```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59014-59023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24482]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1632

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC-2010-0105]

Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads; 
Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety Commission (``CPSC,'' 
``Commission,'' or ``we'') is amending its standard for the 
flammability of mattresses and mattress pads to revise the ignition 
source specification in that standard.\1\

[[Page 59015]]

The ignition source cigarette specified for use in the mattress 
standard's performance tests is no longer produced. The Commission is 
requiring a standard reference material cigarette, which was developed 
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as the ignition 
source for testing to the mattress standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission voted 5-0 to approve publication of this 
final rule. Commissioner Nancy A. Nord filed a statement concerning 
this action which may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at 
http://www.cpsc.gov/pr/nord09132011.pdf or obtained from the 
Commission's Office of the Secretary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: The rule will become effective on September 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allyson Tenney, Office of Compliance 
and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East 
West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; telephone (301) 504-7567; 
atenney@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

1. The Current Standard and the Need To Change the Ignition Source

    The Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads 
(``the Standard''), 16 CFR part 1632, was initially issued by the U.S. 
Department of Commerce in 1972 under the authority of the Flammable 
Fabrics Act (``FFA''), 15 U.S.C. 1191 et seq. When the Consumer Product 
Safety Act (``CPSA'') created the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
it transferred to the Commission the authority to issue flammability 
standards under the FFA.
    The Standard sets forth a test to determine the ignition resistance 
of a mattress or mattress pad when exposed to a lighted cigarette. 
Lighted cigarettes are placed at specified locations on the surface of 
a mattress (or mattress pad). The Standard establishes pass/fail 
criteria for the tests. Currently, the Standard specifies the ignition 
source for these tests by its physical properties. These properties 
were originally selected to represent an unfiltered Pall Mall 
cigarette, which was identified as the most severe smoldering ignition 
source.
    In January 2008, we learned that the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 
planned to stop producing unfiltered Pall Mall cigarettes (although it 
would continue to make a reduced ignition propensity or ``RIP'' 
version). CPSC staff, mattress manufacturers, and testing organizations 
were concerned about testing to the Standard if the specified ignition 
source cigarettes were unavailable. Under an Interagency Agreement 
(``IAG'') with the CPSC, the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (``NIST'') developed a standard reference material (``SRM'') 
cigarette that could be used as the ignition source in the Standard.

2. NIST's Research

    Currently, the Standard requires that the ignition source for 
testing mattresses ``shall be cigarettes without filter tips made from 
natural tobacco, 85  2 mm long with a tobacco packing 
density of 0.270  0.02 g/cm\3\ and a total weight of 1.1 
 0.1 g.'' 16 CFR 1632.4(a)(2). This specification was 
intended to describe a conventional unfiltered Pall Mall cigarette that 
was available when the Standard was developed. According to research 
conducted by NIST's predecessor, the National Bureau of Standards, in 
the 1970s, this specification was chosen in order to replicate the most 
severe smoldering ignition source for testing mattresses and mattress 
pads. (See Loftus, Joseph J., ``Results of Temperature Measurements 
Made on Burning Cigarettes and Their Use as a Standard Ignition Source 
for Mattress Testing,'' NBS Memo Report, National Bureau of Standards, 
June 18, 1971: and Loftus, Joseph J., ``Back-Up Report for the Proposed 
Standard for the Flammability (Cigarette Ignition Resistance) of 
Upholstered Furniture,'' PFF 6-76, NBSIR 78-1438, National Bureau of 
Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, June 1978.)
    In January 2008, when we learned that R.J. Reynolds intended to 
stop producing the unfiltered Pall Mall cigarettes, we sought an 
alternate ignition source that would have the same burning 
characteristics as the ignition source specified in the Standard. Our 
intention has been to find a replacement ignition source that would 
replicate the level of safety of the ignition source specified in the 
Standard and would provide consistency in testing. Under this approach, 
the Standard would maintain the same level of safety, neither more nor 
less stringent. In August 2008, we entered into an IAG with NIST to 
develop a new cigarette ignition source SRM that would fit these 
parameters.
    There are no cigarette ignition test data to characterize the 
ignition propensity of cigarettes from 1972, when the Standard was 
promulgated. In the absence of such data, and consistent with the 
intent of the original Standard, NIST sought to identify the highest 
ignition strength cigarette. NIST evaluated Pall Mall cigarettes of 
different vintages (1992 through 2008) to determine the ignition 
strengths of the cigarettes that had been used to test soft 
furnishings, such as mattresses. The NIST research strongly indicated 
that the SRM is equivalent in ignition strength to the previous highest 
known strength unfiltered Pall Mall cigarette.
    In June 2009, NIST provided us with a report on its research, 
``NIST Technical Note 1627: Modification of ASTM E 2187 for Measuring 
the Ignition Propensity of Conventional Cigarettes'' (Ref. 1). We used 
NIST's research as the basis to establish specific parameters for a new 
ignition source to be specified in the Standard.
    After developing a standard procedure for determining the ignition 
strength of cigarettes and assessing different vintage cigarettes, NIST 
recommended that the new SRM cigarette meet the following 
specification:
     Nominal length: 83 mm  2mm;
     Tobacco packing density: 0.270 g/cm\3\  
0.020g/cm\3\;
     Mass: 1.1 g  0.1 g;
     Ignition Strength: 70 Percent Full Length Burn (PFLB) to 
95 PFLB using ASTM E 2187, as modified in Section 4.2 of NIST Technical 
Note 1627; and
     Non-``Fire-Safe Cigarette'' (FSC)
    The first three descriptors are consistent with the physical 
requirements listed in the Standard for the ignition source. The 
recommended ignition strength range reflects the three oldest vintages 
of the Pall Mall cigarette tested by NIST. These vintages reflect the 
intent of the Standard to represent a worst-case ignition source.

B. Statutory Provisions

    The FFA sets forth the process by which we can issue or amend a 
flammability standard. In accordance with those provisions, we are 
revising the ignition source specification in the Standard to require 
that the SRM cigarette developed by NIST be used as the ignition source 
for testing under the Standard. As required by the FFA, we published a 
proposed rule containing the text of the ignition source revision, 
alternatives considered, and a preliminary regulatory analysis. 15 
U.S.C. 1193(i). 75 FR 67047 (Nov. 1, 2010). To issue a final rule, the 
Commission must prepare a final regulatory analysis and make certain 
findings concerning any relevant voluntary standard, the relationship 
of costs and benefits of the rule (in this case, the ignition source 
revision), and the burden imposed by the rule. Id. 1193(j). In 
addition, the Commission must find that the rule: (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,

[[Page 59016]]

technologically practicable, and appropriate; (3) is limited to 
fabrics, related materials, or products which present unreasonable 
risks; and (4) is stated in objective terms. Id. 1193(b).
    The Commission also must provide an opportunity for interested 
persons to make an oral presentation concerning the rulemaking before 
the Commission may issue a final rule. Id. 1193(d). In the preamble to 
the proposed rule (75 FR at 67048), we requested that anyone who wanted 
to make an oral presentation concerning this rulemaking contact the 
Commission's Office of the Secretary within 45 days of publication of 
this notice. We did not receive any requests to make an oral 
presentation.

C. Response to Comments on the Proposed Rule

    We published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
Register on November 1, 2010. 75 FR 67047. We received five comments in 
response to the proposal. Two comments were from industry trade 
associations: the International Sleep Products Association (``ISPA'') 
and the National Textile Association (``NTA''). Two comments were from 
individuals, and one comment was from the National Association of State 
Fire Marshals (``NASFM'').
    A summary of each of the commenter's topics is presented, and each 
topic is followed by our response. For ease of reading, each topic will 
be prefaced with a numbered ``Comment''; and each response will be 
prefaced by a corresponding numbered ``Response.'' Each ``Comment'' is 
numbered to help distinguish between different topics. The number 
assigned to each comment is for organizational purposes only and does 
not signify the comment's value or importance or the order in which it 
was received. Comments on similar topics are grouped together.

1. The Use of SRM 1196

    (Comment 1) One commenter agreed that we should specify SRM 1196 
and maintain the level of safety established by the original Standard, 
noting that ``lowering the strength of the ignition source would be 
tantamount to a policy decision by CPSC to make the standard less 
effective, as it would reduce the level of resistance to smoldering 
ignition sources currently required of mattresses and mattress pads.''
    (Response 1) We agree that it is appropriate to specify SRM 1196 as 
the new ignition source for 16 CFR part 1632. Incorporation of this SRM 
would be ``safety-neutral'' and would not affect the stringency of the 
Standard.
    (Comment 2) Two commenters stated that we should consider the 2007-
08 non-RIP Pall Mall as the target for a ``safety neutral'' SRM 
cigarette because in NIST testing, it exhibited a 30 percent to 50 
percent full-length burn (PFLB). They argued that we are effectively 
increasing the stringency of the Standard by using an SRM cigarette 
with a 90 percent PFLB.
    (Response 2) The use of SRM 1196, which mimics the highest PFLB 
measured by NIST among commercial cigarettes (the 1992 Pall Mall), does 
not alter the intent of the Standard; rather, SRM usage ensures 
continuity of a reliably high PFLB with low variability in the ignition 
source. This approach is consistent with the intent of the Standard, 
and it means that the level of safety that the Standard has provided 
over the years will remain the same.
    The consistently high PFLB of SRM 1196 (70 percent to 90 percent 
PFLB) is key to successful completion of the test to determine 
compliance with the Standard. To test the smoldering ignition of 
mattresses and mattress pads under 16 CFR part 1632, cigarettes are 
expected to burn their entire length. If a cigarette self-extinguishes 
during testing, it must be replaced with a cigarette in another 
location of the same type of construction feature. Tests using lower 
PFLB cigarettes would yield misleading results that do not reflect the 
performance of the mattress being tested. Further, using an SRM 
cigarette with a lower PFLB, such as the 2007-08 non-RIP Pall Mall, to 
meet the testing requirements of 16 CFR part 1632, would require using 
more cigarettes to complete the test, to the extent that self-
extinguishing cigarettes would need to be replaced during the test. In 
some cases, it may be impossible to complete a test if the cigarettes 
self-extinguish consistently.
    (Comment 3) Three commenters stated that we should allow unfiltered 
RIP Pall Malls or other lower heat- producing cigarettes that are 
commercially available on the market to be used for testing to 16 CFR 
part 1632.
    (Response 3) The Standard does not require that a commercial 
cigarette be used; however, cigarettes that burn their full length are 
needed to complete the test. In 1972, the unfiltered, 85 mm Pall Mall 
was identified as the most severe ignition source among commercial 
cigarettes. SRM cigarettes, which are designed to exhibit consistent 
burning behavior, did not exist at that time. NIST's research 
demonstrates that the PFLB performance of commercial cigarettes is 
subject to significant variability that can lead to inconsistent test 
results. The use of SRM 1196, which mimics the highest PFLB measured by 
NIST among commercial cigarettes (the 1992 Pall Mall), does not alter 
the intent of the Standard; rather, SRM usage ensures continuity of a 
reliable ignition source with a high enough PFLB to allow for 
completion of the test.
    (Comment 4) One commenter suggested that we had insufficient 
information to reject another existing SRM cigarette--NIST SRM 1082-- 
(which is a RIP cigarette) as the ignition source in the Standard. The 
commenter argued that we should allow NIST SRM 1082 to be used in 16 
CFR part 1632 instead of SRM 1196.
    (Response 4) The purpose of specifying an SRM cigarette, which has 
been certified by NIST to meet specifications, is to enhance 
repeatability of smoldering ignition test results without changing the 
level of fire safety provided by the Standard.
    State laws requiring ``fire safe'' cigarettes stipulate that such 
cigarettes meet an established cigarette fire safety performance 
standard, based on ASTM E2187, Standard Test Method for Measuring the 
Ignition Strength of Cigarettes. NIST SRM 1082 has a 12.6  
3.3 percent PFLB and is intended for use by test laboratories to assess 
and control their test method and apparatus to evaluate cigarette 
ignition propensity of RIP cigarettes in accordance with ASTM E2187.
    A cigarette with a low PFLB, like SRM 1082, would yield fewer 
successfully completed tests for purposes of part 1632, resulting in 
the use of more cigarettes to complete the test to determine compliance 
with the Standard. In addition, use of SRM 1082 would not represent a 
severe cigarette ignition source, and as such, would not be consistent 
with the original Standard.
    (Comment 5) One commenter suggested that we move ahead with 
development of a surrogate smoldering ignition source that is not a 
cigarette.
    (Response 5) SRM 1196 is a short-term solution to a longer-term 
issue. Anticipating the need for a longer-term solution, we have 
entered into a new Interagency Agreement with NIST to develop a 
surrogate ignition source. This project began in FY 2010.
    (Comment 6) One commenter stated that SRM 1196 is an inappropriate 
ignition source for upholstery fabric.
    (Response 6) This regulatory proceeding pertains only to 16 CFR 
part 1632, Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress 
Pads. It does not apply to the Commission's upholstered furniture 
rulemaking (73 FR 11702 (March 4, 2008)).

[[Page 59017]]

2. The Effectiveness of Reduced Ignition Propensity (RIP) Cigarettes

    (Comment 7) Two commenters asserted that we did not properly 
consider the potential of RIP cigarettes in reducing cigarette-ignited 
fires.
    (Response 7) We are very interested in evaluating the potential of 
RIP cigarettes to reduce cigarette-ignited fires when mattresses and 
mattress pads are the first item ignited. In FY 2007, we began work on 
a Cigarette Ignition Risk (CIR) project. The goal of the CIR project is 
to evaluate the change in the cigarette-ignited fire hazard presented 
by RIP cigarettes. This project was deferred in FY 2009 and FY 2010, 
due to resource constraints. We resumed the study in FY 2011. Results 
from the CIR study may inform the agency's development of a surrogate 
ignition source.
    Although RIP cigarettes are designed to self-extinguish if left 
unattended, claims that RIP cigarettes actually reduce cigarette-
ignited fires have not been substantiated by empirical state or 
national data. We have begun investigating the effect of RIP cigarettes 
but have no test data or epidemiological evidence demonstrating that 
RIP cigarettes decrease the number of reported incidences of smoldering 
ignitions of mattresses or mattress pads. We are not aware of any 
published studies on the effectiveness of RIP cigarettes that included 
testing of RIP and non-RIP cigarettes on commercially available 
mattresses, mattress pads, or mattress mock-ups. If the mattress 
industry has sufficient test data to support the hypothesis that RIP 
cigarettes consistently self-extinguish on 16 CFR part 1632- and part 
1633-compliant mattresses, we would welcome the opportunity to review 
that information.
    All 50 states and Canada have adopted pass/fail criteria that will 
allow no more than 25 percent of 40 tested cigarettes to burn their 
full length when tested in accordance with ASTM E2187; this means that 
10 out of every 40 tested RIP cigarettes are allowed to burn their full 
length (i.e., not self-extinguish). Although this does not mean that 25 
percent of commercial RIP cigarettes would be expected to fail the 
test, it suggests that zero PFLB is unlikely. The ``worst-case'' RIP 
cigarette would be one that burns its full length exactly like a non-
RIP cigarette. Further, commercial RIP cigarettes could exhibit the 
same variability as observed among non-RIP cigarettes, thereby reducing 
reliability of test results.
    (Comment 8) One commenter noted that the report from the National 
Fire Protection Association (``NFPA''), ``The Smoking Material Fire 
Problem'' (Hall, J.R. The Smoking Material Fire Problem, National Fire 
Protection Association. Sept. 2010. http://www.nfpa.org) stated that 
RIP cigarettes have the potential to reduce deaths and injuries from 
cigarette-caused fires by 56 to 77 percent, compared to 2003 levels. 
The commenter noted that this was not accounted for in the proposed 
rule.
    (Response 8) The NFPA estimate is preliminary and will likely 
change when 2010 data are available. The NFPA report cited estimates 
that when fully effective, the RIP cigarette laws should result in a 56 
percent to 77 percent reduction in smoking material fire deaths 
relative to 2003. NFPA produced this estimated range by comparing the 
National Fire Incident Reporting System (``NFIR'') smoking material 
fire deaths estimate from 2003 (the last full year before the first 
state implemented a RIP cigarette law), to the estimate for 2008 (which 
is the most recent year for which it has estimates). NFPA's estimate 
incorporates a factor to adjust for the fact that only an estimated 21 
percent to 29 percent of the population was under the RIP cigarette law 
in 2008. This method adjustment adds uncertainty to the estimate. 
Measuring the reduction in fire losses from 2003 to 2010 is more 
appropriate because in 2010, virtually 100 percent of the population 
was effectively covered by the law, and no mathematical projection 
would be necessary. Commission staff will use the 2010 estimate when it 
becomes available.

3. The Cost of SRM 1196

    (Comment 9) Two commenters stated that specifying SRM 1196 as the 
new ignition source is not a modest change, and it may result in 
significant substantive changes to 16 CFR part 1632 that could impose 
major new costs on mattress manufacturers.
    (Response 9) The purpose of SRM 1196 is to enhance repeatability 
and reproducibility of test results, without changing the level of fire 
safety. Since the time we issued the proposal, NIST has reduced the 
price of SRM 1196 from $239 for one carton to $239 for two cartons, and 
this price reduction should help alleviate some cost concerns. The 
total estimated annual cost of the technical amendment is approximately 
$24,000, or less than one cent per mattress produced under those tests. 
This does not represent a significant new cost to manufacturers. A 
discussion of the costs and benefits is found in the Directorate for 
Economic Analysis Report: Final Regulatory Analysis: Smoldering 
Ignition Source Draft Proposed Technical Amendment to the Flammability 
Standard for Mattresses and Mattress Pads (16 CFR part 1632).
    (Comment 10) One commenter noted that the testing and certification 
requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) 
would impose additional testing cost burdens on mattress manufacturers 
and that these additional CPSIA burdens would compound any cost 
increase related to revising the ignition source provision in the 
Standard.
    (Response 10) Although the CPSIA may impose testing and 
certification costs on industry, both related and unrelated to the 
Standard, the revision to the ignition source provision would have a 
negligible effect on such costs. The revision will increase aggregate 
estimated testing costs by about 3.5 percent, or about $24,000 per 
year; average increased testing costs for individual firms would range 
from about $45 to $162 per year. This assumes that testing would be 
performed largely by third party laboratories, as required under the 
CPSIA for regulated children's products only.
    (Comment 11) Three commenters expressed concern that mattress 
manufacturers would incur unwarranted or excessive production costs. 
One commenter indicated that revising the ignition source provision 
could impose ``major new costs'' on firms whose products previously 
complied but had to be redesigned to pass the Standard when tested with 
SRM 1196.
    (Response 11) Because the revision to the ignition source provision 
is intended to be ``safety neutral,'' it would likely have no effect on 
the pass/fail performance of articles subject to the Standard. Design 
and production costs would increase only if mattresses previously 
thought to comply failed the test with SRM cigarettes. There is no 
evidence from CPSC experience or data provided by industry that this 
would result, so long as the tests were conducted correctly with 
cigarettes that burn their full length. The approximately $24,000 
aggregate annual testing cost of the SRM cigarettes represents a small 
increase in total testing costs, ranging from about one-third to one 
cent per mattress produced under those tests.
    (Comment 12) One commenter suggested that under a 90 PFLB SRM, 
manufacturers would incur costs in order to produce mattresses that 
complied with tests using 100 PFLB cigarettes, so that the finished 
products would incorporate a reasonable ``margin of safety'' beyond the 
minimum requirements of the Standard. The

[[Page 59018]]

commenter stated that this was analogous to doubling the flame exposure 
time in the 16 CFR part 1633 open-flame test from 30 to 60 minutes.
    (Response 12) Specifying SRM 1196 as the ignition source would more 
likely have the opposite result; that is, a more repeatable ignition 
source in the test should improve the reliability of the test results 
and lessen the need for manufacturers to build in a ``margin of 
safety'' to account for test variability. The commenter may be 
confusing the relationship between test material specifications and the 
stringency of the Standard itself. The ``margin of safety'' built into 
the production of mattresses ordinarily would be related to the 
performance requirements prescribed in the Standard for tested mattress 
samples. If, however, test results were unreliable due to the 
variability of the test cigarettes, manufacturers might build 
mattresses that, for example, pass the test in more than the minimum 
number of locations or that exhibit shorter-than-required char length 
results. The SRM cigarette ignition source increases the likelihood of 
a successful test and enhances the repeatability of test results, and 
it decreases the number of retests necessary to determine compliance. A 
test cigarette that burns its full length would be acceptable for the 
test, whether it was a 90 PFLB SRM or a 50 PFLB SRM cigarette. 
Differences in the PFLB of test cigarettes are independent of the 
performance requirements of either of the two mattress standards.

4. The FFA, Regulatory Alternatives, and Other FFA Rulemakings

    (Comment 13) One commenter argued that we failed to meet 
requirements of the FFA in proposing this amendment to 16 CFR part 
1632. The commenter stated that section 4 of the FFA requires us to 
base our decision to amend our regulations on research and 
investigation, and the commenter felt that the proposal had failed to 
do this.
    (Response 13) The proposed amendment is based on substantial 
research and investigation conducted by NIST. In August 2008, we 
entered into an IAG with NIST to develop a new cigarette smoldering 
ignition source. In June 2009, NIST provided a report on its research, 
``NIST Technical Note 1627: Modification of ASTM E 2187 for Measuring 
the Ignition Propensity of Conventional Cigarettes.'' The research 
described in this report was used to help develop SRM 1196. In July 
2009, we posted NIST Technical Note 1627 on our Web site to keep 
stakeholders informed of the progress of this research and invite 
comments. We addressed the comments received on NIST Technical Note 
1627 in CPSC staff's October 13, 2010, NPR Briefing Package, and the 
preamble to the proposed rule also discussed the comments (75 FR at 
67049). In addition, the staff prepared initial and final regulatory 
analyses as required by section 4 of the FFA.
    (Comment 14) The same commenter argued that we failed to consider 
all regulatory alternatives and other standards relevant to amending 16 
CFR part 1632. Specifically, the commenter argued that we did not 
consider the extent to which 16 CFR part 1633 renders part 1632 
redundant, despite the fact that we have issued an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to consider whether to revoke 1632 for this 
reason.
    (Response 14) We have a separate proceeding (70 FR 36357 (June 23, 
2005)) to consider whether to revoke 16 CFR part 1632. Issues related 
to the need for 16 CFR part 1632, in light of the existence of a 
separate mattress standard (16 CFR part 1633), are appropriate for that 
proceeding and therefore, are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 
This rulemaking is limited to revising the provision in 16 CFR part 
1632 specifying the ignition source for the flammability test required 
in the Standard.
    The Standard requiring mattresses to be resistant to cigarette 
ignition, 16 CFR part 1632, took effect in 1973. Although smoldering 
ignition of mattresses (i.e., ignition from cigarettes) has declined 
since that time, mattress fires ignited by small open flames (such as 
lighters and candles) have continued to cause a significant number of 
deaths and injuries. In 2006, we published a flammability standard 
directed at the hazard of open-flame ignition of mattresses, 16 CFR 
part 1633, which took effect on July 1, 2007. In the course of the 
rulemaking to develop 16 CFR part 1633, industry questioned whether 
there would be overlap between the two mattress flammability standards, 
making continuation of 16 CFR part 1632 unnecessary. To examine the 
issue of possible overlap between the two standards, we published an 
ANPR for the possible revocation or amendment of 16 CFR part 1632, 
Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses and Mattress Pads in June 
2005, and invited public comments (70 FR 36357 (June 23, 2005)). Some 
commenters supported revoking the Standard, while others recommended 
careful review of the risks, incident data, and benefits of the 
Standard before revocation is considered.
    On October 20, 2005, the Sleep Product Safety Council (``SPSC''), 
which is a safety division of the ISPA, met with CPSC staff to discuss 
issues associated with the possible revocation or amendment of the 
Standard. At that meeting, ISPA/SPSC told us of its plans to work with 
NIST on a research project to determine whether 16 CFR part 1632 was 
needed once 16 CFR part 1633 became effective. In addition, ISPA and 
the SPSC discussed plans for a research project with NIST to develop a 
predictive, small-scale test for 1632. (The meeting log is at http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/meetings/mtg06/MattressOct20.pdf). In 2009, 
ISPA ended the research project at NIST due to problems with 
controlling standard test materials; the research was not completed, 
and no data were provided to CPSC from this project. At this time, we 
are not aware of data indicating that 16 CFR part 1633 eliminates or 
sufficiently reduces the risk of injury from cigarette ignition of 
mattresses, such that we could revoke 16 CFR part 1632.
    (Comment 15) One commenter asserted that we misunderstand the 
purpose of 16 CFR part 1632 and that the rule should provide for an 
ignition source that represents cigarettes that are commercially 
available today.
    (Response 15) The commenter misunderstands the limited nature of 
this rulemaking. Although we have authority to conduct the rulemaking 
that the commenter suggests, the FFA does not require it, and it would 
be a different proceeding altogether. In essence, the commenter wants 
us to reopen and reexamine the entire purpose of the Standard to see 
whether a different Standard or different level of protection should be 
in place than was established when the Standard was created in 1972. 
This approach would require reevaluation of the level of risk that 
exists from cigarette ignition of mattresses.
    In this proceeding, we are simply specifying a substitute ignition 
source for the one that currently is specified but is no longer 
available; we are not changing the level of protection or reevaluating 
the current level of risk. As discussed in the previous response, the 
larger questions of the need for 16 CFR part 1632 and evaluation of the 
current level of risk posed by cigarette ignition of mattresses are 
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    (Comment 16) The same commenter suggested that we halt this 
proceeding and act on industry's request to revoke part 1632, issuing 
an interim rule to suspend part 1632.
    (Response 16) The question of revocation or revision of 16 CFR part 
1632 in light of 16 CFR part 1633 is the

[[Page 59019]]

subject of a different rulemaking proceeding, and these issues are 
outside of the scope of this rulemaking. If commenters have any data 
relevant to that issue, they should provide it in connection with that 
rulemaking. In the meantime, 16 CFR part 1632 continues to be in 
effect. The ignition source specified in the Standard is no longer 
available. The purpose of this proceeding is to amend the Standard to 
specify a comparable ignition source so that reliable and 
representative testing can continue under the current Standard.
    (Comment 17) One commenter stated that we did not consider the 
potential impact of our pending ANPR regarding the flammability of 
bedclothes.
    (Response 17) On January 13, 2005, we published an ANPR (70 FR 
2514) for a possible standard to address open-flame ignition of 
bedclothes. Because only an ANPR exists, there is no CPSC standard for 
the flammability of bedclothes. Therefore, there is no basis for us to 
consider the impact that such a standard might have on this rule.

D. Description of the Revised Ignition Source Provision

    We are revising the ignition source provision in the Standard, 16 
CFR 1632.4(a)(2), to specify a standard reference material based on 
research conducted by NIST. The new SRM cigarette is designated SRM 
1196. As discussed in section A.2 of this preamble, based on NIST's 
research, the new SRM cigarette meets the following specification:
     Nominal length: 83 mm  2mm;
     Tobacco packing density: 0.270 g/cm\3\  
0.020g/cm\3\;
     Mass: 1.1 g  0.1 g;
     Ignition Strength: 70 Percent Full Length Burn (PFLB) to 
95 PFLB, using ASTM E 2187, as modified in Section 4.2 of NIST 
Technical Note 1627; and
     Non-``Fire-Safe Cigarette'' (FSC).
    Section 1632.4(a)(2) states that SRM 1196 is available for purchase 
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau 
Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.

E. Final Regulatory Analysis

    Section 4(j) of the FFA requires that the Commission prepare a 
final regulatory analysis when it issues a regulation under section 4 
of the FFA and that the analysis be published with the rule. 15 U.S.C. 
1193(j). The following discussion extracted from the staff's memorandum 
titled, ``Final Regulatory Analysis: Smoldering Ignition Source 
Technical Amendment to the Flammability Standard for Mattresses and 
Mattress Pads (16 CFR part 1632)'' (Ref. 2), addresses this 
requirement.

1. Market/Industry Information

    Available U.S. Economic Census data in recent years show an 
estimated total value of shipments of about $5 billion of mattresses 
and related sleep products (e.g., mattress pads, box springs, 
innerspring cushions, and air-flotation sleep systems). Domestic 
employment for this category is estimated at about 20,000 workers. 
Industry estimates indicate that the number of mattresses (including 
unconventional items, such as futons, crib and juvenile mattresses, and 
sleep sofa inserts) shipped in the United States residential market is 
roughly 25 million units annually. About 5 to 10 percent of this total 
is comprised of imported products, including some imports marketed by 
the domestic manufacturers. The proportion of imports for mattress pads 
is higher.
    An estimated 150 to 200 domestic firms produce new mattresses or 
mattress pads in manufacturing facilities in the United States. An 
unknown, but potentially similar, number of firms in the United States 
sell renovated mattresses, which may account for 2.5 million to 5 
million units, or between 10 and 20 percent of mattresses sold. Thus, 
there may be as many as approximately 400 manufacturing firms subject 
to 16 CFR part 1632. These firms comprise more than 600 production 
establishments. Larger manufacturers may offer dozens of models, not 
counting different size designations (e.g., twin, full, queen, king) at 
any given time; new models may be introduced once or twice per year. 
Many smaller firms market only a few models and make few, if any, 
construction changes in a year.

2. Potential Benefits and Costs

    The SRM cigarette described in the revised ignition source 
provision would have approximately the same ignition strength 
characteristics as originally intended by the Standard. The use of SRM 
cigarettes would not alter the stringency of the flammability 
performance tests in the Standard, so the revised provision will not 
alter the test method itself.
a. Potential Benefits
    Because the revised ignition source provision is ``safety-
neutral,'' mattresses that pass or fail under the existing Standard 
would be expected to generate similar results when the NIST-developed 
SRM is used. The level of protection provided by the Standard would 
neither increase nor decrease as a result. Thus, there would be no 
impact on the level or value of fire safety benefits derived from the 
16 CFR part 1632 Standard.
    However, there would be potential benefits that are not readily 
quantifiable. Currently, manufacturers and testing laboratories do not 
have access to continued supplies of test cigarettes other than RIP 
Pall Mall cigarettes. Existing inventories of conventional Pall Mall 
cigarettes have been depleted or exhausted. Many industry 
representatives have requested guidance on the issue of which cigarette 
to use in testing.
    Even if continuing supplies of conventional test cigarettes were 
available, the variability in cigarette performance described in the 
NIST research may lead to an unacceptably low level of test outcome 
reproducibility. This is causing uncertainty among testing firms, and 
among manufacturers and importers certifying compliance with the 
Standard. These firms have expressed concern that tests conducted by 
the CPSC and by industry may not be comparable. This inconsistency 
could lead to unnecessary additional testing. Specifying the SRM 
cigarette would reduce inconsistency and uncertainty for industry, 
testing laboratories, and the CPSC.
b. Potential Costs
    Currently, manufacturers incur testing costs related to 16 CFR part 
1632 whenever new mattress models are introduced that either: (1) Are 
of new construction, or (2) have new tickings that may influence 
cigarette ignition resistance. Larger manufacturers may introduce 20 or 
more new constructions or ticking substitutions each year. Smaller 
producers and renovators probably introduce fewer items or rely on 
prototype developers for multiple models. Assuming that qualified 
prototypes are developed for all new constructions and ticking 
substitutions to demonstrate compliance, a range of estimates for 
annual prototypes and ticking substitutions can be used to project 
potential costs associated with the proposed amendment to incorporate 
SRM cigarettes into the Standard.
    Pre-Amendment Testing Costs. For most mattress models that require 
some kind of testing, the testing cost per model to manufacturers is 
comprised chiefly of: (1) The resource costs of producing the 
mattresses used for destructive testing, including shipping to a test 
laboratory; and (2) the laboratory's fee for the testing service, which 
includes photographic and other records prepared by the test 
laboratory,

[[Page 59020]]

as well as the cigarettes consumed in testing.
    The cost of mattresses consumed in prototype testing may amount to 
approximately $400 for a typical two-mattress test series (although the 
range can go much higher, to more than $1,000 per mattress for low-
volume, specialty items). Prototype test charges reported by third 
party testing laboratories can vary widely, especially by location. For 
example, charges for tests performed in China tend to be significantly 
lower than charges for tests performed in the United States. Overall, 
these charges, which include the cost of the test cigarettes, may 
average about $250 per prototype (labor and material costs for 
manufacturers to perform their own tests may be similar). Thus, the 
current average total cost per mattress prototype may be roughly $400 + 
$250 = $650. A ticking substitution test is simpler and much less 
expensive, requiring only small samples of ticking material, a reusable 
small-scale test apparatus, and a smaller number of cigarettes; the 
average total cost may be around $50.
    Testing costs incurred for prototypes and ticking substitutions can 
be allocated over a production run of mattresses. The cost per unit may 
vary with production volume, the mix of tests performed, and other 
factors. The examples below incorporate assumptions based on 
discussions with industry representatives. These examples illustrate 
some possible baseline cost differences for larger versus smaller 
firms:
    Typical example for a medium-to-large producer:

 20 new models: 5 new constructions + 15 new tickings
 5 prototype tests @ $650 each = $3,250
 15 ticking substitution classification tests @ $50 each = $750
 Total base year cost = $3,250 + $750 = $4,000
 Baseline testing cost for production run of 50,000 units = 
$0.08 per unit

Typical example for a smaller producer:

 5 new models: 2 new constructions + 3 new tickings
 2 prototype tests @ $650 each = $1,300
 3 ticking substitution classification tests @ $50 each = $150
 Total base year cost = $1,300 + $150 = $1,450
 Baseline testing cost for production run of 5,000 units = 
$0.29 per unit

    These examples reflect the likely average annual testing costs to 
industry, assuming reasonably full compliance with 16 CFR part 1632. 
Thus, approximate baseline testing costs for the largest 50 mattress 
manufacturers combined would be about 50 x $4,000 = $200,000 annually; 
testing costs for the remaining 350 firms would be about 350 x $1,450 = 
$507,500. Thus, total estimated baseline testing costs may be about 
$200,000 + $507,500 = $707,500 per year.
    Costs per Firm Associated with the Revised Ignition Source 
Provision. The only cost increase associated with revising the ignition 
source provision to specify SRM 1196 is related to the SRM cigarettes. 
The list price of SRM cigarettes from NIST is $239 for a two-carton 
minimum order, or about $120 per carton, plus shipping. A carton 
contains 200 cigarettes, or 10 packs of 20. Shipping charges range from 
$10 to $55 per order, or about $1 to $5 per carton for a typical 10-
carton order. Thus, the estimated total average cost of the SRM 
cigarettes would be up to about $125 per carton. After we proposed the 
amendment to the Standard, NIST reduced the price of SRM 1196 by about 
half, to reduce the potential cost burden on industry. Testing 
laboratories and others can obtain (RIP) Pall Mall cigarettes currently 
on the market for regionally varying prices of $60 to $100 per carton. 
Thus, the cost of cigarettes to parties performing tests may rise from 
a level of approximately $6 to $10 per pack, to approximately $12.50 
per pack, representing an increase of about $2.50 to $6.50 per pack.
    Under the protocol in 16 CFR part 1632, new packs of cigarettes are 
opened for each test sequence. A new prototype or confirmatory test 
consumes about two packs, and a ticking substitution test consumes 
about one pack. Assuming an increased cost per pack of $12.50-6 = 
$6.50, the average cost of performing the tests could increase by 2 x 
$6.50 = $13 per prototype and $6.50 per ticking substitution. This 
represents a 2 percent increase ($13/$650) in average total resource 
costs per prototype, and a 12 percent increase ($6.50/$50) in average 
resource costs per ticking substitution.
    In the above ``typical producer'' examples, the larger firm with 20 
new models would incur increased prototype costs of 5 x $13 = $65, plus 
increased ticking substitution costs of 15 x $6.50 = $97.50, for a 
total annual increase of $65 + $97.50 = $162.50 (about 4 percent of the 
firm's overall $4,000 annual testing cost). Over a 50,000 unit 
production run, the cost would be $0.003 (i.e., about one-third of one 
cent) per unit. The smaller firm with five new models would incur 
increased prototype costs of 2 x $13 = $26 and increased ticking 
substitution costs of 3 x $6.50 = $19.50, for a total annual increase 
of $26 + $19.50 = $45.50 (about 3 percent of the firm's overall $1,450 
annual testing cost). Over a 5,000 unit production run, the increased 
testing cost would be $0.009 (i.e., about one cent) per mattress.
    In summary, the expected additional cost of testing related to the 
revised ignition source provision may range from about $45.50 to 
$162.50 per firm. The cost over a production run could range from about 
one-third to one cent per mattress produced under those tests. The 
distribution of this projected cost among manufacturers and testing 
laboratories is uncertain because some test laboratories may choose to 
pass on their increased costs--in the form of higher test fees--to 
manufacturers, while others may not. Even if all such costs were passed 
on to manufacturers, it is unlikely that there would be a noticeable 
effect on wholesale or retail mattress prices.
    Aggregate Costs Associated with Revising the Ignition Source 
Provision. There may be as many as 200 new product manufacturers and 
200 renovators, for a total of about 400 firms. The largest 50 firms 
are assumed to have 20 new models (50 x 20 = 1,000 models to be 
tested), and the remaining 350 firms to have five new models (350 x 5 = 
1,750 models to be tested), for a total of 1,000 + 1,750 = 2,750 models 
to be tested. The aggregate annual cost of specifying SRM 1196 as the 
ignition source in the Standard will vary with the number of new 
prototypes and ticking substitutions. A point estimate can be developed 
using the pre-amendment baseline examples above and the best available 
information on these variables.
    Using the baseline assumptions for new prototypes versus ticking 
substitutions, the 50 largest firms would have an average of five 
prototypes each (for a total of 5 x 50 = 250) and the remaining 350 
smaller firms would have two prototypes each (for a total of 2 x 350 = 
700); thus, the overall number of prototypes to be performed would be 
250 + 700 = 950. The number of ticking substitutions would be 15 each 
for the larger firms (for a total of 15 x 50 = 750) and three each for 
the smaller firms (for a total of 3 x 350 = 1,050); the overall number 
of ticking substitutions would be 750 + 1,050 = 1,800.
    At two packs of cigarettes per prototype and one pack per ticking 
substitution, the estimated quantity consumed in testing would be 2 x 
950 = 1,900 for prototypes and 1,800 for ticking substitutions, for a 
total of 1,900 + 1,800 = 3,700 packs. At an increase of $6.50 per pack, 
the estimated total

[[Page 59021]]

resource cost would be 3,700 x $6.50 = $24,050. This point estimate 
represents an unweighted average increase of about 3.5 percent of the 
estimated $707,500 aggregate annual industry testing costs related to 
16 CFR part 1632. For annual production of about 25 million mattresses 
sold in the U.S., the estimated overall average cost is less than one-
tenth of one cent per production unit. The recent reduction in the 
price of SRM 1196 cigarettes by about half reduces the estimated total 
cost from what was calculated for the proposed amendment by about two-
thirds.
    In addition to the projected costs to industry, the CPSC and other 
government agencies (e.g., the California Bureau of Home Furnishings & 
Thermal Insulation and the Canadian Ministry of Health) would likely 
purchase small quantities of SRM cigarettes from NIST for compliance 
testing and related research. Thus, these Federal and other government 
agencies may incur minor costs, depending on the numbers of tests these 
organizations may perform in any given year.
    The effective date of the rule is one year from the date of 
publication in the Federal Register. Typically, new mattress models are 
introduced once or twice per year. The effective date would allow this 
product cycle to proceed without potential disruption or additional 
testing costs.
    In summary, revising the ignition source provision in the Standard 
to specify the SRM cigarette is not expected to have a significant 
impact on expected benefits or costs of the Standard in 16 CFR part 
1632. Resource costs may amount to roughly $24,000 per year. The 
revision would, however, reduce test variability and uncertainty among 
manufacturers subject to the Standard and among testing organizations. 
Both the expected benefits and likely economic costs are small, and the 
likely effect on testing costs per new prototype mattress or ticking 
substitution would be minor, especially when the projected cost is 
allocated over a production run of complying mattresses.

3. Regulatory Alternatives

    The Commission considered two basic alternatives: (1) Specify a 
different SRM cigarette, with the approximate lower ignition strength 
of an RIP cigarette; or (2) take no action on the smoldering ignition 
source issue.
    Neither of these two alternatives would likely have a substantial 
economic impact. There would, however, be some relative differences in 
terms of resource costs and potential effects on the level of benefits 
the Standard affords. The advantages and disadvantages of these two 
basic alternatives are discussed immediately below.
a. Alternate SRM
    Under this first alternative, the Commission could amend the 
Standard to specify a different, lower ignition propensity SRM 
cigarette. Such an SRM would presumably be closer in ignition strength 
to the ``worst-case'' RIP cigarettes currently on the market.
    There are three possible advantages to specifying an alternative 
SRM: (1) The problem of test repeatability and reproducibility would be 
addressed, as it is by specifying SRM 1196; (2) an alternative SRM 
might better approximate average ignition propensity of commercial 
cigarettes; and (3) currently, there is a low-ignition propensity SRM 
(SRM 1082) developed by NIST for use by state regulators in assessing 
the compliance of RIP cigarettes.
    There are three possible disadvantages to specifying an alternative 
SRM. First, there are no data to establish that a low-ignition 
propensity SRM would be equivalent or ``safety neutral.'' Moreover, the 
reliability of mattress test results may not be improved if, for 
example, only 50 percent of SRM cigarettes burned their full length. It 
is unknown whether more mattress construction prototypes would pass the 
test using a lower ignition propensity SRM than they do now with 
commercial cigarettes. Thus, the impact on mattress production costs is 
uncertain.
    The second possible disadvantage is that the two known technical 
approaches to developing a lower ignition propensity SRM appear to be 
incompatible with the test in 16 CFR part 1632. Under existing state 
regulations, all known commercial RIP cigarettes incorporate banded 
paper that is designed to impede full-length burns. The test in 16 CFR 
part 1632 measures mattress ignitions resulting from full-length 
cigarette burns and allows up to three relights per cigarette to 
achieve a full length burn. It is likely that either: (1) Many low-
ignition propensity cigarettes would be wasted in completing the test; 
or (2) the test could not be reliably completed using banded-paper, 
self-extinguishing cigarettes. Additionally, although the existing SRM 
1082 (which represents a RIP cigarette) does not use banded-paper 
technology, it would have the same impracticalities as the banded-paper 
cigarette under the current Standard. The low ignition propensity 
design of the existing SRM 1082 is intended to yield a 12 to 15 percent 
full length burn rate (i.e., the cigarettes are made to self-extinguish 
85 to 88 percent of the time). Because this SRM is intended to be used 
as a calibration tool for cigarette manufacturers subject to state 
regulations, it is purposely designed to represent a minimal-ignition 
propensity target, rather than a typical or representative RIP-ignition 
propensity. Clearly, it would not represent a ``worst-case'' RIP 
cigarette. Further, SRM 1082 does not meet the specified physical 
criteria for cigarette length and density; so these cigarettes are 
physically unlike the current test cigarette or current RIP cigarettes.
    The third possible disadvantage is that the properties of a new SRM 
that would mimic the ignition behavior of ``worst case'' RIP cigarettes 
have not been characterized. The ``worst case'' RIP cigarette would be 
one that burns its full length and may, therefore, be similar to its 
non-RIP counterpart. Insufficient research exists to support a new and 
different, low-ignition propensity SRM; and a variety of as-yet-unknown 
modifications to the test method in 16 CFR part 1632 would likely be 
needed to incorporate such an SRM. The time and cost to develop a new 
SRM is undetermined, but the existing concern about the short-term 
availability of a consistent ignition source would not be resolved.
    Thus, while a lower ignition strength SRM cigarette may be 
technically feasible, there is no readily available SRM alternative 
that would address the need for a consistent, ``safety-neutral'' 
ignition source.
b. No Action
    Under the second alternative, the ignition source specifications in 
the Standard would remain unchanged. Manufacturers and testers would 
remain free to conduct tests with any available cigarettes, including 
RIP Pall Malls, which meet the existing physical parameters.
    The possible advantage of the Commission taking no action is that 
the projected minor increase in resource costs of testing would not be 
incurred.
    The possible disadvantage of the Commission taking no action would 
be that the basic issue of test result variability due to differences 
in cigarettes would not be addressed, and the uncertainty and confusion 
surrounding the reliability of tests for compliance with 16 CFR part 
1632 would not be reduced. Manufacturers and testing firms may continue 
to conduct tests that are either wasteful (in terms of extra RIP 
cigarettes required to

[[Page 59022]]

complete a test) or have irreproducible results.
    In summary, there are no readily available, and/or technically 
feasible, alternatives that would have lower estimated costs and still 
address the need for a consistent ignition source that retains the 
``safety-neutral'' approach of the proposed amendment.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq., an agency that engages in rulemaking generally must prepare 
initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses describing the impact 
of the rule on small businesses and other small entities. Section 605 
of the RFA provides that an agency is not required to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis if the head of an agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (75 FR at 67052-
53), the Commission determined that, although almost all mattress 
manufacturers would be considered small firms under the U.S. Small 
Business Administration's fewer-than-500-employees definition, the 
proposal would have little or no effect on small producers. The design 
and construction of existing, compliant mattress products would remain 
unchanged, and the resource cost increase of using SRM cigarettes would 
represent a minimal increase in total testing costs. On this basis, the 
Commission preliminarily concluded that the proposed rule would not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses 
or other small entities. We received no comments concerning the impact 
of the proposal on small entities, and we are not aware of any other 
information that would change the conclusion that the rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses 
or other small entities. In fact, after we published the proposed rule, 
NIST lowered the cost of SRM 1196.
    This revision of the ignition source provision in the Standard 
would keep the current mattress test procedure in place but would 
require that entities performing cigarette ignition tests purchase and 
use SRM cigarettes at a higher cost than commercial, non-SRM 
cigarettes. No additional actions would be required of small entities. 
As discussed in the cost analysis section above, the costs would be 
borne by mattress manufacturers and importers that perform (or pay fees 
for) compliance testing. The estimated average increase in testing and 
certification costs is about $63 per small firm, or less than one cent 
per production unit. This represents less than one-hundredth of one 
percent of small firms' average gross revenues. Thus, while almost all 
mattress manufacturers would be considered small firms, the ignition 
source revision would not have significant impacts on small firms.

G. Environmental Considerations

    As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule (75 FR at 67053), the 
Commission's regulations state that amendments to rules providing 
performance requirements for consumer products normally have little or 
no potential for affecting the human environment. 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(1). 
Nothing in this rule alters that expectation. Therefore, because the 
rule would have no adverse effect on the environment, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

H. Executive Orders

    According to Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996), agencies 
must state in clear language the preemptive effect, if any, of new 
regulations. The rule will revise one provision of a flammability 
standard issued under the FFA. With certain exceptions that are not 
applicable in this instance, no state or political subdivision of a 
state may enact or continue in effect ``a flammability standard or 
other regulation'' applicable to the same fabric or product covered by 
an FFA standard if the state or local flammability standard or other 
regulations is ``designed to protect against the same risk of the 
occurrence of fire,'' unless the state or local flammability standard 
or regulation ``is identical'' to the FFA standard. See 15 U.S.C. 
1476(a). The rule would not alter the preemptive effect of the existing 
mattress standard.
    Thus, the rule would preempt nonidentical state or local 
flammability standards for mattresses or mattress pads designed to 
protect against the same risk of the occurrence of fire.

I. Effective Date

    Section 4(b) of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1193(b)) provides that an 
amendment of a flammability standard shall become effective one year 
from the date it is promulgated, unless the Commission finds for good 
cause that an earlier or later effective date is in the public 
interest, and the Commission publishes the reason for that finding. 
Section 4(b) of the FFA also requires that an amendment of a 
flammability standard shall exempt products ``in inventory or with the 
trade'' on the date the amendment becomes effective, unless the 
Commission limits or withdraws that exemption because those products 
are so highly flammable that they are dangerous when used by consumers 
for the purpose for which they are intended. We conclude that a one-
year effective date is appropriate to ensure ample time for the product 
cycle and continuing availability of SRM cigarettes from NIST. 
Therefore, the revised ignition source provision of the Standard will 
become effective one year after publication in the Federal Register.

J. Findings

    Section 4(a), (b) and (j)(2) of the FFA require the Commission to 
make certain findings when it issues or amends a flammability standard. 
The Commission must find that the standard or amendment: (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). In addition, the Commission must find that: (1) If an 
applicable voluntary standard has been adopted and implemented, that 
compliance with the voluntary standard is not likely to adequately 
reduce the risk of injury, or compliance with the voluntary standard is 
not likely to be substantial; (2) that benefits expected from the 
regulation bear a reasonable relationship to its costs; and (3) that 
the regulation imposes the least burdensome alternative that would 
adequately reduce the risk of injury.
    The scope of this rulemaking is limited to revising the ignition 
source provision in the Standard. The Commission is not making any 
other changes to the Standard. Therefore, the findings relate only to 
that revision and not to the entire Standard. These findings are 
discussed below.
    The amendment to the Standard is needed to adequately protect the 
public against unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire. The current 
Standard specifies as the ignition source cigarettes that are no longer 
being produced. In order for the Standard to continue to be effective 
(and for labs to test mattresses and mattress pads to determine whether 
they comply with the Standard), it is necessary to change the ignition 
source specification. The revision of this provision is necessary to 
ensure that testing is reliable and that

[[Page 59023]]

results will not vary from one lab or manufacturer to another. Such 
variation would be likely if labs or manufacturers were able to use 
different ignition sources that have similar physical properties but 
different burning characteristics.
    The amendment to the Standard is reasonable, technologically 
practicable, and appropriate. The revision to the ignition source 
provision is based on technical research conducted by NIST, which 
established that the SRM cigarette is capable of providing reliable and 
reproducible results in flammability testing of mattresses and mattress 
pads. SRM 1196 represents an equivalent, safety-neutral ignition source 
for use in testing to establish compliance with the Standard.
    The amendment to the Standard is limited to fabrics, related 
materials, and products that present an unreasonable risk. The revision 
of the ignition source provision will not make any changes to the 
products to which the Standard applies.
    Voluntary standards. There is no applicable voluntary standard for 
mattresses. We are amending an existing federal mandatory standard.
    Relationship of benefits to costs. Revising the ignition source 
provision in the Standard to specify SRM 1196 will allow testing to the 
Standard to continue without interruption, will maintain the 
effectiveness of the Standard, and will not significantly increase 
testing costs to manufacturers and importers of mattresses and mattress 
pads. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between benefits and 
costs of the amendment. Both expected benefits and costs are likely to 
be small. The likely effect on testing costs would be minor, 
approximately one-third to one cent per mattress produced under those 
tests.
    Least burdensome requirement. No other alternative would allow the 
Standard's level of safety and effectiveness to continue. Thus, the 
revision to the ignition source provision specifying SRM 1196 imposes 
the least burdensome requirement that would adequately reduce the risk 
of injury.

K. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that revising 
the ignition source provision in the Standard (16 CFR part 1632) to 
specify SRM 1196 as the ignition source is needed to adequately protect 
the public against the unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire 
leading to death, injury, and significant property damage. The 
Commission also finds that the amendment to the Standard is reasonable, 
technologically practicable, and appropriate. The Commission further 
finds that the amendment is limited to the fabrics, related materials, 
and products that present such unreasonable risks.

L. References

1. Gann, R.G., and Hnetkovsky E.J., Modification of ASTM E 2187 for 
Measuring the Ignition Propensity of Conventional Cigarettes, 
Technical Note 1627, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Gaithersburg, MD, 20899, 2009.
2. Directorate for Economic Analysis Report, Final Regulatory 
Analysis: Smoldering Ignition Source Technical Amendment to the 
Flammability Standard for Mattresses and Mattress Pads (16 CFR part 
1632).

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1632

    Consumer protection, Flammable materials, Labeling, Mattresses and 
mattress pads, Records, Textiles, Warranties.

    For the reasons given above, the Commission amends 16 CFR part 1632 
as follows:

PART 1632--STANDARD FOR THE FLAMMABILITY OF MATTRESSES AND MATTRESS 
PADS (FF 4-72, AMENDED)

0
1. The authority citation for part 1632 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 1193, 1194; 15 U.S.C. 2079(b).

0
2. Section 1632.4(a)(2) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  1632.4  Mattress test procedure.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Ignition source. The ignition source shall be a Standard 
Reference Material cigarette (SRM 1196), available for purchase from 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, 
Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 20, 2011.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-24482 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```