Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lab Testing Labeling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bureau lab finds high label error rate; two mattress samples exceed flammability-chemical limits
Summary
At a Bureau of Household Goods and Services advisory meeting, laboratory staff reported persistent label deficiencies across product categories, summarized flammability testing results and described follow-up steps after chemical (AFR) testing showed some noncompliance.
Laboratory staff for the Bureau of Household Goods and Services reported on testing, accreditation and follow-up enforcement steps at the advisory council meeting.
The lab’s flammability accreditation assessment “went well,” lab engineer Sue said, and the lab has submitted responses to a few audit concerns, she told the council.
Council members heard that labeling failures remain widespread: the lab reported that 82 percent of labels reviewed had some deficiency. The lab also summarized performance on flammability tests: for TB 117-2013 samples 90 percent of completed samples passed and 10 percent failed; for the 16 CFR tests on mattresses, 83 percent of completed samples passed and 17 percent failed. Sue said the lab sent 23 samples to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for AFR (additive flame retardant) testing; 12 of those had no AFR chemicals over 1,000 ppm, two contained AFR above 1,000 ppm, and nine remained pending.
Why it matters: labeling informs consumers and is used in enforcement; chemical and flammability test failures trigger follow-up by enforcement staff. The lab said it will return to companies taught in a recent mattress-sanitization training to check that proper sanitization methods are in use.
Details and follow-up: council members asked for breakdowns by product category and domestic versus overseas manufacturers; Sue agreed to provide that data later. The lab also plans to post clearer label examples and guidance online; the bureau said a rulemaking package for updated labeling language is in development and a regulatory workshop was held in February to begin that process. Sue described the lab’s sampling cadence as variable — some tests are done in-house and some are contracted out — and said the bureau can provide historical cost and volume data for contract tests on request.
Enforcement connection: lab failures are routed to the bureau’s enforcement unit for casework. Council members requested that enforcement staff present at a future meeting to explain how citations and follow-up are handled; bureau leadership agreed to arrange that.
Ending: the bureau said it will publish lab-directory updates in July and post finalized workshop minutes and draft regulatory language for public comment later this year.
