ISPA continues to support Calif. FR standards
Let's take a moment to set the record straight. In a recent column (May 31, page 27) Furniture/Today's Executive Editor David Perry inaccurately claimed that the International Sleep Products Assn. is "backpedaling" on our support for the California mattress flammability standard. This is simply not the case. ISPA has and continues to fully support the criteria set forth in California's TB603.
Furniture/Today's readers are keenly aware that ISPA's consistent objective over the past several years has been to support the development of a science-based, effective and practical national flammability standard. This remains our objective today.
In pursuit of this objective, ISPA was instrumental in helping to establish the California TB603 performance criteria, and we have been ardent supporters of having the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission adopt the same pass/fail criteria in the new federal mattress standard.
ISPA worked with the California legislature as it drafted the governing legislation to make certain that the California Bureau of Home Furnishings' work would be focused on effective science-based requirements. We provided financial and technical assistance to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in developing the fire science that served as the basis for the California standards.
We also worked closely with California throughout the rulemaking process, and are continuing to work very hard to assist the CPSC as it develops a national mattress flammability standard. Further, we have gone to great lengths to help educate mattress manufacturers and their suppliers on the specifics of the California standard.
ISPA continues to believe that the product performance criteria set in TB603 will be both effective and practical, and we want to see these criteria applied throughout the country to further improve home safety.
As the industry's trade association, ISPA has a responsibility to effectively represent our members' interests. As part of this responsibility we need to alert the membership to issues that will have an impact on their businesses, and work effectively on their behalf.
In the case at hand, there is a difference of opinion — not between ISPA and California as Perry asserts, but between California and the CPSC.
California has formally adopted its mattress standard as required by state law, and states that it will begin enforcing that rule on Jan. 1, 2005. The CPSC's general counsel, however, issued a legal opinion over a year ago stating that under federal law, the California standard is unenforceable until the state has asked for and received authority from the CPSC.
Promptly after the general counsel issued his opinion, we asked California to act in accordance with that opinion, and we have held to that position consistently ever since.
Now, 14 months later, California still has not followed the general counsel's opinion. ISPA simply asks the state and federal agencies to resolve this fundamental issue. If California has valid legal reasons for disagreeing with the CPSC's general counsel, it should explain them in their submission.
This is not a new process to California. In fact, we are aware of a number of similar situations, including a variety of environmental and other safety issues, where California has followed the same process outlined by the CPSC's general counsel. That is, California issues its rule and then obtains the appropriate federal agency's approval of that rule before the state begins enforcement.
There is no reason the same process should not be followed here. Given the important and costly business decisions that our members must make up and down the value chain, no one is served by prolonging this conflict. It is imperative that this matter be resolved now.
We call upon California to request a ruling by the CPSC on the enforceability of the state standard, and we continue to urge the CPSC to establish federal standards in line with the very effective performance standards developed by California. This matter is only going to get more cluttered and confusing as we see other states like New Jersey and Rhode Island consider setting their own differing requirements in this area.
Far from "backpedaling" as Perry asserts, ISPA has been a pacesetter in the development of the mattress flammability standards. Few industries have taken such a proactive role in working cooperatively with government, the scientific and safety communities, and others to improve public safety.
Richard M. Doyle, president and CEO, ISPA
Fabric producers DO talk to each other
Susan Andrews' column, "Fabric producers talking, not always to each other" (May 17, page 33) does not portray an accurate picture of the industry.
There is significant common ground on which the industry stands. Fabric flammability standards, intellectual property protection and market opening, to name a few. On these issues we all "talk to each other," whether we are large or small, North or South, or are members of the National Textile Assn. or not. Some mills have never joined an industry association but have been vitally interested in the issues that affect us all.
There was an Upholstery Committee within the structure of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute that was very effective in representing our segment of the industry on regulatory and legislative issues. When ATMI dissolved, many of us responded to the need to form another group to continue to provide us the forum in which we could monitor those issues that might affect our industry. The National Textile Assn. provides that forum along with an experienced, accomplished support staff in place with strong representation in Washington.
I don't know of another "de facto fabric coalition." Many of us met with Larry Liebenow to discuss forming an "official group to focus on upholstery concerns." It was as a result of that meeting that many of us saw the advantage, both financially and professionally, to create such a group under the umbrella of the National Textile Assn. and its staff. Many of the "big" upholstery mills have never joined an industry association, evidently preferring to go it alone, trusting that those who were members of a trade organization would work on issues that would be beneficial for all. Most of us feel that it is better to be part of industry efforts rather than be on the sidelines.
If there is a split in the industry, it is on the matter of trade policy rather than industry issues. Most of us believe that there is a real difference between "free trade" and "fair trade," and work hard to put fairness into our trade policies. This means not necessarily agreeing with every trade agreement that is negotiated without giving it close analysis as to how that agreement will affect our companies and employees. It means urging our government to correct the "inequities in Chinese currency policies, copyright protections and environmental regulations."
As to the scheduling of a meeting on the official opening day of the High Point market, it was done after much conversation among us. It was one meeting of many, and held at a time that was convenient for most of us. There will never be a time that pleases all. Most of our customers prefer that we come to their showrooms late in the market, and most of us found that the time of the meeting did not interfere at all with our market schedules or the schedules of our customers.
The group continues to grow under the leadership of the National Textile Assn. and staff member Hardy Poole, who has years of experience in Washington working with the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the legislative branch. Mills other than upholstery producers, who share concerns over the same issues, are joining in the effort to get representation that will have positive impact on us all, members and non-members alike. Input is welcomed from all.
Henry A. Truslow III, chairman, Sunbury Textile Mills
