Sleep Products Safety Council addresses fire marshal's letter
By Furniture Today Staff -- Furniture Today, October 6, 2003
The U.S. mattress industry agrees with much of Don Bliss' comments on behalf of the National Assn. of State Fire Marshals concerning mattress flammability.
Most notably, we agree with the principles that the NASFM urges regulators to follow in establishing flammability standards. In particular, we support the NASFM's stated insistence that such rules be supported by scientific evidence, be effective under real-world circumstances, and be practical. For more than 30 years, the Sleep Products Safety Council has worked in partnership with government regulators to improve the fire-resistance of mattresses. We are convinced that our proactive scientific research and collaborative efforts with NASFM and others have benefited both consumers and industry.
But it appears the NASFM may have swayed from its principles when it comes to TB 603 and mattress flammability. Specifically, the NASFM believes that the preliminary draft of Technical Bulletin 603 (TB 603), which California issued for public comment last February, is better than the final version of TB 603 (issued this month after California analyzed comments on draft TB 603 filed by all parties, including the mattress industry and NASFM). The NASFM dislikes the final TB 603 because it specifies a 30-minute test period, compared to a 60-minute test suggested in the preliminary draft.
What do the facts show? The NASFM agrees the burn apparatus and test method specified in TB 603 (final) are based on sound science. As to the effectiveness of TB 603, we also believe that no one disputes the significant life safety benefits the pass/fail criteria set out in the final version of TB 603 will achieve. They will reduce the amount of heat that a bed today can generate by up to a factor of 10 or more, and will significantly increase the time following ignition for detecting and escaping a room with a burning mattress. This means that the risk of a mattress fire rapidly "flashing over" from the bedroom to other rooms in the residence will be largely eliminated, and the intensity of the mattress fire itself will be significantly reduced. As a result, TB 603 will have a major impact in improving home safety, a goal shared by the NASFM and the mattress industry.
The facts also show that TB 603 (final) is practical. Mattress manufacturers can make TB 603-compliant products in a manner that does not compromise the feel and durability of the finished product.
What do the facts say about whether the 60-minute test in the preliminary draft of TB 603 would be more effective than the 30-minute test in the final TB 603? Nothing. There are no epidemiological studies or other scientific data showing how many more lives might be saved or injuries avoided (if any) by doubling the test period. To the contrary, the facts show that proposed TB 603 would be counterproductive. A 60-minute test would: (1) reduce mattress comfort and durability, (2) require the use of more exotic materials and fire retardant chemicals, and (3) raise the retail price of the finished product.
As a result, the facts show that many consumers would actually be discouraged from replacing existing mattresses with more fire-resistant products. A standard that deters consumers from buying safer products would be useless. Thus, while the preliminary draft of TB 603 does not meet the "sound science" or "practical solution" tests, the final version of the TB 603 standard does.
We do agree with Don's point that under federal law, TB 603 is pre-empted by the existing federal mattress flammability standard. As a result, TB 603 cannot be lawfully enforced unless California first requests the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission exempt the state's standard from federal pre-emption and the CPSC grants that request. Both consumers and the industry will be disserved by the uncertainty that would persist if California fails to meet its obligations under federal law. The outcome of the pending recall vote in California will have no impact on the state's federal legal obligations.
As to TB 603 itself, the mattress industry's final comments to the California Bureau of Home Furnishings make clear that we fully support the pass/fail criteria set in the final version of TB 603. As a result, we expect no legal challenges (from the mattress industry at least) to the substance of TB 603.
In closing, the Sleep Products Safety Council supports the pass/fail criteria set in TB 603 because they are based on sound science, and will result in demonstrable improvements in home safety. The industry is working with the Consumer Product Safety Commission to establish a uniform national flammability standard that would be based on or similar to TB 603.
Although it appears the industry and the NASFM may disagree on certain aspects of TB 603, we look forward to continuing our joint efforts with the fire safety community to reduce the incidence of mattress fires through more fire-resistant mattresses and effective public education.
Patricia A. Martin, executive director, Sleep Products Safety Council
