[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2470-2514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-416]



[[Page 2469]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Consumer Product Safety Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



16 CFR Parts 1633 and 1634



Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattresses and Mattress/
Foundation Sets; Standard To Address Open Flame Ignition of Bedclothes; 
Proposed Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 2470]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1633


Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattresses and 
Mattress/Foundation Sets; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing a flammability standard under the 
authority of the Flammable Fabrics Act that would address open flame 
ignition of mattresses and mattress and foundation sets (``mattresses/
sets''). The Commission currently has a flammability standard that 
addresses ignition of mattresses by cigarettes. However, that standard 
does not address mattress fires ignited by open flames. The proposed 
standard sets performance requirements based on research conducted by 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (``NIST''). 
Mattresses/sets that comply with the proposed requirements will 
generate a smaller size fire, thus reducing the possibility of 
flashover occurring. These improved mattresses should result in 
significant reductions in deaths and injuries associated with mattress 
fires. Due to the interaction of mattresses and bedclothes discussed 
herein, elsewhere in today's Federal Register the Commission is 
publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to begin rulemaking 
on bedclothes.

DATES: Written comments in response to this document must be received 
by the Commission not later than March 29, 2005. 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 March 
14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be filed by email to [email protected]. 
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, Washington, DC 20207-0001, 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 ``Mattress 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 mattress standard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Neily, Directorate for 
Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, 
DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-7530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    On October 11, 2001, the Commission issued an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``ANPR'') concerning the open flame ignition of 
mattresses/bedding. 66 FR 51886. The ANPR was the result of the staff's 
evaluation of fire data over the course of several years and petitions 
filed by Whitney Davis, director of the Children's Coalition for Fire-
Safe Mattresses (``CCFSM''). Although the Commission has an existing 
mattress flammability standard that addresses ignition by cigarettes, 
16 CFR Part 1632, no current Commission standard directly addresses 
open flame ignition of mattresses. The most common open flame sources 
are lighters, candles and matches. The Commission is now issuing a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') proposing a flammability 
standard to address open flame ignition of mattresses.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commissioner Thomas H. Moore issued a statement, a copy of 
which is available from the Commission's Office of the Secretary or 
from the Commission's Web site, http://www.cpsc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Characteristics of mattress/bedding fires. A burning mattress 
generally provides the biggest fuel load in a typical bedroom fire. 
Once the mattress ignites, the fire develops rapidly creating dangerous 
flashover conditions. Flashover is the point at which the entire 
contents of a room are ignited simultaneously by radiant heat, making 
conditions in the room untenable and safe exit from the room 
impossible. At flashover, room temperatures typically exceed 600-800 C 
(approximately 1100-1470 F). In these conditions, carbon monoxide 
rapidly increases, and oxygen is rapidly depleted. Mattress fires that 
lead to flashover are responsible for about two-thirds of all mattress 
fatalities. This accounts for nearly all of the fatalities that occur 
outside the room where the fire originated and about half of the 
fatalities that occur within the room of origin. A mattress that 
reduces the likelihood of reaching flashover could significantly reduce 
deaths and injuries associated with bedroom fires. [1&2] \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Numbers in brackets refer to documents listed at the end of 
this notice. They are available from the Commission's Office of the 
Secretary (see ``Addresses'' section above) or from the Commission's 
Web site (http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The size of a fire is measured by its rate of heat release. A heat 
release rate of approximately 1,000 kilowatts (``kW'') leads to 
flashover in a typical room. Tests of twin size mattresses of 
traditional construction (complying with the existing mattress standard 
in 16 CFR 1632) without bedclothes have measured peak heat release 
rates that exceeded 2,000 kW in less than 5 minutes. Tests of 
traditional king size mattresses measured nearly double that peak rate 
of heat release. [2]
    Fire modeling and available test data show that as a room fire 
grows, a layer of accumulating hot gases and smoke thickens downward 
from the ceiling. For fires exceeding 600 kW, this layer typically 
descends to less than three feet from the floor. Heat release rates 
exceeding 500 kW are generally considered to pose a serious threat of 
incapacitation and of igniting nearby items. [2]
    The objective of the proposed standard is to limit the size of 
mattress/bedding fires to below 1,000 kW for a period of time by 
reducing the heat release from the bed, specifically the mattress and 
foundation, and by reducing the likelihood that other objects in the 
room will become involved in the fire.
    Research has shown that the mattress, foundation and bedclothes 
operate as a system in bedroom fires. Often the first item ignited is 
bedclothes, which then ignite the mattress. The gas burners used in the 
proposed test method are designed to represent burning bedclothes. 
Research has indicated that bedclothes themselves can contribute 
significantly to fires, even reaching heat release rates of up to 800 
kW. [2&13] Because of the role of bedclothes in mattress fires, the 
Commission is initiating a rulemaking on bedclothes through an ANPR 
that is published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The Commission 
received numerous comments on the mattress ANPR concerning the role of 
bedclothes and the need for a rule addressing them. These comments are 
discussed in section J of this document.

[[Page 2471]]

    NIST research. The industry's Sleep Products Safety Council 
(``SPSC''), an affiliate of the International Sleep Products 
Association (``ISPA''), sponsored a research program at the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (``NIST'') to better understand 
mattress/bedding fires and establish the technological basis for future 
performance requirements of a standard. NIST has conducted extensive 
research, which has become the basis for California's open flame 
mattress standard (Technical Bulletin or ``TB'' 603) and for the 
Commission's proposed standard.
    The NIST research showed that a full-scale test is the most 
reliable method for measuring fire performance of mattresses/sets 
because they contain many materials in a complex construction. Because 
the order of materials, method of assembly, quantity of materials, and 
quality of construction, among other factors, can affect fire behavior, 
the complete product may perform differently in a fire than the 
individual components would. Based on its research, NIST drafted a 
full-scale test method for mattresses that uses a pair of gas burners 
to represent burning bedclothes as the ignition source. Both the 
Commission's proposed standard and California's TB 603, use this test 
method. [1&2]
    Overview of the proposed standard. With certain exceptions 
explained in section G below, the proposed standard requires 
manufacturers to test specimens of each of their mattress prototypes 
(designs) before mattresses based on that prototype may be introduced 
into commerce. If a mattress and foundation are offered for sale as a 
set, the mattress must be tested with the corresponding foundation. The 
prototype specimens are tested using a pair of gas burners as the 
ignition source. The mattress and corresponding foundation, if any, 
must not exceed a 200 kW peak heat release rate at any time during the 
30 minute test, and the total energy released must be less than 15 
megajoules (``MJ'') for the first 10 minutes of the test. The proposed 
standard is discussed in greater detail in section G of this document.

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. 66 FR 51886. 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. 15 U.S.C. 1193(j). 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. 15 U.S.C. 1193(b).

C. The Product

    The proposed standard applies to mattresses and mattress and 
foundation sets (``mattresses/sets''). Mattress is defined as a 
resilient material, used alone or in combination with other materials, 
enclosed in a ticking and intended or promoted for sleeping upon. This 
includes adult mattresses, youth mattresses, crib mattresses (including 
portable crib mattresses), bunk bed mattresses, futons, flip chairs 
without a permanent back or arms, sleeper chairs, and water beds and 
air mattresses if they contain upholstery material between the ticking 
and the mattress core. Mattresses used in items of upholstered 
furniture such as convertible sofa bed mattresses are also included. 
Not included as mattresses are: sleeping bags, mattress pads, or other 
items used on top of the bed, or upholstered furniture which does not 
contain a mattress. However, the Commission could decide to address 
mattress pads or other top of the bed items in its rulemaking on 
bedclothes.
    Under the proposed standard, the mattress must be tested with its 
corresponding foundation if the mattress and foundation are offered for 
sale as a set. A foundation is a ticking covered structure used to 
support a mattress.
    According to ISPA, the top four producers of mattresses and 
foundations account for almost 60 percent of total U.S. production. In 
2001, there were 639 establishments producing mattresses in the U.S. 
[10]
    Mattresses and foundations are typically sold as sets. However, 
more mattresses are sold annually than foundations; some mattresses are 
sold as replacements for existing mattresses (without a new foundation) 
or are for use in platform beds or other beds that do not require a 
foundation. ISPA estimated that the total number of U.S. conventional 
mattress shipments was 21.5 million in 2002, and is estimated to be 
22.1 million in 2003 and 22.8 million in 2004. These estimates do not 
include futons, crib mattresses, juvenile mattresses, sleep sofa 
inserts, or hybrid water mattresses. These ``non-conventional'' sleep 
surfaces are estimated to comprise about 10 percent of total annual 
shipments of all sleep products. The value of mattress and foundation 
shipments in 2002, according to ISPA, was $3.26 and $1.51 billion 
respectively. [10]
    The expected useful life of mattresses can vary substantially, with 
more expensive models generally experiencing the longest useful lives. 
Industry sources recommend replacement of mattresses after 10 to 12 
years of use, but do not specifically estimate the average life 
expectancy. In the 2001 mattress ANPR, the Commission estimated the 
expected useful life of a mattress at about 14 years. To estimate the 
number of mattresses in use for analysis of the proposed rule, the 
Commission used both a 10 year and 14 year average product life. Using 
CPSC's Product Population Model, the Commission estimates the number of 
mattresses currently in use (i.e., in 2004) to be 233 million 
mattresses using a ten-year average product life, and 302.6 million 
mattresses using a fourteen-year average product life. [8&10]
    According to industry sources, queen size mattresses are the most 
commonly used. In 2002, queen size mattresses were used by 34 percent 
of U.S. consumers. Twin and twin XL are used

[[Page 2472]]

by 31.2 percent of U.S. consumers, followed by full and full XL (21 
percent), king and California king (11 percent), and all other sizes 
(2.6 percent). The average manufacturing price in 2002 was $152 for a 
mattress and $86 for a foundation. Thus, the average manufacturing 
price of a mattress/foundation set was about $238 in 2002. Although 
there are no readily available data on average retail prices for 
mattress/foundation sets by size, ISPA reports that sets selling under 
$500 represent 40.7 percent of the market. Sets selling for between 
$500 and $1000 represent 39.2 percent of the market. [10]
    The top four manufacturers of mattresses and foundations operate 
about one-half of the 639 U.S. establishments producing these products. 
The remainder of the establishments are operated by smaller firms. 
According to the Statistics of U.S. Businesses Census Bureau data for 
2001, there were 557 mattress firms operating these 639 establishments. 
According to the same data source, all but twelve mattress firms had 
less than 500 employees. If one considers a firm with fewer than 500 
employees to be a small business, then 97.8 percent (557-12/557) of all 
mattress firms are small businesses. [9&10] The potential impact of the 
proposed standard on these small businesses is discussed in section M 
of this document.

D. Risk of Injury

    Annual estimates of national fires and fire losses involving 
ignition of a mattress or bedding 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. The most recent national fire loss 
estimates indicated that mattresses and bedding were the first items to 
ignite in 19,400 residential fires attended by the fire service 
annually during 1995-1999. These fires resulted in 440 deaths, 2,230 
injuries and $273.9 million in property loss each year. Of these, the 
staff considers an estimated 18,500 fires, 440 deaths, 2,160 injuries, 
and $259.5 million property loss annually to be addressable by the 
proposed standard. Addressable means the incidents were of a type that 
would be affected by the proposed standard solely based on the 
characteristics of the fire cause (i.e., a fire that ignited a mattress 
or that ignited bedclothes which in turn ignited the mattress). For 
example, an incident that involved burning bedclothes and occurred in a 
laundry room would not be considered addressable. [3]
    Among the addressable casualties, open flame fires accounted for 
about 140 deaths (32 percent) and 1,050 injuries (49 percent) annually. 
Smoking fires accounted for 210 deaths (48 percent) and about 640 
injuries (30 percent) annually. Children younger than age 15 accounted 
for an estimated 120 addressable deaths (27 percent) and 500 
addressable injuries (23 percent) annually. Adults age 65 and older 
accounted for an estimated 120 addressable deaths (27 percent) and 250 
addressable injuries (12 percent) annually. [3]

E. NIST Research

    Overview. NIST has conducted extensive research on mattress/bedding 
fires for SPSC and the Commission. SPSC sponsored several phases of 
research at NIST to gain an understanding of the complex fire scenario 
involving mattresses and to develop an effective test method to 
evaluate a mattress's performance when it is exposed to an open flame 
ignition source. The first phase of the research program, known as 
Flammability Assessment Methodology for Mattresses, involved four main 
objectives: (1) Evaluating the behavior of various combinations of 
bedclothes, (2) characterizing the heat impact imposed on a mattress by 
bedclothes, (3) developing burners to simulate burning bedclothes, and 
(4) testing the burners on different mattress designs to ensure their 
consistency. NIST's findings, published in NISTIR 6498, established the 
basis for an appropriate test method and the next phase of the research 
program. [2] \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NIST publications can be found at NIST's Web site, (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phase 2 of the NIST research focused on (1) analyzing the hazard by 
estimating the peak rate of heat release from a mattress with an 
improved design, (2) measuring a burning mattress's ability to involve 
nearby items in the room, and (3) assessing (in a limited way) 
bedclothes and their contribution to mattress fire hazards. This 
testing used mattresses with improved flammability properties while the 
flammability properties of bedclothes remained unchanged. [2] The 
findings from Phase 2 are detailed in NIST Technical Note 1446, 
Estimating Reduced Fire Risk Resulting from an Improved Mattress 
Flammability Standard.
    Bedclothes. During phase 2, NIST conducted tests on twin and king 
size mattresses with corresponding size bedclothes. In some tests, the 
bedclothes contributed up to 400 kW to the fire. NIST had previously 
estimated that a heat release rate that may cause flashover for an 
ordinary sized room is about 1000 kW. Thus, a mattress that contributes 
more than 500 kW at the same time as bedclothes are contributing 400 kW 
could lead to flashover. NIST conducted additional tests concerning 
bedclothes for CPSC, which are discussed later in this section. [2]
    Other objects in the same room. Part of the NIST study assessed the 
potential of a bed fire to ignite other objects in the same room. Other 
objects become involved by either direct flame impingement or by fire 
generated radiation. Although the location of objects in a bedroom is 
highly variable, their potential involvement is significantly 
influenced by their shape and properties relating to ease of ignition. 
NIST concluded from this research that further reducing the heat 
release rate from the bed could reduce the potential for ignition of 
other objects and therefore reduce their contribution to the overall 
heat release rate. [2]
    Modeling. NIST used fire modeling to explore the effect that heat 
and toxic gases from bed fires can have throughout a home. Fire 
modeling is an analytical tool that uses mathematical calculations to 
predict real-world fire behavior. NIST used this modeling to 
corroborate test data exploring the predicted levels of heat and toxic 
gases for the room of origin and outside the room of origin. The 
modeling suggested that untenable fire conditions would occur within 
the room, with little difference between a small and large room, at 10 
minutes and 25 MJ. [2]
    Gas burners' correspondence to bedclothes. In addition to the 
research discussed above, NIST conducted separate studies for CPSC. One 
series of tests evaluated improved mattress designs and further 
supported the correlation between full scale mattress tests with the 
NIST gas burners and actual bedclothes. The study, NISTIR 7006-
Flammability Test of Full-Scale Mattresses: Gas Burners Versus Burning 
Bedclothes, found that mattress designs showing good performance when 
tested with burners also exhibited significantly improved performance 
when tested with burning bedclothes. [2]
    Interaction between mattresses and bedclothes. NIST's work for CPSC 
also reinforced observations from previous NIST research on the 
interaction between the mattress and bedclothes. NISTIR 7006. Tests on 
improved mattress designs with burning bedclothes as the ignition 
source tend to have two distinct heat release rate peaks. The first 
peak is predominantly

[[Page 2473]]

from the burning bedclothes, while the second is predominantly from the 
mattress and foundation. In tests of good performing mattress designs, 
NIST found the second peak (i.e., from the mattress/foundation) to be 
comparable or lower than the first peak (i.e., from the bedclothes) and 
to occur appreciably later. [2]
    Mattress size. In another study conducted by NIST in 2004 for CPSC, 
NIST found that a twin size mattress made in a design that yields a 
very low peak heat release rate (less than 50 kW) tested with gas 
burners behaves essentially the same as a queen or king size mattress 
of the same design. Mattress designs that yield a moderate heat release 
rate peak (greater than 100 kW, but less than 200 kW) tend to behave 
the same for the first 30 minutes in twin size and king size. After 
ignition with the burners, the fire is localized (i.e., its spread is 
limited) and is not affected by the mattress size. [2]
    NIST evaluated the same mattress designs and sizes with burning 
bedclothes. NIST found the mattress size to have an apparent effect 
during these tests due to the differences in the size and fuel load of 
bedclothes. In tests of ``well performing'' mattress designs with 
burning bedclothes, the early heat release rate peak when testing a 
king size mattress was triple that when testing a twin size mattress. 
This was driven by the burning bedclothes. Mattress designs that showed 
a moderate heat release rate peak when tested with gas burners resulted 
in more serious fires when tested with burning bedclothes, especially 
in king size mattresses. [2]

F. Existing Open Flame Standards

    In the mattress ANPR the staff reviewed 13 existing tests or 
standards relevant to open flame hazards associated with mattresses/
bedding. These included Technical Bulletin (``TB'') 129, TB 121, and TB 
117 from California, the Michigan Roll-up Test, and Boston Fire 
Department (``BFD'') 1X-11, as well as standards from ASTM 
International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) 
(ASTM E-1474 and ASTM E-1590), Underwriters Laboratories (UL 1895 and 
UL 2060), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 264A and NFPA 
267) and the United Kingdom (British Standard (``BS'') 6807 and BS 
5852). 66 FR 51886.
    As directed by California Assembly Bill 603, California's Bureau of 
Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (``CBHF'') adopted Technical 
Bulletin 603 (``TB 603''), an open flame fire standard for mattresses 
and mattress/box spring sets and futons. TB 603 is expected to go into 
effect January 1, 2005 and applies to items manufactured for sale in 
California. The California standard incorporates the same test 
methodology as the Commission's proposed standard. Both are based on 
testing and research conducted at NIST. Both TB 603 and the 
Commission's proposed standard require that mattresses not exceed a 200 
kW peak heat release rate during the 30 minute test. However, the 
Commission's proposed standard requires that mattresses not exceed a 
total heat release of 15 MJ in the first ten minutes of the test, while 
TB 603 sets test criteria of 25 MJ in the first 10 minutes of the test.
    The Commission believes that the research NIST has conducted, 
discussed above, establishes the most appropriate basis for an open 
flame mattress standard. Several comments on the ANPR also expressed 
this view (see section J of this document).

G. The Proposed Standard

1. General

    The proposed standard sets forth performance requirements that each 
mattress/set must meet before being introduced into commerce. The test 
method is a full scale test based on the NIST research discussed above. 
The mattress specimen (a mattress or mattress and foundation set, 
usually in a twin size) is exposed to a pair of T shaped propane 
burners and allowed to burn freely for a period of 30 minutes. The 
burners were designed to represent burning bedclothes. Measurements are 
taken of the heat release rate from the specimen and energy generated 
from the fire. The proposed standard establishes two test criteria, 
both of which the mattress/set must meet in order to comply with the 
standard: (1) The peak rate of heat release for the mattress/foundation 
set must not exceed 200 kW at any time during the 30 minute test; and 
(2) The total heat release must not exceed 15 MJ for the first 10 
minutes of the test.

2. Scope

    The proposed standard applies to mattresses and mattress and 
foundation combinations sold as sets. Mattress is defined, as it is in 
the existing mattress standard at 16 CFR 1632, as ``a resilient 
material or combination of materials enclosed by a ticking (used alone 
or in combination with other products) intended or promoted for 
sleeping upon.'' The proposed standard lists several types of 
mattresses that are included in this definition (e.g., futons, crib 
mattresses, youth mattresses). It also refers to a glossary of terms 
where these items are further defined.
    Specifically excluded from the definition of mattress are mattress 
pads, pillows and other top of the mattress items, upholstered 
furniture which does not contain a mattress, and juvenile or other 
product pads. Mattress pads and other top of the bed items may be 
addressed in the Commission's rulemaking on bedclothes.
    Like the Commission's existing mattress standard, the proposed 
standard allows an exemption for one-of-a-kind mattresses and 
foundations if they are manufactured to fulfill a physician's written 
prescription or manufactured in accordance with comparable medical 
therapeutic specifications.

3. Test Method

    The proposed standard uses the full scale test method developed by 
NIST in the course of its research. Based on the NIST work, the 
Commission believes that a full scale test is necessary because of the 
complexities of mattress construction. Testing individual components 
will not necessarily reveal the likely fire performance of the complete 
mattress.
    Under the proposed standard, the specimen (a mattress and 
corresponding foundation if they are to be offered for sale together as 
a set) is exposed to a pair of T-shaped gas burners. The specimen is to 
be no smaller than twin size, unless the largest size mattress or set 
produced of that type is smaller than twin size, in which case the 
largest size must be tested.
    The burners impose a specified local heat flux simultaneously to 
the top and side of the mattress/set for a specified period of time (70 
seconds for the top burner and 50 seconds for the side burner). The 
burners were designed to represent the local heat flux imposed on a 
mattress by burning bedclothes. The heat flux and burner duration were 
derived from data obtained from burning a wide range of bedding items. 
As discussed above, NIST test results using the burners have been shown 
to correlate with results obtained with bedclothes.
    The proposed standard allows the test to be conducted either in an 
open calorimeter or test room configuration. Tests have shown that 
either configuration is acceptable. Although room effects (i.e., the 
size and characteristics of the room) can be a factor in mattress 
flammability performance, test data show that room effects do not 
become an issue until a fire reaches about 300 to 400 kW.

[[Page 2474]]

Because the proposed standard limits the peak rate of heat release to 
200 kW, room effects should not be an issue in the test. Preliminary 
analysis of data from the inter-laboratory study (discussed in section 
I) does not suggest any significant differences between tests based on 
either test configuration. The NIST test method allowed a third test 
configuration, essentially a smaller test room than described in the 
proposed standard. However, in addition to safety concerns, using the 
burners in the smaller size room is awkward. Only one laboratory in the 
country uses this configuration. Therefore, the Commission decided to 
propose only the two configurations.

4. Test Criteria

    The proposed standard establishes two test criteria that the 
specimen must meet to pass the test. The peak rate of heat release must 
not exceed 200 kW at any time during the 30 minute test, and the total 
heat release must not exceed 15 MJ during the first 10 minutes of the 
test. [2&8]
    Setting the peak rate of heat release limit at 200 kW (during the 
30 minute test) ensures a less flammable mattress, reducing the 
contribution from the mattress, while taking into account that 
bedclothes and other room contents are likely to contribute to the 
fire. Numerous technologically feasible mattress designs are available 
that can meet the 200 kW criterion. Limiting the peak rate of heat 
release represents a significant improvement in performance compared to 
the 16 CFR part 1632 cigarette ignition standard for mattresses and 
will have the most impact on available escape time. A peak rate of heat 
release lower than 200 kW could limit the mattress design approaches 
that would meet the standard, thus increasing costs. [2&8] We note that 
California's TB 603 also prescribes a 200 kW peak rate of heat release.
    The proposed standard requires that the total heat release in the 
first 10 minutes of the test must not exceed 15 MJ. This early limit 
ensures that the mattress will have little involvement in the fire 
initially and provides a substantial increase in escape time by slowing 
the rate of fire growth and severity. The mattress's initial 
performance is important because if the mattress becomes significantly 
involved in the early stages of the fire, this will greatly limit the 
time a person has to escape. [2]
    The proposed 15 MJ limit in the first 10 minutes takes into account 
that bedclothes, and possibly other items, will be burning during this 
initial period and will contribute significantly to the fire. The 
Commission believes that the types of ticking (i.e, the outermost 
fabric or material that covers the mattress) currently used on 
mattresses can continue to be used with the 15 MJ/10 minute criteria. 
[2] This will allow manufacturers considerable flexibility in their 
mattress designs because they should be able to change tickings without 
affecting the mattresses performance under the test method, except in 
the unusual case where the ticking itself is part of the fire 
resistance design.
    California's TB 603 prescribes a 25 MJ limit in the first 10 
minutes of the test. However, NIST research, supported by fire 
modeling, has shown that untenable fire conditions can occur in a room 
from a fire producing 25 MJ in the first 10 minutes of a test. This 
represents the total contribution from all possibly involved items. 
That is, a fire that reaches a size of 25 MJ within 10 minutes could 
limit a person's ability to escape the room. According to the mattress 
industry and available test data, there are numerous technologically 
feasible approaches to mattress designs for meeting the proposed 15 MJ 
/first 10 minute limit. [2]
    The 30 minute test duration is related to, but not equivalent to, 
the estimated time required to permit discovery of the fire and allow 
escape under typical fire scenarios. A mattress complying with the 
proposed criteria under the 30 minute test is estimated to provide an 
adequate time for discovery of and escape from the fire under certain 
conditions or assuming the bedclothes do not contribute to the extent 
of posing a hazardous condition early in the fire. Compared to current 
scenarios, this is a substantial increase in estimated escape time. The 
effectiveness of the estimated escape time is based on timely escape 
from the potentially hazardous conditions. [2&3]
    Multiple test results indicate that a large number of mattress 
designs (using a range of fire retardant barrier technologies) can 
perform well in tests with gas burners for 30 minutes. Many of the 
tested designs are able to meet the proposed test criteria for 30 
minutes, but perform erratically after 30 minutes. The number of 
failures, test variability, and performance unreliability increases 
after 30 minutes. A substantial range of technologically feasible and 
viable solutions and design choices exist that meet the proposed test 
criteria for 30 minutes. [2] We note that California's TB 603 also 
includes a 30 minute test duration.
    The Commission considered proposing a 60 minute test duration. 
However, as discussed above, after 30 minutes, test variability 
increases, costs increase, and substantially fewer technologically 
feasible design approaches are available to meet the test. Most 
importantly, it is unclear from available data that much additional 
benefit would accrue with a 60 minute test.

5. Prototype Testing

    The proposed standard requires, with certain exceptions, that 
mattress manufacturers must test specimens representative of their 
mattress/set prototype (design) before introducing a mattress/set into 
commerce. Mattresses then produced based on the prototype mattress must 
be identical in all material aspects of their components, materials, 
and method of construction to the prototype. The term ``manufacturer'' 
is defined as ``an individual plant or factory at which mattresses and/
or mattress and foundation sets are manufactured or assembled.'' The 
definition includes importers. As in the existing mattress standard (16 
CFR part 1632), this definition refers to the establishment where the 
mattress is produced or assembled, not the company. Thus, the plant or 
factory producing or assembling the mattress/set is required to conduct 
prototype testing. This is also true for importers. However, there are 
three exceptions to this requirement.
    A manufacturer is allowed to sell a mattress/set based on a 
prototype that has not been tested if the prototype differs from a 
qualified prototype (one that has been tested and meets the criteria) 
only with respect to: (1) The mattress/foundation size (e.g twin, 
queen, king etc.); (2) the ticking, unless the qualified ticking has 
characteristics that are designed to improve the mattress's test 
performance; and/or (3) any other component, material or method of 
construction, provided that the manufacturer can show, on an 
objectively reasonable basis, that such change will not cause the 
prototype to exceed the specified test criteria. The third numbered 
option allows a manufacturer to construct and test a ``worst case'' 
prototype and rely on it to cover a range of related designs without 
having to perform additional testing. If a manufacturer chooses to take 
this approach, he/she must maintain records documenting that the 
change(s) will not cause the prototype to exceed the test criteria (see 
Sec.  1633.11(b)(4) of the proposed rule).
    When conducting prototype testing, the manufacturer must test a 
minimum of three specimens of the prototype in accordance with the test 
method

[[Page 2475]]

described, and all of the mattresses/sets must meet both of the test 
criteria discussed above. If any one prototype specimen that the 
manufacturer tests fails the specified criteria, the prototype is not 
qualified (even if the manufacturer chooses to test more than three 
specimens).
    The Commission believes that three specimens is the appropriate 
minimum number for testing. Numerous research studies have typically 
used replicates of three for tests using the developed gas burners. 
This is also the number industry has generally used as it has 
researched and developed options for meeting the requirements of 
California's TB 603. Preliminary analysis of the inter-laboratory study 
also indicates that three replicates are appropriate to accurately 
characterize mattress performance. [2] Moreover, because small changes 
in mattresses' construction or components can affect their 
flammability, testing more than one mattress will provide a better 
indication of their performance. [1]

6. Pooling

    The proposed standard allows for one or more manufacturers to rely 
on a given prototype. Under this approach, one manufacturer would 
conduct (or cause to be conducted) the full prototype testing required 
(testing three prototype specimens), obtaining passing results, and the 
other manufacturer(s) may then produce mattresses/sets represented by 
that prototype so long as they conduct one confirming test on a 
specimen they produce. If the mattress/set fails the confirming test, 
the manufacturer must take corrective measures, and then perform a new 
confirmation test that must meet the test criteria. If a confirmation 
test specimen fails to meet the test criteria, the manufacturer of that 
specimen must also notify the manufacturer of the pooled prototype 
about the test failure. Pooling may be used by two or more plants 
within the same firm or by two or more independent firms. As discussed 
in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, pooling should reduce 
testing costs for smaller companies. Once they have conducted a 
successful confirmation test, pooling firms can produce mattresses 
based on a pooled prototype and may continue to do as long as any 
changes to the mattresses based on the pooled prototype are limited to 
the three discussed above: (1) Size of the mattress/foundation; (2) the 
ticking, unless the qualified ticking has characteristics that are 
designed to improve the mattress's test performance, and/or (3) any 
component, material or method of construction that the manufacturer can 
show (on an objectively reasonable basis) will not cause the prototype 
to exceed the specified test criteria.

7. Quality Assurance Requirements

    Research and testing indicates that small variations in 
construction of a mattress/set (e.g. missed stitching around the side 
of the mattress) can affect the fire performance of a mattress. 
Therefore, the proposed standard contains strict requirements for 
quality assurance. Each manufacturer must implement a quality assurance 
program to ensure that the mattresses/sets it produces are identical in 
all material respects to the prototype on which they are based. This 
means that at a minimum, manufacturers must: (1) Have controls in place 
on components and materials to ensure that they are identical to those 
used in the prototype; (2) designate a production lot that is 
represented by the prototype; and (3) inspect mattresses/sets produced 
for sale. The Commission is not requiring manufacturers to conduct 
testing of production mattresses. However, the Commission recognizes 
the value of such testing as part of a quality assurance program. 
Therefore, the Commission encourages manufacturers to conduct random 
testing of mattresses/sets that are produced for sale.

8. Recordkeeping

    The proposed standard requires manufacturers to maintain certain 
records to document compliance with the standard. This includes records 
concerning prototype testing, pooling and confirmation testing, and 
quality assurance procedures and any associated testing. The required 
records must be maintained for as long as mattresses/sets based on the 
prototype are in production and must be retained for three years 
thereafter.
    The purpose of these recordkeeping requirements is to enable 
manufacturers to keep track of materials, construction methods and 
testing. Thus, if a manufacturer produced a mattress/set that failed to 
meet the test criteria, he/she should be able to use the records to 
determine the prototype on which the failing mattress was based, as 
well as the components and method of construction that were used. This 
information would help the manufacturer correct the problem that caused 
the mattress to fail the test criteria.

9. Other Requirements: Labeling, One of a Kind Exemption, and Policy on 
Renovation of Mattresses

    Under the proposed standard, each mattress/set must bear a 
permanent label stating the name and location of the manufacturer, the 
month and year of manufacture, the model identification, prototype 
identification number, and a certification that the mattress complies 
with the standard. By placing the certification on the mattress, the 
manufacturer is attesting that the specific mattress would comply with 
the test criteria if tested.
    The proposed standard allows an exemption for a one-of-a-kind 
mattress/set if it is manufactured in response to a physician's written 
prescription or manufactured in accordance with comparable medical 
therapeutic specifications.
    Subpart C of the proposed standard restates the policy 
clarification on renovation of mattresses that is in Subpart C of the 
existing mattress standard (16 CFR Part 1632). The policy statement 
informs the public that mattresses renovated for sale are considered by 
the Commission to be newly manufactured for purposes of the 
requirements of the proposed standard.

H. Effectiveness Evaluation

    To determine the potential effectiveness of the proposed standard, 
CPSC staff conducted an effectiveness evaluation, focusing primarily on 
reduction of deaths and injuries. The staff's analysis is explained in 
detail in the memorandum ``Residential Fires Involving Mattresses and 
Bedding.'' [3] The evaluation was based primarily on review of CPSC 
investigation reports that provided details of the occupants' 
situations and actions during the fire. Staff reviewers identified 
criteria that affected the occupants' ability to escape the fires they 
had experienced. The staff used these criteria to estimate percentage 
reductions in deaths and injuries expected to occur under the much less 
severe fire conditions anticipated with improved designs of mattresses 
that would comply with the proposed standard. The staff then applied 
these estimated reductions to national estimates of mattress/bedding 
fire deaths and injuries to estimate numbers of deaths and injuries 
that could be prevented with the proposed standard. [3]
    As stated in section D of this document, the most recent national 
fire loss estimates indicated that mattresses and bedding were the 
first items to ignite in 19,400 residential fires attended by the fire 
service annually

[[Page 2476]]

during 1995--1999. These fires resulted in 440 deaths, 2,230 injuries 
and $273.9 million in property loss each year. Of these, the staff 
considers an estimated 18,500 fires, 440 deaths, 2,160 injuries, and 
$259.5 million property loss annually to be addressable by the proposed 
standard (i.e., of the type that the proposed standard could affect 
based on the characteristics of the fire). [3]
    Overall, CPSC staff estimates that the proposed standard may be 
expected to prevent 80 to 86 percent of the deaths and 86 to 92 percent 
of the injuries presently occurring in addressable mattress/bedding 
fires attended by the fire service. Applying these percentage 
reductions to 1998-2002 estimates of addressable mattress/bedding fire 
losses, staff estimates potential reductions of 310 to 330 deaths and 
1,660 to 1,780 injuries annually in fires attended by the fire service 
when all existing mattresses have been replaced with mattresses meeting 
the new standard. There may also be reductions in property damage 
resulting from the proposed standard, but data are not sufficient for 
the staff to quantify this impact. [3]

I. Inter-Laboratory Study

    An inter-laboratory study was conducted with the support of the 
SPSC, NIST, and participating laboratories to explore the sensitivity, 
repeatability, and reproducibility of the NIST test method. All of the 
participating labs conducted multiple tests of eight different mattress 
designs. The mattress designs varied critical elements (e.g., the 
barrier--sheet or high-loft, the type of mattress--single or double-
sided) and the style of mattress (e.g., tight or pillow top). [2]
    Preliminary analysis of the data does not suggest either 
unreasonable sensitivities (i.e., significantly different test results 
when minor variations in test procedure are made) or practical 
limitations in the test protocol. The preliminary analysis suggests 
that some mattress designs perform more consistently than others. The 
type of barrier appears to have a significant impact on the performance 
and repeatability of performance of all mattress designs tested. 
However, the uniformity of other components and the manufacturing 
process can also affect the variability in fire performance. [2]
    The inter-lab tests also appear to confirm earlier observations 
that mattresses constructed with currently available barrier 
technologies are able to limit the fire severity for a substantial but 
not indefinite time. Most of the tested mattress designs could meet the 
proposed requirements if the test ended at 30 minutes, but appeared to 
perform erratically after 30 minutes. [2]
    The preliminary analysis, supported by earlier data, suggests that 
significant variability exists among currently available mattress 
designs. Although products appear to be moving toward consistency, 
manufacturers clearly need to control components, materials, and 
methods of construction. Thus, quality assurance measures, as required 
in the proposed rule, are important. [2]
    The inter-lab study was only recently completed, and the discussion 
above is based on the staff's preliminary analysis of the results. A 
final report on the inter-lab study is expected by the end of 2004 and 
will be available to the public.

J. Response to Comments On the ANPR

    On October 11, 2001, the Commission published an ANPR in the 
Federal Register. 66 FR 51886. During the comment period, the 
Commission received sixteen written comments from businesses, 
associations and interested parties representing various segments of 
the mattress and bedding industries. After the close of the comment 
period, the Commission received a number of additional comments, 
including one from the California Bureau of Home Furnishings and 
Thermal Insulation urging the Commission to adopt California's TB 603 
as a federal standard. Significant issues raised by all of these 
comments are discussed below. [14&15]

Mattress Comments

    1. Comment. Commenters agree that the hazards associated with 
mattress fires appear to be clearly identified. All of the commenters 
support the need for an open flame standard for mattresses and 
initiation of federal rulemaking.
    Response. CPSC agrees that mattress and bedding fires continue to 
be one of the major contributors to residential fire deaths and 
civilian injuries among products within CPSC's jurisdiction. The most 
recent national fire loss estimates indicate that mattresses and 
bedding were the first items to ignite in 19,400 residential fires 
attended by the fire service annually during 1995--1999. These fires 
resulted in an estimated 440 deaths, 2,230 injuries, and $273.9 million 
property loss annually. In these fires, the bedclothes are most 
frequently ignited by a small open flame source. The burning bedding 
then creates a large open-flame source igniting the mattress and 
creating dangerous flashover conditions, the point when the entire room 
and its contents are ignited simultaneously by radiant heat.
    The proposed standard is designed to address the identified hazard 
of flashover resulting from open flame ignition of mattresses, usually 
from burning bedclothes. Under the proposed standard, mattresses and 
mattress/sets are exposed to gas burners, simulating burning 
bedclothes. Mattresses are required to meet two performance criteria 
that minimize the possibility of or delay flashover for a period of 
time. Mattresses must not exceed 200 kW peak heat release rate during 
the 30 minute test, and the total heat released must be less than 15 MJ 
for the first 10 minutes of the test.
    2. Comment. Most commenters endorsed the direction of the mattress 
flammability test development research underway at NIST and encouraged 
the CPSC to issue a technologically practicable, reasonable standard. 
More recent commenters suggest California TB 603 be adopted as the 
federal standard.
    Response. CPSC agrees with the technical approach suggested by the 
NIST research. A majority of the commenters agreed that preventing 
flashover from mattress fires would appropriately address the risk and 
that a full scale test with an ignition source comparable to burning 
bedclothes could achieve that objective. They strongly supported the 
NIST approach and discouraged the adoption of any existing standards.
    Before California's adoption of TB 603, one commenter suggested 
using a modification of the small-scale British test, BS 5852, for 
smoldering and flaming ignition of upholstered furniture seating 
composites. However, a full-scale rather than small-scale test is 
generally considered the most reliable method for measuring performance 
of a product that contains many materials in a complex construction, 
such as a mattress. NIST research confirmed that a full-scale test of 
the mattress was needed to measure its performance when exposed to 
burning bedclothes or the representative set of gas burners. NIST's 
comprehensive, scientifically based research program was designed to 
address the open-flame ignition of mattresses and bedclothes under 
controlled conditions closely resembling those of real-life fire 
scenarios. The program focused on understanding the dynamics of fires 
involving mattress and bedclothing assemblies and on developing an 
appropriate and technologically practicable methodology to effectively 
measure the hazard.
    NIST subsequently prepared a test method which the state of 
California incorporated into their TB 603,

[[Page 2477]]

``Requirements and Test Procedure for Resistance of a Mattress/Box 
Spring Set to a Large Open-Flame'' in 2004. The proposed standard is 
also based on the test method developed by NIST. Research on mattress 
and bedclothes fires conducted by NIST for CPSC and the industry 
provides the basis for the test criteria specified in the proposed 
standard. Manufacturers and suppliers have demonstrated that mattress 
designs complying with these performance criteria and suitable for the 
residential market can be produced.
    3. Comment. One commenter requested the exclusion of certain 
product categories, such as mattresses used for therapeutic reasons and 
in healthcare environments, from an open flame standard.
    Response. The proposed standard includes all mattresses, including 
those used in or as part of upholstered furniture items. ``One-of-a-
kind'' mattresses and foundations are defined as physician prescribed 
mattresses to be used in connection with the treatment or management of 
a named individual's physical illness or injury. These products may be 
exempted from testing under the proposed standard in accordance with 
the rules established by the Commission. The proposed standard requires 
them to be permanently labeled with a warning statement indicating that 
the mattress and foundation have not been tested under the standard and 
may be subject to a large fire if exposed to an open flame.
    4. Comment. In October 2003 the California Bureau of Home 
Furnishings (CBHF) urged the Commission to adopt their new standard, TB 
603. Subsequently, a number of commenters expressed written support for 
adopting the TB 603 test methodology and performance criteria.
    CBHF claimed that harmonization of California and federal standards 
would avoid a number of potential problems. They noted potential 
problems such as possible federal preemption and negative impacts on 
interstate commerce. Since TB 603 is a newly developed methodology, 
CBHF suggested that an inter-laboratory study be conducted before a 
potential adoption of TB 603 by CPSC. They noted that data obtained 
from an inter-laboratory study would verify the credibility of the test 
method.
    Response. An inter-laboratory study was conducted with the support 
of SPSC, NIST, CBHF, and other participating laboratories to collect 
additional data and confirm the test protocol developed by NIST. A 
number of laboratories participated in the study to evaluate 
sensitivity, repeatability, and reproducibility of the test protocol. 
While the final report is not yet available, preliminary analysis of 
the data does not suggest either unreasonable sensitivities or 
practical limitations in the test protocol.
    The Commission's proposed standard is similar to California's TB 
603. The proposed standard and TB 603 use the same test method and 
limit the peak rate of heat release of a mattress or mattress/
foundation to 200 kW. TB 603 also limits the size of the fire produced 
in the first 10 minutes of the test to 25 MJ. According to NIST 
research, untenable fire conditions could occur in a room from a fire 
of this size. Unlike TB 603, the staff's draft proposed standard 
requires that the mattress contribute no more than 15 MJ to the early 
fire scenario. This ensures that the mattress will have little 
involvement in the fire for the specified period of time. This lower 
limit partially compensates for the contribution of an uncertain 
combination of burning bedclothes on the bed, helping to preserve 
tenable conditions for egress.
    5. Comment. Two commenters recognize the sophistication and 
complexity of the test method used in California TB 603 and potentially 
in a federal standard. They suggest that CPSC explore laboratory 
accreditation programs to insure test labs are properly qualified to 
conduct this complex test.
    Response. The interlaboratory study may identify laboratory 
practices, equipment, and other related factors that must be controlled 
to ensure consistent and accurate test results. The report and findings 
of the study will be available to the public; and appropriate guidance 
can be provided to interested laboratories. While accrediting test 
laboratories is not a CPSC function, the Commission supports industry 
and commercial laboratory development of such a program.
    6. Comment. A commenter expressed concerns about environmental 
impact and consumer sensitivity to flame retardants that may be used in 
mattresses, whether topically applied or integrated into fibers. The 
commenter recommends requiring a label that discloses the use of flame 
retardants in the mattress and provides a source of more specific 
information.
    Response. Mattress fire performance can be improved by 
incorporating fire retardant chemicals into component materials or by 
using materials that are inherently fire resistant. Flame retardant 
chemicals are already widely used in other applications. More than one 
billion pounds of different flame retardant chemicals are currently 
used annually in the United States, including applications in many 
consumer products. There are also flame resistant (FR) materials that 
may be used for mattress barriers that have other consumer product 
applications. For example, melamine resins, which can be used in FR 
barriers, are also used in many laminated counter tops.
    Based on available data, the Commission believes that there are 
available options for meeting the standard without posing an 
unacceptable health risk to consumers or significantly affecting the 
environment. Moreover, as described in section N of this preamble, even 
if a method used by some manufacturers to meet the standard were 
suspected of posing an unacceptable risk, there would be regulatory and 
other mechanisms that can be used to control that particular method. 
The staff is planning to conduct migration and exposure studies on 
various FR chemicals that could be used to meet the standard.
    The commenter suggested labeling of chemically treated components 
as a possible requirement of the standard, to inform consumers of the 
materials used. The Commission questions whether such information would 
be of practical value to consumers. Simply stating that a mattress 
component has been chemically treated does not indicate to the consumer 
whether the mattress poses any health risk or not. The proposed 
standard requires manufacturers to maintain records specifying details 
of all materials, including flame retardant treatments applied and 
inherently flame resistant materials, used in each mattress design 
(prototype). This will allow identification of relevant mattresses and 
mattress/sets if an unacceptable risk is identified.
    7. Comment. Another commenter recommended test provisions in the 
standard that address the long term durability of the flame retardant 
chemicals used in mattresses to ensure they continue to meet the fire 
performance requirements.
    Response. It is expected that most manufacturers will use some kind 
of flame resistant barrier material to protect the mattress components 
with the greatest combustible fuel load from exposure to an open flame. 
Flame resistant barriers for mattresses may take several forms, 
including ticking fabrics, woven and non-woven interlinings, and 
battings. It is likely that these barriers will be made with an 
inherently flame resistant fiber (e.g., para-aramid or fiberglass) or 
by treatment with flame retardant chemicals, many of which are 
incorporated within the fiber, foam, or

[[Page 2478]]

other material. At this point in the development of technologies that 
may be used to meet TB 603 or the proposed standard, the staff has seen 
no evidence that suggests that changes in these materials over time 
will occur or affect fire performance.
    8. Comment. One commenter expressed concerns about the potentially 
severe economic impact of a federal regulation, similar to TB 603, on 
small businesses.
    Response. The Commission acknowledges that the cost of testing, 
record keeping, and quality control/quality assurance programs could be 
disproportionately higher for small businesses. While these costs are 
estimated to be a little over one dollar per mattress per year for 
average-sized establishments, they could be substantially higher for 
some small mattress producers. The proposed standard, however, allows 
manufacturers to pool their prototype qualification and testing, and 
thus these costs can be mitigated. Moreover, if manufacturers produce 
mattress/set constructions for longer than a year or use a worst-case 
prototype to represent other mattress constructions, these costs will 
be lower. It is also expected that some barrier suppliers or 
independent laboratories would be willing to do the testing and quality 
control/assurance programs for small producers in exchange for a small 
charge. Therefore, the proposed standard is expected to minimize the 
impact on small businesses, while maintaining the benefits resulting 
from the standard.
    The Commission is requesting comments from small businesses on the 
expected economic impact of the requirements of the proposed standard 
and the proposed effective date of 12 months after publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register.
    9. Comment. One commenter reported that some juvenile or crib 
mattresses, while meeting the 200 kW peak rate of heat release 
requirement, produce large amounts of flaming droplets that have the 
potential for spreading flames beyond the mattress. TB 603 does not 
address these flaming droplets.
    Response. The objective of the proposed standard is to reduce the 
size of mattress/bedding fires and, thereby reduce the likelihood of or 
delay the development of flashover conditions in the room. Based on 
research conducted by NIST, performance criteria were developed to 
limit the size of the mattress fire and reduce the likelihood of it 
involving other objects in the room. The Commission believes that, 
while the proposed standard may be less effective in isolated 
circumstances, the objective of the standard can be met with the 
performance criteria specified: maximum 200 kW peak heat release rate 
during the 30-minute test and maximum 15 MJ total heat release in the 
first 10 minutes of the test. Laboratory tests of currently marketed 
crib mattresses of which the Commission is aware show unacceptable 
performance in one or both of these fire performance measures. Like 
full-size mattresses, these crib mattresses would also need to be 
improved to meet the requirements of the proposed standard.
    10. Comment. One commenter suggested that a 60-minute test duration 
is needed in the standard to allow for fire and rescue workers to 
respond and help occupants escape.
    The commenter notes that the longer test time will allow emergency 
responders to assist vulnerable citizens to escape fires involving 
mattresses and bedding. They report that response times can vary widely 
among local circumstances, from approximately 16 minutes to an hour or 
more.
    Response. To estimate the proposed standard's potential 
effectiveness, the staff reviewed in-depth investigations that provided 
detailed information about fires that ignited mattresses and bedding, 
details of the occupants' situation, and occupants' actions during the 
fire. Most investigations also included documentation from the fire 
department that attended the fire. The in-depth investigations involved 
fires occurring during 1999-2004, and included a total of 195 deaths 
and 205 injuries. In some of these cases, even with traditional 
mattresses and bedding, other members of the household present at the 
time of the fire and emergency responders arriving within as little as 
5 minutes were able to rescue victims.
    With improved mattresses, those complying with the 30-minute test 
specified in the proposed standard, the fire growth is slowed 
considerably and flashover conditions are delayed, making successful 
rescue efforts of family members and emergency responders more likely. 
The Commission estimates that 310 to 330 deaths and 1,660 to 1,780 
injuries resulting from mattress and bedding fires could be prevented 
annually by the proposed standard. A maximum additional 80 deaths and 
280 injuries, considered addressable by the draft standard, might be 
further reduced with a 60-minute test. However, actual reductions would 
likely be much lower. This is because those considered likely to die or 
be injured in conditions associated with a proposed 30 minute test are 
those incapable of acting on their own and with no potential rescuer in 
the occupancy. Even with more time, in such circumstances, the fire 
continues to progress, and the chances of rescue are unpredictable.
    Based on the preliminary regulatory analysis, the expected benefits 
of the proposed standard, incorporating a 30-minute test, are greater 
than the costs. The regulatory analysis also considered alternatives to 
the proposed standard, including a 60-minute test; neither this nor the 
other alternatives was shown to increase expected net benefits.
    11. Comment. A few commenters expressed the need to maintain 
protection from the threat from cigarette ignitions while considering 
an open flame standard.
    Response. The standard that addresses cigarette ignition 
resistance, the Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and 
Mattress Pads, codified as 16 CFR part 1632, remains in effect unless 
it is modified or revoked by the Commission in a separate rulemaking 
proceeding. If such a rulemaking occurred, the Commission would 
thoroughly evaluate the need for maintaining both an open flame 
standard and the standard for cigarette ignition resistance.

Bedclothes Comments

    Comment. Most of the commenters refer to the impact of burning 
bedclothes on mattress/bedding fires and express opinions on the 
potential scope of an open flame mattress standard. Some commenters 
urge the Commission to limit the scope of a standard to mattresses 
while opposing commenters recommend that either the scope be expanded 
to incorporate bedclothes or bedclothes should have ignition standards 
of their own.
    Commenters in support of regulating bedclothes believe that 
studying the impact of burning bedclothes is appropriate and would 
assist in the development of better performing, safer products. They 
note that bedclothes contribute to the intensity and spread of the 
original ignition source often involved in mattress fires. Therefore, 
burning bedclothes become a significant ignition source to the mattress 
and impact the burning characteristics of the mattress and foundation. 
They further note that bedclothes alone have been shown to generate a 
fire large enough to pose a hazard and can alone be the cause of 
ignition to nearby items. According to these commenters, improving the 
flammability of certain bedding items, such as filled items, is 
economically feasible. One commenter claims that mattress fires cannot 
be adequately addressed without also

[[Page 2479]]

considering the flammability of bedclothes.
    In support of limiting the scope to mattresses and not regulating 
bedclothes, some commenters identify bedding items as an uncontrolled 
variable. They claim that there is no way to predict the type of 
bedclothes that may be involved in an incident at any given time; the 
number and type of items used by consumers is indefinable and consumers 
select items based on season, fashion, and climate. In addition, 
according to these commenters, there is no objective method to 
determine if consumers would use regulated bedclothes; there is little 
data to suggest that regulating some selected items will have an impact 
on the hazard; and flammability performance should not be based on what 
consumers may or may not use as bedclothes. These commenters also state 
that most U.S. textile manufacturers already voluntarily test for small 
open flame ignition of bedclothes using ASTM voluntary test methods. 
They assert that the additional burden and expense of any regulation on 
bedclothes would be substantial and could not be justified.
    Response. The Commission notes that bedclothes substantially 
contribute to the complexity and magnitude of the mattress fire hazard. 
In laboratory tests peak heat release rates as high as 800 kW were 
observed from some larger bedclothes items. This presents a clear risk 
of flashover; and this heat release rate is much higher than that 
allowed for a mattress/set in the proposed standard. The extent to 
which bedclothes can be modified in a manner that is technologically 
practicable and economically feasible is unclear at this time. However, 
reducing the contribution of certain high fuel load bedding items to a 
mattress/bedding fire is desirable. The Commission is issuing an ANPR 
for a bedclothes flammability standard. The Commission believes that 
such a standard could increase the likelihood that mattress/bedding 
fire losses are effectively reduced.

K. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission has preliminarily determined to issue a rule 
establishing a flammability standard addressing the open flame ignition 
of mattresses. 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 
Regulatory Analysis of a Draft Proposed Standard to Address Open-Flame 
Ignitions of Mattresses,'' addresses this requirement. [8]

1. Introduction

    There were an estimated 18,900 fires where the first item ignited 
was mattress/bedding in 1998 (the last year for which detailed data 
comparable to previous years are available). These fires caused an 
estimated 2,260 civilian injuries, 410 deaths, and $255.4 million in 
property losses. As discussed elsewhere in this document, NIST has 
conducted extensive research and developed a test methodology to test 
open flame ignition of mattresses.
    California Technical Bulletin (TB) 603, which is based on the use 
of NIST test burners designed to mimic the local thermal insult (heat 
flux levels and duration) imposed by burning bedclothes, is scheduled 
to become effective in California January 1, 2005. TB 603 requires all 
mattress/foundation sets, mattresses intended to be used without a 
foundation, and futons to meet the following pass/fail criteria: (1) 
The peak heat release rate (``PHRR'') does not exceed 200 kW during the 
30 minute test, and (2) the total heat release does not exceed 25 mega 
joules (MJ) in the first 10 minutes of the test.
    Large mattress manufacturers may eventually produce TB 603-
compliant mattresses for sale nationwide, because of legal liability 
and production logistics. In the short-run, however, some manufacturers 
may limit their sale of TB 603-complying mattresses to California. 
Sealy's president and CEO said that ``[they] plan to be ready by the 
end of this year [2004] if a national retailer wants the same product'' 
with fire resistant technology, but will not convert all production by 
January 2005 (Furniture Today, March, 10, 2004). Smaller producers are 
more likely to wait until they have a better idea of enforcement 
efforts in California, or until a federal standard is adopted. The 
mattress industry, represented by ISPA, supports the development of a 
mandatory federal standard (Furniture Today, May, 10, 2004). A Federal 
standard would eliminate the uncertainty that may result from having 
different flammability standards for different states.

2. The Proposed Standard: Scope and Testing Provisions

    The proposed standard will apply to all mattresses, where the term 
mattress means a ticking (i.e., an outer layer of fabric) filled with a 
resilient material used alone or in combination with other products 
intended or promoted for sleeping upon. This definition is discussed 
further in section G.2. above.
    A typical innerspring mattress construction might include ticking; 
binding tape fabric; quilt cushioning with one or more separate layers; 
quilt backing fabric; thread; cushioning with one or more separate 
layers; flanging; spring insulator pad; spring unit; and side (border) 
panels. Options for meeting the standard include the use of one or a 
combination of the following: fire resistant ticking; chemically 
treated or otherwise fire resistant filling products; or a fire 
blocking barrier (either a sheet style barrier, sometimes called a 
fabric barrier, or a high-loft barrier, sometimes called a fiber 
barrier). The fire blocking barrier is placed either directly between 
the exterior cover fabric of the product and the first layer of 
cushioning materials, or beneath one or more ``sacrificial'' layers 
that can burn without reaching the proposed heat release constraints.
    There are already over twenty different vendors of fire resistant 
materials associated with the production of mattresses, including 
barriers, ticking, foam, tape, and thread. These materials include 
chemically treated cotton, rayon, and/or polyester, melamine, 
modacrylic, fiberglass, aramid (Kevlar''), or some combination of them. 
The cost of using sheet barriers is higher than using high-loft 
barriers, since sheet barriers are thin and therefore could not be 
substituted for an existing foam or cushioning layer. There is also 
concern that some sheet barriers, unlike high-loft barriers, may reduce 
the comfort of the sleeping surface.
    To qualify a prototype, three mattresses/sets must be tested and 
must pass the test requirements. To obtain a passing result, each 
mattress/set must pass a 30 minute test, where the PHRR does not exceed 
200 kW and the total heat release does not exceed 15 MJ in the first 10 
minutes of the test. If any of the sets fail, the problem must be 
corrected, the prototype must be retested and pass the test (in 
triplicate). Manufacturers may sell any mattress/set based on a 
qualified prototype. Manufacturers may also sell a mattress/set based 
on a prototype that has not been tested if that prototype differs from 
a qualified prototype only with respect to (1) mattress/foundation 
size; (2) ticking, unless the ticking of the qualified prototype has 
characteristics designed to improve performance on the burn test; and/
or (3) any component, material, or method of construction that the 
manufacturer can demonstrate, on an objectively reasonable basis, will 
not cause the prototype to exceed the test criteria specified above.
    If one or more establishments (plants within the same firm) or 
independent

[[Page 2480]]

firms choose to ``pool'' prototypes, then each pooling plant or firm is 
required to test one mattress/set for confirmation testing. If that set 
fails, then the plant or firm will need to test another mattress/set 
after correcting its production to make sure that it is identical to 
the original prototype.
    A pooling firm may sell other mattresses that have not been tested 
by the pooling firm if they differ from the pooled prototype only with 
respect to (1) mattress/set size; (2) ticking, unless the ticking of 
the qualified prototype has characteristics designed to improve 
performance on the burn test; and/or (3) any component, material, or 
method of construction that the manufacturer can demonstrate, on an 
objectively reasonable basis, will not cause the prototype to exceed 
the test criteria specified above.

3. Products and Industries Potentially Affected

    According to ISPA, the mattress producers' trade organization, the 
top four producers of mattresses account for almost sixty percent of 
total U.S. production. In total, there are 639 establishments (as of 
2001) that produce mattresses in the U.S., using the U.S. Department of 
Commerce NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Code 
33791 for mattresses. The top four producers account for about half of 
the number of all these establishments. The number of establishments 
has been declining over time due to mergers and buy-outs. Total 
employment in the industry, using the NAICS Code 33791, was 25,500 
workers in 2001.
    The mattress manufacturing industry has three key supplying 
industries: spring and wire product manufacturing, broad-woven fabric 
mills, and foam products manufacturing. Depending on the type of fire 
resistant barrier chosen by different manufacturers, the demand for 
foam padding for mattresses might decline if it were replaced by the 
high-loft barrier in the construction of the mattress and foundation. 
This would be offset by an increase in the demand for the high-loft 
barrier. If sheet barriers were chosen by some mattress producers, then 
sales of, and employment by, the sheet barrier suppliers would 
increase. Since the sheet barriers would not replace other inputs, 
there would most likely be no offsetting effect on other industries. 
Fiberglass, melamine, and aramid producers may also be affected to the 
extent that they are used to produce fire resistant materials used in 
mattress production.
    Manufacturers of bedclothes may also be affected by the proposed 
standard. Sales of bedclothes may increase or decrease based on whether 
consumers view bedclothes as complements or substitutes for a new 
mattress/set (complements are goods generally consumed together, 
substitutes generally substitute for each other). For example, if 
people tend to buy all parts of a new bed (mattress, foundation, and 
bedclothes consisting of a comforter, pillows, and sheets) at the same 
time, then an increase in the quantity of mattresses sold would cause 
an increase in sales of bedclothes. If, alternatively, people tend to 
have a fixed budget from which to buy all mattresses and bedding items, 
then an increase in the quantity of mattresses sold would lead to a 
decrease in sales of bedclothes. Also, if the decision to buy a new 
mattress (or mattress/set) involves buying a mattress that is much 
thicker than the one currently in use, then consumers will most likely 
buy new sheets (and possibly matching pillowcases and other bedclothes 
items) to fit the new thicker mattress.
    If the cost increase is relatively small or there is no resulting 
increase in the price of a mattress/set, then the demand for bedclothes 
will only be affected if consumers place a higher value on the safer 
mattress and replace their current mattress sooner than they would have 
with no standard in place. An increased demand for the safer (and 
thicker, if the current mattress is relatively old) mattress will 
likely result in an increased demand for sheets that fit the newer 
mattresses. This effect, however, is not directly resulting from the 
adoption of the proposed standard since the thickness of the mattress 
need not be increased by the presence of either type of barrier. It is 
the result of the increased utility some consumers may derive from the 
safer mattress and the consequent increase in demand for bedclothes. 
The increased demand for safer mattresses would most probably lead to 
an increase in sales and employment in the spring and wire products, 
broad-woven fabric, and foam products industries, as well as in the 
mattress and bedclothes industries.
    Other producers that could potentially be affected, if the price 
change associated with producing compliant mattresses is significant, 
are those of other substitute products, like airbeds, waterbeds, * * * 
etc. that contain no upholstered material and would, therefore, not be 
covered by the proposed standard. Their sales may increase as a 
proportion of total bedding products.

4. Characteristics of Mattresses Used in U.S. Households

    The total number of U.S. conventional mattress shipments was 21.5 
million in 2002 and is estimated to be 22.1 in 2003 and 22.8 in 2004. 
Mattress shipments have grown at an average rate of three percent over 
the period 1981 to 2004. Unconventional mattresses (including futons; 
crib mattresses; juvenile mattresses; sleep sofa inserts; and hybrid 
water mattresses) are estimated to be about ten percent of the total 
market. This yields an estimated total number of mattresses produced 
domestically of 25.3 million in 2004. The value of mattress and 
foundation shipments in 2002, according to ISPA, was $3.26 and $1.51 
billion respectively.
    The CPSC Product Population Model (PPM) estimate of the number of 
mattresses in use in different years is based on available annual sales 
data and an estimate of the average product life of a mattress. 
Industry representatives assert that the average consumer replaces a 
mattress/set after ten years. A 1996 CPSC market study estimated the 
average expected life of a mattress to be 14 years. The PPM estimates 
the number of (conventional and non-conventional) mattresses in use in 
2004 to be 233 million mattresses, using a 10-year average product 
life, and 302.6 million mattresses, using a 14-year average product 
life. These two numbers are later used to estimate the pre-standard 
baseline risk and the expected benefits of the proposed standard.
    This analysis focuses principally on queen-size mattresses because 
they are the most commonly used. In 2002 queen-size mattresses were 
used by 34 percent of U.S. consumers. Following the queen-size are the 
sizes: Twin and Twin XL (31.2 percent), Full and Full XL (21 percent), 
King and California King (11 percent), and all other (2.6 percent). 
ISPA data reflect that the average size of a mattress is increasing. 
The average manufacturing price in 2002 was $152 for a mattress of 
average size and $86 for a foundation of average size. Hence the 
average manufacturing price of a mattress/set was about $238 in 2002.
    There are no readily available data on average retail prices for 
mattress/foundation sets by size. ISPA, however, reports that mattress/
foundation sets selling for under $500 represent 40.7 percent of the 
market. Mattress/foundation sets selling for between $500 and $1000 
represent 39.2 percent of the market.

[[Page 2481]]

5. Trends in Mattress/Bedding Residential Fires, Deaths, Injuries, and 
Property Losses

    Open-Flame Ignition. The staff estimates average annual mattress/
bedding fires from open-flame ignitions (including candles, matches and 
lighters) to have been 8,367 and 6,367 over the 1993-95 and 1996-98 
periods respectively. This represents a reduction of 23.9 percent. The 
resulting average mattress/bedding deaths, injuries, and property 
losses from open-flame ignitions have decreased by 28.2 percent, 22.1 
percent, and 5.6 percent respectively, over the 1993 to 1998 period. 
When adjusted for inflation, the decrease in the value of property 
losses becomes 37.7 percent.
    Smoking Material Ignition. The staff estimates average annual 
mattress/bedding fires from smoking material ignition (including 
cigarettes, cigars, and pipes) to have been 7,733 and 6,067 over the 
1993-95 and 1996-98 periods respectively. This represents a reduction 
of 21.6 percent over the 1993 to 1998 period. Average annual deaths, 
injuries, and property losses due to mattress/bedding smoking material 
ignitions have decreased by 4.7 percent, 19.7 percent, and 9.7 percent, 
respectively, over the same period. When adjusted for inflation, the 
decrease in the value of property losses becomes 40.4 percent.
    Other Ignition Sources. The staff estimates average annual 
mattress/bedding fires from other ignition sources (including sparks, 
embers, or flames escaping from fueled equipment, arcs or sparks from 
electric equipment, small torches, hot embers, and fireworks, heat 
escaping from fueled equipment, molten material, short circuit arc, and 
heat overloaded equipment) to have been 8,633 and 7,767 over the 1993-
95 and 1996-98 periods respectively. This represents a reduction of 10 
percent over the 1993 to 1998 period. Average annual injuries and 
inflation-adjusted property losses have decreased by 13.8 percent and 
38.7 percent respectively. Average annual deaths increased by 51.7 
percent (from 97 to 147). This increase offsets the decrease in deaths 
resulting from open-flame and smoking material ignition fires. The 
annual average number of deaths from all ignition sources remained 
unchanged over the period, equal to 510.

6. Expected Benefits of the Proposed Standard

    The expected benefits of the proposed standard are estimated as 
reductions in the baseline risk of death and injury from all mattress 
fires, based on a CPSC staff study of fire investigations from 1999-
2004. Risk reductions are then calculated on a per-mattress-in-use 
basis based on estimates of the number of mattresses in use. The 
monetary value of expected benefits per mattress is derived using 
current (i.e., 2004) estimates for the value of a statistical life and 
the average cost of a mattress fire injury. To derive the monetary 
value of expected benefits over the life of a mattress, the expected 
annual benefits are discounted (using a three percent discount rate), 
and then summed over the expected life of the mattress. The analysis 
considers mattress lives of 10 and 14 years.
    The potential benefits of the proposed standard consist of the 
reduction in deaths, injuries, and property damage that would result. 
Since the objective of the proposed standard is to reduce the 
likelihood of flashover or increase the time before flashover occurs, 
and not to reduce fires, changes in property losses associated with the 
proposed standard are hard to quantify. Property losses are expected to 
decline but the extent of the decline cannot be quantified. 
Consequently, for purposes of this analysis, no reduction in property 
losses is assumed. That is, all expected benefits from the proposed 
standard are in the form of prevented deaths and injuries. This 
underestimates net benefits, since there will likely be some benefits 
from reduced property losses.
    The proposed standard is expected to reduce the likelihood of 
flashover resulting from fires started by smoking materials or other 
ignition sources, as well as those started by open-flame ignition. 
Fires, injuries, and property losses resulting from smoking material 
ignition and other ignitions, and deaths from smoking material ignition 
are lower for the 1996-98 period than the 1993-95 period. (Deaths from 
other ignition sources are more than 50 percent higher). Any additional 
reduction in these figures due to the proposed open-flame ignition 
standard will translate into societal benefits, as will be discussed in 
the benefit-cost analysis (Section 8).
    Estimates of the effectiveness of the proposed standard are based 
on a CPSC staff evaluation of in-depth investigation reports of fires 
(including details of the occupants' situations and actions during the 
fire) occurring in 1999-2004 in which a mattress or bedding was the 
first item to ignite, the fire was of the type considered addressable 
by the proposed standard, and a civilian death or injury resulted. Most 
of the investigations also included documentation from the fire 
department that attended the fire. Some incident reports were initiated 
from death certificates with follow-up documentation from the fire 
department. This resulted in a total of 195 deaths and 205 injuries in 
the investigations to be evaluated. The distribution of mattress 
ignition sources was not representative of all fires involving 
mattresses and thus the data were weighted to match the NFIRS-based 
national fire data distributions.
    Evaluations of the fire incidents by CPSC staff reviewers used the 
results of NIST testing (Ohlemiller, 2004; Ohlemiller and Gann, 2003; 
Ohlemiller and Gann, 2002) conducted to assess the hazard produced from 
burning mattresses and bedclothes. Specifically, the evaluations were 
based on the expectation that occupants in bed when the fire ignited 
but able to escape the burning bedclothes in the first three to five 
minutes faced a minimal hazard. Occupants in direct contact with 
burning bedclothes for a longer period (5 to 10 minutes) would be 
subject to potentially hazardous levels of heat release. If the burning 
bedclothes did not ignite other non-bedding items or produce flashover 
at this time, heat release would subside temporarily and then begin to 
increase as the involvement of the mattress increased.
    These conditions would allow occupants 10 to 15 minutes to escape 
the room of origin before the situation in the room would become 
untenable. Since the proposed standard is expected to slow the rate of 
fire spread and hence increase escape time, assuming that bedclothes do 
not contribute enough heat to pose a hazardous condition, it was 
assumed that no deaths would occur among people who were outside the 
room of origin at the time of ignition, unless they entered the room 
later or were incapable of exiting on their own. The analysis focused 
on reduction of deaths and injuries because the proposed standard is 
designed to limit fire intensity and spread rather than prevent 
ignition.
    Each investigation was evaluated by CPSC staff reviewers to 
identify the features related to the occurrence of a death or injury 
once the fire was ignited. These included casualty age, casualty 
location when the fire started (at the point of ignition, in the room 
of origin but not at the point of ignition, or outside the room of 
origin), whether the casualty was asleep, or suffered from additional 
conditions likely to increase the time needed to escape, whether the 
casualty engaged in fighting the fire, and whether a rescuer was 
present. All of these conditions were used to determine a range for the 
likelihood that each individual death or injury would have

[[Page 2482]]

been prevented had the draft proposed standard been in effect. 
Percentage reductions of deaths (injuries) within subcategories of heat 
source and age group were applied to equivalent subcategories of the 
national estimates based on the NFIRS and NFPA data for 1995-1999. The 
estimated reductions per category were summed and the overall 
percentage reductions were calculated as the percent of addressable 
deaths (or injuries) that would have been prevented if the likelihood 
of flashover were reduced in the first 30 minutes and victims had 10 to 
15 minutes of escape time.
    The staff indicates that the proposed standard is expected to 
reduce all addressable deaths from mattress/bedding fires by 80 to 86 
percent and reduce all addressable injuries from mattress/bedding fires 
by 86 to 92 percent. The results vary only slightly by source of 
ignition. These estimated effectiveness percentages result in the 
prevention of an estimated 310 to 330 deaths and 1660 to 1780 injuries 
annually, for the 1998-2002 period.
    The staff's analysis presents the estimated annual deaths and 
injuries that are expected to be prevented by the proposed standard, 
based on average figures for 1998-2002. For purposes of this analysis, 
it is assumed that the annual deaths and injuries prevented by the 
proposed standard equal the average annual deaths and injuries 
prevented for the 1998-2002 period. The analysis is conducted as if the 
standard went into effect in 2004. All dollar estimates are based on 
constant 2004 dollars. A discount rate of 3 percent and average 
expected lives of a mattress of 10 and 14 years are also assumed.
    The estimated ranges of deaths and injuries prevented are 
calculated by applying the range of percent reductions to average 
addressable deaths and injuries for the period 1998-2002. Staff's 
analysis also presents the risk reduction in deaths and injuries that 
would result from the proposed standard (per million mattresses). Based 
on the estimated number of mattresses in use (described in Section 4) 
and an average expected life of 10 years, the annual reduction in the 
risk of death equals 1.33 deaths per million mattresses (310 deaths 
divided by the estimated 233 million mattresses in use in 2004) to 1.42 
per million mattresses (330 deaths / 233 million mattresses). The 
estimated reduction in the risk of injury, similarly calculated, equals 
7.12 to 7.64 injuries per million mattresses for an estimated 10-year 
life of a mattress. The estimated risk reductions for an estimated 14-
year life of a mattress are 1.02 to 1.09 deaths and 5.49 to 5.88 
injuries per million mattresses.
    Annual risk reductions resulting from the proposed standard are 
used to derive the monetary benefits from reduced deaths and injuries. 
The estimated reduction in the risk of death is multiplied by the value 
of a statistical life (and divided by a million) to derive a first-year 
monetary estimate for the range of benefits from lives saved per 
mattress. Based on the existing literature, a value of a statistical 
life of five million dollars is assumed (Viscusi, 1993). The estimated 
reduction in the risk of injury is similarly used to derive the range 
of first-year monetary benefits from injuries prevented. The benefits 
from preventing an injury (the cost of an injury) in 2004 are estimated 
to average about $179,300, based on Miller et. al. (1993). The first-
year benefits associated with preventing deaths and injuries equal 
$7.93 to $8.45 for an estimated mattress life of 10 years and $6.11 to 
$6.51 for an estimated mattress life of 14 years.
    Lifetime benefits are derived by projecting annual benefits for the 
life of the mattress and summing the discounted (at a rate of 3 
percent) stream of annual benefits (measured in constant dollars). The 
number of mattresses in use is projected to grow at a rate of zero to 
three percent, based on the average growth rate for the 1981-2002 
period. Since the number of deaths and injuries are implicitly assumed 
to remain constant over time, a positive growth rate of mattresses in 
use implies a declining risk over time. The lower end of the ranges for 
estimated (10 and 14 years) lifetime benefits correspond to a 3 percent 
projected growth rate and the lower end of the effectiveness ranges. 
The upper end of the ranges for estimated (10 and 14 years) lifetime 
benefits correspond to a zero percent projected growth rate and the 
upper end of the effectiveness ranges. For an expected mattress life of 
10 years, the resulting expected lifetime benefits of saved lives 
associated with the proposed standard equal $51.70 to $62.22 per 
mattress. The corresponding benefits of prevented injuries equal $9.93 
to $12.03. Hence, for an expected mattress life of 10 years, the 
expected total lifetime benefits of a compliant mattress equal $61.66 
to $74.25. For an expected mattress life of 14 years, total benefits 
equal $59.88 to $75.71 per mattress. The sensitivity analysis section 
below examines how the results might change when a discount rate of 
seven percent is used.

7. Expected Costs of the Proposed Standard

    This section presents the expected resource costs associated with 
the proposed standard. Resource costs are costs that reflect the use of 
a resource that would have been available for other uses had it not 
been used in conjunction with the production of mattresses compliant 
with the proposed standard. These costs include material and labor 
costs; testing costs; costs to wholesalers, distributors, and 
retailers; costs of producers' information collection and record 
keeping; costs of quality control/quality assurance programs; and 
compliance and enforcement costs. The effect on retail prices will be 
discussed in Section 8.
    Material and Labor Costs. To comply with the proposed standard, the 
construction of most mattress/sets will include a barrier technology 
with improved fire performance. This barrier may be thick (high-loft) 
or thin (sheet). High-loft barriers are generally used to replace some 
of the existing non-woven fiber, foam, and/or batting material, leading 
to a smaller increase in costs than sheet barriers, which constitute an 
addition to production materials (and costs).
    According to several barrier producers and mattress manufacturers, 
the price of a high-loft barrier that would make a mattress comply with 
the proposed standard, defined to have a width of 88 to 92 inches, is 
$3.00 to $5.00 per linear yard. The high-loft barrier replaces the 
currently-used polyester batting, which costs an average of $0.50 to 
$1.70 per linear yard. Hence, the net increase in the cost attributed 
to the use of the high-loft barrier is $1.30 to $4.50 per linear yard, 
which translates to a net increase in barrier-related manufacturing 
costs of $7.80 to $27.00 for a queen-size mattress/set.\4\ The queen-
size is used for all the cost estimates, because it is the mode size, 
used by 34 percent of consumers in 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This calculation is based on the assumption that a queen-
size mattress/set requires six linear yards of the barrier mateiral 
to be used in the two (top and bottom) panels of the mattress and 
the side panels of both the mattress and foundation. Some producers 
are able to use less than six linear yards, which reduces their cost 
per queen mattress/set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to several barrier producers and mattress manufacturers, 
the price of a sheet barrier that would make a mattress comply with the 
proposed standard is $4.00 to $6.00 per linear yard. Because of its 
different texture, the sheet barrier would generally not replace any of 
the materials being used in the construction of the mattress/set.\5\

[[Page 2483]]

This translates to $24.00 to $36.00 for a queen-size mattress/set. The 
large difference in the net cost of the two barrier types suggests that 
if a barrier's fire performance is not a function of its type, most 
manufacturers will use high-loft barriers, the less costly alternative. 
A large mattress manufacturer also indicated that mattresses produced 
with sheet barriers in the top panel of the mattress (as opposed to the 
side panels) may be less comfortable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The only exception to this might involve using a sheet 
barrier in the side panel of the mattress and foundation. Because 
the existence of cushioning along the side of the mattress and 
foundation would probably not be noticed or missed by consumers, 
substitution of the sheet barrier for the material currently being 
used in the side panel may be implemented to reduce the cost of 
using the sheet barrier. The side panel is small, relative to the 
size of the entire surface area of a mattress/set, and its possibly 
different construction is therefore not included in the cost 
calculation. This leads to a slight over-estimation of the cost of 
the sheet barrier and consequently the relative cost of using a 
sheet instead of a high-loft barrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the increase in material costs due to the use of a 
barrier, costs will increase due to the use of fire-resistant (FR) 
thread for tape stitching. According to several thread producers, the 
cost of FR thread is $0.41 to $0.60 per queen-size mattress/set. Given 
that the cost of nylon (non-FR) thread is about $0.10 per queen-size 
mattress/set, the net increase in costs per queen-size mattress/set due 
to the use of FR thread is $0.31 to $0.50.
    Costs may also increase due to slightly reduced labor productivity. 
Based on industry estimates of an average of two labor hours for the 
production of a queen-size mattress/set, and a 10 percent reduction in 
labor productivity and an industry average hourly wage rate of $11.50, 
the cost increase due to reduced labor productivity is about $2.30.
    The increase in the materials and labor costs of a mattress, is 
thus equal to $10.41 ($7.80 barrier cost + $0.31 thread cost + $2.30 
labor cost) to $29.80 ($27 barrier cost + $0.50 thread cost + $2.30 
labor cost) for a high-loft barrier and $26.61 ($24.00 barrier cost + 
$0.31 thread cost + $2.30 labor cost) to $38.80 ($36 barrier cost + 
$0.50 thread cost + $2.30 additional labor cost) for a sheet 
barrier.\6\ Various types of high-loft and sheet barriers are widely 
available for sale and therefore it is expected that those whose prices 
are at the upper end of the range will either not be produced (because 
mattress manufacturers will not buy them) or their prices will drop (so 
that they can compete with other barriers available for sale). Hence 
the total materials and labor costs will most likely be closer to the 
lower end of the estimated range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Some producers are also using an FR mattress edge binding 
tape, which costs an average of $2.52 per mattress, while a non-FR 
tape costs an average of $1.68. This makes the net increase in 
costs, due to using FR edge binding tape, equal to $0.84. This cost 
is not added to the total production costs, because it is not 
required for the mattress to pass the burn test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs of Prototype and Confirmation Testing. Each mattress/set 
prototype is required to be tested in triplicate for prototype 
qualification. According to industry representatives, the cost of 
testing per twin-size mattress/set may be about $500: the sum of the 
average cost of the materials and shipping ($100) and the cost of the 
use of the lab ($400). Hence, the cost of testing three mattresses/sets 
for prototype qualification equals $1500. Additionally, if some 
mattress/set prototypes do not pass the first time, then the cost will 
be higher, because additional tests will be done after action is taken 
to improve the resistance of the prototype. If 10 percent of mattresses 
are retested, then the average cost of testing a prototype would be 10 
percent higher, or $1650. This cost is assumed to be incurred no more 
than once per establishment for each prototype. It is expected that a 
qualified prototype will be used to represent a mattress construction 
(e.g., single-sided pillow top) with all other prototypes using the 
same construction (with different size and different ticking materials) 
being based on the qualified prototype. If companies pool their 
prototype definitions across different establishments or different 
companies, testing costs would be smaller as all but one of the firms/
establishments producing to the specification of a pooled prototype 
will burn one mattress (for the confirmation test) instead of three 
(for the prototype test). The probability of a mattress failing a 
confirmation test is small. Therefore, it is expected that the average 
cost of testing per mattress will be lower for firms and/or 
establishments that pool their results than for those that do not.
    If manufacturers test every mattress construction (e.g., single-
sided pillow top, double-sided pillow-top, tight-top, euro-top, * * * 
etc.), which is estimated, based on conversations with manufacturers, 
to average about twenty per manufacturer, for every establishment in a 
given year, then their average testing cost per mattress would 
approximately equal 92.5 cents ($1650 x 20 constructions x 639 
establishments/22.8 million conventional mattresses) per mattress for 
the first year of production. If manufacturers use a qualified 
prototype of the least fire-resistant mattress/set construction 
(``worst case'') to represent other mattress/set constructions, then 
the average cost of testing per mattress for the first year of 
production will be reduced. Pooling testing results across 
establishments and/or firms will further reduce the average cost of 
testing per mattress. On an annual basis testing costs will be further 
reduced because prototypes need only be tested in the year they are 
first developed.
    Cost of Information Collection and Record Keeping. In addition to 
prototype testing, the proposed standard will require detailed 
documentation of all tests performed and their results including video 
or pictures; prototype or production identification number; date and 
time of test; and name and location of testing facility; test room 
conditions; and test data for as long as the prototype is in production 
and for three years after its production ceases. Manufacturers are also 
required to keep records of a unique identification number for the 
qualified prototype and a list of the unique identification numbers of 
each prototype based on the qualified prototype and a description of 
the materials substituted and/or the size change. Moreover, they are 
required to document the name and supplier of each material used in 
construction of a prototype and keep physical samples of the material. 
Additionally, they are required to identify the details of the 
application of any fire retardant treatments and/or inherently fire 
resistant fibers employed relative to mattress components. This 
documentation is in addition to documentation already conducted by 
mattress manufacturers in their efforts to meet the cigarette standard. 
Detailed testing documentation will be done by the test lab and is 
included in the estimated cost of testing. Based on CPSC Office of 
Compliance staff estimates, all requirements of the proposed standard 
are expected to cost an establishment about 110 minutes, or 1.3 hours, 
per qualified prototype. Assuming that every establishment will produce 
20 different qualified prototypes, the increase in record keeping costs 
is about $935 (110 minutes x 20 qualified prototypes x $25.50 in 
average civilian workers' compensation per hour) per establishment per 
year. (Note that pooling among establishments or using a qualified 
prototype for longer than one year will reduce this estimate.) This 
translates to an average cost of 2.6 cents per mattress for an average 
establishment, with average output of 35,681 conventional mattresses.
    Cost of Quality Control/Quality Assurance Programs. To ensure that 
all mattresses are produced to the prototype specification across all 
factories and over the years for which a production line exists, 
mattress

[[Page 2484]]

manufacturers will need a thorough well-documented quality control/
assurance program. The top 12 mattress producers (with a market share 
of almost 80 percent) have existing quality control programs which 
could be modified to fit the new standard with minimal additional 
costs. Smaller producers, whose quality control programs are less 
detailed or non-existent, will incur some incremental costs as a result 
of the proposed standard. These incremental costs will be small for 
each manufacturer and less when measured per mattress. (See the section 
on impact of the proposed standard on small businesses for a 
description of their cost of quality control and quality assurance 
programs.)
    Additionally, although the proposed standard does not require 
production testing, it encourages random production testing to assure 
manufacturers that their mattresses continue to meet the requirements 
of the rule, as a possible component of the quality control/quality 
assurance program. Assuming that an average of 3 mattress/foundation 
constructions will be tested per establishment per year yields an 
estimated cost of production testing of about $1500. Based on this 
assumption, the estimated cost of testing mattress/foundation sets for 
quality assurance purposes, therefore, equals 4.2 cents per mattress 
($1500/35,681) for an average establishment.
    The labor needed to meet the quality assurance measures required by 
the standard is estimated by CPSC Office of Compliance staff to be 224 
minutes per establishment per prototype per year. Assuming that every 
establishment will produce 20 qualified prototypes, the increase in 
labor costs associated with quality assurance requirements of the 
proposed standard is about $1904 (224 minutes x 20 qualified prototypes 
x $25.50 average civilian workers' compensation per hour) per 
establishment per year. (Note that pooling among establishments or 
using a qualified prototype for longer than one year will reduce this 
estimate.) This yields an average cost of 5.3 cents per mattress for an 
average establishment, with average output of 35,681 mattresses. Hence 
total costs of quality assurance/quality control programs may average 
about 9.5 cents (4.2 + 5.3) per conventional mattress per year.
    Costs to Wholesalers, Distributors, and Retailers. An added cost of 
the proposed standard is the increase in costs to wholesalers, 
distributors, and retailers in the form of additional storage, 
transportation, and inventory financing costs. Since a mattress 
complying with the proposed standard will not be bigger than a similar 
mattress produced before the standard becomes effective, storage and 
transportation costs are not expected to increase. Inventory financing 
costs will increase by the average cost of borrowing money, applied to 
the wholesale price of a mattress over the average inventory holding 
time period. Since most mattress producers use just-in-time production 
and have small inventories, this additional cost will probably not 
exceed ten percent of the increase in production cost (which is the sum 
of material, labor, testing, record keeping, and quality assurance 
costs). A ten percent mark-up is, therefore, being used to measure the 
cost to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. This yields a 
resource cost to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers equal to 
$1.15 to $3.98 per mattress/set. Retail prices may increase by more 
than the ten percent mark-up. Section 8 discusses the impact of the 
proposed standard on retail prices of mattresses.
    Costs of Compliance and Enforcement. Compliance and enforcement 
costs refer to the costs incurred by CPSC to ensure that manufacturers 
are complying with the proposed standard. Based on past experience with 
the existing mattress standard, the estimated CPSC inspection time 
spent per location (establishment) equals 33 hours for inspection and 6 
hours for sample collection. This yields a cost per inspection of about 
$1,664.52 (39 hours x $42.68, the average wage rate for CPSC 
inspectors). Additionally, compliance officers spend an average of 20 
hours per case, making their cost equal to $1,032.80 (20 hours x 
$51.64, the average hourly wage rate for compliance officers). This 
yields an average compliance and enforcement total labor cost of 
$2,697.32 per inspected establishment per year.
    It should be noted that the expected cost per establishment, if 
less than one hundred percent of establishments are inspected every 
year, equals the cost per inspected establishment times the probability 
that a given establishment will be inspected. Though the probability 
that a given establishment will be inspected in a given year is not 
known, assuming that a third of all establishments will be inspected 
(i.e., about 213 establishments) yields a compliance and enforcement 
total expected labor cost of $899.11 ($2,697.32 x (\1/3\)) per 
establishment per year.
    In addition to labor costs, CPSC will incur testing costs. It 
should be noted that the decision to collect samples after an 
inspection visit is made at the discretion of the investigator and, 
therefore an accurate assumption about the number of samples collected 
and sent for a burn test cannot be made. If, based on inspection, 
samples from 10 percent of all inspected establishments were to be 
collected and sent to a lab for a burn test, and if samples 
representing 5 qualified prototypes are taken from each of these 
establishments, then the total cost of CPSC testing will be $157,500 (5 
qualified prototypes x $1,500 (the cost of testing up to 3 mattresses 
for each qualified prototype) x 21 (10 percent of 213 inspected 
establishments)). These assumptions about frequency of testing yield an 
expected cost of testing per establishment of $246.48 ($157,500/639).
    Therefore the expected total CPSC wage and testing costs associated 
with the proposed standard per establishment per year equal $1,145.59 
($899.11 + $246.48). With an average production of 35,681 mattresses 
per establishment (22.8 million mattresses divided by 639 
establishments), the average CPSC wage and testing costs equal 3.2 
cents per mattress ($1,145.59/35,681). These costs are expected to 
decrease over time as manufacturers learn the requirements of the 
proposed standard.
    Total Resource Costs. Therefore total resource costs (including 
material costs, labor costs, costs of prototype and confirmation 
testing, paperwork collection and record keeping costs, costs of 
quality control/quality assurance programs, production testing costs, 
costs to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers, and costs of 
compliance and enforcement) are estimated to range from $12.63 to 
$43.86 per mattress. This range includes both the high-loft and sheet 
barriers. The section on the impact of the proposed standard on small 
businesses and other small entities discusses how costs of testing and 
quality control/quality assurance programs may differ for small 
businesses and strategies that small manufacturers might adopt to 
reduce these costs.
    Projected Future Costs. It is possible that costs associated with 
the standard will decline over time. A supplier of fire resistant 
barriers predicts that the price of the barriers will decline by 40 
percent in the next two years, due to decreased uncertainty and 
increased competition. (They have already dropped significantly since 
TB603 was proposed.) The increase in labor costs due to decreased 
productivity is expected to be temporary and be reduced when workers 
get more training and/or the older machines get replaced

[[Page 2485]]

with newer machines that are more capable of handling the FR thread and 
material used in fire resistant barriers. Moreover, as noted above, 
prototype testing costs are expected to decline after the first year of 
the standard.
    The proposed standard references an effective date of twelve months 
following publication of a final rule. The costs reported here are 
based on the assumption that supplier companies will be able to 
maintain existing capacity. If federal standards for bedclothes and 
upholstered furniture were mandated at the same time and input 
producers were not given enough time to increase their capacity, input 
prices would rise in the short-run because of increased demand for the 
FR material used by all three industries.
    Unquantifiable Costs. A mattress manufacturer indicated that in 
response to an FR mattress standard, the number of models/styles 
produced may be cut by half. If this response is typical, then there 
may be a reduction in consumers' utility, because of the reduction in 
mattress types that they would have to choose from. Others indicate 
that there will be an aversion to producing double-sided mattresses, 
because it would be harder for them to pass the burn test. Double-sided 
mattresses possibly have a longer expected life than single-sided ones. 
To the extent that consumers prefer double-sided mattresses to single-
sided mattresses, the shift away from producing double-sided mattresses 
imposes a non-monetary cost. Though unquantifiable, this reduction in 
choices of construction type and design is an added cost to consumers 
of the proposed standard.
    Another unquantifiable cost is the possible increase in liability 
insurance faced by mattress manufacturers. Because the draft proposed 
standard measures the performance of the entire mattress when exposed 
to fire, and not its individual components, liability will be shared by 
input suppliers and mattress manufacturers. Industry representatives 
expect that manufacturers' liability insurance will increase to reflect 
the additional possibility of litigation. This increase, however, 
cannot be quantified because of the novelty of this performance test. 
Compliance of more mattress firms with the California TB 603 standard 
may enable us to estimate the additional liability insurance. Notice 
that any increase in liability insurance faced by FR input suppliers 
will be included in the price charged for the FR inputs and does not 
add to the total increase in resource cost that is expected to result 
from the proposed standard.

8. Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standard

    This section compares benefits and costs of the proposed standard, 
presents a sensitivity analysis, and highlights the impact of the 
proposed standard on retail prices, small businesses, children, and the 
environment. The sensitivity analysis examines the effect of changing 
some of the assumptions used earlier. The analysis shows that net 
benefits continue to be positive under a reasonable range of 
assumptions about the death and injury effectiveness of the proposed 
standard, the reduction in injuries resulting from the proposed 
standard, the value of a statistical life estimate, the discount rate, 
or the expected mattress life.
    The expected aggregate lifetime benefits associated with one year's 
production of mattresses (25.3 million units) using a discount rate of 
three percent and an expected 10-year mattress life are $1.56 to $1.88 
billion ($61.66 to $74.25 per mattress x 25.3 million mattresses). The 
corresponding expected aggregate costs of the proposed standard are 
$0.32 to $1.11 billion ($12.63 to $43.86 times 25.3 million). The 
resulting net aggregate benefits equal $0.45 to $1.56 billion ($17.79 
to $61.62 times 25.3 million). For a mattress life of 14 years (and a 3 
percent discount rate), aggregate lifetime benefits, costs, and net 
benefits of the proposed standard associated with one year of 
production are $1.52 to $1.92, $0.32 to $1.11, and $0.41 to $1.60 
billion respectively. The expected benefits of the proposed standard 
will accrue for a long period of time and discounted net benefits will, 
therefore, be much greater than net benefits associated with only the 
mattress production in the first year the standard becomes effective.
    Sensitivity Analysis. The previous analysis compares benefits and 
costs of the proposed standard using expected mattress lives of 10 and 
14 years, a discount rate of 3 percent, an expected effectiveness rate 
of the proposed standard of 80 to 86 percent of deaths and 86 to 92 
percent of injuries, an estimated value of a statistical life of 5 
million dollars, and an estimated cost of injury of $179,300. This 
section examines the effect of changing any of these assumptions on the 
expected net benefits of the proposed standard.
    Comparing expected benefits and costs of the proposed standard, it 
is clear that net benefits are expected to be positive (i.e., expected 
total benefits exceed expected costs) for an average mattress life of 
10 or 14 years. Though increasing the expected mattress life from 10 to 
14 years, while using the 3 percent discount rate, expands the positive 
range of net benefits, it does not affect the conclusion regarding net 
benefits. A further increase of the expected life of a mattress 
similarly would not affect the estimate of net benefits. For example, 
using the Product Population Model estimate of the number of mattresses 
in use based on an expected mattress life of 18 years (equal to 367.1 
million mattresses) yields net benefits of $14.42 to $64.49 per 
mattress, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    Net benefits are also positive using discount rates of 3 and 7 
percent. Using a 3 percent discount rate, net benefits per mattress 
equal $17.79 to $61.62 for an average life of 10 years and $16.01 to 
$63.08 for an average life of 14 years. Using a 7 percent discount 
rate, net benefits per mattress equal $9.36 to $50.88 for an average 
life of 10 years and $5.15 to $48.26 for an average life of 14 years. 
Assuming a larger discount rate reduces net benefits, because future 
benefits reaped over the life of the mattress contribute less to total 
benefits.
    Net benefits are based on an estimated value of a statistical life 
equal to $5 million. Changing the estimate used for the value of a 
statistical life does not have a major impact on the results. For 
example, if $3 million, the lower bound estimate in Viscusi (1993), is 
used as an estimate of the value of a statistical life, net benefits 
become -$2.90 to $36.73 per mattress (using a 3 percent discount rate 
and an estimated mattress life of 10 years).\7\ Alternatively, a $7 
million estimate, the higher bound estimate in Viscusi (1993), yields 
net benefits equal to $38.48 to $86.51 per mattress (using a 3 percent 
discount rate and an estimated mattress life of 10 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The range for net benefits was derived by subtracting the 
upper end of the cost range from the lower end of the benefits range 
to get the lower end of the range for net benefits and subtracting 
the lower end of the cost range from the higher end of the benefits 
range to get the higher end of the range for net benefits. Because 
of this method, both ends of the range for net benefits are a very 
unlikely occurrence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changing the estimate used for the cost of injury will have minimal 
impact on the results, because the share of benefits from reduced 
injuries is 16 percent of total benefits. Hence, even if there were no 
reduction in injuries from the proposed standard, the net benefits 
would be $7.86 to $49.59 per mattress (using a mattress life of 10 
years and a 3 percent discount rate).
    The analysis assumes that the effectiveness of the proposed 
standard ranges from 80 to 86 percent for deaths and 86 to 92 percent 
for injuries. The

[[Page 2486]]

net benefits will remain positive, with a lower effectiveness rate. For 
example, assuming an effectiveness rate of preventing death of only 55 
percent yields net benefits of $1.86 to $39.84 per mattress and 
aggregate net benefits of 50 million to 1.01 billion dollars from all 
mattresses produced the first year the proposed standard is mandated 
(using a mattress life of 10 years, a 3 percent discount rate, and the 
same effectiveness for injuries as used in the baseline analysis). 
Also, assuming a smaller number of deaths and injuries before the 
proposed standard is mandated (a smaller baseline risk) would still 
result in positive net benefits. A 25 percent reduction in baseline 
death and injury risks yields net benefits of $2.38 to $43.06 per 
mattress and aggregate net benefits of $60 million to $1.09 billion 
from all mattresses produced the first year the mattress standard is 
mandated (using a mattress life of 10 years, a 3 percent discount rate, 
and the estimated effectiveness measures used in the baseline 
analysis).
    Impact on Retail Prices. One of the top four mattress manufacturers 
in the industry has re-merchandised its product lines to lower the 
costs of other materials so that total costs (and prices) are the same 
as they were before the production of mattresses that comply with 
TB603. Other manufacturers have indicated that they will have to 
increase their price which, according to some manufacturers and based 
on reported traditional industry mark-ups, might translate to an 
increase in the retail price to consumers that could reach 
approximately four-fold the increase in manufacturer's costs. Hence the 
average increase in the price at which mattress manufacturers are 
willing to sell their products (supply price) will be anywhere between 
the price of a similar mattress without FR material and that price plus 
four times the increase in the costs of production. Given the presence 
of at least one company that will not increase the price, it is 
unlikely that the new average price will be close to the higher end of 
the range because of competition for market share among manufacturers.
    The market (equilibrium) price is determined by the intersection of 
consumers' willingness to buy and producers' willingness to sell the 
product at different prices. The value the equilibrium price will take 
(relative to the price before the introduction of fire resistant 
mattress/sets) will be affected by the change in the demand and supply 
curves for fire resistant mattress/sets and their relative 
elasticities. Assuming that the demand curve is unaffected, the 
equilibrium price will reflect the price elasticity of demand (i.e. the 
sensitivity of the change in the quantity demanded to the change in 
price) as well as the shift in supply. In the short-run, consumers have 
a relatively elastic demand curve, because they can always postpone the 
purchase of a durable good, and therefore the increase in the 
equilibrium price is expected to be much lower than the increase in the 
supply price (what producers would want to sell the same number of 
mattress/sets for). Because of the relatively high elasticity of 
demand, sales are likely to decrease in the short-run. In the long-run, 
the demand curve is less elastic, and therefore the equilibrium price 
and quantity (sales) will be higher than the short-run price and 
quantity.
    Given the availability of mattresses whose retail prices will not 
increase and the competitive nature of the industry, it is possible 
that, on average, prices will rise by about twice the costs associated 
with the standard (i.e., retail price mark-up will average about twice 
the increase in manufacturing costs). Under this assumption, consumers 
would pay an additional $22.91 ($11.46 x 2) to $79.69 ($39.85 x 2) per 
mattress/set (compared to the price they would have paid for a current 
mattress that does not comply with the proposed standard.\8\ Assuming 
that the demand curve for mattresses is unaffected by the draft 
proposed standard, some consumers will choose not to purchase (or at 
least delay the purchase of) a new mattress/set. These consumers who 
delay or choose not to purchase a new set will not be getting the value 
(or benefits) that they would have gained from purchasing a new set. 
This loss, though difficult to quantify, is sometimes measured as a 
loss in consumer surplus (McCloskey, 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These cost figures include labor and material costs; testing 
costs; record-keeping costs; and quality assurance program costs. 
They do not include the costs to wholesalers, distributors, and 
retailers or compliance costs because they are not incurred by the 
manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is unlikely, however, that the post-standard demand curve for 
mattresses will be the same as the current demand. Early 2004 market 
observations indicate consumer and retail enthusiasm about the fire 
resistant mattresses already available for sale (Furniture Today, April 
26th, 2004.) If this enthusiasm generally reflects consumers' 
preferences, then the demand for mattresses may increase. This would 
tend to offset any reduction in mattress sales and possible losses in 
consumer surplus.
    Impact on Small Businesses and Other Small Entities. The increase 
in material and labor costs to meet the proposed standard is not likely 
to be dependent on a firm's size and will therefore not 
disproportionately affect small businesses. The cost imposed 
disproportionately (per unit produced) on small businesses will be the 
cost of testing, information collection and record keeping and quality 
control/quality assurance programs. While these costs are estimated to 
be a little over one dollar per mattress per year for average-sized 
establishments, they could be substantially higher for small mattress 
manufacturers. The proposed rule includes measures that these 
manufacturers can use to minimize the testing burden. Furthermore, 
firms with more than one establishment, or different firms, may be able 
to reduce these costs by pooling their testing and quality control 
programs over all establishments or firms.
    Use of pooling across establishments and firms would ameliorate the 
impact of the proposed standard on small businesses. By getting 
together across different states and regions, small manufacturers who 
do not share a common market (and therefore do not compete with each 
other) can resemble a large producer in their testing and quality 
control/quality assurance efforts and therefore reduce their costs per 
mattress. It is also expected that some barrier suppliers would be 
willing to do the testing and quality control/assurance programs for 
small manufacturers in exchange for a small charge, which will be 
similar to the average cost per mattress for large businesses, because 
the volume of output will be large.
    Impact on the Environment. The extraction, processing, refinement, 
and conversion of raw materials to meet the proposed standard involve 
energy consumption, labor, and the use of potentially toxic chemicals. 
Most manufacturing has some impact on the environment, and 
manufacturing fire resistant mattresses is no exception. Because the 
proposed standard is a performance standard, it does not restrict 
manufacturers' choice of fire resistant materials and methods that 
could be used in the production of mattresses. There appear to be 
several economically viable options to meet the standard that, based on 
available information, do not impose health risks to consumers or 
significantly affect the environment. (See discussion at Section N of 
this preamble.)
    Impact on Children. Deaths and injuries among children constitute a 
substantial proportion of mattress-

[[Page 2487]]

related fire losses, and of the potential benefits of the proposed 
standard. A CPSC staff report, based on a field investigation study in 
1995 to learn more about cigarette-ignited fires and open-flame fires, 
found that 70 percent of open-flame fires involved child play and that 
child play was involved in 83 percent of the 150 deaths of children 
less than five years of age. A National Association of State Fire 
Marshals 1997 study also indicated that 66 percent of the small open-
flame ignitions were reportedly started by children under the age of 15 
(21 percent by children under 5).
    For virtually all of the fires started by children less than 15 
years of age, the ignition was not witnessed by an adult (Boudreault 
and Smith, 1997). Reducing the likelihood of flashover in the first 30 
minutes of the fire may therefore benefit children disproportionately, 
as it allows enough time for adults to detect the fire and save young 
children in close proximity to the fire. Also children between 5 and 9 
who sometimes do not cooperate with adults and run away from adults to 
other parts of the occupancy will have enough time to be found and 
rescued by an adult.
    The Epidemiology staff's memorandum shows that, based on national 
fire estimates for the years 1995-1999, children younger than 15 
accounted for 27 percent of addressable deaths and 23 percent of 
addressable injuries. They also indicate that the proposed standard 
would reduce deaths and injuries to children ages 5 and younger by 85 
to 92 percent and 80 to 87 percent respectively. Deaths and injuries to 
children ages 5 to 14 were estimated to be reduced by 94 to 97 percent 
and 88 to 94 percent respectively. This represents a total of 100 to 
110 deaths of children less than 15 years of age per year for the 1995-
1999 period. It also represents 410 to 440 injuries to children less 
than 15 years of age for the same period.

9. Alternatives to the Proposed Standard Alternative Maximum Peak Heat 
Release Rate (PHRR) and Test Duration.

    The initial California TB 603 proposal required the duration of the 
test to last 60 minutes with a maximum PHRR of 150kW. After receiving 
comments on this proposal, the California Bureau of Home Furnishings 
and Thermal Insulation changed the criterion to a maximum of 200 kW 
PHRR in the first 30 minutes, the requirement for both the federal 
proposed standard and the current TB 603.
    Increasing the duration of the test and reducing the PHRR would, 
according to several input suppliers, increase the resource costs to 
manufacturers of a queen mattress/foundation set by $15.06 to $50.65 
compared to non-complying products (i.e., those not conforming to the 
proposed standard.) \9\ Adding the costs to wholesalers, distributors, 
and retailers, the costs of testing, quality control/assurance 
programs, record-keeping, and CPSC compliance efforts, yields a total 
resource cost of the stricter standard (150 kW and 60 minutes) of 
$16.59 to $55.74 (costs to manufacturers {$15.06 to $50.65{time}  + 
cost to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers, equal to 10% of costs 
to manufacturers {$1.51 to $5.06{time}  + 3.2 cents CPSC compliance 
costs) per mattress. This represents a marginal increase in costs of 
$3.96 ($16.59-$12.63) to $11.88 ($55.74-$43.86) over the costs 
associated with the proposed standard.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The lower end of the range is based on barrier price of one 
supplier, whose capacity is expected to meet 25 to 30 percent of the 
whole market demand in the short run. The next cheapest alternative 
costs $24 for the barrier material alone.
    \10\ These cost estimates (and the resulting marginal increase) 
should be viewed as approximate since no extensive tests of the 
barriers have been conducted for 60 minutes, as most manufacturers 
are focused on meeting the less strict requirements. Input suppliers 
generally do not assemble and test large numbers of mattresses, and 
may therefore underestimate reduced labor productivity and/or 
reduced output per machine (compared to a maximum PHRR of 200 kW for 
a 30-minute test) due to handling the thicker denser barrier. A 
number of mattress producers estimate that to meet the stricter 
standard, manufacturing costs would increase (over those of non-
compliant mattresses) by $50 to $70 for a queen-sized set 
(Furniture/Today, July 21, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Such increase in costs would likely result in consumers facing 
higher mattress prices. Based on traditional industry mark-ups, the new 
price may reflect a two- to four-fold increase over the increase in 
production costs, depending on the relative elasticity of demand and 
supply for mattresses. This yields a total increase in the average 
price of a queen mattress/set of $30.11 (2 x $15.06) to $202.58 (4 x 
$50.65). Potential benefits of the stricter standard could be higher 
than the proposed standard, but the extent is uncertain. Given an 
effectiveness rate of greater than 80 percent of the proposed standard, 
the additional benefits of stricter test requirements are limited. 
Assuming that the stricter standard could eliminate 50 percent of the 
remaining deaths and injuries (i.e., it could save 39 additional lives 
and prevent 136 additional injuries), then an additional benefit of 
about $7.66 per mattress would be expected. This additional benefit, 
however, would come with additional costs (discussed above) and 
therefore may reduce net benefits. Moreover, a small increase in net 
benefits may not justify the large increase in retail price that would 
result from a stricter standard.
    A bedding official estimated that such price increases may result 
in reduction in sales of 25 percent or more (Furniture/Today, July 21, 
2004). The larger increase in prices (compared to the less strict test 
requirements) and the resulting reduction in sales could drive some of 
the smaller manufacturers out of business. (The stricter standard is 
more likely to require replacing some existing machines to accommodate 
the denser barrier material, which would be disproportionately more 
costly for smaller firms whose machinery is older and less 
sophisticated.) Since mattresses are durable goods, one would expect a 
larger drop in sales in the short-run, as consumers choose to keep 
their old mattresses longer than before. This would make the reduction 
in sales more pronounced in the short-run, increasing the likelihood 
that some firms may exit the market. Moreover, if a large number of 
consumers choose to extend the life of their mattresses for a longer 
time period, it will take longer to achieve the benefits expected to be 
associated with the safer mattresses.
    Alternative Total Heat Released in the First Part of the Test. TB 
603 limits the total heat released during the first 10 minutes of the 
test to 25 MJ. The proposed standard's stricter limit (15 MJ in the 
first 10 minutes) reduces the expected size of the initial fire and 
hence allows consumers a greater chance to escape the fire and get out 
of the room, even if the room never reaches flashover. The 
effectiveness rates presented in the analysis are based on the stricter 
criterion. Using the TB 603 criterion (25 MJ in the first 10 minutes) 
would likely reduce estimated benefits (the estimated reductions in 
deaths and injuries), without having any significant effect on costs. 
According to several producers, mattresses that use existing barrier 
technology release total heat that is far below the 25 MJ requirement 
of TB 603. Therefore, using the TB 603 criterion for the total heat 
released would not change costs but could potentially reduce the 
benefits and, hence, the net benefits of the proposed standard.
    Moreover, because of the small fuel load of ticking materials 
currently being used, the lower total heat release requirement allows 
the production of mattress/sets based on a prototype that has not been 
tested so long as it differs from the qualified prototype only with 
respect to ticking and the ticking material is not part of the fire 
resistance solution. Requiring a test for every prototype with a 
different ticking was

[[Page 2488]]

rejected because of the magnitude of the burden it would impose on 
small manufacturers who do not produce large numbers of any one 
prototype and who would have been disproportionately adversely affected 
by these requirements.
    Alternative Testing Requirements. The proposed standard requires 
prototype testing (of three mattress/sets) before a manufacturer starts 
production of a given mattress design and a confirmatory test of one 
mattress if more than one establishment or firm are pooling their 
results. Manufacturers may sell a mattress/set based on a prototype 
that has not been tested if that prototype differs from the qualified 
prototype only with respect to: (1) Mattress/foundation size; (2) 
ticking, unless the ticking of the qualified prototype has 
characteristics designed to improve the performance on the burn test; 
and/or (3) any component, material, or method of construction that the 
manufacturer can demonstrate on an objectively reasonable basis will 
not cause the prototype to exceed the test criteria. Though production 
testing (i.e., random burning of mattress/sets to ensure that all 
production units meet the standard) is encouraged by the proposed 
standard under quality assurance program requirements, it is not 
required. The individual manufacturer's decision on whether to conduct 
production testing (and if so, at what frequency) will clearly depend 
on the efficacy of his/her quality assurance/control efforts.
    As an alternative, the proposed Federal standard could, like TB 
603, omit testing or prototype definition requirements. Without 
testing, however, it might be difficult for manufacturers to know 
whether their mattresses will comply with the standard. Alternatively, 
the standard could require production testing with a specified 
frequency. This specification, however, could result in unnecessary 
costs if they are not justified given the quality control measures 
generally undertaken by manufacturers in the absence of the proposed 
standard. Requiring more tests per establishment, prototype, or 
enterprise will increase the estimated costs per mattress and could 
reduce net benefits.
    Alternative Effective Date. The proposed effective date is twelve 
months from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. Given the length of time needed to ensure the availability of 
inputs for the production of barrier materials, availability of 
barriers for mattress producers, and a sufficient volume of inventories 
at retailers' showrooms, an earlier effective date may result in higher 
input costs to manufacturers. More importantly, it is expected that 
smaller manufacturers will be disproportionately affected, as they are 
more likely to wait to invest in development efforts until the 
technology is developed by larger firms, or until the proposed standard 
becomes effective. A later effective date (longer than twelve months) 
could reduce expected net benefits as more fires, deaths, and injuries 
associated with mattresses would occur between the date of publication 
in the Federal Register and the date the standard becomes effective. 
The staff is unaware of evidence that small manufacturers would be 
negatively impacted by a twelve months period relative to a longer 
period, such as eighteen or twenty-four months. The Commission is 
requesting comments from small businesses on the expected economic 
impact of the effective date and other requirements of the proposed 
rule (see section M of this document below).
    Taking No Action or Relying on a Voluntary Standard. If the 
Commission chose to take no action, California may attempt to enforce 
its standard despite the Commission General Counsel's position on 
preemption. Larger producers are already moving to comply with 
California's standard. They also want to avoid product liability claims 
associated with selling mattresses with different fire resistance in 
other areas of the country. Three of the largest four producers plan to 
meet TB 603 nationwide by the end of 2005. Some small California 
manufacturers may have a smaller incentive to meet TB 603 than a 
Federal standard. Small manufacturers who do not sell in California may 
similarly have no incentive to sell mattresses that meet TB 603 
requirements in other parts of the country. Hence, expected aggregate 
net benefits associated with the draft proposed standard are higher 
than the net benefits that might result under California TB 603 even if 
it could be enforced in the face of preemption concerns.
    No effort has been undertaken to develop a voluntary standard. 
Furthermore, industry representatives support a mandatory standard to 
level the playing field among domestic producers (large and small) and 
importers. If a voluntary standard were developed, the economic burden 
would fall primarily on the larger firms (who would likely be the first 
to comply), their market shares could be reduced and benefits to 
consumers (in terms of reduced deaths and injuries) would likely 
decline accordingly.
    Labeling Requirements. The Commission could require labeling on 
mattresses to warn consumers in lieu of a standard. Labeling is not 
considered an effective option for reducing the risk of fires. Since 
mattress labels are usually covered by bedclothes and may not be seen 
by the mattress users, labeling mattresses is likely to be an 
ineffective means of warning consumers. Moreover, fires started by 
children who cannot read or do not change the bed sheets will not be 
reduced by a labeling requirement. Hence, while labeling costs are 
probably negligible, labels are unlikely to reduce mattress fires.
    Labeling of chemically treated components has been suggested as a 
possible requirement of the draft standard, to inform consumers of the 
materials used. The costs of such labeling would also be negligible, 
since existing mattresses have labels and producers could probably add 
a description of the chemical treatment (if any) to the existing label. 
Labeling of chemically treated components could provide small 
unquantifiable benefits to consumers as it would provide some 
additional information. However, because a label would only provide the 
name of any chemical treatment without any information about whether 
the treatment has any potential health effects, it would be of little 
practical use for the consumer. Information on the use of chemically 
treated components is, however, required as part of the record keeping 
requirements of the standard.

L. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed standard will require manufacturers (including 
importers) of mattresses/sets to perform testing and maintain records 
of their testing and quality assurance efforts. For this reason, the 
rule proposed below contains ``collection of information 
requirements,'' as that term is used in the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501-3520. Therefore, the proposed rule is being submitted to 
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') in accordance with 44 
U.S.C. 3507(d) and implementing regulations codified at 5 CFR 1320.11. 
The estimated costs of these requirements are discussed below.
    Costs of Prototype and Confirmation Testing. According to industry 
representatives, the cost of testing per twin-size mattress/set may be 
about $500: the sum of the average cost of the materials and shipping 
($100) and the cost of the use of the lab ($400). Hence, the cost for 
testing three specimens as required by the proposed rule mattresses 
equals $1500. This cost is assumed to be incurred no more than

[[Page 2489]]

once per establishment for each prototype. If manufacturers test every 
mattress construction (e.g., single-sided pillow top, double-sided 
pillow-top, tight-top, euro-top, * * * etc.), which is estimated, based 
on conversations with manufacturers, to average about 20 per 
manufacturer, for every establishment in a given year, then the 
estimated industry testing cost per establishment per year would 
approximately equal $30,000. The total number of establishments 
producing conventional mattresses in 2001 was 639. Using an estimated 
number of 739 producers of both conventional and unconventional 
mattresses, the annual cost to all (conventional and unconventional) 
mattress producers is $22.17 million.
    Cost of information collection and recordkeeping. In addition to 
prototype testing, the proposed standard will require detailed 
documentation of prototype identification and testing records, model 
and prototype specifications, inputs used, name and location of 
suppliers, and confirmation test record, if establishments choose to 
pool a prototype. This documentation is in addition to documentation 
already conducted by mattress manufacturers in their efforts to meet 
the cigarette standard. Detailed testing documentation will be done by 
the test lab and is included in the estimated cost of testing. Based on 
CPSC Office of Compliance staff estimates, all requirements of the 
proposed standard are expected to cost an establishment about 110 
minutes, or 1.3 hours, per qualified prototype. Assuming that every 
establishment will produce 20 different qualified prototypes, the 
increase in record keeping costs is about $935 (110 minutes x 20 
prototypes x $25.50 in average civilian workers' compensation per hour) 
per establishment per year. (Note that pooling among establishments or 
using a prototype qualification for longer than one year will reduce 
this estimate.) This translates to an annual cost to all (conventional 
and unconventional) mattress producers of $690,965 ($935 x 739).
    Cost of quality control/quality assurance programs. To ensure that 
all mattresses are produced to the prototype specification across all 
factories and over the years for which a production line exists, 
mattress manufacturers will need a thorough well-documented quality 
control/assurance program. The top 12 mattress producers (with a market 
share of almost 80 percent) have a existing quality control programs 
which could be modified to fit the new standard with minimal additional 
costs. Smaller producers, whose quality control program is less 
detailed or non-existent, will incur some incremental costs as a result 
of the proposed standard. These incremental costs will be small for 
each manufacturer and less when measured per mattress. (See the section 
on impact of the proposed standard on small businesses for a 
description of their cost of quality control and quality assurance 
programs.)
    Additionally, the proposed standard encourages random production 
testing to assure manufacturers that their mattresses continue to meet 
the requirements of the rule. Assuming that an average of 3 mattress/
set constructions will be tested per establishment per year yields an 
estimated cost of production testing of about $1500. The labor needed 
to meet the quality assurance measures required by the standard is 
estimated by CPSC Office of Compliance staff to be 224 minutes per 
establishment per qualified prototype per year. Assuming that every 
establishment will produce twenty different qualified prototypes, the 
increase in labor costs associated with quality assurance requirements 
of the draft proposed standard is about $1904 (224 minutes x 20 
qualified prototypes x $25.50 average civilian workers' compensation 
per hour) per establishment per year. Hence total costs of quality 
assurance/quality control programs may average about $3,404 
($1500+1904) per establishment per year. This translates to an annual 
cost to all (conventional and unconventional) mattress producers of 
$2,515,556 ($3,404 x 739).

M. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. Introduction

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') generally requires that 
agencies review proposed rules for their potential economic impact on 
small entities, including small businesses. Section 603 of the RFA 
calls for agencies to prepare and make available for public comment an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities and identifying impact-reducing 
alternatives. Accordingly, staff prepared an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis for the mattress proposed rule. \9\ A summary of 
that analysis follows.

2. Impact on Small Businesses and Other Small Entities

    Summary of proposed requirements.
    The proposed standard will apply to all mattresses and mattress and 
foundation sets, as discussed earlier in this document (see section 
G.2. above). Options that manufacturers may choose in order to meet the 
proposed standard include one or a combination of the following: fire 
resistant ticking; chemically treated or otherwise fire resistant 
filling products; or a fire blocking barrier (either a sheet style 
barrier or a high-loft barrier, sometimes called a fiber barrier).
    For each qualified prototype, three mattresses/sets must be tested 
and must pass the test requirements. To obtain a passing result, each 
mattress/set must pass a 30 minute test, where the PHRR does not exceed 
200 kW and the total heat release does not exceed 15 MJ in the first 10 
minutes of the test. A failure of any of the sets would require that 
the problem be corrected and the prototype be retested and pass the 
test (in triplicate). Manufacturers may sell any mattress/foundation 
set based on a qualified prototype. Manufacturers may also sell a 
mattress/set based on a prototype that has not been tested if that 
prototype differs from a qualified prototype only with respect to (1) 
mattress/foundation size; (2) ticking, unless the ticking of the 
qualified prototype has characteristics designed to improve performance 
on the burn test; and/or (3) any component, material, or method of 
construction that the manufacturer can demonstrate, based on an 
objectively reasonable basis, will not cause the prototype to exceed 
the test criteria specified above.
    If one or more establishments (plants within the same firm) or 
independent firms choose to ``pool'' prototypes, then each pooling 
plant or firm is required to conduct a confirmation test for one 
mattress/set it produces locally. If that set fails, then its producer 
cannot sell mattresses based on that prototype unless it successfully 
tests another mattress/set after correcting its production to make sure 
that it is identical to the original prototype. A pooling firm may sell 
other mattresses that have not been tested by the pooling firm if they 
differ from the pooled prototype only with respect to (1) mattress/
foundation size; (2) ticking, unless the ticking of the qualified 
prototype has characteristics designed to improve performance on the 
burn test; and/or (3) any component, material, or method of 
construction that the manufacturer can demonstrate, based on an 
objectively reasonable basis, will not cause the prototype to exceed 
the test criteria specified above.
    Manufacturers are required to keep records of all tests performed 
and their results, including video or pictures, prototype 
identification number, date and time of test, name and location or

[[Page 2490]]

testing facility for as long as the prototype is in production and for 
three years after its production ceases. Manufacturers are also 
required to keep records of a unique identification number for the 
qualified prototype and a list of the unique identification numbers of 
all other prototypes based on the qualified prototype, together with a 
description of the material substituted and/or size change. Moreover, 
they are required to document the name and supplier of each material 
used in construction and keep physical samples of the material. 
Additionally, they are required to identify the details of the 
application of any flame retardant treatments and/or inherently flame 
retardant fibers employed relative to mattress components. Finally, 
they are required to have an adequate quality assurance program in 
place.
    Impact on small businesses. The proposed standard covers 
manufacturers and importers of mattresses. There were 557 mattress 
firms and 639 mattress establishments in 2001, according to the 
Statistics of U.S. businesses, Census Bureau data. All but the largest 
twelve firms had less than 500 employees. The U.S. Small Business 
Administration's Office of Advocacy defines a small business as one 
that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its 
fields. A definition that is used frequently and is less subject to 
interpretation is a firm with fewer than 500 employees. The latter 
definition classifies 97.8 percent ((557 - 12)/557) of all mattress 
firms as small businesses.
    Average employment per firm for the whole industry is 45.8 
employees. Average employment for the 1-4 employees per enterprise 
group, which represents 22.98 percent of all firms, is 2.4 employees. 
Average employment for the fewer than twenty employees per enterprise 
group, which represents 61.22 percent of all firms, is 6.2 employees. 
Hence more than half of mattress firms have fewer than twenty 
employees.
    In addition to domestic producers, importers will be affected by 
the proposed standard. Imported mattresses represent less than two 
percent of total U.S. shipments.
    The increase in material and labor costs of the proposed standard 
(estimated to be $10.41 to $38.80 per mattress) is not likely to be 
dependent on a firm's size and will therefore not adversely affect 
small businesses. Larger firms are bearing all the capital investment 
costs of research and development, sharing some of these costs with 
input suppliers. Most smaller firms are waiting to buy from the 
suppliers a barrier solution, which has been tested extensively and is 
known to meet the standard. The price smaller firms pay to cover the 
development and testing costs borne by the supplier will not 
disproportionately impact them, because it is not measured relative to 
their small output, but relative to the supplier's output. Other 
smaller firms may combine their development efforts to be able to 
benefit from dividing the costs over a larger number of firms. Finally, 
small mattress producers who do not assemble the mattress panels, but 
buy them from a panel supplier are effectively acting as a large 
producer by combining all their output. This is because the panel 
supplier will be responsible for including a barrier in the panel 
assembly and will pass that cost on to the mattress producers, again 
not disproportionately impacting the small producers who buy the 
already assembled panels.
    The cost imposed disproportionately (per unit produced) on small 
businesses will be the cost of testing, information collection and 
record keeping, and quality control/quality assurance programs. While 
the regulatory analysis estimates these costs to be a little over one 
dollar per mattress per year for average-sized establishments, they 
could be substantially higher for small mattress producers. If 
manufacturers use a prototype qualification to produce mattress/set 
constructions for longer than a year, or if they use a worst-case 
prototype to represent other mattress constructions, these costs will 
be lower. Furthermore, firms with more than one establishment may be 
able to reduce these costs by pooling their testing and quality control 
programs over all establishments. Small independent firms could also 
pool their testing to reduce their costs per mattress.
    Use of pooling across establishments and firms would ameliorate the 
impact of the proposed standard on small businesses. By getting 
together across different states and regions, small manufacturers who 
do not share a common market (and therefore do not compete with each 
other) can resemble a large manufacturer in their testing and quality 
control/quality assurance efforts and therefore reduce their costs per 
mattress. It is also expected that some barrier suppliers would be 
willing to do the testing and quality control/assurance programs for 
small manufacturers in exchange for a small charge, which will be 
similar to the average cost per mattress for large businesses, because 
the volume of output will be large.

3. Alternatives and Their Possible Effect on Small Businesses

    Alternatives considered by the Commission are discussed in the 
Preliminary Regulatory Analysis section of this preamble (Section K). 
As discussed therein, increasing the duration of the test and reducing 
the PHRR would increase costs without necessarily increasing benefits. 
This would necessitate an increase in costs. Staff estimates the 
marginal increase in costs to be $3.96 to $11.88 over the costs of the 
proposed standard. Although a stricter standard might increase 
benefits, any increase is likely to be small since the proposed 
standard has an effectiveness rate of 80 percent.
    An increase in costs would likely result in an increase in mattress 
prices. A bedding official estimated that such price increases may 
result in reduction in sales of 25% or more (Furniture/Today, July 21, 
2004). The larger increase in prices (compared to the less strict test) 
and the resulting reduction in sales could drive some of the smaller 
producers out of business. (A stricter standard would be more likely to 
require replacing some existing machines, to accommodate the denser 
barrier material, which would be disproportionately more costly for 
smaller firms, whose machinery is older and less sophisticated.) Since 
mattresses are durable goods, one would expect a larger drop in sales 
in the short-run than in the long-run, as consumers choose to keep 
their old mattresses longer than before. This would make the reduction 
in sales more pronounced in the short-run, increasing the likelihood 
that some firms may exit the market. Moreover, if a large number of 
consumers choose to extend the life of their mattresses for a longer 
time period, it will take longer to achieve the benefits expected to be 
associated with the safer mattresses.
    As discussed in the preliminary regulatory analysis, the Commission 
also considered a different criterion for the total heat released 
during the first 10 minutes of the test, i.e., 25 MJ instead of the 15 
MJ the Commission is proposing. Using the 25 MJ criterion would likely 
reduce estimated benefits (the estimated reductions in deaths and 
injuries), without having any significant effect on costs. According to 
several producers, mattresses that use existing barrier technology 
release total heat that is far below the 25 MJ level.
    Moreover, because of the small fuel load of ticking materials 
currently being used, the lower total heat release requirement allows 
the production of mattress/sets based on a prototype that has not been 
tested so long as it differs

[[Page 2491]]

from the qualified prototype only with respect to ticking and the 
ticking is not part of the fire resistance solution. Requiring a test 
for every prototype with a different ticking was rejected because of 
the magnitude of the burden it would impose on small producers who do 
not produce large numbers of any one prototype and would have been 
adversely affected by these requirements.
    The Commission also considered alternative testing requirements. 
The proposed standard requires prototype testing (of three specimens of 
mattress/sets) before a manufacturer starts production of a given 
mattress design and a confirmatory test of one mattress if a firm is 
producing a mattress based on a prototype produced by another 
manufacturer in a pooling arrangement. Although production testing 
(i.e. burning mattress/sets to ensure that production units meet the 
standard) is encouraged by the proposed standard under quality 
assurance program requirements, it is not required. The individual 
manufacturer's decision on the need for and frequency of production 
testing will clearly depend on the efficacy of its quality assurance/
control efforts.
    As an alternative, the Federal standard could, like TB 603, omit 
testing requirements. However, without testing, it might be difficult 
for manufacturers to know whether their mattresses will comply with the 
standard. Alternatively, the standard could require production testing 
with a specified frequency. This specification, however, could result 
in unnecessary costs if they are not justified given the quality 
control measures generally undertaken by producers in the absence of 
the proposed standard. Requiring more tests per establishment, 
prototype, or enterprise will increase the estimated costs per mattress 
and could reduce net benefits.
    The Commission also could have chosen to take no action. In this 
situation, the larger producers would probably follow TB 603 for all 
their mattresses, not just those sold in California, in order to avoid 
product liability claims. Some small California manufacturers may 
decline to meet TB 603 on the basis that it is preempted by the 
existing federal standard. Small manufacturers who do not sell in 
California may have no incentive to meet TB 603 requirements throughout 
the country. Hence, expected aggregate net benefits associated with the 
draft proposed standard are higher than the net benefits that might 
result under California TB 603.
    Another possible option would be to require labeling on mattresses 
to warn consumers in lieu of a standard. However, as discussed in the 
Preliminary Regulatory Analysis, labeling is not likely to be effective 
at reducing mattress-related deaths and injuries.
    A final possible option might be to set a later effective date for 
small companies. If needed, this could allow smaller companies more 
time to prepare for the standard since they are less likely to be 
currently preparing for California's similar TB 603. However, the 
Commission has no evidence at this time that a split effective date is 
necessary.

4. Conclusion

    Almost all mattress firms would be considered small businesses, 
using the Small Business Administration definition. Material and labor 
costs for all firms are expected to initially increase on average by 
$10-$39 dollars per mattress set produced. These cost increases are 
expected to be borne equally by all firms and hence do not have an 
adverse impact on the smaller mattress producers. These costs are 
expected to decline in the future due to improved technology of 
producing fire retardant materials and increase competition among input 
suppliers.
    Although testing and recordkeeping requirements may have a 
disproportionate impact on small manufacturers, the proposed standard 
allows manufacturers to pool test results, to vary their tickings 
without new prototype testing (unless the ticking had characteristics 
designed to improve performance on the specified mattress test), and to 
make other changes in their prototype without new prototype testing if 
the change does not negatively effect the mattress's ability to meet 
the test criteria. These options should minimize burdens on small 
businesses.
    The Commission requests comments on any or all of the provisions in 
the proposed rule with regard to : (1) The impact of the provisions 
(including any benefits and costs), if any, on small entities and (2) 
what alternatives, if any, the Commission should consider, as well as 
the costs and benefits of those alternatives to small entities in light 
of the above analysis. The Commission is particularly interested in 
information with regard to the impact of the following aspects of the 
proposed rule:
     Prototype and confirmation testing requirements
     Quality Control/quality assurance program requirements
     Recordkeeping requirements
     Twelve month effective date
    Also, it would be most useful to receive comments on ways in which 
the proposal could be modified to reduce any costs or burdens for small 
entities, and whether and how technological developments could reduce 
the costs for small entities of complying with the rule.

N. Environmental Considerations

    General. Usually, CPSC rules establishing performance requirements 
are considered to ``have little or no potential for affecting the human 
environment,'' and environmental assessments are not usually prepared 
for these rules (see 16 CFR 1021.5 (c)(1)). However, in order to meet 
this standard, many manufacturers will need to change some materials 
that they use to manufacture mattresses: either using more inherently 
flame resistant materials or incorporating flame retardant (FR) 
chemicals into their products. Therefore, the Commission concluded that 
a more thorough consideration of the potential for environmental 
impacts is warranted.
    The staff's analysis contained in the memorandum ``Preliminary 
Environmental Assessment of a Draft Proposed Open-Flame Ignition 
Resistance Standard for Mattresses,'' [7] concludes that since the 
proposed standard states performance requirements, manufacturers will 
have several options for meeting the requirements of the proposed 
standard. Although there are still some unsettled questions, there 
appear to be numerous promising methods that manufacturers could use 
without posing an unacceptable health risk to consumers or 
significantly affecting the environment. Moreover, even if a chemical 
used by some manufacturers were shown to pose an unacceptable risk to 
human health or the environment, there would be various regulatory and 
other mechanisms that could be used to remove the chemical from 
applications where it poses a risk.
    Possible approaches to meet the proposed standard. The standard 
does not prescribe the means that manufacturers must use to meet the 
standard. The staff expects, however, that most manufacturers will use 
some kind of flame resistant barrier to protect the mattress components 
with the greatest combustible fuel loads from the flames. These 
barriers may be fabric, batting, or other materials that are either 
inherently flame resistant or that have been treated with flame 
retardant chemicals. [6&7]
    Because manufacturers are now evaluating their alternatives, the 
staff

[[Page 2492]]

does not know the methods that each manufacturer will use to meet the 
proposed standard. Therefore, the staff's analysis attempts to provide 
some context for considering the environmental impacts of the standard. 
More definitive conclusions should be possible as more information 
concerning the methods that manufacturers will use to meet the standard 
becomes available.
    How the proposed standard could affect the environment. About 25 
million mattresses are sold annually, and most will probably require 
some changes in materials used or construction to meet the standard. 
These changes, such as the incorporation of a flame resistant barrier 
or other materials, will increase the manufacture of fire resistant 
materials or FR chemicals. This could mean increased exposure to such 
chemicals for workers and consumers. Additionally, at the end of their 
useful lives, the mattresses/sets will be disposed of. Potential 
environmental impacts will vary depending on the method the 
manufacturer used to meet the standard and the potential for the 
particular FR chemicals used to persist in the environment. [7]
    FR chemicals widely in use, but new applications possible. Many FR 
chemicals are widely used. In the U.S., the consumption of flame 
retardant chemicals is estimated to be over 1 billion pounds annually 
and is increasing. This includes various fire retardant chemicals based 
on bromine, antimony, chlorine, phosphorous, nitrogen, and boron. 
Additionally, there are some fibers where the FR chemical is 
incorporated into the polymer of the fiber itself or that are 
inherently fire resistant. These include some modacrylic, melamine, and 
para-aramid fibers.
    Because the chemicals and materials that would be used to meet a 
mattress standard are already being used in other applications, the 
manufacture of these materials will not create new impacts, though it 
could intensify effects that are already occurring. A mattress 
flammability standard could result in some FR chemicals or flame 
resistant materials being used in applications where they have not been 
used before. This would result in some new exposure patterns for these 
materials. For example, workers in mattress factories could be exposed 
to the chemicals as could the ultimate consumers. However, these new 
exposure patterns may be similar to ones that are already occurring 
since these chemicals are widely used in other applications. For 
example, workers involved in manufacturing protective apparel, carpets, 
and transportation upholstery may already be exposed to these chemicals 
as are the consumers of the products. Some of these FR chemicals and 
materials may already be used in mattress and bedding applications. For 
example, boric acid is already used to treat cotton batting in 
mattresses and futons. [6&7]
    Possible regulatory protections. Some chemicals that have been used 
for their fire resistant properties have been determined to have 
unacceptable adverse impacts on health and the environment in some 
applications (e.g., TRIS (2,3,-dibromopropyl) phosphate, 
pentabromodiphenyl oxide (``PBDPO'') and octabromodiphenyl oxide 
(``BDPO'')). [7]
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to 
regulate the use of toxic chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control 
Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.). EPA also monitors and promotes 
research into potential toxic or environmental effects of chemicals 
which it believes could pose environmental risks. With regard to flame 
retardants, the EPA is developing a significant new use rule (SNUR), 
under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA, which is expected to cover the use of 
several flame retardants in residential upholstered furniture. A SNUR 
would require chemical manufacturers and importers to report scientific 
data to the EPA so that EPA may determine whether controls on the use 
of the chemical may be warranted. There is expected to be some overlap 
between the flame retardants that will be covered by the SNUR for use 
in upholstered furniture and flame retardants that can be used in 
mattresses. Decabromodiphenyl oxide (DBDPO), for example, can be used 
as a backcoating in upholstery fabric or on fire resistant barriers for 
mattresses. Additional activities by EPA, The National Toxicology 
Program (NTP) of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 
and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) can 
provide information about any adverse health effects of FR chemicals 
and take actions to limit their use if necessary. [6&7] Work by the 
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences on 
selected flame-retardant chemicals is an additional source of 
information on these FR chemicals. [16]
    Conclusion. The staff's environmental analysis examines some of the 
methods manufacturers might use to meet the proposed standard and 
discusses what is known about their potential toxicity and possible 
environmental impact. The analysis concludes that there are FR 
chemicals and flame resistant materials that, based on currently 
available data, are not expected to pose unacceptable risks to the 
environment and that are widely used in other applications. [7]
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(``NEPA''), the Executive Director of CPSC has issued a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (``FONSI'') for the proposed mattress standard. The 
FONSI is based on the staff's Environmental Assessment, which has been 
summarized above. The FONSI concludes that there will be no significant 
impacts on the quality of the human environment as a result of the 
proposed mattress flammability standard. The Commission requests 
comments on both the Environmental Assessment and the FONSI.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Both of these documents are available from the Commission's 
Office of the Secretary (see ``Addresses'' section above) or from 
the Commission's web site (http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

O. Executive Order 12988

    According to Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), agencies 
must state the preemptive effect, if any, of new regulations.
    The FFA provides that, generally, if the Commission issues a 
flammability standard for a fabric, related material or product under 
the FFA, ``no State or political subdivision of a State may establish 
or continue in effect a flammability standard or other regulation for 
such fabric, related material or product if the standard or other 
regulation is designed to protect against the same risk of the 
occurrence of fire with respect to which the standard or other 
regulation under this Act is in effect unless the State or political 
subdivision standard or other regulation is identical to the Federal 
standard other regulation.'' 15 U.S.C. 1203(a). Upon application to the 
Commission, a State or political subdivision of a State may be exempted 
from this preemptive effect if compliance with the State or political 
subdivision requirement would not cause the fabric, related material or 
product to be in violation of any FFA standard or regulation, and the 
State or political subdivision's standard (1) provides a significantly 
higher degree of protection from the risk of occurrence of fire than 
the FFA standard and (2) does not unduly burden interstate commerce. 
Id. 1203(c)(1). In addition, the Federal government, or a State or 
local government, may establish and continue in effect a non-identical 
flammability standard or other regulation for the

[[Page 2493]]

Federal, State or local government's own use if it provides a higher 
degree of protection than the FFA standard. Id. 1203(b). Thus, with the 
exceptions noted above, the proposed open flame standard for mattresses 
would preempt non-identical state or local mattress flammability 
standards designed to protect against the same risk of the occurrence 
of fire.
    The issue of preemption has been raised with regard to the proposed 
standard because of California's TB 603. In a letter to the Bureau 
Chief of California's Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal 
Insulation, dated April 9, 2003, the Commission's General Counsel has 
taken the position that CPSC's existing federal Standard for the 
Flammability of Mattresses (16 CFR 1632) preempts California's TB 603. 
That conclusion was based on legislative history and CPSC's General 
Counsel Advisory Opinion 289 (Dec. 8, 1983) indicating that if federal 
and state requirements are both designed to address the same risk 
(i.e., the occurrence of fire), the federal standard will have 
preemptive effect even if the two standards use different ignition 
sources.
    Legislative history of the FFA's preemption provision states:

    [A] State standard designed to protect against the risk of 
injury from a fabric catching on fire would be preempted by a 
Federal flammability standard covering the same fabric even though 
the Federal flammability standard called for tests using matches and 
the State standard called for tests using cigarettes. When an item 
is covered by a Federal flammability standard, * * * a different 
State or local flammability requirement applicable to the same item 
will be preempted since both are designed to protect against the 
same risk, that is the occurrence of or injury from fire.

H.R. Rep. No. 1022, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 29 (1976). The Commission 
believes that this legislative history indicates that the proposed 
standard would preempt non-identical state requirements addressing the 
flammability of mattresses.

P. Effective Date

    The Commission proposes that the rule would become effective one 
year from publication of a final rule in the Federal Register and would 
apply to mattresses entering the chain of distribution on or after that 
date. The Commission is aware that many mattress manufacturers are 
modifying their products to comply with California's TB 603 which 
prescribes requirements that are similar to this proposed rule and will 
become effective January 1, 2005. Thus, the Commission believes that a 
one-year effective date should allow sufficient time for manufacturers 
to develop products for nationwide markets that will meet the proposed 
requirements. The Commission requests comments, especially from small 
businesses on the proposed effective date and the impact it would have 
on them.

Q. Proposed Findings

    Section 1193(a) and (j)(2) of the FFA require the Commission to 
make certain findings when it issues a flammability standard. 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). In addition, 
the Commission must find that: (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 requirement that would prevent or adequately reduce 
the risk of injury. The last three findings must be included in the 
regulation. Id. 1193(j)(2). These findings are discussed below.
    The standard is needed to adequately protect the public against 
unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire. National fire loss 
estimates indicate that mattresses and bedding were the first items to 
ignite in 19,400 residential fires attended by the fire service 
annually during 1995-1999. These fires resulted in 440 deaths, 2,230 
injuries and $273.9 million in property loss each year. Of these, the 
staff considers an estimated 18,500 fires, 440 deaths, 2,160 injuries, 
and $259.5 million property loss annually to be addressable by the 
proposed standard. The Commission estimates that the standard will 
prevent 80 to 86 percent of deaths and 86 to 92 percent of the injuries 
occurring with these addressable mattress/bedding fires. Thus, the 
Commission estimates that when all mattresses have been replaced by 
ones that comply with the standard, 310 to 330 deaths and 1,660 to 
1,780 injuries will be avoided annually as a result of the standard.
    The regulatory analysis explains that the Commission estimates 
lifetime net benefits of $18 to $62 per mattress or aggregate lifetime 
net benefits for all mattresses produced in the first year of the 
standard of $450 to $1,560 million from the standard. Thus, the 
Commission preliminarily finds that the standard is needed to 
adequately protect the public from the unreasonable risk of the 
occurrence of fire.
    The standard is reasonable, technologically practicable, and 
appropriate. Through extensive research and testing, NIST developed a 
test method to assess the flammability of mattresses ignited by an open 
flame. The test method represents the typical scenario of burning 
bedclothes igniting a mattress. Based on NIST's testing, the standard 
establishes criteria that will reduce the fire intensity of a burning 
mattress, allowing more time for occupants to escape before flashover 
occurs. NIST testing has also demonstrated that mattresses can be 
constructed with available materials and construction that will meet 
the test criteria. Therefore, the Commission finds that the standard is 
reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate.
    The standard is limited to fabrics, related materials, and products 
that present an unreasonable risk. The standard applies to mattresses 
and mattress and foundation sets. It is a performance standard. Thus, 
it neither requires nor restricts the use of particular fabrics, 
related materials or products. Manufacturers may choose the materials 
and methods of construction that they believe will best suit their 
business and result in mattresses that can meet the specified test 
criteria. As discussed above, the Commission concludes that current 
mattresses present an unreasonable risk. Therefore, the Commission 
finds that the standard is limited to fabrics, related materials, and 
products that present an unreasonable risk.
    Voluntary standards. The Commission is not aware of any voluntary 
standard in existence that adequately and appropriately addresses the 
specific risk of injury addressed by this standard. Thus, no findings 
concerning compliance with and adequacy of voluntary standards are 
necessary.
    Relationship of Benefits to Costs. The Commission estimates that 
the total lifetime benefits of a mattress complying with this standard 
will range from $62 to $74 per mattress (based on a 10 year mattress 
life and 3% discount rate). The Commission estimates that total 
resource costs of the standard will range from $13 to $44 per mattress. 
This yields net benefits of $18 to $62 per mattress. The Commission 
estimates

[[Page 2494]]

that aggregate lifetime benefits associated with all mattresses 
produced the first year the standard becomes effective range from 
$1,560 to $1,880 million, and that aggregate resource costs associated 
with these mattresses range from $320 to $1,110 million, yielding net 
benefits of about $450 to $1,560 million. Therefore, the Commission 
finds that the benefits from the regulation bear a reasonable 
relationship to its costs.
    Least burdensome requirement. The Commission considered the 
following alternatives: alternative maximum peak heat release rate and 
test duration, alternative total heat released in the first 10 minutes 
of the test, mandatory production testing, a longer effective date, 
taking no action, relying on a voluntary standard, and requiring 
labeling alone. As discussed in the preamble above and the regulatory 
analysis, these alternatives are expected to increase costs without 
increasing benefits, or significantly reduce the benefits expected from 
the rule. Therefore, the Commission finds that the standard imposes the 
least burdensome requirement that would adequately reduce the risk.

R. Conclusion

    For the reasons stated in this preamble, the Commission 
preliminarily finds that an open flame flammability standard for 
mattresses and mattress and foundation sets is needed to adequately 
protect the public against the unreasonable risk of the occurrence of 
fire leading to death, injury, and significant property damage. The 
Commission also preliminarily finds that the standard is reasonable, 
technologically practicable, and appropriate. The Commission further 
finds that the standard is limited to the fabrics, related materials 
and products which present such unreasonable risks.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1633

    Consumer protection, Flammable materials, Labeling, Mattresses and 
mattress pads, Records, Textiles, Warranties.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to 
amend Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new part 
1633 to read as follows:

PART 1633--STANDARD FOR THE FLAMMABILITY (OPEN-FLAME) OF MATTRESSES 
and MATTRESS AND FOUNDATION SETS

Subpart A--The Standard
Sec.
1633.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
1633.2 Definitions.
1633.3 General requirements.
1633.4 Prototype testing requirements.
1633.5 Prototype pooling and confirmation testing requirements.
1633.6 Quality assurance requirements.
1633.7 Mattress test procedure.
1633.8 Findings.
1633.9 Glossary of terms.
Subpart B--Rules and Regulations
1633.10 Definitions.
1633.11 Records.
1633.12 Labeling.
1633.13 Tests for guaranty purposes, compliance with this section, 
and ``one of a kind'' exemption.
Subpart C--Interpretations and Policies
1633.14 Policy clarification on renovation of mattresses.
Figure 1 to Part 1633--Test Assembly, Shown in Furniture Calorimeter 
(Configuration A)
Figure 2 to Part 1633--Test Arrangement in 3.05m x 3.66m (10 ft x 12 
ft) Room (Configuration B)
Figure 3 to Part 1633--Details of Horizontal Burner Head
Figure 4 to Part 1633--Details of Vertical Burner Head
Figure 5 to Part 1633--Details of Burner Stand-off
Figure 6 to Part 1633--Burner Assembly Showing Arms and Pivots 
(Shoulder Screws), in Relation to, Portable Frame Allowing Burner 
Height Adjustment
Figure 7 to Part 1633--Elements of Propane Flow Control for Each 
Burner
Figure 8 to Part 1633--Jig for Setting Mattresses and Foundation 
Sides in Same Plane
Figure 9 to Part 1633--Burner Placements on Mattress/Foundation
Figure 10 to Part 1633--Jig for Setting Burners at Proper Distances 
from Mattress/Foundation
Figure 11 to Part 1633--Diagrams for Glossary of Terms
Appendix A to Part 1633--Calibration of Propane Flowmeters
Appendix B to Part 1633--Burner Operation Sequence

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1193, 1194.

Subpart A--The Standard


Sec.  1633.1  Purpose, scope, and applicability.

    (a) Purpose. This Part 1633 establishes flammability requirements 
that all mattress and mattress and foundation sets must meet before 
sale or introduction into commerce. The purpose of the standard is to 
reduce deaths and injuries associated with mattress fires by limiting 
the size of the fire generated by a mattress or mattress and foundation 
set during a thirty minute test.
    (b) Scope. (1) All mattresses and all mattress and foundation sets, 
as defined in Sec.  1633.2(a) and Sec.  1633.2(b), of any size, 
manufactured or imported after [the effective date of this standard] 
are subject to the requirements of the standard.
    (2) One-of-a-kind mattresses and foundations may be exempted from 
testing under this standard in accordance with Sec.  1633.13(c).
    (c) Applicability. The requirements of this part 1633 shall apply 
to each ``manufacturer'' (as that term is defined in Sec.  1633.2(i)) 
of mattresses and/or mattress and foundation sets which are 
manufactured for sale in commerce.


Sec.  1633.2  Definitions.

    In addition to the definitions given in section 2 of the Flammable 
Fabrics Act as amended (15 U.S.C. 1191), the following definitions 
apply for purposes of this part 1633.
    (a) Mattress means a resilient material or combination of materials 
enclosed by a ticking (used alone or in combination with other 
products) intended or promoted for sleeping upon.
    (1) This term includes, but is not limited to, adult mattresses, 
youth mattresses, crib mattresses (including portable crib mattresses), 
bunk bed mattresses, futons, flip chairs without a permanent back or 
arms, sleeper chairs, and water beds or air mattresses if they contain 
upholstery material between the ticking and the mattress core. 
Mattresses used in or as part of upholstered furniture are also 
included; examples are convertible sofa bed mattresses, corner group 
mattresses, day bed mattresses, roll-away bed mattresses, high risers, 
and trundle bed mattresses. See Sec.  1633.9 Glossary of terms, for 
definitions of these items.
    (2) This term excludes mattress pads, mattress toppers (items with 
resilient filling, with or without ticking, intended to be used with or 
on top of a mattress), sleeping bags, pillows, liquid and gaseous 
filled tickings, such as water beds and air mattresses that contain no 
upholstery material between the ticking and the mattress core, 
upholstered furniture which does not contain a mattress, and juvenile 
product pads such as car bed pads, carriage pads, basket pads, infant 
carrier and lounge pads, dressing table pads, stroller pads, crib 
bumpers, and playpen pads. See Sec.  1633.9 Glossary of terms, for 
definitions of these items.
    (b) Foundation means a ticking covered structure used to support a 
mattress or sleep surface. The structure may include constructed 
frames, foam, box springs, or other materials, used alone or in 
combination.
    (c) Ticking means the outermost layer of fabric or related material 
of a mattress or foundation. It does not include any other layers of 
fabric or related materials quilted together with, or otherwise

[[Page 2495]]

attached to, the outermost layer of fabric or related material.
    (d) Upholstery material means all material, either loose or 
attached, between the mattress ticking and the core of a mattress, if a 
core is present.
    (e) Edge seam means the seam or border edge of a mattress or 
foundation that joins the top and/or bottom with the side panels.
    (f) Tape edge means an edge seam made by using binding tape to 
encase and finish raw edges.
    (g) Binding tape means a fabric strip used in the construction of 
some edge seams.
    (h) Seam thread means the thread used to form stitches in 
construction features, seams, and tape edges.
    (i) Manufacturer means an individual plant or factory at which 
mattresses and/or mattress and foundation sets are manufactured or 
assembled. For purposes of this Part 1633, an importer is considered a 
manufacturer.
    (j) Prototype means a specific design of mattress and corresponding 
foundation, if any, which, except as permitted by Sec.  1633.4(b), is 
the same in all material respects as, and serves as a model for, 
production units intended to be introduced into commerce.
    (k) Prototype pooling means a cooperative arrangement whereby one 
or more manufacturers may rely on a prototype produced by a different 
manufacturer.
    (l) Production lot means any quantity of finished mattresses or 
mattress and foundation sets that are produced in a production interval 
defined by the manufacturer, and are intended to replicate a specific 
prototype that complies with this part 1633.
    (m) Confirmation test means a pre-market test conducted by a 
manufacturer that is relying on a pooled prototype produced by another 
manufacturer. A confirmation test must be conducted in accordance with 
the procedures set forth in Sec.  1633.7 to confirm that the 
manufacturer can produce a mattress and corresponding foundation, if 
any, that is identical to the prototype in all material respects.
    (n) Specimen means a mattress and corresponding foundation, if any, 
tested under this part.
    (o) Twin size means any mattress with the dimensions 38 inches (in) 
(96.5 centimeters (cm)) x 74.5 in. (189.2 cm), all dimensions may vary 
by  \1/2\ in. ( 1.3 cm)
    (p) Qualified prototype means a prototype that has been tested in 
accordance with Sec.  1633.4(a) and meets the criteria stated in Sec.  
1633.3(b).
    (q) Core means the main support system that may be present in a 
mattress, such as springs, foam, water bladder, air bladder, or 
resilient filling.


Sec.  1633.3  General requirements.

    (a) Summary of test method. The test method set forth in Sec.  
1633.7 measures the flammability (fire test response characteristics) 
of a mattress specimen by exposing the specimen to a specified flaming 
ignition source and allowing it to burn freely under well-ventilated, 
controlled environmental conditions. The flaming ignition source shall 
be a pair of propane burners. These burners impose differing fluxes for 
differing times on the top and sides of the specimen. During and after 
this exposure, measurements shall be made of the time-dependent heat 
release rate from the specimen, quantifying the energy generated by the 
fire. The rate of heat release must be measured by means of oxygen 
consumption calorimetry.
    (b) Test criteria. When testing the mattress or mattress and 
foundation set in accordance with the test procedure set forth in Sec.  
1633.7, the specimen shall comply with both of the following criteria:
    (1) The peak rate of heat release shall not exceed 200 kilowatts 
(``kW'') at any time within the 30 minute test; and
    (2) The total heat release shall not exceed 15 megajoules (``MJ'') 
for the first 10 minutes of the test. In the interest of safety, the 
test operator should discontinue the test and record a failure if a 
fire develops to such a size as to require suppression for the safety 
of the facility.
    (c) Testing of mattress and corresponding foundation. Mattresses to 
be offered for sale with a foundation shall be tested with that 
foundation. Mattresses to be offered for sale without a foundation 
shall be tested alone.
    (d) Compliance with this standard. Each mattress or mattress and 
foundation set sold or introduced into commerce after [the effective 
date of this standard] shall meet the test criteria specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section and otherwise comply with all applicable 
requirements of this part 1633.


Sec.  1633.4  Prototype testing requirements.

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, 
each manufacturer shall cause three specimens of each prototype to be 
tested according to Sec.  1633.7 and obtain passing test results 
according to Sec.  1633.3(b) before selling or introducing into 
commerce any mattress or mattress and foundation set based on that 
prototype, unless the manufacturer complies with the prototype pooling 
and confirmation testing requirements in Sec.  1633.5.
    (b) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this 
section, a manufacturer may sell or introduce into commerce a mattress 
or mattress and foundation set based on a prototype that has not been 
tested according to Sec.  1633.3(b) if that prototype differs from a 
qualified prototype only with respect to:
    (1) Mattress/foundation size (e.g., twin, queen, king);
    (2) Ticking, unless the ticking of the qualified prototype has 
characteristics (such as chemical treatment or special fiber 
composition) designed to improve performance on the test prescribed in 
this part; and/or
    (3) The manufacturer can demonstrate, on an objectively reasonable 
basis, that a change in any component, material, or method of 
construction will not cause the prototype to exceed the test criteria 
specified in Sec.  1633.3(b).
    (c) All tests must be conducted on specimens that are no smaller 
than a twin size, unless the largest size mattress or mattress and 
foundation set produced is smaller than a twin size, in which case the 
largest size must be tested.
    (d)(1) If each of the three specimens meets both the criteria 
specified in Sec.  1633.3(b), the prototype shall be qualified. If any 
one (1) specimen fails to meet the test criteria of Sec.  1633.3(b), 
the prototype is not qualified.
    (2) Any manufacturer may produce mattresses and foundations, if 
any, for sale in reliance on prototype tests performed before [the 
effective date of this Standard], provided that such tests were 
conducted in accordance with all requirements of this section and Sec.  
1633.7 and yielded passing results according to the test criteria of 
Sec.  1633.3(b).


Sec.  1633.5  Prototype pooling and confirmation testing requirements.

    (a) Prototype pooling. One or more manufacturers may rely on a 
prototype produced by another manufacturer provided that:
    (1) The prototype meets the requirements of Sec.  1633.4; and
    (2) The mattresses or mattress and foundation sets being produced 
based on the prototype have components, materials, and methods of 
construction that are identical in all material respects to the 
prototype except as otherwise permitted by Sec.  1633.4(b).
    (b) Confirmation testing. Any manufacturer (``Manufacturer B'') 
producing mattresses or mattress and foundation sets in reliance on a 
prototype produced by another manufacturer (``Manufacturer A'') shall

[[Page 2496]]

cause to be tested in accordance with Sec.  1633.7 at least one (1) 
specimen produced by Manufacturer B of each prototype of Manufacturer A 
upon which said Manufacturer B is relying. The tested specimen must 
meet the criteria under Sec.  1633.3(b) before Manufacturer B may sell 
or introduce any mattresses or mattress and foundation sets based on 
the pooled prototype.
    (c) Confirmation test failure. (1) If the confirmation test 
specimen fails to meet the criteria of Sec.  1633.3(b), the 
manufacturer thereof shall not sell any mattress or mattress and 
foundation set based on the same prototype until that manufacturer 
takes corrective measures, tests a new specimen, and the new specimen 
meets the criteria of Sec.  1633.3(b).
    (2) If a confirmation test specimen fails to meet the criteria of 
Sec.  1633.3(b), the manufacturer thereof must notify the manufacturer 
of the prototype of the test failure.


Sec.  1633.6  Quality assurance requirements.

    (a) Quality assurance. Each manufacturer shall implement a quality 
assurance program to ensure that mattresses and mattress and foundation 
sets manufactured for sale are identical in all material respects to 
the prototype on which they are based. At a minimum these procedures 
shall include:
    (1) Controls, including incoming inspection procedures, of all 
mattress and mattress and foundation set components and materials to 
ensure that they are identical in all material respects to those used 
in the prototype;
    (2) Designation of a production lot that is represented by the 
prototype; and
    (3) Inspection of mattresses and mattress and foundation sets 
produced for sale sufficient to demonstrate that they are identical to 
the prototype in all material respects.
    (b) Production testing. Manufacturers are encouraged to conduct, as 
part of the quality assurance program, random testing of mattresses and 
mattress and foundation sets being produced for sale according to the 
requirements of Sec. Sec.  1633.3 and 1633.7.
    (c) Failure of mattresses produced for sale to meet flammability 
standard. (1) Sale of mattresses and foundations. If any test performed 
for quality assurance yields results which indicate that any mattress 
or mattress and foundation set of a production lot does not meet the 
criteria of Sec.  1633.3(b), or if a manufacturer obtains test results 
or other evidence that a component or material or construction/assembly 
process used could negatively affect the test performance of the 
mattress as set forth in Sec.  1633.3(b), the manufacturer shall cease 
production and distribution in commerce of such mattresses and/or 
mattress and foundation sets until corrective action is taken.
    (2) Corrective actions. A manufacturer must take corrective action 
when any mattress or mattress and foundation set is manufactured or 
imported for sale fails to meet the flammability test criteria set 
forth in Sec.  1633.3(b).


Sec.  1633.7  Mattress test procedure.

    (a) Apparatus and test materials (1) Calorimetry. The rate of heat 
release must be measured by means of oxygen consumption calorimetry. 
The calibration should follow generally accepted practices for 
calibration. The calorimetry system shall be calibrated at a minimum of 
two (2) calibration points, at 75 kW and 200 kW.
    (2) Testroom. The testroom must have either Test Configuration A or 
B.
    (i) Test Configuration A. (an open calorimeter (or furniture 
calorimeter)). In this configuration, the specimen to be tested is 
placed under the center of an open furniture calorimeter. Figure 1 of 
this part shows the test assembly atop a bedframe and catch surface. 
The specimen shall be placed under an open hood which captures the 
entire smoke plume and is instrumented for heat release rate 
measurements. The area surrounding the test specimen in an open 
calorimeter layout shall be sufficiently large that there are no heat 
re-radiation effects from any nearby materials or objects. The air flow 
to the test specimen should be symmetrical from all sides. The air flow 
to the calorimeter hood shall be sufficient to ensure that the entire 
fire plume is captured, even at peak burning. Skirts may be placed on 
the hood periphery to help assure this plume capture, if necessary, 
though they must not be of such an excessive length as to cause the 
incoming flow to disturb the burning process. Skirts must also not heat 
up to the point that they contribute significant re-radiation to the 
test specimen. The air supply to the hood shall be sufficient that the 
fire is not in any way limited or affected by the available air supply. 
The fire plume should not enter the hood exhaust duct. Brief (seconds) 
flickers of flame that occupy only a minor fraction of the hood exhaust 
duct inlet cross-section are not a problem since they do not signify 
appreciable suppression of flames.
    (ii) Test Configuration B. The test room shall have dimensions 3.05 
meters (m)  25 millimeters (mm) by 3.66 m  25 
mm by 2.44 m  25 mm (10 feet (ft) by 12 ft by 8 ft) high. 
The specimen is placed within the burn room. All smoke exiting from the 
room is caught by a hood system instrumented for heat release rate 
measurements. The room shall have no openings permitting air 
infiltration other than a doorway opening 0.97 m  6.4 mm by 
2.03 m  6.4 mm (38 in by 80 in) located as indicated in 
Figure 2 of this part and other small openings as necessary to make 
measurements. Construct the test room of wood or metal studs and line 
it with fire-rated wallboard or calcium silicate board. Position an 
exhaust hood outside of the doorway so as to collect all of the 
combustion gases. There shall be no obstructions in the air supply to 
the set-up.
    (2) Location of test specimen. The location of the test specimen is 
shown in Figure 2 of this part. The angled placement is intended to 
minimize the interaction of flames on the side surfaces of the test 
specimen with the room walls. One corner of the test specimen shall be 
13 centimeters (cm) to 17 cm from the wall and the other corner shall 
be 25 cm to 30 cm from the wall. The test room shall contain no other 
furnishings or combustible materials except for the test specimen.
    (3) Bed frame. For twin size mattresses, the specimen shall be 
placed on top of a welded bed frame (1.90 m by 0.99 m by 115 mm high; 
75 in by 39 in by 4.5 in high) made from 38 mm (1.5 in) steel angle. 
The frame shall be completely open under the foundation except for two 
crosspieces, 25 mm wide (1 in) at the \1/3\ length points. If testing a 
size other than twin, the relationship of the mattress to the frame 
shall be comparable to that specified in this paragraph.
    (4) Catch pan. The bed frame feet shall rest on a surface of either 
calcium silicate board or fiber cement board, 13 mm (0.5 in) thick, 
2.11 m by 1.19 m (83 in by 47 in). The board serves as a catch surface 
for any flaming melt/drip material falling from the bed assembly and 
may be the location of a pool fire that consumes such materials. This 
surface must be cleaned between tests to avoid build-up of combustible 
residues. Lining this surface with aluminum foil to facilitate cleaning 
is not recommended since this might increase fire intensity via 
reflected radiation.
    (5) Ignition source. (i) General. The ignition source shall consist 
of two T-shaped burners as shown in Figures 3 and 4 of this part. One 
burner impinges flames on the top surface of the mattress. The second 
burner impinges flames on the side of the mattress and on the side of 
the foundation. Each of the burners shall be constructed from stainless 
steel tubing (12.7 mm diameter with 0.89  0.5 mm wall 
thickness; 0.50

[[Page 2497]]

in diameter with 0.035  0.002 in wall). Each burner shall 
incorporate a stand-off foot to set its distance from the test specimen 
surface (Figure 5 of this part). Both burners shall be mounted with a 
mechanical pivot point but the side burner is locked in place to 
prevent movement about this pivot in normal usage. The top burner, 
however, is free to rotate about its pivot during a burner exposure and 
is lightly weighted so as to exert a downward force on the mattress top 
through its stand-off foot so that the burner follows a receding top 
surface on the test specimen (Figure 6 of this part). The combination 
of burner stand-off distance and propane gas flow rate to the burners 
determines the heat flux they impose on the surface of the test 
specimen so that both of these parameters are tightly controlled.
    (ii) Top surface burner. The T head of the top surface burner 
(horizontal burner, Figure 3 of this part) shall be 305  2 
mm (12  0.08 in) long with gas tight plugs in each end. 
Each side of the T shall contain 17 holes equally spaced over a 135 mm 
length (8.5 mm  0.1 mm apart; 0.333  0.005 in). 
The holes on each side shall begin 8.5 mm (0.33 in) from the centerline 
of the burner head. The holes shall be drilled with a 56 drill 
and are to be 1.17 mm to 1.22 mm (0.046 in to 0.048 in) in diameter. 
The holes shall be pointed 5[deg] out of the plane of the Figure. This 
broadens the width of the heat flux profile imposed on the surface of 
the test specimen.
    (iii) Side surface burner. The T head of the side surface burner 
(vertical burner) shall be constructed similarly to the top surface 
burner, as shown in Figure 4 of this part, except that its overall 
length shall be 254  2 mm (10  0.08 in). Each 
side of the burner head shall contain 14 holes spaced evenly over a 110 
mm length (8.5 mm  0.1 mm apart; 0.333  0.005 
in). The holes shall be drilled with a 56 drill and are to be 
1.17 mm to 1.22 mm (0.046 in to 0.048 in) in diameter. The holes shall 
be pointed 5[deg] out of the plane of the Figure.
    (iv) Burner stand-off. The burner stand-off on each burner shall 
consist of a collar fixed by a set screw onto the inlet tube of the 
burner head (Figure 5 of this part). The collar shall hold a 3 mm 
diameter stainless steel rod having a 12.7 mm by 51 mm by (2-2.5 mm) 
thick (0.5 in by 2 in by (0.08-0.10) in thick) stainless steel pad 
welded on its end with its face (and long axis) parallel to the T head 
of the burner. The foot pad shall be displaced about 10 mm to 12 mm 
from the longitudinal centerline of the burner head so that it does not 
rest on the test specimen in an area of peak heat flux. A short section 
(9.5 mm outer diameter (``OD''), about 80 mm long; \3/8\ in OD, about 
3.2 in long) of copper tubing shall be placed in the inlet gas line 
just before the burner to facilitate making the burner nominally 
parallel to the test specimen surface (by a procedure described in this 
paragraph). The copper tube on the top surface burner must be protected 
from excessive heat and surface oxidation by wrapping it with a 
suitable layer of high temperature insulation. Both copper tubes are to 
be bent by hand in the burner alignment process. They must be replaced 
if they become work-hardened or crimped in any way. The gas inlet lines 
(12.7 mm OD stainless steel tubing; 0.50 in) serve as arms leading back 
to the pivot points and beyond, as shown in Figure 6 of this part. The 
length to the pivot for the top burner shall be approximately 1000 mm 
(40 in).
    (v) Frame. Figure 6 shows the frame that holds the burners and 
their pivots, which are adjustable vertically in height. All 
adjustments (burner height, burner arm length from the pivot point, 
counterweight positions along the burner arm) are facilitated by the 
use of knobs or thumbscrews as the set screws. The three point 
footprint of the burner frame, with the two forward points on wheels, 
facilitates burner movement and burner stability when stationary.
    (vi) Arms. The metal arms attached to the burners shall be attached 
to a separate gas control console by flexible, reinforced plastic 
tubing.\1\ The gas control console is mounted separately so as to 
facilitate its safe placement outside of the test room throughout the 
test procedure. The propane gas lines running between the console and 
the burner assembly must be anchored on the assembly before running to 
the burner inlet arms. A 1.5 m  25 mm (58 in  1 
in) length of flexible, reinforced tubing between the anchor point and 
the end of each burner inlet allows free movement of the top burner 
about its pivot point. The top burner arm shall have a pair of moveable 
cylindrical counterweights that are used, as described below, to adjust 
the downward force on the stand-off foot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fiber-reinforced plastic tubing (6 mm ID by 9.5 mm OD; \1/4\ 
inch ID by \3/4\ inch OD) made of PVC should be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vii) Burner head. Each burner head shall have a separate pilot 
light consisting of a 3 mm OD (\1/8\ in OD) copper tube with an 
independently-controlled supply of propane gas. The tube terminates 
within 10 mm of the center of the burner head. Care must be taken to 
set the pilot flame size small enough so as not to heat the test 
specimen before the timed burner exposure is begun.
    (viii) Flow control system. Each burner shall have a flow control 
system of the type shown in Figure 7 of this part. Propane gas from a 
source such as a bottle is reduced in pressure to approximately 70 
kilopascals (``kPa'') (20 pounds per square inch gage (``psig'')) and 
fed to the system shown in Figure 8 of this part. The gas flow to the 
burner is delivered in a square-wave manner (constant flow with rapid 
onset and termination) by means of the solenoid valve upstream of the 
flowmeter. An interval timer (accurate to  0.2 s) 
determines the burner flame duration. The pilot light assures that the 
burner will ignite when the solenoid valve opens \2\. The gas flow 
shall be set using a rotameter type of flowmeter, with a 150 mm scale, 
calibrated for propane. When calibrating the flowmeter, take into 
account that the flow resistance of the burner holes causes a finite 
pressure increase in the flowmeter above ambient. (If a calibration at 
one atmosphere is provided by the manufacturer, the flowmeter reading, 
at the internal pressure existing in the meter, required to get the 
flow rates listed in this paragraph must be corrected, typically by the 
square root of the absolute pressure ratio. This calls for measuring 
the actual pressure in the flow meters when set near the correct flow 
values. A value roughly in the range of 1 kPa to 3 kPa--5 in to 15 in 
of water--can be expected.) Useful guidelines for calibration are 
provided in Appendix A of this part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ If the side burner, or more commonly one half of the side 
burner, fails to ignite quickly, adjust the position of the igniter, 
bearing in mind that propane is heavier than air. The best burner 
behavior test assessment is done against an inert surface (to spread 
the gas as it would during an actual test).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ix) Gas flow rate. Use propane gas with a known net heat of 
combustion of 46.5  0.5 MJ/kg (nominally 99% to 100% 
propane). Each burner has a specific propane gas flow rate set with its 
respective, calibrated flowmeter. The gas flow rate to the top burner 
is 12.9 liters per minute (``L/min'')  0.1 L/min at a 
pressure of 101  5 kPa (standard atmospheric pressure) and 
a temperature of 22  3 [deg]C. The gas flow rate to the 
side burner is 6.6  0.05 L/min at a pressure of 101  5 kPa (standard atmospheric pressure) and a temperature of 22 
 3 [deg]C. For the flowmeters supplied with the burner 
assembly, the black float setting for the top burner is expected to be 
in the 85 mm to 95 mm range. For the side burner, the expected range 
for the black float is 115 m to 125 mm. The total heat release rate of 
the burners is 27 kW.

[[Page 2498]]

    (b) Conditioning. Remove the specimens from any packaging prior to 
conditioning. Specimens shall be conditioned in air at a temperature 
greater than 18 [deg]C (65 [deg]F) and a relative humidity less than 55 
percent for at least 48 continuous hours prior to test. Specimens shall 
be supported in a manner to permit free movement of air around them 
during conditioning.
    (c) Test preparation. (1) General. Horizontal air flow at a 
distance of 0.5 m (20 in) on all sides of the test specimen at the 
mattress top height shall be <= 0.5 m/s. If there is any visual 
evidence that the burner flames are being shifted around during their 
exposure durations, the burner regions must be enclosed on two or more 
sides by at least a triple layer of screen wire. The screen(s) for the 
top burner shall sit on the mattress top but must be far enough away 
(typically 30 cm or more) so as not to interfere or interact with flame 
spread during the burner exposure. The screen for the side burner will 
require a separate support from below. All screens shall be removed at 
the end of the 70 second exposure interval.
    (2) Specimen. Remove the test specimen from the conditioning room 
immediately before it is to be tested. Be sure the bed frame is 
approximately centered on the catch surface. Place the specimen on the 
bed frame. Carefully center them on the bed frame and on each other. 
The mattress shall be centered on top of the foundation (see Figure 1 
of this part). However, in order to keep the heat flux exposure the 
same for the sides of the two components, if the mattress is 1 cm to 2 
cm narrower than the foundation, the mattress shall be shifted so that 
the side to be exposed is in the same plane as the foundations. Refer 
to Figure 8 of this part. A product having an intended sleep surface on 
only one side shall be tested with the sleeping side up so that the 
sleeping surface is exposed to the propane burner.
    (d) Burner flow rate/flow timer confirmation. Just prior to moving 
the burner adjacent to the test specimen, briefly ignite each burner at 
the same time, and check that the propane flow to that burner is set at 
the appropriate level on its flowmeter to provide the flows listed in 
paragraph (a)(5)(ix) of this section. Check that the timers for the 
burner exposures are set to 70 seconds for the top burner and 50 
seconds for the side burner. For a new burner assembly, check the 
accuracy of the gas flow timers against a stop watch at these standard 
time settings. Set pilot flows to a level that will not cause them to 
impinge on sample surfaces.
    (e) Location of the gas burners. Place the burner heads so that 
they are within 300 mm (1 ft) of the mid-length of the mattress. The 
general layout for the room configuration is shown in Figure 2 of this 
part. For a quilted mattress top the stand-off foot pad must alight on 
a high, flat area between dimples or quilting thread runs. The same is 
to be true for the side burner if that surface is quilted. If a 
specimen design presents a conflict in placement such that both burners 
cannot be placed between local depressions in the surface, the top 
burner shall be placed at the highest flat surface.
    (f) Burner set-up. The burners shall be placed in relation to the 
mattress and foundation surfaces in the manner shown in Figure 9 of 
this part, i.e., at the nominal spacings shown there and with the 
burner tubes nominally parallel \3\ to the mattress surfaces on which 
they impinge. Since the heat flux levels seen by the test specimen 
surfaces depend on burner spacing, as well as gas flow rate, care must 
be taken with the set-up process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The top burner will tend to be tangential to the mattress 
surface at the burner mid-length; this orientation will not 
necessarily be parallel to the overall average mattress surface 
orientation nor will it necessarily be horizontal. This is a result 
of the shape of the mattress top surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (g) Burner alignment procedure. (1) Preparation. Complete the 
following before starting the alignment procedure:
    (i) Check that the pivot point for the mattress top burner feed 
tube and the two metal plates around it are clean and well-lubricated 
so as to allow smooth, free movement.
    (ii) Set the two burners such that the 5[deg] out-of-plane angling 
of the flame jets makes the jets on the two burners point slightly 
toward each other.
    (iii) Check the burner stand-off feet for straightness and 
perpendicularity between foot pad and support rod and to see that they 
are clean of residue from a previous test.
    (iv) Have at hand the following items to assist in burner set-up: 
the jig, shown in Figure 10 of this part, for setting the stand-off 
feet at their proper distances from the front of the burner tube; a 3 
mm thick piece of flat stock (any material) to assist in checking the 
parallelness of the burners to the mattress surfaces; and a 24 gage 
stainless steel sheet metal platen that is 30 mm (12 in) wide, 610 mm 
(24 in) long and has a sharp, precise 90[deg] bend 355 mm (14 in) from 
one 30 mm wide end.
    (2) Alignment. (i) Place the burner assembly adjacent to the test 
specimen. Place the sheet metal platen on the mattress with the shorter 
side on top. The location shall be within 30 cm (1 ft) of the 
longitudinal center of the mattress. The intended location of the 
stand-off foot of the top burner shall not be in a dimple or crease 
caused by the quilting of the mattress top. Press the platen laterally 
inward from the edge of the mattress so that its side makes contact 
with either the top and bottom tape edge or the vertical side of the 
mattress.\4\ Use a 20 cm (8 in) strip of duct tape (platen to mattress 
top) to hold the platen firmly inward in this position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Mattresses having a convex side are treated separately since 
the platen cannot be placed in the above manner. Use the platen only 
to set the top burner parallelness. Set the in/out distance of the 
top burner to the specification in the paragraph (g)(2)(iii). Set 
the side burner so that it is approximately (visually) parallel to 
the flat side surface of the foundation below the mattress/
foundation crevice once its foot is in contact with the materials in 
the crevice area. The burner will not be vertical in this case. If 
the foundation side is also non-flat, set the side burner vertical 
( 3 mm, as above) using a bubble level as a reference. 
The side surface convexities will then bring the bowed out sections 
of the specimen closer to the burner tube than the stand-off foot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) With both burner arms horizontal (pinned in this position), 
fully retract the stand-off feet of both burners and, if necessary, the 
pilot tubes as well \5\. (Neither is to protrude past the front face of 
the burner tubes at this point.) Move the burner assembly forward 
(perpendicular to the mattress) until the vertical burner lightly 
contacts the sheet metal platen. Adjust the height of the vertical 
burner on its vertical support column so as to center the tube on the 
crevice between the mattress and the foundation. (This holds also for 
pillow top mattress tops, i.e., ignore the crevice between the pillow 
top and the main body of the mattress.) \6\ Adjust the height of the 
horizontal burner until it sits lightly on top of the sheet metal 
platen. Its burner arm should then be horizontal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The pilot tubes can normally be left with their ends just 
behind the plane of the front of the burner tube. This way they will 
not interfere with positioning of the tube but their flame will 
readily ignite the burner tubes.
    \6\ For tests of the mattress alone, set the side burner mid-
height equal to the lower tape edge of the mattress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Move the horizontal burner in/out (loosen the thumb screw 
near the pivot point) until the outer end of the burner tube is 13 mm 
to 19 mm (\1/2\ in to \3/4\ in) from the corner bend in the platen 
(this is facilitated by putting a pair of lines on the top of the 
platen 13 mm and 19 mm from the bend and parallel to it). Tighten the 
thumb screw.
    (iv) Make the horizontal burner parallel to the top of the platen 
(within 3 mm, \1/8\ in over the burner tube length) by bending the 
copper tube section

[[Page 2499]]

appropriately. Note: After the platen is removed in paragraph 
(g)(2)(vii), the burner tube may not be horizontal; this is normal. For 
mattress/foundation combinations having nominally flat, vertical sides, 
the similar adjustment for the vertical burner is intended to make that 
burner parallel to the sides and vertical. Variations in the shape of 
mattresses and foundations can cause the platen section on the side to 
be non-flat and/or non-vertical. If the platen is flat and vertical, 
make the vertical burner parallel to the side of the platen ( 3 mm) by bending its copper tube section as needed. If not, make 
the side burner parallel to the mattress/foundation sides by the best 
visual estimate after the platen has been removed.
    (v) Move the burner assembly perpendicularly back away from the 
mattress about 30 cm (1 ft). Set the two stand-off feet to their 
respective distances using the jig designed for this purpose. Install 
the jig fully onto the burner tube (on the same side of the tube as the 
stand-off foot), with its side edges parallel to the burner feed arm, 
at about the position where one end of the foot will be. Loosen the set 
screw and slide the foot out to the point where it is flush with the 
bottom end of the jig. Tighten the set screw. Make sure the long axis 
of the foot is parallel to the burner tube. It is essential to use the 
correct side of the spacer jig with each burner. Double check this. The 
jig must be clearly marked.
    (vi) Set the downward force of the horizontal burner. Remove the 
retainer pin near the pivot. While holding the burner feed arm 
horizontal using a spring scale \7\ hooked onto the thumbscrew holding 
the stand-off foot, move the small and/or large weights on the feed 
tube appropriately so that the spring scale reads 170 g to 225 g (6 oz 
to 8 oz).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An acceptable spring scale has a calibrated spring mounted 
within a holder and hooks on each end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vii) Remove the sheet metal platen (and tape holding it).
    (viii) Hold the horizontal burner up while sliding the burner 
assembly forward until its stand-off foot just touches the mattress 
and/or the foundation \8\, then release the horizontal burner. The 
outer end of the burner tube should extend at least 6 mm to 12 mm (\1/
4\ in to \1/2\ in) out beyond the uppermost corner/edge of the mattress 
so that the burner flames will hit the tape edge. (For a pillow top 
mattress, this means the outer edge of the pillow top portion and the 
distance may then be greater than 6 mm to 12 mm.) If this is not the 
case, move the burner assembly (perpendicular to the mattress side)--
not the horizontal burner alone--until it is. Finally, move the 
vertical burner tube until its stand-off foot just touches the side of 
the mattress and/or the foundation. (Use the set screw near the 
vertical burner pivot.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The foot should depress the surface it first contacts by no 
more than 1 mm to 2 mm. This is best seen up close, not from the 
rear of the burner assembly. However, if a protruding tape edge is 
the first item contacted, compress it until the foot is in the plane 
of the mattress/foundation vertical sides. The intent here is that 
the burner be spaced a fixed distance from the vertical mattress/
foundation sides, not from an incidental protrusion. Similarly, if 
there is a wide crevice in this area which would allow the foot to 
move inward and thereby place the burners too close to the vertical 
mattress/foundation sides, it will be necessary to use the spacer 
jig (rather than the stand-off foot) above or below this crevice to 
set the proper burner spacing. Compress the mattress/foundation 
surface 1 mm to 2 mm when using the jig for this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ix) Make sure all thumbscrews are adequately tightened. Care must 
be taken, once this set-up is achieved, to avoid bumping the burner 
assembly or disturbing the flexible lines that bring propane to it.
    (x) If there is any indication of flow disturbances in the test 
facility which cause the burner flames or pilot flames to move around, 
place screens around the burners so as to minimize these disturbances 
\9\. These screens (and any holders) must be far enough away from the 
burners (about 30 cm or more for the top, less for the side) so that 
they do not interact with the flames growing on the specimen surfaces. 
For the top surface burner, at least a triple layer of window screen 
approximately 30 cm high sitting vertically on the mattress top (Figure 
9 of this part) has proved satisfactory. For the side burner at least a 
triple layer of screen approximately 15 cm wide, formed into a square-
bottom U-shape and held from below the burner has proved satisfactory. 
Individual laboratories will have to experiment with the best 
arrangement for suppressing flow disturbances in their facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The goal here is to keep the burner flames impinging on a 
fixed area of the specimen surface rather than wandering back and 
forth over a larger area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (xi) Proceed with the test (see Test Procedure in paragraph (h) of 
this section and Appendix B of this part).
    (h) Running the test. (1) Charge the hose line to be used for fire 
suppression with water.
    (2) Ignite the pilot lights on both burners and make sure they are 
small enough as to not heat the test specimen surfaces significantly.
    (3) With the calorimetry system fully operational, after instrument 
zeroes and spans, start the video lights and video camera and data 
logging systems two minutes before burner ignition (or, if not using 
video, take a picture of the setup).
    (4) Start the burner exposure by activating power to the burner 
timers. Also start a 30 minute timer of the test duration. If not using 
video, one photo must be taken within the first 45 seconds of starting 
the burners.
    (5) When the burners go out (after 70 seconds for the longer 
exposure), carefully lift the top burner tube away from the specimen 
surface, producing as little as possible disturbance to the specimen. 
Remove the burner assembly from the specimen area to facilitate the 
video camera view of the full side of the specimen. In the case of the 
room-based configurations, remove the burner assembly from the room to 
protect it. Remove all screens.
    (i) Video recording/photographs. Place a video or still frame 
camera so as to have (when the lens is zoomed out) just slightly more 
than a full-length view of the side of the test specimen being ignited, 
including a view of the flame impingement area while the burner 
assembly is present. The view must also include the catch pan so that 
it is clear whether any melt pool fire in this pan participates 
significantly in the growth of fire on the test specimen. The camera 
shall include a measure of elapsed time to the nearest 1 second for 
video and 1 minute for still frame within its recorded field of view 
(preferably built-in to the camera). For the room-based configuration, 
the required full-length view of the sample may require an 
appropriately placed window, sealed with heat resistant glass, in one 
of the room walls. Place the camera at a height just sufficient to give 
a view of the top of the specimen while remaining under any smoke layer 
that may develop in the room. The specimen shall be brightly lit so 
that the image does not lose detail to over-exposed flames. This will 
require a pair or more of 1 kW photo flood lights illuminating the 
viewed side of the specimen. The lights may need to shine into the room 
from the outside via sealed windows.
    (j) Cessation of test. (1) The heat release rate shall be recorded 
and video/photographs taken until either 30 minutes has elapsed since 
the start of the burner exposure or a fire develops of such size as to 
require suppression for the safety of the facility.
    (2) Note the time and nature of any unusual behavior that is not 
fully within the view of the video camera. This is most easily done by 
narration to a camcorder.
    (3) Run the heat release rate system and datalogger until the fire 
has been

[[Page 2500]]

fully out for several minutes to allow the system zero to be recorded.


Sec.  1633.8  Findings.

    (a) General. In order to issue a flammability standard under the 
FFA, the FFA requires the Commission to make certain findings and to 
include these in the regulation, 15 U.S.C. 1193(j)(2). These findings 
are discussed in this section.
    (b) Voluntary standards. No findings concerning compliance with and 
adequacy of a voluntary standard are necessary because no relevant 
voluntary standard addressing the risk of injury that is addressed by 
this regulation has been adopted and implemented.
    (c) Relationship of benefits to costs. The Commission estimates the 
potential total lifetime benefits of a mattress that complies with this 
standard to range from $62 to $74 per mattress (based on a 10 year 
mattress life and a 3% discount rate). The Commission estimates total 
resource costs of the standard to range from $13 to $44 per mattress. 
This yields net benefits of $18 to $62 per mattress. The Commission 
estimates that aggregate lifetime benefits associated with all 
mattresses produced the first year the standard becomes effective range 
from $1,560 to $1,880 million, and that aggregate resource costs 
associated with these mattresses range from $320 to $1,110 million, 
yielding net benefits of about $450 to $1,560 million. Accordingly, the 
Commission finds that the benefits from the regulation bear a 
reasonable relationship to its costs.
    (d) Least burdensome requirement. The Commission considered the 
following alternatives: Alternative maximum peak heat release rate and 
test duration, alternative total heat released in the first 10 minutes 
of the test, mandatory production testing, a longer effective date, 
taking no action, relying on a voluntary standard, and requiring 
labeling alone (without any performance requirements). The alternatives 
of taking no action, relying on a voluntary standard (if one existed) 
requiring labeling alone are unlikely to adequately reduce the risk. 
Requiring a criterion of 25 MJ total heat release during the first 10 
minutes of the test instead of 15 MJ would likely reduce the estimated 
benefits (deaths and injuries reduced) without having much effect on 
costs. Both options of increasing the duration of the test from 30 
minutes to 60 minutes and decreasing the peak rate of heat release from 
200 kW to 150 kW would likely increase costs significantly without 
substantial increase in benefits. Requiring production testing would 
also likely increase costs. Therefore, the Commission finds that an 
open flame standard for mattresses with the testing requirements and 
criteria that are specified in the Commission rule is the least 
burdensome requirement that would prevent or adequately reduce the risk 
of injury for which the regulation is being promulgated.


Sec.  1633.9  Glossary of terms.

    (a) Absorbent pad. Pad used on top of mattress. Designed to absorb 
moisture/body fluids thereby reducing skin irritation, can be one time 
use.
    (b) Basket pad. Cushion for use in an infant basket.
    (c) Bunk beds. A tier of beds, usually two or three, in a high 
frame complete with mattresses (see Figure 11 of this part).
    (d) Car bed. Portable bed used to carry a baby in an automobile.
    (e) Carriage pad. Cushion to go into a baby carriage.
    (f) Chaise lounge. An upholstered couch chair or a couch with a 
chair back. It has a permanent back rest, no arms, and sleeps one (see 
Figure 11).
    (g) Convertible sofa. An upholstered sofa that converts into an 
adult sized bed. Mattress unfolds out and up from under the seat 
cushioning (see Figure 11).
    (h) Corner groups. Two twin size bedding sets on frames, usually 
slipcovered, and abutted to a corner table. They also usually have 
loose bolsters slipcovered (see Figure 11).
    (i) Crib bumper. Padded cushion which goes around three or four 
sides inside a crib to protect the baby. Can also be used in a playpen.
    (j) Daybed. Daybed has foundation, usually supported by coil or 
flat springs, mounted between arms on which mattress is placed. It has 
permanent arms, no backrest, and sleeps one (see Figure 11).
    (k) Dressing table pad. Pad to cushion a baby on top of a dressing 
table.
    (l) Drop-arm loveseat. When side arms are in vertical position, 
this piece is a loveseat. The adjustable arms can be lowered to one of 
four positions for a chaise lounge effect or a single sleeper. The 
vertical back support always remains upright and stationary (see Figure 
11).
    (m) Futon. A flexible mattress generally used on the floor that can 
be folded or rolled up for storage. It usually consists of resilient 
material covered by ticking.
    (n) High riser. This is a frame of sofa seating height with two 
equal size mattresses without a backrest. The frame slides out with the 
lower mattress and rises to form a double or two single beds (see 
Figure 11).
    (o) Infant carrier and lounge pad. Pad to cushion a baby in an 
infant carrier.
    (p) Mattress foundation. This is a ticking covered structure used 
to support a mattress or sleep surface. The structure may include 
constructed frames, foam, box springs or other materials used alone or 
in combination.
    (q) Murphy Bed. A style of sleep system where the mattress and 
foundation are fastened to the wall and provide a means to retract or 
rotate the bed assembly into the wall to release more floor area for 
other uses.
    (r) Pillow. Cloth bag filled with resilient material such as 
feathers, down, sponge rubber, urethane, or fiber used as the support 
for the head of a person.
    (s) Playpen pad. Cushion used on the bottom of a playpen.
    (t) Portable crib. Smaller size than a conventional crib. Can 
usually be converted into a playpen.
    (u) Quilted means stitched with thread or by fusion through the 
ticking and one or more layers of material.
    (v) Roll-away-bed. Portable bed which has frame that folds with the 
mattress for compact storage.
    (w) Sleep lounge. Upholstered seating section is mounted on a 
frame. May have bolster pillows along the wall as backrests or may have 
attached headrests (see Figure 11).
    (x) Stroller pad. Cushion used in a baby stroller.
    (y) Sofa bed. These are pieces in which the back of the sofa swings 
down flat with the seat to form the sleeping surface. All upholstered. 
Some sofa beds have bedding boxes for storage of bedding. There are two 
types: The one-piece, where the back and seat are upholstered as a 
unit, supplying an unbroken sleeping surface; and the two-piece, where 
back and seat are upholstered separately (see Figure 11).
    (z) Sofa lounge--(includes glideouts). Upholstered seating section 
is mounted on springs and in a frame that permit it to be pulled out 
for sleeping. Has upholstered backrest bedding box that is hinged. 
Glideouts are single sleepers with sloping seats and backrests. Seat 
pulls out from beneath back and evens up to supply level sleeping 
surface (see Figure 11).
    (aa) Studio couch. Consists of upholstered seating section on 
upholstered foundation. Many types convert to twin beds (see Figure 
11).
    (bb) Studio divan. Twin size upholstered seating section with 
foundation is mounted on metal bed frame. Has no arms or backrest, and 
sleeps one (see Figure 11).
    (cc) Trundle bed. A low bed which is rolled under a larger bed. In 
some lines,

[[Page 2501]]

the lower bed springs up to form a double or two single beds as in a 
high riser (see Figure 11).
    (dd) Tufted means buttoned or laced through the ticking and 
upholstery material and/or core, or having the ticking and loft 
material and/or core drawn together at intervals by any other method 
which produces a series of depressions on the surface.
    (ee) Twin studio divan. Frames which glide out (but not up) and use 
seat cushions, in addition to upholstered foundation to sleep two. Has 
neither arms nor back rest (see Figure 11).
    (ff) Flip or sleeper chair. Chair that unfolds to be used for 
sleeping, typically has several connecting fabric covered, solid foam 
core segments.

Subpart B--Rules and Requirements


Sec.  1633.10  Definitions.

    (a) Standard means the Standard for the Flammability (Open-Flame) 
of Mattresses and Foundations (16 CFR part 1633, subpart A).
    (b) The definition of terms set forth in Sec.  1633.2 of the 
standard shall also apply to this subpart.


Sec.  1633.11  Records.

    (a) Test and manufacturing records--General. Every manufacturer 
(including importers) or other person initially introducing into 
commerce mattresses or mattress and foundation sets subject to the 
standard, irrespective of whether guarantees are issued relative 
thereto, shall maintain the following records:
    (1) Test results and details of each test performed by or for that 
manufacturer (including failures), whether for prototype, confirmation, 
or production, in accordance with Sec.  1633.7. Details shall include: 
Location of test facility, type of test room, test room conditions, 
prototype or production identification number, and test data including 
the peak rate of heat release, total heat release in first 10 minutes, 
a graphic depiction of the peak rate of heat release and total heat 
release over time. These records shall include the name and signature 
of person conducting the test, the date of the test, and a 
certification by the person overseeing the testing as to the test 
results and that the test was carried out in accordance with the 
Standard. For confirmation tests, the identification number must be 
that of the prototype tested.
    (2) Video and/or a minimum of eight photographs of the testing of 
each mattress or mattress and foundation set, in accordance with Sec.  
1633.4 (one taken before the test starts, one taken within 45 seconds 
of the start of the test, and the remaining six taken at five minute 
intervals, starting at 5 minutes and ending at 30 minutes), with the 
prototype identification number or production lot identification number 
of the mattress or mattress foundation set, date and time of test, and 
name and location of testing facility clearly displayed.
    (b) Prototype records. In addition to the records specified in 
paragraph (a) of this section, the following records related to 
prototype testing shall be maintained:
    (1) Unique identification number for the qualified prototype and a 
list of the unique identification numbers of each prototype based on 
the qualified prototype.
    (2) A detailed description of all materials, components, and 
methods of construction for each prototype mattress or prototype 
mattress and foundation set. Such description shall include at a 
minimum, the specifications of all materials and components, name and 
location of each material and component supplier, and a physical sample 
of each material and component of the prototype.
    (3) A list of which models and production lots of mattresses or 
mattress and foundation sets are represented by each prototype 
identification number.
    (4) Where a prototype is not required to be tested before sale, 
pursuant to Sec.  1633.4(b), the prototype identification number of the 
qualified prototype on which the mattress to be offered for sale is 
based, and, at a minimum, the manufacturing specifications and a 
description of the materials substituted and/or the size change, 
photographs or physical specimens of the substituted materials, and 
documentation based on objectively reasonable criteria that the change 
in any component, material, or method of construction will not cause 
the prototype to exceed the test criteria specified in Sec.  1633.3(b).
    (5) Identification, composition, and details of the application of 
any flame retardant treatments and/or inherently flame resistant fibers 
or other materials employed in mattress components.
    (c) Pooling confirmation test records. With respect to pooling 
confirmation testing, records shall be maintained to show:
    (1) The prototype identification number assigned by the original 
prototype manufacturer.
    (2) Name and location of the prototype manufacturer.
    (3) Copy of prototype test records, and records required by 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (4) A list of models of mattresses, and/or mattress and foundation 
sets, represented by the prototype.
    (d) Quality assurance records. In addition to the records required 
by paragraph (a) of this section, the following quality assurance 
records shall be maintained:
    (1) A written copy of the manufacturer's quality assurance 
procedures.
    (2) Records of any production tests performed. Production test 
records must be maintained and shall include in addition to the 
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, an assigned production 
lot identification number and the identification number of the 
prototype associated with the specimen tested.
    (3) For each prototype, the number of mattresses or mattress and 
foundation sets in each production lot based on that prototype.
    (4) The duration of manufacture of the production lot, i.e., the 
start and end dates of production of that lot.
    (5) Component, material and assembly records. Every manufacturer 
conducting tests and/or technical evaluations of components and 
materials and/or methods of construction must maintain detailed records 
of such tests and evaluations.
    (e) Record retention requirements. The records required under this 
section shall be maintained by the manufacturer (including importers) 
for as long as mattresses/foundations based on the prototype in 
question are in production and shall be retained for 3 years 
thereafter. Records shall be available upon the request of Commission 
staff.


Sec.  1633.12  Labeling.

    (a) Each mattress or mattress/foundation set subject to the 
standard shall bear a permanent, conspicuous, and legible label 
containing:
    (1) Name of the manufacturer;
    (2) Location of the manufacturer, including street address, city 
and state;
    (3) Month and year of manufacture;
    (4) Model identification;
    (5) Prototype identification number for the mattress; and
    (6) A certification that the mattress complies with this standard.
    (b) The information required on labels by this section shall be set 
forth separately from any other information appearing on such label. 
Other information, representations, or disclosures, appearing on labels 
required by this section or elsewhere on the item, shall not interfere 
with, minimize, detract from, or conflict with the required 
information.
    (c) No person, other than the ultimate consumer, shall remove or 
mutilate, or cause or participate in the removal or mutilation of, any 
label required by this section to be affixed to any item.

[[Page 2502]]

Sec.  1633.13  Tests for guaranty purposes, compliance with this 
section, and one of a kind exemption.

    (a) Tests for guaranty purposes. Reasonable and representative 
tests for the purpose of issuing a guaranty under section 8 of the 
Flammable Fabrics Act, 15 U.S.C. 1197, for mattresses or mattress and 
foundation sets subject to the standard shall be the tests performed to 
show compliance with the standard.
    (b) Compliance with this section. No person subject to the 
Flammable Fabrics Act shall manufacture for sale, import, distribute, 
or otherwise market or handle any mattress or mattress and foundation 
set which is not in compliance with the provisions under subpart B of 
this part.
    (c) ``One of a kind'' exemption for physician prescribed 
mattresses. (1)(i) A mattress or mattress and foundation set 
manufactured in accordance with a physician's written prescription or 
manufactured in accordance with other comparable written medical 
therapeutic specification, to be used in connection with the treatment 
or management of a named individual's physical illness or injury, shall 
be considered a ``one of a kind mattress'' and shall be exempt from 
testing under the standard pursuant to Sec.  1633.7 thereof: Provided, 
that the mattress or mattress and foundation set bears a permanent, 
conspicuous and legible label which states:

    WARNING: This mattress or mattress and foundation set may be 
subject to a large fire if exposed to an open flame. It was 
manufactured in accordance with a physician's prescription and has 
not been tested under the Federal Standard for the Flammability 
(Open-Flame) of Mattresses and Foundation Sets (16 CFR part 1633).

    (ii) Such labeling must be attached to the mattress or mattress and 
foundation set so as to remain on or affixed thereto for the useful 
life of the mattress or mattress and foundation set. The label must be 
at least 40 square inches (250 sq. cm) with no linear dimension less 
than 5 inches (12.5 cm). The letters in the word ``WARNING'' shall be 
no less than 0.5 inch (1.27 cm) in height and all letters on the label 
shall be in a color which contrasts with the background of the label. 
The warning statement which appears on the label must also be 
conspicuously displayed on the invoice or other sales papers that 
accompany the mattress in commerce from the manufacturer to the final 
point of sale to a consumer.
    (2) The manufacturer of a mattress or mattress and foundation set 
exempted from testing under this paragraph shall, in lieu of the 
records required to be kept by Sec. 1633.10, retain a copy of the 
written prescription or other comparable written medical therapeutic 
specification for such mattress during a period of three years, 
measured from the date of manufacture.
    (3) For purposes of this subpart the term physician shall mean a 
physician, chiropractor or osteopath licensed or otherwise permitted to 
practice by any State of the United States.

Subpart C--Interpretations and Policies


Sec.  1633.14  Policy clarification on renovation of mattresses.

    (a) Section 3 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1192) 
prohibits, among other things, the ``manufacture for sale'' of any 
product which fails to conform to an applicable standard issued under 
the Act. The standard for the Flammability (Open-Flame) of Mattresses 
and Foundations in subpart A of this part, issued pursuant to the Act, 
provides that, with certain exceptions, mattresses must be tested 
according to a prescribed method. The standard does not exempt 
renovation; nor does it specifically refer to renovation.
    (b) The purpose of this subpart is to inform the public that 
mattresses renovated for sale are considered by the Commission to be 
mattresses manufactured for sale and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the open-flame Mattress Standard. The Commission 
believes that this policy clarification will better protect the public 
against the unreasonable risk of fires leading to death, personal 
injury or significant property damage, and assure that purchasers of 
renovated mattresses receive the same protection under the Flammable 
Fabrics Act as purchasers of new mattresses.
    (c) For purposes of this subpart, mattress renovation includes a 
wide range of operations. Replacing the ticking or batting, stripping a 
mattress to its springs, rebuilding a mattress, or replacing components 
with new or recycled materials, are all part of the process of 
renovation. Any one, or any combination of one or more, of these steps 
in mattress renovation is considered to be mattress manufacture.
    (d) If the person who renovates the mattress intends to retain the 
renovated mattress for his or her own use, or if a customer or a 
renovator merely hires the services of the renovator and intends to 
take back the renovated mattress for his or her own use, ``manufacture 
for sale'' has not occurred and such a renovated mattress is not 
subject to the mattress standard.
    (e) However, if a renovated mattress is sold or intended for sale, 
either by the renovator or the owner of the mattress who hires the 
services of the renovator, such a transaction is considered to be 
``manufacture for sale''.
    (f) Accordingly, mattress renovation is considered by the 
Commission to be ``manufacture for sale'' and, therefore, subject to 
the open-flame Mattress Standard, when renovated mattresses are sold or 
intended for sale by a renovator or the customer of the renovator.
    (g) A renovator who believes that certain mattresses are entitled 
to one-of-a-kind exemption, may present relevant facts to the 
Commission and petition for an exemption. Renovators are expected to 
comply with all the testing requirements of the open-flame Mattress 
Standard until an exemption is approved.

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 2503]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA05.000


[[Page 2504]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA05.001


[[Page 2505]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA05.002


[[Page 2506]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA05.003


[[Page 2507]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA05.004


[[Page 2508]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA05.005


[[Page 2509]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA05.006


[[Page 2510]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA05.007


[[Page 2511]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA05.008


[[Page 2512]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA05.009


[[Page 2513]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13JA05.010

BILLING CODE 6355-01-C

Appendix A: Calibration of Propane Flowmeters

    1. Once the assembly of the burner is completed and all the 
connecting points are checked for gas leakage, the most critical 
task is ensuring the exact flow rates of propane into the top and 
side burners, as described in the test protocol. The gas flow rates 
are specified at 12.9 Liters per minute (LPM)  0.1 LPM 
and 6.6 LPM  0.05 LPM for the top and side burners 
(Burners 1 and 2), respectively, at a pressure of 101  5 
kiloPascal (kPa) (standard atmospheric pressure) and a temperature 
of 22  3[deg] Centigrade (C). The rotameters that are 
installed in the control box of the burner assembly need to be 
calibrated for accurate measurement of these flow rates.
    2. The most practical and accurate method of measuring and 
calibrating the flow rate of gases (including propane) is use of a 
diaphragm test meter (also called a dry test meter). A diaphragm 
test meter functions based on positive displacement of a fixed 
volume of gas per rotation and its reading is therefore independent 
of the type of the gas being used. The gas pressure and temperature, 
however, can have significant impact on the measurement of flow 
rate.
    3. The gas pressure downstream of the rotameters that are 
installed in the control box of the burner assembly is maintained 
near atmospheric pressure (only a few millimeters of water above 
atmosphere). Therefore, the best location to place the diaphragm 
test meter for gas flow calibration is right downstream of the 
control box. The pressure at the propane tank must be set at 20 
 0.5 pounds per square inch gage (psig).
    Calibration Procedure:
    Install the diaphragm test meter (DTM) downstream of the control 
box in the line for the top burner. Check all connecting points for 
gas leakage. Open the main valve on the propane tank and set a 
pressure of 20  0.5 psig. Set the timers in the control 
box for 999 seconds (or the maximum range possible). Record the 
barometric pressure. Turn the ``Burner 1'' switch to ON and ignite 
the top burner. Allow the gas to flow for 2-3 minutes until the DTM 
is stabilized. Record the pressure and temperature in the DTM. Use a 
stopwatch to record at least one minute worth of complete rotations 
while counting the number of rotations.\1\ Calculate the propane gas 
flow rate using the recorded time and number of rotations (total 
flow in that time). Use the pressure and temperature readings to 
convert to standard conditions. Repeat this measurement for two 
additional meter setting to allow for calibrating the flowmeter 
throughout the range of interest. Plot the flow versus meter 
reading, fit a best line (possibly quadratic) through these points 
to find the meter setting for a flow of 12.9 LPM at the above 
``standard'' conditions. Repeat this procedure for ``Burner 2'' 
using three meter readings to find the setting that gives a flow 
rate of 6.6 LPM at the standard conditions. After completion of the 
calibration, re-set the timers to 70 and 50 seconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ With a diaphragm test meter well-sized to this application, 
this should be more than five rotations. A one liter per rotation 
meter will require 10 to 15 rotations for the flow measurements and 
greater than the minimum of one minute recording time specified 
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix B: Burner Operation Sequence

    1. Starting point: AC power on (red knob out); propane pressure 
set to 20 psig at bottle; timers set to 70 s (top burner) and 50 s 
(side burner); flowmeters pre-set to values that give the requisite 
propane gas flow rates to each burner. Pilot tubes set just behind 
front surface of burners; pilot flow valves set for ca. 2 cm flames.
    2. Position burner on test specimen and remove sheet metal 
platen.

[[Page 2514]]

    3. Place screens around both burners.
    4. Open pilot ball valves one at a time and ignite pilots with 
hand-held flame; adjust flame size if necessary being very careful 
to avoid a jet flame that could prematurely ignite the test specimen 
(Beware: after a long interval between tests the low pilot flow rate 
will require a long time to displace air in the line and achieve the 
steady-state flame size.)
    5. Open both burner ball valves.
    6. Start test exposure by simultaneously turning on power to 
both timers (timers will turn off burners at appropriate times).
    7. Check/adjust propane flow rates (DO THIS ESSENTIAL TASK 
IMMEDIATELY. Experience shows the flow will not remain the same from 
test-to-test in spite of fixed valve positions so adjustment is 
essential.)
    8. After burners are out:
    a. Lift top burner and back assembly away from specimen.
    b. Turn off power to both timers.
    c. Remove screens.
    d. Turn off pilots at their ball valves.

    Dated: December 22, 2004.
Todd Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.

List of Relevant Documents

    1. Briefing memorandum from Margaret Neily, Project Manager, 
Directorate for Engineering Sciences, to the Commission, ``Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking for Mattress Flammability (Open Flame) and 
Options for Addressing Bedclothes Involvement in Mattress/Bedding 
Fires,'' November 1, 2004.
    2. Memorandum from Allyson Tenney, ES, to Margaret Neily, 
Engineering Sciences, ``Background and Technical Rationale for Draft 
Proposed Standard for Open Flame Mattress Flammability,'' October 
29, 2004.
    3. Memorandum from Linda Smith and David Miller, EPI, 
``Residential Fires Involving Mattresses and Bedding,'' October 
2004.
    4. Memorandum from Carolyn Meiers, ESHF, to Margaret Neily, 
Project Manager, ``Criteria for Judging Effectiveness of Proposed 
Mattress Standard,'' October 14, 2004.
    5. Memorandum from Carolyn Meiers, ESHF, to Margaret Neily, 
Project Manager, ``Human Behavior in Fire,'' October 7, 2004.
    6. Memorandum from Treye Thomas and Patricia Brundage, HS, 
``Qualitative Assessment of Potential Risk from the Use of Flame 
Retardant Chemicals in Mattresses,'' October 25, 2004.
    7. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, EC, to Margaret L. Neily, 
ES, ``Preliminary Environmental Assessment of a Draft Proposed Open-
Flame Ignition Resistance Standard for Mattresses,'' October 21, 
2004.
    8. Memorandum from Soumaya Tohamy, EC, to Margaret Neily, 
Project Manager, ``Preliminary Regulatory Analysis of a Draft 
Proposed Standard to Address Open Flame Ignitions of Mattresses,'' 
October 27, 2004.
    9. Memorandum from Soumaya Tohamy, EC, to Margaret Neily, 
Project Manager, ``Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of a 
Draft Proposed Standard to Address Open Flame Ignitions of 
Mattresses,'' October 27, 2004.
    10. Terrance R. Karels, EC, to Margaret L. Neily, ES, ``Updated 
Mattress Market Information,'' October 5, 2004.
    11 Memorandum from Linda Smith EPI, ``Involvement of Bedclothes 
in Residential Mattress Fires,'' May 2004.
    12. Terrance R. Karels, EC, to Margaret L. Neily, ES, ``Bedding 
Market Information,'' October 5, 2004.
    13. Memorandum from Allyson Tenney, ES, to Margaret Neily, 
Engineering Sciences, ``Bedclothes Flammability,'' October 29, 2004.
    14. Memorandum from Martha A. Kosh, OS, to ES, ``Standard to 
Address Open Flame Ignition of Mattresses/Bedding; ANPR,'' List of 
comments on CF 02-1, December 13, 2001.
    15. Memorandum from Martha A. Kosh, OS, to ES, ``Standard to 
Address Open Flame Ignition of Mattresses/Bedding; ANPR (Revised),'' 
List of comments on CF 02-1, September 27, 2004.
    16. National Research Council (2000). Toxicological Risks of 
Selected Flame-Retardant Chemicals (Washington, DC, National Academy 
Press).

[FR Doc. 05-416 Filed 1-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P