[Federal Register: January 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 9)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2469-2514]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ja05-31]
[[Page 2469]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Consumer Product Safety Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16 CFR Parts 1633 and 1634
Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattresses and Mattress/
Foundation Sets; Standard To Address Open Flame Ignition of Bedclothes;
Proposed Rules
[[Page 2470]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 1633
Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattresses and
Mattress/Foundation Sets; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission is proposing a flammability standard under the
authority of the Flammable Fabrics Act that would address open flame
ignition of mattresses and mattress and foundation sets (``mattresses/
sets''). The Commission currently has a flammability standard that
addresses ignition of mattresses by cigarettes. However, that standard
does not address mattress fires ignited by open flames. The proposed
standard sets performance requirements based on research conducted by
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (``NIST'').
Mattresses/sets that comply with the proposed requirements will
generate a smaller size fire, thus reducing the possibility of
flashover occurring. These improved mattresses should result in
significant reductions in deaths and injuries associated with mattress
fires. Due to the interaction of mattresses and bedclothes discussed
herein, elsewhere in today's Federal Register the Commission is
publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to begin rulemaking
on bedclothes.
DATES: Written comments in response to this document must be received
by the Commission not later than March 29, 2005. Comments on elements
of the proposed rule that, if issued in final form would constitute
collection of information requirements under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, may be filed with the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')
and with the Commission. Comments will be received by OMB until March
14, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be filed by email to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.
Comments also may be filed by telefacsimile to (301)504-0127 or mailed,
preferably in five copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer
Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207-0001, or delivered to
the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room
502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland; telephone (301) 504-
7530. Comments should be captioned ``Mattress NPR.''
Comments to OMB should be directed to the Desk Officer for the
Consumer Product Safety Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, DC 20503. The Commission asks
commenters to provide copies of such comments to the Commission's
Office of the Secretary, with a caption or cover letter identifying the
materials as comments submitted to OMB on the proposed collection of
information requirements for the proposed mattress standard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Neily, Directorate for
Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington,
DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-7530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On October 11, 2001, the Commission issued an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (``ANPR'') concerning the open flame ignition of
mattresses/bedding. 66 FR 51886. The ANPR was the result of the staff's
evaluation of fire data over the course of several years and petitions
filed by Whitney Davis, director of the Children's Coalition for Fire-
Safe Mattresses (``CCFSM''). Although the Commission has an existing
mattress flammability standard that addresses ignition by cigarettes,
16 CFR Part 1632, no current Commission standard directly addresses
open flame ignition of mattresses. The most common open flame sources
are lighters, candles and matches. The Commission is now issuing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') proposing a flammability
standard to address open flame ignition of mattresses.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Commissioner Thomas H. Moore issued a statement, a copy of
which is available from the Commission's Office of the Secretary or
from the Commission's Web site, www.cpsc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Characteristics of mattress/bedding fires. A burning mattress
generally provides the biggest fuel load in a typical bedroom fire.
Once the mattress ignites, the fire develops rapidly creating dangerous
flashover conditions. Flashover is the point at which the entire
contents of a room are ignited simultaneously by radiant heat, making
conditions in the room untenable and safe exit from the room
impossible. At flashover, room temperatures typically exceed 600-800 C
(approximately 1100-1470 F). In these conditions, carbon monoxide
rapidly increases, and oxygen is rapidly depleted. Mattress fires that
lead to flashover are responsible for about two-thirds of all mattress
fatalities. This accounts for nearly all of the fatalities that occur
outside the room where the fire originated and about half of the
fatalities that occur within the room of origin. A mattress that
reduces the likelihood of reaching flashover could significantly reduce
deaths and injuries associated with bedroom fires. [1&2] \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Numbers in brackets refer to documents listed at the end of
this notice. They are available from the Commission's Office of the
Secretary (see ``Addresses'' section above) or from the Commission's
Web site (http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The size of a fire is measured by its rate of heat release. A heat
release rate of approximately 1,000 kilowatts (``kW'') leads to
flashover in a typical room. Tests of twin size mattresses of
traditional construction (complying with the existing mattress standard
in 16 CFR 1632) without bedclothes have measured peak heat release
rates that exceeded 2,000 kW in less than 5 minutes. Tests of
traditional king size mattresses measured nearly double that peak rate
of heat release. [2]
Fire modeling and available test data show that as a room fire
grows, a layer of accumulating hot gases and smoke thickens downward
from the ceiling. For fires exceeding 600 kW, this layer typically
descends to less than three feet from the floor. Heat release rates
exceeding 500 kW are generally considered to pose a serious threat of
incapacitation and of igniting nearby items. [2]
The objective of the proposed standard is to limit the size of
mattress/bedding fires to below 1,000 kW for a period of time by
reducing the heat release from the bed, specifically the mattress and
foundation, and by reducing the likelihood that other objects in the
room will become involved in the fire.
Research has shown that the mattress, foundation and bedclothes
operate as a system in bedroom fires. Often the first item ignited is
bedclothes, which then ignite the mattress. The gas burners used in the
proposed test method are designed to represent burning bedclothes.
Research has indicated that bedclothes themselves can contribute
significantly to fires, even reaching heat release rates of up to 800
kW. [2&13] Because of the role of bedclothes in mattress fires, the
Commission is initiating a rulemaking on bedclothes through an ANPR
that is published elsewhere in today's Federal Register. The Commission
received numerous comments on the mattress ANPR concerning the role of
bedclothes and the need for a rule addressing them. These comments are
discussed in section J of this document.
[[Page 2471]]
NIST research. The industry's Sleep Products Safety Council
(``SPSC''), an affiliate of the International Sleep Products
Association (``ISPA''), sponsored a research program at the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (``NIST'') to better understand
mattress/bedding fires and establish the technological basis for future
performance requirements of a standard. NIST has conducted extensive
research, which has become the basis for California's open flame
mattress standard (Technical Bulletin or ``TB'' 603) and for the
Commission's proposed standard.
The NIST research showed that a full-scale test is the most
reliable method for measuring fire performance of mattresses/sets
because they contain many materials in a complex construction. Because
the order of materials, method of assembly, quantity of materials, and
quality of construction, among other factors, can affect fire behavior,
the complete product may perform differently in a fire than the
individual components would. Based on its research, NIST drafted a
full-scale test method for mattresses that uses a pair of gas burners
to represent burning bedclothes as the ignition source. Both the
Commission's proposed standard and California's TB 603, use this test
method. [1&2]
Overview of the proposed standard. With certain exceptions
explained in section G below, the proposed standard requires
manufacturers to test specimens of each of their mattress prototypes
(designs) before mattresses based on that prototype may be introduced
into commerce. If a mattress and foundation are offered for sale as a
set, the mattress must be tested with the corresponding foundation. The
prototype specimens are tested using a pair of gas burners as the
ignition source. The mattress and corresponding foundation, if any,
must not exceed a 200 kW peak heat release rate at any time during the
30 minute test, and the total energy released must be less than 15
megajoules (``MJ'') for the first 10 minutes of the test. The proposed
standard is discussed in greater detail in section G of this document.
B. Statutory Authority
This proceeding is conducted pursuant to Section 4 of the Flammable
Fabrics Act (``FFA''), which authorizes the Commission to initiate
proceedings for a flammability standard when it finds that such a
standard is ``needed to protect the public against unreasonable risk of
the occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or
significant property damage.'' 15 U.S.C. 1193(a).
Section 4 also sets forth the process by which the Commission may
issue a flammability standard. As required in section 4(g), the
Commission has issued an ANPR. 66 FR 51886. 15 U.S.C. 1193(g). The
Commission has reviewed the comments submitted in response to the ANPR
and now is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') containing
the text of the proposed rule along with alternatives the Commission
has considered and a preliminary regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C.
1193(i). The Commission will consider comments provided in response to
the NPR and decide whether to issue a final rule along with a final
regulatory analysis. 15 U.S.C. 1193(j). The Commission cannot issue a
final rule unless it makes certain findings and includes these in the
regulation. The Commission must find: (1) If an applicable voluntary
standard has been adopted and implemented, that compliance with the
voluntary standard is not likely to adequately reduce the risk of
injury, or compliance with the voluntary standard is not likely to be
substantial; (2) that benefits expected from the regulation bear a
reasonable relationship to its costs; and (3) that the regulation
imposes the least burdensome alternative that would adequately reduce
the risk of injury. 15 U.S.C. 1193(j)(2). In addition, the Commission
must find that the standard (1) is needed to adequately protect the
public against the risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death,
injury or significant property damage, (2) is reasonable,
technologically practicable, and appropriate, (3) is limited to
fabrics, related materials or products which present unreasonable
risks, and (4) is stated in objective terms. 15 U.S.C. 1193(b).
C. The Product
The proposed standard applies to mattresses and mattress and
foundation sets (``mattresses/sets''). Mattress is defined as a
resilient material, used alone or in combination with other materials,
enclosed in a ticking and intended or promoted for sleeping upon. This
includes adult mattresses, youth mattresses, crib mattresses (including
portable crib mattresses), bunk bed mattresses, futons, flip chairs
without a permanent back or arms, sleeper chairs, and water beds and
air mattresses if they contain upholstery material between the ticking
and the mattress core. Mattresses used in items of upholstered
furniture such as convertible sofa bed mattresses are also included.
Not included as mattresses are: sleeping bags, mattress pads, or other
items used on top of the bed, or upholstered furniture which does not
contain a mattress. However, the Commission could decide to address
mattress pads or other top of the bed items in its rulemaking on
bedclothes.
Under the proposed standard, the mattress must be tested with its
corresponding foundation if the mattress and foundation are offered for
sale as a set. A foundation is a ticking covered structure used to
support a mattress.
According to ISPA, the top four producers of mattresses and
foundations account for almost 60 percent of total U.S. production. In
2001, there were 639 establishments producing mattresses in the U.S.
[10]
Mattresses and foundations are typically sold as sets. However,
more mattresses are sold annually than foundations; some mattresses are
sold as replacements for existing mattresses (without a new foundation)
or are for use in platform beds or other beds that do not require a
foundation. ISPA estimated that the total number of U.S. conventional
mattress shipments was 21.5 million in 2002, and is estimated to be
22.1 million in 2003 and 22.8 million in 2004. These estimates do not
include futons, crib mattresses, juvenile mattresses, sleep sofa
inserts, or hybrid water mattresses. These ``non-conventional'' sleep
surfaces are estimated to comprise about 10 percent of total annual
shipments of all sleep products. The value of mattress and foundation
shipments in 2002, according to ISPA, was $3.26 and $1.51 billion
respectively. [10]
The expected useful life of mattresses can vary substantially, with
more expensive models generally experiencing the longest useful lives.
Industry sources recommend replacement of mattresses after 10 to 12
years of use, but do not specifically estimate the average life
expectancy. In the 2001 mattress ANPR, the Commission estimated the
expected useful life of a mattress at about 14 years. To estimate the
number of mattresses in use for analysis of the proposed rule, the
Commission used both a 10 year and 14 year average product life. Using
CPSC's Product Population Model, the Commission estimates the number of
mattresses currently in use (i.e., in 2004) to be 233 million
mattresses using a ten-year average product life, and 302.6 million
mattresses using a fourteen-year average product life. [8&10]
According to industry sources, queen size mattresses are the most
commonly used. In 2002, queen size mattresses were used by 34 percent
of U.S. consumers. Twin and twin XL are used
[[Page 2472]]
by 31.2 percent of U.S. consumers, followed by full and full XL (21
percent), king and California king (11 percent), and all other sizes
(2.6 percent). The average manufacturing price in 2002 was $152 for a
mattress and $86 for a foundation. Thus, the average manufacturing
price of a mattress/foundation set was about $238 in 2002. Although
there are no readily available data on average retail prices for
mattress/foundation sets by size, ISPA reports that sets selling under
$500 represent 40.7 percent of the market. Sets selling for between
$500 and $1000 represent 39.2 percent of the market. [10]
The top four manufacturers of mattresses and foundations operate
about one-half of the 639 U.S. establishments producing these products.
The remainder of the establishments are operated by smaller firms.
According to the Statistics of U.S. Businesses Census Bureau data for
2001, there were 557 mattress firms operating these 639 establishments.
According to the same data source, all but twelve mattress firms had
less than 500 employees. If one considers a firm with fewer than 500
employees to be a small business, then 97.8 percent (557-12/557) of all
mattress firms are small businesses. [9&10] The potential impact of the
proposed standard on these small businesses is discussed in section M
of this document.
D. Risk of Injury
Annual estimates of national fires and fire losses involving
ignition of a mattress or bedding are based on data from the U.S. Fire
Administration's National Fire Incident Reporting System (``NFIRS'')
and the National Fire Protection Administration's (``NFPA'') annual
survey of fire departments. The most recent national fire loss
estimates indicated that mattresses and bedding were the first items to
ignite in 19,400 residential fires attended by the fire service
annually during 1995-1999. These fires resulted in 440 deaths, 2,230
injuries and $273.9 million in property loss each year. Of these, the
staff considers an estimated 18,500 fires, 440 deaths, 2,160 injuries,
and $259.5 million property loss annually to be addressable by the
proposed standard. Addressable means the incidents were of a type that
would be affected by the proposed standard solely based on the
characteristics of the fire cause (i.e., a fire that ignited a mattress
or that ignited bedclothes which in turn ignited the mattress). For
example, an incident that involved burning bedclothes and occurred in a
laundry room would not be considered addressable. [3]
Among the addressable casualties, open flame fires accounted for
about 140 deaths (32 percent) and 1,050 injuries (49 percent) annually.
Smoking fires accounted for 210 deaths (48 percent) and about 640
injuries (30 percent) annually. Children younger than age 15 accounted
for an estimated 120 addressable deaths (27 percent) and 500
addressable injuries (23 percent) annually. Adults age 65 and older
accounted for an estimated 120 addressable deaths (27 percent) and 250
addressable injuries (12 percent) annually. [3]
E. NIST Research
Overview. NIST has conducted extensive research on mattress/bedding
fires for SPSC and the Commission. SPSC sponsored several phases of
research at NIST to gain an understanding of the complex fire scenario
involving mattresses and to develop an effective test method to
evaluate a mattress's performance when it is exposed to an open flame
ignition source. The first phase of the research program, known as
Flammability Assessment Methodology for Mattresses, involved four main
objectives: (1) Evaluating the behavior of various combinations of
bedclothes, (2) characterizing the heat impact imposed on a mattress by
bedclothes, (3) developing burners to simulate burning bedclothes, and
(4) testing the burners on different mattress designs to ensure their
consistency. NIST's findings, published in NISTIR 6498, established the
basis for an appropriate test method and the next phase of the research
program. [2] \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NIST publications can be found at NIST's Web site, (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/
).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase 2 of the NIST research focused on (1) analyzing the hazard by
estimating the peak rate of heat release from a mattress with an
improved design, (2) measuring a burning mattress's ability to involve
nearby items in the room, and (3) assessing (in a limited way)
bedclothes and their contribution to mattress fire hazards. This
testing used mattresses with improved flammability properties while the
flammability properties of bedclothes remained unchanged. [2] The
findings from Phase 2 are detailed in NIST Technical Note 1446,
Estimating Reduced Fire Risk Resulting from an Improved Mattress
Flammability Standard.
Bedclothes. During phase 2, NIST conducted tests on twin and king
size mattresses with corresponding size bedclothes. In some tests, the
bedclothes contributed up to 400 kW to the fire. NIST had previously
estimated that a heat release rate that may cause flashover for an
ordinary sized room is about 1000 kW. Thus, a mattress that contributes
more than 500 kW at the same time as bedclothes are contributing 400 kW
could lead to flashover. NIST conducted additional tests concerning
bedclothes for CPSC, which are discussed later in this section. [2]
Other objects in the same room. Part of the NIST study assessed the
potential of a bed fire to ignite other objects in the same room. Other
objects become involved by either direct flame impingement or by fire
generated radiation. Although the location of objects in a bedroom is
highly variable, their potential involvement is significantly
influenced by their shape and properties relating to ease of ignition.
NIST concluded from this research that further reducing the heat
release rate from the bed could reduce the potential for ignition of
other objects and therefore reduce their contribution to the overall
heat release rate. [2]
Modeling. NIST used fire modeling to explore the effect that heat
and toxic gases from bed fires can have throughout a home. Fire
modeling is an analytical tool that uses mathematical calculations to
predict real-world fire behavior. NIST used this modeling to
corroborate test data exploring the predicted levels of heat and toxic
gases for the room of origin and outside the room of origin. The
modeling suggested that untenable fire conditions would occur within
the room, with little difference between a small and large room, at 10
minutes and 25 MJ. [2]
Gas burners' correspondence to bedclothes. In addition to the
research discussed above, NIST conducted separate studies for CPSC. One
series of tests evaluated improved mattress designs and further
supported the correlation between full scale mattress tests with the
NIST gas burners and actual bedclothes. The study, NISTIR 7006-
Flammability Test of Full-Scale Mattresses: Gas Burners Versus Burning
Bedclothes, found that mattress designs showing good performance when
tested with burners also exhibited significantly improved performance
when tested with burning bedclothes. [2]
Interaction between mattresses and bedclothes. NIST's work for CPSC
also reinforced observations from previous NIST research on the
interaction between the mattress and bedclothes. NISTIR 7006. Tests on
improved mattress designs with burning bedclothes as the ignition
source tend to have two distinct heat release rate peaks. The first
peak is predominantly
[[Page 2473]]
from the burning bedclothes, while the second is predominantly from the
mattress and foundation. In tests of good performing mattress designs,
NIST found the second peak (i.e., from the mattress/foundation) to be
comparable or lower than the first peak (i.e., from the bedclothes) and
to occur appreciably later. [2]
Mattress size. In another study conducted by NIST in 2004 for CPSC,
NIST found that a twin size mattress made in a design that yields a
very low peak heat release rate (less than 50 kW) tested with gas
burners behaves essentially the same as a queen or king size mattress
of the same design. Mattress designs that yield a moderate heat release
rate peak (greater than 100 kW, but less than 200 kW) tend to behave
the same for the first 30 minutes in twin size and king size. After
ignition with the burners, the fire is localized (i.e., its spread is
limited) and is not affected by the mattress size. [2]
NIST evaluated the same mattress designs and sizes with burning
bedclothes. NIST found the mattress size to have an apparent effect
during these tests due to the differences in the size and fuel load of
bedclothes. In tests of ``well performing'' mattress designs with
burning bedclothes, the early heat release rate peak when testing a
king size mattress was triple that when testing a twin size mattress.
This was driven by the burning bedclothes. Mattress designs that showed
a moderate heat release rate peak when tested with gas burners resulted
in more serious fires when tested with burning bedclothes, especially
in king size mattresses. [2]
F. Existing Open Flame Standards
In the mattress ANPR the staff reviewed 13 existing tests or
standards relevant to open flame hazards associated with mattresses/
bedding. These included Technical Bulletin (``TB'') 129, TB 121, and TB
117 from California, the Michigan Roll-up Test, and Boston Fire
Department (``BFD'') 1X-11, as well as standards from ASTM
International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials)
(ASTM E-1474 and ASTM E-1590), Underwriters Laboratories (UL 1895 and
UL 2060), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA 264A and NFPA
267) and the United Kingdom (British Standard (``BS'') 6807 and BS
5852). 66 FR 51886.
As directed by California Assembly Bill 603, California's Bureau of
Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (``CBHF'') adopted Technical
Bulletin 603 (``TB 603''), an open flame fire standard for mattresses
and mattress/box spring sets and futons. TB 603 is expected to go into
effect January 1, 2005 and applies to items manufactured for sale in
California. The California standard incorporates the same test
methodology as the Commission's proposed standard. Both are based on
testing and research conducted at NIST. Both TB 603 and the
Commission's proposed standard require that mattresses not exceed a 200
kW peak heat release rate during the 30 minute test. However, the
Commission's proposed standard requires that mattresses not exceed a
total heat release of 15 MJ in the first ten minutes of the test, while
TB 603 sets test criteria of 25 MJ in the first 10 minutes of the test.
The Commission believes that the research NIST has conducted,
discussed above, establishes the most appropriate basis for an open
flame mattress standard. Several comments on the ANPR also expressed
this view (see section J of this document).
G. The Proposed Standard
1. General
The proposed standard sets forth performance requirements that each
mattress/set must meet before being introduced into commerce. The test
method is a full scale test based on the NIST research discussed above.
The mattress specimen (a mattress or mattress and foundation set,
usually in a twin size) is exposed to a pair of T shaped propane
burners and allowed to burn freely for a period of 30 minutes. The
burners were designed to represent burning bedclothes. Measurements are
taken of the heat release rate from the specimen and energy generated
from the fire. The proposed standard establishes two test criteria,
both of which the mattress/set must meet in order to comply with the
standard: (1) The peak rate of heat release for the mattress/foundation
set must not exceed 200 kW at any time during the 30 minute test; and
(2) The total heat release must not exceed 15 MJ for the first 10
minutes of the test.
2. Scope
The proposed standard applies to mattresses and mattress and
foundation combinations sold as sets. Mattress is defined, as it is in
the existing mattress standard at 16 CFR 1632, as ``a resilient
material or combination of materials enclosed by a ticking (used alone
or in combination with other products) intended or promoted for
sleeping upon.'' The proposed standard lists several types of
mattresses that are included in this definition (e.g., futons, crib
mattresses, youth mattresses). It also refers to a glossary of terms
where these items are further defined.
Specifically excluded from the definition of mattress are mattress
pads, pillows and other top of the mattress items, upholstered
furniture which does not contain a mattress, and juvenile or other
product pads. Mattress pads and other top of the bed items may be
addressed in the Commission's rulemaking on bedclothes.
Like the Commission's existing mattress standard, the proposed
standard allows an exemption for one-of-a-kind mattresses and
foundations if they are manufactured to fulfill a physician's written
prescription or manufactured in accordance with comparable medical
therapeutic specifications.
3. Test Method
The proposed standard uses the full scale test method developed by
NIST in the course of its research. Based on the NIST work, the
Commission believes that a full scale test is necessary because of the
complexities of mattress construction. Testing individual components
will not necessarily reveal the likely fire performance of the complete
mattress.
Under the proposed standard, the specimen (a mattress and
corresponding foundation if they are to be offered for sale together as
a set) is exposed to a pair of T-shaped gas burners. The specimen is to
be no smaller than twin size, unless the largest size mattress or set
produced of that type is smaller than twin size, in which case the
largest size must be tested.
The burners impose a specified local heat flux simultaneously to
the top and side of the mattress/set for a specified period of time (70
seconds for the top burner and 50 seconds for the side burner). The
burners were designed to represent the local heat flux imposed on a
mattress by burning bedclothes. The heat flux and burner duration were
derived from data obtained from burning a wide range of bedding items.
As discussed above, NIST test results using the burners have been shown
to correlate with results obtained with bedclothes.
The proposed standard allows the test to be conducted either in an
open calorimeter or test room configuration. Tests have shown that
either configuration is acceptable. Although room effects (i.e., the
size and characteristics of the room) can be a factor in mattress
flammability performance, test data show that room effects do not
become an issue until a fire reaches about 300 to 400 kW.
[[Page 2474]]
Because the proposed standard limits the peak rate of heat release to
200 kW, room effects should not be an issue in the test. Preliminary
analysis of data from the inter-laboratory study (discussed in section
I) does not suggest any significant differences between tests based on
either test configuration. The NIST test method allowed a third test
configuration, essentially a smaller test room than described in the
proposed standard. However, in addition to safety concerns, using the
burners in the smaller size room is awkward. Only one laboratory in the
country uses this configuration. Therefore, the Commission decided to
propose only the two configurations.
4. Test Criteria
The proposed standard establishes two test criteria that the
specimen must meet to pass the test. The peak rate of heat release must
not exceed 200 kW at any time during the 30 minute test, and the total
heat release must not exceed 15 MJ during the first 10 minutes of the
test. [2&8]
Setting the peak rate of heat release limit at 200 kW (during the
30 minute test) ensures a less flammable mattress, reducing the
contribution from the mattress, while taking into account that
bedclothes and other room contents are likely to contribute to the
fire. Numerous technologically feasible mattress designs are available
that can meet the 200 kW criterion. Limiting the peak rate of heat
release represents a significant improvement in performance compared to
the 16 CFR part 1632 cigarette ignition standard for mattresses and
will have the most impact on available escape time. A peak rate of heat
release lower than 200 kW could limit the mattress design approaches
that would meet the standard, thus increasing costs. [2&8] We note that
California's TB 603 also prescribes a 200 kW peak rate of heat release.
The proposed standard requires that the total heat release in the
first 10 minutes of the test must not exceed 15 MJ. This early limit
ensures that the mattress will have little involvement in the fire
initially and provides a substantial increase in escape time by slowing
the rate of fire growth and severity. The mattress's initial
performance is important because if the mattress becomes significantly
involved in the early stages of the fire, this will greatly limit the
time a person has to escape. [2]
The proposed 15 MJ limit in the first 10 minutes takes into account
that bedclothes, and possibly other items, will be burning during this
initial period and will contribute significantly to the fire. The
Commission believes that the types of ticking (i.e, the outermost
fabric or material that covers the mattress) currently used on
mattresses can continue to be used with the 15 MJ/10 minute criteria.
[2] This will allow manufacturers considerable flexibility in their
mattress designs because they should be able to change tickings without
affecting the mattresses performance under the test method, except in
the unusual case where the ticking itself is part of the fire
resistance design.
California's TB 603 prescribes a 25 MJ limit in the first 10
minutes of the test. However, NIST research, supported by fire
modeling, has shown that untenable fire conditions can occur in a room
from a fire producing 25 MJ in the first 10 minutes of a test. This
represents the total contribution from all possibly involved items.
That is, a fire that reaches a size of 25 MJ within 10 minutes could
limit a person's ability to escape the room. According to the mattress
industry and available test data, there are numerous technologically
feasible approaches to mattress designs for meeting the proposed 15 MJ
/first 10 minute limit. [2]
The 30 minute test duration is related to, but not equivalent to,
the estimated time required to permit discovery of the fire and allow
escape under typical fire scenarios. A mattress complying with the
proposed criteria under the 30 minute test is estimated to provide an
adequate time for discovery of and escape from the fire under certain
conditions or assuming the bedclothes do not contribute to the extent
of posing a hazardous condition early in the fire. Compared to current
scenarios, this is a substantial increase in estimated escape time. The
effectiveness of the estimated escape time is based on timely escape
from the potentially hazardous conditions. [2&3]
Multiple test results indicate that a large number of mattress
designs (using a range of fire retardant barrier technologies) can
perform well in tests with gas burners for 30 minutes. Many of the
tested designs are able to meet the proposed test criteria for 30
minutes, but perform erratically after 30 minutes. The number of
failures, test variability, and performance unreliability increases
after 30 minutes. A substantial range of technologically feasible and
viable solutions and design choices exist that meet the proposed test
criteria for 30 minutes. [2] We note that California's TB 603 also
includes a 30 minute test duration.
The Commission considered proposing a 60 minute test duration.
However, as discussed above, after 30 minutes, test variability
increases, costs increase, and substantially fewer technologically
feasible design approaches are available to meet the test. Most
importantly, it is unclear from available data that much additional
benefit would accrue with a 60 minute test.
5. Prototype Testing
The proposed standard requires, with certain exceptions, that
mattress manufacturers must test specimens representative of their
mattress/set prototype (design) before introducing a mattress/set into
commerce. Mattresses then produced based on the prototype mattress must
be identical in all material aspects of their components, materials,
and method of construction to the prototype. The term ``manufacturer''
is defined as ``an individual plant or factory at which mattresses and/
or mattress and foundation sets are manufactured or assembled.'' The
definition includes importers. As in the existing mattress standard (16
CFR part 1632), this definition refers to the establishment where the
mattress is produced or assembled, not the company. Thus, the plant or
factory producing or assembling the mattress/set is required to conduct
prototype testing. This is also true for importers. However, there are
three exceptions to this requirement.
A manufacturer is allowed to sell a mattress/set based on a
prototype that has not been tested if the prototype differs from a
qualified prototype (one that has been tested and meets the criteria)
only with respect to: (1) The mattress/foundation size (e.g twin,
queen, king etc.); (2) the ticking, unless the qualified ticking has
characteristics that are designed to improve the mattress's test
performance; and/or (3) any other component, material or method of
construction, provided that the manufacturer can show, on an
objectively reasonable basis, that such change will not cause the
prototype to exceed the specified test criteria. The third numbered
option allows a manufacturer to construct and test a ``worst case''
prototype and rely on it to cover a range of related designs without
having to perform additional testing. If a manufacturer chooses to take
this approach, he/she must maintain records documenting that the
change(s) will not cause the prototype to exceed the test criteria (see
Sec. 1633.11(b)(4) of the proposed rule).
When conducting prototype testing, the manufacturer must test a
minimum of three specimens of the prototype in accordance with the test
method
[[Page 2475]]
described, and all of the mattresses/sets must meet both of the test
criteria discussed above. If any one prototype specimen that the
manufacturer tests fails the specified criteria, the prototype is not
qualified (even if the manufacturer chooses to test more than three
specimens).
The Commission believes that three specimens is the appropriate
minimum number for testing. Numerous research studies have typically
used replicates of three for tests using the developed gas burners.
This is also the number industry has generally used as it has
researched and developed options for meeting the requirements of
California's TB 603. Preliminary analysis of the inter-laboratory study
also indicates that three replicates are appropriate to accurately
characterize mattress performance. [2] Moreover, because small changes
in mattresses' construction or components can affect their
flammability, testing more than one mattress will provide a better
indication of their performance. [1]
6. Pooling
The proposed standard allows for one or more manufacturers to rely
on a given prototype. Under this approach, one manufacturer would
conduct (or cause to be conducted) the full prototype testing required
(testing three prototype specimens), obtaining passing results, and the
other manufacturer(s) may then produce mattresses/sets represented by
that prototype so long as they conduct one confirming test on a
specimen they produce. If the mattress/set fails the confirming test,
the manufacturer must take corrective measures, and then perform a new
confirmation test that must meet the test criteria. If a confirmation
test specimen fails to meet the test criteria, the manufacturer of that
specimen must also notify the manufacturer of the pooled prototype
about the test failure. Pooling may be used by two or more plants
within the same firm or by two or more independent firms. As discussed
in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, pooling should reduce
testing costs for smaller companies. Once they have conducted a
successful confirmation test, pooling firms can produce mattresses
based on a pooled prototype and may continue to do as long as any
changes to the mattresses based on the pooled prototype are limited to
the three discussed above: (1) Size of the mattress/foundation; (2) the
ticking, unless the qualified ticking has characteristics that are
designed to improve the mattress's test performance, and/or (3) any
component, material or method of construction that the manufacturer can
show (on an objectively reasonable basis) will not cause the prototype
to exceed the specified test criteria.
7. Quality Assurance Requirements
Research and testing indicates that small variations in
construction of a mattress/set (e.g. missed stitching around the side
of the mattress) can affect the fire performance of a mattress.
Therefore, the proposed standard contains strict requirements for
quality assurance. Each manufacturer must implement a quality assurance
program to ensure that the mattresses/sets it produces are identical in
all material respects to the prototype on which they are based. This
means that at a minimum, manufacturers must: (1) Have controls in place
on components and materials to ensure that they are identical to those
used in the prototype; (2) designate a production lot that is
represented by the prototype; and (3) inspect mattresses/sets produced
for sale. The Commission is not requiring manufacturers to conduct
testing of production mattresses. However, the Commission recognizes
the value of such testing as part of a quality assurance program.
Therefore, the Commission encourages manufacturers to conduct random
testing of mattresses/sets that are produced for sale.
8. Recordkeeping
The proposed standard requires manufacturers to maintain certain
records to document compliance with the standard. This includes records
concerning prototype testing, pooling and confirmation testing, and
quality assurance procedures and any associated testing. The required
records must be maintained for as long as mattresses/sets based on the
prototype are in production and must be retained for three years
thereafter.
The purpose of these recordkeeping requirements is to enable
manufacturers to keep track of materials, construction methods and
testing. Thus, if a manufacturer produced a mattress/set that failed to
meet the test criteria, he/she should be able to use the records to
determine the prototype on which the failing mattress was based, as
well as the components and method of construction that were used. This
information would help the manufacturer correct the problem that caused
the mattress to fail the test criteria.
9. Other Requirements: Labeling, One of a Kind Exemption, and Policy on
Renovation of Mattresses
Under the proposed standard, each mattress/set must bear a
permanent label stating the name and location of the manufacturer, the
month and year of manufacture, the model identification, prototype
identification number, and a certification that the mattress complies
with the standard. By placing the certification on the mattress, the
manufacturer is attesting that the specific mattress would comply with
the test criteria if tested.
The proposed standard allows an exemption for a one-of-a-kind
mattress/set if it is manufactured in response to a physician's written
prescription or manufactured in accordance with comparable medical
therapeutic specifications.
Subpart C of the proposed standard restates the policy
clarification on renovation of mattresses that is in Subpart C of the
existing mattress standard (16 CFR Part 1632). The policy statement
informs the public that mattresses renovated for sale are considered by
the Commission to be newly manufactured for purposes of the
requirements of the proposed standard.
H. Effectiveness Evaluation
To determine the potential effectiveness of the proposed standard,
CPSC staff conducted an effectiveness evaluation, focusing primarily on
reduction of deaths and injuries. The staff's analysis is explained in
detail in the memorandum ``Residential Fires Involving Mattresses and
Bedding.'' [3] The evaluation was based primarily on review of CPSC
investigation reports that provided details of the occupants'
situations and actions during the fire. Staff reviewers identified
criteria that affected the occupants' ability to escape the fires they
had experienced. The staff used these criteria to estimate percentage
reductions in deaths and injuries expected to occur under the much less
severe fire conditions anticipated with improved designs of mattresses
that would comply with the proposed standard. The staff then applied
these estimated reductions to national estimates of mattress/bedding
fire deaths and injuries to estimate numbers of deaths and injuries
that could be prevented with the proposed standard. [3]
As stated in section D of this document, the most recent national
fire loss estimates indicated that mattresses and bedding were the
first items to ignite in 19,400 residential fires attended by the fire
service annually
[[Page 2476]]
during 1995--1999. These fires resulted in 440 deaths, 2,230 injuries
and $273.9 million in property loss each year. Of these, the staff
considers an estimated 18,500 fires, 440 deaths, 2,160 injuries, and
$259.5 million property loss annually to be addressable by the proposed
standard (i.e., of the type that the proposed standard could affect
based on the characteristics of the fire). [3]
Overall, CPSC staff estimates that the proposed standard may be
expected to prevent 80 to 86 percent of the deaths and 86 to 92 percent
of the injuries presently occurring in addressable mattress/bedding
fires attended by the fire service. Applying these percentage
reductions to 1998-2002 estimates of addressable mattress/bedding fire
losses, staff estimates potential reductions of 310 to 330 deaths and
1,660 to 1,780 injuries annually in fires attended by the fire service
when all existing mattresses have been replaced with mattresses meeting
the new standard. There may also be reductions in property damage
resulting from the proposed standard, but data are not sufficient for
the staff to quantify this impact. [3]
I. Inter-Laboratory Study
An inter-laboratory study was conducted with the support of the
SPSC, NIST, and participating laboratories to explore the sensitivity,
repeatability, and reproducibility of the NIST test method. All of the
participating labs conducted multiple tests of eight different mattress
designs. The mattress designs varied critical elements (e.g., the
barrier--sheet or high-loft, the type of mattress--single or double-
sided) and the style of mattress (e.g., tight or pillow top). [2]
Preliminary analysis of the data does not suggest either
unreasonable sensitivities (i.e., significantly different test results
when minor variations in test procedure are made) or practical
limitations in the test protocol. The preliminary analysis suggests
that some mattress designs perform more consistently than others. The
type of barrier appears to have a significant impact on the performance
and repeatability of performance of all mattress designs tested.
However, the uniformity of other components and the manufacturing
process can also affect the variability in fire performance. [2]
The inter-lab tests also appear to confirm earlier observations
that mattresses constructed with currently available barrier
technologies are able to limit the fire severity for a substantial but
not indefinite time. Most of the tested mattress designs could meet the
proposed requirements if the test ended at 30 minutes, but appeared to
perform erratically after 30 minutes. [2]
The preliminary analysis, supported by earlier data, suggests that
significant variability exists among currently available mattress
designs. Although products appear to be moving toward consistency,
manufacturers clearly need to control components, materials, and
methods of construction. Thus, quality assurance measures, as required
in the proposed rule, are important. [2]
The inter-lab study was only recently completed, and the discussion
above is based on the staff's preliminary analysis of the results. A
final report on the inter-lab study is expected by the end of 2004 and
will be available to the public.
J. Response to Comments On the ANPR
On October 11, 2001, the Commission published an ANPR in the
Federal Register. 66 FR 51886. During the comment period, the
Commission received sixteen written comments from businesses,
associations and interested parties representing various segments of
the mattress and bedding industries. After the close of the comment
period, the Commission received a number of additional comments,
including one from the California Bureau of Home Furnishings and
Thermal Insulation urging the Commission to adopt California's TB 603
as a federal standard. Significant issues raised by all of these
comments are discussed below. [14&15]
Mattress Comments
1. Comment. Commenters agree that the hazards associated with
mattress fires appear to be clearly identified. All of the commenters
support the need for an open flame standard for mattresses and
initiation of federal rulemaking.
Response. CPSC agrees that mattress and bedding fires continue to
be one of the major contributors to residential fire deaths and
civilian injuries among products within CPSC's jurisdiction. The most
recent national fire loss estimates indicate that mattresses and
bedding were the first items to ignite in 19,400 residential fires
attended by the fire service annually during 1995--1999. These fires
resulted in an estimated 440 deaths, 2,230 injuries, and $273.9 million
property loss annually. In these fires, the bedclothes are most
frequently ignited by a small open flame source. The burning bedding
then creates a large open-flame source igniting the mattress and
creating dangerous flashover conditions, the point when the entire room
and its contents are ignited simultaneously by radiant heat.
The proposed standard is designed to address the identified hazard
of flashover resulting from open flame ignition of mattresses, usually
from burning bedclothes. Under the proposed standard, mattresses and
mattress/sets are exposed to gas burners, simulating burning
bedclothes. Mattresses are required to meet two performance criteria
that minimize the possibility of or delay flashover for a period of
time. Mattresses must not exceed 200 kW peak heat release rate during
the 30 minute test, and the total heat released must be less than 15 MJ
for the first 10 minutes of the test.
2. Comment. Most commenters endorsed the direction of the mattress
flammability test development research underway at NIST and encouraged
the CPSC to issue a technologically practicable, reasonable standard.
More recent commenters suggest California TB 603 be adopted as the
federal standard.
Response. CPSC agrees with the technical approach suggested by the
NIST research. A majority of the commenters agreed that preventing
flashover from mattress fires would appropriately address the risk and
that a full scale test with an ignition source comparable to burning
bedclothes could achieve that objective. They strongly supported the
NIST approach and discouraged the adoption of any existing standards.
Before California's adoption of TB 603, one commenter suggested
using a modification of the small-scale British test, BS 5852, for
smoldering and flaming ignition of upholstered furniture seating
composites. However, a full-scale rather than small-scale test is
generally considered the most reliable method for measuring performance
of a product that contains many materials in a complex construction,
such as a mattress. NIST research confirmed that a full-scale test of
the mattress was needed to measure its performance when exposed to
burning bedclothes or the representative set of gas burners. NIST's
comprehensive, scientifically based research program was designed to
address the open-flame ignition of mattresses and bedclothes under
controlled conditions closely resembling those of real-life fire
scenarios. The program focused on understanding the dynamics of fires
involving mattress and bedclothing assemblies and on developing an
appropriate and technologically practicable methodology to effectively
measure the hazard.
NIST subsequently prepared a test method which the state of
California incorporated into their TB 603,
[[Page 2477]]
``Requirements and Test Procedure for Resistance of a Mattress/Box
Spring Set to a Large Open-Flame'' in 2004. The proposed standard is
also based on the test method developed by NIST. Research on mattress
and bedclothes fires conducted by NIST for CPSC and the industry
provides the basis for the test criteria specified in the proposed
standard. Manufacturers and suppliers have demonstrated that mattress
designs complying with these performance criteria and suitable for the
residential market can be produced.
3. Comment. One commenter requested the exclusion of certain
product categories, such as mattresses used for therapeutic reasons and
in healthcare environments, from an open flame standard.
Response. The proposed standard includes all mattresses, including
those used in or as part of upholstered furniture items. ``One-of-a-
kind'' mattresses and foundations are defined as physician prescribed
mattresses to be used in connection with the treatment or management of
a named individual's physical illness or injury. These products may be
exempted from testing under the proposed standard in accordance with
the rules established by the Commission. The proposed standard requires
them to be permanently labeled with a warning statement indicating that
the mattress and foundation have not been tested under the standard and
may be subject to a large fire if exposed to an open flame.
4. Comment. In October 2003 the California Bureau of Home
Furnishings (CBHF) urged the Commission to adopt their new standard, TB
603. Subsequently, a number of commenters expressed written support for
adopting the TB 603 test methodology and performance criteria.
CBHF claimed that harmonization of California and federal standards
would avoid a number of potential problems. They noted potential
problems such as possible federal preemption and negative impacts on
interstate commerce. Since TB 603 is a newly developed methodology,
CBHF suggested that an inter-laboratory study be conducted before a
potential adoption of TB 603 by CPSC. They noted that data obtained
from an inter-laboratory study would verify the credibility of the test
method.
Response. An inter-laboratory study was conducted with the support
of SPSC, NIST, CBHF, and other participating laboratories to collect
additional data and confirm the test protocol developed by NIST. A
number of laboratories participated in the study to evaluate
sensitivity, repeatability, and reproducibility of the test protocol.
While the final report is not yet available, preliminary analysis of
the data does not suggest either unreasonable sensitivities or
practical limitations in the test protocol.
The Commission's proposed standard is similar to California's TB
603. The proposed standard and TB 603 use the same test method and
limit the peak rate of heat release of a mattress or mattress/
foundation to 200 kW. TB 603 also limits the size of the fire produced
in the first 10 minutes of the test to 25 MJ. According to NIST
research, untenable fire conditions could occur in a room from a fire
of this size. Unlike TB 603, the staff's draft proposed standard
requires that the mattress contribute no more than 15 MJ to the early
fire scenario. This ensures that the mattress will have little
involvement in the fire for the specified period of time. This lower
limit partially compensates for the contribution of an uncertain
combination of burning bedclothes on the bed, helping to preserve
tenable conditions for egress.
5. Comment. Two commenters recognize the sophistication and
complexity of the test method used in California TB 603 and potentially
in a federal standard. They suggest that CPSC explore laboratory
accreditation programs to insure test labs are properly qualified to
conduct this complex test.
Response. The interlaboratory study may identify laboratory
practices, equipment, and other related factors that must be controlled
to ensure consistent and accurate test results. The report and findings
of the study will be available to the public; and appropriate guidance
can be provided to interested laboratories. While accrediting test
laboratories is not a CPSC function, the Commission supports industry
and commercial laboratory development of such a program.
6. Comment. A commenter expressed concerns about environmental
impact and consumer sensitivity to flame retardants that may be used in
mattresses, whether topically applied or integrated into fibers. The
commenter recommends requiring a label that discloses the use of flame
retardants in the mattress and provides a source of more specific
information.
Response. Mattress fire performance can be improved by
incorporating fire retardant chemicals into component materials or by
using materials that are inherently fire resistant. Flame retardant
chemicals are already widely used in other applications. More than one
billion pounds of different flame retardant chemicals are currently
used annually in the United States, including applications in many
consumer products. There are also flame resistant (FR) materials that
may be used for mattress barriers that have other consumer product
applications. For example, melamine resins, which can be used in FR
barriers, are also used in many laminated counter tops.
Based on available data, the Commission believes that there are
available options for meeting the standard without posing an
unacceptable health risk to consumers or significantly affecting the
environment. Moreover, as described in section N of this preamble, even
if a method used by some manufacturers to meet the standard were
suspected of posing an unacceptable risk, there would be regulatory and
other mechanisms that can be used to control that particular method.
The staff is planning to conduct migration and exposure studies on
various FR chemicals that could be used to meet the standard.
The commenter suggested labeling of chemically treated components
as a possible requirement of the standard, to inform consumers of the
materials used. The Commission questions whether such information would
be of practical value to consumers. Simply stating that a mattress
component has been chemically treated does not indicate to the consumer
whether the mattress poses any health risk or not. The proposed
standard requires manufacturers to maintain records specifying details
of all materials, including flame retardant treatments applied and
inherently flame resistant materials, used in each mattress design
(prototype). This will allow identification of relevant mattresses and
mattress/sets if an unacceptable risk is identified.
7. Comment. Another commenter recommended test provisions in the
standard that address the long term durability of the flame retardant
chemicals used in mattresses to ensure they continue to meet the fire
performance requirements.
Response. It is expected that most manufacturers will use some kind
of flame resistant barrier material to protect the mattress components
with the greatest combustible fuel load from exposure to an open flame.
Flame resistant barriers for mattresses may take several forms,
including ticking fabrics, woven and non-woven interlinings, and
battings. It is likely that these barriers will be made with an
inherently flame resistant fiber (e.g., para-aramid or fiberglass) or
by treatment with flame retardant chemicals, many of which are
incorporated within the fiber, foam, or
[[Page 2478]]
other material. At this point in the development of technologies that
may be used to meet TB 603 or the proposed standard, the staff has seen
no evidence that suggests that changes in these materials over time
will occur or affect fire performance.
8. Comment. One commenter expressed concerns about the potentially
severe economic impact of a federal regulation, similar to TB 603, on
small businesses.
Response. The Commission acknowledges that the cost of testing,
record keeping, and quality control/quality assurance programs could be
disproportionately higher for small businesses. While these costs are
estimated to be a little over one dollar per mattress per year for
average-sized establishments, they could be substantially higher for
some small mattress producers. The proposed standard, however, allows
manufacturers to pool their prototype qualification and testing, and
thus these costs can be mitigated. Moreover, if manufacturers produce
mattress/set constructions for longer than a year or use a worst-case
prototype to represent other mattress constructions, these costs will
be lower. It is also expected that some barrier suppliers or
independent laboratories would be willing to do the testing and quality
control/assurance programs for small producers in exchange for a small
charge. Therefore, the proposed standard is expected to minimize the
impact on small businesses, while maintaining the benefits resulting
from the standard.
The Commission is requesting comments from small businesses on the
expected economic impact of the requirements of the proposed standard
and the proposed effective date of 12 months after publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register.
9. Comment. One commenter reported that some juvenile or crib
mattresses, while meeting the 200 kW peak rate of heat release
requirement, produce large amounts of flaming droplets that have the
potential for spreading flames beyond the mattress. TB 603 does not
address these flaming droplets.
Response. The objective of the proposed standard is to reduce the
size of mattress/bedding fires and, thereby reduce the likelihood of or
delay the development of flashover conditions in the room. Based on
research conducted by NIST, performance criteria were developed to
limit the size of the mattress fire and reduce the likelihood of it
involving other objects in the room. The Commission believes that,
while the proposed standard may be less effective in isolated
circumstances, the objective of the standard can be met with the
performance criteria specified: maximum 200 kW peak heat release rate
during the 30-minute test and maximum 15 MJ total heat release in the
first 10 minutes of the test. Laboratory tests of currently marketed
crib mattresses of which the Commission is aware show unacceptable
performance in one or both of these fire performance measures. Like
full-size mattresses, these crib mattresses would also need to be
improved to meet the requirements of the proposed standard.
10. Comment. One commenter suggested that a 60-minute test duration
is needed in the standard to allow for fire and rescue workers to
respond and help occupants escape.
The commenter notes that the longer test time will allow emergency
responders to assist vulnerable citizens to escape fires involving
mattresses and bedding. They report that response times can vary widely
among local circumstances, from approximately 16 minutes to an hour or
more.
Response. To estimate the proposed standard's potential
effectiveness, the staff reviewed in-depth investigations that provided
detailed information about fires that ignited mattresses and bedding,
details of the occupants' situation, and occupants' actions during the
fire. Most investigations also included documentation from the fire
department that attended the fire. The in-depth investigations involved
fires occurring during 1999-2004, and included a total of 195 deaths
and 205 injuries. In some of these cases, even with traditional
mattresses and bedding, other members of the household present at the
time of the fire and emergency responders arriving within as little as
5 minutes were able to rescue victims.
With improved mattresses, those complying with the 30-minute test
specified in the proposed standard, the fire growth is slowed
considerably and flashover conditions are delayed, making successful
rescue efforts of family members and emergency responders more likely.
The Commission estimates that 310 to 330 deaths and 1,660 to 1,780
injuries resulting from mattress and bedding fires could be prevented
annually by the proposed standard. A maximum additional 80 deaths and
280 injuries, considered addressable by the draft standard, might be
further reduced with a 60-minute test. However, actual reductions would
likely be much lower. This is because those considered likely to die or
be injured in conditions associated with a proposed 30 minute test are
those incapable of acting on their own and with no potential rescuer in
the occupancy. Even with more time, in such circumstances, the fire
continues to progress, and the chances of rescue are unpredictable.
Based on the preliminary regulatory analysis, the expected benefits
of the proposed standard, incorporating a 30-minute test, are greater
than the costs. The regulatory analysis also considered alternatives to
the proposed standard, including a 60-minute test; neither this nor the
other alternatives was shown to increase expected net benefits.
11. Comment. A few commenters expressed the need to maintain
protection from the threat from cigarette ignitions while considering
an open flame standard.
Response. The standard that addresses cigarette ignition
resistance, the Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and
Mattress Pads, codified as 16 CFR part 1632, remains in effect unless
it is modified or revoked by the Commission in a separate rulemaking
proceeding. If such a rulemaking occurred, the Commission would
thoroughly evaluate the need for maintaining both an open flame
standard and the standard for cigarette ignition resistance.
Bedclothes Comments
Comment. Most of the commenters refer to the impact of burning
bedclothes on mattress/bedding fires and express opinions on the
potential scope of an open flame mattress standard. Some commenters
urge the Commission to limit the scope of a standard to mattresses
while opposing commenters recommend that either the scope be expanded
to incorporate bedclothes or bedclothes should have ignition standards
of their own.
Commenters in support of regulating bedclothes believe that
studying the impact of burning bedclothes is appropriate and would
assist in the development of better performing, safer products. They
note that bedclothes contribute to the intensity and spread of the
original ignition source often involved in mattress fires. Therefore,
burning bedclothes become a significant ignition source to the mattress
and impact the burning characteristics of the mattress and foundation.
They further note that bedclothes alone have been shown to generate a
fire large enough to pose a hazard and can alone be the cause of
ignition to nearby items. According to these commenters, improving the
flammability of certain bedding items, such as filled items, is
economically feasible. One commenter claims that mattress fires cannot
be adequately addressed without also
[[Page 2479]]
considering the flammability of bedclothes.
In support of limiting the scope to mattresses and not regulating
bedclothes, some commenters identify bedding items as an uncontrolled
variable. They claim that there is no way to predict the type of
bedclothes that may be involved in an incident at any given time; the
number and type of items used by consumers is indefinable and consumers
select items based on season, fashion, and climate. In addition,
according to these commenters, there is no objective method to
determine if consumers would use regulated bedclothes; there is little
data to suggest that regulating some selected items will have an impact
on the hazard; and flammability performance should not be based on what
consumers may or may not use as bedclothes. These commenters also state
that most U.S. textile manufacturers already voluntarily test for small
open flame ignition of bedclothes using ASTM voluntary test methods.
They assert that the additional burden and expense of any regulation on
bedclothes would be substantial and could not be justified.
Response. The Commission notes that bedclothes substantially
contribute to the complexity and magnitude of the mattress fire hazard.
In laboratory tests peak heat release rates as high as 800 kW were
observed from some larger bedclothes items. This presents a clear risk
of flashover; and this heat release rate is much higher than that
allowed for a mattress/set in the proposed standard. The extent to
which bedclothes can be modified in a manner that is technologically
practicable and economically feasible is unclear at this time. However,
reducing the contribution of certain high fuel load bedding items to a
mattress/bedding fire is desirable. The Commission is issuing an ANPR
for a bedclothes flammability standard. The Commission believes that
such a standard could increase the likelihood that mattress/bedding
fire losses are effectively reduced.
K. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
The Commission has preliminarily determined to issue a rule
establishing a flammability standard addressing the open flame ignition
of mattresses. Section 4(i) of the FFA requires that the Commission
prepare a preliminary regulatory analysis for this action and that it
be published with the proposed rule. 15 U.S.C. 1193(i). The following
discussion, extracted from the staff's memorandum titled ``Preliminary
Regulatory Analysis of a Draft Proposed Standard to Address Open-Flame
Ignitions of Mattresses,'' addresses this requirement. [8]
1. Introduction
There were an estimated 18,900 fires where the first item ignited
was mattress/bedding in 1998 (the last year for which detailed data
comparable to previous years are available). These fires caused an
estimated 2,260 civilian injuries, 410 deaths, and $255.4 million in
property losses. As discussed elsewhere in this document, NIST has
conducted extensive research and developed a test methodology to test
open flame ignition of mattresses.
California Technical Bulletin (TB) 603, which is based on the use
of NIST test burners designed to mimic the local thermal insult (heat
flux levels and duration) imposed by burning bedclothes, is scheduled
to become effective in California January 1, 2005. TB 603 requires all
mattress/foundation sets, mattresses intended to be used without a
foundation, and futons to meet the following pass/fail criteria: (1)
The peak heat release rate (``PHRR'') does not exceed 200 kW during the
30 minute test, and (2) the total heat release does not exceed 25 mega
joules (MJ) in the first 10 minutes of the test.
Large mattress manufacturers may eventually produce TB 603-
compliant mattresses for sale nationwide, because of legal liability
and production logistics. In the short-run, however, some manufacturers
may limit their sale of TB 603-complying mattresses to California.
Sealy's president and CEO said that ``[they] plan to be ready by the
end of this year [2004] if a national retailer wants the same product''
with fire resistant technology, but will not convert all production by
January 2005 (Furniture Today, March, 10, 2004). Smaller producers are
more likely to wait until they have a better idea of enforcement
efforts in California, or until a federal standard is adopted. The
mattress industry, represented by ISPA, supports the development of a
mandatory federal standard (Furniture Today, May, 10, 2004). A Federal
standard would eliminate the uncertainty that may result from having
different flammability standards for different states.
2. The Proposed Standard: Scope and Testing Provisions
The proposed standard will apply to all mattresses, where the term
mattress means a ticking (i.e., an outer layer of fabric) filled with a
resilient material used alone or in combination with other products
intended or promoted for sleeping upon. This definition is discussed
further in section G.2. above.
A typical innerspring mattress construction might include ticking;
binding tape fabric; quilt cushioning with one or more separate layers;
quilt backing fabric; thread; cushioning with one or more separate
layers; flanging; spring insulator pad; spring unit; and side (border)
panels. Options for meeting the standard include the use of one or a
combination of the following: fire resistant ticking; chemically
treated or otherwise fire resistant filling products; or a fire
blocking barrier (either a sheet style barrier, sometimes called a
fabric barrier, or a high-loft barrier, sometimes called a fiber
barrier). The fire blocking barrier is placed either directly between
the exterior cover fabric of the product and the first layer of
cushioning materials, or beneath one or more ``sacrificial'' layers
that can burn without reaching the proposed heat release constraints.
There are already over twenty different vendors of fire resistant
materials associated with the production of mattresses, including
barriers, ticking, foam, tape, and thread. These materials include
chemically treated cotton, rayon, and/or polyester, melamine,
modacrylic, fiberglass, aramid (Kevlar''), or some combination of them.
The cost of using sheet barriers is higher than using high-loft
barriers, since sheet barriers are thin and therefore could not be
substituted for an existing foam or cushioning layer. There is also
concern that some sheet barriers, unlike high-loft barriers, may reduce
the comfort of the sleeping surface.
To qualify a prototype, three mattresses/sets must be tested and
must pass the test requirements. To obtain a passing result, each
mattress/set must pass a 30 minute test, where the PHRR does not exceed
200 kW and the total heat release does not exceed 15 MJ in the first 10
minutes of the test. If any of the sets fail, the problem must be
corrected, the prototype must be retested and pass the test (in
triplicate). Manufacturers may sell any mattress/set based on a
qualified prototype. Manufacturers may also sell a mattress/set based
on a prototype that has not been tested if that prototype differs from
a qualified prototype only with respect to (1) mattress/foundation
size; (2) ticking, unless the ticking of the qualified prototype has
characteristics designed to improve performance on the burn test; and/
or (3) any component, material, or method of construction that the
manufacturer can demonstrate, on an objectively reasonable basis, will
not cause the prototype to exceed the test criteria specified above.
If one or more establishments (plants within the same firm) or
independent
[[Page 2480]]
firms choose to ``pool'' prototypes, then each pooling plant or firm is
required to test one mattress/set for confirmation testing. If that set
fails, then the plant or firm will need to test another mattress/set
after correcting its production to make sure that it is identical to
the original prototype.
A pooling firm may sell other mattresses that have not been tested
by the pooling firm if they differ from the pooled prototype only with
respect to (1) mattress/set size; (2) ticking, unless the ticking of
the qualified prototype has characteristics designed to improve
performance on the burn test; and/or (3) any component, material, or
method of construction that the manufacturer can demonstrate, on an
objectively reasonable basis, will not cause the prototype to exceed
the test criteria specified above.
3. Products and Industries Potentially Affected
According to ISPA, the mattress producers' trade organization, the
top four producers of mattresses account for almost sixty percent of
total U.S. production. In total, there are 639 establishments (as of
2001) that produce mattresses in the U.S., using the U.S. Department of
Commerce NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Code
33791 for mattresses. The top four producers account for about half of
the number of all these establishments. The number of establishments
has been declining over time due to mergers and buy-outs. Total
employment in the industry, using the NAICS Code 33791, was 25,500
workers in 2001.
The mattress manufacturing industry has three key supplying
industries: spring and wire product manufacturing, broad-woven fabric
mills, and foam products manufacturing. Depending on the type of fire
resistant barrier chosen by different manufacturers, the demand for
foam padding for mattresses might decline if it were replaced by the
high-loft barrier in the construction of the mattress and foundation.
This would be offset by an increase in the demand for the high-loft
barrier. If sheet barriers were chosen by some mattress producers, then
sales of, and employment by, the sheet barrier suppliers would
increase. Since the sheet barriers would not replace other inputs,
there would most likely be no offsetting effect on other industries.
Fiberglass, melamine, and aramid producers may also be affected to the
extent that they are used to produce fire resistant materials used in
mattress production.
Manufacturers of bedclothes may also be affected by the proposed
standard. Sales of bedclothes may increase or decrease based on whether
consumers view bedclothes as complements or substitutes for a new
mattress/set (complements are goods generally consumed together,
substitutes generally substitute for each other). For example, if
people tend to buy all parts of a new bed (mattress, foundation, and
bedclothes consisting of a comforter, pillows, and sheets) at the same
time, then an increase in the quantity of mattresses sold would cause
an increase in sales of bedclothes. If, alternatively, people tend to
have a fixed budget from which to buy all mattresses and bedding items,
then an increase in the quantity of mattresses sold would lead to a
decrease in sales of bedclothes. Also, if the decision to buy a new
mattress (or mattress/set) involves buying a mattress that is much
thicker than the one currently in use, then consumers will most likely
buy new sheets (and possibly matching pillowcases and other bedclothes
items) to fit the new thicker mattress.
If the cost increase is relatively small or there is no resulting
increase in the price of a mattress/set, then the demand for bedclothes
will only be affected if consumers place a higher value on the safer
mattress and replace their current mattress sooner than they would have
with no standard in place. An increased demand for the safer (and
thicker, if the current mattress is relatively old) mattress will
likely result in an increased demand for sheets that fit the newer
mattresses. This effect, however, is not directly resulting from the
adoption of the proposed standard since the thickness of the mattress
need not be increased by the presence of either type of barrier. It is
the result of the increased utility some consumers may derive from the
safer mattress and the consequent increase in demand for bedclothes.
The increased demand for safer mattresses would most probably lead to
an increase in sales and employment in the spring and wire products,
broad-woven fabric, and foam products industries, as well as in the
mattress and bedclothes industries.
Other producers that could potentially be affected, if the price
change associated with producing compliant mattresses is significant,
are those of other substitute products, like airbeds, waterbeds, * * *
etc. that contain no upholstered material and would, therefore, not be
covered by the proposed standard. Their sales may increase as a
proportion of total bedding products.
4. Characteristics of Mattresses Used in U.S. Households
The total number of U.S. conventional mattress shipments was 21.5
million in 2002 and is estimated to be 22.1 in 2003 and 22.8 in 2004.
Mattress shipments have grown at an average rate of three percent over
the period 1981 to 2004. Unconventional mattresses (including futons;
crib mattresses; juvenile mattresses; sleep sofa inserts; and hybrid
water mattresses) are estimated to be about ten percent of the total
market. This yields an estimated total number of mattresses produced
domestically of 25.3 million in 2004. The value of mattress and
foundation shipments in 2002, according to ISPA, was $3.26 and $1.51
billion respectively.
The CPSC Product Population Model (PPM) estimate of the number of
mattresses in use in different years is based on available annual sales
data and an estimate of the average product life of a mattress.
Industry representatives assert that the average consumer replaces a
mattress/set after ten years. A 1996 CPSC market study estimated the
average expected life of a mattress to be 14 years. The PPM estimates
the number of (conventional and non-conventional) mattresses in use in
2004 to be 233 million mattresses, using a 10-year average product
life, and 302.6 million mattresses, using a 14-year average product
life. These two numbers are later used to estimate the pre-standard
baseline risk and the expected benefits of the proposed standard.
This analysis focuses principally on queen-size mattresses because
they are the most commonly used. In 2002 queen-size mattresses were
used by 34 percent of U.S. consumers. Following the queen-size are the
sizes: Twin and Twin XL (31.2 percent), Full and Full XL (21 percent),
King and California King (11 percent), and all other (2.6 percent).
ISPA data reflect that the average size of a mattress is increasing.
The average manufacturing price in 2002 was $152 for a mattress of
average size and $86 for a foundation of average size. Hence the
average manufacturing price of a mattress/set was about $238 in 2002.
There are no readily available data on average retail prices for
mattress/foundation sets by size. ISPA, however, reports that mattress/
foundation sets selling for under $500 represent 40.7 percent of the
market. Mattress/foundation sets selling for between $500 and $1000
represent 39.2 percent of the market.
[[Page 2481]]
5. Trends in Mattress/Bedding Residential Fires, Deaths, Injuries, and
Property Losses
Open-Flame Ignition. The staff estimates average annual mattress/
bedding fires from open-flame ignitions (including candles, matches and
lighters) to have been 8,367 and 6,367 over the 1993-95 and 1996-98
periods respectively. This represents a reduction of 23.9 percent. The
resulting average mattress/bedding deaths, injuries, and property
losses from open-flame ignitions have decreased by 28.2 percent, 22.1
percent, and 5.6 percent respectively, over the 1993 to 1998 period.
When adjusted for inflation, the decrease in the value of property
losses becomes 37.7 percent.
Smoking Material Ignition. The staff estimates average annual
mattress/bedding fires from smoking material ignition (including
cigarettes, cigars, and pipes) to have been 7,733 and 6,067 over the
1993-95 and 1996-98 periods respectively. This represents a reduction
of 21.6 percent over the 1993 to 1998 period. Average annual deaths,
injuries, and property losses due to mattress/bedding smoking material
ignitions have decreased by 4.7 percent, 19.7 percent, and 9.7 percent,
respectively, over the same period. When adjusted for inflation, the
decrease in the value of property losses becomes 40.4 percent.
Other Ignition Sources. The staff estimates average annual
mattress/bedding fires from other ignition sources (including sparks,
embers, or flames escaping from fueled equipment, arcs or sparks from
electric equipment, small torches, hot embers, and fireworks, heat
escaping from fueled equipment, molten material, short circuit arc, and
heat overloaded equipment) to have been 8,633 and 7,767 over the 1993-
95 and 1996-98 periods respectively. This represents a reduction of 10
percent over the 1993 to 1998 period. Average annual injuries and
inflation-adjusted property losses have decreased by 13.8 percent and
38.7 percent respectively. Average annual deaths increased by 51.7
percent (from 97 to 147). This increase offsets the decrease in deaths
resulting from open-flame and smoking material ignition fires. The
annual average number of deaths from all ignition sources remained
unchanged over the period, equal to 510.
6. Expected Benefits of the Proposed Standard
The expected benefits of the proposed standard are estimated as
reductions in the baseline risk of death and injury from all mattress
fires, based on a CPSC staff study of fire investigations from 1999-
2004. Risk reductions are then calculated on a per-mattress-in-use
basis based on estimates of the number of mattresses in use. The
monetary value of expected benefits per mattress is derived using
current (i.e., 2004) estimates for the value of a statistical life and
the average cost of a mattress fire injury. To derive the monetary
value of expected benefits over the life of a mattress, the expected
annual benefits are discounted (using a three percent discount rate),
and then summed over the expected life of the mattress. The analysis
considers mattress lives of 10 and 14 years.
The potential benefits of the proposed standard consist of the
reduction in deaths, injuries, and property damage that would result.
Since the objective of the proposed standard is to reduce the
likelihood of flashover or increase the time before flashover occurs,
and not to reduce fires, changes in property losses associated with the
proposed standard are hard to quantify. Property losses are expected to
decline but the extent of the decline cannot be quantified.
Consequently, for purposes of this analysis, no reduction in property
losses is assumed. That is, all expected benefits from the proposed
standard are in the form of prevented deaths and injuries. This
underestimates net benefits, since there will likely be some benefits
from reduced property losses.
The proposed standard is expected to reduce the likelihood of
flashover resulting from fires started by smoking materials or other
ignition sources, as well as those started by open-flame ignition.
Fires, injuries, and property losses resulting from smoking material
ignition and other ignitions, and deaths from smoking material ignition
are lower for the 1996-98 period than the 1993-95 period. (Deaths from
other ignition sources are more than 50 percent higher). Any additional
reduction in these figures due to the proposed open-flame ignition
standard will translate into societal benefits, as will be discussed in
the benefit-cost analysis (Section 8).
Estimates of the effectiveness of the proposed standard are based
on a CPSC staff evaluation of in-depth investigation reports of fires
(including details of the occupants' situations and actions during the
fire) occurring in 1999-2004 in which a mattress or bedding was the
first item to ignite, the fire was of the type considered addressable
by the proposed standard, and a civilian death or injury resulted. Most
of the investigations also included documentation from the fire
department that attended the fire. Some incident reports were initiated
from death certificates with follow-up documentation from the fire
department. This resulted in a total of 195 deaths and 205 injuries in
the investigations to be evaluated. The distribution of mattress
ignition sources was not representative of all fires involving
mattresses and thus the data were weighted to match the NFIRS-based
national fire data distributions.
Evaluations of the fire incidents by CPSC staff reviewers used the
results of NIST testing (Ohlemiller, 2004; Ohlemiller and Gann, 2003;
Ohlemiller and Gann, 2002) conducted to assess the hazard produced from
burning mattresses and bedclothes. Specifically, the evaluations were
based on the expectation that occupants in bed when the fire ignited
but able to escape the burning bedclothes in the first three to five
minutes faced a minimal hazard. Occupants in direct contact with
burning bedclothes for a longer period (5 to 10 minutes) would be
subject to potentially hazardous levels of heat release. If the burning
bedclothes did not ignite other non-bedding items or produce flashover
at this time, heat release would subside temporarily and then begin to
increase as the involvement of the mattress increased.
These conditions would allow occupants 10 to 15 minutes to escape
the room of origin before the situation in the room would become
untenable. Since the proposed standard is expected to slow the rate of
fire spread and hence increase escape time, assuming that bedclothes do
not contribute enough heat to pose a hazardous condition, it was
assumed that no deaths would occur among people who were outside the
room of origin at the time of ignition, unless they entered the room
later or were incapable of exiting on their own. The analysis focused
on reduction of deaths and injuries because the proposed standard is
designed to limit fire intensity and spread rather than prevent
ignition.
Each investigation was evaluated by CPSC staff reviewers to
identify the features related to the occurrence of a death or injury
once the fire was ignited. These included casualty age, casualty
location when the fire started (at the point of ignition, in the room
of origin but not at the point of ignition, or outside the room of
origin), whether the casualty was asleep, or suffered from additional
conditions likely to increase the time needed to escape, whether the
casualty engaged in fighting the fire, and whether a rescuer was
present. All of these conditions were used to determine a range for the
likelihood that each individual death or injury would have
[[Page 2482]]
been prevented had the draft proposed standard been in effect.
Percentage reductions of deaths (injuries) within subcategories of heat
source and age group were applied to equivalent subcategories of the
national estimates based on the NFIRS and NFPA data for 1995-1999. The
estimated reductions per category were summed and the overall
percentage reductions were calculated as the percent of addressable
deaths (or injuries) that would have been prevented if the likelihood
of flashover were reduced in the first 30 minutes and victims had 10 to
15 minutes of escape time.
The staff indicates that the proposed standard is expected to
reduce all addressable deaths from mattress/bedding fires by 80 to 86
percent and reduce all addressable injuries from mattress/bedding fires
by 86 to 92 percent. The results vary only slightly by source of
ignition. These estimated effectiveness percentages result in the
prevention of an estimated 310 to 330 deaths and 1660 to 1780 injuries
annually, for the 1998-2002 period.
The staff's analysis presents the estimated annual deaths and
injuries that are expected to be prevented by the proposed standard,
based on average figures for 1998-2002. For purposes of this analysis,
it is assumed that the annual deaths and injuries prevented by the
proposed standard equal the average annual deaths and injuries
prevented for the 1998-2002 period. The analysis is conducted as if the
standard went into effect in 2004. All dollar estimates are based on
constant 2004 dollars. A discount rate of 3 percent and average
expected lives of a mattress of 10 and 14 years are also assumed.
The estimated ranges of deaths and injuries prevented are
calculated by applying the range of percent reductions to average
addressable deaths and injuries for the period 1998-2002. Staff's
analysis also presents the risk reduction in deaths and injuries that
would result from the proposed standard (per million mattresses). Based
on the estimated number of mattresses in use (described in Section 4)
and an average expected life of 10 years, the annual reduction in the
risk of death equals 1.33 deaths per million mattresses (310 deaths
divided by the estimated 233 million mattresses in use in 2004) to 1.42
per million mattresses (330 deaths / 233 million mattresses). The
estimated reduction in the risk of injury, similarly calculated, equals
7.12 to 7.64 injuries per million mattresses for an estimated 10-year
life of a mattress. The estimated risk reductions for an estimated 14-
year life of a mattress are 1.02 to 1.09 deaths and 5.49 to 5.88
injuries per million mattresses.
Annual risk reductions resulting from the proposed standard are
used to derive the monetary benefits from reduced deaths and injuries.
The estimated reduction in the risk of death is multiplied by the value
of a statistical life (and divided by a million) to derive a first-year
monetary estimate for the range of benefits from lives saved per
mattress. Based on the existing literature, a value of a statistical
life of five million dollars is assumed (Viscusi, 1993). The estimated
reduction in the risk of injury is similarly used to derive the range
of first-year monetary benefits from injuries prevented. The benefits
from preventing an injury (the cost of an injury) in 2004 are estimated
to average about $179,300, based on Miller et. al. (1993). The first-
year benefits associated with preventing deaths and injuries equal
$7.93 to $8.45 for an estimated mattress life of 10 years and $6.11 to
$6.51 for an estimated mattress life of 14 years.
Lifetime benefits are derived by projecting annual benefits for the
life of the mattress and summing the discounted (at a rate of 3
percent) stream of annual benefits (measured in constant dollars). The
number of mattresses in use is projected to grow at a rate of zero to
three percent, based on the average growth rate for the 1981-2002
period. Since the number of deaths and injuries are implicitly assumed
to remain constant over time, a positive growth rate of mattresses in
use implies a declining risk over time. The lower end of the ranges for
estimated (10 and 14 years) lifetime benefits correspond to a 3 percent
projected growth rate and the lower end of the effectiveness ranges.
The upper end of the ranges for estimated (10 and 14 years) lifetime
benefits correspond to a zero percent projected growth rate and the
upper end of the effectiveness ranges. For an expected mattress life of
10 years, the resulting expected lifetime benefits of saved lives
associated with the proposed standard equal $51.70 to $62.22 per
mattress. The corresponding benefits of prevented injuries equal $9.93
to $12.03. Hence, for an expected mattress life of 10 years, the
expected total lifetime benefits of a compliant mattress equal $61.66
to $74.25. For an expected mattress life of 14 years, total benefits
equal $59.88 to $75.71 per mattress. The sensitivity analysis section
below examines how the results might change when a discount rate of
seven percent is used.
7. Expected Costs of the Proposed Standard
This section presents the expected resource costs associated with
the proposed standard. Resource costs are costs that reflect the use of
a resource that would have been available for other uses had it not
been used in conjunction with the production of mattresses compliant
with the proposed standard. These costs include material and labor
costs; testing costs; costs to wholesalers, distributors, and
retailers; costs of producers' information collection and record
keeping; costs of quality control/quality assurance programs; and
compliance and enforcement costs. The effect on retail prices will be
discussed in Section 8.
Material and Labor Costs. To comply with the proposed standard, the
construction of most mattress/sets will include a barrier technology
with improved fire performance. This barrier may be thick (high-loft)
or thin (sheet). High-loft barriers are generally used to replace some
of the existing non-woven fiber, foam, and/or batting material, leading
to a smaller increase in costs than sheet barriers, which constitute an
addition to production materials (and costs).
According to several barrier producers and mattress manufacturers,
the price of a high-loft barrier that would make a mattress comply with
the proposed standard, defined to have a width of 88 to 92 inches, is
$3.00 to $5.00 per linear yard. The high-loft barrier replaces the
currently-used polyester batting, which costs an average of $0.50 to
$1.70 per linear yard. Hence, the net increase in the cost attributed
to the use of the high-loft barrier is $1.30 to $4.50 per linear yard,
which translates to a net increase in barrier-related manufacturing
costs of $7.80 to $27.00 for a queen-size mattress/set.\4\ The queen-
size is used for all the cost estimates, because it is the mode size,
used by 34 percent of consumers in 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This calculation is based on the assumption that a queen-
size mattress/set requires six linear yards of the barrier mateiral
to be used in the two (top and bottom) panels of the mattress and
the side panels of both the mattress and foundation. Some producers
are able to use less than six linear yards, which reduces their cost
per queen mattress/set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to several barrier producers and mattress manufacturers,
the price of a sheet barrier that would make a mattress comply with the
proposed standard is $4.00 to $6.00 per linear yard. Because of its
different texture, the sheet barrier would generally not replace any of
the materials being used in the construction of the mattress/set.\5\
[[Page 2483]]
This translates to $24.00 to $36.00 for a queen-size mattress/set. The
large difference in the net cost of the two barrier types suggests that
if a barrier's fire performance is not a function of its type, most
manufacturers will use high-loft barriers, the less costly alternative.
A large mattress manufacturer also indicated that mattresses produced
with sheet barriers in the top panel of the mattress (as opposed to the
side panels) may be less comfortable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The only exception to this might involve using a sheet
barrier in the side panel of the mattress and foundation. Because
the existence of cushioning along the side of the mattress and
foundation would probably not be noticed or missed by consumers,
substitution of the sheet barrier for the material currently being
used in the side panel may be implemented to reduce the cost of
using the sheet barrier. The side panel is small, relative to the
size of the entire surface area of a mattress/set, and its possibly
different construction is therefore not included in the cost
calculation. This leads to a slight over-estimation of the cost of
the sheet barrier and consequently the relative cost of using a
sheet instead of a high-loft barrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the increase in material costs due to the use of a
barrier, costs will increase due to the use of fire-resistant (FR)
thread for tape stitching. According to several thread producers, the
cost of FR thread is $0.41 to $0.60 per queen-size mattress/set. Given
that the cost of nylon (non-FR) thread is about $0.10 per queen-size
mattress/set, the net increase in costs per queen-size mattress/set due
to the use of FR thread is $0.31 to $0.50.
Costs may also increase due to slightly reduced labor productivity.
Based on industry estimates of an average of two labor hours for the
production of a queen-size mattress/set, and a 10 percent reduction in
labor productivity and an industry average hourly wage rate of $11.50,
the cost increase due to reduced labor productivity is about $2.30.
The increase in the materials and labor costs of a mattress, is
thus equal to $10.41 ($7.80 barrier cost + $0.31 thread cost + $2.30
labor cost) to $29.80 ($27 barrier cost + $0.50 thread cost + $2.30
labor cost) for a high-loft barrier and $26.61 ($24.00 barrier cost +
$0.31 thread cost + $2.30 labor cost) to $38.80 ($36 barrier cost +
$0.50 thread cost + $2.30 additional labor cost) for a sheet
barrier.\6\ Various types of high-loft and sheet barriers are widely
available for sale and therefore it is expected that those whose prices
are at the upper end of the range will either not be produced (because
mattress manufacturers will not buy them) or their prices will drop (so
that they can compete with other barriers available for sale). Hence
the total materials and labor costs will most likely be closer to the
lower end of the estimated range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Some producers are also using an FR mattress edge binding
tape, which costs an average of $2.52 per mattress, while a non-FR
tape costs an average of $1.68. This makes the net increase in
costs, due to using FR edge binding tape, equal to $0.84. This cost
is not added to the total production costs, because it is not
required for the mattress to pass the burn test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs of Prototype and Confirmation Testing. Each mattress/set
prototype is required to be tested in triplicate for prototype
qualification. According to industry representatives, the cost of
testing per twin-size mattress/set may be about $500: the sum of the
average cost of the materials and shipping ($100) and the cost of the
use of the lab ($400). Hence, the cost of testing three mattresses/sets
for prototype qualification equals $1500. Additionally, if some
mattress/set prototypes do not pass the first time, then the cost will
be higher, because additional tests will be done after action is taken
to improve the resistance of the prototype. If 10 percent of mattresses
are retested, then the average cost of testing a prototype would be 10
percent higher, or $1650. This cost is assumed to be incurred no more
than once per establishment for each prototype. It is expected that a
qualified prototype will be used to represent a mattress construction
(e.g., single-sided pillow top) with all other prototypes using the
same construction (with different size and different ticking materials)
being based on the qualified prototype. If companies pool their
prototype definitions across different establishments or different
companies, testing costs would be smaller as all but one of the firms/
establishments producing to the specification of a pooled prototype
will burn one mattress (for the confirmation test) instead of three
(for the prototype test). The probability of a mattress failing a
confirmation test is small. Therefore, it is expected that the average
cost of testing per mattress will be lower for firms and/or
establishments that pool their results than for those that do not.
If manufacturers test every mattress construction (e.g., single-
sided pillow top, double-sided pillow-top, tight-top, euro-top, * * *
etc.), which is estimated, based on conversations with manufacturers,
to average about twenty per manufacturer, for every establishment in a
given year, then their average testing cost per mattress would
approximately equal 92.5 cents ($1650 x 20 constructions x 639
establishments/22.8 million conventional mattresses) per mattress for
the first year of production. If manufacturers use a qualified
prototype of the least fire-resistant mattress/set construction
(``worst case'') to represent other mattress/set constructions, then
the average cost of testing per mattress for the first year of
production will be reduced. Pooling testing results across
establishments and/or firms will further reduce the average cost of
testing per mattress. On an annual basis testing costs will be further
reduced because prototypes need only be tested in the year they are
first developed.
Cost of Information Collection and Record Keeping. In addition to
prototype testing, the proposed standard will require detailed
documentation of all tests performed and their results including video
or pictures; prototype or production identification number; date and
time of test; and name and location of testing facility; test room
conditions; and test data for as long as the prototype is in production
and for three years after its production ceases. Manufacturers are also
required to keep records of a unique identification number for the
qualified prototype and a list of the unique identification numbers of
each prototype based on the qualified prototype and a description of
the materials substituted and/or the size change. Moreover, they are
required to document the name and supplier of each material used in
construction of a prototype and keep physical samples of the material.
Additionally, they are required to identify the details of the
application of any fire retardant treatments and/or inherently fire
resistant fibers employed relative to mattress components. This
documentation is in addition to documentation already conducted by
mattress manufacturers in their efforts to meet the cigarette standard.
Detailed testing documentation will be done by the test lab and is
included in the estimated cost of testing. Based on CPSC Office of
Compliance staff estimates, all requirements of the proposed standard
are expected to cost an establishment about 110 minutes, or 1.3 hours,
per qualified prototype. Assuming that every establishment will produce
20 different qualified prototypes, the increase in record keeping costs
is about $935 (110 minutes x 20 qualified prototypes x $25.50 in
average civilian workers' compensation per hour) per establishment per
year. (Note that pooling among establishments or using a qualified
prototype for longer than one year will reduce this estimate.) This
translates to an average cost of 2.6 cents per mattress for an average
establishment, with average output of 35,681 conventional mattresses.
Cost of Quality Control/Quality Assurance Programs. To ensure that
all mattresses are produced to the prototype specification across all
factories and over the years for which a production line exists,
mattress
[[Page 2484]]
manufacturers will need a thorough well-documented quality control/
assurance program. The top 12 mattress producers (with a market share
of almost 80 percent) have existing quality control programs which
could be modified to fit the new standard with minimal additional
costs. Smaller producers, whose quality control programs are less
detailed or non-existent, will incur some incremental costs as a result
of the proposed standard. These incremental costs will be small for
each manufacturer and less when measured per mattress. (See the section
on impact of the proposed standard on small businesses for a
description of their cost of quality control and quality assurance
programs.)
Additionally, although the proposed standard does not require
production testing, it encourages random production testing to assure
manufacturers that their mattresses continue to meet the requirements
of the rule, as a possible component of the quality control/quality
assurance program. Assuming that an average of 3 mattress/foundation
constructions will be tested per establishment per year yields an
estimated cost of production testing of about $1500. Based on this
assumption, the estimated cost of testing mattress/foundation sets for
quality assurance purposes, therefore, equals 4.2 cents per mattress
($1500/35,681) for an average establishment.
The labor needed to meet the quality assurance measures required by
the standard is estimated by CPSC Office of Compliance staff to be 224
minutes per establishment per prototype per year. Assuming that every
establishment will produce 20 qualified prototypes, the increase in
labor costs associated with quality assurance requirements of the
proposed standard is about $1904 (224 minutes x 20 qualified prototypes
x $25.50 average civilian workers' compensation per hour) per
establishment per year. (Note that pooling among establishments or
using a qualified prototype for longer than one year will reduce this
estimate.) This yields an average cost of 5.3 cents per mattress for an
average establishment, with average output of 35,681 mattresses. Hence
total costs of quality assurance/quality control programs may average
about 9.5 cents (4.2 + 5.3) per conventional mattress per year.
Costs to Wholesalers, Distributors, and Retailers. An added cost of
the proposed standard is the increase in costs to wholesalers,
distributors, and retailers in the form of additional storage,
transportation, and inventory financing costs. Since a mattress
complying with the proposed standard will not be bigger than a similar
mattress produced before the standard becomes effective, storage and
transportation costs are not expected to increase. Inventory financing
costs will increase by the average cost of borrowing money, applied to
the wholesale price of a mattress over the average inventory holding
time period. Since most mattress producers use just-in-time production
and have small inventories, this additional cost will probably not
exceed ten percent of the increase in production cost (which is the sum
of material, labor, testing, record keeping, and quality assurance
costs). A ten percent mark-up is, therefore, being used to measure the
cost to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers. This yields a
resource cost to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers equal to
$1.15 to $3.98 per mattress/set. Retail prices may increase by more
than the ten percent mark-up. Section 8 discusses the impact of the
proposed standard on retail prices of mattresses.
Costs of Compliance and Enforcement. Compliance and enforcement
costs refer to the costs incurred by CPSC to ensure that manufacturers
are complying with the proposed standard. Based on past experience with
the existing mattress standard, the estimated CPSC inspection time
spent per location (establishment) equals 33 hours for inspection and 6
hours for sample collection. This yields a cost per inspection of about
$1,664.52 (39 hours x $42.68, the average wage rate for CPSC
inspectors). Additionally, compliance officers spend an average of 20
hours per case, making their cost equal to $1,032.80 (20 hours x
$51.64, the average hourly wage rate for compliance officers). This
yields an average compliance and enforcement total labor cost of
$2,697.32 per inspected establishment per year.
It should be noted that the expected cost per establishment, if
less than one hundred percent of establishments are inspected every
year, equals the cost per inspected establishment times the probability
that a given establishment will be inspected. Though the probability
that a given establishment will be inspected in a given year is not
known, assuming that a third of all establishments will be inspected
(i.e., about 213 establishments) yields a compliance and enforcement
total expected labor cost of $899.11 ($2,697.32 x (\1/3\)) per
establishment per year.
In addition to labor costs, CPSC will incur testing costs. It
should be noted that the decision to collect samples after an
inspection visit is made at the discretion of the investigator and,
therefore an accurate assumption about the number of samples collected
and sent for a burn test cannot be made. If, based on inspection,
samples from 10 percent of all inspected establishments were to be
collected and sent to a lab for a burn test, and if samples
representing 5 qualified prototypes are taken from each of these
establishments, then the total cost of CPSC testing will be $157,500 (5
qualified prototypes x $1,500 (the cost of testing up to 3 mattresses
for each qualified prototype) x 21 (10 percent of 213 inspected
establishments)). These assumptions about frequency of testing yield an
expected cost of testing per establishment of $246.48 ($157,500/639).
Therefore the expected total CPSC wage and testing costs associated
with the proposed standard per establishment per year equal $1,145.59
($899.11 + $246.48). With an average production of 35,681 mattresses
per establishment (22.8 million mattresses divided by 639
establishments), the average CPSC wage and testing costs equal 3.2
cents per mattress ($1,145.59/35,681). These costs are expected to
decrease over time as manufacturers learn the requirements of the
proposed standard.
Total Resource Costs. Therefore total resource costs (including
material costs, labor costs, costs of prototype and confirmation
testing, paperwork collection and record keeping costs, costs of
quality control/quality assurance programs, production testing costs,
costs to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers, and costs of
compliance and enforcement) are estimated to range from $12.63 to
$43.86 per mattress. This range includes both the high-loft and sheet
barriers. The section on the impact of the proposed standard on small
businesses and other small entities discusses how costs of testing and
quality control/quality assurance programs may differ for small
businesses and strategies that small manufacturers might adopt to
reduce these costs.
Projected Future Costs. It is possible that costs associated with
the standard will decline over time. A supplier of fire resistant
barriers predicts that the price of the barriers will decline by 40
percent in the next two years, due to decreased uncertainty and
increased competition. (They have already dropped significantly since
TB603 was proposed.) The increase in labor costs due to decreased
productivity is expected to be temporary and be reduced when workers
get more training and/or the older machines get replaced
[[Page 2485]]
with newer machines that are more capable of handling the FR thread and
material used in fire resistant barriers. Moreover, as noted above,
prototype testing costs are expected to decline after the first year of
the standard.
The proposed standard references an effective date of twelve months
following publication of a final rule. The costs reported here are
based on the assumption that supplier companies will be able to
maintain existing capacity. If federal standards for bedclothes and
upholstered furniture were mandated at the same time and input
producers were not given enough time to increase their capacity, input
prices would rise in the short-run because of increased demand for the
FR material used by all three industries.
Unquantifiable Costs. A mattress manufacturer indicated that in
response to an FR mattress standard, the number of models/styles
produced may be cut by half. If this response is typical, then there
may be a reduction in consumers' utility, because of the reduction in
mattress types that they would have to choose from. Others indicate
that there will be an aversion to producing double-sided mattresses,
because it would be harder for them to pass the burn test. Double-sided
mattresses possibly have a longer expected life than single-sided ones.
To the extent that consumers prefer double-sided mattresses to single-
sided mattresses, the shift away from producing double-sided mattresses
imposes a non-monetary cost. Though unquantifiable, this reduction in
choices of construction type and design is an added cost to consumers
of the proposed standard.
Another unquantifiable cost is the possible increase in liability
insurance faced by mattress manufacturers. Because the draft proposed
standard measures the performance of the entire mattress when exposed
to fire, and not its individual components, liability will be shared by
input suppliers and mattress manufacturers. Industry representatives
expect that manufacturers' liability insurance will increase to reflect
the additional possibility of litigation. This increase, however,
cannot be quantified because of the novelty of this performance test.
Compliance of more mattress firms with the California TB 603 standard
may enable us to estimate the additional liability insurance. Notice
that any increase in liability insurance faced by FR input suppliers
will be included in the price charged for the FR inputs and does not
add to the total increase in resource cost that is expected to result
from the proposed standard.
8. Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standard
This section compares benefits and costs of the proposed standard,
presents a sensitivity analysis, and highlights the impact of the
proposed standard on retail prices, small businesses, children, and the
environment. The sensitivity analysis examines the effect of changing
some of the assumptions used earlier. The analysis shows that net
benefits continue to be positive under a reasonable range of
assumptions about the death and injury effectiveness of the proposed
standard, the reduction in injuries resulting from the proposed
standard, the value of a statistical life estimate, the discount rate,
or the expected mattress life.
The expected aggregate lifetime benefits associated with one year's
production of mattresses (25.3 million units) using a discount rate of
three percent and an expected 10-year mattress life are $1.56 to $1.88
billion ($61.66 to $74.25 per mattress x 25.3 million mattresses). The
corresponding expected aggregate costs of the proposed standard are
$0.32 to $1.11 billion ($12.63 to $43.86 times 25.3 million). The
resulting net aggregate benefits equal $0.45 to $1.56 billion ($17.79
to $61.62 times 25.3 million). For a mattress life of 14 years (and a 3
percent discount rate), aggregate lifetime benefits, costs, and net
benefits of the proposed standard associated with one year of
production are $1.52 to $1.92, $0.32 to $1.11, and $0.41 to $1.60
billion respectively. The expected benefits of the proposed standard
will accrue for a long period of time and discounted net benefits will,
therefore, be much greater than net benefits associated with only the
mattress production in the first year the standard becomes effective.
Sensitivity Analysis. The previous analysis compares benefits and
costs of the proposed standard using expected mattress lives of 10 and
14 years, a discount rate of 3 percent, an expected effectiveness rate
of the proposed standard of 80 to 86 percent of deaths and 86 to 92
percent of injuries, an estimated value of a statistical life of 5
million dollars, and an estimated cost of injury of $179,300. This
section examines the effect of changing any of these assumptions on the
expected net benefits of the proposed standard.
Comparing expected benefits and costs of the proposed standard, it
is clear that net benefits are expected to be positive (i.e., expected
total benefits exceed expected costs) for an average mattress life of
10 or 14 years. Though increasing the expected mattress life from 10 to
14 years, while using the 3 percent discount rate, expands the positive
range of net benefits, it does not affect the conclusion regarding net
benefits. A further increase of the expected life of a mattress
similarly would not affect the estimate of net benefits. For example,
using the Product Population Model estimate of the number of mattresses
in use based on an expected mattress life of 18 years (equal to 367.1
million mattresses) yields net benefits of $14.42 to $64.49 per
mattress, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
Net benefits are also positive using discount rates of 3 and 7
percent. Using a 3 percent discount rate, net benefits per mattress
equal $17.79 to $61.62 for an average life of 10 years and $16.01 to
$63.08 for an average life of 14 years. Using a 7 percent discount
rate, net benefits per mattress equal $9.36 to $50.88 for an average
life of 10 years and $5.15 to $48.26 for an average life of 14 years.
Assuming a larger discount rate reduces net benefits, because future
benefits reaped over the life of the mattress contribute less to total
benefits.
Net benefits are based on an estimated value of a statistical life
equal to $5 million. Changing the estimate used for the value of a
statistical life does not have a major impact on the results. For
example, if $3 million, the lower bound estimate in Viscusi (1993), is
used as an estimate of the value of a statistical life, net benefits
become -$2.90 to $36.73 per mattress (using a 3 percent discount rate
and an estimated mattress life of 10 years).\7\ Alternatively, a $7
million estimate, the higher bound estimate in Viscusi (1993), yields
net benefits equal to $38.48 to $86.51 per mattress (using a 3 percent
discount rate and an estimated mattress life of 10 years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The range for net benefits was derived by subtracting the
upper end of the cost range from the lower end of the benefits range
to get the lower end of the range for net benefits and subtracting
the lower end of the cost range from the higher end of the benefits
range to get the higher end of the range for net benefits. Because
of this method, both ends of the range for net benefits are a very
unlikely occurrence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changing the estimate used for the cost of injury will have minimal
impact on the results, because the share of benefits from reduced
injuries is 16 percent of total benefits. Hence, even if there were no
reduction in injuries from the proposed standard, the net benefits
would be $7.86 to $49.59 per mattress (using a mattress life of 10
years and a 3 percent discount rate).
The analysis assumes that the effectiveness of the proposed
standard ranges from 80 to 86 percent for deaths and 86 to 92 percent
for injuries. The
[[Page 2486]]
net benefits will remain positive, with a lower effectiveness rate. For
example, assuming an effectiveness rate of preventing death of only 55
percent yields net benefits of $1.86 to $39.84 per mattress and
aggregate net benefits of 50 million to 1.01 billion dollars from all
mattresses produced the first year the proposed standard is mandated
(using a mattress life of 10 years, a 3 percent discount rate, and the
same effectiveness for injuries as used in the baseline analysis).
Also, assuming a smaller number of deaths and injuries before the
proposed standard is mandated (a smaller baseline risk) would still
result in positive net benefits. A 25 percent reduction in baseline
death and injury risks yields net benefits of $2.38 to $43.06 per
mattress and aggregate net benefits of $60 million to $1.09 billion
from all mattresses produced the first year the mattress standard is
mandated (using a mattress life of 10 years, a 3 percent discount rate,
and the estimated effectiveness measures used in the baseline
analysis).
Impact on Retail Prices. One of the top four mattress manufacturers
in the industry has re-merchandised its product lines to lower the
costs of other materials so that total costs (and prices) are the same
as they were before the production of mattresses that comply with
TB603. Other manufacturers have indicated that they will have to
increase their price which, according to some manufacturers and based
on reported traditional industry mark-ups, might translate to an
increase in the retail price to consumers that could reach
approximately four-fold the increase in manufacturer's costs. Hence the
average increase in the price at which mattress manufacturers are
willing to sell their products (supply price) will be anywhere betwee