Rule: Flammable Fabrics Act: Mattresses and Mattress and Foundation Sets Flammability (Open Flame) Standard

Wednesday,
March 15, 2006
Part II
Consumer Product
Safety Commission
16 CFR Part 1633
Standard for the Flammability (Open
Flame) of Mattress Sets; Final Rule
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:41 Mar 14, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\15MRR2.SGM 15MRR2
13472 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY Commission has a flammability traditional king size mattresses, peak
COMMISSION standard directed toward cigarette rates of heat release were nearly double
ignition of mattresses, 16 CFR Part 1632, that. [2] 2
16 CFR Part 1633 a significant number of mattress fires are The goal of the standard is to
ignited by open flame sources and are minimize or delay flashover when a
Final Rule: Standard for the not directly addressed by that standard. mattress is ignited in a typical bedroom
Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress On October 11, 2001, the Commission fire. With certain exceptions explained
Sets issued an advance notice of proposed below, the standard requires
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) concerning the manufacturers to test specimens of each
Commission. open flame ignition of mattresses/ of their mattress prototypes (designs)
ACTION: Final rule. bedding. 66 FR 51886. CPSC, industry, before mattresses based on that
and the California Bureau of Home prototype may be introduced into
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Furnishings and Thermal Insulation commerce. The standard prescribes a
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is issuing (‘‘CBHF’’) worked with National full-scale test using a pair of T-shaped
a flammability standard under the Institute of Standards and Technology gas burners designed to represent
authority of the Flammable Fabrics Act. (‘‘NIST’’), which conducted research to burning bedclothes. The mattress set
This new standard establishes develop a test method that could be must not exceed a peak heat release rate
performance requirements based on included in a standard to address open of 200 kW at any time during a 30
research conducted by the National flame ignition of mattresses. On January minute test, and the total heat release
Institute of Standards and Technology 13, 2005, the Commission issued a for the first 10 minutes of the test must
(‘‘NIST’’). Mattresses and mattress and notice of proposed rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) not exceed 15 megajoules (‘‘MJ’’).
foundation sets (‘‘mattress sets’’) that proposing a flammability standard Mattresses that meet the standard’s
comply with the requirements will based on the NIST research. 70 FR 2470. criteria will make only a limited
generate a smaller size fire with a slower Comments received in response to the contribution to a fire, especially in the
growth rate, thus reducing the NPR are discussed in section H of this early stages of the fire. This will allow
possibility of flashover occurring. These notice. occupants more time to discover the fire
improved mattresses should result in The characteristics of mattress/ and escape. [1&2]
significant reductions in deaths and bedding fires and research conducted to The State of California’s Bureau of
injuries associated with the risk of develop the standard are discussed in Home Furnishings and Thermal
mattress fires. The Commission detail in the NPR, 70 FR 2470, and in Insulation issued an open flame fire
estimates that the standard could limit the staff’s technical memoranda standard for mattresses and mattress/
the size of mattress fires to the extent supporting this rulemaking. Because a box spring sets and futons, TB 603,
that 240 to 270 deaths and 1,150 to mattress contains a substantial amount which went into effect January 1, 2005.
1,330 injuries could potentially be of flammable materials, if it (one that Both the Commission’s standard and TB
eliminated annually. As discussed in does not meet the standard) ignites in a 603 are based on the research conducted
the preamble, this means that the bedroom fire the mattress will burn at NIST, and they use the same basic
standard could yield lifetime net rapidly, and will quickly reach test method. Both TB 603 and the
benefits of $23 to $50 per mattress or dangerous flashover conditions within a Commission’s standard require that
aggregate lifetime net benefits for all few minutes. Flashover is the point at mattresses not exceed a 200 kW peak
mattresses produced in the first year of which the entire contents of a room are heat release rate during the 30 minute
the standard of $514 million to $1,132 ignited simultaneously by radiant heat, test. However, the standards differ in
million. making conditions in the room the limit they set on total energy release
DATES: The rule will become effective untenable and safe exit from the room in the first ten minutes of the test (the
on July 1, 2007 and applies to mattress impossible. At flashover, room Commission’s standard sets a stricter
sets manufactured, imported, or temperatures typically exceed 600–800° limit of 15 MJ, while TB 603 sets the
renovated on or after that date. C (approximately 1100–1470° F). About limit at 25 MJ).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: two-thirds of all mattress fatalities are NIST has conducted extensive
Jason Hartman, Office of Compliance, attributed to mattress fires that lead to research on mattress/bedding fires for
U.S. Consumer Product Safety flashover. This accounts for nearly all of the Sleep Products Safety Council
Commission, 4330 East West Highway, the fatalities that occur outside the room (‘‘SPSC’’) and the Commission. The NPR
Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone where the fire originated and about half summarized the research that was
(301) 504–7591; e-mail of the fatalities that occur within the conducted to develop the test method
jhartman@cpsc.gov. room of origin. and other research conducted prior to
The size of a fire can be measured by publication of the NPR. 70 FR 2470.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: its rate of heat release. A heat release Subsequently, CPSC contracted with
A. Background rate of approximately 1,000 kilowatts NIST to conduct additional test work to
(‘‘kW’’) leads to flashover in a typical explore technical issues raised in the
The Commission is issuing this
room. Tests of twin size mattresses of comments that the Commission received
flammability standard to reduce deaths
traditional constructions (complying on the NPR and to provide additional
and injuries related to mattress fires,
with the existing mattress cigarette technical support for finalizing the
particularly those initially ignited by
ignition standard in 16 CFR 1632)
open flame sources such as lighters,
without bedclothes have measured peak 2 Numbers in brackets refer to documents listed
candles and matches.1 Although the at the end of this notice. They are available from
heat release rates that exceeded 2,000
the Commission’s Office of the Secretary, (Office of
kW in less than 5 minutes. In tests of
1 Chairman Hal Stratton and Commissioner the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Nancy Nord issued a joint statement, and Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway,
Commissioner Thomas H. Moore issued a separate Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone 301–504–
statement. These are available from the Maryland 20814; telephone 301–504–7293; or e- 7293; or e-mail: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov) or from the
Commission’s Office of the Secretary (Office of the mail: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov) or from the Commission’s Commission’s Web site (http://www.cpsc.gov/
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Web site, www.cpsc.gov. library/foia/foia.html).
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 13473
standard. This work included a series of related materials or products which Commission estimated the expected
tests to evaluate the heat flux of present unreasonable risks, and (4) is useful life of a mattress at about 14
different burner hole sizes, effects of stated in objective terms. 15 U.S.C. years. To estimate the number of
temperature and relative humidity 1193(b). The Commission makes these mattresses in use for analysis of the
conditions, flammability behavior of findings in section 1633.8 of the rule. proposed rule, the Commission used
one-sided mattresses, and flammability both a 10 year and 14 year average
C. The Product
performance (durability) of selected product life. Using CPSC’s Product
flame retardant barriers. This research is The standard applies to mattresses Population Model, the Commission
discussed in the CPSC Engineering and mattress and foundation sets estimates the number of mattresses
Sciences Directorate’s memorandum, (‘‘mattress sets’’). ‘‘Mattress’’ is defined (conventional and non-conventional) in
‘‘Technical Rationale for the Standard as a resilient material, used alone or in use in 2005 to be 237 million using a
for the Flammability (Open-Flame) of combination with other materials, ten-year average product life, and 303.9
Mattress Sets and Engineering enclosed in a ticking and intended or million using a fourteen-year average
Responses to Applicable Public promoted for sleeping upon. For further product life. [7]
Comments,’’ and the staff’s briefing details on how the term is defined in the According to industry sources, queen
memorandum. [2&1] standard see section E.3. of this size mattresses are the most commonly
preamble. used. In 2004, queen size mattresses
B. Statutory Authority Throughout the standard the were used by 34.9 percent of U.S.
This proceeding is conducted Commission uses the term ‘‘mattress consumers. Twin and twin XL were
pursuant to Section 4 of the Flammable set’’ to mean a mattress alone if the used by 29.3 percent of U.S. consumers,
Fabrics Act (‘‘FFA’’), which authorizes mattress is manufactured for sale followed by full and full XL (19.9
the Commission to initiate proceedings without a foundation, or a mattress and percent), king and California king (11.5
for a flammability standard when it a foundation together, if the mattress is percent), and all other sizes (4.4
finds that such a standard is ‘‘needed to manufactured for sale with a percent). The average manufacturing
protect the public against unreasonable foundation. Under the standard, a price in 2004 was $182 for a mattress
risk of occurrence of fire leading to mattress manufactured for sale with a and $90 for a foundation. Thus, the
death or personal injury, or significant foundation must be tested with its average manufacturing price of a
property damage.’’ 15 U.S.C. 1193(a). foundation and a mattress manufactured mattress and foundation set was about
Section 4 also sets forth the process for sale alone must be tested alone. $272 in 2004. Although there are no
by which the Commission may issue a According to the International Sleep readily available data on average retail
flammability standard. As required in Products Association (‘‘ISPA’’), the top prices for mattress/foundation sets by
section 4(g), the Commission issued an four producers of mattresses and size, ISPA reports that sets selling under
ANPR. 66 FR 51886. 15 U.S.C. 1193(g). foundations account for almost 60 $500 represented 34.6 percent of the
The Commission reviewed the percent of total U.S. production. In market in 2004 compared to 40.7
comments submitted in response to the 2003, there were 571 establishments percent in 2002. Sets selling for between
ANPR and issued a notice of proposed producing mattresses in the U.S. [7] $500 and $1000 represented 41.1
rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) containing the text Mattresses and foundations are percent of the market in 2004, compared
of the proposed rule along with typically sold as sets. However, more to 39.2 percent in 2002. [7]
alternatives the Commission has mattresses are sold annually than The top four manufacturers of
considered and a preliminary regulatory foundations; some mattresses are sold as mattresses and foundations operate
analysis. 70 FR 2470. 15 U.S.C. 1193(i). replacements for existing mattresses about one-half of the 571 U.S.
The Commission considered comments (without a new foundation) or are for establishments producing these
provided in response to the NPR and is use in platform beds or other beds that products. The remainder of the
issuing this final rule along with a final do not require a foundation. ISPA establishments are operated by smaller
regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C. 1193(j). estimated that the total number of U.S. firms. According to the Statistics of U.S.
The Commission cannot issue a final conventional mattress shipments was Businesses Census Bureau data, all but
rule unless it makes certain findings and 22.5 million in 2004, and would be 23.0 twelve mattress firms had fewer than
includes these in the regulation. The million in 2005. These estimates do not 500 employees in 2002. If one considers
Commission must find: (1) If an include futons, crib mattresses, juvenile a firm with fewer than 500 employees
applicable voluntary standard has been mattresses, sleep sofa inserts, or hybrid to be a small business, then 97.7 percent
adopted and implemented, that water mattresses. These ‘‘non- ((522–12)/522) of all mattress firms are
compliance with the voluntary standard conventional’’ sleep surfaces are small businesses. [7] The potential
is not likely to adequately reduce the estimated to comprise about 10 percent impact of the standard on these small
risk of injury, or compliance with the of total annual shipments of all sleep businesses is discussed in section K of
voluntary standard is not likely to be products. The value of conventional this document.
substantial; (2) that benefits expected mattress and foundation shipments in
from the regulation bear a reasonable 2004, according to ISPA, was $4.10 and D. Risk of Injury
relationship to its costs; and (3) that the $1.69 billion respectively, compared to Annual estimates of national fires and
regulation imposes the least $3.28 and $1.51 billion respectively in fire losses involving ignition of a
burdensome alternative that would 2002. [7] mattress or bedding are based on data
adequately reduce the risk of injury. 15 The expected useful life of mattresses from the U.S. Fire Administration’s
U.S.C. 1193(j)(2). In addition, the can vary substantially, with more National Fire Incident Reporting System
Commission must find that the standard expensive models generally (‘‘NFIRS’’) and the National Fire
(1) is needed to adequately protect the experiencing the longest useful lives. Protection Administration’s (‘‘NFPA’’)
public against the risk of the occurrence Industry sources recommend annual survey of fire departments. The
of fire leading to death, injury or replacement of mattresses after 10 to 12 most recent national fire loss estimates
significant property damage, (2) is years of use, but do not specifically indicated that mattresses and bedding
reasonable, technologically practicable, estimate the average life expectancy. In were the first items to ignite in 15,300
and appropriate, (3) is limited to fabrics, the 2001 mattress ANPR, the residential fires attended by the fire
service annually during 1999–2002. described in § 1633.7 and must meet the mattress sets if they are manufactured to
These fires resulted in 350 deaths, 1,750 criteria specified in § 1633.3(b), as well fulfill a physician’s written prescription
injuries and $295.0 million in property as the quality assurance and or manufactured in accordance with
loss annually. Of these, the staff recordkeeping requirements in comparable medical therapeutic
considers an estimated 14,300 fires, 330 §§ 1633.6 and 1633.11 before they may specifications.
deaths, 1,680 injuries, and $281.5 be introduced into commerce in the The Commission has added a
million property loss annually to be United States. clarification that the term ‘‘mattress’’
addressable by the standard. As discussed below, the term includes mattresses that have undergone
Addressable means the incidents were ‘‘manufacturer’’ refers to the renovation, and it has added a
of a type that would be affected by the establishment where a mattress is definition of ‘‘renovation.’’ The NPR
standard solely based on the produced or assembled, and it is the had included a policy clarification
characteristics of the fire cause (i.e., a plant or factory producing or assembling stating that mattresses renovated for
fire that ignited a mattress or that the mattress set that is responsible for resale would be covered by the
ignited bedclothes which in turn ignited prototype testing. The importer must standard. The definition of ‘‘renovation’’
the mattress). For example, an incident have records demonstrating compliance comes from that policy clarification.
that involved burning bedclothes but with the standard on an establishment Including mattresses renovated for
occurred in a laundry room would not specific basis. To ensure that foreign- resale in the mattress definition makes
be considered addressable. [3] made mattress sets comply with the the Commission’s intent to include
Among the addressable casualties, standard, the final rule requires that the them in the standard clearer.
open flame fires accounted for about records specified in § 1633.11 must be For clarification the Commission has
110 deaths (33 percent) and 890 injuries in English and must be kept at a added or modified some other
(53 percent) annually. Smoking fires location in the United States. definitions. The term ‘‘subordinate
accounted for 180 deaths (55 percent) prototype’’ was added to refer to a
3. Scope and Definitions (§§ 1633.1 and prototype that is not required to be
and about 520 injuries (31 percent) 1633.2)
annually. Children younger than age 15 tested. A definition of ‘‘confirmed
The standard applies to ‘‘mattress prototype’’ was added to describe a
accounted for an estimated 90
sets,’’ defined as either (1) a mattress prototype that is based on a qualified
addressable deaths (27 percent) and 340
and foundation labeled by the prototype in a pooling arrangement. The
addressable injuries (20 percent)
manufacturer for sale as a set, or (2) a term ‘‘edge seam’’ was redefined as
annually. Adults age 65 and older
mattress that is labeled for sale alone. ‘‘edge’’ to accommodate mattress or
accounted for an estimated 80
This definition was not in the proposed foundation constructions that do not
addressable deaths (24 percent) and 180
rule, but was added to simplify the have a seam, as in a continental border.
addressable injuries (11 percent)
sometimes cumbersome references to A definition for ‘‘prototype developer’’
annually. [3]
mattress and foundation sets. As was added to describe a third party that
E. Description of the Final Standard discussed below, the Commission has designs mattress prototypes for use by a
added a requirement for manufacturers manufacturer, but does not produce
1. General
to label mattresses and foundations to mattress sets for sale. The prototype
The standard sets forth performance indicate if they are to be sold with a developer does not necessarily conduct
requirements that all mattress sets must corresponding mattress or foundation or tests to qualify the mattress prototype. A
meet before being introduced into if they are to be sold alone. barrier supplier, for example, could be
commerce. The test method is a full ‘‘Mattress’’ is defined substantially as a prototype developer. The term
scale test based on the NIST research it was in the proposed rule and as it is ‘‘prototype pooling’’ was clarified to
discussed above and in the NPR. The in the existing mattress standard at 16 explain the responsibilities of the
mattress specimen (a mattress alone or CFR 1632, as ‘‘a resilient material or involved parties.
mattress and foundation set, usually in combination of materials enclosed by a
a twin size) is exposed to a pair of T- ticking (used alone or in combination 4. General Requirements of the
shaped propane burners and allowed to with other products) intended or Standard (§ 1633.3)
burn freely for a period of 30 minutes. promoted for sleeping upon.’’ The The test method in the standard is
The burners were designed to represent standard lists several types of mattresses essentially unchanged from the method
burning bedclothes. Measurements are that are included in this definition (e.g., described in the NPR. It uses the full
taken of the heat release rate from the futons, crib mattresses, youth scale test method developed by NIST.
specimen and energy generated from the mattresses). It also refers to a glossary of As explained in the NPR, the
fire. The standard establishes two test terms where these items are further complexities of mattress construction
criteria, both of which the mattress set defined. make a full scale test necessary to
must meet in order to comply with the Specifically excluded from the evaluate the fire performance of a
standard: (1) The peak rate of heat definition of mattress are mattress pads, mattress.
release for the mattress set must not pillows and other items used on top of The specimen (a mattress and
exceed 200 kW at any time during the a mattress, upholstered furniture which foundation or mattress alone) is exposed
30 minute test; and (2) The total heat does not contain a mattress, and to a pair of T-shaped gas burners. The
release must not exceed 15 MJ for the juvenile or other product pads. Mattress specimen is to be no smaller than twin
first 10 minutes of the test. pads and other top of the bed items may size, unless the largest size mattress or
be addressed in the Commission’s set produced of that type is smaller than
2. Imported Mattresses pending rulemaking on bedclothes, in twin size, in which case the largest size
Imported mattresses must meet the which an ANPR was issued on January must be tested.
same requirements as domestically 13, 2005. 70 FR 2514. The burners impose a specified local
produced mattresses. This means that Like the Commission’s existing heat flux simultaneously to the top and
mattress sets produced outside the mattress cigarette ignition standard, the side of the mattress set for a specified
United States must be tested in open flame standard issued today period of time (70 seconds for the top
accordance with the procedures allows an exemption for one-of-a-kind burner and 50 seconds for the side
burner). The burners were designed to However, NIST research and fire manufacturer tests fails the specified
represent the local heat flux imposed on modeling indicate that a fire that criteria, the prototype is not qualified
a mattress by burning bedclothes based reaches a size of 25 MJ within 10 (even if the manufacturer chooses to test
on research conducted by NIST. Details minutes could limit a person’s ability to more than three specimens).
of the test method are discussed in escape the room. According to several As explained in the NPR preamble,
section E.9. below. producers, mattress sets that use the Commission believes that three
available barrier technology release total specimens is the appropriate minimum
5. Test Criteria (§ 1633.3) number for testing at this time (as this
heat that is far below the 25 MJ limit of
The standard establishes two test TB 603. [7] is the number typically used and the
criteria that the specimen must meet to inter-laboratory study indicates that
pass the test. These criteria are the same 6. Prototype Testing (§ 1633.4) three replicates are appropriate to
as those proposed in the NPR. The peak The standard requires, with certain adequately characterize mattress
rate of heat release must not exceed 200 exceptions, that mattress manufacturers performance).
kW at any time during the 30 minute have three specimens of each prototype As was proposed, the standard allows
test, and the total heat release must not tested before introducing a mattress set a manufacturer to produce a mattress set
exceed 15 MJ during the first 10 minutes into commerce. A prototype is a specific in reliance on testing that was
of the test. design of a mattress set that serves as a conducted before the effective date of
Limiting the peak rate of heat release model for the production units that will the standard. The final rule explains the
to 200 kW (during the 30 minute test) be introduced into commerce. Mattress parameters for relying on such tests. The
ensures a less flammable design. It sets then produced based on the manufacturer must have documentation
represents a significant improvement in prototype mattress set must be the same demonstrating that the tests were
performance compared to traditional as the prototype with respect to conducted according to the required test
mattress designs. The peak rate of heat materials, components, design, and method and the specified criteria were
release limit accounts for the methods of assembly. The definition of met. Tests conducted 30 days or more
contribution of bedclothes and other ‘‘manufacturer’’ refers to the after this standard is published in the
room contents to the fire hazard, establishment where the mattress is Federal Register must comply with the
ensures that the mattress does not cause produced or assembled, not the recordkeeping requirements of
flashover on its own, is technically company. Thus, the plant or factory § 1633.11. The manufacturer must also
feasible, and considers many factors producing or assembling the mattress comply with applicable recordkeeping
related to the fire scenario (such as room set is responsible for prototype testing. requirements in order to use the
effects). [2] However, there are three exceptions to prototype pooling and subordinate
The test duration of 30 minutes is the requirement for prototype testing. A prototype provisions.
related to, but not equivalent to, the manufacturer is allowed to sell a
estimated time required to permit mattress set based on a prototype that 7. Pooling (§ 1633.5)
discovery of the fire and allow escape has not been tested if the prototype This section is substantively the same
under typical fire scenarios. A 30 differs from a qualified prototype (one as proposed, but some of the language
minute test is based on an analysis of that has been tested and meets the has been revised for clarification. The
the hazard and the technological criteria) only with respect to: (1) The standard allows one or more
feasibility of producing complying mattress/foundation length and width, manufacturers to rely on a given
mattresses. It is intended to provide a not depth (e.g., twin, queen, king, etc.); prototype that has been developed by a
substantial increase in time for an (2) the ticking, unless the ticking of the manufacturer or a prototype developer
occupant to discover and escape the qualified prototype has characteristics (e.g., a component manufacturer). Under
fire. The number of failures, test that are designed to improve the this approach, one manufacturer or
variability, performance unreliability, mattress set’s test performance; and/or prototype developer would conduct (or
and associated costs increase (3) any component, material or method cause to be conducted) the full
significantly with longer test periods. of assembly, provided that the prototype testing required (testing three
Usually, staying at or below the 200kW manufacturer can show, on an prototype specimens), obtaining passing
limit for a 30 minute test is estimated to objectively reasonable basis, that such results, and the other manufacturer(s)
provide an adequate time for fire difference(s) will not cause the mattress may then produce mattress sets
discovery and escape by occupants in set to exceed the specified test criteria. represented by that qualified prototype
the bed or otherwise in the room of fire The third exception allows the so long as they conduct one successful
origin. [2] manufacturer to change the depth of the confirmation test on a specimen they
The effectiveness of the standard mattress if he can make the required produce. If the mattress set fails the
depends on the need for early discovery showing concerning the test criteria. If confirmation test, the manufacturer
and escape from the fire without delay. a manufacturer chooses to make use of must take corrective measures, and then
Limiting the early contribution of the the third exception, he/she can perform a new confirmation test that
mattress will have the greatest impact minimize testing, but must maintain must meet the test criteria. If a
on reducing the risk as the mattress will records documenting that the change(s) confirmation test specimen fails to meet
have little involvement in the fire for will not cause the prototype to exceed the test criteria, the manufacturer of that
the specified period of time. The early the test criteria (see § 1633.11(b)(4) of specimen must also notify the
limit of 15 MJ for the first 10 minutes the rule). manufacturer that developed the
of the test partially compensates for When conducting prototype prototype about the test failure.
burning bedclothes and ticking by qualification testing, the manufacturer Pooling may be used by two or more
preventing early involvement of the must test a minimum of three specimens plants within the same firm or by two
mattress as the bedclothes burn and of the prototype in accordance with the or more independent firms. The final
compensates for other items that might test method described, and all of the rule also recognizes that pooling can
be involved early in a fire. [2] mattress sets must meet both of the test occur between a manufacturer and a
California’s TB 603 prescribes a 25 MJ criteria discussed above. If any one prototype developer. This could be a
limit in the first 10 minutes of the test. prototype specimen that the company that manufactures mattress
components and conducts testing for the material or assembly process could of the commercial version of the burner
manufacturer. As discussed in the negatively affect the test performance of apparatus rather than the NIST original.
regulatory flexibility analysis, pooling the mattress set), the manufacturer must The final standard has been revised to
should reduce testing costs for smaller cease production and distribution in provide for the burner holes used in the
companies. Once they have conducted a commerce of the affected mattress sets commercial versions. [1&2]
successful confirmation test, pooling until corrective action is taken. A provision has been added to the
firms can produce mattresses based on standard at § 1633.7(k) that allows the
9. Test Procedure (§ 1633.7) use of alternate test apparatus with the
a pooled prototype and may continue to
do so as long as any changes to the The test procedure in the standard is approval of the Office of Compliance.
mattress set based on the pooled based on the test protocol developed by Other minor changes in the test
prototype are limited to the three NIST. The procedure in the final procedure, equipment and set up
discussed above: (1) Width or length of standard is essentially the same as what include clarifications of gas
the mattress set; (2) the ticking, unless was proposed with some minor changes specifications, draft control, and burner
the qualified ticking has characteristics and a few substantive modifications orientation. These are discussed in the
that are designed to improve the described below. Engineering Sciences and Laboratory
mattress’s test performance; and/or (3) Requirements for sample conditioning memoranda. [1,4&5]
any component, material or method of have been tightened to require a
conditioning temperature greater than 10. Recordkeeping (§ 1633.11)
assembly that the manufacturer can
show (on an objectively reasonable 18° C (65° F) and less than 25° C (77° F) The Commission made several
basis) will not cause the prototype to and a relative humidity less than 55 changes to the recordkeeping
exceed the specified test criteria. percent. Requirements for the test area requirements. The standard now
conditions have been added, stating that requires that records must be kept in
8. Quality Assurance Requirements the area must be maintained at a English at a location in the United
(§ 1633.6) temperature greater than 15° C (59° F) States and requires the complete
The standard contains the same strict and less than 27° C (80.6° F) and at a physical addresses of suppliers,
requirements for quality assurance as relative humidity less than 75 percent. manufacturing facilities (foreign and
the proposal did. This is necessary Initiation of flammability testing is domestic), and test laboratories in
because research and testing indicate required to begin within 20 minutes records. The standard no longer requires
that small variations in construction after removal of the mattress sample the manufacturer to maintain a physical
(e.g., missed stitching around the side of from environmentally controlled storage sample of the materials and components
the mattress) can affect the fire conditions. of a prototype. The required records
performance of a mattress. Testing Specifications for the bed frame should be sufficient to determine
conducted at NIST after the NPR was supporting the test specimen have been compliance without the burden of
published reinforced the importance of clarified to address dimensions for maintaining physical samples.
quality assurance. The language in this specimens other than twin-size, frame The standard requires manufacturers
section has been changed somewhat to height to accommodate the side burner to maintain certain records to document
better indicate the Commission’s intent in tests of thin mattresses without compliance with the standard. This
that production mattresses should be foundations, and support for more includes records concerning prototype
the same as the prototypes on which flexible mattress products. testing, pooling and confirmation
they are based. The specification for the gas burner testing, and quality assurance
Each manufacturer must implement a hole size has been changed. In 2000, procedures and any associated testing.
quality assurance program to ensure that NIST developed a pair of propane gas The required records must be
the mattress sets it produces are the burners to consistently simulate the maintained for as long as mattress sets
same as the qualified, subordinate or typical heat impact imposed on a based on the prototype are in
confirmed prototype on which they are mattress by burning bedding items. production and must be retained for
based with respect to materials, These burners were incorporated as the three years thereafter.
components, design and methods of ignition source in the full-scale fire test
assembly. This means that at a for mattresses. Subsequently, a 11. Labeling (§ 1633.12)
minimum, manufacturers must: (1) Have commercial supplier manufactured a The labeling required by the standard
controls in place on components, commercial version of the NIST burner has been modified from the proposed
materials and methods of assembly to apparatus that was used by various test rule. These changes were made to
ensure that they are the same as those laboratories to conduct full-scale provide more complete information
used in the prototype; (2) designate a mattress testing in accordance with TB about the manufacturer/importer and to
production lot that is represented by the 603 and CPSC’s proposed standard. enable consumers to choose the correct
prototype; and (3) inspect mattress sets Inadvertently, the commercial version foundation (if any) to use with the
produced for sale. incorporated larger diameter holes in mattress they purchase.
The standard does not require both of the burner heads (1.50 mm vs. Each mattress set must bear a
manufacturers to conduct testing of 1.17 mm). The proposed standard permanent label stating (1) the name of
production mattresses. However, the specified the original NIST burner the manufacturer, or for imported
Commission recognizes the value of holes. After this difference was mattress sets, the name of the foreign
such testing as part of a quality discovered, NIST conducted studies to manufacturer and the importer; (2) the
assurance program. Therefore, the determine the effects of the larger complete physical address of the
Commission encourages manufacturers diameter burner holes on peak burner manufacturer, and if the mattress is
to conduct random testing of mattress heat flux. The results of the comparison imported, the complete physical address
sets that are produced for sale. show that the burners with the larger of the importer or U.S. location where
If a manufacturer obtains any test holes do a better job of meeting the records are maintained; (3) the month
results or any other evidence indicating target peak flux levels of bedclothes and year of manufacture; (4) the model
that a mattress set does not meet the than do the original burners with the identification; (5) prototype
specified criteria (or that a component, smaller holes, supporting continued use identification number; and (6) a
certification that the mattress complies incorporating strong, but not necessarily above, staff estimates potential
with the standard. cost-effective barrier systems. These reductions of 240 to 270 deaths and
The final rule specifies the wording mattress tests were conducted with 1,150 to 1,330 injuries annually in fires
and format to be used in the compliance burning bedclothes so that the fires attended by the fire service when all
certification label, and requires that this produced could be used to estimate existing mattress sets have been
information appear on a single label changes in deaths and injuries expected replaced with mattress sets meeting the
dedicated to this purpose. This will to result from the standard. In the past new standard. There may also be
ensure that the information is not few years, mattress designs and reductions in property damage resulting
detracted from or minimized, and it will materials have evolved with from the standard, but data are not
prevent potential confusion with state manufacturers now producing sufficient for the staff to quantify this
labeling requirements. The label mattresses to meet California TB 603. impact. [3]
information may be printed on the New fire barrier products have been
reverse side of the label in another G. Inter-Laboratory Study
introduced, mattress designs have been
language. more closely engineered to achieve the Before publication of the NPR, an
Included on the label must be a required performance, and single-sided inter-laboratory study was conducted
statement indicating whether the mattresses have become an increasingly with the support of the SPSC, NIST, and
mattress meets the standard when used larger and more significant portion of participating laboratories to explore the
without a foundation, with a the residential market. [1] sensitivity, repeatability, and
corresponding foundation or both alone In evaluations that the staff conducted reproducibility of the NIST test method.
and with a foundation. A mattress that after publication of the NPR, the staff However, only a preliminary analysis of
is tested with a foundation may perform found that when mattresses are closely the results of the study was available
differently when used with a different designed to the performance prior to the NPR. A more detailed
foundation or without any foundation. requirements in the final standard, as is analysis is now available. See Damant,
Thus, it is important for consumers to expected as the industry develops their G./Inter-City Testing and Consulting
know what foundation (if any) the new products, flashover conditions Corporation & Sleep Products Safety
mattress they are purchasing is intended could occur earlier than previously Council (2005). Developing an Open-
to be sold with. measured with experimental and Flame Ignition Standard for Mattresses
initially over-engineered designs. Staff and Bed Sets (Report on a Precision and
12. One of a Kind Exemption (§ 1633.13) Bias Evaluation of the Technical
accounted for this observed behavior by
The standard allows an exemption for reducing the effectiveness estimates for Bulletin 603 Test Method). Alexandria,
a one-of-a-kind mattress set if it is the final standard adjusting for the effect VA: Sleep Products Safety Council. The
manufactured in response to a on some occupants. The standard’s limit analysis is summarized below.
physician’s written prescription or on the early contribution of the mattress All of the participating labs
manufactured in accordance with to the fire (15 MJ in the first 10 minutes) conducted multiple tests of eight
comparable medical therapeutic will help to maintain tenable conditions different mattress designs. The mattress
specifications. This provision is early in the fire and allow for timely designs varied critical elements (e.g., the
unchanged from the proposal and is also discovery and escape from growing fire barrier—sheet or high-loft, the type of
present in the 16 CFR 1632 mattress conditions. [1&2] mattress—single or double-sided) and
standard. The most recent national fire loss the style of mattress (e.g., tight or pillow
estimates indicated that mattresses and top). [2]
F. Effectiveness Evaluation A detailed statistical analysis of the
bedding were the first items to ignite in
As discussed in the NPR, CPSC staff 15,300 residential fires attended by the test data suggests neither unreasonable
conducted an effectiveness evaluation to fire service annually during 1999–2002. sensitivities nor practical limitations of
assess the potential effectiveness of the These fires resulted in 350 deaths, 1,750 the NIST test protocol. The results were
proposed standard in addressing deaths injuries and $295.0 million in property not affected by substantially varying the
and injuries resulting from mattress/ loss each year. Of these, the staff parameters (primarily associated with
bedding fires. The evaluation was based considers an estimated 14,300 fires, 330 possible test facility and operator errors)
primarily on review of CPSC deaths, 1,680 injuries, and $281.5 selected for the sensitivity study. The
investigation reports that provided million property loss annually to be data indicate that the specified ignition
details of the occupants’ situations and addressable by the standard (i.e., of the source is severe enough and the test
actions during the fire. Staff reviewers type that the standard could affect based duration long enough to allow a valid/
identified criteria that affected the on the characteristics of the fire). [3] realistic evaluation of mattress set
occupants’ ability to escape the fires For the final rule, the staff has performance. [2]
they had experienced. The staff used reviewed the fire loss data and updated The data showed some significant
these criteria to estimate percentage its effectiveness evaluation to account differences in the test results reported
reductions in deaths and injuries for the observations discussed above. by the participating laboratories, and a
expected to occur under the much less The staff’s analysis is explained in variety of factors possibly influenced
severe fire conditions anticipated with detail in the memorandum ‘‘Updated these differences. However, the study
improved designs of mattresses that Estimates of Residential Fire Losses suggests that, when the test procedures
would comply with the standard. The Involving Mattresses and Bedding.’’ [3] are correctly followed, it is the
staff then applied these estimated CPSC staff estimates that, overall, the combined characteristics and resulting
reductions to national estimates of standard may be expected to prevent 69 behavior of the mattress components
mattress/bedding fire deaths and to 78 percent of the deaths and 73 to 84 chosen, mattress design, and
injuries to estimate numbers of deaths percent of the injuries presently consistency of the manufacturing
and injuries that could be prevented occurring in addressable mattress/ processes that determines the test
with the standard. [3] bedding fires attended by the fire outcome. Observations from the study
The staff’s effectiveness estimates in service. Applying these percentage emphasize the importance of controlling
the NPR were based on full-scale tests reductions to estimates of addressable components, materials, and methods of
of early experimental mattress designs mattress/bedding fire losses noted assembly. Quality assurance procedures,
standardized testing, written records, not is unclear. They suggest using a addressing open flame ignition. In the
and visual inspections are all means for different term, such as ‘‘Model,’’ for absence of such information, the
assuring, verifying, and controlling prototypes that do not need to be tested. Commission believes it is appropriate to
consistency of production. Response. CPSC agrees that using a continue to include mattresses used in
Environmental conditions required for different term to refer to prototypes that the lodging industry as subject to
tests have also been tightened in the are not required to be tested would Commission mattress flammability
standard. [2] prevent confusion. ‘‘Subordinate rules.
prototype,’’ defined at § 1633.2(p), is
H. Response to Comments on the NPR used for an untested prototype based on 2. Technical Requirements/
As discussed above, the Commission either a qualified or confirmed Specifications
published an NPR in the Federal prototype. a. Comment. Several commenters
Register on January 13, 2005, proposing c. Comment. One commenter recommended changing the specified
a flammability standard addressing recommended that the term ‘‘prototype burner hole size to the #53 drill size
open flame ignition of mattresses. 70 FR developer’’ be defined to permit third (1.50 mm) used on production burners
2470. During the comment period, the parties, such as component suppliers, to and limit the time between removal of
Commission received over 540 design and test prototypes that can be the sample from conditioning and the
comments from consumers, businesses, used by mattress manufacturers. start of the test.
associations and interested parties Response. The standard does not Response. As discussed earlier in this
representing various segments of the prohibit entities other than mattress preamble, NIST recently evaluated peak
mattress industry and consumers. In manufacturers from designing and heat fluxes from two versions of gas
addition, comments were presented by testing mattresses for pooling purposes. burner designs, the original and the
interested parties at a public hearing For purposes of clarity a definition for commercial burners with larger holes.
concerning the mattress NPR that the ‘‘prototype developer’’ has been added The study showed that the burners with
Commission held on March 3, 2005. to the standard to describe a third party the larger holes do a better job of
Additional comments have also been providing this service to the industry. If meeting the target peak flux levels of
submitted since the close of the such an entity designs a prototype for a bedclothes than do the original burners
comment period. mattress manufacturer, the with the smaller holes. Accordingly, the
Commenters who generally supported manufacturer would still be responsible Commission has revised the standard to
the proposed rule provided comments for causing qualification testing of and specify a nominal burner hole size of
regarding definitions, testing maintaining all records required for that 1.50 mm, which corresponds to Grade
procedures, recordkeeping prototype, including those documenting 10 machining practice with a well
requirements, importer/renovator the prototype qualification. If the formed #53 drill bit.
responsibilities, and other related prototype developer designs and b. Comment. Several commenters
issues. Those opposed to the standard qualifies the prototype, the recommended tightening sample
expressed concerns about the health manufacturer would have to do the conditioning and test area conditioning
effects of flame retardant chemicals required confirmation test. requirements.
needed to help mattress sets comply d. Comment. Commenters questioned Response. CPSC agrees that exposure
with the performance requirements. [18 the applicability of the proposed of a mattress sample to the fire test room
& 19] Significant issues and the standard to mattresses used in environmental conditions could likely
Commission’s responses are recreational vehicles and the lodging have an impact on test results. Some
summarized below. More detailed industry. laboratories have observed seasonal
responses and responses to minor Response. The Commission intends variations in test performance. It is
comments are discussed in the staff’s for this standard to apply to essentially reasonable, therefore, to require that
briefing memoranda. the same mattresses as are currently testing of a specific conditioned sample
regulated under Part 1632. Mattresses should begin within a certain amount of
1. Scope and Definitions of the are ‘‘products’’ under the Flammable time after removal from the storage
Standard Fabrics Act. However, motorized RVs conditions.
a. Comment. One commenter noted that are subject to the National Highway Based on NIST’s evaluation of the
inconsistency in use of the terms Traffic Safety Administration’s FMVSS effects of laboratory humidity in fire test
‘‘mattress’’ and ‘‘mattress set,’’ which No. 302 would not be subject to the performance, the Commission has
could lead to confusion. The commenter Commission’s mattress standard. revised the standard to require that
suggested using and defining ‘‘mattress Interpreting the 1632 mattress testing must begin within 20 minutes
set’’ to refer to mattresses to be tested standard, the Commission’s staff and after removal from the conditioning
both with and without a foundation. Office of General Counsel have room. The sample conditioning
Response. CPSC has now defined expressed the view that the requirements in § 1633.7(b) of the
‘‘mattress set’’ to include mattresses flammability standards issued under the standard have been revised to specify an
labeled for sale alone and mattresses FFA (including 1632) are applicable to upper limit on the temperature. The
labeled for sale with a foundation, mattresses, carpets and rugs when temperature range must be greater than
depending upon the manufacturer’s installed in travel trailers, 5th wheelers 18° C (65° F) and less than 25° C (77°
intentions, to resolve the problem of and slide-in campers, but travel trailer F). The test area conditions must now be
inconsistency, as well as reduce cushions that have dual purposes as maintained at a temperature greater than
wordiness. The revised definition also mattresses and seat cushions would not 15° C (59° F) and less than 27° C (80.6°
makes clear that foundations need not be considered mattresses. F) and a relative humidity less than 75
meet the test requirements by Mattresses used in the lodging percent. These specifications will
themselves. The term is used industry are subject to the 1632 mattress minimize environmental influences on
throughout the final standard. standard. Commenters have not test results.
b. Comment. Two commenters stated presented any reasons why these c. Comment. Several comments
that the distinction between prototypes mattresses should be treated differently requested the use of slightly modified
that need to be tested and those that do under the new Part 1633 regulation test equipment. For example, one
commenter requested to use a modified within the mattress, exposure and its assumptions that may overestimate,
technique to obtain the required burner attendant risk would be minimized. rather than underestimate, exposure and
offset from the specimen instead of the The CPSC staff has considered the risk. The staff concluded that the
foot. Another comment pertained to potential chronic health risks associated estimated exposure to boric acid was
using an alternate method of measuring with FR chemicals that may be used in below both the EPA’s revised RfD and
the gas flow, rather than using a mattresses to comply with the standard the updated CPSC staff’s Acceptable
rotameter type of flowmeter. and continues to study the potential Daily Intake (ADI). Thus, boric acid is
Response. To address such issues that exposures to FR chemicals that may not expected to pose any appreciable
would not be expected to influence the occur over the lifetime of a mattress. risks of health effects to consumers who
test, the proposed standard has been The Commission concludes that there sleep on treated mattresses.
revised to include a provision for the are inherently flame resistant materials, c. Comment. One commenter
use of alternate apparatus in § 1633.7(k): FR barriers, and FR chemical treatments specifically mentioned fiberglass as a
Mattress sets may be tested using test that can be used without presenting any potentially hazardous FR treatment due
apparatus that differs from that appreciable risks of health effects to to inhalation of glass fibers.
described in this section if the consumers. Response. The type of fiberglass used
manufacturer obtains and provides to The CPSC staff is also working with in textiles and FR barriers, ‘‘continuous
the Commission data demonstrating that the EPA to ensure that the use of FR filament,’’ is not considered hazardous.
tests using the alternate apparatus for chemicals does not endanger d. Comment. Some commenters
the procedures specified in this section consumers, workers, or the argued that the risk of dying in a fire is
yield failing results as often as, or more environment. EPA has broad statutory lower than the risk of adverse health
often than, tests using the apparatus authority over chemical substances that effects from exposure to FR chemicals in
specified in the standard. The address potential risks to consumers, mattresses.
manufacturer shall provide the workers, and the environment. EPA has Response. The commenter provided
supporting data to the Office of several programs such as the Design for no data on mattress exposures to
Compliance, and staff will review the the Environment (DfE), High Production support this assertion. There are
data and determine whether the Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge, and approximately 15,000 fires per year in
alternate apparatus may be used. Voluntary Children’s Chemical the U.S. in which mattresses or bedding
Exposure Program (VCCEP) to evaluate are the first item ignited, resulting in
3. Exposure to Flame Retardant the potential hazards of chemicals, about 1,750 injuries and 350 deaths per
Chemicals—Health Concerns including flame retardants, to year. The Commission has concluded
a. Comment. Numerous commenters consumers, workers, and the that the risk of injury or death in a fire
stated that they were concerned about environment. In addition, the CPSC staff involving mattresses or bedding is
the possible toxicity of flame retardant is cooperating with EPA in developing substantial.
(FR) chemicals in general. Other a significant new use rule (SNUR) for FR The CPSC has studied the potential
commenters, including manufacturers of chemicals that could be used to comply exposures and chronic health risks
mattresses or mattress components, with CPSC or state flammability associated with FR chemicals that may
stated that there are FR chemicals that requirements for upholstered furniture be used in mattresses to comply with
can be used without presenting a hazard and possibly mattresses. EPA’s the standard. The results of these
to consumers, workers, or the programs and statutory authority can be studies indicate that there are a number
environment. used to obtain additional toxicity or of commercially available FR-treated
Response. In the view of the CPSC exposure data where needed, and barriers that can be used to meet the
staff, there are inherently flame resistant complement the activities of the CPSC standard without presenting any
materials and FR chemicals available and the statutory authority of the appreciable risks of health effects to
that can be used to meet the standard Commission. consumers.
and that are not likely to present a b. Comment. A number of e. Comment. Numerous commenters
hazard to consumers, workers, or the commenters were specifically stated that they have multiple chemical
environment. The CPSC and concerned about the toxicity of boric sensitivity (MCS), allergies, or other
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acid, which is used to treat cotton health conditions that could be
staffs will continue to evaluate the batting. exacerbated by exposure to FR
potential effects of FR treatments to Other commenters, including chemicals.
ensure that they do not present a hazard manufacturers of mattresses, mattress Response. The CPSC concludes that
to consumers, workers, or the components, and chemicals, noted that there is no evidence to suggest that FR
environment. boric acid has been used in mattresses chemical exposures from mattresses
Mattress manufacturers would be free for many years and that their employees would contribute to the causation or
to choose the means of complying with have not suffered any ill effects. They exacerbation of allergies, asthma, or
the standard. Options available to noted that the EPA also recently multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).
manufacturers include the use of increased its reference dose (RfD) for For the most part, the materials and FR
inherently flame resistant materials, FR boric acid. (This means that a greater chemicals that will be used to comply
barriers, and FR chemicals. To meet the daily exposure to boric acid is with the standard do not share the
standard, FR chemicals would most considered acceptable by EPA.) characteristics of the types of exposures
likely be applied to components inside Response. After publication of the associated with the conditions noted by
the mattress, such as batting or barriers. NPR, the CPSC staff performed studies the commenters.
However, FR chemicals might be to estimate the potential for exposure as MCS is a ‘‘condition in which a
applied to mattress ticking (cover fabric) well as the potential health risk person reports sensitivity or intolerance
in some cases. The potential risk associated with the use of boric acid as (as distinct from an allergy) to a number
presented by any chemical, including a flame retardant. [4&11] The staff’s of chemicals and other irritants at very
FR chemicals, depends on both toxicity studies and analysis applied low concentrations.’’ The chemicals
and exposure. To the extent that FR conservative assumptions in areas of include both recognized pollutants—for
chemical treatments remain bound to or scientific uncertainty, that is, example, formaldehyde, volatile organic
compounds, and environmental tobacco and the European Chemicals Bureau performance after exposure to moisture.
smoke—as well as agents generally continue to review the potential Some provided test data to support their
considered to be innocuous, such as environmental effects of DBDPO. The concerns. Other commenters provided
fragrances. Health professionals and CPSC staff evaluated risks associated data from tests of used mattresses taken
biomedical scientists differ in their with mattress barriers containing out of service, indicating they still met
views regarding the underlying causes DBDPO and concluded that DBDPO applicable standards.
and physiological processes of this used in barriers for mattresses is not Response. The data provided by
condition. Non-allergic asthma and expected to pose any appreciable risk of commenters were either not relevant
rhinitis are generally associated with health effects in consumers. [1&13] (tests using smoldering cigarettes) or
exposure to respiratory irritants such as h. Comment. Some individuals based upon severe exposure of barrier
combustion products, environmental commented that there is no guidance for materials, apart from the mattress,
tobacco smoke, dusts, and solvents, manufacturers to consider toxicity and before testing. The staff sought and
while allergic asthma and rhinitis exposure when selecting FR chemicals. obtained new test data, supplied by
symptoms are most often associated Response. Under the FHSA, manufacturers of barrier products and
with exposures to airborne biological manufacturers are responsible for by NIST, to provide a limited evaluation
substances, such as animal dander, ensuring that their products either do of effects of moisture on flammability
insect wastes, molds, and pollen. The not present a hazard to consumers or, if behavior. This evaluation does not
FR materials or chemicals under they are hazardous, that they are support requiring specific durability
consideration are generally non-volatile, properly labeled according to the tests for barrier components. NIST
are not associated with fragrances or requirements of the FHSA. In 1992, the examined the fire performance of two
odors, and are not derived from Commission issued chronic hazard mattress designs that used different
biological materials. guidelines to assist manufacturers in barrier materials/systems made with
Furthermore, the potential risks complying with the FHSA (16 CFR water soluble flame retardants. NIST fire
presented by FR chemicals depend on 1500.3(c)(2). The guidelines address tests were conducted after the mattress
both toxicity and exposure. In most carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, sets were exposed to 10 localized,
cases, FR chemicals would be applied to reproductive and developmental wetting and drying cycles. The effects of
components inside the mattress, such as toxicity, exposure, bioavailability, and this severe wetting exposure scenario
batting or barriers. To the extent that FR risk assessment. did not change the overall flammability
chemical treatments remain bound to or i. Comment. One manufacturer performance of the mattress sets. In
within the mattress, exposure and its commented that the CPSC staff should addition, even if exposed areas have
attendant risk would be minimized. use realistic exposure scenarios, rather decreased fire resistance, the tests
f. Comment. Some commenters than overly conservative ones. suggest that the remainder of the
claimed that FR chemicals may cause Response. In assessing chronic health mattress should retain its improved
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). hazards, the goal of the CPSC staff is to flammability performance, especially
Response. The CPSC disagrees with determine whether ‘‘reasonably the performance expected early in the
the claim that antimony compounds or foreseeable handling and use’’ may be fire. Since localized wetting, as in
other FR chemicals may cause sudden hazardous to consumers. Therefore, the bedwetting, is anticipated to be the most
infant death syndrome (SIDS). staff generally attempts to make best likely exposure of a mattress to water in
Following a four-year study in the estimates of exposure under realistic real-world applications, it appears
United Kingdom and reviews by a conditions. However, in the absence of unnecessary to add durability test
number of expert panels in the UK and adequate data, the staff applies requirements to the standard to account
the U.S., the expert panels concluded ‘‘conservative’’ assumptions, that is, for mattress designs that incorporate
that there is no credible evidence that assumptions that might overestimate, barrier systems that use water-soluble
antimony compounds or any other FR rather than underestimate risk. flame retardants.
chemicals contribute to SIDS. The CPSC chronic hazard guidelines
g. Comment. Some commenters were describe various approaches to exposure 5. Effective Date
specifically concerned about the toxicity assessment. Direct measures of exposure Comment. Commenters suggested a
of polybrominated diphenyl ethers such as field studies are generally variety of effective dates for the final
(PBDE’s), including decabromodiphenyl preferred over laboratory studies and rule ranging from immediate
oxide (DBDPO). mathematical modeling. However, field implementation to coinciding with
Response. PBDE’s are a family of FR studies are not always practical for regular model changes (January and
chemicals that have been used in some technical or economic reasons. Thus, July) and 18 months from final
components of consumer products. the staff frequently relies on a publication.
Octabromodiphenyl ether (octa-BDE) combination of laboratory data and Response. The standard provides an
was a relatively minor product that was mathematical models. effective date of July 1, 2007, which is
never used in mattresses or upholstered The CPSC staff developed laboratory the earlier of January or July that follows
furniture. Pentabromodiphenyl ether methods and exposure scenarios to twelve months after publication of the
(penta-BDE) is no longer in use. It was assess the potential exposure to FR Federal Register notice. This date
one of the primary FR treatments for chemicals in mattresses. These methods would coincide with regular model/
flexible polyurethane foam (PUF), are conservative in that they may style changes and thus make it easier for
which is used in mattresses, overestimate, rather than underestimate, all producers, especially small
upholstered furniture, and other the potential risk. producers outside of California who are
applications. However, most non- not producing complying mattress sets,
California residential mattresses and 4. Durability of Flame Retardant to update their styles and produce
Chemicals—Fire Performance
upholstered furniture do not require FR- complying mattress sets.

treated PUF to pass current flammability Comment. Several commenters All national producers that sell
requirements. The European Chemicals recommended requiring performance mattresses in California already have
Bureau concluded that there is no tests to assure the durability of flame developed the production technology
reason to ban DBDPO. The U.S. EPA retardant chemicals and barrier and conducted the testing required to
meet California TB 603, which is very renovated mattress is sanitary or exposure. A label stating the names of
similar to the Commission’s standard. hygienic. any FR chemicals used in the mattress
One of them is already selling Response. The standard seeks to would thus not in fact provide any
mattresses complying with performance reduce injuries and deaths due to fires. useful information to the consumer
requirements of the Commission’s It is not intended to address the sanitary because the mere presence of an FR
standard nationwide. Three of the top condition of mattresses. chemical is not an indication that the
four producers are selling complying d. Comment. One commenter mattress containing that chemical poses
mattress sets representing between 15 to expressed concern that requiring a any health risk.
20 percent of their total output. Smaller dedicated label might detract from the
Sleep Product Safety Council’s safety 7. Preemption
companies not based in California may
be behind in their design, production, hangtag program, conflict with the state Comment. The Commission received
and testing efforts. However, the law labeling program, and negatively several comments concerning
Commission believes that an effective affect the aesthetics of the finished preemption. One commenter asked that
date of one year plus time to the next product. The commenter suggested the Commission explicitly state in the
model introductions provides enough allowing manufacturers to display the standard that the mattress standard
time for all manufacturers to transition required information on the Sleep would preempt both codified state rules
to producing and selling compliant Products Safety Council’s safety and State common law claims that
mattresses. hangtag. address the same risk of injury as the
Response. CPSC has revised the federal mattress standard. Other
6. Labeling labeling provision in the standard to (1) commenters asked that the Commission
a. Comment. One commenter urged include intended usage information for indicate that the standard would not
the Commission to require the labels of the safety of the consumer, (2) require preempt stricter state standards.
imported mattresses to bear the foreign all information specified in § 1633.12 to Response. The Commission’s position
manufacturer’s name and full address, appear on a dedicated label, and (3) on the preemptive effect of this final
including country, as well as the permit the display of the consumer rule is stated in Section N. of this
importer’s name and full address. usage information in any other language preamble.
on the reverse (blank) side of the label.
Response. CPSC agrees that such 8. Domestic Manufacturer/Renovator vs.
Consumers must be able to identify the
information should be present on the Importer Responsibilities
correct foundation, if any, to use with
mattress set label and has revised a. Comment. Two commenters
the mattress they purchase. With this
§ 1633.12 (a) of the standard suggested making importer testing/
intended usage information, consumers
accordingly. recordkeeping responsibilities explicit.
will understand that the mattress they
b. Comment. One commenter referred purchase meets the requirements of the They suggested including language
to the Textile Fiber Products standard when used alone, with one or specifying that testing needs to be
Identification Act, which is more specific foundation(s), or both. conducted (either qualification or
administered by the Federal Trade Requiring the specified information to confirmation) and records maintained
Commission (FTC) and requires, among appear on a dedicated label has the for each foreign manufacturer if the
other things, that mattresses made with benefit of (1) ensuring that such importer is importing from more than
‘‘reused stuffing’’ be labeled so, and information is not detracted from or one manufacturer.
suggested that CPSC coordinate with minimized, (2) avoiding potential Response. CPSC intends for the
FTC to allow the disclosure to appear on conflict or confusion with state labeling requirements of the standard to be the
the label with the other information requirements, (3) guaranteeing that the same for domestic manufacturers/
required by the standard. intended usage information is renovators and importers: each is
Response. Labeling of mattresses is highlighted and presented in a responsible for maintaining the
governed by several organizations, consistent manner, and (4) allowing appropriate qualification and
including CPSC, FTC, and individual manufacturers the option of providing confirmation test records for mattress
states. Because of the informative nature the intended usage information in sets they produce and/or import. These
and quantity of information needed, the another language on the back of the requirements have been clarified in the
standard has been revised to require the label. CPSC staff designed the required standard.
information specified in § 1633.12 to be label to be as small as possible without b. Comment. One commenter
displayed on a permanent, dedicated compromising the clarity and expressed concern that foreign
label in a prescribed format. Therefore, effectiveness of the specified manufacturers may circumvent testing
no other information apart from that information. requirements by drop-shipping directly
required by the standard may appear on e. Comment. Ten commenters to consumers. The commenter
this label. This helps to insure recommended including in the standard recommended adding a definition of
prominence of consumer safety a requirement that mattresses provide a ‘‘importer’’ that identifies domestic
information and to prevent potential label listing FR chemicals used or a agents involved with selling or
confusion with other labeling statement warning of health risks. marketing the product to be drop-
requirements. Response. The staff has found that shipped as the responsible party.
c. Comment. One commenter numerous FR materials are available Response. The CPSC does not believe
suggested requiring renovated that will enable mattresses to meet the that adding a definition of importer will
mattresses to bear a yellow label that standard without posing any suitably address the issue. Section 3(a)
would distinguish them from new appreciable health risks. Moreover, the of the Flammable Fabrics Act already
mattresses, which traditionally bear FHSA itself would require a hazard prohibits ‘‘[t]he manufacture for sale, or
white labels. In addition, the commenter warning label if a mattress did contain the offering for sale, in commerce, or the
recommended that renovated mattress a hazardous substance as that term is importation into the United States, or
labels be required to contain a statement defined in the FHSA. The potential the introduction, delivery for
indicating that compliance with the health hazard associated with any introduction, transportation or causing
standard does not imply that the chemical depends on both toxicity and to be transported in commerce or for the
purpose of sale or delivery after sale in testing and evaluations of components, Ignition). 70 FR 36357. That rulemaking
commerce * * *’’ of any product materials, and assembly methods will allow for a full evaluation of
violating a standard issued under its critical to flammability performance of options to reduce unnecessary burdens
authority. This means that any party— the qualified prototype. while maintaining the safety afforded by
including importers and other agents Response. Since it is too early to the cigarette ignition standard. The
initially introducing goods regulated know exactly what components, Commission staff is also considering
under the FFA into commerce—engaged materials, and assembly methods will measures to reduce the short term
in the foregoing actions with respect to influence the flammability performance testing burden created by the addition of
non-complying products would be of a mattress, CPSC does not believe it a new mattress standard to an existing
liable under the FFA. is appropriate to limit the types of one.
In response to the commenter’s records required under § 1633.11(d)(5)
concern, CPSC revised the standard to at this time. Moreover, these records 12. Costs Associated With the Standard
require each manufacturer to maintain a will likely be used by manufacturers to Comment. Commenters expressed
copy of the records demonstrating demonstrate that a change in concerns about the increased costs of
compliance at a U.S. location. component, material, and/or assembly barrier materials needed to produce
Additionally, this location would be method will not degrade the complying mattresses and increased
required to appear on the mattress label. flammability performance of a costs to consumers (as much as $100 per
Section 1633.11(e) of the standard has prototype, thus allowing the mattress).
been revised to reflect these manufacturer to forgo testing and Response. Estimates of barrier and
requirements. qualifying a new prototype. To that end, other resource costs for mattress
it is in the interest of the manufacturer producers are lower in the final
9. Quality Assurance Requirements to maintain a broader scope of such regulatory analysis than those in the
Comment. One commenter suggested records. initial regulatory analysis and are
limiting the scope of the components c. Comment. Two commenters expected to drop further as a result of
and materials required to be controlled remarked that the requirement to keep technological developments and
for quality assurance to only those that physical samples of all materials used in increased competition among barrier
are critical to the flammability each prototype is overly burdensome producers. Total costs are not expected
performance of the finished product. and impractical. The large numbers of to exceed $23.00 per mattress set.
Response. The Commission believes samples would require significant The expected price increase for
that it is premature to limit the scope of storage space while the objective could consumers was initially estimated to
the quality control on incoming be accomplished through test and range from $23.00 to slightly less than
components and materials. The quality certificates and other $80.00. However, the final regulatory
Commission could revisit this issue documentation already required in the analysis updated the costs, which have
once significant experience with the quality assurance records. declined because of technological
standard is gained and the industry and Response. The requirement to advances and market competition. This
CPSC have more confidence in the maintain physical samples of prototype means that the consumer price will
contributions of various components to materials and components was included increase by a mid-point estimate of
the full-scale fire performance of in the proposed standard as an added $24.21 per mattress.
mattress sets. measure for manufacturers to verify that One national producer currently
production mattresses match their makes mattresses that would comply
10. Recordkeeping and Sample representative prototype. Given that the with the standard without increasing
Retention prototype recordkeeping requirements the price of its mattress sets.
a. Comment. One commenter already call for manufacturers to Competition for market share among
recommended that the test and provide a detailed description of and producers will likely drive the price
manufacturing records require the specifications for each material and closer to the one charged by this
‘‘name and full address’’ of the testing component used in every prototype, and national producer, which would make
laboratory, as opposed to just the given that this information may be used the likely increase even lower than that
‘‘location.’’ The same commenter to reliably verify material and suggested by the $24.21 above.
likewise suggested substituting ‘‘full component consistency, the
address’’ for ‘‘location’’ for both the 13. Bedclothes Rulemaking
requirement to keep physical samples
manufacturer of the qualified prototype has been eliminated in the standard. Comment. Some commenters
in the pooling confirmation test records expressed support for an additional
and the suppliers in the prototype 11. Consider Revoking Existing Cigarette rulemaking for bedclothes because of
records. Standard for Mattresses, 16 CFR Part the significant role those products play
Response. CPSC agrees that the name 1632 in mattress/bedding fire losses. Other
and complete address of the testing Comment. Some commenters commenters shared concerns about the
laboratory, as well as the complete supported revoking the existing potential use of FR chemicals in such a
addresses of the qualified prototype standard for cigarette ignition of rulemaking as well.
manufacturer and each material and mattresses and mattress pads. Others Response. On January 13, 2005, the
component supplier, should appear in recommended careful review of risks, Commission published an advance
the respective records. This will provide incident data, and benefits of the notice of proposed rulemaking for a
more complete and accurate information current standard before revocation is standard to address open flame ignition
for compliance purposes. Changes in considered. of bedclothes. 70 FR 2514. Recent
§ 1633.11 of the standard have been Response. On June 23, 2005, the research has shown that bedclothes are
made accordingly. Commission published an advance a significant ignition source for mattress
b. Comment. One commenter urged notice of proposed rulemaking for the fires and can also generate a fire large
the Commission to limit the records possible revocation or amendment of enough to pose a hazard on their own.
required under § 1633.11(d)(5) of the the Standard for the Flammability of Laboratory tests also showed that fire
standard to only those relating to the Mattresses and Mattress Pads (Cigarette performance of these products could be
improved. The environmental and California, plus other special orders, twenty different vendors of fire resistant
health implications of compliance institutional mattresses and mattress materials associated with the
strategies, including FR chemicals, will sets sold in other states. Smaller production of mattress sets, including
be evaluated in the course of that manufacturers, however, may not barriers, ticking, foam, tape, and thread.
rulemaking. produce mattress sets intended for sale These materials include chemically
outside California to meet TB 603 treated cotton, rayon, and/or polyester,
I. Final Regulatory Analysis
performance requirements. They are melamine, modacrylic, fiberglass,
The Commission is issuing a rule more likely to wait until a federal aramid (Kevlar), or some combination
establishing a flammability standard standard is adopted. The mattress of them.
addressing the open flame ignition of industry and the International Sleep For each qualified prototype, three
mattresses. Section 4(j) of the FFA Products Association (ISPA) support the mattress sets must be tested and must
requires that the Commission prepare a development of a mandatory federal pass the test requirements. To obtain a
final regulatory analysis for this action standard (Furniture Today, May 10, passing result, each mattress/set must
and that it be published with the final 2004). A Federal standard would pass a 30 minute test, where the PHRR
rule. 15 U.S.C. 1193(j). The Commission eliminate the uncertainty that may does not exceed 200 kW and the total
previously prepared, and published result from having different heat release does not exceed 15 MJ in
with the proposed rule, a preliminary flammability standards for different the first 10 minutes of the test. If any of
regulatory analysis. The staff reviewed states. the sets fail, the problem must be
the preliminary regulatory analysis and corrected, the prototype must be
updated it to prepare a final regulatory 2. The Standard: Scope and Testing retested and pass the test (in triplicate).
analysis. The following discussion was Provisions Manufacturers may sell any mattress set
extracted from the staff’s memorandum The standard will apply to all based on a qualified prototype.
titled ‘‘Final Regulatory Analysis of mattress sets, where the term mattress Manufacturers may also sell a mattress
Staff’s Draft Standard Final to Address set means either a mattress and set based on a subordinate prototype
Open-Flame Ignitions of Mattress Sets.’’ foundation labeled by the manufacturer that has not been tested if that prototype
[7] for sale as a set, or a mattress labeled by differs from a qualified prototype only
the manufacturer without any with respect to (1) mattress/foundation
1. Introduction
foundation. The term mattress means a size (length and width); (2) ticking,
For 1999 to 2002, there were an ticking (i.e., an outer layer of fabric) unless the ticking of the qualified
estimated annual average of 15,300 fires filled with a resilient material used prototype has characteristics designed
where the first item ignited was alone or in combination with other to improve performance on the burn
mattress/bedding. These fires resulted products intended or promoted for test; and/or (3) the manufacturer can
in an annual average of 350 deaths, sleeping upon. This definition is demonstrate, on an objectively
1,750 injuries, and $295 million of discussed further in section E.3. above. reasonable basis, that a change in any
property loss. As discussed elsewhere in A typical innerspring mattress component, material, or method of
this document, NIST conducted construction might include ticking; assembly will not cause the prototype to
extensive research and developed a test binding tape fabric; quilt cushioning exceed the test criteria specified above.
methodology to test open flame ignition with one or more separate layers; quilt Once a prototype has been qualified,
of mattresses. The Commission issued backing fabric; thread; cushioning with other establishments (plants within the
an NPR proposing a standard that one or more separate layers; flanging; same firm) or independent firms may
incorporates the NIST test method. spring insulator pad; spring unit; and rely on it through a pooling
California Technical Bulletin (TB) side (border) panels. Options for arrangement. The pooling plant or firm
603, which is based on the use of NIST meeting the standard include the use of is required to test one mattress set for
test burners designed to mimic the local one or a combination of the following: confirmation testing. If that set fails,
thermal insult (heat flux levels and fire resistant ticking; chemically treated then the plant or firm will need to test
duration) imposed by burning or otherwise fire resistant filling another mattress set after correcting its
bedclothes, became effective in products; or a fire blocking barrier production to make sure that it is
California on January 1, 2005. The (either a sheet style barrier, sometimes identical to the original prototype. A
California share of the market is called a fabric barrier, or a high-loft pooling firm may sell other mattress sets
estimated, by industry representatives, barrier, sometimes called a fiber barrier). that have not been tested by the pooling
to be around 11 percent of the U.S. The fire blocking barrier is placed either firm if they are based on a confirmed
market. TB 603 requires all mattress/ directly between the exterior cover prototype and differ from the confirmed
foundation sets, mattresses intended to fabric of the product and the first layer prototype only with respect to the three
be used without a foundation, and of cushioning materials, or beneath one situations stated above.
futons to meet the following pass/fail or more ‘‘sacrificial’’ layers that can
criteria: (1) The peak heat release rate burn without reaching the heat release 3. Products and Industries Potentially
(‘‘PHRR’’) does not exceed 200 kW constraints of the standard. Affected
during the 30 minute test, and (2) the While the technology exists for According to ISPA, the mattress
total heat release does not exceed 25 producing a sheet-style fire blocking producers’ trade organization, the top
mega joules (MJ) in the first 10 minutes barrier, few, if any, producers are four producers of mattresses account for
of the test. choosing it for protecting the mattress. almost sixty percent of total U.S.
As of October 2005, one of the top The cost of using sheet barriers is higher production. In total, there are 571
four producers is selling mattress sets than using high-loft barriers, since sheet establishments (as of 2003) that produce
that comply with both TB 603 and the barriers are thin and therefore could not mattresses in the U.S., using the U.S.
CPSC standard. The other three (of the be substituted for an existing foam or Department of Commerce NAICS (North
top four) are producing complying cushioning layer. There is also concern American Industry Classification
mattress sets representing between 15 that some sheet barriers, unlike high-loft System) Code 33791 for mattresses. The
and 20 percent of their total output. barriers, may reduce the comfort of the top four producers account for about
This includes all mattress sets sold in sleeping surface. There are already over half of the number of all these
establishments. The number of increased by the presence of either type XL (19.9 percent), King and California
establishments has been declining over of barrier. It is the result of the increased King (11.5 percent), and all other (4.4
time due to mergers and buy-outs. Total utility some consumers may derive from percent). ISPA data reflect that the
employment in the industry, using the the safer mattress and the consequent average size of a mattress is increasing.
NAICS Code 33791, was 24,545 workers increase in demand for bedclothes. The The average manufacturing price in
in 2003. increased demand for safer mattresses 2004 was $182 for a mattress of average
The mattress manufacturing industry would most probably lead to an increase size and $90 for a foundation of average
has three key supplying industries: in sales and employment in the spring size. Hence the average manufacturing
spring and wire product manufacturing, and wire products, broad-woven fabric, price of a mattress set was about $272
broad-woven fabric mills, and foam and foam products industries, as well as in 2004.
products manufacturing. Depending on in the mattress and bedclothes There are no readily available data on
the type of fire resistant barrier chosen industries. average retail prices for mattress sets by
by different manufacturers, the demand Other producers that could size. ISPA, however, reports that
for foam padding or non-skid fabric for potentially be affected, if the price mattress sets selling for under $500
mattresses might decline if it were change associated with producing represented 34.6 percent of the
replaced by the high-loft or sheet barrier compliant mattresses is significant, are marketing 2004. Mattress sets selling for
in the construction of the mattress and those of other substitute products, like between $500 and $1000 represented
foundation. This would be offset by an airbeds, waterbeds, * * * etc. that 41.1 percent of the market in 2004,
increase in the demand for the barrier. contain no upholstered material and compared to 39.2 percent in 2002.
Fiberglass, melamine, and aramid would, therefore, not be covered by the
5. Mattress/Bedding Residential Fires,
producers may also be affected to the standard. Their sales may increase as a
Deaths, Injuries, and Property Losses:
extent that they are used to produce fire proportion of total bedding products.
1999–2002
resistant materials used in mattress
4. Characteristics of Mattresses Used in The staff estimates that there were
production.
Manufacturers of bedclothes may also U.S. Households 15,300 average annual mattress/bedding
be affected by the standard. Sales of The total number of U.S. conventional fires for 1999–2002. Of these, 14,300 (or
bedclothes may increase or decrease mattress shipments was 22.5 million in 93 percent) are potentially addressable
based on whether consumers view 2004 and is estimated to be 23.0 in by the standard. Average annual
bedclothes as complements or 2005. Mattress shipments have grown at mattress/bedding deaths for 1999 to
substitutes for a new mattress set an average rate of three percent over the 2002 are 350. Of these, 330 (or 94
(complements are goods generally period 1981 to 2005. Unconventional percent) are potentially addressable by
consumed together, substitutes mattresses (including futons; crib the standard. Average annual mattress/
generally substitute for each other). For mattresses; juvenile mattresses; sleep bedding injuries for 1999 to 2002 are
example, if people tend to buy all parts sofa inserts; and hybrid water 1,750. Of these, 1,680 (or 96 percent) are
of a new bed (mattress, foundation, and mattresses) are estimated to be about ten potentially addressable by the standard.
bedclothes consisting of a comforter, percent of the total market. This yields Average annual mattress/bedding
pillows, and sheets) at the same time, an estimated total number of mattresses property losses for 1999 to 2002 are 295
then an increase in the quantity of produced domestically of 25.6 million million dollars. Of these, 281.5 million
mattresses sold would cause an increase in 2005. The value of mattress and dollars (or 95 percent) are potentially
in sales of bedclothes. If, alternatively, foundation shipments in 2004, addressable by the standard.
people tend to have a fixed budget from according to ISPA, was $4.10 and $1.68
billion, compared to $3.26 and $1.51 6. Expected Benefits of the Standard
which to buy all mattresses and bedding
items, then an increase in the quantity billion respectively in 2002. The expected benefits of the standard
of mattresses sold would lead to a The CPSC Product Population Model are estimated as reductions in the
decrease in sales of bedclothes. Also, if (PPM) estimate of the number of baseline risk of death and injury from
the decision to buy a new mattress (or mattresses in use in different years is all mattress fires, based on a CPSC staff
mattress set) involves buying a mattress based on available annual sales data and study of fire investigations from 1999–
that is much thicker than the one an estimate of the average product life 2004. Risk reductions are then
currently in use, then consumers will of a mattress. Industry representatives calculated on a per-mattress-in-use basis
most likely buy new sheets (and assert that the average consumer based on estimates of the number of
possibly matching pillowcases and replaces a mattress set after ten years. A mattresses in use. The monetary value
other bedclothes items) to fit the new 1996 CPSC market study estimated the of expected benefits per mattress is
thicker mattress. average expected life of a mattress to be derived using estimates for the value of
If the cost increase is relatively small 14 years. The PPM estimates the number a statistical life and the current (i.e.,
or there is no resulting increase in the of (conventional and non-conventional) 2005) average cost of a mattress fire
price of a mattress set, then the demand mattresses in use in 2005 to be 237.0 injury. To derive the monetary value of
for bedclothes will only be affected if million, using a 10-year average product expected benefits over the life of a
consumers place a higher value on the life and 303.9 million, using a 14-year mattress, the expected annual benefits
safer mattress and replace their current average product life. These two numbers are discounted (using a three percent
mattress sooner than they would have are later used to estimate the pre- discount rate), and then summed over
with no standard in place. An increased standard baseline risk and the expected the expected life of the mattress. The
demand for the safer (and thicker, if the benefits of the standard. analysis considers mattress lives of 10
current mattress is relatively old) This analysis focuses principally on and 14 years.
mattress will likely result in an queen-size mattresses because they are The potential benefits of the standard
increased demand for sheets that fit the the most commonly used. In 2004 consist of the reduction in deaths,
newer mattresses. This effect, however, queen-size mattresses were used by 34.9 injuries, and property damage that
is not directly resulting from the percent of U.S. consumers. Following would result. Since the prime objective
adoption of the standard since the the queen-size are the sizes: Twin and of the standard is to reduce the
thickness of the mattress need not be Twin XL (29.3 percent), Full and Full likelihood of flashover or increase the
time before flashover occurs, and not to These conditions would allow on the expected annual deaths and
reduce fires, changes in property losses occupants 10 to 15 minutes to escape injuries that are expected to be
associated with the standard are hard to the room of origin before the situation prevented by the standard. The analysis
quantify. Property losses are expected to in the room would become untenable. is conducted as if the standard had gone
decline but the extent of the decline Since the standard is expected to slow into effect in 2005. All dollar estimates
cannot be quantified. Consequently, for the rate of fire spread and hence are based on constant 2005 dollars. A
purposes of this analysis, no reduction increase escape time, assuming that discount rate of 3 percent and average
in property losses is assumed. That is, bedclothes do not contribute enough expected lives of a mattress of 10 and
all expected benefits from the standard heat to pose a hazardous condition, it 14 years are also assumed.
are in the form of prevented deaths and was assumed that people who were Based on the estimated number of
injuries. This underestimates net outside the room of origin at the time of mattresses in use for an average mattress
benefits, since there will likely be some ignition were unlikely to die in the fire, life of 10 years (described in Section 4),
benefits from reduced property losses. unless they entered the room later or the reduction in the risk of death during
The standard is expected to reduce were incapable of exiting on their own. the first year the standard becomes
the likelihood of flashover resulting The analysis focused on reduction of effective equals 1.01 deaths per million
from fires started by smoking materials deaths and injuries because the standard mattresses (240 deaths divided by the
or other ignition sources, as well as is designed to limit fire intensity and estimated 237 million mattresses in use
those started by open-flame ignition. spread rather than prevent ignition. in 2005) to 1.14 per million mattresses
Reductions in fires, injuries, and deaths Each investigation was evaluated by (270 deaths/237 million mattresses).
will translate into societal benefits, as CPSC staff reviewers to identify the The mid-point estimate of the reduction
will be discussed in the benefit-cost features related to the occurrence of a in the risk of death the first year the
analysis (Section 8 of this analysis). death or injury once the fire was ignited. standard becomes effective is, therefore,
Estimates of the effectiveness of the These included casualty age, casualty 1.08. The mid-point estimate of the
standard are based on a CPSC staff location when the fire started (at the reduction in the risk of injury, similarly
point of ignition, in the room of origin calculated, equals 5.23, with a range
evaluation of in-depth investigation
but not at the point of ignition, or from 4.85 to 5.61, injuries per million
reports of fires (including details of the
outside the room of origin), whether the mattresses for an estimated 10-year life
occupants’ situations and actions during
casualty was asleep, or suffered from of a mattress. The mid-point estimates
the fire) occurring in 1999–2004 in
additional conditions likely to increase of the risk reductions for an estimated
which a mattress or bedding was the
the time needed to escape, whether the 14-year average life of a mattress are
first item to ignite, the fire was of the
casualty engaged in fighting the fire, and 0.84 deaths, with a range from 0.79 to
type considered addressable by the
whether a rescuer was present. All of 0.89, and 4.08 injuries, with a range of
standard, and a civilian death or injury
these conditions were used to determine 3.78 to 4.38, per million mattresses.
resulted. Most of the investigations also Annual risk reductions resulting from
a range for the likelihood that each
included documentation from the fire individual death or injury would have the standard are used to derive the
department that attended the fire. Some been prevented had the standard been monetary benefits from reduced deaths
incident reports were initiated from in effect. Percentage reductions of and injuries. The estimated reduction in
death certificates with follow-up deaths (injuries) within subcategories of the risk of death is multiplied by the
documentation from the fire heat source and age group were applied value of a statistical life (and divided by
department. This resulted in a total of to equivalent subcategories of the a million) to derive a first-year monetary
195 deaths and 205 injuries in the national estimates based on the NFIRS estimate for the range of benefits from
investigations to be evaluated. The and NFPA data for 1999–2002. The lives saved per mattress. Based on the
distribution of mattress ignition sources estimated reductions per category were existing literature, a value of a statistical
was not representative of all fires summed and the overall percentage life of five million dollars is assumed
involving mattresses and thus the data reductions were calculated as the (Viscusi, 1993). The estimated reduction
were weighted to match the NFIRS- percent of addressable deaths (or in the risk of injury is similarly used to
based national fire data distributions. injuries) that would have been derive the range of first-year monetary
Evaluations of the fire incidents by prevented if the likelihood of flashover benefits from injuries prevented. The
CPSC staff reviewers used the results of were reduced in the first 30 minutes and benefits from preventing an injury (the
NIST testing (Ohlemiller, 2004; victims had 10 to 15 minutes of escape cost of an injury) in 2005 are estimated
Ohlemiller and Gann, 2003; Ohlemiller time. to average about $150,000, based on
and Gann, 2002) conducted to assess the The staff indicates that the standard is Zamula (2005) and Miller et al. (1993).
hazard produced from burning expected to reduce all addressable The mid-point estimate of the first-year
mattresses and bedclothes. Specifically, deaths from mattress/bedding fires by benefits associated with preventing
the evaluations were based on the 69 to 78 percent and reduce all deaths and injuries equals $6.17, with a
expectation that occupants in bed when addressable injuries from mattress/ range from $5.79 to $6.54 for an
the fire ignited but able to escape the bedding fires by 73 to 84 percent. estimated mattress life of 10 years and
burning bedclothes in the first three to Assuming that addressable mattress/ $4.81, with a range from $4.52 to $5.10
five minutes faced a minimal hazard. bedding fire deaths and injuries account for an estimated mattress life of 14
Occupants in direct contact with for the same percentage of residential years.
burning bedclothes for a longer period casualties in 2003 and 2004 as in 1999 Lifetime benefits are derived by
(5 to 10 minutes) would be subject to to 2002, the staff estimates that 240 to projecting annual benefits for the life of
potentially hazardous levels of heat 270 deaths and 1150 to 1330 injuries in the mattress and summing the
release. If the burning bedclothes did mattress/bedding fires attended by the discounted (at a rate of 3 percent)
not ignite other non-bedding items or fire service could have been prevented stream of annual benefits (measured in
produce flashover at this time, heat annually during the period 2000 to constant dollars). The number of
release would subside temporarily and 2004. mattresses in use is projected to grow at
then begin to increase as the The staff’s analysis presents the a rate of zero to three percent, based on
involvement of the mattress increased. estimated benefits of the standard, based the average growth rate for the 1981–
2004 period. Since the number of deaths the mattress) and mattress and foundations that identifies the prototype
and injuries are implicitly assumed to foundation borders. If they are using and the possible choice of foundations
remain constant over time, a positive sheet barriers, they limit their use to the to be used with a specific mattress. This
growth rate of mattresses in use implies bottom of the mattress, replacing the no- requirement is to ensure that consumers
a declining risk over time. The lower skid non-FR (fire resistant) sheet used are buying a mattress set that was tested
end of the ranges for estimated (10 and previously. as a set, and would thus meet the
14 years) lifetime benefits correspond to According to several barrier producers requirements of the standard. This label
a 3 percent projected growth rate and and mattress manufacturers, the price of is required to be separate from any other
the lower end of the effectiveness a high-loft barrier that would make a labels already being used and is
ranges. The upper end of the ranges for mattress comply with the standard, is estimated by industry representatives to
estimated (10 and 14 years) lifetime around $2.65 per linear yard, defined to result in an additional cost of $0.01 for
benefits correspond to a zero percent have a width of 88 to 92 inches. Barrier both the mattress and foundation. This
projected growth rate and the upper end costs range from $2.00 to $3.30, per estimate includes both the material and
of the effectiveness ranges. linear yard. The high-loft barrier labor needed to add the label.
For an expected mattress life of 10 replaces the currently-used polyester The increase in the average materials
years, the resulting mid-point estimate batting, which costs an average of $ and labor costs of a mattress set is thus
of expected lifetime benefits of saved 1.15, with a range from $0.55 to $1.75, equal to the sum of the barrier
lives associated with the standard per linear yard. Hence, the net increase application cost per mattress set, thread
equals $44.71, with a range of $39.37 to in the average cost attributed to the use application cost, labeling cost, and costs
$50.05 per mattress. The corresponding of the high-loft barrier, referred to by the due to reduced labor productivity. This
mid-point estimate of benefits of industry as the application cost, is sum equals $12.77 ($7.95 barrier cost +
prevented injuries equals $6.54, with a $1.50, with a range from $0.25 to $2.75 $0.41 thread cost + $4.40 labor cost +
range of $5.67 to $7.41 per mattress. per linear yard, which translates to a net $0.01 label cost). The estimated range
Hence, for an expected mattress life of increase in barrier-related for the materials and labor costs is $6.05
10 years, the mid-point estimate of the manufacturing costs of $7.95, with a to $19.49.
expected total lifetime benefits of a range from $1.33 to $14.58, for a queen- Costs of Prototype and Confirmation
compliant mattress equals $51.25, with size mattress set.3 The queen-size is Testing. The standard requires each
a range of $45.04 to $57.46 per mattress. used for all the cost estimates, because mattress set qualified prototype to be
For an expected mattress life of 14 it is the mode size, used by 34.9 percent tested in triplicate for prototype
years, the mid-point estimate of the total of consumers in 2004. qualification. According to industry
benefits equals $51.82, with a range of In addition to the increase in material representatives, the cost of testing per
$44.30 to $59.34 per mattress. The costs due to the use of a barrier, costs twin-size mattress set may be about
sensitivity analysis section below will increase due to the use of fire- $500: the sum of the average cost of the
examines how the results might change resistant (FR) thread for tape stitching. materials and shipping ($100) and the
when a discount rate of seven percent According to several thread producers, cost of the use of the lab ($400). Hence,
is used. the cost of FR thread is $0.51 per queen- the cost of testing three mattress sets for
size mattress set, with a range from prototype qualification equals $1500.
7. Expected Costs of the Standard Additionally, if some mattress set
$0.41 to $0.60. Given that the cost of
This section presents the expected nylon (non-FR) thread is about $0.10 per prototypes do not pass the first time,
resource costs associated with the queen-size mattress set, the average then the cost will be higher, because
standard. Resource costs are costs that application cost of FR thread (net additional tests will be done after action
reflect the use of a resource that would increase in costs due to the use of FR is taken to improve the resistance of the
have been available for other uses had thread) per queen-size mattress set is prototype. If 10 percent of mattresses are
it not been used in conjunction with the $0.41, with a range from $0.31 to $0.50. retested, then the average cost of testing
production of mattresses compliant with Costs may also increase due to a prototype would be 10 percent higher,
the standard. These costs include slightly reduced labor productivity. or $1650. This cost is assumed to be
material and labor costs; testing costs; Based on industry estimates of an incurred no more than once per
costs to wholesalers, distributors, and average of two labor hours for the establishment for each prototype. It is
retailers; costs of producers’ information production of a queen-size mattress set, expected that a qualified prototype will
collection and record keeping; costs of and a 10 percent reduction in labor be used to represent a mattress
quality control/quality assurance productivity and an industry average construction (e.g., single-sided pillow
programs; and compliance and hourly total compensation of $22.00, the top) with all subordinate prototypes
enforcement costs. The effect on retail cost increase due to reduced labor using the same construction (with
prices will be discussed in Section 8 of productivity is about $4.40. The different sizes (lengths and widths) and
this Regulatory Analysis. reduced labor productivity results from different ticking materials) being based
Material and Labor Costs. To comply the inexperience of the workers with the on the qualified prototype.
with the standard, the construction of new production methods and should If companies pool their prototypes
most mattress sets will include a barrier disappear when they become familiar across different establishments or
technology with improved fire with the products and techniques being different companies, testing costs would
performance. This barrier may be thick used. be smaller as all but one of the firms/
(high-loft) or thin (sheet). High-loft The standard requires producers to establishments producing to the
barriers are generally used to replace add a new label to both mattresses and specification of a pooled prototype may
some of the existing non-woven fiber, just burn one mattress (for the
foam, and/or batting material, leading to 3 This calculation is based on the assumption that confirmation test) instead of three (for
a smaller increase in costs than sheet a queen-size mattress set requires 5.3 linear yards the qualified prototype test). Therefore,
barriers, which constitute an addition to of the barrier material to be used in the two (top it is expected that the average cost of
and bottom) panels of the mattress and the borders
production materials (and costs). of both the mattress and foundation. Some
testing per mattress will be lower for
Producers, therefore, are generally using producers are able to use less than 5.3 linear yards, firms and/or establishments that pool
the high-loft barrier for the panel (top of which reduces their cost per queen mattress set. their results than for those that do not.
If manufacturers test every mattress one hour per qualified prototype. and administrative support workers) per
construction (e.g., single-sided pillow Assuming that every establishment will establishment per year. (Note that
top, double-sided pillow-top, tight-top, produce 20 different qualified pooling among establishments or using
euro-top, * * * etc.), which is prototypes, the increase in record a qualified, confirmed, or subordinate
estimated, based on conversations with keeping costs is about $412.20 (1 hour prototype for longer than one year will
manufacturers, to average about twenty × 20 qualified prototypes × $20.61 reduce this estimate.) This yields an
per manufacturer, for every average total compensation per hour for average cost of 3.8 cents per mattress set
establishment in a given year, then their office and administrative support for an average establishment, with
average testing cost per mattress would workers) per establishment per year. average output of 40,280 mattresses per
approximately equal 82 cents ($1650* (Note that pooling among year. Hence expected total costs of
20 styles * 571 establishments/23.0 establishments or using a qualified quality assurance/quality control
million conventional mattresses) per prototype for longer than one year will programs may average about 7.5 cents
mattress set for the first year of reduce this estimate.) This translates to (3.7 + 3.8) per conventional mattress set
production. The standard would allow an average cost of 1 cent per mattress set per year.
selling mattress sets whose for an average establishment, with Costs to Wholesalers, Distributors,
(subordinate) prototypes differ from a average output of 40,280 conventional and Retailers. An added cost of the
qualified (or confirmed) prototype only mattresses. standard is the increase in costs to
with respect to size (length and width), Cost of Quality Control/Quality wholesalers, distributors, and retailers
and/or ticking material or other Assurance Programs. To ensure that all in the form of additional storage,
components that do not impact the fire mattresses are produced to the transportation, and inventory financing
performance of the prototype without prototype specification across all costs. Since a mattress complying with
testing the prototypes, to minimize factories and over the years for which a the standard will not be bigger than a
testing costs to all manufacturers, production line exists, mattress similar mattress produced before the
especially those whose volume of manufacturers will need a thorough standard becomes effective, storage and
output is small. Pooling testing results well-documented quality control/ transportation costs are not expected to
across establishments and/or firms will assurance program. The top 15 mattress increase. Inventory financing costs will
further reduce the average cost of testing producers (with a market share of 83 increase by the average cost of
per mattress set. On an annual basis, percent) have existing quality control borrowing money, applied to the
testing costs will be further reduced programs which could be modified to fit wholesale price of a mattress over the
because qualified, confirmed, and the new standard with minimal
average inventory holding time period.
subordinate prototypes need not be additional costs. Smaller producers,
Since most mattress producers use just-
tested every year. whose quality control programs are less
in-time production and have small
Cost of Information Collection and detailed or non-existent, will incur
inventories, this additional cost will
Record Keeping. In addition to some incremental costs as a result of the
probably not exceed ten percent of the
prototype testing, the standard requires standard. These incremental costs will
increase in production cost (which is
detailed documentation of all tests be small for each manufacturer and less
the sum of material, labor, testing,
performed and their results including when measured per mattress set. (See
record keeping, and quality assurance
video or pictures; prototype or the section on impact of the standard on
costs). A ten percent mark-up is,
production identification number; date small businesses for a description of
and time of test; and name and location their cost of quality control and quality therefore, being used to measure the
of testing facility; test room conditions; assurance programs to them.) cost to wholesalers, distributors, and
and test data for as long as the prototype Additionally, the standard encourages retailers. This yields a resource cost to
is in production and for three years after random production testing to assure wholesalers, distributors, and retailers
its production ceases. Manufacturers are manufacturers that their mattresses equal to $1.37, with a range from $0.69
also required to keep records of a continue to meet the requirements of the to $2.04, per mattress set. Retail prices
unique identification number for the rule, as a possible component of the may increase by more than the 10
qualified prototype and a list of the quality control/quality assurance percent mark-up. Section 8 discusses
unique identification numbers of each program. Assuming that an average of 3 the impact of the standard on retail
prototype based on the qualified mattress set constructions will be tested prices of mattress sets.
prototype and a description of the per establishment per year yields an Costs of Compliance and
materials substituted. Moreover, they estimated cost of production testing of Enforcement. Compliance and
are required to document the name and about $1500. Based on this assumption, enforcement costs refer to the costs
supplier of each material used in the estimated cost of testing mattress incurred by CPSC to ensure that
construction of a prototype. sets for quality assurance purposes, manufacturers are complying with the
Additionally, they are required to therefore, equals 3.7 cents per mattress standard. Based on past experience with
identify the details of the application of ($1500/40,280) for an average the existing mattress standard, the
any fire retardant treatments and/or establishment. estimated CPSC inspection time spent
inherently fire resistant fibers employed The labor needed to meet the quality per location (establishment) equals 33
relative to mattress components. assurance measures required by the hours for inspection and 6 hours for
This documentation is in addition to standard is estimated by CPSC Office of sample collection. This yields a cost per
documentation already conducted by Compliance staff to be 224 minutes per inspection of about $1,722.63 (39 hours
mattress manufacturers in their efforts establishment per prototype per year. * $44.17, the average wage rate for CPSC
to meet the cigarette standard. Detailed Assuming that every establishment will inspectors). Additionally, compliance
testing documentation will be done by produce 20 qualified prototypes, the officers spend an average of 20 hours
the test lab and is included in the increase in labor costs associated with per case, making their cost equal to
estimated cost of testing. Based on CPSC quality assurance requirements of the $1,071.20 (20 hours * $53.56, the
Office of Compliance staff estimates, all standard is about $1539 (224 minutes × average hourly wage rate for compliance
requirements of the standard are 20 qualified prototypes × $20.61 average officers). This yields an average
expected to cost an establishment about total compensation per hour for office compliance and enforcement total labor
cost of $2,793.83 per inspected discusses how costs of testing and small businesses, children, and the
establishment per year. quality control/quality assurance environment. The sensitivity analysis
It should be noted that the expected programs may differ for small examines the effect of changing some of
cost per establishment, if less than one businesses and strategies that small the assumptions used earlier. The
hundred percent of establishments are manufacturers might adopt to reduce analysis shows that net benefits
inspected every year, equals the cost per these costs. continue to be positive under a
inspected establishment times the Projected Future Costs. It is possible reasonable range of assumptions about
probability that a given establishment that costs associated with the standard the death and injury effectiveness of the
will be inspected. Though the will decline over time. A supplier of fire standard, the reduction in injuries
probability that a given establishment resistant barriers predicts that the price resulting from the standard, the value of
will be inspected in a given year is not of the barriers will decline by 40 percent a statistical life estimate, the discount
known, assuming that a third of all in the next two years, due to decreased rate, or the expected mattress life.
establishments will be inspected (i.e., uncertainty and increased competition. Using an expected mattress life of 10
about 190 establishments) yields a (They have already dropped years and a discount rate of 3 percent,
compliance and enforcement total significantly since TB603 was the mid-point estimates for total
expected labor cost of $931.28 proposed.) The increase in labor costs benefits, costs, and net benefits per
($2,793.83 * (1⁄3)) per establishment per due to decreased productivity is mattress set associated with the
year. expected to be temporary and be standard equal $51.25, $15.07, and
In addition to labor costs, CPSC will reduced when workers get more training $36.18 respectively per mattress set. The
incur testing costs. It should be noted and/or the older machines get replaced ranges for these estimates are $45.04 to
that the decision to collect samples after with newer machines that are more $57.46, $7.67 to $22.46, and $22.58 to
an inspection visit is made at the capable of handling the FR thread and $49.78 respectively per mattress set. The
discretion of the investigator and, material used in fire resistant barriers. lower end of the range for net benefits
therefore an accurate assumption about Moreover, as noted above, prototype is derived by subtracting the upper end
the number of samples collected and testing costs are expected to decline of the range for costs from the lower end
sent for a burn test cannot be made. If, after the first year of the standard. of the range for total benefits. The upper
based on inspection, samples from 10 The standard includes an effective end of the range for net benefits is
percent of all inspected establishments date of July 1, 2007. The costs reported derived by subtracting the lower end of
were to be collected and sent to a lab for here are based on the assumption that the range for costs from the upper end
a burn test, and if samples representing supplier companies will be able to of the range for total benefits. The whole
5 (qualified, confirmed, or subordinate) maintain existing capacity. If federal range for net benefits is positive, which
prototypes are taken from each of these standards for bedclothes and means that the expected benefits of the
establishments, then the total cost of upholstered furniture were mandated at standard will exceed the expected costs.
CPSC testing will be $142,750 (5 the same time and input producers were The sensitivity analysis, which allows
prototypes * $1,500 (the cost of testing not given enough time to increase their the discount rate and the expected
3 mattress sets for each qualified capacity, input prices would rise in the product life to vary, shows that net
prototype) * 19 (10 percent of inspected short-run because of increased demand benefits remain positive when varying
establishments, equal to a third of 571)). for the FR material used by all three assumptions are made.
These assumptions about frequency of industries. Assuming that all mattress sets in
testing yield an expected cost of testing Unquantifiable Costs. A mattress California would have complied with a
per establishment of $250 ($142,750/ manufacturer indicated that in response standard that is very similar to CPSC’s
571). to an open-flame mattress standard, the standard, expected aggregate lifetime
Therefore the expected total CPSC number of models/styles produced may costs, benefits, and net benefits
wage and testing costs associated with be cut by half. If this response is typical, associated with one year’s production of
the standard per establishment per year then there may be a reduction in mattresses are derived by applying the
equal $1,181.28 ($931.28 + $250.00). consumers’ utility, because of the per unit cost and benefit of the standard
With an average production of 40,280 reduction in mattress types that they to 89 percent of the estimated U.S.
mattresses per establishment (23 million would have to choose from. Others market for mattresses (equal to 25.6
mattresses divided by 571 indicate that there will be an aversion million units). The sensitivity analysis
establishments), the average CPSC wage to producing double-sided mattresses, section below shows aggregate costs,
and testing costs equal 2.9 cents per because it would be harder for them to benefits, and net benefits of the standard
mattress set ($1,181.28/40,280). These pass the burn test. Double-sided assuming that current production shares
costs are expected to decrease over time mattresses possibly have a longer would continue into the future without
as manufacturers learn the requirements expected life than single-sided ones. To the anticipation of a federal standard.
of the standard. the extent that consumers prefer double- Using a discount rate of three percent
Total Resource Costs. Therefore total sided mattresses to single-sided and an expected 10-year mattress life,
resource costs (including material costs, mattresses, the shift away from aggregate benefits of the standard are
labor costs, costs of prototype and producing double-sided mattresses expected to be $1,024 to $1,307 million
confirmation testing, paperwork imposes a non-monetary cost. Though ($45.04 to $57.46 per mattress times 89
collection and record keeping costs, unquantifiable, this reduction in choices percent times 25.6 million mattresses).
costs of quality control/quality of construction type and design is an The mid-point estimate for aggregate
assurance programs, production testing added cost to consumers of the benefits is $1,166 million. The
costs, costs to wholesalers, distributors, standard. corresponding expected aggregate
and retailers, and costs of compliance resource costs of the standard are $175
8. Benefits and Costs of the Standard
and enforcement) are estimated to be to $511 million ($7.67 to $22.46 times

$15.07, with a range from $7.67 to This section compares benefits and 89 percent times 25.6 million). The mid-
$22.46, per mattress set. The section on costs of the standard, presents a point estimate for aggregate costs is
the impact of the standard on small sensitivity analysis, and highlights the $343 million. The resulting aggregate
businesses and other small entities impact of the standard on retail prices, net benefits equal $514 to $1,132
million ($22.58 to $49.78 times 89 rate reduces net benefits, because future a mid-point estimate of $259 million,
percent times 25.6 million). The mid- benefits reaped over the life of the from all mattress sets produced the first
point estimate for aggregate net benefits mattress set contribute less to total year the mattress standard is mandated
is $823 million. For a mattress life of 14 discounted benefits. (using a mattress life of 10 years, a 3
years (and a 3 percent discount rate), the Net benefits are based on an estimated percent discount rate, and the estimated
mid-point estimates for aggregate value of a statistical life equal to $5 effectiveness measures used in the
lifetime benefits, costs, and net benefits million. Changing the estimate used for baseline analysis).
of the standard associated with one year the value of a statistical life does not The estimates of aggregate benefits,
of production are $1,179, $343, and have a major impact on the results. For costs, and net benefits are based on the
$836 million respectively. The expected example, if $3 million, the lower bound assumption that compliance before the
benefits of the standard will accrue for estimate in Viscusi (1993), is used as an promulgation of the standard was
a long period of time and discounted net estimate of the value of a statistical life, limited to California, which represents a
benefits will, therefore, be much greater the mid-point estimate of net benefits market share of 11 percent. If, instead,
than net benefits associated with only becomes $18.30 per mattress set (using we assume that current (October 2005)
the mattress production in the first year a 3 percent discount rate and an production shares would continue in
the standard becomes effective. estimated mattress life of 10 years).4 the absence of the CPSC standard, the
Sensitivity Analysis. The previous Alternatively, a $7 million estimate, the expected aggregate benefits, costs, and
analysis compares benefits and costs of higher bound estimate in Viscusi (1993), net benefits associated with the CPSC
the standard using expected mattress yields a mid-point estimate of net standard will decline. Assuming that
lives of 10 and 14 years, a discount rate benefits equal to $54.06 per mattress set the top four producers continue to
of 3 percent, an expected effectiveness (using a 3 percent discount rate and an produce the same percent of TB 603-
rate of the standard of 69 to 78 percent estimated mattress life of 10 years). complying mattress sets that they are
of deaths and 73 to 84 percent of Changing the estimate used for the now (one producing complying mattress
injuries, an estimated value of a cost of injury will have minimal impact sets nationwide, the other three
statistical life of 5 million dollars, and on the results, because the share of producing 15 percent to 20 percent
an estimated cost of injury of $150,000. benefits from reduced injuries is only 13 complying mattress sets), while all
It also assumes that only mattresses sold percent of total benefits. Hence, even if others produce complying mattress sets
in California would have to, and there were no reduction in injuries from only in California, then the ranges for
therefore will, comply with TB 603, if the standard, the net benefits would be the mid-point estimates for aggregate
producers are not anticipating a federal $29.64, with a range of $16.91 to $42.37 benefits, costs, and net benefits are $952
standard to be issued in the near future. per mattress set (using a mattress life of million to $981 million, $280 million to
This section examines the effect of 10 years and a 3 percent discount rate). $288 million, and $672 million to $692
changing any of these assumptions on The analysis assumes that the million respectively.5 These aggregate
the expected net benefits of the effectiveness of the standard ranges benefits are associated with one year’s
standard. from 69 to 78 percent for deaths and 73 worth of mattress output. Summing all
Comparing expected benefits and to 84 percent for injuries. Even with a benefits over all mattress output over
costs of the standard, it is clear that net lower effectiveness rate, net benefits the time period during which the CPSC
benefits are expected to be positive (i.e., will remain positive. For example, standard remains effective would result
expected total benefits exceed expected assuming an effectiveness rate of 50 in much more positive benefits than
costs) for an average mattress life of 10 percent for deaths and injuries yields indicated here.
or 14 years. Though increasing the net benefits of $9.32 to $28.24 per Impact on Retail Prices. One of the
expected mattress life from 10 to 14 mattress set, with a mid-point estimate top four mattress manufacturers in the
years, while using the 3 percent of $18.78, and aggregate net benefits of industry has re-merchandised its
discount rate, expands the positive $212 to $642 million, with a mid-point product lines to lower the costs of other
range of net benefits, it does not affect estimate of $427 million, from all materials so that total costs (and prices)
the conclusion regarding net benefits mattress sets produced the first year the are the same as they were before the
per mattress set. A further increase of standard is mandated and sold outside production of mattresses that comply
the expected life of a mattress similarly with TB603. Other manufacturers have
California (using a mattress life of 10
would not affect the estimate of net indicated that they will have to increase
years, a 3 percent discount rate, and the
benefits. For example, using the Product their price which, according to some
same effectiveness for injuries as used
Population Model estimate of the manufacturers and based on reported
in the baseline analysis). Also, assuming
number of mattresses in use based on an traditional industry mark-ups, might
a smaller number of deaths and injuries
expected mattress life of 18 years (equal translate to an increase in the retail
before the standard is mandated (a
to 354.2 million mattresses) yields net price to consumers that could reach
smaller baseline risk) would still result
benefits of $21.76 to $54.31, with a mid- approximately four-fold the increase in
in positive net benefits. A 50 percent
point estimate of $38.04, per mattress manufacturer’s costs. Hence the average
reduction in baseline death and injury
set using a discount rate of 3 percent.
Net benefits per mattress set are also risks yields net benefits of $0.09 to 5 These ranges are based on the estimated market
positive using discount rates of 3 and 7 $20.16 per mattress set, with a mid- share of complying mattresses produced by the one
percent. Using a 3 percent discount rate, point estimate of $10.12, and aggregate producer selling complying mattresses nationwide
net benefits of $2 to $515 million, with (13.9 percent), the estimated market share of the
the mid-point estimate of net benefits remaining three of the top four producers who are
per mattress set equals $36.18 for an 4 The range for net benefits was derived by
selling some complying outside California (43.4
average life of 10 years and $36.75 for percent), and the estimated market share of all
subtracting the upper end of the cost range from the remaining producers (42.7 percent). With these
an average life of 14 years. Using a 7 lower end of the benefits range to get the lower end three groups producing complying mattresses
percent discount rate, the mid-point of the range of benefits and subtracting the lower representing all output, 15 to 20 percent of output,
estimate of net benefits per mattress set end of the cost range from the higher end of the and 11 percent of output (for California)
benefits range to get the higher end of the range for respectively, the resulting U.S. market share of
equals $28.95 for an average life of 10 net benefits. Because of this method, both ends of complying mattresses is 25.1 to 27.3 percent.
years and $26.93 for an average life of the range for net benefits are a very unlikely (Estimated market shares are derived from
14 years. Assuming a larger discount occurrence. Furniture/Today, May 30, 2005.)
increase in the price at which mattress some consumers will choose not to Use of prototype pooling across
manufacturers are willing to sell their purchase (or at least delay the purchase establishments and firms would
products (supply price) will be of) a new mattress set. These consumers ameliorate the impact of the standard on
anywhere between the price of a similar who delay or choose not to purchase a small businesses. By getting together
mattress without FR material and that new set will not be getting the value (or across different states and regions, small
price plus four times the increase in the benefits) that they would have gained manufacturers who do not share a
costs of production. Given the presence from purchasing a new set. This loss, common market (and therefore do not
of at least one company that will not though difficult to quantify, is compete with each other) can resemble
increase the price, it is unlikely that the sometimes measured as a loss in a large producer in their testing and
new average price will be close to the consumer surplus (McCloskey, 1982). quality control/quality assurance efforts
higher end of the range because of It is unlikely, however, that the post- and therefore reduce their costs per
competition for market share among standard demand curve for mattresses mattress set. It is also expected that
manufacturers. will be the same as the current demand. some barrier suppliers would be willing
The market (equilibrium) price is Early 2004 market observations indicate to do the testing and quality control/
determined by the intersection of consumer and retail enthusiasm about assurance programs for small
consumers’ willingness to buy and the fire resistant mattresses already manufacturers in exchange for a small
producers’ willingness to sell the available for sale (Furniture Today, charge, which will be similar to the
product at different prices. The value April 26th, 2004). If this enthusiasm average cost per mattress for large
the equilibrium price will take (relative generally reflects consumers’ businesses, because the volume of
to the price before the introduction of preferences, then the demand for output will be large.
fire resistant mattress sets) will be mattresses may increase. This would To reduce the impact of the standard
affected by the change in the demand tend to offset any reduction in mattress on small businesses, CPSC eliminated
and supply curves for fire resistant sales and possible losses in consumer the requirement of keeping physical
mattress sets and their relative surplus. samples. This reduced the average
elasticities. Assuming that the demand Impact on Small Businesses and annual record keeping cost per
curve is unaffected, the equilibrium Other Small Entities. The increase in establishment (assuming that they
price will reflect the price elasticity of material and labor costs to meet the produce 20 different prototypes) from
demand (i.e. the sensitivity of the standard is not likely to be dependent $767 to $412.
change in the quantity demanded to the on a firm’s size and will therefore not Impact on the Environment. The
change in price) as well as the shift in disproportionately affect small extraction, processing, refinement, and
supply. In the short-run, consumers businesses. The cost imposed conversion of raw materials to meet the
have a relatively elastic demand curve, disproportionately (per unit produced) standard involve energy consumption,
because they can always postpone the on small businesses will be the cost of labor, and the use of potentially toxic
purchase of a durable good, and testing, information collection and chemicals. Most manufacturing has
therefore the increase in the equilibrium record keeping and quality control/ some impact on the environment, and
price is expected to be much lower than quality assurance programs. While these manufacturing fire resistant mattresses
the increase in the supply price (what costs are estimated to be a little less is no exception. Because the standard is
producers would want to sell the same than one dollar per mattress set per year a performance standard, it does not
number of mattress sets for). Because of for average-sized establishments, they restrict manufacturers’ choice of fire
the relatively high elasticity of demand, could be substantially higher for small resistant materials and methods that
sales are likely to decrease in the short- mattress manufacturers. could be used in the production of
run. In the long-run, the demand curve The rule allows two or more mattresses. There appear to be several
is less elastic, and therefore the establishments (plants within the same economically viable options to meet the
equilibrium price and quantity (sales) firm) or independent firms to ‘‘pool’’ standard that, based on available
will be higher than the short-run price prototypes. This reduces the cost of information, do not impose health risks
and quantity. testing because only one of the pooling to consumers or significantly affect the
Given the availability of mattresses firms is required to test three sets (for a environment. (See discussion at Section
whose retail prices will not increase and qualified prototype) with all remaining M of this preamble.)
the competitive nature of the industry, firms testing one set (for a confirmation Impact on Children. Deaths and
it is possible that, on average, prices test). The standard would also allow injuries among children constitute a
will rise by about twice the costs selling mattress sets based on substantial proportion of mattress-
associated with the standard (i.e., retail subordinate prototypes and differing related fire losses, and of the potential
price mark-up will average about twice from a qualified prototype only with benefits of the standard. A CPSC staff
the increase in manufacturing costs). respect to size (length and width), and/ report, based on a field investigation
Under this assumption, consumers or ticking material or other components study in 1995 to learn more about
would pay an additional mark-up of 10 that do not impact the fire performance cigarette-ignited fires and open-flame
percent (the cost to wholesalers, of the prototype without testing the fires, found that 70 percent of open-
distributors, and retailers) to 100 prototypes, to minimize testing costs to flame fires involved child play and that
percent of total production costs, all manufacturers, especially those child play was involved in 83 percent
applied to the total production cost per whose volume of output is small. of the 150 deaths of children less than
mattress set. Hence the range for the Moreover, costs could be reduced if a five years of age. A National Association
price increase is $7.64 ($6.95*1.1) to qualified, confirmed, or subordinate of State Fire Marshals 1997 study also
40.78(20.39*2), with a mid-point prototype is used to produce mattress indicated that 66 percent of the small
estimate of $24.21, per mattress set set styles for longer than a year. open-flame ignitions were reportedly
(compared to the price they would have Furthermore, firms with more than one started by children under the age of 15
paid for a current mattress set that does establishment (or different firms) may (21 percent by children under 5).
not comply with the standard). be able to reduce costs by pooling their For virtually all of the fires started by
Assuming that the demand curve for quality control programs over all children less than 15 years of age, the
mattresses is unaffected by the standard, establishments. ignition was not witnessed by an adult
(Boudreault and Smith, 1997). Reducing standard of 69 to 78 percent for deaths mattress sets longer than before. This
the likelihood of flashover in the first 30 and 73 to 84 percent of injuries, the would make the reduction in sales more
minutes of the fire may therefore benefit additional benefits of stricter test pronounced in the short-run, increasing
children disproportionately, as it allows requirements are limited. Using the the likelihood that some firms may exit
enough time for adults to detect the fire mid-point estimate of these the market. Moreover, if a large number
and save young children in close effectiveness ranges (73.5 percent for of consumers choose to extend the life
proximity to the fire. Also children deaths and 78.5 percent for injuries) and of their mattress sets for a longer time
between 5 and 9 who sometimes do not assuming that the stricter standard period, it will take longer to achieve the
cooperate with adults and run away eliminates 50 percent of the remaining benefits expected to be associated with
from adults to other parts of the addressable deaths and injuries (i.e., it the safer mattress sets.
occupancy will have enough time to be saves 46 additional lives and prevents Alternative Total Heat Released in the
found and rescued by an adult. 167 additional injuries), then an First Part of the Test. TB 603 requires
The Epidemiology staff’s additional benefit of about $8.34 per the total heat released during the first 10
memorandum shows that, based on mattress set is expected. This additional minutes of the test to not exceed 25 MJ.
national fire estimates for the years benefit may be lower than the expected The stricter criterion of the standard (15
1999–2002, the standard would reduce associated costs of $19.24 and thus MJ in the first 10 minutes) reduces the
deaths and injuries to children ages 5 reduce net benefits.6 Moreover, a small expected size of the initial fire and
and younger by 77 to 87 percent and 59 increase in net benefits may not justify hence allows consumers a greater
to 73 percent respectively. Deaths and the large increase in retail price that chance to escape the fire and get out of
injuries to children ages 5 to 14 were would result from a stricter standard. the room, even if the room never
estimated to be reduced by 83 to 92 Such increase in costs would likely reaches flashover. The effectiveness
percent and 80 to 89 percent result in consumers facing higher rates presented in the analysis are based
respectively. This represents a total of mattress set prices. Based on traditional on the stricter criterion. Using the TB
70 deaths of children less than 15 years industry mark-ups, the new price may 603 criterion (25 MJ in the first 10
of age per year for the 1999 to 2002 reflect a two-to four-fold increase over minutes) would likely reduce estimated
period. It also represents 240 to 280 the increase in production costs, benefits (the estimated reductions in
injuries to children less than 15 years of depending on the relative elasticity of deaths and injuries), without having any
age for the same period. demand and supply for mattress sets. significant effect on costs. According to
This yields a total increase in the several producers, mattress sets that use
9. Alternatives to the Standard
average price of a queen mattress set of existing barrier technology release total
Alternative Maximum Peak Heat $30.84 (2 times the lower end of the
Release Rate (PHRR) and Test Duration. heat that is far below the 25 MJ
range for the increase in production requirement of TB 603. Therefore, using
The initial California TB 603 proposal costs, equal to $15.42) to $187.52 (4
required the duration of the test to be 60 the TB 603 criterion for the total heat
times the upper end of the range for the
minutes with a maximum peak heat released would not change costs but
increase in production costs, equal to
release rate (PHRR) of 150 kW. could potentially reduce the benefits
$46.88), with a mid-point estimate of
Following industry opposition to this and, hence, the net benefits of the
$109.18. A bedding official estimated
proposal, the California Bureau of Home standard.
that the price increase resulting from the
Furnishings and Thermal Insulation stricter standard may reduce sales by 25 Moreover, because of the small fuel
changed the criterion to a maximum of percent or more (Furniture/Today, July load of ticking materials currently being
200 kW PHRR in the first 30 minutes, 21, 2004). used, the lower total heat release
the requirement for both the CPSC The larger increase in prices requirement allows the production of
standard and the current TB 603. (compared to the less strict test) and the mattress sets based on a prototype that
Increasing the duration of the test and resulting reduction in sales could drive has not been tested as long as it differs
reducing the PHRR would, according to some of the smaller producers out of from a qualified prototype only with
several input suppliers, increase the business. (The stricter standard is more respect to ticking and the ticking
production costs to manufacturers of a likely to require replacing some existing material is not part of the fire resistance
queen mattress set by $15.42 to $46.88, machines to accommodate the denser solution. Requiring a test for every
with a mid-point estimate of $31.15, barrier material, which would be prototype with a different ticking was
compared to non-complying products disproportionately more costly for rejected by the CPSC because of the
(i.e., those not conforming to the smaller firms whose machinery is older magnitude of the burden it would
standard.) Adding the costs to and less sophisticated.) Since mattress impose on small producers who do not
wholesalers, distributors, and retailers, sets are durable goods, one would produce large numbers of any one
and of CPSC compliance efforts, yields expect a larger drop in sales in the prototype and who would have been
a total resource cost of the stricter short-run than in the long-run, as adversely affected by these
standard (150 kW and 60 minutes) of consumers choose to keep their old requirements.
$17.00 to $51.61, with a mid-point Alternative Testing Requirements.
estimate of $34.30. (The resource cost is 6 These cost estimates (and the resulting marginal With certain exceptions discussed
the sum of the production cost, cost to increase) should be viewed as approximate since no above, the standard requires prototype
extensive tests of the barriers have been conducted
wholesalers, distributors, and retailers, for 60 minutes, as most manufacturers are focused
testing (of three mattress sets) before a
and CPSC compliance cost). This on meeting the California requirements, which are manufacturer starts production of a
represents a marginal increase in less strict. Input suppliers generally do not given mattress design and a
average resource costs of $19.24 over the assemble and test large numbers of mattresses, and confirmatory test of one mattress for any
may therefore underestimate reduced labor
mid-point estimate of the costs productivity and/or reduced output per machine other establishment or firm relying on
associated with the final standard. (compared to a maximum PHRR of 200kW for a 30- that qualified prototype through a
Potential benefits of the stricter minute test) due to handling the thicker, denser pooling arrangement. Though
barrier. A number of mattress producers estimate
standard could be higher than the that to meet the stricter standard, manufacturing
production testing is encouraged by the
standard, but the extent is uncertain. costs would increase $50 to $70 for a queen-sized standard, it is not required as a possible
Given an effectiveness rate of the set (Furniture/Today, July 21, 2004). component of the quality assurance
program, and no specific frequency is of all mattress sets produced in the J. Paperwork Reduction Act
set. United States would have to comply
As an alternative, the Federal with a standard that is very similar to The standard will require
standard could, like TB 603, omit the CPSC standard (California’s TB 603). manufacturers (including importers) of
testing or prototype definition It is uncertain whether there will be any mattress sets to perform testing and
requirements. Without testing, however, incentive for producers outside maintain records of their testing and
it might be difficult for manufacturers to California to incur additional costs to quality assurance efforts. For this
know whether their mattresses will produce mattress sets that would reason, the rule contains ‘‘collection of
comply with the standard. comply with California’s TB 603. information requirements,’’ as that term
Alternatively, the standard could Consequently, how much, if any, of the is used in the Paperwork Reduction Act,
require production testing with a remaining 89 percent of production 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. Therefore, the
specified frequency. This specification, would comply is uncertain. One of the NPR discussed the paperwork burden of
however, could result in unnecessary largest four producers is currently the proposed rule and specifically
costs if they are not justified given the producing mattress sets that comply requested comments on the paperwork
quality control measures generally with the CPSC standard. The other three burden of the proposal. As discussed in
undertaken by manufacturers in the top producers were selling complying section H above, the Commission
absence of the standard. Requiring more mattress sets that represent between 15 received comments concerning testing
tests per establishment, prototype, or to 20 percent of their total output in costs (particularly for small producers)
enterprise would increase the estimated October, 2005. It is not clear, however, and generally on the costs of meeting
costs per mattress and could reduce net that any of these producers would the standard. As noted above, the
benefits. continue to sell complying mattress sets Commission accepted several of the
Alternative Effective Date. The outside California if they were not suggestions of commenters and has
effective date in the standard is July 1, anticipating a future promulgation of a made some changes that should reduce
2007. Given the length of time needed federal standard. Moreover, the absence the testing, quality assurance and
to ensure the availability of inputs for of a federal standard may lead other recordkeeping burden for manufacturers
the production of barrier materials, states to develop their own standard, (eliminated requirement for physical
availability of barriers for mattress which would result in unnecessary samples and timed the effective date to
producers, and a sufficient volume of burden (in terms of higher production coincide with development of new
inventories at retailers’ showrooms, an costs) on manufacturers selling mattress models). The agency has applied to
earlier effective date may result in sets in different states with different OMB for a control number for this
higher input costs to manufacturers. flammability requirements. Hence, information collection, and it will
More importantly, it is expected that expected aggregate net benefits publish a notice in the Federal Register
smaller manufacturers will be associated with CPSC’s standard are providing the number when the agency
disproportionately affected, as they are higher than the net benefits that result receives approval from OMB.
more likely to wait to invest in from taking no action and only relying
development efforts until the K. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
on the California standard.
technology is developed by larger firms, No effort has been undertaken to 1. Introduction
or until the standard becomes effective. develop a voluntary standard.
The Commission chose the July date to Furthermore, industry representatives The Regulatory Flexibility Act
coincide with the cycle for introduction support a mandatory standard to level (‘‘RFA’’) generally requires that agencies
of new mattress models, as suggested by the playing field among domestic review proposed rules for their potential
the public comments. producers (large and small) and economic impact on small entities,
A later effective date (longer than 18 importers. If a voluntary standard were including small businesses. 5 U.S.C.
months) could reduce expected net developed, the economic burden would 603. Section 603 of the RFA calls for
benefits as more fires, deaths, and fall primarily on the larger firms (who agencies to prepare and make available
injuries associated with mattresses would likely be the first to comply), for public comment an initial regulatory
would occur between the date of their market shares could be reduced flexibility analysis describing the
publication in the Federal Register and and benefits to consumers (in terms of impact of the proposed rule on small
the date the standard becomes effective. reduced deaths and injuries) would entities and identifying impact-reducing
The Commission is unaware of evidence likely decline accordingly. alternatives. Accordingly, the
that small manufacturers would benefit Labeling Requirements Instead of Commission published in the NPR a
from extending the effective date further Performance Standard. The summary of an initial regulatory
into the future. The staff requested Commission could require labeling on flexibility analysis that was prepared by
comments from small businesses on the mattresses to warn consumers in lieu of the staff for the mattress proposed rule.
expected economic impact of the a standard. Requiring warning labels is The staff reviewed the initial regulatory
effective date and received one not considered an effective option for flexibility analysis and prepared a final
comment from a small business owner reducing the risk of fires. Since mattress regulatory flexibility analysis as
indicating that his firm would need labels are usually covered by bedclothes required by the RFA, which is
more than twelve months to meet the and may not be seen by the mattress summarized below. [8]
standard. By the time the final standard users, mandating warning labels on 2. Need for and Objectives of the Rule
takes effect, it would be nearly 18 mattress sets is unlikely to be an
months after publication of the Federal effective alternative to a performance As discussed above, the standard is
Register notice of the final rule. This standard. Moreover, fires started by intended to reduce deaths and injuries
should provide enough time for the children who cannot read or do not resulting from residential fires involving
commenter to transition to producing change the bed sheets will not be mattresses ignited by open flame
compliant mattress sets. reduced by a labeling requirement. sources. The Commission estimates that
Taking No Action or Relying on a Hence, while labeling costs are probably the standard will substantially reduce
Voluntary Standard. If the Commission negligible, labels alone are unlikely to the incidence and cost of these fires by
chose to take no action, only 11 percent reduce mattress fires significantly. minimizing the possibility of or
delaying the time for flashover decline as workers get more experienced 5. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
conditions to occur. in producing the new models. Staff Compliance Requirements of the
currently estimates the additional time Standard and Possible Impacts on
3. Significant Issues Related to Small
(and wages) to average 10 percent, with Small Businesses
Business Raised by Comments on the
the expectation that it will decline over The standard is a performance
NPR
time. standard, not a design standard, and
Significant comments and the One small producer suggested that
Commission’s responses to them are hence allows producers to choose the
producers under a certain dollar volume technology to meet the mattress set test
discussed in section H of this preamble. be permitted to continue testing under
Three issues in particular could be of requirements. With the exceptions
16 CFR 1632. However, this is not discussed in the preamble above, all
concern to small business. feasible because it would not protect
Effective date. One commenter mattress sets subject to the standard
consumers from the risk of fires, deaths, must be tested in prototype and meet
suggested that the effective date should and injuries associated with open flame
coincide with the time when the specified performance requirements
ignitions; it would also give small before production. Manufacturers are
manufacturers make regular model
producers an unfair advantage over required to keep records of all tests
changes (January or July). The
medium-sized producers. performed and their results. The
Commission is accepting this
suggestion, and the standard provides The two barrier producers who recordkeeping requirements are
for an effective date of July 1, 2007. This commented on the NPR asserted that the described in detail in the Regulatory
will make it easier for all producers, but costs of meeting the proposed standard Analysis in section I above.
especially small producers outside of are low, with one stating that there is The increase in the average materials
California who are not producing ‘‘zero economic impact on small and labor costs of a mattress set that
complying mattresses, to update their business due to the wide breadth and meets the standard (estimated in the
styles and produce complying variety of FR barrier products being regulatory analysis to be $12.77, with a
mattresses. offered to the market.’’ A barrier range of $6.05 to $19.49 per mattress
Expected cost of meeting the producer suggested only testing one set) is not likely to be dependent on a
standard. The Commission received mattress set if the peak heat release rate firm’s size and will therefore not
comments from companies concerned (PHRR) does not exceed 50 megajoules disproportionately affect small
about the cost of complying with the (MJ) in the first 30 minutes. This businesses. Larger firms are bearing all
standard, some from small businesses. suggestion would reduce the cost of the capital investment costs of research
As discussed in the regulatory analysis testing to all producers, but might not and development, sharing some of these
above, adding all other resource costs provide an adequate measure of costs with input suppliers. Most smaller
(including reduced productivity, cost of compliance with the standard. firms will simply buy from the suppliers
testing, record keeping, quality 4. Firms Subject to the Standard a barrier solution, which has been tested
assurance costs and compliance costs) extensively and is known to meet the
results in costs ranging from $7.67 to The standard covers producers and standard. The price these smaller firms
$22.46, with a mid-point estimate of importers of mattresses. There were 522 pay to cover the development and
$15.07, per (queen) mattress set. These mattress firms and 607 mattress testing costs are borne by the supplier
cost estimates are expected to drop as a establishments in 2002, according to the but will not have a disproportionate
result of technological developments Statistics of U.S. Businesses, Census adverse impact on the small firms,
and increased competition among Bureau data. (According to the because the price is not measured
barrier producers. Economic Census data, the number of relative to their small output, but
Impact on small business. Six mattress establishments was 571 for relative to the supplier’s output. Other
commenters addressed the impact on 2003.) All but the largest twelve firms smaller firms may combine their
small businesses. The small producers had fewer than 500 employees. The U.S. development efforts to be able to benefit
expressed concern over the burden of Small Business Administration’s Office from dividing the costs over a larger
testing costs and the feasibility of of Advocacy defines a small business as number of firms. Finally, small mattress
producing complying mattress sets in one that is independently owned and producers that do not assemble the
twelve months. The standard’s testing, operated and not dominant in its fields. mattress panels (the quilted assembly,
recordkeeping, and quality control/ A definition for the mattress including ticking, batting material, and
assurance requirements may have a manufacturing industry that is used by barrier, used to cover the contents of the
disproportionate impact on small the Small Business Administration and mattress construction), but buy them
manufacturers because they are is less subject to interpretation is a firm from a panel supplier are effectively
generally required per firm or per with fewer than 500 employees. The combining all their output in a
prototype and therefore would latter definition classifies 97.7 percent ‘‘pooling’’ arrangement. This is because
constitute a larger percent of total ((522–12)/522) of all mattress firms as the panel supplier will be responsible
revenues, sales, and value added for the small businesses. for including a barrier in the panel
smaller firms. The standard’s provisions Average employment per firm for the assembly and will pass that cost on to
for prototype pooling and selling whole industry is 46.2 employees. the mattress producers, again not
variations of mattress sets without Average employment for the 1 to 4 disproportionately impacting the small
additional testing in certain situations employees per enterprise group, which producers who buy the already
should minimize the adverse impact on represents 22.41 percent of all firms, is assembled panels.
small manufacturers. Moreover, if a 2.1 employees. Average employment for The costs more likely to be imposed
particular qualified, confirmed, or the less than 20 employees per disproportionately (per unit produced)
subordinate prototype was used to enterprise group, which represents on small businesses will be the costs of
produce mattress sets for more than one 60.54 percent of all firms, is 6.9 testing, information collection and
year, then the testing cost would be employees. Hence more than half of record keeping, and quality control/
reduced. The increase in time needed to mattress firms have less than 20 quality assurance programs. While the
produce a mattress set is expected to employees. regulatory analysis estimates these costs
(including the cost of compensating 7. Alternatives to the Standard manufacturers to know whether their
office and administrative support Alternative Maximum Peak Heat mattresses will comply with the
workers for record-keeping and quality Release Rate (PHRR) and Test Duration. standard. Alternatively, the standard
control/quality assurance requirements) One alternative would be to issue a could require production testing with a
to be less than one dollar per mattress standard with criteria like those initially specified frequency. This specification,
set per year for average-sized proposed in the California TB 603 however, could result in unnecessary
establishments, they could be proposal (a maximum PHRR of 150kW costs if they are not justified given the
substantially higher for some small and test duration of 60 minutes). As quality control measures generally
mattress producers. To reduce the discussed in the regulatory analysis, this undertaken by manufacturers in the
impact on small businesses, the absence of the standard. Requiring more
would increase the resource costs to
Commission eliminated the requirement tests per establishment, prototype, or
manufacturers (the total resource cost of
of keeping physical samples, included enterprise would increase the estimated
a stricter standard (150 kW and 60
in the proposed standard. This reduced costs per mattress and could reduce net
minutes) would result in a marginal
the average record keeping cost per benefits.
increase in costs averaging $19.24 over Alternative Effective Date. The
establishment (assuming that they the mid-point estimate of costs effective date in the standard is July 1,
produce 20 different prototypes) from associated with the standard). 2007. An earlier effective date could
$767 to $412. Potential benefits of a stricter result in higher input costs to
standard could be higher than the manufacturers. Moreover, it is expected
6. Steps Taken To Minimize the standard, but the extent is uncertain and
Economic Impact of the Standard on that smaller manufacturers will be
a stricter standard would likely reduce disproportionately affected, as they are
Small Entities net benefits. Moreover, a small increase more likely to wait to invest in
As discussed above, the standard in net benefits may not justify the large development efforts until the
allows pooling of prototypes, which increase in retail price that would result technology is developed by larger firms,
reduces the cost of testing because only from a stricter standard. Also, the larger or until the standard becomes effective.
one of the pooling firms is required to increase in prices could reduce sales The Commission chose the July date to
test three sets (for a qualified prototype) and drive some of the smaller coincide with the cycle for introduction
with all remaining firms testing one set manufacturers out of business. of new mattress models, as suggested by
Alternative Total Heat Released in the the public comments.
(for a confirmation test). The standard
First Part of the Test. CPSC’s standard A later effective date (longer than 18
also allows certain changes to be made
sets a limit of 15 MJ in the first 10 months) could reduce expected net
without additional testing, which will
minutes while TB 603 limits the total benefits. The Commission is unaware of
minimize testing costs. Costs could also heat released during the first 10 minutes
be reduced if a qualified, confirmed, or evidence that small manufacturers
of the test to 25 MJ. The Commission would benefit from extending the
subordinate prototype is used to could adopt the criterion of TB 603.
produce mattress set styles for longer effective date further into the future.
However, this would likely reduce The Commission received one comment
than a year. Furthermore, firms with estimated benefits without having any
more than one establishment (or from a small business owner indicating
significant effect on costs. According to that his firm would need more than
different firms) may be able to reduce several producers, mattresses that use twelve months to meet the standard. By
costs by pooling their quality control existing barrier technology release total the time the final standard takes effect,
programs over all establishments. Thus, heat that is far below the 25 MJ it would be nearly 18 months after
pooling across establishments and firms requirement of TB 603. Therefore, using publication of the final rule in the
will ameliorate the standard’s impact on the TB 603 criterion for the total heat Federal Register. This should be enough
small businesses. released would not change costs but time for the all manufacturers to
In response to a comment from the could potentially reduce the benefits transition to producing compliant
mattress producers’ association, ISPA, and, hence, the net benefits of the mattress sets.
the standard now provides an effective standard. Taking No Action or Relying on a
date of July 1, 2007. Providing an Moreover, it would limit Voluntary Standard. If the Commission
effective date that coincides with manufacturers’ ability to change tickings chose to take no action, only 11 percent
regular model/style changes will also without additional testing, thus of all mattress sets produced in the
minimize the impact on small producers increasing testing costs which would be United States would have to comply
because it will make it easier for all particularly burdensome for small with a standard that is very similar to
producers (but especially small manufacturers who do not produce large the CPSC standard (California’s TB 603).
producers outside of California who are numbers of any one prototype. How much, if any, of the remaining 89
not producing complying mattress sets) Alternative Testing Requirements. percent of production would comply is
to update their styles and produce With certain exceptions discussed uncertain, and without a federal
complying mattress sets. above, the standard requires prototype standard other states may develop their
testing (of three mattress sets) before a own standards, which would result in
Finally, elimination of the manufacturer starts production of a unnecessary burden (in terms of higher
requirement for keeping physical given mattress design and a production costs) on manufacturers
samples will also reduce the impact of confirmatory test of one mattress if more selling mattress sets in different states
the standard on small businesses (it than one establishment or firm are with different flammability
reduced the average record keeping cost pooling their results. Though requirements. Hence, expected aggregate
per establishment (assuming that they production testing is encouraged by the net benefits associated with CPSC’s
produce 20 different prototypes) from
standard, it is not required. As an standard are higher than the net benefits
$767 to $412). alternative, the Federal standard could, that result from taking no action and
Compared to all other alternatives like TB 603, omit testing or prototype only relying on the California standard.
considered, the standard minimizes the definition requirements. Without No effort has been undertaken to
impact on small businesses. testing, however, it might be difficult for develop a voluntary standard, and
industry representatives support a Compared to other effective dermal absorption. Tests were also done
mandatory standard. If a voluntary alternatives considered, the standard to determine the amount of FR chemical
standard were developed, the economic minimizes the impact on small that may be ingested. Finally, the
burden would fall primarily on the businesses. The only alternatives that airborne particle-bound release of the
larger firms (who would likely be the might have a lower adverse impact on FR chemical(s) from the barrier during
first to comply), their market shares small business are labeling or doing tests simulating normal use over 10
could be reduced and benefits to nothing. Either alternative would be years was used to estimate potential
consumers (in terms of reduced deaths ineffective in reducing the fires, deaths, inhalation exposures. The staff also
and injuries) would likely decline and injuries associated with mattresses. conducted limited aging studies to
accordingly. assess the effects of environmental
L. Health Effects Issues Concerning the
Labeling Requirements. The factors, such as heat and humidity, on
Use of Flame Retardants
Commission could require labeling on the release of airborne particle-bound
mattresses to warn consumers in lieu of As discussed above, some FR chemicals.
a standard. However, as discussed in the commenters raised concerns about The staff quantitatively assessed all
Regulatory Analysis above, requiring possible health effects from flame applicable routes of exposure (i.e.,
warning labels is not considered an retardants (‘‘FR’’) that manufacturers dermal, oral, and inhalation) for the FR
effective option for reducing the risk of may use to meet the standard. The staff chemicals for which migration/exposure
fires. Thus, while labeling costs are considered this issue when developing data were available and determined the
the proposed rule and prepared a potential risk associated with exposure
probably negligible, labels alone are
preliminary qualitative assessment of to these FR chemicals. The analysis
unlikely to reduce mattress fires
the potential risk of health effects from included estimates of average exposure,
significantly.
exposure to FR chemicals that may be as well as the reasonable upper bound
8. Summary and Conclusions incorporated in mattresses to meet the exposures. Staff evaluated potential
proposed standard. Five FR chemicals/ exposure through all three routes
The standard to address open-flame
chemical classes (i.e., antimony combined, as well as individually. The
ignition of mattress sets will affect all
trioxide, boric acid/zinc borate, staff’s studies and analyses applied
mattress manufacturers. Almost all of
decabromodiphenyl oxide, melamine, conservative assumptions in areas of
these firms would be considered small
and vinylidene chloride) were reviewed scientific uncertainty, that is,
businesses, using the Small Business (at the time, data on potential exposures assumptions that tend to overestimate
Administration definition. Material and to FR chemicals in mattresses was not exposure and risk.
labor costs for all firms are expected to available). The staff concluded that, Based on this risk assessment, the
initially increase on average by $6.05 to based on available information, FR staff concludes that AT, boric acid, and
$19.49, with a mid-point estimate of chemicals and flame resistant materials DBDPO would not present any
$12.77, per mattress set produced. were available that could be used to appreciable risk of health effects to
These cost increases are expected to be meet the proposed mattress standard consumers who sleep on treated
borne equally by all firms and hence do without posing any unacceptable risk to mattresses. The estimated hazard index
not have a disproportionate adverse consumers. values for these compounds are all
impact on the smaller mattress After publication of the NPR the staff substantially less than one under all
producers. These costs are expected to continued its analysis of possible exposure conditions. As for vinylidene
decline in the future due to improved environmental or health effects. That chloride, no detectable concentrations
technology of producing fire resistant analysis is provided in the staff’s were found, even in the staff’s initial
materials and increased competition ‘‘Quantitative Assessment of Potential extreme extraction studies. Thus, it is
among suppliers of inputs used by the Health Effects from the Use of Fire considered unlikely that significant
mattress industry. Retardant (FR) Chemicals in quantities of this compound will be
Testing, record keeping, and quality Mattresses,’’ which is discussed below. released from mattress barriers. Since
control/quality assurance requirements [11] The staff provided this assessment melamine and ammonium
may have a disproportionate impact on for peer review. [16] The staff’s report, polyphosphate do not satisfy the FHSA
small manufacturers because they are the comments of the reviewers and the definition of ‘‘toxic,’’ these compounds
generally required per firm or per staff’s responses are available on CPSC’s are not expected to present any
prototype and therefore would Web site. appreciable risk of health effects to
constitute a larger percent of total To quantify the amount of FR consumers, and therefore, were not
revenues, sales, and value added for the chemical(s) that may be released from tested extensively.
smaller firms. To minimize the adverse the barriers, the staff conducted The results of this exposure and risk
impact on small manufacturers, the migration/exposure assessment studies assessment of the selected FR treatments
standard provides for prototype pooling on selected FR-treated mattress barriers. suggest that there are a number of
among different establishments within These barriers were treated with a commercially available FR-treated
the same firm and among different variety of FR chemicals including: barriers that can be used to meet the
firms. The standard would also allow antimony trioxide (AT), boric acid, standard that are not expected to
selling mattress sets based on decabromodiphenyl oxide (DBDPO), present any appreciable risk of health
subordinate prototypes that differ from melamine, ammonium polyphosphate, effects to consumers who sleep on
a qualified prototype only with respect and vinylidene chloride. The exposure mattresses that comply with the
to size (length and width), and/or studies were conducted in three standard.
ticking material or other components sequential phases to estimate exposures
that do not impact the fire performance from dermal absorption, ingestion, and M. Environmental Considerations
of the prototype without testing the inhalation. The staff measured the total Usually, CPSC rules establishing
subordinate prototypes, to minimize amount of FR chemical present in the performance requirements are
testing costs to all manufacturers, barrier and the potential migration of considered to ‘‘have little or no
especially those whose volume of the FR chemical(s) in the barrier to a potential for affecting the human
output is small. surrogate material for skin, to estimate environment,’’ and environmental
assessments are not usually prepared for created requirements. State [A] State standard designed to protect
these rules (see 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1)). requirements intended to reduce the against the risk of injury from a fabric
However, because manufacturers may risk of mattress fire, no matter how well catching on fire would be preempted by a
need to use more inherently flame intentioned, have the potential to Federal flammability standard covering the
same fabric even though the Federal
resistant materials or incorporate flame undercut the Commission’s uniform flammability standard called for tests using
retardant (FR) chemicals into their national flammability standard, create matches and the State standard called for
products in order to meet the standard, impediments for manufacturers whose tests using cigarettes. When an item is
the Commission provided a more mattress products enter the stream of covered by a Federal flammability standard
thorough discussion of the potential for interstate commerce, establish * * * a different State or local flammability
environmental impacts in the NPR than requirements that make dual state and requirement applicable to the same item will
it normally would. federal compliance physically be preempted since both are designed to
As mentioned above, at the time of impossible, and cause confusion among protect against the same risk, that is the
the NPR, the staff prepared a consumers seeking to understand occurrence of death or injury from fire.
preliminary qualitative assessment of differing state and federal mattress fire H.R. Rep. No. 1022, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.
the potential risk of health effects from requirements. 29 (1976).
exposure to flame retardant chemicals To fully accomplish the Congressional The broad preemptive reach of the
that may be incorporated in mattresses purpose of the FFA in this area, this new rule is further supported by
to meet the proposed standard. Based on mattress flammability rule must take Congress’ omission from the FFA of a
this assessment, the staff prepared (and precedence over any non-identical state savings clause. A savings clause is
posted on CPSC’s Web site) both an requirements that seek to reduce the risk commonly used to restrict the
Environmental Assessment (‘‘EA’’) and of mattress fire. Preemption of non- preemptive reach of a federal law. In the
a Finding of No Significant Impact identical state requirements is expressly context of the Commission, the Congress
(‘‘FONSI’’),7 which were discussed in and impliedly supported by the words included savings clauses to preserve
the NPR. The EA concluded that there of the statute, its legislative history, and state common law requirements in the
are FR chemicals and flame resistant public policy. The FFA expressly Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C.
materials available for meeting the provides that if the Commission issues 2074(a) and 2072(c). Moreover, the
proposed standard that, based on a flammability standard for a fabric or existence or absence of a savings clause
currently available data, are not product under the FFA, ‘‘no State or in a statutory scheme is a significant
expected to pose unacceptable risks to political subdivision of a State may factor in court decisions reviewing the
the environment or human health and establish or continue in effect a scope of preemption. The absence of a
are widely used in other applications. flammability standard or other savings clause generally indicates
[14] The FONSI concluded that there regulation for such fabric, related Congressional intent for broader
will be no significant impacts on the material or product if the standard or preemption of state flammability
human environment as a result of the other regulation is designed to protect requirements that seek to reduce the risk
proposed standard. [15] The CPSC against the same risk of the occurrence of mattress fires.
reaffirms these conclusions with regard of fire with respect to which the In developing this mattress
to the final rule. [10] As discussed in standard or other regulation under this flammability standard, the Commission
section L. above, after publication of the Act is in effect unless the State or carefully balanced numerous factors to
NPR, the staff performed additional political subdivision standard or other craft a rule that will improve consumer
work and prepared a quantitative regulation is identical to the Federal safety and meet the Commission’s other
assessment of potential health effects of standard or other regulation.’’ 15 U.S.C. statutory obligations. The Commission
FR chemicals that could be used to meet 1203(a). The statute also provides an believes that a different standard or
the mattress standard. This subsequent application process for an exemption additional requirements imposed by
work further supports the conclusions from federal preemption for non- state statutes or common law would
in the EA and FONSI. identical State or political subdivision upset this balance. The FFA requires the
flammability requirements. Thus, in the Commission to find that the benefits of
N. Executive Order 12988 (Preemption) absence of such an exemption, the the regulation bear a reasonable
Under Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 5, federal standard will preempt all non- relationship to its costs and that the
1996) federal agencies must specify the identical state requirements. regulation imposes the ‘‘least
preemptive effect, if any, of new The legislative history of the FFA
burdensome’’ requirement to prevent or
regulations. Requirements imposed affirms the broad preemptive scope of
adequately reduce the risk of injury. See
under state law, including laws the federal rule. The Conference
15 U.S.C. 1193(j)(1)–(2). The
developed in state courts, may be Committee Report explicitly explained
Commission has performed such
limited, foreclosed or barred by express the preemptive reach of the FFA:
analysis and believes that requiring
language in a Congressional enactment, The conferees wish to emphasize that in mattresses to meet a different
by implication from the breadth of a determining whether a Federal requirement flammability requirement—even one
Congressional regulatory scheme that preempts State or local requirements, the key
factor is whether the State or local
that is effectively more stringent—
occupies the legislative field, or by
requirement respecting a product is designed would impose greater costs, in both
implication because of a conflict with a
to deal with the same risk of injury or illness monetary and non-monetary terms, on
Congressional enactment.
associated with the product as the Federal manufacturers and consumers and
The Commission intends and expects
requirement. Even though the State or local thereby upset the carefully tailored
that the new mattress flammability requirement is characterized in different balance of costs and benefits this
standard will preempt inconsistent state terms than the Federal requirement or may standard achieves.
standards and requirements, whether in have different testing methods for
This standard prescribes a

the form of positive enactments or court determining compliance, so long as the
Federal and State or local requirements deal performance test. Requiring mattress
7 Both of these documents are available from the with the same risk of injury associated with manufacturers to use specific materials
Commission’s Office of the Secretary or from the a product, the Federal requirement preempts or methodologies to reach the
Commission’s Web site (see footnote 2 above). a different State or local requirement. flammability standard’s goals could
impose greater costs and interfere with risk of the occurrence of fire leading to a mattress. Based on NIST’s testing, the
the particular balance the Commission death, injury or significant property standard establishes criteria that will
struck between competing public policy damage; (2) is reasonable, reduce the fire intensity of a burning
considerations. Mattress manufacturers technologically practicable, and mattress, allowing more time for
need to maintain the flexibility and appropriate; (3) is limited to fabrics, occupants to escape before flashover
business discretion to decide what related materials or products which occurs. NIST testing has also
combination of design and materials is present unreasonable risks; and (4) is demonstrated that mattresses can be
appropriate to meet the federal stated in objective terms. Id. 1193(b). In constructed with available materials and
flammability standard. addition, the Commission must find construction that will meet the test
Finally, non-identical requirements that: (1) If an applicable voluntary criteria. Therefore, the Commission
imposed by state courts conflict with standard has been adopted and finds that the standard is reasonable,
the federal standard no less than implemented, that compliance with the technologically practicable, and
requirements imposed by state voluntary standard is not likely to appropriate.
legislatures or state agencies. Congress’ adequately reduce the risk of injury, or The standard is limited to fabrics,
repeated characterization in the compliance with the voluntary standard related materials, and products that
Conference Report of the FFA’s is not likely to be substantial; (2) that present an unreasonable risk. The
‘‘requirements’’ could not have intended benefits expected from the regulation standard applies to mattresses and
to exclude state common law causes of bear a reasonable relationship to its mattress and foundation sets. It is a
action. If it did, then each state could costs; and (3) that the regulation performance standard. Thus, it neither
use its tort law to enforce whatever imposes the least burdensome requires nor restricts the use of
flammability standard it deemed requirement that would prevent or particular fabrics, related materials or
appropriate, potentially creating fifty adequately reduce the risk of injury. The products. Manufacturers may choose the
different mattress fire standards across last three findings must be included in materials and methods of construction
the nation. This is precisely the result the regulation. Id. 1193(j)(2). These that they believe will best suit their
Congress sought to avoid. Congress’ findings are discussed below. business and result in mattresses that
explicit ban on non-identical state The standard is needed to adequately can meet the specified test criteria. As
flammability requirements would be protect the public against unreasonable discussed above, the Commission
meaningless if states were free to risk of the occurrence of fire. National concludes that current mattresses
incorporate such standards into their fire loss estimates indicate that present an unreasonable risk. Therefore,
common law duties of care. mattresses and bedding were the first the Commission finds that the standard
For all these reasons, this standard items to ignite in 15,300 residential fires is limited to fabrics, related materials,
would preempt all non-identical state attended by the fire service annually and products that present an
requirements which seek to reduce the during 1999–2002. These fires resulted unreasonable risk.
risk of death or injury from mattress in 350 deaths, 1,750 injuries and $295.0 Voluntary standards. The
fires. million in property loss each year. Of Commission is not aware of any
these, the staff considers an estimated voluntary standard in existence that
O. Effective Date 14,300 fires, 330 deaths, 1,680 injuries, adequately and appropriately addresses
The FFA requires that the effective and $281.5 million property loss the specific risk of injury addressed by
date of a flammability standard be one annually to be addressable by the this standard. Thus, no findings
year after the final standard is standard. The Commission estimates concerning compliance with, and
promulgated unless the Commission that the standard will prevent 69 to 78 adequacy of, voluntary standards are
finds for good cause shown that an percent of deaths and 73 to 84 percent necessary.
earlier or later date is in the public of the injuries occurring with these Relationship of Benefits to Costs. The
interest. 15 U.S.C. 1193(b). The addressable mattress/bedding fires. Commission estimates that the total
Commission proposed that the rule Thus, the Commission estimates that lifetime benefits of a mattress complying
would become effective one year from when all mattresses have been replaced with this standard will range from $45
publication of a final rule in the Federal by ones that comply with the standard, to $57 per mattress (based on a 10 year
Register and would apply to mattresses 240 to 270 deaths and 1,150 to 1,330 mattress life and 3% discount rate). The
entering the chain of distribution on or injuries will be avoided annually as a Commission estimates that total
after that date. However, as discussed result of the standard. resource costs of the standard will range
above, in response to comments, the The regulatory analysis explains that from $8 to $22 per mattress. This yields
Commission is providing an effective the Commission estimates lifetime net net benefits of $23 to $50 per mattress.
date of July 1, 2007 to coincide with the benefits of $23 to $50 per mattress or The Commission estimates that
mattress production cycle. aggregate lifetime net benefits for all aggregate lifetime benefits associated
The Commission finds that this longer mattresses produced in the first year of with all mattresses produced the first
effective date is in the public interest. the standard of $514 to $1,132 million year the standard becomes effective
An effective date that coincides with the from the standard. Thus, the range from $1,024 to $1,307 million,
regular model/style change cycle will Commission finds that the standard is and that aggregate resource costs
minimize the standard’s impact on the needed to adequately protect the public associated with these mattresses range
industry, particularly small producers from the unreasonable risk of the from $175 to $511 million, yielding net
outside of California. occurrence of fire. benefits of about $514 to $1,132 million.
The standard is reasonable, Therefore, the Commission finds that
P. Findings technologically practicable, and the benefits from the regulation bear a
Sections 1193(a) and (j)(2) of the FFA appropriate. Through extensive research reasonable relationship to its costs.
require the Commission to make certain and testing, NIST developed a test Least burdensome requirement that
findings when it issues a flammability method to assess the flammability of adequately reduces the risk of injury.
standard. The Commission must find mattresses ignited by an open flame. The Commission considered the
that the standard: (1) Is needed to The test method represents the typical following alternatives: alternative
adequately protect the public against the scenario of burning bedclothes igniting maximum peak heat release rate and test
duration, alternative total heat released 1633.13 Tests for guaranty purposes, standard in accordance with
in the first 10 minutes of the test, compliance with this section, and ‘‘one § 1633.13(c).
mandatory production testing, a longer of a kind’’ exemption.
(c) Applicability. The requirements of
effective date, taking no action, relying FIGURE 1 TO PART 1633—TEST
this part 1633 shall apply to each
on a voluntary standard, and requiring ASSEMBLY, SHOWN IN FURNITURE
CALORIMETER (CONFIGURATION A) ‘‘manufacturer’’ (as that term is defined
labeling alone. As discussed in the FIGURE 2 TO PART 1633—TEST in § 1633.2(k)) of mattress sets which are
preamble above and the regulatory ARRANGEMENT IN 3.05m × 3.66m (10 manufactured for sale in commerce.
analysis, these alternatives are expected ft × 12 ft) ROOM (CONFIGURATION B)
to increase costs without increasing FIGURE 3 TO PART 1633—DETAILS OF § 1633.2 Definitions.
benefits, or significantly reduce the HORIZONTAL BURNER HEAD In addition to the definitions given in
benefits expected from the rule. FIGURE 4 TO PART 1633—DETAILS OF section 2 of the Flammable Fabrics Act
Therefore, the Commission finds that VERTICAL BURNER HEAD
as amended (15 U.S.C. 1191), the
the standard imposes the least FIGURE 5 TO PART 1633—DETAILS OF
BURNER STAND-OFF following definitions apply for purposes
burdensome requirement that would of this part 1633.
FIGURE 6 TO PART 1633—BURNER
adequately reduce the risk. ASSEMBLY SHOWING ARMS AND (a) Mattress means a resilient material
Q. Conclusion PIVOTS (SHOULDER SCREWS), IN or combination of materials enclosed by
RELATION TO, PORTABLE FRAME a ticking (used alone or in combination
For the reasons stated in this ALLOWING BURNER HEIGHT with other products) intended or
preamble, the Commission finds that ADJUSTMENT
FIGURE 7 TO PART 1633—ELEMENTS OF promoted for sleeping upon. This
this flammability standard for mattress includes mattresses that have undergone
PROPANE FLOW CONTROL FOR EACH
sets is needed to adequately protect the BURNER renovation as defined in paragraph (d)
public against the unreasonable risk of FIGURE 8 TO PART 1633—JIG FOR of this section.
the occurrence of fire leading to death, SETTING MATTRESSES AND (1) This term includes, but is not
injury, and significant property damage. FOUNDATION SIDES IN SAME PLANE limited to, adult mattresses, youth
The Commission also finds that the FIGURE 9 TO PART 1633—BURNER
PLACEMENTS ON MATTRESS/
mattresses, crib mattresses (including
standard issued today is reasonable, portable crib mattresses), bunk bed
technologically practicable, and FOUNDATION
FIGURE 10 TO PART 1633—JIG FOR mattresses, futons, flip chairs without a
appropriate. The Commission further permanent back or arms, sleeper chairs,
SETTING BURNERS AT PROPER
finds that the standard is limited to the DISTANCES FROM MATTRESS/ and water beds or air mattresses if they
fabrics, related materials and products FOUNDATION contain upholstery material between the
which present such unreasonable risks. FIGURE 11 TO PART 1633—DIAGRAMS ticking and the mattress core. Mattresses
The Commission also finds that the FOR GLOSSARY OF TERMS used in or as part of upholstered
benefits from the regulation bear a FIGURE 12 TO PART 1633—B LABELS FOR
DOMESTIC MATTRESS WITH
furniture are also included; examples
reasonable relationship to its costs and are convertible sofa bed mattresses,
the standard imposes the least FOUNDATION
FIGURE 13 TO PART 1633—B LABELS FOR corner group mattresses, day bed
burdensome requirement that would mattresses, roll-away bed mattresses,
IMPORTED MATTRESS WITH
adequately reduce the risk. FOUNDATION high risers, and trundle bed mattresses.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1633 FIGURE 14 TO PART 1633—B LABEL FOR See § 1633.9 Glossary of terms, for
DOMESTIC MATTRESS ALONE AND definitions of these items.
Consumer protection, Flammable WITH FOUNDATION
FIGURE 15 TO PART 1633—B LABEL FOR (2) This term excludes mattress pads,
materials, Labeling, Mattresses and mattress toppers (items with resilient
IMPORTED MATTRESS ALONE AND
mattress pads, Records, Textiles, filling, with or without ticking, intended
WITH FOUNDATION
Warranties. FIGURE 16 TO PART 1633—B LABEL FOR to be used with or on top of a mattress),
■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOMESTIC MATTRESS ONLY sleeping bags, pillows, liquid and
FIGURE 17 TO PART 1633 B—LABEL FOR gaseous filled tickings, such as water
the Commission amends Title 16 of the IMPORTED MATTRESS ONLY
Code of Federal Regulations by adding beds and air mattresses that contain no
a new part 1633 to read as follows: Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1193, 1194 upholstery material between the ticking
and the mattress core, upholstered
PART 1633—STANDARD FOR THE Subpart A—The Standard furniture which does not contain a
FLAMMABILITY (OPEN FLAME) OF § 1633.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
mattress, and juvenile product pads
MATTRESS SETS such as car bed pads, carriage pads,
(a) Purpose. This part 1633 establishes basket pads, infant carrier and lounge
Subpart A—The Standard flammability requirements that all pads, dressing table pads, stroller pads,
Sec.
mattress sets must meet before sale or crib bumpers, and playpen pads. See
1633.1 Purpose, scope and applicability. introduction into commerce. The § 1633.9 Glossary of terms, for
1633.2 Definitions. purpose of the standard is to reduce definitions of these items.
1633.3 General requirements. deaths and injuries associated with
1633.4 Prototype testing requirements. mattress fires by limiting the size of the (b) Foundation means a ticking
1633.5 Prototype pooling and confirmation fire generated by a mattress set during covered structure used to support a
testing requirements. a thirty minute test. mattress or sleep surface. The structure
1633.6 Quality assurance requirements. (b) Scope. (1) All mattress sets, as may include constructed frames, foam,
1633.7 Mattress test procedure. defined in § 1633.2(c), manufactured, box springs, or other materials, used
1633.8 Findings. imported, or renovated on or after the alone or in combination.
1633.9 Glossary of terms.
effective date of this standard are (c) Mattress set means either a
Subpart B—Rules and Regulations subject to the requirements of the mattress and foundation labeled by the
1633.10 Definitions. standard. manufacturer for sale as a set, or a
1633.11 Records. (2) One-of-a-kind mattress sets may be mattress labeled by the manufacturer for
1633.12 Labeling. exempted from testing under this sale without any foundation.
(d) Renovation means altering an qualified prototype with respect to exposure, measurements shall be made
existing mattress set for the purpose of materials, components, design and of the time-dependent heat release rate
resale. methods of assembly and has been from the specimen, quantifying the
(1) This term includes any one, or any tested in accordance with § 1633.5(a)(3) energy generated by the fire. The rate of
combination of the following: replacing and meets the criteria stated in heat release must be measured by means
the ticking or batting, stripping a § 1633.3(b). of oxygen consumption calorimetry.
mattress to its springs, rebuilding a (p) Subordinate prototype means a (b) Test criteria. (1) When testing the
mattress, or replacing components with mattress set that is based on a qualified mattress set in accordance with the test
new or recycled materials. or confirmed prototype and is the same procedure set forth in § 1633.7, the
(2) This term excludes alterations if as the qualified or confirmed prototype, specimen shall comply with both of the
the person who renovates the mattress except as permitted by § 1633.4(b). A following criteria:
intends to retain the renovated mattress subordinate prototype is considered to (i) The peak rate of heat release shall
for his or her own use, or if a customer be represented by a qualified or not exceed 200 kilowatts (‘‘kW’’) at any
or a renovator merely hires the services confirmed prototype and need not be time within the 30 minute test; and
of the renovator and intends to take tested in accordance with § 1633.4(a) or (ii) The total heat release shall not
back the renovated mattress for his or § 1633.5(a)(3). exceed 15 megajoules (‘‘MJ’’) for the first
her own use. (q) Prototype pooling means a 10 minutes of the test.
(e) Ticking means the outermost layer cooperative arrangement—whereby one (2) In the interest of safety, the test
of fabric or related material of a mattress or more manufacturers build mattress operator should discontinue the test and
or foundation. It does not include any sets based on a qualified prototype record a failure if a fire develops to such
other layers of fabric or related materials produced by another manufacturer or a size as to require suppression for the
quilted together with, or otherwise prototype developer. A manufacturer safety of the facility.
attached to, the outermost layer of fabric who relies on another manufacturer’s or (c) Testing of mattress sets. Mattresses
or related material. prototype developer’s qualified labeled for sale with a foundation shall
(f) Upholstery material means all prototype must perform a confirmation be tested with such foundation.
material, either loose or attached, test on the mattress set it manufactures. Mattresses labeled for sale without a
between the mattress ticking and the (r) Confirmation test means a pre- foundation shall be tested alone.
core of a mattress. market test conducted by a (d) Compliance with this standard.
(g) Edge means the seamed, un- manufacturer who is relying on a Each mattress set manufactured,
seamed or taped border edge of a qualified prototype produced by another imported, or renovated on or after the
mattress or foundation that joins the top manufacturer or prototype developer. A effective date of the standard shall meet
and/or bottom with the side panels. confirmation test must be conducted in the test criteria specified in paragraph
(h) Tape edge means an edge made by accordance with the procedures set (b) of this section and otherwise comply
using binding tape to encase and finish forth in § 1633.7 and meet the criteria in with all applicable requirements of this
raw edges. § 1633.3(b). part 1633.
(i) Binding tape means a fabric strip (s) Production lot means any quantity
used in the construction of some edges. § 1633.4 Prototype testing requirements.
of finished mattress sets that are
(j) Seam thread means the thread used produced in production intervals (a) Except as otherwise provided in
to form stitches in construction features, defined by the manufacturer, and are paragraph (b) of this section, each
seams, and tape edges. intended to replicate a specific manufacturer shall cause three
(k) Manufacturer means an individual qualified, confirmed or subordinate specimens of each prototype to be tested
plant or factory at which mattress sets prototype that complies with this part according to § 1633.7 and obtain passing
are manufactured or assembled. For 1633. test results according to § 1633.3(b)
purposes of this part 1633, importers (t) Specimen means a mattress set before selling or introducing into
and renovators are considered tested under this regulation. commerce any mattress set based on
manufacturers. (u) Twin size means any mattress with that prototype, unless the manufacturer
(l) Prototype means a specific design the dimensions 38 inches (in) (965 complies with the prototype pooling
of mattress set that serves as a model for millimeters) × 74.5 in. (1892 mm); all and confirmation testing requirements
production units intended to be dimensions may vary by ±1⁄2 in. (±13 in § 1633.5.
introduced into commerce and is the mm). (b) Notwithstanding the requirements
same as the production units with (v) Core means the main support of paragraph (a) of this section, a
respect to materials, components, design system that may be present in a manufacturer may sell or introduce into
and methods of assembly. A mattress mattress, such as springs, foam, water commerce a mattress set that has not
intended for sale with a foundation(s) bladder, air bladder, or resilient filling. been tested according to § 1633.7 if that
shall be considered a separate and mattress set differs from a qualified or
distinct prototype from a mattress § 1633.3 General requirements. confirmed prototype only with respect
intended for sale without a foundation. (a) Summary of test method. The test to:
(m) Prototype developer means a third method set forth in § 1633.7 measures (1) Mattress/foundation length and
party that develops a prototype for use the flammability (fire test response width, not depth (e.g., twin, queen,
by a manufacturer. Such prototypes may characteristics) of a mattress specimen king);
be qualified by either the prototype by exposing the specimen to a specified (2) Ticking, unless the ticking of the
developer or by the manufacturer. flaming ignition source and allowing it qualified prototype has characteristics
(n) Qualified prototype means a to burn freely under well-ventilated, (such as chemical treatment or special
prototype that has been tested in controlled environmental conditions. fiber composition) designed to improve
accordance with § 1633.4(a) and meets The flaming ignition source shall be a performance on the test prescribed in
the criteria stated in § 1633.3(b). pair of propane burners. These burners this part; and/or
(o) Confirmed prototype means a impose differing fluxes for differing (3) Any component, material, design
prototype that is part of a pooling times on the top and sides of the or method of assembly, so long as the
arrangement and is the same as a specimen. During and after this manufacturer can demonstrate on an
objectively reasonable basis that such manufacturer thereof shall not sell any § 1633.7 Mattress test procedure.
differences will not cause the mattress mattress set based on the same qualified (a) Apparatus and test materials. (1)
set to exceed the test criteria specified prototype until that manufacturer takes Calorimetry. The rate of heat release
in § 1633.3(b). corrective measures, tests a new must be measured by means of oxygen
(c) All tests must be conducted on specimen, and the new specimen meets consumption calorimetry. The
specimens that are no smaller than a the criteria of § 1633.3(b). calibration should follow generally
twin size, unless the largest size (2) If a confirmation test specimen accepted practices for calibration. The
mattress set produced is smaller than a fails to meet the criteria of § 1633.3(b), calorimetry system shall be calibrated at
twin size, in which case the largest size the manufacturer thereof must notify the a minimum of two (2) calibration
must be tested. manufacturer of the prototype of the test points—at 75 kW and 200 kW.
(d) (1) If each of the three specimens failure. (2) Test area. The test area must have
meets both the criteria specified in either Test Configuration A or B. The
§ 1633.3(b), the prototype shall be § 1633.6 Quality assurance requirements. test area conditions shall be maintained
qualified. If any one (1) specimen fails at a temperature greater than 15 °C (59
(a) Quality assurance. Each °F) and less than 27 °C (80.6 °F) and a
to meet the test criteria of § 1633.3(b),
manufacturer shall implement a quality relative humidity less than 75 percent.
the prototype is not qualified.
assurance program to ensure that (i) Test configuration A. (an open
(2) Any manufacturer may produce a
mattress sets manufactured for sale are calorimeter (or furniture calorimeter)).
mattress set for sale in reliance on
the same as the qualified and/or In this configuration, the specimen to be
prototype tests performed before the
confirmed prototype on which they are tested is placed under the center of an
effective date of this Standard,
based with respect to materials, open furniture calorimeter. Figure 1 of
provided:
(i) The manufacturer has components, design and methods of this part shows the test assembly atop
documentation showing that such tests assembly, except as permitted by a bed frame and catch surface. The
were conducted in accordance with all § 1633.4(b). At a minimum these specimen shall be placed under an open
requirements of this section and procedures shall include: hood which captures the entire smoke
§ 1633.7 and yielded passing results (1) Controls, including incoming plume and is instrumented for heat
according to the test criteria of inspection procedures, of all mattress release rate measurements. The area
§ 1633.3(b); set materials, components and methods surrounding the test specimen in an
(ii) Any tests conducted more than 30 of assembly to ensure that they are the open calorimeter layout shall be
days after publication of this standard in same as those used in the prototype on sufficiently large that there are no heat
the Federal Register must comply with which they are based; re-radiation effects from any nearby
the recordkeeping requirements in (2) Designation of a production lot materials or objects. The air flow to the
§ 1633.11; that is represented by the prototype; and test specimen should be symmetrical
(iii) Such mattress sets may be used from all sides. The air flow to the
for prototype pooling only if the (3) Inspection of mattress sets calorimeter hood shall be sufficient to
manufacturer complies with applicable produced for sale sufficient to ensure that the entire fire plume is
recordkeeping requirements in demonstrate that they are the same as captured, even at peak burning. Skirts
§ 1633.11; and the prototype on which they are based may be placed on the hood periphery to
(iv) Such mattress sets may serve as with respect to materials, components, help assure this plume capture, if
the basis for a subordinate prototype design and methods of assembly. necessary, though they must not be of
only if the manufacturer has all records (b) Production testing. Manufacturers such an excessive length as to cause the
required by § 1633.11. are encouraged to conduct, as part of the incoming flow to disturb the burning
quality assurance program, random process. Skirts must also not heat up to
§ 1633.5 Prototype pooling and testing of mattress sets being produced the point that they contribute significant
confirmation testing requirements. for sale according to the requirements of re-radiation to the test specimen. The air
(a) Prototype pooling. One or more §§ 1633.3 and 1633.7. supply to the hood shall be sufficient
manufacturers may rely on a qualified that the fire is not in any way limited
(c) Failure of mattress sets produced
prototype produced by another or affected by the available air supply.
for sale to meet flammability standard.
manufacturer or prototype developer The fire plume should not enter the
(1) Sale of mattress sets. If any test
provided that: hood exhaust duct. Brief (seconds)
(1) The prototype meets the performed for quality assurance yields
flickers of flame that occupy only a
requirements of § 1633.4; results which indicate that any mattress
minor fraction of the hood exhaust duct
(2) The mattress sets being produced set of a production lot does not meet the
inlet cross-section are acceptable since
are the same as the qualified prototype criteria of § 1633.3(b), or if a
they do not signify appreciable
with respect to materials, components, manufacturer obtains test results or
suppression of flames.
design and methods of assembly; and other evidence that a component or (ii) Test configuration B. The test
(3) The manufacturer producing material or construction/assembly room shall have dimensions 10 ft. by 12
mattress sets in reliance on a qualified process used could negatively affect the ft. by 8 ft. (3048 mm x 3658 mm x 2438
prototype has performed a confirmation test performance of the mattress set as mm) high. The specimen is placed
test on at least one (1) Specimen of the set forth in § 1633.3(b), the within the burn room. All smoke exiting
mattress set it produces in accordance manufacturer shall cease production from the room is caught by a hood
with § 1633.7. The tested specimen and distribution in commerce of such system instrumented for heat release
must meet the criteria under § 1633.3(b) mattress sets until corrective action is rate measurements. The room shall have
before any mattress sets based on the taken. no openings permitting air infiltration
qualified prototype may be sold or (2) Corrective action. A manufacturer other than a doorway opening 38 in ±
introduced into commerce. must take corrective action when any 0.25 in by 80 in ± 0.25 in (965 mm ±
(b) Confirmation test failure. (1) If the mattress set manufactured or imported 6.4 mm x 2032 mm ± 6.4 mm) located
confirmation test specimen fails to meet for sale fails to meet the flammability as indicated in Figure 2 of this part and
the criteria of § 1633.3(b), the test criteria set forth in § 1633.3(b). other small openings as necessary to
make measurements. The test room and 4 of this part. One burner impinges mm diameter stainless steel rod having
shall be constructed of wood or metal flames on the top surface of the a 12.7 mm by 51 mm by (2–2.5 mm)
studs and shall be lined with fire-rated mattress. The second burner impinges thick (0.5 in by 2 in by (0.08–0.10 in)
wallboard or calcium silicate board. An flames on the side of the mattress and thick) stainless steel pad welded on its
exhaust hood shall be positioned on the side of the foundation. Each of end with its face (and long axis) parallel
outside of the doorway so as to collect the burners shall be constructed from to the T head of the burner. The foot pad
all of the combustion gases. There shall stainless steel tubing (12.7 mm diameter shall be displaced about 10 mm to 12
be no obstructions in the air supply to with 0.89 ± 0.5 mm wall thickness; 0.50 mm from the longitudinal centerline of
the set-up. in diameter with 0.035 ± 0.002 in wall). the burner head so that it does not rest
(3) Location of test specimen. The Each burner shall incorporate a stand- on the test specimen in an area of peak
location of the test specimen is shown off foot to set its distance from the test heat flux. A short section (9.5 mm outer
in Figure 2 of this part. The angled specimen surface (Figure 5 of this part). diameter (‘‘OD’’), about 80 mm long; 3⁄8
placement is intended to minimize the Both burners shall be mounted with a in OD, about 3.2 in long) of copper
interaction of flames on the side mechanical pivot point but the side tubing shall be placed in the inlet gas
surfaces of the test specimen with the burner is locked in place to prevent line just before the burner to facilitate
room walls. One corner of the test movement about this pivot in normal making the burner nominally parallel to
specimen shall be 13 centimeters (cm) usage. The top burner, however, is free the test specimen surface (by a
to 17 cm from the wall and the other to rotate about its pivot during a burner procedure described below). The copper
corner shall be 25 cm to 30 cm from the exposure and is lightly weighted so as tube on the top surface burner should be
wall. The test room shall contain no to exert a downward force on the protected from excessive heat and
other furnishings or combustible mattress top through its stand-off foot so surface oxidation by wrapping it with a
materials except for the test specimen. that the burner follows a receding top suitable layer of high temperature
(4) Bed frame. (i) Frame dimensions. surface on the test specimen (Figure 6 insulation to protect the equipment.
The specimen shall be supported of this part). The combination of burner Both copper tubes are to be bent by
around its perimeter by the bed frame. stand-off distance and propane gas flow hand in the burner alignment process.
For twin size mattresses, the specimen rate to the burners determines the heat They must be replaced if they become
shall be placed on top of a welded bed flux they impose on the surface of the work-hardened or crimped in any way.
frame 1.90 m by 0.99 m (75 in by 39 in) test specimen so that both of these The gas inlet lines (12.7 mm OD
made from 40 mm (1.50 in) steel angle. parameters are tightly controlled. stainless steel tubing; 0.50 in) serve as
If testing a size other than twin, the bed (ii) Top surface burner. The T head of arms leading back to the pivot points
frame shall similarly match the the top surface burner (horizontal and beyond, as shown in Figure 6 of this
dimensions of the specimen. burner, Figure 3 of this part) shall be part. The length to the pivot for the top
(ii) Frame height. The frame shall be 305 ± 2 mm (12 ± 0.08 in) long with gas burner shall be approximately 1000 mm
115 mm (4.5 in) high, except if tight plugs in each end. Each side of the (40 in).
adjustments are necessary to T shall contain 17 holes equally spaced (v) Frame. Figure 6 of this part shows
accommodate the required burner over a 135 mm length (8.5 mm ± 0.1 mm the frame that holds the burners and
position in paragraph (h)(2)(ii) of this apart; 0.333 ± 0.005 in). The holes on their pivots, which are adjustable
section. The height of the frame shall each side shall begin 8.5 mm (0.33 in) vertically in height. All adjustments
also be adjusted, as necessary, so that from the centerline of the burner head. (burner height, burner arm length from
the burner is no less than 25mm (1 in) The holes shall be 1.45 mm to 1.53 mm the pivot point, counterweight positions
above the supporting surface. (0.058 in to 0.061 in) in diameter (which along the burner arm) are facilitated by
(iii) Frame crosspieces. The frame corresponds to Grade 10 machining the use of knobs or thumbscrews as the
shall be completely open under the practice with a well formed #53 drill set screws. The three point footprint of
foundation except for two crosspieces, bit). The holes shall point 5° out of the the burner frame, with the two forward
25 mm wide (1 in) at the 1⁄3 length plane of the diagram in Figure 3. This points on wheels, facilitates burner
points, except when sagging of the broadens the width of the heat flux movement and burner stability when
specimen between the crosspieces profile imposed on the surface of the stationary.
exceeds 19 mm (3⁄4 in) below the frame. test specimen. (vi) Arms. The metal arms attached to
Minimal additional crosspieces shall (iii) Side surface burner. The T head the burners shall be attached to a
then be added to prevent sagging of the of the side surface burner (vertical separate gas control console by flexible,
specimen. burner) shall be constructed similarly to reinforced plastic tubing.1 The gas
(5) Catch pan. The bed frame feet the top surface burner, as shown in control console is mounted separately
shall rest on a surface of either calcium Figure 4 of this part, except that its so as to facilitate its safe placement
silicate board or fiber cement board, 13 overall length shall be 254 ± 2 mm (10 outside of the test room throughout the
mm (0.5 in) thick, 2.11 m by 1.19 m (83 ± 0.08 in). Each side of the burner head test procedure. The propane gas lines
in by 47 in). The board serves as a catch shall contain 14 holes spaced evenly running between the console and the
surface for any flaming melt/drip over a 110 mm length (8.5 mm ± 0.1 mm burner assembly must be anchored on
material falling from the bed assembly apart; 0.333 ± 0.005 in). The holes shall the assembly before running to the
and may be the location of a pool fire be 1.45 mm to 1.53 mm (0.058 in to burner inlet arms. A 1.5 m ± 25 mm (58
that consumes such materials. This 0.061 in) in diameter (which in ± 1 in) length of flexible, reinforced
surface must be cleaned between tests to corresponds to Grade 10 machining tubing between the anchor point and the
avoid build-up of combustible residues. practice with a well formed #53 drill end of each burner inlet allows free
Lining this surface with aluminum foil bit). The holes shall point 5° out of the movement of the top burner about its
to facilitate cleaning is not plane of the diagram in Figure 4. pivot point. The top burner arm shall
recommended since this might increase (iv) Burner stand-off. The burner
have a pair of moveable cylindrical
fire intensity via reflected radiation. stand-off on each burner shall consist of
(6) Ignition source. (i) General. The a collar fixed by a set screw onto the 1 Fiber-reinforced plastic tubing (6 mm ID by 9.5
ignition source shall consist of two T- inlet tube of the burner head (Figure 5 mm OD; 3 inch ID by inch OD) made of PVC should
shaped burners as shown in Figures 3 of this part). The collar shall hold a 3 be used.
counterweights that are used, as liters per minute (‘‘L/min’’) ± 0.1 L/min counting the number of rotations.3
described below, to adjust the at a pressure of 101 ± 5 kPa (standard Calculate the propane gas flow rate
downward force on the stand-off foot. atmospheric pressure) and a using the recorded time and number of
(vii) Burner head. Each burner head temperature of 22 ± 3 °C. The gas flow rotations (total flow in that time). Use
shall have a separate pilot light rate to the side burner is 6.6 ± 0.05 L/ the pressure and temperature readings
consisting of a 3 mm OD (1⁄8 in OD) min at a pressure of 101 ± 5 kPa to convert to standard conditions.
copper tube with an independently- (standard atmospheric pressure) and a Repeat this measurement for two
controlled supply of propane gas. The temperature of 22 ± 3 °C. The total heat additional meter setting to allow for
tube terminates within 10 mm of the release rate of the burners is 27 kW. calibrating the flowmeter throughout the
center of the burner head. Care must be (b) Calibration of Propane range of interest. Plot the flow versus
taken to set the pilot flame size small Flowmeters. (1) Preparation. Once the meter reading, fit a best line (possibly
enough so as not to heat the test assembly of the burner is completed and quadratic) through these points to find
specimen before the timed burner all the connecting points are checked for the meter setting for a flow of 12.9 LPM
exposure is begun. gas leakage, the most critical task is at the above ‘‘standard conditions.’’
(viii) Flow control system. Each ensuring the exact flow rates of propane Repeat this procedure for ‘‘Burner 2’’
burner shall have a flow control system into the top and side burners, as using three meter readings to find the
of the type shown in Figure 7 of this described in the test protocol. The gas setting that gives a flow rate of 6.6 LPM
part. Propane gas from a source such as flow rates are specified at 12.9 Liters per at the standard conditions. After
a bottle is reduced in pressure to minute (LPM) ± 0.1 LPM and 6.6 LPM completion of the calibration, re-set the
approximately 70 kilopascals (‘‘kPa’’) ± 0.05 LPM for the top and side burners timers to 70 and 50 seconds.
(20 pounds per square inch gage (Burners 1 and 2), respectively, at a (c) Conditioning. Remove the
(‘‘psig’’)) and fed to the system shown pressure of 101 ± 5 kiloPascal (kPa) specimens from any packaging prior to
in Figure 8 of this part. The gas flow to (standard atmospheric pressure) and a conditioning. Specimens shall be
the burner is delivered in a square-wave temperature of 22 ± 3 °C. The rotameters conditioned in air at a temperature
manner (constant flow with rapid onset that are installed in the control box of greater than 18 °C (65 °F) and less than
and termination) by means of the the burner assembly need to be 25 °C (77 °F) and a relative humidity
solenoid valve upstream of the calibrated for accurate measurement of less than 55 percent for at least 48
flowmeter. An interval timer (accurate these flow rates. continuous hours prior to test.
to ± 0.2 s) determines the burner flame (i) The most practical and accurate Specimens shall be supported in a
duration. The pilot light assures that the method of measuring and calibrating the manner to permit free movement of air
burner will ignite when the solenoid flow rate of gases (including propane) is around them during conditioning.
valve opens.2 The gas flow shall be set use of a diaphragm test meter (also (d) Test preparation. (1) General.
using a rotameter type of flowmeter, called a dry test meter). A diaphragm Horizontal air flow at a distance of 0.5
with a 150 mm scale, calibrated for test meter functions based on positive m (20 in) on all sides of the test
propane. When calibrating the displacement of a fixed volume of gas specimen at the mattress top height
flowmeter, take into account that the per rotation and its reading is therefore shall be 0.5 m/s. If there is any visual
flow resistance of the burner holes independent of the type of the gas being evidence that the burner flames are
causes a finite pressure increase in the used. The gas pressure and temperature, disturbed by drafts during their
flowmeter above ambient. (If a however, can have significant impact on exposure durations, the burner regions
calibration at one atmosphere is the measurement of flow rate. must be enclosed on two or more sides
provided by the manufacturer, the (ii) The gas pressure downstream of by at least a triple layer of screen wire.
flowmeter reading, at the internal the rotameters that are installed in the The screens shall be at least 25 cm tall.
pressure existing in the meter, required control box of the burner assembly The screen(s) for the top burner shall sit
to get the flow rates listed below must should be maintained near atmospheric on the mattress top and shall be wide
be corrected, typically by the square pressure (only a few millimeters of enough to extend beyond the area of the
root of the absolute pressure ratio. This water above atmosphere). Therefore, the burner impingement. All screens shall
calls for measuring the actual pressure best location to place the diaphragm test be far enough away (typically 30 cm or
in the flow meters when set near the meter for gas flow calibration is right more) from the burner tubes so as not
correct flow values. A value roughly in downstream of the control box. The to interfere or interact with flame spread
the range of 1 kPa to 3 kPa—5 in to 15 pressure at the propane tank must be set during the burner exposure. The screen
in of water—can be expected.) See at 20 ± 0.5 pounds per square inch gage for the side burner will require a
information on calibration in paragraph (psig). separate support from below. All
(b) of this section. (2) Calibration Procedure. Install the screens shall be removed at the end of
(ix) Gas flow rate. Use propane gas: diaphragm test meter (DTM) the 70 second exposure interval.
The propane shall be minimum 99% downstream of the control box in the (2) Specimen. Remove the test
pure (often described by suppliers as CP line for the top burner. Check all specimen from the conditioning room
or ‘‘chemically pure’’ grade, but this connecting points for gas leakage. Open immediately before it is to be tested.
designation should not be relied on the main valve on the propane tank and Testing shall begin within 20 minutes
since the actual purity may vary by set a pressure of 20 ± 0.5 psig. Set the after removal from the conditioning
supplier). Each burner has a specific timers in the control box for 999 area. Be sure the bed frame is
propane gas flow rate set with its seconds (or the maximum range approximately centered on the catch
respective, calibrated flowmeter. The possible). Record the barometric surface. Place the specimen on the bed
gas flow rate to the top burner is 12.9 pressure. Turn the ‘‘Burner 1’’ switch to frame. Carefully center them on the bed
ON and ignite the top burner. Allow the
2 If the side burner, or more commonly one half gas to flow for 2–3 minutes until the 3 With a diaphragm test meter well-sized to this
of the side burner, fails to ignite quickly, adjust the DTM is stabilized. Record the pressure application, this should be more than five rotations.
position of the igniter, bearing in mind that propane A one liter per rotation meter will require 10 to 15
is heavier than air. The best burner behavior test
and temperature in the DTM. Use a rotations for the flow measurements and greater
assessment is done against an inert surface (to stopwatch to record at least one minute than the minimum of one minute recording time
spread the gas as it would during an actual test). worth of complete rotations while specified here.
frame and on each other. The mattress care must be taken with the set-up (Neither is to protrude past the front
shall be centered on top of the process. face of the burner tubes at this point.)
foundation (see Figure 1 of this part). (h) Burner alignment procedure. (1) Move the burner assembly forward
However, in order to keep the heat flux Preparation. Complete the following (perpendicular to the mattress) until the
exposure the same for the sides of the before starting the alignment procedure: vertical burner lightly contacts the sheet
two components, if the mattress is 1 cm (i) Check that the pivot point for the metal platen. Adjust the height of the
to 2 cm narrower than the foundation, mattress top burner feed tube and the vertical burner on its vertical support
the mattress shall be shifted so that the two metal plates around it are clean and column so as to center the tube on the
side to be exposed is in the same plane well-lubricated so as to allow smooth, crevice between the mattress and the
as the foundation. Refer to Figure 8 of free movement. foundation. (This holds also for pillow
this part. A product having an intended (ii) Set the two burners such that the top mattress tops, i.e., ignore the crevice
sleep surface on only one side shall be 5° out-of-plane angling of the flame jets between the pillow top and the main
tested with the sleeping side up so that makes the jets on the two burners point body of the mattress.)7 Adjust the height
the sleeping surface is exposed to the slightly toward each other. of the horizontal burner until it sits
propane burner. (iii) Check the burner stand-off feet for lightly on top of the sheet metal platen.
straightness and perpendicularity Its burner arm should then be
(e) Burner flow rate/flow timer
between foot pad and support rod and horizontal.
confirmation. Just prior to moving the
to see that they are clean of residue from
burner adjacent to the test specimen, (iii) Move the horizontal burner in/out
a previous test.
briefly ignite each burner at the same (loosen the thumb screw near the pivot
(iv) Have at hand the following items
time, and check that the propane flow to assist in burner set-up: The jig, shown point) until the outer end of the burner
to that burner is set at the appropriate in Figure 10 of this part, for setting the tube is 13 mm to 19 mm (1⁄2 in to 3⁄4 in)
level on its flowmeter to provide the stand-off feet at their proper distances from the corner bend in the platen (this
flows listed in § 1633.7(a)(6)(ix). Check from the front of the burner tube; a 3 is facilitated by putting a pair of lines
that the timers for the burner exposures mm thick piece of flat stock (any on the top of the platen 13 mm and 19
are set to 70 seconds for the top burner material) to assist in checking the mm from the bend and parallel to it).
and 50 seconds for the side burner. For parallelness of the burners to the Tighten the thumb screw.
a new burner assembly, check the mattress surfaces; and a 24 gage (iv) Make the horizontal burner
accuracy of the gas flow timers against stainless steel sheet metal platen that is parallel to the top of the platen (within
a stop watch at these standard time 30 mm (12 in) wide, 610 mm (24 in) 3 mm, 1⁄8 in over the burner tube length)
settings. Set pilot flows to a level that long and has a sharp, precise 90° bend by bending the copper tube section
will not cause them to impinge on 355 mm (14 in) from one 30 mm wide appropriately. Note: After the platen is
sample surfaces. end. Refer to Figure 8 of this part. removed (in paragraph (h)(2)(vii) of this
(f) Location of the gas burners. Place (2) Alignment. (i) Place the burner section), the burner tube may not be
the burner heads so that they are within assembly adjacent to the test specimen. horizontal; this is normal. For mattress/
300 mm (1 ft) of the mid-length of the Place the sheet metal platen on the foundation combinations having
mattress. If there are unique mattress with the shorter side on top. nominally flat, vertical sides, the similar
construction features (e.g., handles, The location shall be within 30 cm (1 adjustment for the vertical burner is
zippers) within the burner placement ft) of the longitudinal center of the intended to make that burner parallel to
zone, the burner shall impinge on this mattress. The intended location of the the sides and vertical. Variations in the
feature. The general layout for the room stand-off foot of the top burner shall not shape of mattresses and foundations can
configuration is shown in Figure 2 of be in a dimple or crease caused by the cause the platen section on the side to
this part. For a quilted mattress top the quilting of the mattress top. Press the be non-flat and/or non-vertical. If the
stand-off foot pad must alight on a high, platen laterally inward from the edge of platen is flat and vertical, make the
flat area between dimples or quilting the mattress so that its side makes vertical burner parallel to the side of the
thread runs. The same is to be true for contact with either the top and bottom platen (± 3 mm) by bending its copper
the side burner if that surface is quilted. edge or the vertical side of the mattress.5 tube section as needed. If not, make the
If a specimen design presents a conflict Use a 20 cm (8 in) strip of duct tape side burner parallel to the mattress/
in placement such that both burners (platen to mattress top) to hold the foundation sides by the best visual
cannot be placed between local platen firmly inward in this position. estimate after the platen has been
depressions in the surface, the top (ii) With both burner arms horizontal removed.
burner shall be placed at the highest flat (pinned in this position), fully retract (v) Move the burner assembly
surface. the stand-off feet of both burners and, if perpendicularly back away from the
(g) Burner set-up. The burners shall be necessary, the pilot tubes as well.6 mattress about 30 cm (1 ft). Set the two
placed in relation to the mattress and stand-off feet to their respective
5 Mattresses having a convex side are treated
foundation surfaces in the manner distances using the jig designed for this
separately since the platen cannot be placed in the
shown in Figure 9 of this part, i.e., at the above manner. Use the platen only to set the top
purpose. Install the jig fully onto the
nominal spacings shown there and with burner parallelness. Set the in/out distance of the burner tube (on the same side of the
the burner tubes nominally parallel 4 to top burner to the specification in paragraph tube as the stand-off foot), with its side
(h)(1)(iii). Set the side burner so that it is edges parallel to the burner feed arm, at
the mattress surfaces on which they approximately (visually) parallel to the flat side
impinge. Since the heat flux levels seen surface of the foundation below the mattress/
by the test specimen surfaces depend on foundation crevice once its foot is in contact with tube. This way they will not interfere with
the materials in the crevice area. The burner will positioning of the tube but their flame will readily
burner spacing, as well as gas flow rate, ignite the burner tubes.
not be vertical in this case. If the foundation side
is also non-flat, set the side burner vertical (± 3 mm, 7 For tests of the mattress alone, set the center of
4 The top burner will tend to be tangential to the as above) using a bubble level as a reference. The the side burner at the lower edge of the mattress OR
mattress surface at the burner mid-length; this side surface convexities will then bring the bowed the top (upper tip) of the side burner 25 mm (1 in)
orientation will not necessarily be parallel to the out sections of the specimen closer to the burner below the top edge of the mattress, whichever is
overall average mattress surface orientation nor will tube than the stand-off foot. lower. This prevents inappropriate (excessive)
it necessarily be horizontal. This is a result of the 6 The pilot tubes can normally be left with their exposure of the top surface of the mattress to the
shape of the mattress top surface. ends just behind the plane of the front of the burner side burner.
about the position where one end of the cause the burner flames or pilot flames Check/adjust propane flow rates (DO
foot will be. Loosen the set screw and to move around, place screens around THIS ESSENTIAL TASK
slide the foot out to the point where it the burners so as to minimize these IMMEDIATELY. Experience shows the
is flush with the bottom end of the jig. disturbances.10 These screens (and any flow will not remain the same from test-
Tighten the set screw. Make sure the holders) must be far enough away from to-test in spite of fixed valve positions
long axis of the foot is parallel to the the burners (about 30 cm or more for the so adjustment is essential.) If not using
burner tube. It is essential to use the top, less for the side) so that they do not video, one photo must be taken within
correct side of the spacer jig with each interact with the flames growing on the the first 45 seconds of starting the
burner. Double check this. The jig must specimen surfaces. For the top surface burners.
be clearly marked. burner, at least a triple layer of window (6) End of burner exposure. When the
(vi) Set the downward force of the screen approximately 30 cm high sitting burners go out (after 70 seconds for the
horizontal burner. Remove the retainer vertically on the mattress top (Figure 9 longer exposure), carefully lift the top
pin near the pivot. While holding the of this part) has proved satisfactory. For burner tube away from the specimen
burner feed arm horizontal using a the side burner at least a triple layer of surface, producing as little disturbance
spring scale 8 hooked onto the screen approximately 15 cm wide, as possible to the specimen. Turn off
thumbscrew holding the stand-off foot, formed into a square-bottom U-shape power to both timers. Remove all
move the small and/or large weights on and held from below the burner has screens. Turn off pilots at their ball
the feed tube appropriately so that the proved satisfactory. Individual valves. Remove the burner assembly
spring scale reads 170 g to 225 g (6 oz laboratories will have to experiment from the specimen area to facilitate the
to 8 oz). with the best arrangement for video camera view of the full side of the
(vii) Remove the sheet metal platen suppressing flow disturbances in their specimen. In the case of the room-based
(and tape holding it). facility. configurations, remove the burner
(viii) Hold the horizontal burner up (i) Running the test. (1) Charge the assembly from the room to protect it.
while sliding the burner assembly hose line to be used for fire suppression (j) Video Recording/Photographs.
forward until its stand-off foot just with water.
touches the mattress and/or the Place a video or still frame camera so as
(2) Burner Preparation. (i) Turn AC to have (when the lens is zoomed out)
foundation,9 then release the horizontal power on; set propane pressure to 20
burner. The outer end of the burner tube just slightly more than a full-length
psig at bottle; set timers to 70 s (top view of the side of the test specimen
should extend at least 6 mm to 12 mm burner) and 50 s (side burner); with
(1⁄4 in to 1⁄2 in) out beyond the being ignited, including a view of the
burner assembly well-removed from test flame impingement area while the
uppermost corner/edge of the mattress
specimen, ignite burners and check that, burner assembly is present. The view
so that the burner flames will hit the
WHEN BOTH ARE ON AT THE SAME must also include the catch pan so that
edge. (For a pillow top mattress, this
TIME, the flowmeters are set to the it is clear whether any melt pool fire in
means the outer edge of the pillow top
values that give the requisite propane this pan participates significantly in the
portion and the distance may then be
gas flow rates to each burner. Turn off growth of fire on the test specimen. The
greater than 6 mm to 12 mm.) If this is
burners. Set pilot tubes just behind front camera shall include a measure of
not the case, move the burner assembly
surface of burners; set pilot flow valves elapsed time to the nearest 1 second for
(perpendicular to the mattress side)—
for ca. 2 cm flames. Turn off pilots. video and 1 minute for still frame
not the horizontal burner alone—until it
(ii) Position burner on test specimen within its recorded field of view
is. Finally, move the vertical burner
and remove sheet metal platen. (preferably built into the camera). For
tube until its stand-off foot just touches
(iii) Place screens around both the room-based configuration, the
the side of the mattress and/or the
burners. required full-length view of the sample
foundation. (Use the set screw near the
(3) Start pilots. Open pilot ball valves may require an appropriately placed
vertical burner pivot.)
(ix) Make sure all thumbscrews are one at a time and ignite pilots with window, sealed with heat resistant
adequately tightened. Care must be hand-held flame; adjust flame size if glass, in one of the room walls. Place the
taken, once this set-up is achieved, to necessary being very careful to avoid a camera at a height just sufficient to give
avoid bumping the burner assembly or jet flame that could prematurely ignite a view of the top of the specimen while
disturbing the flexible lines that bring the test specimen (Note that after a long remaining under any smoke layer that
propane to it. interval between tests the low pilot flow may develop in the room. The specimen
(x) If there is any indication of flow rate will require a long time to displace shall be brightly lit so that the image
disturbances in the test facility which air in the line and achieve the steady- does not lose detail to over-exposed
state flame size.) flames. This will require a pair or more
8 An acceptable spring scale has a calibrated (4) Start recording systems. With the of 1 kW photo flood lights illuminating
spring mounted within a holder and hooks on each calorimetry system fully operational, the viewed side of the specimen. The
end. after instrument zeroes and spans, start
9 The foot should depress the surface it first
lights may need to shine into the room
the video lights and video camera and from the outside via sealed windows.
contacts by no more than 1 mm to 2 mm. This is
best seen up close, not from the rear of the burner data logging systems two minutes before (k) Cessation of Test. (1) The heat
assembly. However, if a protruding edge is the first burner ignition (or, if not using video, release rate shall be recorded and video/
item contacted, compress it until the foot is in the take a picture of the setup).
plane of the mattress/foundation vertical sides. The
photographs taken until either 30
intent here is that the burner be spaced a fixed
(5) Initiate test. Start test exposure by minutes has elapsed since the start of
distance from the vertical mattress/foundation simultaneously turning on power to the burner exposure or a fire develops
sides, not from an incidental protrusion. Similarly, both timers (timers will turn off burners of such size as to require suppression
if there is a wide crevice in this area which would at appropriate times). Also start a 30
allow the foot to move inward and thereby place the for the safety of the facility.
minute timer of the test duration.
burners too close to the vertical mattress/foundation (2) Note the time and nature of any
sides, it will be necessary to use the spacer jig unusual behavior that is not fully within
(rather than the stand-off foot) above or below this 10 The goal here is to keep the burner flames
crevice to set the proper burner spacing. Compress impinging on a fixed area of the specimen surface
the view of the video camera. This is
the mattress/foundation surface 1 mm to 2 mm rather than wandering back and forth over a larger most easily done by narration to a
when using the jig for this purpose. area. camcorder.
(3) Run the heat release rate system effective date, taking no action, relying (k) Dressing table pad. Pad to cushion
and datalogger until the fire has been on a voluntary standard, and requiring a baby on top of a dressing table.
fully out for several minutes to allow labeling alone (without any performance (l) Drop-arm loveseat. When side arms
the system zero to be recorded. requirements). The alternatives of taking are in vertical position, this piece is a
(l) Use of alternate apparatus. no action, relying on a voluntary loveseat. The adjustable arms can be
Mattress sets may be tested using test standard (if one existed), and requiring lowered to one of four positions for a
apparatus that differs from that labeling alone are unlikely to adequately chaise lounge effect or a single sleeper.
described in this section if the reduce the risk. Requiring a criterion of The vertical back support always
manufacturer obtains and provides to 25 MJ total heat release during the first remains upright and stationary (see
the Commission data demonstrating that 10 minutes of the test instead of 15 MJ Figure 11).
tests using the alternate apparatus would likely reduce the estimated (m) Futon. A flexible mattress
during the procedures specified in this benefits (deaths and injuries reduced) generally used on the floor that can be
section yield failing results as often as, without having much effect on costs. folded or rolled up for storage. It usually
or more often than, tests using the Both options of increasing the duration consists of resilient material covered by
apparatus specified in the standard. The of the test from 30 minutes to 60 ticking.
manufacturer shall provide the minutes and decreasing the peak rate of (n) High riser. This is a frame of sofa
supporting data to the Office of heat release from 200 kW to 150 kW seating height with two equal size
Compliance, Recalls & Compliance would likely increase costs significantly mattresses without a backrest. The
Division, U.S. Consumer Product Safety without substantial increase in benefits. frame slides out with the lower mattress
Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Requiring production testing would also and rises to form a double or two single
Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Staff will likely increase costs. Therefore, the beds (see Figure 11).
review the data and determine whether Commission finds that an open flame (o) Infant carrier and lounge pad. Pad
the alternate apparatus may be used. standard for mattresses with the testing to cushion a baby in an infant carrier.
requirements and criteria that are (p) Mattress foundation. This is a
§ 1633.8 Findings. ticking covered structure used to
(a) General. In order to issue a specified in the Commission rule is the
least burdensome requirement that support a mattress or sleep surface. The
flammability standard under the FFA, structure may include constructed
the FFA requires the Commission to would prevent or adequately reduce the
risk of injury for which the regulation is frames, foam, box springs or other
make certain findings and to include materials used alone or in combination.
these in the regulation, 15 U.S.C. being promulgated.
(q) Murphy bed. A style of sleep
1193(j)(2). These findings are discussed § 1633.9 Glossary of terms. system where the mattress and
in this section. (a) Absorbent pad. Pad used on top of foundation are fastened to the wall and
(b) Voluntary standards. No findings mattress. Designed to absorb moisture/ provide a means to retract or rotate the
concerning compliance with and body fluids thereby reducing skin bed assembly into the wall to release
adequacy of a voluntary standard are irritation, can be one time use. more floor area for other uses.
necessary because no relevant voluntary (b) Basket pad. Cushion for use in an (r) Pillow. Cloth bag filled with
standard addressing the risk of injury infant basket. resilient material such as feathers,
that is addressed by this regulation has (c) Bunk beds. A tier of beds, usually down, sponge rubber, urethane, or fiber
been adopted and implemented. two or three, in a high frame complete used as the support for the head of a
(c) Relationship of benefits to costs. with mattresses (see Figure 11 of this person.
The Commission estimates the potential part). (s) Playpen pad. Cushion used on the
total lifetime benefits of a mattress that (d) Car bed. Portable bed used to carry bottom of a playpen.
complies with this standard to range a baby in an automobile. (t) Portable crib. Smaller size than a
from $45 to $57 per mattress set (based (e) Carriage pad. Cushion to go into a conventional crib. Can usually be
on a 10 year mattress life and a 3% baby carriage. converted into a playpen.
discount rate). The Commission (f) Chaise lounge. An upholstered (u) Quilted means stitched with
estimates total resource costs of the couch chair or a couch with a chair thread or by fusion through the ticking
standard to range from $8 to $22 per back. It has a permanent back rest, no and one or more layers of material.
mattress. This yields net benefits of $23 arms, and sleeps one (see Figure 11). (v) Roll-away-bed. Portable bed which
to $50 per mattress set. The Commission (g) Convertible sofa. An upholstered has frame that folds with the mattress
estimates that aggregate lifetime benefits sofa that converts into an adult sized for compact storage.
associated with all mattresses produced bed. Mattress unfolds out and up from (w) Sleep lounge. Upholstered seating
the first year the standard becomes under the seat cushioning (see Figure section which is mounted on a frame.
effective range from $1,024 to $1,307 11). May have bolster pillows along the wall
million, and that aggregate resource (h) Corner groups. Two twin size as backrests or may have attached
costs associated with these mattresses bedding sets on frames, usually headrests (see Figure 11).
range from $175 to $511 million, slipcovered, and abutted to a corner (x) Stroller pad. Cushion used in a
yielding net benefits of about $514 to table. They also usually have loose baby stroller.
$1,132 million. Accordingly, the bolsters slipcovered (see Figure 11). (y) Sofa bed. These are pieces in
Commission finds that the benefits from (i) Crib bumper. Padded cushion which the back of the sofa swings down
the regulation bear a reasonable which goes around three or four sides flat with the seat to form the sleeping
relationship to its costs. inside a crib to protect the baby. Can surface. Some sofa beds have bedding
(d) Least burdensome requirement. also be used in a playpen. boxes for storage of bedding. There are
The Commission considered the (j) Daybed. Daybed has foundation, two types: the one-piece, where the back
following alternatives: alternative usually supported by coil or flat springs, and seat are upholstered as a unit,
maximum peak heat release rate and test mounted between arms on which supplying an unbroken sleeping surface;
duration, alternative total heat released mattress is placed. It has permanent and the two-piece, where back and seat
in the first 10 minutes of the test, arms, no backrest, and sleeps one (see are upholstered separately (see Figure
mandatory production testing, a longer Figure 11). 11 of this part).
(z) Sofa lounge—(includes glideouts). facility, type of test room, test room change in any component, material, or
Upholstered seating section is mounted conditions, time that sample spent out method of assembly will not cause the
on springs and in a frame that permit it of conditioning area before starting test, subordinate prototype to exceed the test
to be pulled out for sleeping. Has prototype or production identification criteria specified in § 1633.3(b).
upholstered backrest bedding box that is number, and test data including the (5) Identification, composition, and
hinged. Glideouts are single sleepers peak rate of heat release, total heat details of the application of any flame
with sloping seats and backrests. Seat release in first 10 minutes, a graphic retardant treatments and/or inherently
pulls out from beneath back and evens depiction of the peak rate of heat release flame resistant fibers or other materials
up to supply level sleeping surface (see and total heat release over time. These employed in mattress components.
Figure 11). records shall include the name and (c) Pooling confirmation test records.
(aa) Studio couch. Consists of signature of person conducting the test, In addition to the test and prototype
upholstered seating section on the date of the test, and a certification records specified in paragraphs (a) and
upholstered foundation. Many types by the person overseeing the testing as (b) of this section, the following records
convert to twin beds (see Figure 11). to the test results and that the test was shall be maintained:
(bb) Studio divan. Twin size carried out in accordance with the (1) The prototype identification
upholstered seating section with Standard. For confirmation tests, the number assigned by the qualified
foundation is mounted on metal bed identification number must be that of prototype manufacturer;
frame. Has no arms or backrest, and the prototype tested. (2) Name and complete physical
sleeps one (see Figure 11 of this part). (2) Video and/or a minimum of eight address of the qualified prototype
(cc) Trundle bed. A low bed which is photographs of the testing of each manufacturer;
rolled under a larger bed. In some lines, mattress set, in accordance with (3) Copy of qualified prototype test
the lower bed springs up to form a § 1633.7 (one taken before the test starts, records, and records required by
double or two single beds as in a high one taken within 45 seconds of the start paragraph (b)(2) of this section; and
riser (see Figure 11). of the test, and the remaining six taken (4) In the case of imported mattress
(dd) Tufted means buttoned or laced at five minute intervals, starting at 5 sets, the importer shall be responsible
through the ticking and upholstery minutes and ending at 30 minutes), with for maintaining the records specified in
material and/or core, or having the the prototype identification number or paragraph (b) of this section for
ticking and loft material and/or core production lot identification number of confirmation testing that has been
drawn together at intervals by any other the mattress set, date and time of test, performed with respect to mattress sets
method which produces a series of and name and location of testing facility produced by each foreign manufacturing
depressions on the surface. clearly displayed. facility whose mattress sets that
(ee) Twin studio divan. Frames which (b) Prototype records. In addition to importer is importing.
glide out (but not up) and use seat the records specified in paragraph (a) of (d) Quality assurance records. In
cushions, in addition to upholstered this section, the following records shall addition to the records required by
foundation to sleep two. Has neither be maintained for each qualified, paragraph (a) of this section, the
arms nor back rest (see Figure 11). confirmed and subordinate prototype: following quality assurance records
(ff) Flip or sleeper chair. Chair that (1) Unique identification number for shall be maintained:
unfolds to be used for sleeping, the qualified or confirmed prototype (1) A written copy of the
typically has several connecting fabric and a list of the unique identification manufacturer’s quality assurance
covered, solid foam core segments. numbers of each subordinate prototype procedures;
based on the qualified or confirmed (2) Records of any production tests
Subpart B—Rules and Regulations prototype. Subordinate prototypes that performed. Production test records must
differ from each other only be length or be maintained and shall include, in
§ 1633.10 Definitions. width may share the same identification addition to the requirements of
(a) Standard means the Standard for number. paragraph (a) of this section, an assigned
the Flammability (Open-Flame) of (2) A detailed description of all production lot identification number
Mattress Sets (16 CFR part 1633, subpart materials, components, and methods of and the identification number of the
A). assembly for each qualified, confirmed qualified, confirmed or subordinate
(b) The definition of terms set forth in and subordinate prototype. Such prototype associated with the specimen
the § 1633.2 of the Standard shall also description shall include the tested;
apply to this section. specifications of all materials and (3) For each qualified, confirmed and
components, and the name and subordinate prototype, the number of
§ 1633.11 Records. complete physical address of each mattress sets in each production lot
(a) Test and manufacturing records C material and component supplier. based on that prototype;
general. Every manufacturer and any (3) A list of which models and (4) The start and end dates of
other person initially introducing into production lots of mattress sets are production of that lot; and
commerce mattress sets subject to the represented by each qualified, (5) Component, material and assembly
standard, irrespective of whether confirmed and/or subordinate prototype records. Every manufacturer conducting
guarantees are issued relative thereto, identification number. tests and/or technical evaluations of
shall maintain the following records in (4) For subordinate prototypes, the components and materials and/or
English at a location in the United prototype identification number of the methods of assembly must maintain
States: qualified or confirmed prototype on detailed records of such tests and
(1) Test results and details of each test which the mattress set is based, and, at evaluations.
performed by or for that manufacturer a minimum, the manufacturing (e) Record retention requirements.
(including failures), whether for specifications and a description of the The records required under this Section
qualification, confirmation, or materials substituted, photographs or shall be maintained by the manufacturer
production, in accordance with physical specimens of the substituted (including importers) for as long as
§ 1633.7. Details shall include: name materials, and documentation based on mattress sets based on the prototype in
and complete physical address of test objectively reasonable criteria that the question are in production and shall be
retained for 3 years thereafter. Records (i) For mattresses intended to be sold (c) The foundation label required in
shall be available upon the request of without a foundation, the label shall paragraph (a) of this section must
Commission staff. state ‘‘THIS MATTRESS IS INTENDED measure 23⁄4″ in width and the length
(f) Record location requirements. (1) TO BE USED WITHOUT A can increase as needed for varying
For mattress sets produced in the FOUNDATION.’’ See Figures 16 and 17 information. The label must be white
United States, all records required by of this part; or with black text. The label shall contain
this section must be maintained at the (ii) For mattresses intended to be sold the following:
plant or factory at which the mattress with a foundation, the label shall state (1) The information specified in
sets are manufactured or assembled. ‘‘THIS MATTRESS IS INTENDED TO paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
(2) For mattress sets produced outside BE USED WITH FOUNDATION(S): section; and
of the United States, a copy of all <Foundation ID>.’’ See Figures 12 and (2) The words ‘‘Foundation ID:’’
records required by this section must be 13 of this part; or followed by a distinct name and/or
maintained at a U.S. location, which (iii) For mattresses intended to be sold number that corresponds to the name
must be identified on the mattress set both alone and with a foundation, the and/or number used on the mattress.
label as specified in § 1633.12(a). label shall state ‘‘THIS MATTRESS IS This text must be in 10-point or larger
INTENDED TO BE USED WITHOUT A bold Arial/Helvetica font, and the
§ 1633.12 Labeling.
FOUNDATION OR WITH foundation identifier must be
(a) Each mattress set subject to the underlined. See Figures 12 through 15
Standard shall bear a permanent, FOUNDATION(S): <Foundation ID>.’’
See Figures 14 and 15 of this part. of this part.
conspicuous, and legible label(s) (d) The statements specified in
containing the following information (b) The mattress label required in
paragraph (a) of this section must paragraphs (a)(7(i) and (a)(7)(ii), and
(and no other information) in English: (a)(7)(iii) of this section may be
(1) Name of the manufacturer, or for measure 23⁄4″ in width and the length
can increase as needed for varying translated into any other language and
imported mattress sets, the name of the
information. The label must be white printed on the reverse (blank) side of the
foreign manufacturer and importer;
(2)(i) For mattress sets produced in with black text. The label text shall label.
comply with the following format (e) No person, other than the ultimate
the United States, the complete physical
requirements: consumer, shall remove or mutilate, or
address of the manufacturer.
(ii) For imported mattress sets, the (1) All information specified in cause or participate in the removal or
complete address of the foreign paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this mutilation of, any label required by this
manufacturer, including country, and section must be in 6-point font or larger section to be affixed to any item.
the complete physical address of the with mixed uppercase and lowercase § 1633.13 Tests for guaranty purposes,
importer or the United States location letters. The text must be left justified compliance with this section, and ‘‘one of
where the required records are and begin 1⁄4″ from left edge of label. See a kind’’ exemption.
maintained if different from the Figure 12–17 of this part. (a) Tests for guaranty purposes.
importer; (2) The statement specified in Reasonable and representative tests for
(3) Month and year of manufacture; paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this section must the purpose of issuing a guaranty under
(4) Model identification; be in 10-point Arial/Helvetica font or section 8 of the Flammable Fabrics Act,
(5) Prototype identification number larger, uppercase letters with the words 15 U.S.C. 1197, for mattress sets subject
for the mattress set; ‘‘WITHOUT A FOUNDATION’’ bolded to the Standard shall be the tests
(6) A certification that the mattress
and the word ‘‘WITHOUT’’ in italics. performed to show compliance with the
complies with this standard.
The text shall be centered in a text box Standard.
(i) For mattresses intended to be sold
without a foundation, a certification with the width measuring 21⁄2″ and the (b) Compliance with this section. No
stating ‘‘This mattress meets the length increasing as needed. See Figures person subject to the Flammable Fabrics
requirements of 16 CFR part 1633 16 and 17 of this part. Act shall manufacture for sale, import,
(federal flammability (open flame) (3) The statement specified in distribute, or otherwise market or
standard for mattresses) when used paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section must handle any mattress set which is not in
without a foundation’’; or be in 10-point Arial/Helvetica font or compliance with the provisions under
(ii) For mattresses intended to be sold larger in uppercase letters. The Subpart B.
with a foundation, a certification stating foundation identifier should be in 12- (c) ‘‘One of a kind’’ exemption for
‘‘This mattress meets the requirements point font or larger, bolded, and physician prescribed mattresses. (1)(i) A
of 16 CFR part 1633 (federal underlined. The text shall be centered mattress set manufactured in
flammability (open flame) standard for in a text box with the width measuring accordance with a physician’s written
mattresses) when used with foundation 21⁄2″ and the length increasing as prescription or manufactured in
<ID>.’’ Such foundation(s) shall be needed. See Figures 12 and 13 of this accordance with other comparable
clearly identified by a simple and part. written medical therapeutic
distinct name and/or number on the (4) The statement specified in specification, to be used in connection
mattress label; or paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of this section must with the treatment or management of a
(iii) For mattresses intended to be sold be in 10-point or larger Arial/Helvetica named individual’s physical illness or
both alone and with a foundation, a font, uppercase letters with the words injury, shall be considered a ‘‘one of a
certification stating ‘‘This mattress ‘‘WITHOUT A FOUNDATION OR’’ kind mattress’’ and shall be exempt
meets the requirements of 16 CFR part bolded and the word ‘‘WITHOUT’’ in from testing under the Standard
1633 (federal flammability (open flame) italics. The foundation identifier should pursuant to § 1633.7 thereof: Provided,
standard for mattresses) when used be in 12-point font or larger, bolded, and that the mattress set bears a permanent,
without a foundation or with underlined. The text shall be centered conspicuous and legible label which
foundation(s) <ID>.’’; and in a text box with the width measuring states:
(7) A statement identifying whether 21⁄2″ and the length increasing as WARNING: This mattress set may be
the manufacturer intends the mattress to needed. See Figures 14 and 15 of this subject to a large fire if exposed to an open
be sold alone or with a foundation. part. flame. It was manufactured in accordance
with a physician’s prescription and has not on the label shall be in a color which a copy of the written prescription or
been tested under the Federal Standard for contrasts with the background of the other comparable written medical
the Flammability (Open-Flame) of Mattress label. The warning statement which therapeutic specification for such
Sets (16 CFR part 1633).
appears on the label must also be mattress set during a period of three
(ii) Such labeling must be attached to conspicuously displayed on the invoice years, measured from the date of
the mattress set so as to remain on or or other sales papers that accompany manufacture.
affixed thereto for the useful life of the the mattress set in commerce from the
mattress set. The label must be at least manufacturer to the final point of sale (3) For purposes of this regulation the
40 square inches (250 sq. cm) with no to a consumer. term physician shall mean a physician,
linear dimension less than 5 inches (2) The manufacturer of a mattress set chiropractor or osteopath licensed or
(12.5 cm). The letters in the word exempted from testing under this otherwise permitted to practice by any
‘‘WARNING’’ shall be no less than 0.5 paragraph (c) shall, in lieu of the records State of the United States.
inch (1.27 cm) in height and all letters required to be kept by § 1633.10, retain BILLING CODE 6355–01–P
ER15MR06.000</GPH>
ER15MR06.001</GPH>
ER15MR06.002</GPH>
ER15MR06.003</GPH>
ER15MR06.004</GPH>
ER15MR06.005</GPH>
ER15MR06.006</GPH>
ER15MR06.007</GPH>
ER15MR06.008</GPH>
ER15MR06.009</GPH>
ER15MR06.010</GPH>
ER15MR06.011</GPH>
ER15MR06.012</GPH>
ER15MR06.013</GPH>
BILLING CODE 6355–01–C ‘‘Final Rule for the Flammability (Open 4. Memorandum from David Cobb, LSC, to
Dated: March 3, 2006. Flame) of Mattress Sets,’’ January 13, 2006. Allyson Tenney, ESFS, ‘‘Durability of Flame
2. Memorandum from Allyson Tenney, ES, Retardant Chemicals in Mattress Barriers
Todd Stevenson, to Margaret Neily, Engineering Sciences, After Repeated Insults with Synthetic Urine,’’
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety ‘‘Technical Rationale for the Standard for the December 12, 2005.
Commission. Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets 5. Memorandum from Diane Porter, LS, to
and Responses to Related Public Comments,’’ Allyson Tenney, ES, ‘‘Mattress
List of Relevant Documents

January 6, 2006. Flammability—Suggested Revisions to
1. Briefing memorandum from Margaret 3. Memorandum from Linda Smith and Proposed 16 CFR Part 1633 Standard for the
Neily, Project Manager, Directorate for David Miller, EPI, Updated Estimates of Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattresses and
Engineering Sciences, to the Commission, Residential Fire Losses Involving Mattresses Mattress/Foundation Sets,’’ January 6, 2006.
ER15MR06.014</GPH>
and Bedding, December 2005.
6. Terrance R. Karels, EC, to Margaret L. 13. Memorandum from Michael Babich, foundation Sets; Notice of Proposed
Neily, ES, ‘‘Mattress Update,’’ December 7, HS, to Margaret Neily, ‘‘Response to Public Rulemaking,’’ list of comments on CF 05–3–
2005. Comments on Mattresses—Toxicity of Flame 1, August 23, 2005.
7. Memorandum from Soumaya Tohamy, Retardant Chemicals,’’ January 9, 2006. 20. Memorandum from Jason Hartman, CE,
EC, to Margaret Neily, Project Manager, 14. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, to Margaret Neily, Director ESFS, ‘‘Changes
‘‘Final Regulatory Analysis Staff’s Draft Final EC, ‘‘Environmental Assessment of a Draft to the Labeling Provision of the Proposed
Standard to Address Open Flame Ignitions of Proposed Open-Flame Ignition Resistance Open Flame Mattress Standard,’’ December
Mattress Sets,’’ January 10, 2006. Standard for Mattresses,’’ October 27, 2004. 20, 2005.
8. Memorandum from Soumaya Tohamy, 15. Memorandum from Patricia Semple, 21. Memorandum from Sarah B. Brown,
EC, to Margaret Neily, Project Manager, Executive Director, CPSC, to the ESHF, to Margaret Neily, Project Manager,
‘‘Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Commission, ‘‘Finding of No Significant
‘‘Mattress Label Format and Layout
Staff’s Draft Final Standard to Address Open Impact from Implementation of the Proposed
Justification,’’ December 13, 2005.
Flame Ignitions of Mattress Sets,’’ January 10, Open-Flame Ignition Resistance Standard for
Mattresses and Mattress/Foundation Sets,’’ 22. Memorandum from Jason Hartman, CE,
2006. to Margaret Neily, Director ESFS, ‘‘Staff
November 19, 2004.
9. Memorandum from Soumaya M. Response to Compliance-Related Comments
16. Peer review comments on the CPSC
Tohamy, EC, to Margaret L. Neily, ES, ‘‘Staff on NPR for Open Flame Mattress Standard,’’
Memo ‘‘Quantitative Assessment of Potential
Response to Economic Comments on NPR for December 14, 2005.
Health Effects From the Use of Fire Retardant
Open Flame Mattress Standard,’’ January 10, Chemicals in Mattresses,’’ Lead authors: 23. Memorandum from Jonathan D.
2006. Lynne Haber, TERA Mike Jayjock, The Midgett, ESHF, to Margaret L. Neily, Project
10. Memorandum from Robert Franklin, Lifeline Group. Manager, ‘‘Human Factors Affecting
EC, to Margaret L. Neily, ES, ‘‘Updated 17. Memorandum from Martha A. Kosh, Sampling on Mattress Surfaces,’’ December
Environmental Information,’’ December 14, OS, to ES, ‘‘Standard to Address Open Flame 12, 2005.
2005. Ignition of Mattresses/Bedding; ANPR,’’ List 24. Memorandum from Bharat Bhooshan,
11. Memorandum from Treye Thomas and of comments on CF 02–1, December 13, 2001. LSC, to Treye Thomas, HS, ‘‘Vinylidene
Patricia Brundage, HS, ‘‘Quantitative 18. Memorandum from Martha A. Kosh, Chloride (VC) Testing in Mattress-barrier
Assessment of Health Effects from the Use of OS, to ES, ‘‘Standard for the Flammability Samples,’’ December 12, 2005.
Flame Retardant (FR) Chemicals in (Open Flame) of Mattresses and Mattress/ 25. Memorandum from David Cobb, LSC,
Mattresses,’’ January 9, 2006. foundation Sets; Notice of Proposed to Treye Thomas, HS, ‘‘Migration of Flame
12. Memorandum from Treye A. Thomas Rulemaking,’’ List of comments on CF 05–1, Retardant Chemicals in Mattress Barriers,’’
and Patricia Brundage, HS, to Margaret Neily, March 31, 2005. December 12, 2005.
‘‘Response to TERA Comments on 19. Memorandum from Martha A. Kosh,
Mattresses—Toxicity of Flame Retardant OS, to ES, ‘‘Standard for the Flammability [FR Doc. 06–2206 Filed 3–14–06; 8:45 am]
Chemicals,’’ January 9, 2006. (Open Flame) of Mattresses and Mattress/ BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

Rule: Flammable Fabrics Act: Mattresses and Mattress and Foundation Sets Flammability (Open Flame) Standard

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule: Flammable Fabrics Act: Mattresses and Mattress and Foundation Sets Flammability (Open Flame) Standard

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wednesday,

March 15, 2006

upholstered furniture do not require FR- complying mattress sets.

and enforcement) are estimated to be to $511 million ($7.67 to $22.46 times

This standard prescribes a

List of Relevant Documents

and Bedding, December 2005.

You might also like