus, expected lifetime societal costs per unit of $195.31 for
items covered with severely ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics were
reduced to $140.04 after incorporating the trend data. Similar
calculations led to estimates of lifetime societal costs of $86.60 for
items covered with moderately ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics; $28.24
for items covered with less ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics; and
$4.06 for items covered with thermoplastic fabrics. (See column 6 in
Table 1.)
b. Expected Benefits
The analysis described above estimated the per unit hazard costs
associated with the upholstery materials of different ignition
propensities, based on the furniture in use during 2002-2004, the most
recent time period for which fire data is available. However, as
discussed in Section 4, the types of upholstery materials used in the
production of furniture have changed over the years. Since the proposed
standard would address risks associated with current production,
projection of benefits requires estimating the societal costs
associated with materials now being used to manufacture furniture. This
is accomplished by estimating the percentage of furniture items
currently made with covering materials of differing ignition
propensities.
A 2006 survey of furniture manufacturers by Ciprus Limited provides
information on consumption of cellulosic, thermoplastic, and leather
covering materials in the production of furniture.\53\ Using CPSC staff
test data discussed above, the percentages of current production (as
indicated by the Ciprus data) made with materials ranging from severely
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics to ignition resistant materials such
as leather were estimated. These estimates are shown in column 1 of
Table 2. The estimated percentage of upholstered items now made with
severely ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics has fallen to 9.6 percent of
annual production, from 12.0 percent estimated for furniture in use
during 2002-2004. This is a 20 percent decrease in the relative use of
the most ignition-prone class of fabrics. The use of other ignition-
prone fabrics has also declined, in relative terms, while the use of
generally ignition-resistant materials such as leather (estimated to be
about 30 percent of current production) is 62 percent greater than
found in household use in 2002-2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Ciprus Limited, op. cit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[[Page 11718]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.001
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
[[Page 11719]]
Column 2 of Table 2 shows the expected number of furniture units
produced annually, by type of covering material, based on the market
shares of the various fabric coverings (column 1) and an estimated 30.5
million furniture units produced. Column 3 provides the estimates of
per unit lifetime societal costs derived in Table 1.
Based on current estimates of the types and quantity of furniture
produced, the estimated total present value of the expected societal
costs from cigarette fires is $681 million for furniture produced in a
year, in the absence of a standard. (See column 4 of Table 2.) Total
estimated societal costs involving furniture covered with severely
ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics account for $411 million, or about 60
percent of the total. In contrast, thermoplastic fabrics, which are
used to cover about 45 percent of all upholstered furniture produced,
account for an estimated $55.5 million in societal costs, or only about
8 percent of the total.
A comparison of the ignition performance of upholstered chairs made
with current fabrics with that of chairs made in compliance with the
proposed standard would provide data to assess the likely reduction in
ignition propensity that would result from the proposed standard. In
the absence of such data, we can estimate the benefits of the standard
by making reasonable judgments about improvements in ignition
performance that would result from the use of complying materials.
Furniture currently manufactured with severely ignition-prone
cellulosic fabrics could realize a reduction in societal costs per unit
under the proposed standard to the equivalent of that now estimated for
furniture covered by less ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics. This
reduction would be attributable to improved ignition performance of
fabrics or from the use of qualifying barriers. The reduction in
lifetime societal costs per unit from $140.04 to $28.24 amounts to a
hazard reduction of 79.8 percent (shown in column 5 of Table 2). We
likewise assume that pre-standard societal costs estimated for
moderately ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics (which are also expected
to fail the proposed cover fabric test) would also likely fall to the
level of estimated hazard costs associated with furniture covered with
less ignition-prone fabrics. The estimated reduction from estimated
lifetime societal costs of $86.60 to $28.24 would be a 67.4 percent
reduction in the hazard presented (also shown in column 5). Since
upholstered furniture items covered with less ignition-prone cellulosic
fabrics and thermoplastic fabrics are expected to pass the proposed
cover fabric test, and there are no requirements for filing materials
under the proposed standard, furniture covered with those fabrics would
not be expected to be associated with any reduction in their expected
societal costs.
The estimated benefits per unit were calculated for each fabric
class. (See column 6 of Table 2.) Per unit benefits of the proposed
standard range from $0 for furniture covered with ignition-resistant
fabrics such as thermoplastic or lower cigarette-ignition-prone
cellulosics to an estimated $111.80 per unit for items currently
covered by severely ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics. The benefits
from ignition resistant materials such as leather, wool, and vinyl-
coated fabrics are also expected to be $0.
The total estimated benefits of the proposed standard are
calculated by multiplying estimated per unit benefits (shown in column
6) by the estimated annual units produced with each class of covering
material (column 2). Based on these calculations, estimated benefits of
the standard, in the form of expected lifetime reduction in societal
costs associated with production of furniture in one year, discounted
to their present value using a discount rate of 3 percent, total $410.2
million. About 80 percent of total estimated benefits are associated
with the approximately 10 percent of furniture currently made with
severely ignition-prone cellulosic fabrics.
As noted previously, OMB guidance to Federal agencies on the use of
discounting in regulatory analysis recommends that future benefits (and
costs) of federal regulations be presented using discount rates of 3
percent and 7 percent. Projected benefits from reductions in smoldering
ignitions have an estimated present value of $309.1 million if future
benefits are discounted at a 7% discount rate.
In addition to cigarette losses, the Directorate for Epidemiology
estimated fire losses from small open-flame ignitions for the years
2002-2004.\54\ During this time period, there were an average of 30
deaths and 170 nonfatal injuries annually from fires started by small
open flames. There was also an average of about $50 million annually in
property losses from small open flame-ignited fires during this time
frame.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Miller, David. op. cit.
\55\ Estimated average property losses for 2002-2004 are
expressed in 2005 dollars, based on changes in the Producer Price
Index for construction materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming a value of statistical life of $5 million,\56\ the
societal costs associated with the 30 deaths annually amounted to about
$150 million. The 170 nonfatal injuries were assigned an average cost
of $146,740 each,\57\ resulting in societal costs of about $25 million.
Adding in the $50 million annually in property losses from fires
started from small open-flame ignition, the total annual costs of open-
flame ignited fires addressed by the proposed standard amount to about
$225 million ($150 million + $25 million + $50 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Viscusi, W. Kip, op. cit.
\57\ Zamula, William W., op. cit. Injury costs are expressed in
2005 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in Table 1, these annual estimates of the open-flame losses are
used to develop estimates of the lifetime societal costs of open-flame
hazards per unit of furniture in use during 2002-2004, for each of the
five fabric categories. The results are presented in Table 3.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
[[Page 11720]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04MR08.002
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
[[Page 11721]]
Column 1 of Table 3 shows the proportions of furniture in each
fabric material category, and is identical to the corresponding column
in Table 1. Column 2 describes open-flame ignition propensities, based
on small open flame ignition testing by the CPSC laboratory in 1996. In
that testing, cellulosic and thermoplastic fabrics had nearly the same
ignition propensity when subjected to a small flame for 20 seconds.
Ignitions in 20 seconds or less were observed for 27 of 29
predominantly cellulosic fabrics (about 93 percent) and 17 of 18
predominantly thermoplastic fabrics (about 94 percent).\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Based on testing data presented in Directorate for
Laboratory Sciences memoranda dated October 3, 1996, through
September 19, 1997, Tab D, ``Upholstered Furniture Flammability:
Regulatory Options for Small Open Flame & Smoking Material Ignited
Fires,'' October 24, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these ignition propensities and the estimated percentages
of furniture in use comprised by upholstered items with cellulosic and
thermoplastic fabrics, furniture covered with thermoplastic fabrics
accounted for an estimated 62 percent of the overall risk of small open
flame ignitions during 2002-2004; items covered with cellulosic fabrics
accounted for an estimated 38 pe