[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 141 (Friday, October 9, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2009-E2010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE FASTENER QUALITY ACT: FIX IT OR FORGET IT!

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 8, 1998

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, any lasting resolution to modify the 
Fastener Quality Act (FQA) must address the concerns raised by the 
small manufacturers within the fastener industry. If their concerns are 
not addressed, I believe most small firms would favor repeal of the 
Act. I am privileged to represent the ``fastener capital of the United 
States,'' Rockford, Illinois. There are more fastener manufacturers per 
capita in Rockford than in any other city in the nation. Implementation 
of the FQA and any recommended changes to it are of key importance to 
northern Illinois and the industry overall.
  Fasteners are the sinews of a modern manufacturing nation. Disruption 
in the supply of fasteners would be the equivalent of a nationwide 
trucking or rail strike. Amidst an increasingly volatile national 
economy this would have devastating consequences for the country, with 
reverberations throughout industries dependent on supplies of 
fasteners.
  When the National Institute of Standards and Technology released the 
latest set of regulations last April, I surveyed the fastener 
manufacturers in northern Illinois for their input. A third of these 
answered my survey--a very high response rate. Let me review for my 
colleagues on the panel the results of the survey: (1) 54 percent of 
the fastener manufacturers still do not know which fasteners are 
covered by the FQA; (2) 46 percent of the fastener manufacturers are so 
small that they cannot afford to adopt the expensive Quality Assurance 
System (QAS) though they have their own system of testing and insuring 
quality. Thus, the April regulations permitting larger companies who 
use QAS to become FQA-certified means nothing to these small fastener 
firms; and (3) 92 percent--almost every one of the fastener 
manufacturers in northern Illinois--do not know what they have to do to 
fully comply with the FQA regulations.
  I have met with or been contacted by numerous fastener companies in 
my district, all of which express concerns reflective of the findings 
in the survey. For example, there's Pearson Fastener, a 35-employee 
family enterprise in Rockford. For years Pearson has been manufacturing 
fasteners. For the last eight years they have been wrestling with the 
FQA, wondering why existing independent accredited laboratories cannot 
continue to test their fasteners instead of the company having to 
switch to as yet unidentified and unaccredited labs. Aside from the 
added costs involved, newly accredited labs may not offer every testing 
service needed by the diversity of fastener manufacturers in Rockford. 
For instance, Pearson could not get one accredited lab to give them a 
price quote for a salt spraying test on fasteners they make for 
outboard engines on motor boats.
  Camcar, a division of Textron Fastening Systems of Rockford that has 
manufactured fasteners since 1943, complained that they could not get 
an approved signatory to sign test reports, as the regulations require. 
Since no one can observe all the test results, nobody is willing to 
sign off on the reports.
  Elco, also of Textron Fastening Systems and a major fastener 
manufacturer in Rockford declares the FQA ``a showsstopper to our 
industry . . . [It] penalizes every U.S. fastener company with hundreds 
of millions of dollars of extra costs in testing and paperwork when the 
original intent of the Act was to keep out foreign, fraudulent bolts. 
This particularly affects smaller companies within our industry.''
  The problems with the FQA from the perspective of small fastener 
firms are manifold: ambiguity about which fasteners the Act covers; 
availability and proximity of accredited labs; confusion about the 
definition of certification, prohibitive compliance costs; over-
regulation of the industry; loss of market share to foreign competitors 
because the FQA exempts fasteners imported as components of larger 
parts; and lack of information about requried tests of a specialized 
product are all major concerns of fastener manufacturers in my 
district. Resolution of these matters needs to be a part of any final 
modification of the FQA.
  It has been eight years since the FQA was enacted. During that time, 
technological advances within the fastener industry have greatly 
improved testing techniques so that the failure rate for fasteners has 
been practically eliminated. Obviously, this necessitates a re-
examination of the Act to see that it is applicable to the industry in 
light of these advances. If some basic, common sense changes are not 
made to the FQA, I believe most small fastener manufacturers would like 
to see a total repeal because it is currently unworkable. This is the 
problem with the FQA as it is currently written. I hope Congress, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, the fastener industry, 
and others can work together to fix it, or else resolve to abolish it.
  We all want to make a genuine effort to work out the problems with 
the FQA. I submit that the approach we ought to take should address the 
concerns of all fastener manufacturers. At the same time, we should 
avoid a course that seeks a solution through exemptions for specific 
industries. A solution that fails to resolve the issues raised by both 
large and small fastener firms is no solution at all. Otherwise, down 
the road we again will find ourselves wrestling with the same problems 
that threaten the viability of the fastener industry and, consequently, 
the very health of our economy.
  Even at this early juncture, we already know that any future workable 
regulatory document

[[Page E2010]]

must include the following: (1) A clear delineation of what fasteners 
are covered; (2) a settlement on the issue of certifying in-house 
testing processes, and short of this an agreement on the number, type, 
and location of accredited laboratories; (3) a clear definition of what 
constitutes certification; (4) a regime that minimizes compliance and 
regulatory costs so as not to put small manufacturers of fasteners out 
of business, nor U.S. fastener manufacturers at a competitive 
disadvantage with foreign manufacturers; and (5) a thorough 
dissemination of information that answers the many questions fastener 
manufacturers will have when any new agreement is reached.
  If a revamped FQA can accomplish these things, then I think we have 
the basis for a document that can work for the fastener industry and 
ensure safety for the consumer. On the other hand, if the FQA remains 
difficult to interpret, costly with which to comply, and threatens the 
existence of small fastener companies, then it must be repealed.

                          ____________________