U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–372 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 108–964 

HOME PRODUCTS FIRE SAFETY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 14, 2004 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, 

Ranking 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Republican Chief Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 14, 2004 ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Hollings ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Smith ................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES

Chapman, Norman, President and Chief Operating Officer, Inman Mills ......... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Counts, Andy, Chief Executive Officer, American Furniture Manufacturers 

Association ............................................................................................................ 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Dean, John, Vice President, National Association of State Fire Marshals ......... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Higgins, Robert, President, National Candle Association .................................... 26 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Klancnik, Al, Group Vice President, Serta, Inc. .................................................... 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Stratton, Hon. Hal, Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ..... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX

American Burn Association, statement ................................................................. 61 

Buczek, Mark, Chairman, American Fire Safety Council, prepared statement . 73 

Decorative Fabrics Association and the Coalition of Converters of Decorative 

Fabrics Concerning the Proposed American Home Fire Safety Act, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 63 

Letter dated November 29, 2004 to Ms. Sunita Krishna from Douglas J. 

Kahn, Chief Operating Officer, Croscill Home .................................................. 62 

Letter dated July 13, 2004 to Hon. John McCain from M. L. Fontenot, 

Chief Executive Officer, WestPoint Stevens Inc. ...............................................

Orders, David K., Vice President, Administration, Park Place Corporation 

On Behalf of the International Sleep Products Association, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 67 

National Textile Association (NTA), prepared statement .................................... 72 

(1) 

HOME PRODUCTS FIRE SAFETY 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 2004 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m. in room SR– 

253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Gordon H. Smith, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. It’s a pleasure to be here with my colleague. I 

apologize to him that I was delayed in a downtown speech. It was 

a spellbinding speech. I’m sorry you all missed it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SMITH. But, no, seriously, it’s great to have you all here. 

We thank you for joining us for this important hearing on Home 

Products Fire Safety. I welcome the witnesses who are appearing 

before the Committee today. 

The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that each 

year over 2,850 Americans die, with another 15,000 who are injured in residential fires, which can collectively account for more 

than an estimated $6 billion in property losses. The Commission 

attributes a third of all deaths to fires involving upholstery furniture, mattresses, bedding products, and small open flames such 

as candles or matches. 

In a 2003 study, the CPSC found that in 1999 there were 9,300 upholstered-furniture fires that resulted in 440 lives lost and $232 

million in property damages; 18,000 mattresses and bedding fires 

that cost $300 million in property loss and took 330 lives; and 

14,500 candle-related fires that resulted in $245 million in property 

damage and 100 deaths. 

The Commission has made the reduction of residential fires a top 

priority. Currently, the CPSC is in the process of developing flammability standards for upholstered furniture, mattresses, and bedding, and has worked closely with the candle industry to establish 

voluntary standards. 

Chairman Stratton is here to highlight the Commission’s 

progress with these standards, and I look forward to hearing how 

he expects to resolve the challenges facing the development of such 

standards. 

Before we begin, however, I feel it’s important to note that we 

must be careful to strike a balance between providing effective 

flammability standards that will protect our homes and our famiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
2 

lies while ensuring that any new standards are practical in relationship to manufacturing issues of cost and quality. My hope is 

that this hearing will help provide insight into how such a balance 

can be achieved. 

In addition, the CPSC should be cognizant that there is concern 

relating to the use of potentially dangerous chemical-based flame 

retardants in upholstered furniture, mattresses, and bedding. It’s 

important that, in making home products less flammable, we do 

not, in turn, make them more harmful to consumers. 

I, again, want to thank Senator Hollings for his presence here, 

but more for his leadership on this issue. He has worked tirelessly 

on it, and he knows something of this subject from a personal 

standpoint, as he and Peatsy saw much their life’s possessions go 

up in flames in South Carolina, and that is a perspective that 

makes him unusually qualified and appropriate to urge what he’s 

urging this morning. 

Thank you, Senator Hollings. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I concur in your statement. 

Senator SMITH. Our first panel is the Honorable Hal Stratton, 

Chairman of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Chairman Stratton, the mike is yours. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HAL STRATTON, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION 

Chairman STRATTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure 

to be here today. 

I, first, do also want to thank Senator Hollings for, you know, the 

impetus behind this hearing, because it is very important. It’s some 

of the most important work we do. And I am pleased to be able to 

come over here and inform him that he has been persuasive already in his opening statements. We’re in complete agreement with 

him, and my comments will indicate that as we go through the testimony. 

Also, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for chairing the Committee today. Not all of my people are aware of your New Mexico 

roots and some tentacles that you have back there at the New Mexico Supreme Court. So we still claim a little bit of you down there 

in New Mexico, so it’s a pleasure to have you here and chairing the 

Committee for us. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. 

Chairman STRATTON. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to 

update the Committee on the work of the U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission in regard—and to answer any questions that 

you may have. Reducing fire deaths is one of our top priorities and 

most serious challenges at the CPSC, and a key goal in our strategic plan. I would like to thank the Senators for having a hearing 

today on this very important subject. 

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission was established 30 years ago as an independent bipartisan Commission 

3 

to protect families against unreasonable risks of serious injury and 

death from hazardous consumer products. Though we are a small 

agency, over that time the work of the CPSC has contributed significantly to the 30 percent decline in the rate of deaths and injuries from consumer products in the United States. 

More deaths result from residential fires than from any other 

hazard under the CPSC’s jurisdiction. Children and seniors are 

particularly vulnerable to danger of residential fires. While the 

CPSC has been active in implementing and administering safety 

standards and compliance activity on a wide range of consumer 

products, this morning I want to specifically discuss our activities 

on mattresses, bedding, upholstered furniture, and candles. 

In my written statement, I’ve included a chronology of the work 

of the CPSC on these products prior to my tenure. The CPSC has 

a long history of involvement with both mattress and upholstered 

furniture flammability, but I’d like to take this opportunity to update the Committee on the more recent activities, particularly 

those since I’ve been there. 

In August 2002, I was privileged to be sworn in as Chairman of 

the Commission. After assuming this position, and having had an 

opportunity to review all the work being done on product safety 

throughout the agency, I identified two regulatory projects—upholstered furniture and mattress flammability—as areas I wanted to 

make top priorities of the agency, and instructed our staff to move 

these projects forward as quickly as legally possible. 

I am pleased to report to the Committee this morning that, after 

a long history in the development of flammability standards for upholstered furniture, a decision package that includes a draft standard will be on my desk, and those of the other commissioners, this 

fall. I’m also pleased to report to the Committee that a decision 

package that includes a draft standard for mattresses will be on 

our desks this fall, as well. I can assure you that, after reviewing 

the staff analysis within the briefing packages, the Commission 

will move as quickly as possible toward completing the regulatory 

process on both of these issues. 

These two hazards are an important priority for us. I have 

worked closely with the staff, as well as with a variety of outside 

stakeholders, to move this process forward as quickly as possible 

through the procedures that our governing statutes require. 

Knowing of your deep interest in this area, I am pleased to report the progress we’ve made to the Committee today. In the 30- 

year history of the CPSC, the agency has never promulgated a regulation having an economic impact as big as either of these standards is likely to have. When the Commission issued the Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for mattress flammability standards, several commentors suggested that a standard also may be 

needed for bedclothes. Some of the data may suggest that bedclothes could contribute to the hazard posed by mattress and bedding fires. In response to these comments, the CPSC staff will include a draft Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on bedclothes in conjunction with the mattress briefing package being 

presented to the Commission this fall. 

With regard to candle safety, the CPSC staff has been working 

with ASTM International to develop voluntary standards for canVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
4 

dles since 1997. Our statutes require that the agency defer to voluntary standards when those standards eliminate or adequately reduce the risk of injury addressed and it is likely that there will be 

substantial compliance by the industry with such standards. In 

this regard, the CPSC has worked closely with ASTM on the development of a number of candle standards, including the comprehensive voluntary fire-safety standard for candles that is currently provisional, that’s scheduled to be formally approved in January 2005. 

In addition, the National Association of State Fire Marshals filed 

a petition to make this ASTM PS 59–02 voluntary standard a mandatory standard. This petition was docketed with the Commission 

on March 10 of this year, and the Commission staff is now analyzing public comments, which have been filed and addressed to 

the petition. 

In addition to these products, the Commission is also active on 

other fronts regarding fire safety in the home. We launched an important initiative on children’s sleep-wear safety with our new 

Burn Center Reporting System, where we’re working with the 

Shriners Hospitals and the American Burn Association as our partners. Other technical staff is also working on fire safety projects 

such as effectiveness of smoke alarms, including wireless technologies and improved audibility. 

In my experience with these types of fire hazards while at the 

Commission, I’ve learned of the human tragedy and family agony 

of a child or a parent lost in a house fire. I can assure the Committee that the reduction of the hazards posed by residential fires 

will continue to be a top priority of mine as long as I am Chairman 

of the Commission. 

I want to thank you, once again, for this hearing, and I’ll be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Stratton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HAL STRATTON, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this morning’s hearing 

on standards for home products fire safety. I appreciate the opportunity to be here 

this morning to update the Committee on the work of the U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (CPSC) on the fire hazards that fall under our jurisdiction and 

to answer any questions that you may have. Any views I express this morning are 

mine as Chairman of the Commission and not necessarily those of the other Commissioners. Reducing fire deaths is one of our most serious challenges at CPSC, and 

I would like to thank the Senators for having a hearing today on this very important subject. 

By way of introduction, the CPSC was established 30 years ago as an independent, bipartisan commission, to protect children and families against unreasonable risks of injury and death from hazardous consumer products. Over that time 

the work of the CPSC has contributed significantly to the 30 percent decline in the 

rate of deaths and injuries from these products. 

The CPSC enforces five Federal statutes, including the Flammable Fabrics Act, 

and through these laws, the agency has jurisdiction over the safety of some 15,000 

types of consumer products. The CPSC is a relatively small agency, with 470 employees including those here at our headquarters and laboratory in the Washington 

area and also in our field positions across the country. Since the inception of the 

agency, the annual number of deaths and injuries prevented by just a sample of 

CPSC activities has reduced societal costs by over $15 billion. Last year, we directed 

over 280 recalls of unsafe products that involved over 40 million units. 

Today we are here to talk about fire deaths and injuries, and specifically those 

fires related to the ignition of upholstered furniture, mattresses, bedding and candles. Reducing fire-related deaths is a key goal in CPSC’s Strategic Plan, and I apVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
5 

preciate the opportunity to discuss this serious problem and CPSC’s current activities and planned initiatives in this regard. 

Residential fires result in more deaths than any other hazard under CPSC’s jurisdiction. Children and seniors are particularly vulnerable. In fact, children under five 

years of age have a fire death rate more than twice the average for all ages. Products most often ignited in fire deaths are upholstered furniture, mattresses and bedding. In recent years, these product categories were associated with about one-third 

of fire deaths. 

While deaths due to fire have declined substantially since the 1980s, I believe that 

still more can be achieved to reduce these tragic deaths. Past standard setting and 

compliance activities by the CPSC have contributed to this decline including CPSC’s 

work on cigarette-resistant mattresses, heating and cooking equipment, electrical 

products, wearing apparel and children’s sleepwear, child-resistant lighters, fireworks, smoke alarms and residential fire sprinklers. This morning, however, I want 

to specifically discuss our activities on mattresses, bedding, upholstered furniture 

and candles. 

I would like to begin by giving the Committee a short chronology of the work of 

the CPSC on these products prior to my tenure. It was in the early 1970s that the 

Secretary of Commerce promulgated the original Standard for the Flammability of 

Mattresses, requiring mattresses to resist ignition by smoldering cigarettes. Authority to administer that standard was transferred to the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission when it was created in 1972. While smoldering ignition incidents declined over the years after this standard was enacted, mattress fire ignition by open 

flame sources, primarily involving child-play, emerged as a continuing problem. 

In 1998 the CPSC staff initiated work with the mattress industry and other interested parties to address this hazard. A test method was developed that could be 

used in a mandatory standard to reduce associated deaths and injuries. In 2001 

CPSC began formal rulemaking procedures for an open flame standard by issuing 

an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

I should note at this point that the Consumer Product Safety Commission, unlike 

most agencies, has a three-part rulemaking process that is initiated by an Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), followed by a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), and ended with a notice of Final Rule. 

With regard to upholstered furniture flammability, CPSC has been working on 

this hazard since the agency’s inception. The primary focus was initially on the risk 

of smoldering ignitions from cigarettes since these fires accounted for most of the 

observed fire losses. A voluntary standard has been in place since 1978 to address 

this risk and has contributed to the decline in the smoldering hazard. 

In 1997 CPSC staff forwarded a regulatory options package to the Commissioners 

concluding that a small open flame standard for upholstered furniture was feasible 

but recommending that the agency study possible chemical risks associated with 

flame retardants that might be used on upholstery fabrics to comply with a rule. 

At that time, the Commission deferred action on the proposed rule and held a public 

hearing on flame retardant chemicals. CPSC staff started working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a possible Significant New Use Rule 

(SNUR) for fabric treatments. Subsequently, in CPSC’s Fiscal Year 1999 appropriation, Congress directed the agency to sponsor an independent study of flame retardant chemicals by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). NAS submitted its report 

reviewing sixteen flame retardant chemicals to Congress the following year. The report concluded that eight would pose no significant human health risk but recommended further study for the eight others. 

Subsequently, CPSC staff forwarded a regulatory options package to the Commission recommending that the agency actively share and discuss the large volume of 

technical information in the package with the public before considering a proposed 

rule. In July of 2002, CPSC held a public meeting to present the staff’s direction 

and receive comments and recommendations on an upholstered furniture standard. 

As I noted earlier, this is an abbreviated chronology, but clearly, the CPSC has 

a long history of involvement with both mattress and upholstered furniture flammability. I would like to now update the Committee on our more recent activities. 

On August 2, 2002, I was privileged to be sworn in as Chairman of the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission and to join my able colleagues, Commissioner and Vice 

Chair Thomas Moore and Commissioner Mary Gall in working to advance the agency’s important mission of making America’s homes, schools and playgrounds safe 

and secure for America’s families. In particular, shortly after assuming this Chairmanship, and having reviewed all the work being done on product safety by this 

agency, I identified two projects—upholstered furniture and mattress flammability— 

as my top priorities and instructed the staff to move these projects forward as quickly as legally possible. 

6 

Mr. Chairman, I remain convinced that reducing residential fires should be our 

top priority at the CPSC. There is little question in my mind that these new standards, once complete, will save lives and property. 

In 2003, I directed the staff to present the Commission with a new, expanded regulatory proceeding to cover both cigarette and small open flame risks for upholstered furniture. I was pleased that my fellow Commissioners agreed with this 

change, and we voted unanimously in favor of the new, expanded ANPR. 

I am pleased to report to you this morning that after this long history in the development of a flammability standard for upholstered furniture, a decision package 

that includes a draft standard will be on my desk and that of the other two Commissioners this Fall. 

I am also pleased to report to the Committee that CPSC staff is finalizing a draft 

standard to be included in a decision package on mattress flammability. This decision package on mattresses will also be presented to the Commissioners this Fall. 

I can assure you that the Commission will move quickly to make a decision on moving forward with an NPR for mattresses after reviewing the staff analysis within 

that package. 

These two hazards—mattress and upholstered furniture flammability—have been 

an important priority for my Chairmanship. I have worked closely with staff as well 

as outside stakeholders to move this process forward as quickly as possible through 

the data-collection, test methods performance and evaluation, legal checkpoints, 

public comment and many related procedures that our governing statutes require. 

Knowing of your deep interest in these products, I am pleased to report the substantial progress we have made to the Committee today. In the thirty year history 

of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency has never promulgated a 

regulation with an economic impact of this size—above the $100 million annual impact necessary to qualify as a ‘‘major’’ rule under the Congressional Regulatory Review Act. Our mattress and upholstered furniture standards are each likely to exceed that impact. 

I would also like to update you on our work with bedclothes flammability. When 

the Commission issued the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a mattress 

flammability standard, several commenters suggested that a standard is also needed for bedclothes, which includes such products as comforters, pillows and mattress 

pads. Research indicates that bedclothes can contribute significantly to the hazard 

posed by mattress and bedding fires. 

In response to these comments and research, CPSC staff will include a draft Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on bedclothes as part of the mattress briefing 

package being presented to the Commissioners this Fall. Both product categories 

play a role in residential fires, and therefore, we believe it is important to understand and consider the unique interactions they can have when exposed to an open 

flame source. 

I would now like to turn our attention to CPSC activities on candle safety. In 

1997, with the increasing popularity of candles and the increasing numbers of fires 

associated with them, the CPSC staff began working with ASTM International, the 

consensus standards developing organization, to develop voluntary standards for 

candles and candle products. There are now standards addressing various aspects 

of the fire hazards associated with candles and candle products including hazard labeling, smoking and the integrity of glass containers. Additional performance requirements are being developed for gel candles and accessories. 

In March of this year, CPSC received and docketed a petition from the National 

Association of State Fire Marshals to issue mandatory fire safety standards for candles and candle accessories. The Commission issued a notice in the Federal Register 

soliciting written comments concerning the petition. CPSC staff is currently reviewing these comments and preparing responses and a recommendation to the Commission. 

CPSC’s statutes require that the agency rely on voluntary standards when those 

standards adequately address the hazard and there is substantial conformance with 

them, and in this regard, CPSC is continuing to work closely with ASTM to finalize 

the comprehensive voluntary Fire Safety Standard for Candles that covers flame 

height, secondary ignition, end of useful life and stability. That standard is currently provisional and is expected to be formally approved in January. 

In addition to these products, the Commission is also active on other fronts regarding fire safety in the home. CPSC has an important initiative on children’s 

sleepwear safety with our new Burn Center Reporting System. We will be releasing 

a report on our findings from that project later this Summer. 

CPSC is also working to strengthen or develop voluntary standards or codes on 

a variety of other household products that are sometimes involved in starting fires. 

Improving the effectiveness of smoke alarms, including wireless technologies and 

7 

improved audibility, is another project on which the CPSC is working. Obviously, 

the sooner we can alert residents to the danger of fire in the home, the more quickly 

they can escape. This is especially important for the elderly and for children. 

As I noted earlier, the Consumer Product Safety Commission is a small agency 

with a big mission. We have an impact well beyond our size on America’s families 

and the safety of their homes, schools and playgrounds. In addition to identifying 

product hazards and developing standards, CPSC also conducts regular public 

awareness campaigns to keep the public informed of potential household hazards 

from fireworks safety to pool drownings. 

Fire safety is a critical component of this agency’s mission. In my research on 

these fire hazards, I have intensely learned the human tragedy and family agony 

of a child lost to a house fire or a severely burned infant who isn’t yet old enough 

to understand why he or she is in pain every day. I can assure the Committee that 

those pictures are on my mind as I work on these critical fire issues, and the reduction of this terrible hazard will continue to be one of my top priorities as long as 

I serve as Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Thank you for having this important hearing today, and I look forward to the opportunity to answer your questions. 

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, the Consumer Product Safety Act 

specifically cautions the Commission to allow voluntary standards 

to work before proceeding to the promulgation of mandatory standards. By issuing Advanced Notices of Proposed Rulemaking for upholstered furniture and mattresses, and proposing an ANPRM for 

bedclothes, is the Commission saying that voluntary fire safety 

standards for these products are not sufficiently effective? Is that 

what the real message is? 

Chairman STRATTON. Well, that is certainly one of the messages. 

You are absolutely correct on the question of voluntary standards. 

We have to consider, in every regulatory process that we have, 

whether a voluntary standard would be adequate or not. And I can 

tell you that, in these matters, that that determination, if it hasn’t 

been made, I’m confident, then, when we receive the packages, that 

that determination will be made. We don’t have anybody out there 

that I know of, in the industry or otherwise, or any other stakeholders, that are suggesting, particularly in regard to furniture and 

mattress flammability, that we should resort to voluntary, as opposed to a mandatory, standard. 

Senator SMITH. Well, critics of the CPSC’s efforts in developing 

fire safety standards for upholstered furniture, mattresses, and 

bedding, and candles, argue that the Commission has been considering such standards for nearly two decades, and that ultimately 

the CPSC will prolong its efforts and never move forward toward 

final standards. Why hasn’t the Commission reached a final rule on 

these fire safety standards in these past years? 

Chairman STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, that’s a complex question. 

And, as you may know, most of that occurred before I reached the 

Commission, and there will be people here testifying on the second 

panel that have been with this for that full 20 years. I’ll just say 

that it’s a very complex process. Our process of promulgating regulations is about double what it is in many other agencies. We have 

to go through an ANPR process, an NPR process, we have to consider voluntary standards, we have to consider cost-benefit analysis, we have to make sure that there is a benefit to what we’re 

doing—that’s right in our statute; not everyone has to do that—we 

have to make sure that regulations are technically practical. And 

we have all of these findings that we have to go through, and we 

can’t just come up and find that. Here in Congress, you can put in 

8 

a bill, and you can make that finding in a bill. We have to have 

scientific evidence and studies to do that. 

So I suspect that that is some of the reason; and also not complete consensus about what should be done, certainly in industry 

and with other stakeholders. But when I came in, it appeared to 

me that there was a possibility to get this done. And I got with the 

stakeholders, frankly, in all of these areas, and I suggested we 

needed to move forward and it was time to get together and come 

to a consensus. And, to their credit, they are either there or almost 

there. And when you see these packages come out in—I hate to 

commit the staff, but I expect one of them to be out in October and 

the other to be out the 1st of November—when you see them come 

out, they will have the final regulations that we’re going to consider in them. And then the last, really, regulatory process—and it 

sounds easy, but it takes time—but the last process is to allow 

comments on those, and then for the Commission to vote on those. 

So we will be that close to getting those regulations done, and I 

think it’ll be a real milestone when we get those packages out. 

Senator SMITH. Well, often, in the process of lawmaking, I’ve noticed, around here, that one lawmaker’s perception of ‘‘the perfect’’ 

ends up being the reason for opposing ‘‘the good.’’ And I don’t know 

that you’ll ever get ‘‘perfect.’’ I’ve never voted on a perfect bill yet. 

But I’ve voted on a lot of good ones. And so I think maybe the goal 

ought to be ‘‘good,’’ and not ‘‘perfect.’’ And so, just as a matter of 

suggestion, I offer that. 

A concern I have for domestic manufacturers of these things, 

though, is would they be held to one safety standard, and people 

who import to our country to a lesser standard? That is of concern 

to me. And my point is just simply this, if people want to sell to 

the American consumers, they’d better meet the standards of 

American manufacturers—for safety, quality, everything. And so 

I’m hoping that whatever standards you might create, you’ll hold 

foreign and domestic manufacturers to the same standards. 

Chairman STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, that is the law, and when 

Congress passed this bill, as Senator Hollings was talking about 

earlier, they put in a very good system for ensuring that imports 

have to meet our standards. Any product that comes into the U.S. 

has to meet our standards. 

And let me just briefly tell you how well it works. We really 

have, sort of, a three-pronged process to make sure that happens. 

First of all, everybody in the product chain is responsible and liable 

under our statutes. That means the retailers, the distributors, the 

importers, and the manufacturers. So if, for instance, a piece of furniture is made in China, which, as we know, there is being a lot 

more furniture made in China, the retailer, if he sells that piece 

of furniture in the United States, and it isn’t conforming, he is just 

as liable as the manufacturer. And I can assure you, we’re going 

to look to the retailer in that case, because it’s going to be hard 

to get to the manufacturer. 

The reason this works so well is, because of that rule, you find 

a lot of retailers and a lot of importers and shippers working very 

hard overseas making sure those products meet the standard before they come over. So that, to me, was the genius of the Act, and 

that’s the number-one guard we have against bad imports. 

9 

We have two other safety guards on them. One is, we have inspectors at all the ports, and we have a Memorandum of Understanding with Customs where we are now working with Customs. 

We have access to their data base, and we are, of course, interdicting those products when they come in, when they are nonconforming. 

And then, finally, I have made it a point to make it clear to those 

countries who are sending exports to the United States that we believe—and we intend to make sure that those exports meet our 

standards. I’ve been to China twice this year to talk to, not only 

the people in Beijing, but also people out in the provinces, about 

how they need to meet our safety standards. That was my sole reason for going. I’ve been to China a number of times before, and I, 

frankly, didn’t care to go, but I made commitments to some of our 

industries that I would show up there to impress upon those authorities over there as to how important it was to meet our safety 

standards. 

So I know that’s a long answer to your question, but it’s important to us, and I wanted to make sure you understood—or the 

Committee has the benefit of knowing everything that we’re doing. 

Senator SMITH. That’s a good answer, and I appreciate your 

going there to send that message. 

Two other things, briefly. One of the big issues, obviously, is the 

California standards on bedding and burning: whether it’s 60 minutes or 30 minutes. I guess they’ve settled on 30 minutes. And 

would you comment further on the debate over whether a 30- or 

a 60-minute burn resistance should be required if, in fact, the Commission votes to move forward with its new rules? 

Chairman STRATTON. Well, it’s difficult for me to comment on 

that, because I would like to see our scientists’ work before I know 

that. What our staff does makes a big difference to me, and when 

they come out with their package on that, the 1st of October, there 

will be data in that to tell us. They’re testing that. That’s why— 

one of the reasons it’s taking so long. We are not able to test mattresses at our facility, at our lab. We have to—there are only seven 

or eight places in the country, so we have to get into cahoots somehow with somebody else to help us test. So they’ve been testing 

that. I expect that to be in the package. I know that there’s a pretty good consensus—well, I won’t say there’s a consensus, but I 

would like to wait before I made my decision on that. I don’t want 

to prejudge that issue—— 

Senator SMITH. OK. 

Chairman STRATTON.—before I have to vote on it—— 

Senator SMITH. Fair enough. 

Chairman STRATTON.—or get a view of it. 

Senator SMITH. Fair enough. 

This is probably a better question, that Senator Hollings would 

ask, and, as I turn it over to him, I’m actually interested in your 

response to the candle industry contention that they don’t belong 

in Senator Hollings’ bill. 

And so, with that, Senator Hollings? 

Senator HOLLINGS. Well, they’ll have to certainly be deliberate 

and consider it with respect to candles in the churches, because I— 

just as a practical matter, I just don’t see the requirement on exVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
10 

actly how that candle is supposed to go over to one side, or not 

bend, or whatever, any different than the regular candles that are 

bought, because the churches buy the candles in the regular commercial market. And we’ll just have to see. But I’m sure the Commission will look at that carefully. 

Mr. Chairman, your testimony this morning has already made 

this hearing a success, in the sense that we’re going to get these 

rulings out, because as you talk about the different hearings and 

the complexities, mind you, you’ve made a record—as your testimony shows, you made the finding way back in 1998, and, thereafter, you made it a top priority. And we’ve got the National Academy of Sciences, the NIST study, the Fire Marshal’s study and 

studies upon studies. So I don’t see any holdup, except it might be 

some subjective test with respect to benefit. Is there any question 

about the benefit to the—the better producers think it is a benefit. 

That’s why some of them are already including it there now. 

And with respect to the compliance of the imports, we already 

have that precedent with the automobiles. All imported cars have 

to comply with the American standards. And, similarly, as you’ve 

testified, it’ll be with respect to fire-resistant products. 

What about the benefit? Do you see any lack of benefit to this 

at all? 

Chairman STRATTON. Senator, I don’t. I’m prejudging what our 

packages are going to say, but I think I can say with pretty—— 

Senator HOLLINGS. Well, I like the Chairman prejudging. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOLLINGS. Yes, when he prejudges, that usually happens. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, you’d like me, because I 

like to prejudge a lot. Unfortunately, I have two other Commissioners that have twice as many votes that I have on these matters, and so I have to be very cautious. And I haven’t made that 

point yet, but there are two other Commissioners involved, and 

they do get to vote on this. So just let me make that point. 

From what I have seen, I do not see that as a roadblock. I think 

there will be a cost-benefit to the regulations that are proposed this 

fall. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Very good. I appreciate the answers you’ve 

given, and to the questions of our Chairman. The California standard is there, and they’re living with it, and it’s working. There’s 

nothing wrong with adopting that at the Federal level. 

Chairman STRATTON. If I may comment on that—and I am prejudging here a bit, but, since you like that, I guess this is the place 

to do it—when they adopted the standard in California, I took it 

upon myself to, kind of, shop it around with everybody I could find 

to see what they thought about that standard. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Sure. 

Chairman STRATTON. And, yes, I shopped it at our place, I 

shopped it with our staff—and when I say this, this is informal; 

this isn’t a formal thing—and everybody thought it was a pretty 

good standard. So it seemed like it was the right direction to go. 

We, unfortunately, in my view, have not had what I would consider a really good relationship with the folks in California. That’s 

11 

not our staff. Our staffs have very good relationships. They work 

together all the time, so I’m not saying our staff hasn’t had a good 

relationship. But I recently made a trip out there and sat down directly with them to talk about these issues that we’re talking about 

here today. In fact, I believe it was 2 weeks ago that I went out 

there and talked to the director—the new director of the Consumer 

Affairs out there, and the Secretary of State and Consumer Affairs, 

who’s the Secretary—Cabinet Secretary. And we’re going to get on 

the same page on a lot of this stuff. We can work together. They’re 

reasonable people. And from now on, California is going to be involved in what we’re doing, and we’re going to try to get a little 

more in sync. After all, that’s one of the purposes of the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, and that is to resolve disputes among 

states when it comes to these issues. And California’s a big state; 

they’re the 800-pound gorilla. So we are going to have a better 

working relationship with them as we go forward. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Very good. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Hollings. 

And thank you, Mr. Commissioner, we appreciate your presence 

here today. 

And we’ll now call up our second panel, which will consist of Mr. 

John Dean, Vice President, National Association of State Fire Marshals; Mr. Norman Chapman, Executive Vice President, Inman 

Mills, from South Carolina; Mr. Andy Counts, the American Furniture Manufacturers Association—he is the CEO; Mr. Bob Higgins, President of the National Candle Association, located here in 

D.C.; Mr. Al Klancnik—I’m sorry if I mispronounced that, but 

Group Vice President of the Serta, Inc. I think I sleep on a Serta 

sometimes. 

Mr. Dean, we welcome you, and you can lead it off. 

STATEMENT JOHN DEAN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FIRE MARSHALS 

Mr. DEAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, my name is John Dean. I am the State Fire Marshal for the State of Maine, and I am before the Committee today 

on behalf of the National Association of State Fire Marshals, 

NASFM. 

NASFM represents the senior-most fire official in each of the 50 

states. We, along with hundreds of Federal, state, and local fireservice organizations, encourage this Committee and Congress to 

give serious consideration to the American Home Fire Safety Act, 

Senate Bill 1798. Thank you for this opportunity. 

For as long as I have been a firefighter—and my public-safety career spans more than three decades—people have died and been seriously injured in residential fires involving upholstered furniture, 

mattresses, bedding, candles, and cigarettes. In all of those years, 

no other category of fires has harmed as many people. 

The American Home Fire Safety Act will save lives, prevent injuries, and protect property and the environment by setting effective 

fire safety standards for four of these five products. Cigarettes are 

addressed in companion legislation, at the request of the Campaign 

for Tobacco-Free Kids, and other anti-tobacco groups. 

12 

We appreciate all that the affected industries have done to generate safety tests and standards that attempt to be both effective 

and practical. So much of the progress that has been made is due 

to their work. We are thankful to Congress for recognizing the importance of these issues and for working with us on solutions. 

We are encouraged by the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s recent announcement that it intends to move forward this 

year with open flame safety requirements for upholstered furniture 

and mattresses. But allow me to share with you a brief history of 

this issue. 

Over 30 years ago, the U.S. Department of Commerce first issued 

a finding of need that a flammability standard may be necessary 

for upholstered furniture. More than 10 years ago, NASFM petitioned the Commission to address this hazard, as well. Nothing 

happened. 

Out of frustration with the slow progress with fire safety standards for many consumer products, we turned to the news media 

and to state legislatures for help. Ultimately, we chose to work 

with industry to find solutions. 

The American Furniture Manufacturers Association got to work. 

Its members and their suppliers recently proposed a package of 

standards that holds promise for much safer products. These standards still must be validated, and they differ from the upholstered 

furniture requirements cited in this Act. But we would be willing 

to support the industry proposal if it can be demonstrated scientifically to achieve the levels of safety, in the real world, that we all 

agree are necessary. 

The International Sleep Products Association also stepped up 

and helped develop mattress-safety test methods cited in the Act. 

It’s important to note that this is a—there is a discrepancy between 

the 30-minute test industry supports and the 60-minute test cited 

in the Act. Because of respect for the industry, we revisited the 

question of whether a 60-minute test is necessary and feasible. 

The bottom line is that, in the real world, fires are not detected 

the moment they are ignited. And even our best-equipped fire departments cannot always arrive at the scene of a fire fast enough 

to save lives. The average American household can expect about 40 

minutes from the point of ignition to when firefighters are putting 

water on a fire. In rural communities, the time typically exceeds 

70 minutes. We need the 60-minute test cited in the legislation, 

and small manufacturers have told us that they can meet it. 

The mattress producers and we both agree on the importance of 

requirements for bedding. 

The candle-safety standards cited in the Act were developed 

largely by the industry, with input from us and others, through the 

ASTM voluntary consensus process. Unlike the furniture and mattress producers, neither the candle industry nor cigarette producers 

want mandatory standards. But neither industry has moved forward with proposals to implement effective voluntary standards 

and to manage products’ performance. 

In recent years, the progress has been good, but not one national 

mandatory standard has come into effect for any of these products. 

States have had to step in, and all are doing something different. 

We think the states should be free to protect their citizens, but the 

13 

Consumer Product Safety Commission has already ruled that California is not free to set and enforce their open-flames and mattress 

fire safety standards. 

My appearance before this Committee today would not be complete without a word about flame retardants, products that have 

recently attracted a great deal of attention. Flame retardants do 

help products resist fire and save lives. NASFM does not believe, 

however, that the obvious fire safety benefits of these chemicals 

justify harm to the environment or to human health that their 

usage may cause. We believe that fire safety must go hand in hand 

with environmental safety and human health. These are not simple 

matters, and there are no winners here. I can assure you that 

NASFM will hold all parties with an interest in fire safety responsible for their actions. 

I would like to conclude by saying that we wish that this legislation were not necessary. But the Commission has consumed over 

a decade study in the need for fire safety standards for upholstered 

furniture. It is just now looking at open-flame standards for mattresses and standards for candles. No official action is underway on 

bedding standards. This, in spite of the fact that residential fires 

involving these products kill more Americans than any other products within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Regardless of the reasons for lack of action, how can we justify another lost life? Congressional action is necessary now to straighten it out. We need 

your support. 

Thank you for this opportunity to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dean follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN DEAN, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FIRE MARSHALS

Senator Smith, my name is John Dean. I am the State Fire Marshal for the State 

of Maine and am before the Committee today on behalf of the National Association 

of State Fire Marshals (NASFM). NASFM represents the senior most fire official in 

each of the fifty states. We, along with hundreds of federal, state and local fire service organizations, encourage this Committee and Congress to give serious consideration to the American Home Fire Safety Act Senate Bill 1798. Thank you for this 

opportunity. 

For as long as I have been a firefighter—and my public safety career spans more 

than three decades—people have died and been seriously injured in residential fires 

involving upholstered furniture, mattresses, bedding, candles and cigarettes. In all 

of those years, no other category of fires has harmed as many people. 

We have done what we can to protect the public from these fires. Public education 

and the widespread use of smoke alarms and effective standards addressing smoldering ignition of mattresses and furniture are the primary reasons that the number of deaths and injuries has dropped over the years. We have not been as successful in achieving widespread installation of residential sprinklers. 

We support the American Home Fire Safety Act. It will save lives, prevent injuries and protect property and the environment by setting effective fire safety standards for four of these five products. Cigarettes are addressed in companion legislation at the request of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and other anti-tobacco 

groups. 

We believe that the goal of ‘‘improved public safety’’ is reason enough for this legislation. But we are aware that this legislation also may be necessary to protect responsible companies from a patchwork of state requirements, increased litigation, 

recalls and attacks in the media. These pressures may or may not be fair, but they 

are the inevitable result of not having Federal requirements for manufacturers to 

meet. 

We are thankful to the Congress for recognizing the importance of these issues, 

and for working with us on solutions. In a perfect world, new regulations—much 

less new laws—would be unnecessary. Many companies just make their products 

14 

safer than what is required. But, the companies that do so may place themselves 

at a competitive disadvantage. At the end of the day, these are all choices. 

We are encouraged by the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s recent announcement that it intends to move forward this year with open-flame fire safety 

requirements for upholstered furniture and mattresses. We have great respect for 

the Commission’s technical staff. Their commitment to safety has never been in 

question, but allow me to share with you a brief history of this issue. Over thirty 

years ago, the U.S. Department of Commerce first issued a ‘‘Finding of Need’’ that 

a flammability standard may be necessary for upholstered furniture. More than 10 

years ago, NASFM petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to address 

this hazard as well. Nothing happened. 

Five years ago, our association chose cooperation over confrontation. We were 

frustrated then, as we are now, by the very slow pace of progress with fire safety 

standards for many consumer products. We turned to the news media and to the 

state legislatures for help. The American Plastics Council asked that we redirect our 

efforts. We chose to work with the Council and other industry groups to find solutions. 

We are appreciative of all that the affected industries have done to generate safety tests and standards that attempt to be both effective and practical. So much of 

the progress that has been made is due to their work. 

The American Furniture Manufacturers Association, its members and their suppliers recently proposed a package of standards that holds promise for much safer 

products. These standards must be validated and may need to be improved. They 

differ from the upholstered furniture requirements cited in the American Home Fire 

Safety Act, and from the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s draft proposal. We 

stand by the furniture standards cited in the Act but would be willing to support 

the industry proposal if it can be demonstrated scientifically to achieve the levels 

of safety in the real world that we all agree are necessary. 

The International Sleep Products Association provided the vision and leadership 

necessary to develop the mattress fire safety test method cited in the Act. The industry favors a test that lasts for 30 minutes. It argues that postponing flashover 

for 30 minutes is a major step forward, and that manufacturers—and especially 

small businesses—cannot pass a test that lasts for 60 minutes. Because we respect 

the industry, we recently revisited the question of whether a 60-minute test is necessary and feasible. 

The bottom line is that we found small mattress producers who have been meeting the 60-minute standard for most of this year. Certainly, 30 minutes may be better than 5 minutes but it is not enough time in the real world. In the real world, 

fires are not detected the moment they are ignited, people routinely waste precious 

minutes before reporting fires, and even our best-equipped fire departments fight 

traffic and cannot arrive at the scene of a fire fast enough to save lives. The average 

American household can expect about 40 minutes from the point of ignition to when 

firefighters are putting water on a fire. In rural communities, the time typically exceeds 70 minutes. We need the 60-minute test cited in the legislation, and industry 

can meet it. 

The mattress producers and we both agree on the importance of requirements for 

bedding. 

The candle safety standards cited in this legislation were developed largely by the 

industry with input from us and others through the American Society for Testing 

and Materials voluntary consensus process. The standards are uncontroversial. 

However, unlike the furniture and mattress producers, neither the candle industry 

nor cigarette producers want mandatory standards. But neither industry has moved 

forward with proposals to implement effective voluntary standards and to manage 

producers’ conformance. 

In recent years, the progress has been good, but not one national mandatory 

standard has come into effect for any of these products. 

States have had to step in. California, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island 

all are doing something different. We think that states should be free to protect 

their citizens as they wish, but the Consumer Product Safety Commission has ruled 

that California—and we presume other states—are not free to set and enforce their 

own open flame mattress fire standards because the existing Federal mattress 

standard, which deals only with cigarette ignition, preempts any states’ attempts to 

deal with the same product even if they are addressing a different hazard. 

We have never seen so much litigation. The absence of standards means each 

manufacturer is out there on its own. 

Retailers and wholesalers are at risk, because along with manufacturers, they are 

responsible for recalls of dangerous products. NASFM has just adopted a national, 

science-based position that any upholstered chair or mattress with untreated or 

15 

unshielded flexible polyurethane foam is too dangerous for sale in the home. No 

one—including all of the industries affected here—presented a single fact contrary 

to that finding. That statement is now publicly available to all who are dealing with 

this matter seriously. 

My appearance before the Committee today would not be complete without a word 

about flame retardants, products that have recently attracted a great deal of attention in the Congress, in the legislatures of a number of states (including that of my 

native Maine) and in the media. 

As a matter of chemistry, flame retardants work—they help products resist fire, 

they save lives. NASFM does not believe, however, that the obvious fire safety benefits of these chemicals justify harm to the environment or to human health that 

their usage may cause. We believe strongly that fire safety must go hand-in-hand 

with environmental safety and human health. But we are not experts in these areas 

and so we work directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, World 

Health Organization, Society of Toxicology, and environmental and health authorities in Europe to ensure that all dimensions of health and safety are not in conflict 

and receive equal attention. 

These are not simple matters and, after so many years of study, there are no winners here. I can assure you that State Fire Marshals will hold all parties with an 

interest in fire safety responsible for their actions. 

Finally, less we forget, American families are at risk. We are well aware of the 

political adage, ‘‘It’s the economy, stupid.’’ But it is hard to ignore the hundreds of 

people who continue to die and be injured in these fires every year. We easily could 

have flooded this room with burn survivors and the families of those who died. Their 

stories are playing out in state legislatures, in courtrooms and the media. 

I would like to conclude by saying that we wish this legislation were not necessary. But, the Commission has consumed over a decade studying the need for fire 

safety standards for upholstered furniture. It is just now looking at open flame 

standards for mattresses and standards for candles. No official action is underway 

on bedding standards. This, in spite of the fact that residential fires involving these 

products kill more Americans than any other products within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Regardless of the reasons for lack of action, how can we justify another 

lost life? Congressional action is necessary now to straighten it all out. We need 

your support. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before this Committee. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Dean. 

And now we’ll hear from Mr. Norman Chapman. 

STATEMENT OF NORMAN CHAPMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

OPERATING OFFICER, INMAN MILLS 

Mr. CHAPMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

My name is Norman Chapman, and I am President and COO of 

Inman Mills, a textile manufacturer specializing in yarn spinning 

and weaving. Inman Mills has been in the textile business for over 

a hundred years, and is located in South Carolina. We currently 

employ approximately 500 associates. After back-to-back record 

years in 1997 and 1998, our company has been under extreme pressure from imported fabrics and finished products. Since 2001, we 

have closed two plants and laid off over half of our work force. 

During these difficult times, we have developed many new products in many different markets. Innovation and flexibility is the future of the textile industry. Fire-resistant mattress ticking and 

interliners are two products where we have concentrated much of 

our effort. 

In May 2002, we signed an agreement with McKinnon-LandMoran, a North Carolina research and development company, to be 

the exclusive manufacturer of Alessandra yarns and fabrics. These 

products are sold and distributed by Hanes Industries, a division 

of Leggett & Platt. Alessandra is a patented technology that makes 

yarns and fabrics resistant to fire. Fabrics that use this technology 

16 

retain their strength even after they have been exposed to open 

flame. These fabrics may be used as either interliner barriers or 

tickings. They keep fire from penetrating and igniting the highly 

flammable foam found inside most mattresses. This is achieved by 

manufacturing a Core Spun yarn that uses a combination of fibers. 

It is important to emphasize that the Alessandra products use no 

chemicals to achieve their fire resistant properties. Through continued research, we have been able to improve our Alessandra products and reduce the price to the manufacturer by over 37 percent. 

We continue to research ways to improve the product and reduce 

cost. 

In addition to Alessandra, Inman Mills also manufactures 

Fireguard, another well-recognized fire resistant fabric. Fireguard 

is patented technologies owned and sold by Springs Industries. It 

has been used for many years in mattresses on Navy ships and 

submarines. It is also sold in college dormitories and in hotels 

where fire safety is of great concern. 

Both technologies are high performance and support the passing 

of California’s current and former TB 603, Cal 129, and Boston’s 

IX–11. These fire-resistant fabrics have also passed the U.S. Navy’s 

FR bedding requirement. 

Our company has products that are proven and ready for the 

market. We feel further delay will be harmful to both our industry 

and the consumer. Many people die unnecessarily each year in bedding fires. 

It is our understanding that the following issues are important 

to the mattress industry. Products selected must reliably support 

the passage of TB 603 test requirements. FR products preferably 

will be compatible with mattress styling, comfort, white and color, 

breathable, noiseless, soft, and provide comfort. Products must be 

easily incorporated into manufacturing, invisible to the consumer, 

inexpensive, and there can be no loss of durability. Critical mass 

must exist. Products must be toxicologically and environmentally 

safe. 

We are pleased to advise that numerous woven and nonwoven 

technologies exist today that meet all of these requirements. According to ISPA’s 2002 unit sales of mattress and box-spring data, 

the U.S. bedding industry consumes approximately 140 million linear yards of ticking annually. A similar amount of fire resistant 

barrier product will be required to meet market demand. Due to 

California’s AB 603 legislation and an enforcement date of January 

1, 2005, capacity of both fiber and fabrics are readily available to 

meet this new market need. The capacity to produce our products, 

Alessandra and Fireguard, alone, could reach 24 million yards, 

annualized, 6 months from the time of commitment. Much of this 

capacity is available now. 

Through market studies and information obtained at California 

hearings in April 2003, we have determined that 107 million 

pounds of fire resistant blending fibers were available by March of 

2003, which can provide 174 million linear yards of 90-inch-wide 

barrier products for annual consumption. Due to market forces, additional fiber capacity is available today. 

We know of 21 producers of finished fire resistant barrier products who reportedly have achieved passing test results. Additional 

17 

names are being added to the list regularly. These products are on 

record as part of AB 603 hearings held in April 2003. 

We fully support total implementation of the American Home 

Fire Safety Act for mattresses, as written, because it will help substantially reduce residential fire deaths and injuries, as well as 

property damage. Further, the standard is based upon good science 

and research completed by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. Our company and our partners have assisted mattress 

companies and fire-resistant component manufacturers in a large 

number of full-scale independent laboratory tests. Requirements of 

TB 603 have, and can be, continually met. 

It is our belief that this legislation provides a tremendous opportunity to both the consumer and the textile industry. It offers industry the opportunity to make and sell innovative products, and 

gives the consumer safer products. Innovative products are the future of our industry. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chapman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORMAN CHAPMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING

OFFICER, INMAN MILLS

Company Structure, Management and Product Description 

Good morning. My name is Norman Chapman, President & COO of Inman Mills, 

a textile manufacturer specializing in yarn spinning and weaving. Inman Mills has 

been in the textile business for over 100 years and is located in South Carolina. We 

currently employ approximately 500 associates. After back to back record years in 

1997 and 1998, our company has been under extreme pressure from imported fabrics and finished products. Since 2001 we have closed 2 plants and laid off over half 

of our workforce. During these difficult times we have developed many new products 

in many different markets. Innovation and flexibility is the future of the U.S. textile 

industry. Fire resistant mattress ticking and interliners are 2 products where we 

have concentrated much of our effort. In May of 2002 we signed an agreement with 

McKinnon Land Moran, LLC a North Carolina research and development company 

to be the exclusive manufacturer of Alessandra yarns and fabrics. These products 

are sold and distributed by Hanes Industries, a division of Leggett & Platt. 

Alessandra is patented technology that makes yarns and fabrics resistant to fire. 

Fabrics that use this technology retain their strength even after they have been exposed to open flame. These fabrics may be used as either interliner barriers or tickings. They keep fire from penetrating and igniting the highly flammable foam found 

inside most mattresses. This is achieved by manufacturing a core spun yarn that 

uses a combination of fibers. It is important to emphasize that the Alessandra products use no chemicals to achieve their fire resistant properties. Through continued 

research, we have been able to improve our Alessandra products and reduce the 

price to the manufacturer by over 37 percent. We continue to research ways to improve the product and reduce cost. 

In addition to Alessandra, Inman Mills also manufactures Fireguard another well 

recognized fire resistant fabric. Fireguard is patented technology owned and sold by 

Springs Industries. It has been used for many years in mattresses on Navy ships 

and submarines. It is also sold in college dormitories and in hotels where fire safety 

is of great concern. 

Both technologies are high performance and support the passing of California’s 

current and former TB 603, Cal 129 and Boston’s IX–11. These fire resistant fabrics 

have also passed the U.S. Navy’s FR bedding requirement NAVSEA PD 1–00 REV 

D 25 July 2000. 

Our company has products that are proven and ready for the market. We feel further delay will be harmful to both our industry and the consumer. Many people die 

unnecessarily each year in bedding fires. 

Industry Needs 

It is our understanding that the following issues are important to the mattress 

industry: 

18 

1. Product(s) selected must reliably support the passage of the current or proposed TB 603 test requirements. 

2. FR Products preferably will be compatible with mattress styling and comfort, 

white in color, breathable, noiseless, soft, and provide comfort. 

3. The products must be easily incorporated into manufacturing. 

4. They must be invisible to the consumer. 

5. New products must be inexpensive and have a minimal cost impact to the consumer. 

6. There can be no loss of durability. 

7. Critical mass must exist. In other words there must be a variety of options and 

ample supply to meet market demands. 

8. Products must be toxicologically and environmentally safe. 

We are pleased to advise that numerous woven and nonwoven technologies exist 

today that meet all of these requirements. 

Market Size and Capacity 

According to ISPA’s 2002 unit sales of mattress and box spring data, the U.S. 

Bedding industry consumes approximately 140 million linear yards of ticking annually. A similar amount of fire resistant barrier product will be required to meet market demand. Due to California’s AB 603 legislation and enforcement date of January 

1, 2005 capacity of both fiber and fabrics are readily available to meet this new market need. 

The capacity to produce Alessandra or Fireguard fabrics alone could reach 

24,000,000 yards annualized 6 months from time of commitment. Much of this capacity is available now. Inman can expand beyond this if more capacity is needed. 

Availability of Other Fibers and Fabrics 

Through market studies and information obtained at the California hearings in 

April 2003, we have determined that 107,000,000 lbs of fire resistant blending fibers 

were available by 3/1/03, which can provide 174,000,000 lyd/yr of 90’’ wide barrier 

products for annual consumption. Due to market forces additional fiber capacity is 

available today. 

Finished Barrier Producers 

We know of 21 producers of finished fire resistant barrier products who reportedly 

have achieved passing test results. Additional names are being added to the list 

each month. These products are on record as part of the AB 603 hearings held in 

April 2003. 

Validation Studies and Conclusion 

We fully support total implementation of The American Home Fire Safety Act for 

mattresses as written because it will help substantially reduce residential fire 

deaths and injuries as well as property damage. Further, the standard is based 

upon good science and research completed by the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST). 

Our company and our partners have assisted mattress companies and fire resistant component manufacturers in a large number of full-scale independent laboratory 

tests. REQUIREMENTS OF TB 603 HAVE AND CAN BE CONTINUALLY MET. 

It is also our belief that this legislation provides a tremendous opportunity to both 

the consumer and the textile industry. It offers industry the opportunity to make 

and sell innovative products and gives the consumer safer products. Innovative 

products are the future of our industry. If we lose our textile industry, think of all 

of the great new products we will not be able to bring to the market. 

Thank you. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chapman. 

We’ll hear now from Mr. Andy Counts, the American Furniture 

Manufacturers Association. 

STATEMENT OF ANDY COUNTS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

AMERICAN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. COUNTS. Good morning. I’m Andy Counts, CEO of AFMA, 

and I want to thank you for this opportunity to participate in the 

hearing. 

19 

We commend Congress for its interest in this vital safety matter. 

However, given that CPSC is well on its way to providing the 

American public with safer furniture, AFMA opposes S. 1798. With 

respect to furniture, the bill embraces a untested package of requirements developed by California regulators which they themselves have declined to finalized. It also removes CPSC from the 

standards development role that Congress envisioned, and removes 

the agency’s most important tools for decisionmaking and public 

input. 

It is no secret that the last several years have been the most 

challenging period in the history of domestic furniture industry. 

Plants in the Pacific Rim have gained a dominant share of the furniture marketplace, contributing to the loss of over 100,000 U.S. 

furniture jobs, and creating real hardship in communities like 

Sumter, South Carolina, Martinsville, Virginia, and Palatka, Florida. Many of the same regions have experienced job loss and plant 

closures in the textile industry. In weighing approaches to upholstered furniture flammability, I ask you to consider the continued 

viability of domestic furniture facilities and the textile operations 

that supply them. 

I want to give credit to Chairman Stratton, his fellow commissioners, and the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

The Chairman inherited technical challenges and interest group 

discord that confounded progress on this matter for over a decade. 

He has helped bring together the stakeholders in pursuit of a workable regulation, and has achieved a remarkable degree of consensus during his brief tenure. 

We understand the frustrations some have expressed about the 

pace of progress on this issue. However, one shouldn’t disregard 

the technical hurdles entailed in achieving fire resistance for a 

product that is typically covered in fabric, filled with plastics, 

cellulosics and other cushioning materials. Add to this the differential performance of the tens of thousands of upholstery fabrics on 

the market, and you begin to grasp the challenge the CPSC has 

shouldered. 

Over the last several years, AFMA has engaged in a constructive 

dialogue between industry stakeholders, CPSC staff, and fire safety 

advocates. That process has resulted in a package of flammability 

requirements that was outlined in the May 13 letter to Chairman 

Stratton. This framework has engendered broad support among 

key stakeholders as the most workable and cost-effective solution. 

I should emphasize that ‘‘cost effective’’ does not mean cost free. As 

a result of this proposal, consumers will see a noticeable retail upcharge. 

AFMA and many of the other parties of this rulemaking support 

a 5-second open-flame test for outer fabrics, as contrasted with the 

20-second test referenced in S. 1798. We believe this test accurately 

models the risk created by children playing with matches and lighters. It allows industry to consistently deliver compliant products, 

and continues to provide consumers with a wide array of comfortable and attractive fabrics. 

In recent weeks, round-robin testing involving nine labs, including the CPSC, confirmed that the 5-second fabric test reliably preVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
20 

dicts performance, and a report on the findings is now being prepared for the administrative record. 

As an alternative to FR treatment of outer fabrics, all stakeholders have endorsed a compliance option in which flame-blocking 

barriers, also called interliners, are layered between the fabric and 

cushioning material. No such option is provided by S. 1798. The 

interliner option would preserve fabric choice by allowing the use 

of outer fabrics which cannot be reliably FR treated and those for 

which treatment would compromise function or consumer appeal. 

Taken as a whole, S. 1798 is the most expensive approach yet 

proposed for upholstered furniture flammability. As the Committee 

is aware, the reduction of flammability risk in the most cost-effective manner is part of the mandate that Congress provided the 

CPSC. It is also critical to the success of a flammability regulation 

for upholstered furniture. 

The replacement of the Nation’s furniture stock with more fireresistant constructions will take place over several generations, 

even at current prices. Price distortions imposed by careless regulation could deter consumer purchases of new furniture, and, thereby, have a counterproductive effect. S. 1798 would circumvent important provisions of the Consumer Product Safety Act and related 

statutes. These statutory provisions were established by Congress 

to provide for fairness and transparency in the regulatory process 

and to ensure that regulation is accomplished in the manner least 

disruptive to the consumer marketplace. AFMA believes that adoption of S. 1798 would set an unfortunate precedent for administrative law. 

The CPSC is well on its way to providing the American public 

with safer furniture, and we respectfully recommend that Congress 

allow that process to proceed. 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Counts follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDY S. COUNTS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN FURNITURE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (AFMA) 

Introduction 

Good Morning. I am Andy Counts, the Chief Executive Officer of the American 

Furniture Manufacturers Association (AFMA). I want to thank the Members and 

staff of the Committee for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing. 

One of my priorities for the association is to identify opportunities to advance 

standards for environmental responsibility, workplace safety and product stewardship. I believe you will be pleased to hear of the substantial progress that AFMA, 

working with CPSC and the other stakeholders here today, has made toward establishing a Federal flammability regulation for upholstered furniture. 

We commend Congress for its interest in this vital safety matter. However, given 

that CPSC is well on its way to providing the American public with safer furniture, 

AFMA opposes S. 1798. The bill embraces an untested package of requirements developed by California regulators, which they themselves have declined to finalize. 

It also removes CPSC from the standards development role that Congress envisioned for the agency, and blocks the use of some of its most important tools for 

decisionmaking and public input. 

Industry Profile 

AFMA companies participate in a highly competitive market characterized by 

ever-changing style preferences, margin pressure from retailers, and the tendency 

of consumers to postpone big-ticket purchases if their perceptions of value and function are not met. 

It is no secret that the last several years have been the most challenging period 

in the history of the domestic furniture industry. Plants in the Pacific Rim have 

21 

gained a dominant share of the furniture marketplace, contributing to the loss of 

100,000 U.S. furniture jobs and creating real hardship in communities like Sumter, 

South Carolina; Martinsville, Virginia; and Palatka, Florida. Many of the same regions have experienced job loss and plant closures in the textile industry. In weighing approaches to upholstered furniture flammability, I ask you to consider the continued viability of domestic furniture facilities and the textile operations that supply 

them with fabrics. 

History of the Furniture Flammability Project 

I want to give credit to Chairman Stratton, his fellow Commissioners and the 

staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The Chairman inherited technical challenges and interest group discord that confounded progress on this matter 

for a number of years. He has helped bring together the stakeholders in pursuit of 

a workable regulation, and has achieved a remarkable degree of consensus during 

a relatively brief tenure. It is our understanding that a package regulating both the 

cigarette and small open flame performance of upholstered furniture could be published this Fall. 

We can certainly understand the frustration some have expressed about the pace 

of progress on upholstered furniture flammability. One should not disregard, however, the technical hurdles entailed in achieving fire resistance for a product that 

is typically covered in fabric and filled with plastics, cellulosics and other cushioning 

materials. Add to this the differential performance of the tens of thousands of upholstery fabrics on the market, and the synergy between fabrics and filling materials 

and you begin to grasp the challenge CPSC has shouldered. 

Previous approaches to this risk tended to single out individual components for 

regulatory attention. The 1993 petition of the National Association of State Fire 

Marshals (NASFM) identified polyurethane foam as the most significant potential 

fuel source. However, subsequent testing demonstrated that modification of foam 

does not by itself meaningfully improve open flame performance. In its 1997 Briefing Package, CPSC staff originally relied solely on fire retardant (FR) treatment of 

outer fabrics, reasoning that minimizing ignition at the outset avoided the complexities and expense of measuring progressive involvement of other components. However, evidence about the variability in performance of some treated fabrics, along 

with concerns about consumer acceptance and FR toxicity, led the agency to provide 

an alternative compliance option involving fire-blocking interliners, a positive development discussed in greater detail below. 

Consensus Surrounding the Present Approach 

At present, most interested persons recognize that upholstered furniture fires represent a synergy between fabric, foam and other cushioning materials. This consensus laid the groundwork for a constructive dialogue between producers of furniture, fabrics, fiber, polyurethane foam and flame retardant materials, assisted by 

input from CPSC staff, testing labs and fire safety advocates. That process resulted 

in a package of flammability requirements for furniture that were outlined in a May 

13 letter from AFMA to Chairman Stratton. The elements of this proposal are summarized below. 

1. For upholstery fabrics, the 5-second open flame fabric test utilizing the Technical Bulletin 117 test apparatus, as proposed by the Fabric Coalition. Nonpassing fabrics or those for which FR treatment is not desired could be utilized 

atop an open flame barrier. CPSC is currently working to identify an appropriate test for such barriers. 

2. For all foam (any type) used in upholstered furniture, the cigarette and open 

flame requirements contained in the proposed revision to California Technical 

Bulletin 117 (‘‘TB–117+’’). 

3. For all non-foam cushion core materials used in upholstered furniture, the cigarette and open flame requirements of TB–117+ or a comparable test method. 

4. For non-foam seat cushion wrapping or topper materials, the requirements of 

the BS 5852 Source 2 Test for Non-Foam Filling Materials. 

5. For any cotton batting used in upholstered furniture, the ASTM E 1353 test 

with maximum smolder length criteria specified by UFAC. 

6. For all non-foam materials used in arm constructions, the filling and padding 

test of ASTM E 1353 with the maximum smolder length criteria specified by 

UFAC. 

This framework has engendered broad support among the key stakeholders. Earlier this week, a letter endorsing it was delivered to Chairman Stratton, signed by 

representatives of the National Textile Association, the Polyurethane Foam AssociaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
22 

1 U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Regulatory Options Briefing Package on Upholstered Furniture Flammability October 28, 1997, p. 38 (emphasis added). 2Felicity Murray, Cabinet Maker, Miller Freeman Publishers, May 1996. 

tion, the Upholstered Furniture Action Council, the Decorative Fabrics Association, 

the Coalition of Converters of Decorative Fabrics and the American Fire Safety Alliance, among others. These organizations are convinced the framework represents a 

cost-effective, risk-based approach to the most likely ignition scenarios for both 

small open flame and cigarettes. 

I should emphasize that cost-effective doesn’t mean cost-free. Price increases are 

expected for reformulated foam and chemically backcoated fabrics, along with some 

loss of aesthetics from the replacement of siliconized cushion wraps and toppers 

with less flammable alternatives. Suppliers of both upholstery fabrics and cushioning will incur R&D and testing expenses as they revamp their products to pass 

the proposed flammability tests, and to do so using safe and appropriate chemicals. 

As a result of these changes, consumers will see a noticeable retail upcharge. Even 

higher costs are foreseeable for products using flame-blocking barriers beneath untreated fabrics. 

At this point, I would like to briefly describe some of the important elements of 

our proposal, and how they differ from what is proposed in S. 1798. While comparison is made more difficult by the draft status of the requirements embodied in the 

bill, I am basing my assessment on the best interpretations of those requirements 

by technical authorities in government and the private sector. 

The Open Flame Test for Fabrics 

AFMA and many of the other parties to this rulemaking support a 5-second open 

flame test for outer fabrics, as contrasted with the 20-second test referenced in S. 

1798. We believe this test accurately models the risk created by children playing 

with matches and lighters, and allows industry to continue to provide consumers 

with an array of comfortable and attractive fabrics. 

The 5-second fabric test was originally developed by researchers from the textile 

industry. It utilizes a familiar testing apparatus currently used to perform testing 

of upholstery fabrics under California Technical Bulletin 117. The one-second ignition time employed in TB–117 testing has been extended to five seconds to better 

model the phenomenon of child fireplay. Textile industry researchers have found 

that the great majority of current upholstery fabrics fail this test, but that most can 

be modified through yarn substitution and chemical backcoating to achieve sufficient flame resistance. Under this test, each fabric SKU marketed as upholstery 

would be tested ten times and evaluated for non-ignition or self-extinguishment. 

Fabrics could also pass by demonstrating a relatively slow rate of burn (the fiveinch test sample could not be consumed in less than 30 seconds). 

In recent weeks, round robin testing involving nine labs (including CPSC) confirmed that the fabric test reliably predicts fabric performance, and a report on the 

findings is now being prepared for the administrative record. We are confident that 

the greater ignition resistance of fabrics meeting the proposed requirement will 

work in concert with the recommended changes to foam and other cushioning material to provide Americans with significantly safer furniture. 

It is our view that the 20-second flame test referenced in S. 1798 is unrealistically 

long. CPSC concluded in 1997 that ‘‘many young children would not be expected to 

hold a flame source in one place for more than several seconds.’’ 1 This is understandable, given the agency’s finding that most small open flame fires originate on 

the top of horizontal upholstery cushions or near the crevice between the horizontal 

and vertical cushions. One need not be a fire scientist to recognize the difficulty of 

holding a match or lighter for 20 seconds while attempting to direct its flame downward onto a horizontal surface. 

In addition, textile scientists have found it impossible to reliably achieve resistance to such a sustained ignition source without jeopardizing the qualities that 

make upholstery appealing. A 20-second requirement in the United Kingdom has resulted in a diminished range of fabric choices, along with poor ‘‘hand’’ and 

‘‘boardiness.’’ The editor of a U.K. trade publication said of the fabrics at a 1996 

trade show: 

It makes me sad to think that so few of these exquisite weaves and prints will 

ever reach the U.K. market, mainly because of our stringent fire retardancy regulations. A number of mills commented that although they would like to export 

more to the U.K., the application of FR backings would ruin the special feel and 

texture of the fabric. . . .2

23 

3 Andrew Kidd, ‘‘More than 50 percent of Sofa Beds Failed to Pass Fire Safety Regulations,’’ 

Cabinet Maker, January 31, 1997. 

Derbyshire County Council, Company Fined Over Fire Retardant Claims, August 13, 2001. 

News Wales, Buyers Risking Lives for a Bargain, April 28, 2004. 

Janet L. Brady, A Study of the Effects of FR Backcoating on Selected Upholstery Fabrics, 

Philadelphia College of Textiles, June 16, 1999. 4 Janet L. Brady, A Study of the Effects of FR Backcoating on Selected Upholstery Fabrics, 

Philadelphia College of Textiles, June 16, 1999. 

The tradeoff between the ignition resistance and marketability of fabrics is illustrated in a chart developed by David Pettey, Director of Product Development for 

Quaker Fabrics, presented at a March 1, 2004 public meeting of the CPSC. 

Clearly, as the ignition source progresses from the 5-second test recommended by 

the majority of stakeholders to the 20-second standard embodied in the pending legislation, the aesthetics and fabric variety demanded by consumers would be sacrificed. 

Still, the most important reason for not establishing a 20-second test requirement 

for upholstery fabrics is the simple fact that such a standard cannot be reliably met. 

The United Kingdom represents to its citizens that upholstery fabrics marketed in 

that nation pass a 20-second open flame test. Nonetheless, researchers, journalists 

and even British enforcement authorities have documented compliance levels with 

that requirement at barely 50 percent.3 Dr. Kurt Reimann, a research manager at 

BASF, tested a representative sample of 31 fabrics backcoated and BS5852 certified 

by an accredited laboratory in the U.K. Seventeen of these failed subsequent small 

open flame testing. Some of these required multiple treatments in order to pass, and 

many exhibited a mixture of passing and failing results.4 AFMA believes that consumer protection is better served by a more sensible fabric requirement which enjoys high compliance levels than a more stringent-sounding standard that is observed largely in the breach. 

Flame-Blocking Barriers 

As an alternative to FR treatment of outer fabrics, all stakeholders that we are 

aware of have endorsed a compliance option in which flame-blocking barriers (also 


714AFMA1.eps
24 

5See CPSC Briefing Package (2001), p. 50, indicating that the agency chose component over 

composite testing to avoid ‘‘imposing unreasonable technical or cost burdens.’’ 6Dr. Herman Stone, Overview of the Combustibility and Testing of Filling Materials and Fabrics for Upholstered Furniture, July 1998. 7 15 U.S.C. 1193 (j) (2) (C). 

8 U.S. CPSC, Briefing Package on Upholstered Furniture Flammability, October 2001, p. 50. 9Dr. Mark Berkman, Assessing the Need for a Federal Upholstered Furniture Flammability 

Standard, National Economic Research Associates (NERA), February 16, 2001, p. 32. 

called interliners) are layered between the fabric and cushioning material. No such 

option is provided by S. 1798. 

Barriers would be particularly critical at the upper levels of the market, where 

yarn substitution or chemical backcoating might conflict with customer preferences. 

The goal of such constructions is not primarily to prevent ignition of the outer fabric, but to limit the progression of fires into internal components such as polyurethane foam and polyester batting. Barrier materials are already used in the 

United Kingdom, as an alternative to the 20-second fabric test just discussed. Under 

our proposal, barriers would be qualified using an ignition source meant to model 

the effect of burning outer fabric. While barriers currently represent a more costly 

option than backcoating, a national regulation could give rise to economies of scale 

that bring such materials into wider use. 

The interliner option would advance public safety while providing furniture manufacturers with compliance flexibility. It would preserve fabric choice by allowing the 

use of outer fabrics which cannot be reliably FR treated, and those for which treatment would compromise function or consumer appeal. This option would also deal 

more sensibly with limited run fabrics and customer’s own merchandize (COM’s), for 

which valuable quantities of fabric would otherwise be consumed by testing. Furniture manufacturers and consumers especially concerned about chemical content 

would have access to flame resistant product which contains no chemical flame 

retardants. This could be advantageous in markets where consumer preference, labeling initiatives or regulations discourage the use of flame retardants. 

Unfortunately, the draft California standard referenced by S. 1798 does not provide a workable interliner option. To use untreated fabrics, a manufacturer would 

have to conduct composite testing of the fabric, batting, bagging, foam and other 

materials in each of the potentially thousands of combinations they bring to market. 

Composite testing is expensive and dangerous, requiring sophisticated measurement 

and pollution abatement equipment. It is also directly at odds with achieving costeffective product and high levels of compliance.5 One flammability expert has noted 

the unworkability of such tests for monitoring the compliance of furniture with safety standards: 

[A test] may be highly sophisticated technically and require special facilities 

and instrumentation. As a consequence it can generally only be performed in 

a limited number of installations and . . .used only for research purposes. It 

is usually not practical to require such elaborate testing for all possible combinations of filling and fabric materials. For any regulatory purpose, such as the 

requirement of certification for compliance, it is vital that a quality control test 

be available that . . .does not require highly trained personnel or elaborate 

equipment.6

The absence of an interliner alternative and the need to conduct composite testing 

for all SKU’s of product using untreated fabric is a central flaw of the California 

approach embodied in S. 1798. 

Cost-Effectiveness 

The unrealistically stringent test methods and the burden of composite testing 

render S. 1798 the most expensive approach yet proposed for residential upholstered 

furniture. As the Committee is aware, the reduction of flammability risks in the 

most cost-effective and least disruptive manner is part of the mandate that Congress provided to CPSC.7 It is also critical to the success of a flammability regulation for upholstered furniture. 

Improved furniture will only provide additional fire safety if it reaches peoples’ 

homes, particularly those at greatest risk of residential fire. Furniture is unlike 

toys, disposable lighters and other products which enjoy a rapid turnover in stock. 

There are approximately 400 million units of upholstered furniture currently in use 

in this country, and the average product life is between 15–17 years.8 New upholstered furniture represents a discretionary purchase for most U.S. consumers. As 

shown in the chart below, median income households replace sofas and loveseats at 

a rate of 3.6 percent annually. This figure drops to 2.5 percent among households 

with annual incomes under $20,000.9 The replacement of the Nation’s furniture 

25 

stock with more fire-resistant constructions will take place over several generations, 

even at present prices. 

Source: ‘‘Consumer Buying Trends,’’ Furniture Today, February 16, 1998. 

Price distortions imposed by careless regulation could deter consumer purchases 

of new furniture and thereby have a counterproductive effect. Our suppliers indicate 

that the reformulated and chemically treated components required by S. 1798 would 

result in a retail upcharge of approximately $100 per chair, and perhaps $145 per 

sofa. High testing costs would be layered onto these amounts. Policymakers can best 

promote the interest of consumers by choosing the most practical and cost-effective 

approach to furniture flammability. Most of the stakeholders present today believe 

that the AFMA proposal represents that path. 

The Bill Would Eliminate Decisionmaking Criteria and Transparency 

S. 1798 would make inapplicable important provisions of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act and related statutes. Specifically, no assessment of the resulting standard’s costs or benefits would be allowed. The agency would also be blocked from considering the impact of the regulation on the availability of products, or whether less 

burdensome or more effective alternatives are available. Significantly, the opportunity for interested parties to be heard on the advantages and disadvantages of the 

standard would be eliminated. 

These statutory provisions were established by Congress to provide for fairness 

and transparency in the regulatory process, and to ensure that regulation is accomplished in the manner least disruptive to the consumer marketplace. AFMA believes 

that adoption of S. 1798 would set an unfortunate precedent for administrative law. 

Conclusion 

CPSC is well on its way to providing the American public with safer furniture, 

and we respectfully recommend that Congress allow that process to proceed. We do 

encourage you to provide the agency with appropriate oversight and sufficient funding to carry out that task. 

Related to that point, please recognize that a flammability standard for upholstered furniture, when finalized, will be the most expansive safety standard ever 

promulgated by CPSC. Hundreds of million of upholstered units will be affected, 

and many of these will originate in foreign factories. The effectiveness of such a 

standard will rest with the ability of Federal authorities to enforce it. We urge Congress to provide CPSC and Customs authorities with resources sufficient to fairly 

and effectively monitor the compliance of upholstered furniture with any regulation 

that is imposed. 


714AFMA2.eps
26 

BIOGRAPHY OF ANDY S. COUNTS

Andy Counts is Chief Executive Officer of the American Furniture Manufacturers 

Association (AFMA), the Nation’s largest trade association for furniture manufacturers and suppliers. Formerly AFMA’s Vice President of Environmental and Technical 

Affairs, Mr. Counts has been instrumental in the development of consensus-based 

environmental regulations and product safety standards that impact the furniture 

industry. He has testified before state and Federal policymaking bodies, including 

the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

Prior to joining AFMA, Andy served as a Project Engineer with Malcolm Pirnie, 

Inc. in Charlotte, NC; as a Plant Engineer with kitchen cabinet manufacturer 

Merillat Industries; and as a Senior Environmental Engineer with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 

Andy has a degree in Industrial Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He is a Member of the North Carolina Furniture Export Council; a Board 

member of the International Woodworking Fair; a Past Member of the High Point 

Market Authority; and President of the Georgia Tech Alumni Association. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Bob Higgins, President, National Candle Association. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT HIGGINS, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL CANDLE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. HIGGINS. Good morning. My name is Bob Higgins. I’m Vice 

President of Manufacturing and Logistics with Candle-lite, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Today, I’m speaking as President of the NCA, the 

National Candle Association. 

The NCA is a major trade association of U.S. candle manufacturers and their suppliers. It consists of nearly 200 member companies, accounting for more than 90 percent of all candles manufactured in the U.S. I want to emphasize that the NCA is deeply committed to reducing candle fires, and strongly supports any legislation that helps to decrease residential fires and their devastating 

effects. 

The NCA has been actively involved in addressing consumer fire 

safety issues since 1997, when a growing number of candle fires led 

the CPSC to ask our help in developing standards on candle fire 

safety. The result was the ASTM F–15.45 Subcommittee on Candle 

Products. The candle industry, CPSC staff, and the fire community 

have all been actively involved. 

The NCA takes pride in the ASTM candle standard developed to 

date. NCA’s commitment to move forward as rapidly as possible 

has propelled the publication of three groundbreaking ASTM candle safety standards in only 25 months. A fourth standard dealing 

with the candle test methods was published earlier this year. A 

fifth standard dealing with candle accessories is under development. 

By far, the most technically advanced of the ASTM candle standards is PS 59–02, which addresses the control of flame height, stability, end-of-useful life, and secondary ignition. To make PS 59– 

02 a mandatory CPSC standard would set back efforts to improve 

candle fire safety. 

By statute, the CPSC may issue a mandatory standard only 

when it finds that a voluntary standard has not adequately reduced injury or death, or when substantial compliance with a voluntary standard is absent. Neither of these conditions exist in the 

candle industry. Our members have consistently demonstrated 

27 

their support for, and compliance with, the ASTM candle standards. PS 59–02 is no exception. 

Working with ASTM, the candle industry has recently revised 

and broadened PS 59–02 to now include virtually all types of candles in its end-of-useful-life requirements. A final standard is anticipated in December. 

Voluntary standards continually evolve. Mandatory standards 

are essentially frozen in time. ASTM standards are regularly reviewed and updated, ensuring that the latest technologies are 

adopted. By comparison, to change a mandatory CPSC standard 

would require complex and lengthy procedures under the Consumer Product Safety Act. 

Candles are safe products when used correctly, but educating 

consumers is the key to reducing candle fires. Approximately 85 

percent of all candle fires occur when consumers leave lighted candles unattended, place candles too close to combustibles, or place 

candles within the reach of children or pets. This finding prompted 

the development of the ASTM candle labeling standard, and underscored the tremendous importance of educating consumers about 

candle fire safety. That’s why the NCA aggressively distributes 

candle safety materials to consumers through the media, our 

Website, our members, industry groups, retailers, and cooperating 

organizations around the country. 

The NCA strongly believes that neither candles nor candle fire 

safety standards belong in S. 1798. The purpose of this bill is to 

reduce the flammability of candles, mattresses, bedclothing, and 

upholstered furniture. A candle constitutes a source of ignition. It 

is an open flame. Mattresses, bedclothing, and upholstered furniture are items that can be ignited by a flame. This distinction between an ignition source and an ignited item is important. If the 

purpose of S. 1798 is to reduce the flammability of items ignited 

in household fires, then candles clearly do not belong in the bill. 

If the purpose is to improve the fire safety of ignition sources, then 

stoves, ovens, heaters, furnaces, fireplaces, chimneys, clothes dryers, and cigarettes, all of which cause more residential fires than 

candles, should be included. Candles constitute but 4 percent of all 

residential fires. 

In conclusion, the U.S. candle industry has been steadfast in its 

commitment to improving candle safety, to developing voluntary 

ASTM standards, to complying with those standards, and to educating consumers. The NCA is committed to the intent of this legislation and to reducing residential fires. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify, and respectfully request 

that language regarding candles and candle standards be removed 

from S. 1798. 

I thank you for allowing me to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Higgins follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT HIGGINS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CANDLE ASSOCIATION

I. Introduction 

Good morning. My name is Robert Higgins. I am Vice President of Manufacturing 

and Logistics with Candle-Lite, Inc., one of the largest candle manufacturers in 

North America. Candle-Lite is owned by Lancaster Colony Corporation, a publicly 

traded company headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. 

28 

I am speaking today on behalf of the National Candle Association as its President. 

II. The National Candle Association 

The National Candle Association (‘‘NCA’’) is the major trade association representing U.S. candle manufacturers and their suppliers. Founded 30 years ago, the 

NCA today consists of nearly 200 member companies, accounting for more than 90 

percent of all candles manufactured in the United States. NCA’s leadership and 

technical expertise in all aspects of candlemaking is well established and widely recognized. 

The popularity of candles soared dramatically with American consumers during 

the 1990s. Candle sales reached their historical high at the close of the decade, and 

have remained relatively steady since that time. U.S. retail sales of candles are currently estimated at $2 billion annually. 

Data from industry and independent market research firms indicate that candle 

sales in the United States increased more than 700 percent from 1990 to 1999. In 

turn, candle-related residential fires increased 275 percent. 

It was the growing number of candle fires that led the U.S. Consumer Product 

Safety Commission in 1997 to ask our help in forming a subcommittee under ASTM 

to develop consensus standards for addressing the fire safety of candles. The result 

was the ASTM F–15.45 Subcommittee on Candle Products. 

The National Candle Association takes exceptional pride in the ASTM candle safety standards that have been developed to date. NCA’s commitment to move forward 

as rapidly as possible, and the contribution of its members’ technical know-how and 

innovation, allowed the publication of three groundbreaking safety standards in a 

record 25 months. A fourth candle standard dealing with a manufacturer test method was published earlier this year. A fifth standard dealing with the fire safety of 

candle accessories is currently under development. 

The active participation and contribution of the CPSC staff and representatives 

of the fire community in developing these standards has helped to ensure that both 

the fire science and consumer behavior components of candle safety have been effectively addressed. 

In the process of developing these standards, we have gained considerable knowledge about the technological and practical opportunities and limitations for reducing 

the incidence of residential candle fires. It is in this context that we today address 

the proposed American Home Fire Safety Act (S. 1798). 

III. The Value of Voluntary Standards 

S. 1798 calls for the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to issue a mandatory candle fire-safety standard that is ‘‘substantially the same’’ as the voluntary 

ASTM Provisional Standard PS 59–02. 

Section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act provides that the CPSC may issue 

a mandatory standard only when it finds that a voluntary standard has not adequately reduced the addressed risk of injury or death, or when substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is absent. NCA strongly believes that neither of 

these conditions exists. 

Our members have consistently demonstrated their support for and compliance 

with the ASTM candle standards, and PS 59–02 is no exception. Its technically advanced specifications for controlling the flame height, stability, end of useful life and 

secondary ignition factors are playing a significant role in reducing candle-related 

residential fires. 

The Committee should be aware that the PS 59–02 standard cited in this legislation was the initial candle-fire safety standard developed by the ASTM F15–45 subcommittee and rushed into effect as a provisional standard to speed its adoption and 

acceptance by the candle industry. 

Since then, the ASTM Subcommittee has improved and broadened the standard 

by adding end-of-useful life provisions for freestanding candles, tea lights and 

votives. The balloting period has just closed on these broadened revisions and we 

anticipate the standard will become final in December of 2004, at which time the 

standard’s provisional ‘‘PS 59–02’’ nomenclature will be dropped and a new number 

and prefix designation assigned. 

The addition of these new provisions underscores the value of a voluntary consensus standard and the severe drawbacks of a mandatory standard. Recognized 

standards bodies, such as ASTM and ANSI, require regular review and updating of 

voluntary standards to ensure that the latest technologies and improvements are 

continually adopted and put into effect. 

If ASTM 59–02 were to become a mandatory standard, its fire-safety specifications 

would essentially be frozen in time. The automatic updating and expansion of a 

standard that occurs with recognized standards bodies would be effectively lost. 

29 

To incorporate into a mandatory CPSC standard any future technical advances or 

fire-safety measures would necessitate undergoing the relatively complex and 

lengthy procedures required to amend a mandatory standard under the Consumer 

Product Safety Act. This would constitute a giant and needless step backward in 

the industry’s continuing effort to improve candle-fire safety. 

Turning the ASTM candle fire-safety standard into a mandated standard would 

effect absolutely no positive change in candle fire safety, but would likely obstruct 

the future addition of technological advances or expansions of the standard’s current 

provisions. 

IV. Consumer Education Is Key to Reducing Candle Fires 

Despite the importance of fire science and standards in reducing the incidence of 

residential fires, the NCA strongly believes that the real key to candle-fire safety 

lies with consumer education. Candles are safe products when used correctly. It is 

consumer misuse and inattention to basic fire-safety precautions that leads to candle fires. 

When the ASTM Subcommittee on Candle Products was first formed, the CPSC 

presented NFIRS data indicating that 85 percent of all candle fires were due to consumers leaving lighted candles unattended, placing candles too close to combustibles, and placing candles within the reach of children or pets. 

These findings prompted the subcommittee to develop ASTM F–2058, the cautionary labeling standard. In effect since November of 2000, it requires candles to 

have a consumer warning label setting forth these three critical fire-safety rules. 

Unfortunately, no product label or safety standard, whether voluntary or mandatory, can overcome the fact that the vast majority of candle fires are due to consumer inattention and carelessness. Educating consumers as to the proper method 

for burning candles, and increasing their awareness of candle fire safety precautions, are critical requisitions for reducing candle fires. 

The National Candle Association has worked diligently in educating consumers 

about the need for vigilance when burning candles. We have created and promoted 

literature stressing the importance of candle fire safety. We disseminate this literature to consumers through our members, non-member industry groups and retailers, as well as through fire, safety and consumer organizations around the country. 

Our website is recognized for its outstanding candle safety information, and the 

media regularly directs consumers to www.candles.org for important safety advice. 

We have contacted national and regional fire groups, restaurant associations, hotel 

associations, retailers and others, providing them with information on the ASTM 

candle fire safety standards and encouraging them to join us in promoting candle 

fire safety. Currently we are working on a pilot project in North Carolina aimed at 

getting our candle safety message to school children and their parents in cooperation with the Office of the State Fire Marshal and Safe Kids chapters in the state. 

To reach as many consumers as possible, NCA regularly issues press releases and 

feature stories on candle safety to radio, television print and the electronic media. 

In addition, we produce and annually distribute a television Video News Release on 

the importance of fire safety when using candles. 

V. Candles Do Not Belong in S. 1798 

The National Candle Association strongly believes the neither candles nor candle 

fire-safety standards belong in S. 1798. 

The stated purpose of the bill is to develop standards ‘‘to reduce the flammability 

of candles, mattresses, bed clothing and upholstered furniture.’’ A burning candle 

is a source of ignition, an open flame. Mattresses, bed clothing and upholstered furniture are items that can be ignited by a flame. This distinction between an ignition 

source and an ignited item is important. 

If the purpose of S. 1798 is to reduce the flammability of items ignited frequently 

in household fires, then candles clearly do not belong in the legislation. 

If the purpose of this legislation is to improve the fire safety of ignition sources, 

then stoves and ovens, heaters and furnaces, fireplaces and chimneys, cigarettes, 

and clothes dryers—all of which cause more residential fires than candles—should 

be included. 

The ASTM standard for candle-fire safety is the most technically advanced in the 

world. Turning it into a mandated standard would effect absolutely no positive 

change in candle fire safety, and would thwart our ongoing efforts to expand and 

improve it. 

Industry has consistently demonstrated its support for, and compliance with, the 

ASTM candle standards, and we believe they are playing a significant role in reducing candle-related residential fires. 

30 

The NCA requests that references to candles and candle fire-safety standards be 

eliminated from S. 1798. 

VI. Conclusion 

The NCA has been diligent and resolute in its efforts to improve candle fire safety. We believe we have made notable progress addressing the fire science component 

of candle-fire safety through our active participation in the ASTM standards development process. 

We are especially proud of our role in the development of PS 59–02, and its innovative technical specifications for controlling the flame height, stability, end of useful life and the secondary ignition of candles. When the latest revisions are added 

and the standard becomes final in a few months, it will provide the industry with 

the most advanced and comprehensive means of addressing candle fire safety from 

the standpoint of combustion control. 

Through dedication and innovation, the U.S. candle industry has harnessed the 

candle flame in ways that were unthinkable just a decade ago. Yet these technological feats will be of minimal value unless we can make significant inroads in educating consumers about the need for caution and vigilance when burning candles. 

As the voice of the U.S. candle industry, the NCA has been steadfast in its commitment to improving candle fire safety, not only through its active participation in 

the development of voluntary standards, and compliance with those standards, but 

in its ongoing consumer education and media outreach activities, its cooperative endeavors with fire and safety organizations, and its efforts to involve the entire U.S. 

candle industry and customers in a commitment to candle fire safety. The NCA requests that references to candles and candle fire-safety standards be eliminated 

from S. 1798. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on this important subject. 

Thank you for your attention. 

NATIONAL CANDLE ASSOCIATION—ASTM STANDARDS FOR CANDLES

F 1972–99 Standard Guide for Terminology Relating to Candles and 

Associated Accessory Items 

Defines the key terms associated with candles to ensure universal understanding of 

related standards. 

F 2058–00 Standard Specification for Cautionary Labeling for Candles 

Burned in A Home 

Sets forth the minimum wording, typestyle and design requirements for the warning 

label that is to be placed on candles. The standard addresses the three most common causes of accidental candle fires: 

• Keep burning candle within sight 

• Keep out of reach of children and pets 

• Never on or near anything that can catch fire 

F 2179–02 Standard Specification for Annealed Soda-Lime-Silicate Glass 

Containers that are Produced for Use as Candle Containers 

Developed to address concerns over candle fires caused by broken or shattered glass 

containers, this standard requires that glass containers for candle use be: 

• Properly annealed—pass a scratch test without fractures or, for transparent 

glass, has a real temper <4 using a polariscope. 

• Able to withstand a 90º F thermal shock differential. 

F 2326–04 Standard Test Method for Collection and Analysis of Visible 

Emissions from Candles As They Burn 

Establishes a test method for collecting and analyzing visible emissions when comparing the smoking and burn behavior of certain candle designs and formulations. 

Does not provide pass/fail criteria 

PS 59–02* Provisional Specification for Fire Safety for Candles 

Sets fire prevention measures for the manufacture and design of candles. Currently 

a provisional standard, anticipated requirements of the final standard are listed 

below. 

• Maximum flame height on candles shall not exceed 3.0 inches (church candles 

= 3.75’’). 

31 

• A candle placed on an incline of 10 degrees shall not tip over. 

• A candle shall not support ignition at points other than the intended wick or 

wicks. 

• When a free-standing, tealight, votive or container candle reaches the end of its 

useful life: 

—the candle must not exhibit excessive flame height, 

—the candle must not exhibit secondary ignition, 

—the flame must go out. 

—if a container candle, the container shall not break, 

Fire Safety Specifications and Test Methods for Candle Accessories (Under 

Development) 

Intended to ensure that a candle flame will not ignite a candle accessory to initiate 

a larger fire. Includes flammability test methods and pass/fail criteria. Also includes 

stability requirements. 

Residential Candle Fires increased by 275 percent from 1990–1999 

There were 5,450 candle fires reported in 1990 and 15,040 candle fires in 1999. 

Source: NFIRS/NFPA 


714CANDL1.eps
32 

U.S. Candle Sales increased more than 700 percent from 1990–1999 

Candle sales rose from an estimated $300 million in 1990 to $2.2 billion in 1999. 

Source: 1990–1994 Industry estimates: 1995–1999 Mintel (all figures exclude 

candle accessories) 

Candle Wax made in the U.S. or imported increased 410 percent from 1990– 

1999. 

Source: Compiled from Department of Commerce, ‘‘Wax Data and Industry 

surveys.’’ 


714CANDL2.eps 714CANDL3.eps
33 

Consumer inattention and misuse of candles account for 85 percent of all 

residential candle fires. 

Source: 1997 CPSC Analysis of 1993–1994 NFIRS data for ASTM F–15.45 

Subcommittee as reported in ASTM Standardization News, March 2003. 

Subsequent NFIRS data have shown no substantial changes in the reported 

causes of candle fires. 

ASTM CANDLE FIRE SAFETY TASK GROUP

4/14/03 

Geoffrey Faires 

The Dial Corp. 

George Pappas Sr. 

Lumi-Lite Candle Co. 

Dave Buri 

S.C. Johnson, Inc. 

John Witham 

Candle-Lite, Inc. 

Robert Harrington 

Blyth Industries, Inc. 

Evelyn Bicknese (IGCA Representative) 

Bicknese & Bicknese, Inc. 

Richard Signorelli 

Belmay, Inc. 

Ed Calcote 

Shell Global Solutions, US 

Jim Becker 

Candle Solutions 

Robert Weitzel 

Green Township Fire Chief 

Christy Wheeler 

Atkins & Pearce, Inc. 


714CANDL4.eps
34 

1This specification is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee F15 on Consumer Products 

and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee F15.45 on Candle Products. 

William Comber 

Libbey Glass 

John Tedeschi 

Bath & Body Works 

John Baker 

Pier 1 

Robert Moss 

FTI–SEA Consulting 

Mark Gerwitz 

Bureau Veritas Consumer Products & Services 

Jim Hoebel 

Consultant 

Tom Acklin (for AFIA) 

Autograph Foliages 

Allyson Tenney 

CPSC 

Valerie Cooper 

NCA 

David Morrison 

Penreco 

Charles D. Moses 

Arizona Chemical Company 

Dan Muller 

Jackel International, Inc. 

Walter Smittle 

Retired WV State Fire Marshal 

Specification for Fire Safety for Candles 1

This document is not an ASTM standard; it is under consideration within an 

ASTM technical committee but has not received all approvals required to become 

an ASTM standard. It shall not be reproduced or circulated or quoted, in whole or 

in part, outside of ASTM Committee activities except with the approval of the 

Chairman of the Committee having jurisdiction and the President of the Society. 

Copyright ASTM, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428. All Rights 

Reserved. 

1. Scope 

1.1 This specification is intended to prescribe requirements for certain candles to 

provide a reasonable degree of safety for normal use, thereby improving personal 

safety and reducing fires, deaths, and injuries. 

1.2 This specification is not intended to replace other important safety practices 

that should be in place, such as adult supervision, close monitoring, fire detection, 

alarm or suppression systems, and use of candles away from combustible materials. 

1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values 

given in parentheses are for information only. 

1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, 

associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish 

appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory 

requirements prior to use. 

1.5 Flame-producing devices, such as candles, present a potential hazard to the 

user. This standard cannot eliminate all hazards but will minimize the potential 

hazards of candles to the user. 

1.6 This standard measures and describes the response of materials, products or 

assemblies to heat and flame under controlled conditions, but does not by itself incorporate all factors required for fire hazard or fire risk assessment of the materials, 

products or assemblies under actual fire conditions. 

35 

2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM 

Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website. 

2. Referenced Documents 

2.1 ASTM Standards 2

E 176 Terminology of Fire Standards 

F 400 Consumer Safety Specification for Lighters 

F 1972 Guide for Terminology Relating to Candles and Associated Accessory 

Items 

3. Terminology 

3.1 Certain candle-related terminology is addressed in Guide F 1972, and the 

reader is directed to that standard for definitions not found in 3.2. For definitions 

of terms associated with fire issues, see E 176 Terminology of Fire Standards. 

3.2 Definitions: 

3.2.1 Altar candle, n—candle that is constructed, packaged, and labeled as an 

‘‘Altar’’ candle. 

3.2.1.1 Discussion—The candle is used in a place of worship in close proximity to 

the altar during the religious service or ceremony. 

3.2.2 base material, n—intended fuel source for candle flame. 

3.2.3 birthday candle, n—candle whose sole purpose is to be used on a birthday 

cake. 

3.2.4 candle flashover, n—condition in which the base material’s vapors ignite 

over the entire fuel pool. 

3.2.5 Easter, Paschal, Sacramental candle, n—candle that is constructed, packaged, and labeled as an ‘‘Easter,’’ ‘‘Paschal,’’ or ‘‘Sacramental’’ candle (or some combination of these names, for example, ‘‘Easter/Paschal’’), generally 43.2 cm (17.0 in.) 

or more in length. 

3.2.5.1 Discussion—The candle shall be displayed and burned in the place of worship as the focal candle during Easter or with the celebration of various sacraments. 

The candle is adorned with symbols and ornamentation as required and deemed appropriate. 

3.2.6 end of useful life, n—when the candle ceases to support combustion and the 

candle flame(s) goes (go) out on its own, as designed, and cannot be relit. 

3.2.7 ensemble, n—candle and items physically packaged together and intended 

for use with the candle for sale as one unit at the retail level. 

3.2.8 fuel pool, n—pool of molten base material. 

3.2.9 place of worship, n—any building that functions primarily as a group meeting place for the practice of religion. 

3.2 9.1 Discussion—This includes, but is not limited to, churches, synagogues, cathedrals, temples, and meeting halls. 

3.2.10 secondary ignition, n—self-sustained flame other than that on the intended 

wick(s) that occurs during candle use, including candle flashover. 

3.2.11 self-sustained flame, n—flame that continues to burn until the fuel source 

is removed or depleted or requires manual extinguishing. 

4. Safety Requirements 

4.1 Safety Requirements for Flame Height—This safety requirement does not pertain to candles intended to be burned outdoors. 

4.1.1 Rationale 

4.1.1.1 Candle flame heights are burn characteristics that shall be monitored 

closely by manufacturers, consumers, retailers, and anyone associated with the distribution and use of candles. 

4.1.1.2 Excessive candle flame heights can increase the risk of fires when using 

candle products. 

4.1.1.3 The 76.2-mm (3.0-in.) maximum allowable flame height requirement for all 

candles excluding ‘‘Easter,’’ ‘‘Paschal,’’ ‘‘Sacramental,’’ ‘‘Altar,’’ and outdoor candles 

is, in part, based on the established requirement for nonadjustable, non-windproof 

lighters contained in Consumer Safety Specification F 400, taking into account certain differences in measurement methods and other candle performance considerations not relevant to fire safety. In addition, candle flame heights are not static. 

The natural tendency of a candle is for the flame height to vary during the burn 

life. The maximum allowable flame height requirement in this specification takes 

into account such variation and anticipates that manufacturers will design candles 

to ensure that they remain below the maximum flame height requirement throughout the burning period. Furthermore, the manufacturer shall determine the appropriate lower flame height for optimum performance for individual candle types. 

36 

4.1.1.4 The 95.3-mm (3.75-in.) maximum allowable flame height requirement for 

‘‘Easter,’’ ‘‘Paschal,’’ ‘‘Sacramental,’’ and ‘‘Altar’’ candles is larger than other candles 

because visibility of the flame during services at the place of worship warrants 

slightly larger flame heights. 

4.1.2 Performance Requirement 

4.1.2.1 Candle flame heights (other than those of ‘‘Easter,’’ ‘‘Paschal,’’ ‘‘Sacramental,’’ ‘‘Altar,’’ and outdoor candles), when tested in accordance with the test 

method in 5.2, shall not exceed 76.2 mm (3.0 in.). If at any time during the testing 

period the flame height exceeds 76.2 mm (3.0 in.), extinguish that candle and record 

it as a failure. 

4.1.2.2 ‘‘Easter,’’ ‘‘Paschal,’’ ‘‘Sacramental,’’ and ‘‘Altar’’ candle flame heights, when 

tested in accordance with the test method in 5.2, shall not exceed 95.3 mm (3.75 

in.). If at any time during the testing period the flame height exceeds 95.3 mm (3.75 

in.), extinguish that candle and record it as a failure. 

4.1.2.3 For filled candles, if at any time during the testing period, regardless of 

flame height, the container cracks or breaks, it shall be recorded as a failure. 

4.2 Safety Requirements for Secondary Ignition—This safety requirement applies 

to all candles and ensembles with the exception of ‘‘Easter,’’ ‘‘Paschal,’’ and ‘‘Sacramental’’ candles specifically designed to be used during the service at the place 

of worship. 

4.2.1 Rationale 

4.2.1.1 Potential hazards associated with secondary ignition sources in and on 

candles exist, especially if the candle is not designed properly. The ignition of material other than the intended wick(s) may result in damaged candles, elevated fuel 

pool temperatures, excessively rapid base material consumption, and unintended 

flames. All of these conditions could lead to potential fire hazards. 

4.2.1.2 This requirement describes the method to determine the tendency of candles to support ignition at points other than the intended wick(s) that are integrated 

into the candles to enable them to burn. 

4.2.2 Performance Requirement 

4.2.2.1 When the candle is tested in accordance with 5.2 of this specification, no 

secondary ignition shall occur. 

4.2.2.2 Record the candle as passing the secondary ignition specification if no secondary ignition is observed during the testing. 

4.3 Safety Requirements for End of Useful Life—This requirement applies to all 

votive, freestanding, and filled (including tealights) candles and to all ensembles 

containing tealights. This requirement does not apply to candles requiring a holder 

to keep them upright, birthday candles, and candles intended to float on water. 

4.3.1 Rationale—When the candle meets the safety requirements for the end of 

useful life, this will reduce the risk of fires. 

4.3.2 Performance Requirement 

4.3.2.1 Record votive and filled (including tealights) candles or tealight ensembles 

as passing the end of useful life requirement when tested in accordance with the 

test method in 5.2 if the candle or tealight ensemble meets the definition in 3.2.6 

and does not break or crack the container, does not exhibit excessive flame height, 

and does not exhibit secondary ignition as detailed in this specification. 

4.3.2.2 Record the freestanding candle as passing the end of useful life requirement when tested in accordance with the test method in 5.2 if the candle meets the 

definition in 3.2.6 and the flame does not impinge on the supporting surface, does 

not exhibit excessive flame height, and does not exhibit secondary ignition as detailed in this specification. 

NOTE 1—The use of current processes or devices that limit the candle °s ability 

to consume all of the available fuel is offered as a way to reduce candle fires that 

occur at the end of the candle °s life. This does not preclude the development of 

other suitable means to meet the requirements set forth in 4.3. This reduces heat 

buildup at the end of life and the possibility of secondary ignition, candle flashover, 

and container failure. While it is understood that current processes and devices will 

not guarantee that all fuel will not be consumed, the anticipated benefit in reducing 

candle fires warrants their consideration for use. 

4.4 Safety Requirements for Stability—This safety requirement is intended to 

cover freestanding candles that are normally used without the aid of a holding device to keep them upright, filled candles (including tealights), and ensembles. Candles requiring a holder to keep them upright and votive candles are excluded unless 

incorporated in an ensemble. ‘‘Easter,’’ ‘‘Paschal,’’ ‘‘Sacramental,’’ and ‘‘Altar’’ candles, specifically designed for use during the service at the place of worship, are also 

excluded from the requirements of this section. 

4.4.1 Rationale—This requirement is intended to minimize the hazards of candle 

tip over. 

37 

4.4.2 Performance Requirement 

4.4.2.1 Candles specified in 4.4 must not tip over when placed on a minimum 

10.0° incline when tested in accordance with 5.3 in this specification. 

4.4.2.2 Asymmetrical candles shall pass this requirement if they do not tip over 

when rotated around the candle’s vertical axis and tested on the incline apparatus 

in all orientations. 

5. Test Methods 

5.1 Candle fire safety issues to be monitored by these test methods include flame 

height, secondary ignition, safety requirements for end of useful life, and stability. 

5.2 Candle Burning Performance Test 

5.2.1 Summary of Test Method—Candle wicks are trimmed in accordance with the 

label’s instructions. If no information is provided on the label, the wicks are not 

trimmed for this test. All candles except tealights, tealight ensembles, and gel-containing candles are lit and allowed to burn for 4 h with periodic observation. Gel 

candles and candles containing any gel materials shall be lit and allowed to burn 

for 8 h with periodic observation. This procedure is repeated until the end of the 

candle’s useful life. For tealights and tealight ensembles, the candles are lit and allowed to burn to their end of useful life with periodic observation. Flame heights 

are observed at specified intervals and recorded at the end of each burn cycle. Flame 

heights shall be measured and recorded in millimetres (inches). 

5.2.2 Apparatus 

5.2.2.1 Nonflammable measuring device graduated in millimetres (inches); 

5.2.2.2 Candle holder/glass (if applicable); 

5.2.2.3 Lighter, matches, or other source of ignition; 

5.2.2.4 Test surface level, noncombustible; and 

5.2.2.5 Wick-trimming device. 

5.2.3 Safety Hazards 

Warning: There is an inherent risk of working with and around open flames. 

5.2.3.1 Appropriate personal protective equipment must be used and safe work 

practices must be followed. 

5.2.3.2 Fire suppression equipment capable of mitigating fires associated with 

candle fire safety testing must be readily available during testing. 

5.2.4 Procedure 

5.2.4.1 Remove all wrapping. Remove label(s) in accordance with label instructions before initiating the burn test. 

5.2.4.2 The burn test area shall be environmentally controlled to 20 to 30 °C (68 

to 86 °F) with minimal disturbance of the flames of the candles under test. Drafts 

affect flame heights and shall be minimized. 

5.2.4.3 Place candles with the wicks in a straight/upright position. When appropriate, place candles in a holder and trim wicks in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 

5.2.4.4 Place candles at least 20 cm (7.87 in.) apart, measured sidewall to sidewall, on test surface. 

5.2.4.5 Light candles and avoid contaminating them with carbon or debris from 

the ignition source. Burn tealight candles and tealight ensembles to their end of 

useful life; burn gel candles and any candles containing gel materials for 8 h; burn 

all other candles for 4 h. 

5.2.4.6 Make visual observations after initial lighting and at least hourly intervals 

throughout the entire burn duration. If a flame height appears to approach the maximum allowable flame height, measure and record the flame height and the time 

of occurrence. 

5.2.4.7 Measure and record flame height at the end of the specified burn cycle. 

For candles whose intended product life is less than 8 h, measure and record the 

flame height a minimum of two times before the end of useful life. Measure flame 

with a nonflammable measuring device. Carefully place the measuring device as 

close as possible behind the flame without disturbing the flame. Allow flame to stabilize. Hold the measuring device in place for 5 s and record a maximum value (undisturbed flame). Measure the flame height from bottom of flame arc to the flame 

tip (see FIG 1). 

5.2.4.8 At the end of burn cycle, extinguish the candle and allow to cool. 

5.2.4.9 Repeat 5.2.4.2–5.2.4.8 until the end of candle life. 

5.2.5 Calculation of Results 

5.2.5.1 Record any failure for maximum flame height. 

5.2.5.2 Record any occurrence of secondary ignition. 

5.2.5.3 Record any candle that does not pass the safety requirements at end of 

useful life in accordance with 4.3 of this specification. 

5.2.5.4 Record any occurrence of container breakage or cracking. 

38 

5.2.6 Precision and Bias—No information is presented about either the precision 

or bias for measuring the flame height, secondary ignition, or safety requirements 

for end of useful life since the test results are nonquantitative. 

5.3 Stability Test Method 

5.3.1 Summary of Test Method—Candles shall be placed on a minimum 10.0° incline to determine if they remain in a stable, upright position without tipping over. 

5.3.2 Apparatus—An incline plane, either fixed or adjustable, capable of achieving 

a minimum of 10.0° from level. The plane may need a stop to help prevent the candle from slipping during this test. When a stop is used, its maximum height shall 

not exceed 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) so as not to affect the test results. 

5.3.3 Procedure 

5.3.3.1 Preparation of Samples—Remove all wrapping. Remove label material 

when instructed by the manufacturer and prepare the candle or ensemble, or both, 

for use. 

5.3.3.2 Place the prepared, unlit candle or assembled ensemble on an incline apparatus in the orientation most likely to cause tipping at a minimum of 10.0° from 

level. The tested candle or assembled ensemble or both shall remain stable and not 

fall over. Rotation around the candle’s vertical axis will be necessary to determine 

the stability of an asymmetrical candle. 

5.3.4 Calculation of Results—Record any stability failures. 

5.3.5 Precision and Bias—No information is presented about either the precision 

or bias of the measurement of stability since the test results are nonquantitative. 

NOTE 2—More stringent testing of test methods contained within this specification is permissible if, when testing identical specimens, a test using alternate apparatus or procedures yields failing results as often as, or more often than, a test 

using the apparatus and procedures specified in this specification. 

6. Keywords 

6.1 candles; end of useful life; fire safety testing; flame height; gel; secondary ignition; stability; tealight 


714ASTM1.eps
39 

APPENDIX 

(Nonmandatory Information) 

X.1. GEL-CONTAINING CANDLES 

X1.1 Gel candles have been involved in a number of candle fires as reported by 

various government agencies. In addition, several product recalls involving gel candles have been issued. Limited testing of experimental candles conducted by the 

Candle Fire Safety Task Group did not reproduce the candle flashover effect associated with reported gel-based candle failures. Further testing is planned to attempt 

to identify the causal factors in candle flashover and other gel-based candle failures. 

If necessary, the specification will be revised to reflect the outcome of this testing. 

X1.2 In an attempt to identify specific characteristics associated with gel-based 

candle failures, the burn interval for gel-containing candles in the Candle Burning 

Performance Test has been increased to 8 h from the requisite 4 h in the specification. 

X2.3 It is highly recommended that gel candles be extensively tested to try to 

identify any potential problems with the products. It is also highly recommended 

that candle manufacturers consult and work closely with the gel material suppliers 

as they develop these products. 

NATIONAL CANDLE ASSOCIATION

Washington, DC, May 5, 2004 

Office of the Secretary, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Washington, DC. 

‘‘Petition CP 04–1/HP 04–1, Petition for Fire Safety Standards for Candles 

and Candle Accessories’’ 

The National Candle Association (NCA) submits the following comments in response to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) request for comments on the petition from the National Association of State Fire Marshals 

(NASFM) requesting the CPSC to issue mandatory fire safety standards for candles 

and candle accessories (Petition No. CP 04–1/HP 04–1, 69 FR 18059, April 6, 2004). 

The NCA is the major trade association for the U.S. candle industry. We are recognized as the North American technical experts on candle manufacturing and formulation. Our member’s account for more than 90 percent of the candles manufactured in the United States. Our members include both manufacturers and suppliers. 

Because of NCA’s leadership in the industry, and its technical expertise in candle 

manufacturing, the CPSC in 1997 asked NCA to help form a candle products subcommittee under the Consumer Products Committee of the ASTM standards organization. Through the efforts of this ASTM F–15.45 subcommittee, the current voluntary consensus standards regarding candle fire safety have been developed and 

continue to be expanded. Both NCA and CPSC have actively participated in the subcommittee’s consensus deliberations, with representatives from a variety of fire and 

safety organizations and other interested parties. 

Section 7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2056, provides 

that the Commission may issue a mandatory standard only when it finds there is 

not a voluntary standard that adequately reduces the addressed risk of injury or 

death, or when substantial compliance with the voluntary standard is absent. NCA 

strongly believes that the voluntary consensus standards that have been and continue to be developed, for candle product fire safety under ASTM F–15.45, have 

been effective in reducing candle-fire risks, and that such standards will continue 

to help reduce the risk of such fires. 

Further, we believe that the CPSC staff concurs with NCA in this matter, given 

the recommendation of the Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction and the 

concurrence of the Office of the General Counsel that CPSC’s involvement in this 

issue has been so extensive that it is not necessary for the Commission to seek public comment on the NASFM petition. 

Adequacy of Voluntary Industry Standards 

In proposing that the Commission adopt a mandatory standard for candle fire 

safety, NASFM implies that the voluntary standards are inadequate. Because the 

voluntary standard’s provisions are relatively new and the standard is being expanded, it is too early to make the judgment that the voluntary standard will not 

40 

be effective. Our efforts an the efforts o all candle manufacturers to educate the 

marketplace is still underway. 

NASFM also requests that four additional provisions be incorporated into the 

mandatory standard. Ongoing activities of the ASTM F–15.45 subcommittee are covering these requests. For all intents and purposes, the additional provisions requested by NASFM have already been addressed, either through revisions and inclusions to the PS 59–02 standard, which is currently being readied for balloting, 

or through the standards drafting procedure, or consensus of the subcommittee. 

Specifically, end-of-useful-life requirements for freestanding, tea light and votive 

candles have been incorporated into the latest revision of PS 59–02; inclusion of 

tapers in this requirement is not technically possible or economically feasible at this 

time. Flammability performance requirements for candle accessories and 

candleholders are being drafted as a new standard by the F–15.45 subcommittee. 

Stability requirements for tapers and votives packaged with holders as ensembles 

are also included in the latest revisions of PS 59–02. 

The NASFM request for a provision regarding the miscibility and flash points of 

gel candles addresses fire-safety concerns already achieved by the voluntary candle 

fire-safety standard. PS 59–02 addresses key fire-safety specifications that can in 

some way be controlled through manufacturing procedures—flame height, stability, 

end of useful life, and secondary ignition. These specifications apply to candles regardless of their fuel type—paraffin, soy, beeswax, gels, synthetic waxes, palm wax, 

etc., or blends of these fuels. In this sense, adding a gel candle-specific provision is 

redundant, and would inappropriately interject very narrow (and likely anti-competitive) formulation requirements into what is designed to be a universally applicable performance standard. Moreover, adding narrow formulation specifications for 

one particular type of candle wax would require adding parallel prescriptive specifications for all types and blends of candle waxes, a virtually impossible undertaking 

involving thousands of possible combinations. 

Negative Safety Impact of a Mandatory Standard 

Ironically, NASFM’s petition for a mandatory standard addressing candle product 

fire safety would likely impede the improvement of candle-fire safety technology and 

designs. The promulgation of a mandatory standard would serve to freeze in time 

any technical advances or innovations in candle product fire safety because of the 

relatively complex and lengthy procedures required to amend a mandatory standard 

under the Consumer Product Safety Act. 

The value of voluntary industry consensus standards, as developed through recognized standards development bodies such as ASTM, ANSI, ISO, etc., is that they 

are continually improved through required revision and update procedures. This allows new technologies and innovations to be incorporated into applicable standards 

on a timely basis. Indeed, the evolving and progressive nature of voluntary consensus standards is what led to the most recent revision of PS 59–02 and its inclusion of the additional provisions contemplated by NASFM. 

To issue a mandatory standard for the fire safety of candle products at this time 

would thwart the efforts of both industry and the CPSC to effectively and expediently address candle fire-safety issues with standards that include the best available 

technology. Over the past few years, the necessary ‘‘critical mass’’ of personnel and 

technical expertise has come together in the existing voluntary standards proceedings to allow for rapid expansion and continued refinement of the voluntary 

standards for candles. It would be premature to halt this synergistic activity until 

the results of these efforts are complete and have time to work on the market place. 

Candle Industry in Compliance 

NASFM alleges that the candle industry is not in compliance with the ASTM 

standards, and that it has made no effort to encourage compliance with the ASTM 

standards. These allegations are inaccurate and unfounded. 

The NCA’s commitment to product excellence and the safe and proper use of candles is at the foundation of its aggressive efforts to establish and participate in the 

ASTM F–15.45 subcommittee. Members in good standing of the National Candle Association pledge to manufacture candles and candle products in accordance with recognized industry standards and practices. Since NCA members account for approximately 90 percent of the candles manufactured in the U.S., this alone constitutes 

more than substantial compliance by the industry with the ASTM standards. 

Further, NCA takes its responsibility and leadership role in the candle industry 

very seriously. We have undertaken aggressive efforts to educate member and nonmember candle manufacturers, suppliers and retailers—as well as large-scale user 

groups—regarding the ASTM standards and the importance of candle fire safety. 

41 

Our retailer members, as well as major non-member retailers and mass purchasers, 

specify the ASTM standards in their procurement and supply contracts. 

Consumer Education Is Key to Reducing Candle Fires 

Candles are safe products when used correctly. It is consumer misuse and inattention to basic fire-safety precautions that leads to candle fires. When the ASTM F– 

15.45 subcommittee was first formed, the CPSC presented data from the National 

Fire Incident Reporting System indicating that 85 percent of all candle fires were 

due to consumers leaving lighted candles unattended, placing candles too close to 

combustibles, or placing them within the reach of children and pets. These findings 

prompted the subcommittee to first address the need to warn consumers of these 

dangers, resulting in the ASTM F2058 cautionary labeling standard. 

However, no product safety standard—whether voluntary or mandatory—can significantly impact the majority of candle fires due to consumer inattention or carelessness. Only the education of consumers as to the proper burning of candles and 

observance of candle fire safety rules can have an impact in reducing these candle 

fires. 

The NCA has worked tirelessly and aggressively to educate consumers on the 

paramount importance of fire safety precautions when using candles. We have created and promoted literature stressing the importance of candle fire safety. We disseminate this literature to consumers through our members, non-member industry 

groups, retailers, and through fire, safety and consumer organizations around the 

country. Our website is well recognized for its outstanding candle safety information, and the media regularly directs consumers to the site for important safety advice. 

We have contacted national and regional fire groups, restaurant associations, 

hotel associations, retailers and others, providing them with information on the 

ASTM candle fire safety standards and encouraging them to join us in promoting 

candle fire safety. Currently we are working with fire and consumer groups to get 

our candle safety messages disseminated through the schools to students and their 

families. 

To reach as many consumers as possible, NCA regularly issues press releases and 

feature stories on candle safety to radio, television, print and the electronic media. 

In addition, we produce and annually distribute to television stations around the 

country a holiday season Video News Release on the importance of fire safety when 

using candles. 

As the voice of the U.S. candle industry, the NCA has been steadfast in its commitment to improving candle fire safety, not only through its active participation in 

the development of voluntary standards, and compliance with those standards, but 

in its ongoing consumer education and media outreach activities, its cooperative endeavors with fire and safety organizations, and its efforts to involve the entire U.S. 

candle industry and customers in a commitment to candle fire safety. 

The NCA objects to NASFM’s petition for a mandatory candle product fire safety 

standard. There is no evidence to suggest that the CPSC should reject its mandate 

to rely on voluntary industry standards, and instead promulgate a mandatory one. 

The continued involvement of the industry in the development of voluntary candle 

product fire safety standards remains in the best interest of both the U.S. consumer 

and the candle industry. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT A. HIGGINS, 

NCA President. 

42 

NCA Standards & Education Outreach 

Publishers 

Jeffery Woldt 

Vice President/Editorial Director 

Chain Drug Review 

220 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10001 

Lesley Castle 

Publisher 

National Fire & Rescue 

5808 Faringdon Place 

Suite 200 

Raleigh, NC 27609–3930 

PJ. Lamont 

Executive Director 

CandleLighters 

307 C Richmond Road 

Suite 210 

Ottawa, ON K1Z 6X3 

Fire Related Organizations 

Lawrence Rotondi 

Publisher 

Gifts &Decorative Accessories 

360 Park Avenue South 

New York, NY 10010 

Marko Bourne 

Executive Assistant 

U.S. Fire Administration 

FEMA 

500 C Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20472 

PCortez Lawrence 

Division Director 

National Fire Administration 

16828 S. Seton Avenue 

Emmitsburg, MD 21727 

Robert Neale 

Training Specialist 

National Fire Programs Division 

U.S. Fire Administration 

16825 S. Seton Avenue 

Emmitsburg, MD 21727 

Chief Adele Chiesa 

National Fire Data Center 

U.S. Fire Administration 

16825 S. Seton Avenue 

Emmitsburg, MD 21727 

Kirby Kiefer 

Deputy Superintendent 

National Fire Academy 

U.S. Fire Administration 

16825 S. Seton Avenue 

Emmitsburg, MD 21727 

Christine Branche 

Director—Div. Of Unintentional Injury 

Prevention 

National Center for Injury Prevention & 

Control 

CDC 

4770 Buford Highway, NE 

Mailstop K63 

Atlanta, GA 30341 

Kevin Klein 

Coloroado State Fire Chiefs’ Association 

Executive Director 

1221 Pearl Street 

Boulder, CO 80302 

Heather Schaefer 

National Volunteer Fire Council 

Executive Director 

1050 17th St., NW 

Washington, DC 20036–5503 

Bob Waller 

International Consumer & Product Safety Organization 

President 

PO Box 1785 

Germantown, MD 20875–1785 

David Paulison 

U.S. Fire Administration 

16825 South Seton Avenue 

Emmitsburg, MD 21727 

Scott Adams 

First Vice President 

International Fire Marshals Assoc. c/o NFPA 

1 Batterymarch Park 

Quincy, MA 02169 

Fire Marshals 

John Robinson 

Alabama 

Fire Marshal 

Insurance Dept.135 S. Union Street 

Room 140 

Montgomery, AL 36130–3352 

Ray Carnahan 

Arkansas/Office of Fire Marshal, State Police 

Commander 

PO Box 5901 

Little Rock, AR 72215 

43 

NCA Standards & Education Outreach—Continued 

Ronny Coleman 

California 

Fire Marshal 

7171 Bowling Drive 

Suite 600 

Sacramento, CA 95823 

Paul Cooke 

Colorado/Dept of Public Safety 

Director of Fire Safety 

700 Kipling Street 

Lakewood, CO 80215 

Willard Preston 

Deleware 

Fire Marshal 

Fire Service Center 

1537 Chestnut Grove Road 

Dover, DE 19904–9610 

Donald Goff 

Hillsborough County Fire Rescue 

President 

3210 S. 78th St 

Tampa, FL 33619 

Chief William Dryburgh 

Southeastern Div/Punta Gorda 

Chief 

601 Shreve St, C–61 

Punta Gorda, FL 33950 

Attilo Leonardi 

Hawaii (Chair of State Fire Council) 

State Fire Council Administrator 

3375 Kaopaka Street, H425 

Honolulu, HI 98180 

Mark Larson 

Idaho 

State Fire Marshal 

Dept of Insurance 

700 W. State Street, 3rd Floor 

Boise, ID 83720 

Tracy Flaherty 

The Amercan Society of Safety Engineers 

Executive Director 

Customer Service 

1800 E. Oakton Street 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Gale Haag 

Kansas 

Fire Marshal 

700 SW Jackson 

Suite 600 

Topeka, KS 66603–3714 

Vincent Bella 

Louisiana 

Fire Marshal 

Dept of Public Safety 

PO Box 94304 

Baton Rouge, LA 70804 

William Barnard 

Maryland 

State Fire Marshal 

Off. Of the State Fire Marshal 

300 East Joppa Road 

Suite 1002 

Towson, MD 21286–3020 

John C. Dean 

Maine 

State Fire Marshal 

Dept of Public Safety 

52 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333–0052 

Mark Dougovito 

Michigan 

Fire Marshal 

Dept of State Police 

7150 Harris Drive 

Lansing, MI 48913 

Thomas Brace 

Minnesota 

Fire Marshal 

444 Cedar Street 

Suite 100M 

St. Paul, MN 55101–2149 

Chief Rob Brown 

Missouri Valley Div./Boone County Fire 

President 

Boone County Fire District 

2201 I–70 Drive NW 

Columbia, MO 65202 

Terry Phillips 

Montana 

Fire Marshal 

Fire Prevention & Investigation Bur. 

Dept of Justice 

PO Box 20147 

Helena, MT 59601 

Raymond Lambert 

North Dakota 

Fire Marshal 

General Office 

PO Box 1054 

Bismarck, ND 58502 

Donald Bliss 

New Hampshire 

Fire Marshal 

Div. Of Safety Services 

10 Hazen Drive 

Concord, NH 03305 

Larry Wood 

New Jersey State Fire Chiefs Association 

President 

91–1/2 Ravine Avenue 

West Caldwell, NJ 07006 

George Chavez 

New Mexico 

Fire Marshal 

State Corp. Comm. 

PO Box 1269 

Sante Fe, NM 87505 

44 

NCA Standards & Education Outreach—Continued 

Jerry Keating 

Nevada Fire Chiefs Association 

Fire Marshal 

575 E. Flamingo Road 

Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Lt. Al Bragg 

Akron Fire Department 

Fire Marshal 

161 Massillon Road 

Akron, OH 44312 

Randy Sellnow 

Great Lakes Division 

Internation Association Fire Cheifs 

President 

PO Box 397 

Huron, OH 44839 

Tom Ratcliff 

The Ohio Dept. of Commerce 

Fire Administrator 

Division of State Fire Marshal 

8895 East Main Street 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

Robert Garrison 

Oregon 

Fire Marshal 

State Police 

4760 Portland Road, NE 

Salem, OR 97305–1760 

Daniel Dillard 

Burn Prevention Foundation 

Executive Director 

5000 Tilghman 

Suite 215 

Allentown, PA 18104 

Irving Owens 

Rhode Island 

Fire Marshal 

Div. Of State Fire Marshal 

272 W. Exchange Street 

Providence, RI 02903–1025 

Allen Christie 

South Dakota 

State Fire Marshal 

SD Dept. of Public Safety 

118 W. Capitol Avenue 

Pierre, SD 57501–2017 

Chief Lynn Bizzell 

Southwestern/Round Rock Fire Dept. 

President 

City Hall 221 East Main Street 

Round Rock, TX 78664 

Gary Wise 

Fire Marshal 

Utah State Fire Marshal’s Office 

5272 South College Drive, Suite 302 

Murray, UT 84123 

Joe Scarlett 

International Mass Retail Association 

Chairman & CEO 

1700 North Moore Street 

Suite 2250 

Arlington, VA 22209 

Robert Howe 

Vermont/Fire Prevention Division 

Chief Fire Prevention Officer 

Dept. of Labor and Industry 

National Life Building 

Drawer 20 

Montpelier, VT 05620 

Carolyn Kelly 

Wisconsin 

Fire Marshal 

Div. Of Criminal Investigation 

Dept. of Justice, 123 W. Washington, 7th Floor 

PO Box 7857 

Madison, WI 53703 

Jim Noel 

Wyoming 

Fire Marshal 

Fire Prevention & Electrical Safety 

Herschuler Bldg., 1st Floor, W 

122 W. 25th Street 

Cheyenne, WY 82002 

Restaurant Associations 

Kac’e McDowell 

Executive Director 

Alaska CHARR 

1111 E 80th Avenue, Suite 3 

Anchorage, AK 99518–3304 

John Dunlap III 

President & CEO 

California Restaurant Association 

1011 10th Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814–3501 

Simon Flynn 

President & CEO 

Connecticut Restaurant Association 

731 Hebron Avenue 

Glastonbury, CT 06033–2457 

Carol Dover 

President & CEO 

Florida Restaurant Association 

PO Box 1779 

Tallahassee, FL 32302–1779 

Michele Van Hessen 

President 

Hawaii Restaurant Association 

1164 Bishop Street 

Suite 601 

Honolulu, HI 96813–2810 

John Livengood 

President & CEO 

Restaurant & Hospitality Association of Indiana 

200 S Meridian Street 

Suite 350 

Indianapolis, IN 46225–1055 

45 

NCA Standards & Education Outreach—Continued 

Stacy Roof 

President & CEO 

The Kentucky Restaurant Association 

133 Evergreen Road, Suite 201 

Louisville, KY 40243 

Dick Grotton 

President & CEO 

Maine Restaurant Association 

PO Box 5060 

August, ME 04332–5060 

Peter Christie, CAE 

President & CEO 

Massachusetts Restaurant Association 

333 Turnpike Road 

Southborough Techlology Park, Suite 102 

Southborough, MA 01772–1755 

Mike Chashion 

Executive Director 

Mississippi Restaurant Association 

4506 Office Park Drive 

Jackson, MS 39206–6016 

Brad Griffin 

MTRA Execuitve Director 

Montana Restaurant Association 

1537 Avenue D, Suite 320 

Billings, MT 59102 

Paul Hartgen 

President & CEO 

New Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant Association. 

PO Box 1175 

Concord, NH 03302–1175 

John Byrne 

President 

New Jersey Restaurant Association 

126 W. State Street 

Trenton, NJ 08608–1102 

Paul Stone 

President & CEO 

North Carolina Restaurant Association 

204 W. Millbrook Road 

Raleigh, NC 27609–4304 

Shannon Moed 

Communications Representative 

Oklahoma Restaurant Association 

3800 N. Portland 

Oklahoma City, OK 73112 

Tom Sponseller 

President & CEO 

Hospitality Association of South Carolina 

3612 Landmark Drive, Suite B 

Columbia, SC 29204–4039 

Ronnie Hart 

President & CEO 

Tennessee Restaurant Association 

PO Box 681207 

Franklin, TN 37068–1207 

Melva Sine 

President 

Utah Restaurant Association 

420 E. South Temple, Suite 355 

Salt Lake City, UT 84111–1319 

Ashton Mitchell, III 

Executive Vice President 

Virginia Hospitality & Travel Association 

2101 Libbie Avenue 

Richmond, VA 23230–2621 

Sharon Rowe 

Chairman 

WV Hospitality and Travel Association 

The Greenbrier 

300 West Main Street 

White Sulphur Springs, WV 24986 

Lynn Birleffi 

Executive Director 

Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant Association 

PO Box 1003 

Cheyenne, WY 82003–1003 

Hotel Associations 

Nancy Hendershot 

Alabama Hospitality Association 

61–B Market Place 

Montgomery, AL 36117 

Pamela Embery 

Arizona Hotel & Lodging Association 

1240 E. Missouri Avenue 

Phoenix, AZ 85014 

James Abrams 

California Hotel & Lodging Association 

414 29th Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Thomas Wilks 

Connecticut Lodging Association 

731 Hebron Avenue 

Glastonbury, CT 06033 

Liz DeBarros 

Hotel Association of Washington, DC 

1201 New York Avenue NW 

Suite 601 

Washington, DC 20005 

Stacy Connerty 

Georgia Hospitality & Travel Association 

600 W. Peachtree Street 

Suite 1500 

Atlanta, GA 30308 

Monica Wodke 

Illinois Hotel & Lodging Association 

27 E. Monroe Street, Suite 1200 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Shellie Petek 

Iowa Lodging Association 

9001 Hickman, Suite 220 

Des Moines, IA 50322 

46 

NCA Standards & Education Outreach—Continued 

William Langkopp 

Louisiana Hotel & Lodging Association 

203 Carondelet Street, Suite 415 

New Orleans, LA 70130 

Mary Jo McCulloch 

Maryland Hotel & Lodging Association 

584 Bellerive Drive, Suite 3–D 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Steven Yencich, CAE 

Michigan Hotel, Motel & Resort Association 

225 W. Washtenaw, Suite 202 

Lansing, MI 48933 

Rosalie Bealer 

Missouri Hotel & Lodging Association 

330B E. High Street 

Jefferson City, MO 65101 

Robert Anderson 

Nebraska Hotel & Motel Association 

111 Lincoln Mall 

Suite 303 

Lincoln, NE 68508 

Janet Casey 

New Hampshire Lodging & Restaurant Association 

14 Dixon Avenue 

Concord, NH 03302 

Art Bouffard 

New Mexico Lodging Association 

811 St. Michael’s Drive, Suite 107 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 

Lisa Bombard 

New York State Hospitality & Tourism Association 

11 North Pearl Street, 11th Floor 

Albany, NY 12207 

Keith Stephenson 

Ohio Hotel & Lodging Association 

692 N. High, Suite 212 

Columbus, OH 43215 

Phil Peach 

Oregon Lodging Association 

12724 SE Stark Street 

Portland, OR 97233 

James Purdum 

Penn State Hospitality Services 

215 Innovation Boulevard 

State College, PA 16803 

Douglas O’Flaherty 

Hospitality Association of South Carolina 

3612 Landmark Drive 

Columbia, SC 29204 

Vail Ross 

Tennessee Hotel & Lodging Association 

644 West Iris Drive 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Ann Gambrino 

Utah Hotel & Lodging Association 

9 Exchange Place, Suite 812 

Salt Lake City, UT 84111 

Ken Britt 

Virginia Hospitality & Travel Association 

2101 Libbie Avenue 

Richmond, VA 23230 

Jackie Bragg 

West Virginia Hospitality & Travel Association 

PO Box 2391 

Charleston, WV 25328 

Lynn Birleffi 

Wyoming Lodging & Restaurant Association 

211 West 19th Street, Suite 201 

Cheyenne, WY 82001 

Retailers 

Charles Rath 

Executive Vice President 

Value City Department Stores, Inc 

3241 Westerville Road 

Columbus, OH 73224 

Stonie O’Briant 

Executive Vice President 

Operations 

Dollar General Corporation 

100 Mission Road 

Goodlettsville, TN 37072 

Stephen Gartner 

Senior Vice President 

Supply Chain Management 

Michaels Stores, Inc. 

8000 Bent Branch Drive 

Irving, TX 75063 

Troy Rice 

Senior Vice President 

Operations 

The Home Depot, Inc. 

2455 Paces Ferry Road 

Atlanta, GA 30339 

David Marsico 

Senior Vice President 

Store Operations 

Kmart Corporation 

3100 W. Big Beaver Road 

Troy, MI 48084 

Doug McMillon 

Executive Vice President 

Merchandising 

Sam’s Club 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

702 SW Eighth Street 

Bentonville, AR 72716 

47 

NCA Standards & Education Outreach—Continued 

George Eilers 

Senior Vice President 

Drug Store Operations 

Walgreen Co. 

200 Wilmot Road 

Deerfield, IL 60015 

Thomas Ketteler 

Chief Operating Officer 

Schottenstein Stores Corporation 

1800 Moler Road 

Columbus, OH 43207 

Bart Butzer 

Executive Vice President 

Stores 

Target Corporation 

1000 Nicollet Mall 

Minneapolis, MN 55403 

Nathan Garvis 

Vice President 

Government Affairs 

Target Corporation 

1000 Nicollet Mall 

Minneapolis, MN 55403 

Vanessa Castagna 

Executive Vice President 

J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc 

6501 Legacy Drive 

Plano, TX 75024 

Dennis Knapp 

Senior Vice President 

Merchandising—Non Foods 

Costco 

999 Lake Drive 

Issaquah, WA 98027 

Janet Grove 

Vice Chair 

Federated Department Stores, Inc. 

151 W. 34th Street 

New York, NY 10001 

Mark Panzer 

Senior Vice President 

Store Operations 

Rite Aid Corporation 

30 Hunter Lane 

Camp Hill, PA 17011 

Wilson Lester, Jr. 

Senior Vice President 

Supply Chain 

Rite Aid Corporation 

30 Hunter Lane 

Camp Hill, PA 17011 

William Goddard 

Risk Management Insurance 

May Department Stores 

611 Olive Street 

St. Louis, MO 63101 

Retail Associations 

Sandy Kennedy 

President 

International Mass Retail Association 

1700 North Moore Street 

Suite 2250 

Arlington, VA 22209 

Tracy Mullin 

President & CEO 

National Retail Federation 

325 7th Street, NW 

Suite 1100 

Washington, DC 20004 

Moe Cain 

International Mass Retail Association 

Chairman & CEO 

700 North Moore Street 

Suite 2250 

Arlington, VA 22209 

NATIONAL CANDLE ASSOCIATION

Washington, DC, June 16, 2003 

Dear: 

As you know, candle fires have been on the increase, spurred by a dramatic 

growth in their popularity with consumers. The National Candle Association (NCA) 

is working aggressively to reduce the incidence of candle fires through the development of fire-safety standards, technical innovation and educational outreach. 

The purpose of this letter is two-fold: to brief you on the pioneering ASTM candlesafety standards advanced by NCA, and to encourage you to join us in educating 

the public on candle-fire prevention. 

Candle fires now account for approximately four percent of all residential fires in 

the U.S. In 1999, the most recent year for which statistics are available, some 

15,000 residential candle fires were reported. As candle sales skyrocketed by some 

300 percent during the 1990s, residential candle fires increased 175 percent. 

When this increase in candle fires became apparent in the late 1990s, the U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) asked NCA to spearhead an ASTM 

subcommittee on candle products as a means of developing consensus standards to 

48 

improve candle safety. Since 2000, three far-reaching candle fire-safety standards 

have been published through ASTM (a fourth standard for terminology was published in 1999). 

The first ASTM fire-safety standard—F2058—was published in 2000, and calls for 

the cautionary labeling of all candles. The impetus for the standard was an analysis 

of NFIRS data showing that nearly 85 percent of candle fires were attributable to 

unattended candles, candles placed too close to combustibles, and the accidental actions of children and pets. Working from this data, the consumer cautions now appearing on all candles or candle packaging were incorporated into the standard: 

Always keep a burning candle within sight. 

Never burn a candle on or near anything that can catch fire. 

Keep candles out of the reach of children and pets. 

The second ASTM candle safety standard—F2179—was developed to address concerns over candle fires caused by broken or shattered glass candle containers. Drawing from the technical expertise of NCA-member glass and candle manufacturers, 

the 2002 standard requires that glass containers for candle use: 

Are properly annealed (true temper grade of 4 or less; or scratch-test equivalent) 

Able to withstand a 90 °F thermal shock differential 

Unquestionably the most technically advanced candle fire-safety standard is 

ASTM PS 59. Published in late 2002 as a provisional standard, it introduces several 

far-reaching fire prevention measures into the manufacturing and design of candles. 

Specifically, it requires that 

The maximum flame height on a candle shall not exceed 3.0 inches. 

A candle placed on an incline of 10 degrees shall not tip over. 

A candle shall not support ignition at points other than the intended wick or 

wicks. 

When a container candle reaches the end of its useful life: 

—the container shall not break, 

—the candle must not exhibit excessive flame height, 

—the candle must not exhibit secondary ignition, and 

—the flame must go out. 

Because ASTM PS59 was developed as a fast-track provisional standard, the industry is now testing and working to refine the standard’s requirements, as well as 

investigating the potential for expanding the end-of-useful life requirements beyond 

container candles to other types of candles. The provisional candle-fire safety standard is expected to be balloted as a full consensus standard by the spring of 2004. 

The development and acceptance of candle fire-safety standards in just three 

years is a notable achievement, and underscores NCA support for voluntary consensus standards as the most effective means of rapidly introducing industry-wide 

product safety changes into the marketplace. We also believe our success in working 

with the CPSC to develop safety standards that meet industry’s technical capabilities as well as the Commission’s policy objectives further reinforces the value of the 

Federal preference for a public-private partnership approach to standards development. 

Unfortunately, however, candle fire-safety standards are not enough. Consumer 

disregard of the potential dangers of an open flame still remains the primary cause 

of residential candle fires. 

Educating the public about candle safety is a top priority of the National Candle 

Association. In recent years, NCA has devoted a significant portion of its resources 

to building public awareness of candle safety. We regularly disseminate press releases, feature articles, video news releases and informational materials focusing on 

fire safety and the proper burning of candles. In addition, a large portion of our 

website—www.candles.org—is devoted to providing consumers with information on 

candle safety and fire prevention. 

Recently we developed a brochure on candle use and fire safety (enclosed), which 

we hope to distribute as widely as possible to further educate consumers on the safe 

use of candles. I invite you to consider distributing this brochure to your constituent 

publics as well, or adding its contents to your website. We are able to offer 100 copies of the brochure at no charge to fire groups upon request. For larger quantities, 

we are charging a minimal amount to cover printing and mailing costs. 

49 

Over the next few months, NCA hopes to further broaden its public education 

campaign through the development of cooperative efforts with the Nation’s fire community. We are extremely interested in developing new avenues for disseminating 

candle-fire safety information to consumers, and in further pinpointing the human 

factors behind residential candle fires. Given your knowledge of fire safety and our 

expertise in candles, I am confident we can combine forces in some way to reduce 

the incidence of residential candle fires. 

I look forward to hearing from you. 

Respectfully, 

BOB NELSON, 

President. 


714CANPC1.eps
50 

NATIONAL CANDLE ASSOCIATION

North Carolina Department of Insurance 

Office of State Fire Marshal 

Dear Parent, 

Every year, approximately 15,000 residential fires are caused by the careless or 

inappropriate use of candles. Please protect your home and family from a possible 

candle fire. 

The North Carolina Office of the State Fire Marshal and the National Candle Association ask that you spend a few minutes reviewing the following basic rules of 

candle fire safety with your family . . . and then put them into practice in your 

home. 

• Always keeps a burning candle within sight. 

• Never leave a burning candle unattended. 

• Never burn a candle on or near anything that can catch fire. 

• Keep candles out of reach of children and pets. 

Although the popularity of candles has grown dramatically in recent years, many 

consumers are unaware of the proper procedures for burning a candle. The National 

Candle Association urges to you keep the following safety precautions in mind when 

burning candles. 

• Always use a fire-resistant candleholder, and place candleholders on a stable, 

heat-resistant surface. 

• Keep burning candles away from drafts. 

• Always read and follow the manufacturer’s use and safety instructions. 

• Never touch or move a burning candle or when the wax is liquid. 

• Burn candles in a well-ventilated room. 

• Keep the wax pool free of wick trimmings, matches and debris at all times. 

• Extinguish any candle if it smokes, flickers repeatedly, or the flame becomes 

too high. Cool, trim wick, check for drafts, and re-light. 

• Do not allow the flame to come too close to the holder or container. 

• For a margin of safety, discontinue burning a candle when 2 inches of wax remains (1⁄2′′ if in a container). 

For more information about candle safety, visit www.candles.org 

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Bob. We thank you for 

your testimony. 

And now, I’ll call on Mr. Al Klancnik. Is that how you pronounce 

it? 

Mr. KLANCNIK. Mr. Chairman, you did a fine job with my name. 

It’s difficult, but you did great. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF AL KLANCNIK, GROUP VICE PRESIDENT, 

SERTA, INC. 

Mr. KLANCNIK. Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the 

Committee, my name is Al Klancnik, of Serta, Incorporated. I am 

here today to speak about open-flame resistant mattresses, the 

complexity of bedroom fire safety, and the science-based testing 

standard that exists today for mattress regulation. 

For reference, Serta is the second-largest mattress manufacturer 

out of 700, with annual sales of $742 million. We are based in 

Itasca, Illinois, and have 26 factories across the country. Serta is 

the only national manufacturer that has voluntarily converted to 

open-flame resistant mattresses. This is more than one year in advance of the upcoming open-flame regulation for mattresses and 

box springs in California. We have done this because we believe we 

have a responsibility to offer safer mattresses as soon as possible. 

51 

Since last October, when we began introducing our open- flameresistant products, we have sold approximately two million safer 

mattresses and box springs to consumers across the country. When 

you look at statistics published by the U.S. Fire Administration, 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the National Fire 

Protection Association, you see there is a real need for safer mattresses. In the United States alone, approximately two people die 

in bedroom fires every day, a statistic that we can change now by 

implementing science-based regulations on a Federal level. 

I have dedicated my career to pursing safety advancements in 

mattress flammability. I have been involved in the development of 

cigarette ignition and fire-resistant mattresses and testing standards for the past 30 years. During that time, I have worked to develop open-flame testing protocols with the CPSC, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the Sleep Products Safety 

Council, and the California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation. 

With the involvement of this country’s preeminent fire-resistance 

experts, we developed an open-flame testing protocol that accurately replicates the impact of bedclothing fires on a mattress. The 

burners for this test were developed by NIST to provide consistent 

conditions under which these tests are performed and documented. 

The protocol was ultimately used by California in Technical Bulletin 603. 

During this process, we found that a 30-minute test with a 200- 

kilowatt heat threshold had sound scientific data to support the 

test, and was obtainable and replicable by manufacturers. More importantly, it will result in products that provide the critical time 

people need to detect and escape from a bedroom fire. This point 

is underscored by NIST research into human behavior during bedroom fires. 

We also explored tests with time intervals up to 60 minutes and 

with lower heat thresholds, but found no scientific data that demonstrated a longer test duration would result in improved life safety. In fact, the materials we would use to meet a 60-minute test 

are more than triple the cost of our current safety components. 

They also make the products extremely uncomfortable. And if mattresses are unappealing to consumers, and are priced so they cannot afford them, then the standard is not viable on a mass-market 

scale. As a result, safer mattresses getting into homes would be delayed, and more lives would ultimately be lost. 

By moving forward, Serta has demonstrated that the technology 

exists to manufacture and market mattresses that can help save 

lives today. We have a standard that is acceptable to both industry 

and government. And, at Serta, we have proven that the standard 

included in California’s Technical Bulletin 603 is viable. 

But I should point out that safer mattresses are only the first 

step in addressing the overall issue of bedroom fire safety. NIST, 

the Sleep Product Safety Council, and the California Bureau have 

all recommended that mattresses and bedclothes should be regulated together in order to achieve the greatest safety advancement. 

Mr. Chairman, we encourage this Committee to allow the CPSC 

to adopt the final published standards in California’s TB 603 as a 

Federal mattress open-flame regulation. But, in addition, if the inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
52 

tent of this Committee is to save lives, other steps must also be 

taken. Bedclothing, or top-of-bed accessories, which have been proven time and again to be the first items to ignite in a bedroom fire, 

must also be safer. Regulating mattresses without also regulating 

bedclothes is only achieving half the safety equation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I’ll be happy to 

answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Klancnik follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AL KLANCNIK, GROUP VICE PRESIDENT, SERTA, INC. 

Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the Committee. My name is Al 

Klancnik of Serta, Incorporated. I am here today to speak about open-flame resistant mattresses, the complexity of bedroom fire safety, and the science-based testing 

standard that exists today for mattress regulation. 

For reference, Serta is the second-largest mattress manufacturer out of 700 with annual sales of $742 million. We are based in Itasca, Illinois, and have 26 plants 

across the country. 

Serta is the only national manufacturer that has voluntarily converted to openflame resistant mattresses. This is more than one year in advance of the upcoming 

open-flame regulation for mattresses and box springs in California. We have done 

this because we believe we have a responsibility to offer safer mattresses as soon 

as possible. 

Since last October when we began introducing our open-flame resistant products, 

we have sold approximately two million safer mattresses and box springs to consumers across the country. 

When you look at statistics published by the U.S. Fire Administration, the Consumer Products Safety Commission and the National Fire Protection Agency, you 

see that there is a real need for safer mattresses. In the United States alone, two 

people die in bedroom fires every day, a statistic that we can change now by implementing science-based regulations on a Federal level. 

I have dedicated my career to pursuing safety advancements in mattress flammability. I have been involved in the development of cigarette-ignition and fire-resistant mattresses and testing standards for the past 30 years. 

During that time, I have worked to develop open-flame testing protocols with the 

CPSC, the National Institute for Standards and Technology, the Sleep Products 

Safety Council, and the California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Insulation. 

With the involvement of this country’s preeminent fire-resistance experts, we developed an open-flame testing protocol that accurately replicates the impact of a 

bedclothes fire on a mattress. The burners for this test were developed by NIST to 

provide consistent conditions under which these tests are performed and documented. The protocol was ultimately used by California in TB 603. 

During this process, we found that a 30-minute test with a 200-kilowatt heat 

threshold had sound scientific data to support that the test was attainable and 

replicable by manufacturers. More importantly, it will result in products that provide the critical time people need to detect and escape from a bedroom fire. This 

point is underscored by NIST’s research into human behaviors during bedroom fires. 

We also explored tests with time intervals up to 60 minutes and with lower heat 

thresholds, but found no scientific data that demonstrated a longer test duration 

would result in improved life safety. 

In fact, the materials we would use to meet a 60-minute test are more than triple 

the cost of our current safety components. They also make the products extremely 

uncomfortable. If mattresses are unappealing to consumers and are priced so that 

they cannot afford them, then the standard is not viable on a mass-market scale. 

As a result, safer mattresses getting into homes would be delayed and more lives 

would ultimately be lost. 

By moving forward, Serta has demonstrated the technology exists to manufacture 

and market mattresses that can help to save lives today. We have a standard that 

is acceptable to both industry and government. And at Serta, we have proven that 

the standard included in California’s TB 603 is viable. But I should point out that 

safer mattresses are only the first step in addressing the overall issue of bedroom 

fire safety. NIST, the CPSC and the California Bureau have all recommended that 

mattresses and bedclothes should be regulated together in order to achieve the 

greatest safety advancement. 

Mr. Chairman, we encourage this Committee to allow the CPSC to adopt the 

final, published standards in California’s TB 603 as a Federal mattress open-flame 

53 

regulation. But in addition, if the intent of this Committee is to save lives, other 

steps must also be taken. Bedclothes, which have been proven time and again to 

be the first items to ignite in a bedroom fire, must also be safer. Regulating mattresses without also regulating bedclothes is only achieving half of the safety equation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am happy to answer any questions you have. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

And my first question goes to Bob Higgins. I’m going to create 

a fight between—Bob, between you and Mr. Dean here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SMITH. Rhetorically only. But, Mr. Dean indicates in his 

testimony that the standards cited in S. 1798 were developed largely by your industry, with input from NASFM. He further claims 

that your industry has, quote, ‘‘not moved forward with proposals 

to implement effective voluntary standards.’’ To the contrary, you 

indicated in your testimony that your industry has moved rapidly 

in developing candle safety standards in the past. Do you wish to 

specifically respond to his testimony and explain to the Committee 

the reasons for the differences in your testimony? And then I’ll ask 

Mr. Dean the same thing. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Well, we’d be more than glad to work with the fire 

marshals to try to finalize, in their opinion, what needs to be done 

to have effective voluntary standards. In our minds, the industry 

is in compliance and we are improving the situation, and we plan 

on continuing to improve the fire standards. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Dean? 

Mr. DEAN. Well, to this point, there has not been a real concerted 

effort to manage the producers’ conformance. But by having a voluntary standard, they may or may not comply with it. It also 

speaks to the issue of imported products. With a voluntary standard, there’s no protection there at all. Anything can be imported, 

and, since the standard is voluntary, there would be no recourse. 

Senator SMITH. Do you have any reason to believe that stuff 

being produced outside the country comes in without meeting U.S. 

safety standards? Are you seeing that? 

Mr. DEAN. I can’t say for certain, but I would assume, since there 

is no mandatory standard, they are made to whatever standard 

they wish to make. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Industry regulates that, sir, by itself. By educating 

the retailers in the awareness of fire safety, the retailers are demanding safe fire candles. 

Senator SMITH. So the marketplace is working, in your view—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. That’s right. 

Senator SMITH.—in that regard. And—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. And they’re regulating the imports, as well—— 

Senator SMITH. Retailers—— 

Mr. HIGGINS.—for the same reason. 

Senator SMITH. In your view, retailers won’t buy from someone 

who doesn’t meet the safety standards from—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. That’s correct. They’re—— 

Senator SMITH. Domestic or foreign. 

Mr. HIGGINS.—they’re using independent testing labs to develop 

their own tests and test candles. 

54 

Mr. DEAN. May I? 

Senator SMITH. Yes, please. 

Mr. DEAN. Whatever is being done now, it obviously is not working, because we’re seeing a dramatic increase in candle fires everywhere. So it—whatever is happening now—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. I haven’t seen those statistics, sir. 

Senator SMITH. Hmm? 

Mr. HIGGINS. I haven’t seen those statistics. 

Mr. DEAN. We certainly have seen it in the fire service. 

Senator SMITH. We’ll get you all together after—and figure out 

whose—— 

Mr. HIGGINS. That would be a good idea. 

Senator SMITH.—whose statistics are accurate. 

I mean, it’s a very, very serious issue, and I’m not trying to really pick a fight, but I am trying to point out that I’m hearing two 

different messages—they’re working, they’re not. Which is it? 

Andy Counts, we’ve heard about the issue of retailers, and I 

guess this raises my question. How seriously does your industry 

view the threat of flame-retardant toxicity? And should chemicals 

used in flame-retardant backing prove harmful to consumers, who 

would be liable for the damages—the manufacturer, the retailer, or 

both? 

Mr. COUNTS. Well, it’s a very, very big concern for furniture manufacturers, and one of the reasons this process has taken so long 

was a study that was done by the National Academy of Sciences 

to identify that many of the chemicals that we have been utilizing 

in our furniture in the past, and would be forced to use in the future, are, in fact, harmful to human health and the environment. 

We are working very closely with EPA, working very closely with 

producers of chemicals to find alternatives. We’re confident that 

that will take place. We’re confident that there will be alternatives 

out there for us to use. It’s just going to take a little time to make 

sure those tests are done and that the chemical industry gets their 

production up to where it needs to be on those particular chemicals. 

From a liability standpoint, we’re not sure where that would 

stand when—if the regulation came through, if we would be held 

responsible if we had a TRISS- or PCB-type situation. 

Senator SMITH. Are you aware of any litigation in the country 

that has made that judgment between retailers and manufacturers 

as to liability, in terms of toxicity of flame retardants? 

Mr. COUNTS. I guess you can look at the asbestos situation, you 

can look at some of the other situations and see that they come 

back to the manufacturer in a lot of cases, from a liability standpoint. 

Senator SMITH. So you have a real interest in making sure that 

whatever flame retardants there are, that they don’t have collateral damaging effects. 

Mr. COUNTS. That’s correct. 

Senator SMITH. Bob Higgins, I’m going to turn you over to Senator Hollings. I understand that you don’t want to be in his bill. 

And so, with that, Senator Hollings? 

Senator HOLLINGS. Well, Mr. Counts, you’re not recommending 

asbestos furniture. 

55 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COUNTS. No, sir. I was just using that as an example of 

where liability is concerned.—— 

Senator Hollings: Well, that’s an example that doesn’t apply to 

you whatever, I hope. I mean, good God, we have learned about asbestos. 

Mr. COUNTS. It applies—— 

Senator HOLLINGS. And I would hope you wouldn’t be making asbestos furniture. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COUNTS. To my knowledge, no one’s making asbestos furniture. 

Senator HOLLINGS. As an example? Come on. You’re better representatives of the furniture industry. Isn’t Serta a member of your 

organization? 

Mr. COUNTS. No, sir. 

Senator HOLLINGS. You all haven’t—Serta hasn’t joined the 

American Furniture Manufacturers Association? Well, what’s the 

matter, Mr. Klancnik? 

Mr. KLANCNIK. The mattress industry has its own trade association, known as the International Sleep Products Association. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Yes. 

Mr. KLANCNIK. And that is separate from AFMA. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Well, your observations about the 30-minute 

test, and the distinguished Chairman’s opening remarks about ‘‘the 

perfect’’ not being the enemy of ‘‘the good’’; therein, I think, is the 

answer with respect to at least the 30-minute test. Now, the fire 

marshals, they all want a 60-minute, because it takes that long to 

get to the fire. On an average, it’s over 45 minutes. But the 30 minutes, at least, is a good. You’re manufacturing it, you’re endorsing 

it. You’re the manufacturer, you’ve gone through all the cost-benefit and sale-ability and the marketability, and everything else of 

that kind. 

So, Chairman Stratton, who’s still listening, that’s why we’ve got 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission. You don’t have to wait 

til it gets to a crisis, like this, where we’ve got a dozen cosponsors, 

bipartisan, and everything else like that. The idea is to be realistic. 

And with the Safety Commission, Chairman Stratton, that you can 

do just that, listen to the needs of the industry, the leaders, like 

Serta. You said—you look pretty good. You slept on a Serta last 

night? 

Senator SMITH. I did, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOLLINGS. I think he’d be a good model for it. I tell you 

that right now. 

Senator SMITH. I come cheap, too. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOLLINGS. But, in all candor, that’s—at least we ought 

to get that. I understand the fire marshals’ concern, but that would 

be ‘‘the perfect,’’ perhaps. But here ‘‘the good’’ that—Mr. Klancnik, 

that you have attested to. Don’t you think that can be done? 

Mr. KLANCNIK. I agree with you wholeheartedly. That’s why 

Serta has taken the voluntary action of starting—meeting CaliVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
56 

fornia TB 603 and saving lives, starting last October. We really 

wish more people would do that. I can tell you that, economically, 

we are still selling our mattresses at all of the price points, we’re 

saving the lives, and our sales are actually up. So the 30-minute 

standard, TB 603, is truly a viable life-safety standard, and we’re 

meeting it. 

Senator HOLLINGS. And it wouldn’t, Mr. Counts, put the furniture industry out of business. Now, what’s putting you out of 

business is what’s—I’m glad to see Mr. Chapman is still here, because I started with his grandfather, in 1960. And, at that time, 

the testimony, Mr. Chairman, it was 10 percent of the clothing or 

textiles consumed in America would be represented in imports. And 

if it got up to 10 percent, it would decimate the industry, you just 

wouldn’t be able to get clothing in the country anymore. At least 

that’s what I was testifying to. Incidentally, Tom Dewey ran me 

around the room in 1960. 

So we lost that case before the old International Tariff Commission. We went over to Jerry Persons, who was the chief of staff for 

Eisenhower. He said, ‘‘Oh, you’ll win it. Don’t worry about it.’’ And 

we talked to President Eisenhower. He said, ‘‘Don’t worry about it.’’ 

But, in any event, when we lost, then I went to my friend, Jack 

Kennedy, and he set up the hearings, and he promulgated the 

seven-point program. And Mr. Jim Chapman, the chairman, was 

there. 

Our textile industry, the thing about globalization—you’ve got to 

get with globalization—the inference is that you’re just not competitive, you just don’t understand, ‘‘You old fuddy-duddy, you don’t 

want to compete, you don’t want to face reality,’’ and that kind of 

nonsense. The truth is, the textile industry has been the most competitive. But before you can open up Chapman Mills, or, now, Mr. 

Counts’ furniture—because I’m very close to the Furniture Mart in 

High Point—— 

Mr. COUNTS. Yes, sir. 

Senator HOLLINGS. I know it well. And, in fact, one of the chairmans of the board—I don’t have to involve him—of the largest in 

High Point, North Carolina, met me on the Isle of Palms not too 

long ago on the beach. He said 50 percent of the furniture consumed now in the United States was coming out of China, all that 

Rooms To Go and everything else like that. So you’re facing the 

same thing we did, first from Japan, then from Malaysia, then 

from Korea, and then from Mexico, and now from China. And you 

can see what Inman Mills, Mr. Chapman’s group, why, they’re trying to face the competition and find a niche and at least go to the 

most advanced product—namely, the safest, and everything else 

like that—making the materials. And here is a leader, Serta, selling it. I mean, they’re using it. So it’s a success. You don’t have 

to worry about the benefit. Here’s Serta saying it’s a wonderful 

benefit, and we’re selling it, and the Chairman’s sleeping on it. I 

mean, how’re you going to beat that? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COUNTS. If I could make a clarification—— 

Senator HOLLINGS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COUNTS.—mattress and furniture are two separate things. 

The mattress standard, California 603, is an actual standard that’s 

57 

been put in place by California. It’s a proven standard that’s based 

on real science, real test methods. California 117, which applies to 

furniture, is not proven. It has not been finalized by California, and 

they have no plans to finalize it. 

The product that’s made by Inman Mills applies to mattresses 

and not to furniture. TB 117 does not allow for Inman Mills product to be utilized in furniture. It requires you to treat the fabric. 

It requires you to treat the foam. It doesn’t allow you to use the 

interliner option that we’re in favor of. And that’s the proposal that 

we put forward to the CPSC, and that’s the proposal that we would 

like to see bring safer furniture to the market. 

The Senate Bill 1798, which includes 603 for mattresses, is very 

different when it comes to 117 for furniture. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Well, again, as Mr. Klancnik attested, it’s got 

to be a comprehensive approach. There’s no use to do the mattress 

if you don’t do the bedding clothes and everything else related. 

Mr. Chapman, do you want to comment with respect to Mr. 

Counts’ observation? 

Mr. CHAPMAN. Well, we have done very little work in the furniture side of the business. Most of ours has been concentrated in 

the mattresses. And we can pass either the 30- or the 60-minute 

test with ours. We don’t prefer or oppose either one. We just—we 

want a national standard so we can move forward and sell product, 

the niche products that you referred to. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Isn’t the standard just a matter of introducing the bill, talking to the fellow Senators, certainly listening to 

the experts and the authorities and the experience of producers 

and everything else, like some of the witnesses here? It’s better 

handled at the Consumer Product Safety Commission level, Mr. 

Chairman, but unless they move, we’re going to have to continue 

to move. 

Senator SMITH. Senator Hollings, when you said that you were 

a friend of Jack Kennedy’s, I was afraid you were going to notice, 

I’m no Jack Kennedy. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOLLINGS. You’re better looking than Jack Kennedy. 

Yessirree. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SMITH. Anyway. 

Senator HOLLINGS. There you go. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SMITH. I think—— 

Senator HOLLINGS. That’s the first time I’ve complimented a Republican. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SMITH. Well, I’ll tell you, when Senator Hollings leaves 

the Senate, the Senate will lose one of its greatest personalities 

and one of its greatest human beings. And so it’s a high privilege 

for me to—my daddy worked for Eisenhower, and so I’m talking to 

a man who was a friend to those men, and it’s a—when you work 

with Senator Hollings, you’re sometimes feeling like you’re touching the hem of history. 

Senator HOLLINGS. No, it’s not that. You’re too kind. But, no, 

we’ve been in it a long time, and you’ve seen it, and now it’s—that’s 

58 

not the actual product. That’s what you’ve got to wake up America 

into the production. 

If anybody wants to read a very interesting book, they ought to 

read about Hamilton. In fact, Hamilton has become more my hero 

than John C. Calhoun, from South Carolina. And, incidentally, I’m 

seated at John C. Calhoun’s Senate desk right this minute. But he 

built up the bricks, absolutely forbad manufacture. In fact, if they 

had, out at that old Arkwright plant, up in the Scotland area, 

which was the best, if any of those personnel left, they followed the 

personnel to make sure they didn’t take the technology with them 

and teach the colonists how to produce, and that kind of thing. So 

the first order of business was to try to develop a manufacturing 

capacity. That’s Hamilton’s famous report on manufacturers. And 

that’s what built up this economic giant. 

And the best impression I had, going down with my friend Bob 

Dole to see the World War II Veterans Memorial—incidentally, the 

wind was blowing, and the fountains were going all over us, and 

everything else, and we renamed it Viagra Falls. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOLLINGS. But you see, on the right-hand side going in, 

an observation by President Roosevelt in 1942 thanking Rosie the 

Riveter. We started in Africa, and, 3 years later, ended up in—first, 

in Austria at the end of that war, and there was no question that 

Rosie the Riveter was as important as any element. And it was the 

productivity and everything else. 

And that’s what disturbs this Senator as he leaves, is that we’re 

not competing. Everybody is for free trade, just like everybody’s for 

world peace. How do you attain world peace? Well, the old saying, 

the best way to prepare for peace is prepare for war, and the best 

way to, by gosh, get to free trade is to compete. To a barrier, you 

raise a barrier, and then remove them both. But we’ve been rolling 

over dead for 50 years, given up our production in order for capitalism to defeat communism in the cold war, and it’s worked, with 

Marshall Plan and everything else, and we’re proud of it. But now 

is the time to start rebuilding, and these gentlemen here, here’s another standard of living. 

I vote for the Australia Free Trade Agreement, because we’ve got 

relatively the same standard of living. The same with Canada, 

we’ve got the same standard. Uh-uh, not Mexico. Like old Moynihan, I can see him standing in the well, ‘‘They’ve got to develop 

a free market before they get free trade.’’ And there’s your problem. 

Here, we’re going to—so the American standard of living—I was 

very cautious in putting this bill in, in talking to the cosponsors, 

for the simple reason that we’ve got to get to that cost benefit and 

make sure we’re not putting ourselves out of business, internationally or globally. That’s the main concern, and that’s why, Chairman 

Stratton, I’m glad you’re still here and can listen to this exchange 

here, because the Chairman and the witnesses have raised important considerations, and I wish you’d study this testimony, and you 

can see where we’re headed. We need it. It’s been 20 years Consumer Product Safety Commission’s been studying, and you made 

findings and found out—your word was—well, you said, ‘‘a top priority,’’ back—that was 6 years ago. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

59 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Senator Hollings. I think, to sum up 

your point, perhaps S. 1798 won’t be as necessary if, in fact, the 

Commission does its work. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Yes. 

Senator SMITH. And you were saying that that’s where the issue 

is best resolved. 

So, with that, ladies and gentlemen, and no further questions, 

this has been a productive hearing, and, I hope, enjoyable for all 

of you, and we’re adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(61) 

A P P E N D I X 

STATEMENT FROM THE AMERICAN BURN ASSOCIATION

S. 1798 ‘‘American Home Fire Safety Act’’ 

• Upholstered Furniture. According to the CPSC, in 1998 an estimated 10,200 residential fires involving upholstered furniture killed 520 people, injured more 

than 1,400 and caused more than $200 million in property damage. A safety 

standard adopted in California more than 25 years ago has resulted in a significantly lower furniture death rate than the rest of the Nation. 

• Mattresses and Bed Clothing. In 1998, mattress and bedding fires caused 410 deaths, 2260 injuries and more than $250 million in property damage. 

• Candles. There were 12,800 candle fires in 1998, resulting in 170 deaths, 1200 injuries and nearly $175 million in property damage. 

• Of the many items first ignited in residential fires, upholstered furniture is the 

product most frequently involved in fire deaths, followed by mattresses and bedding. Cigarettes and candles are the heat sources most likely to ignite the deadliest fires. 

• The American Burn Association represents the Nation’s burn surgeons, nurses, 

therapists, and other members of the burn team, and the Nation’s leading medical institutions with burn centers. 

• Congress should implement the heightened safety standards for upholstered 

furniture, mattresses, bed clothing, and candles included in S. 1798, to substantially reduce the rate of consumer injury and death resulting from residential 

fires. 

The American Burn Association strongly supports the heightened fire-safety 

standards included in S. 1798, the American Home Fire Safety Act, and applauds 

the efforts of its sponsors: Senators Hollings, Breaux, Snowe, Boxer, Graham, 

Chafee and Reed. 

The American Burn Association represents the Nation’s burn surgeons, nurses, 

therapists, and other members of the burn team, and the Nation’s leading medical 

institutions with burn centers. The ABA has been a long-time advocate of fire-and 

burn-prevention efforts, supporting improved child sleepwear standards and firesafe cigarette legislation, among other efforts. 

Of the many items first ignited in residential fires, upholstered furniture is the 

product most frequently involved in fire deaths, followed by mattresses and bedding. 

Cigarettes and candles are the heat sources most likely to ignite the deadliest fires. 

S. 1798 addresses this issue by establishing comprehensive fire safety standards for 

upholstered furniture, mattresses, bed clothing and candles. The stricter standards 

included in this bill are ‘‘substantially the same’’ as standards which have been implemented or tested elsewhere and have proven to be effective. 

For example, upholstered furniture standards in this bill are based on those included in similar legislation passed in California 25 years ago, which resulted in a 

‘‘significantly lower furniture death rate than the rest of the Nation.’’ Mattress and 

bed clothing standards are also based on proposed or implemented legislation in 

California. Candle standards were generated by the American Society for Testing 

and Materials. 

The need for stronger standards is apparent from just a few examples in newspaper headlines across the nation: In Anchorage, a four-year-old girl dies after her 

mattress catches on fire; in New Jersey and eight-year-old girl dies after a damaged 

extension cord ignites a sofa; a three-year-old boy dies in a Chicago after a sofa 

catches on fire; in Lake Worth, Florida, three die when a fire ignited by a candle 

consumes a home. 

Sadly, such preventable fires are the cause of a high number of injuries and death 

as well as millions of dollars in property damage. According to 1998 figures from 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an estimated 10,200 residential fires involving upholstered furniture killed 520 people, injured more than 1400 and caused 

62 

greater than $200 million in property damage. Fires involving mattresses and bedding that same year caused 410 deaths, 2260 injuries and cost more than $250 million in property damage, while candle fires accounted for 170 deaths, 1200 injuries 

and almost $175 million in property damage. These figures do not take into account 

the countless costs to textile manufacturers and producers (costs which are eventually passed along to consumers) which are sued annually for fires involving their 

products, even though they pass current Federal requirements. 

It is the American Burn Association’s position that the implementation of the 

heightened standards for upholstered furniture, mattresses, bed clothing, and candles included in S. 1798, the American Home Fire Safety Act, will substantially reduce the rate of consumer injury and death resulting from residential fires and will 

not affect the functionality or performance of the such items. 

ASTM Candle Fire Safety Task Group 

10/10/03 

Geoffrey Faires 

The Dial Corp. 

Dave Buri 

S.C. Johnson, Inc. 

Rob Harrington 

Blyth Industries, Inc. 

Richard Signorelli 

Belmay, Inc. 

Jim Becker 

Candle Solutions 

George Pappas Sr. 

Lumi-Lite Candle Co. 

John Witham 

Candle-Lite, Inc. 

Evelyn Bicknese (IGCA Representative) 

Bicknese & Bicknese, Inc. 

Ed Calcote 

Shell Global Solutions, U.S. 

Robert Weitzel 

Green Township Fire Chief 

Christy Wheeler 

Atkins & Pearce, Inc. 

William Comber 

Libbey Glass 

John Tedeschi 

Bath & Body Works 

John Baker 

Pier 1 

Robert Moss 

SEA, Ltd. 

Jim Hoebel 

Erols 

Allyson Tenney 

CPSC 

David Morrison 

Penreco 

Mark Gerwitz 

Bureau Veritas Consumer Products & 

Services 

Tom Acklin (for AFIA) 

Autograph Foliages 

Valerie Cooper 

NCA 

Charles D. Moses 

Arizona Chemical Company 

Dan Zipes 

Home Interiors & Gifts 

Walter Smittle 

Retired WV State Fire Marshal 

CROSCILL HOME

November 29, 2004 

Dear Ms. Sunita Krishna: 

We are a manufacturer of sheets, comforters, and pillows in a variety of constructions and contents with all comforters having polyester fiberfill. 

We employed 1.500 people prior to an influx of imported product and currently 

employ approximately 900 associates in North Carolina. 

We are against Bill #S. 1798 for reasons that go beyond the true necessity of regulation (which we question.) 

Those reasons include but are not limited to: 

1. Test standard requires a twenty second exposure to open flame. Is this reasonable, or a longer exposure time than real life situations? 

2. Who will police the market to assure that both domestic and foreign suppliers 

are conforming to the new regulations? (From what I understand, there are not 

resources available to act as inspectors to monitor any law.) Foreign resources 

are more likely to risk violation putting us at a competitive disadvantage. 

63 

3. Have studies been done as to the carcinogenic potential of FR treatments that 

may be used to meet these new requirements? Will we be exempt if such findings are made subsequently? 

4. Has the California TB604 current small scale test version written in Oct. 03 

been validated as reproducing large scale results? 

5. Additional financial burden on an already suffering U.S. textile industry. Not 

only are the new treatments a much higher cost than what is commonly used, 

but fabrics, labels, inserts, marketing materials, etc will need to be replaced 

unless adequate time is given for transition of product i.e., 1 year. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DOUGLAS J. KAHN, 

Chief Operating Officer. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DECORATIVE FABRICS ASSOCIATION AND THE

COALITION OF CONVERTERS OF DECORATIVE FABRICS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED

AMERICAN HOME FIRE SAFETY ACT

Introduction 

The Decorative Fabric Association (DFA) and the Coalition of Converters of Decorative Fabrics (CCDF) submit this statement in connection with the proposed American Home Fire Safety Act (the ‘‘Act’’), and most specifically in connection with its 

provisions relating to upholstered furniture. 

The DFA and CCDF are on record as favoring the prompt adoption of a Federal 

mandatory upholstery furniture flammability regulation. Such a regulation, however, must effectively address the risks posed by upholstery furniture fires and do 

so in a cost effective way. Otherwise, consumers will be deprived of the opportunity 

to purchase products they want to put in their homes. 

The Act will not achieve these objectives. To the contrary, it will undermine important work soon to be completed by the Consumer Products Safety Commission 

that will result in an upholstery furniture regulation reflecting the interests of all 

stakeholders, including consumers. 

Specifically: 

• The Act would mandate the adoption of an unproven draft technical standard 

that would impose unworkable and ineffective requirements. 

• The mandated draft technical standard would cause many DFA and CCDF 

products to become unsaleable and cost prohibitive, and consumers would be deprived of the opportunity to obtain such products. Because of the nature of DFA 

and CCDF type products, a majority could not pass the mandated test even if 

treated with flame retardant chemicals or the fabrics would be ruined if treated. 

• The Act would ignore the important work that is close to completion by the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission to develop a technical standard that effectively addresses the risks of upholstered furniture fires in an effective and 

economically sound way, and which is supported by a consensus of all stakeholders. 

Accordingly, the DFA and CCDF strongly urge the Committee to allow and encourage the CPSC to finish its work and not to adopt legislation that will be less 

effective, more burdensome, and that will not reflect either the best technical or economic thinking to address the problem at hand. 

The Decorative Fabrics Association 

The DFA is comprised of approximately 60 companies that sell highly styled decorative fabrics. The DFA membership includes the vast majority of wholesale distributors of such decorative fabrics in the United States. 

Based upon 2002 data, reported aggregate sales of DFA member companies totals 

approximately $1.2 billion. DFA member firms, however, are relatively small: 38 

percent had sales of less than $5 million; 22 percent had sales of between $5 million 

and $10 million; 20 percent had sales of between $10 million and $20 million; and 

20 percent had sales in excess of $20 million. Accordingly, any regulation will have 

a decided impact on these businesses. 

Sales by DFA companies are overwhelmingly for residential use, such sales comprising 82 percent of total sales. And, 96 percent of total sales are made to customers in the United States, primarily on a COM (customer’s own material) basis 

through interior designers. This means that fabric selections are made by consumers, with the assistance or at the direction of a professional interior designer, 

usually as one component of an overall interior decorating project. The interior deVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
64 

signer then purchases the fabric from a DFA company. The DFA company, however, 

typically does not know the use for which the fabric will be put—e.g., furniture, window treatments, wallcoverings, pillows, bedspreads, other bedding, etc. Accordingly, 

DFA members typically sell on a ‘‘cut order’’ basis, with an average order being 8 

or 9 yards of fabric. 

DFA member companies do not manufacture the fabrics they sell. Nor do they 

perform fabric treatment or maintain facilities for fabric testing. Likewise, many of 

the suppliers to DFA companies, which include the few remaining quality mills in 

the United States, do not treat or test fabrics. 

To meet the wide range of consumer tastes, DFA members maintain inventories 

of thousands of different fabric styles. On average, DFA members carry over 5,500 

different stock keeping units (SKUs), with small companies averaging 1,760 and 

larger companies averaging over 16,000. Aside from their different patterns, these 

fabrics differ significantly in fiber combinations, weave structure, weight, and finish. 

Approximately 75 percent to 80 percent of these fabrics are made from fibers such 

as silk, which is a protein, or linen, rayon and cotton, which are cellulosic. 

One of the most important characteristics required to meet consumer demand for 

DFA type fabrics is the aesthetic appearance (look and feel) of a particular item. 

Color, texture and hand (the way a fabric feels to the touch) are all critical selling 

points. Accordingly, a significant cost for DFA members (approximately 8 percent 

of gross sales) relates to samples. Samples are required to provide consumers with 

the ability to see and touch the actual fabrics prior to making their purchase selections. 

The Coalition of Converters of Decorative Fabrics 

The CCDF membership includes leading home furnishing and decorative fabric 

converters in the United States, with in excess of $1 billion in sales annually. 

CCDF members account, by volume of business, for a vast majority of the home furnishing fabrics converting industry in the United States. As converters, CCDF’s 

members create or acquire proprietary rights in original designs, which they then 

cause to be printed, woven or otherwise fabricated by third parties onto a variety 

of fabric types. The finished fabrics are then sold for a variety of home furnishing 

and decorative end uses. 

CCDF converter members distribute their products through a variety of channels, 

generally from facilities located in the United States. Most of the CCDF members 

maintain their principal distribution facilities in South Carolina. Their customers 

include wholesalers, furniture and other miscellaneous manufacturers, and retailers. 

CCDF members also maintain showrooms and display facilities, exhibit at trade 

fairs and have sales personnel visit customers with samples of fabrics. 

Like DFA companies, CCDF converter members generally do not manufacture or 

finish the fabrics they sell. Also like DFA companies, a significant percentage of the 

fabric they sell consists of a wide variety of fiber combinations, weaves and weights. 

These fabrics are also used for a variety of applications. The visual, textural and 

other aesthetic attributes of these fabrics are critically important to converters’ commercial success. 

Another CCDF member is Calico Corners, a national retailer of fabric and furniture, with approximately 116 stores in 33 states. Calico Corners specializes in retailing decorative fabrics sold directly to consumers, making it one of the largest 

purchasers of decorative fabrics in the country, buying from major converters, 

wholesalers and jacquard mills. 

Calico Corners’ custom furniture program has been rapidly growing in recent 

years. It differs from ‘‘off-the-floor’’ furniture sales in that the retail customer is afforded a very wide range of fabric choices, and is able to select a frame style from 

over 250 choices. In the average Calico Corners store the customer then has the 

choice of over 5,000 fabric SKUs to put on the frame. 

Thus, in 2002, Calico Corners’ customers purchased approximately 28,000 pieces 

of custom upholstered furniture and covered them in 4,500 different fabrics. About 

half of these fabrics (48 percent) were designed specifically for upholstery use. In 

addition, many Calico customers routinely select print fabrics for use on furniture. 

These fabrics are technically not considered upholstery weight, but they too are used 

for many purposes. Because of the wide range of consumer tastes, in 2000 only three 

fabrics sold over 1,000 yards; 41 fabrics sold between 500 and 1,000 yards; and the 

average sale per fabric was 10.4 yards. 

65 

1 Comments of the Decorative Fabric Association, the Coalition of Converters of Decorative 

Fabrics and Calico Corners, Inc., before the Consumer Products Safety Commission, October 23, 

2003. See also Statement of Rosecrans Baldwin on behalf of the Decorative Fabrics Association 

and the Coalition of Converters of Decorative Fabrics to the Consumer Products Safety Commission, dated August 27, 2003. 2See, e.g., Statement of Cary Kravet, Kravet Inc., to the Consumer Products Safety Commission, June 18–19, 2002; Statement of Roger Gilmartin, Covington Industries, Inc., to the Consumer Products Safety Commission, June 18–19, 2002; Statement of Jan Jessup, Calico Corners, 

to the Consumer Products Safety Commission, June 18–19, 2002. 

Discussion 

A. The DFA And CCDF Support A Mandatory Federal Upholstered Furniture 

Flammability Regulation 

The DFA and CCDF membership has actively worked with the Consumer Products Safety Commission and state regulators, specifically in California, in connection 

with the development of a mandatory upholstery furniture flammability regulation. 

Most recently, in October 2003, the DFA and CCDF provided comments to the 

CPSC urging the prompt adoption of a Federal standard because ‘‘[i]ndustry needs 

certainty.’’ 1 Further, the DFA and CCDF endorsed the approach reflected in the 

CPSC staff’s most recent draft upholstered furniture regulation, most importantly 

because it provides for use of a barrier system—an interliner or other barrier material placed between the outer fabric and the filling material—as an alternative to 

treating the outer fabrics with flame retardant chemicals. 

The absolute necessity of a ‘‘barrier alternative’’ for DFA and CCDF members has 

been well documented.2 In short: 

• Most DFA fabrics and many CCDF fabrics will not pass a flammability test 

even if treated with FR chemicals. 

• DFA and CCDF companies could not economically comply with a standard that 

required treatment of their fabrics with FR chemicals and compliance testing. 

• Use of FR chemicals on many DFA and CCDF fabrics would destroy any aesthetic appeal, which is the most critical selling factor for such goods, and could 

create unwarranted health risks for employees and consumers potentially now 

and in the future. 

A barrier alternative, on the other hand, would allow for upholstered furniture to 

be constructed consistent with a regulation that effectively addresses the risk of upholstered furniture fires. As contemplated by the most recent CPSC proposed draft 

standard, a furniture manufacturer would be permitted to use certified barrier materials and thereby avoid testing or treatment of every other component of that 

piece of furniture, including the outer fabric. As a result, the outer fabric would not 

have to be treated with FR chemicals. Yet, the approved barrier materials would 

prevent a flame from reaching the filling material of the piece of furniture, and as 

a result would prevent the very dangerous situation that could arise if the filling 

materials ignited. 

B. The Act Would Not Allow For A Barrier Alternative 

The Act would not allow for use of an effective barrier alternative. Rather, it 

would mandate adoption of a draft technical proposal issued by the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal 

Insulation in February 2002. This technical proposal would require a component 

test involving the treatment of outer fabrics with FR chemicals, or a composite test 

that involved a barrier and the burning of the outer fabric. Such tests have never 

been established as either technically or economically effective. Indeed, we understand that the State of California is no longer pursuing the approach reflected in 

its draft technical proposal and is instead working closely with the CPSC staff and 

other interested stakeholders to finalize a draft proposed regulation that will be presented to the Commission within the next few months. 

The current focus of the California regulators shows the wisdom of allowing the 

CPSC’s work to be completed, and not to have legislation adopted that would require the promulgation of a standard that reflects poor science, poor economics, and 

is contrary to the positions developed by all interested parties. Requiring adoption 

of the draft California technical proposal, which does not include a real barrier alternative, would also severely threaten the viability of all DFA and CCDF members, 

and as a result the ability of consumers to retain their ability to have access to the 

products they want. These ramifications are highlighted by the following. 

First, cellulosic and protein fabrics constitute most of the fabrics sold by DFA 

companies and much of the fabric sold by CCDF companies. We understand, howVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
66 

ever, that chemical FR treatment of such fabrics is difficult, and that many if not 

most of them, even if treated, are not likely to pass the component test contemplated by the draft California technical proposal. In addition, if such fabrics and 

many others were required to be FR treated, their aesthetics (the most significant 

characteristic in customer selection) would be dramatically altered. Both the look 

and feel of the product would be changed in ways that would cause them to be highly unattractive, and in most cases unsaleable. 

Second, DFA members and converters typically do not know the end use to which 

a particular fabric will be put. Accordingly, if treatment were required vendors 

would have to either maintain duplicate inventories of treated and non-treated fabrics, or have specific orders treated when it is known that they will be used for an 

upholstered furniture application. Neither alternative is workable. 

• To maintain duplicate inventories vendors would have to increase the volume 

of fabric they purchase without generating corresponding increases in sales to 

consumers. 

• Duplicate inventories will result in higher costs to vendors (and ultimately consumers), including carrying, sampling and handling costs, and the need for additional showroom and warehouse space. These costs are already a significant 

percentage of gross sales, and the increases would make most DFA and CCDF 

companies unprofitable. 

• Treatment of small orders, such as the ‘‘cut orders’’ sold by DFA members and 

the average orders sold by Calico Corners and other decorative fabric retailers, 

will be subject to minimum charges by finishers, which can run from $65 to 

$150 per order regardless of the yardage involved, again resulting in higher 

prices to consumers and unprofitable operations for vendors. 

• Testing will also require use of additional yardage for certification and machine 

operability purposes. Some DFA fabrics sell for well over $100 per yard at 

wholesale, and 2 to 21⁄2 extra yards per order may be required on a typical order 

of 8 to 9 yards. 

• DFA and CCDF members may face shortages in finishing capacity. Available 

capacity may be allocated to larger orders, and finishers have stated a disinclination to handle small orders, especially of more expensive fabrics. 

• Small orders may lack consistency in quality, requiring retesting and retreatment. Stitching together fabrics of different weights and compositions will not 

permit a uniform application of FR chemicals resulting in double testing and 

treatment for heavier fabrics, and either an unsatisfactory ‘‘bubble’’ effect or a 

totally unacceptable ‘‘board’’ effect. 

• Delivery time and costs will be increased. 

• Compliance with the draft component test may raise health risks that may even 

be prohibited by California’s Proposition 65 and other environmental regulations and legislation. 

Thus, if DFA and CCDF companies were required to certify compliance with the 

fabric component test that would be imposed by the Act, the likely result will be 

that consumers will not be able to obtain the wide variety of fabrics that are now 

available. Some products simply would not be able to pass, and even if they could, 

they would be so aesthetically displeasing no consumer would want them in their 

home. Those fabrics that could pass would also be available only for dramatically 

higher prices which may eliminate any market demand for them as well. 

The contemplated composite test under the draft California technical proposal 

would also inadequately address the risks of upholstered furniture fires. Passing or 

failing the proposed composite test would require assembling a piece of furniture as 

it would exist for sale. In other words, the frame would be assembled with the actual fabric and filling materials that would be used. To pass the test would then 

depend upon, among other factors, an evaluation of the overall weight loss of the 

tested unit. Certain fabrics, however, will constitute a disproportionate percentage 

of the weight of the overall unit, and even though a barrier might be used, and a 

flame would be extinguished before igniting the filling material that would emit the 

greatest amount of heat, the unit would fail. Thus, even though risks of injury and 

possible death as the result of flashover would be averted, and we believe this is 

the properly defined risk that should be addressed, consumers would still be deprived of products they desire. 

Further, the costs of compliance with the draft composite test would be, if anything, more prohibitive than in connection with the component test. The same negative economic effects—for consumers and industry—would therefore result, without 

67 

effectively addressing the risks that should be the target of a properly focused regulation. 

C. The Act Will Eliminate Important Statutory Protections 

The Act would make inapplicable important provisions of the Consumer Product 

Safety Act. In particular, no evaluation would be made of the mandated standard’s 

costs or benefits, whether the standard is reasonably necessary to eliminate or reduce the risks posed by upholstery furniture fires, what the effect of the standard 

would be on limiting the availability of products to consumers, or whether less burdensome alternatives are available that are equally effective. Further, the opportunity for interested parties to be heard on the advantages and disadvantages of the 

standard would be eliminated. 

These statutory provisions ensure that any regulation that is adopted will be technically and economically sound, and eliminating their applicability will simply confirm the inappropriateness of the upholstered furniture flammability standard contemplated by the Act. 

Conclusion 

For all of the foregoing reasons, the DFA and CCDF urge the Committee to not 

support the American Home Fire Safety Act. An appropriate Federal regulation is 

being developed by the CPSC that will effectively address the risks of residential 

upholstered furniture fires, in a cost effective manner, and in a way that will allow 

consumers to enjoy the products of their choice. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID K. ORDERS, VICE PRESIDENT, ADMINISTRATION, 

PARK PLACE CORPORATION ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL SLEEP PRODUCTS

ASSOCIATION

Background 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hollings and distinguished members of the Committee: 

My name is David Orders. I am the Vice President, Administration of the Park 

Place Corporation, a mattress manufacturing company in Greenville, SC. 

I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to you today on behalf of the 

International Sleep Products Association (ISPA) about S. 1798, the ‘‘American Home 

Fire Safety Act.’’ ISPA is a trade association that represents approximately 750 

mattress manufacturers and component suppliers in the United States and abroad. 

In my testimony, I will show that the mattress industry has a long history of responsible stewardship and has aggressively sought regulation where scientific 

standards showed benefits to the consumer. 

I intend to make clear that the ‘‘American Home Fire Safety Act’’ would not impose science-based standards, but instead implements draft California standards 

that were subsequently rejected by the State of California. 

The Consumer Product Safety Commission will shortly propose standards that 

will establish scientifically developed product safety requirements. The industry is 

committed to assisting the CPSC with that effort. 

Finally, I think that it is important that the CPSC be encouraged to develop regulations in the manner established by Congress when it created the CPSC, without 

Congress imposing poorly considered standards that can be counterproductive to improving consumer safety. 

My grandfather founded our company in 1931 during the Depression. With my 

eldest son joining the company several years ago, the Orders family has now begun 

our fourth generation of owning and operating Park Place. 

Today, our approximately 200 workers make approximately 1600 mattresses daily 

(or about 400,000 units annually). We sell our mattresses primarily throughout the 

Southeast, but also distribute some products nationwide. We offer a full line of mattresses, from relatively simple constructions to the more up-scale luxury lines. Our 

main business is in traditional foam-inner spring mattress designs, but we also 

manufacture so-called air-beds and mattresses that use heat-sensitive foam. 

In addition to my work with Park Place, I am currently the Vice Chairman of the 

Board of the International Sleep Products Association (ISPA), and will become the 

Chairman of the ISPA Board next year. 

Since 2002, I have also served on the Board of Directors of the Sleep Products 

Safety Council (SPSC), a separate organization formed by ISPA in 1986 to conduct 

mattress safety research and develop public education programs that focus primarily on residential fire safety and how to avoid mattress fires. 

68 

The mattress industry has a proud 35-year record of responsible product stewardship when it comes to mattress flammability issues. During the mid-1970s, research 

showed that unattended cigarettes were the primary cause of mattress fires and 

fire-related deaths and injury. Our industry worked with the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (CPSC) to develop the mattress cigarette ignition standard, 

which has been a major factor in reducing residential mattress fires over the past 

three decades. 

Because Park Place has manufactured mattresses for over 70 years, we have been 

an active part of the tremendous safety innovations that the mattress industry has 

made over the years. For example, my brother Jimmy Orders led the ISPA Board 

of Trustees as the industry implemented the cigarette-ignition standard. Compliance 

with that standard today is excellent and it is clear that this standard has played 

an important role in improving residential fire safety. For example, the most current fire statistics released by the U.S. Fire Administration show that over the 20- 

year period from 1980 to 1999, both the number of mattress fires in the United 

States and the number of deaths from mattress fires fell by two-thirds, all this while 

the U.S. population grew by over 25 percent during the same period. 

These numbers show that the industry is moving in the right direction, and that 

the industry’s safety record is outstanding. But our work is clearly not finished. The 

mattress industry and my company fully support regulatory efforts to set a new 

Federal safety standard that is effective and practical in requiring mattresses to be 

more fire resistant to open-flame ignitions. Nevertheless, our industry has a number 

of concerns with the ‘‘American Home Fire Safety Act.’’ 

Specifically, we believe that: 

• S. 1798 would set a bad flammability standard that is not scientifically supported and will in fact be counterproductive to home fire safety; 

• S. 1798 implements a draft standard rejected by the state of California; 

• S. 1798 is unnecessary at this point because the Consumer Product Safety Commission is making substantial progress on this issue and plans to propose a new 

Federal mattress standard this fall, and 

• S. 1798 would restrict the CPSC’s ability to correct or even improve the standard that it requires if warranted at some point in the future. 

Open-Flame Ignitions and Regulatory Efforts at the CPSC and in California 

As the mattress safety record improved dramatically with the steps taken to reduce fires caused by cigarettes, the industry’s focus shifted to tackling open-flame 

ignitions of mattresses. Our understanding of the causes and science of open-flame 

ignitions was virtually non-existent when the industry, fire safety officials and government regulators began looking into this problem in the mid-1990s. 

To remedy this situation, the SPSC initiated a joint study with the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) to determine the causes of over 200 actual 

mattress fires in four U.S. cities. This research showed that: 

• a majority of mattress fires are set by young children playing with matches and 

lighters; 

• bedclothes (top-of-the-bed accessories like comforters, pillows) are usually the 

first items ignited in a bed fire; and 

• poorer families are those most at risk from mattress fires. 

Following this research, the industry met with then-CPSC Chair Anne Brown to 

discuss how best to address the open-flame ignition problem. Chair Brown attended 

a mattress industry meeting in Palm Beach, Florida in 1997, at which the ISPA 

leadership resolved to explore the possibility of establishing a mandatory national 

mattress standard to address open-flame ignitions, provided that the standard was 

effective in addressing the problem and practical to implement. 

The industry (through the auspices of the SPSC) then supported a series of 

groundbreaking studies by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) to improve our understanding of mattress fires. Among other findings, NIST 

concluded that the safety risks posed by ignited bedclothes alone are significant. 

NIST also developed a test apparatus that could accurately and consistently simulate the impact of burning bedclothes on a mattress so that our products could be 

reliably tested under simulated ‘‘real world’’ conditions. Throughout this research, 

the SPSC regularly consulted with staff of the CPSC and the California Bureau of 

Home Furnishings (CBHF), given both agencies’ interest in effectively addressing 

the open-flame ignition issue. 

Throughout this period, the SPSC has actively promoted public education messages informing consumers about how to use mattresses safely. The SPSC has carVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
69 

ried this message through a variety of media, including its own website (which is 

largely targeted at parents, teachers, children and the media), joint efforts with various government agencies, and a hangtag that most mattress producers attach directly to their products warning consumers about the dangers of mattress fires and 

how to avoid those dangers. 

Based on NIST’s research, the CPSC issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in October 2001. The industry has worked closely with the CPSC as it develops the new mattress standard. The CPSC is expected to propose its new standard later this fall. 

In February 2003, the CBHF began its separate rulemaking, California Technical 

Bulletin 603 (TB603), to address the open-flame issue by publishing a preliminary 

draft standard. Initially, California proposed that mattresses and box springs sold 

in that state must be ignited using a test method and apparatus developed by NIST, 

and that the peak heat release from the resulting fire must not exceed 150 kW for 

60 minutes. Following extensive scientific research and after analyzing comments 

submitted by industry, consumers and other groups, California issued the final 

version of TB603, which modified the performance criteria such that the peak heat 

release must not exceed 200 kW over a 30-minute period. California properly concluded that these performance criteria will lead to significant improvements in home 

fire safety. 

Separately, the CBHF began initial work on a bedclothes flammability standard 

(to be called Technical Bulletin 604 or TB604). California, however, has yet to formally propose the requirements of TB604. Thus, a major contributor to the bedroom 

fires—as found by California, NASFM the mattress industry and others—has yet to 

be addressed. 

The mattress industry fully supports the performance criteria in the final version 

of TB603. Depending on their geographic market, mattress producers are at varying 

stages in their efforts to meet the TB603 requirements. Some producers are already 

offering product that meets the performance requirements in California a full six 

months before the effective date of the standard, and others are on track to meet 

the new requirements. 

In issuing the final version of TB603, California recognized that the standard provides a valuable 30-minute window for consumers to detect and escape a fire. Furthermore, the low peak heat release limit will substantially delay the growth and 

intensity of the fire. Combined, these requirements will significantly reduce the risk 

of rapid flashover to other parts of the residence and will substantially expand the 

opportunity for consumers to escape a bedroom fire. Thus, NIST research shows 

that the TB603 performance criteria have the potential to reduce bed fire casualties 

by one-half to two-thirds. Further improvements are possible if the fire performance 

of bedclothes also is improved. For these reasons, the industry is working with the 

CPSC to incorporate theTB603 criteria in the Federal open-flame mattress standard 

and to address the flammability of bedclothes. 

Finally, the industry is concerned that meeting a 60-minute standard might inadvertently create more problems than it purports to solve. To meet a 60-minute requirement might force producers to use combinations of exotic materials that have 

never been used to make mattresses. How those materials will interact with each 

other is often unknown. 

The ‘‘American Home Fire Safety Act’’ (S. 1798) 

The ‘‘American Home Fire Safety Act’’ (S. 1798) requires the CPSC to issue Federal flammability standards for several products including mattresses and box 

springs. As for mattresses and box springs, S. 1798 requires that the Federal standard be based on the preliminary draft of California’s TB603. It ignores the fact that 

California, based on scientific research and extensive comments from the mattress 

industry and other stakeholders, substantially revised those criteria before issuing 

the final version of TB603, as I have just described. In short, while the preliminary 

draft of TB603 limited the peak heat release rate to 150 kW for 60 minutes, the 

final version of TB603 limited the peak heat release rate to 200 kW for 30 minutes. 

It is also important to understand that no scientific research shows that a 60- 

minute standard will be any more effective in improving safety than the significant 

improvements that can be achieved with a 30-minute standard. 

I stress that the difference between a 60-minute test and a 30-minute test is significant. The longer a fire burns, the more unpredictable it becomes. This unpredictability is analogous to the ability of a meteorologist to provide a reasonably accurate 

2-day forecast, compared to the substantially greater variation from the weatherman’s predictions when it comes to making a 60-day forecast. As a result, I think 

that those supporters of S. 1798 that make FR materials and others knowledgeable 

about fire behavior would agree that the variability of fires forces mattress proVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:57 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\82372.TXT JACKIE
70 

ducers to use substantially larger amounts of fire resistant materials to meet a 60- 

minute test than would be required for a 30-minute test. 

The 30-minute standard has been challenging, but will be met using innovative 

materials and designs. In this process, the industry has invested heavily in technology, new materials, product design, employee training and capital acquisitions as 

we seek to develop solutions that will preserve the mattress comfort that consumers 

have grown to expect in a manner that adds minimal expense to the consumer. 

However, a 60-minute test would require different materials and designs. These 

materials tend to make the mattresses harder and less resilient, and would cost considerably more. As a result, S. 1798 would in effect force customers to select from 

less comfortable—yet more expensive—mattresses, but for no scientifically-justified 

reason. 

In addition, most mattress manufacturers would likely shift all of their mattresses 

to ‘‘single-sided’’ to meet an S. 1798 standard, because it is easier and cheaper to 

make those products pass a 60-minute test. This change would have the unintended 

impact of harming U.S. textile producers in my home state of South Carolina and 

elsewhere, an industry that can ill-afford additional economic stress. This is because 

single-sided mattresses require less of the high-quality fabric cover known as ‘‘ticking,’’ and instead use much cheaper material on the lower side of the mattress. 

CPSC and a Science-Based National Standard 

S. 1798 also ignores the CPSC’s considerable work toward a new Federal mattress 

standard. The CPSC, which is charged by Congress with developing and enforcing 

standards such as this, has considerable expertise in flammability issues. The CPSC 

has already issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and plans to propose 

an open-flame standard this fall. The industry has cooperated fully with the CPSC 

during this process by providing technical and economic data, as well as by funding 

major research to create new testing methods. I would ask that the Congress allow 

the CPSC to complete its work and to issue a new Federal mattress standard. That, 

after all, is the real purpose behind S. 1798. 

Setting new flammability standards is a complex task. Allowing CPSC to set the 

Federal standard would offer two important benefits. First, the CPSC will use its 

expertise to make certain that its criteria are based on scientific research, are practical and justified. Second, sometimes flaws in product standards emerge only after 

they are implemented. A standard set by CPSC could be readily amended whereas 

S. 1798 would require another Act of Congress to fix the problem. 

The existing Federal law provides a good process for CPSC to issue technical 

flammability standards. The CPSC has both the legal authority and the expertise 

to set this standard. I would ask that the Congress refrain from in effect overruling 

the Commission’s tremendous efforts toward establishing a new mattress standard, 

and allow it to complete its rulemaking process. 

Consumer Issues 

Mattress manufacturers and retailers have invested considerably in market research. Not surprisingly, consumer purchases of mattresses are motivated primarily 

by comfort and price. The performance criteria in the final version of TB603 would 

have a minimal impact on both of these criteria, whereas S. 1798 would have a significant negative impact on both. 

As I mentioned earlier, a mattress that would meet the S. 1798 criteria of a 60- 

minute burn test would look and feel much different from the mattresses on the 

market today. They would be rigid and inflexible, instead of the current mattresses 

that consumers have grown to expect and enjoy. 

Unlike a TB603 mattress, S. 1798 mattresses would be much more expensive. In 

fact, the price increases that S. 1798 would require would discourage a large number of consumers from purchasing the new mattresses—especially the poorer families that need affordable fire resistant mattresses the most—compared to the impact 

of a 30-minute standard on mattress prices. 

For example, given typical retail markup rates, the costs that a mattress producer 

will incur to meet a 30-minute standard will likely increase from $10 to $20 per 

queen-size unit. However, given current input prices, a number of mattress producers estimate that to meet the S. 1798 standard, manufacturing costs would increase $50 to $70 per queen-size unit. Based on a study that the industry commissioned last year in connection with the TB603 rulemaking, we estimated that price 

increases of this magnitude alone would reduce mattress sales by 25 percent or 

more, compared to a reduction of no more than 10 percent for the 30-minute standard. The consumer disincentive that S. 1798 would create will be even more if you 

factor in the reduced comfort that results from using the substantially stiffer materials needed to make beds that pass a 60-minute test. 

71 

In other words, at least 1-in-4 consumers that would otherwise want to buy a new 

fire-resistant mattress would instead defer their mattress purchase and spend their 

money on something else if S. 1798 were enacted. That means that the law itself 

will be counterproductive because it will discourage consumers from buying safer 

products. The price disincentive will be disproportionately greater for poorer consumers who will be less able than middle or upper class consumers to pay the higher prices that this bill would impose. 

Instead, when those poorer families require new beds, their only alternative will 

likely be mattresses offered by an unscrupulous segment of the market that ‘‘recovers’’ used mattresses with new fabric and then deceptively sells their wares as 

‘‘new.’’ Many of these operators—who are euphemistically called ‘‘renovators’’—sell 

their products in inner cities and poorer communities where their customers are 

highly price conscious and unwittingly think that they are buying perfectly normal 

new products. What these consumers don’t know is that they are really sleeping on 

a used bed and that the renovator has often made no effort to clean or sterilize the 

old product, which is often filthy, stained with urine, blood and feces, and can be 

infested with dust mites, molds, insects, germs and other unsanitary contaminants. 

These ‘‘renovated’’ beds pose real health hazards, especially for consumers that are 

susceptible to allergies, mold and dust, and certainly will not meet the fire protection standards of either California or the Federal Government. 

Complying with TB603 alone will be challenging and expensive for legitimate 

mattress producers. But because unscrupulous renovators operate on the fringes of 

the market, I would expect few of them will make any effort to meet the even more 

burdensome S. 1798 rules. 

As a result, S. 1798 would— 

• force the retail price of legitimate new mattresses beyond the reach of poorer 

consumers—the very segment of society that needs fire-resistant beds the 

most—and 

• push the poorer consumers into the waiting arms of unethical purveyors of 

unhealthy renovated mattresses that have been recovered by parties that have 

no intention of meeting the S. 1798 rules. 

Not only will these families miss any benefit that S. 1798 is intended to create, 

but they will risk allergic reactions, asthma and other possible effects of sleeping 

on recovered used mattresses. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, I feel that the mattress standard set forth in S. 1798 is the wrong 

standard, and that Federal law already authorizes the CPSC regulate this important area. As the incoming Chairman of ISPA, I can assure you that the mattress 

industry is fully behind setting a Federal flammability standard with criteria similar to those set in California TB603. I do not feel that the draft standard of TB603— 

the standard referenced by S. 1798—is practical for manufacturers nor do I believe 

that it will benefit consumers. S. 1798 would result in mattresses that few consumers would want to buy because they will be more expensive and less comfortable. 

Increased costs and reduced sales could easily shut down many mattress manufacturing plants in the U.S. I am concerned that these increased commercial pressures 

may drive much of the lost business overseas. I am also alarmed by reports of other 

regulated industries that foreign mattress producers might not meet the relevant 

U.S. safety standards. As with other products, it would be difficult for the CPSC 

to catch such products because by the time that many of these products enter the 

stream of commerce and are detected by the authorities, the manufacturer of those 

goods has either changed its name or moved onto other markets. 

Park Place provides the Greenville community with 200 well-paying jobs that I 

would not wish to see jeopardized. Mattress manufacturing as a whole is a well-paying industry. The average hourly wage of a mattress factory employee nationally is 

approximately $11. In a complex economy, job losses and plant closures to our manufacturing segment have a ripple effect that hurts our component suppliers as well 

as the thousands of retail stores to which we sell. 

Mr. Chairman, the mattress industry believes that an effective and practical national open-flame ignition standard for mattresses and the continued success of mattress manufactures in the U.S. are not mutually exclusive objectives. We fully support the criteria set forth in the final TB603 and hope that the CPSC will incorporate these criteria in the new Federal mattress standard. They will dramatically 

improve safety, and should be applied nationally. I believe that the criteria in S. 

1798 will do significant harm to industry and consumers without providing any additional safety benefit. 

72 

I believe that the CPSC is firmly committed to issuing an effective and practical 

standard and that it would be in the best interests of consumers and industry to 

allow that agency to finish its valuable work instead of legislating a regulatory 

standard. The system is working, Mr. Chairman, and I ask that you and this Committee allow it to finish working. 

To the extent that Congress really wants to help consumers, I suggest that you 

consider increasing the CPSC’s enforcement capabilities and help to educate parents, teachers and children about the importance of fire safety. In respect to enforcement, the first step would be to help stop unscrupulous renovators from selling recovered used mattresses as new products to unsuspecting consumers. 

The second would be to enhance the CPSC’s ability to enforce existing and future 

Federal safety standards with respect to imported products before those goods ever 

hit our shores. Many in the manufacturing community at large are increasingly concerned that imports of all types of products—not just mattresses—do not meet minimum U.S. safety requirements and that the U.S. government lacks the ability to 

eliminate these noncomplying goods from the marketplace before they have been 

sold to consumers. ISPA has provided Senator Hollings and others on the Committee with several options that Congress could consider in this regard and we 

would be pleased to discuss these options further with you at your convenience. 

I thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit this statement today. I look 

forward to answering any questions you may have following this hearing. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL TEXTILE ASSOCIATION (NTA) 

The National Textile Association (NTA) is pleased to present comments on the 

American Home Fire Safety Act. NTA is the largest textile trade association in the 

United States and its comments are filed primarily on behalf of the Textile Bedding 

Committee whose members are responsible for supplying American consumers with 

over 90 percent of the sheets, comforters, pillows and other ‘‘top of the bed’’ products 

sold in the U.S. 

The domestic textile bedclothing industry has annual sales exceeding 5 billion dollars and supplies products that are vital for the normal lifestyle of all consumers. 

The industry is proud of the way it has provided an almost endless assortment of 

products for consumers in the U.S. and around the world for over a century, and 

we intend to continue supplying safe, functional, and stylish bedding for our customers. 

While the intentions of the American Home Fire Safety Act, S. 1798, are laudable, 

the bill would interrupt an important process that has been underway since the 

California General Assembly approved AB 603 in 2001. This sudden interruption 

would be caused by S. 1798’s mandatory requirement that all affected bedclothing 

meet the October 22, 2003 draft of Technical Bulletin 604, a draft that is expected 

to be amended by California before implementation because it does not consistently 

predict large scale fire performance. 

Our concern is that the unknown changes to the test method could likely require 

new and more costly solutions for manufacturers that supply filled products. The 

90-day implementation period in S. 1798 gives only a small window of time for manufacturers to decide on the materials necessary to meet the standard and to determine if adequate supplies are available. Our experience has been that regulations 

like this require new materials, many which may not be available in adequate capacity for months or even years. Any shortages of materials will clearly be detrimental to consumers who will bear the economic burden of shortages. 

By passing this legislation, the cooperative work between our industry and the 

CBHFTI could be irrelevant and all consumers in the United States would be penalized by a preemptive standard that severely restricts consumer choice and leads to 

significant increases in cost of material and manufacturing operations. Although we 

are not opposed to flammability regulations of filled bedclothes, we clearly oppose 

S. 1798 as written. 

Our industry is committed to safe and functional products. We have a long history 

of providing consumers with products that meet consumer expectations for style, 

color, design, fit, appearance, feel and many other aesthetic and physical characteristics. We listen carefully to consumers and their desires and we work extremely 

hard to ensure that their expectations are met. Our zeal to continue meeting this 

objective is strong. 

It is extremely important to recognize that California’s draft TB 604 limits regulation to filled textile bedclothes such as comforters, mattress pads and pillows. All 

technical studies and regulatory development have been focused in this area, and 

we support a similar provision in any Federal regulation considered by CPSC. 

73 

The textile bedclothes industry has worked diligently to learn more about the 

flammability performance of filled products. During the short period since CBHFTI 

has begun to study bedclothing flammability, our member companies have evaluated 

their products individually with the CBHFTI. They have also evaluated the impact 

of product construction, material substitutes, and other research and development 

aspects to determine the best solutions to meet the anticipated California regulation. While these companies are members of the NTA, they preserve their unique 

approaches to the manufacture of complying products and each is focused on meeting consumer demand when California’s stringent regulation becomes effective. 

Once a regulation is promulgated, it is critical that it be applicable nationally. 

The Textile Bedding Committee envisions the California standard being applied nationally by the CPSC within the scope of its development. With high volume manufactured products like comforters and mattress pads, a national standard is essential to ensure that interstate commerce is not disrupted. Our industry will begin discussing this essential aspect of regulation when the CPSC begins its public review 

of textile bedding flammability. We stand ready to work with the commission, as 

we have worked with the California Bureau, to develop a standard that is effective, 

technically feasible and clearly in the interest of U.S. consumers. 

It is also critical that any textile bedding flammability standard, whether at the 

state or national level, be enforced fully regardless of the product’s origin. Domestic 

manufacturers have an impressive record of consistently meeting flammability 

standards in the United States and our members will ensure that this high level 

of compliance is maintained. We encourage the responsible government bodies to 

also work to ensure a high level of compliance for imported goods in order to provide 

safe products for all American consumers. 

In summary, NTA believes that S. 1798, in its present form, would be disruptive 

to the textile bedding industry and consumers alike, and would de-rail an important 

process that has been underway for over a year. NTA members have been working 

cooperatively with California Office of Consumer Affairs to develop a mandatory 

standard for filled bedding products and much progress has been made. We strongly 

encourage this Committee to allow the textile bedding industry to complete California’s administrative process and then to work with the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission to develop an appropriate national flammability standard for this industry. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK BUCZEK, CHAIRMAN, 

AMERICAN FIRE SAFETY COUNCIL

The American Fire Safety Council (AFSC) is a non-profit member organization 

that is dedicated to promoting fire safety through the responsible use of flame retardant products. Every year nearly 4,000 Americans die in fire-related incidents 

and 75 percent of these deaths occur from residential fires. The AFSC strongly supports the initiative of Senator Ernest Hollings to bring national fire safety standards 

to residential furniture, bedding and bedclothes. We are also encouraged by the recent progress of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, under the leadership of Chairman Harold Stratton, in addressing this long-standing need. We believe that the Committee’s consideration of the American Home Fire Safety Act 

(AHFSA) has been successful in bringing added focus to the issue. We agree with 

Senator Hollings that should there be any further delay in the Commission’s 

issuance of national fire safety standards, additional action by the Committee with 

regard to the AHFSA may be required. 

The AFSC has taken several steps to help move this issue forward. We have participated in a multi-stakeholder industry group, which includes the American Furniture Manufacturers Association, the International Sleep Products Association and 

numerous others. This group has worked to bring a proposal to the CPSC that offers 

a significant level of increased fire safety for the public, is practical to implement 

and will not place an undue economic burden on manufacturers, consumers or U.S. 

jobs. We hope that the CPSC will consider this proposal in developing its national 

standards. 

In addition, the AFSC recognizes its responsibility to encourage sustainable and 

environmentally preferable approaches for achieving fire safety standards. We have 

entered into a partnership with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), furniture manufacturers and non-governmental organizations such as GreenBlue, in 

the EPA’s Design for the Environment program. This innovative partnership will 

allow us to develop safe and environmentally sound approaches to fire safety at a 

time when the need for flame retardants is increasing and certain flame retardants 

are being phased out due to environmental concerns. 

74 

The AFSC is committed to support the development of national fire safety standards in residential furniture, bedding and bedclothes. Our members are spending 

millions of dollars each year in research to bring the most advanced technologies 

to support fire safety efforts. 

We thank the Committee for the opportunity to comment. 

WESTPOINT STEVENS INC. 

New York, NY, July 13, 2004 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, 

United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

Dear Senator McCain: 

On behalf of WestPoint Stevens Inc. (WPS), please let me share with you and the 

Commerce Committee some concerns we have about the current draft language in 

the American Home Fire Safety Act (the ‘‘Act’’), S. 1798. WPS is one of the Nation’s 

leading manufacturers of bed and bath home fashions products, including mattress 

pads, feather and fiber beds, bed pillows, sheets, towels and bath accessories, comforters and down comforters, blankets and bedding accessories. Many of these products are covered by the Act. 

First, let me make it clear that WPS is not opposed to flammability regulations 

for our products. We take pride in providing safe, fashionable bed and bath products 

demanded by consumers. However, the Act as currently worded calls for the immediate (within 90 days) adoption of the October 22, 2003, draft California TB 604 test 

method for filled bedclothing. This test method is still under review in California 

and state representatives have indicated that it will be modified because it does not 

consistently mirror full-scale test results. In our opinion it would be highly unusual 

to incorporate into a national standard a test method that is still under development. 

It is important to realize that filled bedclothing products do not have the same 

history of evaluation for flammability as other textile products covered by the Act. 

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Department of Commerce, California’s Department of Consumer Affairs and other organizations have studied upholstered furniture and mattress products for many years. Test procedures for those 

products have been developed after substantial evaluation and peer review. However, filled bedclothing products have not received that level of study. In fact, it was 

only after California made the decision to address the flammability of filled bedclothing in late 2002 that public regulatory review began for these products. Since 

that time, WPS and the other major producers of filled bedclothing (Springs Industries, Inc. and Dan River Inc.) have worked (and continue to work) closely with California to develop an accurate and predictable test method. Many of the options open 

to furniture and mattress manufacturers (barriers, flame-retardant finishes, etc.) 

are not applicable to filled bedclothing because of the nature and use of these products and the intimate contact that they have with the users. 

Any regulation of filled bedclothing should also contain provisions to enforce compliance equally between domestic products and imported products. As currently 

structured, the burden of compliance will rest on the manufacturer. This might not 

be readily applied to a manufacturer of imported goods. It would be prudent to place 

some responsibility for compliance on others in the supply chain who provide products to the consumer to help ensure that they sell compliant goods. The California 

legislation contains no provision to require labeling of compliant bedclothing. A labeling requirement would provide purchasers with a basis for reliance upon manufacturers for compliance with a flammability standard. 

We request that our comments as stated in this letter be included in the public 

record of the July 14 Commerce Committee hearing on the Act. We also call attention to our support of the written testimony submitted by the National Textile Association on behalf of its Textile Bedding Committee of which we are a member. 

75 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. We will be glad to answer 

any questions that you or other members of the Committee might have. 

Sincerely, 

M. L. FONTENOT, 

Chief Executive Officer, 

WestPoint Stevens Inc. 

c: The Honorable Lindsey O. Graham 

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings 

Æ