8. Subsection (c) of section 6 would constitute an unwarranted limitation upon the criminal provisions of, the legislation. For this reason and in the interest of uniformity with similar provisions in the Wool and Fur Products Labeling Acts, we suggest that subsection (c) of section 6 be revised as subsection (b) to read:

"(b) Whenever the Commission has reason to believe any person is guilty of a misdemeanor under this section, it shall certify all pertinent facts to the Attorney General, whose duty it shall be to cause appropriate proceedings to be brought for the enforcement of the provisions of this section against such person."

9. We believe the words "or Act of the United States", at the end of the first sentence of section 7 should be deleted in order to make it clear that this legislation in no way supersedes or limits any other law, whether State of Federal.

10. The remainder of the legislation proposed by S. 2908 appears adequate and no comment is made thereon. If the legislation proposed by this bill is enacted with the provisions recommended herein, the administration and enforcement thereof by the Federal Trade Commission would accord with administrative procedure under comparable statutes, namely, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act. In addition, such legislation would provide for injunctive relief as well as for actions in rem for seizure and condemnation of highly flammable articles of wearing apparel, fabrics and household products upon application by the Commission to the district courts in such instances where protection of the public interest requires such emergency measures. Such legislation would also provide for criminal proceedings against willful violators thereof.

The several administrative and enforcement provisions incorporated are of the type customarily found advisable and appropriate in legislation of this character, and experience has proven such procedure most effective and of a type least burdensome. The administration thereof can be readily integrated with the Commission's present duties and functions.

In conclusion, the Commission expresses the view that legislation of the type proposed by S. 2918, with the necessary revisions, is needed for the protection of the public interest, as well as for the protection of industry and trade. In connection with the committee's hearings and study of this bill, doubtless other points may arise and need attention. The Commission wishes to advise that members of its staff will be placed at the committee's disposal to assist in their consideration and in any other manner the committee may deem advisable. By direction of the Commission.

Sincerely yours,

JAS. M. MEAD, Chairman.

P. S.-In view of the fact that passage of the bill would confer additional duties upon the Commission for which funds are not available, we further recommend that there be added to the bill a provision of the customary type authorizing the enactment of such appropriations as are necessary and reasonably required to place the measure in operation and afford satisfactory enforcement.

I wish also to state that due to time limitations, we have been unable to secure the advice of the Bureau of the Budget respecting the relationship of the proposed legislation to the program of the President.

J. M. M.

THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE,
Washington, May 27, 1952.

Hon. EDWIN C. JOHNSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in further reply to your communication of March 28, 1952, requesting the views of this Department concerning S. 2918, a bill 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.

S. 2918 would prohibit the manufacture or sale in commerce, or the introduction, transportation or causing to be transported for sale or delivery after sale in commerce of articles of wearing apparel (except hats, gloves, and footwear) and fabrics intended for use in the manufacture of such apparel so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals. The standard of flammability to be used would be that standard established by the Commodity Standards Division of this Department and promulgated by the Secretary.

The provisions of the bill would not apply to common carriers; to persons manufacturing, shipping, selling or offering to sell for export to a foreign country any fabric or material made in accordance with the specifications of the purchaser; to convertors, processors or finishers performing a contract for a person subject to the act; or to shipments made for the purpose of processing the fabric or article to render it not highly flammable.

This Department believes that many articles in addition to those specified should be included in the provisions of the bill. We recommend that the bill be amended to remove the exemption of hats, gloves, and footwear and of all fabrics not intended for use in wearing apparel. Such items as baby blankets, drapery materials, and upholstery fabrics, if highly flammable, present a grave danger to the unsuspecting citizen. It also would appear to be extremely desirable to remove the exemption for hats, gloves and footwear, since such articles, if highly flammable, could be extremely dangerous to children and other persons unable to remove them easily. Hardship or serious difficulty to manufacturers would not appear to result from such extension of the coverage of the bill, since the requirements for testing and performance are moderate.

The bill should provide clearly for the establishment of different standards to be used to meet the special problems for various materials when the Secretary deems it advisable.

Section 4 should be revised to read: "Any article of wearing apparel or fabric which, when tested under the conditions and in the manner prescribed in a standard designated by the Secretary of Commerce for this purpose, exhibits rapid and intense burning as defined in such a standard shall be deemed so highly flammable under the provisions of this act as to be dangerous when worn by individuals."

The bill as presently written relies on the commercial standard for flammability of fabrics. These commercial standards, which are voluntarily developed by industry with the cooperation of the Department of Commerce and then promulgated by the Secretary, are not wholly creations of the Government. The responsibility for their drafting is joint, with industry and Government participating. Modification of such a standard can be accomplished only with approval of industry. This is not the type of a standard which should be relied upon in a criminal statute. The language proposed above would eliminate this difficulty. The safeguards of the Administrative Procedure Act would appear to be applicable to the designation of the standard by the Secretary under the proposed wording. If this proposal is accepted, subsection 2 (f) should be deleted.

Page 8, line 13, after "ness" the words "as a common carrier or contract carrier" should be inserted before the semicolon to make certain that the exemption of common or contract carriers applies only to their operations as a common carrier or contract carrier.

The exemption of items which are too hazardous to be allowed in domestic commerce when manufactured for export pursuant to specifications of the foreign purchaser appears to be questionable.

If amended to conform to these suggestions, this Department would recommend the early enactment of this legislation.

We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of this letter. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please call upon us.

Sincerely yours,

THOMAS W. S. DAVIS, Acting Secretary of Commerce.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington 25, April 15, 1952.

Hon. EDWIN C. JOHNSON,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

United States Senate.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have your letter of March 28, 1952, enclosing a copy of S. 2918, Fighty-second Congress, entitled "A bill 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," and inviting any comments I may care to offer concerning the proposed legislation.

Companion bills, H. R. 7256, H. R. 7257, and H. R. 7258, Eighty-second Congress, are presently before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Since the enactment of this bill would not affect any of the functions of the General Accounting Office, I have no comment to make other than to say that the purpose sought to be accomplished appears to be in the public interest and thus favorable action would be desired.

Sincerely yours,

FRANK P. YATES,

Acting Comptroller General of the United States. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Henry Miller, Assistant General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission.

STATEMENT OF HENRY MILLER, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL IN CHARGE OF INDUSTRY COOPERATION, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, my name is Henry Miller. I am Assistant General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission in charge of industry cooperation. I am very happy to have the opportunity to appear before this committee in considering this legislation and I wish to say on behalf of the Chairman of the Commission that we will offer every assistance possible to you and the committee.

This bill, S. 2918, is directed to a problem which is of acute concern from the standpoint of due protection of the consuming public. Highly flammable fabrics and garments have come on the market from time to time, and cases of serious bodily injury and even death from burning have been suffered by unsuspecting purchasers and

consumers.

The need for effective governmental action to protect the public is widely recognized. It is my understanding that this bill is sponsored or supported at least in principle by virtually all segments of the textile industries and trades. Such constitutes not only wide recognition of the need and desirability of legislation on the subject but it is also indicative of a spirit of cooperation among the businesses concerned toward working out legislation that will constructively serve the public good.

The bill is directed to outlawing 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. Respecting the general field of textile merchandise and in line with what we understand the general objectives of the bill to be, the Federal Trade Commission strongly favors enactment of the proposed legislation in such form as will afford an effective means of protecting consumers from the hazards of personal injury due to the highly flammable character of articles which they wear on their persons and textile articles which, under conditions involved in their use in the home, endanger the safety of the individual because of their highly flammable character.

Actual experiences in the past show that the risks and possibilities of bodily harm suffered by consumers are severe and of the most dangerous type. The great wave of burnings and even deaths which children have suffered when wearing highly flammable cowboy playsuits is still within the memory of many of us. Burning cases of most distressing character have also resulted from other fabrics and garments. In 1947 Dr. Bonnet, appearing as a member of the technical committee of the National Dry Goods Association and for the American Viscose Corp., a highly respected and well-informed

textile expert, testified on the subject at a hearing before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives. He described numerous burning cases as examples of the dangers and injuries suffered by consumers.

In the course of his testimony he stated he was bringing to the attention of the committee "just a few of the cases, not only of deaths, but of horrible maiming of individuals caused by dangerously flammable wearing apparel." He said that unfortunately "the major portion of these tragedies concern women and children"; that as a result of his studies of the subject he and his associates were "shocked" to learn "just how great has been the death toll of what we once considered innocent wearing apparel." He described a few of the

cases as follows:

Martha M. Gross, Kansas City, Mo., had a sweater patterned after angora, having long, fuzzy nap, purchased in Baltimore. The head of a match flew off against the sweater, igniting it. Her brother and sister came to her rescue and both were burned. She was very ill and suffered disfiguring scars and her hands were injured so that she could no longer follow her profession, which was that of a stenographer and secretary.

I would like to add here that she sent a very pathetic letter to the National Bureau of Standards, and to other departments, asking whether something could not be done to prevent such accidents happening to others. She said it was all over with her case, but certainly life was still dear in America.

Then, we have the case of Doris E. Diffenbach who was injured when a cotton chenille dressing gown took fire.

Georgia Stevens, 18-year-old coed, was burned to death at a sorority initiation rite last spring at the University of exas. It was a candle-li ht ini iation and her gown brushed against a lighted candle. She died the next morning.

Virginia Black wore a white tulle dress at a coming-out dance at the St. Regis Hotel. The dress caught fire and she was severely burned. She is still in the hospital, I understand.

Angelica and Harry Murphy are bringing suit for $125,000 because of some apron material, a coated fabric so highly flammable that when it came in proximity of a heated stove it took fire and severely burned her and her husband.

Mary Lee Cummings, aged 5, Whittier, Calif., was wearing a plastic raincape and backed into a radiant heater which ignited the plastic, causing second- and third-degree burns from which she died. That is the one that Mr. Dorn referred to in his testimony, and was reported by the California State fire marshal.

I need hardly refer you the twenty-odd boys 3 to 8 years of age who were burned, maimed, and six of which died, as the result of burns sustained when their cowboy suits took fire.

The National Fire Protective Association records the following:

In Oakland, Calif., a girl died from burns received when her costume caught fire at a lodge entertainment.

In Magnolia, Ark., a Negro woman died from burns received when a grass dress caught fire from a can heater in a dressing room of a traveling minstrel show. In Omaha, Nebr., a child dressed in an Indian costume which caught fire from the lighted jack-o'-lantern she was carrying. She suffered fatal burns.

I might add that children go to communion or confirmation carrying lighted candles, and have been injured.

In New Orleans on February 12, 1947, a bride, Mrs. Jess Rockenbaugh, was wearing a bathrobe which caught on fire. She was saved by her husband who cut the robe belt and pulled off the robe, but not before she suffered third-degree burns, and she is still in the hospital.

In Old Greenwich, Conn., a man's pajamas caught fire from the kitchen range. He suffered fatal burns. Those were cotton nap pajamas.

In Portland, Oreg., a man died of burns received when his trouser leg became ignited by a match. I do not know what he was wearing.

In Washington, D. C., a child's costume became ignited from a candle in a jack-o'-lantern. She was out in the yard when the accident occurred. She suffered fatal burns.

In Indianapolis, Ind., a woman pulled a light plug from a receptacle when a short circuit occurred, throwing sparks onto her dress. She suffered fatal burns.

In Yonkers, N. Y., a 4-year-old child was turned into a blazing torch as her Halloween costume was ignited by a jack-o'-lantern. She died in a hospital. In Detroit, Mich., a man died of burns when his bathrobe caught fire when he was tending the furnace in his home.

In Denver, Colo., a woman suffered fatal burns when her clothing ignited while standing in front of a lighted fireplace.

I might mention a few others mentioned this morning. Namely: Mrs. Booth Tarkington, was wearing some hair combs and was drying her hair in an ordinary hair dryer when she suffered severe burns owing to the ignition, spontaneous ignition, of those combs.

There was also a case of a woman sitting in front of a chafing dish wearing nitrocellulose buttons. These buttons practically exploded in her face and set her afire. She died of her injuries. This is given in Coronet under the heading of an article headed "Fire Trap."

I need not go on, I think, with the recitation of these cases. They extend over many years. They have grown more numerous within recent years.

It was also brought out at that same hearing by statement of Mr. S. H. Ingberg, Chief, Fire Resistance Section of the National Bureau of Standards, that he conducted a survey by questionnaire of hospitals to learn of burning cases, that there came to his attention 37 cases of children being burned from wearing cowboy playsuits with chaps of long-napped material, and that 36 percent of these 37 burning cases were fatal. In referring to them he said that they were instances in which

the clothing was set fire in most cases by matches or by sparks from fires, and a few by electric heaters, candles, or burning cigarettes.

The wave of these injuries throughout the United States led to expressions of public alarm, and also led many in the textile business to give further serious thought toward preventing these hazardous conditions. I think it is fair to say that the great body of reputable manufacturers took stock of the situation and reexamined into their own control methods with a view of avoiding the production of fabrics and garments that are highly dangerous. However, despite these commendable efforts on the part of most manufacturers and merchants. it is a sad fact that the highly dangerous articles continue to find their way into the market. More recently we have had the experience of the so-called explosive sweaters or jackets being distributed throughout the country and sold to the consuming public by itinerant vendors. Actual experience as well as tests showed these sweaters to have been so highly flammable as to be easily ignited and capable of flaming up almost explosively and burning so rapidly as to make it virtually impossible for the wearer to remove the garment before suffering severe burns.

It is reported that a man in Los Angeles lit a cigarette on leaving a theater and almost simultaneously his sweater ignited and the entire front appeared to explode. He attempted to brush out the fire with his hands and the sleeves ignited. He tore off the sweater but before he could do this he suffered first degree burns. A dozen instances of sweaters having caught fire and burned with alarming rapidity were soon brought to the attention of the fire captain of that city, and it is reported that at least eight persons in the city were known to have suffered burns.

One man lost his sweater in flames while sitting in a courtroom. In another instance a man driving his automobile lit a cigarette which ignited his sweater. He succeeded in pulling it over his head but suffered second and third degree burns on his face, neck and hands.