in principle, therefore, merits serious consideration by the Congress of the United States. I do not have a copy of the Recommended Commercial Standard for Flammability of Clothing Textiles, TS-5131, dated April 3, 1952, as set forth in this bill, however, since this is only a temporary standard, it is of little concern. We have had some experience, here in Dayton, with clothing which was highly combustible. Fortunately no one was injured. Several citizens brought sweaters, vests, etc., to the division of fire, requesting information on their combustibility. Whereupon, we conducted several tests in our own laboratory, plus having the professor at the University of Dayton check our work. We will be glad to supply you with a copy of these tests, if you feel they would be helpful. May I go on record as being in favor of H. R. 389 and you may use my name in connection with this bill, if you so desire. Yours truly, Hon. PAUL F. SCHENCK, FORREST B. LUCAS, Chief, Division of Fire. FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE CITY OF MIDDLETOWN, Middletown, Ohio, February 13, 1953. Representative to Congress, Third District of Ohio, 127 House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Thank you very much for your letter of January 30. There is no question in my mind, and I am sure you will find other fire chiefs of the same opinion, that legislation such as the bill known as H. R. 389 is the type of legislation needed in our efforts to reduce the loss of lives caused by fire in our country today. I believe that the bill as introduced by Congressman Canfield covers the subJect very well and I particularly would recommend that section 2 not be amended or changed in any way. I certainly appreciate you granting me the privilege of reviewing this bill, and if I may, request your support of same. Yours very truly, WILLIAM FISHBAUGH, Chief, Division of Fire. RETAIL MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY, STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 3851 SUBMITTED TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE My name is Philip W. Schindel. I am secretary-treasurer of the Retail Merchants' Association of New Jersey, which, in addition to having direct store members, is a federation of local and State retail groups, representing stores of all kind and size. There are several reasons why the retailers of New Jersey urge the earliest possible passage of H. R. 3851. (1) Like retailers in all parts of the country, we in New Jersey want to have dangerously flammable wearing apparel outlawed. We agree the public needs this protection. Because retailing is predominately a small-business field with 85 percent of all stores doing less than $100,000 a year and only six-tenths of 1 percent doing over $1 million, most merchants do not have the facilities for making their own flammability tests. Therefore, full protection is possible only through legislation prohibiting the manufacture, distribution, and sale of dangerously flammable fabrics and apparel. (2) Generally we in New Jersey believe in home rule. We don't like to ask the Federal Government for help, but wearing apparel moves rapidly and extensively in interstate commerce, and several years of study has convinced us that only Federal control of dangerously flammable fabrics and apparel will solve the problem and give the public the protection it should have. (3) A joint committee of the New Jersey Legislature, headed by Assemblywoman Florence P. Dwyer of Elizabeth, has done extensive research in this field. The first report of the committee stated, "The clear need for legislation to protect the public from the dangers of highly flammable textiles is apparent to this committee. That federal legislation is highly desirable because it is the only way to insure uniformity and to prevent a variety of State regulations is equally apparent. The committee is aware that legislation to prohibit the introduction or movement in interstate commerce of articles of a flammable character dangerous to individuals was introduced in the Congress in January of this year (1952). No action has been taken on these bills and no action was taken on similar bills in similar circumstances when they were introduced in Congress 5 years ago. Most certainly then the State of New Jersey cannot delay action and leave its citizens helpless in a situation which the record shows is sure to produce a yearly toll of human tragedy." When this report was submitted, the New Jersey Legislature recognized that the only national standards of flammability were at that time proposed commercial standards. It further recognized the difficulty of developing State legislation which would stop the sale of dangerously flammable apparel in New Jersey without disrupting interstate commerce. (4) The legislative committee was continued this year. After more research and full hearings a bill was drawn and introduced in the State legislature patterned after the Canfield bill (H. R. 3851) which is under discussion today. Now that commercial standards of flammability have been officially promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce, it is the opinion of the committee its bill represents a very satisfactory solution to the problem. However, it is also recognized, that, ideally, State legislation should supplement, not take the place of Federal law. A Federal bill should be enacted first so all State laws can be in exact conformity and so that, without surrendering States rights or constitutional responsibilities, separate State barriers to interstate commerce will not be erected. If the Congress does not act, the New Jersey bill will be pushed by the legislators who made up the study committee. (5) The need for Federal legislation to protect the public from dangerously flammable wearing apparel and fabrics has been established the Canfield bill (H. R. 3851) is a workable and practical solution to the problem-the only a national pattern adequate solution we have found. It is imperative to son of New Jersey for all State laws. Therefore, the Retail Merchants' is pleased to join other reati groups and virtually all segments of the textile industry in asking your committee to report H. R. 3851 favorably and in urging its early passage by the Congress. Thank you for this opportunity to present our views. PHILIP W. SCHINDEL. PEPPERELL MANUFACTURING CO., INC., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE, House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SIR: With regard to pending legislation on flammability of textiles the Pepperell Manufacturing Co., Inc., would like to go on record as being in favor of the following proposed House bills as they now read: H. R. 3851-Introduced by Representative Gordon Canfield of New Jersey. H. R. 4159-Introduced by Representative Leroy Johnson of California. At the same time we want to voice our opposition to H. R. 2768 as it now reads, introduced by Representative Charles A Wolverton, of New Jersey. Our objections to the Wolverton measure are aimed in particular at the guaranty provisions and the effective date of enactment which we deem to be unworkable. Since this company will not be represented at the hearings scheduled on the above-mentioned bills in Washington on Thursday, April 16, we respectfully submit this letter as a matter of record. Very truly yours, J. M. HOLLAND, Research and Development Department. NEW YORK BOARD OF TRADE, New York 7, N. Y., April 20, 1953. The honorable MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: My name is Cameron A. Baker. I am employed by the United States Testing Co., Inc., Hoboken, N. J., and serve as chairman of the technical committee of the textile section, New York Board of Trade, Inc. I have been a member of the committee for flammability of consumer textiles of the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists since its inception. I also represent the American Council of Commercial Laboratories on the standing committee of the commercial standard for flammability of clothing textiles CS-191-53. This statement is being submitted for the textile section of the New York Board of Trade, Inc. We recognize the need for legislation designed to eliminate the manufacture and sale of highly flammable material intended for use in wearing apparel. We hold the opinion, however, that such legislation should be uniform from city to city and from State to State, and that in order to accomplish this purpose it should be solidly tied to a set of specific test methods and requirements. The prime need is for national legislation at this time which will serve as a guide to city and State officials in their deliberations on flammability legislation. We feel that either of the bills designated in this statement will adequately serve to protect the consumer without working an undue hardship on industry which, in itself, we know is striving to accomplish the purpose of the legislation. Respectfully, Re: H. R. 3851, Flammable Fabrics Act. CAMERON A. BAKER. AMERICAN VISCOSE CORP., Marcus Hook, Pa., March 26, 1953. Chairman, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Several days ago I wrote Representative Gordon Canfield expressing approval of the above bill. In his reply he suggests that I also write to you who are chairman of the committee to conduct hearings on the bill. In writing to you and the Honorable Gordon Canfield and expressing my hearty approval and support of your bill, H. R. 3851, I am representing the American Viscose Corp., the largest producer of rayon, and also the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists. The American Viscose Corp. has been much interested in having Federa! legislation to prevent the use of flammable fabrics in wearing apparel so as to minimize as far as possible the often pathetic disfigurement and sometimes fatal injuries which result from the accidental ignition of flammable wearing apparel. Details of a few of the hundreds of such injuries were cited in my statement at the hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, 80th Congress, 1st session, March 4 and 5, 1947, page 81 of the printed record in connection with H. R. 505 (Canfield), H. R. 601 (Johnson), H. R. 1111 (Arnold). The American Viscose Corp. quite sometime before the cowboy suits accidents in Washington, D. C., was interested in preventing the use of rayon in flammable fabrics for wearing apparel. Although it did not manufacture fabrics it did have a quality control plan, and copyright registered tags, which were never issued for brushed or similar flammable fabrics, even though made of its rayon, when it considered them dangerously flammable. When burning accidents did occur, attention was usually directed to the synthetic fibers, although many of the accidents were due to fabrics made of the natural cellulosic fiber cotton. In fact, the original California bill was directed against synthetics for it made it "unlawful to manufacture, sell *** any articles of wearing apparel *** more highly flammable than cotton cloth in its natural state." This was subsequently amended to read "any article made from or containing natural or synthetic fibers determined by the fire marshal to be so highly flammable as to constitute a dangerous risk of fire and hazard of injury to persons" *** after a public hearing in Sacramento attended by an American Viscose Corp. representative. Thus, briefly you will understand the position which has been taken by the American Viscose Corp. in the public interest so as to include all dangerously flammable fabrics in any legislation and why it wishes me, as its representative to express to you its approval of H. R. 3851. I have stated above that in supporting your bill, I am also representing AATCC on whose committee for devising a suitable test method for determining the ease of ignition, the intensity and rate of burning of textile fabrics, I have functioned as vice chairman since its formation in 1945. Prior to that time there was no satisfactory, certainly no accepted method for determining the flammability of fabrics. Developing any new test method is not a simple matter, for it takes time with much thought and patience given to many small details and to the making of many, many check tests. This test method has now received the approval not only of the AATCC research committee but of the American Society for Testing Materials, the Ameri. can Standards Association and is being considered by the International Standards Organization as an international standard. Also, the Commodity Standards Division of the United States Department of Commerce, after soliciting comments from manufacturers, distributors, and users, decided that a satisfactory majority of the trade had agreed to this test method, so it has announced a commercial standard known as Flammability of Clothing Textiles CS 191-53, effective January 30, 1953. It is this commercial standard test method which would make H. R. 3851 effective if and when enacted into law. As the representative of the American Viscose Corp. and of AATCC, may I again express not only approval of H. R. 3851 but the sincere hope that it will soon be enacted into law by the present Congress. Sincerely, F. BONNET, Adviser to the President, American Viscose Corp. ISELIN-JEFFERSON CO., INC., New York 13, N. Y., April 8, 1953. CHAIRMAN, HOUSE INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE COMMITTEE, House Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SIR: This organization being sales representatives, distributing nationally the product of many cotton and synthetic fiber manufacturing plants located throughout the United States, wish to state that we have been following with great interest the bills presented covering textile flammability. After due consideration we wish to go on record as favoring the enactment of the so-called Canfield or Johnson bills, H. R. 3851 and H. R. 4159, which two bills seem to be identical as far as all of the major facts are concerned. These have to do with the possibility of excluding dangerously flammable goods from commerce within the United States. We are definitely opposed to bill known as H. R. 2768, which differs materially in major respects from the two previously mentioned measures. We are very much in favor of the principle of eliminating dangerously flammable materials from commerce, particularly such as those which produced the brushed rayon sweater episode several years ago, and therefore we think that the Canfield or Johnson bills, as drawn, represent the best approach to this problem to date, both as far as public protection and practical needs of the industry are concerned. We would also like to strongly emphasize that these two measures be effective 1 year from their enactment, thus allowing the industry to make necessary adjustments in order to comply. These two bills seem to contain a practical guaranty clause which seems to protect all concerned, whereas the guaranty clause, as contained in bill H. R. 2768, is entirely unworkable in the manufacture and mass production of textiles. Yours very truly, LESTER E. SCHULTZ. |