16 C.F.R. § 1610.3

Summary of test method

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

The Standard provides methods of testing the flammability of textiles from or intended to be used for apparel; establishes three classes of flammability; sets forth the requirements for classifying textiles; and prohibits the use of single or multi-layer textile fabrics that have burning characteristics that make them unsuitable for apparel. All textiles shall be tested before and after refurbishing according to § 1610.6. Each specimen cut from the textile shall be inserted in a frame, brushed if it has a raised-fiber surface, and held in a special apparatus at an angle of 45°. A standardized flame shall be applied to the surface near the lower end of the specimen for 1 second, and the time required for the flame to proceed up the fabric a distance of 127 mm (5 in) shall be recorded. A notation shall be made as to whether the base of a raised-surface textile fabric ignites or fuses.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1980–2011 · leading case: Gryc Ex Rel. Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 297 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. 1980).
Gryc Ex Rel. Gryc v. Dayton-Hudson Corp., 297 N.W.2d 727 (Minn. 1980). “See 16 C.F.R. §§ 1610.3 (2), 1610.4 (1977). The fabric in the Gryc pajamas passed the CS 191-53 test.”
Cummins v. BIC USA, Inc., 835 F. Supp. 2d 322 (W.D. Ky. 2011). “The Court agrees with the Plaintiff. The Court has already decided this issue and finds that Defendant’s evidence, while appropriate for cross examination of Plaintiffs expert, is not a basis of summary judgment.”
Patterson v. Cent. Mills, Inc., 112 F. Supp. 2d 681 (N.D. Ohio 2000). “In particular, Central Mills contends that 1) the shirt conformed with the federal flammability standards provided in 16 C.F.R. § 1610.3 and is generally accepted by the trade as having no unusual burning characteristics; 2) all ordinary clothing is combustible and will burn…”
Brech v. JC Penney Co., Inc., 532 F. Supp. 916 (D.S.D. 1982). “Commercial Standard 191-53 is set forth in 16 C.F.R. section 1610.3 (1977). 6 . In each of these cases the garment, although in compliance with the federal regulations, displayed unusual burning characteristics.”
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.