Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flammability Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bureau proposes TB117 alignment for seating; barrier study finds fire-barrier standard costs outweigh benefits
Summary
The bureau circulated proposed regulatory changes to align California seating standards with TB117‑2013 and presented a preliminary barrier‑material study. Lab staff said qualified barriers can improve open‑flame resistance, but an academic benefit‑cost analysis found benefits did not exceed projected costs.
The bureau presented a rulemaking package to align state seating regulations with TB117‑2013 and shared preliminary barrier‑material testing and an economic analysis.
Donald Watts, who presented the regulatory-change proposal, said the rules would amend sections 1374 and 1374.3 of the California Code of Regulations to “align the regulatory language with the new general standard for the upholstered furniture set forth in TB117‑2013 and creates a single flammability standard for seating furniture in California.” Watts said the bureau planned to publish the initial rulemaking package for public comment no later than April 20 with an intended effective date of Oct. 1 if the process proceeds on schedule.
Sue from the laboratory summarized preliminary barrier‑material testing and full‑scale validation. “We have tested 25 barrier materials according to the proposed open flame test standard… Based on our small scale test results and also the results of our full scale validation test, we conclude that qualified barriers can improve open flame resistance of poster furniture,” Sue said.
But Sue also reported the bureau’s contracted benefit‑cost analysis led by an academic team at Sacramento State concluded the expected benefits (reduced deaths, injuries and property damage) did not exceed the added costs of enforcement, testing and compliance. “The benefits of proposed fire barrier performance standard failed to exceed the cost,” Sue said, summarizing the draft economic conclusion.
Council members requested the draft barrier study and economic analysis for review prior to the technical advisory committee meeting. The bureau said it will circulate the draft documents to advisory council members for comment and make staff and the Sacramento State researcher available to answer questions before finalizing materials.
No final regulatory decision was made at the meeting; staff described the rulemaking timetable, public comment process and an initial 45‑day comment period once the package posts.
Clarifying details: proposed regulatory changes target CCR sections 1374 and 1374.3 and TB117‑2013 alignment; barrier testing covered 25 materials with five represented in full‑scale mock‑ups; benefit‑cost draft reported benefits did not exceed costs and the academic team is from Sacramento State.
