The following table outlines our experience by years from 1946 to 1951, inclusive:

The foregoing statistics are interesting, since you will note that of the 82 persons involved, only 6 were male, 76 being female. The 76 females were almost evenly divided between adults and children, there being 37 female adults and 39 female children affected. The reason for more female cases than male is because of the more highly flammable nature of the clothing worn by the female sex than that of the male, and it is in this field that more stringent regulation is necessary. Note, also, that during the years 1946, 1947, and 1948, deaths exceeded injuries by almost 2 to 1, whereas during the years 1949, 1950, and 1951, deaths were only about half as great as the injuries. This would seem to indicate that California regulations are reducing the seriousness of the fires, even though they are not preventing them.

A brief summary of our operating procedure is as follows:

1. We first establish a testing and evaluating procedure or minimum standards of safety in articles of wearing apparel;

2. We have solicited and obtained the cooperation of California merchants in specifying in their purchase orders that material furnished thereunder shall meet California minimum fire safety standards;

3. We give free-testing service to merchants and manufacturers desiring to submit their products for test and evaluation, and if the material meets our standards, we give them a letter certifying to this fact. Manufacturers then may certify to our merchants that the material supplied them meets California standards;

4. We make periodical random checks on goods being offered for sale in stores and shops; and,

5. We endeavor to apprehend and prosecute violators.

It has not been necessary for us to prosecute any of the legitimate merchants or manufacturers in California, but we recently prosecuted, with success, peddlers who were selling the so-called hot sweaters in California. We filed charges against several of the peddlers and a peddler wholesale concern that was supplying them, and obtained convictions in all cases except one where some evidence was lacking.

I have studied Congressman Canfield's bills H. R. 389 and H. R. 3851. H. R. 389 vested authority in the Secretary of Commerce to establish standards in the same manner as we establish the standards in California, and provided for coordination of enforcement between Federal, State, and local authorities in the administration of the act. We believe that H. R. 389 was a satisfactory solution, but we now find that Mr. Canfield has introduced H. R. 3851 which delegates to industry the authority for establishing the standards, without giving the public officials who are charged with the responsibility of providing safety for our public any voice in the matter whatsoever.

H. R. 3851 turns over to industry the full authority to set the flammable wearing apparel standards, and once they are established, industry will be well protected against lawful suits by victims of wearing apparel fires, but I do not believe the standards will provide for the safety of the general public. The commercial standards now referred to in H. R. 3851 are considerably below the California standards, and they do not provide any standards whatsoever to govern the sale of highly flammable plastic film or highly flammable plastic-coated fabrics. These standards do not even set up a procedure for testing plastics and plasticcoated materials, and the standards for knitted and woven fabrics appear to have been developed for the purpose of passing all existing types of fabrics except those having a high-piled surface.

I am enclosing a copy of my letter to Mr. Herbert A. Ehrman of the Commodity Standards Division, United States Department of Commerce, which clearly indicates my thinking on their present flammable wearing apparel standards. I am also enclosing a copy of my letter to Hon. Gordon Canfield on H. R. 389, dated March 6, 1953, and my letter to him regarding H. R. 3851 dated March 20, 1953, and I believe that our feelings are quite clearly expressed in these letters, and in my more recent letter of April 7, 1953, a copy of which is also enclosed.

We realize that there is a great need for a national standard for fire safety in wearing apparel. Hundreds of lives are needlessly sacrificed because of dangerously flammable articles of wearing apparel that are being sold on the market today, but to correct this situation, we need good standards and not just standards to protect industry against lawful suit. I believe that the United States Bureau of Standards has all of the facilities and know-how to develop reasonable and good flammable wearing apparel standards if given authority to do so, but I believe that public officials who are charged with a responsibility such as I am myself, are entitled to a voice in setting the standards of safety. Certainly we who devote our entire lives to providing safety for the public are in a better position to know where the standards should be set than anyone else, and I do not believe that it can be said that we established standards in California without giving both merchants and manufacturers a full opportunity to study them and make suggestions.

I want to compliment you on your long fight for a standard of safety in wearing apparel which would provide the public with a reasonable degree of safety. I hope that you do not become discouraged in your worthy effort, and if I may be of further assistance to you, please feel free to call upon me.

Yours very truly,

JOE R. YOCKERS, State Fire Marshal

The CHAIRMAN. I have a list which has been compiled since we started the hearings today showing the great number who have indicated a desire to appear before the committee. I can see many duplications in the sense of speaking for similar organizations. I am hopeful that it will be possible by conference among yourselves in the industry, that you can agree on 65 percent as a speaking arrangement to be laid out here, because if we go the full length and hear 100 percent, I can tell you that it will take a very considerable length of time and it would be very much preferred by the committee if those who are leading in the support of the legislation, either one bill or another, would have some kind of an understanding between themselves to present their statements. That would save time to the committee and save time for everyone, if they can give all of the information that will be helpful to the committee in deciding the question. It will be very helpful and very much appreciated.

Tomorrow's hearings have already been arranged for. Next week is filled with hearings.

So that the earliest possible time that I can see when we can again take this matter up, without doing violence to the program that we have already laid out of which the people interested and parties interested have been notified, would be the week after next. Is that right, Mr. Clerk?

The CLERK. Yes

The CHAIRMAN. I will say for the information of all that it will probably be sometime during the week of April 27. You will have plenty of notice. We will probably make the determination this afternoon, or by tomorrow morning at the latest.

Mr. HESELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I express the hope that some witness will address himself to the point of the constitutionality which has been raised.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be well, following the suggestion of Mr. Heselton, to have someone speak on the question of constitutionality of that provision of the bill which relates to 65 percent of the industry and to which objection has been made by the Federal Trade Commission, and I would be pleased, if there are any representatives here of the Commerce Department and the Bureau of Standards, if they would give me an opportunity of speaking to them in my office in the rear of the committee room, before they leave. And, if there are any representatives of the Federal Trade Commission, or any other Federal agencies here, I would like to meet them immediately following this meeting in my office to the rear of the committee room. Is there anything further, gentlemen?

I regret that the business of the day prevents our going on with this this afternoon. The House is in session.

(Thereupon, at 12: 15 p. m., the committee adjourned to meet at the call of the Chair.)

FLAMMABLE FABRICS ACT

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1953

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to call, in room 1334, New House Office Building, Hon. Charles A. Wolverton (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We have met to continue our hearings on the so-called flammable materials bills, H. R. 389, H. R. 2768, H. R. 3851, H. R. 4159, and H. R. 4500.

Is there any plan among the witnesses present as to the order in which they wish to present their testimony?

(After calling a roll of the list of witnesses, and further informal discussion, the following proceedings were had :)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buck, we will hear you. How long will your statement take?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE S. BUCK, JR., TECHNICAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA

Mr. BUCK. About 20 or 25 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. I hope that you can shorten it a bit, in view of the fact that there are so many other witnesses and there must be a limitation of time owing to the fact that we have these bills set down for hearing today and tomorrow, and with the House in session, and our inability to get consent for the committee to sit while the House is in session, it necessitates that we keep our statements within a time that will enable us to finish.

You may proceed, Mr. Buck.

Mr. Buck. My name is George S. Buck, Jr. I am technical director of the National Cotton Council. The National Cotton Council is the organization which represents the six basic groups of the cotton industry: the cotton producers, ginners, seed crushers, warehousemen, merchants, and spinners.

The National Cotton Council joins other textile interests, as well as merchandising and consumer groups, in urging favorable action by the Congress on flammable fabrics legislation.

This committee has before it H. R. 389 introduced by Representative Canfield, and H. R. 2768, introduced by Mr. Wolverton, these two being identical. Also before this committee are H. R. 3851, H. R. 4159, and H. R. 4500, introduced by Representatives Canfield, Johnson, and Williams, respectively. For convenience, I would like to refer to these latter 3 as the revised bill, and to the former 2 as the original bill.

33167-53-5

61