Mr. GEORGE BUCK, TUFTED TEXTILE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, Technical Advisor, National Cotton Council of America, Washington, D. C. DEAR GEORGE: It will be impossible for me or any of our committee to attend the hearing before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee on bills H. R. 7256, H. R. 7257, H. R. 7258, and S. 2918. All of the bills seem to be practically the same and as the National Cotton Council of America is as interested in these bills as this segment of the cotton industry, we will appreciate it if you will represent the tufted (chenille) robe and garment manufacturers of the tufted textile manufacturing industry and in behalf of their association. We may advise you that we have held numerous committee meetings and have done extensive research over the past 5 years on the proposed voluntary standards proposed by the United States Bureau of Standards. Our committee as well as our board of directors highly recommend the passage of these bills as they are now written and to incorporate the standards TS 5131 as now written in the House and Senate bills. However, we may advise we will be very much against any change whatsoever in this proposed standard or in the bills themselves. Tufted textiles as manufactured are not combustible or dangerous as recommended for manufacture by the Tufted Textile Manufacturers Association and its research division. As stated above, the bills as written and the standards as proposed, we are in favor of. Any changes, however, in same may greatly reduce the production in this industry. The industry in its entirety uses over 425,000 bales of cotton per year and employs directly over 20,000 employees. We cannot help but feel sure that Congress does not wish to curtail production or to retard employment in this industry or any other legitimate industry. We wish to call your attention to the heading on these bills as mentioned above. Right under where it says "A bill," the bills state "to prohibit the introduction or movement in interstate commerce of articles of wearing apparel and fabrics which are so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals and for other purposes." We interpret "and for other purposes" to mean in this industry for wearing apparel only. However should this particular phrase in this paragraph mean that the fabrics have other purposes than wearing apparel in this bill, we would very much object to the bill. We will appreciate it if you will enter a copy of this letter in your statement before the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. Thanking you or your cooperation and with every good wish, we are Respectfully yours, HENRY C. BALL, Executive Vice President. Mr. Buck. The main point, Senator, is that this is a rather highly technical thing. We understand what we have in the commercial standard, and all the industry backs that standard and the bill in in which it is incorporated. Mr. CHENEY. I have a letter that I would like to submit for the record. The CHAIRMAN. Withoug objection, it may be put in the record. (The letters referred to are as follows:) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Mr. Roy A. CHENEY, President, Underwear Institute, Carlton Hotel, Washington 6, D. C. DEAR ROY: I have for acknowledgment your air mail-special delivery letter of May 22, concerning the development of commercial standards addressed to our Mr. H. A. Ehrman. Our method of procedure in the development and maintenance of commercial standards is described in the enclosed copy of Voluntary Standards Adopted by I have discussed the question you raise with the lawyers in the Department and believe that under the proposed bill the Secretary could promulgate or change nethod of test or commercial standard only after a public hearing at which the erested parties could air their views. Arbitrary or capricious action in the omulgation of such a rule could of course be corrected by judicial action. In line with your request, I am sending this letter to you by special delivery, the Carlton Hotel, Washington, D. C. With kindest personal regards, r. HERBERT A. EHRMAN, Commodity Standards Division, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR DOCTOR: There is a question which has been bothering me for some time d that is, exactly how commercial standards are developed and promulgated. Let's take the specific instance of the flammability bill introduced in the Senate Senator Johnson of Colorado-S. 2918. The bill states that the method of sts used shall be that test then in force as a commercial standard promulgated the Secretary of Commerce. The current one which you have sent out on mmability has met with general approval, but what is to prevent the Secretary Commerce changing that? In other words, can the Secretary of Commerce promulgate a method of test or mmercial standard such as this without the approval of the industries or parties volved and interested? If you have time, I will be grateful to you if you will drop me a line at the arlton Hotel, Washington 6, D. C., special delivery. I am enclosing a speciallivery and a 3-cent stamp for that purpose. Hope you are fine and that everything is going well with you. Very truly yours, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Ir. ROY A. CHENEY, President, Underwear Institute, Carlton Hotel, Washington 6, D. C. DEAR ROY: This will acknowledge your letter of May 22 concerning the evelopment of commercial standards. Our mthod of procedure in the development of commercial standards is consely given in the enclosed copy of Voluntary Standards Adopted by the Trade. Ir. Reynolds, the author, is assistant chief of our division which, as you will call, is the combined old Trade Standards Division and Division of Simplified ractice. Although we are no longer a division of the National Bureau of Standrds our procedure has remained the same and commercial standards are still eviewed by the National Bureau of Standards Editorial Committee. According to our procedure concerning revisions of commercial standards, any mange in a commercial standard must be approved by its standing committee. uch committees, as you know, are composed of representatives of all groups terested-producing, distributing, testing, and consuming. The revision is then istributed for written acceptance and the same procedure is followed for promulating as for the original standard. There is no national law for textiles today granting authority to any individual agency to develop or promulgate mandatory standards. You appreciate, of course, that the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 does not establish standards of quality or performance but merely requires labeling as to fiber content. In line with your request, I am sending this to you special delivery at the Carlton Hotel. No doubt you are planning to be at the hearing on Monday. I hope to see you there. Best regards, Sincerely yours, HERBERT A. EHRMAN, Commodity Standards Division. The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else have any further statement they want to make? Do you want to say anything more, Mr. Miller? Mr. MILLER. No. I just want it clearly understood we do not object to reliance upon the Secretary of Commerce and Bureau of Standards for these technical matters and for test methods and procedures. In my remarks I specifically said it should be left to those people who are qualified to perform that function. What we raise is the constitutional question. We do not have any objection to this particular standard that Mr. Buck has referred to. As far as I can see, I don't know what is in it, but whether we do or whether we do not is beside the point. If it is satisfactory to the Secretary of Commerce, as the language of this bill provides, we are perfectly willing to accept that, because his bureaus have the technical skill to make a proper determination of the point. We want some language worked out in there that will preclude the constitutional question which, as you know, can lead to just volumes of litigation and be years before it is settled. If you can clarify that point we are perfectly satisfied. The CHAIRMAN. All right. If there are no further statements we will declare the hearing closed. (Whereupon, at 12:35 p. m., the hearing was concluded.) (The following statement was submitted later:) RETAIL MERCHANTS' ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY, Re S. 2918: Flammable wearing apparel. Senator EDWIN C. JOHNSON, Montclair, N. J., May 19, 1952. Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR JOHNSON: My name is Philip W. Schindel. I am secretarytreasurer of the Retail Merchants' Association of New Jersey which, in addition to direct store members, is a federation of State and local retail groups in New Jersey comprising all kinds of stores carrying all types of merchandise. This testimony is submitted in support of S. 2918, a bill to prohibit the introduction or movement of wearing apparel and fabrics which are so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals. For many years retailers have favored legislation which would protect the public from the hazard of highly flammable wearing apparel. The difficulty in writing workable standards into a law seems now to have been adequately solved by S. 2918. The distribution of "torch sweaters" by house-to-house peddlers late in 1951 roused the public and retailers to the need for prompt legislative action. The New Jersey Legislature studied the situation and recommended that specific protection for the public be provided by the State legislature in 1953 if Federal control is not forthcoming. Adequate control of the introduction and movement of articles of wearing apparel which are so highly flammable that they are dangerous when worn should be on the national level. The disruptive effect of numerous State laws, each with its own standards of flammability and peculiar methods of control, such as labeling, are all too easy to visualize. Only Federal control provides a real solution Because legislation to control highly flammable wearing apparel is needed in the public interest and because this action should be taken by Congress, rather than by the separate States, and finally because the commercial standards of flammability set forth in S. 2918 are practical, workable, and afford protection to the public, favorable action on S. 2918 is urged. Respectfully submitted. PHILIP W. SCHINDEL, Secretary-Treasurer. Senator EDWIN C. JOHNSON. AMERICAN RETAIL FEDERATION, DEAR SENATOR JOHNSON: The American Retail Federation wishes to be placed on record as being in complete support of your bill S. 2918 which is intended to protect the public against the unexpected hazards of dangerously flammable wearing apparel. The American Retail Federation is a federation of 32 State-wide retail associations and 22 national retail trade associations, representing through its association membership more than 500,000 individual retail stores. The members of the federation strongly endorse your bill. They feel that it offers a practical working method of eliminating such dangerous products as "cowboy suits" and "torch sweaters" which have caused so many fatalities over the past few years. They feel that the enactment of Federal legislation on this subject will prevent a multiplicity of State and local laws on the subject. Such laws could not be expected to be uniform in character, and their enactment would lead to endless confusion and probably to meager and spotty enforcement, so that the end result would be to leave the consumer with practically no more protection than exists at present. In addition, the members of the federation realize that any attempt to write technical engineering standards into a law is difficult if not impossible. Accordingly, they endorse the approach which you have used in the bill, making the standard of flammability the "then applicable commercial standard promulgated by the Secretary of Commerce." It is hoped that there will be no departure from this approach. For these reasons the American Retail Federation supports the bill and hopes that it may receive early and favorable consideration by the Congress. Sincerely, ROWLAND JONES, Jr. Re S. 2918. Hon. EDWIN C. JOHNSON, CARPET INSTITUTE, INC., Chairman, Commit.ee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We have noted in the press that your committee concluded hearings on the above bill on Monday, May 26, 1952. As originally introduced, the bill applied only to wearing apparel, with which we are not concerned. Therefore, we made no attempt to appear before your committee. However, the recommendation of the Federal Trade Commission that the bill be considerably broadened in its scope to include among other things carpets and rugs gives us a very definite interest in your deliberations. We refer particularly to that part of the proposed law which has to do with tests for flammability which will be set up by the Bureau of Standards of the Department of Commerce. For some time now, the technical committee of the Carpet Institute has been working on this matter as it applies to our products. They have come to the conclusion, based on many tests and the compilation of much data, that there is no flammability test now in use by any industry that will produce accurate data as to the degree of flammability of carpets and rugs. This is particularly true with respect to those tests now in use for wearing apparel. They are in the process of preparing a new testing program, which they believe will produce proper results for our products and intend to present their results to the American Society of Testing Materials for the purpose of final development and approval as a flammability test for floor coverings. We are of the opinion, therefore, that unless special testing standards are set up in your bill for the products of our industry, if they are to be included, the results of any flammability tests under the proposed program will not give the information that we believe the public is entitled to. Sincerely yours, KING HOAGLAND, Secretary. THE SOCIETY OF THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY, INC., Hon. EDWIN C. JOHNSON, Chairman, Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, DEAR SIR: On May 26 I appeared before your committee when I made a statement recommending certain minor changes in S. 2918. Since S. 2918, as drafted, relates to fabrics used in wearing apparel, the suggestions included in my statement were confined to the bill as submitted. In reviewing the bill we agreed with its author's intentions and felt that you had, in introducing it, acted wisely in confining it to fabrics. When one of the witnesses appearing before the committee introduced the proposal that buttons be included in the measure, this illogical suggestion came as a surprise. Had we known anyone was going to make such a recommendation, we would have offered evidence and samples of wood, cloth-covered, plastic, and other types of buttons to demonstrate that these buttons do not in any way constitute a hazard and should not be included in the measure. Since the bill did not originally intend to cover anything except apparel, we do not presume it is the committee's intention to redraft it to include buttons. If, however, the committee is giving consideration to including buttons, we would like to request, if we may, permission to be heard to give the committee infor mation about the nonhazardous character of buttons and why it is obviously unnecessary to include them. Very truly yours, WM. T. CRUSE, Executive Vice President. THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF TEXTILES, INC., Re S. 2918, Flammability of textiles. Chairman, Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, United States Capitol, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is to thank you for the privilege so courteously extended to me of submitting a written statement for the record, in view of my inability to appear personally at the hearing on S. 2918 on Monday, May 26, 1952, due to cancellation of plane flights. The National Federation of Textiles, Inc., is the trade association representing the weavers of rayon, acetate, silk, nylon, and the several other new man-made fibers such as Orlon acrylic fiber, Dacron, Acrilan, etc. It represents approximately 78 percent of the operating looms of the industry (as measured by Census Bureau quarterly statistics) in about 275 individual mill locations. The National Federation of Textiles, Inc., approves, in principle, of S. 2918 because (1) It is unquestionably desirable from the standpoint of protecting the safety and welfare of the general public. (2) Certain technical representatives of firms in our industry are members of the various technical organizations endorsing this bill. They have participated in the establishment of the Recommended Commercial Standard for Flammability of Clothing Textiles, TS. 5131, upon which administration of the bill will depend. However, at the public hearing on this bill on May 26, questions of fact and philosophy were raised which we understand are now the subject of discussion between representatives of business and of the Federal Trade Commission, which is the administrative agent for S. 2918. Therefore, as stated, the federation gives approval to S. 2918, in principle, |