[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13471-13523]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15mr06-31]
[[Page 13471]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Consumer Product Safety Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16 CFR Part 1633
Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets; Final Rule
[[Page 13472]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1633
Final Rule: Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of
Mattress Sets
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (``Commission'') is
issuing a flammability standard under the authority of the Flammable
Fabrics Act. This new standard establishes performance requirements
based on research conducted by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (``NIST''). Mattresses and mattress and foundation sets
(``mattress sets'') that comply with the requirements will generate a
smaller size fire with a slower growth rate, thus reducing the
possibility of flashover occurring. These improved mattresses should
result in significant reductions in deaths and injuries associated with
the risk of mattress fires. The Commission estimates that the standard
could limit the size of mattress fires to the extent that 240 to 270
deaths and 1,150 to 1,330 injuries could potentially be eliminated
annually. As discussed in the preamble, this means that the standard
could yield lifetime net benefits of $23 to $50 per mattress or
aggregate lifetime net benefits for all mattresses produced in the
first year of the standard of $514 million to $1,132 million.
DATES: The rule will become effective on July 1, 2007 and applies to
mattress sets manufactured, imported, or renovated on or after that
date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Hartman, Office of Compliance,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway,
Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504-7591; e-mail
jhartman@cpsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The Commission is issuing this flammability standard to reduce
deaths and injuries related to mattress fires, particularly those
initially ignited by open flame sources such as lighters, candles and
matches.\1\ Although the Commission has a flammability standard
directed toward cigarette ignition of mattresses, 16 CFR Part 1632, a
significant number of mattress fires are ignited by open flame sources
and are not directly addressed by that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chairman Hal Stratton and Commissioner Nancy Nord issued a
joint statement, and Commissioner Thomas H. Moore issued a separate
statement. These are available from the Commission's Office of the
Secretary (Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland
20814; telephone 301-504-7293; or e-mail: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov) or from
the Commission's Web site, http://www.cpsc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 11, 2001, the Commission issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (``ANPR'') concerning the open flame ignition of
mattresses/bedding. 66 FR 51886. CPSC, industry, and the California
Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (``CBHF'') worked
with National Institute of Standards and Technology (``NIST''), which
conducted research to develop a test method that could be included in a
standard to address open flame ignition of mattresses. On January 13,
2005, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'')
proposing a flammability standard based on the NIST research. 70 FR
2470. Comments received in response to the NPR are discussed in section
H of this notice.
The characteristics of mattress/bedding fires and research
conducted to develop the standard are discussed in detail in the NPR,
70 FR 2470, and in the staff's technical memoranda supporting this
rulemaking. Because a mattress contains a substantial amount of
flammable materials, if it (one that does not meet the standard)
ignites in a bedroom fire the mattress will burn rapidly, and will
quickly reach dangerous flashover conditions within a few minutes.
Flashover is the point at which the entire contents of a room are
ignited simultaneously by radiant heat, making conditions in the room
untenable and safe exit from the room impossible. At flashover, room
temperatures typically exceed 600-800[deg] C (approximately 1100-
1470[deg] F). About two-thirds of all mattress fatalities are
attributed to mattress fires that lead to flashover. This accounts for
nearly all of the fatalities that occur outside the room where the fire
originated and about half of the fatalities that occur within the room
of origin.
The size of a fire can be measured by its rate of heat release. A
heat release rate of approximately 1,000 kilowatts (``kW'') leads to
flashover in a typical room. Tests of twin size mattresses of
traditional constructions (complying with the existing mattress
cigarette ignition standard in 16 CFR 1632) without bedclothes have
measured peak heat release rates that exceeded 2,000 kW in less than 5
minutes. In tests of traditional king size mattresses, peak rates of
heat release were nearly double that. [2] \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Numbers in brackets refer to documents listed at the end of
this notice. They are available from the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, (Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland
20814; telephone 301-504-7293; or e-mail: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov) or from
the Commission's Web site (http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia.html
).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of the standard is to minimize or delay flashover when a
mattress is ignited in a typical bedroom fire. With certain exceptions
explained below, the standard requires manufacturers to test specimens
of each of their mattress prototypes (designs) before mattresses based
on that prototype may be introduced into commerce. The standard
prescribes a full-scale test using a pair of T-shaped gas burners
designed to represent burning bedclothes. The mattress set must not
exceed a peak heat release rate of 200 kW at any time during a 30
minute test, and the total heat release for the first 10 minutes of the
test must not exceed 15 megajoules (``MJ''). Mattresses that meet the
standard's criteria will make only a limited contribution to a fire,
especially in the early stages of the fire. This will allow occupants
more time to discover the fire and escape. [1&2]
The State of California's Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal
Insulation issued an open flame fire standard for mattresses and
mattress/box spring sets and futons, TB 603, which went into effect
January 1, 2005. Both the Commission's standard and TB 603 are based on
the research conducted at NIST, and they use the same basic test
method. Both TB 603 and the Commission's standard require that
mattresses not exceed a 200 kW peak heat release rate during the 30
minute test. However, the standards differ in the limit they set on
total energy release in the first ten minutes of the test (the
Commission's standard sets a stricter limit of 15 MJ, while TB 603 sets
the limit at 25 MJ).
NIST has conducted extensive research on mattress/bedding fires for
the Sleep Products Safety Council (``SPSC'') and the Commission. The
NPR summarized the research that was conducted to develop the test
method and other research conducted prior to publication of the NPR. 70
FR 2470. Subsequently, CPSC contracted with NIST to conduct additional
test work to explore technical issues raised in the comments that the
Commission received on the NPR and to provide additional technical
support for finalizing the
[[Page 13473]]
standard. This work included a series of tests to evaluate the heat
flux of different burner hole sizes, effects of temperature and
relative humidity conditions, flammability behavior of one-sided
mattresses, and flammability performance (durability) of selected flame
retardant barriers. This research is discussed in the CPSC Engineering
Sciences Directorate's memorandum, ``Technical Rationale for the
Standard for the Flammability (Open-Flame) of Mattress Sets and
Engineering Responses to Applicable Public Comments,'' and the staff's
briefing memorandum. [2&1]
B. Statutory Authority
This proceeding is conducted pursuant to Section 4 of the Flammable
Fabrics Act (``FFA''), which authorizes the Commission to initiate
proceedings for a flammability standard when it finds that such a
standard is ``needed to protect the public against unreasonable risk of
occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or significant
property damage.'' 15 U.S.C. 1193(a).
Section 4 also sets forth the process by which the Commission may
issue a flammability standard. As required in section 4(g), the
Commission issued an ANPR. 66 FR 51886. 15 U.S.C. 1193(g). The
Commission reviewed the comments submitted in response to the ANPR and
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') containing the text of
the proposed rule along with alternatives the Commission has considered
and a preliminary regulatory analysis. 70 FR 2470. 15 U.S.C. 1193(i).
The Commission considered comments provided in response to the NPR and
is issuing this final rule along with a final regulatory analysis. 15
U.S.C. 1193(j). The Commission cannot issue a final rule unless it
makes certain findings and includes these in the regulation. The
Commission must find: (1) If an applicable voluntary standard has been
adopted and implemented, that compliance with the voluntary standard is
not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury, or compliance with
the voluntary standard is not likely to be substantial; (2) that
benefits expected from the regulation bear a reasonable relationship to
its costs; and (3) that the regulation imposes the least burdensome
alternative that would adequately reduce the risk of injury. 15 U.S.C.
1193(j)(2). In addition, the Commission must find that the standard (1)
is needed to adequately protect the public against the risk of the
occurrence of fire leading to death, injury or significant property
damage, (2) is reasonable, technologically practicable, and
appropriate, (3) is limited to fabrics, related materials or products
which present unreasonable risks, and (4) is stated in objective terms.
15 U.S.C. 1193(b). The Commission makes these findings in section
1633.8 of the rule.
C. The Product
The standard applies to mattresses and mattress and foundation sets
(``mattress sets''). ``Mattress'' is defined as a resilient material,
used alone or in combination with other materials, enclosed in a
ticking and intended or promoted for sleeping upon. For further details
on how the term is defined in the standard see section E.3. of this
preamble.
Throughout the standard the Commission uses the term ``mattress
set'' to mean a mattress alone if the mattress is manufactured for sale
without a foundation, or a mattress and a foundation together, if the
mattress is manufactured for sale with a foundation. Under the
standard, a mattress manufactured for sale with a foundation must be
tested with its foundation and a mattress manufactured for sale alone
must be tested alone.
According to the International Sleep Products Association
(``ISPA''), the top four producers of mattresses and foundations
account for almost 60 percent of total U.S. production. In 2003, there
were 571 establishments producing mattresses in the U.S. [7]
Mattresses and foundations are typically sold as sets. However,
more mattresses are sold annually than foundations; some mattresses are
sold as replacements for existing mattresses (without a new foundation)
or are for use in platform beds or other beds that do not require a
foundation. ISPA estimated that the total number of U.S. conventional
mattress shipments was 22.5 million in 2004, and would be 23.0 million
in 2005. These estimates do not include futons, crib mattresses,
juvenile mattresses, sleep sofa inserts, or hybrid water mattresses.
These ``non-conventional'' sleep surfaces are estimated to comprise
about 10 percent of total annual shipments of all sleep products. The
value of conventional mattress and foundation shipments in 2004,
according to ISPA, was $4.10 and $1.69 billion respectively, compared
to $3.28 and $1.51 billion respectively in 2002. [7]
The expected useful life of mattresses can vary substantially, with
more expensive models generally experiencing the longest useful lives.
Industry sources recommend replacement of mattresses after 10 to 12
years of use, but do not specifically estimate the average life
expectancy. In the 2001 mattress ANPR, the Commission estimated the
expected useful life of a mattress at about 14 years. To estimate the
number of mattresses in use for analysis of the proposed rule, the
Commission used both a 10 year and 14 year average product life. Using
CPSC's Product Population Model, the Commission estimates the number of
mattresses (conventional and non-conventional) in use in 2005 to be 237
million using a ten-year average product life, and 303.9 million using
a fourteen-year average product life. [7]
According to industry sources, queen size mattresses are the most
commonly used. In 2004, queen size mattresses were used by 34.9 percent
of U.S. consumers. Twin and twin XL were used by 29.3 percent of U.S.
consumers, followed by full and full XL (19.9 percent), king and
California king (11.5 percent), and all other sizes (4.4 percent). The
average manufacturing price in 2004 was $182 for a mattress and $90 for
a foundation. Thus, the average manufacturing price of a mattress and
foundation set was about $272 in 2004. Although there are no readily
available data on average retail prices for mattress/foundation sets by
size, ISPA reports that sets selling under $500 represented 34.6
percent of the market in 2004 compared to 40.7 percent in 2002. Sets
selling for between $500 and $1000 represented 41.1 percent of the
market in 2004, compared to 39.2 percent in 2002. [7]
The top four manufacturers of mattresses and foundations operate
about one-half of the 571 U.S. establishments producing these products.
The remainder of the establishments are operated by smaller firms.
According to the Statistics of U.S. Businesses Census Bureau data, all
but twelve mattress firms had fewer than 500 employees in 2002. If one
considers a firm with fewer than 500 employees to be a small business,
then 97.7 percent ((522-12)/522) of all mattress firms are small
businesses. [7] The potential impact of the standard on these small
businesses is discussed in section K of this document.
D. Risk of Injury
Annual estimates of national fires and fire losses involving
ignition of a mattress or bedding are based on data from the U.S. Fire
Administration's National Fire Incident Reporting System (``NFIRS'')
and the National Fire Protection Administration's (``NFPA'') annual
survey of fire departments. The most recent national fire loss
estimates indicated that mattresses and bedding were the first items to
ignite in 15,300 residential fires attended by the fire
[[Page 13474]]
service annually during 1999-2002. These fires resulted in 350 deaths,
1,750 injuries and $295.0 million in property loss annually. Of these,
the staff considers an estimated 14,300 fires, 330 deaths, 1,680
injuries, and $281.5 million property loss annually to be addressable
by the standard. Addressable means the incidents were of a type that
would be affected by the standard solely based on the characteristics
of the fire cause (i.e., a fire that ignited a mattress or that ignited
bedclothes which in turn ignited the mattress). For example, an
incident that involved burning bedclothes but occurred in a laundry
room would not be considered addressable. [3]
Among the addressable casualties, open flame fires accounted for
about 110 deaths (33 percent) and 890 injuries (53 percent) annually.
Smoking fires accounted for 180 deaths (55 percent) and about 520
injuries (31 percent) annually. Children younger than age 15 accounted
for an estimated 90 addressable deaths (27 percent) and 340 addressable
injuries (20 percent) annually. Adults age 65 and older accounted for
an estimated 80 addressable deaths (24 percent) and 180 addressable
injuries (11 percent) annually. [3]
E. Description of the Final Standard
1. General
The standard sets forth performance requirements that all mattress
sets must meet before being introduced into commerce. The test method
is a full scale test based on the NIST research discussed above and in
the NPR. The mattress specimen (a mattress alone or mattress and
foundation set, usually in a twin size) is exposed to a pair of T-
shaped propane burners and allowed to burn freely for a period of 30
minutes. The burners were designed to represent burning bedclothes.
Measurements are taken of the heat release rate from the specimen and
energy generated from the fire. The standard establishes two test
criteria, both of which the mattress set must meet in order to comply
with the standard: (1) The peak rate of heat release for the mattress
set must not exceed 200 kW at any time during the 30 minute test; and
(2) The total heat release must not exceed 15 MJ for the first 10
minutes of the test.
2. Imported Mattresses
Imported mattresses must meet the same requirements as domestically
produced mattresses. This means that mattress sets produced outside the
United States must be tested in accordance with the procedures
described in Sec. 1633.7 and must meet the criteria specified in Sec.
1633.3(b), as well as the quality assurance and recordkeeping
requirements in Sec. Sec. 1633.6 and 1633.11 before they may be
introduced into commerce in the United States.
As discussed below, the term ``manufacturer'' refers to the
establishment where a mattress is produced or assembled, and it is the
plant or factory producing or assembling the mattress set that is
responsible for prototype testing. The importer must have records
demonstrating compliance with the standard on an establishment specific
basis. To ensure that foreign-made mattress sets comply with the
standard, the final rule requires that the records specified in Sec.
1633.11 must be in English and must be kept at a location in the United
States.
3. Scope and Definitions (Sec. Sec. 1633.1 and 1633.2)
The standard applies to ``mattress sets,'' defined as either (1) a
mattress and foundation labeled by the manufacturer for sale as a set,
or (2) a mattress that is labeled for sale alone. This definition was
not in the proposed rule, but was added to simplify the sometimes
cumbersome references to mattress and foundation sets. As discussed
below, the Commission has added a requirement for manufacturers to
label mattresses and foundations to indicate if they are to be sold
with a corresponding mattress or foundation or if they are to be sold
alone.
``Mattress'' is defined substantially as it was in the proposed
rule and as it is in the existing mattress standard at 16 CFR 1632, as
``a resilient material or combination of materials enclosed by a
ticking (used alone or in combination with other products) intended or
promoted for sleeping upon.'' The standard lists several types of
mattresses that are included in this definition (e.g., futons, crib
mattresses, youth mattresses). It also refers to a glossary of terms
where these items are further defined.
Specifically excluded from the definition of mattress are mattress
pads, pillows and other items used on top of a mattress, upholstered
furniture which does not contain a mattress, and juvenile or other
product pads. Mattress pads and other top of the bed items may be
addressed in the Commission's pending rulemaking on bedclothes, in
which an ANPR was issued on January 13, 2005. 70 FR 2514.
Like the Commission's existing mattress cigarette ignition
standard, the open flame standard issued today allows an exemption for
one-of-a-kind mattress sets if they are manufactured to fulfill a
physician's written prescription or manufactured in accordance with
comparable medical therapeutic specifications.
The Commission has added a clarification that the term ``mattress''
includes mattresses that have undergone renovation, and it has added a
definition of ``renovation.'' The NPR had included a policy
clarification stating that mattresses renovated for resale would be
covered by the standard. The definition of ``renovation'' comes from
that policy clarification. Including mattresses renovated for resale in
the mattress definition makes the Commission's intent to include them
in the standard clearer.
For clarification the Commission has added or modified some other
definitions. The term ``subordinate prototype'' was added to refer to a
prototype that is not required to be tested. A definition of
``confirmed prototype'' was added to describe a prototype that is based
on a qualified prototype in a pooling arrangement. The term ``edge
seam'' was redefined as ``edge'' to accommodate mattress or foundation
constructions that do not have a seam, as in a continental border. A
definition for ``prototype developer'' was added to describe a third
party that designs mattress prototypes for use by a manufacturer, but
does not produce mattress sets for sale. The prototype developer does
not necessarily conduct tests to qualify the mattress prototype. A
barrier supplier, for example, could be a prototype developer. The term
``prototype pooling'' was clarified to explain the responsibilities of
the involved parties.
4. General Requirements of the Standard (Sec. 1633.3)
The test method in the standard is essentially unchanged from the
method described in the NPR. It uses the full scale test method
developed by NIST. As explained in the NPR, the complexities of
mattress construction make a full scale test necessary to evaluate the
fire performance of a mattress.
The specimen (a mattress and foundation or mattress alone) is
exposed to a pair of T-shaped gas burners. The specimen is to be no
smaller than twin size, unless the largest size mattress or set
produced of that type is smaller than twin size, in which case the
largest size must be tested.
The burners impose a specified local heat flux simultaneously to
the top and side of the mattress set for a specified period of time (70
seconds for the top burner and 50 seconds for the side
[[Page 13475]]
burner). The burners were designed to represent the local heat flux
imposed on a mattress by burning bedclothes based on research conducted
by NIST. Details of the test method are discussed in section E.9.
below.
5. Test Criteria (Sec. 1633.3)
The standard establishes two test criteria that the specimen must
meet to pass the test. These criteria are the same as those proposed in
the NPR. The peak rate of heat release must not exceed 200 kW at any
time during the 30 minute test, and the total heat release must not
exceed 15 MJ during the first 10 minutes of the test.
Limiting the peak rate of heat release to 200 kW (during the 30
minute test) ensures a less flammable design. It represents a
significant improvement in performance compared to traditional mattress
designs. The peak rate of heat release limit accounts for the
contribution of bedclothes and other room contents to the fire hazard,
ensures that the mattress does not cause flashover on its own, is
technically feasible, and considers many factors related to the fire
scenario (such as room effects). [2]
The test duration of 30 minutes is related to, but not equivalent
to, the estimated time required to permit discovery of the fire and
allow escape under typical fire scenarios. A 30 minute test is based on
an analysis of the hazard and the technological feasibility of
producing complying mattresses. It is intended to provide a substantial
increase in time for an occupant to discover and escape the fire. The
number of failures, test variability, performance unreliability, and
associated costs increase significantly with longer test periods.
Usually, staying at or below the 200kW limit for a 30 minute test is
estimated to provide an adequate time for fire discovery and escape by
occupants in the bed or otherwise in the room of fire origin. [2]
The effectiveness of the standard depends on the need for early
discovery and escape from the fire without delay. Limiting the early
contribution of the mattress will have the greatest impact on reducing
the risk as the mattress will have little involvement in the fire for
the specified period of time. The early limit of 15 MJ for the first 10
minutes of the test partially compensates for burning bedclothes and
ticking by preventing early involvement of the mattress as the
bedclothes burn and compensates for other items that might be involved
early in a fire. [2]
California's TB 603 prescribes a 25 MJ limit in the first 10
minutes of the test. However, NIST research and fire modeling indicate
that a fire that reaches a size of 25 MJ within 10 minutes could limit
a person's ability to escape the room. According to several producers,
mattress sets that use available barrier technology release total heat
that is far below the 25 MJ limit of TB 603. [7]
6. Prototype Testing (Sec. 1633.4)
The standard requires, with certain exceptions, that mattress
manufacturers have three specimens of each prototype tested before
introducing a mattress set into commerce. A prototype is a specific
design of a mattress set that serves as a model for the production
units that will be introduced into commerce. Mattress sets then
produced based on the prototype mattress set must be the same as the
prototype with respect to materials, components, design, and methods of
assembly. The definition of ``manufacturer'' refers to the
establishment where the mattress is produced or assembled, not the
company. Thus, the plant or factory producing or assembling the
mattress set is responsible for prototype testing.
However, there are three exceptions to the requirement for
prototype testing. A manufacturer is allowed to sell a mattress set
based on a prototype that has not been tested if the prototype differs
from a qualified prototype (one that has been tested and meets the
criteria) only with respect to: (1) The mattress/foundation length and
width, not depth (e.g., twin, queen, king, etc.); (2) the ticking,
unless the ticking of the qualified prototype has characteristics that
are designed to improve the mattress set's test performance; and/or (3)
any component, material or method of assembly, provided that the
manufacturer can show, on an objectively reasonable basis, that such
difference(s) will not cause the mattress set to exceed the specified
test criteria. The third exception allows the manufacturer to change
the depth of the mattress if he can make the required showing
concerning the test criteria. If a manufacturer chooses to make use of
the third exception, he/she can minimize testing, but must maintain
records documenting that the change(s) will not cause the prototype to
exceed the test criteria (see Sec. 1633.11(b)(4) of the rule).
When conducting prototype qualification testing, the manufacturer
must test a minimum of three specimens of the prototype in accordance
with the test method described, and all of the mattress sets must meet
both of the test criteria discussed above. If any one prototype
specimen that the manufacturer tests fails the specified criteria, the
prototype is not qualified (even if the manufacturer chooses to test
more than three specimens).
As explained in the NPR preamble, the Commission believes that
three specimens is the appropriate minimum number for testing at this
time (as this is the number typically used and the inter-laboratory
study indicates that three replicates are appropriate to adequately
characterize mattress performance).
As was proposed, the standard allows a manufacturer to produce a
mattress set in reliance on testing that was conducted before the
effective date of the standard. The final rule explains the parameters
for relying on such tests. The manufacturer must have documentation
demonstrating that the tests were conducted according to the required
test method and the specified criteria were met. Tests conducted 30
days or more after this standard is published in the Federal Register
must comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Sec. 1633.11. The
manufacturer must also comply with applicable recordkeeping
requirements in order to use the prototype pooling and subordinate
prototype provisions.
7. Pooling (Sec. 1633.5)
This section is substantively the same as proposed, but some of the
language has been revised for clarification. The standard allows one or
more manufacturers to rely on a given prototype that has been developed
by a manufacturer or a prototype developer (e.g., a component
manufacturer). Under this approach, one manufacturer or prototype
developer would conduct (or cause to be conducted) the full prototype
testing required (testing three prototype specimens), obtaining passing
results, and the other manufacturer(s) may then produce mattress sets
represented by that qualified prototype so long as they conduct one
successful confirmation test on a specimen they produce. If the
mattress set fails the confirmation test, the manufacturer must take
corrective measures, and then perform a new confirmation test that must
meet the test criteria. If a confirmation test specimen fails to meet
the test criteria, the manufacturer of that specimen must also notify
the manufacturer that developed the prototype about the test failure.
Pooling may be used by two or more plants within the same firm or
by two or more independent firms. The final rule also recognizes that
pooling can occur between a manufacturer and a prototype developer.
This could be a company that manufactures mattress
[[Page 13476]]
components and conducts testing for the manufacturer. As discussed in
the regulatory flexibility analysis, pooling should reduce testing
costs for smaller companies. Once they have conducted a successful
confirmation test, pooling firms can produce mattresses based on a
pooled prototype and may continue to do so as long as any changes to
the mattress set based on the pooled prototype are limited to the three
discussed above: (1) Width or length of the mattress set; (2) the
ticking, unless the qualified ticking has characteristics that are
designed to improve the mattress's test performance; and/or (3) any
component, material or method of assembly that the manufacturer can
show (on an objectively reasonable basis) will not cause the prototype
to exceed the specified test criteria.
8. Quality Assurance Requirements (Sec. 1633.6)
The standard contains the same strict requirements for quality
assurance as the proposal did. This is necessary because research and
testing indicate that small variations in construction (e.g., missed
stitching around the side of the mattress) can affect the fire
performance of a mattress. Testing conducted at NIST after the NPR was
published reinforced the importance of quality assurance. The language
in this section has been changed somewhat to better indicate the
Commission's intent that production mattresses should be the same as
the prototypes on which they are based.
Each manufacturer must implement a quality assurance program to
ensure that the mattress sets it produces are the same as the
qualified, subordinate or confirmed prototype on which they are based
with respect to materials, components, design and methods of assembly.
This means that at a minimum, manufacturers must: (1) Have controls in
place on components, materials and methods of assembly to ensure that
they are the same as those used in the prototype; (2) designate a
production lot that is represented by the prototype; and (3) inspect
mattress sets produced for sale.
The standard does not require manufacturers to conduct testing of
production mattresses. However, the Commission recognizes the value of
such testing as part of a quality assurance program. Therefore, the
Commission encourages manufacturers to conduct random testing of
mattress sets that are produced for sale.
If a manufacturer obtains any test results or any other evidence
indicating that a mattress set does not meet the specified criteria (or
that a component, material or assembly process could negatively affect
the test performance of the mattress set), the manufacturer must cease
production and distribution in commerce of the affected mattress sets
until corrective action is taken.
9. Test Procedure (Sec. 1633.7)
The test procedure in the standard is based on the test protocol
developed by NIST. The procedure in the final standard is essentially
the same as what was proposed with some minor changes and a few
substantive modifications described below.
Requirements for sample conditioning have been tightened to require
a conditioning temperature greater than 18[deg] C (65[deg] F) and less
than 25[deg] C (77[deg] F) and a relative humidity less than 55
percent. Requirements for the test area conditions have been added,
stating that the area must be maintained at a temperature greater than
15[deg] C (59[deg] F) and less than 27[deg] C (80.6[deg] F) and at a
relative humidity less than 75 percent. Initiation of flammability
testing is required to begin within 20 minutes after removal of the
mattress sample from environmentally controlled storage conditions.
Specifications for the bed frame supporting the test specimen have
been clarified to address dimensions for specimens other than twin-
size, frame height to accommodate the side burner in tests of thin
mattresses without foundations, and support for more flexible mattress
products.
The specification for the gas burner hole size has been changed. In
2000, NIST developed a pair of propane gas burners to consistently
simulate the typical heat impact imposed on a mattress by burning
bedding items. These burners were incorporated as the ignition source
in the full-scale fire test for mattresses. Subsequently, a commercial
supplier manufactured a commercial version of the NIST burner apparatus
that was used by various test laboratories to conduct full-scale
mattress testing in accordance with TB 603 and CPSC's proposed
standard. Inadvertently, the commercial version incorporated larger
diameter holes in both of the burner heads (1.50 mm vs. 1.17 mm). The
proposed standard specified the original NIST burner holes. After this
difference was discovered, NIST conducted studies to determine the
effects of the larger diameter burner holes on peak burner heat flux.
The results of the comparison show that the burners with the larger
holes do a better job of meeting the target peak flux levels of
bedclothes than do the original burners with the smaller holes,
supporting continued use of the commercial version of the burner
apparatus rather than the NIST original. The final standard has been
revised to provide for the burner holes used in the commercial
versions. [1&2]
A provision has been added to the standard at Sec. 1633.7(k) that
allows the use of alternate test apparatus with the approval of the
Office of Compliance.
Other minor changes in the test procedure, equipment and set up
include clarifications of gas specifications, draft control, and burner
orientation. These are discussed in the Engineering Sciences and
Laboratory memoranda. [1,4&5]
10. Recordkeeping (Sec. 1633.11)
The Commission made several changes to the recordkeeping
requirements. The standard now requires that records must be kept in
English at a location in the United States and requires the complete
physical addresses of suppliers, manufacturing facilities (foreign and
domestic), and test laboratories in records. The standard no longer
requires the manufacturer to maintain a physical sample of the
materials and components of a prototype. The required records should be
sufficient to determine compliance without the burden of maintaining
physical samples.
The standard requires manufacturers to maintain certain records to
document compliance with the standard. This includes records concerning
prototype testing, pooling and confirmation testing, and quality
assurance procedures and any associated testing. The required records
must be maintained for as long as mattress sets based on the prototype
are in production and must be retained for three years thereafter.
11. Labeling (Sec. 1633.12)
The labeling required by the standard has been modified from the
proposed rule. These changes were made to provide more complete
information about the manufacturer/importer and to enable consumers to
choose the correct foundation (if any) to use with the mattress they
purchase.
Each mattress set must bear a permanent label stating (1) the name
of the manufacturer, or for imported mattress sets, the name of the
foreign manufacturer and the importer; (2) the complete physical
address of the manufacturer, and if the mattress is imported, the
complete physical address of the importer or U.S. location where
records are maintained; (3) the month and year of manufacture; (4) the
model identification; (5) prototype identification number; and (6) a
[[Page 13477]]
certification that the mattress complies with the standard.
The final rule specifies the wording and format to be used in the
compliance certification label, and requires that this information
appear on a single label dedicated to this purpose. This will ensure
that the information is not detracted from or minimized, and it will
prevent potential confusion with state labeling requirements. The label
information may be printed on the reverse side of the label in another
language.
Included on the label must be a statement indicating whether the
mattress meets the standard when used without a foundation, with a
corresponding foundation or both alone and with a foundation. A
mattress that is tested with a foundation may perform differently when
used with a different foundation or without any foundation. Thus, it is
important for consumers to know what foundation (if any) the mattress
they are purchasing is intended to be sold with.
12. One of a Kind Exemption (Sec. 1633.13)
The standard allows an exemption for a one-of-a-kind mattress set
if it is manufactured in response to a physician's written prescription
or manufactured in accordance with comparable medical therapeutic
specifications. This provision is unchanged from the proposal and is
also present in the 16 CFR 1632 mattress standard.
F. Effectiveness Evaluation
As discussed in the NPR, CPSC staff conducted an effectiveness
evaluation to assess the potential effectiveness of the proposed
standard in addressing deaths and injuries resulting from mattress/
bedding fires. The evaluation was based primarily on review of CPSC
investigation reports that provided details of the occupants'
situations and actions during the fire. Staff reviewers identified
criteria that affected the occupants' ability to escape the fires they
had experienced. The staff used these criteria to estimate percentage
reductions in deaths and injuries expected to occur under the much less
severe fire conditions anticipated with improved designs of mattresses
that would comply with the standard. The staff then applied these
estimated reductions to national estimates of mattress/bedding fire
deaths and injuries to estimate numbers of deaths and injuries that
could be prevented with the standard. [3]
The staff's effectiveness estimates in the NPR were based on full-
scale tests of early experimental mattress designs incorporating
strong, but not necessarily cost-effective barrier systems. These
mattress tests were conducted with burning bedclothes so that the fires
produced could be used to estimate changes in deaths and injuries
expected to result from the standard. In the past few years, mattress
designs and materials have evolved with manufacturers now producing
mattresses to meet California TB 603. New fire barrier products have
been introduced, mattress designs have been more closely engineered to
achieve the required performance, and single-sided mattresses have
become an increasingly larger and more significant portion of the
residential market. [1]
In evaluations that the staff conducted after publication of the
NPR, the staff found that when mattresses are closely designed to the
performance requirements in the final standard, as is expected as the
industry develops their new products, flashover conditions could occur
earlier than previously measured with experimental and initially over-
engineered designs. Staff accounted for this observed behavior by
reducing the effectiveness estimates for the final standard adjusting
for the effect on some occupants. The standard's limit on the early
contribution of the mattress to the fire (15 MJ in the first 10
minutes) will help to maintain tenable conditions early in the fire and
allow for timely discovery and escape from growing fire conditions.
[1&2]
The most recent national fire loss estimates indicated that
mattresses and bedding were the first items to ignite in 15,300
residential fires attended by the fire service annually during 1999-
2002. These fires resulted in 350 deaths, 1,750 injuries and $295.0
million in property loss each year. Of these, the staff considers an
estimated 14,300 fires, 330 deaths, 1,680 injuries, and $281.5 million
property loss annually to be addressable by the standard (i.e., of the
type that the standard could affect based on the characteristics of the
fire). [3]
For the final rule, the staff has reviewed the fire loss data and
updated its effectiveness evaluation to account for the observations
discussed above. The staff's analysis is explained in detail in the
memorandum ``Updated Estimates of Residential Fire Losses Involving
Mattresses and Bedding.'' [3]
CPSC staff estimates that, overall, the standard may be expected to
prevent 69 to 78 percent of the deaths and 73 to 84 percent of the
injuries presently occurring in addressable mattress/bedding fires
attended by the fire service. Applying these percentage reductions to
estimates of addressable mattress/bedding fire losses noted above,
staff estimates potential reductions of 240 to 270 deaths and 1,150 to
1,330 injuries annually in fires attended by the fire service when all
existing mattress sets have been replaced with mattress sets meeting
the new standard. There may also be reductions in property damage
resulting from the standard, but data are not sufficient for the staff
to quantify this impact. [3]
G. Inter-Laboratory Study
Before publication of the NPR, an inter-laboratory study was
conducted with the support of the SPSC, NIST, and participating
laboratories to explore the sensitivity, repeatability, and
reproducibility of the NIST test method. However, only a preliminary
analysis of the results of the study was available prior to the NPR. A
more detailed analysis is now available. See Damant, G./Inter-City
Testing and Consulting Corporation & Sleep Products Safety Council
(2005). Developing an Open-Flame Ignition Standard for Mattresses and
Bed Sets (Report on a Precision and Bias Evaluation of the Technical
Bulletin 603 Test Method). Alexandria, VA: Sleep Products Safety
Council. The analysis is summarized below.
All of the participating labs conducted multiple tests of eight
different mattress designs. The mattress designs varied critical
elements (e.g., the barrier--sheet or high-loft, the type of mattress--
single or double-sided) and the style of mattress (e.g., tight or
pillow top). [2]
A detailed statistical analysis of the test data suggests neither
unreasonable sensitivities nor practical limitations of the NIST test
protocol. The results were not affected by substantially varying the
parameters (primarily associated with possible test facility and
operator errors) selected for the sensitivity study. The data indicate
that the specified ignition source is severe enough and the test
duration long enough to allow a valid/realistic evaluation of mattress
set performance. [2]
The data showed some significant differences in the test results
reported by the participating laboratories, and a variety of factors
possibly influenced these differences. However, the study suggests
that, when the test procedures are correctly followed, it is the
combined characteristics and resulting behavior of the mattress
components chosen, mattress design, and consistency of the
manufacturing processes that determines the test outcome. Observations
from the study emphasize the importance of controlling components,
materials, and methods of assembly. Quality assurance procedures,
[[Page 13478]]
standardized testing, written records, and visual inspections are all
means for assuring, verifying, and controlling consistency of
production. Environmental conditions required for tests have also been
tightened in the standard. [2]
H. Response to Comments on the NPR
As discussed above, the Commission published an NPR in the Federal
Register on January 13, 2005, proposing a flammability standard
addressing open flame ignition of mattresses. 70 FR 2470. During the
comment period, the Commission received over 540 comments from
consumers, businesses, associations and interested parties representing
various segments of the mattress industry and consumers. In addition,
comments were presented by interested parties at a public hearing
concerning the mattress NPR that the Commission held on March 3, 2005.
Additional comments have also been submitted since the close of the
comment period.
Commenters who generally supported the proposed rule provided
comments regarding definitions, testing procedures, recordkeeping
requirements, importer/renovator responsibilities, and other related
issues. Those opposed to the standard expressed concerns about the
health effects of flame retardant chemicals needed to help mattress
sets comply with the performance requirements. [18 & 19] Significant
issues and the Commission's responses are summarized below. More
detailed responses and responses to minor comments are discussed in the
staff's briefing memoranda.
1. Scope and Definitions of the Standard
a. Comment. One commenter noted inconsistency in use of the terms
``mattress'' and ``mattress set,'' which could lead to confusion. The
commenter suggested using and defining ``mattress set'' to refer to
mattresses to be tested both with and without a foundation.
Response. CPSC has now defined ``mattress set'' to include
mattresses labeled for sale alone and mattresses labeled for sale with
a foundation, depending upon the manufacturer's intentions, to resolve
the problem of inconsistency, as well as reduce wordiness. The revised
definition also makes clear that foundations need not meet the test
requirements by themselves. The term is used throughout the final
standard.
b. Comment. Two commenters stated that the distinction between
prototypes that need to be tested and those that do not is unclear.
They suggest using a different term, such as ``Model,'' for prototypes
that do not need to be tested.
Response. CPSC agrees that using a different term to refer to
prototypes that are not required to be tested would prevent confusion.
``Subordinate prototype,'' defined at Sec. 1633.2(p), is used for an
untested prototype based on either a qualified or confirmed prototype.
c. Comment. One commenter recommended that the term ``prototype
developer'' be defined to permit third parties, such as component
suppliers, to design and test prototypes that can be used by mattress
manufacturers.
Response. The standard does not prohibit entities other than
mattress manufacturers from designing and testing mattresses for
pooling purposes. For purposes of clarity a definition for ``prototype
developer'' has been added to the standard to describe a third party
providing this service to the industry. If such an entity designs a
prototype for a mattress manufacturer, the manufacturer would still be
responsible for causing qualification testing of and maintaining all
records required for that prototype, including those documenting the
prototype qualification. If the prototype developer designs and
qualifies the prototype, the manufacturer would have to do the required
confirmation test.
d. Comment. Commenters questioned the applicability of the proposed
standard to mattresses used in recreational vehicles and the lodging
industry.
Response. The Commission intends for this standard to apply to
essentially the same mattresses as are currently regulated under Part
1632. Mattresses are ``products'' under the Flammable Fabrics Act.
However, motorized RVs that are subject to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration's FMVSS No. 302 would not be subject to the
Commission's mattress standard.
Interpreting the 1632 mattress standard, the Commission's staff and
Office of General Counsel have expressed the view that the flammability
standards issued under the FFA (including 1632) are applicable to
mattresses, carpets and rugs when installed in travel trailers, 5th
wheelers and slide-in campers, but travel trailer cushions that have
dual purposes as mattresses and seat cushions would not be considered
mattresses.
Mattresses used in the lodging industry are subject to the 1632
mattress standard. Commenters have not presented any reasons why these
mattresses should be treated differently under the new Part 1633
regulation addressing open flame ignition. In the absence of such
information, the Commission believes it is appropriate to continue to
include mattresses used in the lodging industry as subject to
Commission mattress flammability rules.
2. Technical Requirements/Specifications
a. Comment. Several commenters recommended changing the specified
burner hole size to the 53 drill size (1.50 mm) used on
production burners and limit the time between removal of the sample
from conditioning and the start of the test.
Response. As discussed earlier in this preamble, NIST recently
evaluated peak heat fluxes from two versions of gas burner designs, the
original and the commercial burners with larger holes. The study showed
that the burners with the larger holes do a better job of meeting the
target peak flux levels of bedclothes than do the original burners with
the smaller holes. Accordingly, the Commission has revised the standard
to specify a nominal burner hole size of 1.50 mm, which corresponds to
Grade 10 machining practice with a well formed 53 drill bit.
b. Comment. Several commenters recommended tightening sample
conditioning and test area conditioning requirements.
Response. CPSC agrees that exposure of a mattress sample to the
fire test room environmental conditions could likely have an impact on
test results. Some laboratories have observed seasonal variations in
test performance. It is reasonable, therefore, to require that testing
of a specific conditioned sample should begin within a certain amount
of time after removal from the storage conditions.
Based on NIST's evaluation of the effects of laboratory humidity in
fire test performance, the Commission has revised the standard to
require that testing must begin within 20 minutes after removal from
the conditioning room. The sample conditioning requirements in Sec.
1633.7(b) of the standard have been revised to specify an upper limit
on the temperature. The temperature range must be greater than 18[deg]
C (65[deg] F) and less than 25[deg] C (77[deg] F). The test area
conditions must now be maintained at a temperature greater than 15[deg]
C (59[deg] F) and less than 27[deg] C (80.6[deg] F) and a relative
humidity less than 75 percent. These specifications will minimize
environmental influences on test results.
c. Comment. Several comments requested the use of slightly modified
test equipment. For example, one
[[Page 13479]]
commenter requested to use a modified technique to obtain the required
burner offset from the specimen instead of the foot. Another comment
pertained to using an alternate method of measuring the gas flow,
rather than using a rotameter type of flowmeter.
Response. To address such issues that would not be expected to
influence the test, the proposed standard has been revised to include a
provision for the use of alternate apparatus in Sec. 1633.7(k):
Mattress sets may be tested using test apparatus that differs from that
described in this section if the manufacturer obtains and provides to
the Commission data demonstrating that tests using the alternate
apparatus for the procedures specified in this section yield failing
results as often as, or more often than, tests using the apparatus
specified in the standard. The manufacturer shall provide the
supporting data to the Office of Compliance, and staff will review the
data and determine whether the alternate apparatus may be used.
3. Exposure to Flame Retardant Chemicals--Health Concerns
a. Comment. Numerous commenters stated that they were concerned
about the possible toxicity of flame retardant (FR) chemicals in
general. Other commenters, including manufacturers of mattresses or
mattress components, stated that there are FR chemicals that can be
used without presenting a hazard to consumers, workers, or the
environment.
Response. In the view of the CPSC staff, there are inherently flame
resistant materials and FR chemicals available that can be used to meet
the standard and that are not likely to present a hazard to consumers,
workers, or the environment. The CPSC and Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) staffs will continue to evaluate the potential effects of
FR treatments to ensure that they do not present a hazard to consumers,
workers, or the environment.
Mattress manufacturers would be free to choose the means of
complying with the standard. Options available to manufacturers include
the use of inherently flame resistant materials, FR barriers, and FR
chemicals. To meet the standard, FR chemicals would most likely be
applied to components inside the mattress, such as batting or barriers.
However, FR chemicals might be applied to mattress ticking (cover
fabric) in some cases. The potential risk presented by any chemical,
including FR chemicals, depends on both toxicity and exposure. To the
extent that FR chemical treatments remain bound to or within the
mattress, exposure and its attendant risk would be minimized.
The CPSC staff has considered the potential chronic health risks
associated with FR chemicals that may be used in mattresses to comply
with the standard and continues to study the potential exposures to FR
chemicals that may occur over the lifetime of a mattress. The
Commission concludes that there are inherently flame resistant
materials, FR barriers, and FR chemical treatments that can be used
without presenting any appreciable risks of health effects to
consumers.
The CPSC staff is also working with the EPA to ensure that the use
of FR chemicals does not endanger consumers, workers, or the
environment. EPA has broad statutory authority over chemical substances
that address potential risks to consumers, workers, and the
environment. EPA has several programs such as the Design for the
Environment (DfE), High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge, and
Voluntary Children's Chemical Exposure Program (VCCEP) to evaluate the
potential hazards of chemicals, including flame retardants, to
consumers, workers, and the environment. In addition, the CPSC staff is
cooperating with EPA in developing a significant new use rule (SNUR)
for FR chemicals that could be used to comply with CPSC or state
flammability requirements for upholstered furniture and possibly
mattresses. EPA's programs and statutory authority can be used to
obtain additional toxicity or exposure data where needed, and
complement the activities of the CPSC and the statutory authority of
the Commission.
b. Comment. A number of commenters were specifically concerned
about the toxicity of boric acid, which is used to treat cotton
batting.
Other commenters, including manufacturers of mattresses, mattress
components, and chemicals, noted that boric acid has been used in
mattresses for many years and that their employees have not suffered
any ill effects. They noted that the EPA also recently increased its
reference dose (RfD) for boric acid. (This means that a greater daily
exposure to boric acid is considered acceptable by EPA.)
Response. After publication of the NPR, the CPSC staff performed
studies to estimate the potential for exposure as well as the potential
health risk associated with the use of boric acid as a flame retardant.
[4&11] The staff's studies and analysis applied conservative
assumptions in areas of scientific uncertainty, that is, assumptions
that may overestimate, rather than underestimate, exposure and risk.
The staff concluded that the estimated exposure to boric acid was below
both the EPA's revised RfD and the updated CPSC staff's Acceptable
Daily Intake (ADI). Thus, boric acid is not expected to pose any
appreciable risks of health effects to consumers who sleep on treated
mattresses.
c. Comment. One commenter specifically mentioned fiberglass as a
potentially hazardous FR treatment due to inhalation of glass fibers.
Response. The type of fiberglass used in textiles and FR barriers,
``continuous filament,'' is not considered hazardous.
d. Comment. Some commenters argued that the risk of dying in a fire
is lower than the risk of adverse health effects from exposure to FR
chemicals in mattresses.
Response. The commenter provided no data on mattress exposures to
support this assertion. There are approximately 15,000 fires per year
in the U.S. in which mattresses or bedding are the first item ignited,
resulting in about 1,750 injuries and 350 deaths per year. The
Commission has concluded that the risk of injury or death in a fire
involving mattresses or bedding is substantial.
The CPSC has studied the potential exposures and chronic health
risks associated with FR chemicals that may be used in mattresses to
comply with the standard. The results of these studies indicate that
there are a number of commercially available FR-treated barriers that
can be used to meet the standard without presenting any appreciable
risks of health effects to consumers.
e. Comment. Numerous commenters stated that they have multiple
chemical sensitivity (MCS), allergies, or other health conditions that
could be exacerbated by exposure to FR chemicals.
Response. The CPSC concludes that there is no evidence to suggest
that FR chemical exposures from mattresses would contribute to the
causation or exacerbation of allergies, asthma, or multiple chemical
sensitivity (MCS). For the most part, the materials and FR chemicals
that will be used to comply with the standard do not share the
characteristics of the types of exposures associated with the
conditions noted by the commenters.
MCS is a ``condition in which a person reports sensitivity or
intolerance (as distinct from an allergy) to a number of chemicals and
other irritants at very low concentrations.'' The chemicals include
both recognized pollutants--for example, formaldehyde, volatile organic
[[Page 13480]]
compounds, and environmental tobacco smoke--as well as agents generally
considered to be innocuous, such as fragrances. Health professionals
and biomedical scientists differ in their views regarding the
underlying causes and physiological processes of this condition. Non-
allergic asthma and rhinitis are generally associated with exposure to
respiratory irritants such as combustion products, environmental
tobacco smoke, dusts, and solvents, while allergic asthma and rhinitis
symptoms are most often associated with exposures to airborne
biological substances, such as animal dander, insect wastes, molds, and
pollen. The FR materials or chemicals under consideration are generally
non-volatile, are not associated with fragrances or odors, and are not
derived from biological materials.
Furthermore, the potential risks presented by FR chemicals depend
on both toxicity and exposure. In most cases, FR chemicals would be
applied to components inside the mattress, such as batting or barriers.
To the extent that FR chemical treatments remain bound to or within the
mattress, exposure and its attendant risk would be minimized.
f. Comment. Some commenters claimed that FR chemicals may cause
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Response. The CPSC disagrees with the claim that antimony compounds
or other FR chemicals may cause sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
Following a four-year study in the United Kingdom and reviews by a
number of expert panels in the UK and the U.S., the expert panels
concluded that there is no credible evidence that antimony compounds or
any other FR chemicals contribute to SIDS.
g. Comment. Some commenters were specifically concerned about the
toxicity of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE's), including
decabromodiphenyl oxide (DBDPO).
Response. PBDE's are a family of FR chemicals that have been used
in some components of consumer products. Octabromodiphenyl ether (octa-
BDE) was a relatively minor product that was never used in mattresses
or upholstered furniture. Pentabromodiphenyl ether (penta-BDE) is no
longer in use. It was one of the primary FR treatments for flexible
polyurethane foam (PUF), which is used in mattresses, upholstered
furniture, and other applications. However, most non-California
residential mattresses and upholstered furniture do not require FR-
treated PUF to pass current flammability requirements. The European
Chemicals Bureau concluded that there is no reason to ban DBDPO. The
U.S. EPA and the European Chemicals Bureau continue to review the
potential environmental effects of DBDPO. The CPSC staff evaluated
risks associated with mattress barriers containing DBDPO and concluded
that DBDPO used in barriers for mattresses is not expected to pose any
appreciable risk of health effects in consumers. [1&13]
h. Comment. Some individuals commented that there is no guidance
for manufacturers to consider toxicity and exposure when selecting FR
chemicals.
Response. Under the FHSA, manufacturers are responsible for
ensuring that their products either do not present a hazard to
consumers or, if they are hazardous, that they are properly labeled
according to the requirements of the FHSA. In 1992, the Commission
issued chronic hazard guidelines to assist manufacturers in complying
with the FHSA (16 CFR 1500.3(c)(2). The guidelines address
carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental
toxicity, exposure, bioavailability, and risk assessment.
i. Comment. One manufacturer commented that the CPSC staff should
use realistic exposure scenarios, rather than overly conservative ones.
Response. In assessing chronic health hazards, the goal of the CPSC
staff is to determine whether ``reasonably foreseeable handling and
use'' may be hazardous to consumers. Therefore, the staff generally
attempts to make best estimates of exposure under realistic conditions.
However, in the absence of adequate data, the staff applies
``conservative'' assumptions, that is, assumptions that might
overestimate, rather than underestimate risk.
The CPSC chronic hazard guidelines describe various approaches to
exposure assessment. Direct measures of exposure such as field studies
are generally preferred over laboratory studies and mathematical
modeling. However, field studies are not always practical for technical
or economic reasons. Thus, the staff frequently relies on a combination
of laboratory data and mathematical models.
The CPSC staff developed laboratory methods and exposure scenarios
to assess the potential exposure to FR chemicals in mattresses. These
methods are conservative in that they may overestimate, rather than
underestimate, the potential risk.
4. Durability of Flame Retardant Chemicals--Fire Performance
Comment. Several commenters recommended requiring performance tests
to assure the durability of flame retardant chemicals and barrier
performance after exposure to moisture. Some provided test data to
support their concerns. Other commenters provided data from tests of
used mattresses taken out of service, indicating they still met
applicable standards.
Response. The data provided by commenters were either not relevant
(tests using smoldering cigarettes) or based upon severe exposure of
barrier materials, apart from the mattress, before testing. The staff
sought and obtained new test data, supplied by manufacturers of barrier
products and by NIST, to provide a limited evaluation of effects of
moisture on flammability behavior. This evaluation does not support
requiring specific durability tests for barrier components. NIST
examined the fire performance of two mattress designs that used
different barrier materials/systems made with water soluble flame
retardants. NIST fire tests were conducted after the mattress sets were
exposed to 10 localized, wetting and drying cycles. The effects of this
severe wetting exposure scenario did not change the overall
flammability performance of the mattress sets. In addition, even if
exposed areas have decreased fire resistance, the tests suggest that
the remainder of the mattress should retain its improved flammability
performance, especially the performance expected early in the fire.
Since localized wetting, as in bedwetting, is anticipated to be the
most likely exposure of a mattress to water in real-world applications,
it appears unnecessary to add durability test requirements to the
standard to account for mattress designs that incorporate barrier
systems that use water-soluble flame retardants.
5. Effective Date
Comment. Commenters suggested a variety of effective dates for the
final rule ranging from immediate implementation to coinciding with
regular model changes (January and July) and 18 months from final
publication.
Response. The standard provides an effective date of July 1, 2007,
which is the earlier of January or July that follows twelve months
after publication of the Federal Register notice. This date would
coincide with regular model/style changes and thus make it easier for
all producers, especially small producers outside of California who are
not producing complying mattress sets, to update their styles and
produce complying mattress sets.
All national producers that sell mattresses in California already
have developed the production technology and conducted the testing
required to
[[Page 13481]]
meet California TB 603, which is very similar to the Commission's
standard. One of them is already selling mattresses complying with
performance requirements of the Commission's standard nationwide. Three
of the top four producers are selling complying mattress sets
representing between 15 to 20 percent of their total output. Smaller
companies not based in California may be behind in their design,
production, and testing efforts. However, the Commission believes that
an effective date of one year plus time to the next model introductions
provides enough time for all manufacturers to transition to producing
and selling compliant mattresses.
6. Labeling
a. Comment. One commenter urged the Commission to require the
labels of imported mattresses to bear the foreign manufacturer's name
and full address, including country, as well as the importer's name and
full address.
Response. CPSC agrees that such information should be present on
the mattress set label and has revised Sec. 1633.12 (a) of the
standard accordingly.
b. Comment. One commenter referred to the Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act, which is administered by the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) and requires, among other things, that mattresses made
with ``reused stuffing'' be labeled so, and suggested that CPSC
coordinate with FTC to allow the disclosure to appear on the label with
the other information required by the standard.
Response. Labeling of mattresses is governed by several
organizations, including CPSC, FTC, and individual states. Because of
the informative nature and quantity of information needed, the standard
has been revised to require the information specified in Sec. 1633.12
to be displayed on a permanent, dedicated label in a prescribed format.
Therefore, no other information apart from that required by the
standard may appear on this label. This helps to insure prominence of
consumer safety information and to prevent potential confusion with
other labeling requirements.
c. Comment. One commenter suggested requiring renovated mattresses
to bear a yellow label that would distinguish them from new mattresses,
which traditionally bear white labels. In addition, the commenter
recommended that renovated mattress labels be required to contain a
statement indicating that compliance with the standard does not imply
that the renovated mattress is sanitary or hygienic.
Response. The standard seeks to reduce injuries and deaths due to
fires. It is not intended to address the sanitary condition of
mattresses.
d. Comment. One commenter expressed concern that requiring a
dedicated label might detract from the Sleep Product Safety Council's
safety hangtag program, conflict with the state law labeling program,
and negatively affect the aesthetics of the finished product. The
commenter suggested allowing manufacturers to display the required
information on the Sleep Products Safety Council's safety hangtag.
Response. CPSC has revised the labeling provision in the standard
to (1) include intended usage information for the safety of the
consumer, (2) require all information specified in Sec. 1633.12 to
appear on a dedicated label, and (3) permit the display of the consumer
usage information in any other language on the reverse (blank) side of
the label. Consumers must be able to identify the correct foundation,
if any, to use with the mattress they purchase. With this intended
usage information, consumers will understand that the mattress they
purchase meets the requirements of the standard when used alone, with
one or more specific foundation(s), or both.
Requiring the specified information to appear on a dedicated label
has the benefit of (1) ensuring that such information is not detracted
from or minimized, (2) avoiding potential conflict or confusion with
state labeling requirements, (3) guaranteeing that the intended usage
information is highlighted and presented in a consistent manner, and
(4) allowing manufacturers the option of providing the intended usage
information in another language on the back of the label. CPSC staff
designed the required label to be as small as possible without
compromising the clarity and effectiveness of the specified
information.
e. Comment. Ten commenters recommended including in the standard a
requirement that mattresses provide a label listing FR chemicals used
or a statement warning of health risks.
Response. The staff has found that numerous FR materials are
available that will enable mattresses to meet the standard without
posing any appreciable health risks. Moreover, the FHSA itself would
require a hazard warning label if a mattress did contain a hazardous
substance as that term is defined in the FHSA. The potential health
hazard associated with any chemical depends on both toxicity and
exposure. A label stating the names of any FR chemicals used in the
mattress would thus not in fact provide any useful information to the
consumer because the mere presence of an FR chemical is not an
indication that the mattress containing that chemical poses any health
risk.
7. Preemption
Comment. The Commission received several comments concerning
preemption. One commenter asked that the Commission explicitly state in
the standard that the mattress standard would preempt both codified
state rules and State common law claims that address the same risk of
injury as the federal mattress standard. Other commenters asked that
the Commission indicate that the standard would not preempt stricter
state standards.
Response. The Commission's position on the preemptive effect of
this final rule is stated in Section N. of this preamble.
8. Domestic Manufacturer/Renovator vs. Importer Responsibilities
a. Comment. Two commenters suggested making importer testing/
recordkeeping responsibilities explicit. They suggested including
language specifying that testing needs to be conducted (either
qualification or confirmation) and records maintained for each foreign
manufacturer if the importer is importing from more than one
manufacturer.
Response. CPSC intends for the requirements of the standard to be
the same for domestic manufacturers/renovators and importers: each is
responsible for maintaining the appropriate qualification and
confirmation test records for mattress sets they produce and/or import.
These requirements have been clarified in the standard.
b. Comment. One commenter expressed concern that foreign
manufacturers may circumvent testing requirements by drop-shipping
directly to consumers. The commenter recommended adding a definition of
``importer'' that identifies domestic agents involved with selling or
marketing the product to be drop-shipped as the responsible party.
Response. The CPSC does not believe that adding a definition of
importer will suitably address the issue. Section 3(a) of the Flammable
Fabrics Act already prohibits ``[t]he manufacture for sale, or the
offering for sale, in commerce, or the importation into the United
States, or the introduction, delivery for introduction, transportation
or causing to be transported in commerce or for the
[[Page 13482]]
purpose of sale or delivery after sale in commerce * * *'' of any
product violating a standard issued under its authority. This means
that any party--including importers and other agents initially
introducing goods regulated under the FFA into commerce--engaged in the
foregoing actions with respect to non-complying products would be
liable under the FFA.
In response to the commenter's concern, CPSC revised the standard
to require each manufacturer to maintain a copy of the records
demonstrating compliance at a U.S. location. Additionally, this
location would be required to appear on the mattress label. Section
1633.11(e) of the standard has been revised to reflect these
requirements.
9. Quality Assurance Requirements
Comment. One commenter suggested limiting the scope of the
components and materials required to be controlled for quality
assurance to only those that are critical to the flammability
performance of the finished product.
Response. The Commission believes that it is premature to limit the
scope of the quality control on incoming components and materials. The
Commission could revisit this issue once significant experience with
the standard is gained and the industry and CPSC have more confidence
in the contributions of various components to the full-scale fire
performance of mattress sets.
10. Recordkeeping and Sample Retention
a. Comment. One commenter recommended that the test and
manufacturing records require the ``name and full address'' of the
testing laboratory, as opposed to just the ``location.'' The same
commenter likewise suggested substituting ``full address'' for
``location'' for both the manufacturer of the qualified prototype in
the pooling confirmation test records and the suppliers in the
prototype records.
Response. CPSC agrees that the name and complete address of the
testing laboratory, as well as the complete addresses of the qualified
prototype manufacturer and each material and component supplier, should
appear in the respective records. This will provide more complete and
accurate information for compliance purposes. Changes in Sec. 1633.11
of the standard have been made accordingly.
b. Comment. One commenter urged the Commission to limit the records
required under Sec. 1633.11(d)(5) of the standard to only those
relating to the testing and evaluations of components, materials, and
assembly methods critical to flammability performance of the qualified
prototype.
Response. Since it is too early to know exactly what components,
materials, and assembly methods will influence the flammability
performance of a mattress, CPSC does not believe it is appropriate to
limit the types of records required under Sec. 1633.11(d)(5) at this
time. Moreover, these records will likely be used by manufacturers to
demonstrate that a change in component, material, and/or assembly
method will not degrade the flammability performance of a prototype,
thus allowing the manufacturer to forgo testing and qualifying a new
prototype. To that end, it is in the interest of the manufacturer to
maintain a broader scope of such records.
c. Comment. Two commenters remarked that the requirement to keep
physical samples of all materials used in each prototype is overly
burdensome and impractical. The large numbers of samples would require
significant storage space while the objective could be accomplished
through test and quality certificates and other documentation already
required in the quality assurance records.
Response. The requirement to maintain physical samples of prototype
materials and components was included in the proposed standard as an
added measure for manufacturers to verify that production mattresses
match their representative prototype. Given that the prototype
recordkeeping requirements already call for manufacturers to provide a
detailed description of and specifications for each material and
component used in every prototype, and given that this information may
be used to reliably verify material and component consistency, the
requirement to keep physical samples has been eliminated in the
standard.
11. Consider Revoking Existing Cigarette Standard for Mattresses, 16
CFR Part 1632
Comment. Some commenters supported revoking the existing standard
for cigarette ignition of mattresses and mattress pads. Others
recommended careful review of risks, incident data, and benefits of the
current standard before revocation is considered.
Response. On June 23, 2005, the Commission published an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking for the possible revocation or amendment
of the Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads
(Cigarette Ignition). 70 FR 36357. That rulemaking will allow for a
full evaluation of options to reduce unnecessary burdens while
maintaining the safety afforded by the cigarette ignition standard. The
Commission staff is also considering measures to reduce the short term
testing burden created by the addition of a new mattress standard to an
existing one.
12. Costs Associated With the Standard
Comment. Commenters expressed concerns about the increased costs of
barrier materials needed to produce complying mattresses and increased
costs to consumers (as much as $100 per mattress).
Response. Estimates of barrier and other resource costs for
mattress producers are lower in the final regulatory analysis than
those in the initial regulatory analysis and are expected to drop
further as a result of technological developments and increased
competition among barrier producers. Total costs are not expected to
exceed $23.00 per mattress set.
The expected price increase for consumers was initially estimated
to range from $23.00 to slightly less than $80.00. However, the final
regulatory analysis updated the costs, which have declined because of
technological advances and market competition. This means that the
consumer price will increase by a mid-point estimate of $24.21 per
mattress.
One national producer currently makes mattresses that would comply
with the standard without increasing the price of its mattress sets.
Competition for market share among producers will likely drive the
price closer to the one charged by this national producer, which would
make the likely increase even lower than that suggested by the $24.21
above.
13. Bedclothes Rulemaking
Comment. Some commenters expressed support for an additional
rulemaking for bedclothes because of the significant role those
products play in mattress/bedding fire losses. Other commenters shared
concerns about the potential use of FR chemicals in such a rulemaking
as well.
Response. On January 13, 2005, the Commission published an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking for a standard to address open flame
ignition of bedclothes. 70 FR 2514. Recent research has shown that
bedclothes are a significant ignition source for mattress fires and can
also generate a fire large enough to pose a hazard on their own.
Laboratory tests also showed that fire performance of these products
could be
[[Page 13483]]
improved. The environmental and health implications of compliance
strategies, including FR chemicals, will be evaluated in the course of
that rulemaking.
I. Final Regulatory Analysis
The Commission is issuing a rule establishing a flammability
standard addressing the open flame ignition of mattresses. Section 4(j)
of the FFA requires that the Commission prepare a final regulatory
analysis for this action and that it be published with the final rule.
15 U.S.C. 1193(j). The Commission previously prepared, and published
with the proposed rule, a preliminary regulatory analysis. The staff
reviewed the preliminary regulatory analysis and updated it to prepare
a final regulatory analysis. The following discussion was extracted
from the staff's memorandum titled ``Final Regulatory Analysis of
Staff's Draft Standard Final to Address Open-Flame Ignitions of
Mattress Sets.'' [7]
1. Introduction
For 1999 to 2002, there were an estimated annual average of 15,300
fires where the first item ignited was mattress/bedding. These fires
resulted in an annual average of 350 deaths, 1,750 injuries, and $295
million of property loss. As discussed elsewhere in this document, NIST
conducted extensive research and developed a test methodology to test
open flame ignition of mattresses. The Commission issued an NPR
proposing a standard that incorporates the NIST test method.
California Technical Bulletin (TB) 603, which is based on the use
of NIST test burners designed to mimic the local thermal insult (heat
flux levels and duration) imposed by burning bedclothes, became
effective in California on January 1, 2005. The California share of the
market is estimated, by industry representatives, to be around 11
percent of the U.S. market. TB 603 requires all mattress/foundation
sets, mattresses intended to be used without a foundation, and futons
to meet the following pass/fail criteria: (1) The peak heat release
rate (``PHRR'') does not exceed 200 kW during the 30 minute test, and
(2) the total heat release does not exceed 25 mega joules (MJ) in the
first 10 minutes of the test.
As of October 2005, one of the top four producers is selling
mattress sets that comply with both TB 603 and the CPSC standard. The
other three (of the top four) are producing complying mattress sets
representing between 15 and 20 percent of their total output. This
includes all mattress sets sold in California, plus other special
orders, institutional mattresses and mattress sets sold in other
states. Smaller manufacturers, however, may not produce mattress sets
intended for sale outside California to meet TB 603 performance
requirements. They are more likely to wait until a federal standard is
adopted. The mattress industry and the International Sleep Products
Association (ISPA) support the development of a mandatory federal
standard (Furniture Today, May 10, 2004). A Federal standard would
eliminate the uncertainty that may result from having different
flammability standards for different states.
2. The Standard: Scope and Testing Provisions
The standard will apply to all mattress sets, where the term
mattress set means either a mattress and foundation labeled by the
manufacturer for sale as a set, or a mattress labeled by the
manufacturer without any foundation. The term mattress means a ticking
(i.e., an outer layer of fabric) filled with a resilient material used
alone or in combination with other products intended or promoted for
sleeping upon. This definition is discussed further in section E.3.
above.
A typical innerspring mattress construction might include ticking;
binding tape fabric; quilt cushioning with one or more separate layers;
quilt backing fabric; thread; cushioning with one or more separate
layers; flanging; spring insulator pad; spring unit; and side (border)
panels. Options for meeting the standard include the use of one or a
combination of the following: fire resistant ticking; chemically
treated or otherwise fire resistant filling products; or a fire
blocking barrier (either a sheet style barrier, sometimes called a
fabric barrier, or a high-loft barrier, sometimes called a fiber
barrier). The fire blocking barrier is placed either directly between
the exterior cover fabric of the product and the first layer of
cushioning materials, or beneath one or more ``sacrificial'' layers
that can burn without reaching the heat release constraints of the
standard.
While the technology exists for producing a sheet-style fire
blocking barrier, few, if any, producers are choosing it for protecting
the mattress. The cost of using sheet barriers is higher than using
high-loft barriers, since sheet barriers are thin and therefore could
not be substituted for an existing foam or cushioning layer. There is
also concern that some sheet barriers, unlike high-loft barriers, may
reduce the comfort of the sleeping surface. There are already over
twenty different vendors of fire resistant materials associated with
the production of mattress sets, including barriers, ticking, foam,
tape, and thread. These materials include chemically treated cotton,
rayon, and/or polyester, melamine, modacrylic, fiberglass, aramid
(Kevlar[reg]), or some combination of them.
For each qualified prototype, three mattress sets must be tested
and must pass the test requirements. To obtain a passing result, each
mattress/set must pass a 30 minute test, where the PHRR does not exceed
200 kW and the total heat release does not exceed 15 MJ in the first 10
minutes of the test. If any of the sets fail, the problem must be
corrected, the prototype must be retested and pass the test (in
triplicate). Manufacturers may sell any mattress set based on a
qualified prototype. Manufacturers may also sell a mattress set based
on a subordinate prototype that has not been tested if that prototype
differs from a qualified prototype only with respect to (1) mattress/
foundation size (length and width); (2) ticking, unless the ticking of
the qualified prototype has characteristics designed to improve
performance on the burn test; and/or (3) the manufacturer can
demonstrate, on an objectively reasonable basis, that a change in any
component, material, or method of assembly will not cause the prototype
to exceed the test criteria specified above.
Once a prototype has been qualified, other establishments (plants
within the same firm) or independent firms may rely on it through a
pooling arrangement. The pooling plant or firm is required to test one
mattress set for confirmation testing. If that set fails, then the
plant or firm will need to test another mattress set after correcting
its production to make sure that it is identical to the original
prototype. A pooling firm may sell other mattress sets that have not
been tested by the pooling firm if they are based on a confirmed
prototype and differ from the confirmed prototype only with respect to
the three situations stated above.
3. Products and Industries Potentially Affected
According to ISPA, the mattress producers' trade organization, the
top four producers of mattresses account for almost sixty percent of
total U.S. production. In total, there are 571 establishments (as of
2003) that produce mattresses in the U.S., using the U.S. Department of
Commerce NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Code
33791 for mattresses. The top four producers account for about half of
the number of all these
[[Page 13484]]
establishments. The number of establishments has been declining over
time due to mergers and buy-outs. Total employment in the industry,
using the NAICS Code 33791, was 24,545 workers in 2003.
The mattress manufacturing industry has three key supplying
industries: spring and wire product manufacturing, broad-woven fabric
mills, and foam products manufacturing. Depending on the type of fire
resistant barrier chosen by different manufacturers, the demand for
foam padding or non-skid fabric for mattresses might decline if it were
replaced by the high-loft or sheet barrier in the construction of the
mattress and foundation. This would be offset by an increase in the
demand for the barrier. Fiberglass, melamine, and aramid producers may
also be affected to the extent that they are used to produce fire
resistant materials used in mattress production.
Manufacturers of bedclothes may also be affected by the standard.
Sales of bedclothes may increase or decrease based on whether consumers
view bedclothes as complements or substitutes for a new mattress set
(complements are goods generally consumed together, substitutes
generally substitute for each other). For example, if people tend to
buy all parts of a new bed (mattress, foundation, and bedclothes
consisting of a comforter, pillows, and sheets) at the same time, then
an increase in the quantity of mattresses sold would cause an increase
in sales of bedclothes. If, alternatively, people tend to have a fixed
budget from which to buy all mattresses and bedding items, then an
increase in the quantity of mattresses sold would lead to a decrease in
sales of bedclothes. Also, if the decision to buy a new mattress (or
mattress set) involves buying a mattress that is much thicker than the
one currently in use, then consumers will most likely buy new sheets
(and possibly matching pillowcases and other bedclothes items) to fit
the new thicker mattress.
If the cost increase is relatively small or there is no resulting
increase in the price of a mattress set, then the demand for bedclothes
will only be affected if consumers place a higher value on the safer
mattress and replace their current mattress sooner than they would have
with no standard in place. An increased demand for the safer (and
thicker, if the current mattress is relatively old) mattress will
likely result in an increased demand for sheets that fit the newer
mattresses. This effect, however, is not directly resulting from the
adoption of the standard since the thickness of the mattress need not
be increased by the presence of either type of barrier. It is the
result of the increased utility some consumers may derive from the
safer mattress and the consequent increase in demand for bedclothes.
The increased demand for safer mattresses would most probably lead to
an increase in sales and employment in the spring and wire products,
broad-woven fabric, and foam products industries, as well as in the
mattress and bedclothes industries.
Other producers that could potentially be affected, if the price
change associated with producing compliant mattresses is significant,
are those of other substitute products, like airbeds, waterbeds, * * *
etc. that contain no upholstered material and would, therefore, not be
covered by the standard. Their sales may increase as a proportion of
total bedding products.
4. Characteristics of Mattresses Used in U.S. Households
The total number of U.S. conventional mattress shipments was 22.5
million in 2004 and is estimated to be 23.0 in 2005. Mattress shipments
have grown at an average rate of three percent over the period 1981 to
2005. Unconventional mattresses (including futons; crib mattresses;
juvenile mattresses; sleep sofa inserts; and hybrid water mattresses)
are estimated to be about ten percent of the total market. This yields
an estimated total number of mattresses produced domestically of 25.6
million in 2005. The value of mattress and foundation shipments in
2004, according to ISPA, was $4.10 and $1.68 billion, compared to $3.26
and $1.51 billion respectively in 2002.
The CPSC Product Population Model (PPM) estimate of the number of
mattresses in use in different years is based on available annual sales
data and an estimate of the average product life of a mattress.
Industry representatives assert that the average consumer replaces a
mattress set after ten years. A 1996 CPSC market study estimated the
average expected life of a mattress to be 14 years. The PPM estimates
the number of (conventional and non-conventional) mattresses in use in
2005 to be 237.0 million, using a 10-year average product life and
303.9 million, using a 14-year average product life. These two numbers
are later used to estimate the pre-standard baseline risk and the
expected benefits of the standard.
This analysis focuses principally on queen-size mattresses because
they are the most commonly used. In 2004 queen-size mattresses were
used by 34.9 percent of U.S. consumers. Following the queen-size are
the sizes: Twin and Twin XL (29.3 percent), Full and Full XL (19.9
percent), King and California King (11.5 percent), and all other (4.4
percent). ISPA data reflect that the average size of a mattress is
increasing. The average manufacturing price in 2004 was $182 for a
mattress of average size and $90 for a foundation of average size.
Hence the average manufacturing price of a mattress set was about $272
in 2004.
There are no readily available data on average retail prices for
mattress sets by size. ISPA, however, reports that mattress sets
selling for under $500 represented 34.6 percent of the marketing 2004.
Mattress sets selling for between $500 and $1000 represented 41.1
percent of the market in 2004, compared to 39.2 percent in 2002.
5. Mattress/Bedding Residential Fires, Deaths, Injuries, and Property
Losses: 1999-2002
The staff estimates that there were 15,300 average annual mattress/
bedding fires for 1999-2002. Of these, 14,300 (or 93 percent) are
potentially addressable by the standard. Average annual mattress/
bedding deaths for 1999 to 2002 are 350. Of these, 330 (or 94 percent)
are potentially addressable by the standard. Average annual mattress/
bedding injuries for 1999 to 2002 are 1,750. Of these, 1,680 (or 96
percent) are potentially addressable by the standard. Average annual
mattress/bedding property losses for 1999 to 2002 are 295 million
dollars. Of these, 281.5 million dollars (or 95 percent) are
potentially addressable by the standard.
6. Expected Benefits of the Standard
The expected benefits of the standard are estimated as reductions
in the baseline risk of death and injury from all mattress fires, based
on a CPSC staff study of fire investigations from 1999-2004. Risk
reductions are then calculated on a per-mattress-in-use basis based on
estimates of the number of mattresses in use. The monetary value of
expected benefits per mattress is derived using estimates for the value
of a statistical life and the current (i.e., 2005) average cost of a
mattress fire injury. To derive the monetary value of expected benefits
over the life of a mattress, the expected annual benefits are
discounted (using a three percent discount rate), and then summed over
the expected life of the mattress. The analysis considers mattress
lives of 10 and 14 years.
The potential benefits of the standard consist of the reduction in
deaths, injuries, and property damage that would result. Since the
prime objective of the standard is to reduce the likelihood of
flashover or increase the
[[Page 13485]]
time before flashover occurs, and not to reduce fires, changes in
property losses associated with the standard are hard to quantify.
Property losses are expected to decline but the extent of the decline
cannot be quantified. Consequently, for purposes of this analysis, no
reduction in property losses is assumed. That is, all expected benefits
from the standard are in the form of prevented deaths and injuries.
This underestimates net benefits, since there will likely be some
benefits from reduced property losses.
The standard is expected to reduce the likelihood of flashover
resulting from fires started by smoking materials or other ignition
sources, as well as those started by open-flame ignition. Reductions in
fires, injuries, and deaths will translate into societal benefits, as
will be discussed in the benefit-cost analysis (Section 8 of this
analysis).
Estimates of the effectiveness of the standard are based on a CPSC
staff evaluation of in-depth investigation reports of fires (including
details of the occupants' situations and actions during the fire)
occurring in 1999-2004 in which a mattress or bedding was the first
item to ignite, the fire was of the type considered addressable by the
standard, and a civilian death or injury resulted. Most of the
investigations also included documentation from the fire department
that attended the fire. Some incident reports were initiated from death
certificates with follow-up documentation from the fire department.
This resulted in a total of 195 deaths and 205 injuries in the
investigations to be evaluated. The distribution of mattress ignition
sources was not representative of all fires involving mattresses and
thus the data were weighted to match the NFIRS-based national fire data
distributions.
Evaluations of the fire incidents by CPSC staff reviewers used the
results of NIST testing (Ohlemiller, 2004; Ohlemiller and Gann, 2003;
Ohlemiller and Gann, 2002) conducted to assess the hazard produced from
burning mattresses and bedclothes. Specifically, the evaluations were
based on the expectation that occupants in bed when the fire ignited
but able to escape the burning bedclothes in the first three to five
minutes faced a minimal hazard. Occupants in direct contact with
burning bedclothes for a longer period (5 to 10 minutes) would be
subject to potentially hazardous levels of heat release. If the burning
bedclothes did not ignite other non-bedding items or produce flashover
at this time, heat release would subside temporarily and then begin to
increase as the involvement of the mattress increased.
These conditions would allow occupants 10 to 15 minutes to escape
the room of origin before the situation in the room would become
untenable. Since the standard is expected to slow the rate of fire
spread and hence increase escape time, assuming that bedclothes do not
contribute enough heat to pose a hazardous condition, it was assumed
that people who were outside the room of origin at the time of ignition
were unlikely to die in the fire, unless they entered the room later or
were incapable of exiting on their own. The analysis focused on
reduction of deaths and injuries because the standard is designed to
limit fire intensity and spread rather than prevent ignition.
Each investigation was evaluated by CPSC staff reviewers to
identify the features related to the occurrence of a death or injury
once the fire was ignited. These included casualty age, casualty
location when the fire started (at the point of ignition, in the room
of origin but not at the point of ignition, or outside the room of
origin), whether the casualty was asleep, or suffered from additional
conditions likely to increase the time needed to escape, whether the
casualty engaged in fighting the fire, and whether a rescuer was
present. All of these conditions were used to determine a range for the
likelihood that each individual death or injury would have been
prevented had the standard been in effect. Percentage reductions of
deaths (injuries) within subcategories of heat source and age group
were applied to equivalent subcategories of the national estimates
based on the NFIRS and NFPA data for 1999-2002. The estimated
reductions per category were summed and the overall percentage
reductions were calculated as the percent of addressable deaths (or
injuries) that would have been prevented if the likelihood of flashover
were reduced in the first 30 minutes and victims had 10 to 15 minutes
of escape time.
The staff indicates that the standard is expected to reduce all
addressable deaths from mattress/bedding fires by 69 to 78 percent and
reduce all addressable injuries from mattress/bedding fires by 73 to 84
percent. Assuming that addressable mattress/bedding fire deaths and
injuries account for the same percentage of residential casualties in
2003 and 2004 as in 1999 to 2002, the staff estimates that 240 to 270
deaths and 1150 to 1330 injuries in mattress/bedding fires attended by
the fire service could have been prevented annually during the period
2000 to 2004.
The staff's analysis presents the estimated benefits of the
standard, based on the expected annual deaths and injuries that are
expected to be prevented by the standard. The analysis is conducted as
if the standard had gone into effect in 2005. All dollar estimates are
based on constant 2005 dollars. A discount rate of 3 percent and
average expected lives of a mattress of 10 and 14 years are also
assumed.
Based on the estimated number of mattresses in use for an average
mattress life of 10 years (described in Section 4), the reduction in
the risk of death during the first year the standard becomes effective
equals 1.01 deaths per million mattresses (240 deaths divided by the
estimated 237 million mattresses in use in 2005) to 1.14 per million
mattresses (270 deaths/237 million mattresses). The mid-point estimate
of the reduction in the risk of death the first year the standard
becomes effective is, therefore, 1.08. The mid-point estimate of the
reduction in the risk of injury, similarly calculated, equals 5.23,
with a range from 4.85 to 5.61, injuries per million mattresses for an
estimated 10-year life of a mattress. The mid-point estimates of the
risk reductions for an estimated 14-year average life of a mattress are
0.84 deaths, with a range from 0.79 to 0.89, and 4.08 injuries, with a
range of 3.78 to 4.38, per million mattresses.
Annual risk reductions resulting from the standard are used to
derive the monetary benefits from reduced deaths and injuries. The
estimated reduction in the risk of death is multiplied by the value of
a statistical life (and divided by a million) to derive a first-year
monetary estimate for the range of benefits from lives saved per
mattress. Based on the existing literature, a value of a statistical
life of five million dollars is assumed (Viscusi, 1993). The estimated
reduction in the risk of injury is similarly used to derive the range
of first-year monetary benefits from injuries prevented. The benefits
from preventing an injury (the cost of an injury) in 2005 are estimated
to average about $150,000, based on Zamula (2005) and Miller et al.
(1993). The mid-point estimate of the first-year benefits associated
with preventing deaths and injuries equals $6.17, with a range from
$5.79 to $6.54 for an estimated mattress life of 10 years and $4.81,
with a range from $4.52 to $5.10 for an estimated mattress life of 14
years.
Lifetime benefits are derived by projecting annual benefits for the
life of the mattress and summing the discounted (at a rate of 3
percent) stream of annual benefits (measured in constant dollars). The
number of mattresses in use is projected to grow at a rate of zero to
three percent, based on the average growth rate for the 1981-
[[Page 13486]]
2004 period. Since the number of deaths and injuries are implicitly
assumed to remain constant over time, a positive growth rate of
mattresses in use implies a declining risk over time. The lower end of
the ranges for estimated (10 and 14 years) lifetime benefits correspond
to a 3 percent projected growth rate and the lower end of the
effectiveness ranges. The upper end of the ranges for estimated (10 and
14 years) lifetime benefits correspond to a zero percent projected
growth rate and the upper end of the effectiveness ranges.
For an expected mattress life of 10 years, the resulting mid-point
estimate of expected lifetime benefits of saved lives associated with
the standard equals $44.71, with a range of $39.37 to $50.05 per
mattress. The corresponding mid-point estimate of benefits of prevented
injuries equals $6.54, with a range of $5.67 to $7.41 per mattress.
Hence, for an expected mattress life of 10 years, the mid-point
estimate of the expected total lifetime benefits of a compliant
mattress equals $51.25, with a range of $45.04 to $57.46 per mattress.
For an expected mattress life of 14 years, the mid-point estimate of
the total benefits equals $51.82, with a range of $44.30 to $59.34 per
mattress. The sensitivity analysis section below examines how the
results might change when a discount rate of seven percent is used.
7. Expected Costs of the Standard
This section presents the expected resource costs associated with
the standard. Resource costs are costs that reflect the use of a
resource that would have been available for other uses had it not been
used in conjunction with the production of mattresses compliant with
the standard. These costs include material and labor costs; testing
costs; costs to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers; costs of
producers' information collection and record keeping; costs of quality
control/quality assurance programs; and compliance and enforcement
costs. The effect on retail prices will be discussed in Section 8 of
this Regulatory Analysis.
Material and Labor Costs. To comply with the standard, the
construction of most mattress sets will include a barrier technology
with improved fire performance. This barrier may be thick (high-loft)
or thin (sheet). High-loft barriers are generally used to replace some
of the existing non-woven fiber, foam, and/or batting material, leading
to a smaller increase in costs than sheet barriers, which constitute an
addition to production materials (and costs). Producers, therefore, are
generally using the high-loft barrier for the panel (top of the
mattress) and mattress and foundation borders. If they are using sheet
barriers, they limit their use to the bottom of the mattress, replacing
the no-skid non-FR (fire resistant) sheet used previously.
According to several barrier producers and mattress manufacturers,
the price of a high-loft barrier that would make a mattress comply with
the standard, is around $2.65 per linear yard, defined to have a width
of 88 to 92 inches. Barrier costs range from $2.00 to $3.30, per linear
yard. The high-loft barrier replaces the currently-used polyester
batting, which costs an average of $ 1.15, with a range from $0.55 to
$1.75, per linear yard. Hence, the net increase in the average cost
attributed to the use of the high-loft barrier, referred to by the
industry as the application cost, is $1.50, with a range from $0.25 to
$2.75 per linear yard, which translates to a net increase in barrier-
related manufacturing costs of $7.95, with a range from $1.33 to
$14.58, for a queen-size mattress set.\3\ The queen-size is used for
all the cost estimates, because it is the mode size, used by 34.9
percent of consumers in 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This calculation is based on the assumption that a queen-
size mattress set requires 5.3 linear yards of the barrier material
to be used in the two (top and bottom) panels of the mattress and
the borders of both the mattress and foundation. Some producers are
able to use less than 5.3 linear yards, which reduces their cost per
queen mattress set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the increase in material costs due to the use of a
barrier, costs will increase due to the use of fire-resistant (FR)
thread for tape stitching. According to several thread producers, the
cost of FR thread is $0.51 per queen-size mattress set, with a range
from $0.41 to $0.60. Given that the cost of nylon (non-FR) thread is
about $0.10 per queen-size mattress set, the average application cost
of FR thread (net increase in costs due to the use of FR thread) per
queen-size mattress set is $0.41, with a range from $0.31 to $0.50.
Costs may also increase due to slightly reduced labor productivity.
Based on industry estimates of an average of two labor hours for the
production of a queen-size mattress set, and a 10 percent reduction in
labor productivity and an industry average hourly total compensation of
$22.00, the cost increase due to reduced labor productivity is about
$4.40. The reduced labor productivity results from the inexperience of
the workers with the new production methods and should disappear when
they become familiar with the products and techniques being used.
The standard requires producers to add a new label to both
mattresses and foundations that identifies the prototype and the
possible choice of foundations to be used with a specific mattress.
This requirement is to ensure that consumers are buying a mattress set
that was tested as a set, and would thus meet the requirements of the
standard. This label is required to be separate from any other labels
already being used and is estimated by industry representatives to
result in an additional cost of $0.01 for both the mattress and
foundation. This estimate includes both the material and labor needed
to add the label.
The increase in the average materials and labor costs of a mattress
set is thus equal to the sum of the barrier application cost per
mattress set, thread application cost, labeling cost, and costs due to
reduced labor productivity. This sum equals $12.77 ($7.95 barrier cost
+ $0.41 thread cost + $4.40 labor cost + $0.01 label cost). The
estimated range for the materials and labor costs is $6.05 to $19.49.
Costs of Prototype and Confirmation Testing. The standard requires
each mattress set qualified prototype to be tested in triplicate for
prototype qualification. According to industry representatives, the
cost of testing per twin-size mattress set may be about $500: the sum
of the average cost of the materials and shipping ($100) and the cost
of the use of the lab ($400). Hence, the cost of testing three mattress
sets for prototype qualification equals $1500. Additionally, if some
mattress set prototypes do not pass the first time, then the cost will
be higher, because additional tests will be done after action is taken
to improve the resistance of the prototype. If 10 percent of mattresses
are retested, then the average cost of testing a prototype would be 10
percent higher, or $1650. This cost is assumed to be incurred no more
than once per establishment for each prototype. It is expected that a
qualified prototype will be used to represent a mattress construction
(e.g., single-sided pillow top) with all subordinate prototypes using
the same construction (with different sizes (lengths and widths) and
different ticking materials) being based on the qualified prototype.
If companies pool their prototypes across different establishments
or different companies, testing costs would be smaller as all but one
of the firms/establishments producing to the specification of a pooled
prototype may just burn one mattress (for the confirmation test)
instead of three (for the qualified prototype test). Therefore, it is
expected that the average cost of testing per mattress will be lower
for firms and/or establishments that pool their results than for those
that do not.
[[Page 13487]]
If manufacturers test every mattress construction (e.g., single-
sided pillow top, double-sided pillow-top, tight-top, euro-top, * * *
etc.), which is estimated, based on conversations with manufacturers,
to average about twenty per manufacturer, for every establishment in a
given year, then their average testing cost per mattress would
approximately equal 82 cents ($1650* 20 styles * 571 establishments/
23.0 million conventional mattresses) per mattress set for the first
year of production. The standard would allow selling mattress sets
whose (subordinate) prototypes differ from a qualified (or confirmed)
prototype only with respect to size (length and width), and/or ticking
material or other components that do not impact the fire performance of
the prototype without testing the prototypes, to minimize testing costs
to all manufacturers, especially those whose volume of output is small.
Pooling testing results across establishments and/or firms will further
reduce the average cost of testing per mattress set. On an annual
basis, testing costs will be further reduced because qualified,
confirmed, and subordinate prototypes need not be tested every year.
Cost of Information Collection and Record Keeping. In addition to
prototype testing, the standard requires detailed documentation of all
tests performed and their results including video or pictures;
prototype or production identification number; date and time of test;
and name and location of testing facility; test room conditions; and
test data for as long as the prototype is in production and for three
years after its production ceases. Manufacturers are also required to
keep records of a unique identification number for the qualified
prototype and a list of the unique identification numbers of each
prototype based on the qualified prototype and a description of the
materials substituted. Moreover, they are required to document the name
and supplier of each material used in construction of a prototype.
Additionally, they are required to identify the details of the
application of any fire retardant treatments and/or inherently fire
resistant fibers employed relative to mattress components.
This documentation is in addition to documentation already
conducted by mattress manufacturers in their efforts to meet the
cigarette standard. Detailed testing documentation will be done by the
test lab and is included in the estimated cost of testing. Based on
CPSC Office of Compliance staff estimates, all requirements of the
standard are expected to cost an establishment about one hour per
qualified prototype. Assuming that every establishment will produce 20
different qualified prototypes, the increase in record keeping costs is
about $412.20 (1 hour x 20 qualified prototypes x $20.61 average total
compensation per hour for office and administrative support workers)
per establishment per year. (Note that pooling among establishments or
using a qualified prototype for longer than one year will reduce this
estimate.) This translates to an average cost of 1 cent per mattress
set for an average establishment, with average output of 40,280
conventional mattresses.
Cost of Quality Control/Quality Assurance Programs. To ensure that
all mattresses are produced to the prototype specification across all
factories and over the years for which a production line exists,
mattress manufacturers will need a thorough well-documented quality
control/assurance program. The top 15 mattress producers (with a market
share of 83 percent) have existing quality control programs which could
be modified to fit the new standard with minimal additional costs.
Smaller producers, whose quality control programs are less detailed or
non-existent, will incur some incremental costs as a result of the
standard. These incremental costs will be small for each manufacturer
and less when measured per mattress set. (See the section on impact of
the standard on small businesses for a description of their cost of
quality control and quality assurance programs to them.)
Additionally, the standard encourages random production testing to
assure manufacturers that their mattresses continue to meet the
requirements of the rule, as a possible component of the quality
control/quality assurance program. Assuming that an average of 3
mattress set constructions will be tested per establishment per year
yields an estimated cost of production testing of about $1500. Based on
this assumption, the estimated cost of testing mattress sets for
quality assurance purposes, therefore, equals 3.7 cents per mattress
($1500/40,280) for an average establishment.
The labor needed to meet the quality assurance measures required by
the standard is estimated by CPSC Office of Compliance staff to be 224
minutes per establishment per prototype per year. Assuming that every
establishment will produce 20 qualified prototypes, the increase in
labor costs associated with quality assurance requirements of the
standard is about $1539 (224 minutes x 20 qualified prototypes x $20.61
average total compensation per hour for office and administrative
support workers) per establishment per year. (Note that pooling among
establishments or using a qualified, confirmed, or subordinate
prototype for longer than one year will reduce this estimate.) This
yields an average cost of 3.8 cents per mattress set for an average
establishment, with average output of 40,280 mattresses per year. Hence
expected total costs of quality assurance/quality control programs may
average about 7.5 cents (3.7 + 3.8) per conventional mattress set per
year.
Costs to Wholesalers, Distributors, and Retailers. An added cost of
the standard is the increase in costs to wholesalers, distributors, and
retailers in the form of additional storage, transportation, and
inventory financing costs. Since a mattress complying with the standard
will not be bigger than a similar mattress produced before the standard
becomes effective, storage and transportation costs are not expected to
increase. Inventory financing costs will increase by the average cost
of borrowing money, applied to the wholesale price of a mattress over
the average inventory holding time period. Since most mattress
producers use just-in-time production and have small inventories, this
additional cost will probably not exceed ten percent of the increase in
production cost (which is the sum of material, labor, testing, record
keeping, and quality assurance costs). A ten percent mark-up is,
therefore, being used to measure the cost to wholesalers, distributors,
and retailers. This yields a resource cost to wholesalers,
distributors, and retailers equal to $1.37, with a range from $0.69 to
$2.04, per mattress set. Retail prices may increase by more than the 10
percent mark-up. Section 8 discusses the impact of the standard on
retail prices of mattress sets.
Costs of Compliance and Enforcement. Compliance and enforcement
costs refer to the costs incurred by CPSC to ensure that manufacturers
are complying with the standard. Based on past experience with the
existing mattress standard, the estimated CPSC inspection time spent
per location (establishment) equals 33 hours for inspection and 6 hours
for sample collection. This yields a cost per inspection of about
$1,722.63 (39 hours * $44.17, the average wage rate for CPSC
inspectors). Additionally, compliance officers spend an average of 20
hours per case, making their cost equal to $1,071.20 (20 hours *
$53.56, the average hourly wage rate for compliance officers). This
yields an average compliance and enforcement total labor
[[Page 13488]]
cost of $2,793.83 per inspected establishment per year.
It should be noted that the expected cost per establishment, if
less than one hundred percent of establishments are inspected every
year, equals the cost per inspected establishment times the probability
that a given establishment will be inspected. Though the probability
that a given establishment will be inspected in a given year is not
known, assuming that a third of all establishments will be inspected
(i.e., about 190 establishments) yields a compliance and enforcement
total expected labor cost of $931.28 ($2,793.83 * (\1/3\)) per
establishment per year.
In addition to labor costs, CPSC will incur testing costs. It
should be noted that the decision to collect samples after an
inspection visit is made at the discretion of the investigator and,
therefore an accurate assumption about the number of samples collected
and sent for a burn test cannot be made. If, based on inspection,
samples from 10 percent of all inspected establishments were to be
collected and sent to a lab for a burn test, and if samples
representing 5 (qualified, confirmed, or subordinate) prototypes are
taken from each of these establishments, then the total cost of CPSC
testing will be $142,750 (5 prototypes * $1,500 (the cost of testing 3
mattress sets for each qualified prototype) * 19 (10 percent of
inspected establishments, equal to a third of 571)). These assumptions
about frequency of testing yield an expected cost of testing per
establishment of $250 ($142,750/571).
Therefore the expected total CPSC wage and testing costs associated
with the standard per establishment per year equal $1,181.28 ($931.28 +
$250.00). With an average production of 40,280 mattresses per
establishment (23 million mattresses divided by 571 establishments),
the average CPSC wage and testing costs equal 2.9 cents per mattress
set ($1,181.28/40,280). These costs are expected to decrease over time
as manufacturers learn the requirements of the standard.
Total Resource Costs. Therefore total resource costs (including
material costs, labor costs, costs of prototype and confirmation
testing, paperwork collection and record keeping costs, costs of
quality control/quality assurance programs, production testing costs,
costs to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers, and costs of
compliance and enforcement) are estimated to be $15.07, with a range
from $7.67 to $22.46, per mattress set. The section on the impact of
the standard on small businesses and other small entities discusses how
costs of testing and quality control/quality assurance programs may
differ for small businesses and strategies that small manufacturers
might adopt to reduce these costs.
Projected Future Costs. It is possible that costs associated with
the standard will decline over time. A supplier of fire resistant
barriers predicts that the price of the barriers will decline by 40
percent in the next two years, due to decreased uncertainty and
increased competition. (They have already dropped significantly since
TB603 was proposed.) The increase in labor costs due to decreased
productivity is expected to be temporary and be reduced when workers
get more training and/or the older machines get replaced with newer
machines that are more capable of handling the FR thread and material
used in fire resistant barriers. Moreover, as noted above, prototype
testing costs are expected to decline after the first year of the
standard.
The standard includes an effective date of July 1, 2007. The costs
reported here are based on the assumption that supplier companies will
be able to maintain existing capacity. If federal standards for
bedclothes and upholstered furniture were mandated at the same time and
input producers were not given enough time to increase their capacity,
input prices would rise in the short-run because of increased demand
for the FR material used by all three industries.
Unquantifiable Costs. A mattress manufacturer indicated that in
response to an open-flame mattress standard, the number of models/
styles produced may be cut by half. If this response is typical, then
there may be a reduction in consumers' utility, because of the
reduction in mattress types that they would have to choose from. Others
indicate that there will be an aversion to producing double-sided
mattresses, because it would be harder for them to pass the burn test.
Double-sided mattresses possibly have a longer expected life than
single-sided ones. To the extent that consumers prefer double-sided
mattresses to single-sided mattresses, the shift away from producing
double-sided mattresses imposes a non-monetary cost. Though
unquantifiable, this reduction in choices of construction type and
design is an added cost to consumers of the standard.
8. Benefits and Costs of the Standard
This section compares benefits and costs of the standard, presents
a sensitivity analysis, and highlights the impact of the standard on
retail prices, small businesses, children, and the environment. The
sensitivity analysis examines the effect of changing some of the
assumptions used earlier. The analysis shows that net benefits continue
to be positive under a reasonable range of assumptions about the death
and injury effectiveness of the standard, the reduction in injuries
resulting from the standard, the value of a statistical life estimate,
the discount rate, or the expected mattress life.
Using an expected mattress life of 10 years and a discount rate of
3 percent, the mid-point estimates for total benefits, costs, and net
benefits per mattress set associated with the standard equal $51.25,
$15.07, and $36.18 respectively per mattress set. The ranges for these
estimates are $45.04 to $57.46, $7.67 to $22.46, and $22.58 to $49.78
respectively per mattress set. The lower end of the range for net
benefits is derived by subtracting the upper end of the range for costs
from the low