[Senate Hearing 108-964]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-964
HOME PRODUCTS FIRE SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 14, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-372 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Carolina, Ranking
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine Virginia
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada RON WYDEN, Oregon
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Robert W. Chamberlin, Republican Chief Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 14, 2004.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Hollings.................................... 2
Statement of Senator Smith....................................... 1
Witnesses
Chapman, Norman, President and Chief Operating Officer, Inman
Mills.......................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Counts, Andy, Chief Executive Officer, American Furniture
Manufacturers Association...................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Dean, John, Vice President, National Association of State Fire
Marshals....................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Higgins, Robert, President, National Candle Association.......... 26
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Klancnik, Al, Group Vice President, Serta, Inc................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Stratton, Hon. Hal, Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission..................................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Appendix
American Burn Association, statement............................. 61
Buczek, Mark, Chairman, American Fire Safety Council, prepared
statement...................................................... 73
Decorative Fabrics Association and the Coalition of Converters of
Decorative Fabrics Concerning the Proposed American Home Fire
Safety Act, prepared statement................................. 63
Letter dated November 29, 2004 to Ms. Sunita Krishna from Douglas
J. Kahn, Chief Operating Officer, Croscill Home................ 62
Letter dated July 13, 2004 to Hon. John McCain from M. L.
Fontenot, Chief Executive Officer, WestPoint Stevens Inc.......
Orders, David K., Vice President, Administration, Park Place
Corporation On Behalf of the International Sleep Products
Association, prepared statement................................ 67
National Textile Association (NTA), prepared statement........... 72
HOME PRODUCTS FIRE SAFETY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H. Smith,
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. It's a pleasure to be here with my
colleague. I apologize to him that I was delayed in a downtown
speech. It was a spellbinding speech. I'm sorry you all missed
it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. But, no, seriously, it's great to have you
all here. We thank you for joining us for this important
hearing on Home Products Fire Safety. I welcome the witnesses
who are appearing before the Committee today.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that each
year over 2,850 Americans die, with another 15,000 who are
injured in residential fires, which can collectively account
for more than an estimated $6 billion in property losses. The
Commission attributes a third of all deaths to fires involving
upholstery furniture, mattresses, bedding products, and small
open flames such as candles or matches.
In a 2003 study, the CPSC found that in 1999 there were
9,300 upholstered-furniture fires that resulted in 440 lives
lost and $232 million in property damages; 18,000 mattresses
and bedding fires that cost $300 million in property loss and
took 330 lives; and 14,500 candle-related fires that resulted
in $245 million in property damage and 100 deaths.
The Commission has made the reduction of residential fires
a top priority. Currently, the CPSC is in the process of
developing flammability standards for upholstered furniture,
mattresses, and bedding, and has worked closely with the candle
industry to establish voluntary standards.
Chairman Stratton is here to highlight the Commission's
progress with these standards, and I look forward to hearing
how he expects to resolve the challenges facing the development
of such standards.
Before we begin, however, I feel it's important to note
that we must be careful to strike a balance between providing
effective flammability standards that will protect our homes
and our families while ensuring that any new standards are
practical in relationship to manufacturing issues of cost and
quality. My hope is that this hearing will help provide insight
into how such a balance can be achieved.
In addition, the CPSC should be cognizant that there is
concern relating to the use of potentially dangerous chemical-
based flame retardants in upholstered furniture, mattresses,
and bedding. It's important that, in making home products less
flammable, we do not, in turn, make them more harmful to
consumers.
I, again, want to thank Senator Hollings for his presence
here, but more for his leadership on this issue. He has worked
tirelessly on it, and he knows something of this subject from a
personal standpoint, as he and Peatsy saw much their life's
possessions go up in flames in South Carolina, and that is a
perspective that makes him unusually qualified and appropriate
to urge what he's urging this morning.
Thank you, Senator Hollings.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Hollings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I concur in your statement.
Senator Smith. Our first panel is the Honorable Hal
Stratton, Chairman of the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
Chairman Stratton, the mike is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. HAL STRATTON, CHAIRMAN,
U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
Chairman Stratton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure
to be here today.
I, first, do also want to thank Senator Hollings for, you
know, the impetus behind this hearing, because it is very
important. It's some of the most important work we do. And I am
pleased to be able to come over here and inform him that he has
been persuasive already in his opening statements. We're in
complete agreement with him, and my comments will indicate that
as we go through the testimony.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for chairing the
Committee today. Not all of my people are aware of your New
Mexico roots and some tentacles that you have back there at the
New Mexico Supreme Court. So we still claim a little bit of you
down there in New Mexico, so it's a pleasure to have you here
and chairing the Committee for us.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Chairman Stratton. I appreciate the opportunity to be here
to update the Committee on the work of the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission in regard--and to answer any
questions that you may have. Reducing fire deaths is one of our
top priorities and most serious challenges at the CPSC, and a
key goal in our strategic plan. I would like to thank the
Senators for having a hearing today on this very important
subject.
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission was
established 30 years ago as an independent bipartisan
Commission to protect families against unreasonable risks of
serious injury and death from hazardous consumer products.
Though we are a small agency, over that time the work of the
CPSC has contributed significantly to the 30 percent decline in
the rate of deaths and injuries from consumer products in the
United States.
More deaths result from residential fires than from any
other hazard under the CPSC's jurisdiction. Children and
seniors are particularly vulnerable to danger of residential
fires. While the CPSC has been active in implementing and
administering safety standards and compliance activity on a
wide range of consumer products, this morning I want to
specifically discuss our activities on mattresses, bedding,
upholstered furniture, and candles.
In my written statement, I've included a chronology of the
work of the CPSC on these products prior to my tenure. The CPSC
has a long history of involvement with both mattress and
upholstered furniture flammability, but I'd like to take this
opportunity to update the Committee on the more recent
activities, particularly those since I've been there.
In August 2002, I was privileged to be sworn in as Chairman
of the Commission. After assuming this position, and having had
an opportunity to review all the work being done on product
safety throughout the agency, I identified two regulatory
projects--upholstered furniture and mattress flammability--as
areas I wanted to make top priorities of the agency, and
instructed our staff to move these projects forward as quickly
as legally possible.
I am pleased to report to the Committee this morning that,
after a long history in the development of flammability
standards for upholstered furniture, a decision package that
includes a draft standard will be on my desk, and those of the
other commissioners, this fall. I'm also pleased to report to
the Committee that a decision package that includes a draft
standard for mattresses will be on our desks this fall, as
well. I can assure you that, after reviewing the staff analysis
within the briefing packages, the Commission will move as
quickly as possible toward completing the regulatory process on
both of these issues.
These two hazards are an important priority for us. I have
worked closely with the staff, as well as with a variety of
outside stakeholders, to move this process forward as quickly
as possible through the procedures that our governing statutes
require.
Knowing of your deep interest in this area, I am pleased to
report the progress we've made to the Committee today. In the
30-year history of the CPSC, the agency has never promulgated a
regulation having an economic impact as big as either of these
standards is likely to have. When the Commission issued the
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for mattress
flammability standards, several commentors suggested that a
standard also may be needed for bedclothes. Some of the data
may suggest that bedclothes could contribute to the hazard
posed by mattress and bedding fires. In response to these
comments, the CPSC staff will include a draft Advanced Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking on bedclothes in conjunction with the
mattress briefing package being presented to the Commission
this fall.
With regard to candle safety, the CPSC staff has been
working with ASTM International to develop voluntary standards
for candles since 1997. Our statutes require that the agency
defer to voluntary standards when those standards eliminate or
adequately reduce the risk of injury addressed and it is likely
that there will be substantial compliance by the industry with
such standards. In this regard, the CPSC has worked closely
with ASTM on the development of a number of candle standards,
including the comprehensive voluntary fire-safety standard for
candles that is currently provisional, that's scheduled to be
formally approved in January 2005. In addition, the National
Association of State Fire Marshals filed a petition to make
this ASTM PS 59-02 voluntary standard a mandatory standard.
This petition was docketed with the Commission on March 10 of
this year, and the Commission staff is now analyzing public
comments, which have been filed and addressed to the petition.
In addition to these products, the Commission is also
active on other fronts regarding fire safety in the home. We
launched an important initiative on children's sleep-wear
safety with our new Burn Center Reporting System, where we're
working with the Shriners Hospitals and the American Burn
Association as our partners. Other technical staff is also
working on fire safety projects such as effectiveness of smoke
alarms, including wireless technologies and improved
audibility.
In my experience with these types of fire hazards while at
the Commission, I've learned of the human tragedy and family
agony of a child or a parent lost in a house fire. I can assure
the Committee that the reduction of the hazards posed by
residential fires will continue to be a top priority of mine as
long as I am Chairman of the Commission.
I want to thank you, once again, for this hearing, and I'll
be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Stratton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Hal Stratton, Chairman,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
morning's hearing on standards for home products fire safety. I
appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning to update the
Committee on the work of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) on the fire hazards that fall under our jurisdiction and to
answer any questions that you may have. Any views I express this
morning are mine as Chairman of the Commission and not necessarily
those of the other Commissioners. Reducing fire deaths is one of our
most serious challenges at CPSC, and I would like to thank the Senators
for having a hearing today on this very important subject.
By way of introduction, the CPSC was established 30 years ago as an
independent, bipartisan commission, to protect children and families
against unreasonable risks of injury and death from hazardous consumer
products. Over that time the work of the CPSC has contributed
significantly to the 30 percent decline in the rate of deaths and
injuries from these products.
The CPSC enforces five Federal statutes, including the Flammable
Fabrics Act, and through these laws, the agency has jurisdiction over
the safety of some 15,000 types of consumer products. The CPSC is a
relatively small agency, with 470 employees including those here at our
headquarters and laboratory in the Washington area and also in our
field positions across the country. Since the inception of the agency,
the annual number of deaths and injuries prevented by just a sample of
CPSC activities has reduced societal costs by over $15 billion. Last
year, we directed over 280 recalls of unsafe products that involved
over 40 million units.
Today we are here to talk about fire deaths and injuries, and
specifically those fires related to the ignition of upholstered
furniture, mattresses, bedding and candles. Reducing fire-related
deaths is a key goal in CPSC's Strategic Plan, and I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss this serious problem and CPSC's current
activities and planned initiatives in this regard.
Residential fires result in more deaths than any other hazard under
CPSC's jurisdiction. Children and seniors are particularly vulnerable.
In fact, children under five years of age have a fire death rate more
than twice the average for all ages. Products most often ignited in
fire deaths are upholstered furniture, mattresses and bedding. In
recent years, these product categories were associated with about one-
third of fire deaths.
While deaths due to fire have declined substantially since the
1980s, I believe that still more can be achieved to reduce these tragic
deaths. Past standard setting and compliance activities by the CPSC
have contributed to this decline including CPSC's work on cigarette-
resistant mattresses, heating and cooking equipment, electrical
products, wearing apparel and children's sleepwear, child-resistant
lighters, fireworks, smoke alarms and residential fire sprinklers. This
morning, however, I want to specifically discuss our activities on
mattresses, bedding, upholstered furniture and candles.
I would like to begin by giving the Committee a short chronology of
the work of the CPSC on these products prior to my tenure. It was in
the early 1970s that the Secretary of Commerce promulgated the original
Standard for the Flammability of Mattresses, requiring mattresses to
resist ignition by smoldering cigarettes. Authority to administer that
standard was transferred to the Consumer Product Safety Commission when
it was created in 1972. While smoldering ignition incidents declined
over the years after this standard was enacted, mattress fire ignition
by open flame sources, primarily involving child-play, emerged as a
continuing problem.
In 1998 the CPSC staff initiated work with the mattress industry
and other interested parties to address this hazard. A test method was
developed that could be used in a mandatory standard to reduce
associated deaths and injuries. In 2001 CPSC began formal rulemaking
procedures for an open flame standard by issuing an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking.
I should note at this point that the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, unlike most agencies, has a three-part rulemaking process
that is initiated by an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR),
followed by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), and ended with a
notice of Final Rule.
With regard to upholstered furniture flammability, CPSC has been
working on this hazard since the agency's inception. The primary focus
was initially on the risk of smoldering ignitions from cigarettes since
these fires accounted for most of the observed fire losses. A voluntary
standard has been in place since 1978 to address this risk and has
contributed to the decline in the smoldering hazard.
In 1997 CPSC staff forwarded a regulatory options package to the
Commissioners concluding that a small open flame standard for
upholstered furniture was feasible but recommending that the agency
study possible chemical risks associated with flame retardants that
might be used on upholstery fabrics to comply with a rule. At that
time, the Commission deferred action on the proposed rule and held a
public hearing on flame retardant chemicals. CPSC staff started working
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a possible
Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for fabric treatments. Subsequently, in
CPSC's Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation, Congress directed the agency to
sponsor an independent study of flame retardant chemicals by the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). NAS submitted its report reviewing
sixteen flame retardant chemicals to Congress the following year. The
report concluded that eight would pose no significant human health risk
but recommended further study for the eight others.
Subsequently, CPSC staff forwarded a regulatory options package to
the Commission recommending that the agency actively share and discuss
the large volume of technical information in the package with the
public before considering a proposed rule. In July of 2002, CPSC held a
public meeting to present the staff's direction and receive comments
and recommendations on an upholstered furniture standard.
As I noted earlier, this is an abbreviated chronology, but clearly,
the CPSC has a long history of involvement with both mattress and
upholstered furniture flammability. I would like to now update the
Committee on our more recent activities.
On August 2, 2002, I was privileged to be sworn in as Chairman of
the Consumer Product Safety Commission and to join my able colleagues,
Commissioner and Vice Chair Thomas Moore and Commissioner Mary Gall in
working to advance the agency's important mission of making America's
homes, schools and playgrounds safe and secure for America's families.
In particular, shortly after assuming this Chairmanship, and having
reviewed all the work being done on product safety by this agency, I
identified two projects--upholstered furniture and mattress
flammability--as my top priorities and instructed the staff to move
these projects forward as quickly as legally possible.
Mr. Chairman, I remain convinced that reducing residential fires
should be our top priority at the CPSC. There is little question in my
mind that these new standards, once complete, will save lives and
property.
In 2003, I directed the staff to present the Commission with a new,
expanded regulatory proceeding to cover both cigarette and small open
flame risks for upholstered furniture. I was pleased that my fellow
Commissioners agreed with this change, and we voted unanimously in
favor of the new, expanded ANPR.
I am pleased to report to you this morning that after this long
history in the development of a flammability standard for upholstered
furniture, a decision package that includes a draft standard will be on
my desk and that of the other two Commissioners this Fall.
I am also pleased to report to the Committee that CPSC staff is
finalizing a draft standard to be included in a decision package on
mattress flammability. This decision package on mattresses will also be
presented to the Commissioners this Fall. I can assure you that the
Commission will move quickly to make a decision on moving forward with
an NPR for mattresses after reviewing the staff analysis within that
package.
These two hazards--mattress and upholstered furniture
flammability--have been an important priority for my Chairmanship. I
have worked closely with staff as well as outside stakeholders to move
this process forward as quickly as possible through the data-
collection, test methods performance and evaluation, legal checkpoints,
public comment and many related procedures that our governing statutes
require.
Knowing of your deep interest in these products, I am pleased to
report the substantial progress we have made to the Committee today. In
the thirty year history of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the
agency has never promulgated a regulation with an economic impact of
this size--above the $100 million annual impact necessary to qualify as
a ``major'' rule under the Congressional Regulatory Review Act. Our
mattress and upholstered furniture standards are each likely to exceed
that impact.
I would also like to update you on our work with bedclothes
flammability. When the Commission issued the Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for a mattress flammability standard, several commenters
suggested that a standard is also needed for bedclothes, which includes
such products as comforters, pillows and mattress pads. Research
indicates that bedclothes can contribute significantly to the hazard
posed by mattress and bedding fires.
In response to these comments and research, CPSC staff will include
a draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on bedclothes as part of
the mattress briefing package being presented to the Commissioners this
Fall. Both product categories play a role in residential fires, and
therefore, we believe it is important to understand and consider the
unique interactions they can have when exposed to an open flame source.
I would now like to turn our attention to CPSC activities on candle
safety. In 1997, with the increasing popularity of candles and the
increasing numbers of fires associated with them, the CPSC staff began
working with ASTM International, the consensus standards developing
organization, to develop voluntary standards for candles and candle
products. There are now standards addressing various aspects of the
fire hazards associated with candles and candle products including
hazard labeling, smoking and the integrity of glass containers.
Additional performance requirements are being developed for gel candles
and accessories.
In March of this year, CPSC received and docketed a petition from
the National Association of State Fire Marshals to issue mandatory fire
safety standards for candles and candle accessories. The Commission
issued a notice in the Federal Register soliciting written comments
concerning the petition. CPSC staff is currently reviewing these
comments and preparing responses and a recommendation to the
Commission.
CPSC's statutes require that the agency rely on voluntary standards
when those standards adequately address the hazard and there is
substantial conformance with them, and in this regard, CPSC is
continuing to work closely with ASTM to finalize the comprehensive
voluntary Fire Safety Standard for Candles that covers flame height,
secondary ignition, end of useful life and stability. That standard is
currently provisional and is expected to be formally approved in
January.
In addition to these products, the Commission is also active on
other fronts regarding fire safety in the home. CPSC has an important
initiative on children's sleepwear safety with our new Burn Center
Reporting System. We will be releasing a report on our findings from
that project later this Summer.
CPSC is also working to strengthen or develop voluntary standards
or codes on a variety of other household products that are sometimes
involved in starting fires. Improving the effectiveness of smoke
alarms, including wireless technologies and improved audibility, is
another project on which the CPSC is working. Obviously, the sooner we
can alert residents to the danger of fire in the home, the more quickly
they can escape. This is especially important for the elderly and for
children.
As I noted earlier, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is a
small agency with a big mission. We have an impact well beyond our size
on America's families and the safety of their homes, schools and
playgrounds. In addition to identifying product hazards and developing
standards, CPSC also conducts regular public awareness campaigns to
keep the public informed of potential household hazards from fireworks
safety to pool drownings.
Fire safety is a critical component of this agency's mission. In my
research on these fire hazards, I have intensely learned the human
tragedy and family agony of a child lost to a house fire or a severely
burned infant who isn't yet old enough to understand why he or she is
in pain every day. I can assure the Committee that those pictures are
on my mind as I work on these critical fire issues, and the reduction
of this terrible hazard will continue to be one of my top priorities as
long as I serve as Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Thank you for having this important hearing today, and I look
forward to the opportunity to answer your questions.
Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, the Consumer Product Safety
Act specifically cautions the Commission to allow voluntary
standards to work before proceeding to the promulgation of
mandatory standards. By issuing Advanced Notices of Proposed
Rulemaking for upholstered furniture and mattresses, and
proposing an ANPRM for bedclothes, is the Commission saying
that voluntary fire safety standards for these products are not
sufficiently effective? Is that what the real message is?
Chairman Stratton. Well, that is certainly one of the
messages. You are absolutely correct on the question of
voluntary standards. We have to consider, in every regulatory
process that we have, whether a voluntary standard would be
adequate or not. And I can tell you that, in these matters,
that that determination, if it hasn't been made, I'm confident,
then, when we receive the packages, that that determination
will be made. We don't have anybody out there that I know of,
in the industry or otherwise, or any other stakeholders, that
are suggesting, particularly in regard to furniture and
mattress flammability, that we should resort to voluntary, as
opposed to a mandatory, standard.
Senator Smith. Well, critics of the CPSC's efforts in
developing fire safety standards for upholstered furniture,
mattresses, and bedding, and candles, argue that the Commission
has been considering such standards for nearly two decades, and
that ultimately the CPSC will prolong its efforts and never
move forward toward final standards. Why hasn't the Commission
reached a final rule on these fire safety standards in these
past years?
Chairman Stratton. Mr. Chairman, that's a complex question.
And, as you may know, most of that occurred before I reached
the Commission, and there will be people here testifying on the
second panel that have been with this for that full 20 years.
I'll just say that it's a very complex process. Our process of
promulgating regulations is about double what it is in many
other agencies. We have to go through an ANPR process, an NPR
process, we have to consider voluntary standards, we have to
consider cost-benefit analysis, we have to make sure that there
is a benefit to what we're doing--that's right in our statute;
not everyone has to do that--we have to make sure that
regulations are technically practical. And we have all of these
findings that we have to go through, and we can't just come up
and find that. Here in Congress, you can put in a bill, and you
can make that finding in a bill. We have to have scientific
evidence and studies to do that.
So I suspect that that is some of the reason; and also not
complete consensus about what should be done, certainly in
industry and with other stakeholders. But when I came in, it
appeared to me that there was a possibility to get this done.
And I got with the stakeholders, frankly, in all of these
areas, and I suggested we needed to move forward and it was
time to get together and come to a consensus. And, to their
credit, they are either there or almost there. And when you see
these packages come out in--I hate to commit the staff, but I
expect one of them to be out in October and the other to be out
the 1st of November--when you see them come out, they will have
the final regulations that we're going to consider in them. And
then the last, really, regulatory process--and it sounds easy,
but it takes time--but the last process is to allow comments on
those, and then for the Commission to vote on those. So we will
be that close to getting those regulations done, and I think
it'll be a real milestone when we get those packages out.
Senator Smith. Well, often, in the process of lawmaking,
I've noticed, around here, that one lawmaker's perception of
``the perfect'' ends up being the reason for opposing ``the
good.'' And I don't know that you'll ever get ``perfect.'' I've
never voted on a perfect bill yet. But I've voted on a lot of
good ones. And so I think maybe the goal ought to be ``good,''
and not ``perfect.'' And so, just as a matter of suggestion, I
offer that.
A concern I have for domestic manufacturers of these
things, though, is would they be held to one safety standard,
and people who import to our country to a lesser standard? That
is of concern to me. And my point is just simply this, if
people want to sell to the American consumers, they'd better
meet the standards of American manufacturers--for safety,
quality, everything. And so I'm hoping that whatever standards
you might create, you'll hold foreign and domestic
manufacturers to the same standards.
Chairman Stratton. Mr. Chairman, that is the law, and when
Congress passed this bill, as Senator Hollings was talking
about earlier, they put in a very good system for ensuring that
imports have to meet our standards. Any product that comes into
the U.S. has to meet our standards.
And let me just briefly tell you how well it works. We
really have, sort of, a three-pronged process to make sure that
happens. First of all, everybody in the product chain is
responsible and liable under our statutes. That means the
retailers, the distributors, the importers, and the
manufacturers. So if, for instance, a piece of furniture is
made in China, which, as we know, there is being a lot more
furniture made in China, the retailer, if he sells that piece
of furniture in the United States, and it isn't conforming, he
is just as liable as the manufacturer. And I can assure you,
we're going to look to the retailer in that case, because it's
going to be hard to get to the manufacturer.
The reason this works so well is, because of that rule, you
find a lot of retailers and a lot of importers and shippers
working very hard overseas making sure those products meet the
standard before they come over. So that, to me, was the genius
of the Act, and that's the number-one guard we have against bad
imports.
We have two other safety guards on them. One is, we have
inspectors at all the ports, and we have a Memorandum of
Understanding with Customs where we are now working with
Customs. We have access to their data base, and we are, of
course, interdicting those products when they come in, when
they are nonconforming.
And then, finally, I have made it a point to make it clear
to those countries who are sending exports to the United States
that we believe--and we intend to make sure that those exports
meet our standards. I've been to China twice this year to talk
to, not only the people in Beijing, but also people out in the
provinces, about how they need to meet our safety standards.
That was my sole reason for going. I've been to China a number
of times before, and I, frankly, didn't care to go, but I made
commitments to some of our industries that I would show up
there to impress upon those authorities over there as to how
important it was to meet our safety standards.
So I know that's a long answer to your question, but it's
important to us, and I wanted to make sure you understood--or
the Committee has the benefit of knowing everything that we're
doing.
Senator Smith. That's a good answer, and I appreciate your
going there to send that message.
Two other things, briefly. One of the big issues,
obviously, is the California standards on bedding and burning:
whether it's 60 minutes or 30 minutes. I guess they've settled
on 30 minutes. And would you comment further on the debate over
whether a 30- or a 60-minute burn resistance should be required
if, in fact, the Commission votes to move forward with its new
rules?
Chairman Stratton. Well, it's difficult for me to comment
on that, because I would like to see our scientists' work
before I know that. What our staff does makes a big difference
to me, and when they come out with their package on that, the
1st of October, there will be data in that to tell us. They're
testing that. That's why--one of the reasons it's taking so
long. We are not able to test mattresses at our facility, at
our lab. We have to--there are only seven or eight places in
the country, so we have to get into cahoots somehow with
somebody else to help us test. So they've been testing that. I
expect that to be in the package. I know that there's a pretty
good consensus--well, I won't say there's a consensus, but I
would like to wait before I made my decision on that. I don't
want to prejudge that issue----
Senator Smith. OK.
Chairman Stratton.--before I have to vote on it----
Senator Smith. Fair enough.
Chairman Stratton.--or get a view of it.
Senator Smith. Fair enough.
This is probably a better question, that Senator Hollings
would ask, and, as I turn it over to him, I'm actually
interested in your response to the candle industry contention
that they don't belong in Senator Hollings' bill.
And so, with that, Senator Hollings?
Senator Hollings. Well, they'll have to certainly be
deliberate and consider it with respect to candles in the
churches, because I--just as a practical matter, I just don't
see the requirement on exactly how that candle is supposed to
go over to one side, or not bend, or whatever, any different
than the regular candles that are bought, because the churches
buy the candles in the regular commercial market. And we'll
just have to see. But I'm sure the Commission will look at that
carefully.
Mr. Chairman, your testimony this morning has already made
this hearing a success, in the sense that we're going to get
these rulings out, because as you talk about the different
hearings and the complexities, mind you, you've made a record--
as your testimony shows, you made the finding way back in 1998,
and, thereafter, you made it a top priority. And we've got the
National Academy of Sciences, the NIST study, the Fire
Marshal's study and studies upon studies. So I don't see any
holdup, except it might be some subjective test with respect to
benefit. Is there any question about the benefit to the--the
better producers think it is a benefit. That's why some of them
are already including it there now.
And with respect to the compliance of the imports, we
already have that precedent with the automobiles. All imported
cars have to comply with the American standards. And,
similarly, as you've testified, it'll be with respect to fire-
resistant products.
What about the benefit? Do you see any lack of benefit to
this at all?
Chairman Stratton. Senator, I don't. I'm prejudging what
our packages are going to say, but I think I can say with
pretty----
Senator Hollings. Well, I like the Chairman prejudging.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. Yes, when he prejudges, that usually
happens.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Stratton. Mr. Chairman, you'd like me, because I
like to prejudge a lot. Unfortunately, I have two other
Commissioners that have twice as many votes that I have on
these matters, and so I have to be very cautious. And I haven't
made that point yet, but there are two other Commissioners
involved, and they do get to vote on this. So just let me make
that point.
From what I have seen, I do not see that as a roadblock. I
think there will be a cost-benefit to the regulations that are
proposed this fall.
Senator Hollings. Very good. I appreciate the answers
you've given, and to the questions of our Chairman. The
California standard is there, and they're living with it, and
it's working. There's nothing wrong with adopting that at the
Federal level.
Chairman Stratton. If I may comment on that--and I am
prejudging here a bit, but, since you like that, I guess this
is the place to do it--when they adopted the standard in
California, I took it upon myself to, kind of, shop it around
with everybody I could find to see what they thought about that
standard.
Senator Hollings. Sure.
Chairman Stratton. And, yes, I shopped it at our place, I
shopped it with our staff--and when I say this, this is
informal; this isn't a formal thing--and everybody thought it
was a pretty good standard. So it seemed like it was the right
direction to go.
We, unfortunately, in my view, have not had what I would
consider a really good relationship with the folks in
California. That's not our staff. Our staffs have very good
relationships. They work together all the time, so I'm not
saying our staff hasn't had a good relationship. But I recently
made a trip out there and sat down directly with them to talk
about these issues that we're talking about here today. In
fact, I believe it was 2 weeks ago that I went out there and
talked to the director--the new director of the Consumer
Affairs out there, and the Secretary of State and Consumer
Affairs, who's the Secretary--Cabinet Secretary. And we're
going to get on the same page on a lot of this stuff. We can
work together. They're reasonable people. And from now on,
California is going to be involved in what we're doing, and
we're going to try to get a little more in sync. After all,
that's one of the purposes of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission, and that is to resolve disputes among states when
it comes to these issues. And California's a big state; they're
the 800-pound gorilla. So we are going to have a better working
relationship with them as we go forward.
Senator Hollings. Very good.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Hollings.
And thank you, Mr. Commissioner, we appreciate your
presence here today.
And we'll now call up our second panel, which will consist
of Mr. John Dean, Vice President, National Association of State
Fire Marshals; Mr. Norman Chapman, Executive Vice President,
Inman Mills, from South Carolina; Mr. Andy Counts, the American
Furniture Manufacturers Association--he is the CEO; Mr. Bob
Higgins, President of the National Candle Association, located
here in D.C.; Mr. Al Klancnik--I'm sorry if I mispronounced
that, but Group Vice President of the Serta, Inc. I think I
sleep on a Serta sometimes.
Mr. Dean, we welcome you, and you can lead it off.
STATEMENT JOHN DEAN, VICE PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FIRE MARSHALS
Mr. Dean. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, my name is John Dean. I am the State Fire
Marshal for the State of Maine, and I am before the Committee
today on behalf of the National Association of State Fire
Marshals, NASFM.
NASFM represents the senior-most fire official in each of
the 50 states. We, along with hundreds of Federal, state, and
local fire-service organizations, encourage this Committee and
Congress to give serious consideration to the American Home
Fire Safety Act, Senate Bill 1798. Thank you for this
opportunity.
For as long as I have been a firefighter--and my public-
safety career spans more than three decades--people have died
and been seriously injured in residential fires involving
upholstered furniture, mattresses, bedding, candles, and
cigarettes. In all of those years, no other category of fires
has harmed as many people.
The American Home Fire Safety Act will save lives, prevent
injuries, and protect property and the environment by setting
effective fire safety standards for four of these five
products. Cigarettes are addressed in companion legislation, at
the request of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and other
anti-tobacco groups.
We appreciate all that the affected industries have done to
generate safety tests and standards that attempt to be both
effective and practical. So much of the progress that has been
made is due to their work. We are thankful to Congress for
recognizing the importance of these issues and for working with
us on solutions.
We are encouraged by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission's recent announcement that it intends to move
forward this year with open flame safety requirements for
upholstered furniture and mattresses. But allow me to share
with you a brief history of this issue.
Over 30 years ago, the U.S. Department of Commerce first
issued a finding of need that a flammability standard may be
necessary for upholstered furniture. More than 10 years ago,
NASFM petitioned the Commission to address this hazard, as
well. Nothing happened.
Out of frustration with the slow progress with fire safety
standards for many consumer products, we turned to the news
media and to state legislatures for help. Ultimately, we chose
to work with industry to find solutions.
The American Furniture Manufacturers Association got to
work. Its members and their suppliers recently proposed a
package of standards that holds promise for much safer
products. These standards still must be validated, and they
differ from the upholstered furniture requirements cited in
this Act. But we would be willing to support the industry
proposal if it can be demonstrated scientifically to achieve
the levels of safety, in the real world, that we all agree are
necessary.
The International Sleep Products Association also stepped
up and helped develop mattress-safety test methods cited in the
Act. It's important to note that this is a--there is a
discrepancy between the 30-minute test industry supports and
the 60-minute test cited in the Act. Because of respect for the
industry, we revisited the question of whether a 60-minute test
is necessary and feasible.
The bottom line is that, in the real world, fires are not
detected the moment they are ignited. And even our best-
equipped fire departments cannot always arrive at the scene of
a fire fast enough to save lives. The average American
household can expect about 40 minutes from the point of
ignition to when firefighters are putting water on a fire. In
rural communities, the time typically exceeds 70 minutes. We
need the 60-minute test cited in the legislation, and small
manufacturers have told us that they can meet it.
The mattress producers and we both agree on the importance
of requirements for bedding.
The candle-safety standards cited in the Act were developed
largely by the industry, with input from us and others, through
the ASTM voluntary consensus process. Unlike the furniture and
mattress producers, neither the candle industry nor cigarette
producers want mandatory standards. But neither industry has
moved forward with proposals to implement effective voluntary
standards and to manage products' performance.
In recent years, the progress has been good, but not one
national mandatory standard has come into effect for any of
these products. States have had to step in, and all are doing
something different. We think the states should be free to
protect their citizens, but the Consumer Product Safety
Commission has already ruled that California is not free to set
and enforce their open-flames and mattress fire safety
standards.
My appearance before this Committee today would not be
complete without a word about flame retardants, products that
have recently attracted a great deal of attention. Flame
retardants do help products resist fire and save lives. NASFM
does not believe, however, that the obvious fire safety
benefits of these chemicals justify harm to the environment or
to human health that their usage may cause. We believe that
fire safety must go hand in hand with environmental safety and
human health. These are not simple matters, and there are no
winners here. I can assure you that NASFM will hold all parties
with an interest in fire safety responsible for their actions.
I would like to conclude by saying that we wish that this
legislation were not necessary. But the Commission has consumed
over a decade study in the need for fire safety standards for
upholstered furniture. It is just now looking at open-flame
standards for mattresses and standards for candles. No official
action is underway on bedding standards. This, in spite of the
fact that residential fires involving these products kill more
Americans than any other products within the Commission's
jurisdiction. Regardless of the reasons for lack of action, how
can we justify another lost life? Congressional action is
necessary now to straighten it out. We need your support.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dean follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Dean, Vice President,
National Association of State Fire Marshals
Senator Smith, my name is John Dean. I am the State Fire Marshal
for the State of Maine and am before the Committee today on behalf of
the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM). NASFM
represents the senior most fire official in each of the fifty states.
We, along with hundreds of federal, state and local fire service
organizations, encourage this Committee and Congress to give serious
consideration to the American Home Fire Safety Act Senate Bill 1798.
Thank you for this opportunity.
For as long as I have been a firefighter--and my public safety
career spans more than three decades--people have died and been
seriously injured in residential fires involving upholstered furniture,
mattresses, bedding, candles and cigarettes. In all of those years, no
other category of fires has harmed as many people.
We have done what we can to protect the public from these fires.
Public education and the widespread use of smoke alarms and effective
standards addressing smoldering ignition of mattresses and furniture
are the primary reasons that the number of deaths and injuries has
dropped over the years. We have not been as successful in achieving
widespread installation of residential sprinklers.
We support the American Home Fire Safety Act. It will save lives,
prevent injuries and protect property and the environment by setting
effective fire safety standards for four of these five products.
Cigarettes are addressed in companion legislation at the request of the
Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and other anti-tobacco groups.
We believe that the goal of ``improved public safety'' is reason
enough for this legislation. But we are aware that this legislation
also may be necessary to protect responsible companies from a patchwork
of state requirements, increased litigation, recalls and attacks in the
media. These pressures may or may not be fair, but they are the
inevitable result of not having Federal requirements for manufacturers
to meet.
We are thankful to the Congress for recognizing the importance of
these issues, and for working with us on solutions. In a perfect world,
new regulations--much less new laws--would be unnecessary. Many
companies just make their products safer than what is required. But,
the companies that do so may place themselves at a competitive
disadvantage. At the end of the day, these are all choices.
We are encouraged by the Consumer Product Safety Commission's
recent announcement that it intends to move forward this year with
open-flame fire safety requirements for upholstered furniture and
mattresses. We have great respect for the Commission's technical staff.
Their commitment to safety has never been in question, but allow me to
share with you a brief history of this issue. Over thirty years ago,
the U.S. Department of Commerce first issued a ``Finding of Need'' that
a flammability standard may be necessary for upholstered furniture.
More than 10 years ago, NASFM petitioned the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to address this hazard as well. Nothing happened.
Five years ago, our association chose cooperation over
confrontation. We were frustrated then, as we are now, by the very slow
pace of progress with fire safety standards for many consumer products.
We turned to the news media and to the state legislatures for help. The
American Plastics Council asked that we redirect our efforts. We chose
to work with the Council and other industry groups to find solutions.
We are appreciative of all that the affected industries have done
to generate safety tests and standards that attempt to be both
effective and practical. So much of the progress that has been made is
due to their work.
The American Furniture Manufacturers Association, its members and
their suppliers recently proposed a package of standards that holds
promise for much safer products. These standards must be validated and
may need to be improved. They differ from the upholstered furniture
requirements cited in the American Home Fire Safety Act, and from the
Consumer Product Safety Commission's draft proposal. We stand by the
furniture standards cited in the Act but would be willing to support
the industry proposal if it can be demonstrated scientifically to
achieve the levels of safety in the real world that we all agree are
necessary.
The International Sleep Products Association provided the vision
and leadership necessary to develop the mattress fire safety test
method cited in the Act. The industry favors a test that lasts for 30
minutes. It argues that postponing flashover for 30 minutes is a major
step forward, and that manufacturers--and especially small businesses--
cannot pass a test that lasts for 60 minutes. Because we respect the
industry, we recently revisited the question of whether a 60-minute
test is necessary and feasible.
The bottom line is that we found small mattress producers who have
been meeting the 60-minute standard for most of this year. Certainly,
30 minutes may be better than 5 minutes but it is not enough time in
the real world. In the real world, fires are not detected the moment
they are ignited, people routinely waste precious minutes before
reporting fires, and even our best-equipped fire departments fight
traffic and cannot arrive at the scene of a fire fast enough to save
lives. The average American household can expect about 40 minutes from
the point of ignition to when firefighters are putting water on a fire.
In rural communities, the time typically exceeds 70 minutes. We need
the 60-minute test cited in the legislation, and industry can meet it.
The mattress producers and we both agree on the importance of
requirements for bedding.
The candle safety standards cited in this legislation were
developed largely by the industry with input from us and others through
the American Society for Testing and Materials voluntary consensus
process. The standards are uncontroversial. However, unlike the
furniture and mattress producers, neither the candle industry nor
cigarette producers want mandatory standards. But neither industry has
moved forward with proposals to implement effective voluntary standards
and to manage producers' conformance.
In recent years, the progress has been good, but not one national
mandatory standard has come into effect for any of these products.
States have had to step in. California, New Jersey, New York and
Rhode Island all are doing something different. We think that states
should be free to protect their citizens as they wish, but the Consumer
Product Safety Commission has ruled that California--and we presume
other states--are not free to set and enforce their own open flame
mattress fire standards because the existing Federal mattress standard,
which deals only with cigarette ignition, preempts any states' attempts
to deal with the same product even if they are addressing a different
hazard.
We have never seen so much litigation. The absence of standards
means each manufacturer is out there on its own.
Retailers and wholesalers are at risk, because along with
manufacturers, they are responsible for recalls of dangerous products.
NASFM has just adopted a national, science-based position that any
upholstered chair or mattress with untreated or unshielded flexible
polyurethane foam is too dangerous for sale in the home. No one--
including all of the industries affected here--presented a single fact
contrary to that finding. That statement is now publicly available to
all who are dealing with this matter seriously.
My appearance before the Committee today would not be complete
without a word about flame retardants, products that have recently
attracted a great deal of attention in the Congress, in the
legislatures of a number of states (including that of my native Maine)
and in the media.
As a matter of chemistry, flame retardants work--they help products
resist fire, they save lives. NASFM does not believe, however, that the
obvious fire safety benefits of these chemicals justify harm to the
environment or to human health that their usage may cause. We believe
strongly that fire safety must go hand-in-hand with environmental
safety and human health. But we are not experts in these areas and so
we work directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, World
Health Organization, Society of Toxicology, and environmental and
health authorities in Europe to ensure that all dimensions of health
and safety are not in conflict and receive equal attention.
These are not simple matters and, after so many years of study,
there are no winners here. I can assure you that State Fire Marshals
will hold all parties with an interest in fire safety responsible for
their actions.
Finally, less we forget, American families are at risk. We are well
aware of the political adage, ``It's the economy, stupid.'' But it is
hard to ignore the hundreds of people who continue to die and be
injured in these fires every year. We easily could have flooded this
room with burn survivors and the families of those who died. Their
stories are playing out in state legislatures, in courtrooms and the
media.
I would like to conclude by saying that we wish this legislation
were not necessary. But, the Commission has consumed over a decade
studying the need for fire safety standards for upholstered furniture.
It is just now looking at open flame standards for mattresses and
standards for candles. No official action is underway on bedding
standards. This, in spite of the fact that residential fires involving
these products kill more Americans than any other products within the
Commission's jurisdiction. Regardless of the reasons for lack of
action, how can we justify another lost life? Congressional action is
necessary now to straighten it all out. We need your support. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak before this Committee.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Dean.
And now we'll hear from Mr. Norman Chapman.
STATEMENT OF NORMAN CHAPMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER, INMAN MILLS
Mr. Chapman. Thank you very much. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here.
My name is Norman Chapman, and I am President and COO of
Inman Mills, a textile manufacturer specializing in yarn
spinning and weaving. Inman Mills has been in the textile
business for over a hundred years, and is located in South
Carolina. We currently employ approximately 500 associates.
After back-to-back record years in 1997 and 1998, our company
has been under extreme pressure from imported fabrics and
finished products. Since 2001, we have closed two plants and
laid off over half of our work force.
During these difficult times, we have developed many new
products in many different markets. Innovation and flexibility
is the future of the textile industry. Fire-resistant mattress
ticking and interliners are two products where we have
concentrated much of our effort.
In May 2002, we signed an agreement with McKinnon-Land-
Moran, a North Carolina research and development company, to be
the exclusive manufacturer of Alessandra yarns and fabrics.
These products are sold and distributed by Hanes Industries, a
division of Leggett & Platt. Alessandra is a patented
technology that makes yarns and fabrics resistant to fire.
Fabrics that use this technology retain their strength even
after they have been exposed to open flame. These fabrics may
be used as either interliner barriers or tickings. They keep
fire from penetrating and igniting the highly flammable foam
found inside most mattresses. This is achieved by manufacturing
a Core Spun yarn that uses a combination of fibers.
It is important to emphasize that the Alessandra products
use no chemicals to achieve their fire resistant properties.
Through continued research, we have been able to improve our
Alessandra products and reduce the price to the manufacturer by
over 37 percent. We continue to research ways to improve the
product and reduce cost.
In addition to Alessandra, Inman Mills also manufactures
Fireguard, another well-recognized fire resistant fabric.
Fireguard is patented technologies owned and sold by Springs
Industries. It has been used for many years in mattresses on
Navy ships and submarines. It is also sold in college
dormitories and in hotels where fire safety is of great
concern.
Both technologies are high performance and support the
passing of California's current and former TB 603, Cal 129, and
Boston's IX-11. These fire-resistant fabrics have also passed
the U.S. Navy's FR bedding requirement.
Our company has products that are proven and ready for the
market. We feel further delay will be harmful to both our
industry and the consumer. Many people die unnecessarily each
year in bedding fires.
It is our understanding that the following issues are
important to the mattress industry. Products selected must
reliably support the passage of TB 603 test requirements. FR
products preferably will be compatible with mattress styling,
comfort, white and color, breathable, noiseless, soft, and
provide comfort. Products must be easily incorporated into
manufacturing, invisible to the consumer, inexpensive, and
there can be no loss of durability. Critical mass must exist.
Products must be toxicologically and environmentally safe.
We are pleased to advise that numerous woven and nonwoven
technologies exist today that meet all of these requirements.
According to ISPA's 2002 unit sales of mattress and box-spring
data, the U.S. bedding industry consumes approximately 140
million linear yards of ticking annually. A similar amount of
fire resistant barrier product will be required to meet market
demand. Due to California's AB 603 legislation and an
enforcement date of January 1, 2005, capacity of both fiber and
fabrics are readily available to meet this new market need. The
capacity to produce our products, Alessandra and Fireguard,
alone, could reach 24 million yards, annualized, 6 months from
the time of commitment. Much of this capacity is available now.
Through market studies and information obtained at
California hearings in April 2003, we have determined that 107
million pounds of fire resistant blending fibers were available
by March of 2003, which can provide 174 million linear yards of
90-inch-wide barrier products for annual consumption. Due to
market forces, additional fiber capacity is available today.
We know of 21 producers of finished fire resistant barrier
products who reportedly have achieved passing test results.
Additional names are being added to the list regularly. These
products are on record as part of AB 603 hearings held in April
2003.
We fully support total implementation of the American Home
Fire Safety Act for mattresses, as written, because it will
help substantially reduce residential fire deaths and injuries,
as well as property damage. Further, the standard is based upon
good science and research completed by the National Institute
of Standards and Technology. Our company and our partners have
assisted mattress companies and fire-resistant component
manufacturers in a large number of full-scale independent
laboratory tests. Requirements of TB 603 have, and can be,
continually met.
It is our belief that this legislation provides a
tremendous opportunity to both the consumer and the textile
industry. It offers industry the opportunity to make and sell
innovative products, and gives the consumer safer products.
Innovative products are the future of our industry.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chapman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Norman Chapman, President and Chief Operating
Officer, Inman Mills
Company Structure, Management and Product Description
Good morning. My name is Norman Chapman, President & COO of Inman
Mills, a textile manufacturer specializing in yarn spinning and
weaving. Inman Mills has been in the textile business for over 100
years and is located in South Carolina. We currently employ
approximately 500 associates. After back to back record years in 1997
and 1998, our company has been under extreme pressure from imported
fabrics and finished products. Since 2001 we have closed 2 plants and
laid off over half of our workforce. During these difficult times we
have developed many new products in many different markets. Innovation
and flexibility is the future of the U.S. textile industry. Fire
resistant mattress ticking and interliners are 2 products where we have
concentrated much of our effort. In May of 2002 we signed an agreement
with McKinnon Land Moran, LLC a North Carolina research and development
company to be the exclusive manufacturer of Alessandra yarns and
fabrics. These products are sold and distributed by Hanes Industries, a
division of Leggett & Platt.
Alessandra is patented technology that makes yarns and fabrics
resistant to fire. Fabrics that use this technology retain their
strength even after they have been exposed to open flame. These fabrics
may be used as either interliner barriers or tickings. They keep fire
from penetrating and igniting the highly flammable foam found inside
most mattresses. This is achieved by manufacturing a core spun yarn
that uses a combination of fibers. It is important to emphasize that
the Alessandra products use no chemicals to achieve their fire
resistant properties. Through continued research, we have been able to
improve our Alessandra products and reduce the price to the
manufacturer by over 37 percent. We continue to research ways to
improve the product and reduce cost.
In addition to Alessandra, Inman Mills also manufactures Fireguard
another well recognized fire resistant fabric. Fireguard is patented
technology owned and sold by Springs Industries. It has been used for
many years in mattresses on Navy ships and submarines. It is also sold
in college dormitories and in hotels where fire safety is of great
concern.
Both technologies are high performance and support the passing of
California's current and former TB 603, Cal 129 and Boston's IX-11.
These fire resistant fabrics have also passed the U.S. Navy's FR
bedding requirement NAVSEA PD 1-00 REV D 25 July 2000.
Our company has products that are proven and ready for the market.
We feel further delay will be harmful to both our industry and the
consumer. Many people die unnecessarily each year in bedding fires.
Industry Needs
It is our understanding that the following issues are important to
the mattress industry:
1. Product(s) selected must reliably support the passage of the
current or proposed TB 603 test requirements.
2. FR Products preferably will be compatible with mattress styling
and comfort, white in color, breathable, noiseless, soft, and
provide comfort.
3. The products must be easily incorporated into manufacturing.
4. They must be invisible to the consumer.
5. New products must be inexpensive and have a minimal cost impact
to the consumer.
6. There can be no loss of durability.
7. Critical mass must exist. In other words there must be a variety
of options and ample supply to meet market demands.
8. Products must be toxicologically and environmentally safe.
We are pleased to advise that numerous woven and nonwoven
technologies exist today that meet all of these requirements.
Market Size and Capacity
According to ISPA's 2002 unit sales of mattress and box spring
data, the U.S. Bedding industry consumes approximately 140 million
linear yards of ticking annually. A similar amount of fire resistant
barrier product will be required to meet market demand. Due to
California's AB 603 legislation and enforcement date of January 1, 2005
capacity of both fiber and fabrics are readily available to meet this
new market need.
The capacity to produce Alessandra or Fireguard fabrics alone could
reach 24,000,000 yards annualized 6 months from time of commitment.
Much of this capacity is available now. Inman can expand beyond this if
more capacity is needed.
Availability of Other Fibers and Fabrics
Through market studies and information obtained at the California
hearings in April 2003, we have determined that 107,000,000 lbs of fire
resistant blending fibers were available by 3/1/03, which can provide
174,000,000 lyd/yr of 90'' wide barrier products for annual
consumption. Due to market forces additional fiber capacity is
available today.
Finished Barrier Producers
We know of 21 producers of finished fire resistant barrier products
who reportedly have achieved passing test results. Additional names are
being added to the list each month. These products are on record as
part of the AB 603 hearings held in April 2003.
Validation Studies and Conclusion
We fully support total implementation of The American Home Fire
Safety Act for mattresses as written because it will help substantially
reduce residential fire deaths and injuries as well as property damage.
Further, the standard is based upon good science and research completed
by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
Our company and our partners have assisted mattress companies and
fire resistant component manufacturers in a large number of full-scale
independent laboratory tests. REQUIREMENTS OF TB 603 HAVE AND CAN BE
CONTINUALLY MET.
It is also our belief that this legislation provides a tremendous
opportunity to both the consumer and the textile industry. It offers
industry the opportunity to make and sell innovative products and gives
the consumer safer products. Innovative products are the future of our
industry. If we lose our textile industry, think of all of the great
new products we will not be able to bring to the market.
Thank you.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chapman.
We'll hear now from Mr. Andy Counts, the American Furniture
Manufacturers Association.
STATEMENT OF ANDY COUNTS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN
FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Counts. Good morning. I'm Andy Counts, CEO of AFMA, and
I want to thank you for this opportunity to participate in the
hearing.
We commend Congress for its interest in this vital safety
matter. However, given that CPSC is well on its way to
providing the American public with safer furniture, AFMA
opposes S. 1798. With respect to furniture, the bill embraces a
untested package of requirements developed by California
regulators which they themselves have declined to finalized. It
also removes CPSC from the standards development role that
Congress envisioned, and removes the agency's most important
tools for decisionmaking and public input.
It is no secret that the last several years have been the
most challenging period in the history of domestic furniture
industry. Plants in the Pacific Rim have gained a dominant
share of the furniture marketplace, contributing to the loss of
over 100,000 U.S. furniture jobs, and creating real hardship in
communities like Sumter, South Carolina, Martinsville,
Virginia, and Palatka, Florida. Many of the same regions have
experienced job loss and plant closures in the textile
industry. In weighing approaches to upholstered furniture
flammability, I ask you to consider the continued viability of
domestic furniture facilities and the textile operations that
supply them.
I want to give credit to Chairman Stratton, his fellow
commissioners, and the staff of the Consumer Product Safety
Commission. The Chairman inherited technical challenges and
interest group discord that confounded progress on this matter
for over a decade. He has helped bring together the
stakeholders in pursuit of a workable regulation, and has
achieved a remarkable degree of consensus during his brief
tenure.
We understand the frustrations some have expressed about
the pace of progress on this issue. However, one shouldn't
disregard the technical hurdles entailed in achieving fire
resistance for a product that is typically covered in fabric,
filled with plastics, cellulosics and other cushioning
materials. Add to this the differential performance of the tens
of thousands of upholstery fabrics on the market, and you begin
to grasp the challenge the CPSC has shouldered.
Over the last several years, AFMA has engaged in a
constructive dialogue between industry stakeholders, CPSC
staff, and fire safety advocates. That process has resulted in
a package of flammability requirements that was outlined in the
May 13 letter to Chairman Stratton. This framework has
engendered broad support among key stakeholders as the most
workable and cost-effective solution. I should emphasize that
``cost effective'' does not mean cost free. As a result of this
proposal, consumers will see a noticeable retail up-charge.
AFMA and many of the other parties of this rulemaking
support a 5-second open-flame test for outer fabrics, as
contrasted with the 20-second test referenced in S. 1798. We
believe this test accurately models the risk created by
children playing with matches and lighters. It allows industry
to consistently deliver compliant products, and continues to
provide consumers with a wide array of comfortable and
attractive fabrics.
In recent weeks, round-robin testing involving nine labs,
including the CPSC, confirmed that the 5-second fabric test
reliably predicts performance, and a report on the findings is
now being prepared for the administrative record.
As an alternative to FR treatment of outer fabrics, all
stakeholders have endorsed a compliance option in which flame-
blocking barriers, also called interliners, are layered between
the fabric and cushioning material. No such option is provided
by S. 1798. The interliner option would preserve fabric choice
by allowing the use of outer fabrics which cannot be reliably
FR treated and those for which treatment would compromise
function or consumer appeal.
Taken as a whole, S. 1798 is the most expensive approach
yet proposed for upholstered furniture flammability. As the
Committee is aware, the reduction of flammability risk in the
most cost-effective manner is part of the mandate that Congress
provided the CPSC. It is also critical to the success of a
flammability regulation for upholstered furniture.
The replacement of the Nation's furniture stock with more
fire-resistant constructions will take place over several
generations, even at current prices. Price distortions imposed
by careless regulation could deter consumer purchases of new
furniture, and, thereby, have a counterproductive effect. S.
1798 would circumvent important provisions of the Consumer
Product Safety Act and related statutes. These statutory
provisions were established by Congress to provide for fairness
and transparency in the regulatory process and to ensure that
regulation is accomplished in the manner least disruptive to
the consumer marketplace. AFMA believes that adoption of S.
1798 would set an unfortunate precedent for administrative law.
The CPSC is well on its way to providing the American
public with safer furniture, and we respectfully recommend that
Congress allow that process to proceed.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Counts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andy S. Counts, Chief Executive Officer,
American Furniture Manufacturers Association (AFMA)
Introduction
Good Morning. I am Andy Counts, the Chief Executive Officer of the
American Furniture Manufacturers Association (AFMA). I want to thank
the Members and staff of the Committee for the opportunity to
participate in today's hearing.
One of my priorities for the association is to identify
opportunities to advance standards for environmental responsibility,
workplace safety and product stewardship. I believe you will be pleased
to hear of the substantial progress that AFMA, working with CPSC and
the other stakeholders here today, has made toward establishing a
Federal flammability regulation for upholstered furniture.
We commend Congress for its interest in this vital safety matter.
However, given that CPSC is well on its way to providing the American
public with safer furniture, AFMA opposes S. 1798. The bill embraces an
untested package of requirements developed by California regulators,
which they themselves have declined to finalize. It also removes CPSC
from the standards development role that Congress envisioned for the
agency, and blocks the use of some of its most important tools for
decisionmaking and public input.
Industry Profile
AFMA companies participate in a highly competitive market
characterized by ever-changing style preferences, margin pressure from
retailers, and the tendency of consumers to postpone big-ticket
purchases if their perceptions of value and function are not met.
It is no secret that the last several years have been the most
challenging period in the history of the domestic furniture industry.
Plants in the Pacific Rim have gained a dominant share of the furniture
marketplace, contributing to the loss of 100,000 U.S. furniture jobs
and creating real hardship in communities like Sumter, South Carolina;
Martinsville, Virginia; and Palatka, Florida. Many of the same regions
have experienced job loss and plant closures in the textile industry.
In weighing approaches to upholstered furniture flammability, I ask you
to consider the continued viability of domestic furniture facilities
and the textile operations that supply them with fabrics.
History of the Furniture Flammability Project
I want to give credit to Chairman Stratton, his fellow
Commissioners and the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The Chairman inherited technical challenges and interest group discord
that confounded progress on this matter for a number of years. He has
helped bring together the stakeholders in pursuit of a workable
regulation, and has achieved a remarkable degree of consensus during a
relatively brief tenure. It is our understanding that a package
regulating both the cigarette and small open flame performance of
upholstered furniture could be published this Fall.
We can certainly understand the frustration some have expressed
about the pace of progress on upholstered furniture flammability. One
should not disregard, however, the technical hurdles entailed in
achieving fire resistance for a product that is typically covered in
fabric and filled with plastics, cellulosics and other cushioning
materials. Add to this the differential performance of the tens of
thousands of upholstery fabrics on the market, and the synergy between
fabrics and filling materials and you begin to grasp the challenge CPSC
has shouldered.
Previous approaches to this risk tended to single out individual
components for regulatory attention. The 1993 petition of the National
Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) identified polyurethane foam
as the most significant potential fuel source. However, subsequent
testing demonstrated that modification of foam does not by itself
meaningfully improve open flame performance. In its 1997 Briefing
Package, CPSC staff originally relied solely on fire retardant (FR)
treatment of outer fabrics, reasoning that minimizing ignition at the
outset avoided the complexities and expense of measuring progressive
involvement of other components. However, evidence about the
variability in performance of some treated fabrics, along with concerns
about consumer acceptance and FR toxicity, led the agency to provide an
alternative compliance option involving fire-blocking interliners, a
positive development discussed in greater detail below.
Consensus Surrounding the Present Approach
At present, most interested persons recognize that upholstered
furniture fires represent a synergy between fabric, foam and other
cushioning materials. This consensus laid the groundwork for a
constructive dialogue between producers of furniture, fabrics, fiber,
polyurethane foam and flame retardant materials, assisted by input from
CPSC staff, testing labs and fire safety advocates. That process
resulted in a package of flammability requirements for furniture that
were outlined in a May 13 letter from AFMA to Chairman Stratton. The
elements of this proposal are summarized below.
1. For upholstery fabrics, the 5-second open flame fabric test
utilizing the Technical Bulletin 117 test apparatus, as
proposed by the Fabric Coalition. Non-passing fabrics or those
for which FR treatment is not desired could be utilized atop an
open flame barrier. CPSC is currently working to identify an
appropriate test for such barriers.
2. For all foam (any type) used in upholstered furniture, the
cigarette and open flame requirements contained in the proposed
revision to California Technical Bulletin 117 (``TB-117+'').
3. For all non-foam cushion core materials used in upholstered
furniture, the cigarette and open flame requirements of TB-117+
or a comparable test method.
4. For non-foam seat cushion wrapping or topper materials, the
requirements of the BS 5852 Source 2 Test for Non-Foam Filling
Materials.
5. For any cotton batting used in upholstered furniture, the ASTM E
1353 test with maximum smolder length criteria specified by
UFAC.
6. For all non-foam materials used in arm constructions, the filling
and padding test of ASTM E 1353 with the maximum smolder length
criteria specified by UFAC.
This framework has engendered broad support among the key
stakeholders. Earlier this week, a letter endorsing it was delivered to
Chairman Stratton, signed by representatives of the National Textile
Association, the Polyurethane Foam Association, the Upholstered
Furniture Action Council, the Decorative Fabrics Association, the
Coalition of Converters of Decorative Fabrics and the American Fire
Safety Alliance, among others. These organizations are convinced the
framework represents a cost-effective, risk-based approach to the most
likely ignition scenarios for both small open flame and cigarettes.
I should emphasize that cost-effective doesn't mean cost-free.
Price increases are expected for reformulated foam and chemically
backcoated fabrics, along with some loss of aesthetics from the
replacement of siliconized cushion wraps and toppers with less
flammable alternatives. Suppliers of both upholstery fabrics and
cushioning will incur R&D and testing expenses as they revamp their
products to pass the proposed flammability tests, and to do so using
safe and appropriate chemicals. As a result of these changes, consumers
will see a noticeable retail upcharge. Even higher costs are
foreseeable for products using flame-blocking barriers beneath
untreated fabrics.
At this point, I would like to briefly describe some of the
important elements of our proposal, and how they differ from what is
proposed in S. 1798. While comparison is made more difficult by the
draft status of the requirements embodied in the bill, I am basing my
assessment on the best interpretations of those requirements by
technical authorities in government and the private sector.
The Open Flame Test for Fabrics
AFMA and many of the other parties to this rulemaking support a 5-
second open flame test for outer fabrics, as contrasted with the 20-
second test referenced in S. 1798. We believe this test accurately
models the risk created by children playing with matches and lighters,
and allows industry to continue to provide consumers with an array of
comfortable and attractive fabrics.
The 5-second fabric test was originally developed by researchers
from the textile industry. It utilizes a familiar testing apparatus
currently used to perform testing of upholstery fabrics under
California Technical Bulletin 117. The one-second ignition time
employed in TB-117 testing has been extended to five seconds to better
model the phenomenon of child fireplay. Textile industry researchers
have found that the great majority of current upholstery fabrics fail
this test, but that most can be modified through yarn substitution and
chemical backcoating to achieve sufficient flame resistance. Under this
test, each fabric SKU marketed as upholstery would be tested ten times
and evaluated for non-ignition or self-extinguishment. Fabrics could
also pass by demonstrating a relatively slow rate of burn (the five-
inch test sample could not be consumed in less than 30 seconds).
In recent weeks, round robin testing involving nine labs (including
CPSC) confirmed that the fabric test reliably predicts fabric
performance, and a report on the findings is now being prepared for the
administrative record. We are confident that the greater ignition
resistance of fabrics meeting the proposed requirement will work in
concert with the recommended changes to foam and other cushioning
material to provide Americans with significantly safer furniture.
It is our view that the 20-second flame test referenced in S. 1798
is unrealistically long. CPSC concluded in 1997 that ``many young
children would not be expected to hold a flame source in one place for
more than several seconds.'' \1\ This is understandable, given the
agency's finding that most small open flame fires originate on the top
of horizontal upholstery cushions or near the crevice between the
horizontal and vertical cushions. One need not be a fire scientist to
recognize the difficulty of holding a match or lighter for 20 seconds
while attempting to direct its flame downward onto a horizontal
surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Regulatory Options
Briefing Package on Upholstered Furniture Flammability October 28,
1997, p. 38 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, textile scientists have found it impossible to
reliably achieve resistance to such a sustained ignition source without
jeopardizing the qualities that make upholstery appealing. A 20-second
requirement in the United Kingdom has resulted in a diminished range of
fabric choices, along with poor ``hand'' and ``boardiness.'' The editor
of a U.K. trade publication said of the fabrics at a 1996 trade show:
It makes me sad to think that so few of these exquisite weaves
and prints will ever reach the U.K. market, mainly because of
our stringent fire retardancy regulations. A number of mills
commented that although they would like to export more to the
U.K., the application of FR backings would ruin the special
feel and texture of the fabric. . . .\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Felicity Murray, Cabinet Maker, Miller Freeman Publishers, May
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tradeoff between the ignition resistance and marketability of
fabrics is illustrated in a chart developed by David Pettey, Director
of Product Development for Quaker Fabrics, presented at a March 1, 2004
public meeting of the CPSC.
Clearly, as the ignition source progresses from the 5-second test
recommended by the majority of stakeholders to the 20-second standard
embodied in the pending legislation, the aesthetics and fabric variety
demanded by consumers would be sacrificed.
Still, the most important reason for not establishing a 20-second
test requirement for upholstery fabrics is the simple fact that such a
standard cannot be reliably met. The United Kingdom represents to its
citizens that upholstery fabrics marketed in that nation pass a 20-
second open flame test. Nonetheless, researchers, journalists and even
British enforcement authorities have documented compliance levels with
that requirement at barely 50 percent.\3\ Dr. Kurt Reimann, a research
manager at BASF, tested a representative sample of 31 fabrics
backcoated and BS5852 certified by an accredited laboratory in the U.K.
Seventeen of these failed subsequent small open flame testing. Some of
these required multiple treatments in order to pass, and many exhibited
a mixture of passing and failing results.\4\ AFMA believes that
consumer protection is better served by a more sensible fabric
requirement which enjoys high compliance levels than a more stringent-
sounding standard that is observed largely in the breach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Andrew Kidd, ``More than 50 percent of Sofa Beds Failed to Pass
Fire Safety Regulations,'' Cabinet Maker, January 31, 1997.
Derbyshire County Council, Company Fined Over Fire Retardant
Claims, August 13, 2001.
News Wales, Buyers Risking Lives for a Bargain, April 28, 2004.
Janet L. Brady, A Study of the Effects of FR Backcoating on
Selected Upholstery Fabrics, Philadelphia College of Textiles, June 16,
1999.
\4\ Janet L. Brady, A Study of the Effects of FR Backcoating on
Selected Upholstery Fabrics, Philadelphia College of Textiles, June 16,
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flame-Blocking Barriers
As an alternative to FR treatment of outer fabrics, all
stakeholders that we are aware of have endorsed a compliance option in
which flame-blocking barriers (also called interliners) are layered
between the fabric and cushioning material. No such option is provided
by S. 1798.
Barriers would be particularly critical at the upper levels of the
market, where yarn substitution or chemical backcoating might conflict
with customer preferences. The goal of such constructions is not
primarily to prevent ignition of the outer fabric, but to limit the
progression of fires into internal components such as polyurethane foam
and polyester batting. Barrier materials are already used in the United
Kingdom, as an alternative to the 20-second fabric test just discussed.
Under our proposal, barriers would be qualified using an ignition
source meant to model the effect of burning outer fabric. While
barriers currently represent a more costly option than backcoating, a
national regulation could give rise to economies of scale that bring
such materials into wider use.
The interliner option would advance public safety while providing
furniture manufacturers with compliance flexibility. It would preserve
fabric choice by allowing the use of outer fabrics which cannot be
reliably FR treated, and those for which treatment would compromise
function or consumer appeal. This option would also deal more sensibly
with limited run fabrics and customer's own merchandize (COM's), for
which valuable quantities of fabric would otherwise be consumed by
testing. Furniture manufacturers and consumers especially concerned
about chemical content would have access to flame resistant product
which contains no chemical flame retardants. This could be advantageous
in markets where consumer preference, labeling initiatives or
regulations discourage the use of flame retardants.
Unfortunately, the draft California standard referenced by S. 1798
does not provide a workable interliner option. To use untreated
fabrics, a manufacturer would have to conduct composite testing of the
fabric, batting, bagging, foam and other materials in each of the
potentially thousands of combinations they bring to market. Composite
testing is expensive and dangerous, requiring sophisticated measurement
and pollution abatement equipment. It is also directly at odds with
achieving cost-effective product and high levels of compliance.\5\ One
flammability expert has noted the unworkability of such tests for
monitoring the compliance of furniture with safety standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See CPSC Briefing Package (2001), p. 50, indicating that the
agency chose component over composite testing to avoid ``imposing
unreasonable technical or cost burdens.''
[A test] may be highly sophisticated technically and require
special facilities and instrumentation. As a consequence it can
generally only be performed in a limited number of
installations and . . .used only for research purposes. It is
usually not practical to require such elaborate testing for all
possible combinations of filling and fabric materials. For any
regulatory purpose, such as the requirement of certification
for compliance, it is vital that a quality control test be
available that . . .does not require highly trained personnel
or elaborate equipment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Dr. Herman Stone, Overview of the Combustibility and Testing of
Filling Materials and Fabrics for Upholstered Furniture, July 1998.
The absence of an interliner alternative and the need to conduct
composite testing for all SKU's of product using untreated fabric is a
central flaw of the California approach embodied in S. 1798.
Cost-Effectiveness
The unrealistically stringent test methods and the burden of
composite testing render S. 1798 the most expensive approach yet
proposed for residential upholstered furniture. As the Committee is
aware, the reduction of flammability risks in the most cost-effective
and least disruptive manner is part of the mandate that Congress
provided to CPSC.\7\ It is also critical to the success of a
flammability regulation for upholstered furniture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 15 U.S.C. 1193 (j) (2) (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved furniture will only provide additional fire safety if it
reaches peoples' homes, particularly those at greatest risk of
residential fire. Furniture is unlike toys, disposable lighters and
other products which enjoy a rapid turnover in stock. There are
approximately 400 million units of upholstered furniture currently in
use in this country, and the average product life is between 15-17
years.\8\ New upholstered furniture represents a discretionary purchase
for most U.S. consumers. As shown in the chart below, median income
households replace sofas and loveseats at a rate of 3.6 percent
annually. This figure drops to 2.5 percent among households with annual
incomes under $20,000.\9\ The replacement of the Nation's furniture
stock with more fire-resistant constructions will take place over
several generations, even at present prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. CPSC, Briefing Package on Upholstered Furniture
Flammability, October 2001, p. 50.
\9\ Dr. Mark Berkman, Assessing the Need for a Federal Upholstered
Furniture Flammability Standard, National Economic Research Associates
(NERA), February 16, 2001, p. 32.
Source: ``Consumer Buying Trends,'' Furniture Today, February 16,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.
Price distortions imposed by careless regulation could deter
consumer purchases of new furniture and thereby have a
counterproductive effect. Our suppliers indicate that the reformulated
and chemically treated components required by S. 1798 would result in a
retail upcharge of approximately $100 per chair, and perhaps $145 per
sofa. High testing costs would be layered onto these amounts.
Policymakers can best promote the interest of consumers by choosing the
most practical and cost-effective approach to furniture flammability.
Most of the stakeholders present today believe that the AFMA proposal
represents that path.
The Bill Would Eliminate Decisionmaking Criteria and Transparency
S. 1798 would make inapplicable important provisions of the
Consumer Product Safety Act and related statutes. Specifically, no
assessment of the resulting standard's costs or benefits would be
allowed. The agency would also be blocked from considering the impact
of the regulation on the availability of products, or whether less
burdensome or more effective alternatives are available. Significantly,
the opportunity for interested parties to be heard on the advantages
and disadvantages of the standard would be eliminated.
These statutory provisions were established by Congress to provide
for fairness and transparency in the regulatory process, and to ensure
that regulation is accomplished in the manner least disruptive to the
consumer marketplace. AFMA believes that adoption of S. 1798 would set
an unfortunate precedent for administrative law.
Conclusion
CPSC is well on its way to providing the American public with safer
furniture, and we respectfully recommend that Congress allow that
process to proceed. We do encourage you to provide the agency with
appropriate oversight and sufficient funding to carry out that task.
Related to that point, please recognize that a flammability
standard for upholstered furniture, when finalized, will be the most
expansive safety standard ever promulgated by CPSC. Hundreds of million
of upholstered units will be affected, and many of these will originate
in foreign factories. The effectiveness of such a standard will rest
with the ability of Federal authorities to enforce it. We urge Congress
to provide CPSC and Customs authorities with resources sufficient to
fairly and effectively monitor the compliance of upholstered furniture
with any regulation that is imposed.
______
Biography of Andy S. Counts
Andy Counts is Chief Executive Officer of the American Furniture
Manufacturers Association (AFMA), the Nation's largest trade
association for furniture manufacturers and suppliers. Formerly AFMA's
Vice President of Environmental and Technical Affairs, Mr. Counts has
been instrumental in the development of consensus-based environmental
regulations and product safety standards that impact the furniture
industry. He has testified before state and Federal policymaking
bodies, including the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Prior to joining AFMA, Andy served as a Project Engineer with
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. in Charlotte, NC; as a Plant Engineer with kitchen
cabinet manufacturer Merillat Industries; and as a Senior Environmental
Engineer with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
Andy has a degree in Industrial Engineering from the Georgia
Institute of Technology. He is a Member of the North Carolina Furniture
Export Council; a Board member of the International Woodworking Fair; a
Past Member of the High Point Market Authority; and President of the
Georgia Tech Alumni Association.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
Bob Higgins, President, National Candle Association.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT HIGGINS, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL CANDLE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Higgins. Good morning. My name is Bob Higgins. I'm Vice
President of Manufacturing and Logistics with Candle-lite, in
Cincinnati, Ohio. Today, I'm speaking as President of the NCA,
the National Candle Association.
The NCA is a major trade association of U.S. candle
manufacturers and their suppliers. It consists of nearly 200
member companies, accounting for more than 90 percent of all
candles manufactured in the U.S. I want to emphasize that the
NCA is deeply committed to reducing candle fires, and strongly
supports any legislation that helps to decrease residential
fires and their devastating effects.
The NCA has been actively involved in addressing consumer
fire safety issues since 1997, when a growing number of candle
fires led the CPSC to ask our help in developing standards on
candle fire safety. The result was the ASTM F-15.45
Subcommittee on Candle Products. The candle industry, CPSC
staff, and the fire community have all been actively involved.
The NCA takes pride in the ASTM candle standard developed
to date. NCA's commitment to move forward as rapidly as
possible has propelled the publication of three groundbreaking
ASTM candle safety standards in only 25 months. A fourth
standard dealing with the candle test methods was published
earlier this year. A fifth standard dealing with candle
accessories is under development.
By far, the most technically advanced of the ASTM candle
standards is PS 59-02, which addresses the control of flame
height, stability, end-of-useful life, and secondary ignition.
To make PS 59-02 a mandatory CPSC standard would set back
efforts to improve candle fire safety.
By statute, the CPSC may issue a mandatory standard only
when it finds that a voluntary standard has not adequately
reduced injury or death, or when substantial compliance with a
voluntary standard is absent. Neither of these conditions exist
in the candle industry. Our members have consistently
demonstrated their support for, and compliance with, the ASTM
candle standards. PS 59-02 is no exception.
Working with ASTM, the candle industry has recently revised
and broadened PS 59-02 to now include virtually all types of
candles in its end-of-useful-life requirements. A final
standard is anticipated in December.
Voluntary standards continually evolve. Mandatory standards
are essentially frozen in time. ASTM standards are regularly
reviewed and updated, ensuring that the latest technologies are
adopted. By comparison, to change a mandatory CPSC standard
would require complex and lengthy procedures under the Consumer
Product Safety Act.
Candles are safe products when used correctly, but
educating consumers is the key to reducing candle fires.
Approximately 85 percent of all candle fires occur when
consumers leave lighted candles unattended, place candles too
close to combustibles, or place candles within the reach of
children or pets. This finding prompted the development of the
ASTM candle labeling standard, and underscored the tremendous
importance of educating consumers about candle fire safety.
That's why the NCA aggressively distributes candle safety
materials to consumers through the media, our Website, our
members, industry groups, retailers, and cooperating
organizations around the country.
The NCA strongly believes that neither candles nor candle
fire safety standards belong in S. 1798. The purpose of this
bill is to reduce the flammability of candles, mattresses,
bedclothing, and upholstered furniture. A candle constitutes a
source of ignition. It is an open flame. Mattresses,
bedclothing, and upholstered furniture are items that can be
ignited by a flame. This distinction between an ignition source
and an ignited item is important. If the purpose of S. 1798 is
to reduce the flammability of items ignited in household fires,
then candles clearly do not belong in the bill. If the purpose
is to improve the fire safety of ignition sources, then stoves,
ovens, heaters, furnaces, fireplaces, chimneys, clothes dryers,
and cigarettes, all of which cause more residential fires than
candles, should be included. Candles constitute but 4 percent
of all residential fires.
In conclusion, the U.S. candle industry has been steadfast
in its commitment to improving candle safety, to developing
voluntary ASTM standards, to complying with those standards,
and to educating consumers. The NCA is committed to the intent
of this legislation and to reducing residential fires.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify, and respectfully
request that language regarding candles and candle standards be
removed from S. 1798.
I thank you for allowing me to be here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Higgins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Higgins, President,
National Candle Association
I. Introduction
Good morning. My name is Robert Higgins. I am Vice President of
Manufacturing and Logistics with Candle-Lite, Inc., one of the largest
candle manufacturers in North America. Candle-Lite is owned by
Lancaster Colony Corporation, a publicly traded company headquartered
in Columbus, Ohio.
I am speaking today on behalf of the National Candle Association as
its President.
II. The National Candle Association
The National Candle Association (``NCA'') is the major trade
association representing U.S. candle manufacturers and their suppliers.
Founded 30 years ago, the NCA today consists of nearly 200 member
companies, accounting for more than 90 percent of all candles
manufactured in the United States. NCA's leadership and technical
expertise in all aspects of candlemaking is well established and widely
recognized.
The popularity of candles soared dramatically with American
consumers during the 1990s. Candle sales reached their historical high
at the close of the decade, and have remained relatively steady since
that time. U.S. retail sales of candles are currently estimated at $2
billion annually.
Data from industry and independent market research firms indicate
that candle sales in the United States increased more than 700 percent
from 1990 to 1999. In turn, candle-related residential fires increased
275 percent.
It was the growing number of candle fires that led the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1997 to ask our help in forming a
subcommittee under ASTM to develop consensus standards for addressing
the fire safety of candles. The result was the ASTM F-15.45
Subcommittee on Candle Products.
The National Candle Association takes exceptional pride in the ASTM
candle safety standards that have been developed to date. NCA's
commitment to move forward as rapidly as possible, and the contribution
of its members' technical know-how and innovation, allowed the
publication of three groundbreaking safety standards in a record 25
months. A fourth candle standard dealing with a manufacturer test
method was published earlier this year. A fifth standard dealing with
the fire safety of candle accessories is currently under development.
The active participation and contribution of the CPSC staff and
representatives of the fire community in developing these standards has
helped to ensure that both the fire science and consumer behavior
components of candle safety have been effectively addressed.
In the process of developing these standards, we have gained
considerable knowledge about the technological and practical
opportunities and limitations for reducing the incidence of residential
candle fires. It is in this context that we today address the proposed
American Home Fire Safety Act (S. 1798).
III. The Value of Voluntary Standards
S. 1798 calls for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to
issue a mandatory candle fire-safety standard that is ``substantially
the same'' as the voluntary ASTM Provisional Standard PS 59-02.
Section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act provides that the CPSC
may issue a mandatory standard only when it finds that a voluntary
standard has not adequately reduced the addressed risk of injury or
death, or when substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is
absent. NCA strongly believes that neither of these conditions exists.
Our members have consistently demonstrated their support for and
compliance with the ASTM candle standards, and PS 59-02 is no
exception. Its technically advanced specifications for controlling the
flame height, stability, end of useful life and secondary ignition
factors are playing a significant role in reducing candle-related
residential fires.
The Committee should be aware that the PS 59-02 standard cited in
this legislation was the initial candle-fire safety standard developed
by the ASTM F15-45 subcommittee and rushed into effect as a provisional
standard to speed its adoption and acceptance by the candle industry.
Since then, the ASTM Subcommittee has improved and broadened the
standard by adding end-of-useful life provisions for freestanding
candles, tea lights and votives. The balloting period has just closed
on these broadened revisions and we anticipate the standard will become
final in December of 2004, at which time the standard's provisional
``PS 59-02'' nomenclature will be dropped and a new number and prefix
designation assigned.
The addition of these new provisions underscores the value of a
voluntary consensus standard and the severe drawbacks of a mandatory
standard. Recognized standards bodies, such as ASTM and ANSI, require
regular review and updating of voluntary standards to ensure that the
latest technologies and improvements are continually adopted and put
into effect.
If ASTM 59-02 were to become a mandatory standard, its fire-safety
specifications would essentially be frozen in time. The automatic
updating and expansion of a standard that occurs with recognized
standards bodies would be effectively lost.
To incorporate into a mandatory CPSC standard any future technical
advances or fire-safety measures would necessitate undergoing the
relatively complex and lengthy procedures required to amend a mandatory
standard under the Consumer Product Safety Act. This would constitute a
giant and needless step backward in the industry's continuing effort to
improve candle-fire safety.
Turning the ASTM candle fire-safety standard into a mandated
standard would effect absolutely no positive change in candle fire
safety, but would likely obstruct the future addition of technological
advances or expansions of the standard's current provisions.
IV. Consumer Education Is Key to Reducing Candle Fires
Despite the importance of fire science and standards in reducing
the incidence of residential fires, the NCA strongly believes that the
real key to candle-fire safety lies with consumer education. Candles
are safe products when used correctly. It is consumer misuse and
inattention to basic fire-safety precautions that leads to candle
fires.
When the ASTM Subcommittee on Candle Products was first formed, the
CPSC presented NFIRS data indicating that 85 percent of all candle
fires were due to consumers leaving lighted candles unattended, placing
candles too close to combustibles, and placing candles within the reach
of children or pets.
These findings prompted the subcommittee to develop ASTM F-2058,
the cautionary labeling standard. In effect since November of 2000, it
requires candles to have a consumer warning label setting forth these
three critical fire-safety rules.
Unfortunately, no product label or safety standard, whether
voluntary or mandatory, can overcome the fact that the vast majority of
candle fires are due to consumer inattention and carelessness.
Educating consumers as to the proper method for burning candles, and
increasing their awareness of candle fire safety precautions, are
critical requisitions for reducing candle fires.
The National Candle Association has worked diligently in educating
consumers about the need for vigilance when burning candles. We have
created and promoted literature stressing the importance of candle fire
safety. We disseminate this literature to consumers through our
members, non-member industry groups and retailers, as well as through
fire, safety and consumer organizations around the country.
Our website is recognized for its outstanding candle safety
information, and the media regularly directs consumers to
www.candles.org for important safety advice. We have contacted national
and regional fire groups, restaurant associations, hotel associations,
retailers and others, providing them with information on the ASTM
candle fire safety standards and encouraging them to join us in
promoting candle fire safety. Currently we are working on a pilot
project in North Carolina aimed at getting our candle safety message to
school children and their parents in cooperation with the Office of the
State Fire Marshal and Safe Kids chapters in the state.
To reach as many consumers as possible, NCA regularly issues press
releases and feature stories on candle safety to radio, television
print and the electronic media. In addition, we produce and annually
distribute a television Video News Release on the importance of fire
safety when using candles.
V. Candles Do Not Belong in S. 1798
The National Candle Association strongly believes the neither
candles nor candle fire-safety standards belong in S. 1798.
The stated purpose of the bill is to develop standards ``to reduce
the flammability of candles, mattresses, bed clothing and upholstered
furniture.'' A burning candle is a source of ignition, an open flame.
Mattresses, bed clothing and upholstered furniture are items that can
be ignited by a flame. This distinction between an ignition source and
an ignited item is important.
If the purpose of S. 1798 is to reduce the flammability of items
ignited frequently in household fires, then candles clearly do not
belong in the legislation.
If the purpose of this legislation is to improve the fire safety of
ignition sources, then stoves and ovens, heaters and furnaces,
fireplaces and chimneys, cigarettes, and clothes dryers--all of which
cause more residential fires than candles--should be included.
The ASTM standard for candle-fire safety is the most technically
advanced in the world. Turning it into a mandated standard would effect
absolutely no positive change in candle fire safety, and would thwart
our ongoing efforts to expand and improve it.
Industry has consistently demonstrated its support for, and
compliance with, the ASTM candle standards, and we believe they are
playing a significant role in reducing candle-related residential
fires.
The NCA requests that references to candles and candle fire-safety
standards be eliminated from S. 1798.
VI. Conclusion
The NCA has been diligent and resolute in its efforts to improve
candle fire safety. We believe we have made notable progress addressing
the fire science component of candle-fire safety through our active
participation in the ASTM standards development process.
We are especially proud of our role in the development of PS 59-02,
and its innovative technical specifications for controlling the flame
height, stability, end of useful life and the secondary ignition of
candles. When the latest revisions are added and the standard becomes
final in a few months, it will provide the industry with the most
advanced and comprehensive means of addressing candle fire safety from
the standpoint of combustion control.
Through dedication and innovation, the U.S. candle industry has
harnessed the candle flame in ways that were unthinkable just a decade
ago. Yet these technological feats will be of minimal value unless we
can make significant inroads in educating consumers about the need for
caution and vigilance when burning candles.
As the voice of the U.S. candle industry, the NCA has been
steadfast in its commitment to improving candle fire safety, not only
through its active participation in the development of voluntary
standards, and compliance with those standards, but in its ongoing
consumer education and media outreach activities, its cooperative
endeavors with fire and safety organizations, and its efforts to
involve the entire U.S. candle industry and customers in a commitment
to candle fire safety. The NCA requests that references to candles and
candle fire-safety standards be eliminated from S. 1798.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on this
important subject. Thank you for your attention.
______
National Candle Association--ASTM Standards for Candles
F 1972-99 Standard Guide for Terminology Relating to Candles and
Associated Accessory Items
Defines the key terms associated with candles to ensure universal
understanding of related standards.
F 2058-00 Standard Specification for Cautionary Labeling for Candles
Burned in A Home
Sets forth the minimum wording, typestyle and design requirements for
the warning label that is to be placed on candles. The standard
addresses the three most common causes of accidental candle fires:
Keep burning candle within sight
Keep out of reach of children and pets
Never on or near anything that can catch fire
F 2179-02 Standard Specification for Annealed Soda-Lime-Silicate
Glass Containers that are Produced for Use as Candle Containers
Developed to address concerns over candle fires caused by broken or
shattered glass containers, this standard requires that glass
containers for candle use be:
Properly annealed--pass a scratch test without fractures or,
for transparent glass, has a real temper <4 using a
polariscope.
Able to withstand a 90º F thermal shock differential.
F 2326-04 Standard Test Method for Collection and Analysis of
Visible Emissions from Candles As They Burn
Establishes a test method for collecting and analyzing visible
emissions when comparing the smoking and burn behavior of certain
candle designs and formulations. Does not provide pass/fail criteria
PS 59-02* Provisional Specification for Fire Safety for Candles
Sets fire prevention measures for the manufacture and design of
candles. Currently a provisional standard, anticipated requirements of
the final standard are listed below.
Maximum flame height on candles shall not exceed 3.0 inches
(church candles = 3.75'').
A candle placed on an incline of 10 degrees shall not tip
over.
A candle shall not support ignition at points other than the
intended wick or wicks.
When a free-standing, tealight, votive or container candle
reaches the end of its useful life:
--the candle must not exhibit excessive flame height,
--the candle must not exhibit secondary ignition,
--the flame must go out.
--if a container candle, the container shall not break,
Fire Safety Specifications and Test Methods for Candle Accessories
(Under Development)
Intended to ensure that a candle flame will not ignite a candle
accessory to initiate a larger fire. Includes flammability test methods
and pass/fail criteria. Also includes stability requirements.
______
Residential Candle Fires increased by 275 percent from 1990-1999
There were 5,450 candle fires reported in 1990 and 15,040 candle fires
in 1999.
Source: NFIRS/NFPA
U.S. Candle Sales increased more than 700 percent from 1990-1999
Candle sales rose from an estimated $300 million in 1990 to $2.2
billion in 1999.
Source: 1990-1994 Industry estimates: 1995-1999 Mintel (all
figures exclude candle accessories)
Candle Wax made in the U.S. or imported increased 410 percent from
1990-1999.
Source: Compiled from Department of Commerce, ``Wax Data and
Industry surveys.''
Consumer inattention and misuse of candles account for 85 percent of
all residential candle fires.
Source: 1997 CPSC Analysis of 1993-1994 NFIRS data for ASTM F-
15.45 Subcommittee as reported in ASTM Standardization News,
March 2003. Subsequent NFIRS data have shown no substantial
changes in the reported causes of candle fires.
______
ASTM Candle Fire Safety Task Group
4/14/03
Geoffrey Faires
The Dial Corp.
George Pappas Sr.
Lumi-Lite Candle Co.
Dave Buri
S.C. Johnson, Inc.
John Witham
Candle-Lite, Inc.
Robert Harrington
Blyth Industries, Inc.
Evelyn Bicknese (IGCA Representative)
Bicknese & Bicknese, Inc.
Richard Signorelli
Belmay, Inc.
Ed Calcote
Shell Global Solutions, US
Jim Becker
Candle Solutions
Robert Weitzel
Green Township Fire Chief
Christy Wheeler
Atkins & Pearce, Inc.
William Comber
Libbey Glass
John Tedeschi
Bath & Body Works
John Baker
Pier 1
Robert Moss
FTI-SEA Consulting
Mark Gerwitz
Bureau Veritas Consumer Products & Services
Jim Hoebel
Consultant
Tom Acklin (for AFIA)
Autograph Foliages
Allyson Tenney
CPSC
Valerie Cooper
NCA
David Morrison
Penreco
Charles D. Moses
Arizona Chemical Company
Dan Muller
Jackel International, Inc.
Walter Smittle
Retired WV State Fire Marshal
______
Specification for Fire Safety for Candles \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This specification is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee
F15 on Consumer Products and is the direct responsibility of
Subcommittee F15.45 on Candle Products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document is not an ASTM standard; it is under consideration
within an ASTM technical committee but has not received all approvals
required to become an ASTM standard. It shall not be reproduced or
circulated or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of ASTM Committee
activities except with the approval of the Chairman of the Committee
having jurisdiction and the President of the Society. Copyright ASTM,
100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. All Rights
Reserved.
1. Scope
1.1 This specification is intended to prescribe requirements for
certain candles to provide a reasonable degree of safety for normal
use, thereby improving personal safety and reducing fires, deaths, and
injuries.
1.2 This specification is not intended to replace other important
safety practices that should be in place, such as adult supervision,
close monitoring, fire detection, alarm or suppression systems, and use
of candles away from combustible materials.
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the
standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety
concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of
the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health
practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements
prior to use.
1.5 Flame-producing devices, such as candles, present a potential
hazard to the user. This standard cannot eliminate all hazards but will
minimize the potential hazards of candles to the user.
1.6 This standard measures and describes the response of materials,
products or assemblies to heat and flame under controlled conditions,
but does not by itself incorporate all factors required for fire hazard
or fire risk assessment of the materials, products or assemblies under
actual fire conditions.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website,
www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at [email protected]. For
Annual Book of ASTM Standards volume information, refer to the
standard's Document Summary page on the ASTM website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E 176 Terminology of Fire Standards
F 400 Consumer Safety Specification for Lighters
F 1972 Guide for Terminology Relating to Candles and Associated
Accessory Items
3. Terminology
3.1 Certain candle-related terminology is addressed in Guide F
1972, and the reader is directed to that standard for definitions not
found in 3.2. For definitions of terms associated with fire issues, see
E 176 Terminology of Fire Standards.
3.2 Definitions:
3.2.1 Altar candle, n--candle that is constructed, packaged, and
labeled as an ``Altar'' candle.
3.2.1.1 Discussion--The candle is used in a place of worship in
close proximity to the altar during the religious service or ceremony.
3.2.2 base material, n--intended fuel source for candle flame.
3.2.3 birthday candle, n--candle whose sole purpose is to be used
on a birthday cake.
3.2.4 candle flashover, n--condition in which the base material's
vapors ignite over the entire fuel pool.
3.2.5 Easter, Paschal, Sacramental candle, n--candle that is
constructed, packaged, and labeled as an ``Easter,'' ``Paschal,'' or
``Sacramental'' candle (or some combination of these names, for
example, ``Easter/Paschal''), generally 43.2 cm (17.0 in.) or more in
length.
3.2.5.1 Discussion--The candle shall be displayed and burned in the
place of worship as the focal candle during Easter or with the
celebration of various sacraments. The candle is adorned with symbols
and ornamentation as required and deemed appropriate.
3.2.6 end of useful life, n--when the candle ceases to support
combustion and the candle flame(s) goes (go) out on its own, as
designed, and cannot be relit.
3.2.7 ensemble, n--candle and items physically packaged together
and intended for use with the candle for sale as one unit at the retail
level.
3.2.8 fuel pool, n--pool of molten base material.
3.2.9 place of worship, n--any building that functions primarily as
a group meeting place for the practice of religion.
3.2 9.1 Discussion--This includes, but is not limited to, churches,
synagogues, cathedrals, temples, and meeting halls.
3.2.10 secondary ignition, n--self-sustained flame other than that
on the intended wick(s) that occurs during candle use, including candle
flashover.
3.2.11 self-sustained flame, n--flame that continues to burn until
the fuel source is removed or depleted or requires manual
extinguishing.
4. Safety Requirements
4.1 Safety Requirements for Flame Height--This safety requirement
does not pertain to candles intended to be burned outdoors.
4.1.1 Rationale
4.1.1.1 Candle flame heights are burn characteristics that shall be
monitored closely by manufacturers, consumers, retailers, and anyone
associated with the distribution and use of candles.
4.1.1.2 Excessive candle flame heights can increase the risk of
fires when using candle products.
4.1.1.3 The 76.2-mm (3.0-in.) maximum allowable flame height
requirement for all candles excluding ``Easter,'' ``Paschal,''
``Sacramental,'' ``Altar,'' and outdoor candles is, in part, based on
the established requirement for nonadjustable, non-windproof lighters
contained in Consumer Safety Specification F 400, taking into account
certain differences in measurement methods and other candle performance
considerations not relevant to fire safety. In addition, candle flame
heights are not static. The natural tendency of a candle is for the
flame height to vary during the burn life. The maximum allowable flame
height requirement in this specification takes into account such
variation and anticipates that manufacturers will design candles to
ensure that they remain below the maximum flame height requirement
throughout the burning period. Furthermore, the manufacturer shall
determine the appropriate lower flame height for optimum performance
for individual candle types.
4.1.1.4 The 95.3-mm (3.75-in.) maximum allowable flame height
requirement for ``Easter,'' ``Paschal,'' ``Sacramental,'' and ``Altar''
candles is larger than other candles because visibility of the flame
during services at the place of worship warrants slightly larger flame
heights.
4.1.2 Performance Requirement
4.1.2.1 Candle flame heights (other than those of ``Easter,''
``Paschal,'' ``Sacramental,'' ``Altar,'' and outdoor candles), when
tested in accordance with the test method in 5.2, shall not exceed 76.2
mm (3.0 in.). If at any time during the testing period the flame height
exceeds 76.2 mm (3.0 in.), extinguish that candle and record it as a
failure.
4.1.2.2 ``Easter,'' ``Paschal,'' ``Sacramental,'' and ``Altar''
candle flame heights, when tested in accordance with the test method in
5.2, shall not exceed 95.3 mm (3.75 in.). If at any time during the
testing period the flame height exceeds 95.3 mm (3.75 in.), extinguish
that candle and record it as a failure.
4.1.2.3 For filled candles, if at any time during the testing
period, regardless of flame height, the container cracks or breaks, it
shall be recorded as a failure.
4.2 Safety Requirements for Secondary Ignition--This safety
requirement applies to all candles and ensembles with the exception of
``Easter,'' ``Paschal,'' and ``Sacramental'' candles specifically
designed to be used during the service at the place of worship.
4.2.1 Rationale
4.2.1.1 Potential hazards associated with secondary ignition
sources in and on candles exist, especially if the candle is not
designed properly. The ignition of material other than the intended
wick(s) may result in damaged candles, elevated fuel pool temperatures,
excessively rapid base material consumption, and unintended flames. All
of these conditions could lead to potential fire hazards.
4.2.1.2 This requirement describes the method to determine the
tendency of candles to support ignition at points other than the
intended wick(s) that are integrated into the candles to enable them to
burn.
4.2.2 Performance Requirement
4.2.2.1 When the candle is tested in accordance with 5.2 of this
specification, no secondary ignition shall occur.
4.2.2.2 Record the candle as passing the secondary ignition
specification if no secondary ignition is observed during the testing.
4.3 Safety Requirements for End of Useful Life--This requirement
applies to all votive, freestanding, and filled (including tealights)
candles and to all ensembles containing tealights. This requirement
does not apply to candles requiring a holder to keep them upright,
birthday candles, and candles intended to float on water.
4.3.1 Rationale--When the candle meets the safety requirements for
the end of useful life, this will reduce the risk of fires.
4.3.2 Performance Requirement
4.3.2.1 Record votive and filled (including tealights) candles or
tealight ensembles as passing the end of useful life requirement when
tested in accordance with the test method in 5.2 if the candle or
tealight ensemble meets the definition in 3.2.6 and does not break or
crack the container, does not exhibit excessive flame height, and does
not exhibit secondary ignition as detailed in this specification.
4.3.2.2 Record the freestanding candle as passing the end of useful
life requirement when tested in accordance with the test method in 5.2
if the candle meets the definition in 3.2.6 and the flame does not
impinge on the supporting surface, does not exhibit excessive flame
height, and does not exhibit secondary ignition as detailed in this
specification.
NOTE 1--The use of current processes or devices that limit the
candle +s ability to consume all of the available fuel is offered as a
way to reduce candle fires that occur at the end of the candle +s life.
This does not preclude the development of other suitable means to meet
the requirements set forth in 4.3. This reduces heat buildup at the end
of life and the possibility of secondary ignition, candle flashover,
and container failure. While it is understood that current processes
and devices will not guarantee that all fuel will not be consumed, the
anticipated benefit in reducing candle fires warrants their
consideration for use.
4.4 Safety Requirements for Stability--This safety requirement is
intended to cover freestanding candles that are normally used without
the aid of a holding device to keep them upright, filled candles
(including tealights), and ensembles. Candles requiring a holder to
keep them upright and votive candles are excluded unless incorporated
in an ensemble. ``Easter,'' ``Paschal,'' ``Sacramental,'' and ``Altar''
candles, specifically designed for use during the service at the place
of worship, are also excluded from the requirements of this section.
4.4.1 Rationale--This requirement is intended to minimize the
hazards of candle tip over.
4.4.2 Performance Requirement
4.4.2.1 Candles specified in 4.4 must not tip over when placed on a
minimum 10.0+ incline when tested in accordance with 5.3 in this
specification.
4.4.2.2 Asymmetrical candles shall pass this requirement if they do
not tip over when rotated around the candle's vertical axis and tested
on the incline apparatus in all orientations.
5. Test Methods
5.1 Candle fire safety issues to be monitored by these test methods
include flame height, secondary ignition, safety requirements for end
of useful life, and stability.
5.2 Candle Burning Performance Test
5.2.1 Summary of Test Method--Candle wicks are trimmed in
accordance with the label's instructions. If no information is provided
on the label, the wicks are not trimmed for this test. All candles
except tealights, tealight ensembles, and gel-containing candles are
lit and allowed to burn for 4 h with periodic observation. Gel candles
and candles containing any gel materials shall be lit and allowed to
burn for 8 h with periodic observation. This procedure is repeated
until the end of the candle's useful life. For tealights and tealight
ensembles, the candles are lit and allowed to burn to their end of
useful life with periodic observation. Flame heights are observed at
specified intervals and recorded at the end of each burn cycle. Flame
heights shall be measured and recorded in millimetres (inches).
5.2.2 Apparatus
5.2.2.1 Nonflammable measuring device graduated in millimetres
(inches);
5.2.2.2 Candle holder/glass (if applicable);
5.2.2.3 Lighter, matches, or other source of ignition;
5.2.2.4 Test surface level, noncombustible; and
5.2.2.5 Wick-trimming device.
5.2.3 Safety Hazards
Warning: There is an inherent risk of working with and around open
flames.
5.2.3.1 Appropriate personal protective equipment must be used and
safe work practices must be followed.
5.2.3.2 Fire suppression equipment capable of mitigating fires
associated with candle fire safety testing must be readily available
during testing.
5.2.4 Procedure
5.2.4.1 Remove all wrapping. Remove label(s) in accordance with
label instructions before initiating the burn test.
5.2.4.2 The burn test area shall be environmentally controlled to
20 to 30 +C (68 to 86 +F) with minimal disturbance of the flames of the
candles under test. Drafts affect flame heights and shall be minimized.
5.2.4.3 Place candles with the wicks in a straight/upright
position. When appropriate, place candles in a holder and trim wicks in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
5.2.4.4 Place candles at least 20 cm (7.87 in.) apart, measured
sidewall to sidewall, on test surface.
5.2.4.5 Light candles and avoid contaminating them with carbon or
debris from the ignition source. Burn tealight candles and tealight
ensembles to their end of useful life; burn gel candles and any candles
containing gel materials for 8 h; burn all other candles for 4 h.
5.2.4.6 Make visual observations after initial lighting and at
least hourly intervals throughout the entire burn duration. If a flame
height appears to approach the maximum allowable flame height, measure
and record the flame height and the time of occurrence.
5.2.4.7 Measure and record flame height at the end of the specified
burn cycle. For candles whose intended product life is less than 8 h,
measure and record the flame height a minimum of two times before the
end of useful life. Measure flame with a nonflammable measuring device.
Carefully place the measuring device as close as possible behind the
flame without disturbing the flame. Allow flame to stabilize. Hold the
measuring device in place for 5 s and record a maximum value
(undisturbed flame). Measure the flame height from bottom of flame arc
to the flame tip (see FIG 1).
5.2.4.8 At the end of burn cycle, extinguish the candle and allow
to cool.
5.2.4.9 Repeat 5.2.4.2-5.2.4.8 until the end of candle life.
5.2.5 Calculation of Results
5.2.5.1 Record any failure for maximum flame height.
5.2.5.2 Record any occurrence of secondary ignition.
5.2.5.3 Record any candle that does not pass the safety
requirements at end of useful life in accordance with 4.3 of this
specification.
5.2.5.4 Record any occurrence of container breakage or cracking.
5.2.6 Precision and Bias--No information is presented about either
the precision or bias for measuring the flame height, secondary
ignition, or safety requirements for end of useful life since the test
results are nonquantitative.
5.3 Stability Test Method
5.3.1 Summary of Test Method--Candles shall be placed on a minimum
10.0+ incline to determine if they remain in a stable, upright position
without tipping over.
5.3.2 Apparatus--An incline plane, either fixed or adjustable,
capable of achieving a minimum of 10.0+ from level. The plane may need
a stop to help prevent the candle from slipping during this test. When
a stop is used, its maximum height shall not exceed 6.4 mm (0.25 in.)
so as not to affect the test results.
5.3.3 Procedure
5.3.3.1 Preparation of Samples--Remove all wrapping. Remove label
material when instructed by the manufacturer and prepare the candle or
ensemble, or both, for use.
5.3.3.2 Place the prepared, unlit candle or assembled ensemble on
an incline apparatus in the orientation most likely to cause tipping at
a minimum of 10.0+ from level. The tested candle or assembled ensemble
or both shall remain stable and not fall over. Rotation around the
candle's vertical axis will be necessary to determine the stability of
an asymmetrical candle.
5.3.4 Calculation of Results--Record any stability failures.
5.3.5 Precision and Bias--No information is presented about either
the precision or bias of the measurement of stability since the test
results are nonquantitative.
NOTE 2--More stringent testing of test methods contained within
this specification is permissible if, when testing identical specimens,
a test using alternate apparatus or procedures yields failing results
as often as, or more often than, a test using the apparatus and
procedures specified in this specification.
6. Keywords
6.1 candles; end of useful life; fire safety testing; flame height;
gel; secondary ignition; stability; tealight
APPENDIX
(Nonmandatory Information)
X.1. GEL-CONTAINING CANDLES
X1.1 Gel candles have been involved in a number of candle fires as
reported by various government agencies. In addition, several product
recalls involving gel candles have been issued. Limited testing of
experimental candles conducted by the Candle Fire Safety Task Group did
not reproduce the candle flashover effect associated with reported gel-
based candle failures. Further testing is planned to attempt to
identify the causal factors in candle flashover and other gel-based
candle failures. If necessary, the specification will be revised to
reflect the outcome of this testing.
X1.2 In an attempt to identify specific characteristics associated
with gel-based candle failures, the burn interval for gel-containing
candles in the Candle Burning Performance Test has been increased to 8
h from the requisite 4 h in the specification.
X2.3 It is highly recommended that gel candles be extensively
tested to try to identify any potential problems with the products. It
is also highly recommended that candle manufacturers consult and work
closely with the gel material suppliers as they develop these products.
______
National Candle Association
Washington, DC, May 5, 2004
Office of the Secretary,
Consumer Product Safety Commission,
Washington, DC.
``Petition CP 04-1/HP 04-1, Petition for Fire Safety Standards for
Candles and Candle Accessories''
The National Candle Association (NCA) submits the following
comments in response to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) request for comments on the petition from the National
Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) requesting the CPSC to issue
mandatory fire safety standards for candles and candle accessories
(Petition No. CP 04-1/HP 04-1, 69 FR 18059, April 6, 2004).
The NCA is the major trade association for the U.S. candle
industry. We are recognized as the North American technical experts on
candle manufacturing and formulation. Our member's account for more
than 90 percent of the candles manufactured in the United States. Our
members include both manufacturers and suppliers.
Because of NCA's leadership in the industry, and its technical
expertise in candle manufacturing, the CPSC in 1997 asked NCA to help
form a candle products subcommittee under the Consumer Products
Committee of the ASTM standards organization. Through the efforts of
this ASTM F-15.45 subcommittee, the current voluntary consensus
standards regarding candle fire safety have been developed and continue
to be expanded. Both NCA and CPSC have actively participated in the
subcommittee's consensus deliberations, with representatives from a
variety of fire and safety organizations and other interested parties.
Section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C.
2056, provides that the Commission may issue a mandatory standard only
when it finds there is not a voluntary standard that adequately reduces
the addressed risk of injury or death, or when substantial compliance
with the voluntary standard is absent. NCA strongly believes that the
voluntary consensus standards that have been and continue to be
developed, for candle product fire safety under ASTM F-15.45, have been
effective in reducing candle-fire risks, and that such standards will
continue to help reduce the risk of such fires.
Further, we believe that the CPSC staff concurs with NCA in this
matter, given the recommendation of the Office of Hazard Identification
and Reduction and the concurrence of the Office of the General Counsel
that CPSC's involvement in this issue has been so extensive that it is
not necessary for the Commission to seek public comment on the NASFM
petition.
Adequacy of Voluntary Industry Standards
In proposing that the Commission adopt a mandatory standard for
candle fire safety, NASFM implies that the voluntary standards are
inadequate. Because the voluntary standard's provisions are relatively
new and the standard is being expanded, it is too early to make the
judgment that the voluntary standard will not be effective. Our efforts
an the efforts o all candle manufacturers to educate the marketplace is
still underway.
NASFM also requests that four additional provisions be incorporated
into the mandatory standard. Ongoing activities of the ASTM F-15.45
subcommittee are covering these requests. For all intents and purposes,
the additional provisions requested by NASFM have already been
addressed, either through revisions and inclusions to the PS 59-02
standard, which is currently being readied for balloting, or through
the standards drafting procedure, or consensus of the subcommittee.
Specifically, end-of-useful-life requirements for freestanding, tea
light and votive candles have been incorporated into the latest
revision of PS 59-02; inclusion of tapers in this requirement is not
technically possible or economically feasible at this time.
Flammability performance requirements for candle accessories and
candleholders are being drafted as a new standard by the F-15.45
subcommittee. Stability requirements for tapers and votives packaged
with holders as ensembles are also included in the latest revisions of
PS 59-02.
The NASFM request for a provision regarding the miscibility and
flash points of gel candles addresses fire-safety concerns already
achieved by the voluntary candle fire-safety standard. PS 59-02
addresses key fire-safety specifications that can in some way be
controlled through manufacturing procedures--flame height, stability,
end of useful life, and secondary ignition. These specifications apply
to candles regardless of their fuel type--paraffin, soy, beeswax, gels,
synthetic waxes, palm wax, etc., or blends of these fuels. In this
sense, adding a gel candle-specific provision is redundant, and would
inappropriately interject very narrow (and likely anti-competitive)
formulation requirements into what is designed to be a universally
applicable performance standard. Moreover, adding narrow formulation
specifications for one particular type of candle wax would require
adding parallel prescriptive specifications for all types and blends of
candle waxes, a virtually impossible undertaking involving thousands of
possible combinations.
Negative Safety Impact of a Mandatory Standard
Ironically, NASFM's petition for a mandatory standard addressing
candle product fire safety would likely impede the improvement of
candle-fire safety technology and designs. The promulgation of a
mandatory standard would serve to freeze in time any technical advances
or innovations in candle product fire safety because of the relatively
complex and lengthy procedures required to amend a mandatory standard
under the Consumer Product Safety Act.
The value of voluntary industry consensus standards, as developed
through recognized standards development bodies such as ASTM, ANSI,
ISO, etc., is that they are continually improved through required
revision and update procedures. This allows new technologies and
innovations to be incorporated into applicable standards on a timely
basis. Indeed, the evolving and progressive nature of voluntary
consensus standards is what led to the most recent revision of PS 59-02
and its inclusion of the additional provisions contemplated by NASFM.
To issue a mandatory standard for the fire safety of candle
products at this time would thwart the efforts of both industry and the
CPSC to effectively and expediently address candle fire-safety issues
with standards that include the best available technology. Over the
past few years, the necessary ``critical mass'' of personnel and
technical expertise has come together in the existing voluntary
standards proceedings to allow for rapid expansion and continued
refinement of the voluntary standards for candles. It would be
premature to halt this synergistic activity until the results of these
efforts are complete and have time to work on the market place.
Candle Industry in Compliance
NASFM alleges that the candle industry is not in compliance with
the ASTM standards, and that it has made no effort to encourage
compliance with the ASTM standards. These allegations are inaccurate
and unfounded.
The NCA's commitment to product excellence and the safe and proper
use of candles is at the foundation of its aggressive efforts to
establish and participate in the ASTM F-15.45 subcommittee. Members in
good standing of the National Candle Association pledge to manufacture
candles and candle products in accordance with recognized industry
standards and practices. Since NCA members account for approximately 90
percent of the candles manufactured in the U.S., this alone constitutes
more than substantial compliance by the industry with the ASTM
standards.
Further, NCA takes its responsibility and leadership role in the
candle industry very seriously. We have undertaken aggressive efforts
to educate member and non-member candle manufacturers, suppliers and
retailers--as well as large-scale user groups--regarding the ASTM
standards and the importance of candle fire safety. Our retailer
members, as well as major non-member retailers and mass purchasers,
specify the ASTM standards in their procurement and supply contracts.
Consumer Education Is Key to Reducing Candle Fires
Candles are safe products when used correctly. It is consumer
misuse and inattention to basic fire-safety precautions that leads to
candle fires. When the ASTM F-15.45 subcommittee was first formed, the
CPSC presented data from the National Fire Incident Reporting System
indicating that 85 percent of all candle fires were due to consumers
leaving lighted candles unattended, placing candles too close to
combustibles, or placing them within the reach of children and pets.
These findings prompted the subcommittee to first address the need to
warn consumers of these dangers, resulting in the ASTM F2058 cautionary
labeling standard.
However, no product safety standard--whether voluntary or
mandatory--can significantly impact the majority of candle fires due to
consumer inattention or carelessness. Only the education of consumers
as to the proper burning of candles and observance of candle fire
safety rules can have an impact in reducing these candle fires.
The NCA has worked tirelessly and aggressively to educate consumers
on the paramount importance of fire safety precautions when using
candles. We have created and promoted literature stressing the
importance of candle fire safety. We disseminate this literature to
consumers through our members, non-member industry groups, retailers,
and through fire, safety and consumer organizations around the country.
Our website is well recognized for its outstanding candle safety
information, and the media regularly directs consumers to the site for
important safety advice.
We have contacted national and regional fire groups, restaurant
associations, hotel associations, retailers and others, providing them
with information on the ASTM candle fire safety standards and
encouraging them to join us in promoting candle fire safety. Currently
we are working with fire and consumer groups to get our candle safety
messages disseminated through the schools to students and their
families.
To reach as many consumers as possible, NCA regularly issues press
releases and feature stories on candle safety to radio, television,
print and the electronic media. In addition, we produce and annually
distribute to television stations around the country a holiday season
Video News Release on the importance of fire safety when using candles.
As the voice of the U.S. candle industry, the NCA has been
steadfast in its commitment to improving candle fire safety, not only
through its active participation in the development of voluntary
standards, and compliance with those standards, but in its ongoing
consumer education and media outreach activities, its cooperative
endeavors with fire and safety organizations, and its efforts to
involve the entire U.S. candle industry and customers in a commitment
to candle fire safety.
The NCA objects to NASFM's petition for a mandatory candle product
fire safety standard. There is no evidence to suggest that the CPSC
should reject its mandate to rely on voluntary industry standards, and
instead promulgate a mandatory one. The continued involvement of the
industry in the development of voluntary candle product fire safety
standards remains in the best interest of both the U.S. consumer and
the candle industry.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Higgins,
NCA President.
______
NCA Standards & Education Outreach
...................................
-------------------------------Publishers-------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffery Woldt Lesley Castle
Vice President/Editorial Director Publisher
Chain Drug Review National Fire & Rescue
220 Fifth Avenue 5808 Faringdon Place
New York, NY 10001 Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27609-3930
PJ. Lamont
Executive Director
CandleLighters
307 C Richmond Road
Suite 210
Ottawa, ON K1Z 6X3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Related Organizations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Rotondi Marko Bourne
Publisher Executive Assistant
Gifts &Decorative Accessories U.S. Fire Administration
360 Park Avenue South FEMA
New York, NY 10010 500 C Street, SW
Washington, DC 20472
PCortez Lawrence Robert Neale
Division Director Training Specialist
National Fire Administration National Fire Programs Division
16828 S. Seton Avenue U.S. Fire Administration
Emmitsburg, MD 21727 16825 S. Seton Avenue
Emmitsburg, MD 21727
Chief Adele Chiesa Kirby Kiefer
National Fire Data Center Deputy Superintendent
U.S. Fire Administration National Fire Academy
16825 S. Seton Avenue U.S. Fire Administration
Emmitsburg, MD 21727 16825 S. Seton Avenue
Emmitsburg, MD 21727
Christine Branche Kevin Klein
Director--Div. Of Unintentional Coloroado State Fire Chiefs'
Injury Prevention Association
National Center for Injury Executive Director
Prevention & Control 1221 Pearl Street
CDC Boulder, CO 80302
4770 Buford Highway, NE
Mailstop K63
Atlanta, GA 30341
Heather Schaefer Bob Waller
National Volunteer Fire Council International Consumer & Product
Executive Director Safety Organization
1050 17th St., NW President
Washington, DC 20036-5503 PO Box 1785
Germantown, MD 20875-1785
David Paulison Scott Adams
U.S. Fire Administration First Vice President
16825 South Seton Avenue International Fire Marshals Assoc.
Emmitsburg, MD 21727 c/o NFPA
1 Batterymarch Park
Quincy, MA 02169
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Marshals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Robinson Ray Carnahan
Alabama Arkansas/Office of Fire Marshal,
Fire Marshal State Police
Insurance Dept.135 S. Union Street Commander
Room 140 PO Box 5901
Montgomery, AL 36130-3352 Little Rock, AR 72215
Ronny Coleman Paul Cooke
California Colorado/Dept of Public Safety
Fire Marshal Director of Fire Safety
7171 Bowling Drive 700 Kipling Street
Suite 600 Lakewood, CO 80215
Sacramento, CA 95823
Willard Preston Donald Goff
Deleware Hillsborough County Fire Rescue
Fire Marshal President
Fire Service Center 3210 S. 78th St
1537 Chestnut Grove Road Tampa, FL 33619
Dover, DE 19904-9610
Chief William Dryburgh Attilo Leonardi
Southeastern Div/Punta Gorda Hawaii (Chair of State Fire
Chief Council)
601 Shreve St, C-61 State Fire Council Administrator
Punta Gorda, FL 33950 3375 Kaopaka Street, H425
Honolulu, HI 98180
Mark Larson Tracy Flaherty
Idaho The Amercan Society of Safety
State Fire Marshal Engineers
Dept of Insurance Executive Director
700 W. State Street, 3rd Floor Customer Service
Boise, ID 83720 1800 E. Oakton Street
Des Plaines, IL 60018
Gale Haag Vincent Bella
Kansas Louisiana
Fire Marshal Fire Marshal
700 SW Jackson Dept of Public Safety
Suite 600 PO Box 94304
Topeka, KS 66603-3714 Baton Rouge, LA 70804
William Barnard John C. Dean
Maryland Maine
State Fire Marshal State Fire Marshal
Off. Of the State Fire Marshal Dept of Public Safety
300 East Joppa Road 52 State House Station
Suite 1002 Augusta, ME 04333-0052
Towson, MD 21286-3020
Mark Dougovito Thomas Brace
Michigan Minnesota
Fire Marshal Fire Marshal
Dept of State Police 444 Cedar Street
7150 Harris Drive Suite 100M
Lansing, MI 48913 St. Paul, MN 55101-2149
Chief Rob Brown Terry Phillips
Missouri Valley Div./Boone County Montana
Fire Fire Marshal
President Fire Prevention & Investigation
Boone County Fire District Bur.
2201 I-70 Drive NW Dept of Justice
Columbia, MO 65202 PO Box 20147
Helena, MT 59601
Raymond Lambert Donald Bliss
North Dakota New Hampshire
Fire Marshal Fire Marshal
General Office Div. Of Safety Services
PO Box 1054 10 Hazen Drive
Bismarck, ND 58502 Concord, NH 03305
Larry Wood George Chavez
New Jersey State Fire Chiefs New Mexico
Association Fire Marshal
President State Corp. Comm.
91-1/2 Ravine Avenue PO Box 1269
West Caldwell, NJ 07006 Sante Fe, NM 87505
Jerry Keating Lt. Al Bragg
Nevada Fire Chiefs Association Akron Fire Department
Fire Marshal Fire Marshal
575 E. Flamingo Road 161 Massillon Road
Las Vegas, NV 89119 Akron, OH 44312
Randy Sellnow Tom Ratcliff
Great Lakes Division The Ohio Dept. of Commerce
Internation Association Fire Cheifs Fire Administrator
President Division of State Fire Marshal
PO Box 397 8895 East Main Street
Huron, OH 44839 Reynoldsburg, OH 43068
Robert Garrison Daniel Dillard
Oregon Burn Prevention Foundation
Fire Marshal Executive Director
State Police 5000 Tilghman
4760 Portland Road, NE Suite 215
Salem, OR 97305-1760 Allentown, PA 18104
Irving Owens Allen Christie
Rhode Island South Dakota
Fire Marshal State Fire Marshal
Div. Of State Fire Marshal SD Dept. of Public Safety
272 W. Exchange Street 118 W. Capitol Avenue
Providence, RI 02903-1025 Pierre, SD 57501-2017
Chief Lynn Bizzell Gary Wise
Southwestern/Round Rock Fire Dept. Fire Marshal
President Utah State Fire Marshal's Office
City Hall 221 East Main Street 5272 South College Drive, Suite 302
Round Rock, TX 78664 Murray, UT 84123
Joe Scarlett Robert Howe
International Mass Retail Vermont/Fire Prevention Division
Association Chief Fire Prevention Officer
Chairman & CEO Dept. of Labor and Industry
1700 North Moore Street National Life Building
Suite 2250 Drawer 20
Arlington, VA 22209 Montpelier, VT 05620
Carolyn Kelly Jim Noel
Wisconsin Wyoming
Fire Marshal Fire Marshal
Div. Of Criminal Investigation Fire Prevention & Electrical Safety
Dept. of Justice, 123 W. Herschuler Bldg., 1st Floor, W
Washington, 7th Floor 122 W. 25th Street
PO Box 7857 Cheyenne, WY 82002
Madison, WI 53703
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Associations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kac'e McDowell John Dunlap III
Executive Director President & CEO
Alaska CHARR California Restaurant Association
1111 E 80th Avenue, Suite 3 1011 10th Street
Anchorage, AK 99518-3304 Sacramento, CA 95814-3501
Simon Flynn Carol Dover
President & CEO President & CEO
Connecticut Restaurant Association Florida Restaurant Association
731 Hebron Avenue PO Box 1779
Glastonbury, CT 06033-2457 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1779
Michele Van Hessen John Livengood
President President & CEO
Hawaii Restaurant Association Restaurant & Hospitality
1164 Bishop Street Association of Indiana
Suite 601 200 S Meridian Street
Honolulu, HI 96813-2810 Suite 350
Indianapolis, IN 46225-1055
Stacy Roof Dick Grotton
President & CEO President & CEO
The Kentucky Restaurant Association Maine Restaurant Association
133 Evergreen Road, Suite 201 PO Box 5060
Louisville, KY 40243 August, ME 04332-5060
Peter Christie, CAE Mike Chashion
President & CEO Executive Director
Massachusetts Restaurant Mississippi Restaurant Association
Association 4506 Office Park Drive
333 Turnpike Road Jackson, MS 39206-6016
Southborough Techlology Park, Suite
102
Southborough, MA 01772-1755
Brad Griffin Paul Hartgen
MTRA Execuitve Director President & CEO
Montana Restaurant Association New Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant
1537 Avenue D, Suite 320 Association.
Billings, MT 59102 PO Box 1175
Concord, NH 03302-1175
John Byrne Paul Stone
President President & CEO
New Jersey Restaurant Association North Carolina Restaurant
126 W. State Street Association
Trenton, NJ 08608-1102 204 W. Millbrook Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-4304
Shannon Moed Tom Sponseller
Communications Representative President & CEO
Oklahoma Restaurant Association Hospitality Association of South
3800 N. Portland Carolina
Oklahoma City, OK 73112 3612 Landmark Drive, Suite B
Columbia, SC 29204-4039
Ronnie Hart Melva Sine
President & CEO President
Tennessee Restaurant Association Utah Restaurant Association
PO Box 681207 420 E. South Temple, Suite 355
Franklin, TN 37068-1207 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1319
Ashton Mitchell, III Sharon Rowe
Executive Vice President Chairman
Virginia Hospitality & Travel WV Hospitality and Travel
Association Association
2101 Libbie Avenue The Greenbrier
Richmond, VA 23230-2621 300 West Main Street
White Sulphur Springs, WV 24986
Lynn Birleffi
Executive Director
Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant
Association
PO Box 1003
Cheyenne, WY 82003-1003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hotel Associations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Hendershot Pamela Embery
Alabama Hospitality Association Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association
61-B Market Place 1240 E. Missouri Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36117 Phoenix, AZ 85014
James Abrams Thomas Wilks
California Hotel & Lodging Connecticut Lodging Association
Association 731 Hebron Avenue
414 29th Street Glastonbury, CT 06033
Sacramento, CA 95814
Liz DeBarros Stacy Connerty
Hotel Association of Washington, DC Georgia Hospitality & Travel
1201 New York Avenue NW Association
Suite 601 600 W. Peachtree Street
Washington, DC 20005 Suite 1500
Atlanta, GA 30308
Monica Wodke Shellie Petek
Illinois Hotel & Lodging Iowa Lodging Association
Association 9001 Hickman, Suite 220
27 E. Monroe Street, Suite 1200 Des Moines, IA 50322
Chicago, IL 60603
William Langkopp Mary Jo McCulloch
Louisiana Hotel & Lodging Maryland Hotel & Lodging
Association Association
203 Carondelet Street, Suite 415 584 Bellerive Drive, Suite 3-D
New Orleans, LA 70130 Annapolis, MD 21401
Steven Yencich, CAE Rosalie Bealer
Michigan Hotel, Motel & Resort Missouri Hotel & Lodging
Association Association
225 W. Washtenaw, Suite 202 330B E. High Street
Lansing, MI 48933 Jefferson City, MO 65101
Robert Anderson Janet Casey
Nebraska Hotel & Motel Association New Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant
111 Lincoln Mall Association
Suite 303 14 Dixon Avenue
Lincoln, NE 68508 Concord, NH 03302
Art Bouffard Lisa Bombard
New Mexico Lodging Association New York State Hospitality &
811 St. Michael's Drive, Suite 107 Tourism Association
Santa Fe, NM 87505 11 North Pearl Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Keith Stephenson Phil Peach
Ohio Hotel & Lodging Association Oregon Lodging Association
692 N. High, Suite 212 12724 SE Stark Street
Columbus, OH 43215 Portland, OR 97233
James Purdum Douglas O'Flaherty
Penn State Hospitality Services Hospitality Association of South
215 Innovation Boulevard Carolina
State College, PA 16803 3612 Landmark Drive
Columbia, SC 29204
Vail Ross Ann Gambrino
Tennessee Hotel & Lodging Utah Hotel & Lodging Association
Association 9 Exchange Place, Suite 812
644 West Iris Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Nashville, TN 37204
Ken Britt Jackie Bragg
Virginia Hospitality & Travel West Virginia Hospitality & Travel
Association Association
2101 Libbie Avenue PO Box 2391
Richmond, VA 23230 Charleston, WV 25328
Lynn Birleffi
Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant
Association
211 West 19th Street, Suite 201
Cheyenne, WY 82001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retailers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Rath Stonie O'Briant
Executive Vice President Executive Vice President
Value City Department Stores, Inc Operations
3241 Westerville Road Dollar General Corporation
Columbus, OH 73224 100 Mission Road
Goodlettsville, TN 37072
Stephen Gartner Troy Rice
Senior Vice President Senior Vice President
Supply Chain Management Operations
Michaels Stores, Inc. The Home Depot, Inc.
8000 Bent Branch Drive 2455 Paces Ferry Road
Irving, TX 75063 Atlanta, GA 30339
David Marsico Doug McMillon
Senior Vice President Executive Vice President
Store Operations Merchandising
Kmart Corporation Sam's Club
3100 W. Big Beaver Road Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Troy, MI 48084 702 SW Eighth Street
Bentonville, AR 72716
George Eilers Thomas Ketteler
Senior Vice President Chief Operating Officer
Drug Store Operations Schottenstein Stores Corporation
Walgreen Co. 1800 Moler Road
200 Wilmot Road Columbus, OH 43207
Deerfield, IL 60015
Bart Butzer Nathan Garvis
Executive Vice President Vice President
Stores Government Affairs
Target Corporation Target Corporation
1000 Nicollet Mall 1000 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55403 Minneapolis, MN 55403
Vanessa Castagna Dennis Knapp
Executive Vice President Senior Vice President
J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc Merchandising--Non Foods
6501 Legacy Drive Costco
Plano, TX 75024 999 Lake Drive
Issaquah, WA 98027
Janet Grove Mark Panzer
Vice Chair Senior Vice President
Federated Department Stores, Inc. Store Operations
151 W. 34th Street Rite Aid Corporation
New York, NY 10001 30 Hunter Lane
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Wilson Lester, Jr. William Goddard
Senior Vice President Risk Management Insurance
Supply Chain May Department Stores
Rite Aid Corporation 611 Olive Street
30 Hunter Lane St. Louis, MO 63101
Camp Hill, PA 17011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail Associations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Kennedy Tracy Mullin
President President & CEO
International Mass Retail National Retail Federation
Association 325 7th Street, NW
1700 North Moore Street Suite 1100
Suite 2250 Washington, DC 20004
Arlington, VA 22209
Moe Cain
International Mass Retail
Association
Chairman & CEO
700 North Moore Street
Suite 2250
Arlington, VA 22209
______
National Candle Association
Washington, DC, June 16, 2003
Dear:
As you know, candle fires have been on the increase, spurred by a
dramatic growth in their popularity with consumers. The National Candle
Association (NCA) is working aggressively to reduce the incidence of
candle fires through the development of fire-safety standards,
technical innovation and educational outreach.
The purpose of this letter is two-fold: to brief you on the
pioneering ASTM candle-safety standards advanced by NCA, and to
encourage you to join us in educating the public on candle-fire
prevention.
Candle fires now account for approximately four percent of all
residential fires in the U.S. In 1999, the most recent year for which
statistics are available, some 15,000 residential candle fires were
reported. As candle sales skyrocketed by some 300 percent during the
1990s, residential candle fires increased 175 percent.
When this increase in candle fires became apparent in the late
1990s, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) asked NCA to
spearhead an ASTM subcommittee on candle products as a means of
developing consensus standards to improve candle safety. Since 2000,
three far-reaching candle fire-safety standards have been published
through ASTM (a fourth standard for terminology was published in 1999).
The first ASTM fire-safety standard--F2058--was published in 2000,
and calls for the cautionary labeling of all candles. The impetus for
the standard was an analysis of NFIRS data showing that nearly 85
percent of candle fires were attributable to unattended candles,
candles placed too close to combustibles, and the accidental actions of
children and pets. Working from this data, the consumer cautions now
appearing on all candles or candle packaging were incorporated into the
standard:
Always keep a burning candle within sight.
Never burn a candle on or near anything that can catch fire.
Keep candles out of the reach of children and pets.
The second ASTM candle safety standard--F2179--was developed to
address concerns over candle fires caused by broken or shattered glass
candle containers. Drawing from the technical expertise of NCA-member
glass and candle manufacturers, the 2002 standard requires that glass
containers for candle use:
Are properly annealed (true temper grade of 4 or less; or
scratch-test equivalent)
Able to withstand a 90 +F thermal shock differential
Unquestionably the most technically advanced candle fire-safety
standard is ASTM PS 59. Published in late 2002 as a provisional
standard, it introduces several far-reaching fire prevention measures
into the manufacturing and design of candles. Specifically, it requires
that
The maximum flame height on a candle shall not exceed 3.0
inches.
A candle placed on an incline of 10 degrees shall not tip over.
A candle shall not support ignition at points other than the
intended wick or wicks.
When a container candle reaches the end of its useful life:
--the container shall not break,
--the candle must not exhibit excessive flame height,
--the candle must not exhibit secondary ignition, and
--the flame must go out.
Because ASTM PS59 was developed as a fast-track provisional
standard, the industry is now testing and working to refine the
standard's requirements, as well as investigating the potential for
expanding the end-of-useful life requirements beyond container candles
to other types of candles. The provisional candle-fire safety standard
is expected to be balloted as a full consensus standard by the spring
of 2004.
The development and acceptance of candle fire-safety standards in
just three years is a notable achievement, and underscores NCA support
for voluntary consensus standards as the most effective means of
rapidly introducing industry-wide product safety changes into the
marketplace. We also believe our success in working with the CPSC to
develop safety standards that meet industry's technical capabilities as
well as the Commission's policy objectives further reinforces the value
of the Federal preference for a public-private partnership approach to
standards development.
Unfortunately, however, candle fire-safety standards are not
enough. Consumer disregard of the potential dangers of an open flame
still remains the primary cause of residential candle fires.
Educating the public about candle safety is a top priority of the
National Candle Association. In recent years, NCA has devoted a
significant portion of its resources to building public awareness of
candle safety. We regularly disseminate press releases, feature
articles, video news releases and informational materials focusing on
fire safety and the proper burning of candles. In addition, a large
portion of our website--www.candles.org--is devoted to providing
consumers with information on candle safety and fire prevention.
Recently we developed a brochure on candle use and fire safety
(enclosed), which we hope to distribute as widely as possible to
further educate consumers on the safe use of candles. I invite you to
consider distributing this brochure to your constituent publics as
well, or adding its contents to your website. We are able to offer 100
copies of the brochure at no charge to fire groups upon request. For
larger quantities, we are charging a minimal amount to cover printing
and mailing costs.
Over the next few months, NCA hopes to further broaden its public
education campaign through the development of cooperative efforts with
the Nation's fire community. We are extremely interested in developing
new avenues for disseminating candle-fire safety information to
consumers, and in further pinpointing the human factors behind
residential candle fires. Given your knowledge of fire safety and our
expertise in candles, I am confident we can combine forces in some way
to reduce the incidence of residential candle fires.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Respectfully,
Bob Nelson,
President.
______
National Candle Association
North Carolina Department of Insurance
Office of State Fire Marshal
Dear Parent,
Every year, approximately 15,000 residential fires are caused by
the careless or inappropriate use of candles. Please protect your home
and family from a possible candle fire.
The North Carolina Office of the State Fire Marshal and the
National Candle Association ask that you spend a few minutes reviewing
the following basic rules of candle fire safety with your family . . .
and then put them into practice in your home.
Always keeps a burning candle within sight.
Never leave a burning candle unattended.
Never burn a candle on or near anything that can catch fire.
Keep candles out of reach of children and pets.
Although the popularity of candles has grown dramatically in recent
years, many consumers are unaware of the proper procedures for burning
a candle. The National Candle Association urges to you keep the
following safety precautions in mind when burning candles.
Always use a fire-resistant candleholder, and place
candleholders on a stable, heat-resistant surface.
Keep burning candles away from drafts.
Always read and follow the manufacturer's use and safety
instructions.
Never touch or move a burning candle or when the wax is
liquid.
Burn candles in a well-ventilated room.
Keep the wax pool free of wick trimmings, matches and debris
at all times.
Extinguish any candle if it smokes, flickers repeatedly, or
the flame becomes too high. Cool, trim wick, check for drafts,
and re-light.
Do not allow the flame to come too close to the holder or
container.
For a margin of safety, discontinue burning a candle when 2
inches of wax remains (\1/2\" if in a container).
For more information about candle safety, visit www.candles.org
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, Bob. We thank you for
your testimony.
And now, I'll call on Mr. Al Klancnik. Is that how you
pronounce it?
Mr. Klancnik. Mr. Chairman, you did a fine job with my
name. It's difficult, but you did great.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF AL KLANCNIK, GROUP VICE PRESIDENT, SERTA, INC.
Mr. Klancnik. Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the
Committee, my name is Al Klancnik, of Serta, Incorporated. I am
here today to speak about open-flame resistant mattresses, the
complexity of bedroom fire safety, and the science-based
testing standard that exists today for mattress regulation.
For reference, Serta is the second-largest mattress
manufacturer out of 700, with annual sales of $742 million. We
are based in Itasca, Illinois, and have 26 factories across the
country. Serta is the only national manufacturer that has
voluntarily converted to open-flame resistant mattresses. This
is more than one year in advance of the upcoming open-flame
regulation for mattresses and box springs in California. We
have done this because we believe we have a responsibility to
offer safer mattresses as soon as possible.
Since last October, when we began introducing our open-
flame-resistant products, we have sold approximately two
million safer mattresses and box springs to consumers across
the country. When you look at statistics published by the U.S.
Fire Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
and the National Fire Protection Association, you see there is
a real need for safer mattresses. In the United States alone,
approximately two people die in bedroom fires every day, a
statistic that we can change now by implementing science-based
regulations on a Federal level.
I have dedicated my career to pursing safety advancements
in mattress flammability. I have been involved in the
development of cigarette ignition and fire-resistant mattresses
and testing standards for the past 30 years. During that time,
I have worked to develop open-flame testing protocols with the
CPSC, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the
Sleep Products Safety Council, and the California Bureau of
Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation.
With the involvement of this country's preeminent fire-
resistance experts, we developed an open-flame testing protocol
that accurately replicates the impact of bedclothing fires on a
mattress. The burners for this test were developed by NIST to
provide consistent conditions under which these tests are
performed and documented. The protocol was ultimately used by
California in Technical Bulletin 603.
During this process, we found that a 30-minute test with a
200-kilowatt heat threshold had sound scientific data to
support the test, and was obtainable and replicable by
manufacturers. More importantly, it will result in products
that provide the critical time people need to detect and escape
from a bedroom fire. This point is underscored by NIST research
into human behavior during bedroom fires.
We also explored tests with time intervals up to 60 minutes
and with lower heat thresholds, but found no scientific data
that demonstrated a longer test duration would result in
improved life safety. In fact, the materials we would use to
meet a 60-minute test are more than triple the cost of our
current safety components. They also make the products
extremely uncomfortable. And if mattresses are unappealing to
consumers, and are priced so they cannot afford them, then the
standard is not viable on a mass-market scale. As a result,
safer mattresses getting into homes would be delayed, and more
lives would ultimately be lost.
By moving forward, Serta has demonstrated that the
technology exists to manufacture and market mattresses that can
help save lives today. We have a standard that is acceptable to
both industry and government. And, at Serta, we have proven
that the standard included in California's Technical Bulletin
603 is viable.
But I should point out that safer mattresses are only the
first step in addressing the overall issue of bedroom fire
safety. NIST, the Sleep Product Safety Council, and the
California Bureau have all recommended that mattresses and
bedclothes should be regulated together in order to achieve the
greatest safety advancement.
Mr. Chairman, we encourage this Committee to allow the CPSC
to adopt the final published standards in California's TB 603
as a Federal mattress open-flame regulation. But, in addition,
if the intent of this Committee is to save lives, other steps
must also be taken. Bedclothing, or top-of-bed accessories,
which have been proven time and again to be the first items to
ignite in a bedroom fire, must also be safer. Regulating
mattresses without also regulating bedclothes is only achieving
half the safety equation.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'll be happy
to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Klancnik follows:]
Prepared Statement of Al Klancnik, Group Vice President, Serta, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the Committee. My name is Al
Klancnik of Serta, Incorporated. I am here today to speak about open-
flame resistant mattresses, the complexity of bedroom fire safety, and
the science-based testing standard that exists today for mattress
regulation.
For reference, Serta is the second-largest mattress manufacturer
out of 700 with annual sales of $742 million. We are based in Itasca,
Illinois, and have 26 plants across the country.
Serta is the only national manufacturer that has voluntarily
converted to open-flame resistant mattresses. This is more than one
year in advance of the upcoming open-flame regulation for mattresses
and box springs in California. We have done this because we believe we
have a responsibility to offer safer mattresses as soon as possible.
Since last October when we began introducing our open-flame
resistant products, we have sold approximately two million safer
mattresses and box springs to consumers across the country.
When you look at statistics published by the U.S. Fire
Administration, the Consumer Products Safety Commission and the
National Fire Protection Agency, you see that there is a real need for
safer mattresses. In the United States alone, two people die in bedroom
fires every day, a statistic that we can change now by implementing
science-based regulations on a Federal level.
I have dedicated my career to pursuing safety advancements in
mattress flammability. I have been involved in the development of
cigarette-ignition and fire-resistant mattresses and testing standards
for the past 30 years.
During that time, I have worked to develop open-flame testing
protocols with the CPSC, the National Institute for Standards and
Technology, the Sleep Products Safety Council, and the California
Bureau of Home Furnishings and Insulation.
With the involvement of this country's preeminent fire-resistance
experts, we developed an open-flame testing protocol that accurately
replicates the impact of a bedclothes fire on a mattress. The burners
for this test were developed by NIST to provide consistent conditions
under which these tests are performed and documented. The protocol was
ultimately used by California in TB 603.
During this process, we found that a 30-minute test with a 200-
kilowatt heat threshold had sound scientific data to support that the
test was attainable and replicable by manufacturers. More importantly,
it will result in products that provide the critical time people need
to detect and escape from a bedroom fire. This point is underscored by
NIST's research into human behaviors during bedroom fires.
We also explored tests with time intervals up to 60 minutes and
with lower heat thresholds, but found no scientific data that
demonstrated a longer test duration would result in improved life
safety.
In fact, the materials we would use to meet a 60-minute test are
more than triple the cost of our current safety components. They also
make the products extremely uncomfortable. If mattresses are
unappealing to consumers and are priced so that they cannot afford
them, then the standard is not viable on a mass-market scale. As a
result, safer mattresses getting into homes would be delayed and more
lives would ultimately be lost.
By moving forward, Serta has demonstrated the technology exists to
manufacture and market mattresses that can help to save lives today. We
have a standard that is acceptable to both industry and government. And
at Serta, we have proven that the standard included in California's TB
603 is viable. But I should point out that safer mattresses are only
the first step in addressing the overall issue of bedroom fire safety.
NIST, the CPSC and the California Bureau have all recommended that
mattresses and bedclothes should be regulated together in order to
achieve the greatest safety advancement.
Mr. Chairman, we encourage this Committee to allow the CPSC to
adopt the final, published standards in California's TB 603 as a
Federal mattress open-flame regulation. But in addition, if the intent
of this Committee is to save lives, other steps must also be taken.
Bedclothes, which have been proven time and again to be the first items
to ignite in a bedroom fire, must also be safer. Regulating mattresses
without also regulating bedclothes is only achieving half of the safety
equation.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am happy to answer
any questions you have.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much for your testimony.
And my first question goes to Bob Higgins. I'm going to
create a fight between--Bob, between you and Mr. Dean here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Rhetorically only. But, Mr. Dean indicates
in his testimony that the standards cited in S. 1798 were
developed largely by your industry, with input from NASFM. He
further claims that your industry has, quote, ``not moved
forward with proposals to implement effective voluntary
standards.'' To the contrary, you indicated in your testimony
that your industry has moved rapidly in developing candle
safety standards in the past. Do you wish to specifically
respond to his testimony and explain to the Committee the
reasons for the differences in your testimony? And then I'll
ask Mr. Dean the same thing.
Mr. Higgins. Well, we'd be more than glad to work with the
fire marshals to try to finalize, in their opinion, what needs
to be done to have effective voluntary standards. In our minds,
the industry is in compliance and we are improving the
situation, and we plan on continuing to improve the fire
standards.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Dean?
Mr. Dean. Well, to this point, there has not been a real
concerted effort to manage the producers' conformance. But by
having a voluntary standard, they may or may not comply with
it. It also speaks to the issue of imported products. With a
voluntary standard, there's no protection there at all.
Anything can be imported, and, since the standard is voluntary,
there would be no recourse.
Senator Smith. Do you have any reason to believe that stuff
being produced outside the country comes in without meeting
U.S. safety standards? Are you seeing that?
Mr. Dean. I can't say for certain, but I would assume,
since there is no mandatory standard, they are made to whatever
standard they wish to make.
Mr. Higgins. Industry regulates that, sir, by itself. By
educating the retailers in the awareness of fire safety, the
retailers are demanding safe fire candles.
Senator Smith. So the marketplace is working, in your
view----
Mr. Higgins. That's right.
Senator Smith.--in that regard. And----
Mr. Higgins. And they're regulating the imports, as well--
--
Senator Smith. Retailers----
Mr. Higgins.--for the same reason.
Senator Smith. In your view, retailers won't buy from
someone who doesn't meet the safety standards from----
Mr. Higgins. That's correct. They're----
Senator Smith. Domestic or foreign.
Mr. Higgins.--they're using independent testing labs to
develop their own tests and test candles.
Mr. Dean. May I?
Senator Smith. Yes, please.
Mr. Dean. Whatever is being done now, it obviously is not
working, because we're seeing a dramatic increase in candle
fires everywhere. So it--whatever is happening now----
Mr. Higgins. I haven't seen those statistics, sir.
Senator Smith. Hmm?
Mr. Higgins. I haven't seen those statistics.
Mr. Dean. We certainly have seen it in the fire service.
Senator Smith. We'll get you all together after--and figure
out whose----
Mr. Higgins. That would be a good idea.
Senator Smith.--whose statistics are accurate.
I mean, it's a very, very serious issue, and I'm not trying
to really pick a fight, but I am trying to point out that I'm
hearing two different messages--they're working, they're not.
Which is it?
Andy Counts, we've heard about the issue of retailers, and
I guess this raises my question. How seriously does your
industry view the threat of flame-retardant toxicity? And
should chemicals used in flame-retardant backing prove harmful
to consumers, who would be liable for the damages--the
manufacturer, the retailer, or both?
Mr. Counts. Well, it's a very, very big concern for
furniture manufacturers, and one of the reasons this process
has taken so long was a study that was done by the National
Academy of Sciences to identify that many of the chemicals that
we have been utilizing in our furniture in the past, and would
be forced to use in the future, are, in fact, harmful to human
health and the environment.
We are working very closely with EPA, working very closely
with producers of chemicals to find alternatives. We're
confident that that will take place. We're confident that there
will be alternatives out there for us to use. It's just going
to take a little time to make sure those tests are done and
that the chemical industry gets their production up to where it
needs to be on those particular chemicals.
From a liability standpoint, we're not sure where that
would stand when--if the regulation came through, if we would
be held responsible if we had a TRISS- or PCB-type situation.
Senator Smith. Are you aware of any litigation in the
country that has made that judgment between retailers and
manufacturers as to liability, in terms of toxicity of flame
retardants?
Mr. Counts. I guess you can look at the asbestos situation,
you can look at some of the other situations and see that they
come back to the manufacturer in a lot of cases, from a
liability standpoint.
Senator Smith. So you have a real interest in making sure
that whatever flame retardants there are, that they don't have
collateral damaging effects.
Mr. Counts. That's correct.
Senator Smith. Bob Higgins, I'm going to turn you over to
Senator Hollings. I understand that you don't want to be in his
bill.
And so, with that, Senator Hollings?
Senator Hollings. Well, Mr. Counts, you're not recommending
asbestos furniture.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Counts. No, sir. I was just using that as an example of
where liability is concerned.----
Senator Hollings: Well, that's an example that doesn't
apply to you whatever, I hope. I mean, good God, we have
learned about asbestos.
Mr. Counts. It applies----
Senator Hollings. And I would hope you wouldn't be making
asbestos furniture.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Counts. To my knowledge, no one's making asbestos
furniture.
Senator Hollings. As an example? Come on. You're better
representatives of the furniture industry. Isn't Serta a member
of your organization?
Mr. Counts. No, sir.
Senator Hollings. You all haven't--Serta hasn't joined the
American Furniture Manufacturers Association? Well, what's the
matter, Mr. Klancnik?
Mr. Klancnik. The mattress industry has its own trade
association, known as the International Sleep Products
Association.
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Mr. Klancnik. And that is separate from AFMA.
Senator Hollings. Well, your observations about the 30-
minute test, and the distinguished Chairman's opening remarks
about ``the perfect'' not being the enemy of ``the good'';
therein, I think, is the answer with respect to at least the
30-minute test. Now, the fire marshals, they all want a 60-
minute, because it takes that long to get to the fire. On an
average, it's over 45 minutes. But the 30 minutes, at least, is
a good. You're manufacturing it, you're endorsing it. You're
the manufacturer, you've gone through all the cost-benefit and
sale-ability and the marketability, and everything else of that
kind.
So, Chairman Stratton, who's still listening, that's why
we've got the Consumer Product Safety Commission. You don't
have to wait til it gets to a crisis, like this, where we've
got a dozen cosponsors, bipartisan, and everything else like
that. The idea is to be realistic. And with the Safety
Commission, Chairman Stratton, that you can do just that,
listen to the needs of the industry, the leaders, like Serta.
You said--you look pretty good. You slept on a Serta last
night?
Senator Smith. I did, yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. I think he'd be a good model for it. I
tell you that right now.
Senator Smith. I come cheap, too.
Senator Hollings. Yes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. But, in all candor, that's--at least we
ought to get that. I understand the fire marshals' concern, but
that would be ``the perfect,'' perhaps. But here ``the good''
that--Mr. Klancnik, that you have attested to. Don't you think
that can be done?
Mr. Klancnik. I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why
Serta has taken the voluntary action of starting--meeting
California TB 603 and saving lives, starting last October. We
really wish more people would do that. I can tell you that,
economically, we are still selling our mattresses at all of the
price points, we're saving the lives, and our sales are
actually up. So the 30-minute standard, TB 603, is truly a
viable life-safety standard, and we're meeting it.
Senator Hollings. And it wouldn't, Mr. Counts, put the
furniture industry out of business. Now, what's putting you out
of business is what's--I'm glad to see Mr. Chapman is still
here, because I started with his grandfather, in 1960. And, at
that time, the testimony, Mr. Chairman, it was 10 percent of
the clothing or textiles consumed in America would be
represented in imports. And if it got up to 10 percent, it
would decimate the industry, you just wouldn't be able to get
clothing in the country anymore. At least that's what I was
testifying to. Incidentally, Tom Dewey ran me around the room
in 1960.
So we lost that case before the old International Tariff
Commission. We went over to Jerry Persons, who was the chief of
staff for Eisenhower. He said, ``Oh, you'll win it. Don't worry
about it.'' And we talked to President Eisenhower. He said,
``Don't worry about it.'' But, in any event, when we lost, then
I went to my friend, Jack Kennedy, and he set up the hearings,
and he promulgated the seven-point program. And Mr. Jim
Chapman, the chairman, was there.
Our textile industry, the thing about globalization--you've
got to get with globalization--the inference is that you're
just not competitive, you just don't understand, ``You old
fuddy-duddy, you don't want to compete, you don't want to face
reality,'' and that kind of nonsense. The truth is, the textile
industry has been the most competitive. But before you can open
up Chapman Mills, or, now, Mr. Counts' furniture--because I'm
very close to the Furniture Mart in High Point----
Mr. Counts. Yes, sir.
Senator Hollings. I know it well. And, in fact, one of the
chairmans of the board--I don't have to involve him--of the
largest in High Point, North Carolina, met me on the Isle of
Palms not too long ago on the beach. He said 50 percent of the
furniture consumed now in the United States was coming out of
China, all that Rooms To Go and everything else like that. So
you're facing the same thing we did, first from Japan, then
from Malaysia, then from Korea, and then from Mexico, and now
from China. And you can see what Inman Mills, Mr. Chapman's
group, why, they're trying to face the competition and find a
niche and at least go to the most advanced product--namely, the
safest, and everything else like that--making the materials.
And here is a leader, Serta, selling it. I mean, they're using
it. So it's a success. You don't have to worry about the
benefit. Here's Serta saying it's a wonderful benefit, and
we're selling it, and the Chairman's sleeping on it. I mean,
how're you going to beat that?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Counts. If I could make a clarification----
Senator Hollings. Yes, sir.
Mr. Counts.--mattress and furniture are two separate
things. The mattress standard, California 603, is an actual
standard that's been put in place by California. It's a proven
standard that's based on real science, real test methods.
California 117, which applies to furniture, is not proven. It
has not been finalized by California, and they have no plans to
finalize it.
The product that's made by Inman Mills applies to
mattresses and not to furniture. TB 117 does not allow for
Inman Mills product to be utilized in furniture. It requires
you to treat the fabric. It requires you to treat the foam. It
doesn't allow you to use the interliner option that we're in
favor of. And that's the proposal that we put forward to the
CPSC, and that's the proposal that we would like to see bring
safer furniture to the market.
The Senate Bill 1798, which includes 603 for mattresses, is
very different when it comes to 117 for furniture.
Senator Hollings. Well, again, as Mr. Klancnik attested,
it's got to be a comprehensive approach. There's no use to do
the mattress if you don't do the bedding clothes and everything
else related.
Mr. Chapman, do you want to comment with respect to Mr.
Counts' observation?
Mr. Chapman. Well, we have done very little work in the
furniture side of the business. Most of ours has been
concentrated in the mattresses. And we can pass either the 30-
or the 60-minute test with ours. We don't prefer or oppose
either one. We just--we want a national standard so we can move
forward and sell product, the niche products that you referred
to.
Senator Hollings. Isn't the standard just a matter of
introducing the bill, talking to the fellow Senators, certainly
listening to the experts and the authorities and the experience
of producers and everything else, like some of the witnesses
here? It's better handled at the Consumer Product Safety
Commission level, Mr. Chairman, but unless they move, we're
going to have to continue to move.
Senator Smith. Senator Hollings, when you said that you
were a friend of Jack Kennedy's, I was afraid you were going to
notice, I'm no Jack Kennedy.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. You're better looking than Jack Kennedy.
Yessirree.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Anyway.
Senator Hollings. There you go.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. I think----
Senator Hollings. That's the first time I've complimented a
Republican.
[Laughter.]
Senator Smith. Well, I'll tell you, when Senator Hollings
leaves the Senate, the Senate will lose one of its greatest
personalities and one of its greatest human beings. And so it's
a high privilege for me to--my daddy worked for Eisenhower, and
so I'm talking to a man who was a friend to those men, and it's
a--when you work with Senator Hollings, you're sometimes
feeling like you're touching the hem of history.
Senator Hollings. No, it's not that. You're too kind. But,
no, we've been in it a long time, and you've seen it, and now
it's--that's not the actual product. That's what you've got to
wake up America into the production.
If anybody wants to read a very interesting book, they
ought to read about Hamilton. In fact, Hamilton has become more
my hero than John C. Calhoun, from South Carolina. And,
incidentally, I'm seated at John C. Calhoun's Senate desk right
this minute. But he built up the bricks, absolutely forbad
manufacture. In fact, if they had, out at that old Arkwright
plant, up in the Scotland area, which was the best, if any of
those personnel left, they followed the personnel to make sure
they didn't take the technology with them and teach the
colonists how to produce, and that kind of thing. So the first
order of business was to try to develop a manufacturing
capacity. That's Hamilton's famous report on manufacturers. And
that's what built up this economic giant.
And the best impression I had, going down with my friend
Bob Dole to see the World War II Veterans Memorial--
incidentally, the wind was blowing, and the fountains were
going all over us, and everything else, and we renamed it
Viagra Falls.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hollings. But you see, on the right-hand side going
in, an observation by President Roosevelt in 1942 thanking
Rosie the Riveter. We started in Africa, and, 3 years later,
ended up in--first, in Austria at the end of that war, and
there was no question that Rosie the Riveter was as important
as any element. And it was the productivity and everything
else.
And that's what disturbs this Senator as he leaves, is that
we're not competing. Everybody is for free trade, just like
everybody's for world peace. How do you attain world peace?
Well, the old saying, the best way to prepare for peace is
prepare for war, and the best way to, by gosh, get to free
trade is to compete. To a barrier, you raise a barrier, and
then remove them both. But we've been rolling over dead for 50
years, given up our production in order for capitalism to
defeat communism in the cold war, and it's worked, with
Marshall Plan and everything else, and we're proud of it. But
now is the time to start rebuilding, and these gentlemen here,
here's another standard of living.
I vote for the Australia Free Trade Agreement, because
we've got relatively the same standard of living. The same with
Canada, we've got the same standard. Uh-uh, not Mexico. Like
old Moynihan, I can see him standing in the well, ``They've got
to develop a free market before they get free trade.'' And
there's your problem.
Here, we're going to--so the American standard of living--I
was very cautious in putting this bill in, in talking to the
cosponsors, for the simple reason that we've got to get to that
cost benefit and make sure we're not putting ourselves out of
business, internationally or globally. That's the main concern,
and that's why, Chairman Stratton, I'm glad you're still here
and can listen to this exchange here, because the Chairman and
the witnesses have raised important considerations, and I wish
you'd study this testimony, and you can see where we're headed.
We need it. It's been 20 years Consumer Product Safety
Commission's been studying, and you made findings and found
out--your word was--well, you said, ``a top priority,'' back--
that was 6 years ago.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Senator Hollings. I think, to sum
up your point, perhaps S. 1798 won't be as necessary if, in
fact, the Commission does its work.
Senator Hollings. Yes.
Senator Smith. And you were saying that that's where the
issue is best resolved.
So, with that, ladies and gentlemen, and no further
questions, this has been a productive hearing, and, I hope,
enjoyable for all of you, and we're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Statement from the American Burn Association
S. 1798 ``American Home Fire Safety Act''
Upholstered Furniture. According to the CPSC, in 1998 an
estimated 10,200 residential fires involving upholstered
furniture killed 520 people, injured more than 1,400 and caused
more than $200 million in property damage. A safety standard
adopted in California more than 25 years ago has resulted in a
significantly lower furniture death rate than the rest of the
Nation.
Mattresses and Bed Clothing. In 1998, mattress and bedding
fires caused 410 deaths, 2260 injuries and more than $250
million in property damage.
Candles. There were 12,800 candle fires in 1998, resulting
in 170 deaths, 1200 injuries and nearly $175 million in
property damage.
Of the many items first ignited in residential fires,
upholstered furniture is the product most frequently involved
in fire deaths, followed by mattresses and bedding. Cigarettes
and candles are the heat sources most likely to ignite the
deadliest fires.
The American Burn Association represents the Nation's burn
surgeons, nurses, therapists, and other members of the burn
team, and the Nation's leading medical institutions with burn
centers.
Congress should implement the heightened safety standards
for upholstered furniture, mattresses, bed clothing, and
candles included in S. 1798, to substantially reduce the rate
of consumer injury and death resulting from residential fires.
The American Burn Association strongly supports the heightened
fire-safety standards included in S. 1798, the American Home Fire
Safety Act, and applauds the efforts of its sponsors: Senators
Hollings, Breaux, Snowe, Boxer, Graham, Chafee and Reed.
The American Burn Association represents the Nation's burn
surgeons, nurses, therapists, and other members of the burn team, and
the Nation's leading medical institutions with burn centers. The ABA
has been a long-time advocate of fire-and burn-prevention efforts,
supporting improved child sleepwear standards and fire-safe cigarette
legislation, among other efforts.
Of the many items first ignited in residential fires, upholstered
furniture is the product most frequently involved in fire deaths,
followed by mattresses and bedding. Cigarettes and candles are the heat
sources most likely to ignite the deadliest fires. S. 1798 addresses
this issue by establishing comprehensive fire safety standards for
upholstered furniture, mattresses, bed clothing and candles. The
stricter standards included in this bill are ``substantially the same''
as standards which have been implemented or tested elsewhere and have
proven to be effective.
For example, upholstered furniture standards in this bill are based
on those included in similar legislation passed in California 25 years
ago, which resulted in a ``significantly lower furniture death rate
than the rest of the Nation.'' Mattress and bed clothing standards are
also based on proposed or implemented legislation in California. Candle
standards were generated by the American Society for Testing and
Materials.
The need for stronger standards is apparent from just a few
examples in newspaper headlines across the nation: In Anchorage, a
four-year-old girl dies after her mattress catches on fire; in New
Jersey and eight-year-old girl dies after a damaged extension cord
ignites a sofa; a three-year-old boy dies in a Chicago after a sofa
catches on fire; in Lake Worth, Florida, three die when a fire ignited
by a candle consumes a home.
Sadly, such preventable fires are the cause of a high number of
injuries and death as well as millions of dollars in property damage.
According to 1998 figures from the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
an estimated 10,200 residential fires involving upholstered furniture
killed 520 people, injured more than 1400 and caused greater than $200
million in property damage. Fires involving mattresses and bedding that
same year caused 410 deaths, 2260 injuries and cost more than $250
million in property damage, while candle fires accounted for 170
deaths, 1200 injuries and almost $175 million in property damage. These
figures do not take into account the countless costs to textile
manufacturers and producers (costs which are eventually passed along to
consumers) which are sued annually for fires involving their products,
even though they pass current Federal requirements.
It is the American Burn Association's position that the
implementation of the heightened standards for upholstered furniture,
mattresses, bed clothing, and candles included in S. 1798, the American
Home Fire Safety Act, will substantially reduce the rate of consumer
injury and death resulting from residential fires and will not affect
the functionality or performance of the such items.
ASTM Candle Fire Safety Task Group
10/10/03
Geoffrey Faires
The Dial Corp.
Dave Buri
S.C. Johnson, Inc.
Rob Harrington
Blyth Industries, Inc.
Richard Signorelli
Belmay, Inc.
Jim Becker
Candle Solutions
George Pappas Sr.
Lumi-Lite Candle Co.
John Witham
Candle-Lite, Inc.
Evelyn Bicknese (IGCA Representative)
Bicknese & Bicknese, Inc.
Ed Calcote
Shell Global Solutions, U.S.
Robert Weitzel
Green Township Fire Chief
Christy Wheeler
Atkins & Pearce, Inc.
William Comber
Libbey Glass
John Tedeschi
Bath & Body Works
John Baker
Pier 1
Robert Moss
SEA, Ltd.
Jim Hoebel
Erols
Allyson Tenney
CPSC
David Morrison
Penreco
Mark Gerwitz
Bureau Veritas Consumer Products & Services
Tom Acklin (for AFIA)
Autograph Foliages
Valerie Cooper
NCA
Charles D. Moses
Arizona Chemical Company
Dan Zipes
Home Interiors & Gifts
Walter Smittle
Retired WV State Fire Marshal
______
Croscill Home
November 29, 2004
Dear Ms. Sunita Krishna:
We are a manufacturer of sheets, comforters, and pillows in a
variety of constructions and contents with all comforters having
polyester fiberfill.
We employed 1.500 people prior to an influx of imported product and
currently employ approximately 900 associates in North Carolina.
We are against Bill #S. 1798 for reasons that go beyond the true
necessity of regulation (which we question.)
Those reasons include but are not limited to:
1. Test standard requires a twenty second exposure to open flame. Is
this reasonable, or a longer exposure time than real life
situations?
2. Who will police the market to assure that both domestic and
foreign suppliers are conforming to the new regulations? (From
what I understand, there are not resources available to act as
inspectors to monitor any law.) Foreign resources are more
likely to risk violation putting us at a competitive
disadvantage.
3. Have studies been done as to the carcinogenic potential of FR
treatments that may be used to meet these new requirements?
Will we be exempt if such findings are made subsequently?
4. Has the California TB604 current small scale test version written
in Oct. 03 been validated as reproducing large scale results?
5. Additional financial burden on an already suffering U.S. textile
industry. Not only are the new treatments a much higher cost
than what is commonly used, but fabrics, labels, inserts,
marketing materials, etc will need to be replaced unless
adequate time is given for transition of product i.e., 1 year.
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas J. Kahn,
Chief Operating Officer.
______
Prepared Statement of the Decorative Fabrics Association and the
Coalition of Converters of Decorative Fabrics Concerning the Proposed
American Home Fire Safety Act
Introduction
The Decorative Fabric Association (DFA) and the Coalition of
Converters of Decorative Fabrics (CCDF) submit this statement in
connection with the proposed American Home Fire Safety Act (the
``Act''), and most specifically in connection with its provisions
relating to upholstered furniture.
The DFA and CCDF are on record as favoring the prompt adoption of a
Federal mandatory upholstery furniture flammability regulation. Such a
regulation, however, must effectively address the risks posed by
upholstery furniture fires and do so in a cost effective way.
Otherwise, consumers will be deprived of the opportunity to purchase
products they want to put in their homes.
The Act will not achieve these objectives. To the contrary, it will
undermine important work soon to be completed by the Consumer Products
Safety Commission that will result in an upholstery furniture
regulation reflecting the interests of all stakeholders, including
consumers.
Specifically:
The Act would mandate the adoption of an unproven draft
technical standard that would impose unworkable and ineffective
requirements.
The mandated draft technical standard would cause many DFA
and CCDF products to become unsaleable and cost prohibitive,
and consumers would be deprived of the opportunity to obtain
such products. Because of the nature of DFA and CCDF type
products, a majority could not pass the mandated test even if
treated with flame retardant chemicals or the fabrics would be
ruined if treated.
The Act would ignore the important work that is close to
completion by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to develop
a technical standard that effectively addresses the risks of
upholstered furniture fires in an effective and economically
sound way, and which is supported by a consensus of all
stakeholders.
Accordingly, the DFA and CCDF strongly urge the Committee to allow
and encourage the CPSC to finish its work and not to adopt legislation
that will be less effective, more burdensome, and that will not reflect
either the best technical or economic thinking to address the problem
at hand.
The Decorative Fabrics Association
The DFA is comprised of approximately 60 companies that sell highly
styled decorative fabrics. The DFA membership includes the vast
majority of wholesale distributors of such decorative fabrics in the
United States.
Based upon 2002 data, reported aggregate sales of DFA member
companies totals approximately $1.2 billion. DFA member firms, however,
are relatively small: 38 percent had sales of less than $5 million; 22
percent had sales of between $5 million and $10 million; 20 percent had
sales of between $10 million and $20 million; and 20 percent had sales
in excess of $20 million. Accordingly, any regulation will have a
decided impact on these businesses.
Sales by DFA companies are overwhelmingly for residential use, such
sales comprising 82 percent of total sales. And, 96 percent of total
sales are made to customers in the United States, primarily on a COM
(customer's own material) basis through interior designers. This means
that fabric selections are made by consumers, with the assistance or at
the direction of a professional interior designer, usually as one
component of an overall interior decorating project. The interior
designer then purchases the fabric from a DFA company. The DFA company,
however, typically does not know the use for which the fabric will be
put--e.g., furniture, window treatments, wallcoverings, pillows,
bedspreads, other bedding, etc. Accordingly, DFA members typically sell
on a ``cut order'' basis, with an average order being 8 or 9 yards of
fabric.
DFA member companies do not manufacture the fabrics they sell. Nor
do they perform fabric treatment or maintain facilities for fabric
testing. Likewise, many of the suppliers to DFA companies, which
include the few remaining quality mills in the United States, do not
treat or test fabrics.
To meet the wide range of consumer tastes, DFA members maintain
inventories of thousands of different fabric styles. On average, DFA
members carry over 5,500 different stock keeping units (SKUs), with
small companies averaging 1,760 and larger companies averaging over
16,000. Aside from their different patterns, these fabrics differ
significantly in fiber combinations, weave structure, weight, and
finish. Approximately 75 percent to 80 percent of these fabrics are
made from fibers such as silk, which is a protein, or linen, rayon and
cotton, which are cellulosic.
One of the most important characteristics required to meet consumer
demand for DFA type fabrics is the aesthetic appearance (look and feel)
of a particular item. Color, texture and hand (the way a fabric feels
to the touch) are all critical selling points. Accordingly, a
significant cost for DFA members (approximately 8 percent of gross
sales) relates to samples. Samples are required to provide consumers
with the ability to see and touch the actual fabrics prior to making
their purchase selections.
The Coalition of Converters of Decorative Fabrics
The CCDF membership includes leading home furnishing and decorative
fabric
converters in the United States, with in excess of $1 billion in
sales annually. CCDF members account, by volume of business, for a vast
majority of the home furnishing fabrics converting industry in the
United States. As converters, CCDF's members create or acquire
proprietary rights in original designs, which they then cause to be
printed, woven or otherwise fabricated by third parties onto a variety
of fabric types. The finished fabrics are then sold for a variety of
home furnishing and decorative end uses.
CCDF converter members distribute their products through a variety
of channels, generally from facilities located in the United States.
Most of the CCDF members maintain their principal distribution
facilities in South Carolina. Their customers include wholesalers,
furniture and other miscellaneous manufacturers, and retailers. CCDF
members also maintain showrooms and display facilities, exhibit at
trade fairs and have sales personnel visit customers with samples of
fabrics.
Like DFA companies, CCDF converter members generally do not
manufacture or finish the fabrics they sell. Also like DFA companies, a
significant percentage of the fabric they sell consists of a wide
variety of fiber combinations, weaves and weights. These fabrics are
also used for a variety of applications. The visual, textural and other
aesthetic attributes of these fabrics are critically important to
converters' commercial success.
Another CCDF member is Calico Corners, a national retailer of
fabric and furniture, with approximately 116 stores in 33 states.
Calico Corners specializes in retailing decorative fabrics sold
directly to consumers, making it one of the largest purchasers of
decorative fabrics in the country, buying from major converters,
wholesalers and jacquard mills.
Calico Corners' custom furniture program has been rapidly growing
in recent years. It differs from ``off-the-floor'' furniture sales in
that the retail customer is afforded a very wide range of fabric
choices, and is able to select a frame style from over 250 choices. In
the average Calico Corners store the customer then has the choice of
over 5,000 fabric SKUs to put on the frame.
Thus, in 2002, Calico Corners' customers purchased approximately
28,000 pieces of custom upholstered furniture and covered them in 4,500
different fabrics. About half of these fabrics (48 percent) were
designed specifically for upholstery use. In addition, many Calico
customers routinely select print fabrics for use on furniture. These
fabrics are technically not considered upholstery weight, but they too
are used for many purposes. Because of the wide range of consumer
tastes, in 2000 only three fabrics sold over 1,000 yards; 41 fabrics
sold between 500 and 1,000 yards; and the average sale per fabric was
10.4 yards.
Discussion
A. The DFA And CCDF Support A Mandatory Federal Upholstered Furniture
Flammability Regulation
The DFA and CCDF membership has actively worked with the Consumer
Products Safety Commission and state regulators, specifically in
California, in connection with the development of a mandatory
upholstery furniture flammability regulation. Most recently, in October
2003, the DFA and CCDF provided comments to the CPSC urging the prompt
adoption of a Federal standard because ``[i]ndustry needs certainty.''
\1\ Further, the DFA and CCDF endorsed the approach reflected in the
CPSC staff's most recent draft upholstered furniture regulation, most
importantly because it provides for use of a barrier system--an
interliner or other barrier material placed between the outer fabric
and the filling material--as an alternative to treating the outer
fabrics with flame retardant chemicals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Comments of the Decorative Fabric Association, the Coalition of
Converters of Decorative Fabrics and Calico Corners, Inc., before the
Consumer Products Safety Commission, October 23, 2003. See also
Statement of Rosecrans Baldwin on behalf of the Decorative Fabrics
Association and the Coalition of Converters of Decorative Fabrics to
the Consumer Products Safety Commission, dated August 27, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The absolute necessity of a ``barrier alternative'' for DFA and
CCDF members has been well documented.\2\ In short:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See, e.g., Statement of Cary Kravet, Kravet Inc., to the
Consumer Products Safety Commission, June 18-19, 2002; Statement of
Roger Gilmartin, Covington Industries, Inc., to the Consumer Products
Safety Commission, June 18-19, 2002; Statement of Jan Jessup, Calico
Corners, to the Consumer Products Safety Commission, June 18-19, 2002.
Most DFA fabrics and many CCDF fabrics will not pass a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
flammability test even if treated with FR chemicals.
DFA and CCDF companies could not economically comply with a
standard that required treatment of their fabrics with FR
chemicals and compliance testing.
Use of FR chemicals on many DFA and CCDF fabrics would
destroy any aesthetic appeal, which is the most critical
selling factor for such goods, and could create unwarranted
health risks for employees and consumers potentially now and in
the future.
A barrier alternative, on the other hand, would allow for
upholstered furniture to be constructed consistent with a regulation
that effectively addresses the risk of upholstered furniture fires. As
contemplated by the most recent CPSC proposed draft standard, a
furniture manufacturer would be permitted to use certified barrier
materials and thereby avoid testing or treatment of every other
component of that piece of furniture, including the outer fabric. As a
result, the outer fabric would not have to be treated with FR
chemicals. Yet, the approved barrier materials would prevent a flame
from reaching the filling material of the piece of furniture, and as a
result would prevent the very dangerous situation that could arise if
the filling materials ignited.
B. The Act Would Not Allow For A Barrier Alternative
The Act would not allow for use of an effective barrier
alternative. Rather, it would mandate adoption of a draft technical
proposal issued by the State of California Department of Consumer
Affairs, Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation in February
2002. This technical proposal would require a component test involving
the treatment of outer fabrics with FR chemicals, or a composite test
that involved a barrier and the burning of the outer fabric. Such tests
have never been established as either technically or economically
effective. Indeed, we understand that the State of California is no
longer pursuing the approach reflected in its draft technical proposal
and is instead working closely with the CPSC staff and other interested
stakeholders to finalize a draft proposed regulation that will be
presented to the Commission within the next few months.
The current focus of the California regulators shows the wisdom of
allowing the CPSC's work to be completed, and not to have legislation
adopted that would require the promulgation of a standard that reflects
poor science, poor economics, and is contrary to the positions
developed by all interested parties. Requiring adoption of the draft
California technical proposal, which does not include a real barrier
alternative, would also severely threaten the viability of all DFA and
CCDF members, and as a result the ability of consumers to retain their
ability to have access to the products they want. These ramifications
are highlighted by the following.
First, cellulosic and protein fabrics constitute most of the
fabrics sold by DFA companies and much of the fabric sold by CCDF
companies. We understand, however, that chemical FR treatment of such
fabrics is difficult, and that many if not most of them, even if
treated, are not likely to pass the component test contemplated by the
draft California technical proposal. In addition, if such fabrics and
many others were required to be FR treated, their aesthetics (the most
significant characteristic in customer selection) would be dramatically
altered. Both the look and feel of the product would be changed in ways
that would cause them to be highly unattractive, and in most cases
unsaleable.
Second, DFA members and converters typically do not know the end
use to which a particular fabric will be put. Accordingly, if treatment
were required vendors would have to either maintain duplicate
inventories of treated and non-treated fabrics, or have specific orders
treated when it is known that they will be used for an upholstered
furniture application. Neither alternative is workable.
To maintain duplicate inventories vendors would have to
increase the volume of fabric they purchase without generating
corresponding increases in sales to consumers.
Duplicate inventories will result in higher costs to vendors
(and ultimately consumers), including carrying, sampling and
handling costs, and the need for additional showroom and
warehouse space. These costs are already a significant
percentage of gross sales, and the increases would make most
DFA and CCDF companies unprofitable.
Treatment of small orders, such as the ``cut orders'' sold
by DFA members and the average orders sold by Calico Corners
and other decorative fabric retailers, will be subject to
minimum charges by finishers, which can run from $65 to $150
per order regardless of the yardage involved, again resulting
in higher prices to consumers and unprofitable operations for
vendors.
Testing will also require use of additional yardage for
certification and machine operability purposes. Some DFA
fabrics sell for well over $100 per yard at wholesale, and 2 to
2\1/2\ extra yards per order may be required on a typical order
of 8 to 9 yards.
DFA and CCDF members may face shortages in finishing
capacity. Available capacity may be allocated to larger orders,
and finishers have stated a disinclination to handle small
orders, especially of more expensive fabrics.
Small orders may lack consistency in quality, requiring
retesting and retreatment. Stitching together fabrics of
different weights and compositions will not permit a uniform
application of FR chemicals resulting in double testing and
treatment for heavier fabrics, and either an unsatisfactory
``bubble'' effect or a totally unacceptable ``board'' effect.
Delivery time and costs will be increased.
Compliance with the draft component test may raise health
risks that may even be prohibited by California's Proposition
65 and other environmental regulations and legislation.
Thus, if DFA and CCDF companies were required to certify compliance
with the fabric component test that would be imposed by the Act, the
likely result will be that consumers will not be able to obtain the
wide variety of fabrics that are now available. Some products simply
would not be able to pass, and even if they could, they would be so
aesthetically displeasing no consumer would want them in their home.
Those fabrics that could pass would also be available only for
dramatically higher prices which may eliminate any market demand for
them as well.
The contemplated composite test under the draft California
technical proposal would also inadequately address the risks of
upholstered furniture fires. Passing or failing the proposed composite
test would require assembling a piece of furniture as it would exist
for sale. In other words, the frame would be assembled with the actual
fabric and filling materials that would be used. To pass the test would
then depend upon, among other factors, an evaluation of the overall
weight loss of the tested unit. Certain fabrics, however, will
constitute a disproportionate percentage of the weight of the overall
unit, and even though a barrier might be used, and a flame would be
extinguished before igniting the filling material that would emit the
greatest amount of heat, the unit would fail. Thus, even though risks
of injury and possible death as the result of flashover would be
averted, and we believe this is the properly defined risk that should
be addressed, consumers would still be deprived of products they
desire.
Further, the costs of compliance with the draft composite test
would be, if anything, more prohibitive than in connection with the
component test. The same negative economic effects--for consumers and
industry--would therefore result, without effectively addressing the
risks that should be the target of a properly focused regulation.
C. The Act Will Eliminate Important Statutory Protections
The Act would make inapplicable important provisions of the
Consumer Product Safety Act. In particular, no evaluation would be made
of the mandated standard's costs or benefits, whether the standard is
reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce the risks posed by
upholstery furniture fires, what the effect of the standard would be on
limiting the availability of products to consumers, or whether less
burdensome alternatives are available that are equally effective.
Further, the opportunity for interested parties to be heard on the
advantages and disadvantages of the standard would be eliminated.
These statutory provisions ensure that any regulation that is
adopted will be technically and economically sound, and eliminating
their applicability will simply confirm the inappropriateness of the
upholstered furniture flammability standard contemplated by the Act.
Conclusion
For all of the foregoing reasons, the DFA and CCDF urge the
Committee to not support the American Home Fire Safety Act. An
appropriate Federal regulation is being developed by the CPSC that will
effectively address the risks of residential upholstered furniture
fires, in a cost effective manner, and in a way that will allow
consumers to enjoy the products of their choice.
______
Prepared Statement of David K. Orders, Vice President, Administration,
Park Place Corporation On Behalf of the International Sleep Products
Association
Background
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hollings and distinguished members of
the Committee:
My name is David Orders. I am the Vice President, Administration of
the Park Place Corporation, a mattress manufacturing company in
Greenville, SC.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to you today on
behalf of the International Sleep Products Association (ISPA) about S.
1798, the ``American Home Fire Safety Act.'' ISPA is a trade
association that represents approximately 750 mattress manufacturers
and component suppliers in the United States and abroad.
In my testimony, I will show that the mattress industry has a long
history of responsible stewardship and has aggressively sought
regulation where scientific standards showed benefits to the consumer.
I intend to make clear that the ``American Home Fire Safety Act''
would not impose science-based standards, but instead implements draft
California standards that were subsequently rejected by the State of
California.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission will shortly propose
standards that will establish scientifically developed product safety
requirements. The industry is committed to assisting the CPSC with that
effort.
Finally, I think that it is important that the CPSC be encouraged
to develop regulations in the manner established by Congress when it
created the CPSC, without Congress imposing poorly considered standards
that can be counterproductive to improving consumer safety.
My grandfather founded our company in 1931 during the Depression.
With my eldest son joining the company several years ago, the Orders
family has now begun our fourth generation of owning and operating Park
Place.
Today, our approximately 200 workers make approximately 1600
mattresses daily (or about 400,000 units annually). We sell our
mattresses primarily throughout the Southeast, but also distribute some
products nationwide. We offer a full line of mattresses, from
relatively simple constructions to the more up-scale luxury lines. Our
main business is in traditional foam-inner spring mattress designs, but
we also manufacture so-called air-beds and mattresses that use heat-
sensitive foam.
In addition to my work with Park Place, I am currently the Vice
Chairman of the Board of the International Sleep Products Association
(ISPA), and will become the Chairman of the ISPA Board next year.
Since 2002, I have also served on the Board of Directors of the
Sleep Products Safety Council (SPSC), a separate organization formed by
ISPA in 1986 to conduct mattress safety research and develop public
education programs that focus primarily on residential fire safety and
how to avoid mattress fires.
The mattress industry has a proud 35-year record of responsible
product stewardship when it comes to mattress flammability issues.
During the mid-1970s, research showed that unattended cigarettes were
the primary cause of mattress fires and fire-related deaths and injury.
Our industry worked with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
to develop the mattress cigarette ignition standard, which has been a
major factor in reducing residential mattress fires over the past three
decades.
Because Park Place has manufactured mattresses for over 70 years,
we have been an active part of the tremendous safety innovations that
the mattress industry has made over the years. For example, my brother
Jimmy Orders led the ISPA Board of Trustees as the industry implemented
the cigarette-ignition standard. Compliance with that standard today is
excellent and it is clear that this standard has played an important
role in improving residential fire safety. For example, the most
current fire statistics released by the U.S. Fire Administration show
that over the 20-year period from 1980 to 1999, both the number of
mattress fires in the United States and the number of deaths from
mattress fires fell by two-thirds, all this while the U.S. population
grew by over 25 percent during the same period.
These numbers show that the industry is moving in the right
direction, and that the industry's safety record is outstanding. But
our work is clearly not finished. The mattress industry and my company
fully support regulatory efforts to set a new Federal safety standard
that is effective and practical in requiring mattresses to be more fire
resistant to open-flame ignitions. Nevertheless, our industry has a
number of concerns with the ``American Home Fire Safety Act.''
Specifically, we believe that:
S. 1798 would set a bad flammability standard that is not
scientifically supported and will in fact be counterproductive
to home fire safety;
S. 1798 implements a draft standard rejected by the state of
California;
S. 1798 is unnecessary at this point because the Consumer
Product Safety Commission is making substantial progress on
this issue and plans to propose a new Federal mattress standard
this fall, and
S. 1798 would restrict the CPSC's ability to correct or even
improve the standard that it requires if warranted at some
point in the future.
Open-Flame Ignitions and Regulatory Efforts at the CPSC and in
California
As the mattress safety record improved dramatically with the steps
taken to reduce fires caused by cigarettes, the industry's focus
shifted to tackling open-flame ignitions of mattresses. Our
understanding of the causes and science of open-flame ignitions was
virtually non-existent when the industry, fire safety officials and
government regulators began looking into this problem in the mid-1990s.
To remedy this situation, the SPSC initiated a joint study with the
National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) to determine the
causes of over 200 actual mattress fires in four U.S. cities. This
research showed that:
a majority of mattress fires are set by young children
playing with matches and lighters;
bedclothes (top-of-the-bed accessories like comforters,
pillows) are usually the first items ignited in a bed fire; and
poorer families are those most at risk from mattress fires.
Following this research, the industry met with then-CPSC Chair Anne
Brown to discuss how best to address the open-flame ignition problem.
Chair Brown attended a mattress industry meeting in Palm Beach, Florida
in 1997, at which the ISPA leadership resolved to explore the
possibility of establishing a mandatory national mattress standard to
address open-flame ignitions, provided that the standard was effective
in addressing the problem and practical to implement.
The industry (through the auspices of the SPSC) then supported a
series of groundbreaking studies by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) to improve our understanding of mattress fires.
Among other findings, NIST concluded that the safety risks posed by
ignited bedclothes alone are significant. NIST also developed a test
apparatus that could accurately and consistently simulate the impact of
burning bedclothes on a mattress so that our products could be reliably
tested under simulated ``real world'' conditions. Throughout this
research, the SPSC regularly consulted with staff of the CPSC and the
California Bureau of Home Furnishings (CBHF), given both agencies'
interest in effectively addressing the open-flame ignition issue.
Throughout this period, the SPSC has actively promoted public
education messages informing consumers about how to use mattresses
safely. The SPSC has carried this message through a variety of media,
including its own website (which is largely targeted at parents,
teachers, children and the media), joint efforts with various
government agencies, and a hangtag that most mattress producers attach
directly to their products warning consumers about the dangers of
mattress fires and how to avoid those dangers.
Based on NIST's research, the CPSC issued an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in October 2001. The industry has worked closely
with the CPSC as it develops the new mattress standard. The CPSC is
expected to propose its new standard later this fall.
In February 2003, the CBHF began its separate rulemaking,
California Technical Bulletin 603 (TB603), to address the open-flame
issue by publishing a preliminary draft standard. Initially, California
proposed that mattresses and box springs sold in that state must be
ignited using a test method and apparatus developed by NIST, and that
the peak heat release from the resulting fire must not exceed 150 kW
for 60 minutes. Following extensive scientific research and after
analyzing comments submitted by industry, consumers and other groups,
California issued the final version of TB603, which modified the
performance criteria such that the peak heat release must not exceed
200 kW over a 30-minute period. California properly concluded that
these performance criteria will lead to significant improvements in
home fire safety.
Separately, the CBHF began initial work on a bedclothes
flammability standard (to be called Technical Bulletin 604 or TB604).
California, however, has yet to formally propose the requirements of
TB604. Thus, a major contributor to the bedroom fires--as found by
California, NASFM the mattress industry and others--has yet to be
addressed.
The mattress industry fully supports the performance criteria in
the final version of TB603. Depending on their geographic market,
mattress producers are at varying stages in their efforts to meet the
TB603 requirements. Some producers are already offering product that
meets the performance requirements in California a full six months
before the effective date of the standard, and others are on track to
meet the new requirements.
In issuing the final version of TB603, California recognized that
the standard provides a valuable 30-minute window for consumers to
detect and escape a fire. Furthermore, the low peak heat release limit
will substantially delay the growth and intensity of the fire.
Combined, these requirements will significantly reduce the risk of
rapid flashover to other parts of the residence and will substantially
expand the opportunity for consumers to escape a bedroom fire. Thus,
NIST research shows that the TB603 performance criteria have the
potential to reduce bed fire casualties by one-half to two-thirds.
Further improvements are possible if the fire performance of bedclothes
also is improved. For these reasons, the industry is working with the
CPSC to incorporate theTB603 criteria in the Federal open-flame
mattress standard and to address the flammability of bedclothes.
Finally, the industry is concerned that meeting a 60-minute
standard might inadvertently create more problems than it purports to
solve. To meet a 60-minute requirement might force producers to use
combinations of exotic materials that have never been used to make
mattresses. How those materials will interact with each other is often
unknown.
The ``American Home Fire Safety Act'' (S. 1798)
The ``American Home Fire Safety Act'' (S. 1798) requires the CPSC
to issue Federal flammability standards for several products including
mattresses and box springs. As for mattresses and box springs, S. 1798
requires that the Federal standard be based on the preliminary draft of
California's TB603. It ignores the fact that California, based on
scientific research and extensive comments from the mattress industry
and other stakeholders, substantially revised those criteria before
issuing the final version of TB603, as I have just described. In short,
while the preliminary draft of TB603 limited the peak heat release rate
to 150 kW for 60 minutes, the final version of TB603 limited the peak
heat release rate to 200 kW for 30 minutes. It is also important to
understand that no scientific research shows that a 60-minute standard
will be any more effective in improving safety than the significant
improvements that can be achieved with a 30-minute standard.
I stress that the difference between a 60-minute test and a 30-
minute test is significant. The longer a fire burns, the more
unpredictable it becomes. This unpredictability is analogous to the
ability of a meteorologist to provide a reasonably accurate 2-day
forecast, compared to the substantially greater variation from the
weatherman's predictions when it comes to making a 60-day forecast. As
a result, I think that those supporters of S. 1798 that make FR
materials and others knowledgeable about fire behavior would agree that
the variability of fires forces mattress producers to use substantially
larger amounts of fire resistant materials to meet a 60-minute test
than would be required for a 30-minute test.
The 30-minute standard has been challenging, but will be met using
innovative materials and designs. In this process, the industry has
invested heavily in technology, new materials, product design, employee
training and capital acquisitions as we seek to develop solutions that
will preserve the mattress comfort that consumers have grown to expect
in a manner that adds minimal expense to the consumer.
However, a 60-minute test would require different materials and
designs. These materials tend to make the mattresses harder and less
resilient, and would cost considerably more. As a result, S. 1798 would
in effect force customers to select from less comfortable--yet more
expensive--mattresses, but for no scientifically-justified reason.
In addition, most mattress manufacturers would likely shift all of
their mattresses to ``single-sided'' to meet an S. 1798 standard,
because it is easier and cheaper to make those products pass a 60-
minute test. This change would have the unintended impact of harming
U.S. textile producers in my home state of South Carolina and
elsewhere, an industry that can ill-afford additional economic stress.
This is because single-sided mattresses require less of the high-
quality fabric cover known as ``ticking,'' and instead use much cheaper
material on the lower side of the mattress.
CPSC and a Science-Based National Standard
S. 1798 also ignores the CPSC's considerable work toward a new
Federal mattress standard. The CPSC, which is charged by Congress with
developing and enforcing standards such as this, has considerable
expertise in flammability issues. The CPSC has already issued an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and plans to propose an open-
flame standard this fall. The industry has cooperated fully with the
CPSC during this process by providing technical and economic data, as
well as by funding major research to create new testing methods. I
would ask that the Congress allow the CPSC to complete its work and to
issue a new Federal mattress standard. That, after all, is the real
purpose behind S. 1798.
Setting new flammability standards is a complex task. Allowing CPSC
to set the Federal standard would offer two important benefits. First,
the CPSC will use its expertise to make certain that its criteria are
based on scientific research, are practical and justified. Second,
sometimes flaws in product standards emerge only after they are
implemented. A standard set by CPSC could be readily amended whereas S.
1798 would require another Act of Congress to fix the problem.
The existing Federal law provides a good process for CPSC to issue
technical flammability standards. The CPSC has both the legal authority
and the expertise to set this standard. I would ask that the Congress
refrain from in effect overruling the Commission's tremendous efforts
toward establishing a new mattress standard, and allow it to complete
its rulemaking process.
Consumer Issues
Mattress manufacturers and retailers have invested considerably in
market research. Not surprisingly, consumer purchases of mattresses are
motivated primarily by comfort and price. The performance criteria in
the final version of TB603 would have a minimal impact on both of these
criteria, whereas S. 1798 would have a significant negative impact on
both.
As I mentioned earlier, a mattress that would meet the S. 1798
criteria of a 60-minute burn test would look and feel much different
from the mattresses on the market today. They would be rigid and
inflexible, instead of the current mattresses that consumers have grown
to expect and enjoy.
Unlike a TB603 mattress, S. 1798 mattresses would be much more
expensive. In fact, the price increases that S. 1798 would require
would discourage a large number of consumers from purchasing the new
mattresses--especially the poorer families that need affordable fire
resistant mattresses the most--compared to the impact of a 30-minute
standard on mattress prices.
For example, given typical retail markup rates, the costs that a
mattress producer will incur to meet a 30-minute standard will likely
increase from $10 to $20 per queen-size unit. However, given current
input prices, a number of mattress producers estimate that to meet the
S. 1798 standard, manufacturing costs would increase $50 to $70 per
queen-size unit. Based on a study that the industry commissioned last
year in connection with the TB603 rulemaking, we estimated that price
increases of this magnitude alone would reduce mattress sales by 25
percent or more, compared to a reduction of no more than 10 percent for
the 30-minute standard. The consumer disincentive that S. 1798 would
create will be even more if you factor in the reduced comfort that
results from using the substantially stiffer materials needed to make
beds that pass a 60-minute test.
In other words, at least 1-in-4 consumers that would otherwise want
to buy a new fire-resistant mattress would instead defer their mattress
purchase and spend their money on something else if S. 1798 were
enacted. That means that the law itself will be counterproductive
because it will discourage consumers from buying safer products. The
price disincentive will be disproportionately greater for poorer
consumers who will be less able than middle or upper class consumers to
pay the higher prices that this bill would impose.
Instead, when those poorer families require new beds, their only
alternative will likely be mattresses offered by an unscrupulous
segment of the market that ``recovers'' used mattresses with new fabric
and then deceptively sells their wares as ``new.'' Many of these
operators--who are euphemistically called ``renovators''--sell their
products in inner cities and poorer communities where their customers
are highly price conscious and unwittingly think that they are buying
perfectly normal new products. What these consumers don't know is that
they are really sleeping on a used bed and that the renovator has often
made no effort to clean or sterilize the old product, which is often
filthy, stained with urine, blood and feces, and can be infested with
dust mites, molds, insects, germs and other unsanitary contaminants.
These ``renovated'' beds pose real health hazards, especially for
consumers that are susceptible to allergies, mold and dust, and
certainly will not meet the fire protection standards of either
California or the Federal Government.
Complying with TB603 alone will be challenging and expensive for
legitimate mattress producers. But because unscrupulous renovators
operate on the fringes of the market, I would expect few of them will
make any effort to meet the even more burdensome S. 1798 rules.
As a result, S. 1798 would--
force the retail price of legitimate new mattresses beyond
the reach of poorer consumers--the very segment of society that
needs fire-resistant beds the most--and
push the poorer consumers into the waiting arms of unethical
purveyors of unhealthy renovated mattresses that have been
recovered by parties that have no intention of meeting the S.
1798 rules.
Not only will these families miss any benefit that S. 1798 is
intended to create, but they will risk allergic reactions, asthma and
other possible effects of sleeping on recovered used mattresses.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the mattress standard set forth in S.
1798 is the wrong standard, and that Federal law already authorizes the
CPSC regulate this important area. As the incoming Chairman of ISPA, I
can assure you that the mattress industry is fully behind setting a
Federal flammability standard with criteria similar to those set in
California TB603. I do not feel that the draft standard of TB603--the
standard referenced by S. 1798--is practical for manufacturers nor do I
believe that it will benefit consumers. S. 1798 would result in
mattresses that few consumers would want to buy because they will be
more expensive and less comfortable.
Increased costs and reduced sales could easily shut down many
mattress manufacturing plants in the U.S. I am concerned that these
increased commercial pressures may drive much of the lost business
overseas. I am also alarmed by reports of other regulated industries
that foreign mattress producers might not meet the relevant U.S. safety
standards. As with other products, it would be difficult for the CPSC
to catch such products because by the time that many of these products
enter the stream of commerce and are detected by the authorities, the
manufacturer of those goods has either changed its name or moved onto
other markets.
Park Place provides the Greenville community with 200 well-paying
jobs that I would not wish to see jeopardized. Mattress manufacturing
as a whole is a well-paying industry. The average hourly wage of a
mattress factory employee nationally is approximately $11. In a complex
economy, job losses and plant closures to our manufacturing segment
have a ripple effect that hurts our component suppliers as well as the
thousands of retail stores to which we sell.
Mr. Chairman, the mattress industry believes that an effective and
practical national open-flame ignition standard for mattresses and the
continued success of mattress manufactures in the U.S. are not mutually
exclusive objectives. We fully support the criteria set forth in the
final TB603 and hope that the CPSC will incorporate these criteria in
the new Federal mattress standard. They will dramatically improve
safety, and should be applied nationally. I believe that the criteria
in S. 1798 will do significant harm to industry and consumers without
providing any additional safety benefit.
I believe that the CPSC is firmly committed to issuing an effective
and practical standard and that it would be in the best interests of
consumers and industry to allow that agency to finish its valuable work
instead of legislating a regulatory standard. The system is working,
Mr. Chairman, and I ask that you and this Committee allow it to finish
working.
To the extent that Congress really wants to help consumers, I
suggest that you consider increasing the CPSC's enforcement
capabilities and help to educate parents, teachers and children about
the importance of fire safety. In respect to enforcement, the first
step would be to help stop unscrupulous renovators from selling
recovered used mattresses as new products to unsuspecting consumers.
The second would be to enhance the CPSC's ability to enforce
existing and future Federal safety standards with respect to imported
products before those goods ever hit our shores. Many in the
manufacturing community at large are increasingly concerned that
imports of all types of products--not just mattresses--do not meet
minimum U.S. safety requirements and that the U.S. government lacks the
ability to eliminate these noncomplying goods from the marketplace
before they have been sold to consumers. ISPA has provided Senator
Hollings and others on the Committee with several options that Congress
could consider in this regard and we would be pleased to discuss these
options further with you at your convenience.
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit this statement
today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have following
this hearing.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Textile Association (NTA)
The National Textile Association (NTA) is pleased to present
comments on the American Home Fire Safety Act. NTA is the largest
textile trade association in the United States and its comments are
filed primarily on behalf of the Textile Bedding Committee whose
members are responsible for supplying American consumers with over 90
percent of the sheets, comforters, pillows and other ``top of the bed''
products sold in the U.S.
The domestic textile bedclothing industry has annual sales
exceeding 5 billion dollars and supplies products that are vital for
the normal lifestyle of all consumers. The industry is proud of the way
it has provided an almost endless assortment of products for consumers
in the U.S. and around the world for over a century, and we intend to
continue supplying safe, functional, and stylish bedding for our
customers.
While the intentions of the American Home Fire Safety Act, S. 1798,
are laudable, the bill would interrupt an important process that has
been underway since the California General Assembly approved AB 603 in
2001. This sudden interruption would be caused by S. 1798's mandatory
requirement that all affected bedclothing meet the October 22, 2003
draft of Technical Bulletin 604, a draft that is expected to be amended
by California before implementation because it does not consistently
predict large scale fire performance.
Our concern is that the unknown changes to the test method could
likely require new and more costly solutions for manufacturers that
supply filled products. The 90-day implementation period in S. 1798
gives only a small window of time for manufacturers to decide on the
materials necessary to meet the standard and to determine if adequate
supplies are available. Our experience has been that regulations like
this require new materials, many which may not be available in adequate
capacity for months or even years. Any shortages of materials will
clearly be detrimental to consumers who will bear the economic burden
of shortages.
By passing this legislation, the cooperative work between our
industry and the CBHFTI could be irrelevant and all consumers in the
United States would be penalized by a preemptive standard that severely
restricts consumer choice and leads to significant increases in cost of
material and manufacturing operations. Although we are not opposed to
flammability regulations of filled bedclothes, we clearly oppose S.
1798 as written.
Our industry is committed to safe and functional products. We have
a long history of providing consumers with products that meet consumer
expectations for style, color, design, fit, appearance, feel and many
other aesthetic and physical characteristics. We listen carefully to
consumers and their desires and we work extremely hard to ensure that
their expectations are met. Our zeal to continue meeting this objective
is strong.
It is extremely important to recognize that California's draft TB
604 limits regulation to filled textile bedclothes such as comforters,
mattress pads and pillows. All technical studies and regulatory
development have been focused in this area, and we support a similar
provision in any Federal regulation considered by CPSC.
The textile bedclothes industry has worked diligently to learn more
about the flammability performance of filled products. During the short
period since CBHFTI has begun to study bedclothing flammability, our
member companies have evaluated their products individually with the
CBHFTI. They have also evaluated the impact of product construction,
material substitutes, and other research and development aspects to
determine the best solutions to meet the anticipated California
regulation. While these companies are members of the NTA, they preserve
their unique approaches to the manufacture of complying products and
each is focused on meeting consumer demand when California's stringent
regulation becomes effective.
Once a regulation is promulgated, it is critical that it be
applicable nationally. The Textile Bedding Committee envisions the
California standard being applied nationally by the CPSC within the
scope of its development. With high volume manufactured products like
comforters and mattress pads, a national standard is essential to
ensure that interstate commerce is not disrupted. Our industry will
begin discussing this essential aspect of regulation when the CPSC
begins its public review of textile bedding flammability. We stand
ready to work with the commission, as we have worked with the
California Bureau, to develop a standard that is effective, technically
feasible and clearly in the interest of U.S. consumers.
It is also critical that any textile bedding flammability standard,
whether at the state or national level, be enforced fully regardless of
the product's origin. Domestic manufacturers have an impressive record
of consistently meeting flammability standards in the United States and
our members will ensure that this high level of compliance is
maintained. We encourage the responsible government bodies to also work
to ensure a high level of compliance for imported goods in order to
provide safe products for all American consumers.
In summary, NTA believes that S. 1798, in its present form, would
be disruptive to the textile bedding industry and consumers alike, and
would de-rail an important process that has been underway for over a
year. NTA members have been working cooperatively with California
Office of Consumer Affairs to develop a mandatory standard for filled
bedding products and much progress has been made. We strongly encourage
this Committee to allow the textile bedding industry to complete
California's administrative process and then to work with the Consumer
Product Safety Commission to develop an appropriate national
flammability standard for this industry.
______
Prepared Statement of Mark Buczek, Chairman,
American Fire Safety Council
The American Fire Safety Council (AFSC) is a non-profit member
organization that is dedicated to promoting fire safety through the
responsible use of flame retardant products. Every year nearly 4,000
Americans die in fire-related incidents and 75 percent of these deaths
occur from residential fires. The AFSC strongly supports the initiative
of Senator Ernest Hollings to bring national fire safety standards to
residential furniture, bedding and bedclothes. We are also encouraged
by the recent progress of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission,
under the leadership of Chairman Harold Stratton, in addressing this
long-standing need. We believe that the Committee's consideration of
the American Home Fire Safety Act (AHFSA) has been successful in
bringing added focus to the issue. We agree with Senator Hollings that
should there be any further delay in the Commission's issuance of
national fire safety standards, additional action by the Committee with
regard to the AHFSA may be required.
The AFSC has taken several steps to help move this issue forward.
We have participated in a multi-stakeholder industry group, which
includes the American Furniture Manufacturers Association, the
International Sleep Products Association and numerous others. This
group has worked to bring a proposal to the CPSC that offers a
significant level of increased fire safety for the public, is practical
to implement and will not place an undue economic burden on
manufacturers, consumers or U.S. jobs. We hope that the CPSC will
consider this proposal in developing its national standards.
In addition, the AFSC recognizes its responsibility to encourage
sustainable and environmentally preferable approaches for achieving
fire safety standards. We have entered into a partnership with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), furniture manufacturers and non-
governmental organizations such as GreenBlue, in the EPA's Design for
the Environment program. This innovative partnership will allow us to
develop safe and environmentally sound approaches to fire safety at a
time when the need for flame retardants is increasing and certain flame
retardants are being phased out due to environmental concerns.
The AFSC is committed to support the development of national fire
safety standards in residential furniture, bedding and bedclothes. Our
members are spending millions of dollars each year in research to bring
the most advanced technologies to support fire safety efforts.
We thank the Committee for the opportunity to comment.
______
WestPoint Stevens Inc.
New York, NY, July 13, 2004
Hon. John McCain,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain:
On behalf of WestPoint Stevens Inc. (WPS), please let me share with
you and the Commerce Committee some concerns we have about the current
draft language in the American Home Fire Safety Act (the ``Act''), S.
1798. WPS is one of the Nation's leading manufacturers of bed and bath
home fashions products, including mattress pads, feather and fiber
beds, bed pillows, sheets, towels and bath accessories, comforters and
down comforters, blankets and bedding accessories. Many of these
products are covered by the Act.
First, let me make it clear that WPS is not opposed to flammability
regulations for our products. We take pride in providing safe,
fashionable bed and bath products demanded by consumers. However, the
Act as currently worded calls for the immediate (within 90 days)
adoption of the October 22, 2003, draft California TB 604 test method
for filled bedclothing. This test method is still under review in
California and state representatives have indicated that it will be
modified because it does not consistently mirror full-scale test
results. In our opinion it would be highly unusual to incorporate into
a national standard a test method that is still under development.
It is important to realize that filled bedclothing products do not
have the same history of evaluation for flammability as other textile
products covered by the Act. The Consumer Product Safety Commission,
the Department of Commerce, California's Department of Consumer Affairs
and other organizations have studied upholstered furniture and mattress
products for many years. Test procedures for those products have been
developed after substantial evaluation and peer review. However, filled
bedclothing products have not received that level of study. In fact, it
was only after California made the decision to address the flammability
of filled bedclothing in late 2002 that public regulatory review began
for these products. Since that time, WPS and the other major producers
of filled bedclothing (Springs Industries, Inc. and Dan River Inc.)
have worked (and continue to work) closely with California to develop
an accurate and predictable test method. Many of the options open to
furniture and mattress manufacturers (barriers, flame-retardant
finishes, etc.) are not applicable to filled bedclothing because of the
nature and use of these products and the intimate contact that they
have with the users.
Any regulation of filled bedclothing should also contain provisions
to enforce compliance equally between domestic products and imported
products. As currently structured, the burden of compliance will rest
on the manufacturer. This might not be readily applied to a
manufacturer of imported goods. It would be prudent to place some
responsibility for compliance on others in the supply chain who provide
products to the consumer to help ensure that they sell compliant goods.
The California legislation contains no provision to require labeling of
compliant bedclothing. A labeling requirement would provide purchasers
with a basis for reliance upon manufacturers for compliance with a
flammability standard.
We request that our comments as stated in this letter be included
in the public record of the July 14 Commerce Committee hearing on the
Act. We also call attention to our support of the written testimony
submitted by the National Textile Association on behalf of its Textile
Bedding Committee of which we are a member.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. We will be glad
to answer any questions that you or other members of the Committee
might have.
Sincerely,
M. L. Fontenot,
Chief Executive Officer,
WestPoint Stevens Inc.
c: The Honorable Lindsey O. Graham
The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings