Panel Discusses Open-Flame Regulations for Textile Industry
August 29, 2003
HIGH POINT – Frustrating uncertainty over economic and compliance issues of proposed United States and California flammability regulations – with potentially conflicting requirements – continues to dominate discussions throughout the American and international textile communities.
Acknowledging the need for reasonable and practical regulations for consumer confidence, the so-called "burning issue" is prompting concerted action to establish a preferred national standard, as opposed to a "disaster" of potentially costly compliance if various states promulgate their own regulations and likely conflicting requirements.
"Our preference is for a national standard to preempt state standards," said Richard S. Taffet, a lawyer representing the textile industry in remarks to industry leaders at Showtime in High Point, N.C. In a breakfast panel discussion sponsored by Sipco Publications, Taffet, of the New York law firm of Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, provided a regulatory overview of "the burning issue" along with observations from fellow panelists, Patti Adair, assistant vice president for textile products and standards, American Textile Manufacturers Institute; and Henry A. Truslow IV, president of Sunbury Textile mills.
Taffet said the regulatory process possesses critical unknowns for the industry, in particular whether the federal process at the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) can move from the comment stage to the regulatory stage and blunt efforts by California regulators wanting their own standard.
The industry's legal advisor reported that federal and California authorities have met privately to address the issue of potential conflicts, without saying whether they have or are close to any regulatory harmony.
The existence of multiple flammability standards poses a series of potentially costly and inefficient compliance obstacles for the industry, Taffet explained without specifying a dollar amount or percentage increase in costs to manufacturers.
All panelists agreed on the need for a uniform national standard and a desire to protect consumers practically and effectively. They also praised industry leaders who, under the initiative of Quaker Fabrics, established a coalition of textile manufacturers to acknowledge the safety issue and agreed to bear the costs of flammability together in a fair and equitable manner.
Adair of ATMI called on the industry to marshal its resources and respond in a concerted manner. "We still have time at the CSPC and with the California Bureau of Home Furnishings," she said. "We are working with California so if any regulations do become enacted they won't be a killer economically."
Adair said she worried that California will remain aggressive to be the first with the regulations which, if enacted, would become effective in either 2004 or 2005. Right now the concentration is on bedding in establishing an open-flame standard for mattresses and "top of bed" materials such as comforters, pillows and related textiles, which could be proposed as early as this fall.
Truslow of Sunbury said the emergence of flame-resistant barriers to protect the cushioning foam – the chief fuel in fires – "is a step in the right direction." Preventing accidental flame ignition constituted the focus on industry's desire to establish reasonable and practical regulations.
In dramatizing the difference between accidental and intentional open-flame ignition of textiles, Truslow ignited the flame on a typical cirgarette lighter, keeping the flame burning for 20 "long" seconds and, in another example, holding the flame for five seconds.
"This is the difference between accidental and intention ignition," he said, explaining that protecting the foam for at least five seconds constituted reasonable and practical regulatory action. He implied that no law could prevent intentional ignition, saying that few textile products could be reasonably protected from an open flame for 20 seconds.
A national standard provides the industry with some protection from imported textile goods, which would have to meet the regulatory standards in order to be sold in the United States, Taffet explained.
If and when regulations possess the force of law, the panel indicated that manufacturers and retailers would be required to institute a consumer education program to explain the safeguards, as well as how certain after-market fabric protection systems could become safety issues as well as rendering any product warranties and guarantees useless.
Acknowledging the need for reasonable and practical regulations for consumer confidence, the so-called "burning issue" is prompting concerted action to establish a preferred national standard, as opposed to a "disaster" of potentially costly compliance if various states promulgate their own regulations and likely conflicting requirements.
"Our preference is for a national standard to preempt state standards," said Richard S. Taffet, a lawyer representing the textile industry in remarks to industry leaders at Showtime in High Point, N.C. In a breakfast panel discussion sponsored by Sipco Publications, Taffet, of the New York law firm of Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, provided a regulatory overview of "the burning issue" along with observations from fellow panelists, Patti Adair, assistant vice president for textile products and standards, American Textile Manufacturers Institute; and Henry A. Truslow IV, president of Sunbury Textile mills.
Taffet said the regulatory process possesses critical unknowns for the industry, in particular whether the federal process at the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) can move from the comment stage to the regulatory stage and blunt efforts by California regulators wanting their own standard.
The industry's legal advisor reported that federal and California authorities have met privately to address the issue of potential conflicts, without saying whether they have or are close to any regulatory harmony.
The existence of multiple flammability standards poses a series of potentially costly and inefficient compliance obstacles for the industry, Taffet explained without specifying a dollar amount or percentage increase in costs to manufacturers.
All panelists agreed on the need for a uniform national standard and a desire to protect consumers practically and effectively. They also praised industry leaders who, under the initiative of Quaker Fabrics, established a coalition of textile manufacturers to acknowledge the safety issue and agreed to bear the costs of flammability together in a fair and equitable manner.
Adair of ATMI called on the industry to marshal its resources and respond in a concerted manner. "We still have time at the CSPC and with the California Bureau of Home Furnishings," she said. "We are working with California so if any regulations do become enacted they won't be a killer economically."
Adair said she worried that California will remain aggressive to be the first with the regulations which, if enacted, would become effective in either 2004 or 2005. Right now the concentration is on bedding in establishing an open-flame standard for mattresses and "top of bed" materials such as comforters, pillows and related textiles, which could be proposed as early as this fall.
Truslow of Sunbury said the emergence of flame-resistant barriers to protect the cushioning foam – the chief fuel in fires – "is a step in the right direction." Preventing accidental flame ignition constituted the focus on industry's desire to establish reasonable and practical regulations.
In dramatizing the difference between accidental and intentional open-flame ignition of textiles, Truslow ignited the flame on a typical cirgarette lighter, keeping the flame burning for 20 "long" seconds and, in another example, holding the flame for five seconds.
"This is the difference between accidental and intention ignition," he said, explaining that protecting the foam for at least five seconds constituted reasonable and practical regulatory action. He implied that no law could prevent intentional ignition, saying that few textile products could be reasonably protected from an open flame for 20 seconds.
A national standard provides the industry with some protection from imported textile goods, which would have to meet the regulatory standards in order to be sold in the United States, Taffet explained.
If and when regulations possess the force of law, the panel indicated that manufacturers and retailers would be required to institute a consumer education program to explain the safeguards, as well as how certain after-market fabric protection systems could become safety issues as well as rendering any product warranties and guarantees useless.
