16 C.F.R. § 1610.1

Purpose, scope and applicability

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce danger of injury and loss of life by providing, on a national basis, standard methods of testing and rating the flammability of textiles and textile products for clothing use, thereby prohibiting the use of any dangerously flammable clothing textiles.

(b) Scope. The Standard provides methods of testing the flammability of clothing and textiles intended to be used for clothing, establishes three classes of flammability, sets forth the requirements which textiles shall meet to be classified, and warns against the use of those textiles which have burning characteristics unsuitable for clothing. Hereafter, “clothing and textiles intended to be used for clothing” shall be referred to as “textiles.”

(c) Specific exceptions. This standard shall not apply to: (1) Hats, provided they do not constitute or form part of a covering for the neck, face, or shoulders when worn by individuals;

(2) Gloves, provided they are not more than 14 inches in length and are not affixed to or do not form an integral part of another garment;

(3) Footwear, provided it does not consist of hosiery in whole or part and is not affixed to or does not form an integral part of another garment;

(4) Interlining fabrics, when intended or sold for use as a layer between an outer shell and an inner lining in wearing apparel.

(d) Specific exemptions. Experience gained from years of testing in accordance with the Standard demonstrates that certain fabrics consistently yield acceptable results when tested in accordance with the Standard. Therefore, persons and firms issuing an initial guaranty of any of the following types of fabrics, or of products made entirely from one or more of these fabrics, are exempt from any requirement for testing to support guaranties of those fabrics:

(1) Plain surface fabrics, regardless of fiber content, weighing 2.6 ounces per square yard or more; and

(2) All fabrics, both plain surface and raised-fiber surface textiles, regardless of weight, made entirely from any of the following fibers or entirely from combination of the following fibers: acrylic, modacrylic, nylon, olefin, polyester, wool.

(e) Applicability. The requirements of this part 1610 shall apply to textile fabric or related material in a form or state ready for use in an article of wearing apparel, including garments and costumes finished for consumer use.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1996–2010 · leading case: Laura Hollister, Am. Cmty. Mut. Ins. Co., Intervenor v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 201 F.3d 731 (6th Cir. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Laura Hollister, Am. Cmty. Mut. Ins. Co., Intervenor v. Dayton Hudson Corp., 201 F.3d 731 (6th Cir. 2000). “” 16 C.F.R. § 1610.1 . Because their products passed the CPSC flammability test, Banana Republic and Victoria’s Secret were eventually dismissed as defendants.”

Vail v. KMart Corp., 25 A.D.3d 549 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “) and its accompanying regulations (16 CFR 1610.1 et seq.) (hereinafter the commercial standard), on the ground that “such evidence is not material, is irrelevant, misleading and of no probative value to the jury” (Ellsworth v Sherne Lingerie, Inc.”

Laura Hollister, Am. Cmty. Mut. Ins. Co., Intervenor v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 188 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 1999). “” 16 C.F.R. § 1610.1 . Based upon their products’ passing this test, Banana Republic and Victoria’s Secret were eventually dismissed as defendants.”

Schoen by & Through Schoen v. Spotlight Co., 979 F. Supp. 1379 (D. Kan. 1997). “Spotlight tested the nightgown’s fabric, which complied with the adult clothing standards under 16 C.F.R. § 1610.1 (1997). Wal-Mart also tested fabric samples and both complied with the adult clothing standards.”

Luftman v. Fashion 21, Inc., 31 Misc. 3d 274 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “) Finally, in holding that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the court rejects defendants’ apparent contention that the skirt was not defective because it met, or because plaintiff failed to prove that it did not meet, the flammability standard set forth in the…”

Hollister v. Dayton Hudson (6th Cir. 2000). “” 16 C.F.R. § 1610.1 . Because their products passed the CPSC flammability test, Banana Republic It has been held that, even where all the standard tests and Victoria’s Secret were eventually dismissed as demonstrated that a product was not dangerously defendants.”

Askenazi v. Hymil Mfg. Co., 170 Misc. 2d 461 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996). “” Additionally, Cranston asserts that it nonetheless performed the statutory flammability testing procedure on the fabric at issue by testing six separate specimens from the same G-lot of fabric that comprised the dress, following the testing standards set forth under 16 CFR…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.