CPSC’s New Standard on the Flammability of Upholstered Furniture Now Effective

06 July 2021 Manufacturing Industry Advisor Blog
Authors: Erik K. Swanholt Kristin M. McGaver

On June 25, 2021, the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s (CPSC) new standard addressing the flammability of upholstered furniture went into effect.1 The rule adopts California Technical Bulletin 117-2013—applicable to upholstered furniture sold in the state since 2015. Comments to the CPSC’s new rule from industry stakeholders and interested parties reflect a variety of viewpoints, ranging from total support to complete criticism. While the CPSC considered none of the comments significantly adverse enough to withdraw the rule, commentators suspect this will not be the agency’s last action on the topic.

The New Furniture Flammability Standard

The new furniture flammability standard is part of the CPSC’s effort to implement the COVID-19 Regulatory Relief and Work From Home Safety Act that Congress signed into law on December 27, 2020 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. That law and the CPSC’s new rule incorporate the California Technical Bulletin for testing the smolder resistance of materials used in upholstered furniture—TB 117-2013.2

TB 117-2013 assesses the flammability of upholstered furniture when it is exposed to a smoldering cigarette by way of various tests to outer fabric, inner linings, and filler materials. TB 117-2013 has been mandatory in California since 2015. Accordingly, up to 95 percent of furniture already complies with the standard as incorporated into the CPSC’s new direct final rule.3 Because of this “very high” compliance percentage, the CPSC elected not to extend the effective date under the Flammable Fabrics Act, setting the date for June 25, 2021.4 The CPSC did however extend the deadline for the rule’s labeling requirements to June 25, 2022.5 The rule applies to upholstered furniture manufactured, imported, or reupholstered on or after June 25, 2021, exempting current inventory.

The Commentary

The CPSC issued the rule on April 9, 2021 and invited public comment. Shortly thereafter, on April 12, 2021, the CPSC received its first comment. While most of the comment period was quiet, the CPSC received seven additional comments on May 10, 2021—the last day of the period. These eight comments are briefly summarized as follows.

  • April 12, 2021
    • Dr. Alexander B. Morgan – Criticizes the rule’s “[c]igarette-only fire testing” approach, discusses how smolder-type spot ignition source tests favor synthetic materials over natural ones, and asks the CPSC to start over with standards that address both cigarette and open flame ignition sources (similar to those currently applicable to mattresses).

  • May 10, 2021
    • American Chemistry Council's North American Flame Retardant Alliance – Encourages the CPSC “to continue its work on a comprehensive furniture flammability standard that would also address open flame ignition” while repeatedly quoting previous statements from CPSC technical staff that express concerns about TB 117-2013.

    • American Chemistry Council's Center for the Polyurethanes Industry – Suggests improvements like ensuring the standard can be updated as necessary and clarifying the preemption requirements by adopting the language in TB 117-2013 itself versus adopting the standard by reference and clarifying the exact version of the rule being adopted.

    • Upholstered Furniture Action Council – Supports the proposed direct final rule, including the effective dates for performance and labeling and the inventory exemption, and provides marketplace information to support that position.

    • Polyurethane Foam Association– Expresses general support for the proposed direct final rule but requests clarification regarding which version of TB 117-2013 the direct final rule adopts.

    • Underwriters Laboratories Inc. – Advocates for an open flame test in addition to a smoldering test, citing research demonstrating that “flame suppressant technology, such as an effective fire barrier” can slow the burn of furniture “and does not require the addition of flame retardants.”

    • International Association of Fire Fighters – Expresses full support for the proposed direct final rule because the open flame standard “results in the application of copius [sic] amounts of carcinogenic flame retardants” and higher occupational cancer deaths for fire fighters.

    • Applied Textiles – Inquires about enforcement, including testing requirements and responsibility distribution within the supply chain.

These comments reflect an ongoing debate about the use of smoldering and open flame standards that the CPSC and industry stakeholders have considered since at least 2016. Despite years of study and discussion, those interested have been unable to agree on a final regulation. Then, in December 2020, Congress mandated nationwide compliance with California’s standard.

As even the rule’s critics acknowledge,6 the congressional mandate is what the CPSC must implement. Yet, several interested parties encourage the CPSC to contemplate more for furniture flammability.

Next Steps for Upholstered Furniture Manufacturers and Retailers

Manufacturers and retailers should confirm that relevant products manufactured, imported, and reupholstered after June 25, 2021 substantively comply with TB 117-2013. They should also make arrangements to permanently label products with a “Complies with U.S. CPSC requirements for upholstered furniture flammability” label by June 25, 2022. The new rule ultimately does little to change the status quo. However, as industry debate persists, manufacturers and retailers should continue to monitor the issue because the CPSC may take additional action.



1 16 C.F.R. Part 1640 (2021).

2 Id.

3 16 C.F.R. Part 1640, Supplementary Information § V, Part A.

4 Id.

5 Id. at Part C.

6 See, e.g., Dr. Alexander B. Morgan, Public Comment to 16 C.F.R. Part 1640 (April 12, 2021), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2021-0007-0008; American Chemistry Council's North American Flame Retardant Alliance, Public Comment to 16 C.F.R. Part 1640 (May 10, 2021), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/CPSC-2021-0007-0015.

 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

$4.24M Now the Average Cost Per Data Breach!
30 July 2021
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Podcast Episode 56: All Things Summer Associate Recruiting
30 July 2021
Foley Career Perspectives
Foley Podcast to Live Panel Discussion
29 July 2021
Foley Career Perspectives
End In Sight for Auto Shortage? Not So Fast
29 July 2021
Dashboard Insights
30th Annual Law of Product Distribution & Franchise Seminar
29 September | 7 & 20 October 2021
Milwaukee | Chicago | Dallas
7th National Telehealth Summit
4-5 October 2021
Miami Beach, FL
AHLA Fraud & Compliance Forum
21-22 September 2021
Baltimore, MD
2nd Clinical Trial Agreements Forum
16-17 September 2021
Online Livestream