[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 13471-13523]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15mr06-31]                         


[[Page 13471]]

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

Part II





Consumer Product Safety Commission





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



16 CFR Part 1633



Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of Mattress Sets; Final Rule


[[Page 13472]]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1633

 
Final Rule: Standard for the Flammability (Open Flame) of 
Mattress Sets

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (``Commission'') is 
issuing a flammability standard under the authority of the Flammable 
Fabrics Act. This new standard establishes performance requirements 
based on research conducted by the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (``NIST''). Mattresses and mattress and foundation sets 
(``mattress sets'') that comply with the requirements will generate a 
smaller size fire with a slower growth rate, thus reducing the 
possibility of flashover occurring. These improved mattresses should 
result in significant reductions in deaths and injuries associated with 
the risk of mattress fires. The Commission estimates that the standard 
could limit the size of mattress fires to the extent that 240 to 270 
deaths and 1,150 to 1,330 injuries could potentially be eliminated 
annually. As discussed in the preamble, this means that the standard 
could yield lifetime net benefits of $23 to $50 per mattress or 
aggregate lifetime net benefits for all mattresses produced in the 
first year of the standard of $514 million to $1,132 million.

DATES: The rule will become effective on July 1, 2007 and applies to 
mattress sets manufactured, imported, or renovated on or after that 
date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Hartman, Office of Compliance, 
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504-7591; e-mail 
jhartman@cpsc.gov.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    The Commission is issuing this flammability standard to reduce 
deaths and injuries related to mattress fires, particularly those 
initially ignited by open flame sources such as lighters, candles and 
matches.\1\ Although the Commission has a flammability standard 
directed toward cigarette ignition of mattresses, 16 CFR Part 1632, a 
significant number of mattress fires are ignited by open flame sources 
and are not directly addressed by that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Chairman Hal Stratton and Commissioner Nancy Nord issued a 
joint statement, and Commissioner Thomas H. Moore issued a separate 
statement. These are available from the Commission's Office of the 
Secretary (Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 
20814; telephone 301-504-7293; or e-mail: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov) or from 
the Commission's Web site, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.cpsc.gov.

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

    On October 11, 2001, the Commission issued an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``ANPR'') concerning the open flame ignition of 
mattresses/bedding. 66 FR 51886. CPSC, industry, and the California 
Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (``CBHF'') worked 
with National Institute of Standards and Technology (``NIST''), which 
conducted research to develop a test method that could be included in a 
standard to address open flame ignition of mattresses. On January 13, 
2005, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') 
proposing a flammability standard based on the NIST research. 70 FR 
2470. Comments received in response to the NPR are discussed in section 
H of this notice.
    The characteristics of mattress/bedding fires and research 
conducted to develop the standard are discussed in detail in the NPR, 
70 FR 2470, and in the staff's technical memoranda supporting this 
rulemaking. Because a mattress contains a substantial amount of 
flammable materials, if it (one that does not meet the standard) 
ignites in a bedroom fire the mattress will burn rapidly, and will 
quickly reach dangerous flashover conditions within a few minutes. 
Flashover is the point at which the entire contents of a room are 
ignited simultaneously by radiant heat, making conditions in the room 
untenable and safe exit from the room impossible. At flashover, room 
temperatures typically exceed 600-800[deg] C (approximately 1100-
1470[deg] F). About two-thirds of all mattress fatalities are 
attributed to mattress fires that lead to flashover. This accounts for 
nearly all of the fatalities that occur outside the room where the fire 
originated and about half of the fatalities that occur within the room 
of origin.
    The size of a fire can be measured by its rate of heat release. A 
heat release rate of approximately 1,000 kilowatts (``kW'') leads to 
flashover in a typical room. Tests of twin size mattresses of 
traditional constructions (complying with the existing mattress 
cigarette ignition standard in 16 CFR 1632) without bedclothes have 
measured peak heat release rates that exceeded 2,000 kW in less than 5 
minutes. In tests of traditional king size mattresses, peak rates of 
heat release were nearly double that. [2] \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Numbers in brackets refer to documents listed at the end of 
this notice. They are available from the Commission's Office of the 
Secretary, (Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, Room 502, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland 
20814; telephone 301-504-7293; or e-mail: cpsc-os@cpsc.gov) or from 
the Commission's Web site (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia.html
).

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

    The goal of the standard is to minimize or delay flashover when a 
mattress is ignited in a typical bedroom fire. With certain exceptions 
explained below, the standard requires manufacturers to test specimens 
of each of their mattress prototypes (designs) before mattresses based 
on that prototype may be introduced into commerce. The standard 
prescribes a full-scale test using a pair of T-shaped gas burners 
designed to represent burning bedclothes. The mattress set must not 
exceed a peak heat release rate of 200 kW at any time during a 30 
minute test, and the total heat release for the first 10 minutes of the 
test must not exceed 15 megajoules (``MJ''). Mattresses that meet the 
standard's criteria will make only a limited contribution to a fire, 
especially in the early stages of the fire. This will allow occupants 
more time to discover the fire and escape. [1&2]
    The State of California's Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal 
Insulation issued an open flame fire standard for mattresses and 
mattress/box spring sets and futons, TB 603, which went into effect 
January 1, 2005. Both the Commission's standard and TB 603 are based on 
the research conducted at NIST, and they use the same basic test 
method. Both TB 603 and the Commission's standard require that 
mattresses not exceed a 200 kW peak heat release rate during the 30 
minute test. However, the standards differ in the limit they set on 
total energy release in the first ten minutes of the test (the 
Commission's standard sets a stricter limit of 15 MJ, while TB 603 sets 
the limit at 25 MJ).
    NIST has conducted extensive research on mattress/bedding fires for 
the Sleep Products Safety Council (``SPSC'') and the Commission. The 
NPR summarized the research that was conducted to develop the test 
method and other research conducted prior to publication of the NPR. 70 
FR 2470. Subsequently, CPSC contracted with NIST to conduct additional 
test work to explore technical issues raised in the comments that the 
Commission received on the NPR and to provide additional technical 
support for finalizing the

[[Page 13473]]

standard. This work included a series of tests to evaluate the heat 
flux of different burner hole sizes, effects of temperature and 
relative humidity conditions, flammability behavior of one-sided 
mattresses, and flammability performance (durability) of selected flame 
retardant barriers. This research is discussed in the CPSC Engineering 
Sciences Directorate's memorandum, ``Technical Rationale for the 
Standard for the Flammability (Open-Flame) of Mattress Sets and 
Engineering Responses to Applicable Public Comments,'' and the staff's 
briefing memorandum. [2&1]

B. Statutory Authority

    This proceeding is conducted pursuant to Section 4 of the Flammable 
Fabrics Act (``FFA''), which authorizes the Commission to initiate 
proceedings for a flammability standard when it finds that such a 
standard is ``needed to protect the public against unreasonable risk of 
occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or significant 
property damage.'' 15 U.S.C. 1193(a).
    Section 4 also sets forth the process by which the Commission may 
issue a flammability standard. As required in section 4(g), the 
Commission issued an ANPR. 66 FR 51886. 15 U.S.C. 1193(g). The 
Commission reviewed the comments submitted in response to the ANPR and 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') containing the text of 
the proposed rule along with alternatives the Commission has considered 
and a preliminary regulatory analysis. 70 FR 2470. 15 U.S.C. 1193(i). 
The Commission considered comments provided in response to the NPR and 
is issuing this final rule along with a final regulatory analysis. 15 
U.S.C. 1193(j). The Commission cannot issue a final rule unless it 
makes certain findings and includes these in the regulation. The 
Commission must find: (1) If an applicable voluntary standard has been 
adopted and implemented, that compliance with the voluntary standard is 
not likely to adequately reduce the risk of injury, or compliance with 
the voluntary standard is not likely to be substantial; (2) that 
benefits expected from the regulation bear a reasonable relationship to 
its costs; and (3) that the regulation imposes the least burdensome 
alternative that would adequately reduce the risk of injury. 15 U.S.C. 
1193(j)(2). In addition, the Commission must find that the standard (1) 
is needed to adequately protect the public against the risk of the 
occurrence of fire leading to death, injury or significant property 
damage, (2) is reasonable, technologically practicable, and 
appropriate, (3) is limited to fabrics, related materials or products 
which present unreasonable risks, and (4) is stated in objective terms. 
15 U.S.C. 1193(b). The Commission makes these findings in section 
1633.8 of the rule.

C. The Product

    The standard applies to mattresses and mattress and foundation sets 
(``mattress sets''). ``Mattress'' is defined as a resilient material, 
used alone or in combination with other materials, enclosed in a 
ticking and intended or promoted for sleeping upon. For further details 
on how the term is defined in the standard see section E.3. of this 
preamble.
    Throughout the standard the Commission uses the term ``mattress 
set'' to mean a mattress alone if the mattress is manufactured for sale 
without a foundation, or a mattress and a foundation together, if the 
mattress is manufactured for sale with a foundation. Under the 
standard, a mattress manufactured for sale with a foundation must be 
tested with its foundation and a mattress manufactured for sale alone 
must be tested alone.
    According to the International Sleep Products Association 
(``ISPA''), the top four producers of mattresses and foundations 
account for almost 60 percent of total U.S. production. In 2003, there 
were 571 establishments producing mattresses in the U.S. [7]
    Mattresses and foundations are typically sold as sets. However, 
more mattresses are sold annually than foundations; some mattresses are 
sold as replacements for existing mattresses (without a new foundation) 
or are for use in platform beds or other beds that do not require a 
foundation. ISPA estimated that the total number of U.S. conventional 
mattress shipments was 22.5 million in 2004, and would be 23.0 million 
in 2005. These estimates do not include futons, crib mattresses, 
juvenile mattresses, sleep sofa inserts, or hybrid water mattresses. 
These ``non-conventional'' sleep surfaces are estimated to comprise 
about 10 percent of total annual shipments of all sleep products. The 
value of conventional mattress and foundation shipments in 2004, 
according to ISPA, was $4.10 and $1.69 billion respectively, compared 
to $3.28 and $1.51 billion respectively in 2002. [7]
    The expected useful life of mattresses can vary substantially, with 
more expensive models generally experiencing the longest useful lives. 
Industry sources recommend replacement of mattresses after 10 to 12 
years of use, but do not specifically estimate the average life 
expectancy. In the 2001 mattress ANPR, the Commission estimated the 
expected useful life of a mattress at about 14 years. To estimate the 
number of mattresses in use for analysis of the proposed rule, the 
Commission used both a 10 year and 14 year average product life. Using 
CPSC's Product Population Model, the Commission estimates the number of 
mattresses (conventional and non-conventional) in use in 2005 to be 237 
million using a ten-year average product life, and 303.9 million using 
a fourteen-year average product life. [7]
    According to industry sources, queen size mattresses are the most 
commonly used. In 2004, queen size mattresses were used by 34.9 percent 
of U.S. consumers. Twin and twin XL were used by 29.3 percent of U.S. 
consumers, followed by full and full XL (19.9 percent), king and 
California king (11.5 percent), and all other sizes (4.4 percent). The 
average manufacturing price in 2004 was $182 for a mattress and $90 for 
a foundation. Thus, the average manufacturing price of a mattress and 
foundation set was about $272 in 2004. Although there are no readily 
available data on average retail prices for mattress/foundation sets by 
size, ISPA reports that sets selling under $500 represented 34.6 
percent of the market in 2004 compared to 40.7 percent in 2002. Sets 
selling for between $500 and $1000 represented 41.1 percent of the 
market in 2004, compared to 39.2 percent in 2002. [7]
    The top four manufacturers of mattresses and foundations operate 
about one-half of the 571 U.S. establishments producing these products. 
The remainder of the establishments are operated by smaller firms. 
According to the Statistics of U.S. Businesses Census Bureau data, all 
but twelve mattress firms had fewer than 500 employees in 2002. If one 
considers a firm with fewer than 500 employees to be a small business, 
then 97.7 percent ((522-12)/522) of all mattress firms are small 
businesses. [7] The potential impact of the standard on these small 
businesses is discussed in section K of this document.

D. Risk of Injury

    Annual estimates of national fires and fire losses involving 
ignition of a mattress or bedding are based on data from the U.S. Fire 
Administration's National Fire Incident Reporting System (``NFIRS'') 
and the National Fire Protection Administration's (``NFPA'') annual 
survey of fire departments. The most recent national fire loss 
estimates indicated that mattresses and bedding were the first items to 
ignite in 15,300 residential fires attended by the fire

[[Page 13474]]

service annually during 1999-2002. These fires resulted in 350 deaths, 
1,750 injuries and $295.0 million in property loss annually. Of these, 
the staff considers an estimated 14,300 fires, 330 deaths, 1,680 
injuries, and $281.5 million property loss annually to be addressable 
by the standard. Addressable means the incidents were of a type that 
would be affected by the standard solely based on the characteristics 
of the fire cause (i.e., a fire that ignited a mattress or that ignited 
bedclothes which in turn ignited the mattress). For example, an 
incident that involved burning bedclothes but occurred in a laundry 
room would not be considered addressable. [3]
    Among the addressable casualties, open flame fires accounted for 
about 110 deaths (33 percent) and 890 injuries (53 percent) annually. 
Smoking fires accounted for 180 deaths (55 percent) and about 520 
injuries (31 percent) annually. Children younger than age 15 accounted 
for an estimated 90 addressable deaths (27 percent) and 340 addressable 
injuries (20 percent) annually. Adults age 65 and older accounted for 
an estimated 80 addressable deaths (24 percent) and 180 addressable 
injuries (11 percent) annually. [3]

E. Description of the Final Standard

1. General

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

2. Imported Mattresses

    Imported mattresses must meet the same requirements as domestically 
produced mattresses. This means that mattress sets produced outside the 
United States must be tested in accordance with the procedures 
described in Sec.  1633.7 and must meet the criteria specified in Sec.  
1633.3(b), as well as the quality assurance and recordkeeping 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  1633.6 and 1633.11 before they may be 
introduced into commerce in the United States.
    As discussed below, the term ``manufacturer'' refers to the 
establishment where a mattress is produced or assembled, and it is the 
plant or factory producing or assembling the mattress set that is 
responsible for prototype testing. The importer must have records 
demonstrating compliance with the standard on an establishment specific 
basis. To ensure that foreign-made mattress sets comply with the 
standard, the final rule requires that the records specified in Sec.  
1633.11 must be in English and must be kept at a location in the United 
States.

3. Scope and Definitions (Sec. Sec.  1633.1 and 1633.2)

    The standard applies to ``mattress sets,'' defined as either (1) a 
mattress and foundation labeled by the manufacturer for sale as a set, 
or (2) a mattress that is labeled for sale alone. This definition was 
not in the proposed rule, but was added to simplify the sometimes 
cumbersome references to mattress and foundation sets. As discussed 
below, the Commission has added a requirement for manufacturers to 
label mattresses and foundations to indicate if they are to be sold 
with a corresponding mattress or foundation or if they are to be sold 
alone.
    ``Mattress'' is defined substantially as it was in the proposed 
rule and as it is in the existing mattress standard at 16 CFR 1632, as 
``a resilient material or combination of materials enclosed by a 
ticking (used alone or in combination with other products) intended or 
promoted for sleeping upon.'' The standard lists several types of 
mattresses that are included in this definition (e.g., futons, crib 
mattresses, youth mattresses). It also refers to a glossary of terms 
where these items are further defined.
    Specifically excluded from the definition of mattress are mattress 
pads, pillows and other items used on top of a mattress, upholstered 
furniture which does not contain a mattress, and juvenile or other 
product pads. Mattress pads and other top of the bed items may be 
addressed in the Commission's pending rulemaking on bedclothes, in 
which an ANPR was issued on January 13, 2005. 70 FR 2514.
    Like the Commission's existing mattress cigarette ignition 
standard, the open flame standard issued today allows an exemption for 
one-of-a-kind mattress sets if they are manufactured to fulfill a 
physician's written prescription or manufactured in accordance with 
comparable medical therapeutic specifications.
    The Commission has added a clarification that the term ``mattress'' 
includes mattresses that have undergone renovation, and it has added a 
definition of ``renovation.'' The NPR had included a policy 
clarification stating that mattresses renovated for resale would be 
covered by the standard. The definition of ``renovation'' comes from 
that policy clarification. Including mattresses renovated for resale in 
the mattress definition makes the Commission's intent to include them 
in the standard clearer.
    For clarification the Commission has added or modified some other 
definitions. The term ``subordinate prototype'' was added to refer to a 
prototype that is not required to be tested. A definition of 
``confirmed prototype'' was added to describe a prototype that is based 
on a qualified prototype in a pooling arrangement. The term ``edge 
seam'' was redefined as ``edge'' to accommodate mattress or foundation 
constructions that do not have a seam, as in a continental border. A 
definition for ``prototype developer'' was added to describe a third 
party that designs mattress prototypes for use by a manufacturer, but 
does not produce mattress sets for sale. The prototype developer does 
not necessarily conduct tests to qualify the mattress prototype. A 
barrier supplier, for example, could be a prototype developer. The term 
``prototype pooling'' was clarified to explain the responsibilities of 
the involved parties.

4. General Requirements of the Standard (Sec.  1633.3)

    The test method in the standard is essentially unchanged from the 
method described in the NPR. It uses the full scale test method 
developed by NIST. As explained in the NPR, the complexities of 
mattress construction make a full scale test necessary to evaluate the 
fire performance of a mattress.
    The specimen (a mattress and foundation or mattress alone) is 
exposed to a pair of T-shaped gas burners. The specimen is to be no 
smaller than twin size, unless the largest size mattress or set 
produced of that type is smaller than twin size, in which case the 
largest size must be tested.
    The burners impose a specified local heat flux simultaneously to 
the top and side of the mattress set for a specified period of time (70 
seconds for the top burner and 50 seconds for the side

[[Page 13475]]

burner). The burners were designed to represent the local heat flux 
imposed on a mattress by burning bedclothes based on research conducted 
by NIST. Details of the test method are discussed in section E.9. 
below.

5. Test Criteria (Sec.  1633.3)

    The standard establishes two test criteria that the specimen must 
meet to pass the test. These criteria are the same as those proposed in 
the NPR. The peak rate of heat release must not exceed 200 kW at any 
time during the 30 minute test, and the total heat release must not 
exceed 15 MJ during the first 10 minutes of the test.
    Limiting the peak rate of heat release to 200 kW (during the 30 
minute test) ensures a less flammable design. It represents a 
significant improvement in performance compared to traditional mattress 
designs. The peak rate of heat release limit accounts for the 
contribution of bedclothes and other room contents to the fire hazard, 
ensures that the mattress does not cause flashover on its own, is 
technically feasible, and considers many factors related to the fire 
scenario (such as room effects). [2]
    The test duration of 30 minutes is related to, but not equivalent 
to, the estimated time required to permit discovery of the fire and 
allow escape under typical fire scenarios. A 30 minute test is based on 
an analysis of the hazard and the technological feasibility of 
producing complying mattresses. It is intended to provide a substantial 
increase in time for an occupant to discover and escape the fire. The 
number of failures, test variability, performance unreliability, and 
associated costs increase significantly with longer test periods. 
Usually, staying at or below the 200kW limit for a 30 minute test is 
estimated to provide an adequate time for fire discovery and escape by 
occupants in the bed or otherwise in the room of fire origin. [2]
    The effectiveness of the standard depends on the need for early 
discovery and escape from the fire without delay. Limiting the early 
contribution of the mattress will have the greatest impact on reducing 
the risk as the mattress will have little involvement in the fire for 
the specified period of time. The early limit of 15 MJ for the first 10 
minutes of the test partially compensates for burning bedclothes and 
ticking by preventing early involvement of the mattress as the 
bedclothes burn and compensates for other items that might be involved 
early in a fire. [2]
    California's TB 603 prescribes a 25 MJ limit in the first 10 
minutes of the test. However, NIST research and fire modeling indicate 
that a fire that reaches a size of 25 MJ within 10 minutes could limit 
a person's ability to escape the room. According to several producers, 
mattress sets that use available barrier technology release total heat 
that is far below the 25 MJ limit of TB 603. [7]

6. Prototype Testing (Sec.  1633.4)

    The standard requires, with certain exceptions, that mattress 
manufacturers have three specimens of each prototype tested before 
introducing a mattress set into commerce. A prototype is a specific 
design of a mattress set that serves as a model for the production 
units that will be introduced into commerce. Mattress sets then 
produced based on the prototype mattress set must be the same as the 
prototype with respect to materials, components, design, and methods of 
assembly. The definition of ``manufacturer'' refers to the 
establishment where the mattress is produced or assembled, not the 
company. Thus, the plant or factory producing or assembling the 
mattress set is responsible for prototype testing.
    However, there are three exceptions to the requirement for 
prototype testing. A manufacturer is allowed to sell a mattress set 
based on a prototype that has not been tested if the prototype differs 
from a qualified prototype (one that has been tested and meets the 
criteria) only with respect to: (1) The mattress/foundation length and 
width, not depth (e.g., twin, queen, king, etc.); (2) the ticking, 
unless the ticking of the qualified prototype has characteristics that 
are designed to improve the mattress set's test performance; and/or (3) 
any component, material or method of assembly, provided that the 
manufacturer can show, on an objectively reasonable basis, that such 
difference(s) will not cause the mattress set to exceed the specified 
test criteria. The third exception allows the manufacturer to change 
the depth of the mattress if he can make the required showing 
concerning the test criteria. If a manufacturer chooses to make use of 
the third exception, he/she can minimize testing, but must maintain 
records documenting that the change(s) will not cause the prototype to 
exceed the test criteria (see Sec.  1633.11(b)(4) of the rule).
    When conducting prototype qualification testing, the manufacturer 
must test a minimum of three specimens of the prototype in accordance 
with the test method described, and all of the mattress sets must meet 
both of the test criteria discussed above. If any one prototype 
specimen that the manufacturer tests fails the specified criteria, the 
prototype is not qualified (even if the manufacturer chooses to test 
more than three specimens).
    As explained in the NPR preamble, the Commission believes that 
three specimens is the appropriate minimum number for testing at this 
time (as this is the number typically used and the inter-laboratory 
study indicates that three replicates are appropriate to adequately 
characterize mattress performance).
    As was proposed, the standard allows a manufacturer to produce a 
mattress set in reliance on testing that was conducted before the 
effective date of the standard. The final rule explains the parameters 
for relying on such tests. The manufacturer must have documentation 
demonstrating that the tests were conducted according to the required 
test method and the specified criteria were met. Tests conducted 30 
days or more after this standard is published in the Federal Register 
must comply with the recordkeeping requirements of Sec.  1633.11. The 
manufacturer must also comply with applicable recordkeeping 
requirements in order to use the prototype pooling and subordinate 
prototype provisions.

7. Pooling (Sec.  1633.5)

    This section is substantively the same as proposed, but some of the 
language has been revised for clarification. The standard allows one or 
more manufacturers to rely on a given prototype that has been developed 
by a manufacturer or a prototype developer (e.g., a component 
manufacturer). Under this approach, one manufacturer or prototype 
developer would conduct (or cause to be conducted) the full prototype 
testing required (testing three prototype specimens), obtaining passing 
results, and the other manufacturer(s) may then produce mattress sets 
represented by that qualified prototype so long as they conduct one 
successful confirmation test on a specimen they produce. If the 
mattress set fails the confirmation test, the manufacturer must take 
corrective measures, and then perform a new confirmation test that must 
meet the test criteria. If a confirmation test specimen fails to meet 
the test criteria, the manufacturer of that specimen must also notify 
the manufacturer that developed the prototype about the test failure.
    Pooling may be used by two or more plants within the same firm or 
by two or more independent firms. The final rule also recognizes that 
pooling can occur between a manufacturer and a prototype developer. 
This could be a company that manufactures mattress

[[Page 13476]]

components and conducts testing for the manufacturer. As discussed in 
the regulatory flexibility analysis, pooling should reduce testing 
costs for smaller companies. Once they have conducted a successful 
confirmation test, pooling firms can produce mattresses based on a 
pooled prototype and may continue to do so as long as any changes to 
the mattress set based on the pooled prototype are limited to the three 
discussed above: (1) Width or length of the mattress set; (2) the 
ticking, unless the qualified ticking has characteristics that are 
designed to improve the mattress's test performance; and/or (3) any 
component, material or method of assembly that the manufacturer can 
show (on an objectively reasonable basis) will not cause the prototype 
to exceed the specified test criteria.

8. Quality Assurance Requirements (Sec.  1633.6)

    The standard contains the same strict requirements for quality 
assurance as the proposal did. This is necessary because research and 
testing indicate that small variations in construction (e.g., missed 
stitching around the side of the mattress) can affect the fire 
performance of a mattress. Testing conducted at NIST after the NPR was 
published reinforced the importance of quality assurance. The language 
in this section has been changed somewhat to better indicate the 
Commission's intent that production mattresses should be the same as 
the prototypes on which they are based.
    Each manufacturer must implement a quality assurance program to 
ensure that the mattress sets it produces are the same as the 
qualified, subordinate or confirmed prototype on which they are based 
with respect to materials, components, design and methods of assembly. 
This means that at a minimum, manufacturers must: (1) Have controls in 
place on components, materials and methods of assembly to ensure that 
they are the same as those used in the prototype; (2) designate a 
production lot that is represented by the prototype; and (3) inspect 
mattress sets produced for sale.
    The standard does not require manufacturers to conduct testing of 
production mattresses. However, the Commission recognizes the value of 
such testing as part of a quality assurance program. Therefore, the 
Commission encourages manufacturers to conduct random testing of 
mattress sets that are produced for sale.
    If a manufacturer obtains any test results or any other evidence 
indicating that a mattress set does not meet the specified criteria (or 
that a component, material or assembly process could negatively affect 
the test performance of the mattress set), the manufacturer must cease 
production and distribution in commerce of the affected mattress sets 
until corrective action is taken.

9. Test Procedure (Sec.  1633.7)

    The test procedure in the standard is based on the test protocol 
developed by NIST. The procedure in the final standard is essentially 
the same as what was proposed with some minor changes and a few 
substantive modifications described below.
    Requirements for sample conditioning have been tightened to require 
a conditioning temperature greater than 18[deg] C (65[deg] F) and less 
than 25[deg] C (77[deg] F) and a relative humidity less than 55 
percent. Requirements for the test area conditions have been added, 
stating that the area must be maintained at a temperature greater than 
15[deg] C (59[deg] F) and less than 27[deg] C (80.6[deg] F) and at a 
relative humidity less than 75 percent. Initiation of flammability 
testing is required to begin within 20 minutes after removal of the 
mattress sample from environmentally controlled storage conditions.
    Specifications for the bed frame supporting the test specimen have 
been clarified to address dimensions for specimens other than twin-
size, frame height to accommodate the side burner in tests of thin 
mattresses without foundations, and support for more flexible mattress 
products.
    The specification for the gas burner hole size has been changed. In 
2000, NIST developed a pair of propane gas burners to consistently 
simulate the typical heat impact imposed on a mattress by burning 
bedding items. These burners were incorporated as the ignition source 
in the full-scale fire test for mattresses. Subsequently, a commercial 
supplier manufactured a commercial version of the NIST burner apparatus 
that was used by various test laboratories to conduct full-scale 
mattress testing in accordance with TB 603 and CPSC's proposed 
standard. Inadvertently, the commercial version incorporated larger 
diameter holes in both of the burner heads (1.50 mm vs. 1.17 mm). The 
proposed standard specified the original NIST burner holes. After this 
difference was discovered, NIST conducted studies to determine the 
effects of the larger diameter burner holes on peak burner heat flux. 
The results of the comparison show that the burners with the larger 
holes do a better job of meeting the target peak flux levels of 
bedclothes than do the original burners with the smaller holes, 
supporting continued use of the commercial version of the burner 
apparatus rather than the NIST original. The final standard has been 
revised to provide for the burner holes used in the commercial 
versions. [1&2]
    A provision has been added to the standard at Sec.  1633.7(k) that 
allows the use of alternate test apparatus with the approval of the 
Office of Compliance.
    Other minor changes in the test procedure, equipment and set up 
include clarifications of gas specifications, draft control, and burner 
orientation. These are discussed in the Engineering Sciences and 
Laboratory memoranda. [1,4&5]

10. Recordkeeping (Sec.  1633.11)

    The Commission made several changes to the recordkeeping 
requirements. The standard now requires that records must be kept in 
English at a location in the United States and requires the complete 
physical addresses of suppliers, manufacturing facilities (foreign and 
domestic), and test laboratories in records. The standard no longer 
requires the manufacturer to maintain a physical sample of the 
materials and components of a prototype. The required records should be 
sufficient to determine compliance without the burden of maintaining 
physical samples.
    The standard requires manufacturers to maintain certain records to 
document compliance with the standard. This includes records concerning 
prototype testing, pooling and confirmation testing, and quality 
assurance procedures and any associated testing. The required records 
must be maintained for as long as mattress sets based on the prototype 
are in production and must be retained for three years thereafter.

11. Labeling (Sec.  1633.12)

    The labeling required by the standard has been modified from the 
proposed rule. These changes were made to provide more complete 
information about the manufacturer/importer and to enable consumers to 
choose the correct foundation (if any) to use with the mattress they 
purchase.
    Each mattress set must bear a permanent label stating (1) the name 
of the manufacturer, or for imported mattress sets, the name of the 
foreign manufacturer and the importer; (2) the complete physical 
address of the manufacturer, and if the mattress is imported, the 
complete physical address of the importer or U.S. location where 
records are maintained; (3) the month and year of manufacture; (4) the 
model identification; (5) prototype identification number; and (6) a

[[Page 13477]]

certification that the mattress complies with the standard.
    The final rule specifies the wording and format to be used in the 
compliance certification label, and requires that this information 
appear on a single label dedicated to this purpose. This will ensure 
that the information is not detracted from or minimized, and it will 
prevent potential confusion with state labeling requirements. The label 
information may be printed on the reverse side of the label in another 
language.
    Included on the label must be a statement indicating whether the 
mattress meets the standard when used without a foundation, with a 
corresponding foundation or both alone and with a foundation. A 
mattress that is tested with a foundation may perform differently when 
used with a different foundation or without any foundation. Thus, it is 
important for consumers to know what foundation (if any) the mattress 
they are purchasing is intended to be sold with.

12. One of a Kind Exemption (Sec.  1633.13)

    The standard allows an exemption for a one-of-a-kind mattress set 
if it is manufactured in response to a physician's written prescription 
or manufactured in accordance with comparable medical therapeutic 
specifications. This provision is unchanged from the proposal and is 
also present in the 16 CFR 1632 mattress standard.

F. Effectiveness Evaluation

    As discussed in the NPR, CPSC staff conducted an effectiveness 
evaluation to assess the potential effectiveness of the proposed 
standard in addressing deaths and injuries resulting from mattress/
bedding fires. The evaluation was based primarily on review of CPSC 
investigation reports that provided details of the occupants' 
situations and actions during the fire. Staff reviewers identified 
criteria that affected the occupants' ability to escape the fires they 
had experienced. The staff used these criteria to estimate percentage 
reductions in deaths and injuries expected to occur under the much less 
severe fire conditions anticipated with improved designs of mattresses 
that would comply with the standard. The staff then applied these 
estimated reductions to national estimates of mattress/bedding fire 
deaths and injuries to estimate numbers of deaths and injuries that 
could be prevented with the standard. [3]
    The staff's effectiveness estimates in the NPR were based on full-
scale tests of early experimental mattress designs incorporating 
strong, but not necessarily cost-effective barrier systems. These 
mattress tests were conducted with burning bedclothes so that the fires 
produced could be used to estimate changes in deaths and injuries 
expected to result from the standard. In the past few years, mattress 
designs and materials have evolved with manufacturers now producing 
mattresses to meet California TB 603. New fire barrier products have 
been introduced, mattress designs have been more closely engineered to 
achieve the required performance, and single-sided mattresses have 
become an increasingly larger and more significant portion of the 
residential market. [1]
    In evaluations that the staff conducted after publication of the 
NPR, the staff found that when mattresses are closely designed to the 
performance requirements in the final standard, as is expected as the 
industry develops their new products, flashover conditions could occur 
earlier than previously measured with experimental and initially over-
engineered designs. Staff accounted for this observed behavior by 
reducing the effectiveness estimates for the final standard adjusting 
for the effect on some occupants. The standard's limit on the early 
contribution of the mattress to the fire (15 MJ in the first 10 
minutes) will help to maintain tenable conditions early in the fire and 
allow for timely discovery and escape from growing fire conditions. 
[1&2]
    The most recent national fire loss estimates indicated that 
mattresses and bedding were the first items to ignite in 15,300 
residential fires attended by the fire service annually during 1999-
2002. These fires resulted in 350 deaths, 1,750 injuries and $295.0 
million in property loss each year. Of these, the staff considers an 
estimated 14,300 fires, 330 deaths, 1,680 injuries, and $281.5 million 
property loss annually to be addressable by the standard (i.e., of the 
type that the standard could affect based on the characteristics of the 
fire). [3]
    For the final rule, the staff has reviewed the fire loss data and 
updated its effectiveness evaluation to account for the observations 
discussed above. The staff's analysis is explained in detail in the 
memorandum ``Updated Estimates of Residential Fire Losses Involving 
Mattresses and Bedding.'' [3]
    CPSC staff estimates that, overall, the standard may be expected to 
prevent 69 to 78 percent of the deaths and 73 to 84 percent of the 
injuries presently occurring in addressable mattress/bedding fires 
attended by the fire service. Applying these percentage reductions to 
estimates of addressable mattress/bedding fire losses noted above, 
staff estimates potential reductions of 240 to 270 deaths and 1,150 to 
1,330 injuries annually in fires attended by the fire service when all 
existing mattress sets have been replaced with mattress sets meeting 
the new standard. There may also be reductions in property damage 
resulting from the standard, but data are not sufficient for the staff 
to quantify this impact. [3]

G. Inter-Laboratory Study

    Before publication of the NPR, an inter-laboratory study was 
conducted with the support of the SPSC, NIST, and participating 
laboratories to explore the sensitivity, repeatability, and 
reproducibility of the NIST test method. However, only a preliminary 
analysis of the results of the study was available prior to the NPR. A 
more detailed analysis is now available. See Damant, G./Inter-City 
Testing and Consulting Corporation & Sleep Products Safety Council 
(2005). Developing an Open-Flame Ignition Standard for Mattresses and 
Bed Sets (Report on a Precision and Bias Evaluation of the Technical 
Bulletin 603 Test Method). Alexandria, VA: Sleep Products Safety 
Council. The analysis is summarized below.
    All of the participating labs conducted multiple tests of eight 
different mattress designs. The mattress designs varied critical 
elements (e.g., the barrier--sheet or high-loft, the type of mattress--
single or double-sided) and the style of mattress (e.g., tight or 
pillow top). [2]
    A detailed statistical analysis of the test data suggests neither 
unreasonable sensitivities nor practical limitations of the NIST test 
protocol. The results were not affected by substantially varying the 
parameters (primarily associated with possible test facility and 
operator errors) selected for the sensitivity study. The data indicate 
that the specified ignition source is severe enough and the test 
duration long enough to allow a valid/realistic evaluation of mattress 
set performance. [2]
    The data showed some significant differences in the test results 
reported by the participating laboratories, and a variety of factors 
possibly influenced these differences. However, the study suggests 
that, when the test procedures are correctly followed, it is the 
combined characteristics and resulting behavior of the mattress 
components chosen, mattress design, and consistency of the 
manufacturing processes that determines the test outcome. Observations 
from the study emphasize the importance of controlling components, 
materials, and methods of assembly. Quality assurance procedures,

[[Page 13478]]

standardized testing, written records, and visual inspections are all 
means for assuring, verifying, and controlling consistency of 
production. Environmental conditions required for tests have also been 
tightened in the standard. [2]

H. Response to Comments on the NPR

    As discussed above, the Commission published an NPR in the Federal 
Register on January 13, 2005, proposing a flammability standard 
addressing open flame ignition of mattresses. 70 FR 2470. During the 
comment period, the Commission received over 540 comments from 
consumers, businesses, associations and interested parties representing 
various segments of the mattress industry and consumers. In addition, 
comments were presented by interested parties at a public hearing 
concerning the mattress NPR that the Commission held on March 3, 2005. 
Additional comments have also been submitted since the close of the 
comment period.
    Commenters who generally supported the proposed rule provided 
comments regarding definitions, testing procedures, recordkeeping 
requirements, importer/renovator responsibilities, and other related 
issues. Those opposed to the standard expressed concerns about the 
health effects of flame retardant chemicals needed to help mattress 
sets comply with the performance requirements. [18 & 19] Significant 
issues and the Commission's responses are summarized below. More 
detailed responses and responses to minor comments are discussed in the 
staff's briefing memoranda.

1. Scope and Definitions of the Standard

    a. Comment. One commenter noted inconsistency in use of the terms 
``mattress'' and ``mattress set,'' which could lead to confusion. The 
commenter suggested using and defining ``mattress set'' to refer to 
mattresses to be tested both with and without a foundation.
    Response. CPSC has now defined ``mattress set'' to include 
mattresses labeled for sale alone and mattresses labeled for sale with 
a foundation, depending upon the manufacturer's intentions, to resolve 
the problem of inconsistency, as well as reduce wordiness. The revised 
definition also makes clear that foundations need not meet the test 
requirements by themselves. The term is used throughout the final 
standard.
    b. Comment. Two commenters stated that the distinction between 
prototypes that need to be tested and those that do not is unclear. 
They suggest using a different term, such as ``Model,'' for prototypes 
that do not need to be tested.
    Response. CPSC agrees that using a different term to refer to 
prototypes that are not required to be tested would prevent confusion. 
``Subordinate prototype,'' defined at Sec.  1633.2(p), is used for an 
untested prototype based on either a qualified or confirmed prototype.
    c. Comment. One commenter recommended that the term ``prototype 
developer'' be defined to permit third parties, such as component 
suppliers, to design and test prototypes that can be used by mattress 
manufacturers.
    Response. The standard does not prohibit entities other than 
mattress manufacturers from designing and testing mattresses for 
pooling purposes. For purposes of clarity a definition for ``prototype 
developer'' has been added to the standard to describe a third party 
providing this service to the industry. If such an entity designs a 
prototype for a mattress manufacturer, the manufacturer would still be 
responsible for causing qualification testing of and maintaining all 
records required for that prototype, including those documenting the 
prototype qualification. If the prototype developer designs and 
qualifies the prototype, the manufacturer would have to do the required 
confirmation test.
    d. Comment. Commenters questioned the applicability of the proposed 
standard to mattresses used in recreational vehicles and the lodging 
industry.
    Response. The Commission intends for this standard to apply to 
essentially the same mattresses as are currently regulated under Part 
1632. Mattresses are ``products'' under the Flammable Fabrics Act. 
However, motorized RVs that are subject to the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration's FMVSS No. 302 would not be subject to the 
Commission's mattress standard.
    Interpreting the 1632 mattress standard, the Commission's staff and 
Office of General Counsel have expressed the view that the flammability 
standards issued under the FFA (including 1632) are applicable to 
mattresses, carpets and rugs when installed in travel trailers, 5th 
wheelers and slide-in campers, but travel trailer cushions that have 
dual purposes as mattresses and seat cushions would not be considered 
mattresses.
    Mattresses used in the lodging industry are subject to the 1632 
mattress standard. Commenters have not presented any reasons why these 
mattresses should be treated differently under the new Part 1633 
regulation addressing open flame ignition. In the absence of such 
information, the Commission believes it is appropriate to continue to 
include mattresses used in the lodging industry as subject to 
Commission mattress flammability rules.

2. Technical Requirements/Specifications

    a. Comment. Several commenters recommended changing the specified 
burner hole size to the 53 drill size (1.50 mm) used on 
production burners and limit the time between removal of the sample 
from conditioning and the start of the test.
    Response. As discussed earlier in this preamble, NIST recently 
evaluated peak heat fluxes from two versions of gas burner designs, the 
original and the commercial burners with larger holes. The study showed 
that the burners with the larger holes do a better job of meeting the 
target peak flux levels of bedclothes than do the original burners with 
the smaller holes. Accordingly, the Commission has revised the standard 
to specify a nominal burner hole size of 1.50 mm, which corresponds to 
Grade 10 machining practice with a well formed 53 drill bit.
    b. Comment. Several commenters recommended tightening sample 
conditioning and test area conditioning requirements.
    Response. CPSC agrees that exposure of a mattress sample to the 
fire test room environmental conditions could likely have an impact on 
test results. Some laboratories have observed seasonal variations in 
test performance. It is reasonable, therefore, to require that testing 
of a specific conditioned sample should begin within a certain amount 
of time after removal from the storage conditions.
    Based on NIST's evaluation of the effects of laboratory humidity in 
fire test performance, the Commission has revised the standard to 
require that testing must begin within 20 minutes after removal from 
the conditioning room. The sample conditioning requirements in Sec.  
1633.7(b) of the standard have been revised to specify an upper limit 
on the temperature. The temperature range must be greater than 18[deg] 
C (65[deg] F) and less than 25[deg] C (77[deg] F). The test area 
conditions must now be maintained at a temperature greater than 15[deg] 
C (59[deg] F) and less than 27[deg] C (80.6[deg] F) and a relative 
humidity less than 75 percent. These specifications will minimize 
environmental influences on test results.
    c. Comment. Several comments requested the use of slightly modified 
test equipment. For example, one

[[Page 13479]]

commenter requested to use a modified technique to obtain the required 
burner offset from the specimen instead of the foot. Another comment 
pertained to using an alternate method of measuring the gas flow, 
rather than using a rotameter type of flowmeter.
    Response. To address such issues that would not be expected to 
influence the test, the proposed standard has been revised to include a 
provision for the use of alternate apparatus in Sec.  1633.7(k): 
Mattress sets may be tested using test apparatus that differs from that 
described in this section if the manufacturer obtains and provides to 
the Commission data demonstrating that tests using the alternate 
apparatus for the procedures specified in this section yield failing 
results as often as, or more often than, tests using the apparatus 
specified in the standard. The manufacturer shall provide the 
supporting data to the Office of Compliance, and staff will review the 
data and determine whether the alternate apparatus may be used.

3. Exposure to Flame Retardant Chemicals--Health Concerns

    a. Comment. Numerous commenters stated that they were concerned 
about the possible toxicity of flame retardant (FR) chemicals in 
general. Other commenters, including manufacturers of mattresses or 
mattress components, stated that there are FR chemicals that can be 
used without presenting a hazard to consumers, workers, or the 
environment.
    Response. In the view of the CPSC staff, there are inherently flame 
resistant materials and FR chemicals available that can be used to meet 
the standard and that are not likely to present a hazard to consumers, 
workers, or the environment. The CPSC and Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) staffs will continue to evaluate the potential effects of 
FR treatments to ensure that they do not present a hazard to consumers, 
workers, or the environment.
    Mattress manufacturers would be free to choose the means of 
complying with the standard. Options available to manufacturers include 
the use of inherently flame resistant materials, FR barriers, and FR 
chemicals. To meet the standard, FR chemicals would most likely be 
applied to components inside the mattress, such as batting or barriers. 
However, FR chemicals might be applied to mattress ticking (cover 
fabric) in some cases. The potential risk presented by any chemical, 
including FR chemicals, depends on both toxicity and exposure. To the 
extent that FR chemical treatments remain bound to or within the 
mattress, exposure and its attendant risk would be minimized.
    The CPSC staff has considered the potential chronic health risks 
associated with FR chemicals that may be used in mattresses to comply 
with the standard and continues to study the potential exposures to FR 
chemicals that may occur over the lifetime of a mattress. The 
Commission concludes that there are inherently flame resistant 
materials, FR barriers, and FR chemical treatments that can be used 
without presenting any appreciable risks of health effects to 
consumers.
    The CPSC staff is also working with the EPA to ensure that the use 
of FR chemicals does not endanger consumers, workers, or the 
environment. EPA has broad statutory authority over chemical substances 
that address potential risks to consumers, workers, and the 
environment. EPA has several programs such as the Design for the 
Environment (DfE), High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical Challenge, and 
Voluntary Children's Chemical Exposure Program (VCCEP) to evaluate the 
potential hazards of chemicals, including flame retardants, to 
consumers, workers, and the environment. In addition, the CPSC staff is 
cooperating with EPA in developing a significant new use rule (SNUR) 
for FR chemicals that could be used to comply with CPSC or state 
flammability requirements for upholstered furniture and possibly 
mattresses. EPA's programs and statutory authority can be used to 
obtain additional toxicity or exposure data where needed, and 
complement the activities of the CPSC and the statutory authority of 
the Commission.
    b. Comment. A number of commenters were specifically concerned 
about the toxicity of boric acid, which is used to treat cotton 
batting.
    Other commenters, including manufacturers of mattresses, mattress 
components, and chemicals, noted that boric acid has been used in 
mattresses for many years and that their employees have not suffered 
any ill effects. They noted that the EPA also recently increased its 
reference dose (RfD) for boric acid. (This means that a greater daily 
exposure to boric acid is considered acceptable by EPA.)
    Response. After publication of the NPR, the CPSC staff performed 
studies to estimate the potential for exposure as well as the potential 
health risk associated with the use of boric acid as a flame retardant. 
[4&11] The staff's studies and analysis applied conservative 
assumptions in areas of scientific uncertainty, that is, assumptions 
that may overestimate, rather than underestimate, exposure and risk. 
The staff concluded that the estimated exposure to boric acid was below 
both the EPA's revised RfD and the updated CPSC staff's Acceptable 
Daily Intake (ADI). Thus, boric acid is not expected to pose any 
appreciable risks of health effects to consumers who sleep on treated 
mattresses.
    c. Comment. One commenter specifically mentioned fiberglass as a 
potentially hazardous FR treatment due to inhalation of glass fibers.
    Response. The type of fiberglass used in textiles and FR barriers, 
``continuous filament,'' is not considered hazardous.
    d. Comment. Some commenters argued that the risk of dying in a fire 
is lower than the risk of adverse health effects from exposure to FR 
chemicals in mattresses.
    Response. The commenter provided no data on mattress exposures to 
support this assertion. There are approximately 15,000 fires per year 
in the U.S. in which mattresses or bedding are the first item ignited, 
resulting in about 1,750 injuries and 350 deaths per year. The 
Commission has concluded that the risk of injury or death in a fire 
involving mattresses or bedding is substantial.
    The CPSC has studied the potential exposures and chronic health 
risks associated with FR chemicals that may be used in mattresses to 
comply with the standard. The results of these studies indicate that 
there are a number of commercially available FR-treated barriers that 
can be used to meet the standard without presenting any appreciable 
risks of health effects to consumers.
    e. Comment. Numerous commenters stated that they have multiple 
chemical sensitivity (MCS), allergies, or other health conditions that 
could be exacerbated by exposure to FR chemicals.
    Response. The CPSC concludes that there is no evidence to suggest 
that FR chemical exposures from mattresses would contribute to the 
causation or exacerbation of allergies, asthma, or multiple chemical 
sensitivity (MCS). For the most part, the materials and FR chemicals 
that will be used to comply with the standard do not share the 
characteristics of the types of exposures associated with the 
conditions noted by the commenters.
    MCS is a ``condition in which a person reports sensitivity or 
intolerance (as distinct from an allergy) to a number of chemicals and 
other irritants at very low concentrations.'' The chemicals include 
both recognized pollutants--for example, formaldehyde, volatile organic

[[Page 13480]]

compounds, and environmental tobacco smoke--as well as agents generally 
considered to be innocuous, such as fragrances. Health professionals 
and biomedical scientists differ in their views regarding the 
underlying causes and physiological processes of this condition. Non-
allergic asthma and rhinitis are generally associated with exposure to 
respiratory irritants such as combustion products, environmental 
tobacco smoke, dusts, and solvents, while allergic asthma and rhinitis 
symptoms are most often associated with exposures to airborne 
biological substances, such as animal dander, insect wastes, molds, and 
pollen. The FR materials or chemicals under consideration are generally 
non-volatile, are not associated with fragrances or odors, and are not 
derived from biological materials.
    Furthermore, the potential risks presented by FR chemicals depend 
on both toxicity and exposure. In most cases, FR chemicals would be 
applied to components inside the mattress, such as batting or barriers. 
To the extent that FR chemical treatments remain bound to or within the 
mattress, exposure and its attendant risk would be minimized.
    f. Comment. Some commenters claimed that FR chemicals may cause 
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
    Response. The CPSC disagrees with the claim that antimony compounds 
or other FR chemicals may cause sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). 
Following a four-year study in the United Kingdom and reviews by a 
number of expert panels in the UK and the U.S., the expert panels 
concluded that there is no credible evidence that antimony compounds or 
any other FR chemicals contribute to SIDS.
    g. Comment. Some commenters were specifically concerned about the 
toxicity of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE's), including 
decabromodiphenyl oxide (DBDPO).
    Response. PBDE's are a family of FR chemicals that have been used 
in some components of consumer products. Octabromodiphenyl ether (octa-
BDE) was a relatively minor product that was never used in mattresses 
or upholstered furniture. Pentabromodiphenyl ether (penta-BDE) is no 
longer in use. It was one of the primary FR treatments for flexible 
polyurethane foam (PUF), which is used in mattresses, upholstered 
furniture, and other applications. However, most non-California 
residential mattresses and upholstered furniture do not require FR-
treated PUF to pass current flammability requirements. The European 
Chemicals Bureau concluded that there is no reason to ban DBDPO. The 
U.S. EPA and the European Chemicals Bureau continue to review the 
potential environmental effects of DBDPO. The CPSC staff evaluated 
risks associated with mattress barriers containing DBDPO and concluded 
that DBDPO used in barriers for mattresses is not expected to pose any 
appreciable risk of health effects in consumers. [1&13]
    h. Comment. Some individuals commented that there is no guidance 
for manufacturers to consider toxicity and exposure when selecting FR 
chemicals.
    Response. Under the FHSA, manufacturers are responsible for 
ensuring that their products either do not present a hazard to 
consumers or, if they are hazardous, that they are properly labeled 
according to the requirements of the FHSA. In 1992, the Commission 
issued chronic hazard guidelines to assist manufacturers in complying 
with the FHSA (16 CFR 1500.3(c)(2). The guidelines address 
carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental 
toxicity, exposure, bioavailability, and risk assessment.
    i. Comment. One manufacturer commented that the CPSC staff should 
use realistic exposure scenarios, rather than overly conservative ones.
    Response. In assessing chronic health hazards, the goal of the CPSC 
staff is to determine whether ``reasonably foreseeable handling and 
use'' may be hazardous to consumers. Therefore, the staff generally 
attempts to make best estimates of exposure under realistic conditions. 
However, in the absence of adequate data, the staff applies 
``conservative'' assumptions, that is, assumptions that might 
overestimate, rather than underestimate risk.
    The CPSC chronic hazard guidelines describe various approaches to 
exposure assessment. Direct measures of exposure such as field studies 
are generally preferred over laboratory studies and mathematical 
modeling. However, field studies are not always practical for technical 
or economic reasons. Thus, the staff frequently relies on a combination 
of laboratory data and mathematical models.
    The CPSC staff developed laboratory methods and exposure scenarios 
to assess the potential exposure to FR chemicals in mattresses. These 
methods are conservative in that they may overestimate, rather than 
underestimate, the potential risk.

4. Durability of Flame Retardant Chemicals--Fire Performance

    Comment. Several commenters recommended requiring performance tests 
to assure the durability of flame retardant chemicals and barrier 
performance after exposure to moisture. Some provided test data to 
support their concerns. Other commenters provided data from tests of 
used mattresses taken out of service, indicating they still met 
applicable standards.
    Response. The data provided by commenters were either not relevant 
(tests using smoldering cigarettes) or based upon severe exposure of 
barrier materials, apart from the mattress, before testing. The staff 
sought and obtained new test data, supplied by manufacturers of barrier 
products and by NIST, to provide a limited evaluation of effects of 
moisture on flammability behavior. This evaluation does not support 
requiring specific durability tests for barrier components. NIST 
examined the fire performance of two mattress designs that used 
different barrier materials/systems made with water soluble flame 
retardants. NIST fire tests were conducted after the mattress sets were 
exposed to 10 localized, wetting and drying cycles. The effects of this 
severe wetting exposure scenario did not change the overall 
flammability performance of the mattress sets. In addition, even if 
exposed areas have decreased fire resistance, the tests suggest that 
the remainder of the mattress should retain its improved flammability 
performance, especially the performance expected early in the fire. 
Since localized wetting, as in bedwetting, is anticipated to be the 
most likely exposure of a mattress to water in real-world applications, 
it appears unnecessary to add durability test requirements to the 
standard to account for mattress designs that incorporate barrier 
systems that use water-soluble flame retardants.

5. Effective Date

    Comment. Commenters suggested a variety of effective dates for the 
final rule ranging from immediate implementation to coinciding with 
regular model changes (January and July) and 18 months from final 
publication.
    Response. The standard provides an effective date of July 1, 2007, 
which is the earlier of January or July that follows twelve months 
after publication of the Federal Register notice. This date would 
coincide with regular model/style changes and thus make it easier for 
all producers, especially small producers outside of California who are 
not producing complying mattress sets, to update their styles and 
produce complying mattress sets.
    All national producers that sell mattresses in California already 
have developed the production technology and conducted the testing 
required to

[[Page 13481]]

meet California TB 603, which is very similar to the Commission's 
standard. One of them is already selling mattresses complying with 
performance requirements of the Commission's standard nationwide. Three 
of the top four producers are selling complying mattress sets 
representing between 15 to 20 percent of their total output. Smaller 
companies not based in California may be behind in their design, 
production, and testing efforts. However, the Commission believes that 
an effective date of one year plus time to the next model introductions 
provides enough time for all manufacturers to transition to producing 
and selling compliant mattresses.

6. Labeling

    a. Comment. One commenter urged the Commission to require the 
labels of imported mattresses to bear the foreign manufacturer's name 
and full address, including country, as well as the importer's name and 
full address.
    Response. CPSC agrees that such information should be present on 
the mattress set label and has revised Sec.  1633.12 (a) of the 
standard accordingly.
    b. Comment. One commenter referred to the Textile Fiber Products 
Identification Act, which is administered by the Federal Trade 
Commission (FTC) and requires, among other things, that mattresses made 
with ``reused stuffing'' be labeled so, and suggested that CPSC 
coordinate with FTC to allow the disclosure to appear on the label with 
the other information required by the standard.
    Response. Labeling of mattresses is governed by several 
organizations, including CPSC, FTC, and individual states. Because of 
the informative nature and quantity of information needed, the standard 
has been revised to require the information specified in Sec.  1633.12 
to be displayed on a permanent, dedicated label in a prescribed format. 
Therefore, no other information apart from that required by the 
standard may appear on this label. This helps to insure prominence of 
consumer safety information and to prevent potential confusion with 
other labeling requirements.
    c. Comment. One commenter suggested requiring renovated mattresses 
to bear a yellow label that would distinguish them from new mattresses, 
which traditionally bear white labels. In addition, the commenter 
recommended that renovated mattress labels be required to contain a 
statement indicating that compliance with the standard does not imply 
that the renovated mattress is sanitary or hygienic.
    Response. The standard seeks to reduce injuries and deaths due to 
fires. It is not intended to address the sanitary condition of 
mattresses.
    d. Comment. One commenter expressed concern that requiring a 
dedicated label might detract from the Sleep Product Safety Council's 
safety hangtag program, conflict with the state law labeling program, 
and negatively affect the aesthetics of the finished product. The 
commenter suggested allowing manufacturers to display the required 
information on the Sleep Products Safety Council's safety hangtag.
    Response. CPSC has revised the labeling provision in the standard 
to (1) include intended usage information for the safety of the 
consumer, (2) require all information specified in Sec.  1633.12 to 
appear on a dedicated label, and (3) permit the display of the consumer 
usage information in any other language on the reverse (blank) side of 
the label. Consumers must be able to identify the correct foundation, 
if any, to use with the mattress they purchase. With this intended 
usage information, consumers will understand that the mattress they 
purchase meets the requirements of the standard when used alone, with 
one or more specific foundation(s), or both.
    Requiring the specified information to appear on a dedicated label 
has the benefit of (1) ensuring that such information is not detracted 
from or minimized, (2) avoiding potential conflict or confusion with 
state labeling requirements, (3) guaranteeing that the intended usage 
information is highlighted and presented in a consistent manner, and 
(4) allowing manufacturers the option of providing the intended usage 
information in another language on the back of the label. CPSC staff 
designed the required label to be as small as possible without 
compromising the clarity and effectiveness of the specified 
information.
    e. Comment. Ten commenters recommended including in the standard a 
requirement that mattresses provide a label listing FR chemicals used 
or a statement warning of health risks.
    Response. The staff has found that numerous FR materials are 
available that will enable mattresses to meet the standard without 
posing any appreciable health risks. Moreover, the FHSA itself would 
require a hazard warning label if a mattress did contain a hazardous 
substance as that term is defined in the FHSA. The potential health 
hazard associated with any chemical depends on both toxicity and 
exposure. A label stating the names of any FR chemicals used in the 
mattress would thus not in fact provide any useful information to the 
consumer because the mere presence of an FR chemical is not an 
indication that the mattress containing that chemical poses any health 
risk.

7. Preemption

    Comment. The Commission received several comments concerning 
preemption. One commenter asked that the Commission explicitly state in 
the standard that the mattress standard would preempt both codified 
state rules and State common law claims that address the same risk of 
injury as the federal mattress standard. Other commenters asked that 
the Commission indicate that the standard would not preempt stricter 
state standards.
    Response. The Commission's position on the preemptive effect of 
this final rule is stated in Section N. of this preamble.

8. Domestic Manufacturer/Renovator vs. Importer Responsibilities

    a. Comment. Two commenters suggested making importer testing/
recordkeeping responsibilities explicit. They suggested including 
language specifying that testing needs to be conducted (either 
qualification or confirmation) and records maintained for each foreign 
manufacturer if the importer is importing from more than one 
manufacturer.
    Response. CPSC intends for the requirements of the standard to be 
the same for domestic manufacturers/renovators and importers: each is 
responsible for maintaining the appropriate qualification and 
confirmation test records for mattress sets they produce and/or import. 
These requirements have been clarified in the standard.
    b. Comment. One commenter expressed concern that foreign 
manufacturers may circumvent testing requirements by drop-shipping 
directly to consumers. The commenter recommended adding a definition of 
``importer'' that identifies domestic agents involved with selling or 
marketing the product to be drop-shipped as the responsible party.
    Response. The CPSC does not believe that adding a definition of 
importer will suitably address the issue. Section 3(a) of the Flammable 
Fabrics Act already prohibits ``[t]he manufacture for sale, or the 
offering for sale, in commerce, or the importation into the United 
States, or the introduction, delivery for introduction, transportation 
or causing to be transported in commerce or for the

[[Page 13482]]

purpose of sale or delivery after sale in commerce * * *'' of any 
product violating a standard issued under its authority. This means 
that any party--including importers and other agents initially 
introducing goods regulated under the FFA into commerce--engaged in the 
foregoing actions with respect to non-complying products would be 
liable under the FFA.
    In response to the commenter's concern, CPSC revised the standard 
to require each manufacturer to maintain a copy of the records 
demonstrating compliance at a U.S. location. Additionally, this 
location would be required to appear on the mattress label. Section 
1633.11(e) of the standard has been revised to reflect these 
requirements.

9. Quality Assurance Requirements

    Comment. One commenter suggested limiting the scope of the 
components and materials required to be controlled for quality 
assurance to only those that are critical to the flammability 
performance of the finished product.
    Response. The Commission believes that it is premature to limit the 
scope of the quality control on incoming components and materials. The 
Commission could revisit this issue once significant experience with 
the standard is gained and the industry and CPSC have more confidence 
in the contributions of various components to the full-scale fire 
performance of mattress sets.

10. Recordkeeping and Sample Retention

    a. Comment. One commenter recommended that the test and 
manufacturing records require the ``name and full address'' of the 
testing laboratory, as opposed to just the ``location.'' The same 
commenter likewise suggested substituting ``full address'' for 
``location'' for both the manufacturer of the qualified prototype in 
the pooling confirmation test records and the suppliers in the 
prototype records.
    Response. CPSC agrees that the name and complete address of the 
testing laboratory, as well as the complete addresses of the qualified 
prototype manufacturer and each material and component supplier, should 
appear in the respective records. This will provide more complete and 
accurate information for compliance purposes. Changes in Sec.  1633.11 
of the standard have been made accordingly.
    b. Comment. One commenter urged the Commission to limit the records 
required under Sec.  1633.11(d)(5) of the standard to only those 
relating to the testing and evaluations of components, materials, and 
assembly methods critical to flammability performance of the qualified 
prototype.
    Response. Since it is too early to know exactly what components, 
materials, and assembly methods will influence the flammability 
performance of a mattress, CPSC does not believe it is appropriate to 
limit the types of records required under Sec.  1633.11(d)(5) at this 
time. Moreover, these records will likely be used by manufacturers to 
demonstrate that a change in component, material, and/or assembly 
method will not degrade the flammability performance of a prototype, 
thus allowing the manufacturer to forgo testing and qualifying a new 
prototype. To that end, it is in the interest of the manufacturer to 
maintain a broader scope of such records.
    c. Comment. Two commenters remarked that the requirement to keep 
physical samples of all materials used in each prototype is overly 
burdensome and impractical. The large numbers of samples would require 
significant storage space while the objective could be accomplished 
through test and quality certificates and other documentation already 
required in the quality assurance records.
    Response. The requirement to maintain physical samples of prototype 
materials and components was included in the proposed standard as an 
added measure for manufacturers to verify that production mattresses 
match their representative prototype. Given that the prototype 
recordkeeping requirements already call for manufacturers to provide a 
detailed description of and specifications for each material and 
component used in every prototype, and given that this information may 
be used to reliably verify material and component consistency, the 
requirement to keep physical samples has been eliminated in the 
standard.

11. Consider Revoking Existing Cigarette Standard for Mattresses, 16 
CFR Part 1632

    Comment. Some commenters supported revoking the existing standard 
for cigarette ignition of mattresses and mattress pads. Others 
recommended careful review of risks, incident data, and benefits of the 
current standard before revocation is considered.
    Response. On June 23, 2005, the Commission published an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking for the possible revocation or amendment 
of the Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads 
(Cigarette Ignition). 70 FR 36357. That rulemaking will allow for a 
full evaluation of options to reduce unnecessary burdens while 
maintaining the safety afforded by the cigarette ignition standard. The 
Commission staff is also considering measures to reduce the short term 
testing burden created by the addition of a new mattress standard to an 
existing one.

12. Costs Associated With the Standard

    Comment. Commenters expressed concerns about the increased costs of 
barrier materials needed to produce complying mattresses and increased 
costs to consumers (as much as $100 per mattress).
    Response. Estimates of barrier and other resource costs for 
mattress producers are lower in the final regulatory analysis than 
those in the initial regulatory analysis and are expected to drop 
further as a result of technological developments and increased 
competition among barrier producers. Total costs are not expected to 
exceed $23.00 per mattress set.
    The expected price increase for consumers was initially estimated 
to range from $23.00 to slightly less than $80.00. However, the final 
regulatory analysis updated the costs, which have declined because of 
technological advances and market competition. This means that the 
consumer price will increase by a mid-point estimate of $24.21 per 
mattress.
    One national producer currently makes mattresses that would comply 
with the standard without increasing the price of its mattress sets. 
Competition for market share among producers will likely drive the 
price closer to the one charged by this national producer, which would 
make the likely increase even lower than that suggested by the $24.21 
above.

13. Bedclothes Rulemaking

    Comment. Some commenters expressed support for an additional 
rulemaking for bedclothes because of the significant role those 
products play in mattress/bedding fire losses. Other commenters shared 
concerns about the potential use of FR chemicals in such a rulemaking 
as well.
    Response. On January 13, 2005, the Commission published an advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking for a standard to address open flame 
ignition of bedclothes. 70 FR 2514. Recent research has shown that 
bedclothes are a significant ignition source for mattress fires and can 
also generate a fire large enough to pose a hazard on their own. 
Laboratory tests also showed that fire performance of these products 
could be

[[Page 13483]]

improved. The environmental and health implications of compliance 
strategies, including FR chemicals, will be evaluated in the course of 
that rulemaking.

I. Final Regulatory Analysis

    The Commission is issuing a rule establishing a flammability 
standard addressing the open flame ignition of mattresses. Section 4(j) 
of the FFA requires that the Commission prepare a final regulatory 
analysis for this action and that it be published with the final rule. 
15 U.S.C. 1193(j). The Commission previously prepared, and published 
with the proposed rule, a preliminary regulatory analysis. The staff 
reviewed the preliminary regulatory analysis and updated it to prepare 
a final regulatory analysis. The following discussion was extracted 
from the staff's memorandum titled ``Final Regulatory Analysis of 
Staff's Draft Standard Final to Address Open-Flame Ignitions of 
Mattress Sets.'' [7]

1. Introduction

    For 1999 to 2002, there were an estimated annual average of 15,300 
fires where the first item ignited was mattress/bedding. These fires 
resulted in an annual average of 350 deaths, 1,750 injuries, and $295 
million of property loss. As discussed elsewhere in this document, NIST 
conducted extensive research and developed a test methodology to test 
open flame ignition of mattresses. The Commission issued an NPR 
proposing a standard that incorporates the NIST test method.
    California Technical Bulletin (TB) 603, which is based on the use 
of NIST test burners designed to mimic the local thermal insult (heat 
flux levels and duration) imposed by burning bedclothes, became 
effective in California on January 1, 2005. The California share of the 
market is estimated, by industry representatives, to be around 11 
percent of the U.S. market. TB 603 requires all mattress/foundation 
sets, mattresses intended to be used without a foundation, and futons 
to meet the following pass/fail criteria: (1) The peak heat release 
rate (``PHRR'') does not exceed 200 kW during the 30 minute test, and 
(2) the total heat release does not exceed 25 mega joules (MJ) in the 
first 10 minutes of the test.
    As of October 2005, one of the top four producers is selling 
mattress sets that comply with both TB 603 and the CPSC standard. The 
other three (of the top four) are producing complying mattress sets 
representing between 15 and 20 percent of their total output. This 
includes all mattress sets sold in California, plus other special 
orders, institutional mattresses and mattress sets sold in other 
states. Smaller manufacturers, however, may not produce mattress sets 
intended for sale outside California to meet TB 603 performance 
requirements. They are more likely to wait until a federal standard is 
adopted. The mattress industry and the International Sleep Products 
Association (ISPA) support the development of a mandatory federal 
standard (Furniture Today, May 10, 2004). A Federal standard would 
eliminate the uncertainty that may result from having different 
flammability standards for different states.

2. The Standard: Scope and Testing Provisions

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

3. Products and Industries Potentially Affected

    According to ISPA, the mattress producers' trade organization, the 
top four producers of mattresses account for almost sixty percent of 
total U.S. production. In total, there are 571 establishments (as of 
2003) that produce mattresses in the U.S., using the U.S. Department of 
Commerce NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) Code 
33791 for mattresses. The top four producers account for about half of 
the number of all these

[[Page 13484]]

establishments. The number of establishments has been declining over 
time due to mergers and buy-outs. Total employment in the industry, 
using the NAICS Code 33791, was 24,545 workers in 2003.
    The mattress manufacturing industry has three key supplying 
industries: spring and wire product manufacturing, broad-woven fabric 
mills, and foam products manufacturing. Depending on the type of fire 
resistant barrier chosen by different manufacturers, the demand for 
foam padding or non-skid fabric for mattresses might decline if it were 
replaced by the high-loft or sheet barrier in the construction of the 
mattress and foundation. This would be offset by an increase in the 
demand for the barrier. Fiberglass, melamine, and aramid producers may 
also be affected to the extent that they are used to produce fire 
resistant materials used in mattress production.
    Manufacturers of bedclothes may also be affected by the standard. 
Sales of bedclothes may increase or decrease based on whether consumers 
view bedclothes as complements or substitutes for a new mattress set 
(complements are goods generally consumed together, substitutes 
generally substitute for each other). For example, if people tend to 
buy all parts of a new bed (mattress, foundation, and bedclothes 
consisting of a comforter, pillows, and sheets) at the same time, then 
an increase in the quantity of mattresses sold would cause an increase 
in sales of bedclothes. If, alternatively, people tend to have a fixed 
budget from which to buy all mattresses and bedding items, then an 
increase in the quantity of mattresses sold would lead to a decrease in 
sales of bedclothes. Also, if the decision to buy a new mattress (or 
mattress set) involves buying a mattress that is much thicker than the 
one currently in use, then consumers will most likely buy new sheets 
(and possibly matching pillowcases and other bedclothes items) to fit 
the new thicker mattress.
    If the cost increase is relatively small or there is no resulting 
increase in the price of a mattress set, then the demand for bedclothes 
will only be affected if consumers place a higher value on the safer 
mattress and replace their current mattress sooner than they would have 
with no standard in place. An increased demand for the safer (and 
thicker, if the current mattress is relatively old) mattress will 
likely result in an increased demand for sheets that fit the newer 
mattresses. This effect, however, is not directly resulting from the 
adoption of the standard since the thickness of the mattress need not 
be increased by the presence of either type of barrier. It is the 
result of the increased utility some consumers may derive from the 
safer mattress and the consequent increase in demand for bedclothes. 
The increased demand for safer mattresses would most probably lead to 
an increase in sales and employment in the spring and wire products, 
broad-woven fabric, and foam products industries, as well as in the 
mattress and bedclothes industries.
    Other producers that could potentially be affected, if the price 
change associated with producing compliant mattresses is significant, 
are those of other substitute products, like airbeds, waterbeds, * * * 
etc. that contain no upholstered material and would, therefore, not be 
covered by the standard. Their sales may increase as a proportion of 
total bedding products.

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

    The total number of U.S. conventional mattress shipments was 22.5 
million in 2004 and is estimated to be 23.0 in 2005. Mattress shipments 
have grown at an average rate of three percent over the period 1981 to 
2005. Unconventional mattresses (including futons; crib mattresses; 
juvenile mattresses; sleep sofa inserts; and hybrid water mattresses) 
are estimated to be about ten percent of the total market. This yields 
an estimated total number of mattresses produced domestically of 25.6 
million in 2005. The value of mattress and foundation shipments in 
2004, according to ISPA, was $4.10 and $1.68 billion, compared to $3.26 
and $1.51 billion respectively in 2002.
    The CPSC Product Population Model (PPM) estimate of the number of 
mattresses in use in different years is based on available annual sales 
data and an estimate of the average product life of a mattress. 
Industry representatives assert that the average consumer replaces a 
mattress set after ten years. A 1996 CPSC market study estimated the 
average expected life of a mattress to be 14 years. The PPM estimates 
the number of (conventional and non-conventional) mattresses in use in 
2005 to be 237.0 million, using a 10-year average product life and 
303.9 million, using a 14-year average product life. These two numbers 
are later used to estimate the pre-standard baseline risk and the 
expected benefits of the standard.
    This analysis focuses principally on queen-size mattresses because 
they are the most commonly used. In 2004 queen-size mattresses were 
used by 34.9 percent of U.S. consumers. Following the queen-size are 
the sizes: Twin and Twin XL (29.3 percent), Full and Full XL (19.9 
percent), King and California King (11.5 percent), and all other (4.4 
percent). ISPA data reflect that the average size of a mattress is 
increasing. The average manufacturing price in 2004 was $182 for a 
mattress of average size and $90 for a foundation of average size. 
Hence the average manufacturing price of a mattress set was about $272 
in 2004.
    There are no readily available data on average retail prices for 
mattress sets by size. ISPA, however, reports that mattress sets 
selling for under $500 represented 34.6 percent of the marketing 2004. 
Mattress sets selling for between $500 and $1000 represented 41.1 
percent of the market in 2004, compared to 39.2 percent in 2002.

5. Mattress/Bedding Residential Fires, Deaths, Injuries, and Property 
Losses: 1999-2002

    The staff estimates that there were 15,300 average annual mattress/
bedding fires for 1999-2002. Of these, 14,300 (or 93 percent) are 
potentially addressable by the standard. Average annual mattress/
bedding deaths for 1999 to 2002 are 350. Of these, 330 (or 94 percent) 
are potentially addressable by the standard. Average annual mattress/
bedding injuries for 1999 to 2002 are 1,750. Of these, 1,680 (or 96 
percent) are potentially addressable by the standard. Average annual 
mattress/bedding property losses for 1999 to 2002 are 295 million 
dollars. Of these, 281.5 million dollars (or 95 percent) are 
potentially addressable by the standard.

6. Expected Benefits of the Standard

    The expected benefits of the standard are estimated as reductions 
in the baseline risk of death and injury from all mattress fires, based 
on a CPSC staff study of fire investigations from 1999-2004. Risk 
reductions are then calculated on a per-mattress-in-use basis based on 
estimates of the number of mattresses in use. The monetary value of 
expected benefits per mattress is derived using estimates for the value 
of a statistical life and the current (i.e., 2005) average cost of a 
mattress fire injury. To derive the monetary value of expected benefits 
over the life of a mattress, the expected annual benefits are 
discounted (using a three percent discount rate), and then summed over 
the expected life of the mattress. The analysis considers mattress 
lives of 10 and 14 years.
    The potential benefits of the standard consist of the reduction in 
deaths, injuries, and property damage that would result. Since the 
prime objective of the standard is to reduce the likelihood of 
flashover or increase the

[[Page 13485]]

time before flashover occurs, and not to reduce fires, changes in 
property losses associated with the standard are hard to quantify. 
Property losses are expected to decline but the extent of the decline 
cannot be quantified. Consequently, for purposes of this analysis, no 
reduction in property losses is assumed. That is, all expected benefits 
from the standard are in the form of prevented deaths and injuries. 
This underestimates net benefits, since there will likely be some 
benefits from reduced property losses.
    The standard is expected to reduce the likelihood of flashover 
resulting from fires started by smoking materials or other ignition 
sources, as well as those started by open-flame ignition. Reductions in 
fires, injuries, and deaths will translate into societal benefits, as 
will be discussed in the benefit-cost analysis (Section 8 of this 
analysis).
    Estimates of the effectiveness of the standard are based on a CPSC 
staff evaluation of in-depth investigation reports of fires (including 
details of the occupants' situations and actions during the fire) 
occurring in 1999-2004 in which a mattress or bedding was the first 
item to ignite, the fire was of the type considered addressable by the 
standard, and a civilian death or injury resulted. Most of the 
investigations also included documentation from the fire department 
that attended the fire. Some incident reports were initiated from death 
certificates with follow-up documentation from the fire department. 
This resulted in a total of 195 deaths and 205 injuries in the 
investigations to be evaluated. The distribution of mattress ignition 
sources was not representative of all fires involving mattresses and 
thus the data were weighted to match the NFIRS-based national fire data 
distributions.
    Evaluations of the fire incidents by CPSC staff reviewers used the 
results of NIST testing (Ohlemiller, 2004; Ohlemiller and Gann, 2003; 
Ohlemiller and Gann, 2002) conducted to assess the hazard produced from 
burning mattresses and bedclothes. Specifically, the evaluations were 
based on the expectation that occupants in bed when the fire ignited 
but able to escape the burning bedclothes in the first three to five 
minutes faced a minimal hazard. Occupants in direct contact with 
burning bedclothes for a longer period (5 to 10 minutes) would be 
subject to potentially hazardous levels of heat release. If the burning 
bedclothes did not ignite other non-bedding items or produce flashover 
at this time, heat release would subside temporarily and then begin to 
increase as the involvement of the mattress increased.
    These conditions would allow occupants 10 to 15 minutes to escape 
the room of origin before the situation in the room would become 
untenable. Since the standard is expected to slow the rate of fire 
spread and hence increase escape time, assuming that bedclothes do not 
contribute enough heat to pose a hazardous condition, it was assumed 
that people who were outside the room of origin at the time of ignition 
were unlikely to die in the fire, unless they entered the room later or 
were incapable of exiting on their own. The analysis focused on 
reduction of deaths and injuries because the standard is designed to 
limit fire intensity and spread rather than prevent ignition.
    Each investigation was evaluated by CPSC staff reviewers to 
identify the features related to the occurrence of a death or injury 
once the fire was ignited. These included casualty age, casualty 
location when the fire started (at the point of ignition, in the room 
of origin but not at the point of ignition, or outside the room of 
origin), whether the casualty was asleep, or suffered from additional 
conditions likely to increase the time needed to escape, whether the 
casualty engaged in fighting the fire, and whether a rescuer was 
present. All of these conditions were used to determine a range for the 
likelihood that each individual death or injury would have been 
prevented had the standard been in effect. Percentage reductions of 
deaths (injuries) within subcategories of heat source and age group 
were applied to equivalent subcategories of the national estimates 
based on the NFIRS and NFPA data for 1999-2002. The estimated 
reductions per category were summed and the overall percentage 
reductions were calculated as the percent of addressable deaths (or 
injuries) that would have been prevented if the likelihood of flashover 
were reduced in the first 30 minutes and victims had 10 to 15 minutes 
of escape time.
    The staff indicates that the standard is expected to reduce all 
addressable deaths from mattress/bedding fires by 69 to 78 percent and 
reduce all addressable injuries from mattress/bedding fires by 73 to 84 
percent. Assuming that addressable mattress/bedding fire deaths and 
injuries account for the same percentage of residential casualties in 
2003 and 2004 as in 1999 to 2002, the staff estimates that 240 to 270 
deaths and 1150 to 1330 injuries in mattress/bedding fires attended by 
the fire service could have been prevented annually during the period 
2000 to 2004.
    The staff's analysis presents the estimated benefits of the 
standard, based on the expected annual deaths and injuries that are 
expected to be prevented by the standard. The analysis is conducted as 
if the standard had gone into effect in 2005. All dollar estimates are 
based on constant 2005 dollars. A discount rate of 3 percent and 
average expected lives of a mattress of 10 and 14 years are also 
assumed.
    Based on the estimated number of mattresses in use for an average 
mattress life of 10 years (described in Section 4), the reduction in 
the risk of death during the first year the standard becomes effective 
equals 1.01 deaths per million mattresses (240 deaths divided by the 
estimated 237 million mattresses in use in 2005) to 1.14 per million 
mattresses (270 deaths/237 million mattresses). The mid-point estimate 
of the reduction in the risk of death the first year the standard 
becomes effective is, therefore, 1.08. The mid-point estimate of the 
reduction in the risk of injury, similarly calculated, equals 5.23, 
with a range from 4.85 to 5.61, injuries per million mattresses for an 
estimated 10-year life of a mattress. The mid-point estimates of the 
risk reductions for an estimated 14-year average life of a mattress are 
0.84 deaths, with a range from 0.79 to 0.89, and 4.08 injuries, with a 
range of 3.78 to 4.38, per million mattresses.
    Annual risk reductions resulting from the standard are used to 
derive the monetary benefits from reduced deaths and injuries. The 
estimated reduction in the risk of death is multiplied by the value of 
a statistical life (and divided by a million) to derive a first-year 
monetary estimate for the range of benefits from lives saved per 
mattress. Based on the existing literature, a value of a statistical 
life of five million dollars is assumed (Viscusi, 1993). The estimated 
reduction in the risk of injury is similarly used to derive the range 
of first-year monetary benefits from injuries prevented. The benefits 
from preventing an injury (the cost of an injury) in 2005 are estimated 
to average about $150,000, based on Zamula (2005) and Miller et al. 
(1993). The mid-point estimate of the first-year benefits associated 
with preventing deaths and injuries equals $6.17, with a range from 
$5.79 to $6.54 for an estimated mattress life of 10 years and $4.81, 
with a range from $4.52 to $5.10 for an estimated mattress life of 14 
years.
    Lifetime benefits are derived by projecting annual benefits for the 
life of the mattress and summing the discounted (at a rate of 3 
percent) stream of annual benefits (measured in constant dollars). The 
number of mattresses in use is projected to grow at a rate of zero to 
three percent, based on the average growth rate for the 1981-

[[Page 13486]]

2004 period. Since the number of deaths and injuries are implicitly 
assumed to remain constant over time, a positive growth rate of 
mattresses in use implies a declining risk over time. The lower end of 
the ranges for estimated (10 and 14 years) lifetime benefits correspond 
to a 3 percent projected growth rate and the lower end of the 
effectiveness ranges. The upper end of the ranges for estimated (10 and 
14 years) lifetime benefits correspond to a zero percent projected 
growth rate and the upper end of the effectiveness ranges.
    For an expected mattress life of 10 years, the resulting mid-point 
estimate of expected lifetime benefits of saved lives associated with 
the standard equals $44.71, with a range of $39.37 to $50.05 per 
mattress. The corresponding mid-point estimate of benefits of prevented 
injuries equals $6.54, with a range of $5.67 to $7.41 per mattress. 
Hence, for an expected mattress life of 10 years, the mid-point 
estimate of the expected total lifetime benefits of a compliant 
mattress equals $51.25, with a range of $45.04 to $57.46 per mattress. 
For an expected mattress life of 14 years, the mid-point estimate of 
the total benefits equals $51.82, with a range of $44.30 to $59.34 per 
mattress. The sensitivity analysis section below examines how the 
results might change when a discount rate of seven percent is used.

7. Expected Costs of the Standard

    This section presents the expected resource costs associated with 
the standard. Resource costs are costs that reflect the use of a 
resource that would have been available for other uses had it not been 
used in conjunction with the production of mattresses compliant with 
the standard. These costs include material and labor costs; testing 
costs; costs to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers; costs of 
producers' information collection and record keeping; costs of quality 
control/quality assurance programs; and compliance and enforcement 
costs. The effect on retail prices will be discussed in Section 8 of 
this Regulatory Analysis.
    Material and Labor Costs. To comply with the standard, the 
construction of most mattress sets will include a barrier technology 
with improved fire performance. This barrier may be thick (high-loft) 
or thin (sheet). High-loft barriers are generally used to replace some 
of the existing non-woven fiber, foam, and/or batting material, leading 
to a smaller increase in costs than sheet barriers, which constitute an 
addition to production materials (and costs). Producers, therefore, are 
generally using the high-loft barrier for the panel (top of the 
mattress) and mattress and foundation borders. If they are using sheet 
barriers, they limit their use to the bottom of the mattress, replacing 
the no-skid non-FR (fire resistant) sheet used previously.
    According to several barrier producers and mattress manufacturers, 
the price of a high-loft barrier that would make a mattress comply with 
the standard, is around $2.65 per linear yard, defined to have a width 
of 88 to 92 inches. Barrier costs range from $2.00 to $3.30, per linear 
yard. The high-loft barrier replaces the currently-used polyester 
batting, which costs an average of $ 1.15, with a range from $0.55 to 
$1.75, per linear yard. Hence, the net increase in the average cost 
attributed to the use of the high-loft barrier, referred to by the 
industry as the application cost, is $1.50, with a range from $0.25 to 
$2.75 per linear yard, which translates to a net increase in barrier-
related manufacturing costs of $7.95, with a range from $1.33 to 
$14.58, for a queen-size mattress set.\3\ The queen-size is used for 
all the cost estimates, because it is the mode size, used by 34.9 
percent of consumers in 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This calculation is based on the assumption that a queen-
size mattress set requires 5.3 linear yards of the barrier material 
to be used in the two (top and bottom) panels of the mattress and 
the borders of both the mattress and foundation. Some producers are 
able to use less than 5.3 linear yards, which reduces their cost per 
queen mattress set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the increase in material costs due to the use of a 
barrier, costs will increase due to the use of fire-resistant (FR) 
thread for tape stitching. According to several thread producers, the 
cost of FR thread is $0.51 per queen-size mattress set, with a range 
from $0.41 to $0.60. Given that the cost of nylon (non-FR) thread is 
about $0.10 per queen-size mattress set, the average application cost 
of FR thread (net increase in costs due to the use of FR thread) per 
queen-size mattress set is $0.41, with a range from $0.31 to $0.50.
    Costs may also increase due to slightly reduced labor productivity. 
Based on industry estimates of an average of two labor hours for the 
production of a queen-size mattress set, and a 10 percent reduction in 
labor productivity and an industry average hourly total compensation of 
$22.00, the cost increase due to reduced labor productivity is about 
$4.40. The reduced labor productivity results from the inexperience of 
the workers with the new production methods and should disappear when 
they become familiar with the products and techniques being used.
    The standard requires producers to add a new label to both 
mattresses and foundations that identifies the prototype and the 
possible choice of foundations to be used with a specific mattress. 
This requirement is to ensure that consumers are buying a mattress set 
that was tested as a set, and would thus meet the requirements of the 
standard. This label is required to be separate from any other labels 
already being used and is estimated by industry representatives to 
result in an additional cost of $0.01 for both the mattress and 
foundation. This estimate includes both the material and labor needed 
to add the label.
    The increase in the average materials and labor costs of a mattress 
set is thus equal to the sum of the barrier application cost per 
mattress set, thread application cost, labeling cost, and costs due to 
reduced labor productivity. This sum equals $12.77 ($7.95 barrier cost 
+ $0.41 thread cost + $4.40 labor cost + $0.01 label cost). The 
estimated range for the materials and labor costs is $6.05 to $19.49.
    Costs of Prototype and Confirmation Testing. The standard requires 
each mattress set qualified prototype to be tested in triplicate for 
prototype qualification. According to industry representatives, the 
cost of testing per twin-size mattress set may be about $500: the sum 
of the average cost of the materials and shipping ($100) and the cost 
of the use of the lab ($400). Hence, the cost of testing three mattress 
sets for prototype qualification equals $1500. Additionally, if some 
mattress set prototypes do not pass the first time, then the cost will 
be higher, because additional tests will be done after action is taken 
to improve the resistance of the prototype. If 10 percent of mattresses 
are retested, then the average cost of testing a prototype would be 10 
percent higher, or $1650. This cost is assumed to be incurred no more 
than once per establishment for each prototype. It is expected that a 
qualified prototype will be used to represent a mattress construction 
(e.g., single-sided pillow top) with all subordinate prototypes using 
the same construction (with different sizes (lengths and widths) and 
different ticking materials) being based on the qualified prototype.
    If companies pool their prototypes across different establishments 
or different companies, testing costs would be smaller as all but one 
of the firms/establishments producing to the specification of a pooled 
prototype may just burn one mattress (for the confirmation test) 
instead of three (for the qualified prototype test). Therefore, it is 
expected that the average cost of testing per mattress will be lower 
for firms and/or establishments that pool their results than for those 
that do not.

[[Page 13487]]

    If manufacturers test every mattress construction (e.g., single-
sided pillow top, double-sided pillow-top, tight-top, euro-top, * * * 
etc.), which is estimated, based on conversations with manufacturers, 
to average about twenty per manufacturer, for every establishment in a 
given year, then their average testing cost per mattress would 
approximately equal 82 cents ($1650* 20 styles * 571 establishments/
23.0 million conventional mattresses) per mattress set for the first 
year of production. The standard would allow selling mattress sets 
whose (subordinate) prototypes differ from a qualified (or confirmed) 
prototype only with respect to size (length and width), and/or ticking 
material or other components that do not impact the fire performance of 
the prototype without testing the prototypes, to minimize testing costs 
to all manufacturers, especially those whose volume of output is small. 
Pooling testing results across establishments and/or firms will further 
reduce the average cost of testing per mattress set. On an annual 
basis, testing costs will be further reduced because qualified, 
confirmed, and subordinate prototypes need not be tested every year.
    Cost of Information Collection and Record Keeping. In addition to 
prototype testing, the standard requires detailed documentation of all 
tests performed and their results including video or pictures; 
prototype or production identification number; date and time of test; 
and name and location of testing facility; test room conditions; and 
test data for as long as the prototype is in production and for three 
years after its production ceases. Manufacturers are also required to 
keep records of a unique identification number for the qualified 
prototype and a list of the unique identification numbers of each 
prototype based on the qualified prototype and a description of the 
materials substituted. Moreover, they are required to document the name 
and supplier of each material used in construction of a prototype. 
Additionally, they are required to identify the details of the 
application of any fire retardant treatments and/or inherently fire 
resistant fibers employed relative to mattress components.
    This documentation is in addition to documentation already 
conducted by mattress manufacturers in their efforts to meet the 
cigarette standard. Detailed testing documentation will be done by the 
test lab and is included in the estimated cost of testing. Based on 
CPSC Office of Compliance staff estimates, all requirements of the 
standard are expected to cost an establishment about one hour per 
qualified prototype. Assuming that every establishment will produce 20 
different qualified prototypes, the increase in record keeping costs is 
about $412.20 (1 hour x 20 qualified prototypes x $20.61 average total 
compensation per hour for office and administrative support workers) 
per establishment per year. (Note that pooling among establishments or 
using a qualified prototype for longer than one year will reduce this 
estimate.) This translates to an average cost of 1 cent per mattress 
set for an average establishment, with average output of 40,280 
conventional mattresses.
    Cost of Quality Control/Quality Assurance Programs. To ensure that 
all mattresses are produced to the prototype specification across all 
factories and over the years for which a production line exists, 
mattress manufacturers will need a thorough well-documented quality 
control/assurance program. The top 15 mattress producers (with a market 
share of 83 percent) have existing quality control programs which could 
be modified to fit the new standard with minimal additional costs. 
Smaller producers, whose quality control programs are less detailed or 
non-existent, will incur some incremental costs as a result of the 
standard. These incremental costs will be small for each manufacturer 
and less when measured per mattress set. (See the section on impact of 
the standard on small businesses for a description of their cost of 
quality control and quality assurance programs to them.)
    Additionally, the standard encourages random production testing to 
assure manufacturers that their mattresses continue to meet the 
requirements of the rule, as a possible component of the quality 
control/quality assurance program. Assuming that an average of 3 
mattress set constructions will be tested per establishment per year 
yields an estimated cost of production testing of about $1500. Based on 
this assumption, the estimated cost of testing mattress sets for 
quality assurance purposes, therefore, equals 3.7 cents per mattress 
($1500/40,280) for an average establishment.
    The labor needed to meet the quality assurance measures required by 
the standard is estimated by CPSC Office of Compliance staff to be 224 
minutes per establishment per prototype per year. Assuming that every 
establishment will produce 20 qualified prototypes, the increase in 
labor costs associated with quality assurance requirements of the 
standard is about $1539 (224 minutes x 20 qualified prototypes x $20.61 
average total compensation per hour for office and administrative 
support workers) per establishment per year. (Note that pooling among 
establishments or using a qualified, confirmed, or subordinate 
prototype for longer than one year will reduce this estimate.) This 
yields an average cost of 3.8 cents per mattress set for an average 
establishment, with average output of 40,280 mattresses per year. Hence 
expected total costs of quality assurance/quality control programs may 
average about 7.5 cents (3.7 + 3.8) per conventional mattress set per 
year.
    Costs to Wholesalers, Distributors, and Retailers. An added cost of 
the standard is the increase in costs to wholesalers, distributors, and 
retailers in the form of additional storage, transportation, and 
inventory financing costs. Since a mattress complying with the standard 
will not be bigger than a similar mattress produced before the standard 
becomes effective, storage and transportation costs are not expected to 
increase. Inventory financing costs will increase by the average cost 
of borrowing money, applied to the wholesale price of a mattress over 
the average inventory holding time period. Since most mattress 
producers use just-in-time production and have small inventories, this 
additional cost will probably not exceed ten percent of the increase in 
production cost (which is the sum of material, labor, testing, record 
keeping, and quality assurance costs). A ten percent mark-up is, 
therefore, being used to measure the cost to wholesalers, distributors, 
and retailers. This yields a resource cost to wholesalers, 
distributors, and retailers equal to $1.37, with a range from $0.69 to 
$2.04, per mattress set. Retail prices may increase by more than the 10 
percent mark-up. Section 8 discusses the impact of the standard on 
retail prices of mattress sets.
    Costs of Compliance and Enforcement. Compliance and enforcement 
costs refer to the costs incurred by CPSC to ensure that manufacturers 
are complying with the standard. Based on past experience with the 
existing mattress standard, the estimated CPSC inspection time spent 
per location (establishment) equals 33 hours for inspection and 6 hours 
for sample collection. This yields a cost per inspection of about 
$1,722.63 (39 hours * $44.17, the average wage rate for CPSC 
inspectors). Additionally, compliance officers spend an average of 20 
hours per case, making their cost equal to $1,071.20 (20 hours * 
$53.56, the average hourly wage rate for compliance officers). This 
yields an average compliance and enforcement total labor

[[Page 13488]]

cost of $2,793.83 per inspected establishment per year.
    It should be noted that the expected cost per establishment, if 
less than one hundred percent of establishments are inspected every 
year, equals the cost per inspected establishment times the probability 
that a given establishment will be inspected. Though the probability 
that a given establishment will be inspected in a given year is not 
known, assuming that a third of all establishments will be inspected 
(i.e., about 190 establishments) yields a compliance and enforcement 
total expected labor cost of $931.28 ($2,793.83 * (\1/3\)) per 
establishment per year.
    In addition to labor costs, CPSC will incur testing costs. It 
should be noted that the decision to collect samples after an 
inspection visit is made at the discretion of the investigator and, 
therefore an accurate assumption about the number of samples collected 
and sent for a burn test cannot be made. If, based on inspection, 
samples from 10 percent of all inspected establishments were to be 
collected and sent to a lab for a burn test, and if samples 
representing 5 (qualified, confirmed, or subordinate) prototypes are 
taken from each of these establishments, then the total cost of CPSC 
testing will be $142,750 (5 prototypes * $1,500 (the cost of testing 3 
mattress sets for each qualified prototype) * 19 (10 percent of 
inspected establishments, equal to a third of 571)). These assumptions 
about frequency of testing yield an expected cost of testing per 
establishment of $250 ($142,750/571).
    Therefore the expected total CPSC wage and testing costs associated 
with the standard per establishment per year equal $1,181.28 ($931.28 + 
$250.00). With an average production of 40,280 mattresses per 
establishment (23 million mattresses divided by 571 establishments), 
the average CPSC wage and testing costs equal 2.9 cents per mattress 
set ($1,181.28/40,280). These costs are expected to decrease over time 
as manufacturers learn the requirements of the standard.
    Total Resource Costs. Therefore total resource costs (including 
material costs, labor costs, costs of prototype and confirmation 
testing, paperwork collection and record keeping costs, costs of 
quality control/quality assurance programs, production testing costs, 
costs to wholesalers, distributors, and retailers, and costs of 
compliance and enforcement) are estimated to be $15.07, with a range 
from $7.67 to $22.46, per mattress set. The section on the impact of 
the standard on small businesses and other small entities discusses how 
costs of testing and quality control/quality assurance programs may 
differ for small businesses and strategies that small manufacturers 
might adopt to reduce these costs.
    Projected Future Costs. It is possible that costs associated with 
the standard will decline over time. A supplier of fire resistant 
barriers predicts that the price of the barriers will decline by 40 
percent in the next two years, due to decreased uncertainty and 
increased competition. (They have already dropped significantly since 
TB603 was proposed.) The increase in labor costs due to decreased 
productivity is expected to be temporary and be reduced when workers 
get more training and/or the older machines get replaced with newer 
machines that are more capable of handling the FR thread and material 
used in fire resistant barriers. Moreover, as noted above, prototype 
testing costs are expected to decline after the first year of the 
standard.
    The standard includes an effective date of July 1, 2007. The costs 
reported here are based on the assumption that supplier companies will 
be able to maintain existing capacity. If federal standards for 
bedclothes and upholstered furniture were mandated at the same time and 
input producers were not given enough time to increase their capacity, 
input prices would rise in the short-run because of increased demand 
for the FR material used by all three industries.
    Unquantifiable Costs. A mattress manufacturer indicated that in 
response to an open-flame mattress standard, the number of models/
styles produced may be cut by half. If this response is typical, then 
there may be a reduction in consumers' utility, because of