59014 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Commission voted 5–0 to approve 

publication of this final rule. Commissioner Nancy 

airspace at Burlington, VT (76 FR 

38584) Docket No. FAA–2011–0243. 

Interested parties were invited to 

participate in this rulemaking effort by 

submitting written comments on the 

proposal to the FAA. No comments 

were received. Subsequent to 

publication, the FAA found that the 

Burlington VORTAC is now recognized 

as the Burlington VOR/DME. This rule 

notes the change. Class E airspace 

designations are published in paragraph 

6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated 

August 9, 2011, and effective September 

15, 2011, which is incorporated by 

reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class 

E airspace designations listed in this 

document will be published 

subsequently in the Order. 

The Rule 

This amendment to Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 

amends the Class E airspace areas at 

Burlington, VT, to support new 

Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures at Burlington International 

Airport. The existing Class E surface 

area airspace and Class E airspace 

designated as an extension are being 

modified for the safety and management 

of IFR operations at the airport. The 

geographic coordinates for Burlington 

International Airport in all Class E 

airspace areas are being adjusted to be 

in concert with the FAAs aeronautical 

database. This action also changes the 

name of the navigation aid from 

Burlington VORTAC to Burlington 

VOR/DME. This action enhances the 

safety and management of IFR 

operations at the airport. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current, is non-controversial and 

unlikely to result in adverse or negative 

comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that will only affect air 

traffic procedures and air navigation, it 

is certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in subtitle 

VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. 

Under that section, the FAA is charged 

with prescribing regulations to assign 

the use of airspace necessary to ensure 

the safety of aircraft and the efficient 

use of airspace. This regulation is 

within the scope of that authority as it 

amends controlled airspace at 

Burlington International Airport, 

Burlington, VT. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 9, 2011, effective 

September 15, 2011, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated 

as surface areas. 

* * * * * 

ANE VT E2 Burlington, VT [Amended] 

Burlington International Airport, VT 

(Lat. 44°28′19′′ N., long. 73°09′12′′ W.) 

Burlington, VOR/DME 

(Lat. 44°23′50′′ N., long. 73°10′57′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface within a 5-mile radius of Burlington 

International Airport, and within 2.4 miles 

each side of the Burlington VOR/DME 201° 

radial extending from the 5-mile radius of the 

airport to 7 miles southwest of the Burlington 

VOR/DME, and within 1.8 miles each side of 

the Burlington International Airport 302° 

bearing extending from the 5-mile radius of 

the airport to 5.4 miles northwest of the 

airport, and within 4 miles each side of the 

Burlington International Airport 131° bearing 

extending from the 5-mile radius to 16 miles 

southeast of the airport. This Class E airspace 

is effective during the specific dates and 

times established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Airport/Facility Directory. 

Paragraph 6003 Class E airspace areas 

designated as an extension. 

* * * * * 

ANE VT E3 Burlington, VT [Amended] 

Burlington International Airport, VT 

(Lat. 44°28′19′′ N., long. 73°09′12′′ W.) 

Burlington, VOR/DME 

(Lat. 44°23′50′′ N., long. 73°10′57′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface within 2.4 miles on each side of the 

Burlington VOR/DME 201° radial extending 

from a 5-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles 

southwest of the Burlington VOR/DME, and 

within 1.8 miles each side of the Burlington 

International Airport 302° bearing extending 

from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 5.4 

miles northwest of the airport and within 4 

miles each side of the Burlington 

International Airport 131° bearing extending 

from the 5-mile radius of the airport to 16 

miles southeast of the airport. 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ANE VT E5 Burlington, VT [Amended] 

Burlington International Airport, VT 

(Lat. 44°28′19′′ N., long. 73°09′12′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 23-mile radius 

of Burlington International Airport; 

excluding that airspace within the 

Plattsburgh, NY, Class E airspace area. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 

29, 2011. 

Mark D. Ward, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2011–24349 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59015 

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. 

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. 

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/cm3 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/ 

cm3 ± 0.020g/cm3; 

• 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, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59016 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 selfextinguishing 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 heatproducing 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 shortterm 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)). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 cigaretteignited 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 onethird 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59018 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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 openflame 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/ 

cm3 ± 0.020g/cm3; 

• 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 NISTdeveloped 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, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59020 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

as well as the cigarettes consumed in 

testing. 

The cost of mattresses consumed in 

prototype testing may amount to 

approximately $400 for a typical twomattress 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-tolarge 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 × $4,000 

= $200,000 annually; testing costs for 

the remaining 350 firms would be about 

350 × $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 twocarton 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 × $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 × $13 = $65, plus increased 

ticking substitution costs of 15 × $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 × $13 = $26 and increased 

ticking substitution costs of 3 × $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 × 20 = 1,000 models 

to be tested), and the remaining 350 

firms to have five new models (350 × 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 preamendment 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 × 50 = 250) and the 

remaining 350 smaller firms would have 

two prototypes each (for a total of 2 × 

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 × 50 = 750) 

and three each for the smaller firms (for 

a total of 3 × 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 × 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 59021 

resource cost would be 3,700 × $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 twothirds. 

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 fulllength 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 bandedpaper, 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 ‘‘worstcase’’ 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-yetunknown 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
59022 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 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) 

■ 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). 

■ 2. Section 1632.4(a)(2) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 520 

[Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0003] 

Oral Dosage Form New Animal Drugs; 

Tylosin 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is amending the 

animal drug regulations to reflect 

approval of an original abbreviated new 

animal drug application (ANADA) filed 

by Cross Vetpharm Group, Ltd. The 

ANADA provides for use of tylosin 

tartrate soluble powder in chickens, 

turkeys, swine, and honey bees. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

23, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

K. Harshman, Center for Veterinary 

Medicine (HFV–170), Food and Drug 

Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., 

Rockville, MD 20855, 240–276–8197, 

e-mail: john.harshman@fda.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Cross 

Vetpharm Group, Ltd., Broomhill Rd., 

Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland, filed 

ANADA 200–455 for use of TYLOMED– 

WS (tylosin tartrate), a water soluble 

powder, in chickens, turkeys, swine, 

and honey bees. The abbreviated 

application is approved as of July 5, 

2011, and the regulations are amended 

in 21 CFR 520.2640 to reflect the 

approval and to make minor revisions 

that will improve accuracy of the 

regulations. 

A summary of safety and effectiveness 

data and information submitted to 

support approval of this application 

may be seen in the Division of Dockets 

Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug 

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 

1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 

9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday. 

The Agency has determined under 21 

CFR 25.33 that this action is of a type 

that does not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. Therefore, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. 

This rule does not meet the definition 

of ‘‘rule’’ in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because 

it is a rule of ‘‘particular applicability.’’ 

Therefore, it is not subject to the 

congressional review requirements in 5 

U.S.C. 801–808. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES