Jump to:

NYSA TI Single-Page 1

Date: Dec 1980
Length: 154 pages

Jump To Images
nysa_ti_s1 TI07692656-TI7687001


Ra~alations (?AR) to ~provo ~he ~urvlvablllt~ of ai~rsf~ ~n accident3 resul~tn~ ~ro~ ~n~nt~oual"o~ un!n~ntioaal wate~ contact. (Resula~o:y ~ocke~ ~o.


Named Organization
Advocacy Institute
An anti-tobacco organization based in Washington, D.C.
AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor/Congress of Industrial Organiza)
Labor Union
Agriculture Department (USDA)
Air Force
ALPA (Closed-shop Airline)
American Board of Internal Medicine
American Cancer Society
American College of Chest Physicians
American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM)
American Heart Association (Voluntary health organization that focuses on cardiac health)
Voluntary health organization that focuses on cardiac health and stroke. AHA occasionally teams with tobacco retailers to engage in promotions/fund-raisers (see http://www.smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages/247136.html and http://www.rawbw.com/~jpk/stand/Pictures.html).
American Lung Association
Voluntary health organization concerned with fighting lung disease, promoting lung health and advocating clean air, indoors and out.
American Medical Association (physicians group)
Professional trade group representing American physicians.
American Public Health Association (Public health organization)
Professional organization for people working in public health
American Society of Internal Medicine
ASH (Action on Smoking and Health)
Action on Smoking and Health
Associated Press (AP) (National Uniform Press Service)
Association of State and Territorial health Officials (ASTHO)
Avon (Makeup)
Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union (BC&T)
Boeing (Aircraft manufacturer)
Bureau of the Census
CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Coalition on Smoking OR Health (public action arm of the National Interagency Council on Smo)
Coast Guard
Department of Commerce (DOC)
*Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department of Transportation (DOT)
DePaul University
Djarum (Indonesian cigarette manufacturer, 1994)
1994 Indonesian cigarette manufacturer
Eastern Airlines
EEC (European Economic Community)
European Economic Community
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
European Community
Federal Aviation Administration (Ruled on smoking on U.S. flights)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Federal Register (publication)
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Finance Committee
Foreign Agricultural Service
General Accounting Office
*Health and Human Services (HHS) (use United States Department of Health and Hum (US)
House of Representatives
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (WHO cancer research arm)
International Agency for Research on Cancer - The cancer research arm of the WHO. Conducted a multi-center epidemiology study on ETS, initiated in 1988, data collection completed in 1994 and results were published in 1998
International Tobacco Information Inc. (INFOTAB) (Int'l Tobacco Information Clearinghouse for industry, NMAs)
ICOSI (International Commission on Smoking Issues) was formed around 1978. It was reorganized in 1980 or 1981 as INFOTAB. Infotab is an information clearinghouse that collects articles and legislatlve information. Data Is funnelled to Infotab by members of the industry. The founding companies are R.J. Reynolds International, BAT, Philip Morris, Reemtsma, Rothmans, Imperial andGallaher. The last three companies dropped in and out. A company had to give three years' notice to resign. BAT gave its notice to resign in late 1987 in conjunction with B&W's resignation from TI. BAT and B&W's resignations were partially because of the Barclay controversy. The companies pay the Infotab dues, but the beneficiaries include the national manufacturing associations(NMAs) . NMAs worldwide receive newsletters from Infotab. They can call and get information on various topics. G.C. Hargrove of BAT was on Infotab.
Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health (Congressional committee)
International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IARC") (International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IRAC"))
International Agency for Research on Cancer ("IARC")
Japan Tobacco Inc. (Japanese gov't -owned tobacco company)
Japanese government -owned tobacco company, until 1994.
JTI (Japan Tobacco Inc.)
Japan Tobacco Inc.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Ministry of Health (Located in Singapore)
National Academy of Sciences
National Association of State Boards of Education
National Automatic Merchandising Association
National Governors Association
National Institutes of Health
National Transportation Safety Board
New England Journal of Medicine
New York Times
Nonsmokers Rights (California anti-smoking organization created by Stanton Glan)
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Office on Smoking and Health
Responsible for creating reports on the health effects of smoking. Created by the Public Health Service.
Pan-American Health Organization
Philip Morris & Co. Ltd. (Cigarette manufacturer, incorporated in U.S. in 1902)
Philip Morris & Co. Ltd.., was incorporated in New York in April of 1902; half the shares were held by the parent company in London, and the balance by its U.S. distributor and his American associate. Its overall sales in 1903, its first full year of U.S. operation, were a modest seven million cigarettes. Among the brand offered, besides Philip Morris, were Blues, Cambridge, Derby, and a ladies favorite name for the London street where the home companies factory was located - Marlborough.
Philip Morris Companies Inc. (Parent company of Philip Morris USA, Kraft, Miller)
America's seventh-largest industrial enterprise in 1993, owns Kraft, Miller Brewing, General Foods, and more.
Price Waterhouse (Accounting firm)
R.J. Reynolds Corporation (second tier subsidiary of RJR Industries)
Reuters (News organization)
San Francisco General Hospital
Saturday Evening Post
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Smokers Rights Association
STAT (Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco)
Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco - anti tobacco group started by Joe Tye.
State Department
Stop teenage Addiction to Tobacco (STAT is a anti-smoking group (1994))
STAT is a anti-smoking group (1994)
Tobacco Merchants Association
Tobacco Exporters
Tobacco Institute (Industry Trade Association)
The purpose of the Institute was to defeat legislation unfavorable to the industry, put a positive spin on the tobacco industry, bolster the industry's credibility with legislators and the public, and help maintain the controversy over "the primary issue" (the health issue).
Tobacco Stabilization Corporation
Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU)
U.S. Air
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Trade Representative
United States Congress
United States Department of Health and Human Services
United States Senate
United States Tobacco Company (Producers of Copenhagen/Skoal chewing tobacco)
Producers of chewing tobacco
University of Helsinki
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
US Army
World Bank
World Conference on Smoking and Health
World Health Organization (Concerned with global public health)
International organization concered with public health worldwide
Named Person
Allen, Richard
Alleyne, George
Atkins, Chester G.
Beck, David
Blake, Neal
Boisse, Michelle
Bond, Fred
Bond, Fred G (Flue-Cured Tobacco Coop. Gen. Manager)
Testified before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee (S.1418).
Bond, James
Bristow, Lonnie
Broderick, Tony
Browder, Glen
Brown, Hank
Buckley, Robin
Burton, Dan
Callahan, Sonny
Campbell, Reba
Chen, Ted
Chilcote, Samuel D., Jr. (TI President (1981-1997))
Chilcote has knowledge of The Tobacco Institute's and the tobacco industry's participation in public fraud and disinformation relative to health hazards of tobacco use, in the manipulation of nicotine in tobacco products and in marketing of tobacco products to children.
Clarke, James
Clay, Bill
Clement, Bob
Coble, Howard
Cochran, Thad
Cohen, James
Coleman, Ronald
Connolly, Greg
Connolly, Gregory N.
Cox, Chris
Crane, Phil
Dae, Kim
Davidson, Jolly Ann (Former President of National Association of State Boards of)
Davis, Bob
Davis, Ronald
Delay, Tom
Dickenson, Bill
Dodd, Robert S.
Dumais, John
Duncan, Jim, Jr.
Duvall, Charles
Dyson, Roy
Edwards, Mickey
Egge, Lynne
Emerson, Bill
Engen, Don
Engen, Donald D.
Flippo, Ronnie
Flood, Al
Foege, William H., M.D. (CDC Director)
Ford, Bill
Ford, Charles
Forester, Jean
Forster, Jean, M.D. (University of Minnesota)
Gallo, Dean
Gaydos, Joseph
Gekas, George
Gingrich, Newt (Speaker of the House after Republicans regained control of H)
Speaker of the House after Republicans regained control of House in 1994
Gleason, Marty
Gordon, Bart
Goss, Porter
Grant, Bill
Greer, Edward
Gunderson, Steve
Hancock, D. Michael
Hancock, Mel
Harris, Claude
Harrison, James
Hatcher, Charlie
Helms, Lynn
Hills, Carla
Hills, Carla A.
Hoffman, Marshall
Holloway, Clyde
Hopkins, Larry
Howard, Jo
Hubbard, Carroll
Huckaby, Jerry
Huddleston, Walter D.
Humphrey III, Hubert H (Attorney General, Minnesota)
Hunter, Duncan
James, Craig
Jefferson, Thomas (3rd president of United States, 1801-1809)
Jones, Walter (leader of Tobacco Caucus)
Joyce, John
Keck, C. William
Kennedy, Edward M.
Kennedy, Robert
Kennedy, Ted
Kessler, Jim
Kolbe, Jim
Kolter, Joe
Koop, C. Everett, M.D. (Surgeon General ('81-'89))
former US Surgeon General (1981-1989)
Kreider, Jim
Lagomarsino, Bob
Lancaster, Martin
Leath, Marvin
Leavell, Winston
Lehman, Rick
Lewis, Tom
Livingston, Bob
Lloyd, Marilyn
Look, Numbers
Look, Will
Lopez, Alan
Lowery, Bill
Mcconnell, Mitch
Mcgrath, Ray
Mchugh, Lorrie
Mcmahon, Tom
Mcmillan, Alex
Michel, Bob
Mollohan, Allan
Molnar, Jack
Moore, Charles
Mor, Philip
Morrison, Sid
Murtagh, Betsy
Myers, John
Natcher, William
Neal, Steve
Nord, Keith
Novello, Antonia C., M.D. (U.S. Surgeon General, succeeded C. Everett Koop)
Novello, Antonio
Numbers, Al
Obey, David
Panzer, Frederick (TI VP of Issues Management c. 1988)
Vice president of The Tobacco Institute, early 1970's
Paul, John
Perkins, Carl
Pertschuk, Michael (FTC Commissioner (c. 1984))
Peto, Richard
Petri, Thomas E.
Price, David
Quillen, Jimmy
Rahall, Nick
Ray, Richard
Rhodes, John
Roberts, Pat
Rogers, Hal
Rusche, Sue
Sanford, Terry
Scannell, Ray
Seneca, Piper
Simon, Paul
Stevens, Constance
Strong, German
Stuntz, Susan M. (TI Issues Management Director, VP)
Helped organize a program to create a backlash against the insurance industry after they instituted non-smoker discounts for policy holders.
Sullivan, Louis W.
Talbot, Bruce
Tallon, Robin
Thai, Royal
Thompson, Penny
Thurmond, James Strom (U.S. Senator from South Carolina, Dixiecrat candidate for pr)
Traynham, David
Tully, Thomas E.
Tye, Joe (Antismoking activist (1994) (WSJ 5/16/94).)
Started STAT
Wang, Paul
Washington, George
Wax, Henry
Williams, Wayne
Woodson, Walter N. (TI State Activities VP 1992)
Master ID

Related Documents:
Date Loaded
16 Mar 2005

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 1: TI07692656
28O contact nu.'vi~ah~s a=elda~t wl~h subsequent ~oaa o~ life 4us ~m drownin~ ~nd hy~oths~'~la~ no ~robl~: exist3. ~n December 1980, ~LPI ~etltlnasd ~hs ~A~ to amend various sections oE F~R Parts |, 2~. 121 and 1~9 of the F~dera~ Avian!on Ra~alations (?AR) to ~provo ~he ~urvlvablllt~ of ai~rsf~ ~n accident3 resul~tn~ ~ro~ ~n~nt~oual"o~ un!n~ntioaal wate~ contact. (Resula~o:y ~ocke~ ~o. 2t22~, ~o~e~ber ~, 1~2) =n December of ~82, ~o years ls~r, ~hs F~A o~ ~hoir r~se~rch would he premature. Arose o~ =oncer~ 8ethane to passenger survival =ontained An ASPA's petition in=Laded ~he use of outdated l~fs vest ~esigns ~hich ere ~if~Icult ~a don. poor survivors out of the v~er to prevsn~ h~ther~ao The Civil Aernsedioal ~neti~e ~c~wr) of ~h. y.~a ~ in ~ha process of resaarchAng ell of ~h~ above concerns. The researchers aC ~A~; are capable ~n~ thorough! ~hsir findings will. as such a~ possible, reflect ~h~ t~Ae na~u~s ~ the ove~¢a~r euFviTal concerns. This Aasocla~ion p!ans ~o very closely 281 As san be seen by our statsment~ ther are many apparently unrelated variables which ifl~luenme accident survival an~ cabin ns~oty. ThAs A~ooo~a~lon has hoo~ On recor~ for ea~y yearn r~queeting improved aa~ety ntandard~ in all those separate areas. Our concern has always been the maximum safety for our passengers and crews. ~ho reason ~hy many of the safety ~provenente ~ade p~setbleby the ~AA and industries research, and the advancement o~ technology not bein~ ~nplcmcnted re.nine a mystery to us. The research £s done~ the ~in~ings are ~orwarde~ to ~A£ management at ~0 Indopnndnucs Avon~o ~n ~ashingon D.C. cud no regulations result. If cabin safety and accident increasin~ knowledKc and technology advsnce~ before an accident ooourn~ not iaplement safety measures after sn accident.
Page 2: TI07692657
282 Mr. M]N~rA. Please proceed. TESTIMONY OF JOHN O'BRIEN, DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING AND AIR SAFETY DEPARTMP.NT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, AC- COMPANIED BY ROBERT S. DODD, STAFF ENGINEER; PAMELA CASEY, SECRETARY TREASURER, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT AT- TENDANTS, ACCOMPANIED BY MA~PI'HEW IL FINUCANE, DIREC. TOIL AIR SAFETY, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT A~PPENDANTS AND NORVA ACHENBAUGH, HEALTH COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS; CONSTANCE L STE- VENS., COORDINATOR, HEALTH AND SAFETY, WESTERN REGION, ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT A~PEND- ANTS, ACCOMPANIED BY BETSY MURTAGH, NATIONAL SAFETY DIRECTOR, TWU LOCAL 5~3; AND LYNNE EGGE, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, IUFA Mr. O'BIt~.N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. M~NgrA. Ms. Stevens, you are sitting right in the middle. Why don't we start with you? Ms. ST~.vv.~s. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Aviation Subcom- mittee members, I am Constance Stevens and I am here today on behalf of the Association of Profe~ional Flight Attendants, the In- dependent Federation of Flight Attendants, the Independent Union of Flight Attendants, and the Transport Workers Union of Amer- ica, L~cal 553. I am accompanied by Lynne Eggs, IUFA, and Betsy Murtagh, TWU Local 553, and we are here to respond to your ques- tions. Collectively, we represent over 27,000 flight attendants. We would like to take this opportunity to commend you, Mr. Chairman, and the Aviation Subcommittee members and your staff~ for your continued dedication to the improvement of aviation safety and for the consistent support you have shown toward flight attendants' concerns. We would also like to commend the Inve~tio gations and eyesight Subcommittee for all their efforts on our behalf as well. Mr. Chairman, we are in total agreement with the intent of the~e hearings. We, too, have been frustrated by the regulatory process, or lack thereof, and believe that it is time to see some re- ~ult~. We applaud your effo~s in this direction. Our statement is purposefully general in nature. We do not pre- sume to be the experts in the legislative versus the regulatory con- troveray. That is your area of expertise, but we do want to do all that we ca_n to promote ~abin safety Bnd have the comfort of know- ing that the environment in which we are working is as safe and healthy aa the state of the art will permit~ We" believe that as line flight attendants we are the best source to tell it like it is. Briefly, the areas on which we would like to comment today are as follows: (1) air quality; (2) fire protection technology; (3) emer- gency equipment; and (4) other problem areas. One, the cabin air quality issue is definitely in need of review and because of this we would like to encourage you to join "the ~[~c~ate ~.y pa~ing legislation requiring that a study be done. We 233 We have ha.d to ~overcome blatant hara~ment in getting the problem r,ecognized. So,me. o.f our member~ have been told that they are the omy ones comp|a|nmg and that if the work environmen(~ is too much for ,the,m the.re .a~,e a. lo~o.f people willing to replace them. There nave a~so_ ~e.n memento o~ insurance companie~ refu~ing to pay for the me_dical cost~ of flight attendants suffering from the ef- fe¢~ of poor cabin air. We strongly support the need for the continued research in the be~t interests of pa~engers and flight ~ttendants' health. The com. plaint~ from p~engers and crew members have been significant over a period of several years. We do have some documentation which we wish to submit at a later time ~ Some preliminary work has been done by our associations, by D~-. Jame~ Cone and by the San Francisco Occupational Health Clinic at San Francisco Gener- al Hospital. The data collected has been through surveys involving three major carriers with a geographical dispersion in five major metropolitan area~. The chemical contaminants and particulate matter within the aircraft environment are many and include such diver~ problvma a~ overexposure to ozone, carbon monoxide, chemicals, pathogens, and carbon dioxide fumes found in the galley areas. There are al~o the effects of low humidity and pressurizational levels to be consid- ered. We do have a great deal of background information. Included in_this.are reports of wi.de-bedy, lower-lobe galley problems. Further, as part of the air quality study, we request air quality monitoring devices be considered for placement aboard all commer. cial aircraft. Two, now we would like to make a few comments regarding fire protection technology. Recent incidents have pointed out the grave need for action on new methods of smoke detection coupled with improved firefighting equipment and improved training methods. Such items as automatic e~tinguishing systems, standardization of hand-held t~re, e.x.tinguishe_rs, smoke hoods and/or goggles, low level emergency fign~ing, and flame retardant cabin furnishings should he important priorities. Carriers have definitely not kept up with the~ ~,tate o,f the_art in this mo~t important area. ~nougn galleys are potentially a source for fires, the~e areao ~r~e~__constan.tl.y,,m~onito _r_ed or occupi.ed because they are without _u_~,_.~, a~ w,s,m[e Iro_m the aisles and passenger seats. Also, carrier pouches ao a~ow smoking for flight attendants in galleya which are located in smoking sections. The galleys that are an exception to this are the lower lobe galleys which are not alway~ occupied and .are not in_passenger view. It is an approved flight attendant smok- ing area. We point this out not in opposition to the placement of smoke d.etectors in galleys but to point out that the ~ame device~o used in lavatories might not be practical in galleys. Although automatic fire extinguishing systems throughout the cabin would be ideal, they are definitely indispencable in the POorly monitored areas suc~ as lavatories and lavato trashbin~. e~tTi~g?i'st~.h._e_atand.ardiza..tion a.nd state of_the art of harYnd-held fire ._. ,~,,, -~ng eqmpmen~ is obvious. Flight attendants ~ometime~ wore aa many as three different type~ of aircraft in 1 day. It would
Page 3: TI07692658
284 ~rcatly improve our ability to effectively fight a fire if the equip- ment and the placement were essentially the same.. The need to provide a smoke-free, breathable en~aronment in the event of an emergency has been demonstrated by the numerous deaths resulting from cabin fires. For those who must direct evac- uations in such an event, the need to breathe, give commands, and be able to ~e is crucial. For this reason we favor smoke hoods and/ or gocgles at the very least. Presently, all cabin emergency lighting is at ceiling level. This is appropriate for making passengers aware of the location of emer- gency exits during pa~enger safety demonstr_a.tions_; howeve.r,,it is hardly effective in an emergency situation. Thereibre, we relieve that emergency lighting should be at a low level since this is where the breathable air will be found and visibility is greatest. Technology hm~ come a long way in the area of flame retardant material. We believe that the traveling public has a right to expect the use of state of the prt from an industry as visionary in many ways as aviation. Three, with regard to the upgrading of first aid kits or the place- ment of additional medical supplies on the aircraft, we are in total a~reement with the intended purpose of providing improved emer- gency care for our passengers and crew. We do have r~e ~r)r_ations as to the actual implementation of either this pending legislation or of any future FAR's. We have concerns regarding the contents, the locations, the designated users, and the increased extent of li- ability for the flight attendant crew. We applaud the attempt to move toward standardization for all crew training and emergency equipment including lifevests. Here, too, we would like to have state of the art as the prevailing stand- ard. We encourage the Federal Aviation Administration to do all that it can to promote more effective communication between the cabin and the cockpit. We strongly suggest that the Federal Aviation Administration reevaluate the regulations regarding carry-on baggage. • We urge that the public address systems receive closer scrutiny from the Federal Aviation Administration. ' We would like to remind the committee that the flight attendant is representative of the training provided by the carrier which is approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. We would also like to see improvements in this vital area. When traveling, Mr. Chairman and committee members, we urge you to note where the FAA and the carriers have placed their pri- oritiee. In closing, we would like to say in our opinion the Federal Avia- tion Administration ha9 had every opportunity to take positive action. As we stated in our opening remarks, we are not exports in the legislative versus regulatory dilemma. However, we do feel that positive action must be taken to protect the safety and health of the traveling public and crewmembers. The time is ~ow. Mr. Chairman, this ~oncludes our prepared statement. We will be pleased to respond to any questions you and the other commit- tee members may have. Mr. MzN~rA. Thank you very much, Ms. Stevens. 285 Ms. Casey. Ms. C,~sEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As flight attendants we work and almost live in thv cabin envi- ronment. We are responsible for the safet~y of passenger~ in emer- gencies. When a crash occurs, we are the ones who must bear wit° heSS to the problems created by lack of adequate cabin eafety standards. We are the ones who are sometimes the victim~ of tho~e inadequate standards, so you will excuse us if we are upset about the FAA's 20 years of delay in operating cabin safety. It is not an academic issue to us. It is the question of our ~afety and the safety of our passengers. I would like to begin by thanking the chairman and the subcom- mittee for scheduling these hearings on the important i~ues of cabin fire safety, water survival, cabin air quality, and emergency medical equipment. This subcommittee's concern for air ~afety is well known and respected throughout the indusLry. Your concern is greatly appreciated by the 21,0D0 flight attendants at the 14 car- riers we represent. We wholeheartedly endorse H.R. 5428, a bill to minimize the haz- ards of fire and smoke aboard aircraft. We think the most impor- tant aspect of this bill is that it would require the airlines to im- prove all interior cabin furnishings and bring them up to the state of the art in terms of flammabfllty. As Congressman Levitas stated in testimony before you, this sub- committee and the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight has received a great deal of testimony from equipment manufactur- ers that there are better cabin materials available from a flamma~ bility standpoint. Indeed, tJ~e major aircraft manufacturers have come before these subcommittees and stated that they are putting better materials in some of their newer aircraft types. We believe that all aircraft should share in the benefit of these technological advancements and that reasonable timeframes for retrofit should be required as the bill provides. These retrofit requirements should not be excessively burdensome on the air carriers becauee some of the materials that are being developed, such as the panels that NASA is working on, would weigh less than the materials now being used. While we applaud the fact that the FAA has begun to move for- ward on seat fire-blecking layers, it is important to remember that seats are only one hazard in the cabin interior during a fire. There are still carpets, rugs, overhead bins, lavatory panels, ceiling panels--all of these can and will contribute to fire and need to be upgraded from a fire hazard standpoint as the bill would require, However, we would urge the subcommittee to go beyond H.R. 5428 and require the agency to issue rules governing omoke and g~s emissions for burning cabin materials. In spite of these ad- vances, it is now 1984 and we still do not have a notice of proposed rulemaking [NPRM] on smoke and gas from the FAA. We, ther~ fore, believe it is time for Congress to set a deadline in this matter. We think that the December 31, 1984, deadline set out in the bill for most NPRM's is a reasonable one in light of the fact that after ~l~A~i,r Can.ada fire the agency itself appeared ~to be p~romising an
Page 4: TI07692659
~.86 Even if we make the materials on board safer, we are still going to have fires on board and some additional measures must be taken, Congressmen Levitas, Molinari, and Glickman, the drafters of H,R. 5428, are correct in identifying protective breathing devices for the crew as an essential fire safety measure. If we are su~ppesed to ~o into a smoke-filled galley or lavatory to put out a nre, we should have protective breathing devices which exclude the smoke- filled cabin air. If we are going to prepare the cabin for a landing, pa~ out wet towels to the passengers, aged as~.ist in an evacuation during an inflight fire, we need a way to breathe. _ Passengers should also be given some kind of protection from smoke-filled cabin air. At present, passengers using t.he. ox~g. en mask at each seat during a decompression are provided only a small amount of pure oxygen through the mask because that is all they need. The rest of the volume of air that they breathe comes through a valve in the mask which allows in ambient cabin air. There is also a valve in the mask to allow the passenger to exhale. In a smoke-filled environment, the current system will not work because the air coming in through the intake valve in the mask will be filled with smoke. How can we keep smoke from coming in through the mask? Ac- cording to researchers at the FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute [CAMI,] you can. place a small plastic bag around the intake, and outflow valves in the mask and allow passengers to stmply re- breathe" air in and out of the bag. Apparently, the pure oxygen coming from the on-board system plus the somewhat stale air in the rebreather bag is enough to support life during a cabin fire. It is our hope that the agency will aggressively pursue research into this and other methods of keeping the passengers alive as the plane descends for an emergency landing. The committee should consider instructing the agency to pursue such research as part of this legislation. We also need smoke alarms to let us know when there is a fire, automatic fire extinguishers in receptacles to prevent fires from spreading, I-Ialon fire extinguishers to let us put out fires more ef- fectively, and better training. Many of us only put out real fires in initial training, have little experience in realistic smoke conditions, are not routinely iustrueted in the use of a crash axe, are not told in recurrent training about the electrical systems aboard the air- craft, and are not given any extensive advice on.cockpit/cr.ew, co- ordination during in-flight fires. We are the fire aepartmenz when the plane catches on fire at 30,000 feet. You have to give us a few of the tools and the training that fire departments have, which is precisely what H.R. 5428 would do. We think this is an important bill, a timely bill and a needed bill and we are grateful to Congress- men Levitas, Molinari, and Glickman for their efforts. We also commend Congressman Sundquist for calling for.life vests aboard all aircraft instead of the seat cushions we have _t~t.ay. Seat cushions are difficult to use and could be almost worthless for many people. The Coast Guard does not recommend them for children or nouswimmers. They are going to be awfully hard to hold onto as hypothermia sets in. And the body has a tendency to roll back if you are holding onto one, which is going to put your 287 head barely above water. This not only increases the likelihood that you are going to ingest water and perhaps fuel, but maximizes yo_u.r exposure ~ ,h..yl~, .thermia. Tl~e aanger or aitcning into water, a£ter all, has already been rec- ognized by th_e FAA. We are not asking that the agency suddenly recognize a threat that they have not acknowledged before, In 1966, the FAA issued its regulation to require either a life vest or a seat cushion on all aircraft that traveled over water. In so doing, the agency stated that "since most of the airplanes operating under part 121 fly over water, they will be required to have this emergen- cy flotation equipment aboard." So, the agency already admits that most aircraft should carry some kind of emergency flotation equip- ment. We are just saying that the type of flotation should be a life vest instead of a seat cushion unless we are willing to accept a lot of drownings after a ditching into the water. Let us turn to H.R. 2088, H.R. 2636, H.R. 2142, bills to require emergency medical supplies and equipment aboard aircraft. Not all airline tragedies involve accidents. One of the greatest pmmible tragedies is for someone to die aboard an aircraft due to an in- flight medi.cai emergency with a doctor standing helplessly by cause all that is available is a primitive first-aid kit. Suppose we serve someone a meal and they happen to be allergic to it. Some people can have an acute reaction and die from that in just a few minutes. If we had on board just a simple shot of epi- nephrine, a doctor or a nurse could easily save that person. The same is true for a number of simple life-saving drugs such a~ digi- talis and nitroglycerin for heart problems and glucose '~nd insulin for diabetics. These should all be carried in a simple emergency medical kit aboard an aircraft which would probably cost under $300. The airlines argue that these are not needed because they can just put a plane down in an emergency and have the person taken to the hospital. But a 20- or 30-minute descent and then an ambu- lance ride is a long time for someone having a heart attack or an allergic reaction. And if the airlines are so successful at landing aircraft, you have to wonder why somewhere between 50 and 100 people are dying in flight each year. e are particularly supportive of this legislation because it pro- rides something that we have been asking for for many yearn-- good samaritan protection for both doctors and crew who come to the aid of the passengers. We do not think that doc~or~ or crew should be deterred from saving lives by worries about potential lawsuits. Let me now address H.R. 1338 and S, 197, bills to require a study of cabin air quality. The last bills we would like to di~cum are Con- gressman Heftel's and Senator Inouye's legislation calling for a ~t~dd~Of._c_abin air quality. ~hese bills are not very controve~ial, • t~'t went through the Senate without anyone ever voting against it. They do not require the airlines to do anything. The simply.acknowledge what everyone in this room who flies a lot .re_a~y ~,nows--that the air quality aboard aircraft appears poor-- sure°an maeest the judgment that. we ought, to find. out how peer, to make hat passenger health is not being seriously harmed.
Page 5: TI07692660
When we first testified on S. 197 in 1982, we had 29"/ reports complaining of physical and_ respiratory problems amo_ng p.as~..n- gers and flight attendants. ~ince then, we have received a similar number of complaints and there are no signs that they are abating. Of courage, these complaints are only the tip of the iceberg because not all flight attendants report air quality problems, and the com- panies do not share all the reports they receive with us. The predominant symptoms complained of by both flight attend- ante and passengers in the reports we have are headaches, dizzl- nero, nausea, chest pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, suffecation~ light-headedness, and eye irritation. Flight attendants seen by phy- sicians-and they perceive these problems as work-related--have found elevated carboxyhemogiobin levels, lung nodules with a high carbon content, and reduced pulmonary function. The potential causes of these various symptoms include: reduc- tions in fresh air by the airline~ to conserve fuel, high cabin alti- tudes, high CO~ levels, high levels of ozone due to lack of monitor- ing requirements, cigarette smoke, extreme low humidity, vapors from jet fuels and oils, vapors from cabin interior materials, and poor maintenance of the ventilation systems. The reductions in fresh air to conserve fuel in recent years de- serve particular mention, since many flight attendants believe thb air quality has dramatically decreased during the same time period. Because many of the problems in the cabin air that we have just described cause the same or similar symptoms in passen.gers~ it is difficult to work backward from the symptoms to the m.ajor, causes, of tho~e ~ymptoms. This is why an unbia~,,ed study of cabin atr qual- ity is needed. We would stress the word ~ unbiased" because we had one airline perform a study that was roundly c_riticized by exports as biased and based on inadequate sampling and improper measur- ing techniques. We do not believe that cabin air is a trivial problem, .and we would not be testifying here today unless we had a genmne con- cern about the long-term consequences for frequent flyers, as well as flight attendants, of breathing cabin air. Once again, we are the first to admit that we do not know pre- cisely what the problem in the cabin air is, and there are probably different problems on different flights. On some flights there may not be enough oxygen. On some flights there may be too mu~ch ozone. On some flights toxic fumes may be present in the cabin. On some flights factors such as these may work together to make it unhealthy. The point is that the quality of air s.houid_be s~tud.ied that we can begin to make educated guessps. _a~o_ut_ the~ snor~-. ~r~ long-term effects of breathing this air on the health el passenge and frequent flyers. We would like to again thank the chairman for the opportunity to make this presentation. Mr. Mm~rA. Thank you very much. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'BaIsN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am John OrBrien, director, ~nglneering and air safety department of the Air Line Pilots Aa~ociation. Accompanying me today is Robert S.__Dodd, stt~e~ff" o~,~o,r of our en~ineerin~ and air safety department. We are ~ - 289 tifying today on behalf of the 34,000 ALPA members who fly for 46 airlines. We commend this subcommittee and the authors of the several legislative proposals which are currently under review for your combined interest and concern over air carrier cabin safety. The Air Line Pilots Association" has been actively involved in ef- forts to improve air carrier .cab.in a~_fet.y and. a.c.cident survival for well over 30 years. The majority of th~s activity has centered on the recognition of cabin safety inadequacies, based on accident in- vestigation experience, and then the development of recommenda- tions to the appropriate authorities for the correction of the~e prob- lems. Unfortunately, whereas other aspects of commercial aviation have developed and improved by leaps and bounds, cabin safety standards have basically remained unchanged since the late 1950'e. Our comments today will be directed at the cabin safety legislation which is the .~ubject of thi~ hearing, plus other cabin safety areas which we feel are in need o£ attention in order to improve the pas- sengers' and crew members' ability to survive an accident. These items include cabin crashworthiness, fuel system crashworthine~, cabin and cargo areas fire, cabin evacuation, crew member emer- gency training, and overwater emergency equipment. Our comments on medical kits and cabin air quality are some- what limited since we have not studied these subjects in the same level of detail as the other cabin safety items. Based on our experi- ence, however, the pre~nt first aid kit offers little help for the pas- senger in need of in-flight medical aid. This potential problem be- come¢ of greater concern on extended overwater legs where special. ized medical emergency help may not be available. The subject of improved medical kits has been a controversial topic in this coun- try primarily because of liability concerns. This controversy appears to be one of, the major factors inhibit- ing change to the present medical kit requirements. ALPA will participate in an International Federation of Airline Pilots A~ocia- tion study group which will examine improved medical kits a~ part of its agenda on August 23 and 24 in Denver. We hope to learn from the international carriers who use these improved kit~. Pend- ing the outcome of this meeting we may be in a better po3ition to .offer. constructive comments if FAA publishes an NPRM concern- mg ~mproved kits for U.S. ai,'r carrier. _ . On the subject of cabin mr quality, we have no data to chow thaz air quality in airplane cabins has led directly to any incidents or. accidents. We are aware of complaints from flight attendant~ and pilote regarding ozone As you have probably already heard the cockpit of an airplane ~ provided with a much larger volume of air flew than the cabin This may be the reason why we have not had too many complaints from pilots about air quality. We readily admit that poor air quality can present a health hazard to paten- gets and crew members. Since the flight and cabin crew's perform- ~a~c_~e:,i_n r~esponse to an emergency could be impaired by poor air 2:~-ty,,.w.e support the legislation which proposes a study of the ~.qua.~ty m airplanes. Mr. Chairman, the other bill~ under m~V_~e_w~ by.,y.our committee deal with subject matter we are a little ~e mmniar with.
Page 6: TI07692661
290 Since the introduction of large jet-powered, transport .a.ircraft, there has been a relative increase in the injury and fatahty rate during otherwise survivable accidents. This is caused, to a great degree, by cabin interior furnishings which break loose at relative- ly low-impact loads and injure pa~engers and crew. Some of these furnishings which fail include galleys, coat closets, overhead panels, overhead carry-on baggage bius, seats, and section division panels. While the failure of any one of these cabin components might not prove fatal or injurious, it can certainly hampe_r.or pre- vent egre~ from the aircraft during an otherwise survivable acci- dent. The current FAA requirements for the strength of these compo- nents fall well below that which is currently required in our auto- mobiles and that which the Flight Safety Foundation, U.S. Air Force, and we have recommended. The FAA itself, in 1969, issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, NPRM 69-33, which was later with- drawn, to upgrade cabin crashworthiness requirements to over two times the current cabin structural strength requirements. The Na- tional Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] conducted a special study in 1981 titled "Cabin Safety in Large Transport Aircraft," which resulted in 17 specific conclusions. The Board determined that the current aircraft cabin strength requirements as specified are inadequate and many improvements can and should be made to improve cabin crashworthiness. We concur with these recommendations and encourage the FAA to i~ue a notice of proposed rulemaking to reviso, the applicable Federal Aviation Regulation incorporating these improved stand- ard~. Cabin crash resistance, however, will not ensure that those p.as- ~engera and crew who survive an accident sequence will survave the pestcrash hasard of fire. The posterash fuel fire is the most se- rious threat to survival of the passengers during an otherwise sur- vivable accident. We believe that there are various engineering and construction techniques that can be used to minimize or slow the propagation of these fuel-fed fir~ after an accident. The FAA is currently conducting a research project in thi~ area that abow~ great promise. This involves the use of a fuel additive that will prevent the fuel from misting, as often occurs when a fuel tank ia ruptured. There are, however, technical problems with the concept, and co~t of the additive may be such as to make its use economically unfeasible. For this reason, we feel that efforts must be made concurrent with this program to improve the fuel system crash resistance since antimisting fuel may prove to be impr.actical: The U.S. Army has done this with both their rotor-wing anti fixed-wing aircraft. The Army's efforts have proven extremely suc- cessful in the elimination of postcrash thermal injuries. Some of the technology used by the Army is directly applicable to transport aircraft. We recommend that the FAA continue their research with antimisting fuel but review how best to improve fuel system crash- worthiness with aircraft manufacturer~, baaed on the Army's suc- ce¢~, Reduction of the fuel-fed, postcrash fire will do the most to prevent the death of par~engers and crew members in otherwise ourvivable acoident~. 291 While the pest-crash fire hazard is one of the moat significant in terms of death causation in survivable accidents, the in-flight fire hazard is no less serious due to lack of escape routes available to the passengers and crew and the limited fire fighting capability on beard the airplane. There are four areas that must be addre~ed when cabin fire safety is discussed; these are: fire prevention, detection, extingui~h- moot, and survival enhancement. First, aircraft system design must be accomplished with fire safety in mind to minimize the chance of fire ignition and propaga- tion. Aircraft matrials must be chosen which are fireproof or resivt- ant and produce minimum amounts of toxic gases and smoke. Rules and regulations must be adopted to ensure that acceptable minimum safety standards are determined, maintained, and updat- ed as required. Second, if the fire prevention measures fail and a cabin fire does start, then early detection offers the best chance for successful tinguishment. At present, cabin fire detection is based on observa- tion by pa~engers and crew using sight and smell. There are areas within the passenger cabin that if a fire were to occur, it might not be easily detected. For this reason, we" recommend that smoke detectors be made mandatory in the galley area, lavatories, and any area not easily seen during flight, such as coat closets. This will provide an early warning of potentially devastating fires. Third, it takes an air carrier aircraft at cruise at least 15 min- utes to make an emergency descent, approach, and landing in the best conditions. A cabin fire can prove fatal in less than 15 minutes if it burns uncontrolled. - Therefore, it is critical that proper operating technique be em- ployed to maximize the usefulness of on-beard fire extinguishers. For this reason, we recommend all crewmembera should receive hands~n training with all types of extinguisher~ carried on board the aircraft once a year. This training should include a hot drill, actually putting out simulated cabin fires. This training should include instruction concerning smoke and heat characteristics during a cabin fire, electrical fire hazard~, and crash fire hazards. There are many different items that must be addre~d in the cabin to maximize and extend survival time, Reduction of smoke and smoke gauss, emergency egre~ aide such aa floor level emcr- gency lighting, full-face smoke masks with self-contained air supply for the flightcrew, reduction of cabin flammability, and better pas- senger protection are some of the items which, in combination, can prove to be the difference between a plane full of fatalities or a successful evacuation. Another type of accident where survival time i~ important is the planned or unplanned water contact accident. In thi~ type of acci- .dent, it is possible to have all the passengers and crew survive the impact and escape from the cabin only to die in the water duo to hypothermia and drowning. The present FAA regulations and waiver practices have resulted in a situation where survival equipment has not kept pace with
Page 7: TI07692662
292 technology and many aircraft are operating up to 160 miles off- shore without liferafts. In addition, every aircraft that flies on extended over-water flights should be required to have sufficient liferafts for the plane's capacity. At the present time we are aware of at least 12 airlines that have FAA waivers from this requirement, and we believe the Congre~ could tell the FAA to revoke these waivers. ALPA petitioned the FAA in December of 1980 to change .the .a,p- plicable regulations to improve the situation, l~vo years ~azer me FAA issued a denial of petition. They based their denial on the fact that their research on the issue is ongoing and to make any judg- ments prior to the c.ompletion of this research would be premature. We plan to monitor their progress to ensure that rulemaking is initiated after the research is completed, if it is completed. In our statement submitted for the record, ALPA has provided 11 recommendations; however, in the interest of time we would like to suggest 4 areas the committee should direct the FAA to dress quickly: First, smoke and fire detectors should be installed in the lavator- ies, galleys, and cargo areas of every commercial aircraft, now. Second, exit lights should be required at the seat level or below so that the path to safety will not be obscured by smoke, now. Third, no commercial aircraft should be dispatched if any of its emergency lights and doors are not functioning properly. There should be no discretion left to anyone on this subject ~ mandatory no-go, now. Fourth, life preservers should be required on every commerci_al aircraft. Seat cushions are not adequate. We would prefer that the preservers be placed in front of every passenger, but that might re- quire new seats. So let's get the life preservers on every aircraft ~]rst, and then argue about where is the best location later. All these recommendations will not ensure survival in all situa- tions, but they will ensure the passengers will survive longer in the worstcase situation. That concludes our testimony, Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Mm~r^. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Brien. Let me address this question to the total panel. Mr. O'Brien, you did enumerate at least four issues which we ought to be dealing with, but what about the others? What issues raised in the legisla- tion before us should receive priority attention? In other words, of all the safety problems before us, which is the biggest or most sig- nificant? Mr. O'BmEs. Ms. Stevens, would you like to start off with that? Ms. STEVENS. Specifically with the groups that I am representing today, we would go forward with air quality. Mr. Mm~r^. What would you think is the next? Ms. STsVm~S. Fire protection technology, followed by emergency eqMuipment. r. MINETA. Ms. Casey. Ms. CAs~z. Mr. Finucane. Mr. FmUcAN~-. I think the items in Congressman Levitas' bill are probably the most important because those are the ones where you have the most deaths--from the in-flight fires--and uw~rade in the 293 overall level of the materials in the cabin, starting with the seat- fire blocking layers, would greatly diminish the likelihood of a fire spreadi~ng. You have to realize these changes would have benefits both in the in-flight fire situation as well as the post-crash-fire situation in terms of giving the passenger additional time to get out of the plane, so between the bills, _the fire safety bill would be the most significant because that is where the loss of life is. Mr. Mm~'TA. In your opinion, do the FAA proposals, if enacted on fire-blocking seat materials, low level lighting, smoke detectors and fire extinguishing adequately address the major problems asso- ciated ~w~,'.th flammability? Mr. O Brien, we will start with you. Mr. O'BR[~. I think the only missing item there is toxicity. We dealt with flammability in the legislation that has been submitted, but the question of toxicity I think requires an equal amount of emphasis. Mr. Mm~rA. Agreed. Ms. Sz~vz~s, Absolutely. Mr. Mm~TA. Mr. O'Brien, you state that ALPA has been in- volved in efforts on safety for well over 30 years and that much of the cabin safety ,standards have basically remained unchanged since the late 1950 s. Why has FAA been se slow to strengthen reg- ulations in this area? We have heard that FAA is too concerned with the costs that are imposed on the airlines by strengthening regulations. We have also heard that the FAA bureaucracy is too cumbersome. Let me ask you, what doyou believe to be the problem and w~y is regulation lagging behind the state of the art in many of theoo areas? Mr. O'BR~z~. First, let me say that I think there are some very well intentioned people within FAA. There is work in CAMI and Atlantic City which is directed toward many of these problems. However, after that work is done, somehow it just doesn't find it's way into the regulatory process. Part of the problem may be that in addition to cost, technology is evolving at such a rapid pace that there is always just a little bit better cabin material as far as flammability and toxicity standards are concerned just around the corner. NASA is making extremely rapid strides in some of these areas through the space program. There is always something better just around the corner. The problem is someone has to decide to do something now. If we could deliberalize Mr. Levitas' hill a little bit and take some of those 3 to 5 years and make them news, I think that we might provide the needed impetus to get FAA to imple- ment through a rulemaking process some improvements that could ~made by just taking technology that is available today rather nan waiting for something that may be available tomorrow. Mr. Mm~rA. What about consideration of how much weight is being added to the plane, or how much space it takes? .Mr... O'BmEN. One of the good things about technology is that weights are going down. I have seen some figures that apply to a typical air carrier, airplane, the numbers of pounds that seats make up of the total weight of the airplane.
Page 8: TI07692663
294 One of the interesting things about some of the new materials is that they are also lightweight. We can thank NASA and the space program for that byproduct, so it is not necessarily a weight to pay- load situation that we are worried about. It is a cost situation, pri- marily from the airline's point of view, and the fact that there may be something better just around the corner. Mr. FINUCANV. I would like to second ~dr. O'Brien's remarks about the FAA's search for the perfect solution. I think smoke and gas is the best example of that. The fact that the FAA can't come up with the perfect standard means that they are going to allow materials to go into the cabin regardless of how much smoke they give off and regardless of how much toxic gas they give off, and they pay McDonnell Douglas ~zi00,000 to come up with .the stand- ard, andwhen Douglas came back they said it is no goo~; we want to do further research killing primates with smoke and gas, to see if we can get a slightly more realistic standard. Just getting back to your other question, which was if the FAA goes ahead with its NPRM's, would that be adequate. I wo~d_like to'just mention that the NPRM's only address four areas and there are, I think, 11 areas in Congressman Levitas' bill. Even if they do go ahead, it leaves untouched many areas. Ms. ST~.v~.ss. I have a comment, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the FAA and perhaps an opinion why things are taking as long as they are with proposed rulemaking. It is our feeling as well that the FAA is inundated attempting to enforce the regulations that have already been formulated. A perfect example that we have with one of the major carriers in regard to a minimum crew under PAR-21 with 391, it specifically states minimum crew on board the aircraft for specified time, and we have a major carrier which has elected to not comply, and the FAA has, of course, indicated that that was not acceptable for them to not comply, that they will comply. However, the carrier is still in noncompliance through a dispute, ~,o this point, as we have experienced most recently, is explanatory as to another reason why we feel that there is an attempt to con- tinue dragging i~sues out, having difficulty even complying with what is already there. The carriers are able to dictate to the FAA. That is a feeling. Al.~o, I would like to ask Miss Betsy Murtagh from TWO Local 558 to comment. ~. MURTAGH. It has been my observation from the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 that the responsibilities of the FAIA are to promote air transportation and also for the safety. I think it is really kind of hard to promote a mode of transporta- tion and also increase costs on the carriers at the same time, so that is my observation on why things are so slow. , Mr. MIN~^. One of the proposals in Mr. Levitas bill is that there be regulations to require improved communications between the cockpit and the cabin crew in the aircraft. Can both the pilots and crew describe what you believe should be done to improve com- munications? Is better and more training required, and to what extent are ,cockpi,t and c~.,bin cre,w,s,.trai.n, ed ~g_e.ther !n emergen~cy..pr .ocedur.es, 295 volves the equipment, the communications gear between the flight deck and the back of the plane. Who would like to start off on that one? Ms. ST~.v~.NS. We would be happy to start with that, Mr. Chair- man. In regard to _the training for the major carrier, it is my kno.wledge that we do not have any combined training between the cockpit and the cabin crew, and, of course, we very strongly recom- mend that that be traditionally standard throughout all carriers. Also, in response to the use of cabin equipment, we are not gen- erally trained to use equipment that would be located within the cockpit area. However: we are trained and would request further extensive training, and it would certainly be agreeable for cabin fire fighting equipment. We are in agreement with that. I would also recommend that I think it would be extremely beno. ficial that the cockpit crew, as well, be trained as we are with hands~n in combination. Betsy, would you like to add anything?. Ms. MUR~'AgH. Yes. Ideally it would be wonderful if there was some exchange, recurrent training between pilots and flight attend'- ants, but with increased home study for the pilots that will not be a reality. As an alternative, I suggest that there be some exchange either from a management representative of pilots or video tape.~ to ad- dress methods of improved communication. Recently, there was an incident where the flight attendant had to prepare for a water landing and they did have sufficient time to prepare. They had no timeframe. They could have landed in the water in 1 minute, or in 10 minutes, or in 50 minutes. Those are the types of items that we can address in training. I also feel very strongly that pilots and flight attendants should discuss safety at the beginning of each flight segment, where there should be a safety briefing. Some carriers have a routine safety briefing at the beginning of each sequence of flights. I think that that should not only involve flight attendants, but pilots. Mr. ]VI~s~. Someone said a flight attendant may be on three different pieces of equipment in a day, let me ask on that, when you are coming off one flight and have to get over to another plane. Generally is there a requirement in terms of the time be- tween the flights that flight attendants, flight crews, for a mini. mum period of time between the flights when they transfer like that? Ms. M~JRT~,GH. NO. I am sure that the scheduling departmentv try not to have the crews misconnect their flights, but it is quite conceivable that even a trip that I worked last month, where I would walk on the airplane ~5 minutes before departure, and the aircraft would be boarded and then the pilots might follow me on board a few minutes later. There is no timeframe. Mr. Mm~r~. What about the changes in equipment between, let's say, a 767 and a DC-9, any continuity or standard there? Ms. MUR~AGH. Well, there is a little historical perspective on that. Years ago before the aviation industry was deregulated, it was unheard of that there should ever be a blending of equipment
Page 9: TI07692664
296 Mr. MINErA. MS. Murtagh, could you pull the microphone up a little closer to yourself? What was unheard of?. Ms. MURTAGH. That there should be a blending of equipment. In other words, if you went to work, you flew a 727 baby for a stretch or a 1011, or whatever, and you never had any DC-9 or other type of equipment on your sequence, but with increased pro- ductivity, what is happening is they are blending crew comple- meals. As an example, a DC-951. has three flight attendants. So doe~ the 727 baby. So, for manning you will have those two types of equipment on one trip. Mr. MINErA. How many flight attendants would be on a 727-200? Ms. MURTAGH. Four. Mr. MINgrA. And on the 737-300 how many would be on board there7 Ms. Mt~RI"A(]H. Well, I don't fly that equipment so I don't really know. I think they are saying three. To give you another example, the air bus, the A-300, has a crew complement of six, and the 1011 has a crew complement of seven, but generally speaking they will put both equipment together, and you can be flying a 1011 one leg and an A-300 the next. Occasionally there are very extreme cases. There was a case in Washington about in April or May where we would be going through three or four different types of equipment in one sequence. This was discussed with the management and the problem has been addressed, that this type of combination of equipment three or four for the required minimum crew would not occur, but when I brought this to the attention of the FAA, they weren't interested because as long as ~ou were trained on the equipment it didn't matter if it was the minimum crew or not. Yet it is hard to switch from plane to plane constantly and rotate doors forward, lift buttons up, or press this. I mean the operation can be quite different~ Mr. MIN~rA. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'BRIEN. We certainly would favor a concept of training both the cabin attendants and the flight-deck crew together for emer- gency, evacuation procedures and other cabin-emergency drills. This concept is employed by certain international carriers, large international carriers, foreign international carriers. Also there is one major company in this country which is start- ing dual training or training in cabin emergency techniques. They require the flight-deck crew to come in and participate in the train- ing of the cabin crew, either participate as occupants of a cabin and go through the drill, or to sometimes participate in assisting in the evacuation, designated assistants that the flight attendants might pick out in an emergency situation. This is supposed to give the flight-deck crew a little better per- sportive of what is going on or what might go on or what needs to go on in the cabin in an emergency situation. It is a step in the right direction. It could be more. There is nothing in this area required today at all by any Feder- al regulations. There is no attempt that I am aware of to require anything in this area, but we certainly would not be opposed to that. In fact, we endorse it. Mr. MINETA. With regard to cabin air quality, Senator Inouye's bill d~Ils for a stu_d~ by the National Academy of Science~ while Congressman Heftel s bill calls for a study by the FAA. FAA tells us these issues are being studied now by the Environmental Protec. tion Agency. Do you have a view as to where this matter would best be studied? Mr. F~Nt~CANZ. I think the National Academy of Sciences wou.ld be the best group. They are very independent. They did a very race study of aircraft certification after the I}C-10 crash. I think the only advantage of ha.,ving it done by the_ FAA~ which is really the Heftel proposal, and ~ne original proposal in the Inouyc bill, i~ that you develop some in-house expertise at the agency, in case there is a problem, but right now we would support the Senate version with the National Academy of Sciences. Ms. ST~.v~.~s. Our association as well does support the National Academy of Sciences. In discussion with the San Francisco Occupa. tional Health Clinic, with which we have done extensive research to date, Dr. James Cohen has suggested that that particular agency would be far more independent to deal with and maybe fewer tensions. Mr. M[~A. Mr." O'Brien. Mr. O'Bg[z~. Yes; we would have to bow to the knowledge of our compatriots here who are more attuned to the problem than we are, and second their suggestions. Mr. FINUCANE. That is crew coordination. Mr. MINETA. MS. Murtagh, earlier you were, I guess, referring to the Eastern O-ring accident report. When I read that NTSB acci- dent report, o~e of the things that struck me was the extent that panic among the passengers was a factor in the difficulty that the crew had in getting the passengers ready for the emergency. In your experience, has panic, to the extent described in the NTSB report, been common in such situations? To what extent are crews tra, i,ne~, to deal wi_~h panic among the passengers? tv~8. MUR'PAOH. ~ am certainly trained to deal with panic. I gue~ I have a lot greater knowledge on that accident. I was there at the public depositions. Actually the panic on that aircraR was really located in one specific area of the aircraft, and that was a small group of people in B cabin. One of my other observations about that incident~ Mr. _M.[SzTA. Why B cabin? Closer to~-- IVls. MURT&GH. ][ believe there was a group on board of travel agents that were frightened, and they knew each other and really .overreacted, and it caught on. It is a big airplane, so what goes on m the front may not affect the back. Mr. M~s~rA. Are there any travel agents in the audience~ The Air Travelers Security Act is the subject of panic, I guess. Ms. MURTAGH. But we are trained to handle panic, positive and negative. But part of the problem with crew communication, get- ting back to t~at accident, was the senior on board that aircraft could have advised the passengers in her emergency announce~ meats to unladen their seatbelts, bend over, get the vest from un- derneath your seat, unwrap it, stand up and then put it over our ,h~e_a_d~ put yo~ur arms in the loops, et cetera, but she didn't wantytho ~,p~e szan~ing in the aisles in case they were to have contact with
Page 10: TI07692665
298 the water, and be killed on impact, so part of the difficulW that was experienced with the lifevest on beard that.fl.ig.h,t ~wa~. that people were trying to put them on with their sea~ celts zas~enen, and it is very hard, as you can imagine, to drop that little yellow panel behind your back when you have your seat belt securely fas- tened. Mr. MmgrA. We had Mr. Willimns, who was before the subcom- mittee here last week, but I guess he h~s been talking about this whole issue of the lifevest. As I understand it, the standard is to be able to put the lifevest on in a seated pesition in 15 seconds. I ~ lieve he tried this with the NTSB and others, using the new stand- ard lifevest that is available today. I believe he had five or six vari- etie~ of those various vests here when he testified last week. Is that 1~ seconds donning requirement, given the kind of equip- ment available on board the aircraft and the requirement that it be put on in a seated position, an unreasonable standard? Ms. MmrrAGH. Well, I don't think that it is an unreasonable standard. I wasn't present during the testing. I was, of course, re- minded of these standards by the NTSB, I find it difficult to believe that an average passenger on board a flight could do that in 15 sec- onds. I don't know what group of people they used to get the 15 ~econd.~. It might have been a bunch of flight attendants. Mr. FmUCAN~.. I think that is the problem with the standards. It doesn't specify who they use, how many times they get to put_ it on, what the conditions are going to be, so when CAMI went and actu- ally te~ted the vest it turned out that they couldn't be put on. Mr. Mm~rA. I understand it was suggested by NTSB that the ve~t be able to be put on with a lap belt on. Mr. FmuvAN~. That is right, and the FAA does have a working group that is trying to improve that TSO. The main thing, of course, is to get the lifevest onto the aircraft. Mr, Mm~rA. Mr. Hammerschmidt. Mr. HAMMF.RSCHMllrr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O°Brien, do any of your members fly airlines that have smoke detector? Mr. O'Bm~. Yes, sir. Mr. H~t~e~r. Do you know whether or not they have ex- perienced false alarms, or passenger tamper/rigs, or other problems ~vlth them? Mr. O'Bm~.N. Ye~, they have. Mr. HAMME~£CHMilrr. Do you want to comment any further on that? Mr. O'Bm~. There are smoke de~ectors available that could be u~ed that would reduce that problem and the airline in question h~L9 taken some measures to reduce the problem as well. • I underetand that it is fairly well under control. Some of the ear- lier problems occurred where people were removing batteries from the smoke detectors, and other kinds of nuisance items. Mr. H~MMeeSc~m~r. Were those fairly isolated cases? Mr. O'Bmg~.'I believe so. I don't think it was a widespread situa- tion of people stealing batteries or anything like that, but there were situations found where batteries had been removed. Mr. H^~M~ZSCHM~r. We have been discussing H.R. 5428 here 299 Glickman, which, of course, is a comprehensive bill dealing with cobin-safety issues. ] noticed that in your testimony you addressed oSOrme of those issues, but I didn't see where you mentioned whether not you endorse H.R. 5428. Does ALPA have a position on this legislation? Mr. O'BmE~. ] think we endorse all of the legislation, the con. cepts involved in all of the legislation which has been p.ropo~cd. I know there are some differences in language between bills dealin~ on the same topic. For example, medical kits. We are fully supportive of carrying improved medical kits on beard air carrier airplanes, and there are differences between the House and the Senate versions of the bill, but we certainly support the concept. We look forward to the FAA issuing an NPRM for improved medical kits, and we think through the comments submitted to that NPI~M the controveries involving some of the provisions can be worked out and we will get a suitable medical kit, As far other bills are concerned there is nothing in any of the bills that we are opposed to that we could come out and say no, that provi- sion of that bill is to~lly unacceptable. The concepts invoiced in all those bills we support. Our only comment is that some of them don't go far enough in some of the areas that we have mentioned in our testimony; some areas that aren't covered by any of the bills that we think are important. ...~.. HA~M.M~ERS~CHMilYr. I wo~n't pursue that any more because I mmz pro~aviy ~ongressman ~evitas will want to get your position more clearly on record. Maybe he has already in other hearings. It is my understanding that some time during this summer or fall the FAA will conduct a test of antimisting fuel when it crashes a Boeing 720 aircraft at Edwards Air Base in California. Ba~ed on your knowledge of this particular problem, are }'ou confident that the FAA test will show that the use of an antimlsting additive will be effective in eliminating the p~t~rash fire? Mr. O'BmF~. We think without even conducting the t~t that the antimisting additive will help prevent pest-crash fires. The problem with the concept now is having the additive mixed re rl. " the fuel so ou don't rod . p pe y with mi .... 'Y .... P u_ee_ other problems w~th fuel-burn econo- ~_~,_?-~. m ~_ach ~na~ m one of the problems that is delaying the crash tes~ now, being able to mix that additive properly with the fuel and have the engines run properly, so it is not a question of whether the additive is going to work for the fire-protection concerns, It is a question of whether the additive can work re rl wit thhfrU.e~l system and the engines, p pc y h r. lv~rA. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Brien. We have a call of the House. Since it is a quorum call followed by a recorded vote, I was thinking of calling a recess, Mr, Levit~, Mr. Lsv]~,~,s. I think I will be through in 2 minutes, .M.r. Mm~rA. That is fine with me. w Mr. L~vi~s. I want to just commend the witnesse9 toda ere • . . . There _ so.me very pertinent questions and rots made in ~e testi- ~ne°r~Y~.W~hz..c.h~ I noted th.at Ihad not considee~ed before, but as I un- .... u ~e ~ know in ~he case of Ms. Case and Ms. have s " Y Stevens, you ~ .... Pec~fically endorsed the bill which Mr. Molinari. nnd 1.
Page 11: TI07692666
30O position of ALPA, except you think it ought to go further than it goes. Mr. O'BRIEN. That is correct. We haven't come out and stated ~ublicly endorsements for spec~ifie bills. We think that all of the ills have ingredients in them that would certainly improve the sit- uation as far as survival accidents are concerned. Mr. LEvrr,~s. That was my impression. I happen to agr_ee with you. I think our bill should go further too, but I think just because we can't solve all the problems doesn't mean we shouldn't solve those we can and do it now. Mr. MIN~'TA. Would you just yield on that? Mr. L~.WTAS. Certainly. Mr. MIN~'rA. I don't want to eat into your time here, but in your bill there is nothing on the seat-strength issue. I mentioned the other day that automobile seats are built to withs,_t~nd 20 G's force, and yet the airplane seats are built to only 9 G s. Should we in- clude seat strength also in this bill that Mr. Levitas has before us right now? Mr. O'BRIZN. I would certainly think so. It is more than just seat strength. There are other components in the cabin that could be strength- ened without adding unnecesary weight to the airframe. Mr. M~N~A. We have heard about overloaded overhead bins being a factor in some accidents. There is the issue of survivability and evacuation as a result of obstructions. Mr. F~NUCAN~.. We would definitely support adding seat strength in the bill because if people in a low-impact crash are pinned by the seats or the seats break loose and they are proI~lled through- out the cabin, it is not going to make much difference what the flammability aspects are because they are not going to be able to get out. Mr. LEvrrAs. I thir~k both of the witnesses also suggest toxicity standards also. Mr. ~NUCANZ. And smoke. Mr. L~.VITAs. Let me ask you this, Mr. O'Brien. I have heard reports that one of the exit doors on the 757 air- craft is not operable at the present time. Do you know anything about that? Mr. O'BnmN. There is an ongoing controversy involving all wid.e- body airplanes as far as the minimum equipment list is concernea, about being able to dispatch aircraft with inoperative eme.r~, ency exits. We, as an association, have taken a position in oppoeitmn. ~ that proposal which has 'been advanced by the airlines. We partici- pated in all minimum-equipment-list meetings on all equipment types and actively oppose such proposals. Whether we are successful or not depends to a great degree on what decision FAA finally makes. Mr. Law,As. Thank you. I might just, in conclusion, point out, Ms. Casey, your testimony reminded me of something that is quite significant. On page 2 you pointed out that Boeing testified that it was se_t.- ting up its own design goals for smoke DPA's for its new airoratt that they were building. That is what they testified to before Con- grass. It even went further than that. It is one of the things I really 301 got inspired to move forward on, because of what they said. Tht airline industry, the airframe manufacturers, were telling us tha~ they were designing years ahead, far ahead of the regulatory re quirements. • You say that the standards are not there, the materials are not there, the information is not there, was denied by that testimon~ where they said they were already designing interior material~ structures, and the like, ahead of what they were required, whicl, sort of proves that it can be done, if somebody will just get on with doing it. Thank you for your contributions to air safety and I appreciat~ your testimony this morning. Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much. The subcommittee will stand in recess for 20 minutes. [Recess.] Mr. Mm~rA. We are pleased to have Mr. D. Michael Hancock, director of the Aviation Consumer Action Project and Mr. Corn!sh F. Hitchceck, legal director of the Aviation Consumer Actton Project. We have your statement. You may proceed. The full text of your prepared statement will appear in the record at this point. [Statement referred to follows:]
Page 12: TI07692667
end Co¢nish F. ~Jtchcock, kgal Di~ctor Av~atlon Coaster Action Project Before the Subc~ttee on Av~at~o~ C~tte8 on Public Works and TEansportation Wa~hlngton, Chaises Miners, m~eru of'th~ Subco~ttee¢ On b~half of th~ Aviation Coaster Act£on Project (AC~), touchln~ on aviation safety. Poundod in 1971, A~ ~s ~e only non-profit coaster or~,~zat~on working full-t~ on avlat~on issues, and ~t ~s fundod by contrlbu~1ons f~ the pubEi~. A~ ~s long been v~ouu rulcmaklng pro~odings before the Federal Aviation lutratlon on a n~b~r of the ~ssues £n chB 1~gislation before In the ~St of a~] possib18 worlds, ~. ~a~ these hoarin~ would ~ unn~ce=~a~ ~ecause the F~uld have addressed the~ probl~s years agO. UnforEunately, ~he F~ has ~ended to glvo cabin safety Issuo. a ~prior~ty, even when uos~-effectlve ~i£a-uav~n~ step. c~ be ~aken. ~hus, it Is ~mportant for Congress to take,n ro1~ by telling the F~ that you are t~red of ~issed dead1~n~u an~ Vague ansuEanaas that th~ ag~nc~ w£11 "do ot uom~ un3peclflod t~e ~n the future. ~ are aw~e of your c0nc~rn~ ~. Chaises, ~at Congress not ~nject itself t~ deeply into the details of what a specific safety rule should say, as it is Important to give the regulatory agency some latitude to exercise its diseretiOno There is no such risk under the bills before ~ou on cabin safety, life vests and ~J~ergency medical kits. These bills do no more than give the FAA ot~ic~ deadlines for setting standards that are attainable today° That is an entlrely proper thing for Congress ~o do --- to %011 the agency that it wants results by a certain date. ACAP pet/cloned the FAR to adopt standards to reduce tho hazards from post-crash fires in 1972 and in 1973 wo urged tho agency to adopt standards limltlng smoke and gas emiusi0nu frc~ burning cabin makerlaIs. We're still waiting. From 1979 to 1980 ACAP also served on the Special Aviation Fire and ~plosion Reduction ~ER) Advisory Co~ittee, which re'sounded a uor~os of steps to reduce the hazards associated with aircraft f~rou, in particu1~r post-crash fires. At the ~o, the P~% told un ~ha~ the specific t~etables proposed by the C~ttee wuro doyle. Unfortunately, but perhaps hyp1cnlly, pr~ros~ h,~ ~oon ~. Chaim~, yo. well kn~ ~ha~ ~ho p~obl~ addro~sod by the pend£ng bil£s are not new or without solutions. Tho ho=in~u held by you and your predecessor~ on the Over~ght and Investi- gations Subco~¢ttee helped keep pressure on the F~ to act. ~ it now appe~s that legisl~tlon ~s nued¢~ ~n orde= for thouo llfo saving stand~ds to be apopked.
Page 13: TI07692668
~04 The s~e cabin safety hazacds identlfled by the National Trsnsportation Safety Board, Congress and others are sti£1 pres- ent ~oday. N.R. 5428 doss nothing more than Set a fixed dead- lavatories, =afar cabin interior materials, improved fire extln- gulshers, cabin ~mergsnoy lighting nnd better evacuation slldes. The b111 is modeot in scope, os it =equ~res ~hat these x~leJ~ak- Ln~ be comPlote~ b~ the end of 1985 end specifies when the effec- ti~ dates shall be. In ~ev~ral Instance~ these timetables simply adopt the FAA'~ own pre~iou~l~ a~noun¢~ timetables. This ~egislatlon ks a necessary step becauo~ that agency h~ proven incapable of acting decioIyely~ pre£~rring instead to study a p~oblum to death. Let me ~ddre~s the ~pee~flo proposals contained ~n H.R. 5428. ~ The FAA had isou~d NPRM'o on several areas addressed hy this b¢IZ, largely in responds to the Ai~ Canada tragedy of blocking layers in coats that would give passengers an extra 50 seconds to evacuate ~ plane~ an ~mportant extra margi~ of oafe~¥. Yst an NPRM requiring more stringent fla~mabilit~ levels £cr ~eat ~Ishlonu was not issued until October 11, 1983. This Eulemaklng shows all the ~igns of being long add drawn out, without any assurance that It will reach a satisfactory conclusion, and eve~ if a rule ks issued, the airlineo will hs~e three years to actu~lly install seat flrc blocking layers on their airplanes. Th~F legi.lat~on would assure oposdy adoption of this Important 30~ safety innovation, an~ ~t generously gives the carriers until ~he end of 1988 to retrofit their seato. • The FAA has long known that cabin fire. and the ro0ultln~ smoke rapidly obscure the llqhts and emergenc~ exit ~arklng9 in the cabin~ thus making evacuation more diffic~Ito AS earl~ US 1965~ the ~TSB ¢eec~m'aended improvements that would emergency eYaC~atlo~ by offering emergensy li~hts and uxlt ~s ~n the lower cabin. The p~ finally ~ssued ~n NP~ October 1983, but, l~ke seat fire b~o~k~ng layer~, no ~p~ed~ nCt~on forthcomlng. e The ~stallatlon of ~oke ~1~s in 1~v~torle8 w~u f~rut proposed ~y the ~SB in ~973 ~fter ~n in-fl~gh~ l~vntory k~lled 124 ~ople aboard a Var~g p~ n~Par~.~ Pranc~. Th~ the lavato~ area by flight attend.sis would d~Ini~h the b~llty of la~a~or~ f~re~, nn approach with which the S,fety ~ou~d In light of the Air Canad~ fire~ w~ bel~eve that rely~n~ on ~ew ~nspectlon alono~ though, ~s not sufficient to ~nuuro w~nin~. By the t~e the fLre was noticed, it we. apparently too Fl~ght attendants have many ob~igatlons and u~nnot ly be monitoring the lavabos. Moreover, f~res in a lavator~ can spread ~apldly s~nce, wlhh the ~cep~lon of hhe receptacles, cabin
Page 14: TI07692669
ventiletlon in the lavatory for ~or prevention. The Air Canada firs and the Varlg srash hath seem to highlight the fact that the trash receptacles in the lavatory are not the only possible ignition 8suttee Thus, the fire- proofing o£ the lavatory receptacles, even if this warn adequate ~o prevent trash fires, i= inadequste to pcnvnnt all fires in this enclosed area. Sm0~e detectors and eut~ma~ic ~ire extin- guishers are the only effective solutions. The requirement of portable helen fire extinguishers will will have available effectlve~ non-tex~o~ state of the art f~re extingulshe~s with which to deal wlhh cabin fires, regardless of thelr source. The FAA has finally ~sponded to the In-flight firs danger by ~ssu~ng ~n ~PBM on May I~ 1984 to require "smoke detectors In the lav0ratories~ autc~natlc firs extln~uisheEs in lavatory trash bi~s and ~or~ab'le halos fire eXtlnghishez~, It is unfortunate it took a tragedy of the magnitude of Air Canada to spur them to actlon~ but the travelling publlo is still waiting for tangible o The FAA prc~ised to issue an NPRM by late 1983 that would In~ura that cargo compartments can ~ontaln a fire. We are sti1I waiting for that NPRM. The ne~ for improvement has bess known for ~cme time and the NTSB reu~m~endsd improvement ~s early as 1974. ~ The F~AeXpect~ ~he pilots an~ flight nttendant~ to rluk ~h~:r |ires in firs~ ~o says p~sscngers, yet the agency has do~o ;~I~ to Lasers ~hsy have the proper cqulpmon~ to ~ffeetlvely ~ ~!~ )oh. The FAA~ the NTSB and the erewmcm~ors themselves ,,~. the current smoke goggles do not perform ~d~qu~tely. Por- .~!:.. broaching dcvlcaS that offer protection from smoke ~nd ;~..~ are available and would offer the kind of protection noe- ~,~y for a crew to function in a smoke filled cabin. We nc~d ~, l,ok no farther than Air Canada to see the ~mportancs of the crew £n a cabin f~re and the nssd for both a visual and breathing |,r~vct[vs devise. s One of 6he most unfortunate aspects of the ~ir Cansda t~agedy is that at least some llve~ could have bess saved had there ~e. an more effective ~oke evscuatien procedure. It is incum- l,~n~ UpOa the FAA and the manufacturers to aggre~o~vsly sock o~t a ~ethad to get the toxic smoke and gassos out of the cabin In an ~n,f~ght fire. The confusion and uncertainty exporlenced by ~ho crew in the Air Canaaa fire should not be allowed to reoccur. • An independently powered public address system could ~can the ~zerenee between llfe. and death ~n ~n e~ergency. Gnttinq ~afety and evacuation information to passenqers when ~i~e is of "he essence should not be prevented by s~me misplaced concern by the PAA that it costs more than it is worth. o Pinaily, evacuation slides arc essential to speedy, safe .'vacuat~en, particularly in a post crash [ire environment.
Page 15: TI07692670
assumptions concerning evacuation time are dependent on working slides. Yet experience shows that slides fail, either from o~posUre to heat or fabric failure. There is room for improve- mcnt and it must be done without further delay. LIFE VESTS H.R. 5518, requiring llfe vests on all aircraft carrying 30 or more people, offers great potential benefit at very little coat. The crash of an Air Plorida 8-727 into the Potomac River on January 13, 1982, and a May 5, 1983 Eastern Airlines L-1011 incident near Miami, where power was temporarily lost in all three engines, have raised again the question of how prepared the industry is for a crash into water. The answer is: "not very well a£ all." Unless an aircraft is travelling 50 miles from land, it will probably be carrying only seat cushions as flotation de- vices. These cushions'expose the user to hypothermia by barely keeping him or her out of the water, and the Coast Guard says that they should cover be used by non-swimmers or children. To make m~tters worsc~ many of the cushions lose buoyancy after a short period of time. Whether out at s=a/ a bay, or a river near an airport, the seat cushion is not going to be of much help. And passengers are going to need help, since moat airports near water do not have water rescue plans or equipment. Even if you are lucky enough to have a life vest on board your plane today, you are going to have a great deal of trouble getting it out of the package and on in an emergency unless you ~miliarlzed your self with the multi-step procedure as a pilot during World War II. The FAA has acknowledged this problem by requiring that vests manufactured ~fter 1985 must be d~signod so that they oat be pub on in 15 seconds. The bad newa iu that tha FAA has already certified the same complicated, multi-strap World War II vests as meeting the 15 second donning requlroment, £erest~ngly, the FAA~s own Civil Aeromedical Institute research facility in Oklahoma City has run ~Xtensive testa on theu~ vesta and found them, without exception, impossible to don in the re- ACAP firmly believed that all aircraft should carry llfe vests that are capable of being donned within 15 seconds un~or emergency conditions. The donning characteristics ~hould be confirmed either by the FAA or an independent agent and not by the manufacturer of the vesta. There is no reason to wa~t for a p~aneload of people to drown before the PAA feels there sufficient reason to act, EMERGENCM MEDICAL KITS We would llke to commend Congressmen ~Biaggi, Zvans and St. Germain for leadership ~n introducing legisla~ion r~quirln~ the installation of emergency medica~ kits on commercial air planes. ACAP has long supported such action and our rulemakln~ Petition to require such kits on aircraft has be~n uittlng before
Page 16: TI07692671
sbou~ why legi~la~£o~ £s needed. earl£~ ATA f~gurus would put the annual death toll as high as ulnce count~cs~ oth~rs ar~ afflicted with llfe-threatenisg and all b~t seven of them favored the p~oposa~. The~ to n passen~eT who hec~ Ill wh~le they are aboard a flight, ~nty pa~cent of the doctors surveyed sa~d ~hey had been asked 311 basic equipment such as a stethoscope or blood pressure cuff. The solution to th~s problem of i~-fllght medical to e~ry a~ditio~al equipment a~d medlcatlo~ of the sort found foreign a~rl~nes, b~nen ACAP an~ other groups first asked the FAA to improve safety ~tandards in early 1981~ bhe FAA rejected the pet~tlon on the absurd ground that ~t could only regulate me~Ical prd~ems which aEe "induced. by fl~gh~, ~our~, an~ the U,S. CoUrt of Appeal~ for ~he sl~er o~E petition on th~ merits. ~hat wn~ a ~e~r ago~ n~h~Rg has ~en don~. Th~ iS why l~g£~Intion LS ~0 ~mporta~t. the F~ to =hart ~ts O~ co~r~e= (~] r~ force~ the F~ to tak~ Positive ~@ion ~n ~his problem, ~nd (2) It requires ~ith~ a ~PeCif~ed ~eadline of SiX requ~r~ c~r~age of equipment which could be ~ll~ng ~n and to the U~ited States carry not just kit. but ~so an emergency Physician's klt which C~U be Used
Page 17: TI07692672
airlLnes include Air Canada, ~1 A1, SAS, Air France, Lu£thans¢, Alitalia, Iberia and Sahena. Lists of ~he equipment carried by Air Canada and SAS are attached. Also, we understand that Alrllnes has installed such equipment on its alr~raft operatin9 to Hawai~ and to the Far East. There Is something wrong when people ~ly~ng from, say, Chicago to Toronto =an be trea~e~ Eor a heart a~a~k ~f they happen to be on a~ A~r Canada fl~ht, but not If they ar~ t~volllng on a U.S. a~rllne. ~o, such equ~ent co~id be effectively ~sed. According to a report in the ~to~r 1976 £~sue Of Avla~£On~ Spao@ ~d Ear,rotunda1 ~dlc~ne~ "a~ut tb~ee-~arters O~ t~e f~Ighfi, have one or more qualified medical professionals On board who~ should the proper equi~e~t be available, ~u~ gi~ effe~ive a physician on board ~n a~roraffi ~n over 90 per~nt of oases where fol~ it roasonab1~ to make avail~ t~ tools regulr,d to effectively with such 8merge~cles as hear~-related problems, T~e~, physicians and ~he general publlu support enh~c~ board equipment. Some 88 per~n~ of the doctors su~eyed in ~ ~eE~can M~dlcn~ News repor~ ~nzwe~ed "~es" to the questlon~ "~ you th~nk a~rpl~es hould be required to carry basic me~ica~ 313 equLpment and medications?.* In addition, out of the mere than S00 people who urged the FAA to upgrade its standards (only seven letters which c~n he oon- strue4 as negative Were recelv~d), 275 w~ru doctors an~ ether hea~th professionals suppo2ting a new stan~rd in ~h~s area. Four, the proposal ~s cost-effective. Emergency Physi- cians' kits are commero~ally available now for as low as $230 apiece. The OUSt of putting such equipment aboard con%merclal a~rlines would he roushly 1/18th of a cent per ticket, for an annual cost of $170,000 ~. Differently put, ~f addlt~onal equipment manages to save a single llfe o~t of the dozens of in-flight fatalities ~ach year, ~t more than pays for itself. Let me a~c} a few words ~ou~ ~he ~ropo~al for glvin~ a qua1~f~a ~ity to P~sons providing m8dica~ care. *The Physloians surveyed suggested a n~mber of items whlch they thought should be Standard eqalDment on aircraft, and many of hhelr ~roposals track the items carrled by SAS and Air The following equipment was listed, ~n a roughly daollnlng order" • of ~mportance: cardi°pulm°narM res~scltatlon equipment, portable oxyqen {to be deliverable a~ f~r level), stethoscope, blood presSUre cuff,, oral a~rways, intravenous equipment, endotracheal tube, suture kit, minimal surgical equipment, laryngoscope, por- tourniquet, thermometer, to~gue blades, strotoher cat tray,.a~.d equipment for examlnin .......... ' hater, burn ~e~ications ment~on-~ . ,u ~,u ~SUSCI~a~I~g ~ ~n ~a.ce) wa~e cardlO-Ul~o~-~ga~n ~, ?. dee~Inln~ order of~ ~.^~__. Ul ~or allergic rea~ ......... _~ ~?~ as.epinophrlno odilators; other cardlo.,~---*-- ~ . ate of soda; --''~-~=~ ureas, ano antlblotlcn
Page 18: TI07692673
$14 In the flr~t p~ace, we believe that such "Go~d S~marltan" immunity is unnecessary, g~ven the n~ber of foreign airlines (as well us United} that operate in the United States with these kits and without such l~x~unitF. Is addition, doctors do not th~nk they need this im~un~ty, as 90 percent of them are willing to c~e forward n~w, according to the ~ survey we cited. Socond, any ~unity should be narrowly drawn. For ~ should n~t ~pply ~f c~e was provided in a reckless or ~ross~y ncgl~cnt m~nn~r. ~or uhoul~ ~n uirl~ne ~ =h~cl~cd from If ~t f~IS to ~a~ntain a kit in accord~ce with F~ No~ should l~u~Ity b~ provia~ ~f pers~s who ~e not q~l~fie~ to pro~ida cortain typ~s of care ~e given access to the kit and try ~o provid~ ~G~fstance ~yond their ~tence, ~.~ a ~ttendnnt trnined only In c~dlopulmona~ resusc£~a~u~ ~ries d~a~nose nnd gi~e a passe~ger a shot for dinbe~Ic coma. On "th~s l~ut point, we note tha~ ~o~e "Go~ S~tan" law~ ~m~t the ~n~ty only to physicians. That ~. one approach tha~ could b8 t~n by th~ Congress In ureatlng ~unity fr~ su~t. H~ever, som~ of the contents of ~hese kits could be effectively used by r~gist~r~d nurses or o~her qualified personnel, and ~t may b~ des~rnhle ~o le~ these personnel have ac~Ss to certain it.s a~ w~L1. We b~l~o the5 ~a the ~ort of tlc~ic.~ issue that can bu r~solv~d onc~ the F~ h~ dsclded (i) w~at should b~ the ~ntents of thuse kits ~d {2) whnt personne~ should be a~l~wed ac~ss ~h~ch it~. Thus, we .u~it that ~y ~unity shoul~ be to tho~e s~tuat~ ~h~r~ a proper~y qu~l~fi~ person h~ given accems to medical equipment which he or she is quaL~fled to use under standards see by the FAA, Reckless or grossly negllgent conduct would not be grounds for i~un£t¥, nor would an airllne~s failure to maintain the kits in proper workin~ order. We appreciate the opportunity tO testi~y a~d will h~ h~pp¥ to respond to your questions. Thank you.
Page 19: TI07692674
INFOR IATIO ,I Release: thrch 12, 1982. Cantact: Oen~s Chagnon (s~4) 874-~8 DOCTORS' HEDICAL KITS HONTREAL -Atr Canada will equip its entire fleet of a~rcraft ~tth m~dical k~ts destgned for the exclus|ve use of doctors tn the case of vmergcncy s|tuattons dur|ng a flight. According to Dr. R~bert Anderson, A|r Canada's Director of I¢zd|cal ServiceS. there |s no evtdence to suggest that medica~ emergencies are more likely to occur on board aft atrp]ane than tn any s|tuation Involving such groups of people, "The |nttlatlye St~ls fro~ our experience ~htch sho~s that there is a physician on baird an aIrcr~f~ in over 90 per cent of cases ~here the ]|fo of a patient is fn danger, Under the eircumst~nces, ~e felt tt reasonable to make ava|]ab~e the too~s requ|red to deal effectively ~ith such emergenc|es as heart-related problems, asthma and diabetes," Anderson exp~ainso The medfca~ kit is the s~ze of ~ suitcase and contains ~ed|¢atfons, ~ntravenous solutions and Instruments ~htch ~ou]d allo~phystclans to deal ~tth most |tfe-threaten|ng situations ||kely to occur during a fHght. 317 "They ~t11 be kept under lock and key, due to the nature of their contents and ~fll only be reTeased by the captain after a physician has properly identified himself," Anderson says. The kits w111 be t~stalled progressively over the next year aS aircraft go through their regular maintenance checks and ne~v ~frcr~ft join the f|eet. -30-
Page 20: TI07692675
318 Doc~or's ~edlcal Kit Contents 0.Pt Sodium Chloride Injection, USP 250 ml 5t Dextrose Injectlog, USP 250 ml Biood pressure ~fanomoter Lnstorel gauze bandages V~nlpuncture Kit: 21 infusion Set Herthiolate gauze pads roll tape tourniquet alcoho~ prep pak Ventolin Salbutamol Inhaler Adrenalln I mg eph~nephrine Inj. UPS SoluMedrol 125 mg USP Methylpreanlsolone Sodium Succlnate Bcnadry~ 50 mg Diphenhydromlne Me1 InJ-usP Dextrose 50| 50 ml - $80 mg/ml- Intrupln 280 mg - 5 ml dopamlne Vellum I0 mg Diazepam Inj, Amlnophyllino 58 mg/ml Morphine Sulphate InJ. 15 mg I~uprel S m~ Hydroohlorlde Isoproterenol HCl Inj. USP Atropine 0.6 m~/ml Sulfate Inj. USP Lasix 40 mg Furosem£de In~. ~SP Xylocard I00 mg lidoca£ne hydroehlorld~ Inj.uSP Calclum gluconate I0~ Inj. USP Sod£ula Bicarbonate 7.5~ 50 ml In~. Sterlie ~.tater for Inj. ~SP I0 ml Nttro!;t~l tabn O.3m~ 319 Lifesaver Tube Emergency Tracheal catheter'2"' .StethOSCOpe Solution admlnlstratlo~ set 2.4 m long ~Ith Y-inj. site Flashlight DiastlX - Glucose in urine tests Cutlcular surgical needle ~/8 S~In closures 3-0 Chromic Gut Catgut Chrome 45 cm Absorbable surgical suturs, USP Instrument Set: Needle holdeu, ~oissers Tissue furcepts, gauze sponges Needle - 21g 1 I/2 dlsposabl& syringe - disposable' syringe - 3cc ~ieposablc syrln~e- 5co dlsposaSle syringe - lOcc disposable syrln~e - 20cc (syringe only) Vi,yl Medical Glove
Page 21: TI07692676
O;)CHIP.'S KII - I.i.~r af" Co~d.enL:~ with .......... h;strucLio~ms for lledic,~tion Ropor t Forms Seals Instructions for first aid --- for resuscitation Stethoscope Blood pressure manometer Reflex han~ner Jet-suction, vacuum suc[~on (Laerdal) • • Suction catheter tlelaton Respiration bladder (Laerdal) Ozy~e, n~ask foc adults (Laerdal) . ,, " children (Laerdal) Clinical Lh~=rmome~er for rec[al use _._ " ora'l u~e {d(sposable) Thermometer covers (d~sposable) ." Inflatable splinter 1/2 _,_ -"- 1/I (Please note'. The splinters shall carry t-~arning labels t.#ith ~nst,'uction for use) 821 Four I~njcc t io~ Advcm:al in I m,3/ml," ampul Cedilanide 0.2 n~g/~1, ampul Fortca] 30 rag/m1, Rmpul . Glucose 50~, ampu] ~ ]0 Itydrocor~one Phosphate SO Va]~um 5 ~9/ml, ampul ~ 2 Tab]eCs Fortral 50 mg Lasix 40,mg ~litro-91ycer~ne 0.5 mg " Serepax 15 .mg SyJ-i.nge, injection, disposable 10 m! (P.~ntoux} 1 ml tteedles, -"-, -"- 0.7x50 -"-, -"- , -"- O.Sx2S -"- c.mula I 15 m o Co.~presses, invert-soap Adhesive tape 1 cm
Page 22: TI07692677
322 I.IEI/I¢'AI Si.RVICE [~if - List or" ConU.mt'~; t.liLh ..... l=~truc.~ions I'or I.ledication C~;q~r~..,~es, sterile " -"- ~ invert-soap . Adhes ire bandages, 6c~xlOcm --- -"- ,. Z.ScaxT.Sc~ Adhesive tape (roll= Elasti~ b~ndage (8 cm) Tabl Dlfonhydramin theoclas 25 mg Tab1 Coffei.autin lab1 hid tyl Hi~ro-~jlycerina, see instructions in tim Doctor's Kit " "lab1 }li~tason T~b~ Carbonis Tab] SIOII !rvll .SI!/P, PJ:/il FLU lb, I~IL! 323 Mr. MINm'A. Please proceed. TESTIMONY OF D. MICHAEL HANCOCK, DIRECTOR, AVIATION CONSUMER ACTION PROJECT, AND CORNISH F. HITCHCOCK, LEGAL DIRECTOR, AVIATION CONSUMER ACTION PROJECT Mr. HxNCOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would like to thank you and members of the subcommittee for taking your time to consider what we feel are very important issues rai~ed by the bills before you. We realize Congress is reaching the end bf the ~e~- sion, but the bills are important to the flying public and deserve to be marked up. We appreciate the invitation to appear today and speak to the various bills. I will address cabin-safety bills, and Mr. Hitchcock will address bills concerning emergency medical kit~. In the best ot" all possible worlds, Mr. Chairman, the3e hearing~ would be unnecessary because the FAA would have addre~cd "these problems years ago. Unfortunately, the FAA ha~ tended to give cabin-safety issues a low priority, even when co,t-effective, lifesaving steps can be taken. Thus, it is important for Congre~ to take a role by telling the FAA that you are tired of missed dead- lines and vague assurances that the agency will do ~omething at some unspecified time in the future. We are aware of your concern, Mr. Chairman, that Conr.re~ not inject itself too deeply in to the details of what a specific ~afety rule should say, as it is important to give the regulatory agency some latitude to exercise its discretion. There is no such risk under the bills before you on cabin ~afety, lifev.ests, and emergency medical kits. These bills do no more than give the FAA strict deadlines for setting standards that are attain- able today. That is an entirely proper thing for Congrea~ to do--to tell the agency that it wants results by a certain date. ACAP petitioned the FAA to adopt standards to reduce the haz- ard~ from postcrash fires in 1972 and 1973. We urged the agency to adopt standards limiting smoke and gas emi~ions from burning cabin materials. We're still waiting. From 1979 to 1980, ACAP al~o served on the Special Aviation Fire and Explosion Reduction [SAFER] Advisory Committee, which recommended a verie~ of steps to reduce the hazards associated with aircraft fires, in par- ticular post~rash fires. At the time, the FAA told us that the ~p~ cific timetables proposed by the committee were doable. Unfortu- nately, but perhaps typically, progress has been slow. Mr. Chairman, you well know that the problems addressed by the pending bills are not new or without ~olutions The hearin .h.eld b_y you and your predecessors on the Oversight and Investiga- tions Subcommittee helped keep pre~ure on the FAA to act. But it now appears that legislation is needed in order for these lifesaving standards to be adopted. The same cabin-safety hazards identified by the National Tranv. psrtation Safety Board, Congress, and others are still prcsent today. H.R. 5428 does nothing more than set a fixed deadline for the FAA to act on such ia~ues as smoke detecter~ in lavatoriee, safer cabin interior materials, improved fire extinguisher~, cabin emergency lighting, and better evacuation slides
Page 23: TI07692678
324 The bill is modest in scope, as it requires that these rulemakings be completed by the end of 1985 and specifies when the effective dates shall be. In several instances these timetables simply adopt the FAA's own previously announced timetables. Given past histo- ry, these can be described as too liberal. This legislation is a neces- sary step because that agency has proved incapable of acting deci- sively, preferring instead to study a problem to death. H.R, 5518, requiring lifevests on all aircraft carrying 30 or more people, offers great potential benefit at very little cost. The crash of an Air Florida B-737 into the Potomac River on January 13, 1982, and a May 5, 1983, Eastern Airlines L-1011 inci- dent near Miami, where power was temporarily lost in all three en- gines, have raised again the question of how prepared the industry is for a crash in~.o water. The answer is not very well at all, Unless an aircraft is traveling 50 miles from land, it will prob- ably be carrying only seat cushions as flotation devices. These cush- ions expose the user to hypothermia by barely keeping him or her out of the water, and the Coast Guard says that they should never be used by nonswimmers or children. To make matters worse, many of the cushions lose buoyancy after a short period of time. Whether out at sea, a bay, or a river near an airport, the seat cushion is not go.ing to be of much help. And passengers are going to need help, since most airports near water do not have water rescue plans for equipment. Even if you are luck~ enough to have a lifevest on board your plane today, you are going to have a great deal of trouble getting it out of the package and on in an emergency unless you fmniliarized yourself with the multistep procedure as a pilot during World War II. The FAA has acknowledged this problem by requiring that vests manufactured after 1985 must be designed so that they can be put on in 15 seconds. The badness is that the FAA has already certified the same com- plicated, multistrap World War II vests as meeting the 15-second donning requirement. Interestingly, the FAA's own Civil Aeromedi- cal Institute research facility in Oklahoma City has run extensive tests on these vests and found them, without exception, impossible to don in the required 15 ~conds. ACAP firmly believes that all aircraft should cazTy lifevests that are capable of being donned within 15 seconds under emergency conditions. The donning characteristics should be confirmed either by the FAA or an independent agent and not by the manufacturer of the vests. There is no reason to wait for a planelvad of people to drown before the FAA feels there is sufficient reason to act. That concludes my portion of the testimony, Mr. Chairman. ~r. HITCHCOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I would like to do is focus on the emergency medical kit legislation and make sev- eral points about why the legishtion is needed and comment on the Good Samaritan provision which has drawn some attention. First of all, the bill addresses a problem. The figures indicate that anywhere from 45 to 100 people die annually in flight. That really understates the problem~ because a lot of people have life- threatening medical problems that fortunately they survive--heart attack, asthma attacks, choking, allergic reaction, diabetic corns, h,~,t rhythm abnormalities, and so forth. 325 Second, d ~oc.tors are wi.llin.g, to _help out, According to the July 25 1980 issue ot.~merlca.n lvl.eaical News, 9 out of 10 doctors surve stated th.a~ th.e.y.w.o.uld volunteer their services to ~ -~--- • 1 wni ...... ~ p~cn~er wan • become~ l~ ~e tne.y are a~oard a flight. Twenty percent of the doctors surveY_ed.said .t~.e~ had been asked to provide such artist. ance, another figure, w~i.ch suggests the magnitude of the problem, These doctors a~ded, however, that they were often frustrated and helpless .b~.au.se airlines lacked basic equipment such as a stethoscope or blood pressure cuff. When we an~ other doctors first asked FAA to look int~ ~ho ~ ....... ~'~'--~ -~e ....first stalled o-~--" ..... ~ y:.~ ,~u.e m early 19~1, the a~ ,~y .... u u~,,,g an.y~nmg, ~t~en re~ected the petition on the grounds ~_nac ~ongre.ss_ ha~ not authorized them to take action The U.S. Court of Appeals ~o~r the District of Columbia Circuit uoaai.mously re.j.e.c.ted the FAA s argument and told the agone to consioer our petition on the mer'~ '~ ----- ~Y • . __ l_. ~,,~ w~s a year a~o, and we are still wmhng for results We t~.~-*- -~- • ' ,,,~,~ t~o &eglslal;lOn has two ad. promem, ann (~) it re aires final action within a specified deadline or 6 months q There are a number of arguments in favor of requirin the FAA to upgrade standards, to require carriage of _equipment ~v~ich c be used by a doctor or another trained medi~ ........ enid t.a~ ~ro~esslonal in an emergency. First, it is practical. A number of foreign airlincg travehn m and to the United States carry not tust a first ~:~ ...... ! g ' • • , • ~ -~u .~ Otl~ alSO an emergency p.hymman s kzt which can be used by h mcia may be available for assistan^^ ~L ........ • P: Y " " no who El AI, SAS Air ~. ,~t~e azr~znee mcmde Air Canada. , " France, Lufthansa, Alitalia, Iberia and Sabena. IL seems to us there is something wrong if you are trave]ing on a flight from Chicago to Toronto and can be treated for a heart attack if you happen to be on foreign airline rather than a dome~. is one k!t approved hy for the . ~u ~aa see lc has . . ,S. Army, Ao fo ...... ' a~.numl~.r ?t~p~eces_ofeqm ment dru • , - ~en use ~ we" ~ , g demgned ........ ~e~_ _. ~gns 25 pounds and m used by various or. • ~ns ~ me t~.~. Armed Forces. P a,agram, so the r.echnolo is there, if the airlines would use it We understand that a~nd that they, in fa~t ~ ..... ~_ __ . United ~ experimented tar ~st ~ ~ ...... :~, "~*~ ~ _vqmpmen¢ on their fli~ht~ to o__ _..,,~, ~awan, so k is not tha• -~:^-~ ~. on~, the equipment can be effec~tiv%7~? ~ ?o~lon. , ~quahfied people deciding to nlav d y sed We.don t_.~_v~a.nt un ~mergenc ,- ~ octet and hal m out Y w~ere the con P g m an dance su eats t Y ld d? re.ore harm than good. but the i g.g hat there are aoc • -, r--" ,~n the Aeration, Snaco ~-.~ ~_....~rs a~v~l.a.bl ~e. There m an article m~ical professiona~ ...... q~ . ..one or more quali- rnent be a m ~n ooara wan, ShOUld,the proper equip- - vailable, could give effecti ~r . ve treatment. Rober~ A.nderson, A~r Canada's director of medical has stated that m th , . services o._n...boa.r.d an aircraft ~t~ ~m~pa~n~s expe.r~e~nce, "there is a physicia~ Pauent IS in dange~.~,;'~l"~ _°~.~P~_~c_end; oz cases,.w.he.re t~he life of a • ~ ~vc~ntiy saw an arl;Icle in the January
Page 24: TI07692679
326 1983 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology from the assist- ant chief of medical services at CP Air, which said that, "it appears that on board 70 percent of our international flights there is one or more physicians,~,~, and medical kits have been used on an average of 1.4 times a week." It goes on to discuss how the kit has been effec- tively used. Third, as I point out, physicians and the public support enhanced onboard equipment. Comments ran something like 500 people fa- vored it and seven people didn't when FAA had the comment period. Most of those who said they didn't like it thought it was going to cost too much. Let me address the issue of cost. These kits are available for some $240 or so on the commercial market. We have figured out the cost would be one-eighth of 1 cent per ticket, an annual cost of 9170,000 industry wide. In other words, if the equipment manages to save one life a year out of dozens of inflight fatalities, it will more than pay for itself. Let me talk about the Good Samaritan provision in conclusion. First, we don't think it is necessary, given the fact that so many airlines operate without Good Samaritan immunity to and from the United States and apparently United also within the United States. Nor do doctors think they need this immunity because 90 percent said they are willing to help out under current law. We understand the reason that has been included is mostly be- cause of concerns of the airlines, and they do not want to be held liable for frivolous lawsuits. We would suggest if any immunity is going to be included, it should be narrowly drawn, The Senate bill passed by the Commerce Committee comes close. There are details that could be worked out there. For instance, immunity should not be available if there is reck- less or grossly negligent care, nor should the airline be shielded from liability if it fails to maintain a kit in accordance with FAA specifications, nor should the immunity be provided to persons who are not qualified to provide certain types of care if they are given access to the kit. On this last point, we note that some Good Samaritan State laws limit the immunity only to physicians and not generally to health care .professionals. That is one approach that could be taken by the Congress in creating immunity from suit. However, some of the contents of these kits could be effectively used by registered nurses or other qualified personel, and it may be desirable to let these per- sonnel have acce~ to certain items as well. That concludes our remarks. We will be happy to answer your questions. Mr. M~I~-'rA. Thank you very much, Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Han- cock. Looking at the kit, I am just wondering, which is for the in- gestion of inflight food? Mr. HANCOCK. We could add that to the kit. Mr. Mm~rA. You have been petitioning and working with FAA for a number of years to get some action on some of the various safety issues before us today. Based on your familiarity with the agency, to what do you attribute this lack of progress? Is it that the I~AA is too svml~athetic to the industrv's concerns over costs? Is 327 the bureaucracy too large or cumbersome to respond in an effective manner? What do you think is the problem? Mr. HITCHCOCK. Let me try to take that in several parts. First of all, we would agree with what John O'Brien said on the last panel, that with respect to cabin ma~rials there is the sense of '~If wc wait just_a li.tt.le l.o.nger th.e p~_rfect solutmn~ will come along. That tends to lean ~o aemy and delay. I think that is what Administra- tor Bond also testified to when he appeared before you back in 1980. That is one element of it. A second element tends to be that these issues are just not given high priority. And there is also something else we have encoun- tered, that. despite some very well intentioned people and people who are dedicated to air safety improvements, there tends some- times to be a "not invented here" syndrome, if someone comes in from the outside and says "We have this new idea, please consider it." It is very difficult sometimes to crash through the barrier and have it taken seriously, I mean, emergency medical kit~ is certain- ly not an issue we thought would take 3½ years and a trip to the court of appeals and still be told that it is being worked on. One of the reasons I think you do need legislation is that, ~ we pointed out, you have held some very effective overnight hearing~ when you were chairman of the oversight subcommittee. That did help move the agency forward to some extent and get some oF the research going, but what we are hearing these days is still the same sort of thing we were hearing back in 1980, I think that is why Congress ought to say this is a priority item. You know, legislation is needed to focus the agency's attention on thes.e matters, and I think the fact of just holding hearings and passing legislation, even if it doesn't make it all the way into law this year, could have a very beneficial effect in that regard. Mr. 1Vh~r^. Is there a change in the system of proposing new safety regulations and getting them into place in a timely manner that you might recommend? Mr. HrrcHCOCK. I am not sure we would add anything other than what the previous witnesses have said. There are some thin~ in Congre~man Levitas' bill where you could probably Bay now rather than several years from now. H.R. 5428 does provide a good working draft. In many instances they go from the FAA's own fig. ures, their own deadlines. When I served on the SAFER committee, a number of the dead- lines that were adopted there were adopted in consultation with the FAA, and the FAA said "Yes, we can do this by such and Buch a date." Unfortunately the promise hasn't always worked out quite the way we had hoped 4 years ago. Mr. Mm~-r~. To what extent do you believe cost benefit analymm should play a role in the promulgation of regulations in the areas before us today? Some witnesse~ have ~aid FAA is too concerned 7eb°a~Ut, t,he c, os .ts.~ the airline industry, What is your thinking? The a~ua i as~e(l this is not so much in the vein of saying this or that regulation is no~ worth it, but rather in terms of if we are going to require the airlines to spend some millions of dollars to be more Safe in a particular area, shouldn't we stop and ask could it be
Page 25: TI07692680
328 better spent somewhere else in aviation safety, where more lives may be saved? - ~l~.stion this way Generally Mr HITCHCOCK. Let me answer the qu__ L .... --'--- ~^:-~ "~- ' re rlate to consider whether a certain ac~mn l~ $~,~,~ it "s app P " " Cost benefit analysis accomplish the most and save the. most hve.~. / ...... ~ t'mes is oversold as being a r~gorous scmn.ce wner~ ~.a.c~m~ some l ..... ,~--~o ,,m, ca n~mre out n~w of an ar~, because som~z~ ~-- --.~. ~ t more ....... ~-.-" :" is more difficult to address wha ~omeming ~s going ~o cost, vu~ ,~ benefits are. That, of course, is the question. A number of these issues, as I k Con ressman Levitas pointed out this morning, are relatively thin g ..... ,* :- ^- t~e shelf It could be in- cost The tecrmomgy zs mere. x~ ,~ o,, ,, • low . • ' ues which is one of ~,~uod. and solve a lot of these c_ab_m s.afe~ty_.ms .. ~ ; .... ._ ^~.~^ o ..... , . " I; snoulu D~ survtv~t~ the largest single sources of death m wna cidents. So I think the record is there. As for emergeney medical kits, we our cost benefit and ~aid if it saves one life a year it will pay did ...... ~u~" is the sort of thing which for it~el~ $170,000 maus~ry.- .wtae. x,~ . .......... • :- a o ably. you know, a good lawyer coula ge~ m a ju.r_y tl-~at t.~t • pr b ............. :t ~oes Justify itself under negligence _ca~e. ~o in ~na~ ee~u ~ ~, J kind of analysis, n whether fli ht attend • Do ou have any thought o g " .Mr. MIN .~TA;., ..3'_ ",~i~in~, should receive periodic CPR trai.nin~ an~ as part o! gne~r b ........ ¢, --- • My understanding is that some airlines provide ~t and others don Everything I have read about this subject is that CPR training is a very cost~ffective measure that saves lives. Should FAA require training in this area since not all the air- lines are providing CPR training? Mr. H~NCocg. Mr. Chairman, I don't see where there could be any controversy about that. It seems to be a very straightforward and useful method to give the flight attendants at least some ca- pacity to interject themselves into a cardiao emergency. And so I on't see how there could be any objections to that, That m robably the minimum. There probably should be a • P " " ht attendants the skills for a greater effort general_l.y ..to g~ve. the ~fl~g ~ieal urofessionai medical emergency. It mere m no~ there should be some way to get the pas~__ nger to the ground and to an emergency facility and keep them alive in the meantime. So I think CPR as a minimum should be required. • Mls~r~ In our testimony I see that you_ar,e r..ecemmend~_.g Mr " Y "at aircratt~ ts mere an ac~- lifeve~ts on board all larger commercl ord inting to the need for us to do this? I am ~ cu_ri.o.us dent rec po • - • " " ent as an example ot the as to why you rote the A~r. Florida. accld ...... ~---- of the le who died m tha~ wageay .... t~,. 7 -. to ~Pe°wP~o were able to get out, did, but they man ~ na..ve u.m~e tr where would you say that this requirement for the lifevests rra~k~ in terms of those issues that are facing usr~ght. The Air Flori- Mr. H^~cocK. Well, Mr. Chairman, you are not the best example. But I think it just points .up da was probably 't have to that water emergency.can h,a~ppe,n ~,n, ~yw_h_.e_re,._Y~o~u.._do~n~satlantic 329 I think the ones that have been identified, for instance, the inci- dent in Florida, May 5 of last year, that could have occurred easily within 50 miles of land if they had to ditch. In fact, it looked like they were going to ditch close to land. There are other incident~, I think, cited by the flig~ht attendants in their testimony, where there were a number o/water emergencies that occurred within that 50~mile limit where life vests are not required. And figures I have seen are that something in the area of 70 to 80 .percent of all takeoffs and landings occur near a significant body of water, be it a river, a lake, or an ocean. So most flights are going to at least have the opportunity to encounter a significant body of water. As we point out in our testimony, most airports are not equipped to react appropriately to water emergencies. We feel the record is clear there is documented need. And the co~ts are so low that I don't see where there can be any serious objection to equipping these aircraft. Mr. M~NETA. Counsel. Mr. FILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been brought up that airline personnel might have a prob- lem, talking about the medical kits now, about giving the medical kit out to somebody who wasn't trained in the use of it. Let's say we have a situation where we don't have a licensed physician on board but some other individual does say that they have some ~ort of expertise in the use of these kits. It turns out that that really isn't the case, and the individual does it in an incompetent manner• Should the good samaritan pro- visions of any medical kits bill include a provision absolving the airlines of liability in a situation for giving the kit to somebody who really isn't qualified to use it. Mr. HrreHCOCK. I think the way to handle that is the way Air Canada does it, which is to insist somebody come forward with ere* dentials such as M.D. I have talked to people in the medical com- munity, and they say you usually do have some kind of credentials available to show that you are qualified. The Senate bill also ha~ a provision that does give the captain discretion over who is going to be given the kit and that sort of thing. I think what you have to do is first resolve the question--or leave the FAA to resolve the question--who should be allowed to have access to the kits. Should we limit it to physicians, who are usually the only I/eople to whom good samaritan laws apply, or should we try to expand it somewhat more broadly to people who are registered nurses or who have a certificate that they have CPR training. The related question then is what items should be in the kit, Should it be just the sort of thing to treat cardiopulmonary resusci- tation, or should it have things for diabetic coma or a more elabo- rate array of drugs? Once you answer those questions, I think you can answer your question a little more specifically, _ . Whatever the immunity is, I think it should be narrowly defined ~it..h .respect to what is on board and who should have access to it. .~ ~t m doctors only, then a lot of these problems and potential revues disappear. If it is people with CPR training you can say OK, there is going to be immunity if you use the stuff on this left side
Page 26: TI07692681
of the kit, but not if you start injecting people for diabetic comas and the other stuff on this fight side of the kit. There are things that could be worked out in rulemaking that would address that. Mr. FILLER. What d'o you think of the airlines' concerns relative to the fact that using this medical kit might in some way harm the passenger more substantially if it results in deferring a landing? Mr. HrrcHCOCK. As I think Mr. Fleming indicated they would still try to make an emergency landing. One of the key points with respect to a lot of these medical problems is that they involve situ- ations which can be readily addressed with a shot, or injection, or with some other kind of treatment until you do get the person on the ground. I doubt you_ would have a situation where somebody had a heart attack and they started treating it and the pilot would say, "Let's just keep flying for another 3 hours, even though we could land somewhere in between." The kits are designed to deal with emergency situations which can be quickly treated or illnesses which respond quickly to treatment, but that is really no substitute for getting somebody on the ground and getting the emergency taken care of. Mr. FILLER. Finally, in the area of cabin safety we have a whole list of different cabin safety related proposals, most in I-LR. 5428 and others in some of the other bills we are considering. Some of those bills addre~ the ~ize of the aircraft issue. Should they apply to over 60 seats only, or should the line be drawn at 30 seats. Have you given any thought to the type of provisons included in H.R. 5428 and whether or not they should apply equally to the air taxi commuter operators as well as the certificated carriers. Mr. HITCHCOCK. | think the focus has been principally limited to the 121 carriers. We haven't focused on the commuter side because mo3t of the action has been, from a regulatory standpoint, on the 121 carrier~. Mr. FI~L~I~. Do you think any legislation which is adopted should encompass both 135 and 121 operations? Mr. HITCHCOCK. I am not sure I can answer. I think it might be appropriate for the FAA to say whether this should be an i~ue ex- plored in the rulemaking. It is difficult to be a little more specific ~ince they cover so many ranges of safety materials and that sort of thing to try to pin down which one ought to be in which particu- lar type aircraft. Mr. F~LL~a. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. M[t~rA. Thank you, gentleman, again, for your contribution to our subcommittee's deliberations. I appreciate it very very much. Mr. HITCHCO~K. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. I*I~Ncoc~. Th~nk you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mm~Ta. Next, I would like to call on Mr. William A. Enk, pre~ident, Total Flood Corp. Mr. Enk, the full text of your prepared statemen.t will appear in the record at this point. [Statement referred to follows:] 381 AUGUST ! • TESTIMONY ON FIftE~ ABOARD AIRCRAFT PRE6ENTEB BEFI3RE THE HflU~E PUBLIC ~OR~S SUBCDHH1TTEE O~ AUdiTION HILLIAH TOTAL FLOU~D 140~ PLAZA CENTER BLUE SPRINGS~ HO 81&-5~4-&300/GRAPHNET TLX= 7137551~5 improve airline ~afety a~ indicate~ in H.R. 5428~ H,R, ~79~ and H.R. 32~4.
Page 27: TI07692682
of ~he U~. ~v~on ~nd ~eco~p~e ~ndus~ry and on b~al~ att~ntiofl y~ have f~sed an this important issue. Thi~ hearing I am Willi~m A. Enk, President of T~tal Flood ~orp~ation. I am an aer~nautic@1 e~in~r and a Oil~t by profession. [ ~erv~d ~9~8 and my dutl~ ~n~erne~ Research and Development e~tl~ity airline ~nd Z om~ Iy o~n alrpIane. My cmmpanie~+ their pers~nel and I h~ve been con~er~ed ~ many year~ ~ith mircraft fire recognition by the FA~ and r~ulked in granting by the FA~ ll~ense~. I have also been a~p~l~ted a~ a Designated Engin~rinQ r~nl~ed ~tth various eafety aNard~ by the F~ and Today~ I ~m ~gmin honored by the opportunity being afforded me in that 1~ very impo~thnt to ~. of no~ concepts ~d modern ~tate-af-the-~rt airborne fire protection s~stem~ and equipment. Thi e ~ ~ ~ concern that ts reflected Jn the bills H.R. 3264 (H. Biaggi)~ H,R, 3793 (D, B.rt~n)~ end H.R. 542B (Levita~s Hollnari, Gllckm~n)~ ~s H~ll a~ jn the Notice o~ Proposed Rul~makin~ INF~H) e4-~ of the Depart- ment of Tr~n~portat~en~ Federal Aviation Administration (14 CFR Part 121) (Docket No. 24073: Notlco No. B~-~) Airplane Cabi~ Fire Protection. IN/RflDU~TION Totsl Flood Corporation ~ formed in 1978 by Mery Tere~e ~el~ ~fld myself. TFC ~a~ begun in order ~o e~and o~ ne~ technology a~ro~pace ~re protection =y=t~ pJen~red by our ~trst s~mpany~ Enk Aviation Corporation; ~d to introduce O~mpletely ~o~ ida~s~ ~ystems, and components. For years TF~ and EA~ have bean designing, certi~ying~ and in~talZing compr~h~n~lv~ integrated a~rborne fire management ~y~toms that not on|y e~tingul~h fi~O~ In ~electe~ ~e~p~rtme~t5 of air~rafte but.have b~n e~p~nde~ te protect the entire airpl~n~s~_the enginne, occupied ~nd unoccupied fuselage compartm~t~ (i.o.~ lavatory ~nd g~lloy areas), the ~Ing~ ... eVerything--all ~ith the ;ame system. Dot £hey are also used to prevent ~ fire from Starti~go NO~ the victims of aircraft ~iros c~n have the critical e~tra memento to survive. In our opinlon, TFC i~ no~ producing tho werld'~ • ~ne~t+ most ~dvance~ moot camplet~ and versatileI ~nd mo~t cost-eff~ctlve fire protection ~etems and COmponents. ~k~thing
Page 28: TI07692683
above- It ~ill describe the Scape of the fire problem and 0Ire specific examples sf carrying les~ than 30 pa~sengerS- Th~ ~i~st e~ample i~ a fire management system on a ~0-9 Super ~0; ~t Is ~ ~caled-dm~n ~=rsion of a csmplet~ ~ystom. ~his system use~ the Total Flood concept ts protect ~elected areas of the airplane--but not the ~ihole ~irpl~ne- ]t can be expanded as needs or de~ire~ change. The second e~ample is a description o{ a c~mplete ~ystem on a canadair Challenger CL-60I business jet aircraft. In this cas=~ the e~ample describes an installation that.has in ~act been made. ~his install~tion is in the final siege= o~ FAA certifi~atimn- The fi~t part of the flight testing has been successful, and only a few te~ts remain before the FAA ~ill issue anothe~ Suppl-- mental Type Certificate to Total Flood Corporation. FIRE - THE OLDEST ~EOBLEH IN FL|BHT Fourteen menth~ ago on 3une 2, 19~3~ the world wag shocked as millions o~ people watched the horrifying tetevislon reports ~hewlng a Canadian D~-9 and its passengers burning aE a uoS. airport in Cincinn~ti~ Ohio. Suddenly all were awa~e of oldest problem in ;llght -- FIRE~ Had there been the comprehensive. ~t~te-'of-the-art ~quipment an board which la now available I believe the fire could have been controlled, but, as is well kno~n~ thi= ~a~ not the c~s¢. Bccauso of the fire the circumstances, despite the herb$c effort~ of the flight passengerS, air traffic controllers, and emergency per~=nn~1, 23 lives were lo~t and 18 sthers were injured. Only five person= e=caped ~i~hout injury. C~rtainly thi= accident and its losses were t~rrible. Hopefully now~ as a result of thla one accident, all are learning not only about the problem o~ fire in aviation and what should be done about its but also all wondering what might have happened i~ the clr=umstances had bean di;ferent. It is dangerous to oversimpll~y the solution or underestimate the problem. The vision of a fire aloft is horrifying and for many is hard to face~ but i~ the problem ~s ever to be solved it be fully c=nsidsred. I'm sure I am not al~ne when imagining what ~Is= could have happened if another aircraft with a similar fire aloft had to fly even I or 2 minutes longer than the Air Canada PC-9 because of the ~eather~ other traffic~ its distance ~rem l~nd or an airport slightly ~srse than the Qnes e~peri~nced by Air Gan~da~ the plane probably would have crashed before making the airport. Considering what might happen in thi~ ca=e is e~tremely relevant because it sho~ that even llve~ and property on ~he ground below
Page 29: TI07692684
The accident tot~ could rise exponentially- In recent years a Boeing 727 trashed on takeoff into ~ suburb of tlmeo that ~how9 wh~t might have happened if th~ DC-9 had not been able to make the ~Irport in Cincinnati and bad. crashed into a heaVily popul~tcd area ~hi~h typically surround most airports ~o~ved by the UoS. air ca~rierS. in r~cont ye~rs~ high technolOgY has brought absut great pressure from aircraft users to control and reduce sosts. ~bls h~s resulted in the development of the eo called ~glaSS sOckpit"~ flight deck~ that are ~qulpped ~ith ~R~ ÷light instrument systems ~nd ~RT engine ~enitoring systems. ~he image generators and amplifier~ ~or such equipment produc~ very high operating temperatures in ~peciallY cooled eo~p~rtment~ or a~ienics bays. ~he0e cockpits are being designed for managemen~ bY two ore~ ~ember0. 7h~se ne~ ~irplane$ are high capacity alrcr~ft and f~ature the ~cenomY of t~e engines. The |o~e~ operating ce~ts o~ th~se ~ircr~ft and crew5 ~re ~u~ing m~nU~acturers and some airplane u~ers to pressure the FAA to relsg certain rules restricting the ~light of these aircraft on long over water routes. ~revieus remarks a11udlng to time-to-flY requirements under emergency condition5 suggest that any kind of ~ire on beard such a flight ~hichcould not be controlled ~suld be a tragee~ ~ithout ~ doubt. It would be even more ironic i~ the e~ui~ment ~hlch ha~ produced the test =~ving~ als~ produced the tragedY. It i~ ebvio~ that should a fire occur ale~t in ~pite ef preventative ~easur~s and dosign~ the ~ire mu~t be put sot immediately while at th~ ~ame time the pl~no must be flown under control until a landing is practlcalo Te accomplish this it is es~enti,a] that the cr~w be at their stations ~nd sill] be able to control a fire ~merg~ncy ~Io~t. I~ I~ al~O important ~or them to be able to m~nago firms in compartment= n~t ~cce~sible infllght. The legislation pendtl~g before this Committee ~hould not los~ ~Ight o~ th~se i~pert~nt BEHIND THE TO~AL FLOOD CONCEPT~ A BREAI~HROUGH IN'AIRCRAFT FIRE PROTECTION TeE year~ ago~ l~ng before th~ DC-9 di=a~ter~ my cemp~nte5 (Enl: Aviation Corporation and later al~e Totol Flood Cerpor~tlon) ~nd our personnel b~gan developing odvanced concepts~ 5ystemu and n0~ has the most cemprehensive~ po~rful~ v~r~atll~ ~fn ~nd effective integrated total ~irplane ~Ire management system a~allable in the world today. Porh~p~ oven more Important, it i~ {lying and certified by the FAA on nearly 100 different mod~Is of air=torte There i=~ h=wever~ one thing wrong with the TFC product5 and systems - they are not y~E well known! In a large part this because we have only recently completed the product line ~Ith lddttisn of the last element n~oded to m=ko the system adaptable tO any ~i=~ ~ir~raft. ~hi~ element w~s th~ computer ~hich
Page 30: TI07692685
oont~ol~ the ~yote~. Further~ TFG ha~ invested mask o~ ~ts o~ort~ and men~y to prov~ ~he concep~ and pr~duct~ by ac~u~| in great detail. My companie~ and their p~r=onn~l became co~miEted to maklng the important contrlbut~on to safety re~lected by our Hark an~ equipment when, nearly 10 year= ago~ ~= recognized the need this protection and finally understood the ÷utl scope of the fire probl~m~ in avlatian. I~ 15 Imperat~ve that you and your comm~tte~ also understand the full scope of the fire problem in aviation. To help you, Total Flood Corporation ha= documented its e~÷orts and written written ~n Installation and Maintenance Ranual~ TFA18-O024~ which i~ FAA approved ~nd =pea|fig= how to install the equipment in a acceptablm to the FAA0 I have included e~cerpts from document= in thi= tostlmony so that tt will be helpful to yOU, Thu~ your under=tending will be enhance~. The resulting recem- mond~tion5 ~nd legi~latlon will reflect a recognition of the m=t~nt of the problem as welt ~s encourage u~e of these modern concepts And state-of-the-art technology pioneered by Tote) Flood Corporation. 339 1he ltgisIati.on ye¢~ are cmnsid~rSng ~i]1 ulti~atelv a~fect the ~rc p'rotectlon equipment that is aboard mc~t o~ th~ Fro~ Horld'~ commerclal, business~ and military tran~por't alrc|'a~t~ not just the airplane5 OF the U.S. major airlin~. You ~ust reallze thi~ ~d ~nderstand th~ f~r reaching re=pan~ibilitv and impact o~ your action here, protection and Components fellqws,
Page 31: TI07692686
340 ~Tirol Ileod corporation }'ira preleollea I~etelulo Section 2 Behind the Total Flood® Concept: A Breakthrough in Aircraft Fire Protection 2.0 341 Total limed Corporation fire [Irllecilsm e~elems ~ECTION 2 BEHIND THE TOTAL FLOOI~ CONCEPT-" A Broakthrnugh In Alrcyall FIr~ Proto¢llon obviOUS It fl~l. Ans~ring Iha quasllon: 3hit cln ~ done with hT~ ~,ds only ~en wondering how he over got Ilong without It. The Ivllilon usa of HMon s~ e~lallzedTolllFIo~e fife Wolecllon equipment d~lg~ for II Ii • breakthrough. To u~nr/llnd Many wilhln Ihe aviation )ndull~ hive tecognlz~ I~ h~lN el ltrl. The U.S. Nlv~ Center. for Instant.in ! 972 lill~: ~lre is One hEIrd Ih~l II common to ill Ivllllon c~llnue to elmira liv~ lnd destroy pro~y lick ylir. ~ny mlllllW rand ¢ommol~ll lylteml ire iciivllld, I pradetermln~ imo~nt of firl lupprlallnl II rololl~d dirtily into lhl l~clo. un~ralo~ by conductin~ • thoughful review. Thls ~lvlzw anlwem Im~nt q~tions mlztzd Io: ( 1 ) lJ~l~l ~fH. (2) l]~¢rl~ fJm ~otection ~fors ~nd aHer IM ~wTotal FI~e ~ulpmnt ~ Hat ~ I~I, (3) tM ad~of pmont da~on r~ulremlnts IM ~ulltow mlnl~um ~u for pmtK~n, znd (4) the s~Oniflcance of t~ Total F~e ~nc~ents. FI~, by the wsy, sre nol limtt~ to enoln~, but ~ ~ur In ~cupl~ fllohl ~k~ ~ ~blnl, snd In un~u~od equip ~nt and cargo mresa. The sco~ of flrn lnclu~ ~th those t~l am bumlng and th0~ t hst might ~ngnim unless prl~nt~ by a proof firs prot~tlon lplla. ~t~ b~Id ca~or~ ol firza Ira invol~: 0round, In-flZght, sn~ ~st-crash f]r~. A fill of the Im~nt qu~ns to ~ • Whir kl.d l~¢ they~ ~ How m~y • ~It a~* the tim Iosm? • IS th~ probi~ Qellln~ ~tte[ or • Whmtls s go~ exmmpleof a ~ent flmw~rom Total FI~e s~tlmwould hsve made a different? • Equl~t led Aging: • Whir Is • Whir ta Ihl old phll~y and t~n~ f~ flghll~ ~rc~ fl~? • H~ d~ t~ ~ Totzl FI~ ~llo~y. ~hn~. s~ ~uip~nt differ? • ~ f~ Prot~ti~ V:. ~slgn fl~ulr~mentl and R~u~tlo~:
Page 32: TI07692687
(:3 ",4 0'~ I 342 Total iliad G0rpiratlio fifo |fe|eel|eg sl~e|ell! • ItOW Should new rllllgn rl~u] flI~llell led rl~ ulltlOns tm llll~;t~:l by edvan©emlnta |n ~ntl ~ I~rll~ Into the d~llgn and ~ulp~nt? ~ .Ira to t~ qu~lo~l w~ll IhOW Totll FI~ [mpro~ ~tl~ ~flty by el~lnit[~ I ~doul ~ IM Is I wo~ h~lrd I~ly thin i. the ~t In terms of I~t II~. ~ulp~n t. and do,am. A iolullon now It not only ~blo. ~ It II ~hwhllo m~ Io~ ~. Addl~ I~p~d to ~ I~ le IXCO~tl Ifom mfa~ I1~ it t~ eM of Ihll ~ofl. F~ AIRC~ FIR~ A ~A~IGAL SURV~ DACK~OUND ~ I~ly undi~l~ ~ly ~ t~ who ~ ~ from r~ll~. ~e~ ml~on~ptl0nl Ire wo~h mentioning to flmllllflZl the mlhr with th~l fltllcl~ Ind, then, t~ ICIUll MII~OH~EPTI~ • FIr~ i~ no I~ng~£ m pmbl~ t~Y of t~ • If In ~l~t Is ~d ino~h tO ~tch fire • FIr~z h~ rsrdy ~ t~s~s sl~m~ • Engine flr~ sm t~ g~t~t ~u~s~or proration lyattm. I~ ~epe s h=n~d If Ih~i Is In In.flight fire. om~tut~ o~ I. me ~m; I~ [-~ - • 343 Total Plaid GurpuratllU fire I~ro|letleg' lyl|ell on December IT, 1903, avialorl realized the urgonl necessity lot protection. The recorda el the U.8. patent Office show Ihet by 1915 work on proration had pr~xes~ fir enouDh to mk I ~lie.l, In Fmbrul~ of !g15, Clemens Grill of Berlin. Gexmany. filed for a pllanl on "Fire ~Unoulzhlng men~ for A.dll Craft', U.8. Pliant 1,2~.8~. (11} Othv~ pfocod~ and followod Grlff. Walter G. Cll~, of Foil Wodh, filed for a ~tent (U.8. Patti 1,3B3,708) on a "Fire Ext;ngul=h~ for Atfopfinll and the Like"In July 1919. In hll Invention herecognlzed the nl~ bprotect bothlheoccu~ntll~the H~z disclosure shows protecling the rein pa~ of the fu~elafle, the pilot ~d o~ower I.l~ the c~kp]~, thl botl0m el Ihe gas lank and gasoline lines, th~ engine oll pz., and even Ihe Oulsl~e of the zlrcrelt'e fu~llgl. (12) Still theproblem of aircraflfires persists, and Ihe potential for finlncill loss In te~ml ofcoItly equlpmenl end ~ople's lives Is greller Ihan ever berg re. Aim ost every day se~ a ne~ paper a~iell ibou I in Ilrcrafl ~cc]~nt In~Mng tire. H~er, t~ay, as #n I~ pa~t t~re am tho~ ~ ch~ to Ig~e t~ threat in avlago~ Po~h~= Ihey think It Is ~ly a pad of I~ ~l, or ~rh~e t~y ~n'l ~ ~ to ~ll ~lh Ws disastrous off.Is. presell I~d future aerospice vehic;e fires ~o~e i serious t~reat that ~uzt be pio~rlydel;t wll~. This ~y the iviuli~ indu=t~ hi: b~omo InGteallngly II~IUvo tO fire, ~PEI OF FIRE~ Generafly. firestbulo¢curonthugroundzaaresu~ofunaccl~nlor~clO~llra ~lled pozt~rush fires. Those thzt occur ulofl, ar in t~ praise of IznUIng or lak~off, ire caH~ In-flighl flrel. When fires occur in aircraft on the ground from a variely of ¢nu~al, olher thun ¢ofllllon~ ~1~ fllh~ or in-flig~l fires, they Ire cllled ground flre~. Mo~t ~op~, pllota und pasuangl~ alike, ua~lute almr~fl f~m~ with a~lne ~ompa~men~ ~ r~ut~ aml Butenglne liras Ire o~ly a ww tma]l ~rCentage oflhe problem, repr~anting typ~ully onl~2.~ of all altcrafl liras. In McL nil ~-fllghl fireu together are just ~ ~m¢l pad, Thty account for only 5.~ of fireu when Ihe engine fires I re I~clu ~lO with Ill other ]~-flfgh I fir~ Ground fl r~ from CIUMU 01~ collJ~onz account for about 3.~ of all aircraft flrea. Po~t-c~sh fires are the ove~helmlngly dominant ~pa el tim. a~ountlng for needy 91.1 ~ of ~11 aircraft llre~ {1) l~ FIGURE 1 TI, p~I ¢~l Alrclalt Fhel: Cor~blned NTSB statistics 1970 thru 1981 for U,S. Germlal Aviation. Air TI~I 2.3
Page 33: TI07692688
0 '-4 CO 344 (EST) 2.4 345 lalal ilnld Clrllralill passenger, circe| were leas then perfect. The largest pe~l~e~lt diem base (in IOrml of number of incidents) results from Service Difficulty Reports (SORt and Is maintained by the PAA Aeronautical Center in Oklihoml Ci~". ..... "From all sourc~ it is clear that ev~ the GDR data bile d~l not mp~nt 1~ pe~nt of Ihe In-cabin smoke and fire i~idenls actually ~urdng due to n~-mpodlng. mllcodl~g. I~ ~obaDly ~y other reasons. Exactly whet ~ment of the popu~flon Is mpmssnl~ is im~sslblo Io dell;mine. For reference, however, o~o carrier apparently has mree to four fi~= Ihe ~lnent In,dents recorded (Janua~ 1,197~Msrch 26. 19~t) on their ~omputor~od be=~ =l d~ the ~OR base." (5) NUMBER OF U.S. GENERAL AVIATION~ AIR TAXI. AND COMMUTER AIR CARRIER FIRES Statistical evidence of the growing problem of eircreft fires can be observed In recent NTSB {1,2) stetIstics. F~'om 1976 thou t~t. twenty tour Ihousand nine hundred fifty four (24.0S4) accidents o| all types occurred. In 1976 Ih e total was 4.193 decreasing Io 3.E54 in 198 I. Fires occurred in 2.292 acrid e nle glebe24.954 torsi accidc~tsin this time period (9.2% ayarEga). Ire 1~76 there wel.e 3~qTl~ccldente wllh liras (&6%) while in 196 f there wine 4 (}3 fires (10.5%) Thle trend is cleady rl sing• Figure 3 Ihowe Ihe typel and numbers ot fires by year of occomnce from t 976 fhru t 901. Of Impoltance to noel ere: • In-fllghl fires average oMy §.5% of tolll fires. • Ground rims average only 2.4% of total fires, s • Post-crash fires average 92.1% of total fires. • A 19.3% rated increase in accidents involving tires since 1076o which Is a 9.8% Increase In the number of accidents with |ire per year proving that mo;o tiros are Occurring more orion each L L L I " Post.Grn:lh fires In-Flight flrae ~ ~ Ground fifo3 FIGURE 3 through 1~1. not i~luding air ca,le~. Oa~ on NTSB reco~da as Of February t~3 (I} 2.5,
Page 34: TI07692689
346 347 lalal iliad Cerleratll! fire prele~|lell s~slem! NUMBER OF DAMAGED AtRCRAFT IN GENERAl. AVIATION, AIR TA~I, AND COMMUlIR ~ There were lg~ti nlrcra~l d|$troymJ end 1~7 alrctaft dtma~ by tires (rob 1~79 thm~h I~1. (1.2) ~at-creeh rims, In.flight tires, and ground tires. ~e chz~s am bso~ on NTS8 data from 1970 ~ru I~1. Damage by Type a4 Film, NTSB lg7~- 1~1, FIGU~E 5 ~URE 6 NUMBER OF PERSON| INJUREO IN GENERAL AVIATION, AIR TAXI, AND COIdMUTER FIRES The most Irscdoalatleflc lathe loss of fits which occurs In most |,lrcrlfl |ires, (1,2) From IhoNTSB dMa Carder tire r~sts4 s~ldents. ~lh In-flight end post~rssh. 1,~ were kill~ (~.~). 73gweto InJur~ InJud,. ~ such, TFC': rel~lrch rev~ ~o ~dlnenl ~tdes In the NTSO dull ~ prior ~ 1~9. * ~evonyes~ ago in l~the public NTSB ~oMs [~MI~: ~m~GUlr~ sher 1~, ~,~ el ~ fs~l zc~ent~" Fu~her,'~ of t~z ~pln zbozrd ~MI In which fire en~ " ~tw~n 1~74 and 1978. "~z~mlh flr~ ~¢u~ In shout ¢~ of Ihl ~.~ r~uit~ In fltll~lSZ II ~0~ pl~ IO 0"~ Iht~n (13) ~ ~enl of tho~ I¢~I~ll which d~ not 3.6 Total Flied Cirplratll| fire I~rglocllo~ sl~slom 141%1 NUMBER OF U.S. AIR CARR~R PO~T-CRAIH FI~I In lha12 year Period l~om1~) lo lgB1, lho NTSB repor~s lhem w¢re102 U S Ait Cl~dat iccid~nls IbCt experJ on~ IIr~ T~Ial Air ~r~Jer a~ld~)s for Ihe fire. Comparing the average 9.2% of all accidents in GonoIII. AI to Ihe ~.3% of Air C~rde~ accidents; rims occu~d in AI~ Cl~rler ope~atJona~ acc~denll 2,2 limos mar~ he~uently. Sea Flgu~ 0~ 2.1
Page 35: TI07692690
]oral Hnd |erperat|en Finally, at the 2TOT lives 10st In the 463 accidents (NTSD 1969 Io 1 S79 only). 2,258 lives (83.4%i wsfe lost In the 92 ~ire-relnl~ n~cldonls of the ~me ~m~ poriod. ~[l~ II is ncl ~lws~ ~sib~e affecll of (;r~ on the (oral falslifles I;sied. lhe NTSB ~e~de show ~l less1410 Mllllties deflnilely by Iho fl~ol (1) See Figure 9. Ano~n~ wry ta ~ook st thaza Air Carrier :tatlatiG: I= to compare the NTSB regard of Mtafltlea In'NT~B ~u~lvsblo Accidents". These r~0rds show t7 s~dentl with 15?2 ~on: ~rd ~tw~n 1 107~. }nclullvo. The~l were dtflnl~ly 287 ~rsonl k~lled by ~ impl~ (t 7.~ of the ;gill ~pnnls) in In~lud;n~ (hash injured by the uriah and the fl~o. Thg~ofom. it ippaa, tire ~ 1 greeter h~lrd 1hen 22r ~ (13 6%1 FIGURE 9 NTSB Air C=~ler Su~Iv4~t= Accl~nte I~1~, (1) Outing the conduct el ~T/FA~GT~4~ FICtOW Mulull ~l~rch ~r~mtlon ~lt~¢~ Idsti balefromlheFAk's~o~loeDIfficu[lyRlpod(~OR)dltlb~e.(5) Thai new ~ Is ~l~r~ to il Ihe FMRC data base. *'Occurring during tho tl~ ~d~ JlnuR 1978 through ipprox~ately mid Mash, 19l 1, 32 t incidents of ~nleresl were r~o¢~d to lore tM ~w FMRC dill bite. OI t~M n~m~, ~ (74 ~r¢~nl) Inv~ ~ ~=fl of DCg size c}==s and lar;er," ~¢h wee prob~y U.S. Air ~Htr oNr=tlo~, Im~d=nl to temem~r that this ~e~d d~lt only w[~ In-fllght (ullage fires i~ ~s not l~ude scold ants I n~Mno anglos first. It is also Im ~dlnl Io k~p In ~nd ~at data deriv~ ires SDR ~r~ II Of lho data swil~lo ~d, fu~her, It sugg~ts that NTSB IIgurosaro tone,sTably more conle~Mi~tha~ 2,8 P Total ileid Cerparatiea fire pteleclltn Ilsllms NUMBER OF FIRES IN WORLDWIDE AVIATION The preceding dell reflects only the information of Iho N~SO lind dogs hal eat]roMe the worldwide Impaul of Ihe aviation tim problem. Estimates vary from st least twice to ~thapl four limes Iho numbn~ amount to millions Of dollars, thousands el lives, and hundreds of afrc~lfl, A prompt and =atllflclow solull0n Is worth while In d ~n9 overdue. The polen~=l for Io Is is Of gilt now th In eYer ~fgro. "Neltho~ the relative number (assuming Reel grow~) nor Ihe Ioczlion distdbullon his chan9~ 9roally" (5) in recenl years, but Ihe value Of the loss of lives, equipment, ifld Usa Is many limos oresler then ~ef III AC~IDt[NTB INVOLVinG Fine TOTAL u.s, CIVIL AVIATION BY yEAR IN ONE YEAR -- 1~MI FIGURE I0 Increase In Fire Related Acck~nls: A comparison of yearly U.~. Civil Aviation total accldenls Io accidents Involving fire shows a steady Increase In fire occurancno and suggests on alazming wmld WIUo Impact. 2.9
Page 36: TI07692691
P 350 Total Flood Gorpmratiam |TATi,TtCAL IUMIIAII¥ OF AVIATION From 1079 thru 1 ~1 there w~re the foilowing nuf~b~ m of p~rlons and tire-misled occident|In the U.8. ms mporte~ b/the NTGB. iN U.I, GENERAL AVIATION. AiR TAXI, AND COMMUTER AIR CARPiIKR Oi~.ItAT10 N~ • There were 11,~1 8ccJdmtte o| ell • 1.173 eccldente with I|me, ~.nd In tt~te Ere ec©ldent~ there w~m • g.T~e p~r~o~e ebo~rd and Invc~v~Cl a~ the ground. • f ,010 eircreft were c~atro~r~d by the flr~. • le2elrcretl w~redemSged, end only • 3 idramft not demigod by the fire in It~ • 1,564 p~mnl mm kWed in ~ ftre-r~ated • 738 pemonl were Injured by the flr~ ~ ~ In these ~ccide~t~. • only 17.8 percent, or 493 persona. ~sped w~thout thJuw In the flr~,nvolved eccldents. • |N U.|. AIR GAItRIEIt OPERATION| • There were 64 l~iO|l of slt tyro, • 14 ~Cl;IcMnte with fires, end In there lira occl~n~ them • 1.000 pe~ne, et lesst, ~bo~rd and Inv~ed on the ground. s e alrcrsf! v/ere destroyed by the first, • 5 aircraft v~ero demeg~l. ~nd only • 1 elrcra, wee ~t ~m~ged b/the tim In ~ ~nt. • 139 ~rion~ wore In~ur~ by the tim m~ ~r~ • 512 ~ons es~ wlthoul ~]u~ In - IN ~ U.L CWIL AValON. A~flAGE~ ~R • ~1 ~ iccldenls of oil • ~g5 accidents with ~rws. i~ In t~ RN ~d~n~ • 1,~ ~ons m~ ~d InvO~ ~ t~ ~ ~2alrcr~ll w~re ~tro~ by the rims, 2.10 351 Total llaad Glrplratlln ~l~e prelecllon sl~tlenl! • ~3 ~l ~re I~ju~ by the fires and cashes In th~ accidents, • ~s ~ without InJuw In the llre-Jnwl~ lc~dents. ~D OF ACC~E~.~ ~R~S ~ AC~DENTI OF ALL figure 3 sho~ a cl~r upward tend In the a~ n uel n u m~r of a~tlon m~ld~ts with flre~ I~ • e six (6} year ~ h~ 1978 through 1~1. f~ Instate Gl~rll AvJMlon, Nr Taxi, ~d Commuler Air uccl~nls r~ f~om 4,1 ~ ~ 1 ~7~ Io • high of 4,4~ a~l~ll In 197l. Th~ • d~reu~ ~an and ~ 1 ~ Ihl~e w~e f~e~ action,s, ~lh 3.~4 recor~ by the NT~O. Yet, ~h yea~ there hive bNn more accidentl wl~ fie then IM previous year, ex~pt fore tom~raW dip In 1978. ~C d~s not m a ~flnl~ trod In t~ NT~ ~cl~nt ~or~ for U.G. Air ~, bul ~ I~ ~fMions am so few ~m~ to t~ p~vl~l callow a six ~mr ~ Is probably not long ~n~h tick a ~nd. ~ss, t~ N~B I~w t~t~ accident, from 1976 thru 1 ~1, to ~ rea~ti~y, 20, ~a I ~mm In t~ I~1 ~ of U.S. AI~ CI~ ~ldmnts ~r y~r. Howewr, the r~o~ for lh fatal humor of a~nts wl~ fl~ a~ to ~ steady. ~m may ~ eo~ JusUIIcallon for stagng (~downto~).lnl~g~e~ewom4~cldontswtth ftre.ln197Ot~m~relt,l~ln 1~1 ~erm WaS 1. TFC c/agone ml~m Io r~ll ~ FMRC d~la be, heal;, ~lu~ It ~co~l 2~ i~ult fires with 214 proj~t~ for Ihe ll~ ~ 1976 Ihfu 1~1. ~ refer to Figu~ 8. Themf~e, TFG bllle~ the Irend I~ most ~umtlly shown by t~ combln~ accldenl 1~11~¢~ of the NTSB ~ aU U.S. ~vil evil,on. ~ such, In 1976 t~re ~m 4~1 a~l~nts thl~ and In 1~1 there 3.879. an d 8.1 ~1 ~oa~ In t~] ic~n~. In 1 g76 I~re wn~o it ~a1375 scc~nts wit h firms and In l~llh;rs~eatl~¢m-lnvo~accidwnls- s ~,7~r~ntlncml~lnfima~ldonls.~lsT.7 ~(~11~ ~ ~ ~u~ It ~ ~ m~ to t~ to~l n~ of ~le. In 1~8 ~ 3~ fire ~x~le~ 10,4 ~t of tM tot~ ~s f~ ~t ~. ~of~m, ~ 7.7 ~ tmnslst~ to ~ ~ Orea~ i~ yew e~nlfi~t 17.23~t ra~ I~. ~]ch Is al~l~. ~ ~ Figure 10. cont~t end ~ In~r spp~h to t~ problem of ~r~rafl fire prot~tl~, the ~lng of ~tu~ ev~t my~drsy ~ drlmsti~;y the Into~ f~ling of ~rror a~ helpl~i~s Pro~ssion~ ~lot m~azlne I¢ ~ 9rl~i~ d~ptlon of in accident ~]ch r~u)ted In o~ ~ath ~ moral NNm InJur~l when IM ~rctafl ~lml ~l ~clim of n n OnWard II~. Wdler Wl Hilm ~y, his WM) written m~ount of a '~ext ~k" ~nsdo. ~d~l in great ~till I~ Inte~ flustfM~ Bed letter fMI by I~ crew and pmonOe~ Of I DHG~ In Ihll¢ Iflimpt to mI.O In il~la ~ fll~ ~lth d~ ~dl I~. II tht ~me Urn. combat a tim Ihat ¢o~d eel ~ A ~n tim WoOllen sydlm bll~ on ~o To~l R~ • co ncept wou~ have given this icclde~l I ~W dilflrentootcome. The fol~w]ng summlw of ~ents Ii m stow of he~ ~pb led OUtdlt~ ~lO~y. Pilgrim Airll~ Fli9~ a~ i ~HlvlMnd D~ Twin Otter. was o~al;n9 M~ die Ai r~R and ~st~ L~ln AI ~R. 21 Feb~. I ~Z Whill mn~te ~lw~ the intl~ 2.11
Page 37: TI07692692
Total lined Garparatiea |ire |~'eleg|le| el'elera! 2.12 8~ Total flood Corporation fife Frltecllell l~11111111 ~T~edr~sdfu~ c~n~qu~n~ ~f ~h~a kind ~f ~h~nkin~ i~ m~d~ sven m~rn ~ragic when it iz ~n~rss~ed w~h ~he don Of IhM ~obMm Ia ~do. How many more L~khend 1~11'o. E95'~, K0135'~ and olhor civil Ilruzfl ~ll hl~to be ~ltrO~ by fire, killln0 ill on board. ~fotl ~ Iolutlon Is AIRCRAFT FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT AND FIRE EXT]NGUISHANTS BACKGROUND Two major concsrns rngsrdlng elmrsft lir~ have evolved. They cenlsr ernund the need to ¢onl~ol engine fires ~ th~ n~d [or• ~th~ of deal;no with lira In other a~0ae, mainly thoo~ dish,roe (HgD} ~]em. whi~ the lusnlsg~cab;n/c~kpll was e[lh~r unprotected o~ pmteclad wilh on(y hln~hlld lXdflgullhOrl. Historically. there Ill veil few examples of flx~, d~lCllOd uaulfly provide. ENG~EFIRE PRO~ION IYIT[M8 Thirll~ tWO gen~rilty~ ol engine file protection Waleml. Conwntion~ led HRD. The Conv~tlonll lyltwm wzl dzvzlo~d I)~lt Ind wll followed by Ih meet of the HRD system ~ ~mlnd for • lighter weight i~tem Convent[on~l systems hail Ihe wldesl ippliclllon ~czuse Bey ~l consldar~ more p~wed~l, These s~lemsc~tzln mor~ agent led hive I dll~hlrge durlllon Itlezzt foul (4) lime= longer thin H~D systems.Theextr~ ~lght Of the agent ~d containers, In obvious dllldvlfltlge, fed I0 the d0velopmonl of Ihe HRD syslem. Io szvo iny possible weight. proleetlon II~fcy compfomll~ thllr/billly Io pf~nl fPIgnill~ f~ hot 1.41cls I~ ~me engines, but I. rlllUvCy smaller turbine engine complRmonll, the grollly lessened end c~lng ll~low d~s mike it ~ssibln to reduce Iha imounl of lgent riquired for proloclion If 2.13
Page 38: TI07692693
354 355 ~ htal iliad |lrplratlll ~Jre ~tgle¢lJe| l~elell| Also, no dsts eslsls to ihow U~ efle¢l of the rite ol ~llCh~ ~ Ip"ll~ Of a~t, ~ ~e~ ~d duration of ~t~llon. II ap~S Jm~llJble to dethrmlne I ~i ~ confld~ce or"~rgln o~ from dnta that d~s exisl. A slm~e ~ Im~nsnl quesuon Ilk~ ~ll th~ s~tem ~e~fl~ ~ m t~ squl~o Inch hole Is ~reat~ ~ ~mm~l to the nixie ~nd a 1~ MPH Vl~HltiOn IS exiting at t~ ENGINE ENTiNOUI~INO AOENT~ ~o exllngul~lnls~vl0ualy u~in engine syatn~ hive ~n C~. Car~n Telrech~or~, Me~yl Braids, Chlo~momelh~, and otharL In r~nlyeam, Halon 1 ~1 ( 13} has ~o~ wld~ ul~ ~u~ ~ his ~n ~nMmt~ to ~ the mo~l off.live by ~1 and by weight, It II the Io~l loxlc of Iny spent, and h~ no cordova IflKtl. Even though It II Ul~ ~ng(neaylt~ml, ll~fuHpot~nllllhlllomli~lltg~lyuntlp~.~n~H~o~l~ld~notc~mlflms In the lime wly el p[~oue c~ml~ll lgentl. It le not ~tl undoml~. 1~1 Ilrmlnll~ ~mbuItlo~ by bre ~lng down Ionlzltl0 n In ~he ~ombuall~ prec., A 5% ~ volume Ip~lllon la morn Ih~n ~tisflc- Io~ lot conlml ol any I~l Thli fl~ II o~en ~ubt~ by Ike~l~/who n~l not I~Uilnt~ with chemlcal'l pin.mince lid I~ mo~ el Ixt[ng~lhmenl. which Is ~otMly dlstln~ ~m lho mlh~of C~, C~, ~ oi~ ~nl~ wh~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Instate t~ rim r~ O~n. ~1~ HflO syncs whl~ m 1~1 ~ ~ c~ Io ~ ~uale wlth an ~l ex~ I1~ of ~ ~ ~! (1~ m surlacws ~d ,[Im~llon of tim tlll~ with its c~pletl ~tumtlon of ~ if~t~ ~e~ K,asnor p~nll out In m ~cto~ Mutull ~Ib~ito~ ~ of ¢lrcr~ fire fighting a~ntl I l~nlfl~n welohl advantage for Halon I~I. Aoonl ind contml~r ~ight ~Inlgll of ~10htiy m~ than 3 tlm~ w~ co amen. Thil II Io li~. ~lon Iptl~ ~n the IVlrlOl ~ri ~om then ~ H~hllr lhln ~m~l ayst~s u~n0 o~¢r ao¢nls. When Hzfon I~I le ~ In Conv~n~on,l spleml. ~rifom. t~ w~g~l ~illdVln ~Ol d~Ip~lq, thouoh lhl tllllJa If~K[]Vlnlll U compar~ Io HR O I~IIi~. Jl InOly moro fzvor~b~,. (I0. I~l T~ I¢I Flood~ lyll~ I ~ll Halo n I~I Ix¢f~llvely. Mor~ info~mmtion ~ this l~lnl Is ~]U~ In ~Gtlon I0 el thll prop~l. OAI~ FIR~ PAO~C~ON All mdvin~menta In p~l cibl~ fir~ pmt~lo~ ~ll~phl~. i~nlq~. and ~ulpmlnl hmw N~ at0~ d~d ~ ~e lnlur~nt¢~¢ pr~em. II. tick of chlmlul which Ire ~fm for hum~ li~lUrl Jo ~I concenlrltlonl ,~ul~ reinsure ,xOngollhm¢nL OADIH Z~INQUIIXINO IOlHTl ~tlnOUilh]n0 agin~ currin~ u~ In ~uf~int d~gn~ for ~bln l~r¢ proration vi~ wld~y. T~V. ~e m~l common l~n~. ot~l ~n wirer, lr~ ~lon I~I Helen I ~I I. C~. and d~ ~ml~a~ mnd th¢~ ~ l~il~cklB~ ]~ hlnd hlld CoNII~ ~ 1301 and HI]H 1~11 MI among t~ m~l ~r i~nte. ~i~ ~ its ~m~ ¢Iml~[~ with t~ t we ~lonz. which mike Ihem sp~ tnte~in~,. ~*m am also ~mo ~ Im~nt Ol the t~ Hsfon iO~, only 1 ~1 Is mpp~ f~ u~ ~ lo~l fl~ln9 ~lml I~u~ m by ~ FAA ~ ~FPA ~uae "1 ~ I Is lie niflcmnt~ le~ text". Hzl~ 1211 (14), whl~ ap~ In ~ c0ncenlrltlonl may qu~kly ~ "Th~'s brig quettion lhal ~rs H410n 12111i momlW~C lhln l:~r~ H~J~:m 1301. V~n ~t~ u~a • ~um of ~proxl~t~y KIMIvriUo. ~rn, in his appri~l Of ln~thll~. ClICUlIt8 1 rEl~ of lpproxlmM~ I~42. ~tud~ el Hand-~Id Fire ExU~ullhw~ A~rd L.~. K~¢ner. F¢clow MutuaIRemrch ~r~r~tlon. 2.14 ~ Talal flail Carplrallea • fl~e [lroloslle| lyllell TI~ Xf~Mh411c i~opedies of hl~ co~enUatTonl of 1~. al ~1 ~ ~ h~ va~r ~xlcl~ ~e II un~l~o for total fl~t~O systems ~ ~upl~ Or~al ~ ~lthlt~dt~. It Is ~k~ for ~bln ~; m~ ~n u~ ~ c~fln~ n~e. l hln~Md 1211 i~t~l~ p[~ a total H~ extl~ullh~ In I e~ll ~m Ilrcrlh ~uld mu~ In t~a1~ f~ mlmolphere". extl~ulshl~ do not m~l ~l Indusl~l mlnlmu~ ~ll~n ~ul~m~ I~ I~tll II~n~ lylllml ~ are~. (NFPA 12A) T~lr r~uc~ llll~ullhlno I~KI~I~ Bn com~d I~ hostile .5In ixll~u~hl~ .n not ~ofm Ihl ~.~o~! o~ ~fl ~l~nad Ind Ingln~ tot~ fl~lng ly~lm, I~ ~n II~l pro~ Wlrl full~. ~1 h~d-held lxlln~ullhlr ~ 1~ only alllfnlll~ • ~lg~ for i~ll~llonl In ~ ~ invlr~nll, ~ ~1 Iox~l not ~l~bll ~ I~ ~1 of ~m I~IN In the ~ or • TOXIc IM unlul~l for ~e cl~ Of II~t -I ~ ~d ~mbtnalf~. A~IiOMIly, h~d lx,ng~l~r~ coul~ only ~ e~t~e.,. ~d~ O~H fl~l H.II f&l w]l~ ~1 Ixl~ullhl~ I~ oulco~ ~ d~l~l Ind ohen ~ltlllrophl~. (5} • I~ I~lrl Ii i~ Io ~1 tim. Oulk~l, fl~ ~11 pill, h~l, Iraqi, I~ Ihl ~ lhlm~v~ o~ Hlkl I~ • If ~ midriff ~n ~ flOWn ~ I~ III;.~UII~ i ~Hwulahor. - If I~l ~t 5 ~n-loxlc Nlo~ ~om~ll~. • I~ IF, I~ .............. I ~1~ p~ ~ I~ ex~ngullhlm. T~ ~phy and {~p~ of flghtl~ I .~n tim wl ~l~l Ixll~ul~lr ire un~lrllbll I~ I~ ~mNIIl~. FudhlG II ii ~1 ~ll~ Ihlt I fin ~uI! l~y,l~lr It Ii 1~ Illll A~lJlbll I~ mlk~ Ihll I~{~ I Irlm~. T~ r~nl ~TIF~CT-~4~ "Study of hl~hMd ~tlngu~m ~ CMI Av~ll~ N~I~" (5) ~ll~ui~m cou~ ~ ~lUc~l. It mud ~ N ~N ~1 ~ml~ ~1~ ~ll~n In Idl~lo Imdl ind~lll. II II c~r Ir~ Ihl Ib~nl of ~1~ Ihll the ~1
Page 39: TI07692694
356 Total Ilead Gerparatiin ,~JOHT CREW Tfl AININO- An obse~etlon, q ultra obv~Ou| site" vbldng m~o~ cintra, was th~ lack of ~n4~ber mull Op4rlts ilCh WP~ of firm ixtZ~ullh~ dun~ mm~ ~am~o ~o ~ Gun~ ~ 24 ~m~lr ~nthe. The FAR d~ n~.ln f~ *xttnoulihln9 IoInt IrI'UI~[[Y unkno~.....'(5) .{naummadzino~flral~Z~nVe~dl~.il~c~thMgl~rlYflr~r~tbyf~thsm~fl~m bytheVadoT07~Ju yl~ 1913...e~e~laL1011 flmlnl~lmlim~l~Ml~tolal firs led smoke events ~n~ In lXtl~u~ ~1~ m~ fl~flOM~O I rzt~......" (5) WEIGHING OR L~ CHI~IHO N NECIII~Y TO O~RMI~ RUDI~H "0nk sf~l(~lnt ~Int ~no Is milntenln¢l i~ rsiis~llty should ~ cll~ ~mt[~ to pr~aurlz~ Ino m~lum, s~ n~ ~ n~tus of~l flH ~ume.A;atn, WwaY~ e~m~. ~ ~a to~Irp ~ m~h es 7$ ~r~nt of ~ ~t~ 1211 fr~ ~gNng....." A N~ DE~INNINO ~H TOTAL FLeD PRO~C~N0 THK ~IIH ~D O~ sylle~ With tWO dlltl~cl cl~bllttkl: * ~ c~ll~ to p~t fZms tl~uts~ still ~fl~ie 1~'s t~ FAR'z. ~l~.) till ~ el whll c~ N ~ quire whir wll ~ to ~ It I~ tim. the plsL H II et{ll with oil T~Iy, ~ t~ ~r ~u~t ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~L ~ ~ th~ ~ ~1 N~ ~lng 2,16 357 Total Ilaad Corparatlaa tire llrellallel lye|lip Wldt the Idyll of H~fon 1301 • completely new philosophy el olrcriff life prot~lon hu Iv~v~; ~, tKhn~t~lly unlq~ ~ulpment h~ ~zull~, It II now ~u]ble, with ~ron I ~1, Is pmtlcl ~Sb et ~P~ MeI ~ecg~y ~th lha !o~1 fl~inO concept. In add]lion, any ot~¢ per ~l~ ~n ~ Just as ofl~*~ prot~t~znd by the Mme s~tmm, ~l~t~ s~l~ms, while still r~u]~ for ~me applications. Ire ~lng rm~dly out~t~ by ¢omblnltlon I~t~l which ar~ to floht fire problems ~ ~]nu. rem~e luxlHla~ compadmo,ts. ~Zl~OUl all. ~ up~ cartel, or r~iaMllly of Hll0n 1~!. comM~ with ~e vef~tHlty of th~ ~ul ~mnt, In pro~r~ wl~ml flow make it ~lllble 10 UM th I ~ me 12eft Is ~dorm many ~ tff~tivlly. In I~ltlcn, now fire, or t~ t~MI of • fire. ~ ~ de~t with Nfoxe It s~dl, Thll wsl not ~sslhle with other R~e ¢om~nullon ~ystom ~ m flx~-wl~ lircrsft (~h G-l~l~ Air ~}, ~tlon 5 p~nto an FI~e c~ll and on TFC's cap~lH~ a~ Mwl~s. ~llon 10 con~lns lilt fl~s I~ ¢t~r t~hn~ dl~ ~ tef~ to t~ IS r~ NIID FOR ~O~1~ Vl, DIIHH RI~IR[~I ~O RIO~OHI DR~ROUQHI FOR TOT~ ROOOe InvN~lfl~ ~ ~ml Total F~o ~]On i~ml~dcom~nin~re~ls m~lr lU~Od~t~l~teml and ~tgn go~l of ~ fara~ht~ mlnufa~u~, for t~ ma~rlly of ~xtlngu~her manufa~tu~rs Ip~ ~nknt to ~ty ~tt~ minim um ~ulr~ by ~B ~ulmtlo,¢ ~ d~lmto ~1~ complete pmt~l~ h~ ahm~ TFC ~alon ~u ~n~ to iddre, all elemen~ of Ibm problem. In t~m pot It wm not ~ble to IitllflCtOdly re~ ~lX illmlfltl, therefore lhiri 111 fu ~dlmlfl~l cliff llbel ~NR IxlIII~ ~ltl~l led thm rlllt~ ~fgn fNu]mm¢nts. T~ r~ul.tto~, by lMlr hilum, ~ul~ only ~ It w~ ~Iblo to mccomp I~ w~ tNy worn wdHtn, ~d M~ InMwdsnl~y ~ n~r~oht~ lnd outdit~. ~ ~O~ONI 1~ ~ufations of t~ F~r~ Avllt~ Admlnletratl~, U.0. DOT, TM F~'I FN¢il Nr ~u~tlo~l ci~ ~ d~ Into tho~ ~ml Ip~y to ~hmld fl~l Ixtl f~ u~ In ~tCr~. and th~ that ap~y Io flx~ al~m, a~tlml. RMemnce 5. ~RhM ¢lt~: ~rl I~ no el~hln~a extl~ul~r ~to (FAR PaR ~) I~ ~ ~ edl~l~...~ m al~ ~ e~ ~lr~ls (FAR ~ 91) ~ ~ ~al~ The folIowln9 lat list of thos~ regulations. HANO HELD IqRl EXTiHOUIIHER| * FAR 21~ Approval el ml~dl~ ~I. ~S ~ l~l~ ~ ~n e F~R 25.~10~11. E~nw ~1~ Co~ll~a. ~ m F~ ~.~l ~x~l for Tra~d ~t~o~ Almmfl. . FAR 25,~I Hand ~m Ext~ulah~. Thl~ ~lon ~d~ the I~ I~t~n, ~m~r, and suHa~H~ of ~ ~a~ fire 2.17
Page 40: TI07692695
3r~ Told flared IIerplrillnn 1otnl flied Gmrpmratlen fifo pf|i0elltn o~ltgln • FAR 27.581 Ge~lrel Emllglll~l' Lln~lng Cold;ileal. Similar to FAR 23.5~1 cad FAR 25.~1. excapl foe ~1 Ci~lg~ry RoIott:rlN. • FAR 29.541Generet, Emergency Lending CondJtinnL Similar to FAR 27.561 except for Trenlport Clll~=ry Roto~erafl. - FAR ~9.1~1 (el, El3 |el/and {0 HBn¢ Fire E.xllngul~hlrl. Similar to the FAR 25.~5t. ea¢lpI fo~ Trll~porl Cil~goP/Rotomrefl. • FAR g1.193 (ca Emergency Equipment. "r~ela 9etetil opl¢iUng sad flight mill require held tim extinguishers fo¢ the (:raw and i~e~getl on Large and Turbine- Pov~red Mu)Uenglne Al~anca. • FAR 121.30e (c) El~ll~lcy EquIpmenl. ~mlllr¢o FAR g1.1~3 (ca ex¢loI Cm~'la~. OK:,, end Im;l~ rmlUlrement for carD<) oompa~nent h~nd exLInguIIhM(a). • FAR 125.119 (h) ind (c) Fire Preceuflonl. 5pl<:lllpa tfml CIm A cm~o end begg~ comperlmenla mull hlvI ~lrlaln d~lg n Icature~ and • h~nd axtJngul~t' Iflst II reldlly avidlY:lie f0¢ uN In thl! c~Xnl~rlmlmL • FAN tg,.10? (©) F.mer~ecy Equipment. Similar tO FAR 121.~1 (¢) aX~pl for • FAR 135.155 Fire IExtlngulsllerl; Pil~lnisr Carrying Ah'uaft, Simile)' to FAR DI.1E3 exc*pt fo~ Air Taxilnd C~w~l~l BUILT-IN (FIXED) FIRE IEXTINGU{HR| ANO Rill DETIGTION iY|T|M$ Them I~ some overlap In It~ ¢ltld re~ulldo~a kx ~ Fire F.~ullhell. end in molt ~ tht lame ~l of f~a r~ulitlon~ ire Invalid. A con~{dermMo listing re~l ~ looking M FAR Pmla 21, 2~, 9 I, 121.1~, I g7 end 1 ~. A pottJo~ of ~heca t~lutrmantl ire cited for t~ll prnpol~ra exempla, 4 FAR Z3.1~3 tN'u Z3.~ and FAR Z3.11e2 Ihrv 2~.1~03 oppl+y to su~.h I~iz~ Dn No~-Trln|~)rl C~t~oly AIt~reft. FAR 23,1203 etMca in port thM muil|mlgln~ tu d)[n~ pow~lred lad p+Mon I)ow~red tud)o~upercl~ged llrplanle must h~ve i "me~ns which inhume ~o~ ~Ion of a ~re In in a~ne • FAR 23.1~f U~d 25.187 ~Id FAR ~.|I|I th~ 25.120t Ip~y to luch equlpmwht an Trenlp~1C4|teUofy )Jr~refL Theca ~rcre~ Inc~u~ age| el toda1~a bue|nelald rcra~ end IN ek'cre ft w~gh~n0 more Ihor112.500 poun<ll. G+l~d ire .'l<;ulremantl for powm'ptenl like pmIKtlon el wax es fire protecUon in other amos such is cirgo and baggage TOTAL FLOOO • LIADIRIHNIAND AD~AN(:EMI.NTI [il(d Of IvJltI0n fire prote~11o~ ere now bell0 re¢ognlzed. The FAA hll lcknow|IdgKl the VllUe end Gupplemenlal Type C~rtlfl~-m [o date. Thole covm'noldlr I00 d~t mod~s oi ~kc~allo FAA Man UfaCturer APl~OWd (PMA| om;I flatlonsl s~aly ewsr~e furth~,afleet I~ TFC'e ong~qeer fnR Ii~derzhlp end te~hnlcll adven~,ementl. ~ Imp~zlent btelkkhmughs lm ~ghtlghted be~ow. OI:CUII/ED COMPAItYIIINT IVlITEMI in flefmn<::l 5 o,n h~nd-h~d axUngu~lhell. Fiolory MUIUll Relol~£11 Cor0oretion lound It tmport~nl to mcolnlxe a b~lOhro~gh. ~ nolo: "In recw~t y~mr~, It lelat one company Enk Av~tlon Coq)oretlon. a pirt oI'IFC, hal dlalgnld I fixed fire extinOUilhlng fined oxtln0ullhlng I~llems In 0c~upled eplcll. A sm~l d44Jgnld, flxld, Iolkl I~odln0 fire axUnllullhln nystlm sized to provide ~n ~cosplebla Igent concentration (~ng ventllMIon 0uldMIne~) will I~ et Icalt II IlIKU~e IS hlt~ potllhIN wlth the adv~nlc~e o| automatic C,l~lMllly. In tm:t, ca~al mod~a of O~e©h0 Ce~ne~ ~nd Piper ~Ircr~ft ha~e ~upplamentM type certlllc~t~ with luch a ey~|im....." 2o18 -Ext~odve tlme-~clt~tratl~ wo~ I~ AVIATION h~ ~d~ nume~ In-fits ht lalii In pr~luri;~ i~ ~pm~rix~ ~m~n~m In zub~Iznll~ rzn~ of alr~ ~xe up to ~ ~d In much sm~r Hghtlr-~ght cont~nlre t~M Ii ~.lb~ with ot~ agents, I~h. GoI. In rainy llrcrlh ~pll~tlone I~1'l vi~ p~rl li SUndial lO IX+ It fr~ t~ ~t~r ~out Iz~ ~lh ~tt~ II nK~W ~u~ t~lr t~me. ~ u~ In *lt~s Con~n~onil or HflO engine ~em. Fln~ly. sl~ 1~ agent II the mat e~l~in predigest ind~lume, m~h ~s~nt~ n~to ~U~l~ iffml~ofoM IPlntlgl of HRD ~ur~ dlmhlr~ l~Iml d~Mp~f, TFG um t~ m~n ~lignl and t~ agone ~r l to+l ~, ~r~ lull ¢~ntretlon c~ ~ u~sc*# and fire ~11~. fr~nt esu~ of ~gn~. RELI~;~ ~O ~R~GI ~ T~ ~w HI~ 1~1 ~lll~m ~O~ by TFC ~ hl~ in ~llmil~ a z~ce lifo w]~ ~ ~uTmmnt to TF~e el~tdcmlly ~r~ ~d VIIvII have ll@ Imp[~ ~ mlb~]l~ el firm tim ~1~ by I19~I Indl~on. ~eler to ~m 0 ~m~ ~ ~AF~M~CE T~¢ Imowilo~, such as I~ ~d v~ I~ comet C~I~M m~, t~ ~ N~on 1~1 m~o ~w H II ~ t0 p~ ~h more ~l}on for 2.19
Page 41: TI07692696
~Tetalllul Gerpmtlni /Iro prole¢lle| el~sllml r.~tton* 3, 4, 5 end 0 of FREIIH CONCEPT8 Th~ d~v~of~me~t of TFG'n ~l,,~d e~u~t did ~ occur in a haPl'~z|;'d ~rnlor Gm~h oxp~tna how TFC CONCLUIInNB 1, TFC It not ilone In rlc~lfilzln0 Ihl u~t ~ for "P~I cr~ tim li m Hdou p~m.andu~tl~ m~ ex~, ~d nu~nt ~1~ Into 2,2O Fiend Gerperatlui Tetal fifo )fll|¢ll|n mylfom| 221 ,~m=
Page 42: TI07692697
362 ~ [ital flied |lr|lrl|ill l~k Enk, W. A. ~ THe Itelmd F~ D~m~et. laO.O. T~AI~.40~, TI4M ptaed G~. 2.22 COST ESTIHATE~ AND ANALYSIS EvaluatSnn of Fed~ral Avlation Admln|~bratia~ Z~vnat~nt and Regulatory Programs, FAA Office af Aviation Polity and Plan~ September 1981 (Report No, FAA-APO-BI-3), d~ta tabulated in the FAA St~ti~Ic~l Handbook of Avlation~ FAA ~stlmat== ~h~t ~n :veragm of 100 parsons ~Inc|ud~nQ crew) carried aboard ~ typical Part 121 passenger operation, In this ~atistical analysis (because of ~ho ~i.e), 75 percen~ persons anboard aro killed~ i.e. 75 psople. Applylng the standard value of SbSO~O00 p~r ~ta~=tlc~| ~al~ty u~ad in FAA regulatory evaluations, adding the ~tandard ~verago air cnr~i~r di~coun~|ng tl;is tot~1 as a uniform ~orios of Payments over th~ IO-year period of the analysl~ {~o allow for the random nature of such accident= ~h~ch may occur anywhere within that period) at the 10 percent discount rate prescribed by OMB y|eld~ ~n average accident COSt oF While I'm not sure o~ all the details of th~ FAA Hell h~dden deep within ~heir anaIy~i~ quoted above, Is not th~ real cost of one "~tatJ~tlcal ~c:~d~nt" a~ 650,000.00 ~ 7~ Persons = ~ 48,750,000,00 7,750,000.00 ): I aircraft = 7,750~000o00 TOTal $ THIs ~? $ 20,074$4,50.00
Page 43: TI07692698
...... L ....... NOTE ................ The FAA loss above appears to e~elude the co~t of the jured peroons~ and dove not include losso~ that may result to persona or property on the ground. Nor does it include other overtime to continue operations unE~l the replacements arrive as well as the cost of interim aircraft ko moe~ operational requiremcnts~ o~ legal fees to ~ention ~ I~ tt were possible to deCermlns ~hat these other oost~ have been :n recent accidents they probably ~ilI make the FAA°s ~5&,5 million just a omall portion o~ the real loss. Regarding the ==at uf the injuries, it ie impotent to remember that ~Iro-rol~tod injuries are llfe-long, expensive~ and many ti~e5 nearly impo~sible to cure. Thes~ bills have to be paid. ~hoy ~ill continue ~or ~ long t~me and could become equal to or ;h|= i; ~ ~fag~|zr'inq |OG~ but depending O~ the circumstances, a5 e::pla~;i~d herein, the FAA's e~tlmate o~ this tragedy could be g,'o~ly underestimated i~ the stricken aircraft would crash into a h~vi/y populated area or building. It ~hould be obvious that if just one accident is prevented by ~n onboard~ integrated' total aircraft ~ire manaqement system~ enough money could be ~aved to pay for the installation af this ~qulpment on all alrcra~t in the f1~et no~ being operated by m~jor U.S. Air ~arrier~. (2~333 passenger aircraft) 365 sAVINGS POTENTIAL RESULTING IF FIRE LOSSES COULD BE PREVENTED IN U.~. AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS 1here estimate~ are based upon the NTSB ~t~tl~ti=~ gathered by TFC and published in ire proposal. TFAOI-O051. Refer to Section 2 and R~tachment 12 of TFR01-O0~I~ included in thl~ tcstlmony, From the NTSB records 1979 to |981 in U.S, Air Carrlo~ op~ration~ t~ere ~ere 14 accident5 with ~Ires, B aircraft wore ,ostroyed by the fires~ 5 Oircraft were dam~ged~ 349 p~rson~ ~ere killod~ and 139 persons were injured. F~esume that a damaged aircraft represontb a loss in terms O~ For th~ purpose o~ these estim~teo presume eon~orvatively that :n~ur:e~ co~t only • 250~000.00 per person. Further pr~sum~ that every 10 year5 one ~ire ~sident m~ght result in ~ cr~h into a ~o~ulat~d ~re~o Tb~ loss prevented to property ~nd poopl~ on ths ground might be 5 tim~= that of the FAA'~ lo~5 d~t~tlcd above~ ~.e. ~ ~ $56.5 million = ~282.5 million. To ~IIo~ ~or tho~o alrcra~t that will not cr~sh inlo populated ~ro~ dlvlde I0 years into this amount. Thus e~timate a • 28.3/yr. million s~vlng~. Thus, the average saving~ per y~r in U.S. Air Carrier operation~| 116 person~ would be ~vod 2.6 aircraft not do~troyed 1.7 aircraft nat d~ged 4& persons would not be injured .1 ground disaster prevented 7~.4 m1111an 20.7 million 2,6 million 11.6 million 2~.3 million EcTINArED POTEN¥IAL SAVING~ EAGH YEAR
Page 44: TI07692699
~AV~N~R F'ttTENTIAL RESULTING IF FIRE LOSSES COULD BE PREVENTE~ IN U.G. CIVIL AVIATIOM PER YEAR (EXCLUDING AIR CARRIERS) F'resume the average Gen~ral Av|otion aircrafts including those uoed in Commuter Air Carrler~ Air Taxis and Business opor~tlon$ i~ v~luod at ~ 100,000.00. Presume the value ~or llve~ and inJur~e~ prevented per person Is the same ms in Air C~rrler oper~tiono. Presume con~=rv~tively that there ~re no ground E~c]ud/ng Air Carrier operations~ ~he NTSB resord~ (197~Iggl) ~how that each year there are approximately 391 accidents with firth, 339 aircraft are destroyed by flre~ 5# alrcra~t are d~m~vod, 52~S persons ar~ killed in ~Ire-related eccidents, and 247 person5 are injured by the fires and crash=~ in these ~soidants. lh~s~ the potential ~avings per year in U.S. Civil Aviation ib;:cludinq ~ir C~rrior" operations 523 persons would be ~aved $ 340.0 million 3~9 aircraft not destroyed 33.9 million ~4 a~rcra~t not damaged 1.1 million 247 persons not in~ured 61.8 mi111on ESTIHATEB POTENTIAL SAVINSS EACH YEAR o U.S. AIR CARRIER DPERATZON~ + 1~8.6 million ESTIMATED POTENTIAL SAVING~ EACH YEAR ALL U.5. CIVIL AVIATIONI $ 575°4 NILLION 36? cOST OF ADEQUAT~ FIRE FP.OTECTION EL~UIPHENT "The co~t o÷ an individual ~nstall~tion on an alrcra~t Nil] var~ deponding on th~ e::t~nt ~ cov~Qo ~nd the sophl~ti¢~tion o~ th~ ~y~tem. 14aHevers TFC recommends that you ~ncnurago th~ ~doption of maduler total ~laoding ~y~tem~ that form the basic p~rt of an ~ndable =y~Ee~,. Tho~ ~y~m~ are ~bl~ ko provide multipl~ d~charges tO any protected compartm~n~ or can ~ImLll~noocl~ly inert ~11 protected compartment~ ~t onu Eim~. Th~ DE-9 the ~irst e~¢~mple o~ this Testimony i= ouch ~ ~y~tem. Furthor~ th~ ~y~l:~m c~n b~ ~=~dily e;~p~ndod ~o incJud~ p~ot~¢t~on ~o~ mo~e compliments, even the entire ~irplan~, or any othor ~Ircr~t us=d in commercial ~vi~tion in the Fr~= World. Complete system~ c~n be'purchased ~nd in~tallod for 0~5 Eo 1.0 p~rcent o~ the value o~ the aircraft. Th= large aircraft ~uch a~ the 747, Nould be about similar system ~or a smaller 30 passenger jet would coot ~bout to be clo~e ~o $50~000. This ~Igure multiplied by thu total number of commercial airllner~ operated in thi~ country thi~ year (2s333 ~ircra~t) would pro~=ct a co~t Of: $ 11~650~0~ COHPAR I SON: $ 575.4 POTENTI~ SAVI~S PER YEAR . , . $ 45B.7 milli~ If the new concepts ~nd ~ystem~ e~pl~ined in thim Toutlmony b~ efTective in eliminating air=~t Tire~ it i~ obviou~ that Potential e~i;ts to save nearly 1/2 BILLION DOLLARS e~ch year.
Page 45: TI07692700
l~e30 pact O~ ~hich f~11o~$ in this T~timony. ~dditianml NTSB statistical data~ I97b-1981~ from Attachmen~ 12 will see ~i~ to ~et a ne~ direction In avla~ion sanity. In my oNn~on a new dlr=¢ti=n i~ badly needed. ~tdat=d =oncept= and aviation ~afety. The only ~ay to change thinQl thlng~. With y~ur leade~shlp It can be Thank you for allowing me to testify. Z h~e that y~U and your Comm~ttee~ to,ether with the efforts of Total Fled C~porati~ and it~ personnel ~i11 make a lasting contribution to Aviation 369 ~ TetalflondCnrporatlan Section 9 Cost Estimates and Analysis
Page 46: TI07692701
370 ~Tntaltlood Corporation 371 ~ Total Hnnd Cnrpnratinn |ire I~roi|clie~ ~yslems Thc east of equipment Is influenced by Ihe complexity of the system(st and ~hO~5:uOmFb~UoflPuMnl~sN~u,it. Th.seconva~ywtde,yfromone,i,c,of, type to another, and vary oven wl|hln lho soms lyp0 boceose il may haw d~fforcnt ml=slons within a cuslomer'e organizations- TFG will osllmato lho eosl el equlpmcnt In respon:;O Io cuslomer Inleresl In specllio Tofel Flood~ systems sod prOducls on each lype of aircraft. FXAMPLE 2 Using the ostlmeting model's typical medium twin.engine, fixed wing Iranspor! with e multi-mission t I"FG expects the equipment cost will v=~Y between $10,000.00 and oapab]ll y, L, ~.t ^~ .r^~.~ FIoo~ enolomenL For the purpose el Ibis example $20,000.00 for one norms s. p--. v, .-.. r 1 . essamo the cusl0mer chooses an advencod Total FIoocP sysism oosUng $15,000.00 per shipset end orders 100 shlpseis. Acquisition cOSt of the aircraft Is ~pprox]meloly $4,000,000.00. Normal crow IS three (3) persons, normal pss~nonfs 10. ,. Contract Amount: $1,500,000.00 Numbe~ of Shlpsots: 100 Description: The Tolel F[ooo'~ system protects occupled and unoocupled araeo of lho fusola!]e with multfp[e dlschm*ges, end supplements an existing sngfne lira cxtlngulshing system with additional discharges. system could replace the engine's oxlsling containers If d~s!red. thereby suvlng weight. The system provide:; protection to approx. Imatoly (ivo (5) molar tire zones and protests several minor tire zones with]n major aones~ Add~tlonal detection hes b~n edded in soma zoneS. The ~ystem is contmHod by a Total Flood) computer module which operates between three (3) and live (5) solenoid valves and up so~-cn (7) extinguf~her contalnsra. The co~puter module also provides bolh m~nual and eutomatlc crash activat(on. There is (o~e control head located In lhn COCNplL Labor Cost per Shfps~l: From Fxamplo I. thls cost Is $19,504.00 oech. Total_~. u_ipm~.~l_us__L__~bor~fpseL. $34,~04.00 each. T~.al Cosl el l~r0_~ram for 10~: $3,345.377.00 COSTANALYSI$ ThovefuoofthoTotelFlood• systemfnthspre¥1ousexamplesbeoomestungl" ble when It s~v0s ~n expensive a~rcrafl and its precious, pflcvtess cargo of three c~cwmembe~s and ton p~songels. Themlote ;FC ~uogosts the following ex~mp~ thml will show how a Total Rood~ System will actually save the customer money -- Isis of It -- ~nd incre~e the safety of operations and mlssloR ellectivcnc~s, E~MPLE 3 SLoss withOUt Doscdptlofl Tolal FI~ Polo~lJal Loss 1. Aircraft, Total Less, $ 4,00~,0o0.00 2. Crewmember Training, $250.000.00 each. 750.000.00 9.5 3, Replacement Crewmember Training. 4. Replacement Aircraft. 5. Crewmember Ll|e Iosuranee,~nd Benefits for their Survivors (United States Aviation $250,000.00 Is $300,000,00 per person, with low of $75,000,00 Io $90,000.00 and a high of $1,200,000.(~0 pel' person,) 6. Training and Future Worth o( 10 Passsngels. 7. Replacement Cost of Personnel Io do the Jobs of the Passengers Killed in the 8. Passenger Llte Insurance and BeneRle for Iheir Su~ivors. see #5 above. g. LOOt Time. Ovedlme Io Accomplish Mission Until Replacements Arrive, Cool el Intodm Aims'all Is Fulfill Mission Requirements, etc. t0. Tolal Cost of Loss, 11, Tolal Cost of Total FloocP Program 1,000,000.00 1,gO0,g00.00 2,000,00000 f, O0,0~).00 3,045,377.g0 1~, SAVED BY TOTAL FLOOD~ $11,404,623.00 TFC believes these numbers ore realistlo. It should be P--~phaslzed that Ihls example presumea saving only one alrcrall oul of tOO that are protcslod by Total Flood=' . li is very concoiveble that more than one aircrall could be saved hem total loss; end oleo Ihal serious dsmage Io olhers could be provenled. In this case the savings will be much grealer than shown above. 0.6
Page 47: TI07692702
Lg6L-9L6L stuep!ooV JO ~eLuwns-so!~s!~e),s EIS.LN 01. UOllOe$ ZL ~uewqoet~V uo!le,iodJaOpoolJlelOJ~ UO!leJedaa-~ paoli lelO,L
Page 48: TI07692703
TF~0b2284 TECHNI CPJ- pROPOSAL for a TOTRL FLQOD FIRE PROTECTION SYBTEH HCD~ELL-D~U~L~S D~-9-~O ~IR~R~FT June 22~ 19B4 Copyright |?B4 by TFC r 375 SECTION 1 FOR /:~IRcRAFT FIRE PROTECTION ~n analysis of ~ccidents over ~he past year~ by To~al Flood destroy th~ a~rplano and harm the ~ccupants. Hesita~l~ t~ ~ch he~ bec~K an uncontrollable Gou~c~ of to-ignition. ~OP~ OF THE PROBLEM THE UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT Trying to battle'a real ~tre ~loft with hand-h~Id ~,tingui~h~ru is an archaic method by today'~ ~tandards and t~hnlqu~. p~ple must survive the e~ct~ o~ the ~ire ~nd ~Ingui~h~nt applications d~ring and aFter ~he flro, ~hil~ ~om~tnino in the cabin enclosure breathin~ the r~ulting atmosphere. Yho emergBncy Tire ~Jghtlng drillG c~n o;ton reduco the =ap~bili~y the creN to fight the ~tre and still fly the alrplanu. Visibility i~ lmpaired~ and little ~r no light la ~vallabl~ during th~ ~merg~nctes due to ~mol<~ and ch~kli~ proc~dure~ which attempt ~t eliminate the ~rce of the {lr~ and/or ~lectrical loads. ;his can hopper ~ui=kly in an ol~ctric~l ~lr~. in the passengers ~d cre~ making it nBarly i~po~Iblo For them to effectively battl~ a fi~ aloft Hith hand-held The abnormal lighting~ ~mpalred vislbil~ty, and roduc~d al capability aro serious problcm~ but only a ~ o~ oth~ equally critical ones that can b~ pros~nt in ~dd~tion to TFC has the ~arld's be~t and mo~t advanc~ ~ire to learn about the Total Flood concept of complote fir~ prot~tlon ;or both imminent and existing ~irem that may occur flight or =n ~he gr~nd.
Page 49: TI07692704
~6 SLC'GTION I M~N~M~ ~UZPM~NT ~efore the pllat can know ts takm action against m fire he must acting detection system ~ar each zone to be protected. A Tote1 • Light weight , Inoxpen~Ive • Simpllfied wiring . Snap-ln~ Snap-out unite for easier field maintenance • Will detect even if one unit in FIRE PROTECTION FOR THE CABIN/FUSELaGE • Easily expanded • Will oignai • Total Flood systems and components are the llghte•t weight an~ eomt pg~-rful of any today, Thny are efficient in extingui~h{ng cabin/fuselage fires, T~e TFC products and components ere ver- satile a~d eas1|y e~pandablm to be more comprehensive, The TFC symtmm l• the only ~nm that ten be used to either prevmnt • fire or to extinguish an extot~n~ fire, I~ can be u~ed against f~ree or potential ~irem in flight or an ~he ground. Zt can be mlrcra~t~ as well as prevent in3ury to the crew~ passengers and cargo aboard. 377 SECTI(]N~ ~)MPO .NENT TE~HN ~ CAL DATA The data InclUded in thi~ ~=tion ~ill aid in describing th~ fire
Page 50: TI07692705
'r 378 Total Ilood Corporation fire ~rlte{ll,ll Iflllll EXTINGUISHER CONTAINER ASSEMBLY, LIGHT.WEiGHT rE" DEscme~oH PART NO- PART NAME: PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS: WEIGHT: FUNCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS: NORMAL OPF.RATINO SERIAL NUMBER~ APPUEO: PROPRIETARY ITEM: TF0144)0~ F.XT|NGUISHER GORTAINER AS~EMW,.Y, LIGIt'r.WEiGHT 4 Inchtl (t 02 cm) D~. x 16.| Inchel (43 ¢~) Maxlmta1~ Mngth, 13~ In,' (22~IA cm=) {=wlkix~l In 15 ~ alzte fm~ ~0 In." to 638 In.I) (~19.4 ¢mI tO 10,455 cm~) 1301). D~chaz~ mr.: 1.1.1 pound |.45 • .~ kO| I)~ uacond minimum0 c;ond nomh~al. 300 psi. (253 yED X__.~__. YEs_L_ .o____ REUAIIUTY MEAN 11ME ~ETWEEN F~ILURE5: No ~ o" Mllure~ exp~lenc~d FAILU RE MOOE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS: L~k oT theorem dl~ • empty Cmll~n~' ~hown by lY=t em t|st ~ ~ighl c~* ~=e C~I~. M~N TIME ~ OVERHAUl: ~H ~ME TO REPAIR: 5 minutll m ~ untL ~NELF LIFE: No ~11 IRe E~MENT~ ALTI~DE: ~t TEME~R~ ~IU~IH~Z~ OTHE~ ~W ~ A~E~NGE TE~T ~E~RE AYN~: YES X GENERAL WAERANTY SERVICE: RrU~ABLE pAGKAGING: U~O ON AIRCRAFT TYP~S: YES X NO~ 8tended wi'rlmly ~ NO X KX)I 2~-0. GS.~O, C.4Zl. A~. CASA 212. 379 THIN timed Cmrpmrallom fire Ilrele¢llee sy$11111! PRESSURE SWITCH ITEM DESCRIPTION PART NO.: pART NAME: PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS: Vtt~H3HT:. FUNGTIDNAL CHARAGTERISTk?~; NORMAL OPERATING PRESSURE: SERIAL NUMBERS APPLIED: P~OPNETARY ITEM: RELIAI"LITY MEAN TIME SE1WEEN FAILURES: FAILURE MODE AND EFFECT ANALYSIS: K4F.~N TIME BEI~VEEN OVERHAULS: MEAN TIME TO REPAIR: EHELF UF~ EN~M~ R~ted ~llnlrilu m Ilia £ycle el 100.000 ~d~l. NO f~fum= ~ II conl~tl f~l to ~n ¢~t~ s~ ~ I~um~t~ light ~ ~ ~, If C~I= fill to do~ ~lt~ l~. ~ ~ mlnulll Io ~ unlL No I~l~ fill IIm~. -~'F IO ~O'P (-64'O to "1-104"G) End [O -TS'F (-~0%') Mlh qUlll|lclll~t. ALTITUOE: TEMPERATURE: OTHEP~ CERTIFICATION ACCEPTANCE T~$T PI~EIX;RE AVAILAULE: ~HEDULED IN~;PECTR~iS: MAINTENANCE O~ND ~ EQUII~IEN~ REQUIRED: MANDATORY REI~CEMENT: EXC~ANOE P~K)~RAM: R{US&BLE PACKAGING: ~EO ON AIRCRAFT l~pr~: STG pti' FAR 23. 25 a~d FA&,PMA. YES X NO,
Page 51: TI07692706
Page 52: TI07692707
Page 53: TI07692708
884 ~ ~ I'atal flaed Garperall|a ~lre pl'etee|len s)'stems COHI~NUOU~-LO4~ FIRE OETECllON $¥$TEP4 ~ Tatal Ileed |lrp|ratle| /OHIZATIOH SMOKE Dk'rEOTOR TEM WI~I,~'I'." SEI~AL NuMBErS APPLIED:. P~ETARY iTEM: M|n|mum retool life O0,O~O fo mlr~ la replace un/L No Ihll| llfe l|mlll, Molltum proof [N~q~IMEI~AL ALT~tUO~ TEMI~RATUFIE: ~CCEIrfAKC~ TEST I~O~F.O~f~ AVAILABLE: 8TC ~" FAR 23. 2~, ~nd FAA-pMA YES X NO, ,. ~ pad of ~y~twn o* u • unll.
Page 54: TI07692709
Page 55: TI07692710
Page 56: TI07692711
290 CAI~D~iR CL600-2~12 BERIEB LETTER I DF_SCRIPTION I F~ N~OVED I FAA APPROVE]]| ~ATE~ Revisicm -- Original 391 NC~TE I This supplement provides information ~hich must bm I I obeerved ~hen operating thm Total Flood Corporation I ~ ~ERTIFICATION REBUIREHENT8 na~ re~ire a FUSELASE fire extlnguiGhing ~y~tem~ or a FUGEL~E fire detection system In the areag ~ere the TFC equlpmant i~ c=mpart~nt~ such detector being a p~t of the co~letion package KC Avlation~ Dallas, Texas, and Is not a part o~ this TFC Installation's design data. The detection system in~talled under this STC meet~ the require- ments of the FAR's applicable to fire detection ~qulpmentt and ther,#ore has been approved by the FAA as an addition to the lyU- tess normally installed by CAN~DAIR and approvod completlon Further, the TFC detection system does not interfere with the n~rmal CANADRIR/comp] etlon center detectlon systems, thus it can be installed in addition to the normal CANADAIR/compl~tlon center k~en ~eratlng with the TFC plum the normal symtem~ installod~ if ~e of the detection systems is warning of a fire~ follo~ the ~erg~ncy procedures specified in the ~FH and/or thi~ supplement~ ~ichever applies. F~ ~Pfq~OVEDe I~TEI Revision - ~-Iginal
Page 57: TI07692712
F I F~p" PROTEI~T I ON ~¥ TOTAl-- The To~ai Flood Carp~atton FUS~ Fire ExtinguI~ sys~ea con- . ~ c~ffol h~d l~c~ted ~ ~he L0~ER ~GEL~E~ LAVATORY~ and ~T On~ TFG C~H co~u~ ~odul~ ~d ~o ~hw back s[dD of are available to any FUSELA~ ~arns of a CCH failure. PROTECTED AREAS OF THE FUSELABE The five (5) major fire zones arm as fallacies F~ ~R~D • DATE. Revision - Original GO~F'ITs protected are the Vestibule area including the galley's po~er and ~tnhting controls~ the mvlon£ca beneath the galley, the clo=ot~ and ~ electrical poNer Junction boxes adjacent to the closet. Also protected are the C~ckpit, the side c~nsoles ~n the cockpit~ the circuit breaker panels behind the pilots, the area behind the instrument paDel, and the Nose Avionics compartment forHard of the pressure bulkhead- There are six(6) nozzles attached to the separate galley fold and five (S) nozzles in the Vestibule cress de=cribed above. Th~e are eight (G) nozzles protecting the ln-c~:kpit zones and (I) nozzle ~or the Noze Avionics compartment. ~II these nozzles are fed from the front valve of the ~orward valve cluster behind the galley access panel on the Io~ert rear side of the Thus~ ~here are 20 n~zzle~ total in the "~OCKPIT* system. TFC has not added detection in the "COCKPIT" areas described but has included provisions for such a ~ystem in the TFC control bead for future e~pansion. The red "FIRE~ light i11umlnatlnQ in the upper half of the COGKPIT System S~itch during test of TFC system indicates these provlslo~s are Intact~ not that a detection system is installed and being te~ted. (:~ABZNs Projected are the Cabin and the Levet~y compartments. The Cabin Is protected by ten (I0) nozzles EonnectBd to t~o shutt1~ the left side =f the cabin (5 each) are ~ed by the a~t valve af forHard valve cluster behind the galley. The five (~) nozzles closet~ ~ygen bottle compartment~ and the lavatory it~el~ are protected ~Ith fou~ ~4) nozzles. Thus, there arm 14 nozzles total in the "CABIN" TFC adds a Phoka-Electric Smoke detector in th~ lavat~y. It attach~ to the underside ~ the vanity top above the trash container. Thi~ l~cation i; "open" ~o ibm h~lle~ flu;h ma~r and to the ~aEer heater al~. Should the smoke detector sense an alarm ~TE: Revl|io(1 - Original
Page 58: TI07692713
394 895 condition, it ~lll elgnsl the creN by lighting the "FIR~" light in the upper half of the CABIN Syet~ ~4itch and ao~nding the TFC alarm bell. FDRM~RD LQHER FU~ELA6E - ~F co~partmen~ evenly spac~ ~o provide prote¢t~ ar~nd the Jn th~ upper hal~ of th~ LNR FUS syst~ s~ltch and sound the ~1~. AFT LG~ER FUSELAGE - fad by the c~nt~r valve o~ the rear valve clus~. ~ ar~ khr~ "FLF" and "ALF~ dtetributlon o~ the "LMR F~" DATE~ Revlmlon - Origlnal ; ,~ (4) nozzles in thla. open area b~hind the rear pre=uure v-- d and forHard of the tat1 cone. YFC h~s added a curtain at TFC ~arn o~ fire or smoke in this area. H~rning~ ~rom th~s system tO the "FZRE" ~arning in the "AFT FU~" system ~Hitch on the TFC ligh¢ ~ntrol head. I~uL-T Z pLE D lr eCH~tRBIE IE;yE;TEP! one (1) container at • ti~e. THe (2) containers ore discharged at the same time for the C~BIN and ~FT EOP compartments. Thu~ ~or exa~ple~ s~en (7~ di~char~e~ can be ~plled to a 4ire In the s,aller :one;~ or 3 I/2 application~ made in the larger zanes~ TF[:; I:OPIPU'rER I:ONTRI~LLE9 BYi3TEH the valves and contiin~. ~hl C~ ~i]l n~t aut~atica~ly cp~ra~ the ~xtin~ui~hsr Ixcept for one condition . . . in impact sufllclently ~tr~g of the aircraft. This is done tn anticipation of a post-impact fire. ~ the p/lot has "armed" the "TOTAL SYSTEM FLOOD" manually. ~h~ autom~tlc system ~i11 take ove~ ~h=uld an Revision -- Original
Page 59: TI07692714
pOI4ER FL~0D 9ET.'. DURATION OF PROTECTION discharge ~ill last a~proximately 10 a~onds. It nay be ~ccompan- ted by the r~ort of the bottle°m detonating device and the noise oF the gag escaping through the manifold. There is no requirement for clean-up or rinsing of the FUSELAG~ In flight~ under ideal cDnditiono, protection Hill p~rstst in the FUSELAGE compartment for one (1) to thr~ (3) miniutos. On the ground~ under ideal conditionsv proLL~tton may be s|iqhtly longer. A fire will be egblnguished immedSmtely upon reaching the effective Concentration. An odor may he noticeable ~fter • fire 1; exttng- long enough to become e~tremely hott thus completely heating the reFered to aS "deep-seated" and the heat can causm the fire to after initial extinguishment. Usuallyt "deep-seated" fires require m ~ch [onger duration of concentratio~ to completely extinguish such a fire. out. If ventilation is not requiredv do not ventilate the cabin as this ~111 dilute the protection and tim duration. D~TEm Revision - ~riginal The effectiveness of the system deponds an when it is used and under Hhst circumstance~ it is used. The judgement of the operator protection afTorded by the The system is designed to give the maxlaum protection against fire, "bath existing and tmeinent~ for • limited duration of time~ ~hen it la fully operational, ~hen u~ed in a normal envtronment~ and ~hen operated in •ccordance ~lth the operati~ instruction~. The degree of initial ~rotectien and the duration of ell1 b~ diminished by condi~ian~ or clrcu~stancc~ ~hich Hal~ 1301, such as hull damage from collisions, removal of a bulk- head~ or d~truction of a c~parteent by fire e~ternal ~ailure to actuate the s~tem in a ~imely manne~. without delay. Emergency equipment sh~Id be called sist and stand by~ even if the ~ire has be~n extinguished. F~ ~m MTE| Revision - Dr~Iginal o ',,4
Page 60: TI07692715
398 399 LIMITATIONS On th~ instrument PROCEDURES A. Norm~1 procedures B~f ~re Starting Engi nes: FAA APPROVED: Te~t ~ire e~tirlgui~her sy~tee by r~ising the ~FC ~ystem'~ TEST-RE~ET ~itch to the TEST position. The system will bmgin =n ~utomatic te~E sequence. ~) Sequence b~gin~ by operating the COCKPIT zone valve and ¢eunting through each bottle circuits then moving to th~ next zone valv~ and its bottle circuits~ etc. When each zone valve operates the lo~r hal4 o~ the r~spective System S~it~h ~ill illuminate c~nfirming It~ ~eoci~t~d valvo(~} h~ opened. l) lllumin~Eod green DETONATOR ligbt~ Lndlcate ~hich bottle; =re ready. 2) Amber EMPTY 14ghLs lbelo~ green lightsl come on one by one as the CCM module test~ each detonating circuit in ~equence. Original b) 3) When the sequence reachms the "TOTAL OVSTEM FLOOD" system~ all =one valves will open a~ thm same time; then all bottle~ wlli test. 41 Test sequence ~I11 continually repeat until the TEST-RESET ~ttch is returned to the center "OFF" polition. The red ~l~e ~arni.~ light~ in the five (~) System s~itches of the TFC centre1 head should illuminate and the TFC bell should s~ed. |) M~ve BELL s~itch to th~ OFF position. Dell should silence and the ember light mhould illuminate. 2} MoVe the BELL m~Itch back tO the ON position at the end of the auto te~t me¢;~.let~ce. NOTE ........................ The amber SYSTEMS FAULT light ~ill ~lash ~n end ~f during the auto test sequence. All extinguisher system test functions ~ill operate in rhythm ~ith the SYSTEM FAULT light. All detection system test ~unctlons remain on during the auto teat sequence. 2. Move TEST-RESET s~itch d~n to the center OFF position to ~top test sequence and observe the FAULT light is not on, •- .................. lalARN ][ (no~ ~lashing). lw~tch Is in the center ~F position. Revision - Original
Page 61: TI07692716
II Illl II III I 40O 401 If a co(Ittnor hae been discharged, its gree~ DETON- ATOR light Hill not illuminate, and its amber EMPTY l|~ht will be on. The auto test sequence will con- is disconnected or there Is ~n open bottle circuit, its green DETONATOR light will not test no~ will Iks ~mb~r E~TY light be ~. If the CCM finds a stuck or inoperative zone vaZve~ the auto test eequenco Hill not pass the valve, Its symtes o~l{ch ARHED light will ~la~h on end off with the SYSTEM FAULT light. The amber SYSTEH FAULT light indicates a fault in the CCH when it is on steady. In the auto test mode this moans that detonating power has not been removed from the firing circuits. If the FAULT light is on steady ~hcn the TEST-RESET sWitCh is in the OFF pos- ition, detonating power i~ not available - pushing 3. Check that the BELL switch is 4. The Total Flood ~ystem is nme ready All light~ ~hould be out. f~r operati on. E mlltr" ;; ~lt n (:: y .................... NOTE ........... ca~e of an F~AGE ~ire, its re~pectlve earnlng I may illuminate and the TFC bell may s~nd. I I |. Fo|l~ the "FUSELAGE Fire" proeedurL'i outlinmd in th~ basic AFM "Emergency Procedures" Section. F~ N~FROA,~Oa Original 2. Attmmpt to isolate the source of fire or ~make. Eliminate i~ possible. a) Silence bell. AFTER PERFORMING CHECKLIST FROM THE BASIC AFM, AND= IF WARNING OR FIRE PERSISTS= -- .................... NOTE ............................ R~duce the air~]o~ through the ~oc~d zon~ to the minimum practical prior to actuating ~h~ extinguisher, ,NOTE ............................ ! Do not look directly ~t the cockpit~ cabin, |avatorv~ or cargo nozzles during discharge. • - .................... NOTE ............................ . Prepare ~or noise o~ e;:tinguisher discharge - alert passengers if time permits. 1 FA~ DATE= Turn off all non-essential olectrlcal systems in the affected zone and i~ po~iblm reduc~ ventilation by clo~in~ ven~ ~u~nlng ~f heater/ air conditioner as applicable. Lift cover and push the affected =ystom'~ ~wiE=h. The "ARHED" light i11umln~tes when the sy~tem'~ ~olenuid operated shuttle valve(s) operates. Al~o the green "DETONATOR" 11ghte i11uminate to ~how which conta~ner~ are armed and available. Push the switch again to dlschargo the ~ir~t available extinguisher container onto the fire, Revision - O~|ginal
Page 62: TI07692717
l~ necessary, push s~i~ch again char;as. ~ft~r the ~yste~ Is co.lately disch~ed~ ~he only hgld Zf in ~light land and evacGate a~ soon 1. To Rsduce the Possibility of Post-Crash FUSELAGE Flees, land the aircraft ~h~n: -NOTE ......... Th~s procedure atte~pt~ to creat~ an .inert atmos- ~hL]e ~he airplane IQ being evacuated. The ~nsrt I~TE m I appropriate E~ergency Pr~:edures in ~h~ I provld basic;H have b~ acc.plJmhed. I 2. ~e~ure the Airpian~ byz a) Turn oF~ all ~l~ctrtcal ~y~tcm~ and fuel. NOT~ ............................ • PERFORHANCE NO CHANGE F~ ~N~I) | B~TE~ Revision - Original
Page 63: TI07692718
404 405 pm'a 2 compartments in the cobin of aircraft ere a po~slbili Design= intended to prevmnt firo~ have not completely Pa9~ ~ e||=:natcd thmm. The FAA antic=pates that this will continue Hith e::iotlno AirNert~inecs Directives tAD's! rices have rFC COHHENTS: In order to eliminate ÷ores five s~ep= must ka|zvn, thu containment. 5. To b~ abl~ to perform the intended funcllon (FAR 25. t30t) du~Lng the extr~ely critical condtEions ~sting in a ~ire emergency it j~ absolutely ~n the da~gn of th~ fir~ protection =y~tem: a) the pr~t~=tion =~uipmcnt and design, c) th~ control and and~ d) ~ r~al~stt= ~tim~te ~f the capability of the c~nditi~s, R~adlng b~t~ecn the llne~ of this NPRH and with the =~ other NF~M'~ b~ing di=cuss~d by the F~ ~nd the Aviati=n Industry it J~ apparent that ther~ is confuoion ~v~r burn Itself out - in an alrplane. Thu~ TFC que=tiun= the concept of~ f~ in~tanc~ fir~ blocking m~teria1~ th~t only ~top a fire from ~p~eading ~ithout a nearly ~oalproof ~ay to put tho ~iro out ~nd be abl~ to prevent it ~rom spr~adlng. Mod~n technology conditian5 when a fire l~ anticipatod~ to P~VEN~ it ~r~m Faro ;! Line 1 Page Lin~ page Para Para I THE N~(H STATES= "Nearly all galley and lavatory fire5 arm detected by ~abin p~rsonnel ~arly ~nough to a11ew prompt control and e~tinguishmc~t.~ are not noticed in time (if at all) by cabin per~onn~l, t';hcr~ prot~::tlon is necessary" in order to providv adequ~t~ s~oty. The study conducted for thi~ NPRM included a concopt~al design and ;~ibility analy~i~ of a "total cabin Integrated firm manager system~. Although tht~ ~a~ considered a prev~t~ ~tl~" as a standard. Thu~ ~tEcntion ~ ~lv~rted frnm a method af fir= prutcction ~ith the capability to provide in-~light =tat~-oT-thm-~rt d~f=n~o =quoX to the attainable at the tim~ ln~ nearly B ygars ago)~ but ~h~ch its adoption, TF~ C~MENTS: It appears that the FAR'~ recommendati~s are slo~ because o~ the 1~b~i~s procedur~ they ar~ required t~ done today and all~ lot tod~y'~ rapidly Improving technology. NPRM PROPOSED RULEs Equip galleys and lavatoriea Htth household class mmoke dmtectors Hhtch may provide an audio er TFC ~OMHENTS AND RE~OMHENDATIDNSI TFC dlccourages the use of household quallty dotmctor~ and recommends d~t~ters ~hould a~ 1~a~t m~et or m~ce~d the standardc of UL 268 In ordor ~o ensure ability to perform tho|r intc~dad function. Each de~ector should harm ~t lea~t a remot~ qarnln~ ~ight located
Page 64: TI07692719
40"/ 406 0 O~ ~0 Pare I P~ge l, Para| at a station normal|y manned at all times, i.e. pilot or fllg~t engineer station in the'coo|GRit. Each detected zone should have its own individual ~arning light located in the cockplt accmsslblo to the cr~. This Hill enable the cr~ to identify the suspect area and take action quickly without ¢lrGt having to search the airplane for the fire or the detector signaling the alarm. It might be advleeable to have a Gyste~ capable of dlsplaying the some warning at several NPRM PROPOSED R~LE: Provide "autolatlc', possibly sensitive m:tlnguIGhant charged bulbs capeble of di~charglng into only one of the numerous fir= sources in the ]oratory. TFC COMMENTO AND RECOMMENDATION; It has been =hewn that more lavatory fires are of an electrical origin rather than the ro=ult of clgarette~ in the trash receptacle. In this light~ if the e~tlnqulGher ~as "dedicated" solely to the trash receptacle~ it ~ould be unable to combat a fire that may electrical component. If the "automatic" bottle is designed to actuate thermallyl the source of a fire may be far ¢~lOUgh away that by the time the flames get hot enough to discharge the bottle~ the fire could already be too hot to be e~tlngui~hable and may have cau:~d structural damage. TFC mentioned in the ~PRM. A fir~ ~hould be e~tingui~h~d at the very earliest po~Ible -- before it bre~k~ out into ~1~mes. Automatic thermal bot~le~ are un~bl~ to ~ctuat~ ~t the~e ~ar1~e~t E~tlngui~her battI~ mounte~ Inside the lavatory it~el~ could be ~slly ca~romi~d by a fire~ rendering them ~ ~Ingle-shot ~y$tee m~y not b~ adequ~t~ to e:(tingui~ all type~ ~nd Int~n~itie~ ~ fires. "~tom~tic~ devices are not intended t~ preven~ or extinguish ~ r~kindling NF'RM PROPOSED RULE; Provide the aircraft with additional hand-held fire extinguishers filled with Helen 1211. TFC COMHENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The NP~I e~:pects the flight attendants to be able to find the fire. It ~ppe~r~ the NPRM presumes not only will the flight attendants b~ e~pected to e~tingui~h the fire with these hand-held e):tinguishers~ but that they will have the time to do and at the Game time ~ttond to passengers safety~ notify time cockplt~ and prepa~ the c~bln for an imminent emergency d~scent and landing. The N~ advocates c~ntinued use of Helen 1211 in the occupied area5 and cockpits of aircraft~ regardless of the ~izo of the compartments~ the experience level of the e~tinguisher's operator~ and with no apparent c~n~ideration for the fact that th~ hand-hold e:~ttnqulsh~r may not put out the fire. A recent FAA rt~port, "Study of H~nd.Hmld Firm Extingulsher~ Rbeard Civil Aviation Aircraft', Report DOT/FAAICT-82142 slates: "Depending circumstances including human factors, the possibility ewists that hand-held e~ttngui~her~ c~uld prov~ unsuccessful. It must lisa be reme~ersd that burning aircraft interior , ~aterlals (seat~ oarpot~ ea|1 l a~lnates~ etc,) eill~ by adOitlon to smoke and heat. It is clear from the otandpoint be Of perspective that the ultimatm p~io~ity must e~ttnguish the ~lre as rapidly as possible to avoid many fatalities • . .'. OF course, If the fzre ISllt F,ut out th~ atmosphere in the compartment may inadvertently totally flooded ~ith a concentration of the el~tingu;~hant insufficient to put Out the fire, but still ~ith e~tingui~hant at a lev~l t~ provide significant amount5 o~ to~ic products of d~ompo~iti~n to be inhaled by whom~v(;r trappe~ in that comp~rto~nt by the ~hle percipience i~ based upon studle~ o~ 1211 vs ~0= d~ne 1976o The study did not includ~ a comparison w~th Flalon 1301 portables ~ere not commercially available until Hal0n 1301 i~ now available in portable~ a;|d rate 1301 ~t Ioa~t five (5) times safer th~n 1211. lhi~ Important b~cau~o tho operation of a hand-h~Id extinqui~h~ inside an aircraft will inadvertently result in a tot~l satuatlon of the air with th~ ~gont. The conc~ntr~tlo~ be less than adequate to put out firo~, because O~ th~ Of the compartment compared tO the copaclLy of e;:tingui~hor. If ti~e fire is still burning it *~ill th~ e::tinguisha~|t. Helen 1211 is much me:re to~li~ th~n I~UI chlorine present in 1211. range~ i~ ~uperior to that Qf 1301. While thi~ m~y b~ advantage ~h~n ~Htil~QuiRhi~g ~ ~ire with ~ port~bl~ in a b~d environment~ it i~ our ~pinlon that ~n ~n safety. TFC rec0mmBnds that flalon 1301 b~ tined in the har,d-h~ld operator~ the choi~e b~tw~ 1211 and 1301.
Page 65: TI07692720
408 409 L|ns 2 THE NP~M STATES: "technical problems pr~c|uded adoption oF the "total cabin integrated system as a practical ~lr~ protection standard for large cabins . . cort4;ied by th~ FAA. For o~mple~ th~ l~vatory can be protected by multiple dlecharge n~==Io~ under th~ vanity~ in n~ar th~ ~ter heater~ by the ~lueh pu~p and motor and oth~r lavntory. O~HE~ FEATURES: I. ~h~n the sy=~=m op~-at~ it totally env~lepe~ or ~loode~ all ar'~a~ n~ the lavatory and achiovee oxtinguiehin~ eHtinguichod instantly and will not recur ~ar a limited duration o~ time, Supplemental di~charg~ concentratien~ to be effective wltheut risking direct 3. Ple~e~ re~r to th~ ~ttachmcnts on the OC-9 Super 80 and The concept and equipment of the tatar integrated management ~y~tem ha~ the c~pability to effectively inert the thing. It can FREVENT ~ire~ as well as ~tinguish o~istin~ Such a syetem can inert the entir~ ~ircrat~ or provide multi- pl~ oxtingui=hmont~ to ~ir~s confirmed to a particular While ~he ~ir~ emergency t~ boinq de~lt with~ the ontlre cre~ i~ managinq th~ paeseng~rs and aircraft (ron~ their ~entrol operations of t~o flr~ protection ~y~tem controll~d ~n th~ cockpit. The st~tu~ m~ the ~r= and th~ ;ir~ protection oystom m~nltored continu~11y in the cockpit throughout the emerg- This t~ a ~ore re~listl¢ ~ppro~¢h TFC b~|Jovo5 that ~nd-hold e):t~ngtl$eher~ a~ propc~ud by In eummary~ TFC ro~o~,mondu the following chang~ b~ m~do in KX¥I~GU~SHE~ SYSTEM (Part I Al]o~ the u~e o~ Interconnected! multiple--sho~ ~yotem~. ~ Allow th~ Systems to be placed OUTSIDE the l~v~tory compartments. EXTINGUISHER (P~rt 12i.309¢c) * .~poci~y the uee of Helen I~01 ext;nguieher5 xnetp~;d of Ha|c~n 1211 o:~tJnqu~h~r~. ]~ thls WOL~Id r~S~t) L In hard~hJp or too much opposition, the rule; ~hould ~IIc~w thR op~r~tor~ wherever llalon 1211 i~ ~peci~i~d. DETECT IUN eJYgTEHS ~ R~.quire remote warnzng in the coci~plt, ' If audi~ warning I~ lnst~ll~d in the pa~s~n0er cabin ~t ~h~ttld be clt~r~ loud and un~i~tal, abI~.
Page 66: TI07692721
410 GEI4E~AL COMMENTS TIIA1 F'LRTAIN rD THE NPRH IN ITS ENTIRETY= The scope of tha whole pt-eblem, and those affected by the e U. S. Air Carriers 2~0 * Oth~ U. ~. Civil Aviation ~00.000 * All U. S. Public U~ Ai~c~ not abl~ ~n~ F~e~ Norld's =Jell aviation ~uth- Sect~un 2 o~ IFAOJ-Ut*51: "Advanc~ Aircraft Fire Pr~t~tl~ With Total From ~979 ~hru 1981 there vmro the ~ol]owlng number~ o~ per~on~ and a~ rcport~d by th~ IN U.S. G~NERAL AVIAI'ION~ AIR TAXI~ NND COMHUTER AIR ~ARRIER OFERA~ ION5 CEXCLUOIN~ ~R ~ARRIER OPERA~IONS). There ~er~ 11~981 ~ccld~nto o~ all 2~798 ~e;'~on~ aboard and involved on the ground. 1,018 aircraft were deotroyed by the ~Ires. I~566 poroon~ w~re l:llod tn the ~tre-r~lated accid~l.5, tn the fire-ir~volved IN U.S. AIR CARRIER OPERATIONS. , 14 accld~nt~ *ith llro~, and In those fire accidont5 there , 1,(':, person~, at Io~t, aboard and Involved on th~ . 5 air~t wor¢~ ~,~gods and only , ~9 por~ons ~'Jc.ro killed In the fire-relate~ accidents~ , I~9 pf~l'snn5 HL'rB Injured by the fires ~nd crauh~ in , ~12 persons u~capud ~itho~t injury in th~ ~ire-involvod ~c¢Idants. F'~ YEAI~ I~VFI~AG~ (197V - ~901)~ ALL-U.~. CIVIl. AV~{,'IHJN TfiIAL. . 4,n15 ~ccid~nt~ of ~ll . 335 por~ons o,:capod wikhout ilIJu~y in th= fir~-involved 411 Mr. MI~A. Please proceed. TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM A. ENK, PRESIDENT, TOTAL FLOOD CORP., ACCOMPANIED BY THEODORE F. STRANCZEK, PRESI- DENT AAR OKLAHOMA AND MARY TERESE ENK, TOTAL FLOOD CORP. Mr. EN~. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the commit- tee. As a concerned member of the U.S. Aviation and Aerospace in- dustry, I greatly appreciate this opportunity to address the critical issue of aircraft cabin safety. You and your committee are to be commended fo.r the considerable amount of attention you have fo- cttsed on this ~mportant issue. This hearing is a clear demonstra- tion of that commitment. I am William A. Enk, president of Total Flood Corp. I am an aeronautical engineer and a pilot, by profession. I served in the U.S. Air Force as an aerospace engineer from 1964 to 1968 and my duties concerned research and development activity at Wright-Pat- terson AFB. I have also been a pilot for a major airline and I own my own airplane. My companies, thei~ personnel, and I have been concerned for many years with aircraft-fire safety, and sought to develop and im- prove the technology tised in aircraft-fire-protection systems. This has led to recognition by the FAA, and resulted in granting by the FAA of the companies nearly 30 supplemental type certificates and also FAA parta manufacturing licenses. I have also been dppointed as a designated engineering repre- sentative for aircraft-fire protection. Also, I have been recognized with various safety awards by the FAA and others. Today, I am again honored by the opportunity being afforded me in appearing before this committee to enter remarks on a subject that is very important to me. lI have been concerned for many years with aircraft-fire safety and sought to develop and improve technology used in aircraft-fixe- protection systems. This has resulted in the FAA granting to my companies nearly 30 supplemental type certificates for fire-pratec- ti0.n systems and also production authority for these kits. I have submitted a detailed statement and I would like to make that a part of the record and specifically address my comments to H.R. 3264, H.R. 3793 and H.R. 5428. In listening to the testimony this morning, I must admit it is a new experience for me. Before I go any further, you can see it is a new experience, I want to back up a little bit. I would like to intro- duce the people with me This is my wife, Mary Terese Enk, vice president of Total Flood ~o3., and this Mr. Ted Stranczek of AAR .Corp. in Oklahoma City, one of our approved installation and serv- ne~Y._a~re going to help me make sure that I say everything that • co ~e said. So in listening to the testimony thi~ morning and m reading all of the documentation on the proposed legislation, notice of proposed rules and such, I have been looking for the common threads through these and have identified a few. It is our purpose really to help you by way of our knowledge, ,not to specify our nrnd,,~f ...... ' .....~..., ~ , ,, -- '
Page 67: TI07692722
412 show you what can be done. In some respects we have the most ad- vanced products and have tackled some of the problems that no one else ha~ attempted to tackle. And we have been successful at it, So it may sound like Total Flood product is the only one we are talking about. That is not the case. It is because it happens to be the only one on the market at this time. Other people could do it. The common threads that we found through the testimony are that there seems to be a lack of thorough knowledge of the whole prob- lem of fires in aircraft, and in aviation and of the state-of-the-art eqNuipment" ow most of the remarks that I have heard really deal with in- flight fire~ and then only with certain kinds of these in-flight fires. I have heard remarks that someone else should study the problem. I have heard remarks that the studies seem to go nowhere and that people want to know what to do and they encourage you to f'md out. And I have heard remarks that we should follow the normal regulatory proces3es a~ a proven way of getting to the heart of the m.-itter and getting the things that will be effective onto airplanes. And I agree with all of those. But one thing that seemed a little bit too simplistic for me is the impression that you can study some- thing and that at a certain point you are done studying and that now you have equipment available to go onto an airplane. Actual- ly, you are talking about an R&D process that will eventually lead to a production kit. And a~ an R&D engineer in the Air Force I learned that it takes years of work to develop a production kit. It is really nothing more than a concept and an idea. You end up with a few studies that provide guidance for what you are going to do. You throw out the wild ideas and try to stay with the best ideas that have the best chance of resulting in an improvement. Then you prototype it, and design it, and find out even then there were some things you didn't know about or that you undere~ timated. Finally, you end up with a production kit and even then there i~ still service difficulties. This is what the--the other mem- bers of the panels this morning were discussing when they didn't want ~omething to happen 'too fast. They wanted something they could maintain. And I am well aware of this. Nearly 10 years ago we began the R&D process so that some day in the near future there would be effective fire protection available on airplanes that would treat the whole problem. In my testimony I include a section on the statistics which were gathered from NTSB data, 1976 through 1981. Just to set the tone of what we are talking about here, I think it is important to remember that in- flight fires according to the NTSB statistics account for 3 percent of all the fires that are happening. If you further restrict in-flight fires to those in trash bins a_nd then those in galleys, you limit it even further because the way t,~e NTSB collects these, it is everything other than an engine fire m flight. I would say that measures we are talking about in the legis- lation in the NPRM, the ones that have been most popular to be discus~i; that is, might only be talking about 1 to 2 percent of the fire~ that nre hnnnenin~ 413 So the whole problem is to put a fire out, whether you are flight, .o..n the gr, oun.d, .inv..o[ved in a crash, and to have a system that w~ll go a~,.~a.r m ~o_ ~.~at as possible. For years we have been designing, cer~IIy~ng, a.nd ~.nstalling comprehensive, integrated air- borne.fire.man.agem, en~s .ysmm~s t.ha.t pot o.nly extingui~h.~res in, v~ letted compartments .o~ a~rcratt, out nave.~ee.n expanae~ ~ entire airplane, t.he engines, occupied and unoccu_piea mso~age compartme.n.tsE-..th.a,t ~s, lavato.ry and galley areas--the win~, ev- erything, an w~m ~ne same system. But the most unique feature of these new concepts and systems is that they are also used to prevent a fire from starting. Now the victims of aircraft fires can have the critical extra moment~ to sur- vive. In our opinion, we now have the world's finest, mo3t ad- vanced, most complete, and versatile, and most cost-effective fire- protection systems and components. Nothing compares. Here is an example of a control panel of a fire-suppre~ion system on a Canadian Challenger, a recent installation we have done. It has been conformed by FAA. It has undergone the first segment of the flight-test, which it passed sucessfully. And I will let you take a l_ook at this. Well, it is dangerous to oven~implify the solution or underestimate the problem. The vision of a fire aloft is horrifying and for many is hard to face, but if the problem is ever to be solved it must be fully considered. It is obvious that shoulda fire occur aloft in spite of preventive measures and designs, the fire must be put out immediately, while at the same time the plane must be flown under control until a landing is practical. To accomplish this, it is essential that the crew be at their sta- tions and still be able to control a fire emergency aloft. It is also important for them to be able to manage fires in comp.artmen~ not a~c.~ssible in flight. The legislation pending before this committee should not lose sight of these important factors. I think it is imperative that you and your committee alse under- stand the full scope of the fire problem in aviation. To help you, Total Flood Corp. has documented its efforts and written the book~ on how to protect aircraft from fires. TFC has even written an In- stallation and Maintenance Manual, which is the one here, which is FAA approved since we have included it with the design data OPSTC's on both parts 23 and 121 aircraft. I have included excerpts from these documents in the testimony. Fires in galleys and other compartments in an aircraft cabin are a ..l~sihility. Designs intended to prevent fires have not completely eliminated them. Even the FAA anticipates apparently, by it~ NRPM, that this will continue to be true for some time. h In fact, in spite of compliance with existing directives, the fire~ ave occurred in lavatory and galley compartments. 1 In order to eliminate fires, I ~elieve five stelm must be taken. No. .~, we must design aircraft to eliminate the possibility of a fire. By me way, most of these things are being done. No. 2, we must pro- vide a means to quickly detect and warn of fire, should one occur in spite of our designa If in spite of the design a fire doe~ occur, a provision must be made to contain the fire. Then, there must be a means to ext~nguish~ the fire within the
Page 68: TI07692723
414 plane or to burn itself out, to me, only brings, to mind ,ca,tas~o.phic results. The last thing of the five steps I mentionea is mve able to perform the intended function. The system_must be able to perform the intended function during the extremely critical conditions isting in a fire emergency. It is absolutely essential that, included in the design of the fire protection there be an understanding of the unique airborne envi- ronment. Some of the people on panels this mornmg spoke of the smoke-filled environment, improper lighting because of reduced electrical loads perhaps in fighting fires, unusual deck _angles as a result of emergency descents, loss of pressurization, busy crew members, equipment in the wrong place because it happened unex- pectedly, such as maybe an aisle cart in the way, or something like that. Descending through severe weather to an emergency landing, doing this at night, all of these things you need to think about. Then the interrelationship of other aircraft systems and equipment to the fire protection equipment and design. What will be your ability to ventiIato if you would lose, for instance, part of your elec- trical system or part of your lighting on the instrument panel to see the controls, or many other things that probably have occurred to you also--the control and display of the status of the fire protec- tion and its system. How do ~,ou control a system7 Who is going to be at the station to take actmn? Where should this be located? Each and every plane probably has its own requirements and each operator probably will want to do it a different way, and that is fine. The point is you have to think about the control, and make it that people can oper- ate in an emergency. And it has to be in .an accessible location, perhaps being in more than one place. Then a realistic estimate of the capability of the crew and airplane during these extremely critical conditions. These are ~ome of the factors that I think must be included in design of fire protection equipment. Regarding the proposed legislation and the ~des, and sort of reading between the lines, with the knowledge of the other ones being discussed by the FAA and aviation industry, it is apparent that there is confusion over the concept of how to protect the sengers and crew and the airplanes from fires aloft or on the ground. As I said, it is TFC's and my opinion that it is not acceptable to consider a fire or allowing it to burn, or to burn itself out in an airplane. Thus we question the concept of, for instance,/'we block- ing materials that only stop a fire from spreading, without first considering a nearly foolproof way to put the fire out. In fact, the fire protection system must put out the fire, and be able to prevent it from spreading. Modern technology now makes it po~ible to do one other thing with such an active fire protection system. It can be used during conditions when a fire is anticipated or detected to prevent it from occurring in the first place. . Service experience has shown that all fires are not noticed in time, if at all, by the cabin personnel. When this happens the re- sultant losses can be and have been catastrophic. This was vividly 415 the seriou~ess.,of, th~ee fir.es..oan.d, uni~que, confin, ed en.~ronm~nt oloft, any are ~na~ occurs m me-mrea~enmg ana must ve ~ ,~o~ed and extinguished fast. ~"~,'~'] nt~tes in NPRM 84-5, "An expanded approach to fire pro- tectio~ ~s':n~ ,e~a, ry,i', .in..o..r_.d,er" .to .prp. ~de adequ,ate, ~fo,ty. The. study conauc .r~a mr ~nm.l~.l~.l~.~¢~. InclU.a ~ea~a concepzua~ ae.slgn .ana feasibility .analysis al. a,totm ~n~e.grate~, nm managemen~ This is ju_.sz one. repo_rz o~ many. i looked at it for the first time last Friday. There nay.e been many .reports ,that, we .ha,vp .,revi,ew, ed in our _studies .an.d h~rature .searcn ~.n, oraer ~ get an Ln_e amp we could in aesagnmg mese sy.stems s.o ~.ney would be cost effective and put out fires, thus performing their xntended function. This is another report that is very gc~zl. The FAA stated that al- though this approach of a total .in..tegra..ted fire managem_ent system was considered to be a better solutmn, at was concluded that techni- cal problems prevented adoption as a standard. Thus, attention wa~ diverted from a method of fire protection with the capability to provide in-flight, state-of-art defense equal to the whole problem. The FAA then turned toward a much less capable concept, which w~s considered to be practical and attainable at the time, which was now nearly 8 years ago. But it provided less than complete fire protection. The NPRM 84-5 advocates this less capable concept and recommends its adoption. Thus, it appears to TFC and to me that FAA's recommendations are based upon conclusions and informa- tion that are outdated. The NPRM and legislation we are considering must reflect what can be done today and allow for todaF's rapidly improving technol- ogy. The technical problems that this report referred to are sur- mountable. An integrated fire management system is not only fen- sible and practical, but it is available, flying and certified by the FAA. In one installation, for example, the lavatory can be protect- ed by multiple discharge nozzles undeg the vanity, in the trash re- ceptacle, near the water heater, by the flush pump motor and other electrical equipment, even in the occupied area of the lavato- ~_~Vhen the system operates it totally envelolm or floods all areas of the lavato~ and achieves extinguishing concentrations in less than 2 second~. Fires are extinguished instantly and will not recur for a limited duration of time. Supplemental discharges are avail- able to prevent rekindling or as a precaution. The system is pro- engineered to achieve proper concentrations to be effective without risking direct exposure to the fireby the crew or passengers. In my testimony I have include~ two examples, Please refer to them: one on the DC-9 super 80 and on the other one the Canadair Challenger 601 installation The concept and equipment of the to- tally iategrated fire systo~ has the capability to effectively inert the entire aircraft. It can prevent fires as well as extinguishing ones. Halon 1301 is nontoxic, the single most powerful extingui- shoat available. It can inert the entire aircraft or particular compartments and keep it under control until the airplane has landed safely. A limit- ed total fl¢~i system could provide improved protection to certain _a~e.as, for instance, as we do on the DC-9 proposals. We provided p erection to the lavatories, the electronics and e~uivment corn-
Page 69: TI07692724
416 partment below the cockpit, and in the cockpi_t all ,with. the same system that would have normally only protected the lavatories. While the fire emergency is being dealt with the entire crew is managing the passengers and aircraft from their ass.igne~, s .t~tions, which i~ made possible by the remote warning ana con~rol oper. aliens of the fire protection system, for instance, if this was located in the cockpit or at another designated remote location. The status o/' the fire protection system is monitored continually on the control head in the cockpit through the emergency, further effectiveness of the countermeasures are known on the flight deck where the status and control of other systems that might affect the operation and emergency is known and can be monitored; circuit- breaker~, fans, lighting, things like that. I believe this is a more realistic approach toward controlling.a fire. It reduces the pilot and cabin workload and their expesure to the fire. It shortens the response time and allows the crew mem- bers to consider any options that may _l~ecome available, depending upon circumstances. In addition, it reduces the risk I believe tha~ you would have to take in order to investigate and perhaps attempt to extinguish a fire with handheld extinguisher. It ha~ been shown th.at more lavatory fires are of electrical origin than the result of cigarettes in trash receptacles. If the ex- tinguisher was dedicated to the trash receptacle it would be unable to fight a.fire that might start elsewhere. If the automatic model is designed to thermally actuate, the source of the fire may be far enough away from it that by the time the flames get hot enough to di.~charge the extinguisher, there may be too much heat to allow the fire to be extinguished or it may have caused structural damage, structural damage that could even allow a flashover to an- other compartment, TFC does not consider this as ++minimum response time" as men- tioned in the NPRM 84-5. The fire could be extinguished at the very earliest stage possible, rather it should be extinguished at the earliest stage pomible, before it breaks out into flames. Automatic thermal models are unable to actuate at these earliest stages where the best chance to put out a fire exists. Extinguisher bottles mounted inside the lavatory itself could be easily comprom'_u~-~d, by a fire, rendering them useless. A single shot system may not b~ adequate to extinguish all types of or intensities of fires. Automatic devices certainly are not meant to prevent or extinguish a rekindling fire. Normal firefighting procedures are to eliminate the source of the fires, and then, after a reasonable period of time, which certainly depends on the judgment of the operators and must be left to them, operate the extinguisher. Proposed regulations and the leg~ation expects the flight attendants to be able to find the fire. We heard tmtimony on that this morning. It appears the legisla- tion and NPRM's presumes that not only will the flight attendants be expected to extinguish the fire with hand-held extinguishers, but that they will have the time to do sa and at the same time attend to pa~enger safety, notify the cockpit, prepare the cabin for an imminent emergency descent and landing. No one is going to continue with a fire. The NPRM advocates continued use of Ha|on 1211 in occlmied areas and cocknits re~ard- 417 le~ of the size of the compartments, the experience level of the ex- tinguisher operators, and with no apparent consideration of the fa~t that hand-held extinguishers may not put out the fire. A recent FAA report, DOT/FAA CT 82-42, states, haDst vending on the circumstances including human factor~ the po~ibility cxist~ "h~d-held extinguishers could prove ~ucce~. ful. I.t must be al~o r.emcmbervt~, ~- ~urnin~ aircraft interior materiala will by the.mselv,e~.,gen, era.te,.t0.~lc tna~.~.~: of Odecompmition, in addition to the smo~e anu me neat. ~ m clear ~.m ,P~r~e~sveclive that the ultimate priority must be to extinguiah the fire a~ rapidly ~'~ib]e to avoid many fatalities. Of course if the fire isn't put out and the atmosphere in th_e co~- o~tment becomes inadvertently totally floo~ed, so to ~peak, with ~he concentration of the extinguishant insufficient to put out the fire--but still with the extinguishant at a level to provide ~gnt c~nt amounts of toxic products of decompositisn--the~,e toxic fumes will be inhaled by whemever is trapped in the compartment under the circumstances. One so-called advantage of H~on 1211 is that its throw range is superior to that of 13_01. While this may be an advantage when tinguishing a fire with a p0,rtab_le in a land-b..a~ed e~nvir.onme~t, in our opinion in the aircraft s environment this auvant~e aisap- ars Most fire~ are likely to occur behind enclosures which block ~i~ec~ application, thus negating 1211's advantage. Also as we see it, with hand-helds, the fires will have to be ap- proached very closely; in most c~es, too close for safety.. TFC,rec- ommends that Halon 13~1 be used in the hand-held extingUiShers in place of 1211. At the minimum, allow operators the choice between 1211 and 13~L I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that at the time the FAA did its comparison analyvis of 1211 and 1301 there was not ~ 1301 portable on the market that was approved by an e~tablished agency like FM or UL. But there is now. And more could be done along thee lines. Total Flood does not offer this portable extinguisher, but we are aware of it. So then I hope that I have been helpful in explaining that the fire protection systems are available that can protect the airplane from not only in-flight fires, but from pear, rash fires, or incipient fires, ones that are about to start or might start, The~e .systems in our opinion are practical and can be designed to protect as much of the airplane as the operator feels is important and as legislation requires. We have always shied away from advocating legislating certain types of e~uivment It is our experience that sometimes it doe~ go too fa~t. B~tt ~otal ~Iood Corp. feels that in this case it hasn't gone tso fast. We have been working on developing these systern~ for 10 years. We have taken it a step at a time. We have done very, very thorough research and documentation. Not only did we atu~dy it,.we ins~lled it. We proved it by flight che~.ks and b.y years.o! ~ervl.co; We have asked ourselves questions, and our cuswmers nave as~en questions about the system. And we feel that we have now ~ome- thing that wottld, in fact, be effective on airplanes of any ~izv. And it might even be that with these syaterns the fire preventive tech- niques and technology may be unnecessary if you had an effective total flooding system.
Page 70: TI07692725
418 As I conclude my remarks, I am optimistic that this committee will see fit to set a new direction in aviation safety, in my opinion, a new direction is badly needed. Outdated concepts and patchwork regulations have not kept pace with technology. Lives are being lost as a result. This is a critical juncture in the history of aviation safety. I heard a quote once, I don't remember who said it, but it went like this. "The only way to change things is to change things." With your leadership it can be done. Thank you for allowing me to testify. I hope that, .you and your committee, with the efforts of Total Flood Corp. ana lm personnel, will ,mak~e ala, s,ti,ng ,contribution. ~ .aviation saf.e.ty; one ~ long overaue. I woum ~e nappy ze enrer~un any quesuons, ana ~e em- barras~cl if I can't answer them. Mr. Mm~rA. I am going to be embarrassed because I am not sure I am going to have any questions. Mr. Enk, thank you very much for your ver~. thorough testimony and the backup material that you have presentea. Just before I ask some of the questions I have, what is the differ- ence between 1301 and 12117 But first CO~ versus Halon; what is the difference? Mr. ENK. CO~ extinguishes a fire by eHminatlng the oxygen from the compartment. It produces an overwhelming concentration 1~ cally--at a fire--or in a total flooding environment. CO~ has been used in total flooding systems with approximately a 40-percent con- ccntration of CO2, you can extinguish all fires in a compartment. Somewhere before that, though, you will extinguish the lives of the people who breathe the resulting atmosphere. Mr. MINgrA. Let me then go on to my next question. Can you give us an idea of what the Total Flood concept costs? You say that it is being installed in the Canadair Challenger CL-601 aircraft. What does it cost to put in the system in that aircraft as oppoeed to the more traditional means of fire control? Mr. ENK. All right, sir. First of all, for the record, .that is a very sophistica _tFd system. It is the most advanced one that has been put on an airplane to date. It includes protection--first of all, I will tell you how much it costs to .put it on; then I will de~ribe it. The installation, we did two of them. The installed ran around $80,000 apiece. It is an airplane that is approximately one-third the size of the original DC-9's, approximately. ~l~you agree with that? r. S~NC~. Yes. Mr. ENK. All right. Installed in that airplane were seven extin- guishing containers with 10 pounds of 1301 in each container. I have some drawings, ff you would like to look at them, of the system; give you some examples. Would you like to see those? Mr. MzN~A. That is all right. Go ahea& Mr. ESK. It protects, starting at the front of the airplane, the nose compartment where there are all sorts of electronics eqml~, meat. Then the cockpit, including all of the side consoles arouno the~p_l~o ~," and _instrument_panel, circuit breaker panel behind.t~ pilo~antu co-pilot. Then the vestibule that is between the coclcpl and the passenger cabin where there is a galley, e.lectronics, junc- .t!on boxes and those types of hazards--potential hazards. That is ~ne cockpit system described here. 419 Then the cabin is protected with I0 nozzles. It also protects the lavator~ at. the same time. The cabin compartment is protected, Lower ~useiage--two compartments below the floors; the front one in which there is a fuel tank and avionics--very typical of modern aircrai~ design. This area has the cables for the control surfaces in it. Either the fuel can .compromise the avionics or the avionics can compromise the fuel. That is why there is protection in that area. Another lower fuselage area similar to the one I just described is below the floor behind the wing. Then the entire aft tail cone of the airpla~ne including the auxiliary power units, nothing more than another jet engine, of course; and also the air cycle machines and things like that are in this area. But it is a very, very sophisticated system and we also included detection with it. So this system costs approximately $80,000 to in- stall. Mr. Mim~rA. In your testimony you also have the technical pro- posal for a DC-9-807 Mr. E~tr. Yes, sir. Mr. Mm~rA. What would that cost? Mr. E~r~. I would estimate around, the average installation would be around--the DC-9 being a smaller airplane than the 1011, of course, less area, so if you would average the fleet I think you could have protection similar to what is shown in that DC-9 for approximately $50,000 per ship. The DC-9 system, being slightly smaller than the average, would be slightly less. Mr. Mm~'rA. Basically there you would have the system include the aft lavatory, forward lavatory, and in the cockpit behind the instrument panel. Mr. E~¢. Yes, and in the electronics equipment area, which is below the forward part of the fuselage. It would be ~lectable and have multiple discharges available to any of these areas. But the important point would be that it would not necessarily be an outer rustic system. It would allow the operator, whether it be a cabin attendant or the pilot, to find out about a fire, then arm the system, take some preventive actions to eliminate the source. Still he hasn't had to approach the area thereby risking someone's life in order to approach the fire. Then he could inert it with one shot. The computer that would operate the system would take the first available extinguisher con- tainer and put it into that area when you pushed the discharge switch. Now instead of walking up to a ticking bomb now a cabin att~ndo ant or crew member can safely approach the area and investigate to fred out if, in fact, the fire is now out. Then if they find it is out, the crew could do something like station a cabin attendant outside the door, if it was a lavatory, with a portable and say "Now you watch .that until we get on the ground. We are going down, and we arfe,go~.ng down right now." • tear. Mm~rA. I take it that on this DC-9 Super 80 outline that you have here that that is a scaled down version of a complete sy~tom? Mr. E~
Page 71: TI07692726
420 Mr. MIr#m'A. Scaled down in the sense that it is just for the spe- cific places, and not the total plane? Mr. ENK. Yes. I am not encouraging anyone to jump in over their head with this technology. I would like to see them learn about it, and learn about it with systems that do more than we--that is, current NPRM 84-5--are talking about now, but could be expand- ed as the need and finances are available to protect more and more of the airplane. Ultimately, with the total system--be a realistic so- lution. Mr. MIN~rA. Obviously it would be much easier and less costly to have a system such as yours installed in newly manufactured air- craft as opposed to retrofitting present aircrai~. What are your views on retrofitting the current fleet? You refer to scale-down ver- sions of the Total Flood concept. Are some of the scaled down ver- sions relatively easy to install? Mr. ENK. I will let Mr. Stranczek talk on that. He runs a modifi- cation center and can talk very handily about what is involved in retrofitting an airplane with this type of system. Mr. STRANCZEK. [ think retrofitting on a commercial airline, the total airline group category, has to be considered very carefully be- cause of the critical down times required on the existing fleet. I would be definitely in favor of this type of a system on the next generation or yet-to-be-delivered aircraft because it is not a difficult installation to make. The ease of installation of the system and the ability to get to the various compartments, even on the larger air- craft, to make the installation is relatively easy. And I would defi- nitely favor it on the next generation aircraft. The retrofit has to be very carefully considered with reference to the down time and availability that the air carriers have within their present schedules. From a safety point, I would definitely en- courage it. Mr. Mm~rA. We have a call of the House now, so I will have to move along. Let me ask this one last question. I understand that Halon can become a toxic agent if it becomes heated after it is dis- charged. I am wondering how does your system deal with this pos- sibility? Mr. E~K. We deal with that. First of all there are two Halons, and let's be sure that we are talking about now 1301. By comparison 1211 has chlorine in its When it decomposes, it forms much more highly toxic products o! decomposition than 1301. 1301 does not include chlorine. Well, the way that the National Fire Protection Association specifies that you reduce the products of decomposition to a safe level is by discharging to achieve extinguishing concentration in less than 10 seconds. Once this concentration is achieved the fire will be put out. So you design this system so that when you push the button, you get extinguishing concentrations almost immediate- ly. Did I answer your question? Mr. Mm~-r^. Very well. Well, Mr. Enk, thank you ver~ much for .your testimony and the complete information that you ]~ave gi.'ven ~o us. Mrs. Enk and Mr. Stranczek, we appreciate your being l~ere as well. 421 At this point I am going to adjourn the hearings for the call of the House, and we will resume in this room tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m. [Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to re- convene at 10:30 a.m., Thursday, August 2, 1984.] [Subsequent to the hearing, the following was received from Mr. Enk:]
Page 72: TI07692727
422 T 423 TOTAL FLOOD CORPORATION August 9, 1984 The Honorable Norman Hlnnta House of Representatives Room 2350 Rayburn House Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Hr. Hinete: It yam on honor to be a~ked to testify before your Committee regarding cabin fire safety for aircra[t. I uould like to thank you and the Co.mitten Staff for the courteous and helpful support 8ivan to Total Flood Corporation and ~ts personnel. Host important. I ~ant to thank you for providing the public forum that iIluuinated the technical advances 1 ~poke o£ ~n ~y testimony. Was lt'not [or the Committee's work. tl|ese adval~ces might he completely overlooked by the FAA end o~hers. As l exp]ntned, only n small part of ~he [ire problem would be addres- sed by the proposed FAA concept o£ fire protection. Hy teatimoey~ even though it was detailed, only touched lightly on the solution to aviation fires. I think there are sJmp]e oolutions that ore ao~ geLLing proper attention. Further. these uoluttons nrc vital to implementing practical selective fire safety improvements, During my ~ootimooy. you asked me three queatlons: I) flow much did the CL-6011nstaXleLlon cost. and how ouch would the "scaled-down" version cost on a DC-9-80 shown in the example ~hlch .is part of this testimony? 2) MouLd Helen 1301 decompose under the high temperatures oE s fire, and how deem it compare to Helen 12If? 3) Could theme systems be tetra-fitted? These ore important qucst£on=, but L~ae did not permit the elaboration Justi£led by the importance of these questions. PLAZA C~Nr£R • Bt.U£ SPRINGS, Me. 640|~ ~ ~}6/524.6300 gegarding question number 1. I stated that the entire airplane ena pro~ected by a uulttple dieebarge, computer controlled, fire decectlon and fire extinguishing system, the most advanced und complete system rha~ to my knowledge has ever been inntalled on nn airplane, Two aircraft were equipped. Each of theme systems avereged approximately $60,0Q0 |entailed. Since t~o alrplonea were antE|tied at the same time, some of the coats yore shared between the t~o airplanes. Labor on the flret alrcra[t nearly double the. ~an hours spen~ on the eecoud aircraft. All of the engineering had Lo be done on the first oircrn[t~ uo that by the time the installation began on the ascend aircrsfL it yam Just a matter el following the engineered Lnotructiona. The DC-9 system is cons;dersbly s~al]er than the ann descrlbed for the CL601. The potential for higher production quantities much better with the DC-9 and other 1urge alrcro~t. Dependln~ on the quantity I estieate the extinguisher systou $1~.OO0 nnd $30.000 each. and betueen ~!.000 and $2,500 Ear detection aysLem not includ~ng detection in the galleys. l have purposely left out detection in the galleyn because airlines seem to have some valid erguments against the need for this detection. The non-recurring mnn.u[acturing, certtfleotion, testing and e~E~noerln~ costs would vary between $35,000 nod $75,000 per model o[ equivalent size. Of course the si~e of the airplane o/feeLs the amount of engineering, munafacCurlug and testing as well ss the east of the equlpmenL. That is why I stated, the overage inst~llatton would test $50,000 per ship far ~he equlpnmnt end the 1natallatlon. Obviously, equivalent Installations on larger aircroft would coat sore. on ~maller ~ircraft ~oald cost less. Regarding question number 2~ Helen 1301 uhen used in n total flooding syste~ is discharged very rapidly so as to achieve on extinguishing concentration at the £1re fs less than I0 ~econdu. This is ta accordance with the National Fire Protection Assocta- ~ion llsndbook 12A (~FPA 12A). In Chls way the ftre is put out and ~he decomposition of 1301 stops be[ore harmful amosnt~ toxic produc~s of decomposltlon occur. That is ~hy T~Oes syute~ are des|Reed to get enough of the nxtln~ulshunt onto the ~Ire in much less than ten seconds; most do it in about 2 aecund0. The HFPA does not recommend the use of Helen 121l in tote1 flood- leg applications. Two of the reaaous come ~o mind. The first that in the ufldecomposod ~tate llnlon 1211 cannot be tolerated at high enough cancan.craclons to be effective. For instance, human suhje'cts exposed to ~ ~ concentration have aokcd to have the
Page 73: TI07692728
425 test terminated in less than a minute to prevent losing conscious. nasa. By comparison, human studies indicate Hslon 1301 concen- trations approaching 20X for two hours ulll not cause uflconscloasflesa. For this reason and others, toxicologists generally rate 1301 five tiles safer than 121]. (Refer to BOT/FAAICT-821~2. Pugs 39 or TFAOI-0OSI. Section 2. Page 2.14.) [louever. In an aircraft it is concelvnble thac a 1211 portable exClngaloher might Inadvertently saturate the elf inside comportmCnto Consideration must co~ be 81ven to products of decomposition formed when Halos 1211 is heated by a fire thac is not extln~ulshed. The chlorine in Helen 1211 is vhaC makes decom- posed Helen 1211 much nora toxic than decomposed Halos l~Ol (as ~t contains no chlorlun). Please refer to the above t.o reports and to the enclosed Conpnrlson of lialons 1301 and 1211 (wrltten In about 1970 by Charles Ford. Head of Fire gxtlngulshants Group ac Dopant) ~or nora InfornaClon. Since this co~parlson, the ,edlcaI College of ~Isconsln ~tudy ent~led "Bun~n Exposure To Halo, 130]" fo,nd llalon 1301 to be ouch aafer than was reported ~n this comparison. These atudles have extended the exposure llaics of Halos 1301 to )0~ for one uInute and 7Z for flfceen, mlnuces. These llmlts are contained in the current issue of ~FFA 12A which was revlsed after Chase studies vere completed. ~ut, anything that ~s burned by the fire will decompose, Incladln~ the fuel and the extinguishing a~en~s used ~n an attempt to pu~ the fire out. That is why ~t is l~porCant to put the fire out immediately with s nearly foolproof system. Thus Hs~on 1301 in a to~nl ~loodlng system has been recognized as the safest n~d ~out effective extingulshant yet known, and also shy ~FC and all others who have studied ~ts use in aircraft race.mend it for use ~a an onboard integrated fire management system. Hal0n 1301 does not put the fire out by removing the oxygen in the nlr, instead it prevents the fuel and the oxygen from combin- ~ng in the presence of heat. It le • chamlcal barrier to the ~ropaBoClon of flame. The Report No. FAA-RB-76-~4 referenced by the FAA in their NPRH 84-5 yes written without knowledge of the Hedical College of Wisconsin study, nor did ~t include knowledge of ~efereoce 3 on Pass 2,22 of Sect/on 2 of TFAOI-O051, or any of the testa that Enk Aviation or TFC have performed in flight, Yet it still recommended such a f/re management system usln~ Hulas 130[ "if the potential toxicity hazards associated ~ith pyrolysis can be demonstrated to be aiuinnl." This has noq been done, carbon dioxide on the other hand, dlaplaca~ the oxygen from the cOmbUstion area, A ~0~ concentration of carbon dioxide u~11 put out los~ .fires hut 20Z by voXuae is approximately a lethal concentration- Carbon dioxide to no~ used to totally ~lood occupied areas, ~he closer you look at the problem of pectins out a fire in an airplane the nora ~nvolved it beconea, TFC and othoru hnvo concluded that the best sns~er is a pre-onglnoored total floodl.~ system ~o handle unexpected fires. I£ onythln8 can be learned from aviation hlsCory i~ is that e£forto lutended to allnlnnte fires have sac been completely eEfectlVeo ~t i~ dnn~orous to preSUme that s1~lur efforts today ui11 make oIrpl~nes flroproo~. Thus, should n fire start there must be u way co pu~ tc ou~. Your third quesclon asked if ~hese systems could be retro-flt~cd on the present fleet of nlrcrnf~. I pre~u~e you ae~nt aircraf~ the size of DC-9's and larger. These co.meats ore in oddltlon to those of Hr. Stranc~ek. Ye~. ~hey can be retro-fltCed. In ~nct every instullatlon TFC has made and certified began first sua retrofit. It Io true that the impact on do~n c/me ~ust be considered, buk it in also true Chat if the ~ob is ~orch doing, it ~hould be done right in order to avoid throu away spendln~. In the example of the DC-9 a properly engineered kit could be Installed in npproxlmately 30 Co 60 hours, 1~ you have any further quesclons or need more Informstlon please feel free to contact me. Slncerely. TOTAL FLOOD CORPO~XT10~ gilliam An Enk President enclosure: Comparison of Helena 1301 and 1211 By Hr. Charles Ford of E. 1. C.~ont cc: See Page S
Page 74: TI07692729
42"/ The' Honorable John 0on,etCh The Honorable Thomas Eaglobon The Honorable Ike Skel~o. Houoe Aviation Subcommittee Hembera: The Honorable EllLo~¢ H. Lev/ta~ The Honorable £a~te Hall The Honorab]e Tim ValenLtne The Honoroble Edolphus To~ns The Honorable ~llllem O. Liplnski The Honorable Tommy J, Vandergrtff The |lonoroble Glenn He Anderson The Honorable Jumes L. Oberctur The Honorable ~ober~ ~. Eduar The Honorable ~obert A. ¥oun~ The Honorable N~ck J. Rahal]o II The Honorable 0ou~las &ppleuu~e The llonorable Brian J, Doenelly The Honorable Douzlus 11. Bosco The Honorable Ceraldtne A. Ferraro The Honorable Boo De Lone The Honorable Jame~ Jo Howard The Honorable John Paul llamuerschmidt The Honoreble Bud Shus~er The Honorable Arian S~ran~eland The Honorable Ile~ Cln~rtch The I|onorable Bud HcE~eo The Honorable Prank R. Veil The Honorable Thomas E. Petri The Ilonorable 9~n U~bor The Ilonorable £onald C. Packard The Honorable Gone Snyder ~ ~ "el~" ag~$s, Of ~ ~ halo~ted ~ent~ ~ ~ ~n evil.ted ~tions: ~ 1~01 (b~~) ~ ~I~ 1211 ~le or satlsfy~ ~" ~11~; ~ w~le s~ ~rl~p ~nts for ~i~ ea~ agen~ ~s best s~ted. ~s ~ will ~n~ato ~ ~lat£1i~ ~t~ £t to ~ appli~ tO ~ ~a p~ly ~ a 2." ~lon 1211 ~ s~at ~ fable p~si~1
Page 75: TI07692730
428 ~e NatiO~l Yi~ ~t¢ctlon ~s~ation ~ a te~ ~tr~ on ~lo~ted Fl~ E~in~hi~ A8ent Syste~ ~ ~ ~y ~ufa~d ~ sp~ad ~idly with p~on in ~ ~ b~n for h~ applies. ~d for ~al ~llcati~n systm~, ~in~h~ng ~cnt Sys~
Page 76: TI07692731
43O _~ical ,P~ertles ~ P~y~l~l p~ope~.~ o~ $he" /~o a~ents ~e sho~ in t~e foll~L~g ~able: C~micalJy both agent~ ape to ~ ~Icc~c, w~as ~I~ 1211 ~t~ ~ at~ of ~m~ ~ ~ of ~1~, ~, H~on 1301 i= ~ogc~ted ~ ac~ f~ a l~e ~ of £~ ~t, I~on 1301 Is ~.~ntly ~ e~ ~ ~on 1211. ~ Va~ ~ o~ ~ total p~ ~d ~ often =~ ~qui~nts foe ~lon 1211 ~ste~ ~ ~ l~P ~h~ f~ I~ 1301 431 the ~e~e~n~ng 1~.qu~.d vaporizes ~ ~ly ~n ~n~ with w~ ~ ~ 1~1 ~fo~y ~ e~ ~e encl~s. ~e l~m ~latJli~ of Halon 1211 ~ ~ favoP its ~e ~ h~ ~le e~he~ ~d in I~I appl~ti~ ~er qu~ of ~cn 1211 is di~ed ~ a ~qu~d, ~t ~ ~ ~cted ~ effe~£vely at ~ f~; ~d ~e ~e s~ i~ alleged le~s ~ ~ ~ o~r ~ c~ts. ~ 1~r ~i~g ~n~ of ~Ivn 1301 is o£~cn cited ~ a f~ez~n~ ~ to pe~1 ~;ho ~y be £~d~ently spr~ed ~ ~ ~er£al, ~ ~s ~o~ ~e ~e ~h I~ 1211. In p~c~Ice, h~, vapor1~cn o[ ~ 1301 a~ter ~s~e ~ so ~d t~t skin ~nt~ct by t~ ~qu~ ~s hilly ~l~ely. O~ i~d~enE ~sc~Ze ~ly ~n~o a pe~on's face 41~ ~Z ca~e ~e hl~ liq~d ~izies of ~io~ 13~I ~ 1211, ~led with their ~ e~fn~ng effe~ve~ss, ~sults ~ a ~mtic ~duct[on of sto~Fe ~ ~mnts fop syst~ m~g ~se asen~ ~d to ~e t~'st~ge ~I~ of ~ ~valent ~2 ~t~. In ~h~s ~s~ct~ Iblon 1211 a ~ llq~d ~£~ th~ H~on 1301 ~d ~ ~q~s e~n less s~ ~ ~s H~ 1301. ~n, %~ ~ed ~ctness of ~lon 1~11 ~ ~lon 1301 ~ ~on 1211 is se1~ of ~t ~.
Page 77: TI07692732
432 Halon 1301 0.22 ar~ fc~ ir~:ingo These values are rJa~n ,¢s follcw~. TL~m gxtin~ish~-nt ~oncentvatiom~ t by Vol~m(8.9) • l~1on 1301 Halonl211
Page 78: TI07692733
.~r~rtb~,C~acent*9, t~ons! $ b,~ Vo1~.~(o.9) ~ 800,000 ~k~OOO 7=650 -- lS 1 11 $ 2 435
Page 79: TI07692734
ca.~e of Ha].qn 1211, hy,:lzo~.en ~lomlde as well. [essm'. quanti~ies of ~e bm::m~lne an~ f~e chlo~ir~ ~x~ occaslonally reposed. Theo~e~ically~ I~l~n 130~ should p~ fcwep d~oompos~¢~on pxx~uats tha~ Halon 121~ upon extinK~[sh~nt, has a lo~oV ex%i~/ish~ent: *eq,,~*~.nt th~n i~%lo. 1211. Second, '1% ~s ~ ~c~ly st~le ~ ~ 1211, ~s~Z~ng ~ ~ b~ ~ ~ agent. ~ facto~ ¢~ ~get~ :~ld ~ a ~st~ adv~ge ~ I~1~ 1301. ~n ~ctlc~ ot~ v~le~ ~fcc¢ ~ ~ of ~ition of ~ a~¢ ~g ~o~ 1301 + ~ 1301 ~ 1211 ba~ ~ a~ities~ ~ ~y ~so ~t is s~Piov to the o~ In ~i ~s~c~ for ~I a~cati~. ~ly ~c~iod ~, ~110 ll~on 1211 se~ to ~ ~ .~t~Ic f~ ~e ~n i~I app~ca~lo, syste~ ~ ~n ~ ~le ~ts. I~ 1301 tot~ appl&catlon for ~ ~ ~ ~0~I ~ ~ ~al~d ~e Of size, vasty, ~ing o~ (~1~ ~ut 800°F), ~te ~ f~ilit~s, tlITA 12A. I|H~A 12B. CU':ics
Page 80: TI07692735
LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE AIRLINE SAFETY THURSDAY, AUGUST 2, 1984 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUECOMMI1~TEE ON AVIATION OF THE COMMI'I~EE ON PUBLIC WOR~S AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., Hon. Norman Y. Mineta (chairman of tho subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Mm~rA. The Aviation Subcommittee will please come to order. This is a continuation of the hearings being held by this sub- committee~relating to legislation--to improve airline safety. We are pleased this morning to have the very capable and very respected Adm. Don Engen, who--of course--is the Administrator of the Federai Aviation Administration. The full ~xt of your prepared statement will appear in the record at this point. lStatement referred to follows:]
Page 81: TI07692736
440 441 0 O~ CO sTATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONALD D. ENGEN, FEDERAL AV~TION ADHIHISTRATOR, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORI~AMD TRA~sPORTATIOMw SHDCOMHITTEH ON AVIATION, COHCERNING PENDI~ AVIATION LEGISLATION. AOGUST 2, 1984o Mr. Chairman and Hel~bers of the Subcommittee: I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today on a variety of bills pending before the Subcommittee. All of these bills deal with aircraft cabin safety issues or problems, the preponderance of which are being pursued actively by the YAk. A nu~er of the cabin safety ~reas are covered in several of the hills0 Therefore, rather than provide a Point-by-point re~ponse to each of the nine bills, ~ woul~ like to give yqu my overall position on the pending legislation and then provide yo~ wlt~ the statu~ of our efforts in the c~bin safety areas covered by the bills. I will, however, respon~ more directly to ~. 197 and B.R. 1550 since they are different than the other bllls~ calling for stndies rather than legislatively lmpostn~ regulatory requirements, I want to begin by making unequivocally clear that both ~ecreta~y Dole and I are felly co~ltted to achieving the basic purpose off moat of these bills--improved cabin safety. We sha~e with you the frustrattonmrieing from the length of time it has taken for some of these proposals to reach their prasent state of development. I can assure you, however, that we intend to ~ve forward expeditiously ~ Issue regulations which ~lll improve cabin safety, as I will discuss in more detail later in this testimony. ~ON LEGISLATION Apart from the two bills calling for studies, the bills pendin~ before the Suboo~mittee would direct the YAA to promulgate final rules on a wide range of cabin safety subjects. In nea~l~ every case, the PAA already ha~ underway rulemaktng activity which would meet in whole or large measure the requirements. In some cases, we are examining comments received from the public in response to published Notices of proposed Rulemaking so that we can make s decision regarding a final rule. In other cases, we are developing proposed ~uleo In o~der to ~olicit public co~enta~y in accordance with the Administrative Procedure &ct° In a ~ew instances, we are examining an issue to determine whether rulemaking activity Is necessary. In each case, the FAA is actively taking action to better define the problem, to quantify it, or to solve it. Enactment of the legislation pending before you seeks to provide legislative solutions to issues solved best by the regulatory process. It is not clear that the tlmetable~ Contenplated in some of the legislation are ~easonable~ equally, it is not clear that all issuenshoul~ be ~olved in th~ wa~s contemplated by the various bills. Are sew
Page 82: TI07692737
442 regulations be? Bow can they maxtaize safety benefits while ainl~lzing cost to the A~ezican travelling public? Hill they adversely i~pact small business and, i£ so~ whet s~e the slternatives? When should the~be effective2 Should they be phased in s~d~ if eo~ on ~hat schedule? These ere the very kinds of issues £o~ which the reg~lator~ process has been ~stablishedby the Congress. The Congress ~ecogniZed that developln~ the appropriate expertise and solving problems of this level of detail on the ~tde range of issues which confront the Congress ~as simply not feasible in the legislative environment. ~herefo~e# the Congress established ~egulatot~ agencies to assemble the' expertise needed, and ~eq~ired these a~eueiee to involve the ~ublt¢ in the ~e~ulato~¥ process. These p~oce~see ~c in place l~ the P~ and, on balance~ have ~0rked ~e~l in helping to ~ake our eli transportation system the ss~eat in the world. They ere working no~ in ter~s of definin~ appropriate aolut|on~ in the cabin safety area, Z believe fl~=ly that the p~L~ is on the right course in add~ess~n9 cabin safety prohle~n~ and that solutions ~lll be ~o~thco~in~ both in a timely and appropriate manner, taking into account the full range of eoa~entar~ and views provided by the ~ublio in response to our regulatory proposalS. There is ~o question in n~ mind that we will achieve better results through co~ittlng the resolution o£ these Issues to the 443 regulatOrY process~ with appropriate Congressional overnight~ than by i~posing inflexible legislative "solutions." I understand the concerns and £rUstrations o£ some ~e~bcta in believing that the F~ has failed to ~ove quickly enough to take fl~ regulatory action to solve various problems associated with aixora£t accidents. I do not intend to offer ezc~ses conce~ning the ti~e it has taken us to get where we are in ou~ cabin safety prograa. I do intend thouqh to assure you that I am £1~ly committed to completing ou~ cabin safety agenda now, not later. Hadst steps ve have taken within the past year should be a clea~ indication to you that the agency has ~oved from the research phase in a number o£ these areas to the "action" phase. YoU will continue to see s~e__~ and ~prog[ess, with a nu~bec of actions to be taken during the next several months. I have ~ade it absolutely clear to my staff--and the ~eoretary is as co~ltted as I am on this issue--that our efforts will not let up~ and that we will ~eet the deadlines we have established for ourselves. I recognize that some Hembers of the Subco~ittee a=e concerned that our plans of today might be abandoned~ that our in these programs may shift. ~ don~t vie~ that aa a lity, given the tremendous amount o£ wgrk we have dedicated to these issues over the years and the su~tantial focu~ placed on these p~ogra~ by on,selves, the Congress. the medis, and the
Page 83: TI07692738
444 445 public, There[ore~ I ask that the lubco~aittee give the regulatory process the opportunity to work. Deferring action on the bills before you does not close the door on a possible legislative solutlo, should a subsequent revlev indicate that needed regulatory solutions have been dismissed by the P~q. I have Enll confidence, as I stated a moment ago. in the current direction of our program, and in achieving short-ta~n results. I would like to provide you nov with an overview of where we stand on the issues contained in the bills pending before you. ~ ~IiI slno mentlo~ a few progren aress~ such as child restraint systems, even though they are not contained in the blll~ since I know they are of general interest to the ~ubcommi~tee. Child Restraints On Hay 28, I~82, the FAA issued Technlcal ~tsndard Order (~SO) C-100 which for the first tl~e provide~ criteria for approval og child restraint devices for use on board aircraft. The ~SO required compliance with the Federal Noto~ Vehicle Safety Gtsndard ~o. 21~, Child Restraint Systems~ and thr~e additional test requirements considered repre~en~stive of the unique aircraft environment. To date, 3~ models of child restraint devicee~ accounting got about 3.5 ~ill~on actual seats, are considered acceptable for use on aircraft. In addition~ the r~p~ovides a 24-hour phone service to assist the public in determining which devices are approved. ~e vepartment of ~rausportation is planning to comhlne the performance standards needed to assure safe usage in the a~istio" environment with theexisting child restraint system requirements in Federal'Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ~o. 21~. ~h•n this combined amended standard ~o. 213 is issued, each child restraint ~snufacturer ell1 have a single regulation to • ddcees In its certification o£ restraint devices and vii1 have • single agency {the National Highway ~raf~lc Safety ad~inistration) with which to deal in the ~epa~t~ent o~ T~ansportation. Following this effort~ the F~ will withdra~ ~SO-ClO0. On ~•nuary 3~ 1983. the ~A issued TSO-CI3d which contained improved ~equirements £o[ ll~e vests to be used aboard el~c~a£t. The improvement~ Include a donning requirement o~ 15 seconds unassisted while seate~ a 30-secon~ donnin~ ~equi~ement on a child or ln£ant by anothe~ sdult~ increased h0uy•nc~ and flotation attitude ~equire~ents~ and the c~eation of sn infant category of life preservers. The TSO, in a~dition~ requires that after ~anuary 3, 1985~ no previously apProved ~0-C13 designs sa~ be ~arkad a~s F~ TSO-approved. This~ in effect, requires virtually all newly purchased life
Page 84: TI07692739
446 preoecvers for airline use to meet the improved stendards. Xn addition, we are considering the issuance of a new T~O operators ~0 use life preservers meeting that ~O, E~erge~Cy. Evac~ption S1,i~s~, Ramp~ and Slld~Ra£t Co~blns,~lon=~.. On ~une 3, 198~ the p/d~ issued ~o.-C69a whlch ~ade general ne~ criteria to l~prove tha radiant heat resistance o~ the equipment. ~he ne~ e~ite~la significantly improves the ability o~ the~e pasoenger e~acuation devices to ~emain operative in the presence of s reasonably close~ large, fuel-fed ~lre. re?[ned TSO requires that~ ~fter Deceabe~ 3e 1984e devices which do not ~eet ~he hem radiant hea~ criteria could no longer nn~ly purchased evacnatlon ell~es for airline use to meet the improved standards. We are ~nvest~gatlng now bow quickly these improved elldes are entering airline service to regulatory action is necessary to require replacement of older nlldes. Cre~ Protec~iVe ~r~sthin~ Equipment Qn aune 27. 1963, the P~ issued TSO-Cg~ vhioh established criteria for the protective braathln~ ~quip~ent for air ,147 ~ero~sce Stsnda~d~ ~hich itself is bnsed ~po~ research and ~evelop~enC acco~plished at the r~ CIvil aeroeedlca] l~Stitute- The ue~ atandard requires a f~ll-face oxygen mask 0~ a eo~blnation o£ s~oke goggles and oxygen ~ak vitb punitive pu~glng og the smoke goggles to preclude ~ogging or the buildup ~e ~ ~e finalizing action on u regulatory p~oposal to pro- vide £11~ht crew members on air carrier alrc~a~t with p=ot¢o- tire breathing equip~ent meeting this hey TSOe snd to provide portable p~otective breathing equipment ~o£ flight attendants on" trnlnidg ~or the~ in fighting typical aircraft ~ires. The ~a expects to complete its e~forts on this regulatory p~oponal t~0ctobe~ 31e 1984e at vhlch time ie ~ill undergo Executive B~anch coordination p~icr tO issuance for publlc comment. ~lammability Requir~epts tot kircra~t ~aat ~p_~hi~ns On 0ctober 11, 1963e the F~A published proposed new standards o~ p~esent day £oa~ cushions. The proposal contains new lnborstor¥ tests and acceptance criteria that were developed an a result of extensive full s~ale testin~ st the F~ TechniCal Center. The proposed tesC is reprenentattve of a l~st-nrash~
Page 85: TI07692740
448 bigh-intennity fuel fire. Full scale teetlng has shown that aircraft cUshions designed to meet these criteria delay the onset of ignition within the cabin and reduce the spread of flame and products of co~buaelon in the cabin. A significant increase in post-crash evacuation and survival time can be gained through the use of these new cushions. In a specific teat, 40 seconds improvement in evacuation tlne was dccueented. Cushions of materlale that meet the proposed standard reduce the spread of Infllght fires as well. ~he proposed that, within 3 years of ~hs effective date of the rule, u11 seat cushions on existing ai~Planes type certificated after lg58 (the "jet air carrier fleet') be required to With the new requirements. Yhe rAAplane to complete Its action on these proposals by September 30, 1984. floor Proz/s|ty ezergency escape path ~arklng to provide visual guidance for emergency cabin evacuation when all Sources of onbin ll~bting ~ore than 4 feet above the alsle floor are ~otally obscured by smoke. ?he proposal resulted from research tha~ shows such marking significantly increases the ability of Passengers to evacuate a smoke-filled @~rcraft. Ybe F~ has P~oposed that, after 2 ~ears following ~he effective date of a ~lnal rule, all inservtce airplanes type certificated after 449 i~58 be required to comply vSth the new design etandard~. ~lanS to complete its action on the proposal by October I~84. The F~ has drafted a notice of proposed rulenaking to improve fire safety standards for Class D cargo compartments, and transmitted it for coordination within the ~xecutive Drench. The proposed standards upgrade the fire test criteria for the Class D compartment ceiling and wall liners and limit the total size of Class D compartments. The proposals result from full-scale testing of typical compartments to estebllsh criteria representative of "typical" fires and the deVelOpment og n laboratory 'test that properly simulates those fires. The proposal does not envision requiring cargo compartment fire extinguishers because fire extinguishment is addressed by confinement and ventilation control in ~lass D compartments. Fire Extinquishers and Smoke Detectors On Ha~ 17, 1984, the FAA published proposed standards foc air carrier airplanes to require each lavatory and 9qlley to be equipped with a smoke d~tector system and for each lavatory trash receptacle to be equipped with art"automatic fi~e extinguisher. It also calls for an Increased number of fire
Page 86: TI07692741
to permit a seasonable time for procurement of ~qui~enk and co~snt period on the ~F~ closes ~epte=her 14. 1984. ~b~ ~ 19~4. to in, rove occupant survivability in aircraft sea~a when advisory circulars (aC) and re~iatory p£oposals ~or genera/ ovia~IOne ~rans~ort, and rotorcraft seats. _~.~l.~orY C~rcula~ .on ~oman ~ac~ ~olerance - The PAA in finalizing an advisory ~lccula~ that will suggest hunnn tolerance criteria to be used as performance standards ~n sdviaor~ ct~cule~ in the Fede~a~ Reqlerer~ the FA~ will 451 circular by the end of this eontb. adviSorY oir¢~2ar3 that outline boy the l~proved ~e~ula- den~s conside~od~ the tlq~es o~ aircraft conaiderede and how to arrive at equivalent seat tas~ criteria ahou~d aircraft be developed that ace not ~ep~e~n~at~ve o[ those used ~o develop the ~egul~tory standards. These a~visory vili be publ~abed for co~aent topethe~ with the seat utandard .PR~ ~o provide fo~ ~ ~o~e understand~n9 o~ the apenc¥'s tntauttouu in thin rathe~ ~han separatolY ns orl~in~lly ~lanned. ~e expect these propooed new ee~t otendardu to be s~rlngent~ and do not want the public debate over the need ~o~ tht~ and ~heir costa and benefits to be diffused or even delayed by debate over the~e |ndtvid~al components o£ the whole p~cka~e. ~at~l~al ~od~l~n~ Tech~iquea bdvioory_circul~r - The F~ is aluo d~vtloPlng an advisory ~Ircular which su~srlxes the type o£ a.aly~lesl ~od~ll~g techniques ava£1able and denonstrate compliance ~tth the ne~ proposed neat standacds, This ~dVL~o~ cl~cula~Lll also he ~ubIi~he~
Page 87: TI07692742
for comment along with the improved seat standard notice. [or reasons J~St discussed, de£1nlng and developing new seat standards for aircraft. Theee are in the form of dynamic tes~ criteria that are representative of t~picall¥ survivable accidents, with n different test cri~erla ~o be proposed Ear small airplanes, t~an~port nirplenese and rotorcraft due to the differen~ e~a~h ucenarins £or each of these categor~ of aircraft. At pre~ent, the FAa envlsion~ a rule that in effect proposes a repreeentatlve dynamic criterla and a per£ormance standard that uces the de£1nod human i~psct tolerance as the paso-fail measure. The FAA e~pects to complete tt~ actions on the no~ proposed standards by 3use 15, 1985. ~nLimis~in9 Kero~p# ration o~ the untimistl~g kerosene technology developed by the YA~ over the past 4 years. Present plans are to propose that a~ter a yet-to-be de,ermined date which would be dependent upon a co~pletion o£ an economic impact analynie~ all air carrier airplanes would have to u~e fuel that meets a new antimlsting f~el standard. The ~A expects to complete its efforts ou this P~opcuul hy December 31~ 198~, at which tins it will undergo 453 Executive Branch coordination prior to issuance. I mipbt note that ~his proposal ~[11 dlf~ec £com our normal practloe~ in that ~e have demonstrated technological feasibility but have not develo~e~ a total certified flipht~orth~ system. ~cc0rdinqlY, we expect considerable debate on this vi~l demonstrate the fire proteCtiOn available th~ouqb the usa of ~lK in a Controlled Impact Demonstration at Edwards Air ~o~ce ease in Calffornia. The denonstration will also include e~aluatlon o2 Improved cra~hworthiness featurene Includln~ energy absorbin9 seats. ~e and ~SA will be ~ate for the impact demonstration ~ithln the next several weekS~ with the date expected to be in the mld-Septe~bcr to ~id-OC~obeZ time frame. • h~ PP~ plans ~o propose improved standards for transport airplane cabin interior mate~ials, lncludin~ sidewalls and ceiling panels. ~e are preaentl~ completing research and development at ~be Technical Center that will culainate in these new criteria. The improved lnterio~ material~ combined ~lth the improved ~eat fire standards ~hould ~teatl~ reduce tho spread of fl~e within ~he cabin. ~he F~ expects ~0 complete lt~ eg£orts on the proposal by December 31~ 1984~ at which tL~e it will be submit~ed ~or Executive Brauch coordination prior ~o ~ssuanee,
Page 88: TI07692743
454 Evacuation of Smoke ~rom the Cabin Environment At our Technical Center, we are evaluating smoke re.oval procedures under simulated flight conditions. manufacturer now must de~onstrate the procedures it has developed for a particular aircraft type to evacuate smoke. There procedures differ for each manufacturer. We are exploring the feasibility of developing standardized and improved procedures for ~moke evacuation, baaed on information concorning pant approvals for different designs and the teat duta being developed at our Technical Center. Longer range, we ar~ ovaluating smoke generators to dete~aine if a ground-baaed Boeing ~07 fuselage can be pressurized as a facility to explo~e various methods and procedures of cabin smoke evacuation that ~ight be more effective. ~ concern in this a~ea of course is ghether various venting techniques ~ight Increase Kather than di~IB|sb a fire. ~e don~t have ans~er~ in this area yet~ but our progran calls for full-scale tents in ~isoal Year I~B~ and Completion of syntema onaly~is in ~ovenbe¢ 1988. important to recognize that smoke venting procedures exist now~ thoy vorke and it ~a¥ not be technically ~ea~ible to improve upon any or all of the~. we cannot sa~ for sure until ¢o~plcte the 455 Bite ~rotection S~stemS using the Total Flood Concep~t ~e sill be evaluatln~ the ef£ectiveneoe Of an on-board total ~Lood foa~/wate~ sprinkler system, an~ ~lll perform a design study ~nd cost assessment for the ~ost promlelng system. System performance will be evaluated under a number of fire ineensitles- The program will be completed by ~ovember 19~6, Nea~ agent toxicity of Balon total flood e~otems can be • problem if a compartment in not adequstel~ ventilated, an~ so can products of combustion of these suppressants. He ~aVO informatiOn on a small, nonpressurlzo~ aircraft. Evaluation of agent concentration an~ decay will be conducted~ and data extrapolated to a large, pressurized ~i~crs~t insofar as possibles Additional tests may be required of large aircraft. Communication Between Plight ~nd Cabin Cre~ • he F~ issued an Air Carrier operations Bulletin on Oul¥ 1984 whlch responds to the HTSB recommendation for better coordlnatton between flight and cabin crewme~bers during emergency conditions. The Bullett~ requires our principal operations inspectors Lo review their operaterie training P~ograms and operational manualo to assure that n safe and effective means of col=uunication and coordination is
Page 89: TI07692744
e0tablished between flight and cabin c~ew~embers. Insofar as public address systems are concerned, the FAA currently requires them to be operated independently of the aircraft intercom system and they are considered to be an installation whose functioning is required and which is an essential load at the power supply, meaning they are one of the last systems to be shed in the event of an emergency° We will consider for new aircraft designs the requirement that public address systems be powered by an independent power system. On-Board Medical Kits We are working on a proposal to expand the types of equipment and ~edlcal supplies to be carried in airline medical kits. We expect to have issued a notice of proposed rulemaklng and uubmitted it for coordination within the Executive Branch by November 1984. Equipment and drugs would be proposed to offer initial treatment to individuals eufferin~ from heart attacks~ ueizures, allergic reactions, bleeding, or choking. Insofar as the Good Samaritan portions of the various bills pending before the subcommittee are concerned, we do not take a position. The Department of Justice wlll'speak for the Executive Branch on this issue. 457 S. 197/H.R. 1333 Studies The F~A has testified in substantial detail on two separate occasions before the senate Subcommittee on Aviation on the ~eneral issues contained in S. 1%7 and H.R. 1333. Rather than go into that level of detail since I am aware that your staff has the pertinent hearing records~ let me briefly ~peak to the primary issues for which studies have been proposed in arena that I have not previously touched on today. o Air ~uality {fresh slr/humidity/contamlnatlon limits): On ~ay 25, 1984, I wrote to EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus nnd s~ked for his agency's assistance in conducting a skudy of air quality. We have just heard back from EPA on this issue, and we are confident they wlll be able to assist us in this effort. I want to make clear, however, that our intended review of this area is not in [espouse to any known proble~s~ but in recognition that it has been a number of years since this area has been studied. We will be pleased to keep the Subcommittee apprised of our efforts in this area. o Pressurization: Aircraft are designed now so that cabin altitude does not exceed 8,000 feet of altitude. This level o£ Pressurization is full~ satisfactorF for the vast majority of the travelling public, including those'.with ~ildly symptomatic
Page 90: TI07692745
and cardloreopiratory problems. We and the medical ¢ommunlt¥ recngnlze, however, that aircraft fllgbt can represent heaILh hazards to those with heart problems. In fact, to assist in communicating thic kind of information to the m~dical community, we purchased reprints of an ~erican Medical Anuociation article concerning the risks of air travel for those vith heart problems aod distributed copies to our network of aviation medical examiners. We will not expend further £und~ exploring this leone ~ince any change In pressurization requirements for aircraft would dictate fundamental structural changes costing bi111ons of dollars. Therefore, we do not believe it necessary or ~orthwhile to expend resources or funds to examine the issue of pzessurlzation limits. o Pre£11ght/in£1igbt health and ~afety lnntructiena relating to airline cabin air quallty: We do not agree with the need to cXpcnd additional resources or funds studying this issue. ~e bellcve that efforts to improve briefings should continue to be directed primarily towards those areas currently required to be covered in passenger briefings so as to increase the cffectlveness of current programs. Should addltlonal devices bc required aboard aircraft to provide safet~ enhancements to paueengers, wc will require that appropriate briefing material be Included on those topics as well. The subject of p~ssenger briefings will be thoroughly discus~ed~y the P~ and the user community in Session Number 5 of the Aircraft Cabin Safety 459 seplnar. This portion of the seminar, focused on pasuenger education, involves the fol~owing areas: a co~parison of live briefings with televised briefings, the use of emergency briefing c~rds, the efEect of voice quality on pausenger attentiveness, departure lounge self-brieflng material, briefing message content, and the llke. toward aCcompllshlng.many of the same objectives contained in the bille pending before ~ou.. I intend to accomplish them in as timely a way a~ I can. But I need the kind of flcxlbillt¥ ,bich is offered by the regulatory rather than legislative proceus. I welcome your continued review of our progress fn acco~plishing the milestones I have e~unciated today. I believe they are attainable and will do ~y best to nee that they are attained. I intend for our regulations to maximize |a~ety to the American travelling public without inhibltinu its • b~llty to use air travel because of unreasonable added costs. That completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to [eep0ud to questions ~eu might have at this time.
Page 91: TI07692746
o ".,,4 460 Mr. MIN~rx.'Please proceed. TESTIMONY OF HeN. DONALD D. ENGEN, ADMINISTRATOR, FED. ERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY NEAL BLAKE, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENGINEER. ING, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; AND ANTHONY BRODERICK, DEPLITY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AVIA. TION STANDARDS, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Mr. ENO~N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I have sub- mitred my statement for the record, and will make some brief re- marlin. On my right is Mr. Neal Blake, Deputy Associate Administrator for Engineering in the FAA. On my left is Mr. Tony Broderick, Deputy Associate Administrator for _Aviation Standards with the FAA. I will, as I respond to you, sir, during the hearing: rely upon these two gentlemen to add further background on occasion. I do welcome the opportunity to appear before you on a variety of bills pending before the subcommittee. These bills deal with air- craft cabin safety issues or problems. Rather than provide a point- by-point response to each of the nine bills, I would like to give you what we are doing on the pending leg~lation, and then provide you with the status of the bills from our viewpoint. i would like to begin by making unequivocally clear that beth Secretary Dole and I are fully committed to achieving the basic purpose of most of these bills, which is improved cabin safety. We. share with you the frustration arising from the length of time it has taken for some of these proposals to reach their present state of development. I can assure you, sir, however, that since taking the lead at the FAA I have stressed the need to move forward expeditiously in order to igsue regulations which will improve cabin safety for the traveling American public. Apart from the two bills calling for studies, the bills pending before the subcommittee would direct the FAA to promulgate final rules on a wide range of cabin safety subjects. In nearly every case, the FAA already has underway rulemaking activity which would meet, in whole or large measure, the bills' requirements. In some case~, we are examining comments received from th~ public in response to public notices of proposed rulemaking so that we can make a decision regarding a final rule. Enactment of the legislation pending before you would provide legislative solutions to issues solved best by regulatory processes. It is not clear that the timetables contemplated in some of the legislation are indeed reasonable. Equally it is not clear that all issues should he solved in the ways contemplated by the various bills. Are new regulations necessary? What should the extent of those regulations be? How can they maximize safety benefits while mini- mizing the cost to the American traveling public? Will they ad- versely impact small business? And, if so, what are the altern.a- 461 These are the very kinds of issues for which the regulatory proc- ess has been established by Congre~. The Congress recognized that developing t_h_e appropriate expertise in solving problems at this level of detail on a wide range of issues which confront the Con. grass was simply not feasible in the legislative environment, Therefore, the Congress established regulatory a~en.cie,a to ble the expertise needed, and required these agenc]e~ to revolve ~ne public in the regulatory process. These processes are in place in the FAA and, on balance, have worked wellin helping to make our air transportation system the safest in the world. They are working now in terms of defining appropriate solutions in the cabin safety area. I believe firmly that the FAA is on the proper course to add.r.e~s, ca.bi.n safety pro.bleared; and that~ solutions are indeed coming, caking into account the zu, range ol commen- tary and views provided by the public in response to our regulatory proposals. There is no question in my mind that we will achiev~ bettor re- suits through committing the resolution of these issues to the regu- latory process, with appropriate congressional oversight, than by impo~ing inflexible legislative solutions. I understand the concerns and frustrations of some membe~ in believing that the FAA has failed to move quickly enough to take firm regulatory action to solve various problems agsooiated with aviation safety. I do not intend to offer excuses concerning the time it has taken us to get where we are in our cabin safety program, I do intend, though, to assure you that I am firmly committed to completing our cabin safety agenda now, not later. Major step~ we have taken within the past year should be a clear indication to you, sir, that the agency has moved from the research phase in a number of these areas to the action phase. You will continue to see steady and positive progress, with a number of actions to be taken during the next several month~. have made it absolutely clear to my staff, and Secretary Dole is av committed as I am on this issue, that our efforts will not let up, and that we will meet the deadlines we have established for our- selves. I ask that the subcommittee continue to give the regulatory proc- ess the opportunity to work. Deferring action on bills before you does not close the door on a possible legislative solution, should subsequent review indicate that needed regulatory solutions ha.re been dismissed by the FAA. I have full confidence, as I stated a moment ago, in the current direction of our programs, and in achieving results in the near term. To provide you with an overview of where we stand on the i~ue~ contained in the bills pending before you, let me briefly indicate our actions in the cabin safety area. On child restraint systems: On May 28, 1982, we issued a techni- ca] standard order providing, for the first time, criteria for child .straint devices on board aircraft. I have personally been apearhead- mg this effort for the past 2 years. . .On life preservers: We issued a revised TSO [technical standard ord.er], for life vests on January 3, 1983. We are considering wheth-
Page 92: TI07692747
462 On evacuation slides: On June 3, 1983, we issued a new TSO for evacuation slides calling for improved radiant heat resistance. On prob~ctive breathing equipment: We issued a TSO oh June 27, 1983, establishing new standards. By O~tober 31 of this year, we will have available for executive branch coordination, a notice of proposed rulemaking requiring this equipment on air carrier air- craft, and adding new training requirements for flight attendants for fighting fires in cabins. On fire blocking: We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking last October for public comment. We will complete action on this pr~- pozol .by September 30 of this year, when it will be transmitted for coordination within the executive branch. On floor proximity lighting: We issued a notice of proposed rule- making last October. FAA final action will be completed by Octo- ber 31 of this year, when it will be transmitted for coordination within the executive branch. On class D cargo compartments: Within the next several days we will be publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for public comment. On fire extinguishers and smoke detectors: We published an NPRM last May. We will complete our action on this protm)sal by December 31 of this year, when it will then be transmitted for ex- ecutive branch coordination. On seat standards, you will recall, Mr. Chairman, your compre- hensive review of transport category seats, which explored our pro- gram in detail. We are now reaching the completion point of this program, and will have drafted an NPRM for executive branch co- ordination by June 15 of next year. We will also imve available for public comment draft advisory circulars concerning human tolerance and crash scenario models. These are all tied to our part 23 review, as well. On antimisting kerosene: We are working on a regulatory pro~ po~ai which will be completed for exevutive branch coordination by December 31st of this year. You are aware of our controlled impact demonstration test later this year. On interior materials: We expect to complete our efforts on an NPRM by the end of this year, when it will be coordinated within the executive branch. On onboard medical kit~: We plan to have completed our efforts on an NPRM by November of this year for coordination within the executive branch. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you of my commitment toward accomplishing many of the same objectives contained in the bills pending before you. ! intend to accomplish them in as timely a fashion as I can, but I need the kind of flexibility which is offered by the regulatory rather than the legislative process. I welcome your continued review of our progress in accomplish- ing the milestones I have spoken of today. I believe that these mile- stonea are attainable, and will do my very best to see that they are. I intend for our regulations to maximize safety to the American traveling public without inhibiting the ability of the public to use That completes rny brief statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr, Broder- ick, Mr. Blake, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions you might have at this time. " Mr. MIN~rA. Mr. Engen, let me thank you for the complete ~tat~ meat that has been submitted for the record. I appreciate the cific milestones and commitments that you have spelled out in your testimony, and we will be asking you more about these. First, [ want to take a moment to. explai.n to you what I b~.e,l!,c.v.e our problem. !s..We m~ay appear to be questioning your crealmtl~y and the creaivility of the commitments which you have made here. It may even appear that we doubt your personal sincerity. But can assure you at the outset that there is no doubt on my part about your sincerity. We have talked about this in the past. I think of you as a very highly educated, well qualified person of high in- tegrity. Many of the proposals that we have before us came from the Na- tional Transportation Safety Board as recommendations made to the FAA. We know that you also came from the Safety Board, and have a very strong record as an aviation safety advocate, So when you say you are committed, I bel.ieve you, because I know you are. But the fact is, I do not think there is any commitment that you can make to us that has not been made hy one of your equally sin- cere predecessors, and yet few of those commitments have been met. Now since you may be unfairly inheriting frustrations which grow out of the past, let me give you just a brief taste of that past. In 1979, [ chaired hearings on the fire safety of cabin materials. Langhorne Bond, whose sincerity I believe is also above reproach, testified, and I quote from his testimony'. ! sha~e your frustration. Solutions have been too long in coming. I could excu~ sway the time we have spent working au the pzoblem by citing chapter and vvrc~ on the complex technical nature of the ~rsble.m, bu..t .Ida not intend to d.o th.~t. stead, I am committed to timely agtion. $omet~moa |t .m~com~ n.ecessa~T..t~, gc~ vn teclmology as it exists, instead of waiting to se~ what is ~ust arouna the co n r that may be better. My sentiment is that we should do that with cabin materinlo. | intend.to bring this to a near-term re~lution. I do not want to appear before you in two or three years, or for a successor o~" mine to d~ so, to tel| you th.~t we are still wrestling with the problem. That was over 5 years ago. . Further in his statement, he goes on to say that "FAA is going grab onto this issue, and we are going to make the best decisions we can with what we know now." And in response to one of my questions, Mr. Bond testified: This is the moat disappointing of the technical areas that I have had the opportu. nity t~ work on in the little less than two years that I have been at the FAA, thought in the past that we would be able to do more in this field, and I haw made more optimistic statements to this committee and to the members of this committee individually than I have been able to deliver on, and I am very sorry thi~ is the Now in a follow_u~ hearing over a year later at a time when the SAFER Committee s labors had produced so little, we had FAA back before the subcommittee, and we got a new list of commit- meats and milestones by which to ~udge future FAA actions. They testified that seat cz~shi~ns with fire-blocking layers and low-level
Page 93: TI07692748
o o~ I 464 emergency lighting would be ready to go to rulemaking by later 1981. Instead, an NPRM was not issued until 8 months ago, and 2 months ago, respectively. They testified that testing to support new ~tandards for the fire safety of cabin materials would be completed in June 1981. and they would go to rulemaking several months after that. Now I do not want to go through the complete list of milestones set and then not met, so I will just say that it is a long list. I just want you to know that we understand that you cannot be responsi- ble for the actions of the FAA before you assumed the position of Administrator. By the same token, you cannot expect us to hear your sincere commitments on milestones, and then promptly conclude that we have nothing to worry about. By way of a question, and recognizing that you have only been at FAA a few months, let me ask: What in your view has been the cause of the FAA's difficulty in moving forward in these areas? Is it industry resistance? Is it a built-in reluctance to move from research to regulation? Have we made the hoops of the regulatory process so complicated they are impossible to get through? And how did we all get to this point of being frustrated over lack of progress? Mr. ESGEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what you have just said and I will deal with the questions you have just given me to the best of my ability. I have been involved in research and development in aviation for some 40 years. In the 1940's I helped develop jet aviation. In the 1950's, civil aviation came to embrace jet aviation, and we had the first jet airplanes. As we progressed, in this new expanded aviation, there were some very trying times. We discovered some things that had not been thought out very well. We learned as we went. I think you would agree with me that that has been true since aviation first came into being. What I am saying is that I think we discovered in the 1960's, for instance, that when you put a lot of people into an aluminum cyl- inder, that you develop new kinds of problems. I think in the 1970s we discovered that flammability and toxicity were issues that needed to be dealt with, and I would in no way make any excuses for this. But I would like to say that in developing fixes for these things, it takes industry and it takes Government a long time to really come to grips with the issues. Oftentimes we find ourselves going down a box canyon and getting to the end, only to have to reverse our course and come back out again and go for another ma- terial, if you will. So I think there is a little bit of that involved in trying to get done in the nearterm those things that Administrator Bond spoke of. That is not an excuse, but I think as I have lived in the re- search and development world it has become a fact of life. I think that is one of the things with which we are dealing. To my knowledge, sir, I do not see industry resisting. Certainly indus- try does not resist where safety is invnh,,~d ~T ........... :~ 465 have to~de.al~ w!th th, i.s issue of safety, and we need toprovide a safe means tot me travenng e, merican public to get from A to B, I am sure that, unbeknownst to me in the past, the issue of coat haS been raised. It is one I think we cannot ignore. But I think that we have to go after safety as number one. Are the hoops of regulations so complicated that we are creating delay? I truly cannot answer that. I would ask Mr. Broderick in • lust a moment perhaps to expand a little bit about the regulatory ~rocess as i[ h.as been,, but I do think that it is very involved. I do think .t.ha.t i~ ~s very ,s~ereetyped. There are periods of public com- ment that are masc. We need to find out what the traveling public says. We need to find out what industry says. We need to find out what other Government agencies say. And in that sense, I think we build, while listening, and trying to develop the items that we need to improve safety and that creates a lot of delay. I am not satisfied with that one bit. I am a very impatient ~rson. I believe in moving ahead and gripping issues and dealinl~ With issues and arriving at solutions. I have been tilting at wind- mills my entire life, some successfully and some not very succe~a- fully, but I think you just have to make the system force the result out. Now I would like to have Mr. Broderlck comment a little bit about the past, if he would. Mr. BRODERICK. With regard, Mr. Chairman, to the regulatory process, I do not think it would be true to .sa~. that it is too compli- cated, that there are too many hoops, but ~t is wise to recognize that the regulations we deal with are technically complex. They in fact take longer than any of us would like to sce to write. But I think the fact is that when we are proceeding along the kind of parallel program that we do now, and that is new--it is since ybur hearings in 1980 and 1981 to which you referred that we have developed what I call a parallel track approach with the people in the research and development are.a und, er Mrl Bl.ake working their projects, and the regulatory people unaer us aevomp- ing the rules, that permits us to do things like, for example, one of the regulations you mentioned. ,, When we put the "floor proximity emergency lightin~ .eff.or~t i~n this process, within 2 months from the time the techmca! ~lam package and the regulatory analysis package that we are required to do meet together in my shop, we ended up. with a notice of pro- posed rulemaking completed, and submitted ~t for executive branch review. So I think we have now developed from what was a rather cum- bersome system into a fairly efficient process. It is not something that can be done overnight, but that is because there are a lot of interactions that we want to consider. We have got to be very care- ful when we are changing the design of a safe and successful air- craft. Mr. Mm~r~. Admiral Engen, are there any other areas where you feel deficiencies that have e~isted in the past have been cor- rected7 I guess what I am getting at is: Now th, a.t you have, .t~co~,m? the Administrator, do you feel that the woru m now out m bowels of the organization that Engen really means busine~; that
Page 94: TI07692749
466 that there is not going to be any slipping from it; and that he ex- pcct~ people within the organization to respect those schedules; and that. the agency is going to be responsive to it? Mr. ENaEN. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. When I came on beard and joined the FAA, I brough~ with me that bias that ! had had from the previous 2 years on the Safety Board. One of the first thlng~ I went towards was the regulation with respect to airline pa~enger .~afety. L~t May, ] had a discussion with the Aviations Standards Orga- nization and the Associate Administrator for Aviation Standards and 1 came to an agreement on a date and time on a number of i~ue~ that were achievable. It is signed, sealed, and delivered. It is an agreement between us. We are off and working on that, I want to look you in the eye, though, and say that while that is. our beat intention, if for instance we discover inadvertently that a framus has just become toxic or something like that, we have to deal with that; and there might be some technical delay involved there which I did not foresee. But the way I operate is on agree- ment, We know where we are going. We know what time we are going to get there. We have got a milestone to go after, and we will get there, and there are no excuses. That is my style. If I could, sir, [ think that we are coming down to a point in time in 1984 where the FAA has indeed been respon- sive to you in the sense of those hearings in 1979 that you spoke of earlier, and in 1980. If ! recall, I believe that either Lynn Helms--I think it was Lynn--might have said that it would take us several years before we can get there. I would like to say that we are there. The year of 1984 is a year of getting things done. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are coming up with the~c NPRM's. We are coming to the point between now and the first of the year when a number of issues are really being resolved that we had said were going to be resolved. We have taken that time, and we are in the action phase at this point in time on those i~uc3 that you raised in 1979. Mr. Mm~rA. Earlier witnesses have suggested that one of the re~ons for past delays in FAA rulemaking has been that cabin safety items have not been given the highest priority within the a~gency. From your experience, would you say that that is accurate? I[ so, would legislation help by demonstrating that Congress in- tends that these items be given priority? Mr. ENo~s. Cabin safety is a primary consideration with the aAA. ~Over. the last 2 years as [ have been working with the FAA, I re. round the FAA to be very responsive. They are trying very ard to accomplish.that which has been recommended to them. When you come to matters of priorities, I want to say that I do not ~t prioritie~ with respect to safety. Everything is of equal im- portance. We need to place the safety of the traveling American public as No. 1 up there. But at the same time, I need to continue to o~erate the airspace system. I need to establish regulations. I need to maintain the certificates of air worthiness. So the agency finds itself doing many things on a daffy basis. Nothing is taken away from cabin safer but oftentimes we find 467 able to address toxicity or flammability do not have enough time to go around. So in that sense, their priorities sometimes have to be set within individual actions. Would legislation hurry up this process? Would legi§lation help it? My answer to you, Mr. Chairman, is that I believe the responsi- bility is there. The responsibility lies on the shoulders of the Ad- ministrator, wh.opver~ he may_ be, to maintain the tempo, to be sure that we accomphsh things, that we get things done. And if the Ad- ministrator falls down and does not do that, then I think it is time to look for another Administrator. I guess I am saying that I think the regulatory process as it is, is capable,_ as you have designed it, of producing what it is you seek. Mr. M~N~rA. If yOU want to produce it. Sometimes I am not con- vinced that the agency wants to see that rulemaking come about. That is why I wonder whether or not the legislation would not force the agency to do that. Mr. E~aEr~. I do not know what form it would take. Mr. MlsszA. I recognize that the legislation says these are the areas in which you have to i~ue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, and that the final rules shall be out by this time, and that compliance or the effective date shall be at this point. At some point, on some of these subject matters, maybe some do not want to find a rule, bt~t the legislation will in fact say, yes you have to have it by 1985 or whenever. I thi~k that just grows out of the frustration that this subcommittee and the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee has seen ever the years relative to what, I guess, could most generously be called slippage. Mr. ENGEN. I think if I could go back to some personal experi- ence, and then I would ask Mr. Broderick if he could make a com- ment, early in the 1970's Congress legislated the use of ELT's, emergency locater transponders. I was, at that point in time, a proud owner of an airplane which was my pride and joy, and I was told that ] had to go buy an ELT, which I dutifully did. I went out and spent $850 for this, and it did not work very well. As a result, I was not in compliance with the legislation. I had a real personal problem in that I could not fly my airplane, because the law said I had to have an operating ELT. I do not want to hold that up as an example of bad legislation, but I would just like to say that I think that is the kinds of things we get when we legislate a time. . I wonder, Mr. Broderick, if you had any commen~. Mr. BRODERICK. That is exactly right. Specifically, as I remember it, that was awhile ago, almost 15 years ago, hut what happened was there was about a 3-year period, or perhaps somewhat less, w~here about a quarter of a'million airplanes, 200,000 or some.thing, all airplanes had to be equipped with an ELT, which meant design, development, production, certification, and distribution of all of those. We had some considerable problems with the industry coping ~vith that. Subsequent legislation was required in 1973 to accommo- date_just the inability to distribute the ELT's. Subsequently, then, we ibund some problems with, among others, lithium batteries which turned out be leakin~ and corroding and causing a s~fety
Page 95: TI07692750
468 hazard in the airplanes. But the way the legislation was written, you could not operate an airplane at all without an ELT. So we had to go .b.a, ck. once again t.o the Congress and seek legislation, which we did m 1974. And It was the need to operate airplanes without an ELT to accommodate repair and such things of the ELT, that was finally accommodated in roughly 1977, I believe. So you are right. There are some complications that accrue when one tries to accelerate compliance dates. Let me also add that there might be some problems in achieving the kinds of things that the Administrator was talking about with regard to the technology. For example, one of the things we are talking about in this dialog is smoke evacuation from airplanes when we have an in- flight fire. Presently airplanes are required to be designed so that smoke can be evacuated both from the cabin and the cockpit and from a fire in the cargo hold. It is not at all clear to us right now that we can improve upon that current technology; yet, one o1' the provisions under discussion requires us to propose an improved way of doing something within a few months, and then enact that into a regulation 1 year following that. Quite candidly, sir, I am not sure that there is any improvement that can be made. That is the kind of thing that we turn to Neal Blake and the R&D folks to use their fire and smoke test facilities to determine. Mr. ENg~N. That does not mean that we will not try hard to ~olve that, though. We are constantly striving to address smoke and the other issues that you have brought here. vd' Mr:,M~.~.~. Now. in. y.o.ur_testimony you make the point that or- - ~-- ~ y raiser ~nan Dy legislation. As I have said many times, I agree that ordinarily, regulatory action is pref- erable, since the regulatory agency has.the staff and the expertise ptOro~eV~p the best solutions to technical, safety, and engineering But the reason we are here is that, if the expert agency fails to act in a reasonable period of time, then we have to decide- wheth or. n.ot to legislatively require actio,~ h~, ,~, .............. .or n t extent should we legmlatlvely dictate the content of these ~'e~- ulations. - Now takin~g H.R. 549.8 introduced by our colleagues Mr. Levltas, Mr. Molinarl, and Mr. Glickman as an example, it seems to me For examnle ;-Y-'-"?~' r,~u,a, g~ve you_amPle regulate_ry flexibilit . ~- , ~ae ~ae requtrement that air carriers have evacu~" tion slides meeting improved standards of performance and for heat resistance as established by the Administrator. Leaving aside for the moment the question of what is a re - ble.date for compliance, do you think t~--, -~: ...... . ~.asona era! enom,h to ~ ............... ,*~.;?? ~?m ,rvqu.~remenr m gen- ......... 9.re, ~,, ~noug_n ~exmm~y zo aevelop appropriate ~egum~mas, anu ye~ enough of a directive to know what we are sayln 9 Mr.g~s{~.s. I undvrs.tand fully what you are saying, Mr. Chair- ~oa~IveWa~UTlds~aYw~ihcai~ ~h~uCu~~ o_f_ t~e e,va, eu,at.ion slides, that we ,..a. ,~ . . ~ u~va on ~ne oa ot dune last year up- 469 We looked at this in great detail. If we were to legislatively re- quire, for instance., that. all those slides be in place on January let us assume that they can physically be purchased and in- stalled--there would be a cost of some $80 to $100 million to the industry to put in those slides. A slide for a 747, for instance, runs about $3.6,.000 for one slide, and they have many slides. The slides vary in cost. When you get down toward a DC-9, I think you get down to about $3,5~0. But for one airline--for in- stance, I look.ed at Delta just to see what the cost might be to Delta to legislatively make this a have-to-do-it by a certain time, it would be_S12 m.i, llion the.y would have to pay. ~o in the regulatory process, we looked at the wear-out time of the slides, and the regula_tory side of the house came up and said: Let us implement these things as the current slides do in fact wear out. In that way, industry can bear the burden of the costs over a longer period of time. I think that in the past they received a lot of attention. I do not want to minimize the importance of the slide, but in looking at the l'~ures the numbers of people that have been lost by malfunction- ing slides are not all that great. The slides are working right now. I do not want to say that I believe in the status quo, because I do not. I belieye in the improved slides, and we are going to go that way. I guess what I am really saying, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mi~r^. But I think what you are addressing is really more a compliance date. What I am saying is: Is what we have in the legislation--what Mr. Levitas, Mr. Molinari, and Mr. Glickman have, as far as the words in the legislation is it general enough? Is it flexible? Will it afford you the kind of flexibility you need? It does not tell you it has to be polyethylene or it has got to resist n certain kind of flammability standards. It just says: Improve stand- ards as directed by the Administrator. I just wonder whether or not, in terms of that---- Mr. E~6~.m That gives us flexibility, yes. But that will not change what the foreign air carriers will use, Air France, or BA, or Air Singapore. Mr. MINh~rA. Oh, but I think there has always been sort of a rec. ognition that, whatever FAA says, it is like, who we listen to when it comes to the stock market? Mr. EleveN. You make me feel good, yes, sir. Mr. Mm~rA. But the ether thing ] would like to ask about, when you say that the TSO, for instance, was issued the 3d of June 1983 to be effective December 1984, that only applies to replacement or new aircraft. It does not mean retrofitting, as I recall. You m.ight correct me on that, Mr. Broderick. Mr. BRODERIOK. It would be any new slide manufactured after that date. So if you have to put a new slide in, the only slide you could buy would have to---- Mr. MIN~A. The new slide would have to comply. Mr. BRovzRic~. Right. If you replaced the slide, or of course if you manufactured a new airplane. Mr. Mi~grA. What happens in the case of a DC-8 that has been
Page 96: TI07692751
470 up with a DC-8-71 which gives it 20 more years of life? Where is there going to be that improved slide comi.ng onto that plane? Mr, ENaP.N. We know for a fact that slides wear out on about a 15-year cycle. So there is a point in time where slides would have to be replaced just because they wear out. So that DC-8 would be moot because it would have, just 2 years ago, probably a new slide put in; so in another 13 years probably it would be before the new and improved slide. Mr. MIN~rA. And I have forgotten whether it was the DC-10 or the 747 in a crash where the slides would not reach the ground. Now, I know that was corrected. Mr. EN~EN. Yes; it was. Mr. ]V[INETA. In what way was that corrected? Was that again through TSO? Or was that an AD? Mr. BROW.RICK. That was, I believe, a design consideration that was built into the regulation, and it is now incorporated into the TSO. Mr. MIN~TA. Now did that require retrofitting of the existing fleet? Or was that again on the basis of whenever you all decide you may want to do it, if you want to do iff Mr. E~6v.N. Since I am so new, can I provide that for the record? Mr. MIs~PA. Sure. Mr. EN~st~. Neal, do you know? Mr, BLAKE. No. Mr. ENCEN. May I provide that for the record in that specific case? Mr. Mir#~rA. Surely. That would be fine. [The information received from Mr. Engen follows:] With regard to the Pan Am B747 accident of July 30, 1971, in San Francisco, search of the history indicates that retroactive design action was not taken. Appro: prints changes to the Flight and Operations Manuals as well as to fuel management techniques were added. Action was taken on sub~ql~.en.t models ,of the B.-7.4.7 .to a~ure that an attitude for which slides could not reach the grouna was not atr.ain- able within the design envelope of the airplane. The rule (25.809) was amended to require that the length of the slide be such that, after full deployment, the lower end is ~elf supporting on the ground and provides safe evacuation of occupants to the ground after eollalxse of one or mere legs of the landing gear. In addition, capa- bility for functioning in a 25-knot wind was required. Mr. Mlx~ra. Let me put it this way: Where you are legislatively directed to issue a rule on some issue, the specific contents of which are not spelled out in the bill, and let's say hypothetically that we extend that to not even specifying what the effective date of the rule might be, how does that unduly restrict your flexibility as the safety regulator? • Mr. Er~. Well, we are basically there right now, so it does not restrain us very much; because, as I said to you earlier, we devel- oped the requirements, and we are publishing those requirements in December. We have done all the test work necessary. So it is kind of a little bit like shutting the barn door after the horse is out, but it does not really affect us that much. We are in a position with respect to slides where we could accom- modate to that. I would like to also say that if the legislation .says "thou shalt have," we then have to deal with the foreign carrmrs, .as we!l, bec.ause !,f they are, going to fly into the United States, we 471 r. MINETA. I guess what I am, in effect, saying is: FAA, you haVM~ .n.ot been able ,to issue a rule improving seat strength in dec- sdes. We direct you to issue some rule to improve seat strength by 7~ ~vecified date, but exactly what you issu_e is up to you.. . "~low o.t.h,~[t ~han precluding inaction, how would that restrmt your flexibi ' y. . • Mr. ~a~'s" I will pass that, as well, to Mr. Brodermk, Mr. Chair- man, but let me just say that with respect to seats, let me draw a ~arallel in general aviation if I can. This past 2 years the General Aviation Safety Panel has been working on new standards for seats. We are going to review FAR, Federal Aviation ,P~,gula, t.ion,s, ..part 23~ i.n ~abou.t. a mon,th ..or ,two, This will address ~ne sumuta~ng ann mteresung WOrK ~na~ we have done in developing dynamic testing of seats, We are looking at this work, in addition, to apply to the rule that I mentioned in my opening statement that will come forth on seats next June to develop the testing requirements for dynamic loads on airline seats. Tony? Mr. BROVERmX~. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a little bit in the area of how it reduces flexibility. If we were required to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking increasing the seat strength, we could certainly do that by jus~ increasing the loads that are specified in part 23. I believe that that would be the kind of thing that you are referring to. However, let me tell you what we are prepared to do and will have totally completed by June 15. This month we will have a human tolerance advisory circular out. By June 15 of next year~ the late spring of next year, we will have a crash scenario written for, let us take, general aviation airplanes, although it will also apply to large transports, for the general aviation airplane. , .,W,e will explain how you analyze that to derive a seat pulse, the G loads that go to the seat. We will then say that the loads o~n passenger, the shoulder harness, the lap belt, and at the shin shall not exceed specified very low loads, on the order of 1,000 or 1,500 pounds. In much simpler language, what I am saying is that we have a very sophisticated state of the art appro~c,h we have developed which, for all practical purposes, takes a "G' load that range~ from 26 to 15 "G's'~, depending on whether.you are ~lki,ng a.bou~t3~on_g_i_" tudinal pulses combined with a lateral or a vertical puree, we are not saying that if your seat survives that that passes the test; we are saying that yon must design it such that the person in the seat survives in accordance with the human tolerances that we have much more comprehensive thing. This is e actly wh.at W.O set out to do several years ago, and we said that k was going take about this amount of time to get it done. Sir, we could in- crease seat strengths. We think that this appro_a~h, as an example, is a much better one that will provide better salb y. Incidentally, one way of measuring the change that this will re- q.uire might be to say how many existing sea~ will .p..ass. We.,know o~ no general aviation seat that exists today tha~ wm pass me re- quirem~nt~ th.~t w~ will lay d~wn.
Page 97: TI07692752
472 Mr. MxN~r^. Mr. Hammerschmidt? Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Engen, I want to associate myself with the re- marlin made by our chairman in his opening statement, both in complimenting you on your professional background and your ex- pertise and certainly your good intentions and ability as you come before our committee, but also to join him in expressing our frus- tration over the history of FAA's seeming inability to follow through on other commitments made by previous admin~trators. Now you obviously have an appreciation for the fact that H.R. 5428 was introduced in large part because of FKA's inability to adopt final rules relating to cabin safety. Nevertheless, you ask _us to hold off on moving this legislation because you believe that the regulatory procsss will result in better regulations than would oth- erwise eccur through legislation. You have also indicated some milestones by which you hope to have final rules adopted in some of these areas by the end of this year, and other prop~ais are about to be issued as well. If we were to defer action on H.R. 5428 at the present time be- cause of the pending rulemaking proceedings, could you agree to support this legislation in .the next Congress if these milestones are no~ met by the FAA? Mr. ENGEN. I could, sir. If I can, let me just kind of go through some of the issues that are in H.R. 5428 and what we said in 1983, and what I am saying before you today as an explanation of my short answer. On the cargo compartments, we said that we wanted to develop a means to contain the fire in a cargo compartment. We said that we would have that done in late 1983. We missed that. Today, the NPRM has been published, or will be published within days of right now. That is where we are on that. On the smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, again we missed that, In 1983 we said we would do it in November 1983. Today, we published in May of this year, some 6 months after that, the NPRM. We were a little bit behind, but it has been published. The guidelines are out there. I will not go through all of these, but if you want me to I can, on .~pecific cases, show you where we are today with regard to where we said we would be. There is some slippage, but not in every case. I would just once again affirm that I would like to stand by what we say here. If in your wisdom you wanted to hold that threat over my head to produce, I can accept that. Mr. HAMMERSCHMnYr. ] appreciate that response. Let me ask an- other hypothetical. Suppose that we said, well, Congress may not know enough to set the deadlines. Let FAA set the deadlines. Come back to us and tell us what tho~e deadlines are. Could you live up to that sort of a commitment? Mr. EN¢]~.~. I could, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. HAMM~.a~CHM[~r. In your testimony you discuss the new TSO's that the FAA has issued for lifevests, evacuation slides, and other equipment. You mention that the adoption of a new TSO in effect requires all newly purchased equipment to meet the ira- 473 reason he wou!d prefer to use available older equipment which compli_ed with t_he old standard? Mr. ~'~e~'~" I would like to have Mr. Broderick answer that, be- cause he has spent his life working in that area. Mr. H£MM~.~CtrMm~. Mr. Broderick. Mr. Bsen~iCK. No, sir, it does not, Mr. Hammersehmidt. What it does is it requ~es any n,ewl,y p, urch ,a~ed e~. uip.men~t to m..eet t.h!s. But if someone, mr example, nau purcnaseo extra are ex~mgmsn- ers, or what have you, slides, for stock as spares, they would be en- titled to use that spare stecl~ So existing equipment would not fall under that requirement. Mr. H/,U~I~CHMHYr. So if you wanted them to comply sooner, FAA would have to adopt a rule requiring compliance7 Mr. B~OV~R[CK. An operating rule, sir, yes. That is commonly re- ferred to as a retrofit rule. Mr. HA~M~SCHM~. Your testimony, as well as the provisions of H.IT~ 5428, addressed the issue of flammability standards for air- craft seat cushions and other interior materials. However, neither the legislation nor yo.ur testim.ony,addresses the issue of toxicity or smoke standards for these materials. Does the FAA plan to adopt standards for toxicity and smoke? Mr. Et4~Ezq. I am going to ask Mr. Blake to talk about toxicity and smoke. I would hope, Neal, that you would address, a~ well, how we tried to come to grips with measuring the three items. Mr. BL~K~. Yes. In our R&D program, we have learned I think a great number of things over the last several years. Out of the full- ~cale fire tests that we have conducted, it has been clear that toxic- ity does not become a problem until the cabin .h~c...omes_e_~en.tially uninhabitable, which normally follows the condtt~on of tlasnover, where the unburned gases in the cabin suddenly ignite. Hence, the concentration I think for the rulemaking will be on flammability, and of course supporting test methods which will allow us and the manufacturers to evaluate materials. I al~o be- lieve, though, that there will be consideration of the imposition of some limits on the amount of smoke that material may emit. Now, part of the total package in this area relates to methods of testing new materials which accurately predict how they will per- form on a large-scale fire. We have pretty much completed all of that work to the point where we can define the new testing meth- ods. Mr. ENC~.N. Mr. Hammerschmidt, I might add that I am commit- ted to providing by the end of this year the NPRM which would address thoee issue.q, and I will do so. Mr. H^MM~Jtscm~xn~. Thank you. Let me ask you something that puzzles me, and I guess the rest of the committee, as far as fire ex- tinguishers are concerned. Your rulemaking proposal would require that at least two fire extinguishers in the cabin contain Halon 1211 as the extinguishing agent. However, we have heard testimony that the Halon 1301 ex- tinguishing agent is less toxic. I wonder if you could explain why the FAA would require the USe of'th~ 1'31~ ..-~-~.. *~ ..... ,~.. ~on~.~
Page 98: TI07692753
474 Mr, BRODERICK. Yes, sir. That is a good question. It turns out that Halon 1301 is a gaseous fire suppressant. In other words, when it comes out of the extinguisher, it is a gas. That is why it is used in concepts that might be referred to as flood con_cepts, or total flood concepts. It immediately fills the volume with a gas. That is difficult to use when you have--for example--a seat on fire from a cigarette or from something else. Halon 1211 on the other hand is a liquid. It is true that it is slightly more toxic than Halon 1301, but we~ did extensive testing and, in view of the maximum amount of the extinguishant that you could get discharging all of the extinguisher~ in any airplane up to the maximum that anybody carries, there is no hazard what- soever from the level of toxic ga~ that would be generated. It is in- finitesimal and, as a matter of fact, unmeasurable. So the answer to your question is: The Halon 1211 comes out in a liquid form that you can quirt right at the base of the flame and it does a very effective job; 1301 comes out in a gaseous form and it is u~ed for different purposes, for closed compartments. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Well, I knew--- Mr. BaOaERXCK. Incidentally, sir, we use 1301--for example--in engine compartments, in APU compartments, and in cargo com- partments, but not in the portable extinguishers. Mr. HA~ME~CHMI~r. Well, I knew obviously there was a good reason, but I just wanted that clarified for our record. Your testimony also discusses FAA's most recent efforts to im- prove the design integrity of aircraft seats. After FAA has complet- ed ~te research in this area, would you expect that any final rules ultimately adopted, would apply to newly manufactured airplanes? Or would you anticipate some sort of retrofit requirement as well? Mr, EN~EN, I anticipate that they would apply to newly manu- factured airplanes, and they would apply to older aircraft as those scat~ must be replaced. Mr. HA~ME~SCHMm~. Why is that? Just because the t~sk of re- placing the bacl~ide of the seat would ground the aircraft? Mr. Es~N. When you talk about seat strength, Mr. Hammer- svhmidt, you are talking about the fittings that go to the cabin floor. You are talking about the cabin floor itself. You have--it is kind of like a chain. It is as strong as its weakest link. You can beef up a seat and make it out of iron, but unless you go down and do the subflooring and pin those things to the fuselage walls and support them from below, that iron seat would go through the cabin floor. So it is, that one thing depends on another, depends on another, depends on another. So that is the main reason why it is newly manufactured equipment that must comply. Mr. H£MMERSCHMIDT. What is the average life of an airline seat? Mr. EN~. I would say the average life of an aircraft seat is probably for the life of the airplane. The framework will stay there. The padding will be changed on occasion. The flammability will be changed. There may be new pockets put underneath for life preservers and things like that, but ,the physical framework is probably as good as the life of the airplane. Mr. H~M~SSCH~XDT. Well, if that is so, then they never would be reol~c~d 475 Mr. EN~N. Well, I can think of occasions where, because of modifications to the strength of_ the fuselage, the manufacturerv ~ould be encouraged to replace the seats. "~ ..... e have a new standard, I think everybody wants to ohody wants to fly with old, outdated equipme. t. a..v,?~, our heavy, hammers w~th" industry," I think, is one c~ar.r.~er one .... ,,,~ h~v n w and imnroved " and it is a marketing _ .~ ..... e e _ • • • , ' tool. People want to improve. Mr. H~SCH~m~. In its testimony on FAA's program regard- ing antimisting fuel, the Air Line Pilots Association indicated some concern t.ha.t.the cost of the antimisting additive might be so high as to ma~e ~ use economically impractical. I wonder if you could comment on ALPA's concern? Mr. ENc~N- I would like to have Mr. Blake make some comments on that after I just make a quick remark. We are going to have a controlled-impact demonstration. We are going to take a 720 air- plane and, through cooperation with NASA, place antimisting ker- osene fuels in that, and purposely fly it as a drone and crash it. The test process involves flying through a series of towers. The wings will come off at exact times, and the fuel will spill out. Antimisting kerosene offers a very attractive option. There is a great cost factor involved, and perhaps Mr. Blake will be able to comment in greater technical detail. I cannot talk about what that cost factor is. But in everything we do, ] think we have to look carefully--to be sure--that we are not going to legislate the indus- try out of business. Mr. BLAKE. We have been, of course, focusing very much on the technical aspects and the feasibility of the use of such fuel. But in parallel with that, we have run several cost versus effectiveness studies. With the additive that we will be using for the test in Cali- fornia manufactured in the quantities that it has been manufac- tured, it would result in about a 3-percent increase in the cost of a ticket. Now we have had other additives proposed by elements of the pe- troleum industry which potentially could achieve reductions of as much as 10 to I, and perhaps bring the cost per flight down to something on the order of I think .3 to .4 percent. So that is the. range of added cost per flight as best we can determine it at this time. Mr. HAMMERSCHMIlYr. Thank you, Mr. Engen, Mr. Broderick, and Mr. Blake, for your testimony and your responses. Mr. EN~N. Thank you, sir. Mr. HA~I~I~.RSCHMllYr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. M~N~r£. Mr. Levitas? Mr. L~.WT~S. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Engen, I am going to have to be brief. I am sure that makes m_y colleagues happy, and possibly even you. Mr. MIN~T~,. It makes Admiral Engen very happy, t~augn~er.l Mr. L~v~s. But I have to get over to another hearing fight away. hl want to ask you one question unrel.ated_to the.s.ubjec, t .of to~..ay's earings. At the last hearing before the Oversight anti mve5~lga- tions Committee following on the air traffic control matter, at the end of that hearing I asked you what you were going to do in order
Page 99: TI07692754
o '...4 4~6 to solve the problems of the air traffic control situation as it exist. ed at this time, the delays, the overcapacity, the increasing number of problems. My recollection was that you were going to respond to me by Monday a week ago, and to Mr. Molinari. We have been in touch with Mr. Castleberry on several occa- sions, trying to find out what that response is and have not yet re. calved it. Mr. ENov~N. We will provide it forthwith. I apologize if I went. by a milestone and I did not give it to you. I was in Anchorage last week, and I apologize. ~Vlr. LEVIT^S. Could Mr. Molinari and I get the response before, say, tomorrow? Mr. Er~GEs. Before Friday? Mr. L~vIT~,s. Before Friday. Mr. ENo~.N. Yes, sir. Mr. LBwT^s. I am aura you probab.ly suspect my attitude about the nature of the testimony from you today, because it to me indi- cates the same type of delay attitude which FAA has brought ~o us previously. Let me just go through a little chronology on just one subject that Mr. Hammerschmidt was asking you about: Cabin materials, postcrash fire, fuel, and explosion. On July 29, 1976, FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to determine the extent of smoke and toxic fume emissions. On July 30, 1969, notice of proposed rulemaking, an amended notice of proposed rulemaking to establish standards governing smoke emissions. December 19, 1974, another amended notice of proposed rulemak- ing asking for comments on establishing toxicity standards. February 12, 1975, proposing standards for smoke emission com- partment interior materials. That is 6 years after the first amendment. In February 1976, a public hearing on aircraft cabin environ- ment. November 1977, FAA conducted public hearings on compre- hensive emission standards. June 26, 1978, FAA announced the for- mation of SAFER Committee, to consider all aspects of postcrash fires and recommend corrective measures. August 15, 1978, FAA announces withdrawal of the previously notified proposed rulemaking. Because of their premature adoption, addition research is needed. I can go down the next 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 events, and here we are on August 2, 1984, and we still do not have the rul~. Now, I want to make it clear that, contrary to what you say in your testimony, I am not proposing in my bill, with Mr. Molinari and Mr. Glickman, any inflexible legislated requirements. You make a plea for letting the regulatory process work. I have been making the plea for 10 years. This legislation simply says: Get the regulatory process going- Now do you interpret our bill as putting in a legislative solution, or an inflexible legislative response? Mr. Erq(;E~. My concern, Mr. Levitas, is that if we come out with a legislative response which sets a standard or something like that, and if a hatter sciatica i~ found durin~ the coarse of the rulemak- 477 ing, then legislation does not provide the flexibility that the regula- tory process does. Mr. LgVi_T_~.. I agree. My question is: Do you interpret the hill whiChthat? Mr. Molinari, Mr. Glickman,. and I have introduced, as doing' Mr. E~o~.r~. Not truly, but you missed part of my testimony. Sir, if I could, yes, you are correct about the length of time we have been working on these cabin materials. If you will think back to 1980, when we began to come to grips with this in a more predeter- mined fashion, I believe you were assured at that time that we would in fact have an NPRM on it this year. I stand here before you to say that we will have an NPRM on cabin safety materials this year. We are coming to the point in time where we are beginning to pay off on all the efforts that have gone into this. I do not want to go too far back, because I cannot account for that, but I do from 1980 forward. Mr. Lgvrr^s. Do you anticipate that FAA will have announced proposed rulemaking on each of the 11 items that are in H.R. 5428, which are the subject matter of repeated recommendations from NTSB, prior to the end of this year? Mr. ENO~q. I cannot~No, sir. I cannot, on each and every one. But I can say that we wigl on cargo compartment; we have already on fire extinguishers and smoke detectors; we will on the crash-re- sistant fuel systems; we will have advisory circulars on human tol- erance; we will not have the seat strengths done until next year. We will have antimisting kerosenes, some preliminary work done as a result of that test. And on cabin materials, we will do it this year, sir. Mr. Lew~,s. I appreciate that, Mr. Engen. I do not want to legis- late the aviation industry out of existence, and I do not think we will do that. But I, for one, do want t9 legislate a higher degree of safety for the traveling public, and to let FAA's expertise get on with the job. Thank you very much. Mr. Es6e~. Thank you, air. Mr. Mm~r~. I have always.been convinced I would not want to fly in an airplane designed by a congressional committee. [Laugh- ter.] Mr. Wolf?. Mr. WOL~. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just hav.e one very brief question. I appreciate your testimony, Admiral. One question that was not asked is: Do y~u have sufficient budget and sufficient personnel to do all this that is being asked of you? Mr. E~o~. In 1984, yes. In 1985, provided I get that which the House and the Senate has approved, I will. Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. I have no more questions. Mr. MmvrA. Admiral Engen, let me consider for a moment the extent to which governmental requiremen~ imposed from out~ido the FAA might hamper your ability to move some of these i~mue~ through rulemaking. Now we in the Congress have imposed on you a number of hoops
Page 100: TI07692755
478 the Administrative Procedures Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and so on. Now the executive branch imposed on you Executive orders re- quiring cost/benefit analysis, and I notice the ph_rase "executive branch coordination" .... throughout your testimony. I note that your NPRM on a~rplane cabin fire protectlon reads more hke an eco- nomics Ph.D. dissertation than a proposed rule change. Have regtt- latory justifications and processes been imposed on you which are unreasonable and unduly del.ay .your forward progress? Mr. E~;GEN. On occasion, m msues which become contentious. ] think the simple answer, Mr. Chairman, is that delays develop. I would hasten to assure you that in maters of cab.in safety, .that Secretary Dole herself is so interested in this thing that she is leav- ing no stone unturned tb elicit progress. We both are dedicated in this respect. The reason those state- ments were in my prepared statement, once the proposed rulemak- ing leaves me and I send it forward, I no longer have physical con- trol of that. I do have the assurance of Secretary Dole, as I just said to you, and that in itself is strong medicine within the admin- istration..She is totally dedicated to not delaying any safety innova- tion that we can make to improve the status of the traveling Amer- ican public. Mr. M~r~m'n. Let me approach, then, the question from another direction. The FAA from time to time uses a variety of devices to achieve improved safety without going through the full rulemaking process. For instance, you can simply issue an airworthiness directive, an AD, as you did after the Varig accident, to improve fire safety in the lavatory. FAA subsequently amended FAR Parts 25 and 121 to put those changes into the rules, but it got the immediate effect of the AD. You can issue a general notice to carriers, as you did with the Halon extinguishers, and got widespread compliance. You can issue an Operations Bulletin, as you did last montti re- garding better communication between flight and cabin crews. You can issue an advisory circular, and you recently circulated a draft advisory circular that would significantly extend the range of operation for two-engine jets on oceanic flights, in effect a major change in a longstanding safety rule. Now all of these devices can achieve results more quickly than the fall rulemaking process. Now what about these devices makes them, in your view, appropriate for the examples I cite, but inap- proprlate to getting smoke detectors in lavatories, for example, or for dealing with any other subjects before us today? Mr. ENG~.N. Let me say that these are effective tools, and they are in fact used, and I am going to ask Mr. Brederick to comment, as well, Mr. Chairman, but these are tools that come about because an immediate glaring error has become evident to us. Unfortunately in aviation we have learned, as we have gone along, we have learned from accidents. Where there is an unsafe condition that has been determined, and where the fix for that unsafe condition is readily apparent to us, boy, we act fast. I have char~ed our people with ~ettine out there and movin~ as rapidly as 479 We use the regulatory process more where we are not sure of what the an.sw.er is, where we need to examine further and go into rch and aevelopment. re~se~v ~id you want to make some comments? ~f~r'~I~s~ov~UCK. Yes. Let me put a couple more facets on that, sir. Th~e of the devices you mentioned--the general notice, the air carrier o.peration_s.bulletin, and the air carrier maintenance bulls- tin--are l.nternal docum, ents that are .sent by FAA .h.eadquarte.rs to FAA ~mptoyees--mainzenance inspectors, or opera,ions people, or in the c~se of the general notice, to beth. What they do is instruct our own people to either advise or re- quire compl!ance with ex.istin.g regulations. That is, we are saying to our mamzenance people ou~ in the field: There is a rule. We are concerned about compliance with that rule. We want to emphasize enforcement .of the requirement for compliance, for example. Or, in ~he c~se of the Halon fire extinguishers you mentioned, we called to the attention of the operators the availability of this, and the advisability of using it~ and urged them to do so. The advisory circular is a public version of one of the~e advisory documents. It again provides either technical data or information which we bell.eve is valid for good operating practice. The only thing that we have in the list that you referred to which has the force and effect of law, and has mandatory compliance associated with it, is an airworthiness directive. In fact, an airworthiness directive directs a change in aircraft design in order to maintain its airworthiness, to maintain it~ safety. It is in fact a rule. An airw.orthi.ness dire~_t~ivefi~,, wh~at~it is, called, but it is a regulation issued under Part 39 o~ ~ne ~eaera~ Aviation Regulations. And, believe it or not, most of the airworthi- ness directives issued go through the normal public comment proc- ess. We have economic analyses, and everything else that is associ- ated with it. The reason we do not hear very much about those is because it is generally the emergency actions which" are issued under the Ad- ministrator's emergency authority to preserve safety which get a lot of publicity. . Mr. M~N~TA. So therefore it is really a subjective judgment as to which one of these approaches, as far as a TSO, AD or advisory cir- cular, whatever it might be. Mr. BRODERICK. Yes, sir. Mr. Es~E~. With a need for an immediate solution, yes, sir. Mr. Mm~A. The urgency--- Mr. E~s~.N. Yes, sir. Mr. Mm~r^. So I take it that in the instance of smoke detectors in lavatories, because of the controversy of the issue and because it was considered to be less urgent, it went through the rulemaking process rather than through one of these other approaches? i Mr. E~zs. Well, I was not with the agency at that time. I ieve. there was a question as to the applicability of what kind of sm_o.ke detector, and that problem had to be dealt with, yes, sir. . t.M.r. BaonzmcK. But I might point out, Mr, Chairman, that. ~n.a.t same problem--that is, compliance with the requireme.nt to ,'.o.how an airworthiness directive issued after the Varig. ac~c~dent.
Page 101: TI07692756
480 issued the proposal for smoke detectors urging, or requiring our people to check, all of the airlines and make sure that they had the fiberglass containers properly accounted for in the aircraft. Mr. M~N~r^. I do not recall, but in the case of the taking off of the DC-10 engine and the pylon and the use of the forklift truck, et cetera, and the procedure there, was that corrected by AD? ]V[r. BRODER1CK. Actually, what we did wa~ unique. It was--and in fact we have been told subsequently that, at least in some par~ it was illegal. But what we did was suspend the type certificate for the airplane. That effectively removed the basis for any airworthi. heSS certificate that any U.S. airplane had, and it was the foreign airplanes that we had problems with. But we did not issue an air- worthiness directive to ground the airplanes. We had issued sever- al, as you remember, all of which were ineffective in solving the problem, and we issued subsequent ones when we discovered what the problem was. Mr. MIN~A. Now I have observed before that there seems to be a general problem with the FAA Research Program not being well coordinated with the regulatory efforts, and I think this is a prob- lem spanning many years. But in 1 year there may have been con, siderable damage to the FAA Research Program from outside FAA, and I think in fairness we need to consider that. The year I have in mind is fiscal year 1982. The research pro- gram to support the efforts of the FAA to issue regulations in the areas before us today was then funded from the facilities, equip- ment, and development account [FE&D]. It has since been folded into the RE&D account, as I understand it. Funding l~or FE&D was $20 million in fiscal year 1980, $21.2 rail- lion in fmcal year 1981, and the administration initially requested $24 million for fiscal year 1982. But in the course of calendar 1981, the administration repeatedly came back, insisting that its own budget be cut. For example, that fall, OMB Director Stockman in- sisted on a 12-percent across-the-board reduction in the administra- tion's budget request, and I remember Members got tons of mail demanding that they support the President's budget, and generally Congress cut first and asked about the consequences later. But when the dust cleared, we found some real aviation safety damage had been done, for example, to the NTSB budget. But one of the area~, although small to begin with, which was hardest hit was the FAA's FE&D account. FAA was planning on a $24 million program that actually only got $8.8 million. How you plan and run a research program under those circumstances I cannot imagine. Reports we got indicated, not surprisingly, that very little could be accomplished in the facilitiea, equipment, and development ac- count for research programs in i~cal year 1982. So, Admiral Engen, let me ask: Can you tell us to what extent the research programs in these fire safety and cabin safety areas were adversely affected in fiscal year 1982 by that budget situa- tion? Mr. ENOEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could, I would like to a~k Mr. Blake to respond as best he can, and then what we cannot provide you at this point in time we will provide for the record. Mr. BI~K~.. Mr. Chairman, your analysis is correct. When we re- ceived the instructions on the 1982 budget, we did look at our total 481 ~irc .raft safety .~program~ ,. a, nd,.we .placed highest priority on achieve- rnen~ of th.,ose l~ems,w, mcn u~rec~ly supported the legislative--regu- latOrY, ra~ner, regma~ory program that we were reporting on to the Congress, and where _we had supplied to the Congres~ commit- meats on.pr~o~g~r.ams, on dates, and in general on the regulatory ~ackages ln~-p We elated a ~'rioHty on tho~e items, and were ab.le to,ke~,p the, cri't'i~a|items moving forward~ We did have a number o~ in~ernai schedule realignments. We did postpone some items of more of a research nature, which w~ hope to pick up later. But I believe, sir, that we were able to support those items that support the current regulatory package. Mr. MI~rA. All right, if you will please supply the response for the record. Mr. Es~e~. I will, sir. [The following was received from Mr. Engen:] The fiscal year 1982 .b.udge~tary actions re~.ulted in the redirection of rec~mrces available to pur~ue th~ A~rera~ Safety r~searen prv6,r~a~m~.. The F, E, and D Budget wa~ running at an annual love! o! approximately In fiscal year 1982, thi~ level wa~ reduced to approximately $9M. About ~nc-half this wa~ ex .~.nded on the Aircraft Safety research program. . We prior~t|zed all efforta in the Aircraft S.afety research p~ogramo an~d d~ot.r!bu.ted~ the available resource~ to meet the ~chedule~ of the itemo that were the ~umcct Congrer~ional interest and were moot paramount to aircraft safety. We main~taincd these program elements on the ~chedules we ~et. Mr. M~N~T~. Now your testimony does give specific target dates for issuance of NPRM's and final rules on a number of propo3al~. On a number of other issues, you do not give specific target dates. In each of these cases, I would like to know what the next target date is. First of all, what target dates are there for further action on life preservers where you state you are considering the i~uance of a new TSO and an NPRM requiring operators to use life preservers meeting that TSO? Mr. ENGES. We issued TSO C-13 (Delta) last year in January. I think that although industry, including many of the alphabet soup organizations that are involved with consumer products, a~eed at the time that that was indeed a good one, we allof us I think have I~en a little surprisal that maybe life preservers as defined in that TSO need further clarification. So we are working at this point in time toward, if you will, a more simplified donning of life preserv- ers, something that is a little more universal, if you will. That does not mean that tho~e life preservers that are ~pelled out in the TSO at this time are unsafe. That just means that we ~ee a way new where we should improve. In talking to ACAP, to Mr: Wayne Williams, I personally discussed this with tho~e people and those organizations, and it has become clear to all of us that we need to look again at it, and we are working on that at this point in time. I would prefer to provide if you will, a date, rather than state it at this point in time and have to alter it. But there will be further looks at the life preservers specifically, and we hope that thiu will be sooner, not later. Mr. M~N~r~ You state that ~ou are investigating how quickly improved slide's are entering airline service, and whether regulat~
Page 102: TI07692757
482 ry action is necessary to require replacement of those slide~. What target dates have been established on this project7 Mr.. ENOEN. We i~ued our TSO of course on June 3, 1983, grading the heat-resistant requirement~ for any slide manufactur~I afl~r December of this yea,r. We are currently investigating how quickly we can put these shdes into being. That date of December of this year is ttie date that we are looking toward implementation of these heat-resistant evacuation slides, subsequent to that date. Mr. MIN~'TA. On communication between flight and cabin crew, you state that you will consider having new aircraft designed to meet the requirement that public address systems be powered by an independent source. Again, are there any target dates for th" project? Mr. EL~o~.N. We on the 2d of July, of this year, we responded to an NTSB safety recommendation In this matter, Mr. Chairman, and we are reeking way.s to provide better ~ommunications. One of the things we are running up agaihst here--and this is not in the way of an excuse, but I think of this an an explanation--we are running up against the emergency bus syndrome, I call it, as a test pilot. Eventually you get down to you need everything on that emergency bus directly to the battery, and a lot of times you cannot do that. You cannot provide juice to the igniter~ so you can get an air start. You cannot do all these other things. We are get- ting into that a little bit here. At this point in time, we do require at least two megaphones on b~ard an airplane, so that the~e megaphones can indeed be used. I have not rovided you a direct answer to your .question about timing. If itp is desired, I will do that for the record, szr. Mr. M]~ra. Fine. [The following was received from Mr. Engen:] • With re~pect to Ironing new aircra£t designed to meet the requirement that ublic ~addre~,~y~.tems~he powered by an independent eeurce or an indenend~.t .tt~pu~ "! n~ve v.~XeCl our Transport Ai lane Certl ........ r--- r-~.~,- .......... .zT?. . ficatzon Directorate to exaratae thls z~ue anu accrue ny IJecem~er ~t. 1984. whether new standards should be propo~d. Mr. Mm~A. Generally, H.R. 5428 contemplates adoption of final rules by December 31, 198~. For some of the items; your testimon i.nd.ica..tes that you plan to have f'mal rules in nlac- w~ll I~ ,ante. un which, of the 11 items in the bill. nave any problems in issuing final rule~ by ~Dece~i~e-~- 3~-1"~ "~8~.~ Again, you might want to provide that for the record. Mr. E~o~.s. Well, let u~ try right now so that we can try to re- ,pond as quickly as we can. I will ask Mr. Broderick to respond, sir. Then we will pick up for the record the ones we do not provide. Mr, BRowmc~. Specifically there are two things right now we have come problems with. One is about the eighth provision, which is the thing that we talked about earlier with regard to im~rove- ment~ in smoke evacuation from the cabin. I am not sure exactly how we would even write that notice, Mr. Chairman. So the final rule, then, is obviotmly ~omething I would have some difficulty with. Mr. MI~"rA. I am sorry, Mr. Broderiek? Is that on the availabil- ity to each cabin crew Mr. BRoz)~a~c~, No; ~e~ .m.ber..of portable gear? , nau m the provision that requires establish- 483 Mr. MIN~TA. Oh, the maximum evacuation of smoke? Mr. Baon~-mcK. Yes; so, since we are not clear on how that tech- nically can be done to improve the existing techniques, the 1985 date for a final rule would give me some problems. The same thing is true with item 10, which you discussed with the Administrator, with regard to an independen.t power source for the public address system. Those two, we do not have regulatory action ongoing now on. I believe it is true that, except for the technical differences that we have talked about like the applicability to foreign air carriers which is a problem, the schedule that the Administrator has read at least covers the schedule prolx~sed herein, and in fact consider- ably betters it in several cases. But we will be happy to go through this for the record in detail if you would like, Mr. E~oE~. I think we owe you that detail. [The information received from Mr. Engen follows:] To clarify our pesition with regard to the proposals in H.R. ~4~8 the following table is presented: I. $~ detecto~t..~ ............................. Dec. 31, 198~ .......... M;y 17, 1984 .......... 2. ~ut~lic f~e extinzuishe~s i~ I~valo- ..... .do ............................. ~o ...................... 3. ~ ~ f~ v~Isl~ ................... do ............................ do ....................... 4a. Cab~l m~ef~ Ilzm~b~iiy, ¢t~ ............... do ...................... Dec. ~I, 1981 .......... 4b. F~ bk~E ...................................... do ...................... Oct I],]983 ............ 5. C~K~ c~pzflme~! st~n~rds fix co~ ..... do .................... A~j. 8, 1984 ............ 6. FiZh! c~ew sm~te k'~ ......................... do ...................... Oct 1984 ................. 7. eor~Me Z~ f~¢ ~ ~d rest.......do ............................ do .................... I. ~x~e ~n~ke eno~ti~ .................. i.....do ....................... (*) ........................ 9. F~t m~i~t~l e~ti~ s~ies .............. do .................. (,) ...................... 10. "El~li~" ~ ~ mst~li~ ......... do ................... (,) ......................... If. CaN, m~r~ i~ ................. Dec 3, 19~ ........... ~I. II. 19D ......... Dec. 31, 1985 .......... Pec. 31, 1984 ...... do ....................... ~. t ...... do ...................... {') ...... do ...................... $@1, 3~, 198~ ..... • ...................... (,) ...... do ...................... ...... do ....................... ...... do ...................... ..... do ...................... Oct 1951 ' ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~.1~, Mz. MIH~A. ~t me ~k, then. like a broken r~ord: ~at is the hazm in the le~lation dirking the da~? Mr. E~oz~. I would come back ~, I ~ Mr. Chai~an, ~u~t a word of ~ution on in~exibility~ that if in the cou~ of thin~ a ~t~z ~lution is found ~ we move towa~ the, right a~r that, if you le~la~ it. it might get l~k~ in ~ncre~. I think that I would ~y that we n~ ~ l~k at ~ne~ and ~t. ~ should ~ consider~ at some time ~fore an a~lu~ d~ ~rminailon is made ~ implement. Mr. MI~A. What n~ut if we did it n~atively? For example a ~WR is going to ~ rqui~ to ~ made ~ck ~ the ~n~e~, and at if it ~ not submJt~ 5y a cer~in da~ a da~ for s ~hal rule
Page 103: TI07692758
• kin forward to confirmation of all the labora- • and we'were 1oo g . the materials Mr. H^MMEnSCHMlm'. Would the Chairman yield7 1 ~ tests we had done, this stuff burned worse than Mr. MINErA. I am pleased to. Mr. I-I~MMEP,~CHMnYe. As I. understood the Administrator's testi- that we had. in. currenteairplaneS.were readyIt juStto issuedid note regulationw°rk" on polyl- mony, the FAA is going to have a tough time issuing this notice of The po'.mt.~, th~at w__~ ...... e sn~.eifications built_ ar.ou.nd that e mal:erlalS tor pe[-~vL,,~,..,,, r-- the latmratory .~ornething you are going to have a very difficult time complying with. But whatever that date might turn out to be that is reasons- re~ults did not pan on= in [nu [u - • e fuil-sfale wear tests in the field and actual air- b|e, let u~ just say it is that date, between that time and the final center and ~n. th ..... ~_!_..-~ the ~eat cushion regulation for, planes. That ]s what realt:~ promulgation, if we could set up a mechanism wher~ you could ~ay: le the technical people completely regrouped ann about 2 years whi ....... :~*~on which ie reflected now We have sent out the~e notices of proposed rulemaking, and rule developed the new performance ~ three doe~ not look reasonable to us for these many reasons, be- " nt for what amounts to a seat blocking layer, el- cause the testimony shows thus and so. So you come back to Con- i.n the. reqmyem_e ...... ire the material or a layer; we just have a thougrt we ao no~ -~t gre~ and you say why. rformance_tos.t. We now hav, e~ s.u_c_c~e~,~ ~ delayed the rule, I think what the Chairman is getting at is some mechanism Pe~ut it is the lack ?f techn.o.logtcai _~_~.~-~, ~round ~he technolo- where, then, they would be promulgated, but we would have a chance to look at it between the original notice and the final pro- not the lack of the will to wr~te the re~, mulgation? Ia that correct? gY' - - - - e em-hasige my previous statement, if I could, Mr. E~G~s. Recognizing that we deserve everything we get on Mr. ~. Le~ .m. p ve iea~ed to Mr. Hnmmerschm~dt, and say that I would be ry p taken our pa~t performance, I could probably live with ~omething like that, report back to the Congress on why we have or have not I would just like to say that I want to be held accountable, and I action by a specific date. Mr Broderick, I do not know what your tenting want to produce on time, and I will. Sometimes when you are held Mr. MIS~T~.. -'- - ---'-^-t-ll,, eve,'~ other week. Sore.e- to a date specific in the research and development game, you methods are, but .t..t!y ~:ra ,n~...o_nLu.~'?~"~ ~,~ ,~. sure it would make become very disappointed. In some cases, if you in your wisdom times I feel I am sitt~ng on br~c~,~, ~ any difference with respect to what you have there, [Laughter.] decide to do this, I could very well be back in here trying to explain ue~tion which again may indicate why legislation r~me very detailed information with respect to some specific mate- Let me ask a .q.t .... ,--- ~stablished deadlines for regulate- riM. is needed, even thOUgh r~ ~ © To show an example of that, we had to deal with polyimide a ry action. little bit in ~eata. Could I ask Mr. Brederick perhaps to use that as In your regulatory agenda for 1984, you planned to i~ue by April 1984 NPRMs on protective breathing equipment, portable fire ox- en illustrative point? Mr. BsovEn]c~. Mr. Chairman, we referred earlier to the 1980 tinguishers, and cargo compartment liners. It is now August, and hearings with which you are very familiar, and we talked about in none of thcoe NPRMs have been issued. What is the explanation June 1981 we would have the polyimide material regulations ready, for this delay? ..... respond to that, sir? Mr. EH~'~. Let me a~k xt text. Broderick can We had every intention of so doing• _ We on the regulatory side of the house were unfortunately pro- Mr. B~oB~A~[CK. Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about even today we will still encounter delays. I think what yentcd from _doing that by the technology problems. This [indicat- delays, and ........ a -¢ *o] in= about literally m~ sampte of material] is what we talked about. This material has we are trying to demonstrate ts, ln~a~ ~- ,~k o ~ x.cellent fire retardant properties. As you can see, that was a decades or years, we are talking about weeks. utane torch I applied there for about a minute, and all it did was The vrotective breathin~z equipment regulation will b~ proposed char the material.
Page 104: TI07692759
486 absolutely firm. We have set up a system whereby we are having very quick reviews of progress every week, or even more. ] am personally, frankly, devoting an awfully lot of time to meet- ing there ~chedules. Quite candidly, when we put together that ulatory agenda, we were overly optimistic. We have now rear- ranged the schedule and made sure that we do not have the same person working on the ~une rule for the same period--on two dif- t'erent rules for the some period of time. We have had some prob- lems in that regard. Mr. MI~ETX. Mr. Hammerschmidt. Mr. HAMMERSCHMI~P. Mr. Chairman, in view of the vote, and if it is all right with the Administrator, I would like to submit six or eight more questions for their response for the record. Mr. ESGE~r. I would be very pleased to answer all questions: Mr. HAMMERSCHMlWI'. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mm~rA. Well, Admiral Engen, I want to thank you, and Mr. Blake, and Mr. Brederick. I want to thank you for your comprehen- sive and candid testimony which you have presented, and the re- sponses, As I have said many times, I would rather not legislate safety standards. ! would like to give FAA all of the flexibility to develop standards, subject to our oversight. On the other hand, there does ;c~me a point at which agency delay requires us to intervene and i~ue a legislative directive to the agency. On the legislation now before us, the question is whether the sit- uation ha~ gotten to a point where our responsibility to ensure the safety of the public requires that we take away some of the flexibil- ity and ensure that new regulations will in fact be issued. So we will be carefully considering the record that is now before u~, and we will go through this issue over the coming months and come to a decision. todAgain, I want to thank you-very much for your presence here a~.. o o W:th that, the subcommittee stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, sub- ject to the call of the Chair.] [Subsequent to the hearing, supplemental questions were sui~mit- ted to Mr. Engen from Representatives Mineta and Hammer- schmidt, The questions and responses follow:] Qum~neza Fao~ MR. Mm~'rA ~uc~tlon. Let me specifically go over some of the areas addressed in your testimo- ny, On child restraints,_you and the Secretary_ have committed to a combined per- formance standard for child restraint systems for both aircraft and autos. I want to first commend you both for moving ahead an that. Even if those child seats were to prsv.i.do, no protection on the aircraft, which I don't think is the case, this.approach ,wou,~.a, ,~ vc~ important, because for all we talk about aviation safety here, the fact ~. c,n.uorc.nJace many times the risk being driven to the airport at one end of the [~)gn~ .ana. Ira.re. the airport at the other end than they do being flown between the ~lrporls. And ff this rule doca nothing hut make it convenient for parents, more and more cf whom., own child safety sea~, to take the seat with them on vacation or .w, ncn.evcr0 on .t.ne child has protection in the car at beth ends of the trip, the regula- ~a_n__m_mo,re th.anj.ust.ified. My question is, when do you expect this combined per- ,vrmanC~ r, mnaara to be issued in final rule form and to be effective? flrdnA,_ns~w_cr: Thc.c.om.bjned performance standard for child restraint systems is expect~ • m. v~.clea...r~, by tim Office of Management and Budget by September 1, 1984. The I11 tire Will become effective 180 dave after m,~llo,t;,- ;- ;~- ~ , 487 e ~.~__ ~t Deeartment's action for ao Gays alger trio rule m pu~ o - atluu ~-the . sider • " • Federal Regi~te_~._ .... ,:r~ -r~e~ the N~B following the E~ ~rtpg aco~- denty~~ ~__, -,~.a~.~ ~t out in ~C l~(d). The react on cna~ at you c ncur~ in that r~ommendation. You ~y that you are considering NP~ ~" ~1 ~;cra~ shoul~ ~ ou~fi~ with lhe ~'~ ~ ~nurc ~ ,~- Y°~-~°~ a differen~ ~r~ive from tha~ you ne~ ~ ~ - ~ at ~'~ ~'*~£s,,~-~ are a namer of considhratm~" w~th" wn~c~ ~'A~ ~u~ Answe~ ..... ~ ...... :a~- w~ one thin~. ~ Aamini~trawr, ~ n~ ~e ~a~ ~to ~o~ 9~ ~.~"~'"~'~=: :- ~.....~'~ fully ~nsldvr the view~ o[ :~u~ ~at the ~s ~la~yy.pr~ ~ ~ With tg~t in mind, I would ~ " fr~ at r~on~Iv~ ~uagmen~ vr ~,~ ...... . ~ m~ * ~"~:=~;m~ ~ nro~in~ that all aircraft o~rating unoer ~r~ c~xd~m~ t?~ ~?~?~'~'~h~ ~e~ Life pr~e~ U~ for var~ n~d l~b snoum ~ ~?=~ - ,- ,~-- -~ ~ ~fet~ of dual inflation cham- ~nd~ overact ~lrpla~ 8~oul~ n~vv t,~ uu~ ~" -" The ~u~tion h~ al~ ~n ra~ a~ut th~ v~ha~, d~n ~?'-~- ~e FAA's ~ It h~ ~n all~ that t~v y~na~ne~,~y~ spP .......... s ........ ~ion ~ ~e mouth and n~ of ~ vm~m., ~.nc~ ch~ acma-y ~"??"?~?~-ce of a new ~ dic~ting a simpm ~gn • ~e are ~sloermg v.u ~a,, . v ~Y ...... "~-t ~e new ~ would do away with that V~hannet. you ~n~mplatln8 ~.ab ~. Anger. Y~- It would elimina~ the adve~ V~h~nnel eff~t. • n the u~tlon of the 1~ond donning r~uirement. It h~ ~n all~ t.~t ~ne rym~tv-~ ~,_~_~ ~ll-~t the singl~trap v~, but un~ while ~a~, w~ m ~ve et~m~.-~ . ........... ~ -~ ~tin- the e anufa~uren of the older v~m nave gnu ~ncm upV~v-~-..~ ..- .0 __ now th m • • " " ethin ou Will corr~ m the new ~. W~t are your ~mws on thts, and m thin ~m g Y new ~? A~wer. ~me of the older ~ life pre~er re~ntion .yearns hnve ~n pmv~ under the new ~. I in~nd ~ carrot this s~n in another tertian of the ~ " .~ ~__J: ..... t~ti~a h~thin~ ~uinment for ~ew, you ~ on page 8 of veer ~timony that you exit ~ wmp~ y~-- ~--~. -- - - . -- - "I by ~1, 1984. Exactly what do you exit ~ have dune by that ~m: ~.pro~ NPRM but not yet cl~r~ by the Administration and ~u~ ~ an P~? M N~er. By ~r 31, 1984, the ~en~ ex~ ~ ~mple~ action on an NPR and it will have en~r~ Ex~utive Branch ~ination, which u~uully ~kes 30-~0 days on noti~ ouch ~ this. Ou~fion On the ~at cushions/fire bl~kipg layer_~e~o~ ~ ~o~ ~]~ .~.c~[ - . " ~r 30 19~4. ~ that menu yea w~, ple~ a~mn on th~ pro~ by ~ ~m - '-, -..~ ~-t ¢ ~ ~utlvv Branch i~ue a final rule by that date? Or ~n~ a draft fina~ ,, ..... m. Ex c~rdination7 Or what7 • ' Anger. I ~!1 tmnsmlt the F~'s pro~ ~otion, f~r iron" byv --r~nt~m~r ....... 30. Given the.~, . e strong m~r~tt IB tn~ mat~t, ~e dra~ ~11 r~ive p~mptfev~y ~h~ ~e ~P~:t~ t~ F~ ~k ~tzon With re a~ ~ the ~:~ v ~argo compact ........ - ~ " • .... g ...... non =--a;a accident What w~ that action, what ~tio~ O~ th~ IOllflWl~g tn~ xoo~ ~u, • mb~em ~ sus ~ ~ ~fiU e~t in CI~ D cargo compa~men~, and what are the ~ .... : .... ~ ~hi~h a~ ~in~ ~n~mpla~ for inclusion in the Answer. The FAA condu~ r~arch and ~y~iopment w~tch r~l~_~ once of NPRM 84-I1, Au~st 8, 1984. ~ NPRM pro~,,~e ~.~u.~ ~ent liner fire ~i~ce ~ulremen~ in FAR 25, In a~ot~ton, rue ~ veloping an ~o~hin~ di~tive ~ carrot defictenci~ in ~o ~m~ment linen in ai~lan~ in ~ice. _ .......... * ~ieh includ~ smoke d~ ~tion. ~a~in the ~bin F:~ vro~_t~r~m, 7 ..... =i ..... *: ~ (84-5 ~U~ ~a~ 17, 1~4) you ~y that e-~.¢m~ m ~m~,W pm~l by ~em~r 31, 1984. Exactly what d~ mat me~ you wm navv that Answer. I will transmit the FAA's pro~ final action hr Ex~utive Branch ordination by ~eem~r 31. Given the ~mtarv's stron~ interest in this matter.
Page 105: TI07692760
488 Questiqr~ Regarding improved passenger sea.t atandar~: 1 .am ple.ns~d, that you drc~ed thi~ at ~ome length in your testimony ~causa t mink acoiuent investigation ha~ shown that this is an area which presents real problems for survivability and evacuation, On page 13 you say y~ expect to completegy, our actions by ~J~ne 15, 1985. Again, exactly what will you have dane by that date. An NPRM leased. Annwer. By Jane 15, 1985, the agency will have completed its action on an NPRM and the notice will have entered Executive Branch coordination. Quc~tio~. On interior cabin materials you state that you plan to develop new cri- carla by December 31, 1984. Will the~e criteria include toxicity and smoke emission ~tandards? Are you al~o considering an NPRM to require existing aircraft to comply with the new standard~? If so, what lead time t'or compliance is being considered? Answer. Our full scala tests have indicated that in a cabin fire, toxic gas emleaien doc~ not conctitute a hazard until cabin fla~hover occurs and the cabin becomes us. survivable. The new criteria will concentrate an improving fire resistance of materi. ale and delaying fla~hover. We wish to see all air carriers retrofitted a~ soon as practicable. Since the criteria are net finalized, we do net have coat figure~ to support a retrofit deadline at this time. Question. On page 17 of your testimony you mention the p¢~. ibility of putting the P.A. system on an independent power system. What exactly noes that mean? Could this r~ult in an added load on the emergency buss, or is it something else entirely? Answer. We will consider whether new standards should be estchli~hed in Part 25 ef the Fcdsroi Aviation Regulations. Pm such, there will be a seed to a~ess a earle. ty of avenu~ and con~iuenc~ of such independent power systems and obtain public comments on any proposals. Thu~, the specifics of how a public address system may be powered cannot be answered now. Question. Regarding on-board medical kits, you state that the Department of Jas- rice will ~pcak for the Executive Branch on the Good Samaritan issue. When? We haven't heard from them. Answer. We hove been in contact with the Department of Justice and have been advl~l that they will provide their written views to the Subcommittee within the next t~n days. Question. Regarding cabin air quality, could you clarify to the Subcommittee ex- actly what ~pects of cabin air quality are or are not now regulated by FAA? Ozone? Carl~n moan=ida? Cublc feet exchanged per minute per p~senger? Radiation? Level of pressurization? Rate of change in pressurization? Othcr~? Answer. The FAA requirc~: that each pa~enger and crew compartment be suit- ably ventilated; that the crew compartment receive at least 10 cu. ft. per minute of frc~h air p~r crewmember, specific limits on carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels, and cabin o~ene concentrations (FAR 25.831). The FAA also requires that the airplane be equipped to provide a cabin altitude of not more than 8,000 feet at the maximum operating altitude. There are no requirements on the transition rate tween ~ca level pressure and the procure corresponding to 8,0~0 feet. The maxi- mum cabin pressure differential, which is derived during certification by consider- ing the airplane's maximum operating altitude and the 8,000 l~eet oah]n require- meat, la eatabllsbed at a limit during type certification. Ks such, it is in the airplane flight maau~l and becomco an operating limitation that must be adhered to except in an emergency, Quest/on. ~ou state that you are having EPA study the iaeue~ of fresh air, humidi- ty, and contamination limits. You do not~ however, support further study of pressur- ization, in, fractious, radiation, etc. On what basis did you determine which aspects of the cabin sir quality i~ue merited study and which did not? ,Answer. We have not totally defined the specifics nf what EPA will study. We pmn to hold meetings and should have a program plan firmed up in the near future. Radiation is one of the issues that we will be dls~uaeing with the EPA. We ~n ally ~ no need to study the effects of pressurization or what cabin altitudes are ~erv~ce ca thoee i~uco are well under~d. 489 ~ffo~ In your ~timony. you refer ~ the existence o~ pr~edurc~ to a~urv ~ , ". cna~ from ~ aircraft cabin and you indicate f~hcr that ~ddi. • ~t ~moke w.e~a ~_~ ..... ~u~d in thi~ area Although I undvrs~nd that ~1 r~rcn ~ ~"~ ~ .......... ~iffe~ent aircraft ty~s, could you give us ev~Cu~ " ion of what pr~ed~ should ~ employ~ by the crew to evacu- s ~ne~ d~P~ ~bin7 m you r~ll whether the py~ri~ pf~ed~re~ were ~W s~gY ~?'~anada. ~9 crew during the in-fl~g~t" ~r? ~t I~ ~ .~ ~ follow~Answer.~Y~ .o have indica~, re.arch is ~mg" conduc~ o~~~ ca" ins what ~n s of smoke evacuation p~edures are most e~cu~tv , w n the ci~u~d~tanc~ of a fire For example the ~hnique for dealing with ~mokv e~ ther~ ;~ '~ extin~ish~ ~re ~rha~ ~ould not ~ appli~ble when there sn ~n-g~.~ .f'smoke ~ oR, then o~ning the aft pr~ure a~r o~., - • if the ~e and heat ~ ~ 1~ debili~ting ~ ~ f~ara:~.~ allow y"~ ~ ~e~encv exit or fo~ard d~r m~g~ cream ~u~n smoke d~ili~.op- ~:~'~--~-~ th-~ ~hi~ ~r conditioning sye~m whi~e the ~bin by ~ m me ros- e d~ends ~ lower altitudes. Simultan~usly with this pr~edure, fi~p3 arc aizplan ....... ~ ......... ~th ox-~en/smoke m~ and ~ i~te t~o source ~d a ~e~h ch~k of other sys~ in ~ ~e N~B h~ not ~u~ the final re~ of i~ findings in the Air ~naua~., , but. it ~ my unde~nding that t~e crew. shut doy~ ~ mr condmon • " an effo~ ~ prevent the fire from ~mmg more t~n~. - mg ~m t~ .... ~-= ~ ~ ~28 would apvly ~ all commervmt mrcralt ov~ ~t~. ~s ~,m~, .$%-.- ~_~',o, ~:. ~em) and 135 o~rauo~ aM ~d therefo~ woma ~comp~ ru~t ,~ ~-- ~ . . --.. ~mmu~m ~nd air.~i~). If we should d~ide ~ ~o~i~ limit the l~laUon ~ la~e m~rait omy t~.c., ee ~aw~ p, liar ceremonial ~rcraft ~ well? t ~ P~ lZt. The rm~ we na p ~ ' punypn • .~ n_~ ~o~ ~t.~ Therefore. we ~lieve at th~ time it in mo~t rea- woula appty ~ ra~t ,*~ e~_ .~ _:. ~-~er ~Pa~ 121) aircre~ ~nable ~ concentra~ our elIO~ on tilu mt ~t t. ~ ' w that fl~ht at~na~ amnty m r~nu m a, ~ ..... v ~ ~ . ~n '- ........... ~ that many flight at~ndan~ have complain~ o~ h~x~, oy ~ q-- ~ ...... ~-- -~-- -**-:bu~ ~ ~r ~bin flay. do you gnow di~n~ or o~aer ,t eR~ ~-,~y ?~--... ~ *h~ einima and concvr~ the FAA h~ r~ effo~ m the p~t m stuay whether b ............ a~ ~id? icy ~d that ~in ~r quality com~r~ favorobly with ~r qumtty tn non.a~a.on en~i~nmen~ ~ we have mentionS, we are now working ~th EPA for them ~ke a n~ l~k at th~ a~a, ~tion. How ~n you ~ cabin that ~ero ~ no problem ~th ~bin air in the a~n~ ef ~ inde~ndent ~udy? . " Answer. ~e ~ h~ examin~ th~ a~ m the ~t. All da~ avauame t~t the~ is no health er ~fety pr~lem ~th print ~bln air qualKy, and that ~ air quMity ~m~ ve~ faverobly ~th that of other ~ually inhabl~ ~eve~hel~, we have ~k~ ~A ~ l~k at th~ a~a in cur ~haif. ~t~n. If a study we~ ~ ~ author~, would ~o~ pr~fe~ t~t it ~ d~ne by the ~ ~ in ~p~n~tlve He~l'~ bill, er the ~attonat A~aemy of ~ienc~ ~ in ~nt~r Inouye'a bill? Answer. We p~fer that the study ~ done by the EP& ~ey ~ t~e n~ ekil~ and m~u~ng ~uipment and have the~lv~ ~n inv~tigaUng m~rter air quality. They would th~ ~ able ~ cem~re airo~ da~ with o~her in.riot air ~eality. PA ~t in a etud~ of air quality. Will the ~tio~ You s~ (~e 18) that ~ - - - .... ~ Ha~ ' study ~at EPA pl~ add~ all of the ~e~ ~ve~ uy ~p~.~t-~ and ~na~r Inouye's bill7 ~ no~ which are~ will not ~ etuai~'g when ~ -'-- r'--r ....... r-~7~- . -- " " " " r8 ~o[ ~ount of f~h air, humldgy, air con~mmatton,, and r~dta~on. ~ a .... ~.~ EPA ~ study omprvpnev nrotective breathing ~mpment, extmgm~nmg urn,
Page 106: TI07692761
490 removal, or ~afe pressuring ac.tion. We have .roq, ently reevaluated the imavenger pro- restive breathing nnd plan to msue a report m September addressing the issues and the FAA Ix~ition. We fe~.l we have an adequate ongoing R&D program on smoke rcmovol and that there m no need for a parallel study. We are open to any corn- meals en our study and what should be dens. As for safe pressurization, there is nothing unsafe about existing pre~urizatlon for the vast majority of aircraft passen- gers. The FAA [ms distributed a recent article dealing with the medical aspects of transportation aboa.r.d, com,m.ercial aircra~ in order to make the small percentage of the public with health promems aware m the health impacts of the 804)0 foot cabin altitude. " @jest/on- The FAA previously opposed legislation which would have required an enhaaced medical kit aboard air carrier aircraft. Why has FAA's pmitlon changed? Answer. The FAA previously indicated that we did not believe that we had the statutory aut.h.orit.y, to r~q. ~tr~. a,n.ex~,pand..ed, medical kit, The U.S. Court of Appeah for the D.C. Clrcm.t concmaea r.naz FAA aid possess such authority. Accordi.n.gly, we arc drafting a netzce of proposed rulemaking to require an enhanced medxcal kit. We bdiet'o that legislation is unnece~ary, and that the rulemuking process should be given the opportunity to work. @jcstion. You slate that FAA'a propoeed medical kit would, tit'..or i,n, itiui t.re~,tm, eat for "heart atlack~, r~izurse, allergic reactions, bleeding, or cno~dng. ' is thi~ ii~t in- tended to be exhaustive? What about a~thma attacks and diabetic comas for exam- ple? Answer. The FAA believes that i£ a medical kit is to be required on air carrier aircraft, consldcration should be given to requiring equipment and drugs to provide b~ic llfe ~upport during medical emergencies that might occur in flight. Such emer- gencic~ would include (hut not be limited is) myeeardiai infarction, severe allergic rc~ction~ acute asthma, insulin sheck, protracted ~eizures, and childbirth. Limited ~upport could be provided for diabetic aczdoei~ ~ucstion. How will your medical kit proposal addregs the question of who may have ~c~ t~ the medical kite? Answer. The qucotion of who may have access to the medical kit is only one of ~ovcral complex L~uc~ associated with a propo~ to require emergency medical equipment and drug~ to be provided on air carrier aircraft. Personnel who will be pcrmifled to u~c such a kit have not yet been identified by the FAA. It is antlcipat- cd that th[~ is an i~ue cu which public comment will be invited, quahog, You ~totcd that the medical kit proposal will be submflCed for Executive Br~nch coordination in November. How long do you expect Executive ]Branch co- ordination to lake? When san we rea|istlcaily expect to see the adoption of a final rule? Answer. Ths current ~chedale indicates that a Notice of Prolx~ed Rulvmaklng (NPBM) should be i~ued by the Director of Flight Operations on November 16, i9~, The NPRM is u~ually forwarded to GST within 2 days after issuance. After tCyb~j approval, it is forwarded to OMB. We expect OST/OMB action to be vompleted anusry 15, 1985. At that time, the NPRM will be forwarded to the Federal Beg- i~tcr for publication. Regarding this particular NPRM, we anticipate a lot of contre- vcr~y, c~pecially from representativco of the medical profession. Therefore. it ia diffi- cult to predict a date for final action or the Drelx~al, If the FAA detcrmince that an amendment to the Federal Aviation Regulations is warranted after the comments have been thoroughly evaluated, we anticipate the mo~t rcali~tic tim0 for adopting such a rule would be mid-fall, 1985. Qu~fion. FAA's current requlrement~ for life vests in TSO-C13d state that they ~nu~t be capable of being put on in 15 secand~ Previous witnesee~, however, have arged that currently approved vests cannot be donned in 15 seconds by most pa~ ~ngers. Two witae~es claimed that the FAA'o Civil Aeronautical [nstltute ran t~ta on thcee ve~ts and found them impo~ible to don in 15 ~econd~. What is your rcspons~ to those charges? b- ~..nswer. Wy have been aware of the charg¢~ and investigated the procedures used y me manumcturem in meeting the 15 second requirement ~fTSO-CI~kl. We found ~t_ th~, 1~ .~x~nd .~.uiremant was met but some improvement on the ~pecifie ,u o[ now to c~nauct the tcet could be made We have already begun looking at p.wrRo, o.f the ~0_ in this area and had a ~'nt meeting with the industry and the mtcrcot~l pubnc to begin developing u new test criteria. 491 ~w~tioa. In your prepared testimony, you etate that life ve~ts purcha~-~1 after January 3, 1955, will have to meet improved atandarde. As I understand it, however, existing life vests will not be replaced. (a) How long will it take before the~e improved vests became common in mo~t air- cr~?Won't there be confusion if there arc different type~ of life vests in the ~ame ai~.ra.ft? ....... *-, that a fli¢ht attendant will demonstrate one t.yl~ of |ire v~cst.,bu~t (~) ~sn't i~ ,_~_~_~ ........ ~,~ !,~ t use a different kind, thereby causing lurtner that man~y passe.~,~ ......... e .o confusion, Answer. We do not have data on how long it might take f~r new T30-CI3d life stamen in mo~t aircraft. We are considering whether to propo~e vests to bec~m~e..c~ .... " -~ ..... tar aircraft, and the most recent design seem mv~t appreprm.,,t,e .L_e~._~:;:.~'~__ about the confusion over more than one type of life preserver on a particular aircraf~ and intend to study the best method~ to correct tha..t pr.o.blem~an "ou estimate how much it would co~t to inst~l_~. ~smp~ov,c,d !p fits, in your view, justify the costs? Answer. We as yet have not done a cost/benefits analysis of the proposal to quire life vests on all air carrier and commuter aircraft, but one would be done as . lemakin effort We have conducted ~ staff study on the i~aue of.war.at part.of.the ,r~__ ___~ ~ga~nnou~ce in the Federal Register in September, t,he sure,vat and ext~-~, ~. ~ L,'-- ...... -* Th~ studv resort does not raise ~.~e • ud re rt lor pUOtlu uulat~t~t~ ........ try of t.he s~. y. .PO ...... J r.~ ,~o ~r~ vests in tvoical water acc~dent~ but com. of the ben , • ..... --~^--~ ~:~ter notice wdl be evaluated, meats receives as a result el toe reu~.~ a final a one po~Rion. In terms of a ver~ general estlmste of the co~t u~s in .m.o.l.ding.zm row~ ...... g"¢^.0~ ~ests. on all 30 ~eat aircraft, we projec_~ that. z.t' ~w.o.uld .~. St i~stollt.ng ~P~].~ -"~:-- te~0 ~r life vest times ~00 O00 aircraft ~ea~l. on the oruer o~ mmam~ ~* t"- '. , - . - mate is for the co~t of the life vests only and does not memos maintenance ann placement costs for life vssts or added fuel costa. Ouestion. Would you expand on your explanntion of the agency's plans to improve seat crashworthiness for transport category aircraft? Answer. We plan to propose updated standards for aircraft and seat~. The propel- ude re ulatory requirements for the dynamic testing of seato intended ab will incl g .... , ....r, ~--all air-lanes transport airplanes, for use in one or more categories oz atrc~ [el. g ft To support any regulations draR advisory circulars on crash eSChar- end rotorcra ), . ........ '_'; __~ _ c..al adviser~ circular on human • d anal teal resinous w|ll ne proposeu a.~ ~ .... ~ ~ _ _~ including seat~ The analytical methodologies will serve as tools in developing de- signs to meet proposed updated s~ndards for aircraft and seats. By June 1,5, 198fi, the NPRM or NPRMs will enter Executive Branch coordination; advisory circulars on crash scenarios and analytical methods will be available for comment; and the advisory circular on human tolerance will be issued,
Page 107: TI07692762
Page 108: TI07692763
494 ~he ,~nerlcan Lung Assoclotion ~'lcomes this opportunity to endorse $, 197 and its call for the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct an independent study o| the m©asures to assure adequate air quality in the cabins o! c(m~nercia| aircraft. This is a rr~t~er that has alway# The protection ol haman lungs is of primary importance to ~I.A. Founded the country~s leading cause of de&th~ ALA~s current goal encompass©s Ihe control and preventiQn of all lung diseases. A major program priority tar the ALA is the ~iZht ~o¢ clean alr~ includln~ zhe e~rEin~ problem el Indoor zir pollution. The con~[ned structure oX an aircraft c~bln poses particular problem~ In this re&ard, Our c~ents w[l~ ~ocus on tobacco s~ke--a ~jor contributor to indoor air pollution includin& the passenger cabin ol domestic eircra~t, As has been painted out by ~he Civil Aeronautics Doard in its recent rulemaking procedure on Smakin~ Aboard Alter=It (1# C.FR 252) there is widespread belial that the air qulliey in the passenger cabin at domestic aircralt is inadequate. Y/hen smoklng is permitted that quality quickly bec~es unacceptable, The Federal Aviation Administration rullnK that passen&er ¢~partments be esuieably ventilat©d~ and limiting the ameunt of carbou monoxide and other fu~es that may be 49~ present does not provide a measurable standard with the Indicafed " stringency ~actor. Am ore precise de|lnition is required "*hath |n confined Spaces. The air circulation in the passenger cabin of domestic alrcralt is far less than passengers and attendant~ are accustomed Io on the ground, House testimony o[ tier all ~erjelelt, President o! the Xenex CoCporation which conducts research and development in energy conversion sysrems~ "For health and safety reasons pilot~ are provided from 7~ tO 2~0 cubic leer of fresh air per person per min- ute. At the same time the fresh air ventilation rate 7 cubic leer per person per minute. . . In exper! circles it is well recognized that ~0 to ~0 cubic leer of fresh air per, person per minute is an appropriate minimum to provide for ~ health and
Page 109: TI07692764
4~ contagious diseases. The very low treah air ventilo ation rates In the pessenger cabin has resulted in a sUbstant|al increase in viruse bacteria, lungus and ether mlere-or&anlsms In the cabin air. This trotter has been documented in the Senate Aviation Subcomml tte ti ins.ttv The above reference relates tn the general air quality situation facing problem of assuring adequate air quality is exacerbated. The ALA should be • total ban on'smoking aboard cmrciil eircra/t, A ban otters the only option for providing co,Op|ere protection from the health sad safety risks of smoking in tht confined space of 'an alrcraft cabin0 The AL~ cc~rmentcd I~ the recent rulemaking by the CAB In support this direction. Before the House Sobcoem~lttee On Investigations C~mittee on Public Works and Tr~nspertation~ ~uiy 497 Since publication of the WhiteoFrecb study~ ,,Small'Airways Dytl0nctlon In H0~smoker$ ChroniCallY Exposed to ~obacco Smoke," more evidence has ~cc0mulated on the dangers o| involuntary smokin¢. (New En ~, 1980; 302: 720-3] For exan~|e~ n A study conducted in 3apan Ir~pilcated the smoking habl ts of husbands in the development og lung cancer in nonsmokln~ women who are c~ntinuallY ¢~poscd to th¢ir husband's 1~Z,261 ~n and 1~2,~7 ~men were involved ~n thl~ IHlr~yama, T., ~ritish ~dica~ ]ourna~, 1981; 2~2; IE~-~) o In a live-year study an the eilects of lungs Of those children whose mothers smoked showed a 7 percent decline in vital capaClty~ on the average~ compared with those childrenwhose mothers did net smoke. This paper also su~te©d Up the results of ethor studies on the effects of parental smoking and ral=©s additional concerns about odvcrsc effects in this area. {TaKer, I.~ et a|,N~l~n land 3ourna| e, igg~; 309: 699-703) MOSt recently e the i9~ Surgeon General's Report on the Health Consequences e~ Smokln[o-Chronlc Obstructive Lung Disease concluded on the issue o! passive smoking:
Page 110: TI07692765
498 button to the level ol indoor air pollution at lev¢|s o| smoking end yen tl lotion that are con~non in the indoor OnvirorLrnen t, The children of smokinB parents have an Increased prevalence reported rospirator~ systems, and have an increased frequency bronchitis and pneumonia early zn life. 3. Two studies have reported dilferences In measures oZ lun8 lunctlon in older populat|ons between subjects chronically ex- posed to involuntary smoking and those who were not. This diflcr- once was not Iound In a younser and'possibly less exposed pop- Studies o! involuntary smoking are bused on environments without sircralt is lar dtllctent, The relatively low humidity--approximot¢ly 20 percent--o! the aircraft cabin also contributes to the smokinz-lelated irritation experienced by the nonsmoker. ~ dry atmosphere exacerbates the irritation o~ the mucous membrane lining In the sinuses and upper respiratory system. This effect is parlicu|orly pronounced ~o¢ persons wllh aller6y~ asthma, respiratory ln|eetlons and chronic pulmonary disease, (3ohnson and Ronge, Euildlng Services ~nglneerln~, 1976| ~$x2J~-~62; Surgeon General's Report on Smokin~ 499 ~, Lg7~, |I: Z6-ZT) Therefore, the aircraft represents a +nlqUe environment ~or r~asurin8 the health ellect+ nl lhe intermittent exposure to sidestreom tobacco smoke, In ~ recent study~ ozone toxicity-type symptoms tie.: sholtnnss o! ~reath, chest tlEhtness, wheezing) ~ere reported by flight attendants |l~ln~ regularly at 'hish altitudes. (Reed, O.~ etal, American 3ournat ~ ~dustria! ~ediclno, 19~l; Is ~2-~) $i&nificaotlye these ~ymptoms ~re associated directl~ with flight duration, altitude and type o! sircraft~ but not with the number o~ years worked, sex, medical hlslory, or home residence. This exposure to ozone~ another irritant to ~he respiratory mucous membeane~ may also ¢¢eate in some |ndl~lduals an enhanced sensitivity to tobacco smoke irritants in the high altitude Dr, Claude Lenlant~ Director o! the National Heart~ Lung and glued Institute, in testimony May 61 1993 bolero th= U,S. Senate Comn|ttee on Labor and Human Resources, stated that recenl evidence i~d]cotes that -so-called sidestream smoke llom somebody else's cigarettes iS not |ust a nuisance foe the nonsmoker who Is exposed to it, but can produce adverse effects on the nonsmeker+s heart and lungs," Th© problems cited by Dr. Lcniant are particularly acute for that
Page 111: TI07692766
considerable selment o! the population with specie! health problems. That susceptible population is substantial, with e=timotes that 20 percent ot the population surfer troma chronic pulmonary or cardiac condition. Add|t|ona|iy, there arc an ©*ttmsted 2 mlltion Americans who ~re sensitive to tobacco smoke and sufter tobacco smoke=related asthma episodes. Certainly shoos persons and othe~s vh0 are allergic to ~moke should be protected from the health risks o~ exposure to tobacco =moke *hen.trovellnB. Any questions el doubt should be settled in Savor of Frotectln8 such individuals. The ALA thank* the House Subconrnittee on Aviation for holding these hearings and cornnends Senitor lnouye ~or proposing such an objective con~iderotion of the unique ~octors Kov©rnln& the aviation environment. 501 U.S. D~pa~rnent of Jus~ Office of Legislative and Inicrg~vernment~1 A ffsh'~ Honorable Norman ¥. Nlneta Chelr~an Subc0mmtttee on Aviation Comities on Publlo Worka and Avlet~on House of ~epresentatlves Deae HPo Cha£t~sn: Subsequent to the Suboommittee*a hearln~ on August 2, ~hePein the Honorable Donald Do En~en. Admln[a~ratoP. Federal Aviation Administration beatified on behalf o~ the ExecutiVe BPanch~ representatives o£ the Departmen~ of Traneportat$on have requested ua to respond to an inquiry regaPdcng providing tmmunlt¥ from tort liability for Individuals ucfllzlnK a medical k~ aboard an elrcratto This letter responds ~o this inquiry. Ne have recently provided our vlewa on a proposal which been Introduced in the Senate e~ S° ~1~. Enclosed loa copy of the report submitted to Chef.an Packwood. ~Ptefly, we bclleve that even i~ It is determined appropriate for the federal ~ovepn- menb to legislate £n this area, we oppose ~uch le~islation s~ it could ~mmunize an atrcra£t operator, owner~ nlr carrier or ~ny their respectcve employees. Such leElslation is in conflict with the established pr£nalple the~ an alp carrier owes 1to passengers the hlghest standard ot care and could result in leaving the pas- senger without any remedy. ~e appreciate the Subso~nlb~ee sollcibtng our views on thic ~seue. ~$nccrel¥, Enclosure ROBERT A. MoCONNELL Assistant Attorney General SIGNED O. Marslmll Oaln &otl~ A~stst~nt Attoruoy Certes1 P~r~-Uaut to 28 C.F.R. §0.132
Page 112: TI07692767
~02 on 3. 31~ m b~l~ ~a once•vaSe ln~llgh~ ~ergene~ care sbolrd Flrst. It ~ould d£rest the YedoraX Avtatlo~ Admt~istr~t~on to • or thetrestmen~ o~ ~n~X~ uedLesl e=er~en~let. ~ • ~on. S. 3~ wou~d ~unlze tappropr~a~e persons" ~Om ~or~ 3eo~lon N of 3. 31k woul~ ~ve the sf~e~ ~ ~unlsi~ from the con~equenoa8 Of .holt own negl£genoe. ~eet/on 5 ez~en~s that t~enit~ to ¢he axe c~rr£er. ~e a£rer~ o~er. and e~ployee~ Of e~the~. Me tht~k the~e SeC~long Ire U~Uly brold. In in 11n* with tho~e ~tates vhloh have "Eoo4 samaritan" type a~sum~ng ~ ~a deemed sdvle~bl* ~or the federal gover~ent leK£elat~ Xn thla area. we ~ee no reason for th£a ~untty to extend to the ~t~ e~Prter or Its enplo~ee~. To do me 11~ In ou~ riot owes ICe passenger& the highest de~ree or ~are. Further- ~oro. euch ~u~ntty would leave ~he ps~eenKer wttho~ a~ remed~ Xn the evan~ of negllge~ cunAunt b~ ~he air carrier OP 68~ ~.2~ I~ __.-.. o~ ~e M~r~w Convert.lea sn ~ascd upon ~ f ~ *..~.r~ DeerS.or owner, a~r c~r~er The Off~ -- ~.-- ~. ~ aubml~e~on of ~h~a rcpo~
Page 113: TI07692768
0 O3 CTION ON SMO. KING AND HEALTH 2013 H SL. N.W. W~il~n~ton D.C. 20008 • (Z02) ~4310 1 • Action os ~nokLn~ 8ml He~zh (~) is protest.s 8~ ~hw ~rren¢ 8~kt~ r~tm~ton -- document aircraf~ is oa the ¢r~ (J2S2.)(b)). the air trwetlt~ ~bl/c ~¢e likely to increase in future ye~e, pollution; ~ (2) bec~ee of chs effect of ~eae t~ ~/nte vtL~ be coneider~ brLt~Iy. (I) DifficuLt7 of clemrL~ the air of tobscco Applications. ~sptzr 9. Aircraft p~e 9.1 a~ 9.2. (~cuuen~ 2) ~he 505 jJ~vever. ASH~AE Standard 62-1981, VenCfLa~Lon for AccepCable ~ ~i&Y (~cu~n~ 3) does ~tstc outd~r air requirements "" --~l" c~m (~ution~ on p~e 7) oc~pi~ by 120 Fer~ requites an ~t 17.~ ll~erm (35 cfm) If ~he~e Lg ~e 81~ustion ie further ezacerba~ by ~he difftcuLti~ o~ ~ of H~LcI~, ~y 28-29+ 198L.
Page 114: TI07692769
~kl~: ~gon[¢ ~m~ructLve ~ D~selle (Hay 23, tge4): tncress~ ~lte of respiratory l~pt~ ~ ¢~lldren: thus P~ntl i~ bronchitis tn earL7 chtLdhoo4, Lancet 2 -cer (t~2}
Page 115: TI07692770
o o~ ~o 5O8 • *c~to. u~erthelesl tontine to euffe~ f~ medou8 physicmL /rrl~atfo~ 509 ~us, 8¢ [ho Heact~ held on ~v~*¢ 9, L983. Hr. C* ~u~d effort to decrelJe ¢he fuel u8~. ~ legatee include flyi~ s( flyt~ p~¢aerl, grsde ~th functions to complete Ll~or a~ ~viz to per fom fogm. ~e loss of m~¢~ is sccepc~ ~* ~rul by ~sC ~lishc
Page 116: TI07692771
510 ~dltlo~l o~ylen I~ required e~d le0~ ~kely ~o ~le~ ~he co~gil~ 2~ ~r~ froa [ll~ht att~nt~ ~ e$~l~ • ~e In ~or h~sl~h. (3) COSCLOSI~S 511
Page 117: TI07692772
512 To .,, A,.ie. H..o...,: C, J' The Civil Aeronlutlc| Board (CAB) his Issu~ miss to pm~ nonlmokem on all cl~lfl~t~ ca~em (Inc~+ Ins cha~ers), and on all ~mmuter II~m~ ~e te~ these ~les Is ~pdnl~ ~low f~r your Under ~e~ law (49 U.8.C. t t 4?1) any v~ls~on these mils may I~d to a fine of 11~ ~r ~mplllnL While we test that you wilt comply wl~ CAB mill, plel~ ~ Idvlled that ASH s~ome~ PROeEC~E f~ real ~mplal~ of role v~latlonm Such SECTIONS hive almaW relu~ In ever 11~,~ fines and other CAB 7/84 TEXT OF CAB RULES PART g52--SMOKING ABOAeD AIRCRAFT ~252J Applicability. This DIll ast-hlishea ruler for the smoking o| iot~¢~:o aboard alrc~fL It applies to all og~relio~ta of d~rect sir carrier& exral)t on-demand serv;cea el sir t~x! operslorl. Nothing In this regulation shall be deemed to requite car. dee to permit the smoking ©! tobacco ~:mrd alrcten. §252.2 No-smokies (s) Exce~ aa provldad by psregr=DIz (h) of this aection, air ¢~rders, when operating a~r~ah des|goad to he~e a passenger caPaHtyo! 30 seats or mare, shill proves It s m[nlrnum: It) A no-smoking re'as for each dies of san~k:a And for charter ~rvk:a; (2) A euh'tcleot r.umf3er o| seers In the no-smoking sections ol the a[tccltt for all perseus who wish to be sealed them: (3) Expansion of no-smoking sections to meal passenger dement, {4) Special provisions to ensure thai i! S noltneldnff e~otlon is between smoking ~;l~on~, the nonsmoklng p~.slengem are not resaonebty b~Jn~ned. (b) On fl;ghls f~" which pe.sng~m may make ¢onflrmsd reaervationa and o¢I whk;h sella am a,,-tgnad before boarding, an Ill clnler need not plaY,de seat in s no-smoking ssdion to z pslaSngsr WhO hie eel mat the c~'der'e reo, uireman| at to time and method af obteinlog a ~ o~ the fll~t~t. Or who does not have a con firmed reservation. II s lest I~ available in the setablbhed no-amoldng ss~tlon, however, s tan'Mr shill Sell there any enplaning ~nger who eo requasl~, regardless el tx~rdlno time or |262.3 Ventilation ~stsm~. (I~ ¢'.,e'l'le~ thai| ~)PI &l~d entice mill l~OhlbRlng the amoklllg i0bacco whenever the ~anlli~tlon r/stem b not tuW funcllootng. Fully lunc~lo~Ing rot thl* ~ r~ssne ogemllng to II to p(ovkla the lave4 qual(lyof vsntllatlon N)~clfledand ck~l~ned byte msn~Mclurer fo¢lha num- ber of l~one currenlly In the pe.-enger compadmsnt. (b) Glrdsm ehall sck)gt and mt~or~ role| pr~l~4tlnO the smoking tobacco whenever Ihe aircraft I= oct the ground, p~pe| slx~rd almrsR. |252.5 ImlS slrcralt. Ca~tlara sh-u sdo~ ~ onforcs rules WOhlb~llng the smoking of Iobacco t2fi2.~l EJch air c~rrklr sh~l like such Icllon as ts necs~la/y io ensure thal amok- lng by pemngsra o~ ~rew I~ no~ pare|tied in nO-amoklng ~-'~|~n~ and to ~mfo:a lla mlea w~th respecl Io lhe b~nnlng o/smokin~ o~ the sewetlon of p"ssengam In ~mokln~ aod no-s~oklng irest EACH VIOLATION IS PUNISHABLE BY I1 ~ i"lt/ll t~¢S~ll "Iv 513 Aldlne Passenger s el • No.smokln,. your flight ~ .-., I Aeronautics Board (CAB) rules guarantee derel I~W aa_o ~,.i .... har ~,hese right~: • ---~,-~ so,ion of any flight inc~ol~g.~,_.~ ~ ttn th tion must b P . • a ~a , n~smoklng se~ kin m AND ~e~evendthe ..... ~ A~D you are lat~ ch~ g ing Is perm =,~- alr-tane Is on the gr~nd, i.lldl el m~-~_ hrouaht tO the ~plain. that the ~ro ~ - rd h~, ttmay b¢ flned$1~- YOU write o~-,, - ~LD ALONG ~EP LINES TO W~LLET SIZE CTION ON SMOKING AND HEALTH ~3 H Striae ~, Washingfon, D.G 20006 d free as a public service by A¢llon on ~,,,u.,,,.. -= -~--~ of nonsmo~m= ~ • --~ 'heir lighting rot rne ,~,~,.. ,he airline n~smoklng rules u.u , enforcemenL ASH also publishes a hi.monthly new~lettel on smoking and nonsmoke~ Hghl& has available a varleW st other educational maledal~ and ~efls sig~& buflon& slickers, et~ ~o help non. smoke~S s~ak ouL To ~o1~ or for luBher Inlo~matlon, write ASH at the ~ddresS above. For addiflonal tree card~ please enclose self-addressed envelops. Contdbutlon~ t~ ASH a~ urgently KEEP THIS CARD IN YOUR WALLET OR PURSE FOR .FUTURE USE. What You Can Do To Help P~ot~'t Nonsmoker= • know your rights as ~n ~ifllne passenger, and Insist on them • file formal complaints if you are denied your rights = advise other passengers of their rights" end enc°urage them to file complaints about violations • pass out these cards to other nonsmokers • ~otn a~d support ASH and Ic~al antismoklng groups • use signs, buttons, eta to speak out. • help enlorce existing no-smoking laws wherever they exist • write legislators end other officials (or more such |aw8
Page 118: TI07692773
514 ASHRAE HANDBOOK 1982 APPLICATIONS AM£RICAN ~OCIETY OF H~TING. AND 17~1 TULLIE CIRCLE. HE, ~ANTA,GA 515 9.1 d~fi~ ~uI~l. ~e ~t transf~ Jtudy ~ould ~hlld~ ~aft ~ur~ ~ film ~ffi~ts v~ with dtitud~ and ~ P~ ~¢ U~ ~Oa of ~e f~t ~t~ white aid wh~h~ lr~ ~d~ ~d c~l~ I h tO h pr~d~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~don and ~tthd o~ rosy be Hl~ ~e bl~ ~ ~ c~l sdv~ tog pl~uflz,
Page 119: TI07692774
516 517 k~ll • I~ovkilld rot an iixplilc cq+'t pl~'4 wilh in mr~clc slll~ by ~ p~ u~l. ~uaHy z I~ turbine C~llOe, to supply ~ mfnlmdi o~+ I~nl from li m ILl am ~ow ~ ~ccomw~. SlnCi l£c ~dd~ of ~
Page 120: TI07692775
518 519 9.5 ::l::l:i! ~! i i;ii / :i..,,: " "~ ~C l UIus~ a ~1 mb~ pr~ure ~k~ff, ~ t~ fa~cn ~1 t~. Th~ muir ~ ~it ¢~t¢~ tO ~n~ I ~um ~bln al~t~ If ~ m~ o~ ¢~11 fl I ~ ~i ~1 C~il* ~1 I~ @~ ~ 0~ ~ ~0 L~ I1~ In w~ II ~ I~
Page 121: TI07692776
520 521 Idiot tO I~ wall trim L
Page 122: TI07692777
522 523 ~~ ,3 ..... ASH RA E 62-1981 Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality
Page 123: TI07692778
524 51111,~ SecI~ I,IA 525
Page 124: TI07692779
526 527
Page 125: TI07692780
08LZ'89/_011 EXH OlHl'll AIR CLE/t~R LOCATION -'-I I~ (m,~eup "--l_-P-L JIITEIINA'IE PATHS FOIl ilEC|RCULATEIi AIR EXIST Figure I. VenUlitlon Syltil
Page 126: TI07692781
53O ~h~ common ~l~ [ram currmt Hnc~ and n.nt noc I~ ex~ure minis|ri[ionn. For appllc/liml Io ex~ I/I0 of Ihe ~mJls w~ ~¢ ~ui~. ~i~ a c~blc ex~d~ t~ ~m ~nb my ~lai~ inf~d~ On sh~ld ~ ~al~t~ mini I~ ~niti~ ~ ~li~ ~. I. ~.1.~ ~d~ Air T~t~. ~nm~t [~ ~c~ the v~ ~v~
Page 127: TI07692782
" III li II I II J I m | I I • - ~0 532
Page 128: TI07692783
Page 129: TI07692784
536 vcnl|l~ttmt I'etes. wh;ch may be .~Jk:u~at~l by a mcth~ m~ by ~ d~ner, The ¢fr~tiv¢.~ 6.Z [N~ ~IR QUALI~ • ~nt~la~ion~tepr~cdurcd~ib~above~z~ to plovl~e ~cp~ab~c indoor air quality, i~o/~to. ~cver- I)lel~, that p~cd~r¢, ~hrouih quJr~ ~tnDla~Jon ral~, ~rov~es on[y air quali[y p~oocdut©, d~ilx:d Mow, plavide= lu~e. fin~ [~ create no[~ble ~omaminan~. It in~t bmh obj~v¢ m~ureme~ a~ ~ubjc;tiv~ ~va~uadOn~ i~l Obj~ll~ ~en~ Tabl~ I ~ 2 fur- ~ In~ormdon on a~t~ble confront ~ ~ outd~r sir. ~ tabl~ ~ zpply i~ [~ ~ Jnforma~ on ¢onla~. by zhc bui~nB i~f ~d i~ conl~. E~m~ t~de ~b~¢~ ~z, radon g~, ~ vz~ of fo~m~deh~e IOO 1 0.1 0.5 1,0 H01JR$ PEI~H]SS[ 6LE LAG 0.5 10.0 F|gOre 2. Haxt,,tm Pen~Jsstble Yent|latlon Lag Time ,~.~H ~E ~rANDARD ~,t.l~l lOO 1 o.1 F'l~lre 3. O.S O.S !.0 5.0 10.0 REQUIRED L£AI) 7]HE Hln~w~m Ventilation T~e Requfred Before Occupancy of Spac~ ASHRAE STANDARD
Page 130: TI07692785
TA~t~4 ~£CT~D G~ID~UN ~ ~O~ A|R CONTAMINANTS Ih, di'olill.,ml, 0~--0 IO~l,Vm) Co~in~ P',wr~d--O It a4oq I).O| W~rk|M Levd (WL) An~t~ iV~l|e W.G~rmn--4 ~mdllm~d o.a~. O.I)GSWLL nose, or tht~l. In an Ib~ Of ~j~ive mm~ to u |~s the i~mb~|ity of such cont~i~nu, t~ juds- m~l o( ~cFtabilI~y m~l ~y ~v¢ ft~ su~ co~id~ a~bly fr~ of ~no~ ~u If ~ of • p~ of ~t I~st ~ um~n~ o~m ~ the air to ~ n~ cbj~o~blz und~ r~mttve ~, "diti~ o( ~e and ~. An ~ ~ ~a Icndn a judlm~l of i~Wlabilill within D ~, ~ch ~i~ sh~ld make Ihe ~ui~en In~. dently o( o~ n~en and withal l~fl~c (r~ • ~HR~ S~nd~d ~.7] (ANSI D I~.I-I~, Am~n ~SHRAE ~T~HDA~D 62 ' ~ ~39
Page 131: TI07692786
Page 132: TI07692787
0 O~ ASHR,~.E ST~.NDAAD 62.1~1
Page 133: TI07692788
POLICY STATEMENT DEFINING ASHRAE~ CONCERN FORTHE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF iTS ACIIVlTIF..i A~IRA[ le ¢oncim~l wllh the Imilacll of its mim~ti' ~ctlvlilis on lloth llm lnd~4, wl4 out- v~hlli rnul~lilng till beneficial effe¢~ wllicrl ~ uyliima ~ Go~ulai~t with the ~SH P~E*i ahen41n~ go~ Is to tnturl that the ayltml ~nd ¢om~ wight HlIcage do "~llv 545 ~NATIONAL DuSINESS AI IICRAFT ASSOCIATION, INC. One Farralut Square South washington, D.C. 20006 (202) STATEttEHT OF THE tIATIONAL DUSIHE$S AIRCRAFT ^SSOOIATIOltl lllC. AUGUST 16, 1984
Page 134: TI07692789
~46 aircraft in the no~l conduct of their huslness transparCaClon. Ve our re~arks to ~he /~ct these ~eacures ~ould ~ve On bUSiO~S aviation operational envlron~n~. t~ has ~aken over the year~ In the aviatl~ safe~ area. This series role. ge areconcezned~ ~wever. that ~y of t~e measures contemplated increase safety In all vpers~tons ~htle placZn8 undue burde~ on others, federal Aviation Reaulations (1~ G~) and in these b£1]~, co~rctal .eces~arlly tnc]uJesvha~ the general public thinks of as an '~lrline", those pact 121 o| thR YAR's. as ~ell as s~ller air tax[ operations typlcally . flights~ aerial application and the like are all correctly "e0~crcial" operations. ~ rcc~nized in ho~h the certiflcate~ Under vhich the~o operators fly as well asthe equipment used. the~e operations are very different. Further, F~J.'s regu~atio~s go~erning certification rcco~nize the difference, These rules, found aC 1~ CFR 23 fo~ ~mall airplanes and 1~ CFK 25 for ~an~port ~cegory atrp]anes, establish the mt~i=~ standard~ for certification of ser~ces offered to the general publlc as ueXl as t~ overall sad size of ~he ~i~c~aft flo~. 1~terestin~ly. ~ny T~anspor~ Category atrcraf~ are not designed for airline service, bu~ are regularly U~ed i~ totally prlvaZe. ~o~-fo~-h£~e o~e~a~Lons. Thu~, ~o require all T~ausport ~egory alrc~afU ¢o cosply u~h a rule ~,~ended for alrcrafe of a airline v~ld no~ be in,he beoc inte~e;c of safe~y nor compliance. AI~o. ~he gever~e i~ erua. Hany aircraft u~ed in ai~ tran~porea~ton are not certificated ~n the Tra~s~o~ Cate~o~. ~y rule~aking aifectin~ the laceee vould, by definition, exe~p~ operator~ of s~ller aircraft. The is~u~ i~ one of sa~e~y coup3ed ~it~ ~ea~o~ahle rules vhich eu~ble the operu~ar to readily c~ply. By ray of Illustration, ~e poin~ to the re~ulacion requ~rtn~ a d~ed ai~crafe. Congress ha~tlXy required the inatatla~ion of these ~ as e~ergency ]ocato~ transmitters (EL~o) uichout eoualderioE either reliability of the d~vices noc e~e ab~gy of authorities to adequately ~0~itOr a~propria~e [requenctes to Xocate ~e aircraft. ~, m~e than a decode
Page 135: TI07692790
5,/8 problems still exlst vlth ELT use ~d efforts mrs stilt undervay to remedy the ~alse a]sr~ and premature appllcatlon of teehno2oBy ~reclpltsted by that la~. Nith that in mind, ve wish to oiler specific coa~e, nts on those .varlou~"b111s. So 197 calls for a study to he undertaken by the Hatless1 Academy of ~elences, The study vould concentrate on, among other thlnBs, cabin air que|ity, fire eXtlngulnhlng equipment end practices rela¢Ing to cabin pressurl~stton. All of these subjects are to be studlsd from the standpoint of the "civll c0~erelal aircraft." ~I~ all-enco~passln~ te~ Inelude~ hellcopter~, unpre~surlzed alrplane~, alrcra[~ on ~h~ch the Clv~1 ~oard has prohlblte~ ~:ok~n~, an~ alrer~c ~hlch do no~ car~ lavatorles. ~ep~e~urlza[[on. In ~he~e ai[craf~, flo~ tn ~he lo~e~ altitudes ~d on sta~e ~engtho, c0bin air quality i= not as critical, nor subject to ~ay be a~rbor~e tar ~ubs~ant~al ti~ perlods. Consequently. we th=L an7 study called for under tbls h111 would take these factors ~elI ~ccount and sugses~ that appropriate ]eB~la~tve language be developed ~hlch confines the ~cudy tO the cpeclftc p[obl~ ~he comlttee wlsh~ to addre~e. II.A. J333 has the sa~ ~enoral theft ae S. 197 except tha~ the F~ organlza~o~ to perform ~he air quality study. Consequently, our c~ente on S, 197 u~uld a~ply ~o H.R. 1333 vlth the further co~ent tha~ the Hat,anal Academy o~ $clence~ mIgh~ be be~ter prepared to undez~akt a study at this type. H.R. 208~. H.R. 21~2 and H,R. 2636 are ~4entlcal In requlr~ng a~equate ~edlcal supplies to be carried aboard alrcraf~ of 30 ~eata or more to pr~Id~ (or the treatment of In-fllght emergency ~11ne~ses. ~e ~a~ure~ Be ~ur~her to relieve fro~ ]labllley any health pro~essio~als volunteering co ass/st ~n 5~ch an emergency. ~e feel the goal o~ cheoe measure~ Is s~lrable ~n~ ~49 hope that the'changes to current practices they envision con be implemented H.~. 3264 would require s~oke dotector~ end automatic flro exttngui~hln8 equlp~ent to be In, tailed in the lavatorlen and food prepnr0tlon areas of all aircraft with 30 seats or more~hlch are engaged in elf tran~portation ef persons or intrastate si~ transportation of person~. ~© feel n~oke detectors are necessary, but question the ulsdom of requlrln~ outo~tlc equipment to discharge ~ny extXngs/shant into a pascenger co.part,est. ~hls ltself could create ~ore proble~ than It uould ~olve. In n~aller a£rcrnft, even if they are equipped w£~h lavato~Ic= ~nd/or galleyo, she ~lee of she cnbln itself ~kes the outbreak of say fire easily recognizable to the f]ight crc~ as there are no~ likely co be physical barriers between coBpa~t~u~s. ~us, ~e concur the genera] thru~t o£ ~hts measure vtth the exception of the requlremen~ for automa~ic fire extinguishing oyotc~, ~htch ~ould be nero appropriate £f applied to aircraft in excess o~ 75,000 pounds gross H.~. 3793 is, In our oleo, unnecessarily ovc~broad, I~ ~uld require each alrcraf~ opera,in8 tn air ~an~po~ta~ton Lo be equipped ~t~h s extingut~htn8 ~y~em ~o extinguish and p~evcn~ in-flight ~d post-craeh fires. l~ vould also ~equt~e '~e~ly bu£Z~ aircraft" ~o~ equXpped rich al1 available ~ire preventing technology. ~e~uld ~.b~ ~ha~ ~hia leveI o~ Is not needed nor dest~ed. ~e Federal Aviation Act o£ 1958 (49 USC 1301) defines air transportation as "Interstate. overseas, or foreign ai~ " .... the carriage of per~on~ or propv~y as a co~n carrie~ for or h~re .... " By applyln8 thc=e requirements to all atrcraE~ opera, InS ~u such carx]age~ ~ngreas uould be site=piing to addrea~ a problem ~hich doeo not Hany a~craft operated In a£~ transportation a~ ~lngle or t~ln p~on
Page 136: TI07692791
which the crew eita. Addtttanally, these aircraft do not, as a rule, equipped ~Itb lavatorles nor galleys. Consequent/y, apFlylng scandardo designed For a Boeing 72? co a Piper Seneca would be to effectively prevent the latter from serving its vl~a~ role in air traooportatlou this country as the weight and conplexlty of the reoultant alrfra~e would preclude ICe effle|en~ and cest-effee~Ivo uua." $1ul]nrly, ve feel it ~ould he luprudeut to require an auto,nile flre eXtlngulohlng ayatem in the cabin, espeelallyone using Ilalon 1301 cxtingulshant. This eubstance hsa been shown to be toxic and in the a~ll volume area such ao the eabln of an air taxi slrcraft ~ou~d prove to be ve question ~ba wlodom of requiring s£ire extlngulshennt syate~ ~orpost- crash fLres~ e~peclelly on smaller aircraft. The system's ~el~bt and co=plexlty would adversely affect efficiency end could hamper agrees in the case of pool-crash discharge of the ~y~tem ~nco the cabin. A further concern le the requirement tha~ "all ne~[ybuilt aircraft b~ cqulppcd vltb soc~ tech~ology~ Strlctly appl~ed~ this phrase uould l~cludc hcl~copters, gliders, ho~ebu~It elrcraft and llghter-than-alr craft. ~e ace certain it is nnC the intent of ~On~rcaa to apply such roles to thane a~rtraft and ask ~hat appropriate changes be made in the relevan~ l~nguagc. In sun, We feel that the goals expreused in chiO laeanure are but their application to everyday operations is izpractical. aug&eat re-wordlng the hill to apply 1to pr0vlsl0~s to compartments aircraft normally ~acces£ble in flight as veil as only to aircrof~ in exce~e of 75,000 po~ndu. 551 B.R. 5~2g would require alrcraf¢ operated by ~ir carriers to install certain pasoivc and cuer£ency cquipnent co gourd against the outbreak of cabin £~re~ while airborne ~d terprovc the~eas~ b~ uhleh cre~members are to CO~bSt such fires, The co,onto ~e~ake obove regard£n~ H.R. 379~ ~I~o apply co this measure. ~e ~trcr~fc vlth 30 o~ =ore ~eats ~hould be lncludcd lu the blll. H.R. 5~28 ~ul~ require tba~ all co~vrc~al a~rcrafC or :ore car~ 11~e ve~c; meet£ng F~ standards. We no~e tha~ cu~reu~ly app~ved llfe vest~ are~dlocre ac be~C a~d Cha~ l~prove~e~ i~ needed. H~ vests ar~ dlfficulc co don ~hile coated and do not preclude pre~aturn before sa~ely returning to Nia:~ as ~nstruct~ve on the ~ny problc~ surroundin~ u~e of current ~o~ation equipment. Ho~ever~ r~qulre~e,~ that all ~ueh ~IrcraF~ carry the v~ £s unnecessary ~n our vle~. A~rcr~t operated exclusively over 1=~d areas should not be required to car~y such ve~ts. ~i~ requ~re~en~ ~hculd, ho~ver~ be to any aircraft operating over a body of open ~a~er, contrary co existing In the safety of those uho travel by air can and ~hould be ~de. To do ot~ise ~ould be a deft]teflon o~ the duty o~ed the public by both the Industry and by Congress. H~eve¢, a headlonK ~ush to ~re regulation without ten.ideate8 the dtrcc¢ applicability of certain equ£p~eu~ tequireaeuto ~ould be ~forCunaCe. ~etther do we agree tha~ F~ ohould be left ~o it~ o~ deviee~ and schedule for l=ple~ntln A cea~oaed, but forceful, ~ea~ured, buC ~£~ly ~pp~oach
Page 137: TI07692792
552 the public be unwittlnBly endansered end operators be unduly burdened. ~Ios|ly. we note that some carrrlers, notably Pan Am. have an operator cxeeedlng mlni~um standards required by the FAA, Such u~ou|d he encouraged through, perhaps, appropriate tax incentives tho~n operatoru who ~cek to luprove the safety of the~ alrcra£t above and beyond ~he ~Inlc~t~ leve]~ zequlred by the Federal government. ~e thank you, Nr. Chairman, and the 5ubco~It~ee. ~or the opportunity to ~ubsde. ~hi~ ~tnte~nc end ~tand ready to aes~s~ in any ray to achieve Chose • utual ~oala. Coalition on Smoking OR Health NATIONAL INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON SMOKING AND 1302 Eighleenlh Street, N.W, Suite ~03. Washl~Glon, ~'.~. AuBu~t 9. 1986 the Honorable Norman H1nete SubcomnlCtee on Aviation Cu~itcee on Public ~orks and Tran~porcaclon Nashlng~on, P,C. 20515 Aces: David Traynham Dear Mr. Chalr~n~ CoalXtlon on S~klng OR Health. supports ~enator ]nouye*~ S.197 and ~he oeed for an l~depen~cn~ ~udF o~ ~Ir quality aboard ~omnr~lal We particul~rl~ co~nd ¢o you ~.~97's req~tr~cn¢ tha~ the lndeg~ndent study be pe¢fo~ by the ~at¢onal ~ade~ o~ ~eiencea, a highly independent and professional orgaa£~atlon. ~l therefore urge Vou c~ mark up and report S.197 out of co~1ttee £~ a~ aSg ~k you ve~ much for your attention and ~ntereo¢ In ~ha ~v~d B. "~ D~/~d
Page 138: TI07692793
Page 139: TI07692794
Children, however, are not atone in risktr~ harm from other~ o~rette smoke, Pa~en~ ~ crew aboard ~ommercla~ a~r~ft ~e ~Ise~ in a ~Itl~ which them more ~er~ble to, and le~ shie to ~ from, ~ ~rmful effee~ of pa~[ve c~([ncmcnt with oth~ indivJd~a~ th~ ab~ comm~lat =ircra~t, Given ~st the vast ms~[ty of Americans are nonsmok~s~ t~t ~svel by a~ ~s b~ome s major mea~ • lrplane~ the ne~ for ~et]~ Io protect ~m~e~ an~ to fully examine the qusllty air ~o~rd commercial aircraft Is A~ observed by the Civil A~on~ulies B~ In J~ recent ru]em~i~ pr~edure ~o~tn~ aboard airerafl~ however, there ~ wide~d cancan that air q~ality pa~enger cabins o~ ~mestic aircrs[~ ls Insdeq~t~. ~hen sm~i~ i~ petmlt~ a~r q~ality quickly beeom~ ~ae~eptsble, The a~r eircu}all~ Jn ~ airline pa~enger c~bln ~ far ]e~ th~n ~eng~s ~tten~znts are aecustom~ to ~ the gr~. While 40 to SO e~le feet of fresh air per parian per minute is a minimum health ~ ~ety szan~a~ r~lz~ by m~y expert~ the ~e~er cabin often ~s z fr~h air ~ly f~ ~low th~ ]~wL In t~tlm~ before this Committe's Inv~tigatlo~ and ~crsi~t ~ommittee ~e y~r ago, Bertll ~Vcrjetelt, President o~ the X~e~ C~porzti~ which ~s rese~eh a~ derailment wwk in ener~ conversion syslem~, stated: feet o[ [re~ air per person per mi~te. At the ~me time the fre~ air tcntilatio, rote in the pus~er esbin o[ sn alrcrstt may be below 7 ree~ni~ed t~l 40 to {0 e~i= fe~t o{ r~h air p~ person p~ minute is u. apprepriuze minimum to provide t~ z minimum ~fety health 5lGn~B~ in the conrin~ a~M crowd~ envir~menl o~ ~ airline cabin. A lesser ~resh ~ir ventilation .re c~i~rsbly I~.ses the ri~k of tra~mls~t~ o~ contains dis~ ~e very tow (r~h air ventilsti~ rotes in the pa~e.~er cabin has r~ulted in. ~)stan~l increase in virus, b~eterla~ fun~s a~ other mic~ganisms in the cabin air. Dr. ~erjefeWs comments concern the quality of air reaehlr, g ell o|rtlne pa~engers and per~el. When the .e~ of e~eclally susc~tible perso~ are taken I~to ~nslderat[~. t~ pr~lem of assuri~ adequate air q~mllty ~ exacerbated. ~e ~]~Jve~y low humldity.(~roxlmately ~0~) o~ th~ ~l~rut{ ~bin contributes io t~ smell.-related Irritation experJ~ee4 by ~e nonsmoker. A dry atm~phere ex~cerb~te~ the irritat[~ of the mue~= membta~ l[ni~ ~o the sinuses ~nd u~er re~plr~toN ~stem. ~ e£feet is parZi~lsrly pronounced for per~o~ with aUer~ re~irato~ In,action and ehr~le ~lmonary disease. (3ohns~ s~ Hon~e, ~ ~rvices E~ineerlng. 19T6; 48: 2S(-~62; Su~eon Gener~'s ~e~t ~ Smoktn~ ~ 19T9, [1: 26-~T). ~e size of this ~ceptlble p~pul~tlon Is substsntl~[, with estimal~ that ~0 percent o£ Ihe ~]ati~ suffers £rom a chro~le ~]monary ~ ~dition. ~ oddt~on~ there ~e ~ estimat~ ~ mi~ion Ameriee~ who ~rc sensitive to t~aeeo smoke ~nd suffer smoke-cau~ ~sthma In a recent slu~ cz~e toxicity-type symptoms {e.g. ~or~e~ of brea~ chest altitudes. (Re~d, D., e~ el, American ~ournal of ~duslrlal Med{e~% I~811 I~ Significantly, thee s~mploms are ass~iated d~reetly with rll~h~ ~rstlon~ nltltude l}pe o~ ~irer~t~ bu~ not with ~e number at y~r~ work~ s~x~ m~eal hls~ory or h~me residene~ ~ exposure to ozone, another [rrll~nt to the respiratory mueo~ ~embr~e, ~y al~o create In some indivi~a~ ~ enhanced sensltivfly to ~cco smoke irrit~ts ~he h~ altlt~Oe slrcra~t environment. Certainly thoseperso~ snd others should be ~otected from the health rl~s oC exposure ~o I~a~o smoke when Iravclin~. In summary~ ~lr, C~lrm~n, the C~lltion ~ ~mo~h~g Oil Ite~lth ~eiievcs that the ~slity o( uir abo,rd commercial aircraft is s.ffieiently inudequote ~or Congress t0 to ~tler proteel the heallh of sm~ a~ no~moke~ alike. We commend you t~ ~liely ex~lori~ ibis ~roblem. l~e RI~ commend 5rotator Inouye Cot hl~ ~po,~orshtp ~.IgT~ m~d u~ y~r prompt e~rovei o~ his bill.
Page 140: TI07692795
STAIEHF.NT OF CO~GR£SSHAN FERNAND J. ST GERtIA]N BEFORE THE AVIATIO~ SU~COt4HITTEEo ~LY 26, 19,B4, CONCERNING H.R. 214~, THE "I~FLIGHT ~EDICAL EHERGENCIES ACTq. Hr. Chairman, ! em p|eased to h~ve the opportunity to bring my concerns to the attention of?our A]rline safety is of 9r~ln~ concern. Since airline deregulation and the air traffic cont~llers' strike, the a)r traffic con~ro) sys~ ts over-tax*d and mny experts ape afraid that a ~Jor accident Inevitable. Or course~ this p~b]~ Is or m~or concern and ~ ~pe t~ will be fully consider~ and a solution found before a tragedy occurs. The b111 ~ have ]ntroduc~, H.R. 2]42, a~resses a probl~re limited tn scope, but much simpler to solve. Each year approx~mtely 1~ individuals die on board aircraft f~ mergenc? which could eas~ly be treated ff a ~ern ~rgenc?~d~cal k~t were ava]]able~ Often doctors a~ aboard the? had proper equ]~nt. ~ iegtslaLion~u]d require that supplies and equl~nt to treat ~ergencJe~ such as h~P¢ attac~s~ severe alle~91c resctfons, seizures, dfabetlc c~S, choking, and bleedtng be carrl~ on alrcraft of thtrty seats orate. Currently, alrllnes are requtr~ to carw only the sa~ ~ergenw ~d]cal kit wh]ch thorpe r~u]r~ to carr? 60 ?ears ago, a kit which Inc]ude~ only bandages, splints, cotton smbs, and s~ll~ng salts. E~endably, s~ atrllnes have mdern]z~ their ~fts to s~e extent. However, a standard s~ld be established to assure that ~rgenc? trea~t is available to all passengers. T~ estt~ted cost fop a klt such as that descrtb~ In H.R. E1~2 559 Our advances in both air travel and in medicine are a~ztng. Thousands of people are safely transported by air every day. It can berathec unsettling to imagiAe all the things, which could go ~rong in such a highly artificial environment as an airliner. It is foolhardy not to take every precaution a~d h~ye ayeS]able thor host up-to-date equipment to cope with emergencies which may arise. Our aircraft have improved vastly since igg4; the medical kit carried on the aircraft should reflect the advances n~de in medicine since that time. persona}ly, as one who flies several times almost every week of the year, ]" appreciate the SubconmitLee's consideration of airline salary, and hope that the proposals which are brought forward wlll be thoroughly analyzed with passenger safely being given the highest priority.
Page 141: TI07692796
~: UNIVF-~SITY OF 561 /~ouston. X vould like ~o ~bank the ~l~ra of the Subco~l~tee on Aviation fOr aILo~in6 me the oppo~unlt¥ ~o provide ~e~i~ony ~e~a~d~n~ ~ho ~orL~ of t~ proposed s~udy, of aL~ccaft cabLn air qualt~y ~htch v0uld ~ required by Se~e Dill 3.I~7. Ny are~ of puo~e~ona~ ~n~c~c0~ include ~easu~omcn~8 e~v~o~al conCa~Inants, Industrial hygiene, and a~oes~en~ of ~x~ure to a~= ~llutant~. Dur~n8 ~he last four ~eara ~nvo~ved ~n three separate re~earcb ~budlea conccYn~n~ the characteriza~Lon o~ ~ndoar air quali£y tn ~es~dence~ and ~he a~ses~men~ o~ eX~u~e~ ~o f~doo~ ~ concur uLth the opinion of D~. Ch;~lee Billings and o~hers expcesscd duTieS the 1982 Senate hcartr~ on ~,1770 that ~he~e is an almos~ co.plate back of available and ~elinble data concernin~ ~he charac~er~zation and po~enClal human health effects of the al~ quality lnsld0 commercial Jet el~.t~ated tf suoh a data base existed. X~ ts dif~cult for me to appreciate the position taken by the F~ ~nd the AT~ ~ha~ further s~ud~ is no1 ne~ss~. ~ absence of dx~a Ln~cxt~n8 a p~oble~ ~i~h a~rlino rabid at~ quality is ~t very convlncinZ ~hen due to the absence Of any tetevan~ data at all, A ~{milar ai~ua~ion exieted about fifteen years a~o~ vh0n ale pollution
Page 142: TI07692797
562 ~ec~n~ate ~ere convinced th•t th~ ~ndoo~ cnv~n~cnt ~as un~vers~ll~ and v~r~ety O~ air contaminants inside ut~ctu~eu ~y ~ ~uch cteat~t than Cho~a ~easu~ed ~ the outzld~ ~bfen~ a~. ~ource~ o~ elevated concentratton~ O~ ~ll~taut~ ~ndoo~s ~nolude~ combustion processes~ such a~ cooking, oE bu~ld~n~ ~abecial~ nnd fu~tshl~. Sour~ gacCors~y ~ further e~an~d It sec~s reasonable to exl~ct that the ~ethod= and approaches u~ed in 0valuating ai~ quallty In homes and offlces vould be app1~cable to a~llner ~abLns. ~hoce as • variety of portable au~ eontLnuous or LnCescatLve ~on~tor~n~ equ~cnt that uould b~ appropriate ~o~ such reconv~ndcd that a oomp~c~sLve a~ ~n~tar~n8 stay ~e~e~entaCtve s~ple o£ c~erc~al Je¢ a~e. A~ the s~e be i~r~anC ~o obtain health res~n~e data f~om fl~8~t attend~nt~ ~nd/or paS~euEe~s - by ~ans of questio~aire~, diat~es~ l~u8 function c~b~n air quality and tea e~fects ~ su~er o£ 1~82. I ~s a~ked b~ the Association ~ Flt~ht Attendant3 to critically re~e~ the re~t of this Fo~s:s of~Y c~ltique of this ~he Untied Airlines study repo=t revealed ssttoua deflelenctea in throe ~o~ ~ ~li~ st~ate~ ~n~tot~n~ ~h0dolo~. and ~n~e~p~e~a~n of ds~S. ~s lnten~ of t~e s~dy ~as ~ ~ell fo~ed. ~e ~pltn~ dcs~ ~s ~pl~n~ ~as not representative ~nd the selection of ~11~t~nt~ to ~ ~nttored ~ ~t adequately Ju~fted. I:~r~ant ~e=~rat and a~tat =s~cts of ai~ ~pltn~ ~e~e not considered. ~4oSr, of the ~ontco=t~ =eChods employe~ ~ere ~napproprlate fo~ sampl£~8 an unc~acte~zed d~c env~ro~on~. S~ve~al ~thods dLd no~ pcov~d~ xdeq~Ce Sensit~vitY* ~e effec~ of the ext~e~y lo~ relative h~tdkt~cs t~cc~a~e ~nfo~on conce~ntnz ~pl~nZ devices and an~ly~c~ opiated frequently ~n the ~e~t. Hany ~e~te~ ~e~ul~ vote actually ~es~ t~n the establ£ahed lo~ detect~on~ limits of the ~thods. Dat~ t~eonststent u~th stac~ ~pl~n~ con~t~ons ~e~e also ob~e~ed, ~ohless uith the interpretation of the data p~odu0ed t~ thl~ study 80 teyond the ole~ failure of •ssu~tn~ vall~ and representative ~eeul~s. l~ evaluat~n& the effects n£ the ~a~ured a~r quality~ only oc~upatlnUXl standards ~eKe cons•deled. It ~s enU~e~y ~napp~op~a~e to evaluate ~ssenso~ ex~su~e~ ~ tom,risen to occupational s~a~dards. ~oauso of differences ~t~een ~o~k~n8 ~coups and the 8ChOral ~p~la~on. ~e pan,onset ~pulaC~on
Page 143: TI07692798
~7 contain persona 'Jha ~7 I~ mo~'e sus~epttbte t~ t~ zve~aEe ~c ~0 the effects of a~ ~o ~c~cv~n~ £PA ~blenC s~ s~audards ~e~aln a n~ o~ ~asuYe~n~s nea~, or exceodtng~ ~hese Altheush c18ax:ette smoke la an obvious ~ajor sourc~ of air pollution ~e~o ~tenttal t~n~8 f~: ~ob~cco ~n~st~on. ~e re~t'S atte~p~ to char~c~o=tze cigarette s~ke as ~nu~s~nce~ ~r~la~es ~s ~sleadln~. ~e~e la =n abundance of sc~on~f~e ~Lte~u~ :~es~t~ to t~ fac~ ~ ct~re~e s~ke is no~ biologically tne~C. Acute ex~u~s a~ k~ to elicit lrr~a~on of ~e ~ucous ~branes. allergic ~es~nses, and agg~va~on of as~a~ a~n~ o~ber effects. Chronic ~es~n~e~ to ex~sure ~y include ai~raft ~s @ serious health ~nce~ de~ ca~efu~ a~ent~on and ~egard to t~e characterization and effects Of airliner cabin and b~hav~or of a~ ~oilu~an~s In~tde con~erclal Jet ai~c~af~ should t~ undertaken. At the ss~e tint appropriate h~an ~es~ns~ data ~hould ~ obtained, ~n o~de~ ~0 investigate ~s~ble a~aoo~atian~ ~t~on ex~u~c~ arid adverse health effectS. ~pproprla~e ~echntquee have been developed to neasu~e pollutants in a vs~kety of indoor envtron~en~s,--Thc~e sa~e ~et~od~ racy be u~ed co characterize rue ~ethodology, and ~ntegp~e~at~on o~ data.
Page 144: TI07692799
I.U.F.A. The llonorable Norman ~tneta, Chairman Subcommittee on Aviation 2165 gayburn House Of£1ce Bulldlng Washington. D.C. 20515 Deer Congressman Enclosed is written testimony ~htch we would llke to have included In upcoming hearings regarding S. 197. Senator Tnouye hos requested chat ~ £orvsrd the material to youT uttenttono We ore delighted that you have 8ivan your support to the House version of thi~ bilX, and will be happy to assSst in ~ny way vo are able. cc; Executive CommSt~ee 56"/ HOUSE COHHITTEE ON PUBLIC RORKS AgD TRAHSPORTATIOH SUBCOHHITTEE ON AVIATION Hy name is Lisa Yules. I am the Director of Health nnd Safety of the Independent Union of Flight Attendants, We are 8ratified to be able to have the opportunity to present..a..stateme~ today in support of Senate Dill 197. Since the Deregulation Act was passed, and coincidentalIy the price for aviation fuel Utook off,u air carriern have been hard pressed to find methods of effectln8 coat- savin8 procedures. ~hether in ~a~ketlng and ~nles (addle8 to existing seatin8 capacity and lo~erin8 sir fareo) or in flight operations (flying at higher altltude~ up to ~5,000 feet, reducing the weight of ntrcraft by removal of non-essential 1tess, reducing quantity o£ fuel carried, and reducin8 usage of to-flight air conditioning packs -- all desSgned to reduce the amount of fuel consuaed), air carrlers are under pressure to turn a profit. The bottom-llne in all decisions appears to be. "Is it cost-effective? Can we save money? Can ve get out of the red and into the black?u ~hat has resulted in the ~ake of our Airline ~eregulation Ace is EXTREHE pressure on air carrier corporseions to succeed individually.
Page 145: TI07692800
This preesare on each air carrier has, simultaneously, placed pressure upon the Federal Aviation AdmSnistration to"prnmote aviation,~ that is, to help each Individual carrier to finenctall~ survive. The Federal Aviation Act of |958, in providing for the establishment of the FA~, unfortunately appeared to empower that agency ~ith a doublo rosponsibtlity, (l) that of enhancing aviation safety, and (2) thac o£ promoting the aviation industry. Our union ~eel~ strongly that the tun responsibilities cannot coexis~ ~tthin the same agency v~thout n severe conpro~tse of one eonsideratloe over the o~her, based on existing realitioGo Ve m~in~ain that t~o separate agencie~ must be ~ndivtdually responsible, else the FA~ ~hall continue co be causht in ~hnt con only be defined as a Catch-22 ~ituatlon. ~het is happening, in our aircraft cabins, ~s a direct result thl~ reluctance on the part of the ~AA to act in favor of bona fide health concerns. The question of ozone is on excellent example of FAA~a seeming reluctance to initiate action. ~lth the intro- ducti0n of lanier-range, higher altitude a£rcra£t, the ~oeing 7&7Sp, came an unexpected and unwelcome visitor into alrcraft cabln~o It appears that at yerious tlmen ~69 during the year. ozone tends to descend in altitude and form clusters, or ~i~er~, in the northern lntitudeu -- particularly near the polar region, The ?~TSP. In~ro- dated in 1976. began to routinely fly vhat were termed "polar flights," ~nto these concentrate~ ozone clu~ters, ~aey o~ the~e flights routluely fle~ above ~0,000 feet~ higher than the usual sltltude of 25,000 to 35.000 feet for o~her alrcraf~ ~ypes. Again. flylng higher ~as found ~o be a cost-saving procedure, s1~owing Ear lower fuel consumption. The manufacturers o[ ~he SST foresaw the need for ozone destruction beEore outside air became cabin air. and ello~ed for thlo by using high engine heat in treating that alr. To our knowledge. 5ST trnvelern have not experi- enced any pronounced edveree efEecta. Flight atCendanta ~ere the First Co notice adverse =ymptoms, Some of them ~ere quite severe, 9uch has chest paln~, cou~hln~ up Small amounts o£ blood, aevere eye irritation, nausea, dizziness, and burning sensntion £n the nose and throat. ~any fllgh~ attendnnta ~ere quite frightened by these new and nnexp~ ined symptoms they begnn to experience in Stoups. Piloto. ini~ally~ did not experience these symptoms and that ham been ~Ctrlbuted to the fact that
Page 146: TI07692801
~edeacary Indlviduals would not be affected as severely an physlcally active ones, where an increased respiration rate come~,into play. It took concerted effort, sad prolonged persistence. In- cludin8 the personal delivery of over 300 health complaints to FAA headquarters. These 300 complolnts were only frol one carrier -- and only from one fllgh~ attendant base -- ~hlch indicated the potentlal Jar this problem ¢o be univers~. Hany of the complaints whlch ~ere dlrected'to our c~rrier, ~ere not acted upon ~e¢ioasly. and the expression. "hysterical females" ~ss heard a~ leas~ once, It is ~rue, ~o~¢ o£ our ranks are comprised of {enale~. ~e believe that this "march" on FAA headquarters did help in prompting the FAA to issue an Ad.lsory Circular, titled OZONE IRRITATIOH DURING HIGH ALTITUDE FLIGHT. which defined ozone Irri~atlon and described a senna o~ dealing ~ith the problem should it occur. This included partaking of Oxygen and placing a wet towel or cloth over one's nose and south; ols0. to cease physical activity for s brief time. ~ are not. however, ~stls£1ed that the FAA has done s11 ~hat the ulency could to help the situation permanently. Carmen Azzopardl, my predecesser at IDFA, appeared before or contributed testimony SO ~hree congressional nubc~mmltCeen investlgatlnE the alrcraft cabin envlron~ent, These cluded: (|) ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF ~FLIGIIT EXPOSURE TO ATHO~PHERIC OZONE, Hearing beEore the Subcome~L~ee on OversIsht end ~nv~stlgaClons of She Committee on scats and Foreign Commerce. ~ouse of Representatives, ~uly 18. 1979; (2) FAA AHD AVIATION S^FBTY [~5~E5, llearln8 beEore n subconmittee o~ the Comnlttee on Government Oper- a,lens, House of Representatives, August 13-14. 1979; and (3) FAA-OSHA JURISDICTION OVER ~ORKPLACE SAFETY IN TIIE AVIATIOH IHDUSTRy, Hearing beEore n subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operattonn. House of Eepre~en~tivc~, August 16, 1980. AS a result o[ the first too hearing~, the FAA promulgated a standard for ozone in alrcraf~ cabins. The permitted ozone level ~tandarda of O.l pp~v time wetghted avers8e (TN~) and 0.25 ppmv threshald limit value (TLV) were ~et and uere in keepin8 with the existing 0SHA standards for sense exposure. However. the airlines were free to choose their own methods Ve meet these designated standards. These ~eChsda included one of three choices: (1) predicting the locuties ef ozone concentrations and [l~tn~ around ~t~
Page 147: TI07692802
,(~) reatrlctlng olrcrmft altitude in order co avoid the tropopsuae; (3) Instnlllng ozone filtratlon devices. In regard to the flrat option, trocklng of ozone movement cannot ~e performed with abaolute certainty. ~n my personal experience. ~e had been routed along certain corridors in hopee of avoiding ozone, yet, in numerous instances (only hours after a '~clenr" routing had been given our fltBht) we found we experienced the classic symptoms, again, some vet# severely. Reotrxctlng aircraft altitude, although a possible so]u- flea, was quickly shown to be economically nonfeaslble. cast ante annoy to fly belo.__._~w the ozone. |lavin8 eatabllshed that ftylng around or below predicted concentrations of ozone would not york, the only choice remaining -- tnstallin$ ozone filtration devices -- yes the FAA~ only sZternat~ve. Charcoal f11terlng devices were the first attempt, and although these devices helped o11evie~e my~pto~s ini~ielly. the life of the~e devices was totally unrelmtble. In ~ome canes~ failure wan anted after eight airframe hours, Catalytic Ozone Converter~, nsin8 reactive metals co breakdown ontario8 ozone, become the filter of ~hotce. The~e proved to be light-weight and light on maintenance. BoeinB engineers estimated ehe average life of these converters to be 10,000 airframe hours. Unfortunately, a very Imporeant conelderatlon'ho~ been entirely bypassed, ~hich ~ould assure adherence to ~hasn new ozone atandards: there are/were no provlslon~ ~ade for routine monitoring of ozone leve~o in-fli~ht, AL- though Lhe standards have been se~, Lhere is in place no way to ascertain that the~e "safe" levela are being main- tained. Our union, based on a surge of ozone-related flight dent reports which were received earlier this year, respect-' fully ~uhmita that we do not feel the |O,OO0 hour-overage is a cer~alnty. ~e do nat feeI tha~ individual a~tendant repor~ which ere being channeled through our company are getting the attention they deserve. I hove been told by coapany nfflcials, placed rather high, that we, the flight attendants have no way of knowln8 whether or~ experienc~ng exceaa dehydration in the cabin or ore experiencing ozone syaptoms. Therefore, due to the repeated phrase ~those hysterlcal fomale~,n our reporto
Page 148: TI07692803
health standerdso in ~hla case ozone concentracionu. ~th- nat a monitorlnS device in the cabin. We ~eeI that it vonld had co ~arch. once again, to Set our me~sa~e home. chat ~E ~EE au~eriog from respiratory symptoms, a good per- centage of which appeur to our union to be, once egnin~ reloted Ca higher than normal ozone revels. Even ~ich ull of the public concern over ozone levels~ the FA~ provided a ~atice o[ Proposed Rul~ Hakln responded to m ~etlt~nn of ~ule H~klog from the Air Trnnaport Association o[ America (ATA) ~hich proposed an exclusion of cargo alrcrs~t end certain narrow-body Thin Notice proposed to reZleve Operators of those alrcrnft •ont. Further. the Pcdersl ~e~Ister is replete Petitions for Exemption from Indlvidusl air carriers, co continue to ~z~nnd the ~ompliauce time £or insLmllatlon of the~e devlces. ~11 petitions yore grs.ted as they yore flied,, All of the foreguln~ comment~ vould appear to lnOicoLe chat o~onu ~s ou~ onl~ nemealo in the aircraft cabin. Since about two yearn ago, ~hen air carriers ncro~s the board began ~huc~Ing do~a a~r con~Itlonin8 oya~ems breaching dlfflc~ltles and related p~ynLcal ~y~pLnmolo~y have ~anl~e~ted chemoelvea. Concurrence het~enn my flight a ~eriou~ and cuntinuing problem: lack of ~ufficten~ vent~- laCion aboard many of oour olrcrof~. Hy files are replete uith flight attendant co~plainLn have been submitted to our company. Reuuit? ~oth~n8 ham been done to alleviate our breaching dl£ft~ale~es. Air c~rriera~ again, across the beard, are advlsiu8 Ellgh~ aLLen- danes to reqoesC toe,pie cooperation in turning on idle air conditioning pack daring meal nervtcao uhen ~moke and increased fltgh~ atcendan~ actlvtey appear to produce particular discre~. Simnltnneounly~ i~ a move taut moot uichlu our company, pilot5 are told to cut back fuel con- gumption to the bore minimema. The fllgh~ attendanto and pilots are hasicmily being told t~o di~fereaL th~8
Page 149: TI07692804
management ~£~hin the same company, ipeclflcslly: Flights are dispatched based on usage of only two air packs for the flIEht*s duration- This cechnlcelity becomes a critical factor on.long-range flights, where no extra fuel has been "budgeted" to operate compresSOr pumps. F11ght attendants have become used ~n hearing that the reason our pllots are usable to coeply with any reqUeSt to turn on the third air condlti°nln8 pack is this action would necessitate a fuel stop! In certain instances where that fuel stop was initiated, ill&hi attendants were berated: they were told they "caused" the fuel stop due t~ demand for air. Our union respectfully submits that everyone on board the aircraft has a right to breatheable air, with adequate oxy- gen, reasonably free of mlcroblal and chemlcal b~-prodUct contamination. Breathable air should not be a subject dpendent upon the vhime of e particular cabin and/or cockpit creU. Breatheable air should not be the subject of such contnversY us is the case daily, when company man- dates have pitted, literally~ flight attendant against pilot in the quest for a decent cabin environmea~. It is no secre~ that airlines have levered their fuel-on- . hoard minimums, to below aircraft ~nnufecturer etnimums with FAA's aunctlon. Pilot~~ concerns for much consider- ations as unexpected adverse weather, possible airport ~o- around if landing might be delayed, the possible need to ~top for refueling enroute, all weigh understandably agatnut the cabin attendant's request for additional ventilation0 So, we the flight attendants and passengers in the main cabinn of Americana aircraft are caught, unwittingly and helplessly. in this situation which sees no solution short of an OUTSIDE agency's assistance. It would appear that the FAA's interest~ are too closely aligned with air carrier profitability to provide any relief. The fIIght attendant~ and pas~enBern have nowhere to go from here. This Union further believes that there may be additional hazard~ or conditions within the aircraft environment which are har~- fuI to the health of aircraft occupant~. Radiation in one much specific concern. Atmospheric radiation, particularly ~bout the time of increased solar flare activity, con easiIy go beyond normal permissible doses. Unfortunately. any attempt at providing radiation monitoring devices on board our air- craft have been quashed. It is not difficult, in light of all of the foregoing, to comprehend the FAA~s Inabllity to determine the extent of problems fn the work environment and to fashion any manning- [ul solutions to these problems.
Page 150: TI07692805
September 17, 1984 Honorable Don zngen Administrator Federal Aviation Administration o00 Independence*Avenue# S.W. Washingtons D,C. 20591 Dear non| Ne are writing as a folloeup'*to our Airline Safety hearings on July 26, August Lr and 2. As was discussed in those hearings, the Aviation Subcommittee has pending before lra number of billc requiring FA~ promulgetios of various safety rules by certain specified dateS. The safety isuues encompassed by these bills include smoke detectors in lavatorles and 9slleyc~ automatic extinguishers in waste bins, protective breathing equipment and goggles for crew, flre-blocking layers for seat cushions, low level escape lighting, fi~ safety of evacuation slides, portable halos fire extinguishers, flammability standards .for cabin materiels, cargo area £ire containment, smoke evacuation, oonuaunitation between flight and csbln crew, expanded medicel kits, new fire extinguishing systems, and improved llfe vest protection. As was made clear in the course of the hearlngs~ neither we nor most of the sponsors o£ the above bills believe leglsletlon is the preferred method of achieving the stated safety objectives. Administrative action (whether by rulemakie~, Technical Standard Orders, or other appropriate devise) should be the moat e~peditious and thorough means for improving airline ~-----~-~. Yet past experience'has suggested that the FAA has too often been reluctant to move ahead aggressively either in completing the research necessary to ~orm the basle for satety regulation or in moving from the research phase into the ~romulgation of ncw safety regulations. 579 AS a result# many in Congress now believe that leglslation may be the only remaining means for getting the Job done, given P~'s past unsatisfactory performance in these areas. We appreciate your testimony before the Subcommittee and we do not minimize the specific commitments you have made to move forward aggressively with safety rulem~king nor do we question in any way your sincerity in making these commitments. Given the ~tatuu of PAA research and rulemakln~ programs in these areas at the time you assumed your duties as ~dmioistretor, ~he ~chedules you have set roe your agency strike u~ as neither unreasonable nor dilatory. Nevertheless, you ~Isu must appreciate that we have beard similar commitments from past Administrators, only to have those fade away with the passage of time. No onc iS more frustrated than we requirements. The issue before us, therefore, is not so much the exact terms your commitments and schedules but rather how we can boot aesurc that they are followed. Legislation remains, in our view, an imperfect, slow, a~d ultlm~Lely uncertain device for accomplishing our safely objectives, and it would be premature and unfair to conclude at thi~ point that you are not able to m~t your own commitments to Congress without a legislated directive. Given the commitments you have made, u~ believe that the Interests of i~proved safety would best be served b. ~,~'s adherrence to those commitments without the enactment of legislatlon. Make no mistake, however, we will not hesitate to resume Subcomnittee action on such leglslation at any time it boeomec that there has been any ~igniflcunt alipp~g© from the commitments you have made in your tffstimony to the Subcommittee. Ilowevor imperfect the legislative remedy may be, it would be in our view vastly preferable to continued delay a~d Inaotlon by.the Executive Branch, n situation which we simply will not tolerate. To that end, we enclose a chart summarizing the commitments and schedules yOU have made to the Subcommittee. Beginning at the end this month, we request that you report to the Subco~mittee, by letter at the end of each men,h, on the status of FRJ~'s effortu to meet these commitments, whether the milestones indicated in the chart have bean net during that month, whether there in any indication that future nilestones may not be met, and, if so, why, The fleet of the~c letter reports should cover both August and September. Furthermore, although your c0mment~ to the Subco~Ittee did not include speelflo mllestonea on ~he issue of 1lEe' veote, you did commit tn certain improvements in the life veer YSO~ including requirements relating to donning and the V-channels We request that you addres~ those llfe vest commitments in Lhe monthly letter reports an ~ou would the other Issues Included in ~ ~ chart. He believe farther improvement in YAA safety regulations regarding cabin za~ety and passenger Servlvabillty should be a top priority of your agency, and accordingly we will be monitoring your progress with great interest. We took forward to working olosely with you to ensure further improvements in airline passenger JOHN PAUL IL~LME~SCHMIIY~ H~'4J~.H Y. HIt|ETA Ranking Minority Member Chairman Subcommittee on Aviation Subcommittee on ~viaLlon
Page 151: TI07692806
la~Rabil/ty tankard ~.~roved Standac~ or Pli~ht Crew .edical Xtts :nti-Histinq :abin C~ev FAA Complete Research. P~dy ~O Consider Possible R~e~kinq 12-31-84 FAA Complete NPP~ Branch Ccordinanian 12-31--84 10-31-84 10-31-84 12-31-84 %-15-85 PAACc~-'ple~e Rule ~or Executive Bca~oh Coordination 12-31-~5 12-31-85 Child Re$¢~aln~s F~A complete Research, Ready to Consider Possible Rulema~in~ , Automatic P~.re in Lavatcr~ Wast.._.~e Smoke ~v~n~ Portable Helen Nunbec o~ Ex~£nquishe~s Class - D Co~oaEt~enta/ l_~__Droved LineE~ Portable ~espicator7 w F/~A CcmpleCe NPRM for Executive Coordination L0-31-84 Issue 10-11-83 10-11-83 5-17-84 5-17-84 5-17-84 8-8-64 F~A Co.late rule foe Coordination 9-30-B4 10-31-84 12-31-84 12-31-84 12-31-84 12-31-85 12-31-85 9-i-64 10-30-84 11-30-84 1-31-85 1-31-85 i~31-85 T10769-2808
Page 152: TI07692807
o) £0 O~T 1 ~ 1984 The Honorable ~o~sn Y. ½tneta Comm|tteO OU Public ~orka ~eahJnston, D- C. 20515 Thin in In ce0ponoo to your lettuc of September 17, requesting that the Feder•l Aviation AdmlnLotratlon advise you each month of the statue of effezLa in meeting a propoued schedule of cabin safety regulatory actions. uelcome your Iuterc0C in tracking our effort• ~nd utll be pleased to keep y~u inEomed Or our progrc=n each month, trnila yon ~va requested that the report be submitted by the end of each mouth. ~ae propose to submit the report by the loth of each month in order to Include all actions that have occurred the previous month, A• I Indic•ted to you at your Subconmitteav• hearing on A.EusC 2, I am co~mltted to a iimely completion of our cabin safety agenda. appreciate the cooper~tlou of the Sobcow~lttcc in •frordlng me the opportunity to do that. ~ believe that the Subcommittee vdl£ be pleased v/tb ~he progress ~e have made £ollow~n8 the hearing since ue are non ahead or ~chedulu [u noted, tha action• are discussed in the order listed on your chart: Child Reetrsln~s: On August 24, the National High~ay Safety Administration issued • final rule (49 Pg 3~3~7; A~gust 30, 1984) ~hich amends Federa£ Hotor Vehicle ~a~ety Standard No. 213, ChIZd ReaCts/at Systems, me that child re•trslnt system• con be cnrtlfled for use lo motor vehicles, or for use ia both motor vchicle~ and aircraft. The requirements foc certifying chtld restraints for uee In aircraft verb fornerly specified In FAASa Technical S~andard 0rdc¢ (TGO) tie0. The F~A ~11 terminate TSO.CIO0 vhen the ruln becomes effective, February 26, 1985~ and w111 is•us an advieory clrcular, by the sa~e date. givln& guidelines to the p~bllc on the one of child resCralnta. Fkamma~tILt~ fog kLrcra£t Seat Odshlone¢ The ~ocuaent incorporating pcopoeed flnal act/on addressing these proposals Yea submitted for Executive Branch coordination on ~uguat 30. ~he ¥~co~a~ttmcnC vas met 30 days •head o£ schedule. Floor Proximity F~ser~enc~ Escape Path Karkiel: The docuaent £ncorporahinZ ¥~A'I p~opoaed [insX act/on addre~slnS these proposals ues •ubaltted fOC Executive ~ranch coordination on August 30. The YA& commitment ~• ~et 60 day• ahaa~ o£ ~heduln. Airplane C~bin Fire Protections This one rulcmaklns docuacut includcu action ~'~t~e next three teens on the chert: (|) Auto•stir Fire ExtfoBuisllers LaVatory Baste Sin; (2) Smoke Detectors in Lavatories and Galleys; and (3) Portable Halos ~tinguJshers/l~reaa~ N~he~ of ~Inquishers. The public ~enc period on £hts ~clee of Praised Rule~kin8 (HP~) cIoce~ September 1~. Pubttc comen£s are mw ~tng anatyxed. ~e ~re an ~heduIe In ace~l~ ou~ c0~t~nt co forward ou~ pro~s~ flea1 ac~toa for ~ranch coordination by ~cember 31. CIa~ D ~r~o ~par~nent/Improved Liners: The ~blXc co~enc.~riod ~p~ IS currently ~heduled to close ~ober 8; however, a 90-day ~cen~ton Of the co=meat period "is being considered In red.nee to eeveral ptlbltc rcqueoCs ~eceived for such an extenatoa. ~e are confident ~haC a 90-day ~Censtoa of the co.eat da~e ~11 not del~y the co~[t~cnt to for~d our pcopo~od action for Execotive Branch coordination ~y ~ce~ber 31, 1985. protective Breathteg EquI~en~.= This documea~ ~11 include action on: portable Resp/ratory EqutpmenC for ~bin Crew; and (2) Improved Standard for yttghtcrcw ~okc Goggles. We are finaXl~t~ action on a re~ulmtocy and expect to meeC our ~tober ~1 co.flint of focward~ns our preheat for ~xecutive Branch coordination. Cabin Ha~er~a F~a~ab~i£y S~andard= M~ a~e coo~f~ulog p~epa~a~[on ~egula[o[y proposal co~a~d ~e~g ou~ co~ltmen~ Lo fo(~ard ~hnt ~o~sal fur Execut£ve Branch coordtn~tXon by ~eember 31. Upgrodod Hedica£ Kick: ~e documon~ lneor~racin~ F~'a regulatory Yhe F~ c0m~umeu~ ua~ ~t appro~t~ely ~ days ahead of ~hedute. AnCI-~s~Io~ K~ro~e~: ~e are continuing preparation of s reBula~ory proposal and anticipate ~etlng our c~i~nt to foc~ard ~hab pro~ua£ foC Executive Branch coordination by ~cembee 31. Passenger Seat Safe~y Standards: On Scp£~ber 21, the F~ ~bltob~ a ~tlce in the Pederal Register (49 Fg 37111) that provJdes an overalX ~opcc~tve of the agency's crash dy~lcn proBf~l. The ~tlce also annou~cd the availability of a dnafc ~viso~y'cJrcular on h~sn raZor•nee tn the ~for ~bltc co~eue. ~e draft ~vts0ry c~cula~ outlt~ea t~ proposed hu~n ~o~ermnce limits tha~ the ~11 consider In eseabltehins of an effof~ ~Icb ~11 pro8ce~sively disclose the resul~a of ~evera1 years of researchl it glveg the genera1 ~bltc. egpectally ~e avlaCiou Industry, op~cCuui~y ~o par~iclpa~e in the develo~ent of ~les and guidance ~crial draf~ ~¢ioory clrcular ~uet ~ received on or before December 31~ are ou schedul~ ~th a11 el~en~e of the Brash dynamics program and ex~c~ have ~ro~e~ ~eae o~onda~ds by June 15, I98~, an ~ bevc I~prov~ FIi]h~ &bin ~e~ ~er~enc~ ~nlca=ion: A p~o~al ~ public address syste~ ~o ~ ~vered by an tndependcn~ ~vcr system tn nov aircraf~ designs ts ~w unde¢ consideration. ~e intend ~o ~e~ch by December 31, ~ether or ~t new standards ~uld be praised.
Page 153: TI07692808
Page 154: TI08380001
I~Y 29, 1990 TOz F~OM z MICHELLE BOISSE FRED PANZER ICSH AGENDA Here's the line up for the ICSH meeting May 31, 1990. Morning 1. The Surgeon General 2. Representative of WHO to make a brief statement about World No Smoking Day which just happens to be the same day. 3. Joe Tye, head of Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco (STAT). 4. Officer Bruce Talbot, Woodbridge, Ill. -- He testified at Sen. Kennedy's April 4, 1990 hearing. 5. Jean Forester, University of Minnesota -- She's opposed to cigarette vending machine sales. 6. Ed ~reer -- involved in a Boston lawsuit against Philip Morris. Afternoon 1. Grocers Association of New England. American Public Health Association. 3. Internist Association. 4. Jolly Ann Davldson. The afternoon session is devoted to public comment. A sign up sheet is available during the morning session. Additional anti smokers could request time to be heard in the afternoon. I'll have more information available for our 3:30 PM briefing tomorrow. cc: Marty Gleason, Susan Stuntz, Walter Woodson TI08380001
Page 155: TI08380002
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Contro! Office on Smoking and Health Rockville. MD 20857 Mr. Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr. President ~ Tobacco Institute 1875 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Dear Mr. Chilcote: On May 31, 1990, the Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Hubert H. Humphrey Building Auditorium, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., to discuss the prevention of children's access to tobacco products. The Interagency Committee, on which I serve as Executive Secretary, is an Advisory Committee established by the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act of 1984. It is comprised of some 25 members, representing various Federal agencies and private organizations. Although this meeting ks being announced in the Federal Begister, we are making an extra effort to see that organizations and individuals potentially interested in this issue know about the meeting and know that the Committee would welcome their comments. Comments may be submitted in person or in writing. The format of this meeting calls for opening remarks by the Surgeon General as Chairman of the Committee, followed by papers to be delivered by various experts. In the afternoon there will be a period for public comment and deliberations. We would be pleased to have your organization make a statement to the committee in the public comment session. In addition, we will be happy to distribute any written statement you might have at the meeting. I hope that you will be able to join us for what we anticipate will be an interesting and important session. If you have any questions, please call me, at (301) 443-1575. Sincerely yours, Executive Secretary Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health T108380002
Page 156: TI08380003
TABLE OF CONTENTS Testimony BQ HHS Model Bill - Minors Statement of Louis W. Sullivan, M.D. HIIS Press Release CO HHS Office of Inspector General "Youth Access to Cigarettes" Federal it~t~tar / Vol. 55, No. 59 / Tuesday, March ~7, 1900 / Notices "v In acco~ wi~ =~on ~aR2} of • e Fe~ Advi=o~ Co~lt~ ~t [~b. ~ 9~L ~e Centare for ~n~ [~C) ~o~== ~e fogo~ ~mi~ee m~ti~ Name: ~te~ency Co~ttee on S~ and Heel~. ~ ond ~: 9 a.m.~ p.m., May Pl~ Hu~ H. H~p~y ~ Au~t~ ~ ~depe~en~ A~nue. SW, W~ ~ ~. Sm~" ~ ~ ~e pub~ l~it~ o~y by ~ av~ble. ~e: ~e Int~agen~ ~tt~ on Smo~ and Heal~ advi~s ~e ~te~. ~pa~ent of Heal~ and H~ ~ and ~e ~ta~ for Health ~'th~ ~t~n of all ~see~h and edu~Uon p~ams and o~er ~ ~e Deponent and wi~ o~er Fe~eraE Stste. local, and private agencies, and (b) establishment and maintenance of liaison with appropriate private entities, Federal agencies, and State and local public health agencies with respect to smoking and health act~vitiu. Matte~ to be Discussed: The agenda will include a discussion on the issue of preventin8 the sale of tobacco pmduc~ to minors. Agenda items are subject to change a~ priorities dictate. Contact Person for More Information: Substantive program information as well a, ,unnnaries of the meeting and roster of Committee members may be obtained from ]ohn l~grosky. Eocecutive Secretary. Interasenc~ Committee on Smokip4 and Health. Center for Chronic Disease Preven~n and Health Promotion. CDC. Park Building. room 1- 16. 5600 Fishers Lane. RockvLIle. Maryland 2O857. telephone: 3m/443- 1575. Dated: M~rch 21. "t990. Azsor~ DYmc'fo;'~x'PoEcy Coordi~ztion [Fit Doc. ~ Fried ~ ~45 ~] T!08380003
Page 157: TI08380004
Page 158: TI08380005
STATEMENT OF CONNECTICUT FOOD ASSOCIATION MMNE GROCERS' ASSOCIATION NEW HAMPSHIRE RETAIL GROCERS' ASSOCIATION VERMONT GROCERS' ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON SMOKING OR HEALTH The subject of tobacco sales to minors has been the subject of much debate and discussion at all levels of our society. Parents are correctly concerned about their childrens' access to the product. Public officials at the local, state and national levels of government are attempting to assess the proper role of government in this area. However, no one is more concerned and more acutely aware of the issues and the need to responsibly address those issues than the retailers who sell the product to the public. As the representatives of the more than 10,000 retail grocery stores in Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, we are here today to provide the Committee with information about our efforts to comply with our existing state statutes regarding the sale of tobacco products to minors; and to suggest alternatives to the sometimes overly restrictive and often economically disruptive suggestions that have been offered as possible responses to the perceived problem. It is not our intention to suggest that either the several states or the federal government should ignore the situation. Neither, do we suggest that those who would support the implementation of new and stringent legislation should abandon their concerns. Rather, we propose that the legitimate efforts of the retail merchants of tobacco products should be recognized and supported by our federal, state and local units of government. POSITIVE COMMITMENT What is that commitmem? Let's explore what has been attempted and accomplished by our organizations and their members du_ring the past two years: A commitment to endorse and support an eighteen year old minimum sales age for tobacco products: T108380005
Page 159: TI08380006
INTERAGENCY COMNflTI"EE ON SMOKING OR. HEALTH TESTIMONY May 31, 1990 Page 2 Of our states, only Vermont still enforces a minimum sales age lower than eighteen (18) (seventeen (17)) years of age. During the 1990 session of the Vermont state Legislature, the Vermont Grocers' Association supported H771 which would have increased the minimum sales age to eighteen (18) years of age; Legislation would prohibit an adult from causing a minor to purchase tobacco products w A commitment to educate retailers about the minimum sales age, and encourage education of sales clerks with regard to methods to ensure that sales are only to authorized adults: Creation of uniform signage for distribution to all members of the retail trade regarding the minimum sales age statutes; Support for legislation in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont that would remove the previously unfulfilled burden for distribution of signage from the Secretary of State's office. Plating that burden on the individual retailer. Education of retail owners regarding minimum sales age laws and penalties for violation; Seminar on the subject at annual trade meetings; and part of our ongoing alcohol and tobacco training programs; Distribution of signs, law text and guidelines at annual trade meeting~; Periodic reinforcement of message through regular association publications. o Education of retail store clerks regarding the law and their part in enforcement; A. Distdbution of materials for use by store owners. T108380006
Page 160: TI08380007
INTERAGENCY COMMITYEE ON SMOKING OR HEALTH TESTIMONY May 31, 1990 Page 3 Similarly, our organizations have supported reasonable, escalating penalties for retailers who knowingly sell tobacco products to minors. RE~-~ENTPROPOSAL$ In recent days the Secretary of Health and Human Services has suggested model legislation for discussion by the states with regard to cigarette sales to minors. While well intentioned, we feel the proposals go too far and fail to acknowledge our concerns, the realities of the marketplace and existing laws. The Secretary suggests an "alcohol-type" licensing system. This is unworkable. Tobacco sales can represent up to 25% of a retailer's gross sales. The imposition of a licensing structure that would require selective siting, community approval and restricted availability, as with alcohol, would mean some retailers would not survive. Some states, New Hampshire and Vermont for example, restrict some alcohol sales to state-operated stores. Other sales licenses are restricted to retailers in remote locations where state- run operations would not be profitable. The suggestion also ignores the fact that many retailers currently hold licenses related to tobacco sales. These are controlled by their states' departments of revenue and are related to their tax collection responsibilities. New punitive licensing is not necessary. An area totally ignored by the Secretary's proposals is that of responsibility. The sale of tobacco products to minors requires at least two parties -- the seller and the buyer. In some eases a third party, an adult sending a minor to purchase cigarettes for their use, intervenes in the process. However, all of the burden for responsible action rests on the shoulders of the seller. This is unfair. The minor and the adult purchaser should bear some responsibility for the transaction. We would suggest the enactment of laws that "prohibit the purchase of tobacco products by minors." Similarly, we would and have supported laws that would "prohibit an adult from causing a minor to purchase tobacco products." Laws prohibiting minors to purchase tobacco products have been enacted, at our suggestion, in Maine and New Hampshire. Similar laws have been proposed in Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts, but have been rejected by the legislatures in those states. Laws prohibiting an adult from causing a minor to purchase tobacco products have been proposed in Massachusetts. In Vermont, we have supported repeal of state laws allowing a minor to purchase tobacco with the approval of an adult. This was rejected. Ti08380007
Page 161: TI08380008
INTERAGENCY ON SMOKING OR HEALTH TESTIMONY May 31, 1990 Page 4 CONCLU$IQN It is our opinion that we in the retail trade have accepted our responsibility for keeping tobacco products out of the hands of minors. Are we always successful? -- no. Unfortunately we, like the government, are only human and we fear that perfection will always elude us. However, we have recogrtized the concern and have been taking positive steps to address it for more than two years. We ask that the public and the government take note of those positive accomplishments. There are others who should share the responsibility, for keeping tobacco products out of the hands of children. These include: A. The government 1. Enforce existing laws; 2. Assist in the effort to educate retailers. B. The minor Enact laws placing a portion of the responsibility on the minor and on adults who cause the minors to purchase tobacco products. We have accepted our responsibility. Now it is time for others to accept their portion before the enactment of new laws that jeopardize the ability of a small businessman to earn a living and place them in jeopardy of criminal sanction. We would be happy to work with the Committee to develop a fair and workable plan. John Dumais Executive Vice President New Hampshire Retail Grocers' Association John Joyce Executive Director Maine Grocers' Association James Harrison Executive Vice President Vermont Grocers' Assodation Grace Nome President Connecticut Food Association TI08380008
Page 162: TI08380009
MODEL SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO MINORS CONTROL ACT A Model Law Recommended for Adoption by States or Localities to Prevent the Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors U.S. Department of Health and Human Services May 24, 1990 T108380009
Page 163: TI08380010
Introduction The great majority of states prohibit sale of tobacco products to minors. Yet over one million teenagers start smoking each year, and minors buy about one billion packs of cigarettes each year. Because nicotine is an addicting drug, a minor who starts smoking is likely to be a lifelong customer--and one in four will die prematurely of lung cancer or other smoking-related disease. Illegal tobacco sales dwarf illegal alcohol and hard drug sales to minors, and the resulting mortality is many times greater--390,000 deaths a year. These are preventable deaths, and many of them occur because youth can obtain tobacco products with ease. Over eighty percent of teenagers correctly believe that it is very easy for them to buy cigarettes. Access of minors to tobacco is a major problem in every_ state of the nation. About three-fourths of the million outlets which sell cigarettes to adults also sell cigarettes to minors. These stores ignore the laws of their states because enforcement is almost non- existent. Many retailers are even unaware that such sales are illegal. Yet there are straightforward enforcement approaches which can eliminate almost all sales to minors while yielding revenues to cover the cost of enforcement. Teenage smoking can be greatly reduced without disruption either to governments or to sales to adults. Data on the nature and extent of the enforcement problem, and information on successful community efforts to prevent illegal sale of tobacco products to youth, are presented in the report of the Office of the Inspector General titled "Youth Access to Cigarettes," dated May, 1990. Additional information on this issue can be obtained from the Office on Smoking and Health, within the Centers for Disease Control of the Public Health Service. .The Department of Health and Human Services has reviewed options for improving enforcement. The approach we have developed is embodied in a draft model law. We recommend that each of the 50 states enact this model. No state now uses all of the tools needed to make enforcement effective. In states which are not immediately willing to adopt the model law, counties and cities can enact most features by ordinance and prevent children's access to tobacco products. No enforcement scheme is perfect. Many of those who are already addicted will find ways to get tobacco to meet their craving for nicotine. But for most teenagers, easy access to tobacco products and addiction can be eliminated. For others, reductions in frequency and numbers of cigarettes smoked will decrease the likelihood of becoming long-term smokers. St;mmary ~?f the Model Law The model law has several key features. These are summarized below and discussed further in the section-by-section analysis. Some of these features can and should be modified by each state to reflect its internal organization and processes. But the underlying approaches, however implemented, are key to effective enforcement. The model law would: o Create a licensing system, similar to that which is used to control the sale of alcoholic beverages, under which a store may sell tobacco to adults ortly if it avoids making sales to minors. Signs stating that sales to minors are illegal would TI08380010
Page 164: TI08380011
be required at all points of sale. o Set forth a graduated schedule of penalties--monetary fines and license suspensions-for illegal sales so that owners and employees face punishment proportionate to their violation of the law. Penalties would be fixed and credible. Those who comply would pay ordy a license fee. o Provide separate penalties for failure to post a sign, and higher penalties for sales without a lic6nse. o Place primary responsibility for investigation and enforcement in a designated state agency, and exclusive authority for license suspension and revocation in that agency, but allow local law enforcement and public health officials to investigate compliance and present evidence to the state agency or file complaints in local coups. o Rely primarily on state-administered civil penalties to avoid the time delays and costs of the court system, but allow use of local courts to assess fines, similar to traffic enforcement. This would provide flexibility to both state and local authorities to target enforcement resources. (Aa illegal sale could not result in two fines, but a local conviction would be reported to the state and count towards possible license suspension). o Set the age of legal purchase at 19. This is higher than under many existing state tobacco statutes, but lower than the age for alcohol. States may wish to consider age 21, because addiction often begins at ages 19 and 20, but rarely thereafter. o Ban the use of vending machines to dispense cigarettes, parallel to alcohol practice and reflecting the dif-ficulty of preventing illegal sales from these machines. (This is another area where states should examine options carefully; allowing sales in places not legally open to minors, or use of store-controlled electrortie enabling :..wices, may be acceptable alternatives. States could also consider phasing of the ban to minimize disruption.) o Contain a number of features to minimize burdens on retail outlets: requiring identification only for those who are not clearly above the age of 21, allowing a driver's license as proof of age, setting a nominal penalty for the first violation, disregarding one accidental violation if effective controls are in place, having the state provide required signs, and setting license fees lower for outlets with small sales volume. The model law does not explicitly address several topics, including possession of tobacco by minors, earmarking revenues for enforcement, allowing local ordinances to be stronger than the state law, and authorizing use of minors in "sting" operations to detect violations. This does not mean that states should not consider including such provisions, as discussed further below, but that we did not believe them necessary or appropriate within the statute. For example, use of stings will be vital to effective erfforcement of this law, but like other investigative procedures need not be detailed in statute. 2 TI08380011
Page 165: TI08380012
In summary, the model law attempts to create workable procedures which will provide retail outlets the incentive and tools to refuse to sell to minors, as already required by law in almost all states. Stores which comply will have no burden other than a licensing fee and, in some cases, replacement of vending machine by over-the-counter sales. Compliance by responsible stores, which would quickly become the great majority, will enable state and local authorities to concentrate enforcement efforts on a small number of recalcitrant outlets. The few stores which are unable or unwilling to prevent sales to minors may elect to stop carrying tobacco products, or will lose the license to sell tobacco products. Adults will continue to be able to buy cigarettes and other tobacco products at a wide range of outlets. Ultimately, the effectiveness of this legislation depends on the willingness of concerned citizens to report violations to authorities who are responsible for taking investigatory and, if necessary, enforcement action. We are sure that enough citizens are concerned; the model law simply provides an effective and efficient system to handle their complaints, filling voids in almost all state enforcement schemes. Indeed, merely putting an effective enforcement mechanism in place is the single most important reform. The better the mechanism, the less likely it will have to be used. Section-by-Section Analysis SectiQrl 1 states the title of the bill, here suggested as "Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors Control Act." Section :~ presents appropriate findings of fact. Most important, in this context, are that tobacco products are addicting, that addiction almost always starts in teenage years, and that smoking causes death on a large scale. States exploring these issues may wish to consult recent reports of the Surgeon General, which summarize and synthesize the large body of knowledge extant. Section ~ establishes a state "Office of Tobacco Control" and the key powers of that office. Whether that office would best be located in the Department of Health or the state alcohol sales licensing agency, or established as an independent agency, is uniquely a matter for state-specific decision. Two key provisions of section 3 require the Office to operate a licensing system and to prepare and distribute to licensed outlets signs concerning sales to minors. Requiring a license for sale of tobacco products conditions the privilege of sale on compliance with the law. Later in the bill heavy penalties are provided for any sales (or free distribution) to any persons without such a license. Failure of licensed outlets to prevent sale to minors leads to financial penalties and revocation of the license. The text is worded to allow licensing mobile vendors--it is not the purpose of the law to harm any small businesses. The state agency is empowered to investigate and enforce the law. The investigative and enforcement techniques are not specified in detail, since these are generally routine and well-established administrative functions. However, the most powerful technique for both investigation and enforcement will in most circumstances involve testing compliance T108380012
Page 166: TI08380013
by sending underage persons to stores which sell tobacco products--especially those have been reported for illegal sales. A request to purchase cigarettes is then made and the sale, if consummated, provides evidence of violation of the statute. Properly designed and supervised by state or local officials, such testing can readily and inexpensively establish whether an outlet violates the law, and provide the basis for a formal complaint and enforcement decision. States and communities now using this approach often hire teenagers to perform this function as temporary employees, to provide insurance protection to the teenagers and assure proper supervision. Depending on other law (e.g., whether possession by minors is illegal) and court rulings, some states may wish to authorize this approach explicitly. Tennessee does so now. The model law provides that local offidals may also investigate violations, and either assist the state agency by bringing evidence before it or bring cases directly in local courts. Local offidals in some cities and counties will have the resources and expertise to contribute significantly to enforcement. Such contributions will not only speed enforcement directly, but allow the state agency to allocate its resources where they are most needed. In general, the assumption of the bill is that there will be substantial state and local cooperation, similar to the kinds of arrangements used for traffic violations. A varied local role in investigation and enforcement will also be useful in identifying techniques which are particularly effective within each state. The license fee is suggested as S300 for most stores but ordy $50 for stores with a volume of tobacco sales below $5,000 a year. This should provide enough revenue to make enforcement budget-neutral, while protecting small businesses from what might be perceived as an onerous cost in relation to sales. Of course, enforcement costs will not necessarily vary by size of outlet and a state could balance these considerations differently. Regardless, a state could use additional distinctions (e.g., by size, or whether licensed to sell alcoholic beverages) or set these fees higher or lower; depending on ' other licensing systems, its revenue goals, and whether it wishes the tobacco control system to be fully financed through license fees. We have not suggested earmarking revenues to accrue directly to the Tobacco Control agency rather than the general fund, but some states might wish to do this. Sec~ion 4 requires license holders to display the license and sign (section 7 provides a monetary penalty for failure to display them). A visible sign provides continuing notice to all -sales clerks, underage customers, and older customers--as to the laws requirements and the store's declared willingness to comply. The sign also aids clerks in refusing to sell to underage customers. Section ~ provides that both licensees and their employees may not sell or give tobacco products to individuals known to be under the legal age, or to individuals who are not dearly older or who do not have appropriate proof of age such as a driver's license. It also bans entirely sales of "broken packs" (cigarettes are sometimes sold one-by-one to minors), vending machine sales, and sales other than at licensed outlets. Two of these provisions raise significant questions. First, why age 19, when alcohol purchase is illegal below age 21 and most states now ban tobacco sales at age ~.8 or below? To the significant extent that tobacco, like alcohol, has been an adult privilege to which many teenagers turn at the first legal opportunity, raising the age will postpone 4 TI08380013
Page 167: TI08380014
such exposure until the adolescent has reached an age at which mature judgment has a better chance of overcoming the intense pressure to experiment with "adult" behaviors. This postponement may be even more important for tobacco than for alcohol, since nicotine is rapidly addicting. Even a month or so of regular smoking is likely to create a lifelong addiction for most persons. Also, a realistic appraisal must concede that most teenagers a year younger than the legal age can readily obtain tobacco products from friends who can legally purchase them. Thus, an age 18 limit exposes most 16 and 17 year old youth to an easily exercised temptation. Only if the age limit is at least 19 can the state be confident that most high school students will not have ready access to tobacco. Of course, a few teenagers will be able to obtain such products from family or older friends; the issue here is ready access for most teenagers. Finally, only ff the age limit is at least 19 will smoke-free school policies be fully enforceable--no students will have legal access to tobacco products. States are encouraged to consider age 21; this will parallel alcohol practice and also protect older teenagers during years in which many are still vulnerable. Second, why ban vending machine sales? The basic problem with these sales is that they do not require human intervention--the active participation of a clerk who sells the product only after observing or checking age. Vending machines are often used now by adolescents, and vending machines will nullify otherwise effective action preventing over- the-counter sales. Sales personnel at a register cannot effectively police even nearby machines while serving other customers. Individual states may wish to consider two variations: allowing vending machine sales in places which minors may not legally enter at all, or electronic disabling devices which require positive action by a clerk to activate. However, Utah found that disabling devices were ineffectual in practice. Finally, states could consider allowing a grace period for elimination of these machines to minimize disruption. Section 6 prohibits unlicensed sale or distribution of tobacco products. It allows exceptions for distribution by relatives or friends on private property not open to the public (e.g., the home) and for wholesale distribution. Section 7 provides for a fine of up to $1,t300, and imprisonment of up to 30 days, for unlicensed sale or distribution. Section 7 establishes two types of financial penalties for violations committed at licensed outlets-civil money penalties and fines. These financial penalties apply both to license holders and sales personnel. Sales personnel are subject to penalties both to emphasize their responsibility under the law and to protect employers against the carelessness of employees. Financial penalties rise progressively with repeated offenses, and are designed to avoid penali~ng compliant stores for truly isolated lapses occurring over wide periods ot~ time. A license holder may also avoid one penalty in any two year period by showing that an effective system to prevent violations is in place, i.e., that the sale was a true lapse. The suggested penalty for a first offense is $100 and no suspension; the fourth violation brings a $1,000 dollar fine and a 9 to 18 month suspension of the license. In effect, law abiding stores have nothing to fear; persistent offenders will lose the right to sell tobacco products to adults. The Department of Health and Human Services has found that use of civil money penalties assessed through administrative law judges rather than the courts has greatly improved the effectiveness and efficiency of enforcing various statutes related to fraud TI08380014
Page 168: TI08380015
and abuse. The capacity of the Federal criminal justice system is so stretched that without the alternative of civil money penalties, many "minor" frauds or other crimes simply could not be prosecuted. States face similar constraints. Using civil money penalties is not an "either-or" choice--under existing Federal law, both civil and criminal remedies are available and the choice of which to use in particular cases greatly facilitates effective enforcement. The advantage of this added tool is not only case- specific but systemic: the mere existence of a credible and workable civil money penalty raises the potential cost of statutory violations, and thereby deters violations. Although the model law emphasizes dvil money penalties, fines are authorized as well to provide an enforcement role for both state and local authorities and to provide flexibility of approach. For any particular instance of noncompliance, only one financial penalty may be assessed. Any penalties assessed at the local level must be reported to the Tobacco Control agency so that this agency can accumulate records needed for license suspensions. Thus, the model law allows the following kinds of flexibility: o The Tobacco Control agency may develop a backlog of cases requiring hearings. If so, it may bring cases before a local court seeking fines rather than civil money penalties. o A particular county may be a substantial distance away from agency offices and this may inconvenience retailers, witnesses, and enforcement personnel. The agency can reduce this inconvenience by using local courts. o Some counties may have both investigator staff (e.g., county health officer) and court capacity to conduct an aggressive enforcement program, beyond the capacity of the state agency. If so, these counties can investigate and seek fines in the local courts. This will simultaneously improve enforcement in these counties and free up state resources for others. The model law does not address disposition of proceeds from either eivfl money penalties or fines. Absent specifidty, we assume that in most states the former would accrue to the state treasury and the latter to county or dty treasuries. This provides an additional benefit of allowing either approach to enforcement: cities and counties can invest in enforcement without financial loss. Of course, a state could elect to earmark revenues differently. Section 8 provides for license suspension, revocation, and nortrenewal. Starting with the second offense, there are progressively steeper periods of suspension: seven days for the second offense, up to 9 to 18 months for the fourth violation. Section 8 also provides for suspension of licenses for all outlets of a chain if more than three outlets have violated the law more than three times in a two year period. This provision creates a strong incentive for retail chains to ensure compliance by all of their outlets. Other Mattg.rs. The model law does not prohibit purchase or possession of tobacco products by minors. Some states and communities already prohibit these and others may wish to consider this. We left out such provisions because in our judgment they TI08380015
Page 169: TI08380016
would be far harder to enforce-and of less relevance to preventing widespread availability--than prohibitions on saies. Such provisions also raise such issues as use of minors as sales clerks; establishment of enforcement procedures; establishment of penalties (small fines, community service, or attending smoking cessation programs are commonly proposed); and possible need to exempt purchase by minors in supervised "sting" operations. Regardless, any underage person smoking in public would indicate a potential violation of the sales ban even absent a possession or purchase law. Authorities could investigate the source of these tobacco products whether or not purchase or possession were banned. States willing to invest in enforcement for both sales and possession should consider adding possession prohibitions. Finally, while the model law provides for a significant local role in enforcement, it does not provide for independent local statutes. States might wish to empower municipalities to le',~ higher fines or otherwise exercise some independent authority. The worst possible outcome would be to enact a state statute which failed to establish an effective and workable enforcement system while preempting local governments from filling this void. Conclu~io~ Existing state laws prohibiting sales of tobacco products to minors have largely been ineffectual. This enforcement failure is hypocritical and contributes to a scoff-law environment. Unlike some other law enforcement problems, this is neither inherent or insuperable. Eliminating virtually all sales to minors does not even present particularly difficult enforcement problems. It simply requires workable procedures which create swift and sure sanctions for violations, with minimal cost or inconvenience to retailers and adult customers. There is a large and articulate body of eitizertry-ineluding a large proportion of teenagers and retailers-who understand the gravity of tobacco consumption as a public health problem and who would welcome reasonable laws. Enactment and responsible implementation of this model law is the single most important reform to improve the health of its citizens that any state could undertake in the decade of the 1990s. Ti08380016
Page 170: TI08380017
MODEL SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO MINDRS CONTROL ACT SECTION i. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors Control Act". SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Legislature finds that-- (1) approximately 390,000 Americans die each year of diseases caused by cigarette smoking, (2) the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service has determined that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in this country, (3) nicotine in tobacco has been found by the 1988 report of the Surgeon General, The Hea~th Consequences of $~okinq: .Nicotine Addiction, to be a powerfully addictive drug, and it is therefore important to prevent young people from using nicotine until they are mature and capable of making an informed and rational decision, (4) most adults who smoke wish to quit, a majority of current adult smokers have tried to quit without success, and one-half of all teenagers who have been smoking for five years or more have made at least one serious but unsuccessful attempt to quit, (5) every day more than 3,000 minors begin smoking, (6) one-half of smokers begin before the age of 18, and 90 percent begin before the age of 21, and T108380017
Page 171: TI08380018
2 (7) minors spend more than one billion dollars on cigarettes and other tobacco products every year. SEC. 3. OFFICE OF TOBACCO CONTROL. (a) Establishment of Office.--There is established in the Department of __ an Office of Tobacco Control. The Office shall be headed by a Director. (b) Functions of Director.--The Director shall-- (I) issue licenses for the sale of tobacco products, (2) provide without charge signs (concerning the prohibition on sales to individuals under 19 years of age) that meet the requirements of subsection (d) to persons licensed to sell tobacco products, (3) investigate (concurrently with other State and local officials) violations of sections 4 through 6, (4) enforce civil money penalties under section 7, (5) enforce (concurrently with other state and local officials) fines under sectlon 7, and (6) bring license suspension, revocation and nonrenewal actions under section 8. (c) Licenses.-- (1) A license for the sale of tobacco products shall be issued to a specific person for a specific outlet (a fixed location or mobile unit) and shall be valid for a period of one year. (2) The annual fee for a license is $50 for an outlet whose annual volume of tobacco sales is less than $5000, and T108380018
Page 172: TI08380019
3 $300 for an outlet whose annual volume of tobacco sales is 55000 or more. (d) Signs Concerning Sales to Individuals Under Age 19.-- Signs to be provided under subsection (b)(2) shall-- (I) contain in red lettering at least one-half inch high on a white background "IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW FOR CIGARETTES OR OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO BE SOLD TO ANY PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF 19", and (2) include a depiction of a pack of cigarettes at least two inches high defaced by a red diagonal diameter of a surrounding red circle. SEC. 4. DISPLAY OF LICENSE AND SIGNS. A person that holds a license issued under section 3(b)(1) shall-- (1) display the license (or a copy) prominently at the outlet for which the license is issued, and (2) display prominently at each place at that outlet at which tobacco products are sold a sign that meets the requirements of section 3(d). SEC. S. PROHIBITIONS APPLICABLE TO LICENSE HOLDERS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES AND ASENTS. (a) Prohibition on Sale or Distribution to Individuals Under the Age of 19 and in Certain Other Cases.--A person that holds a license issued under section 3(b)(I), or an employee or agent of that person, may not sell or distrlbute a tobacco product-- (I) to any individual that the license holder, employee, or agent knows is under 19 years of age, T108380019
Page 173: TI08380020
4 (2) to any individual (other than an individual who appears without reasonable ~oubt to be over 19 years of age) who does not presen~ a driver's license (or other generally accepted means of identification) that describes the individual as 19 years of age or older, contains a likeness of the individual, and appears on its face to be valid, (3) in any form other than an original factory-wrapped package, or (4) other than at an outlet for which a license has been issued under section 3(b) (i). (b) Prohibition on Maintaining Vending Machines.--A person that holds a license issued under section 3(b)(1), or an employee or agent of that person, may not maintain at a licensed outlet any device that automatically dispenses tobacco products. (c) No More Than One Violation on Any One Day.--No person shall be liable under the preceding subsections for more than one violation on any one day. SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON UNLICENSED SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS. (a) General Rule.--No person, other than a person who holds a license issued under section 3(b) (I), or an employee or agent of that person, may sell or distribute a tobacco product. (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to-- (1) distribution by an individual to family members or acquaintances on private property that is not open to the public, or T108380020
Page 174: TI08380021
5 (2) the sale or distribution to a manufacturer of tobacco products, to a wholesaler of to~,acco products, or to a person who holds a license issued under section 3{b) (i). SEC. 7. PENALTIES. (a) Nature and Size of Penalties.-- (I) Any license holder that violates a requirement of section 4 shall be subject to a fine or civil money penalty of not more than $i00. (2) Any license holder, employee, or agent that violates a prohibition of section 5 shall each be subject to-- (A) a fine or civil money penalty of $i00, for the first violation within a two year period, (B) a fine or civil money penalty of $250, for the second violation within a two year period, (C) a fine or civil money penalty of SSO0, for the third violation within a two year period, or (D) a fine or civil money penalty of $i000, for any additional violation within a two year period. (3) Any person that violates a prohibition of section 6 shall be subject to a fine of not more than $i000, or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. (b) Exception for License Holder.--A person that holds a license issued under section 3(b)(1) shall not be subject to a fine or civil money penalty under subsection (a)(2) for a violation by an employee or agen~ of a prohibition under section 5, and an assessment of a fine or civil money penalty under T!08380021
Page 175: TI08380022
6 subsection (a)(2) for a violation by an employee or agent shall be disregarded for purposes of secticn 8(a), if the licensa holder affirmatively demonstrates that the license holder has an effective system in place to prevent violations of the prohibitions under section 5. The exception prescribed by the preceding sentence applies only once to a license holder during any two year period. (c) No Double Penalty.-- (I) If an action has been commenced against a person under subsection (a) (i) or (a)(2) for a particular violation for the payment of a fine, no action may be commenced against that person for that violation for the payment of a civil money penalty. (2) If an action has been commenced against a person under subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2) for a particul'ar violation for the payment of a civil money penalty, no action may be commenced against that person for that violation for the payment of a fine. (d) Notification to Office of Tobacco Control of Fines Imposed.--A court shall notify the Director of the Office of Tobacco Control of any fine imposed under subsection (a)(2). SEC. 8. SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, AND NONRENEWAL OF LICENSES. (a) Suspension, Revocation, and Nonrenewal of Individual Licenses.--A license issued under section 3(b)(1) for a particular outlet shall be suspended or revoked, and not renewed, for a period of-- T108380022
Page 176: TI08380023
7 (i) 7 days, if a fine or civil money penalty has been i.lposed under section 7(a) (2~ for the second violation at that outlet within two years, (2) 1 to 6 months, if a fine or civil money penalty has been imposed under section 7~a) (2) for the third violation at that outlet within two years, or (3) 9 to 18 months, if a fine or civil money penalty has been imposed under section 7(a) (2) for any additional violation at that outlet within two years. (b) Suspension, Revocation, and Nonrenewal of All Licenses for Outlets Under Common Ownership or Control.--All licenses issued under section 3(b)(1) for outlets that are under common ownership or control shall be suspended or revoked, and not renewed, for a period of 9 to 18 months, if fines qr civil.money penalties have been assessed under section 7(a) (2) for three or more violations at three or more outlets within a two year period. (c) No Double Counting.--A violation committed by an employee or agent, and attributed to a license holder, shall be counted only once for purposes of the preceding subsections. (d) Exception.--See section V(b). T108380023
Page 177: TI08380024
Page 178: TI08380025
Page 179: TI08380026
Mr. chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. I congratulate you for your efforts to focus attention on the issue of tobacco and health. Given the tremendous toll that tobacco addiction wreaks on our nation's health, and especially on the people served by programs under your jurisdiction, it is urgent that we work vigorously together to develop strategies to curtail use of th±s addicting substance. This hearing is especially timely because May 31st is "World No-Tobacco Day." This event, which is sponsored by the World Health Organization, is much like the Great American Smoke-out. The theme of World No-Tobacc~ Day this year is Smoking and Children. Today I will summarize the scope and nature of the problem of tobacco addiction in the United States, particularly as it affects our nation's children and youth. I also want to discuss some of the steps my Department is taking to reduce the use of tobacco. The Health Consequences of Smoking We have made tremendous progress toward our ultimate goal of a smoke-free society since the first Surgeon General's report on smoking and health in 1964. A quarter century ago, 40 percent of T108380026
Page 180: TI08380027
2 adults--and more than half of all men--smoked cigarettes. Today fewer than 30 percent of adults smoke, and almost half of all living Americans who ever smoked have quit. Per capita cigarette consumption has fallen each year since 1973. Nonetheless, cigarette smoking remains the single, most important preventable cause of death in our society. Smoking is directly responsible for about 390,000 deaths each year in the United States; thus, we can fairly blame smoking for more than one of every six deaths in our country. It Is astonishing to realize that the number of Americans who die each year from diseases caused by smoking exceeds the number of Americans who died in all of World War II, and this toll, unfortunately, is repeated year after year after year. I am particularly concerned about smoking among pregnant women, and among our children and teen-agers. Women took up smoking in large numbers in the 1940s and 1950s. Since that time, the rate of smoking has declined much more slowly among women than among men. Cigarette companies have aggressively targeted women since 1928, when women were asked to "Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Sweet." A more contemporary advertising campaign associates smoking with women's liberation--"You've Come a Long Way, Baby." However, these ads fail to point out that smoking is an equal TI08380027
Page 181: TI08380028
3 opportunity killer. Lung cancer has overtaken breast cancer as the number one cause of cancer death among women, and lung cancer death rates among women continue to increase at an unrelenting pace. Other smoking-related diseases, such as heart disease, and emphysema, also are exacting a terrible toll on women in this country. For example, a recent article published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that women who smoke are more than three times as likely to have a heart attack as women who have never smoked. This study and hundreds of others have demonstrated that women who smoke like men are going to die like men who smoke. Smoking is one area where women are unfortunately outdoing men in one respect; at present, young women are more likely to smoke than young men. Women who are addicted to tobacco are obviously affecting their own health, and that is unfortunate enough. But women who smoke during pregnancy are undeniably affecting their own babies. Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to have miscarriages, and they are more likely to have dangerously small babies, or babies who die during their infancy. To put it in very plain terms, being born too small is a hazard to your health, and too many of our babies are suffering this hazard as the result of women smoking during pregnancy. The danger of smoking during pregnancy is real -- smoking doubles the risk that a baby will die -- and it is pervasive -- there are around 900,000 infants born each year to smoking mothers. We know that TI08380028
Page 182: TI08380029
4 smoking increases a woman's chances of having an underweight baby. Anyone who has held an underweight baby in their arms, as I have, realizes what a tragedy it is to have a child begin its life way behind the "starting line". It is all the more tragic, when smoking is the cause, because smoking is avoidable. These tragedies have a financial and budgetary impact as well. Neonatal intensive care for low birth-weight babies costs about $3 billion a year. We estimate that about one-fourth of all low birth-weight babies are attributable to smoking during pregnancy. Thus, elimination of all smoking by pregnant women could save up to $750 million nationally, and the savings to the Medicaid program are estimated to be between $IS0-200 million. With these kinds of statistics, it is clear that elimination of smoking among child-bearing women would greatly reduce infant mortality and many other health problems and their associated costs. My Department conducts a number of programs which are trying to develop educational methods that can be used to reduce smoking among pregnant women. For example, through the "Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy" (SCIP) project, the Centers for Disease Control is providing assistance to states to develop and integrate smoking cessation information into public prenatal services. If the development of these educational methods is successful, then they can be applied more broadly. T108380029
Page 183: TI08380030
Smoking among young people is a special concern of mine that I want to highlight today. Here's an area where we have had some good news. Smoking among high school seniors actually declined between 1976 and 1980 from 29 percent to 21 percent, but has leveled off since 1980. The really disheartening news is that some one million teens start smoking each year; this amounts to about 3,000 each day, and many of these go on to become addicted for life. In fact, about 90 percent of adult smokers began their addiction as children or adolescents, so the conclusion is clear: these young smokers account for almost all of our future problems. We know that the younger a person is when he or she starts to smoke, the more likely he is to become a long-ter~ smoker and to develop smoking-related diseases. Preventing youngsters from taking up smoking is far more cost-effective than treating addiction later in life. and far less expensive than treating the resulting diseases. As long as a significant proportion of teens view smoking as a desirable, adult pleasure, and become addicted before they can make a mature judgment, we will never succeed in achieving a smoke-free society. It is all too apparent that we, as parents, as educators, as health officials, and legislators, still do not take the problem of smoking among our children and adolescents as seriously as we should. We allow, for example, a constant barrage of cigarette advertising that portrays smoking as safe, sexy, and sophisticated, themes which appeal strongly to T108380030
Page 184: TI08380031
5 impressionable adolescents. And we have found it convenient to look the other way as cigarettes are openly sold to our nation's youth. As with so many other health issues, tobacco addiction should be attacked with prevention measures, and this means that we should mount a vigorous effort to discourage our children and youth from ever starting to smoke. With this in mind, I want to present to you today a new initiative, one which I believe has the potential to make a great contribution towards smoking reduction among youth. Improved Enforcement of State Laws Against Smoking by Minors In March I asked the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of HHS to assess the enforcement of state laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors. I also asked my staff to explore techniques which states could adopt to improve the enforcement of these laws. I am releasing the OIG report today. I would like to summarize it and introduce a copy of the report into the record. Its findings confirm both the findings of other studies and what we already suspected from every day observation. The findings boil down to this simple and unacceptable fact: our children can T!08380031
Page 185: TI08380032
7 easily buy cigarettes virtually anytime they want to in violation of the law. Clearly, something has to change: The OIG collected information in three ways. First, law enforcement and public health officials were contacted in every state to obtain data on enforcement activity and the views of these officials regarding enforcement of these laws. Second, the OIG identified and obtained information on unique, aggressive, and effective state or local enforcement efforts. Third, the OIG interviewed 1200 law enforcement officials, public health officials, educators, youth, parents, and vendors in 18 states and over 300 communities to assess their knowledge of enforcement. Let me now provide the highlights of this report: o Forty-four states and the District of Columbia have laws which make it an offense for retailers to sell cigarettes to minors. However, these laws are being blatantly ignored. o Of the 44 states with such laws, only five could even tell our investigators how many violations had been identified either at the state or municipal level. These five states found a total of 32 violations in 1989, and the remaining states simply didn't know. Thus, nationally we can document 32 violations of the sales laws, while we know T108380032
Page 186: TI08380033
8 that almost one billion packs of cigarettes are illegally sold to our youngsters each year. This is truly a national disgrace. o Two-thirds of the state public health officials reported that there was virtually no enforcement of their state law, and most of the rest said enforcement was minimal. o Because most youth access laws are criminal statutes, only the police can enforce them. Law enforcement officials said that other enforcement priorities and a reluctance to take such cases into crowded court systems dampened their enthusiasm to enforce these laws. o Over 80 percent of both students and adults interviewed by the OIG reported that it is easy for youth to buy cigarettes. Over 60 percent of vendors agreed. As you can see, the overall enforcement record is abysmal. The OIG, however, did find tiny pockets of active enforcement, mostly local communities with strong and enforceable laws. o The OIG identified eleven jurisdictions where officials have made serious attempts to end the sale of cigarettes to minors. These communities are: the state of Florida; Leominster and Brookline, Massachusetts; Woodridge, TI08380033
Page 187: TI08380034
Illinois; Allentown, Pennsylvania; Minneapolis and White Bear County, Minnesota; Layton, Utah; King County (Seattle), Washington; Marquette County, Michigan; and Solano County, California. o The jurisdictions that the OIG identified are successfully enforcing their laws and have offered recommendations for even better performance. The enforcement tools which seem effective in these communities include licensing of tobacco vendors and revocation of licenses for violations, civil rather than criminal penalties for violators, use of "stings" to identify illegal sales, posting of signs at points of sale, and bans or restrictions on vending machines. o Above all, these communities have found that leadership by government officials accompanied by local support and commitment are vital. In sum, where state and local officials take their responsibilities seriously, and devise enforcement tools which are workable and effective, these laws can be successfully enforced. The job can be done! In just these few communities, it is likely that tens of thousands of youth will avoid addiction and extend their healthy lives. What other public health initiative can promise such results at such low cost? T108380034
Page 188: TI08380035
i0 I also asked my staff to use the experience of successful--and not so successful--enforcement efforts to develop a model law which states could adopt. Today, I am releasing the "Model Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors Control Act," and I recommend that every state in the union consider legislation along these lines. I hope that the Nation's governors, all of whom are certainly interested in practical preventive health measures, will get behind legislation to attach this critical problem. We will be working with the leadership of the National Governors Association and other groups to assure that the model bill is considered in each and every state. I would like to summarize the proposed legislation and introduce a copy of it into the record. The proposed model law has several key features, which would do the following: o Create a licensing system, similar to that used to control the sale of alcoholic beverages; thus, a store could sell tobacco to adults only if it avoids selling to minors. Signs stating that sales to minors are illegal would be required at all points of sale. o Set forth a graduated schedule of penalties--monetary fines and license suspensions--for illegal, sales so that store owners and employees face punishment proportional to T!08380035
Page 189: TI08380036
L1 their violation of the law. Penalties are fixed and credible. Those who comply need pay only an annual license fee. o Provide separate penalties for failure to post a sign, and higher penalties for sales without a license. o Place primary responsibility for investigation and enforcement in a designated state agency, such as the State Health Department, but allow local law enforcement and public health officials to investigate compliance and present evidence to the state agency or file complaints in local courts. o Rely primarily on civil penalties to avoid the time delays and costs of the court system, but allow use of local courts to assess fines, similar to traffic enforcement. This provides flexibility to both state and local authorities to target enforcement resources. o Ban the use of vending machines to dispense cigarettes; this provision reflects the difficulty of preventing illegal sales from these machines. You can't buy beer from a vending machine, why should you be able to purchase cigarettes there? In recognition of the economic impact of T!08380036
Page 190: TI08380037
12 such a ban on vending machine owners, states may wish to consider a phased approach leading to a complete ban. o Contain a number of features to minimize burdens on retail outlets: require identification only for those who are not clearly above the age set by the state, allow a driver's license as proof of age, set a nominal penalty for the first violation, disregard one accidental violation if effective controls are in place, have the state provide required signs, and set license fees lower for outlets with small sales volume. I would add that our emphasis on civil money penalties in this model legislation reflects the success that my Department has had using this new tool, that was developed legislatively by the Finance Committee. The use of civil penalties has been particularly successful in addressing Medicare fraud. In summary, the model law attempts to create workable procedures which will provide retail outlets the incentive and tools to refuse to sell tobacco to minors, as already required by law in 44 states. Stores which comply will have no burden other than a licensing fee and, in some cases, replacement of vending machine by over-the-counter sales. Compliance by responsible stores, which would quickly become the great majority, will enable state and local authorities to concentrate enforcement efforts on a TI08380037
Page 191: TI08380038
13 small number of recalcitrant outlets. The few stores which are unable or unwilling to prevent tobacco sales to minors may elect to stop carrying tobacco products, or will lose the license to sell them. Adult smokers would be unaffected by the proposed law. Ultimately, the effectiveness of state laws depends on the willingness of concerned citizens to report violations to authorities who are responsible for investigations and enforcement. We are sure that enough citizens are concerned; the model law should help state legislatures develop an effective and efficient system to handle their complaints. However, we feel that merely putting an effective enforcement mechanism in place is the single most important reform. The better the mechanism, the less likely it will have to be used. I would like to add that if some states are unable to put this proposal into place then cities and counties can certainly do so. The OIG study clearly showed that local jurisdictions can have a noticeable impact on cigarette sales to minors if they choose. Regardless of the level, I urge the adoption of legislation based on this model bill. No state or city could take a more effective health-enhancing action for its citizens than enactment of a set of well-designed enforcement tools aimed at eliminating the sale of cigarettes to minors. Businesses, which are struggling with TI08380038
Page 192: TI08380039
14 the costs of providing employee health benefits, should recognize the long-term value of this bill, as it should diminish the number of people who get hooked on smoking while young -- only to become disease victims later. Mr. Chairman, this proposal represents only one of the initiatives we are taking; you are well aware of my abiding concern for the impact smoking is having on minorities. I look forward to working with you and other members of Congress to promote a tobacco free lifestyle. Elimination of this addictive substance will do more to enhance the length and quality of life in the United States than any other step we could take. Unlike many of the issues.which this Committee examines each year, moreover, smoking reduction can be achieved at very low cost to Federal or state budgets. Indeed, smoking reduction creates positive fiscal effects on employment and income tax revenues, and on both public and private retirement funds and medical insurance, due to prolongation of working years and reduced illness during those years. I would be happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the Committee might have. T108380039
Page 193: TI08380040
HHS U.S. DI[PARTME:NT Olr HE:ALTH AHD HUMAN SE;RVIC~"S FOR RELEASE: I0 a.m., EDT Thursday, May 24, 1990 Contact: HHS Press Office (202) 245-6343 I.G. Press Office (202) 619-1142 Calling for stronger efforts to prevent the sale of cigarettes to minors, HHS Secretary Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., today proposed model state legislation which would ban cigarette vending machines and provide for a licensing system similar to that used to control the sale of alcoholic beverages. Secretary Sullivan cited a report released today by the HHS Inspector General which found that while 44 states have laws prohibiting cigarette sales to minors, little effective enforcement of these laws is carried out. "These laws are being blatantly ignored," Dr. Sullivan said in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee. "We have found it convenient to look the other way as cigarettes are openly sold to our nation's youth." The report said that in a summary survey, only five of the 44 state law enforcement agencies could state how many violations were identified last year. "We can document only a handful of violations of the sales laws, while we estimate that almost a billion packs of cigarettes are illegally sold to our youngsters each year," Dr. Sullivan said. T108380040
Page 194: TI08380041
- 2 - "The findings boil down to this simple and unacceptable fact: kids can easily buy cigarettes virtually anytime they want to in violation of the law," he said in his prepared testimony. "It is all too apparent that we, as parents, as educators, as health officials and legislators, still do not take the problem of smoking among our children and adolescents as seriously as we should." Dr. Sullivan said that "the younger a person is when he or she starts to smoke, the more likely that smoking will become a life-long addiction and the more likely are smoking-related diseases. In fact, about 90 percent of adult smokers began thei~ addiction as children or adolescents, so the conclusion is clear: these young smokers account for almost all our future smokers." Secretary Sullivan pledged to work with states to help improve their control of tobacco sales to minors. The "Model Sale of Tobacco Products to Minors Control Act" which he proposed for s£ates today would: 0 Create a licensing system to control the sale of tobacco. A store could sell tobacco to adults only if it avoids selling to minors. Signs stating that sales to minors are illegal would be required at all points of sale. 0 Rely primarily on civil penalties to avoid the time delays and costs of the court system. Place primary responsibility for investigation and enforcement in a designated state agency, such as the state health department, but a11ow local law enforcement and public health officials to investigate compliance. T!08380041
Page 195: TI08380042
- 3 - o Ba~ the use of vending machines to dispense cigarettes. To temper economic impact, states might consider a phased approach leading to a complete ban. "The really disheartening news is that some one million teens start smoking each year. This amounts to about 3,000 each day," Dr. Sullivan said. "As long as a significant proportion of teens view smoking as a desirable, adult pleasure, and become addicted before they can make a mature judgment, we will never succeed in achieving a smoke-free society," he added. ### TI08380042
Page 196: TI08380043
Page 197: TI08380044
Page 198: TI08380045
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL The mission of the Office of Inspector General fOIG) is to promote the efficiency, effectiveness and integrity of programs in the United States Department of Health and Human Services (Iqt/S). It does this by d~veloping methods to detect and prevent waste, fraud and abuse. Created by statute in 1976, the Inspector Genera[ keeps both the Secretary and the Congress fully and currently informed about programs or management problems and recommends corrective action. The OIG performs its mission by conducting audits, investigations and inspections with approximately 1,400 staff strategically located around the country. OFFICE OF EVALUATION AND INSPECTIONS This report is produced by the Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI), one of the three major offices within the OIG. The other two are the Office of Audit Services and the Office of Investigation. Inspections are conducted in accordance with professional standards developed by OEL These inspections are typically short-term studies designed to determine program effectiveness, efficiency and vulnerability to fraud or abuse. This study was conducteA to assess the enforcement of State laws prohibiting the sale of eigaretms to minors. This z'eport was prepared under the direction of Thomas E Tully, Regional Inspector General of Region rr, Office of Evaluation and Inspections. Participating in this project were the following people: New York Jack Moinar lodi Nudcknan Traccy Renni¢ Headquarters Penny Thompson Each Region and Headquarters conm'buted to this inspection. For more information, please contact Jack Molnar, the project leader, at (212) 264-1998. T108380045
Page 199: TI08380046
Y-OL~TH AC£~I~'-ss TO CIGARETTES Richard P. Kusserow INSPECTOR GENERAL OE1,.02-80-02310 MAY 1990 TI08380046
Page 200: TI08380047
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PURPOSE To assess the enfomcment of State laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors. BACKGROUND As part of his initiative on smoking, Secretary Sullivan asked the Office of Inspector General to survey States regarding their laws on the sale of cigarettes to minors. He wanted to know the extent to which the laws are enforced, the nature of enforcement activities and the most effective practices. Research has documented that millions of youth smoke, despite the existence of laws in 44 States and the District of Columbia prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors. Yet, a Journal of the American Medical Association article estimates that more than 3 million American children under age 18 consume 947 rnillion packs of cigareues yearly. METHODOLOGY The study team interviewed State health and law enforcement agencies to document any enforcement activity; conducted in-depth studies of 11 specific active State and local enforcement efforts; and completed 1200 interviews in 18 States with students, parents, vendors and other adults to assess the public's knowledge and awareness of laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors. FINDINGS • Youth access laws arc not being enforced. • Children can easily buy cigarettes. * Areas of active enforcement are few; they rely on local leadership. • Active enforcement involves a variety of techniques, primarily administrative in nature. - Among the most common approaches are licensing, fines, stings, restrictions on vending machines, and warning signs. T108380047
Page 201: TI08380048
TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1 BACKGROUND .................................................. 1 METHODOLOGY ................................................. 2 FINDINGS ....................................................... 3 Youth Access Laws Are Not Being Enforced, and Children Can Easily Buy Cigarettes ........................ 3 Areas of Active Enforcement Are Few; They Rely on Local Leadership ............................... 5 Active Enforcement Involves a Variety of Techniques, Primarily Administrative in Nature .................. 6 T108380048
Page 202: TI08380049
INTRODUCTION PURPOSE To assess the enforcement of State laws prohibiting ~he sale of cigarettes to minors. BACKGROUND As part of his initiative on smoking, Secretary Sullivan asked the Office of Inspector General to survey States regarding their laws on the sale of cigarettes to minors. He specifically wanted to know the extent to which the laws are enforced, the nature of enforcement activities and the most effective practices. Although the Surgeon General reports that most States have youth access laws, there is little information on their enforcement. Research has documented that children smoke. Each day more than 3,000 children star~ smoking. A Journal of the American Medical Association article estimates that more than 3 million American children under age 18 consume 947 million packs of cigarettes yearly. Additionally, 75 percent of current adult smokers started smoking before their 18th birthday. The Annual High School Seniors Survey, conducted in 1987 by the University of Michigan, reports that approximately one out of every five high school seniors smoke daffy, and that over half the seniors who smoked began smoking by the eighth gra~. According to a study by the Minnesota Tobacco-Free Youth Project, the earlier a child starts using tobacco, the more likely it is that he/she will be unable to quit. The sarn~ study found that more than one-half of high school seniors who smo~ daily have tried to quit without success. States have responded to the fact that children smok~ by passing laws that prohibit the sale of cigarettes to minors. Currently, 44 States and the District of Columbia have such laws. The age at which children are no longer considered minors ranges from 15 to 19, with 18 being the most common. These are not new laws; most were enacted between 1890 and 1920 as a result of pressur~ from activists who were trying to prevent young boys from smoking. As recently as 1964, 48 States had laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors, but some were repealed because they wer~ considered unenforceable. In at least 11 States vendors must post signs stating it is illegal to sell cigarettes to minors. Penalties for violation of these laws vary greatly -- from a $2 fme in Washington D.C., to a maximum of a $3,000 free and/or a year in jail in Minnesota. In most Stat~s the penalty is a free and/or jail. D~spitc the fact that virtually all States license the sale or dislribution of cigaretms, only four have license revocation as a penalty for selling to minors. Most States leave enforcemsnt to local law enforcement officials. However, in Florida and New Hampshire, State taxation agencies have the responsibility; in Massachusetts, it is the State Deparmaent of Public Health. TI08380049
Page 203: TI08380050
Indications that enforcement may bc weak came not only from the observable fact that teens are smoking, but also from a number of studies and from controlled purchases or "stings" that demonstrated children can and do buy cigarettes. Dozens of such local "stings" have bccn run by researchers, local reporters, police, and health departments to test youth access laws. Generally, minors were able to purchase cigarettes illegally about 80 percent of the time. Additionally, in 1987, nearly 90 percen.t of a sample of Minnesota 10th graders who smoked regularly reported that it was very. easy to obtain cigarettes despite a State law. In the 1987 "National Adolescent Student Health Survey" of 1100 students, 73 percent of the 8th and 10th graders said it was very easy to buy; 13 percent snid its fairly easy. Also in 1987, 90 percent of a sample of New Jersey high school students who smoked said they could always or nearly always buy cigarettes. METHODOLOGY Data collection was performed in three stages. Initially, the study team interviewed each State health and law enforcement agency where access laws exist to document enforcement activity. Interviews were conducted with a person designated in each State as the tobacco contact person in response to a request from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. This tobacco contact person described his/her awareness of enforcement activities as well as perceived problems with enforcement. The law enforcement official contacted was the State-designated National Crime Information Center (NCIC) contact, who was asked to provide statistics on the enforcement of these State statutes. In the second stage of the inspection the team studied specific State and local enforcement efforts. An extensive literature review and contact with State ot~cials, experts and academics in the youth smoking field indicated 10 local areas and one State, Florida, where enforcement was actively occurring. Individual communities actively enforcing youth access laws are located in California, minois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah and Washington. In-person and telephone interviews, using open-ended discussion guides, were utilized to study these special enforcement efforts. In the third stage, OIG staff assessed the public's knowledge and awareness of laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors. A questionnaire was developed, and almost 1200 interviews in urban and suburban settings were completed during April. The interviews took place in over 300 communities in eighteen States: California, Connecticut, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Vh'ginia, Washington and W~seonsin. The subjects interviewed included 295 vendors, 322 students and 561 other adults. These adults included 112 school officials, 95 law enforcement offieials, 87 public health offieials and 250 parents. The number of respondents varies by each question. T!08380050
Page 204: TI08380051
FINDINGS Youth Access Laws Are Not Being Enforced, and Children Can Easily Buy Cigarettes. State officials report that laws are not being enforced. Two-thirds of State health department officials indicate that there is virtually no enforcement of their State law; another fifth say it is minimal Nearly half of the State health officials believe the law is.not being enforced because it is not a priority. "People don't get excited about tobacco," explained one health official. The general sentiment is captured in another official's response that "people feel [that] there are more important issues that must be enforced." Other State health officials cite both a lack of funding and difficulty in enforcing the law as reasons for nonenforcement. State-level police data also confirm the minimal level of enforcement. The majority of NCIC control agencies contacted could not provide actual numbers on violations and enforcement. Of the 44 States with laws prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors, only five could provide any statistical information on vendor violations: STATE 1989 VENDOR VIOLATIONS Alaska 8 Connecticut 0. Florida 16 New York 8 Vermont 0 A notable area of statistical accomplishment is Utah which in 1989 issued 4476 violations to minors for purchasing and/or possessing tobacco. Law enforcement officials in the remaining Stares report that municipalities are either not required to report such minor offenses, or that all such offenses arc lumped together in a miscellaneous category and cannot be accessed separately. Discussions with local law enforcement officials further confirm the impression that little is being done. More than three-quarters interviewed from 78 communities around the country do not think youth access laws arc being enforced in their communities. In fact, 76 of 89 (85%) repo~ that they do not know of anyone ever being caught breaking this law. Local public health officials agree. More than two-thirds interviewed believe the law is not being enforced in their local area; 64 of 73 respondents (88%) do not know of anyone ever being caught under this law. 3 T108380051
Page 205: TI08380052
Communily respondents also note lack of enforcemen~ More than three-quarters of respondents in the community also say youth access laws are not being enforced. This includes 246 of 320 student respondents (77%) and 429 of 559 aduhs (77%) including law enforcement officials. Half of the vendors surveyed agree. Respondents in the community also do not know anyone who has ever been caught selling cigarettes to minors; 206 of 255 student respondents (81%) and 421 of 488 adult respondents (86%) do not "know anyone who has ever been caught. The majority of vendors, 227 of 268 (85%), am likewise unaware of anyone ever being caught. Respondents also say children can easily buy cigarettes in their community. The majority of adult and student respondents, 477 of 560 adults (84%) and 269 of 319 students (84%), consider it easy. Of 159 children who say they have smoked, 139 (87%) claim that it is easy to buy cigarettes. About two-thirds of the vendors agree. Despite easy access and lack of enforcement, most respondents are, nevertheless, aware of the youth access law in their State. Three-quarters of students know of these laws. Similarly, 479 of 552 responding adults (86%), including 90 of 94 law enforcement officials (96%), are aware of them. Most store clerks, managers and owners, 266 of 292 (91%), know it is illegal to sell cigarettes to minors. When asked how they became aware of these laws, vendors most often mentioned that it is common knowledge, while others report that their employer informed them. Lack of enforcement is due to apathy. Overall, both adults and vendors suggest apathy as the major reason why these laws are not being enforced. Of the 429 adult respondents who believe the law is not enforced, 97 (23%) believe that the law is not a priority with the police or limited resources for enforcement exist. Ninety-five (22%) say the law is not a community priority and no one really cams about it. Ninety-throe (22%) blan~ vendors for not caring who they sell to and just wanting the profits from sales. Only 17 adult respondents (4%) blame a lack of awareness of the law. Vendors generally agree with adult respondents. Of the 145 vendor respondents who believe the law is not enforced, 30 (21%) say that vendors in general do not cam who they sell to and find it inconvenient to check identification. Thirty (2I%) believe that the police am too busy to enforce the law and 28 (19%) suggest public apathy. Other respondents in the community attribute nonenforcement to, as one respondent noted, "a lack of political pressure to have police or anyone else enforce it." Others believe that teens would get cigarettes anyway, especially from vending machines, and that the law is too difficult to enforce. 4 T108380052
Page 206: TI08380053
The majority of experts in the youth smoking field and officials in the communities taking local initiative believe these laws are a low police priority. "'The police don't acknowledge it as a problem," one respondent explained. As one local official noted, "Local cops have more than they can handle. They don't have time for this law." One expert commented that "enforcement is not occurring because the community is not making a fuss about it." Others cite a lack of leadership and the absence of an identifiable person or agency responsible for enforcement. The majority of the law enforcement officials confirm that it is not a priority and say they have more important issues to address. As one officer notes, "The law is not important enough to have officers using their time to enforce it." Local law enforcement agencies also mention reluctance to take these eases into the congested court systems, noting that prosecution of criminal laws is not only time consuming but cosily. Areas of Active Enforcement Are Few; They Rely on Local Leadership. Local leadership exists in nearly all active enforcement areas. Eleven active enforcement initiatives were identified and contacted; all but one fFlorida) were local initiatives supported by the community. These areas include: Solano County, CA Brookline,/VIA Marquette County, MI White Bear Lake, MN Layton, UT Woodridge, IL Leominster, MA Minneapolis, MN Allentown, PA King County, WA In eight of these areas, local laws have been established and are being enforced, while in the remaining three the State law is being enforced. In some States, these aedve cornmunifies have served as examples for other municipalities wlfieh have now also adopted similar enforcement policies. There may be more than one active town in each area; however, interviews were held only with those who f'n'st became active. Generally, these enforcement initiatives have resulted from community concern and local leadership. In Woodridge, a local junior high school principal became concerned when a young student was seen purchasing cigarettes in a neaxby store, and asked the youth officer from the local police department if it was illegal. After sotn~ research, the officer discovered it was, in fact, illegal. The officer then helped write a town ordinance prohibiting sale to minors and possession by minors. In the last year, three vendors' licenses have been suspended and over 30 minors have been ticketed. Many surrounding towns followed his lead and adopted similar local ordinances. 5 TI08380053
Page 207: TI08380054
In Massachusetts, in response to an apparent lack of enforcement of the youth access law, the State Health Department asked local health departments to take on the responsibility. So far, two have accepted and are issuing tickets to violators. Both towns have adopted the State taw as a local public health law, thus allowing enforcement by local health inspectors. Information obtained at a smoking conference showing that nine percent of seventh graders smoke motivated the Allentown Health Department to look into enforcement of the State's law. In its ftrst test of the law, it found that all I5 of its 15 test stores sold cigarettes to minors. In Solano County California, the Cancer Conu'ol Program, concerned about the public health effect of teens smoking, encouraged three local police departments to enforce the State's law. These efforts resulted in 31 arrests. Active Enforcement Involves a Variety of Techniques, Primarily Administrative in Nature. Among the most commonly used techniques are licensing, frees, stings, restrictions on vending machines, and warning signs. Licensing appears to be an effective tool in enforcing youth access laws. Of the eleven active programs contacted, eight provide for revocation or suspension of the vendor's license following a prescribed number of violations. While all States license the production, distribution or sale of tobacco, only 31 license vendors; the remaining States license the wholesaler or the distributor. The source of these licenses varies; sona~ are issued locally and others are issued by the State. Suspending a vendor's right to sell cigarettes for a period of time has greater impact than a free, according to active enforcers. Since sales can account for tiun&eds of dollars of a store's daily intake, a minor monetary fine, in contrast, is relatively painless to pay. Also, a vendor who is forced to turn enstomers away may lose customers. Officials in these communities agree that a license revocation penalty causes vendors to obey the law. They point to the virtually self-enforcing alcohol laws as models. ~ types of license revocation were identified in the active communities. In Florida, the law prohibiting the sale of tobacco to minors is enforced by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Vendors who violate cigarette access laws can and do have their license to sell alcohol suspended. This occurred 16 times last year. In Brookline and Lcominster, where the law is enforced by the local health department, vendors lose their food licenses. The first License was suspended recently. In the remaining sites, tobacco Licenses issued locally to vendors are revoked when misused. In all throe cases, suspensions are for a period of days for the ftrst offense and longer for each added offense. One active enforcer stressed the importance of making these punishments reasonable. "If you make it too severe, you'll lose that crucial community support." 6 TI08380054
Page 208: TI08380055
License fees vary greatly and can be used in many ways. Fees charged for these vendor licenses range from $5 for 3 years in Marquette County, MI to $210 for 3 years in King County, WA. In some areas (King County and Florida) fees are earmarked to pay t-or enforcement, while in others (Brookline) they fund tobacco and health education programs. Civil fines work better than criminal pentdties. While criminal offenses must work their way through the criminal justice system, civil offenses are generally handled administratively. Seen as a viable alternative in the enforcement of youth access laws, they are used in six of the eleven active communities. Civil penalties expedite enforcement through the use of non-traditional enforcement officinls (i.e., health inspectors, licensing inspectors, etc.), and avoid needlessly clogging the criminal justice system. In Minnesota, the penalty for selling to a minor is a gross misdemeanor, which if enforced, could mean jail for the clerks who sell. However, when three clerks in Ramsey were arrested for selling to minors, there was a public outcry for more lenient penalties. Minneapolis thus chose to punish violators civilly, going after the owner's license rather than the clerk. In Florida, the access laws are criminal and violators must appear in court. Criminal court judges, however, feel strongly that these violators should not be burdened with a criminal record for such a common offense. The judges issue fines, but the violators are not adjudicated as guilty and, therefore, avoid criminal records. In some California criminal courts, judges have suspended sentences and have only issued fines. They also believe that criminal penalties do not fit this crime. In Leominster and Brooldine, sanitarians and public health officials issue tickets on which the f'mes are outlined. Cases are handled entirely by the health department; the police are not involved. Overall, civil penalties are well received by active communities. When asked why other State youth access laws ~ generally not enforced, a majority of active community respondents believe it is because it is not a police priority; some blame public apathy. They feel that people, while not wanting children to purchase cigarettes, believe that police should be concentrating on more important issues, like illegal drugs and rape. Police involved in actively enforcing these laws believe that the laws should be civil as opposed to criminal and would be more appropriately enforced by health departments and licensing officials. One of the more successful police enforcers stat~ 'Wbe police department should not enforce this law. Citizens would argue there's not enough manpower. The health deparmaent is a more appropriate arm because it is not an offensive crime. It is a health issue - an administrative issue." TI08380055
Page 209: TI08380056
Stings are most often recommended as an enforcement technique by active communitfes. A sting is conducted under the supervision of an enforcing agency which attempts to have a teenager purchase cigarettes from a vendor. All but two of the active localities use stings. In some cases, teenagers are paid by the agency running the sting and are considered special agents. Recruited from schools, advocacy programs, or police cadet programs, they are chosen because they look young and are warned not to lie about their age if asked, to avoid charges of entrapment. In some areas of Horida. the children are taken before a judge prior to the sting to assure that they look underage. In some communities, like Woodridge, a plainclothes officer enters the store before the child and pretends to be shopping so the purchase can be witnessed Although the Wood.ridge law does not require that the officer witness the sale, police feel it adds to the validity of the charges. Woodridge estimates that quarterly stings of all 34 of its local tobacco vendors can be completed in just 4 hours by one officer. In addition to running quarterly stings, Woodddge also follows up on complaints from the community with additional stings. Several active communities noted that stings by researchers and activists eventually led to community involvement. In California, the Solano County Cancer Prevention Program conducted the initial stings to see if there was a problem, not to catch violators. This led to stings b~;police with violators being punished. Likewise, in Woodridge, DePaul University researchers performed several stings to alert the town council to the existence of the problem, which led to the creation of the local ordinance When asked for suggestions as to how youth access laws could be enforced, the use of stings was the answer given repeatedly, with one respondent stating that, "Stings arc vital to enforcement." Additionally, active enforcers generally believe that stings should be done regularly as opposed to being done only in response to a complaint. Another active enforcer said, "Stings are the only way to enforce. Complaints are not enough; no one complains. There is no alternative to stings." The accessibili~ of vending machines is addressed when designing successful youth access laws. Vending machines arc estimated by a National Automatic Merchandising Association study to account for 16 percent of illegal cigarette sales to minors, and the younger children are, the morn likely they are to purchase from a machine. Enforcement expev.s agree that effective youth access legislation should deal with vending machines. Currently, 51 percent of State health d~parmaent officials report that they have no policy concerning vending machines, and another 33 percent say they merely require a warning sign to be posted on the machine. In contrast, seven of the eleven active communities deal with vending machines with total bans, locking devices or limited placement requirements. 8 T108380056
Page 210: TI08380057
Limited placement allows for vending machines in places that do not normally allow children anyway (i.e., bars, offices or factories). Currently. only 6 percent of State health departments interviewed report that their youth access laws limit the placement of vending machines, but half suggest limiting placement. Locking devices require the installation of a relatively inexpensive device that inactivates the machine until a clerk triggers the power, thus allowing the clerk to check the age of the purchaser. Utah experimented with locking devices recently with limited success. Reportedly, cierks would simply activate the machine without checking the age of the purchaser. Since locking devices require employee participation, they are often not as effective in busy places, such as bars or restaurants, where employees are more likely to simply activate the machine. Sixteen municipalities in Minnesota recently banned cigarette vending machines entirely. These bans have generally been well received and are expected to lead to stricter enforcement of over-the-counter sales. The remaining 42 percent of State health department officials say that total bans are the only way to prevent teens from using vending machines. Warning signs remind both clerks and customers that sale to minors is illegal. Cttrrently, seven of the eleven active communities require vendors to post signs at the point of sale stating that it is illegal to sell to minors. Similarly, 55 percent of State health dei~artments say vendors in their States are required to post warning signs. In Massachusetts, vendors must place these signs in such a way that they face the clerk as a constant reminder. In Utah, innovative d~signs and neon colors have been used to make signs distributed by local health departrnents more noticeable. In addition to signs, Woodridge clerks wear buttons reminding customers of the new ordinance. While enforcement experts stress that signs alone axe not enough to stop illegal sales, they are a constant reminder to both children and employees. Experts believe that making tobacco laws similar to alcohol laws would be an effective enforcement mechanism. Enfomemcnt in Horida, conducted by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is the san~ for alcohol and tobacco sales to minors, although ages differ (21 and 18, respectively). Three other States with similar alcohol/tobacco control agencies are not actively enforcing tobacco access laws, although they have the authority. At least two alcohol control agencies (ME, WA) report that their State legislatures are considering authorizing them to enforce existing tobacco access laws. Sixty percent of Stat~ health department respondents believe that the alcohol enforcement model would work for tobacco, and point to the license revocation provision in particular. Those who feel that the alcohol enforcement model would not work for cigarettes cite the extremely high number of tobacco vendors, which far exceeds the number of alcohol vendors. T108380057
Page 211: TI08380058
Those proposing new youth access legislation are cautioned not to preempt any already existing local activi~.. Officials in charge of active enforcement initiatives based on locally enacted ordinances caution that State laws should not preempt stronger local iegislation. As a case in point, California recendy passed a State law which precludes municipalities from enacting tobacco control laws. Opinions vary as to whether or not to make it illegal for minors to posses~ cigarettes. In five of the eleven sites contacted, it is illegal for a child to possess cigarettes. Enforcement experts believe this makes enforcement easier, serves as an additional deterrent and gives the vendor leverage when refusing to seil to minors. Penalties for youth violators range from 5 hours of community service to a $50 f'me. In two areas enforcement is directed at the minor as opposed to the vendor: ticketing teens and suspending them from school and extra-curricular activities for possessing cigarettes is central to Utah's approach; White Bear Lake, MN brings them to the police sta~on when caught in possession of cigarettes. California notes that caution must be used when performing stings in communities where possession or purchase is illegal. These minors must either be police agents or have special police permission. 10 T108380058
Page 212: TI08380059
Coalit!on on Smoking OR Health 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-9375 Movies USA Magazine: Targeting Youth with Cigarette Adverlising Movies USA Magazine: Movies USA premiered in March 1989. It is distributed monthly, without charge, by five of the largest movie theater chains in the United States: Cineplex Odeon, with 1,643 screens; General Cinema, with over 1,350 screens; Cinemark, with over 400 screens; Carmike Cinemas, with 669 screens; and Mann Theatres, with over 400 screens. Marketing materials distributed by the publisher of Movies USA explain that the magazine's target is "a captive audience of one million moviegoers" who are "youthful" and "image-conscious." The objective, the publisher continues, is to 'l[ie] in promotions with the glamour and excitement of Hollywood and the movies." Actual readership is estimated at 3,000,000 monthly. Advertisements appearing in Movies USA promote a number of products likely to appeal to high school girls and boys. Advertisements In Movies USA for Camel Cigarettes: Every issue of Movies USA contains advertisements for one or more of R.J. Reynolds' cigarette brands, Camel, Magna or Salem. The Camel ads which have appeared in Movies USA, like those which have appeared in other popular magazines with substantial youth audiences (e.g., Rollin_q Stone, S~ort, National Laml~oon), portray a smiling cartoon dromedary smoking a Camel cigarette under the heading "Smooth Character." The ads portray the camel as a fighter-pilot, debonair gambler or "James Bond" type figure, always in the company of a voluptuous and often scantily clad young woman gazing admiringly at him. In the context of Movies USA, the connection between Camel cigarettes and sexual attractiveness, material wealth, fame and a daring lifestyle is made that much more explicit. Moviegoe~ Age Demographics and Readership of Movies USA Magazine: A high percentage of the readers of Movies USA are children and teenagers. O! those who read the magazine, moreover, the youngest readers pay the most attention to the magazine, according to a study conducted for the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., Worldwide Market Research Group ("MPAA"), and a Movies USA reader survey released in October 1989. According to the MPAA study, 12% of moviegoers in 1988 were age 12-15, and another 32% age 16-24. As explained in a September 18, 1989 Advertisinq Aqe article included in the Movies USA marketing kit, advertisers are lining up to show commercials at movie theaters in the United States because they are "full of captive, hard-to-reach young adults," The results of the Movies USA reader survey illustrate the magazine's appeal to its youthful readers: Amedcan Heart Association AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION T!08380059
Page 213: TI08380060
The survey results establish that those under age 18 attend the movies more frequently than do those in other age groups. Ol those under 18, 8.2% responded that they had attended movies 15 or more times in the last 90 days, while 5.2% of those 18-24 and 3.3% of those 25-34 did so. The results also showed that those under 18 spend considerably more time reading or looking into Movies USA than those in other age groups. Those under 18 offered a higher percentage (19.2%) of individuals who read or look into each issue of Movies USA between one and 1.5 hours than those 18-24 (15.3%) and 25-34 (10.2%). Fully 5.8% of those under 18 responded that they read or look into Movies USA four hours or more, in contrast with ordy 0.2% of those 18-24 and 0.3% of those 25-3¢ Of readers under 18, 38.5% said that they save the magazine after they finish reading it, substantially more than the 26.3% of those 18-24 and 16.1% of those 25-34 who do so. Of those under 18, 21.2% said they clip items of interest, while 15.1% and 12.8%, respectively, of those 18-24 and 25-34 said that they do so. Of all readers of the magazine under 18 years of age, fully 42.3% rated the magazine "excellent;' Only 26.6% of those 18-24 and 23.2% of those 25-34 rated the publication as highly. Attached are copies of advert|sements for Camel cigarettes that have appeared in Movies USA and other publications. T!08380060
Page 214: TI08380061
8 AP Online APV-4058 AP 05/31 15:37 EOT V0~3~ Copyright i99~. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. WASHINGTON (AP) -- Five million of today's children will die of smoking-related illnesses in their later years if the current rate of tobacco use by youn9 people continues, the U.S. surgeon general said Thursday. Dr. Antonio Novello, in her first ~ajo~ address on smoking, said mo~e than 3~0~0 teen-agars become regular smokers each day. She a=cused ~iga~ette companie~ of spendin~ $3.~ billion annually t~ adve~tlse mnd promote their produc~s in ways that appeal to ~hildren and adolescent:. A spokeswoman fo~ the Tobacco Inst~tute~ interviewe~ later~ smid cigarette =ompanie~ ~o not want chzld~en as their custome~so "For de~ades we have taken aggrestiue actions to keep cigarettes out of ~he hands ~f kids," Brennan Da~¢son said. She ~aid advertising is n~t mimed at ~reating new smoke~s~ ~ut telling tobacco products to peopl~ who already smoke. Novello's ~imaPks came at a =onfer~nce to ~top smoking among minors held by the Interagency C~mmittee on ~moking and Health National Advisory ~ommi~tee. The p~o~ram also featured s~eake~ from t~e Pan American Health Organization, the Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco ~anizat~on, an~ ~ducators and law enforcement The program coincide~ wit~ Wo~l~ N~-Tobac~o Day. Novello said 44 ~tates restrict th~ sale of tobacco products to ~i~OrS. '~ $i~ ~eekss it will be 45," Da~s~on~ the tobacco spokeswoman~ said, noting that Kentucky recently passed such legislation. not opposed to that." But the surgeon general was critical oF the e~forcement ~ those laws~ saying only five states ~ave ~een able to provide statistical information of violations. She quoted an article in the Journal of the American Medical Amso~iati~n as saying an e~timated i ~,illion packs of ~iga~ettes are $oId annually to chi1~ren under 18 ye¢~e o~ "Because only a very small pe~centa.Qe of smoke~s be~in smokin~ as adults, effo~t~ at p~eventzon must focus on children," Novello said. "If current smoking rates were to continue in the United States 5 million of the children now llv)n~ in this country wo~Id die af ~mokin~-~elated ~isease. That alarminE mtatisti~ should be enough to ~alse this issue to the t~p of the public agenda~" Novello sai~. ~awson said, howeve~ that a ~ecent government ~eport ~eleased by the Department af Health and Human Services maid about 50 percent of all smokers s~a~ted the ~a~it Detween the ages of 18 and ~1. "What ~auses teens to smoke is pee~ pressure and the influence of The tobacco spokeswoman said smoking amon~ teen-aEers is down. About ~ percent of all high school students now smoke~ compared with 3e pe~ent in the 1970s, she But ~moking among young women ~s up, s~Id the surgeon general. She said they now smoke at a greater ~ate than boys, accordin~ to the Annual Survey of Drug Use by ~ign School Seniors~ ~pon~ored by the National Institute on Dru~ Abuse. ~ast pa~e ! Time: 16#11 05/31/90 EDT ~onnect Time # 39 s~cond~ Tl08380061
Page 215: TI08380062
- PRESS RELEASE • WORLD HEALTH ORGAaNIZATION • CH-1211 Geneva 27 • Switzerland Contact: Marshall Hoffman {703) 820-2244 (202) 861-3198 Release Date: May 31, 1990, a.m. THE GLOBAL IMPACT OF TOBACCO USE: 500 MILLION DEATHS World No-Tobacco Day, May 31, 1990 If current tobacco consumption trends continue, one out of ten people living in the world today -- or some 500 million people -- will die of easily preventable, tobacco-related diseases, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). In an effort to help change current patterns of tobacco use, the World Health Orga.nization proclaims May 31, 1990 as the third annual World No-Tobacco Day and urges smokers to abstain from tobacco for 24 hours in the hope that smokers can break their tobacco habits. Hiroshi Nakajima, M.D., Ph.D., Director-General of WHO, calls for a renewed assault on smoking and tobacco use which he says should ultimately be eliminated, creating a "tobacco-free" society. "The consumption of tobacco is a habit responsible for three million premature deaths each year, or approximately one death every 10 seconds," Dr. Nakajima says. "This is all the more tragic, because this habit is the most preventable of all causes of disability and death in the world today." The principal tobacco-related diseases are cancer (especially lung cancer), chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and coronary heart disease and stroke. TI08380062
Page 216: TI08380063
The impact of tobacco use in many countries is .~larming. Deaths attributable to tobacco use number about 700,000 a year in Europe, 400,000 a year in the United States, and 400,000 a year in the Soviet Union. Mortality and morbidity data for the developing countries are less accurate, but the toll from tobacco use is believed to be rising in China. Braz~l, Egypt and Thailand. Not only are smokers dying from their tobacco habit, but they are dying at an earlier age than non- tobacco users. Recent WHO data show that the hves of smokers of middle age (35 to 69 years of age) can be shortened by 15 - 20 years because of tobacco use. The impact of tobacco production use in numerical terms is staggering. World cigarette production continued to increase in 1988. Profits from this trade are high, as are the tobacco taxes collected by governments. "Strong political will and commitment are needed to stop people's dependence on tobacco, and governments' 'addiction' to tobacco taxation revenue," says Dr. Nakajima. One worrisome trend for WHO experts is the targeting by tobacco companies of children and young adults. This trend is why the theme of this year's World No-Tobacco Day is "Childhood and Youth Without Tobacco". "It is not enough to offer young children and adolescents the choice between tobacco or health,'" says Dr. Nakajima." For the sake of their health, it is necessary to guide them in making the choice. Every child should have the right to grow up without tobacco." 2 T108380063
Page 217: TI08380064
The tobacco industry spends millions of dollars on advertising which presents a flattering, often dazzling, image of smoking. Smoking is pictured as part of a dream, a symbol of social status, and an integral ingredient of life. In some quarters, this advertising is working. It is estimated that every day about 3000 adolescents take up smoking in the U.S. The majority of new smokers arc hooked before the age of 19. However, the fact is that tobacco use is starting at earlier ages, sometimes as early as eight, and on the average, between 11 and 13, particularly among young women in industrialized countries. The puzzle rests, therefore, in understanding why young people start smoking and why they continue. Data collected from Canada, the United Kingdom and the U.S. show that adults from the lower socioeconomic groups arc more likely to smoke than those frt)m higher income groups and that a lower level of parental education also is a factor in their children taking up the habit. Other studies have shown that if a mother smokes, her children are more likely to become smokers; unemployment is a factor among women. In addition, adolescence is the dynamic period of development when the young begin to draw away from their parents and to develop intense relationships with peers from whom they seek approval. Many young people see tobacco use as normal social behavior, and this is often reinforced by the media. Advcr~sing links tobacco with fun, maturity, and an image of the "modern" man or woman. There is evidence that advertising directly influences the decision to start smoking. Studies show that in 3 TI08380064
Page 218: TI08380065
countries such as Norway, where tobacco advertising has been restricted, there has been a reduction in smoking prevalence among young people. One example of the influence of advertising is the campaign created to promote '.'smokeless" tobacco - snuff and chewing tobacco which was aimed at teenage boys in North America and Se~dinavia. According to studies cited by WHO, in the U.$., more than $35 million was spent on television and magazine advertising to promote snuff and chewing tobacco in 1985, involving celebrity promotions, distribution of free samples to college students, and magazine advertisements. In the U.S., sales for snuffrose by 55 percent between 1978 and 1985. It is estimated 16 million people in the U.S. use smokeless tobacco today. The International Agency for.Research on Cancer and the United States Surgeon General have concluded that the use of smokeless tobacco causes o~ cancer. Tobacco use can affect infants even before they are born. The fetus of mothers who smoke while pregnant can suffer from Fetal Tobacco Syndrome. This syndrome is caused by nicotine and carbon monoxide entering the bloodstream of the fetus and damaging the supply route for oxygen and food. This can lead to lower birth weight, poor growth and size at birth, and possible congenital defects and infections. Smoking during pregnancy has been associated with premature birth, spontaneous abortions, and fetal and perinatal deaths. Risk associated with smoking continue after birth and affect the newborn baby and other children at home. Infants can absorb harmful chemicals from breastmilk. 4 TI083.80065
Page 219: TI08380066
Few regular smokers are aware that over the course of a year, their children may be absorbing, through "passive" smoking, the amount of nicotine contained in 30 to 80 cigarettes. One study found that some Japanese schoolchildren had smoke-related chemicals in their urine in direct proportion to the nurnbcr of cigarettes their parents smoked. Health problems among children who live with smokers include: • Higher incidence of respiratory infections; • Morn common chronic cough, phlegm and whcezin~, • Slower growth and lung development; and • Morn common chronic middle car infections~ WHO says there is no single, proqcn way to promote non smoking and to prevent the use of tobacco by adolescents. However, WHO believes a number of strategies, when combined, have proven effective: • Appmpriat~ and culturally-specific health education; * Peer-led, anti-smoking initiatives in schools; • Prohibiting cigarettes sales to young people and limiting easy availability; • Increasing the cost of cigarettes. For exarnplc, by increasing taxes; and ~ Promoting the setting aside of no-smoking areas, especially in public places. 5 T!08380066
Page 220: TI08380067
THE TOLL OF TOBACCO: 1.7 MILLION DEATHS IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES Lung cancer 400,000 Other cancer 200,000 Chronic bronchitis and emphysema 220,000 Coronary heart disease and stroke 620,000 Data for developed countries in 1985 Source: World Health Organization, 1990 T!08380067
Page 221: TI08380068
CIGARETTE OUTPUT B~ MAJOR PRODUCERS Millions of Pieces Country, China United States USSR European Community West Germany United Kingdom Spain Franc~ Bclgium-Luxcmbourg Portugal Ireland 1983 1988 968,800 667,000 368,700 1,525,000 694,500 392,500 155,942 141,948 63,600 83,697 45,303 62,147 25,336 28,042 14,329 9,763 7,534 162,092 114,000 78,400 66,486 61,724 53,307 28,050 26,937 14,610 11,1~4 7,750 EEC Total Other Major Producers Japan Brazil Indonesia Poland Bulgaria Korea, South India Philippines Turkey Yugoslavia Egypt Mexico 637,641 306. 320 129.200 93 275 82.823 75 200 75 279 80447 57 812 61 477 58 439 63 949 49 242 624,500 267,600 157,900 140,000 89,684 88,3t30 86,244 80,400 66,850 60,155 58,500 53,858 51,000 48,630 .~ggregamTotal 3,819,604 4,485,621 World Total 3 4,556,107 5,270,514 Notes: 1 - Estimates arc included in the absence of data. 2 - Revised. 3 - World total includes incidental countries not listed. Source: Foreign Agricultural Service. United States Departraent of Agriculture- August 1989 TI08~
Page 222: TI08380069
FOR D~SEASE CON'FR)L MORBDnYAND MO~~Y FEPORT I I I P_.rogress in Chronfc Disease Prevention State Laws Restricting Minors' Access to Tobacco To reaoh the goei of a smoke-free society by the yelr 2000, children ~.n<~ Idoleecentl mult be prevented from Initiating the ule of tobacco. However, recent ne.tlonll =urveyl on adult toblcco ule Indlo.tte t~8t 90% of ~11 new ~okerl .ow begin smoking before a~e 21 (1). ~w~ r~trl~lng s~¢ess to toba~ by minors m~y help del~y end ultimately prevent t~e dt=i~lon to begin tob~¢~ u~ d~rlng adolescence ~ ). ~hls ~epo~ ~um m ~rlzes the ~ntent ~nd ~versge of ~ate lawsrestrl~lng m Inoft' ~¢~ to toba~. 8rate laws r~atrl~Ing the ~le and d I~trlbutlo~ 0f toba~ to m in~rl w~rl described ~n the 1989 Repo~ of the Surgeon ~eneral, R~uclng the Health ~n~equences'~f 8moklng: ~5 Y~rs of Pmgre~ (1). That review ~ver~ law~ In ~xlltln~e ~t of O~ober.t988, Additional d~tl about the~e I~wa and about li~n~ure requirements for the ~le of tob~c~ were obtained in ~ ~ey of health ~gen¢lel in all 50 ~tes and the DIItrlm of ~lum bil administered In ~ober t 98g by the A~ocletlon of State ~nd Terrltorl~ Health Officl~i~ (ASTHO) (3). Fogy-four cate~ and the Dlstrl~ of ~lum bin have Iaw~ re.triCing m Inors' access to tob~c~ ~able 1), Th~ age fo~ legal purchase of tob~ prodUCe i~ three ¢ltll, 18 yeast in 3~ st~t~s, 17 year~ In four states, ind 1~ y~lre in one state and the Dletrl~ of ~lumbl~. Of thele, 42 ~tat~s and the Di~trl~ of ~lum bib ~11o prohibit the free distribution of tob~ produ~ to m lnor~. Seventeen ef~tes require slgne ~o~ed ltthe point of .le that warn 8bout the ~gB limit for put.ale of toba~o. In ~ l~te~ ~nd the Oi~trl~ of ~lumbi~ tpedfy penalties for selling tob~¢~ to under~ged pe~ns; these penalties Include jail ~entencel (u~ to ~ 1.year imprison- merit ~n Minnie.) and/or fines (ranging from $2 I~ the Dlatrl¢ of ~lumbll to $3000 Whereas ~1 ~tes license the produ~lon or distribution of tobacco, 28 l~ate~ and the OIItrl~ of ~lumbl~ r~qulre ltltl II~n~es for ret~ll vln~orl of tobs~ (South Ol~t8 requires ~ Ilo~n~e for vending ma~lnea only, ~nd three ttlt41 [Minnesota, Nobr~s~, rand Wil~nsln] require that Io~1 Juri~di~lons a~ as the II~nslng agents). Of these, four state~ ~ ~s~usettm, New Hampshire, Now Jersey, and Rhod~ hnvo Ilwo ~equiring ~dmlni~ative rovo~atfon of the license for sptcifl~d viol~tion~ of minorl' ~o~ss I~ws (other states have ~rovlsions for revoking Iicanses a~ p~ of U.~. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV|CI=R I PUBLIG HEALTH SERVICE T108380069
Page 223: TI08380070
TABLE[ 1. Summary of cunent stale laws ~esldcting minors" accoss.to tobacco produc~s ma,:hinea ~ .° ~
Page 224: TI08380071
Nevada ! 8 Yes Yes No b No No No New Hsmpshire 181 Yes Yes Ye~ b Ye:I1 No No New Jersey 18 . Yes Yes Yes b yesCt Yes No New Mexico No No No No No No No No New York 18 Yes No Yes a Yes ~ No North ~i~ ~ Yes Y~ No a Y~ No No Noah O~ta I~ Yes Y~ No a Y~ ~ 18 Yes y~ y~ ~ Yes No O~om a 18 Yes*" Y~ No a Y~s Yes~ ** No Oregon 16 Y~ Yes No a No No P~nwIvania 18 Y~ Yes No a Yes ~ No R~da I~and 18 Y~ Y~ Y~ b Y~stl No South D~ota 181 Yes Y~ Yes b Not~ No No Tennessee 18 Y~ Y~ Yei a No y~t~ No Tmas 18 Yes Y~ Y~ b No No No Vmmont 1~ Yes Yes Y~ b No No ~r~nla 16~ Yes No No b No Wa~ington ~8 Y~ Y~ No s Y~ We~ Virginia 18s Y~s Yes No b No W i~n~g 18 Y~ No Yes b No" No No Wyom~g ~ No No No N~ No No No ~w s ~ ~ ~ 1T ~ 24 7 6 *For purposes of this ;eporl, the District of Columbia is counted as a slate. ls-,Both jai~ elld fine; b-fine only. SProhibltz possession o~ tobacco by mirrors. IProv|sions to en~ourage minors Io divulge source of tobacco. **Applies only to cigarettes. ~tProvldes for IicBnse [e~ocation. tlProhibiis a// free distribulion nl tobacco. "Licensing II done st the local level. .... ""Provides a bounty to inlormms. I~tOnty vending machines need to be lictnlml. ItlProv|des that a "stinG" oper~d|on is nol entrepmenL
Page 225: TI08380072
Io~1 ~mln~i or administrative proceeding~ for vlol~t[on~ ~n~olvlng gales to minors). Seven =ltl Ilw= Ipecify enforcement pro~ltlS. Six itates either require that dgare~e vending machines be pla~ed In areas inacce~ible to minors or ban Such ma~lnes ~mpletely. ~evention and H~lth Pmmotlon, ~ ~ltorlM Note: The development of state and loci Ilwl restri~ing minors' a~ss to toba~ product ~s I ~tentially effe~ivs public hetlt~ strategy to prevent tobao~ use by teenagers (4). Adequate enfor~ment Is the ~ltl~i element In effs~iveness of these laws. In May 1990, the Office of Ins~e~or General OG), Deplore ant of Health and Hum an Services, ~m plated a study of the enfor~m ant of laws restri~lng the Isis of tobl= ~o minors. The IG Ints~i~wed ASTHO~sslgn~tsd state tobac~ prevention lnd ~ntrol ~nta~s and, In ea~ stats with minors' Ilwt, the state~eslgn~t~ National Crlm e Information Center ~nts~, These persons repoded the re~rdsd violations of minors' access laws, The IG found minimll enfor~ment of the laws; only five states could providedata on the citations for violations of the law~. In 1989, only 32 vendor violations were cited, even though In estimated 1 billion ~tgare~e piokl lrl sold ll~h year in the United 8tares to per~ns <18 yllrl of Igl (#). in most StartS, Io~1 law-enforcement offlCals are resgonsibls for enfar~m ant of minors' a¢~ss laws, 8~erli su~ssful Io~1 enforcsmenUvendor eduction lnltlatives wer~ identified by the IG (s.g,, Minneapolis, Mlnne~t~; Marquette ~unW, Ml~lgan; King ~unty, Washington; and ~olsno ~unty, ~iifo~nla). ~m~onents of su~ssdul Inlttatlws to enforce minors' a~. laws Include the participation of government offi~als and business leaders; Io~1 If=arising of vendors that Includes revo~tlon provisions for vlol~tions; ~ltabllshment of ~vll penalties; posting of warning signs; restrl~lon of vending machines; and use of "¢tng" operations (In which an underage person, sponsored by lo~l authorities, pur~asel robson} (8). In ~ss~nse to these findings, the Se~etaw of Health and Human 8e~i~s re.remanded model legislation for states to ~ntrol minors' a~ess to tobac~.,This "legislation 1) ~sat~s a li~nslng system similar to that used to ~ntrol the ~ls of • [~holio beverages, 2) sins the minimum age of legal purchase at 18 years, foRh a graduated s~hedul~ of penalties for illegal salsa to minors, 4) provides separate penalties for failure to post warning signs about the Illegality of sales to minors, 8) pll.s prlma~y responsibility for enfor~ment with a designated stats agenw, e) relies primarily on civil penalties rather thin on the ~urt system to punish offtndert, and 7} bans the use of vending machines to dispense tobacco produ¢~ (7). The p~opos~ model legislation Is intended to make the laws more enfor~able and ~Uld be ena~ at the stats and/or local I~veh ~plet of the IG repo~ and the model legislation propQsed by the Se~stary are available from ~Cs Offl~ on Smoking and Health, ~nter for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; telephone (801) 443-S287. Refor~c~ 1. ~C. R~u¢lng th~ h~tlt~ ~naequln¢~t ot smoking: ~ y~ =f progr~ll--~ report of 8urgton G~n~r~. Ro~IiI~, Mtwlen¢: US D~ment of H~ith tnd Human Servi~t, Publl¢ H~tb S~I~, 1Sag; DHH8 publicS[on no. 2. ~r. TF. ~wl b~n minors' tobacco purch~. ~ut snfor~ment i~ tnoth~r matter. JAMA 1967;~7:332~, T108380072
Page 226: TI08380073
¥~i. te ! No. 21 MMWR II~ Tobacco -- C:~ntlnued 3. COC. Stets robe:co-use prevention and ¢=ntroi I:MnL MMWR 4.. Keep CE. A pitting Ihot at tobacco. JAMA ~989;282:2894-5. 2. OlFrtnz~ JR, Tye JB. Who profita from tobaooo lal,s to ¢ffiidren? JAMA 1990;283:27~4.-1'. 6. Offl':~ of Svlduatlon ~n¢l InllOeCtione, Youth i¢¢ell tO clg~rmles. New York: US of Himith end Humlm 8arvl¢as, Office of Insl~sotor Genlr|l, May 1ego; pulolic~tlon no, 0m-02.~0-02310. 7. 8uilivart LW. 8tltarnent of Louis W. Sullivan, M.D,, Secretary of Health end Human before the Committee on Rn&nce, U.S. Senate, Ml~y 2~, Current Trends MeaSles -- United Ststes, 1989 anti Rrst 20 Weeks 19g0 MEASLES IN 1989 As of M sy 11, 1990, local ind stats health departm ante r~ported a provisional tote| of 17,850" measles O, allI for 1989--a 423% ~Illl ovtr the 3411 ~sit reported for 1968 ~lgure 1). Fo~y~ne measle~-~S~clated deaths here been reposed for 1989:- Fo~y-sevin itstee end the DIItrl~ of Columbia stato~ that reported ~les during 1988. The overall inddence r~te In 1989 was ?.~ ~e~ p~r 100,000 popul~tlon--mor~ th~n five tlm.e~ the rate of 1,4 per 100,000 for Twenty-three ~t~tes re~d ~t Issue 100 ~sts I~¢h, Four stiffs reposed >2500 ~let ea~, I~untlng for 12,127 (87.9%) of the total reposed class: IIIlnoil (3232), Texas (3201), ~llfornls (30~3), and Ohio (2641). Inolden~ rates of >10.0 p~r 100,000 populltlon o~rred in Iliinoll ~7.S), Ohio (24,3), Texas (19.0), Wl~nlin (16.7), Missouri (13.1), and ~llfomls (10,8), *AI of O~em~r 31, 1989, t torsi of t6,~ ~ses w~r~ ~ffldslly rl~ to CDC. Through M~y 11, 1S~, CD~I Dlvlllon =f Immunl~tlo~, Ol,~ir for Prlvention 81rvi~t, bll r~elve¢ repo~s of 1814 lddltion~l 17,850 ~ses. The final =ffl¢l~l torsi FIGURE 1. Reported measles ~ssee, by year -- United States, 19~0-1989" ~0, - .- v,~=in~ ~an~ed ............ . data for 1989. Ti08380073
Page 227: TI08380074
STATEMENT FROM THE PAN AMERICAN HEALTH ORGANIZATION WORLD NO-TOBACCO DAY MAY 31, [990 Good morning. I would like to thank the organizers of this me~ting and particularly the Surgeon General, Dr. Antonia Novelle, for the opportunity to participate in this event. It is a happy coincidence that this new initiative to restrict the access of minors to the purchase of cigarettes is being launched today, because today, May 31, is World No-Tobacco Day and the theme for this day, which is being observed world-wide, is "Childhood and Youth Without Tobacco." Let me congratulate you, Dr. Novelle, in this initiative. The World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization are focusing on smoking and youth as part of their effort to encourage governments, communities, groups and individuals to ban the use of tobacco. We are particularly concerned about the youth, as children are often innocent victims of tobacco through passive smoking. Unborn children may pay a high price for their mothers' smoking habits. Smoking during pregnancy has been associated with premature births, spontaneous abortion, fetal and perinatai deaths; it also causes the Fetal Tobacco Syndrome, which is associated with low-birth weight, poor growth, and possible congenital defects. Young people are increasingly the object of deliberate manipulation by tobacco companies whose su~ival depends on this future market as they try to compensate for the large number of adult smokers who die or stop smoking. Our youth are being tempted by slick publicity cam.paigns which falsely associate youth, beauty, success, wealth, sports, and sex with smoking. It is alarming to note that 3,000 adolescents take up smoking each day in the United States, and the pattern is being repeated in the rest of the continent. We agonize because a significant proportion of those who start smoking in their youth acquire the habit for life, and even worse is the fact that in many cases, tobacco represents a "transition drug" which leads to other, more serious addictions. Tobacco use is starting at earlier and earlier ages, particularly among young women in industrialized countries, and among adolescents in developing countries. Despite some laws restricting advertising and access to tobacco, too many young people still consider smoking socially acceptable, partly due to clever advertising linking smoking with fun. Advertising directly influences the decision to start smoking, and in countries where tobacco advertising has been restricted, such as Norway, there has been a reduction in smoking prevalence among young people. This deliberate attempt to induce the youth to smoke more is carried out, not only through well-designed advertising, but also through the sale of cigarettes in small packages of six or less, or even single cigarettes, which are more affordable to school children and other youth. The initiative which the United States Surgeon General is launching today on preventing the sale of tobacco to minors is an opportune and potentially powerful mechanism for reducing consumption of tobacco among youth. There is very gross evidence that tobacco use and production continue to increase in Latin America, but our data are incomplete. To gain a clearer picture and collect up-to-date information on the use of tobacco in this hemisphere, PAHO and the U.S. Office on Smoking and Health have agreed to work together, and with the assistance of experts in tobacco control, economics, health, marketing, law, and other fields, we are preparing a joint report on "Smoking in the Americas." This report will constitute a major step towards focusing international cooperation on addressing the epidemic of tobacco use and its consequences. I wish to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Novelle for her support of this project.
Page 228: TI08380075
We know that prevention and control of tobacco consumption are technically and economically feasible, as well as socially necessary and politically viable. But we do not have the resources of the tobacco companies and cannot afford to match their expensive campaigns with counter-advertisements in order to convince people to stop smoking and help prevent millions of unnecessary deaths. We must rely on the governments, the non-governmental organizations, the schools, and especially young people themselves to join our efforts and work towards the goals of a tobacco-tree society. I hope that this meeting will contribute in a significant way to mobilizing the human financial, political, institutional and popular resources necessary for us to reach this goal. T!08380075
Page 229: TI08380076
THE ) lNYl I I TE June i, 1990 MEMORANDUM TO: The Members of the Executive Committee FROM: Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr. ~ The Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health (ICSH) National Advisory Committee held its eighth meeting Thursday to address the issue of preventing the sale of tobacco to minors. Media coverage was light. ABC News and a local CBS affiliate were the only television outlets present. Print media included Reuters, The Washington Times and the Saturday Evening Post. The Tobacco Institute submitted statements for itself and for Jolly Ann Davidson presenting the industry record of initiatives designed to restrict the sale of tobacco products to youth. Copies of those submissions, as well as other available testimony, are enclosed. Chaired by Surgeon General Antonia C. Novello, the full committee heard five speakers during the morning session, including Joe Tye, President of Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco; Dr. Jean Forster, Assistant Professor, Division of Epidemiology at the University of Minnesota; Edward Greer, Attorney-at-Law, Cambridge, Mass.; and Officer Bruce Talbot, Woodridge, Ill. Police Department. The fifth speaker, Sir George Alleyne, M.D., Assistant Director of the Pan American Health Organization, reminded everyone that May 31 was also the third annual World No Tobacco Day, this year's theme being "Children and Youth Without Tobacco." Alleyne also awarded the 1990 Tobacco or Health Medals to Michael Pertschuk of the Advocacy Institute and the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Colorado (Denver). In her opening statement, Novello expressed concern over the report released by the HHS Office of Inspector General, that said a billion packs of cigarettes are sold each year to children under 18. She also supported model legislation promoted by HHS Secretary Sullivan at last week's Senate Finance Committee hearing. T108380076
Page 230: TI08380077
Memorandum to the Executive Committee Jthne i, 1990 Page Two Joe Tye recommended a ban on tobacco advertising and promotion. He called tobacco companies "brazen" in their efforts to target younger audiences and suggested raising the minimum age for purchasing tobacco products to 21 years. In addition, he wants anti-tobacco activists to call themselves "pro-health activists" instead of "anti-tobacco activists or nonsmokers." Forster presented preliminary results of a community feasibility study she is undertaking in Minnesota to evaluate the potential of policy changes to reduce children's access to tobacco products. A total of 475 purchase attempts were made at 80 over- the-counter tobacco outlets and 49 vending machines in three communities. The teenagers used in this study were successful in purchasing cigarettes in 63 percent of their attempts, including those attempts in establishments often characterized as "adult locations." Prior to the start of the study, she said one community initiated efforts to inform merchants about the state law regarding cigarette sales to minors, but the results showed that merchants in this community were no less likely to sell cigarettes to minors than in other communities. After the state raised the charge for selling tobacco to minors from a petty misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor, efforts to purchase cigarettes over-the- counter were significantly less successful. However, there was no measurable decline in purchasing cigarettes from vending machines, Forster said. Talbot made a case for controlling cigarette sales to adolescents by calling them a "gateway drug." He discussed the local ordinance he wrote for Woodridge, Ill., which requires a special license to sell tobacco products, and described the "sting" operations undertaken to test the effect of such an ordinance. Talbot also noted his view that young pe6ple should be held accountable for their actions, saying "it is unfair to place the entire onus of the law on the merchant." As the attorney for the anti-smoking organization "GASP" in Massachusetts, Edward Greer discussed his strategies behind the lawsuit of Kyte v. Philip Morris, in which two teenagers who regularly purchased Marlboro cigarettes over-the-counter are now suing the manufacturer. Calling illegal sales to minors "the achilles heel of the tobacco industry," Greer said he is applying the concept of "protective legislation" to a civil litigation setting.
Page 231: TI08380078
Memorandum to the Executive Committee June i, 1990 Page Three When was asked why he hadn't gone after the retail industry, he replied that it was much more fun "playing David and Goliath." After a break for lunch, the afternoon session was reserved for public comment; only half of the committee members were present. Dr. Ronald Davis, Director of the Office on Smoking and Health, chaired this session. Included among those making statements were representatives from the Maine, Connecticut, Vermont and New Hampshire retail grocers associations. They stressed current efforts they have undertaken to enforce minimum age laws and indicated strong opposition to model legislation by Secretary Sullivan which suggests granting licenses to sell tobacco. In a lengthy exchange, the ICSH members asked whether the retailers would ever consider eliminating tobacco sales voluntarily, on moral grounds, despite the high revenues they bring. The retail representatives answered that they would if consumers stopped buying the products, to which the committee responded by asking if they also would carry pornographic material or firearms if consumers demanded it. One committee member challenged the retailers to voluntarily rid their shelves of tobacco products. Others making public comments included Tom McMahon, National Automatic Merchandising Association; Dr. C. William Keck, president-elect of the American Public Health Association; Jim Kreider, representing himself; Dr. Charles Duvall, president of the American Society of Internal Medicine; Fran Du Melle, chairperson of the Coalition on Smoking OR Health; and Dr. Lonnie Bristow, member of the Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health and representing the American Medical Association. Tom McMahon strongly supported preventing minors having access to tobacco products, but said that a ban on vending machine sales would not achieve that goal. He noted that 80 percent of vending machines (selling tobacco products) are located in places where children are not allowed, bars and cocktail lounges. He suggested in places where children are allowed that vending machines be placed in clear sight of clerks. He also suggested fining minors who purchase cigarettes from vending machines, and letting them know they will be fined by placing warning signs on the machines. T!08380078
Page 232: TI08380079
Memorandum to the Executive Committee JD/~e I, 1990 Page Four When asked whether he thought alcohol should be sold through vending machines, McMahon answered that most vending machines are in workplaces, where it is inappropriate (and in factories, dangerous) to drink. APHA's Keck wants the government to raise excise taxes, restrict vending sales, license sellers, ban advertising, initiate clean indoor air programs, ban billboards (especially in poorer areas), bar tobacco companies from paying movie producers to include their product in films, and end all tobacco marketing. Without mentioning Dr. Sullivan's model legislation, Duvall, Du Melle, and Bristow called for stronger federal action against tobacco advertising, promotion and marketing. SDC:kjb Enclosures cc: TI Senior Staff TI08380079
Page 233: TI08380080
THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE :~73 i q:?,.'.,'::? " :JRT='P~VEST SAMUEL D. CHILCOTE. IR. May 31, 1990 Mr. John L. Bagrosky, Executive Secretary Interagency Committee on Smoking and Health Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC Park Building Room 1-16 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, Maryland 20857 Dear Mr. Bagrosky: I have enclosed a statement of The Tobacco Institute on the industry's activities to prevent youth smoking for inclusion in the record of today's Interagency's meeting. I have also enclosed Mrs. Jolly Ann Davidson's statement as I understand that illness prevented her from personally presenting it to the Committee. Thank you for your assistance. do not hesitate to contact us. If you have any questions, please SDC:bmd Sincerely, Samuel D. Chilcote, Jr. Enclosure TI083J~)0~0
Page 234: TI08380081
STATEMENT OF THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON SMOKING AND HEALTH May 31, 1990 To begin, it would be useful to construct a short history of the tobacco industry's voluntary initiatives which have been undertaken to avoid advertising and marketing aimed at youngsters and to discourage young people from smoking. At the outset, it should be clearly understood that the tobacco industry does not want young people to smoke. That is why the industry has long been committed to a program of advertising and promotion practices designe~ to ensure that smoking remains an adult custom. The tobacco industry believes that smoking is an adult practice to be considered solely by mature, informed persons. For this reason, the industry has taken strict measures to limit children's exposure to tobacco products. Despitethe best efforts of the tobacco industry, some young people continue to smoke. However, we know of no other industry in America which has taken such direct, and voluntary, action to steer its products away from young people. TI08380081
Page 235: TI08380082
Questioning authority, testing rules and experimenting with adult behavior are all a part of growing up. Helping young people to make the right choices during this impressionable period is a difficult but important job. The tobacco industry is committed to making that job easier -- for parents and for youngsters. In 1963, we ended advertising and promotion in school and college publications and on campuses. In 1964, we pRblished a oode prohibiting advertising and promotion directed at young people. That code also forbade the use of noted sports figures and other celebrities in advertising. It also required that any models in ads must be, and must appear to be, at least 25 years old. In 1969, we offered to voluntarily end commercials on radio and television because of the media's unique appeal to youngsters. Cigarette ads left the air in early 1971 as a result of Congressional action which formalized our earlier offer. Our code of sampling practices was adopted in 1981. The cigarette indust~y's code of sampling practices is brief and to the point. People who engage in sampling are instructed to refuse to give a sample to anyone whom they know to be under 21 years of age or who, without reasonable identification to the contrary, appears to be less than 21 years of age. No sampling activity is done in any public place within two blocks of youth activity centers such as playgrounds, schools or college campuses. TI08380082
Page 236: TI08380083
If an adult declines or refuses to accept a sample pack, they will not be urged to accept it. All of the independent sampling firms sign a contract which sets forth standards that are at least as strict as the ones in our code. All of the sampling personnel must be advised, orally and in writing, of the sampling rules. All of the sampling activities are monitored to ensure compliance with the code. Any individual who violates the articles of the sampling code is to be discharged. In 1982, on the industry's behalf, The Tobacco Institute began an advertising campaign which was to reach ll0 million Americans with the message, "Do tobacco companies want kids to smoke? No. As a matter of policy. No. As a matter of practice. No. As a matter of fact. No." In 1984, The Institute launched its current "Responsible Living" program, offering a free parental guidebook, "Helping Youth Decide," prepared by the National Association of State Boards of Education. Another booklet, "Helping Youth Say No," followed. Both provide guidance on family communication to enable parents to help youngsters develop decision-making skills needed to deal wisely with everyday choices and with lifestyle decisions, such as smoking. (3) T108380083
Page 237: TI08380084
The Institute expanded the "Responsible Living" program in 1986 by providing unrestricted grants to the National Association of State Boards of Education for funding Community Alliance Programs (CAPs) at the rate of ten a year. Towns and cities throughout the U.S. were invited to apply for the grants, which provide the impetus for a broad community-based effort to improve parent-youth interaction, using "Helping Youth Decide" and "Helping Youth Say No" booklets. Jolly Ann Davidson, national[ spokesperson for the program has provided an overview of this program in a separate statement. The success has been remarkable. More than 700,000 booklets have been distributed nationwide, and demand continues to be high among parents and community organizations. The results of these and other efforts speak for themselves. The most recent Surgeon General's Report states that the prevalence of daily smoking among high school students dropped from 29% to 21% between 1976 and 1980 and has fluctuated between 18% and 21% ever since. With respect to advertising, as antismoking advocates themselves have long acknowledged, and experience from around the world has confirmed, cigarette advertising has no significant effect on the incidence of smoking by young people and banning cigarette advertising does not reduce youth smoking. (4) T!08380084
Page 238: TI08380085
As a n~mber of experts have explained in Congressional testimony, the purpose and function of advertising for any "mature" product like cigarettes is not to stimulate overall demand for the product category, but (1) to increase the market share of a particular brand at the expense of competing brands and (2) to retain brand loyalty against other brands. As the Council of Economic Advisors has stated, tobacco product advertising "mainly shifts consumers among brands." A recent study by researchers for the World Health Organization, for example, found "no systematic differences" between the smoking behavior of young people in countries where tobacco advertising is completely banned and in countries where it is not. In Finland, where tobacco product advertising has been banned completely since 1978, University of Helsinki researchers discovered that smoking among minors, which had been declining sharply before the ban was imposed, increased after the imposition of the ban -- especially among teenage girls. In Sweden, where tobacco product advertising on billboards and in most other media was banned in 1979, smoking is on the rise among teenagers and their use of smokeless tobacco has nearly quadrupled since 1976. Even Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, in his 25th anniversary report on smoking did not claim that there was a proven link between smoking and advertising. (5) T!08380085
Page 239: TI08380086
Instead, the Surgeon General acknowledged that there is, "no scientifically rigorous study available to the public that provides a definitive answer to the basic question of whether advertising and promotion increase the level of tobacco consumption.- The most recent issues, with the goals of reducing youth smoking, are those raised by Secretary Sullivan. Secretary Sullivan has proposed measures whereby the states would take new legislative action on proposals such as licensing tobacco retailers and banning vending machines. Such measures will not achieve the stated goal of reducing youth access to cigarettes. The National Automatic Merchandising Association, the national trade association of the vending industry, indicates that nearly 80 percent of all cigarette vending machines throughout the country are located where persons under the age of 18 are not allowed access or rarely frequent. In fact, almost a third of all cigarette vending machines are located in bars and cocktail lounges. Nearly 40 percent are found in industrial plants and offices, and almost 8 percent are found in hotels, motels, universities and colleges. Thus, a ban on cigarette vending machines would primarily remove adult -- not youth -- access.
Page 240: TI08380087
Licensing of tobacco retailers is also suggested as a regulatory approach to reducing the purchases of cigarettes by young people. However, the logic used -- that tobacco should be sold in the same restrictive manner that alcohol is -- also argues against this being an effective solution. A 1989 Health and Httman Services report tells us that "despite the fact that it is illegal for virtually all high school students and most college students to purchase alcoholic beverages, experience with alcohol is almost universal among them and active use is widespread." The report indicates that two of every three high school seniors report alcohol use in the last month, and about 35 percent reported having had ~ive..~r more d~inks in a Tow in the last two weeks° Right now, it is illegal for cigarettes to be sold to minors in almost every state across the country. These laws are already in place. And, enforcement of these laws is the way to keep adult products, like cigarettes, from being sold to young people. For the past thirty years -- and for the future -- this industry has maintained responsible positions on the issue of smoking by young people. It has always been the policy of cigarette manufacturers that smoking or not smoking is a choice to be made by informed adults. In keeping with that policy, its youth advertising restrictions and parental assistance programs continue. Ti08380087
Page 241: TI08380088
We are grateful to have had the opportunity to present this overview of our policies and the voluntary initiatives we have taken. We look forward to working with any group which is sincerely interested in making certain that smoking remains an adult choice. (8) T!08380088
Page 242: TI08380089
TESTIMONY INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON SMOKING AND HEALTH JOLLY ANN DAVIDSON NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON TEE TOBACCO INSTITUTE'S RESPONSIBLE LIVING PROGRAM I am Jolly Ann Davidson, Natlonal Spokesperson for The Tobacco Institute's Responsible Living Program, and I appreciate the opportunity to share with you a brief overview of our program. I am a former teacher and have been involved with the governance of education at the state and national levels for a number of years. The Tobacco Institute shares your concern over the sale of tobacco products T.o manors. Prevention of sales to minors is critical. Equally Important is communication and understanding within the family, discouraging young people from ever trying to make a purchase~ Our Responsible Living Program reaches out to families because we believe strongly that parents are in the best position to influence the behavior of children~ The program embraces the concept that we must all work together -- communities, businesses, schools, and parents -- to assist our young people in becoming responsible adults. This concept of working together is paramount in preventing the sale of tobacco products to youngsters.
Page 243: TI08380090
The Responsible Living Program was developed to encourage greater communication between parents and children, in order to teach young people how to make sound decisions when it comes to many issues, all too often inappropriately influenced by peer pressure -- drugs, sex, smoking, and alcohol, to name just a few. The Tobacco Institute does not want our young people to smoke. So far as The Institute is concerned, smoking is for those adults who choose to smoke. As a way to address the need for greater parental influence, The Institute published "Helpinq Youth Decide" and "Helping Youth Say No" -- easy-to-read booklets that offer insight and guidelines to help parents and their children to communicate better. The booklets are available free of charge. "Helping Youth Decide", published in 1984, is divided into three parts. Part one discusses what's involved for parent and child during those adolescent years° Part two focuses on ways to help -- how to listen so youngsters will talk and how to talk so youngsters will listen -- techniques to use -- and tips to avoid communication barriers. Also included are the actual steps involved in making a sound decision. The third part of "Helping Youth Decide" offers materials designed to help parents implement the ideas presented. A unique feature is a questionnaire for parents and youths to take independently and then compare. The q~estions are identical. However, the answers given, far too often, differ greatly. It's a good starting point and a terrific way to foster good family communication. TI08580090
Page 244: TI08380091
The booklet, "Kelping Youth Say No," focuses on the various ways peer pressure can work, in ways both obvious and subtle, to bring about unsound decision-making. It suggests ways in which parents can build self-confidence in their youngsters and offers pointers on how one copes with/resists peer pressure. "Helping Youth Say No" does just what the title states. The booklet also discusses how we can best say no to our children and yet still enhance family communication. The final portion of the booklet is comprised of activities for parents and teens to engage in together. Over 700,000 copies of the two booklets have been distributed -- requests coming in from every state, from Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands -- as well as Canada and five overseas countries. We've had thousands of letters of grateful appreciation from parents, guidance counselors, PT~'s, educators, ministers, social workers, psychologists, and from teens themselves. Like the 13-year-old girl from Missouri who wrote about "Helping Youth Decide": "I cannot begin to tell you how much it helped. My father and ~ are much closer than we ever were. I've referred you to many of my friends. There are mere teens out there that need help, than you think. Once again, I thank you and my father thanks 7o~." The booklets have also won awards and letters of commendation from educational organizations, legislators, governors, and Members of Congress. T108380091
Page 245: TI08380092
Using the booklets as a core, the third aspect of the Responsible Living Program was developed -- the Community Alliance Program. Twenty-two communities across the United Sta£es have received grants to be used to promote effective and healthy family relationships and to deal with the difficult issues our young people are facing. The program has been used by communities to heighten public awareness and unite schools and communities in helping families. The individual projects vary in scope and subject matter, focusing on the needs of the community. The programs employ workshops and speakers with broad based support and participation. Two examples: Fargo, North Dakota, sponsored a workshop attended by four hundred parents. It featured a keynote address by Keith Nord, former Minnesota Viking, and was followed by seventeen mini-sessions on a variety of topics -- one of which was "Teaching Abuse Prevention." The CA~ at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland, included in their ac£ivities an assembly regarding drug abuse and a visit by ninth graders to the local drug shock trauma unit. Although funding was provided on a one-year basis to Community Alliance Programs, I am pleased to report that most programs have been institutionaiized. All twenty-two communities devised programs that are success stories! 4 TI08380092
Page 246: TI08380093
The Tobacco Institute takes great pride in the Responsible Living Program, and I feel most fortunate to be involved as its spokesperson. We feel we are reaching out to parents and young people and making a difference in the lives of American families° Open discussion and joint decision-making between a parent and child on a topic, such as the purchase of tobacco products, is without question the best prevention~ Again, my thanks for the opportunity to testify° TI08380093
Page 247: TI08380094
TOBACCO'S POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION TO THE U.S. TRADE BALANCE: 1980-1989 A work product of the Tobacco Merchants Association of the United States, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey @Copyright. All rights reserved. Apri[ 1990 T!08380094
Page 248: TI08380095
U.S. TRADE BALANCE 1980 - 1989 Executive Summary ....... Pages o o o Tobacco's Trade Surplus in the 1980's Graph 1, Table 1 ...................... 4 U.S. Exports of Leaf and Tobacco Products Graph 2, Table 2 ....................... 5 U.S. Imports of Leaf and Tobacco Products Graph 3, Table 3 ........................6 U.S. Exports of Unmanufactured Tobacco Graph 4, Table 4 ........................ 7 U.S. Exports of Unmanufactured Tobacco Graph 5, Table 5 .........................8 U.S. Imports of Unmanufactured Tobacco by Major Type Graph 6, Table 6 ...................... 9 U.S. Imports of Unmanufactured Tobacco by Major Type Graph 7, Table 7 .................. 10 T!08380095
Page 249: TI08380096
Executive Summary In contrast with the nation's double- and triple-digit merchandise trade deficits incurred annually during the 1980's, the U.S. tobacco industry continued its historic role of consistently producing trade surpluses, contributions to the nation's trade ledger that over the most recent decade totalled nearly $25 billion ($24,478 million to be exact). In fact, in 1989 alone, while U.S. industry as a whole produced a merchandise trade deficit of about $109 billion, the U.S. tobacco industry contributed $4.2 billion to the positive side of the nation's trade ledger, the highest level ever achieved by the industry since tobacco exports first started to contribute to the nation's economic strength during the Colonial and pre-Colonial era over 300 years ago (Graph 1, Table 1).t Taking a deeper look at the 1980"s, one sees that while tobacco's trade contribution hovered at about $2 billion during the first half of the decade, it has more than doubled since 1986. One sees also that since 1985 the share of the surplus contributed by tobacco products grew from roughly 50% to over 83% of the total surplus contributed by both tobacco leaf and tobacco products, the latter composed principally of "Made in the USA" cigarettes. Why such growth since 19857 The answer is simple and can be found in the opening up of the key Asian cigarette markets of Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, as well as through sustained exports to the Middle East and Europe. Through both the effective use of U.S. trade laws and aggressive action by the U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. exports are now permitted to compete in growing markets formerly dominated by a single state monopoly. Such monopolies are now no longer able to hold onto 100 percent of their markets but must produce products that can effectively compete against U.S. cigarette exports, products known for their quality the world over. Thus, while U.S. leaf exports have remained relatively constant at about $1.3 billion, tobacco product exports climbed from about $1.1 billion in 1980 to about $3.6 billion in 1989 (Graph 2, Table 2). To provide some of the tobacco leaf needed for such a high level of final product exports, oriental leaf imports grew especially in 1989. Since 1984, while the quantity and value of imported oriental leaf has shown steady growth, the quantity of other imported leaf has stabilized at around $270 million, in spite of the rapid growth in cigarette exports. Product imports, however, have shown a long- term downward trend further enhancing the trade balance (Graph 3, Table 3), As U.S. cigarette exports pave the way for increasing world adoption of the American Blend cigarette, foreign manufacturers, including the monopolies, are forced to increase the quality of their cigarette products. And, in cases like the previously all flue-cured market of Taiwan, efforts to compete against U.S. products requires the U.S.'s competitors to purchase higher quality inputs, like U,S. tobacco leaf. Thus, while U.S. flue-cured exports have now begun to turn around from what had been a longer term decline in world production and export shares, U.S. burley - like oriental leaf a critical ingrediem in the American Blend cigarette - continued to make great strides through the 1980"s, leading a number of analysts to comment that the U.S. could probab[y sell whatever burley it manages to bring to market (Graphs 4-7, Tables 4-7). T!08380096
Page 250: TI08380097
GRAPH 1 TOBACCO'S TRADE SURPLUS IN THE 1980'S: 1980-1989 MILUONS OF DOLLARS 5,000 - 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 2,016 2,032 1~784 .... ~ 1980 19~1 1982 1,929 1983 .989 ~TOBACCO LEAF TOBACCO 4,218 [~ PRODUCTS 3,607 2,7(7:J 2,145 2,049 .~ / TABLE 1: TOBACCO'S TRADE SURPLUS IN THE 1980'S YEAR LEAF PRODUCTS EXPORT IM PORT N~r ~'~XPORT IMPORT NET TOTAL 1980 $1,334,138,647 $528,989,355 $805,149,292 $1.091,337,970 $111,899,537 $979,438,4.33 $1,784,587,725 1981 1,457,532,571 426,959,86,6 1,030,572,705 1.264,857,640 279,438,953 985,418,687 2,015,991,392 1982 1,545,928,326 444,935,472 1,100,989.854 1,296,341,900 365,721,2..87 930,620,613 2,031,610,467 1883 1,462,701,905 463,818,588 998,883.317 1.185,579,770 255,630,524 929,949,246 1,928,832,563 1934 1,511,399,631 625,222,592 886,1"/7.039 1.192,156,838 89,584,190 1,102,572,648 1,988,749,887 1935 1,498,.50'1,752 534,822,845 963,67"8.~07 1 267,955,793 87,052,76~ 1,180,903,030 2,144,581,937 1886 1,209,663,131 590,694,892 618,968,239 1.521,953,389 91,538,876 1,430,416,513 2,049,384,752 1937 1,090,005,19,3 $87,742,347 502,352,851 2,309,831,492 102,921,165 2,2~6,910,327 2,709,263.17B 19~3.~ '1,251.74~.112 444,670.853 807.075.254 2.,~0,884o750 1010328.833 2,7~J.5,.,'.~,917 3,F..06,611.171 10<30 1.340.603,041 644,301.210 696,301.831 3,631.873.130 109.907,694 3.521.,.q65.23.6 4,218,267067 .SOURCE: 4 TI08380097
Page 251: TI08380098
GRAPH 2 U.S. EXPORTS OF LEAF AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS: 1980-1989 MILIJONS CF DOLLARS 4,000 ~ 3,000 - 2,000 i ,ooo i • 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 TOBACCO LEAF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TABLE 2: U.S. EXPORTS OF LEAF AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS (millions of dollars) YEAR TOBACCO LEAF TOBACCO PRODUCTS 1980 $1.334 $1,091 1981 $1.458 $1,265 1982 $1.546 $1,296 1983 $1,463 $1,186 1984 $1.511 $1.192 1985 $1.499 $1.268 1988 $1,210 $1,522 1987 $1.090 $2,310 1988 $1.252 $2,901 1989 $1.341 $3.632 FO 2F_..IGN Tt~.AI3 S D IV~SI.ON t')F "D il! I~UIIEAU T!:,t A. I MPOR'I~%XPO~'IS DATABASe. Ic;~, - ~ 5 T!08380098
Page 252: TI08380099
GRAPH 3 U.S. IMPORTS OF LEAF AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS: 1980 - 1989 MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 500 3O0 200 100 0 ! 198~ 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 • 1987 1988 1989 ORIENTAL ALL OTHER LEAF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TABLE 3: U.S. IMPORTS OF LEAF AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS SOURCE (millions of dollars) TOBACCO LEAF YEAR ()RI E N~-~[, ......... ALL OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS 1980 $268 $261 $112 1981 $290 $137 $279 1982 $327 $118 $366 1983 $319 $145 $256 1984 $269 $239 ,$90 1985 $265 $270 $87 1986 $309 $282 $92 1987 $344 $244 $103 1988 $163 $282 $101 1989 $383 $261 $110 FOR.~UNTRADE DI~. L~,ON CF THE BUREAU OF CENSUS TM=~. ~MPOR'I~XPO~ITS DATA[~-~SE T108380099
Page 253: TI08380100
GRAPH 4 U.S. EXPORTS OF UNMANUFACTURED TOBACCO BY MAJOR TYPE: 1980 .. 1989 MILLIONS OF KILQGRAMS 300 -- 250 - OTHER NESOI OTHER CIGAR MARYLAND BURLEY FLUE-CURED 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1.985 1986 1987 1988 1989 TABLE 4: U.S. EXPORTS OF UNMANUFACTURED TOBACCO BY MAJOR TYPE (millions of kilograms) YEAR FLUE-CURED HURLEY MARYLAND CIGAR OTllER NESO! 1980 177,378 41,187 3,210 1,880 9,120 38,815 1981 175,218 33,636 3,30,3 t,0,,.PA 9,207 42,693 1 ~ 157,878 47,138 3, 02;" 550 10,817 40,025 1983 140,P..,03 41,195 3,670 472 10,28~ 41,449 1984 15~,683 33,379 1 ~F.-62 941 8,647 42,945 1985 I t,~,517 46,4(35 3.042 1,056 8,950 38,054 1~S~3 116,624 47,219 2,4 .~ 1,056 9,943 35,685 19<37 102,207 45.117 2,,50 ! 849 10,577 3,.3,715 1~'3.~ 121,442 46,654 1.399 1,130 9,491 33,47.2 19~.9 120,344 47,496 1 72~} 1,237 8,825 45, ~5~.,~ FO?..E~ G S'['F..~ D;V]S[G N OF TN E U.S. EU ~F.AU OF CF2<SUS TMA LMPQX'I'S,'r~XPO ~'I~ DATABAS~ I~[1- Ic/#'7 T!08380100
Page 254: TI08380101
GRAPH 5 U.S. EXPORTS OF UNMANUFACTURED TOBACCO BY MAJOR TYPE: 1980 - 1989 MILLIONS OF DOLLARS 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 ~] OTHER NESOI [] O]'HER CIGAR MARYLAND [ ] BURLEY ~ FLUE-CURED TABLE 5: U.S. EXPORTS OF UNMANUFACTURED TOBACCO BY MAJOR TYPE (millions of dollars) YEAR FLUE.CURED BURLI,,~ MARYLAND CIGAR OTIIER NESOI 1980 $,969.4 $233.6 $18.6 ~ 2 ~.2 ~.6 ~1 $L~.3 $215.5 $~.6 $~9.~ ~ J $75.9 1~ $1 ,~2.4 ~.2 $~. 3 ~.2 ~.5 ~9.2 1~ $973.1 ~.5 ~4 4 $11.0 ~.1 $1~.7 1~ $1,~7~ 1 $241.7 $~ ~ 3 ~.5 ~.4 $I~.5 1~5 $~.0 ~5.5 $19 3 ~4.1 ~.9 $117.6 1 ~ ~18.3 ~7.2 $14 3 $27.9 ~9.4 $102.3 1~7 ~.9 ~ $15 2 ~I ~6 ~9.7 $~.5 1~ ~ 5 ~7.5 $7 9 ~.9 $43.8 $101.1 1~ ~.3 ~2&O $~ 1 8 ~.8 ~2.2 $1~.5 8 T108380101
Page 255: TI08380102
GRAPH 6 U.S. IMPORTS OF UNMANUFACTURED TOBACCO BY MAJOR TYPE: 1980 - 1989 MILUONS OF KILOGRAMS 250 - 200 --, I 150 1 100 -~ J I 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 OTHER CIGAR ALL CIGARETi'E LEAF STEMMED BURLEY UNSTEMMED FLUE-CURED UNSTEMMED ORIENTAL TABLE 6: U.S. IMPORTS OF UNMANUFACTURED TOBACCO BY MAJOR TYPE YEAR (millions of kilograms) ORIENTAL FLIIE-CUREI) BURLEY ALL CIGTE CIGAR OTHER IINb~EMMF.D ~JNSTEMM b:D STEMMED 1980 84,937 11,226 27 338 38 35,156 67,887 1981 89,257 4,9F.,0 21.035 117 29,598 26,957 1982 89.132 7,518 12,388 34 :23,096 31,431 1933 84,114 7,707 12,290 9,799 :22,961 21,716 1984 80,169 10,934 9,9~ 67,272 23,017 19,529 1985 79,384 13,928 9.351 51,818 24,122 21,202 19~.,6 88.3~0 15,106 &342 5~,773 15,033 22,851 1987 99.O37 9,882 3.291 61,837 14.657 29,B06 1988 45,054 8.188 7 371 56,124 16,154 23,394 19&9 89,2.83 2,450 7 682 65,055 13.76-~ 12,7F..6 FO,~t~GN "~L,%D S DWL~ON OF TICS U,,-% I]UgF_~U OF C E~'SUS SOURC~ TI08380102
Page 256: TI08380103
GRAPH 7 U.S. IMPORTS OF UNMANUFACTURED TOBACCO BY MAJOR TYPE: 1980 - 1989 MILUONS OF DOLLARS 700~ 600 ~ 100 . 1~ 1981 1983 1984 '~985 1986 1987 198~ 1989 OTHER CIGAR ALL CIGARETTE LEAF STEMMED BURk~ UNSTEMMED FLUE-CURED UNSTEMMED ORIENTAL TABLE 7: U.S. IMPORTS OF UNMANUFACTURED TOBACCO BY MAJOR TYPE YFAR (millions of dollars) ORIENTAL FLEE..CUREI) BURLE'Y ALLCIGTE CIGAR OTIIER UNS'FEMMED U'~STEMMF~D STEMMED 1980 $268.5 $19.7 $46.8 $0.1 $64.6 $126.9 1981 $290.4 $10.8 $43 1 $0.4 $63.3 $17.1 1982 $327.4 $20.6 $29 8 $0.1 $49.3 $16.3 1983 $318.9 $20.6 $26 5 $29.1 $53.3 $13.6 1984 $295.9 $259 $20 0 $216.8 $53.0 $11.3 19~5 $265.3 $30.9 $19 7 $156.7 $47.1 $12.5 1986 $,,',,',,',,',,',,'~9.1 $33.1 $12 1 $1~,.1 $38.1 $14.7 1987 $344.4 $23.8 $5 7 $162.6 $,3~.2 $12.5 1938 $153.4 $19.6 $13.4 $197.1 $39.9 $8.5 1~ $383.3 ,$5.4 1.'7 4 $193.4 $31.7 $5.5 FO3,~JGN "["~'M3E. DIVISION OF 33 tE t;~S, I~Lr.~.EAU OF CENSUS SOURCE: ;o T!08380103
Page 257: TI08380104
LEAF EXPORTS UP IN 1989 Such a positive tobacco trade picture resulted from both increases in leaf and product exports. Total leaf exports of nearly 225.2 million kilograms were up 3.0 percent in weight and, at a value of $1,340.6 million, were up 7.1 percent in value (Graphs 2, 4 and 5, Tables 2, 4 and 5). Total leaf imports of 191.6 million kilograms were up 14.6 percent in weight and, at a value of $644.3 million, were up almost 44.9 percent in value, inclusive of the non-competing oriental leaf, which itself was 44.2 million kilograms ( + 98.2%) above the level imported in 1988 (see Graphs 3, 6 and 7, Tables 3, 6 and 7). The net result created a positive 1989 leaf balance of $696.3 million (Graph 1, Table 1). This positive balance reflects gains over 1986 and 1987 but is below the level shown during the period 1980-85 as well as in 1988. Excluding the 44.2 million kilograms in additional oriental leaf, virtually all of which was used in the production of cigarette exports, the total 1989 leaf balance would have been up over 1988 as total leaf imports would have been down to 147.4 million kilograms. Eliminating the additional oriental leaf imports lowers the total leaf import value from $644.3 million to $454.4 million, resulting in a leaf balance of $886.2 million. tFor trade surplus/deficit purposes, the U.S. Department of Commerce defines imports to mean General Imports, i,e., any foreign merchandise received at a U.S. port, reported using the "customs value" series. According to the Department of Commerce's breakdown of the merchandise trade balance, only the following 14 industry groups create a net positive trade balance for the U.S. trade ledger out of a total of 65 industries: agricultural commodities in total; airplanes and parts; chemicals; scientific instruments and parts; crude materials (excluding agricultural and fuels); coal; tobacco manufactures (virtually all of which is cigarettes); printed matter; gold (nonmonetary); specialized industrial machinery; spacecraft and parts; vessels/floating structures and parts; musical instruments/recording media; and glass. 1| T!08380104
Page 258: TI08380105
PRODUCTS BALANCE SETS NEW RECORD Led by the 19.6 percent growth to nearly 141.8 billion in exported cigarette units -- an amount that placed end-to-end would circle the Earth at the equator over 305 times or make 16 round-trips to the moon -- the total value of exported tobacco products increased from $2,900.9 million in 1988 to $3,631.9 million in 1989, up almost 25.2 percent (Graph 2, Table 2). This cigarette export level surpassed 1988 exports of 118.5 billion units, an amount that was itself 18.1 percent above the 100.4 billion exported in 1987. Given that the value of imported products (see Graph 3, Table 3) rose to $109.9 million in 1989 from $101.3 million the year before -- nearly two-fifths of which were non-competing premium cigars - the total products balance grew 25.8 percent from $2,799.5 million in 1988 to almost $3,522.0 million in 1989, a gain of $722.4 million (Graph 1, Table 1). Due to the growing level of cigarette exports, the product balance continues to set new industry monthly and year-end records. Compared with the products trade balance during the period 1980-85 which ranged from $929.9 million to $1,180.9 million, the products trade surplus during the period 1986-89 has seen a rapid escalation: $1,430.4 million in 1986; $2,206.9 million in 1987; $2,799.5 million in 1988; and $3,522.0 million in 1989, almost 2.5 times the 1986 level (see Table 1). FUTURE AND PAST TOBACCO TRADE SURPLUSES Compared with the 1980-86 total tobacco industry net trade surplus of between $1,784.6-2,144.6 million, the growth in the positive tobacco balance, first to $2,709.3 million in 1987, then.to $3,606.6 million in 1988, and finally, to $4,218.3 million in 1989 (see Graph 1, Table 1), comes at a time when the effects of the ascent of the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies continues to make further overall U.S. gains less and less possible as witnessed by the modest improvement in 1989 when the merchandise trade deficit declined to $108.8 billion from $118.5 billion in 1988. Assuming most economists are correct in their forecasts of continued high overall U.S. import levels and only modest, at best, improvement on the overall export front, the importance of tobacco's positive trade role is likely to have an even greater macroeconomic significance in 1990, especially if the record breaking monthly tobacco trade surplus figures recorded in November and December, of $471.6 million and $421.8 million respectively, continue throughout 1990. But will the 1989 pace continue? As shown in Graph 1, the historical 50-50 division between the leaf and product contribution to the trade balance changed dramatically in recent years starting as early as 1984, when the positive contribution by tobacco products grew by more than the positive net balance for leaf declined. In fact, as recently as 1981-83 the positive trade balance contributed by tobacco leaf exceeded the surplus contributed by tobacco products, though both hovered about $1.0 billion each (Graph I, Table 1 ). And, as recently as 1985, the value of exported tobacco leaf exceeded the value of exported tobacco products. Throughout the period 1981-85, the value of leaf exports stabilized around the $1.5 billion mark (Graphs 2 and 5, Tables 2 and 5). But also, during the period 1981-84, the value of imported leaf grew from a decade low of ~2 TI08380105
Page 259: TI08380106
$427.0 million in 1981 to a high of $625.2 million in 1984. While leaf imports (see Graphs 3 and 7, Tables 3 and 7) remained at roughly $590 million during the 1985-87 period, dropping in 1988 to $444.7 million, it was not until 1989 that a [&ely longer term increase to the $650-$700 million level set in (1989's level was a decade high of $644.3 million). Once again the answer here is oriental leaf, uniquely grown in Turkey, Greece and certain other nations and needed for the production of American-Blend cigarettes. With the opening of the Japanese (1986-87), Taiwanese (1987), and Korean (1988) markets to U.S. cigarette exports, further gains on the product side will come from deeper penetration withirt these specific Asian markets and from cigarette access to other markets including Thailand which, in all likelihood, will be unable to withstand U.S. and GATT efforts to pry open its market. While it is likely that the improved positioning of U.S. leaf will lead to increasing leaf export volumes and dollars, the rate of growth in its overall net contribution to tobacco's trade balance at this point remains uncertain, espeeially given the increased volume of cigarette exports, the concomitant need for increases in oriental and. to a lesser degree, other leaf imports. On the other hand, competing host countries realize the need to compete effectively with final U.S. cigarette products composed of the highest quality leaf inputs. Assuming that the growth rate in cigarette exports settles down to about I0 percent per year, U.S. leaf import requirements for cigarette exports would grow marginally less and leaf exports would grow marginally more and thereby begin contributing incrementally more than products to tobacco's trade balance in the 1990's, than it did during the most recent period I987-89. AS a result the overall distribution of the trade balance would then begin moving back to its traditional 50-50 breakout between products and leaf. LEAF EXPORTS IN THE 1980'S While leaf export volumes overall trended downwards throughout the 1980's, rebounding only in 1984, 1988 and 1989, the value of such exports expressed more of a cyclical movement, increasing from 1980-83, declining then mcreasing in 1984 and 1985, respectively, declining from 1985-87, and increasing again in 1988 and 1989. If the 1980-87 downward volume trend actually changed direction in 1988-89, as foreign buyers returned to U.S. auction markets, and if the cyclical dollar trend continues, a good 10O0 crop is likely to yield excellent trade results -- ' especially if the worldwide trend towards American-Blend cigarettes continues and host countries are forced to improve the quality of their competing blends (Graphs 4 and 5, Tables 4 and 5). T108380106
Page 260: TI08380107
FLUE CURED: THE MOST TO GAIN Given its commanding share of total US leaf exports, stemmed and unstemmed flue-cured suffered the most during the 1985-87 period of dollar and volume decline. In contrast with its roughly 70 percent share of the dollar value of U.S. leaf exports during the period 1980-84 - a share that varied from 66.5 percent in 1983 to 74.5 percent in 1981 -- flue-cured's share of the total value of U.S. leaf exports dipped to 59.4 percent in 1986. While flue-cured slowly recovered to 60.3 percent in 1987 and 60.5 percent in 1988, its share dipped to a decade low of 58.4 percent in 1989 -- further evidence that the growth in burley's relative importance in trade has kept flue-cured well below the highs shown in the first half of the decade (Graph 5, Table 5). On a poundage basis the same is true, as flue-cured leaf exports on a dry-weight basis declined from 177.4 million kilograms at the beginning of the decade (1980) to a low of I02.2 million kilograms in 1987, only to recover somewhat in 1988 and 1989 to 121.4 million kilograms and 120.3 million kilograms, respectively (Graph 4, Table 4). BURLEY: A SUPPLY PROBLEM In spite of quota cuts and relatively high burley prices in the first half of the decade, the volume and value of stemmed and unstemmed burley exports remained more constant than was the case with flue-cured, indicating a greater ability to move whatever was grown into foreign commerce (Graph 4 and 5, Tables 4 and 5). Due to this high demand for U.S. budey, its relative share of total leaf export values grew from roughly 18 percent during the 1980-84 period to about 24 percent of the total value of leaf exports in 1985-89 - attaining a decade high share of 24.5 percent in 1986, 1988, and again in 1989. Also unlike flue-cured, export volumes remained relatively constant throughout the decade as burley exports grew from 33.4 million kilograms in 1984 to a decade high of 47.5 million kilograms in 1989. 14 T!08380107
Page 261: TI08380108
LOUSIVILLEs Ky,~ May 4 /P~Ne~sw~e/ -- The preslOent of Fare Bureau has charged that Far ~ast 9Ove~'nme~tS a~e ~oin~n9 furces with U.S. anti-smoking g~o~ps ~o turn ~ e~Oor~ o~ A~e~ican tobaoco f~om a trade issue to a ~ocial concern. "Thailand i~ now exporting burl~y ~obacco 9~own in their country Mackey'$ ~omments ~e~e include~ in testimony prepat'ed for a hearin~ before the U.S. Senate Labor and E~uca~on Committee, ¢~a/~ed by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Naes). The testimony ~as filed with the committee as part ~? the May ~ hearin~ record after- ~ennedy refused Mauk~y~s to testify in person. Thm hearing was expected to Oeal with tobacco trade issues~ as part of an overall examination of cont~over$1al advertising and export eest~iction~ contained in a new an~-~obacco measure Kennedy is g~omoting. In ~is statements Ma~Rey calle(~ on Cong~e$~ ~o ho~d firm agaln~ demand~ to ~est~i~t the sale of American tobacco in overseas markets. He eaid Asian countries are "resisting U.S. g~oducts including American tobacco because they not only want to control their own mirkets~ they also want to export ~eir products at American Thailand is the mo~t ~ecent example, Mackey said. He said that country is fighting the imporiat$on of American tobacco produ~t~ while increasing i~s own production and con~t,,uctin~ new ciga~'e~te Meanwhile they are coueting an~-smokin9 forces in this cou,try to help them ~esist America's reque$~ that Thailand open its market to American tobacco products. The Thai Tobacco Monopoly is ~ncreasln9 production ~ bu~ley tobacco by ~4 percent to ~3 million k$1os (gross weight) this yeae and exportin~ 35 ~eroent of it in direct competition w~th Kentucky hurley Ma~key said. Mackey pointe~ to Belgium anO Luxe~bOg~9, whmre U.S. hurley exports have droppeO from 5.1 million poun~ ~n 1985 to 3.4 million in 1988 as direct e~am~le~ of the ~esult of this ~ind of activity. He ~ald t~e l'~al government ~o~acco monopoly has indicated it inten~s al~o to increase its cigarette-making ~apacity b~ I~-I~ percent over the next few He calle~ the developments "m~n6bo9glin9" and sai~ it is a classi~ ,xampte of why America i~ fa~in9 suc~ ~%fficult economi~ ~hallen9es. Ma~ey sai~ American ex~or~ o~ to~;cco maW~s an important contribution to ~educing the U.S. deficit, pointing out that in tobacco mad~ a ~ositive contribution of $4,7 billion. In addition~ ~i~arette exports he~p produce Amee~car jo~s and support tens of thousands of farms ac~os~ America, including over" 7~,~ tobacco ~n Kentucky. In other trade-related news~ ~ne U.S. Cigarette Export Association ~e~eased a new opinion poll that found ~me~cans strongly favor export sales of tobacco p~-aducts. That poll, conducted by the Rope~ Om~anization, foun~ that ~espondents agreed by a wide margin, 67 percent to ~7 percent, that "if ~Igarette~ are legal an~ a~e smo~e~ in a foreign ~ou~t~y, there's no ~eason why U.S.-made ciga~e~ts shOuiOn~t be sold there. -- Silty-four pe~cen~ agree tha~, 'If ~o sell cigarette~ in this country~ the~e~s no ~eason we s~oul~n't Sell ~h~m in other ~untrles." -- Sixty percent dlsag~ee w~th the statement that, "It's not right to sell a p~o~uct like cigarettes ~o a forelgn cauntry." According to a P~ice Water~ouse steady ~el~ase~ l~t ~onth, the direct impac~ of tobacco exports ~n 19~8 was mm~loy~ent of A~eri~ans who receive ~ompensat~on of ~.1.46 billion and pa~d indlvid~al, corporate and FICA ta~es of abbr. 5 /CONTACT: David Beck for ~he ~ent~cky Fa~ Bureau, T108380108
Page 262: TI08380109
II Tobacco Use in America Conference * January 27-28, 1989 The International' Marketing of Tobacco Prepared by: Gregory N. Connolly DMD. MPH American Cancer Society Dir., Div. of Dental Health Dir.. Office of Non-Smoking and Health Massachusetts Department of Public Health Introduction The United States is the world leader in promoting interna- tional health. As a nation we have worked aggressively to eliminate infectious diseases, malnutrilion and use of eddic- live drugs. We have also made significant progress in ira. plementing measures to control tobacco use within our own borders, and am in an ideal position to assist other countries in adoption of similar measures. In practice, however, the United States' tobacco trade ool- icy actually encourages the proliferation of tobacco use in other countries. Using the threat of trade sanctions, the U S Trade Office helps open up new marketing opportunities overseas for our tobacco companies that are losing business at home. Thanks to our own trade policy. U.S. cigarette ex- ports have doubled since 1983, with 100 billion sent to foreign countries last year. In fact, the United States is the wor/d's leading cigarette exporter. The United States cannot be Number 1 in world health and Number 1 in cigarette exports. Our own tobacco policy may reverse all the gains we have made in promoting world health Our own tobacco policy makes an hypocrisy ol our efforts to curb international trade in addictive drugs As the leader of the free world, the U.S must adopt a new tobacco policy to prevent the expansion of tobacco market- ing; assure that people, regardless of their country o! orig,n. are adequately warned of the dangers of tobacco use; and encourage the worldwide adoption of measures that will curb tobacco consumption. A new tobacco policy will require that new legislation be passed by Congress and new international health programs be implemented by the Administration. Background Information An estimated one billion persons worldwide smoked five trillion cigarettes in 1986. resulting in 2.5 million deaths at- tributed to smoking. By the year 2000. the number of deaths are expected to rise to four million annually. While smok, ng Tobacco 5:se in America Cm~fe~w~ce rates are declining in developed nations at a rate of 1.5 per- cent per year, they are rising 2 percent a year in developing countries. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), progress made In curbing deaths from malnutrition and In- fectious diseases in developing nations will be lost to deaths caused by smoking unless tobacco consumption is curbed. There are a number of reasons why smokin0 is increasing in developing countries. Tobacco production creates agricul- tural and manufacturing jobs and generates substantial tax revenue. As nations progress economically consumers have more disposable income to purchase luxury items such as cigarettes; stresses brought on by urbanization and in- dustrialization may also increase consumer demand for nicotine. And considering the long expoure time needed for smoking-induced diseases to occur, countries have little in- centive to address future health problems caused by tobacco use The international marketing efforts of the world's six transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) also help create de- mand These companies produce approximately 40 percent of the world's cigarettes--and up to 85 percent of cigarettes if production by nations with state-owned tobacco monopo- hes and centrally planned economies are excluded. The indus- try is highly concentrated with little real competition occurring between the six. The "I3Cs effectively control 85 percent of the tobacco leaf sold on the world market and in doing so. indirectly determine the pdce of the cigarettes. ]he six act as an oligopoly dividing the world's cigarette markets with the European firms dominating Africa and the United States companies, Latin America. All six are currently expanding their market operations in the newly developed countries and less-developed countries of Asia. If the companies are able to gain free access to Asia. they will likely capture large shares of that market. The companies have developed highly effective promotional and advertising programs which very persuasively promote tobacco use in countries where the health risks of stocking are not wetl 49 T!08380109
Page 263: TI08380110
| I Tobacco Use in America Co~fference • JanuaD' 27-28. II 1989 known. The companies have also amassed large amounts of capital from sales at home to use in developing new markets overseas. In 1985, in the book, Transnational Corporations and the International Cigarette Industry: Profile, Progress and Pover. ty, P.L. Shepherd analyzed how the rrcs penetrated the closed cigarette markets of Latin America in the 1960s and how they eventually acquired the former state compames The push into Latin America in the 1960s came in direct response to the decline in United States smoking rates that lollowed publication of the first Surgeon General's report on smoking and health. Liberalization, making the cigarette market more competitive~ also allowed the TTCs to dominate South America. Smoking rates rose in response to the in- creased marketing of tobacco and the public health suffered By the early 1980s diseases caused by smoking in Brazil rivaled the magnitude of diseases caused by infectious disease and malnutrition. History is repeating itself today: Smoking rates are falling again in the United States and companies are looking abroad for new smokers to replace those who quit at home. ]he new targets are the closed cigarette markets of Japan. Korea Taiwan, Thailand, and China. Many of the same strategies used to open the markets of South America are being used again, But this time, there is a new twist: the United States is using governmental trade threats to force resistant coun tries to remove tobacco trade restrictions. It is interesting to compare the experience of opening up Latin America in the 1960S to what- is occurring in the Far East today Opening a Closed Market, Then and Now Marketing and manufacturing agreements Countries have uniformly resisted entry into their markels by multinational tobacco companies Many less developed and newly developed countries chose to operate closed ciga. rette markets dominated by a state-owned tobacco monopo- ly. This decision is based on the belief that scarce consume[ capital should not leave the nation for purchase of a foreign cigarette--a nonessential, luxury item. State-owned monopo lies dominated Latin Amedca until the 1960s and still do to day in many Far East nations Some countries protect their monopolies from foreign competition by banning sale of fo,- eign cigarettes, which is the case in South Korea. Columb=a. Thailand, and Nigeda. However, it is more common--and equally effective--for countries to place high tarilfs on im ported cigarettes and their distribution and advertising In the absence of competition, the vast majority of state tobacco monopolies advertise and promote smoking at a minimum level. They also generally produce a harsh, less "flavorful" cigarette which uses locally grown tobacco Both factors tend to minimize smoking The incidence of smok=n.c in many of these countries is similar to that found in the 5O United States 30 years ago. High smoking rates are found among adult males and low rates among females and adoles- cents. For example, in Japan and China smoking rates among men ere 60 percent and 80 percent, respectively, and among women, 12 percent and 6 percent. Per capita consumption is also lower than in more competitive markets win 900 ciga- reties consumed per person per year in China, 1,500 in Taiwan and 1,700 in Korea. The United States rate is 2,600 cigarettes consumed per person per year. The TTCs have two objectives when entering a closed market. The first is to remove laws that prohibit sale o! foreign cigarettes and other protectionist measures such as tariffs or restrictions on marketing. The second is to expand marketing opportunities by repealing laws that limit Western- style advertising or securing guarantees that such advertising can be used. In his analysis, Shepherd found that the multinationals can gradually penetrate a closed market by entering into a series of manufacturing arrangements with the national company Through this process, the multinationals progressively gain more control over the market until they dominate it. The first step Is to secure a licensing arrangement with the state firm to sell international brand name cigarettes. This "foot in the door" approach is tolerable to local policymakers since local leaf is used in cigarettes which are produced by the national company. Such an arrangement does not threaten local farm- ers or other tobacco workers. Joint manufacturing ventures between the state company and multinationals usually fol- low. These arrangements give the multinational a firm foot- hold and in exchange for the agreements, the TTCs give ad- vanced agricultural and manufacturing technology to the local company. At the same time the TTCs push the local govern- ments to denationalize the state tobacco monopoly and form a private firm. This action removes any residual sentiment that the government may have had for protecting the na- tional company and sets the stage for future acquisition of it. The decision to lift trade barriers or denationalize a state company rests with the local governmental or legislative ofli- cials who face strong internal economic and political pres- sure not to do so. In negotiations with foreign officials, the TTCs argue that opening the market is in the nation's economic and health in- terest. The TrCs say that competition will make the state company more competitive. They also promise to introduce modern tobacco growing and agricultural techniques, thus improving the tobacco industry. This concept is being widely pushed by multinationals throughout the Far East today, par- ticularly in China and Korea. However, Shepherd found these arguments to prove false in Latin America. Rather than the state monopoly becoming more competitive in an open market, ffze vast majority of Latin firms ware seriously weakened by the multinationals. Tobacco Use i~z An~'ica Corq'ere~ce T108380110
Page 264: TI08380111
II Tobacco Use in America Conference * January 27-28, 1989 Based on the economies ol scale, the locals were unable to compete with the intensive advertising and short-term preda- tory pricing practices of the TTCs. By 1976, the TTCs had formed 12 subsidiaries in 17 Latin American countries, These subsidiaries controlled 90 percent or more ot the market share in their respective countries and the vast meiority of them were acquisitions of former national companies. The multinational companies also tell foreign officials that an open market will shift consumer preference to "safer' Western-style low tar/low nicotine brands. Two recent Sur- geon General's reports found that smokers receive only marginal benefits from smoking these brands In fact, many smokers just smoke more often or inhale more deeply to compensate for the lower yield. A 1988 analysis of Marlboro and Winston light cigarettes sold in the Philippines found their tar and nicotine content to be 50 percent higher than that of the same brands sold in the United States. Shepherd observes that the multinationals use their inter national brands as a lure to gain a foothold in the market According to him, the TTCs promote the sale of contraband international cigarettes to help stimulate local demand. The loss of tax revenue from bootlegging serves as an added zn centive for local governments to legalize the sale of foreign brands. This tactic is still being used today. Sales of contra. band cigarettes are a major problem throughout all of the markets of Asia, particularly in the closed ma =~t of China Korea and Thailand. Brands such as Marlboro and Camel convey powerful images of Western lifestyle and success Smoking these brands conveys status to many citizens of a less-developed or newly developed country In the long run. however. Shepherd found that these brands don't capture a major portion of the market. After the multir~ational acquires the local firm, national brands continue to be popular and remain a large portion of the market. Government contracts The companies also use other strategies to remove bar tiers to entry. According to a 1976 Security and Exchange Commission Report, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds made $2.8 million in "questionable payments" in their Latin American Operations in the 1970s. In at least seven coun tries payments were made to government officials to secure favorable agreements relative to their market operations Civil servants in newly developed countries of the Far East are not as susceptible to this type of influence peddling, so the TTCs have changed their tactics. In 1986 and 1987. United States companies asked key members of the United States Congress to pressure trade officials of Korea. ]azwar. Japan and Thailand to open their cigarette markets, The Coq- gressmen threatened these countries with passing protec, tionist United States trade legislation unless tobacco trade barriers were removed. Similar threats by four United States 7~bacco Use ~t Anlerica 5"o~fere~ce Senators were made against Hong Kong in 1986 when that government proposed a ban on smokeless tobacco. The only manufacturer of that product was the United States Tobacco Company. Administration olficials have also b~en involved. In 1985, Michael Oeaver, former chief of staff to President Reagan. was paid $250,000 by Philip Morris to secure trade conces- sions from Korea on cigarettes. Michelle Laxalt, daughter of then-Senator Paul Laxalt was also hired by Philip Morris. Richard Allen, former United States national security direc- tor, was hired to do the same by R.J. Reynolds. At a meet- ing with the President of Korea, Mr. Oeaver said he would take care of pending United States protectionist legislation that would hurt Korea's textile industry if Korea opened its market to United States cigarettes. A few months later the President vetoed the protectionist Jenkins Thurmond Textile bill and Korea unilaterally opened its market. Another strategy to force opening of the market is to use retaliatory trade threats by the United States government. In 1984. the United States Congress amended Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act to allow the president to conduct investi- gations of alleged unfair trade practices against the United States' products by foreign countries. Under pressure from the United States Cigarette Export Association, which represents Philip Morris, R.J, Reynolds and Brown and Williams, the United States government conducted three investigations on unfair tobacco trading practices of Japan, Taiwan and Korea. In 1984, Korea had a law prohibiting sales of foreign ciga- rettes and both Taiwan and Japan had high tadils on imported brands and restrictions on their distribution and advertising. ~etween 1985 and 1988, the United States' Trade Represen- tative (USTR) threatened these nations with sanctions on goods they exported to the United States unless United States cigarette companies were given lree access to their markets. No other United States agricultural produc[ received the same attention and all three nations capitulated to the United States' demands. Japan and Korea were also pressured to denationalize their tobacco companies. Japan did so and Korea is committed to following suit. Trade threats by the United States were also used to expand adver- tising and promotional opportunities. Both Taiwan and Korea were pressured by USTR to repeal their restrictions on cigarette advertising and even to allow television advertising. The countries refused to permit television advertising but bowed to the pressure and did allow print advertisements. Advertising United States companies contend that their intention in the Far East is to encourage Oriental smokers to switch to their brands and not to target nonsmokers. Shepherd found that Iollowing entry into Latin America, the "I-ICs greatly ex- panded promotion and advertising. In Argentina. per capita advertising expenditures rose 30 percent from 1968 through 51 T108380111
Page 265: TI08380112
Tobacco Use in America Conference • Januaij, 27-28, 1989 1975. As a consequence, per capita cigarette consumption rose an average of 6.4 percent each year from 1966 to 1975--almost three times more than the 2.4 percent annua~ rate increase reported for the years prior to TTC entry. The same is occurring in Asia today. Two years after TTC entry into Japan, there is a tenfold increase in the number ¢~f television advertisements for cigarettes. Cigarette ads now rank number two on Japanese television in terms ol total minutes of air time, Japanese retail sites selling cigarettes have also been greatly expanded, particularly vending machines. In Taiwan hundreds of small shops are contracted by United States companies to both sell their brands an~l serve as sidewalk advertisements for cigarettes. Beginning in 1986, product promotions, something rarel.~ done by Oriental monopolies, were introduced on a wide scat~, Now, it is common to see young women giving away free samples on the streets of Tokyo. In Taiwan young people received free disco tickets in exchange for empty Americar. cigarette packages. Multinational tobacco companies also sponsor motorcycle racing events and dance troupes in Ch=na Commercials for Virginia Slims cigarettes began airing Tokyo television in 1987. Similar targetino of nonsmoking women is being done in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Considering the relatively low smoking rates among Oriental women ads targeted to women give a clear signal that the multinationals actual intent is to convert nonsmokers. Recent data show.~ sharp increases in smoking among urban Oriental women The effect Of the marketing is already being seen One 19~7 study found Japanese female college students to be times as likely to smoke than their mothers. In Taiwan, cigarette consumption was declining until the entry of the Western companies. Taiwan consumption pose 4 percent in 1987. Korea's consumption also rose 2 percent In Japan, a decline in consumption that preceded the entr# of the United States firms has been halted Foreign corn parties which before had virtually no cigarette market share now hold 11 percent of Japan's market and 22 percent o! Taiwan's. Within a few years foreign companies are pected to control 20 percent to 30 percent of the markers of these countries as well as Korea. These statistics demonstrate that the health and econom=c claims made by the multinationals to justify opening a ~losed market are fallacious. Opening the closed cigarette markets in the Far East will likely result in increased consumption among current smokers and in many nonsmoking womP[ and adolescents starting to smoke. Controlling Worldwide Expansion What can be done to curb multinational tobacco comparue.~ from further expanding their influence worldwide? Shepherd argues that a decaying state-owned monopoly is just what the doctor ordered" and keeping the market closed is goo~ medicine for any national tobacco control program .52 But unfortunately, as long as smoking rates continue to decline in the developed countries and the United States con- tinues to incur high trade imbalances with the newly devel- oped countries in the Far East, considerable pressure will be placed on countries with closed markets to open them. It is likely that national monopolies will be dismantled worldwide. Thailand is under pressure by the United States to open its market. Joint ventures in China may only be the beginning of multinational dominance of that country. And if the Korean and Japanese companies are able to become co~hpetitive and learn how to make and market cigarettes the way they learned to make cars, the health of the world will suffer immeasurably. The Sixth World Conference on Smoking and Health herd in Japan in 1987 took note of this problem and recommend- ed that tobacco not be used as trade leverage. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)--an international agreement which nations use to resolve trade disagreements-- currently includes tobacco. United States and international health and religious organizations should petition member nations of GATT to remove tobacco from the list of trade items. This is justified based on the heavy toll that tobacco takes on human life worldwide. Other international economic developmental agencies such as the World Bank, Interna- tional Monetary Fund and FAO should also be called upon to exclude tobacco or tobacco products from their program ac- tivities and should fund activities to curb tobacco use. It is evident that the United States tobacco trade policies promote world smoking. Public opinion can and should be tapped to change U.S. policies. For example, tobacco is still eligible for support in the "Food for Peace Program" but, in response to public concern in the United States, the Depart- rnent of Agriculture has decided not to allow tobacco in the program. Similar pressure could be used to influence United States trade officials not to use 301 trade sanctions to force unwanted American cigarettes onto friendly nations. Governments in the Far East are to be blamed for their fail- ure to aggressively address the smoking problem. Certainly, their neglect is due in large part to concern about the eco- nomic implications of controlling tobacco. But foreign coun- tries can still institute policy actions that protect the public health. The first option is to prohibit all forms of tobacco marketing and advertising. This action would prevent the multinationals Irom capturing a large segment of the existing market, bul more importantly prevent the TTCs from market- ing to nonusers of tobacco such as women and adolescents. Foreign governments can also take a second action, to crease cigarette excise taxes. The tax would have the public health benefit of curbing smoking and replace revenue lost to the multinational company. Citizen-based antismoking groups in the United States and other industrialized countries have been highly effective. These groups are not influenced by governmental officials ~bbacco U~e itt Alnet~ca Colz.ferellce T108380112
Page 266: TI08380113
Tobacco Use in America Conference • January 27-28, 1989 and have successfully used the issue of nonsmokers' rights and lawsuits against tobacco manufacturers to change public attitudes. Over time, United States government policy has been influenced by these groups. As American tobacco com- panies export Western cigarettes, activists in the United States should export the American antismoking movement There are fledgling consumer-based antismoking groups in Japan, Taiwan and Korea Until recently, these groups were perceived as fringe elements in the conformist socielies of the Far East. However, United States trade pressure has sparked charges of cigarette dumping and neocolonialism The antismoking groups have been able to link their rues. sages with the public anger about the U.S. aclions. ]he antismoking movement has become a national cause in raiwan and Korea. In many respects, the United States governmental pressure has backfired and given legitimacy to the fledgling antismoking groups. The groups have been successful. Smoking is banned on many Japanese railroads and the Taiwanese Ministry of Health is proposing to ban smoking in public places. Laws are pending in Taiwan and the Philippines to ban all forms ol tobacco advertising. A class action suit on behall o! ten Filipino children was filed in a Manila court in 1987 against two Untied States multinational companies. The plaintiffs claim that Philip Mords and R.J. Reynolds fail to provide the same level of protection to Filipino children as to American children, specilically, warning labels on print ads and pack- ages and no teleyision advertising. The lailure of the T]Cs to place health warning labels on cigarettes sold in many poor countries makes them vulnerable to future product liabilib In combination, these actions provide hope for curbing world smoking--hope for the billions of children in the world who are at risk of becoming 21st-century customers of the six multinational tobacco companies. Summary of Workgroup Discussion United States tobacco trade policies have enabled it to become the world's leading cigarette exporter. And, in addi- tion to export dominance, U.S. trade policies allow United States tobacco companies to virtually control domestic tobacco farming and production in many developing coun- tries. As a result, United States tobacco companies are more than replacing smokers who are quitting in developed coun- tries with new smokers in developing countries In large part. these new smokers are women and children. While this may be good lot the tobacco companies, it is bad public policy for the United States. The United States tobacco trade policy is bad because ~t has the potential to reverse all the gains we have made in promoting world health It makes a mockery of our claim to b~ the world's leader in health. It is grotesquely inconsistent with our efforts to curb international trade in addictive Tobacco Use in A~z~ca Ctmfcre~we drugs. And, the gains made from tobacco have hurt export opportunities of other United States goods and have caused serious harm to the image of the United States overseas. As a leader of the free world, the United States must adopt a new policy that prevents the world smoking epidemic from expanding. The United States government's roles is to pro- mote the health of the American geople and to serve as a positive example to the rest of the world in the active sup- port of world health. To that end, a new tobacco policy should be based on the following general principles: • The United States government and U.S. health organi- zations, along with international health organizations, should encouarge worldwide adoption of effective smok- ing prevention and control measures. Together, these groups should collect data on mortality and disease related to worldwide tobacco use. • Tobacco should not be used as trade leverage. • All people regardless of country of residence should be warned o! the dangers of tobacco. • Efforts should be made to discourage international development agencies from introducing and supporting tobacco growth, production, market~ng, and sales as an economic strategy. All nations in the world should be encouraged to adopt policies that curb the reckless and irresponsible promotion and advertising of tobacco products. Such a policy requires that we pass new legislation, imple- ment new international health programs, develop internalional collaborative health projects between U.S. health agencies and their international counterparts and launch advocacy and public ~,ducation programs to regain our leadership in world health. Recommendations Legislative Recommendations 1) Congress should pass legis!ation to prohibit the USTR, the Departments of State ahd Commerce, or any other agency of the United States government from actively encouraging, persuading or compelling any foreign government to expand the marketing of tobacco prod- ucts whether it be by repealing of laws restricting markeling practices or securing agreements to intro- duce new measures or expand current ones. This ap- plies to the promotion, advertisement, distribution and taxation of tobacco products. 2) Congress should pass legislation requiting any manu- facturer who sells tobacco products in the United States to place the same health warning labels that are required in the United States on advertisements and packages sold abroad unless more stringent health disclosures are required Manufacturers should also be required to disclose the tar and nicotine content of brands if the level is different from the same brand T!08380113
Page 267: TI08380114
IIII Tobacco Use in America Conference * January 27-28, 1989 sold in the United States. Nothing in this recommen- dation should be construed as preempting any local law or regulation including product liability of the tobacco manufacturer and seller. 3) Congress should restrict the use of United States funds by international trade and monetary agencies such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund from being used to provide financial or technical support for tobacco agriculture of manufacture. 4) Congress should significantly increase United States funding for smoking control activities for WHO and work with it to establish an international data base and clearinghouse on tobacco control. II. Regulatory Recommendations: 1) The Surgeon General in his capacity as the Govern- ment's chief international health officer should devote an upcoming Surgeon General's report to the world health consequences of smoking. 2) The General Accounting Office should undertake .a study on the economic costs and benefits to the United States of the export of tobacco. The study should include analyses of the past activities under- taken by the USTR to determine if tobacco products have been accorded preferential treatment. Other areas to be studied include an environmental impact study on the use of pesticides, deforestation and other environmentally destructive practices lot the growth of tobacco. In addition, the study should in- dude the financial implications of reducing tobacco exports on American farmers. 3) The National Institutes of Health should establish a collaborative proiect with other nations to gather health data on the consequences of worldwide tobacco use. II1. Public Education: 1) A wodd conference should be held on the world health consequences of tobacco use. The conference should encourage foreign health experts and government representatives to participate. 2) A clearinghouse should be established as a corporate entity and in collaboration with voluntary health agen- cies, professional groups, the United States Public Health Service, Pan American Health Organization and the World Health Organization to provide relevant data on health, economic, environmental and social im- pacts related to worldwide use of tobacco. 54 Tobacco U~z b~ America Cor{ference T108380114
Page 268: TI08380115
29 MARCH 1990 MALAYSIA Readyfor Elections HONC~KONG BillofWrongs TOKYO .STOCKMARKET. ~ere '~ the Floor? REPRINT II TI08380115
Page 269: TI08380116
BUSINESS AFFAIRS || I I III1| III I| COVER STORY: INDUSTRY Western cigarette giant~ battle state-run monopolies formarket share Drags to riches R. J. Re,~elds Tob~co o~ the L~5 ar, d ~er ,,vcmm.~ but 61°/'o ~ l~u~e mm FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW TI08380116
Page 270: TI08380117
I I INDUSTRY 2 ~ that the/ndus~ w~l am~ue t~ Jq~.ese. ~ domJna~ Japan's ~ mad(et between ~ Mo¢~ with its 9% ~ a divisi~ o~ BAT, ~ 3.~/o; ~ J. ~ T~ ~ ~1o; ~d ~ ~ J~'s ~ m ~ ~ ~,~of~~ FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW T108380117
Page 271: TI08380118
BUSINESS AFFAIRS I II JapaneSe ~," ~ T~ ~ J~ 1re do~ the math The state takes its cut .~,~. ........ ~lllllllilllllHIIllllllI$ HlillliNIHIIllllltll~ Foreign finning : ers left was Won 1.6 trillion (LTS$13 billion) -- ~iy 10% of 8ereraI budset ~wenu~ a I~ge share of k~I govemment re- venues. More &.ah Korean cism-~t~ smoked mean a bi88er sllee of the revenue . ~here is no pha to e~mge the t~x 1:~k7," sa)~ Oh Se Wocrag, di~x~vr ot the mcmolx@ p].~-'~g div~on at me Sot~ ~ bought 91 b..Tdon FAR EASTERN ECONOMIC REVIEW 29 MARCH 199C T108380118
Page 272: TI08380119
smoking rotes among women are rising. But no one really knows who is smok- ing which dgarettes and why, though younger, better-educated smokem are the ta~ market for foreign comIkmies, More than 80% of foreign dgarettes are sold by the ttuee ma~ors - R. J. Reynolds, Phib'p Morris and Brown & W'dliamson. Perhaps the mo~t pu~ling fact is that smoke~ in Kwangju, home to Kim Dae ]ung and site of a bloody rebellion in 1980, as often as in the country at large. The South I~rean tobacco monopoly, Korea Tobao:o and Citing (m't~), has ducin~ new brands, upgrading quality and k"r~G omainl¥ has it~ problems. On the one hand, tobacco farm~-s want hi~er prices, but export paces are fiat, and the government demands that domestic the tnice it paid famaers 9% for last year's crop lint it was able to raise export prices ortly 1-2%. The result is that it faces a loss of up to US$S0 mien on the export market, Imporl~[ tobacco accounts for about 12% of K'faG's to.~al tLce. But US l~f to~_¢co sales ~ ~II smalL • Mm'k ¢lZffo~d Malaysian blend Foreign cagarettes tkave ahvays been the rage among bfialaysia's smokem largdy because of the counta3,', s cob onial heritage. Bu: stiff local-content provi- sions and government emphasis on part bumiputra, tndigenous Malaysians, maLrdy Malay, owner~hiF of a~ foreign dgarette comparues set the rules tbr Malaysia's to- bacco industry at .an early stage. The large marke~ share of Marlboro and Lucky Strike brands tins created an illusion of an industry dominated by foreign pro- ducts, but these.. ~agarett~ for the most part are foreign ~ name only: more ~ 60% of all tobacco ~eaf used Jr, them is locally grown. The .,~'namder is heavily taxed US and South Amencan tobacco blended with b~la.vsia~ "obacco industry is domi- nated I~,' Rottm~am of Paa Mall (Malaysia), b~ala~-dan Tebaco~ .:o. ~r, rrc) and R. Reyn. o!ds Toba~'o .'?he ct~ml:~es account for 99% ~t the domestic market. Rothmans commands a ~(% ~hare t,~ the market, fob ~owed In, ~fr • ,i~- ~5% and R. J. w~th The t~oacco incustry produce~ revenue .~f ,k~l.4 b~lh ,nd ~'L~.=20 r'til~on) a }'ear. this amount, about M$600-700 million goeo to the government as taxes. Companies stick closely to the govem- months sfipdation that.6070% of Malaysian tobacco leaf be used in cigarettes sold in the domestic market. According to the National Tobacco Board (t~rfS), the proportion of non-Malaysian tobacco leaf used in foreign brands varies according to price. The krrB and the Malaysian Tobacco Curexs Associatioa are pressing for a stiffer local-content provis/on. But the govem- ment is not expected to comply because ot concerns about industry, competitiveness. The tobacco ~dustry is ocpected to sus- lain increased earnings because of strong demand for tobacco leaf, higher dgarette prices and improved growing technology.. But observers pc~tt out that the tobacco industry corttn'butes votes (it employs 3(30,000" peop|e) as well as ~x revenue to the government. As a result, the United Malays National Orgmdsation. the domin- ant pa~ of the ruling National Front coal- ition, ~ been forced to play a balancing act ~5.th its cmnp'A~n warning Mahys~ against the dangers of smok~g. 29 MARCH 1~}90 T!08380119
Page 273: TI08380120
El L, S I N E S S A F = A. i R S iNDUSTRY 3 Fore mers make little headway in/n.dm,,. 'iatt market Under a cloud The good news in Indonesia for for- eign dgaret~ makers is that the~e is no state-run manufactu~g monopoly. The bad new~ is thai: Indone- sians do not want to smoke foreign dg'aret- tes. In Indone~, the homegrown, dove- Over the l:m,st dec~de, kreteks have picked up a steadily growing share of the dgarette mar~t. They now a~count for 89% of total d~ o~tl~at, ag-~st 61% in 1980. In ~on~-ast, the produ~on of ~egnlar ciga~-tes, ot white dga~:,~s as they million pieces in 19~0 to about 16 Four manufacturing giants domi- nate the kretek industry. Together, Gudang Garam, Djarum, Bent~ and Sampoema, made 90% of the dove dgarett~s [m3duced il3 In- donesia last year, aco3rding to Data Consult, a local c~asulting Gudang Gamin and D~arum each hold about 30% of the market All Kretek sales stm4ed to I~,e off in the early :g SOs whet" the ~g four intro- duced machine-made, fi]~ k~'eks. These quidd.v b~zme more popular ~ the hand-rolled ~erszon which had domb duced, more ~ ~v~ce ".he number of The popularity of dove dg-amttes has made them an important source of govern- ment revenue Last year, dgaret~ man- ufacturms l~d out US$7~) million to the goverr~nent in ~se taxes more than any other indite; The vavments are budgeted US ciga~tto, tobacco leaf exports to Asia in 1989 ~=: ~ =: '.~'J '2_ =E'- r':.'W 29 MAFtC- 19g~ T108380120
Page 274: TI08380121
• i ernmem t~ import cI~x~s -- Mercu Buana and Mega Ut~na. Menu Buana is owned osu~edjo w1~ Mega U~ma is ~g- p~. ~ d~ ~ of ~ d~e ~ ~ ~ ~d 11% ~ 1~, a ~ • e ~d-l~. BAT ~ ~/o ~ ~, ~ ~e d i~ ~o p~ ~ ]~e. at im ~g ~ ~ ~n. How. du~on. But i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. T~o, a ~ ~, ~ ~e ~ ~u~ ~d~ ~ ~ ~don~ ~d ~ ~u~ a ~ ~ m ~ dov~ ~. ~ ye~, ~~de ~k~ w~ o~ of a ~ of ~d~ ~- ~ ~ ~ n~ ~v~t, ~ ~d ~. ~ ~y ~t ~ o~y ~ ~ ~ ~ v~ ~ ~d. ~ ~ ~ ~e ~p m~fio~ ~," m~ one ~g ~ve. But, ~ ~e ~ ~m out, d ~e 1A~ ~on w~ d~ p~u~ ea~ ~ ~ ~ a mu~ d~ l~k at ~ ~fi~. A~g ~ C~ B~au ~~ I,~ ~ m 1~ to 4.1~ ~ ~ 1~ ~d ~ 9,749 ~ m ~e ~ ~ ~ o~ d~, ~ p~ ~ ~ m~ Fm~g ~. Hon~ ~g ~fl ~ ~ ~e ~t ~y~ ii 29 MAF~CH 199£ TI08380121
Page 275: TI08380122
USCEA Uniled Sfc~.s Cigare,~ Export TIME LINE FOR THAI SECTION 301 CASE ON CIGARETTES • April 10, 1989 USCEA, al~r years of unsuccessful attempts to open the Thai market, files a Section 301 petition with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). • May 25, 1989 The USTR initiates an investigation under Section 302 of the Trade Act. • July 31, 1989 Bilateral consultations between American and Thai Government officials in Pattaya, Thailand. • Sept. 19, 1989 USTR.holds public hearing on the Thai investigation. • Dec. 22, 1989 United States requests consultations under the provisions of Article XXIH:I of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). • Feb. 5, 1990 Bilateral consultations between America and Thai Government officials in Geneva, Switzerland on all issues under investigation. • Feb. 20, 1990 United States asks GATT Council to establish a dispute settlement panel under Article XXHI:2 to examine Thailand's import ban and discriminatory taxes on cigarettes. • April 3, 1990 The GATF Council authorizes establishment of the dispute settlement panel. • Late Nov. 1990 Presidential determination on Section 301 case is due. 1850 M Street, N.W., Sui~ 900 • Washinglon, D.C. 20036 • 202.833-4290 T!08380122
Page 276: TI08380123
Tobacco Export Fact Sheet • Tobacco induztry exper~ totaled $25 bi]2ion in the 1~8~. • In 1989, totmcco expert• reached • record $5 billio~ • Net 1989 totm~o exporf~ total~ $4.2 billion. • Cigarettem accounted for $3.4 bison of 1989 expert. • More than 6 percent of the national trade deficit', improvement between 1988-1989 was generated by • In 1989, tot~co prod~ ~counted for ~q.5 percent of the indu~y', mn~lue, 28.4 penzn~aa~ pointe more than in 1985. * More than 5.3 tr~on cigare~ were eM~nated to have been produced worldwide in 1989. • U.S. manufiactumm produced 6T7~ billion cigarettes in 1989, only 1~7 percent oJ~e~timated total world production. • U.~ cigarette expor~ ~count~l for 20.9 percent of domestic preduc~on in 1989, and export~ of American eigaret~ acoount~i for au~tantially leu • than 3 percent of world eoneumption. • More than 718,000 pemp]e havejo~ direly related • Another 1.6 million jobe are indirectly generated in the United State~. • Tobacco export~ alone accounted for well over 125,000 jobe in 1989. • Total impact of tobacco exporte on the U.S. economy in 1988 was $5.54 billion in compensation and $1.72 billion in tax revenue~. Figur~ for 1989 are likely to be higher commensurate with the incre~e in tobacco expert. • 300,000 fannere in 23 st•tern raise tobacco. • Growom ~old $1.3 million of tobacco |ear overasas in 1989. o In 1989, 69` percent ol~U.S, lea~expert~ were bought by the top hal~-dozen foreign markete - Japan, We~t G~rmany, The Netherlands, Taiwan, lraq and Hong Kong compared to 42.5 percent in 1988. • E~tlmated total acreage under eultiv•tion for tobacco farming in I990 is 781,000 a~e~, up 6 percent from 1989. • Average value per acre for 1989 tobacco crops was $~,454 for flue-cured, and $3,489 t'or hurley. USCEA United State~ Cigarette Export A~sociatlon (202) 833-429O T108380123
Page 277: TI08380124
USCEA Unit~l S,k:~es Cigarc~ Export Assod~on Tobacco Exports: The American Success Story As America's insatiable demand for imported products sent the nation deeply into debt during the 1980s, the volume of U.S. tobacco exports grew at a record pace. And as a number of American industries suffered at the hands of foreign competi- tors, the U.S. tobacco industry continued to generate jobs for millions of Americans. Throughout the decade, tobacco has been a consistent winner in the arena of inter- national trade. Exported cigarettes and tobacco leaf contributed nearly $25 billion to the balance of trade during the 1980s. In 1989 alone, tobacco exports produced a whopping $4.2 billion surplus on total exports of nearly $5 billion. 1850 M S~reet, N.W., Suite 900 * Washing~n, D.C. 20036 • 202.833-4290 T108380124
Page 278: TI08380125
An American Heritage Tobacco is a proud and integral part of our country's heritage. Native American Indians presented tobacco leaves as gifts to early colonists. In addition to their roles as philosophers, statesmen and leaders, forefathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were tobacco farmers. The tilling of tobacco on America's fertile farmlands has brought the nation wealth and progress. Today, tobacco ranks as the sixth largest cash crop in the country. Jobs for America The tobacco industry employs people in every state. According to Chase Econometrics, approximately 713,000 people are employed in growing and bringing U.S. tobacco to market, as well as manufacturing, warehous- ing, wholesaling and retailing cigarettes and other tobacco products. Another 1.6 million American jobs are indirectly generated by the tobacco industry. American employment also is affected .by the volume of U.S. exports. According to a recent Price Waterhouse study, every billion dollars in exports creates 25,000 jobs, figures that are consistent with those of the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Thus, 1989 tobacco exports of $5 billion alone could account for nearly 125,000 U. S. jobs. These numbers constitute a significant contribution to the American economy in all regions of the country. About 180,000 farm families in 16 states, for example, grow the finest tobacco leaf in the world. And in Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia, thousands of workers manufacture high-quality cigarettes in state-of-the-art plants. Winning in Foreign Markets U.S. tobacco exports have produced a favorable trade balance throughout the '80s. In fact, the tobacco export industry is one of only a few American industrial catego- ries to maintain and increase its foreign trade surplus. In most Pacific Rim countries, cigarettes and other tobacco products primarily are manufactured and distributed by government-operated monopolies. For decades, these countries essentially were closed markets for American cigarette companies. In some instances, high tariffs priced imported American cigarettes far above do- mestic brands. In others, government policies completely excluded the importation of U.S. cigarettes. Ti08380125
Page 279: TI08380126
Ironically, while dosing their markets to U.S. tobacco exporters, these same coun- tries were exporting a variety of consumer items to the United States, thus bolster- ing their economies to the detriment of ours. In the mid:80's, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) began to review the protectionist policies of a number of America's trading partners. Bilateral nego- tiations led to the opening of previously closed markets overseas for a number of American products, including cigarettes. As trade barriers began to be removed, the three companies that comprise the United States Cigarette Export Association began exporting to those markets, competing with one another and with formerly protected monopolies. As a result, the value of exported tobacco products and tobacco leaf increased nearly 80 percent from 1985 to 1989. In I989, the U.S. tobacco industry posted an un- precedented trade surplus of $4.2 billion on total tobacco exports of nearly $5 bil- lion. Tobacco Exports Impact on U.S. Trade Balance '89 '88 '87 '88 '85 '84 '83 '82 '81 '80 3.4 • [] Exports Surplua Ti08380126
Page 280: TI08380127
Benefits at Home New business recently generated by increased tobacco exports has added hundreds of raiSons of dollars to the U.S. economy. U.S. farmers not only sell tobacco to domestic cigarette companies, but also to over- seas manufacturers, who purchased 35.1 percent of the U.S. tobacco crop in 1989. Consumers abroad have increasingly shown a preference for high-quality American cigarettes. Increased U.S. penetration in foreign cigarette markets has forced gov- ernment monopolies to increase purchases of American leaf to produce lighter, more flavorful cigarettes, such as those made by U.S. companies. The increased demand overseas for American cigarettes and tobacco leaf prompted the U.S. Department of Agriculture to increase its 1990 ei~ective quota for flue- cured tobacco 3.9 percent, and burley tobacco by 12.5 percent. More jobs are also created for American men and women. As more land is cultivated, American farm families continue to prosper. And as leaf and Cigarette production for export increases, so does the demand for farm imple- ments, paper for processing and packaging, and air, land and sea transportation services. America's New Competitiveness America's cigarette industry and tobacco leaf growers have proven that they can success~lly compete in overseas markets when given the opportunity. The key in- gredients of that success are a strong U.S. tobacco industry, an excell.ent product, knowledgeable marketing and strong cooperation between the public and private sectors to eliminate unfair trade barriers. Tobacco exports provide a ray of hope for the nation's economy, and a blueprint for other industries as America searches for ways to solve its balance of trade problems. The export successes of this classic American agrlcttltural product serve as a for- mula for competing in the world marketplace. TI08380127
Page 281: TI08380128
I"HR;L.N~ 31.OCH8 U,S, CI~=II~E'rTE Zl,II:~RT8 ~ ~IT |'rEP~ I.~ EXI~RTE WASHINGTON, May 4 /PRNewswire/ -- Thail~nO, profitlng from a continually growing surplus of tpade with the United States, is blocking U.S. cigarette imports while actively engaged in the sale of cigarettes and tobacco through its government-owned mor,opoly~ a Senate was told today. In testimony before the Senate Co~nmitte~ on Labo~ anO Hum~r~ Remourcem~ ?orme~ U.S. Sen. Walter D. Hu~dlesto~, rept'esentin~ the U.S. Cigaeette E~po~t Association~ said that Thailand is the only major ~ountry in the non-communist scald (apart fro~ Iran and Syeia) that does not allow the sale ~f American ~eands of ~i,arettes. "They keep our ~rodu~ts ~ut to p~oteet these own monopoly. Meanwhile~ ~hailand is sunning a ch~oni~ and growin~ trade surplus wit~ the United States~" Huddleston When Japan, Kov.ea and Talwan blocked iml:ot'ts, Huddleston said~ the ad~inlstratlonSs U.S. trade representative (U~TR~ sucoesded through ne~otiatlon in stopping those m~unt~-ie~ ?ro~ discrimlnatin~ American tobacc~ ~roducts. U.S. ~i~a~-ette ~x~ort~ to these three mount~ies are now worth more than $I billion a The USTR'a current negotiation with T~ailand ~n tobacco is a trade issue, not a health issue~ H~ddleston said. That sentiment ~as e~oed in othe~ testimony given at the hea~in~ by ~en. Mitoh M~onnell Re~. Robin Teflon (D-S.C.) an~ Fred "~. ~ond~ chief executive offi~eP of the Flue-Cured Tobacm~ ~oope~atlve Stabilization ~rp. ~ount~y ~hich already has a ~overn~ent-opePated cigarette industry," he maid, addlng~ "Thailand e~ports a hi~her pe~=en~age of itl tobacco prOdu~tlon than the United States, so relatively s~eakln~, Thailan~ is more of a to~a¢c~ e~po~In~ count~y Ll~m~ w~ "Thailand will e~port ~ore than 35 pe~c,~nt of it~ burley tobacco crop in direct competition wlt~ tobacco g~o~ers in ~entucky and ~the~ ~urley-belt states. It has increased its b~rley tobau~ crog in a American bu~ley tobacco in recent yea~m," Huddleston told the coe~ittee. In a recent statement ~hs ~ire~tor of the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly oa subsidiary organization ~f t~e Thai Mlnls~y of Finae~e) maid that another factory if U.B. cigarette impo~ts co~tlnue to be banned. "When asked why the market shoul~ not be ~pened to imports~ the director said that the ~onsequen~e would be a loss of ~5 ~ercent sha~e in the mmrket. The people in charge ~n Thailand re~ogni=e that t~is is a trade issue. It has to do wlth co~me~clal ~ompstitibn, not health~" Huddlemton said. Worldwide~ cigarettes are one of the m~t widely sold products. However~ U.S. =i~arette exports acooun~ ~¢r substantially less th~n 3 pe,cent of world ~onsumption, and the U.S. sha~e of the highly :ompetitive internatlo~al ~arket is less than i~ has been in In 19B?~ the surplus of U.S. -trlde in cigarettes was $3.3 billion~ and the surplus ~ trade for all U.S. tobacco products was $~.~ billi~n. All told, tobacco p~oduct exports provided 250,000 jobs in the United States~ ~6 billion in worker pay~ an5 nea~ly $2 billi~n in ta~ Huddleston said. -0- 5/~/90 /NOTE: Fo~ a co, plate copy o? Huddleston's testimony, c~tact the" Unlte~ States Cigarette Exp~rt Association, 2~2-833-429g./ /CONTACT: Winston Lsavell of the United States Cigarette E×po~t Association~ 2~2-833-429~/ TI08380128
Page 282: TI08380129
Statement of WALTER D. HUDDLESTON on behaJf of the UNITED STATES CIGARETTE EXPORT ASSOCIATION to the COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES of the UNITED STATES SENATE May 4, 1990 An CIGARETTE EXPORTS American Jobs and Trade Issue - Not a Health Issue Mr. Chairman, I have a very broad interest in the export of tobacco products. As I did in the Senate, I speak today for the hundreds of thousands of people in Kentucky and other states who are family fam~ers or factory breadwinners and whose lives are made better by the success abroad of Amedcan tobacco products. TI08380129
Page 283: TI08380130
The prime question on cigarette exports is whether hundreds of thousands of American workers will keep their farm and manufacturing jobs. The same number of cigarettes are going to be smoked in foreign countries regardless of whether American products are there or not. The only issue is who makes them -- American workers or workers in other countries; and who grows the tobacco they are made of -- American farmers or farmers in other countries. Smoking is prevalent ~d customary in every country in the world, and there is no shortage of tobacco growing or cigarette manufacturing capacity outside the United States. In fact, exports of American cigarettes account for substantially less than 3% of world consumption. So it is clear that U.S. exports are not the cause of cigarette consumption abroad and smoking would not end or be reduced if our exports were discontinued. The fact is that American cigarette exports do not dominate international trade. Our share of the international cigarette market is even less now than it has been at times In .2- T!08380130
Page 284: TI08380131
the past. The international market is a very competitive environment. % TOTAL g.8. SHARE OF WORLD CIGARETTE EXPORT BUSINESS Rgum 1 At this hearing some people are telling us that American cigarette exports are a health issue. But that is a misunderstanding. Whatever you may think about the smoking and health controversy, we are not exporting the practice.of smoking - smoking is already out them. And it is not out there because Amedcan exporters put it there. -3- TI08380131
Page 285: TI08380132
People smoke everywhere -- not just in countries where Amedcan cigarettes are sold. Poland and Hungary, for example, had repressive regimes that never permitted substantial sales of U.S. cigarettes and had no advertising at all. But Poland and Hungary have higher per capita, smoking than the United States, West Germany or Japan where American cigarette brands are freely marketed. PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION (CIg|re~es per yllt) ~700 • ~W. G~rmaay I, I ..... I I $~: ERC, ~a#~f¢= Ir~at~lbr~l Lt:L ....... Look at East and West Germany. After 45 years of hard- line communist dict~torship prohibiting ~tdvertislng and Imports -4. TI08380132
Page 286: TI08380133
of cigarettes, East Gerrr~ny has the same per capita. ¢onsumptiorl.as West Germany on the free side of the wail. This is in spite of the fact that over a third of West Germany's cigarette sales are American brands, and the liberty to advertise cigarettes exists in West Germany alongside the other liberties of a free society. China grows more tobacco than any other country and is the biggest producer and consumer of cigarettes in the wodd, but admits only a very small amount of American products. There are many more examples showing that competition between Amedcan cigarette brands and foreign ones is not the cause of smoking or an influence on consumption trends. So whatever your views may be on whether smoking is bad for health, when we are discussing cigarette exports we are not talking about exporting smoking, we are talking about trade. If Amedca were to stop exporting, the only result would be harm to Amedcan workers, American farmers, American Industry and the American balance of trade. There will not be tess smoking abroad. -5- Ti08380133
Page 287: TI08380134
Less Developed Countries are Not Targeted Another thing which we have heard about from people who are speaking here today is the impression that American cigarette exporters are concentrating on less developed countries. The facts show otherwise. Last year, 90% of American cigarette production was consumed in the 24 industrialized countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1 CONSUMPTION OF U.S. CIGARETTE PRODUCTION 9.7% FIGURE 3 -6- T108380134
Page 288: TI08380135
What is mor.¢ the growth of United States exports over the last five years has been over three times greater going to the OECD countries than to other countries. With this growing proportion of exports going to industrialized countries, it is clear that the United States cigarette export business is not focused on less developed countries. U,S. CIGARETTE EXPORTS Other Countrl~= A Bright Spot In the U.S. Trade Picture American cigarettes made with American tobacco ~e, .7- Ti08380135
Page 289: TI08380136
however, the world standard of quality. The result is that smokers abroad have, when given the chance, chosen American made cigarettes in growing numbers over the years. Tobacco products have consistently made a major contribution to the American trade balance. TOBACCO'S TRADE SURPLUS IN THE 1980'=: 1980 • 1989 Dollsrs Leaf ~Tobe~o Soun:~: Fom/gn Tr~e d/v/=~ olive U.$. ~ M G~nsua F~um 5 At a time when the United States is being battered by huge annual trade deficits, cigarette and tobacco leaf exports continue to be one of the few bright spots in the United States .8- T108380136
Page 290: TI08380137
trade picture. Last year, the trade deficit improved by about ten billion dollars, If there had been no tobacco product exports, half of that improvement would not halve been there. Year after year the export of tobacco and tobacco products puts billions of dollars of surplus into the United States trade picture. America has very few categories of trade which do this for us. ~m- u.s. sxpom, 2 Corn 6.6 3 Wheat 5.a 4 Nrpl~ne P~s~s 5.8 5 Scientific Inllruments 5,1 6 Chemicals 43 7 Pllltk:S 4.6 8 CoaJ 4.2 9 ~y~ar~ 4.0 10 Clgsmtte~ :l,:$ F'~um 6 To the $3.3 billion of 1989 cigarette exports nearly a billion more of tobacco export surplus brings total 1989 tobacco -9- T!08380137
Page 291: TI08380138
product exports to more than $4.2 billion. The forecast for 1990 is for the U.S~'tobacco product export surplus to exceed $5 billion. Tobacco product exports pay off both in the trade balance and in other more direct and tangible ways. They give America a quarter of a million jobs, almost $6 billion in workers p~y, and almost $2 billion in tax revenues. We need to care about the more than a million farmers and factow workers and their family members for whom these exports provide a better livelihood. Fair Treatment for U.S. Exporte Because American cigarettes are sought after by smokers around the world, some countries have tried to stop them from competing against their local industries. In Japan, TaJwan and Korea, cigarette manufacturing monopolies were set up many years ago under the finance departments of those governments. To protect those businesses, the governments outlawed or highly. restricted imports, preventing competition. Through negotiation, the United States Trade representative got those countries to stop discriminating against American products. -10- T!08380138
Page 292: TI08380139
The argument was simple: "If you are going to enjoy free access to the American market and make a big trade surplus with your products, you have to let us sell in your markets too." That argument prevailed, and today United States cigarette exports to those countries are worth more than $1 billion per year. I might also add that total cigarette consumption trends in those countries were not affected by American imports. What happened was that many smokers chose the American product rather than the local one. The Thailand Tobacco Monopoly Today, the same type of trade negotiation is happening with Thailand, which is now the only major country in the non- communist world (apart from Iran and Syria) that does not allow the sale of American cigarette brands. They keep our products out to protect their own government owned cigarette monopoly. Meanwhile, Thailand is running a chronic and growing trade Imbalance against the United States. - 11 - TI08380139
Page 293: TI08380140
Some people have tried to make this negotiation seem to involve health issues, but that is not appropriate. United States exporters are only seeking fair market access to a country which already has a government operated cigarette industry. Thailand is itself one of the world's leading exporters of tobacco products. Thailand exports a higher percentage of its tobacco production than the United States does, so relatively spewing Thailand is more of a tobacco exporting country than we are. For example, this year Thailand will export more than 35% of its burley tobacco crop in direct competition with tobacco growers in Kentucky and other hurley-belt states. It has increased its burley tobacco crop in a major way and is selling to countries who ha~,e reduced their purchases of American hurley tobacco in recent years. Consequently, the argument that for heaJth reasons the United States should not export cigarettes is particularly illogical when it comes from Thailand. We should not let ourselves be used by people in a way which will only result in the protection of a foreign government's cigarette monopoly. - 12- T!08380140
Page 294: TI08380141
The Director of the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly stated to the press a few weeks ago that this year his monopoly will make 39.71 billion cigarettes, and that the growth in sales will require another factory. He said that the factory project has been put on hold because of the trade negotiations with the United States. When asked why the market should not be opened to imports, the Director said that the consequence would be a loss of 25% "share in the market. The people in charge in Thailand recognize that this is a trade issue. It has to do with commercial competition -- not health. We believe that Congress recognized the economic threat to our c¢~untry of the gigantic trade deficit and addressed that threat with the Trade Act of 1974 strengthen..ed by the 1988 Act. The United States Cigarette Export Association is simply seeking the trade fairness those acts sought for United States manufacturers. It is the only way we can hope to reverse the imbalance. . 13 - T108380141
Page 295: TI08380142
USCEA Un~cl S.~s Cigare~ Export Association FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 4, 1990 CONTACT: Winston Leavell THAILAND BLOCKS U.S. CIGARETTE IMPORTS AS IT STEPS UP EXPORTS OF THAI TOBACCO WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Thailand, profiting from a continually growing surplus of trade with the United States, is blocking U.S. cigarette imports while actively engaged in the sale of uigarettes and tobacco through its government-owned monopoly, a Senate committee was told today. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, former U.S. Senator Walter D. Huddleston, representing the U.S. Cigarette Export Association, said that Thailand is the only major country in the non-communist world (apart from Iran and Syria) that does not allow the sale of American brands of cigarettes. "They keep our products but to protect their own government- owned monopoly. Meanwhile, Thailand is running a chronic and growing trade surplus with the United States," Huddleston said. -more- 1850 M S~eet, N.W., Suite 900 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • 202.833-4290 T!08380142
Page 296: TI08380143
-2- When Japan, Korea and Taiwan blocked imports, Huddleston said, the administration's U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) succeeded through negotiation in stopping those countries from discriminating against American tobacco products. U.S. cigarette exports to these three countries are now worth more than $1 billion a year. The USTR'S current negotiation with Thailand on tobacco is a trade issue, not a health issue, Huddleston said. That sentiment was echoed i~ other testimony given at the hearing by Senator Mitch McConne11 "(R-KY), Congressman Robin Tallon (D-SC), and Fred G. Bond, chief executive officer of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. "Uni'ted States exporters are only seeking fair market access to a country which already has a government-operated cigarette industry," he said, adding, "Thailand exports a higher percentage of its tobacco production than the United States, so relatively speaking Thailand is more of a tobacco exporting country than we are." "Thailand will export more than 35 percent of its hurley tobacco crop in direct competition with tobacco growers in Kentucky and other burley-belt states. It has increased its hurley tobacco crop in a major way and is selling to countries who have reduced their purchases of American burley tobacco in recent years," Huddleston told the committee. -~ore- TI08380143
Page 297: TI08380144
-3- In a recent statement, the director of the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly (a subsidiary organization of the Thai Ministry of Finance) said that growth in government cigarette sales would require construction of another factory if U.S. cigarette imports continue to be banned. "When asked why the market should not be opened to imports, the director said that the consequence would be a loss of 25 percent share in the market. The people in charge in Thailand recognize that this is a trade issue. It has to do with commercial competition, not health," Huddleston said. Worldwide, cigarettes are one of the most widely sold consumer products. However, U.S. cigarette exports account for substantially less than three percent of world consumption, and the U.S. share of the highly competitive international market is less than it has been in some recent years. In 1989,. the surplus of U.S. trade in cigarettes was $3.3 billlon and the surplus of trade for all U.S. tobacco products was $4.2 billion. All told, tobacco product exports provided 250,000 jobs in the United States, $6 billion in worker pay, and nearly $2 billion in tax revenues, Huddleston said. ### TI08380144
Page 298: TI08380145
DC005 /From PR Ne~s~tr. in Wa,hington~ ~02-347-5155/ TO NATIONAL AND BUSINESS DESKSI LABOR UNION OPPOSES LIMITING U.S. TOBACCO EXPORTS IN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO SENATE COMMIllk~ ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES WABHINGTON~ May 4 /PRNewswi~e/ -- Citing a potentially ;ePious lOSS of jobs for t~ou~ands of American wo~km~*s, in~lu=in~ many members of ht~ unton~ John DeConcini~ international pP,zsldent of t~e Confectionery and Tobacco WorRe~s International Unlon~ today offered Senate te~tlmony opposing "policies tha~ would restrict oP curtail the export of U.S. tobacco pro=u=ts to fo~elgn countri=~." "Regardless of U. So t~a~e pol~cy~ a market ~oP tobacoo products will ~onttnue to exist in foreign countries. If ~on@ress ~e¢ides to limit U.S. tobacco e~po~ts~ t~ose ~m=r~can joms ~nat =e~end on ~o~et~tt ~ill be lost at tobacco companies movl produ=tlon facilities overseas meet foreign market demand~" salO UeConctni. In testimony provided fo~ hearings h,~ld by the Senate Labo~ and Human Resource Committee~ DeConcini satO~ "We Oo not as~ ?or any mpecial Favors. We only ask that o~zr indus¢~y and products be given the same conmi~ePation any other profitable ~meP~can pPodu¢t or industry receives when t~ade poli~tes ape DeConminl pointeO to ~he success o? current U.S. trade re~ardin~ tobacco. Throughout the IgBO's tobacco maintained a $~ billion t~adm surplus that in~reased to $4.~ ~lllion in 1909. The surplus genePate~ by tobacco exports ham surpassed produ=~s ~l~ught to be AmePi¢~s "best selle~s" including t~lecommunications ~qui~men~ and heavy machlnm~y. In 1989, DeCon=ini noted~ tobacco a~d-~oba=¢o products created a trade surplus of $1.4~ billion wit~ Japan, Korea and Taiwan. By ~ontrast t~e U.S. h~Id a tra~e defi~Xt =f $6B.~6 blllion wlt~ the tame -0- 5/4/9~ /CONTACTI Ray Scannell o? the Bake.~y, Confectionery arid Workers ~ntePnational Union~ 301-933-86.~0/ T!08380145
Page 299: TI08380146
Testimony of John DeConcini International President Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union, AFL-CIO Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee May 4, 1990 T108380146
Page 300: TI08380147
On behalf of the 135,000 working men and women represented by the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding our union's position on potential government restrictions of U.S. tobacco product exports. Because we represent tobacco industry workers, our union has a vital interest in this committee's examination of the U.S. policy toward tobacco product exports. Our primary interest is the livelihood of thousands of American workers whose jobs would be lost if tobacco exports are curtailed. BC&T reiterates the AFL-CIO's position regarding U.S. tobacco exports. In its Resolution on International Trade and Investment adopted in November, 1989, the AFL-CIO clearly states its opposition to, "Any U.S. Government action which places any greater restrictions on U.S. tobacco products sold abroad than importing countries place on these products domestically." We believe it is imperative that serious consideration be given to the negative effect policies restricting U.S. tobacco exports would have on American workers. Current U.S. trade policy regarding tobacco products has met with unparalleled success. During the decade of the 1980s, tobacco consistently maintained a $2 billion annual trade Ti08380147
Page 301: TI08380148
surplus. For 1989, the tobacco trade surplus reached $4.2 billion. This is a remarkable feat considering that in the same time period the United States became the world's largest debtor nation. Tobacco exports have generated a trade surplus that products thought to be our "best sellers," such as telecommunications equipment and heavy machinery, cannot ma~ch. And the forecast for tobacco exports continues to be positive. The Bureau of National Affairs notes that only tobacco, pharmaceutical drugs, office and computing machines and aircraft are likely to show an increase in foreign trade surpluses. America's working men and women produce quality products and goods. Unfortunately, unfair trading practices by foreign governments prevent those products from competing effectively in foreign markets. Tobacco is an exception. Despite severe U.S. trade deficits with countries such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan, American tobacco products have a positive trade balance with those nations. While the U.S. trade deficit with Japan, Korea and Taiwan totaled $68.26 billion in 1989, U.S. tobacco and tobacco products posted a trade surplus of $1.44 billion with these ~hree countries. These figures are not just statistics. They represent thousands of jobs in the tobacco industry and thousands more in T108380148
Page 302: TI08380149
related-industries. Economists estimate that $I billion in exports creates 25,000 new jobs in this country. These jobs provide workers with wages to make their mortgage payments, feed their families and pay their taxes. Seventy percent of the tobacco industry is unionized. And those unionized workers are among the highest paid industrial workers in the United States. In many of the communities where the tobacco industry is located, it is the foundation of the local economy. The wages paid to unionized tobacco workers help to elevate the wages of workers in other industries and the community as a whole. This leads to an overall improvement in the area's standard of living'. Regardless of U.S. trade policy, a market for tobacco products will continue to exist in foreign countries. If Congress decides to limit U.S. tobacco exports, those American jobs that depend on foreign markets will be lost as tobacco companies move production facilities overseas to meet foreign market demands. The United States government has a responsibility to support American producers and manufacturers by fostering existing foreign trade relationships that are successful. In addition, TI08380149
Page 303: TI08380150
our government must work to do away with barriers designed by foreign countries to inhibit fair market competition from American goods and products. To make these efforts on behalf of other industries and yet do the opposite to the tobacco industry is unfair trade policy by our own government, and quite simply, bad business. The United States produces a much higher quality tobacco product than do other countries. That is the real reason we have been a successful competitor in foreign markets. Our members deserve the same support from the U.S. Government that any exportable product receives. Our economic survival depends on the ability of American producers and manufacturers to successfully market their goods abroad. Closing foreign markets to the tobacco industry would have a disastrous effect on our members. We do not ask for any special favors. We only ask that our industry and products be given the same consideration any other profitable American product or industry receives when trade policies are examined. 4 T108380150
Page 304: TI08380151
The Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union opposes any policies that would restrict or curtail the export of U.S. tobacco products to foreign countries. 5 T108380151
Page 305: TI08380152
Resolution No. H International Trade and Investment (E.C. Report, Pages 162-166) If Ihe I~adc c~isis is to be solvcd, it is ¢~ntial ~ Ihe U.$. |o beyond ira cummt nelianc¢ on blunt macru-ece~omic policy tools. Exclmnge rates, c~inlly ckar dua the academic abstr~ioes of the free trade themy and compt~ive advantage, upon which currcat U.$. govemmem policy is based, are J~ ~uidcs to the manajcmcm of ecoaomic issues between u- business. The U.5. govex~mem has a respoesi~ to Iwemete and defend w~l con(~ ~o cxpc~cc a lass of jobs. dc~u~v~ ~ade def=~, • auukc:~, Su~b sclio~ should iacludc' • The ~j~tiatioa of trade deficit red~zmee s|recmen~ with • Vilemm enfoJx~q~:m oltheOmaitmsTrade end Cempc~venesa Act of 1~88, that provide~ the Bmh ^dminimatioe with new tools to dividual lndu~'ka require specific s~die8. These lnchak: • Eaactmc45t o( domc~lk: ce~tcat lawe to usu~e that ~he United ~tMe8 Coq~atiem that have benefited from aa:¢~ to U.S. markcU should be required to maialaJn n fair dure of pmductiee in the United SUd~ im)- vidin| jebe fo¢ ~merlctn wod~erJ. A! m mininmm, the kvcJ of cu expom ~o Ihe United Sttu:, hunt be ~iS~ir~;antly u~Juced, ~d ~he 8mu chase ~mo~ peru, materiab and cempo~z~J frem exis~ U.S. by Jqmm:ae automsk¢nt for their U.S. asaembly plama and by incJeased raise du:ir local ~ourcin|, as Europ~sn Judoas have don~. Thc growing p~o4)l©m of auto m~d parts imports ~TOm low-wage coun4ri~s such ~ Korea • Pericles mu~ be im~cmcnted ~o bring ~ mdcr and sability Jo uadc in textik~, appe~, and shoes. • Legisl~iea toex~end dte amho~y f~w five years to enforce the Valun. Imy Reatrain8 A|reemems (VRAs) on steel mill prodt~cts. • SUms actioa to ~klress the Uade Im~mu of the tekcemmenka- /Unedm market whik foreign markctt ceminue m u~uict Ame~ goods. Th= OnmibuJ Trade Bill pmviclcs the Adminiuralioet the attth~ity to address thi8 issue, and that authority should bc utilized fully. • Po(i~iss to maintain and re-cslablJsh domestic elc~ronk: and tekvi. • Poli(:ic~ to tour= th~ a sig~ficam poaioa of U.S. raw n~ueriah d~- ~ f~" e~o~1, such as grains and lo~s, me p~ccr..sscd in Ibis counlry. • To ~viv© ~hc U.$, nu~timc indust~, klislafi(m is nccd~ to s~tan. • mooI U.$. ~hil~uildin[ base, ~.seby eahancing national accuri~y. Fu~ Ibex, ~ ac~on is nzx~r~ary to elimin~e fo~ci|n barricrs to U.$. mcrch~ mmine ~ du)ukl be given • m~c Imi~l~ role in ~ovidin8 ~lxili~y I~'vicca foe" d~ U.$ Navy. The Uni(~l ~ ~ ~afify th< ~in a mo~ Uluimb~ ~ of c~|o leered by U.S. U)dc. I • Policies sad spl)mpriste miou me necdcd to ~:m the cxpoa of of. ~
Page 306: TI08380153
• Policies must be emicted to regulate tl~ immense flows of intenm- tional investment. Administration emplmsis on overseas investment by Am~,ictn rims, such ,~ SUlq~On fo~ Mexico's gaquilado~ progrmn, mutt be redirected am1 legislation enacl~d to requ|ro the disclmun~ and monitor- ing of foeeign lnveitori in the U.$. • Trot Ioopltolea at~ci incentives for muhinat~onal companies to abroad-including the tax defemd Wivilege and tha foreign trot capita-- should be emled. Pmvisior.a of the t~riff ~ched,le, th~ ml,c~ tariffs on products contain- ing I~t~ Fc~luced in the United State~ dmukl be ~. Tig Overte~ PHvate lnve~ngnl Coqx~tion (OPIC). s government z~e~cy tim insures I~iVZtC inve~tngnt Mwmd, dtould be tennbt~d. OPIC w~s e,~t~id~d to pmmo~c oconamk: ~d mc~l devekqxtw~ in "le~- developed ft~kndly countries" while funh~|ng abe IbaLt~ ofp~yme~l j~cliv~ oft,M: United State~. It Ima failed on both thc~ c~m~ ~ h~ con- Iributed to the export of American ]o1~. At a mininmm, wmk¢~ Hghts be vigoroudy ~f~ced. Bilateral imvet~nent twmttea mum I~ ~fully ~viewed by the to insure that pro4~clion for w~ is bw.lt,ded m dot~Mtic i~ h~nm~d. Trade p~fep..~ce p~ogmml mum be IgfOtlmXl to limJl llm harm dora: Io dom~ic iwoduct~. At a miniature, ,+lilible fm p~efmnti,l ueah'nem ened mp~ th~ rlghtm of wodte~ anldoyed by tl~ f~ ~d to thb .r~ is pmiculady lmpc~'tant in lil~ ofllm ttr0ol Irowtl, direct inveatment In the U.$. Sul~dimkm of multi~imml ~ of wodte~ to ~gm~iz~ mad l~lai~ cdic~vdy. of wotken, L, aenmtlmml ulrm~U m~ meded Io improve laboc dgl~ l~OVl.io~ Jn Sexlion 301 of llm 19MI Trek kcl. to penalize ¢o~mri~ wkm basic dghts and standards ~re denied. Provbiom of ly enfon:~, and c~tm-iea tl~ M~ wod~ gi$1~ ~ould be immediacy dn~c~d through d~ ramclmcnl of Icgblalkx* Uml would ix~ibk the imix)¢- ration of producu produc~cl by childrm~, with Itiff ~ penalties for Tig Fot'eiln Trade Zone Acl of 193g ~ be repealed. Any exemp- tion from this nation's Lrad~ laws must be proves on • case-by-cue ~asis. AI ra~nim~m, manufacturing epe.ralions should be i~0hibited with~ such ZOfl~|, The U~ted States should end its auppoet of loans from the International Mm~ary Fund (IklF) that require the bo~owin| counu'~ to curb impor~ and IX~ expo~ ¢o I~y their d~lxs, in plw:e of this approach, which has harmful rep~rcuuiom on the United Slalea ~ other economies, tbe ~.xdd be ur|cd to promole t,d~aced growth in both bo.owin$ and i.I c~mtri~. It ;" Mso neceu~uy fm tl~ IMF. In comu~tinll any economic pm~ram, to co~ull closely with the trek: unio~ in tbe .aHec~d ctmntry in olxler to miliga~ any hmm to wofkcrl. Cerdral to this goal is a solution to the debl c~i$is of developing counlHeL IIb e~nlial fm private banks to ttdmamially write down the value of Ioant and pmvid~ interem rate gedmiom. We believe eg Adminimafion', et~x'tivea ia the cun~ Umluay R~mnd of Mullilatg~al Trld~ Nclmiationa sl~mld be reordered to emldmaiz~ the foflowing iug~: • GATI" inm'umen~ lima Igrmil Ir~de n:atrictio~s Io lafelu~d ~ of p~yme, nts thould be i~focmed to din:ctly ildmu rig U.$. deficit. Tim Sta~s, and thlgal~ thg viability of th~ ~ tr~dinI system. II is ~ ebe gr~lual reduction of ebo~ ~ through rig ~uplic~ion • GATr ride, mum be mw~ded to include pmvisimm th,t would mainte~a~e of tqweuive workint concision. Competitive advanctt~ in ~m. the refusal to lnatwe a safe work cuvb'omnem, the cxi~,oitatkm ofeh,d (h+em:d. Tbe Uaked ~ ~ould ctmccaln~ oe cxp~inI lrm~ re~uic. ta impo~t-~ens~ve pveducta, as v~ll as products and commoditi~ wigm woddwide exceu cap~ity exists. changea to rig GATr. • ~kdmk~ lotbe,erl~ pmbl~ fm~d by U,S, lndumy • T~iff, thould be n~intained fog tmpon-~itive indumie~. • GATr nde~ mutt be mnended to ptamil th~ Imp~ithxt of ,n importI fee to fund oade ~lj~m ~i~ programs.
Page 307: TI08380154
NEWS RELEASE Con~'essman Robin Tallon SIXTH DISTRICr- SOLFITI CAROLINA U.S. TRAD~ POLIL'W ~ SAY MORE THAN 120 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS For ~mmedlate release May 2, 1990 Contac~ Reba Campbell 202-225-2811 ($undqu~t} Washlngten, D.C. -- More ~ 120 membem of the U. S. House o~ I~epre~en~ah'ves have c~ a I~ W ~d~ ~ ~, ~e U~t~ Smt~ ~de ~pr~~, ~ ~ s~ ~ f~ ~e B~ ~~on's ~ o~ ~t~ ~t ~ pr~uc~ ~ ~o~ be a~ord~ ~ ~de ~t~ U.S. ~g T~ ~-~) ~c~ ~y. ~ ~ not a p~ ~ue Con~m~ ~. ~t ~ a ~~ ~de ~ue." w~ f~ ~t U.S. toba~o ~ ~. ~ ~ ~s ~o~ to ~ome w~t for~ ~ke~. shoed ~ ~ not ~ a ~de ~n ~t go~ ~ a h~ ~u~ br~d-~ ~up o~ Ho~e ~~ ~ w~ ~ ~ ~e H~e ~b~ ~d~p. ~ t~ ~dor om~ ~ ~e ~ s~on~ ~e you pr~c~." ~~ T~on add~ ~n~ S~dq~t ~t for U.S. to~ T~; yet U~. ~ ~t~ ~ ~e ~ ]ett~. ~ ~ one o[ ~e ~ [~ ~t~ o~ ~e ~ w~ ~e ~e ~e ~t ~me ~ple ~. ~ ~ ~w ~t T108380154
Page 308: TI08380155
DON SUNDQUtST TTH ~.. ~l'Aa~r. ~'p~,e~ S ~.E WAYS W~S~.~tG'T~ (~FZCF. April 4, 1990 The Honorable Carla A. Hills United States Trade Representative 600 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20506 Dear Ambassador Hills: Certain Members of this House want the United States to discontinue its efforts to obtain non-discriminatory treatment by foreign countries for American tobacco products exports. We recognize that some people generally oppose tobacco products, Just as some people oppose many other particular goods and services. However, we firmly believe that the United States should insist on fair treatment for all American export products, regardless of the criticism of those products by particular groups. We support free expression of views on issues of public interest. But we also support fair trade for productswhich are lawful in the United States and lawful in the importing countries. The United States should insist that foreign countries treat all American products fairly. Tobacco products had $4.2 billion in net exports last year. This is one of the very few categories of trade in which the United States has consistently had a multi-billion dollar trade surplus. It would be particularly inappropriate for the U.S. Trade Representative to cease efforts in this area. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has conducted relatively few proceedings on tobacco products. Those proceedings have involved foreign countries which have large and chronic trade surpluses with the United States and which also have maintained government tobacco monopolies. The Trade Act was designed for use in oases where competitive American industries T108380155
Page 309: TI08380156
Page 2 The Honorable Carla A. Hills are blocked by egregious import barriers. We belleve that previous actions by your office in these cases have been in the best interests of the United States, and we strongly encourage you to continue your efforts to further free and open trade for all products. Sincerely, Don~ Robin Tallon, M.C. DKS:j~ TI08380156
Page 310: TI08380157
126 Signatures C.ass Ballenger (R-NC) Tom Bevfll (D-AL) Tom Bliley (R-VA) Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) Rick Bouchcr (D-VA) Glen Browder (D-AL) Hank Brown (R-CO) 3ack Buechner (R-MO) ~lim BuRning Dan Burton (R-IN) Sonny Callahan (R-AL) James Clarke (D-NC) Bill Clay (D-MO) Bob Clement (D-TN) Howard Coble (R-NC) Ronald Coleman (D-TX) Chris Cox (R-CA) Phil Crane (R-IL) Buddy Dardcn (D-GA) Bob Davis (R-MI) Tom DeLay (R-TX) Butler Derrick (D-SC) Bill Dickenson (R-AL) Jim Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) Roy Dyson (D-MD) Mickey Edwards (R-OK) Bill Emerson (R-MO) Glenn Englisl~ (D-OK) Mike Epsy (D-MS) Ben Erdreich (D-AL) Ronnie Flippo (D-AL) Bill Ford (D-MI) Bill Frenzcl Dean Gallo Joseph Gaydos (D-PA) George Gekas (R-PA) Newt Gingrich (R-GA) Bart Gordon (D-TN) Porter Goss (R-FL) Bill Grant (R-FL) Steve Gunderson (R-WI) Mel Hancock (R-MO) Claude Harris (D-AL) Charlie Hatcher (D-GA) ~limmy Hayes (D-LA) Bill l-leaner (D-NC) Wally Herger (R-CA) Clyde Holloway (R-LA) Larry Hopkins (R-KY) Carroll Hubbard (D-KY) Jerry Huckaby (D-LA) Duncan Hunter (R.CA) Jim ~hofe (R-OK) Craig James (R-FL) ~d Jenk~ (D-GA) Walter Jones (D-NC) John Kasich (R-OH) Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) Joe Kolter (D-PA) ~on Kyl (R-AZ) T10838015
Page 311: TI08380158
Bob Lagomarsino (R-CA) Martin Lancaster Marvin Leath (D-TX) Rick Lehman (D-CA) Jerry ~ (R-CA) Tom Lewis ((R-FL) Jim ~@tfoot (P,-L~) Bob Livingston (R-LA) Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN) Bill Lowery (R-CA) Lym Martin Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) Bob McEwcn (R-OH) Ray McGrath (R-NY) Alex McMillan Bob Michel Allan Mollohan (D-WV) Sonny Montgom¢~ (D-MS) Sid Morrison(R-WA) John Myers (R-IN) William Natcher (D-KY) Steve Neal (D-NC) David Obey (R-WI) (D-VA) Mike Ox~cy (R-OH) Mike Pa~ker (D-MS) Louis Paync, Jr. (D-NJ) Carl Perkins (D-KY) David Price (D-NC) Jimmy Quillen CR-TN) Nick Rahall (D-WV) Richard Ray (D-GA) John Rhodes (R-AZ) Pat Roberts (P-KS) Hal Rogers Dana Robxabachcr (R-CA) Charlic Rose (D-NC) Martin ~bo ~-~) sm ~ ~on ~-N~) D~ Schaefer ~-CO) B~ Schuc~ ~'~) Dick ~h~ (~-PA) ]~ Skccn ~-~ French Slau@tc~ ~-VA) Bob S~th (R-OR) ~c~ Solom~ (R-NY) ~oyd Spcn~ ~-SC) ~o~ Spra~t (D-SC) Harley Sta~crs (D-~) ~Im St~g~l~d Sob Don Sundq~t ~-~) Rob~ T~on (D.SC) ~o~ T~z (D-~) Crag ~om~ ~ds~ ~omas T~ V~n~ ~-NC) G~ V~der Ja~ ~-MI) B~b~a Vn~ch ~b W~ez (R-PA) J~e ~uen ~-MS) Robe~ Wise, Jn (D-~) Don Yo~g ~-~) T108380t~
Page 312: TI08380159
Bakery, Confectionery ap.4 Tobacco Workers International C' ion FOR IMMEDIATE May 4, 1990 CO~T~T~ Ray Scannell (301) 933-8600 Labor Union Opposes Limiting U.S. Tobacco E~poz~s in Testimony Submitted to Senate Committee on Labor amdEuman Resources Washington, D.C .... Citing a po~entially serious loss of jobs for thousands of American workers, including many members of his union, John DeConcini, International President of the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union, today offered Senate testimony opp6sing "policies that would restrict or curtail the export of U.S. tobacco products to foreign countries." "Regardless of U.S. trade policy, a market for tobacco products will continue to exist in foreign countries. If Congress decides to limit U.S. tobacco exports, those American jobs that depend on foreign markets will be lost as tobacco companies move production facilities overseas to meet foreign market demands," said DeConcini. In testimony provided for hearings held by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, DeConcini said, "We do not ask for any special favors. We only ask that our industry and products be given the same consideration any other profitable American product or industry receives when trade policies are examined." DeConcini pointed to the success of current U.S. trade policies regarding tobacco. Throughout the 1980's tobacco maintained a $2 billion dollar trade surplus that increased to $4.2 billion in 1989. The trade surplus generated by tobacco exports has surpassed products thought to be America's "best sellers" including telecommunications equipment and heavy machinery. In 1989, DeConini noted, tobacco and tobacco products created a trade surplus of $1.44 billion with Japan, Korea and Taiwan. By contrast the U.S. held a trade deficit of $68.26 billion with the same countries in 1989. TI08380159
Page 313: TI08380160
Translating the success of U.S. tobacco exports into its effect on American workers, DeConcini said, "Economists estimate that $i billion in exports creates 25,000 new jobs in this country. These jobs provide workers with wages to maketheir mortgage payments, feed their families and pay their taxes." In calling the Committee's attention to organized labor's position on this issue, DeConcini cited the AFL-CIO's resolution on International Trade and Investment passed at the Federation's 1989 convention which calls for opposition to, "any U.S. government action which places any greater restrictions on U.S. tobacco products sold abroad than importing countries place on these products domestically." DeConcini explained that the economic survival of thousands of workers depends on the ability of manufacturers to market their product overseas. He called on the government not to impose restrictions on American exports that would destroy U.S. jobs while allowlng companies to move production facilities overseas. The Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union represents 135,000 working men and women including those workers in the tobacco and tobacco-related industries. -30- TI08380160
Page 314: TI08380161
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROBZN TALLON~. BEFORE THE SENATE CI~ZTTEE ON LABOR AND HUI4AN RESOURCES APRIL IB, 1990 Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today for two primary reasons. First, ! am seriously concerned about our trade deficit and the application of our trade laws in a nondiscriminatory fashion. Second, I fully support the actions taken by the U.S, Trade Representative to remove unfair trade barriers imposed against American tobacco products. USTR is acting on what Congress mandated they do to remove unfair trade barriers. Yet, there are Members here today ready and willing to castigate the Trade Representative for doing exactly what we have asked. The irony of this situation would make a great headline: "Congress Demands USTR Action on Trade Deficit; Then Stands in the Way'. Some of my colleagues want to criticize ~STR for pursuing the removal of unfair trade barriers imposed by Thailand which effectively- prohibit the import of foreign tobacco products." I want to review what is going on in Thailand. Cigarettes are a legal product in Thailand and have been used for decades. The government of Thailand owns and operates the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly. The Thai government produced and sold approximately 37 billion cigarettes in $989. "It expects to produce and sell over 39 billion cigarettes in 1990, The Thai government exports cigarettes and distributes free samples on its international flights. Even though the Thai government owns and operates a cigarette monopoly they prohibit the sale of any imported clgaretces. I don't think this situation is fair. USTR apparently doesn't think it's fair. • Nevertheless, Members of Congress have criticized USTR, as opposed to Thailand or Japan, for identifying and removing unfair reade barriers imposed against a product which posted a trade surpl'us of $4.22 billion in 1989. They want to eliminate the e.xport of a product responsible for creating and maintaining Z52,000 A~erican Jobs, $5.5 billion in employee compensation and %1.7 billion in tax revenue. Ti08380161
Page 315: TI08380162
In essence, these critics want to protect Thai workers, Thai tobacco growers and the Thai government at the expense of American workers and American tobacco growers. . The argument that USTR is diverting its resources from more deserving industries to deal with the export of tobacco is without merit. First, USTR has pursued eighty 301 cases; only four involve tobacco. Four out of eighty investigations is not, by any definition, an inordinate expenditure of USTR resources. Second, when Congress passed the 1974 and tgB8 trade ]aws, it did not specify what products or industries were acceptable or unacceptable. We said if the case can be made that unfair trade barriers exist against a legal product, USTR is empowered to try and remove those barriers. The standard for action is the existence of a barrier; not the product. This standard is easy for USTR to apply. investigations, which include Japan, Thailand, USTR found the following facts: In each of the four 301 Taiwan, Korea as well as I. Each had a government owned and operated tobacco monopoly which produced and sold from 35 to 300 billion cigarettes annually; 2. Each prohibited, through high tariffs or other barriers, the importation of foreign cigarettes; and 3. Each had a positive, if not overwhelming, balance of trade with the U.S.. In Korea, it was a criminal offense to possess imported cigarettes. USTR cannot be criticized for seeking to remove these trade barriers. It is not immoral to remove unfair trade barriers in a country where smoking is supported by a government-run monopoly; where cigarettes are a legal, prevalent product and the country enjoys a trade surplus with the United States. It is immoral to support and give credibility to the outrageous claims made b} the Thai government. The Thai government criticizes USTR For trying to open their market to competition for a product their government is in the business of manufacturing. It is i~ora] to support the jobs of Thai workers and tobacco farmers over American tobacco farmers and workers who deserve the Tight to export this legal product. Our trade deficit is a disgrace: $109 billion in 19B9. Our trade deficit with Thailand is a disgrace. Ten years ago, the U.$. enjoyed a S::7 million trade surplus with Thailand. By 1989, this surplus ~ :~e~ rsverse~ to a trade deficit of $2 billion. -. T108380162
Page 316: TI08380163
! submit that part of the reason we have such a large trade deficit is because we are so naive and gullible. The Thais have developed a beautiful lobbying strategy by portraying them~Ives as a backward, third world country, unable to defend itself from the indiscriminate commercial appetite of the U.S. Let's not kid ourselves about what is going on in Thailand, Japan or Korea. We have played right into their hands. They know we are naive and susceptible to their claims that this isn't a trade issue. They are laughing all the way to the bank| laughing at the American worker. If we continue to be naive, we do so at the expense of American union workers and tobacco farmers. We do so recklessly knowing that our trade deficit will continue to increase. USTR has proven that it supports American jobs and workers. It is time we recognize that the crux of this issue is the maintenance and creation of American jobs, not Thai Jobs. Let there be no mistake which .side I come down on: I support the US Trade Representative and the efforts to remove unfair trade barriers to help the American economy and the American worker. T108380163
Page 317: TI08380164
S~~T OF SE~&.'TOR MI~I C~mMI~'I'EE ON ~ ~D H[IM~ I~SOURCES I want to thank the committee for providing me an opportunity to appear at this hearing. In the time allotted to me today, I want to discuss the fine w~rk performed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In 1974, Congress enacted the Trade Act of 1974. Section 301 of of the Trade Act allows the United States government to act to remove policies or practices of foreign governments which are unJustiflable, unreasonable, or discriminatory. In 1988, in the face of a $137 billion trade deficit, Congress reaffirmed the commitment to free and fair trade. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, passed by Congress in April of 1988, recognizes that the "overall trade negotiating objectives of the United States are to obtain ... more open ... market access [and] the reduction or elimination of barriers and other trade- distorting policies and practices ..." Based on Congress' mandate, the USTR has sought to eliminate foreign laws that restrict the ability of United States products to enter those foreign markets. As of January 1990, the USTR had investigated eighty section 301 cases involving unfair trade barriers; four investigations involved tobacco products. The USTRwas successful. With regard to tobacco products, the USTR has successfully negotiated to open the markets of Japan, Korea, T108380164
Page 318: TI08380165
Page 2 and Taiwan to American tobacco products. The USTR is currently investigating the market in Thailand. Because cigarettes are a controversial product, this Committee has asked a representative of the USTR's office to appear and explain why the USTR has sought to eliminate foreign laws that discriminate against tobacco pruducts. I do not believe it is fair to ask USTR to defend a mandate that Congress has given them. Congress gave the USTR a mission, and the USTR deserves respect and admiration for the work they do to reach these goals. Thanks to their work to open Asian cigarette markets, the U. S. tobacco industry trade surplus has more than doubled since 1986. The total trade surplus for tobacco in 1989 was more than $4.2 billion. This Committee should not question or criticize the USTR's actions regarding tobacco products, the Committee should applaud the USTR. Cigarettes are, indeed, a controversial product, but they are legal in the United States and in every other country in the world. In four countries where the USTRhas sought to remove trade barriers, government-ownedmonopolies are the largest producers and sellers of cigarettes in those countries. I point out this fact because it demonstrates the fallacy of a position taken again and again by critics of smoking. These critics claim that the export of tobacco products is a health or moral, rather than a trade issue. This position is wrong. Of the five trillion cigarettes produced worldwide, 4.6 trillion are produced T108380165
Page 319: TI08380166
Page 3 outside the United States. Millions of people around the world smoke and will continue to smoke whether or not American cigarettes are available. A particularly reprehensible aspect of the "health' issue and "moral" issue claims is the unholy alliance between some Asian governments and the antismoking forces in this country. Thailand leaps to mind. On the one hand, the Thai government seeks to appeal to our public health consciousness to garner support for their opposition to American cigarette exports. On the other hand, the same government zealously protects its government-owned tobacco business. Yellow members of Congress, the Thai government raises tobacco, makes and sells billions of cigarettes every year, and has plans to expand its facilities and export efforts. Yet, amazingly, the Thai government has the audacity to ask us not to export cigarettes to Thailand because cigarettes are harmful to health. The Thai position is hypocritical; the Thais want to keep out competition for their government tobacco monopoly and are happy to have the antismoking forces in this country as allies. The antismoking groups are also hypocrites; they so badly want to injure the American tobacco industry they will ally themselves with anyone, even the Thailand tobacco company, to accomplish this goal. Let's face it, this hearing and others like it are not meant to address health or moral issues, They are about the desire of TI0~380166
Page 320: TI08380167
Page 4 a vocal minority to wipe out an industry that predates our independence as a nation. Tobacco is a plant native to the Americas and was being used extenslvelybythe Indians when Columbus arrived five hundred years ago. In the early 1600's the colony of Jamestown was probably saved by tobacco. After early struggles, leaders of the colony decided that an export commodity was needed to stabilize the colony. The higher quality, milder colonial tobacco was suddenly in huge demand worldwide. Tobacco exports increased from only 2,500 pounds in 1615 to 1.5 million pounds by 1630. This new trade income provided stability to a struggling new nation. Currently 21 states grow tobacco which includes 600,000 acres on 136,000 farms. One-half of these farms grow less than two acres of tobacco. A two acre farm by any standard is a small family farm, and these farms are the backbone of many rural communities, particularly those in my state of Kentucky. Income from the sale of tobacco provides a tax base for small communities. Salaries from Jobs associated with the growing, harvesting, marketing, processing, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of tobacco keep these communities alive. I have seen the agenda which the antismoking groups presented at January's so-called "Trade for Life' summit. It reads, in part, "Objectives: To pressure Congress into introduction/passage of legislation to ... end USTR role and all TI08380167
Page 321: TI08380168
Page 5 support for tobacco exports/tobacco company operations overseas ... to force USTR/USDA to change policy." ~nder the section headed "United States Congress" it reads, in part, "Hold hearings on TTC abuses and the Trade for Life strategy." (TTC is their abbreviation for their term transnational tobacco companies.) Today's hearing indicates that at least a part of their strategy is already in place. The agenda, which I would like to place in the record, was discussed in January and , lo and behold, by early Maywe are holding a hearing that appears to be lifted directly from their document. Fellow members of Congress, despite the hyperbole by the antismokers, and despite their "agenda," it is crystal clear that the export of tobacco products is a substantial and important trade issue. The American tobacco industry wants to export its products to countries where tobacco is a legal product, countries where milllons of people use tobacco, countries where the government -- yes the government -- manufactures and sells cigarettes, and countries that export their own cigarettes, including exports to the United States. The American tobacco industry, not Just the c~mpanies, simply want a fair opportunity to compete in countries where large markets for tobacco already exist. Our nation's trade is important -- too important for us to attack legal American industries and to hinder the work of the USTR Just to satisfy themany groups of people who do not like
Page 322: TI08380169
Page 6 certain products. It is important to realize that the antismokers are Just one group. Many, and I emphasize many groups oppose one product or another. For example, animal rights groups oppose the actions of certain pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies. There are factions of this group who are so opposed to the wearing of animal furs that they assault other people. "Health' advocates urge people not to eat red meat and dairy products. Should we, therefore, hinder or prohibit the export of furs, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, milk, or other animal products. Would we allow foreign countries, to maintain trade barriers on products like beef so that their consumers will eat only locally- produced beef? I say no, and I believe you should also. In conclusion, the USTRmust continue to pursue the removal of unfair trade barriers based on the facts and not on political rhetoric or personal preferences of a vocal few. The USTRhas done an outstanding Job in the past. Let us not hinder the USTR in the future. I fully support Ambassador Hills and the office of the United States Trade Representative in taking the necessary steps to open all markets that are closed to U. S. products, and I urge all of you to do the same. Thank you. TI08380169
Page 323: TI08380170
Page 324: TI08380171
Page 325: TI08380172
Page 326: TI08380173
Terry Sanford United States Senator for North Carolina TESTIMONY OF SENATOR TERRY SANFORD BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN RESOURCES MAY 4, 1990 DON'T PLACE UNFAIR TRADE BARRIERS ON TOBACCO EXPORTS Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to your committee. This is an interesting opportunity to discuss issues that are of such crucial importance to my state. I believe that the trade and economic implications of the issues before this committee today are very significant and touch on a variety of U.S. policies. As a member of the Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations, I am very sensitive to the relationship between our economic and trade policies and our foreign policy. The 1990s will be critical in shaping U.S. influence in the global economy into the 21st century. The United States -- its citizens, businesses, and elected officials -- must realize the crucial role of international trading environments in world affairs. A primary objective of American trade policy is the eradication of protectionist trade barriers overseas. Part of that overriding objective stems from the notion of T108380173
Page 327: TI08380174
2 national treatment--that American products, whatever they may be, should be treated no differently in foreign markets than goods locally produced in those same markets. It is this basic policy--that American products should be treated no worse and no better than locally produced items--that has been at the center of efforts to open markets for the exportation of American tobacco products. Our basic policy toward tobacco exports was well stated in 1988 by then U.S. Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter. He said "Our trade policy is simple and straightforward, we want the same market access'and treatment for United States tobacco products that is afforded to the tobacco companies of the country in question. If a country wishes to restrict for health reasons the sale or use of tobacco products, we will not object, so long as the restrictions apply equally to domestic and imported products." The American tobacco farmers and tobacco companies are not asking for special treatment. They are willing to comply with local laws on everything ranging from advertising to labelling, Just as ali other American exporters are. ~They are simply asking for the opportunity to sell into the markets that already exist for tobacco products on the same terms that locally produced products are sold. They support a free flow of truthful and non-deceptive information concerning the merits of all lawful products. This is no different frum the requests TI08380174
Page 328: TI08380175
being made by a myriad of U.S. industries who are fighting for fair access to foreign markets. Indeed, American tobacco manufacturers seek to open markets where monopolies have historically dominated the cigarette markets. The governments controlling these monopolies have been able to make huge profits on cigarette sales by denying access to the market to all other producers. American entry into these markets provides smokers with wider product choices and provides American companies with a fair opportunity to compete. Whatever restrictions on the sale or promotion of cigaretts that the local government chooses to place on cigarettes is fair enough, so long as the restrictions are applied equally to both foreign and domestic producers. We are not asking our government to influence or change those local laws; all that is being asked is the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. In the past, U.S. cigarette manufacturers have chosen to export cigarettes to mature markets where large segments of the population smoke and will continue to smoke regardless of whether U.S. cigarettes are available. The ten largest cigarette-producing nations (excluding the U.S.) produce over 2.9 trillion more cigarettes than the United States. The U.S. companies current share is only 16% of world-wide production. Therefore, even if U.S. cigarettes T108380175
Page 329: TI08380176
4 exports were totally prohibited, the number of individual smokers in other countries would not decrease. Instead, U.S. companies would be put at a disadvantage and foreign manufacturers would supply the demands of the world. Mr. Chairman, I fear that in all of this debate, we lose sight of the fact that the demand for tobacco products will be met byproducers somewhere. Further, it is important to note that tobacco is making a positive contribution to the balance of trade payments. We in the United States import $754 million worth of tobacco and tobacco products. However, we export $4.97 billion in tobacco and tobacco products which resulted in a net tobacco trade surplus of $4.2 billion in 1989. American tobacco farmers are among the direct beneficiaries of increased demand for U.S. tobacco products. They' benefit from increased sales to U.S. cigarette manufacturers who have increased their demand for tobacco. They also benefit from increased purchases of U.S. tobacco by foreign manufacturers who need to make their products more competitive with internationally recognized cigarette brands by using a greater percentage of American tobacco. Placing restrictions on U.S. cigarette exports Just means placing burdens on American workers and American farmers. The export of American tobacco products means jobs in North Carolina and throughout the United States. Over T108380176
Page 330: TI08380177
137,000 growers and an additional 300,000 quota holders benefit from tobacco production. With American industry struggling to regain its competitiveness in world markets, it would be unfortunate to allow persons who desire to abolish smoking to undermine UoS. exports. The American tobacco industry deserves an opportunity, Just as every American industry deserves an opportunity, to compete in the world marketplace. T108380177
Page 331: TI08380178
Page 332: TI08380179
I am William H, Foege M.D., Executive Director o~ the Carter Center and formerly Director of the Centers for Disease Control. Mr. Chairman, we arc faced with many important problems in this world; poverty, the environment, the debt crisis, etc. Some of these problems will be very difficult to solve, others are totally the result of the action of people and are therefore potentially solvable. We are dealing with an increase in worldwide consumption of tobacco, which results in an increase in worldwide deaths. Multiple factors are in play, |ncluding addiction, greed, and a trade policy that. supports the export of death and disease to other counn-ics while our own government's health policy condemns tobacco use. Nicotine addiction is one of the strongest addictions known to medicine. A few packs of cigarettes can put us into lifelong bondage. Greed allows some people to not only profit from this misery, but to actually calculate how to get those few packs consumed at an early age. We have only a quarter of a century of real experience in knowing the price tobacco extracts from society. The report of the Surgeon General in 1964 compiled the science, a science base that has only become stronger through the years. Of the ~00 funerals Americans will attend today, over 1000 will be because of cigarettes. (See attached editorial by Sue Rusche.) Any scientist will reach that conclusion, if they look at the evidence, unless they are in the employ of the tobacco industry. There is no T108380179
Page 333: TI08380180
scientific controversy. But it is not just losing a husband, or wife, or parent, or ch/ld, before their time. It is also the misery of years of gasping for oxygen, of limit',don of activity because of angina, of an impaired quality of life. Recently, it has become clear that the international price extracted by tobacco is just as devastating as we find domestically. Rothmau Tobacco Co. once said they could justify the advertising of tobacco in the developing world because people didn't live long enough in the ThLrd World to have the adverse effects of tobacco. It is estimated that India will this year experience 800,000 deaths as the result of tobacco. While global statistics are not as good as in this country, a conservative calculation presented at an April meeting of the seventh World Conference on Tobacco and Health by Alan Lopez and Rio.hard Pete on the results of a World Health Organization study on the effects of tobacco-related diseases, estimated 3 million deaths per year. Some estimates, extrapolating from countries with good statistics, go as hig~ as 5 million deaths per year. Within the decade, tobacco will be the leading cause of death in the developing world and soon the ~ toll of tobacco will exceed the total toll of the holocaust. Man's !nlaumanity to man is an ever current problem. While smoking is decrea.~ing by about 1% per year in developed harlem, it is tma'ea.~Ang at least 2% per year in the developing world. Thus, by some time in the 2020s, Pete predict~ that global tobacco mortality will begin to exceed 10 million a year, with about 7 million in less developed countries where tobacco use is rising so T108380180
Page 334: TI08380181
draraatica]ly. Pie.hard Pete predicts that in China, deaths f~'om tobacco will in~r~a.~ from an annual rate of 30,000 in 1975 to 90~,000 by the year 202~. Dr. S.T. Hart, of the World Health Organization, has clearly stated, 'The multi- national tobacco companies need 2 I/2 million new smokers eada year to replace the 2 1/2 million or more smokers who die. To increase sales b~ond the 2 1/2 million who die each year, the multi-national tobacco companies resort to high gloss sophisticated advertising, targeted to specific segments of the population in developing countries. In most developing countries where 5 percent or less of females smoke, women are a major target. Children are also targeted because of their desire to emulate adult idols and heroes as well as partidpate in a glamorized, Westernized culture. These young people become addicted early and will face the .health consequencea of their addiction many years later." The World Health organization reports that 90 percent of all lung cancer and 30 percent of all cancers are the direct result of tobacco use. In addition, 75 percent of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and 25 percent of ischemic heart disease are caused by smoking and tobacco. The lung cancer rates doubled from 1963 to 1975 and it is expected that lung cancer rates in women in developing countries will surpass other cancers as the leading cause of death just as it has recently done in the United States and other developed countries. Women smokers seem to be more susceptible to the cardiovascular complications if taking contraceptive pills. A recent ffapancse study showed that female college students were four times as likely to smoke as their mothers. In a market in which women are specifically targeted, the implications are worrisome. T108380181
Page 335: TI08380182
Dn Paul Wang~d, in K~nya, reports that 40 percent of 6-13 year olds smoke compared to 2 percent 10 years ago. smoking raus rose 71 percent. 64 schoolchildren, the rates are 40 percent for boys and 19 percent for girls. peopl~ start before ago 19. In the Phillipines, between I970 and 1985, the percent of males smoke, and among Manila Most young When U.S. manufacturers enter a market in a developing country, they not only bring cigarettes, they bring marketing and advertising techniques that are far superior to those existing in that country. A failing dollar and aggressive negotiations on the part of the U.$. government with Japan and other Far Eastern countries have almost doubled the overseas market for American cigarettes in the past three years, Some 15 percent of all cigarettea manufactured in th~ U.S. are now shipped overseas (CDC Office on Smoking and Health Fact Book), accounting for about 30 percent of the world export of cigarett6s (USDA Foreign Agriculture Se~ic¢ World Tobacco Situation Circular). Dr. Greg Connolly estimates that in Japan, since American cigarettes entered the market after the 1986 agreement, there has been a 3 percent increase in consumption. In Talwan, the consumption has increased an estimated 4 percent since 1987, when American cigarettes became available. Cigarette advertising in Japan jumped to number two in total advertising t~me on television up from a 40th plata position prior to the introduction of American brands. In addition, sports events and rock concerts have been sponsored by cigarettes as well as young women handing out free cigarettes on the streets TI08380182
Page 336: TI08380183
of Japan - all practices that did not exist prior to the introduction of Amcricau brands. The Japanese tobacco companies have therefore increas~ their advertising campaigns to keep up with the American competition. During this initial intensive ad campaign war, the World Situation and Tobacco Report (which is a U.S. Government publication) indicated that Japanese cigarette sales increased 2 percent, over this early period, which r~verscd a 20 year downhill trend. In less developed countries, cigarettes are promoted as examples of sophist/cation, Western affluence, and as a sign of status. In Taiwan, a singer much idolized by local t~nagers was retained by R. J. Reynolds for a local concert. The admission price was 5 empty pac/a, of Winstom. Smoking increases when U.S. tobacco companies penetrate a protective market. According tO an article in 14,'or/a Watch, September 1988, the per capita consumption increased 37 percent in Argentina in the decade following U.S. penetration in 1966. There had been a 5 percem increase the decade before. A September 1986 issue of the tobacco industry journal World Tobacco stated that the Asian Pacific region is promising and seen as growth potential for more smokers, The article stated that a comervative estimate for sales in Asia will increase by 18 percent by the year 2000. This is due to increased population, increased availability of cigarettes at lower cost, a demand for western manufactured (over hand-rolled) cigarettes and intensive advertising campaigns. In addition, the methods to educate the pubtic of T108380183
Page 337: TI08380184
~RTER PRE$ ~NTR -E_ ".z. -- :.:~ " =-- -i,?- -.~ .... .-" health risks and provide legislative controls are inadequate. Increases in consumption are predicted in developing areas in the absence of advertising but in countries with advertising, the predicted rates are evon higher. In January 1986, ~, World Health Organization issued the following statement, "Wher¢~ in most |nd~trialized countries th, smoking habit is decreasing and becomi~ socially less acceptable, in developing countries, it is on the increase, fueled mainly by intensive and ruthless promotional campaigns on the part of the transnational tobacco companies. In most developing countries, unfortunately, the legislative controls and other measures which in industrializ, d countries succeed in limiting the use of tobacco, do not exist, or are at best, inadequate. Smoking disease will appear in developing co=tries before communicable disease and malnutrition have been controlled and fires the gap between wealthy and poor countries wilt widen further." China produces more tobacco and comumes more eigsrettcs than any other country. The Multimu~onal MoMtor h~ r,ported that the m~timation~ tobacco companies ar~ ,ager to ~italiz, on ~ina's s~emingly imatiable appe~te for cig~ett~s, a market ,s~ted to b, wo~ $6 M~on each ye~. In ~ c~ 198~, RJ. Reynolds b¢~ the first company to sign a $u~ss~] a~eement with Chinm Philip Mor~s and ~er (U.~) fo~owed i~ediately. ~ t~e, brou~t m~em m~u~ct~ ~d p~ng ~,~ imo ~e ~un~, prided t~g ~ i~ use, ~d taunt Western me~o~ of Wba~ blending. In exchange, the compani~ were ~owed to stay ~d ~uf~ur¢ ~e~ ~g~ett~ on ~es¢ soil. TI08380184
Page 338: TI08380185
Why wotlld people put up with this? Why don't they stop smoking? Why don't they use the free will so touted by the tobacco industry? BEcause they c'~n't. The nature of addiction is to take that out of their hands. For many people, the only time they can really make an informed choice is at the beginn/ng of their addiction -- at age 13 or 14 or 15) at a time when social pressures make it difficult to make a long term dec/sion that is in their best interest. Thus it has always been. Our science is ahead of our politics, ethics, sociology or even our full understanding. We must clearly differentiate what is legal from what is moral. The legality of SEliing cigarettes is unlikely to change became of our history. The morality changed when we found tobacco hun and killed people. We cannot let the legality of the product protect us from feeling any moral obligation to protect heath and life. We can't afford to have this on our conscience, whether we are in the health field or/n the posit/on of providing political leadership. -I Will this be the net result of U.S. involvement in the problems of the developing world? Will all of our assistance in agriculture, science, public health, smatlpo~ eradication, etc. be more than of/set by the deaths resulting from our exportation and promot/on of tobacco? When I look at the efforts by the U.$. Trade Representative (USTR) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ((}ATr) to force Thailand to reverse i~s restrictions on the importation, distribution, sale, advertising and promotion of cigarettes, I cannot help but compare the position of the U.$. today to that of Britain in I757. In that year, Britain captured the opium monopoly in India. In 1796, when 7 T108380185
Page 339: TI08380186
China made importation of the drug illegal, the growth of an illegal u'ade in opium, fostered by the British East India Company, resulted in open conflict between China and Britain - the Opium Wars. By 1880, Britain had forced China to capitulate, importing as much as 11,000 tons of opium a year. History has condemned Britain. Now, the U,$. and Thailand have re-invented the opium wars. Without the input of public health exports, the U.S, Trade Office is attempting to enact policies that have tremendous implications for international health. Unfortunately, the United States has lagged behind other countries such as Thailand, Canada, Nigeria, the Gambia, Burkina Faso, and Senegal which have enacted bails against all cigarette advertising. IA our own country, although it is the explicit domestic health poli~ of the U.S. govcmmem to discourage tobacco use, we continue to hold tobacco companies to different standards and treat them with different rules. Their products need not meet the safety standards applied to other product~, their advertising need not adhere to the truth in advertising laws imposed on others, they ~¢ immune from the product liability requirements imposed emily on toys, tools, or vacuum cleaners, and tobacco production is subsidized by the same government that discourages its citizens from using it. Now we are trying to export this double standard to other countries .- particularly those in the developing world. What of the argument that poor people in developing countries have so few pleasures that we shouldn't take this one away from them? A woman in India or Bangladesh cannot afford to lose a husband at age 55 due to lung cancor. B T1083,80186
Page 340: TI08380187
How can we put this all together? It is fair for the United States to take a careful look at the economic implications of trade and tobacco sales. It is not appropriate to do this outside of the context of the implications of these products. We must be willing to compare the dollar impact of our overseas sales of tobacco to the cost in terms of health and lives, as well as the environment. The United States government must know what the profit is per foreign death and comider it is worth it to our economy b~fore they make that decision. The economic loss in the U.S. from cisarette smoking is significant, and when added to human suffering, far ex~eds the economic gains touted by the cigarette export association - $22 billion in medical costs and another $43 billion in lost production. 'Medicare and Medicaid pay out at least $4~. billion each year 0uc to cigarette-related diseases (CDC Fact Book). Compare this to the total of $4.2 billion mentioned as combined income from cigarette and tobacco sales abroad, and then calculate the health cost to the foreign country receiving the product. If we were exporting chemical weapons to another country we would haw calculated the possible effects of those weapons. Because we are dealing with o~er toxic chemicals which have longer incubation periods before they extract their disease and death does not excuse us from making the full calculations. In general, Ministries of Health cannot stand up ~o the power of r~e tobacco industry. When the power of the tobacco industry is joined to the power of the US $overnment, the combination is too formidable for any Ministry. Thcs~ countries simply do not have the infrastructure or the resources to launch widespre.~! hsalth promotion TI08380187
Page 341: TI08380188
campaigns, to care for those disabled by tobacco-induced disease, or to prevent the deforestation and environmental impact caused by tobacco curing and tobacco growh~g. Mr. Chairman, tlae idea of a kinder nation must extend to our impact on the entire world. We can't allow our government to become party to a repugnant practice of killing for profit. That~k you. I0 T108380188
Page 342: TI08380189
Page 343: TI08380190
My name i$ G=eBory N. Connolly and I am testiEying on behalf of the Coalition on Smoking or Health, which repre:;~nt~ the American Cancer $ocle~, ~he American Hearu Association and the American Lung Association. ~ am the Directo~ of the H~ssachusetts Department o~ PubLic Heal~h's Office for Nonsmokln8 ~nd Health. I serve as the chairman of the World Health OrKanization's Study Group on Smokeless Tobacco and am a mem~er of ~he WHO Expert Panel on SmokinE and Health. I am uonsultant to the National CanceE Institute and an author in the upcumin8 S~r~eo~ General's Eepor~ on SmoklnK in the Americas. ~ have t~aveled twice to Asia duri~8 the ins~ year on behalf of the American Cancer Society to lecture on the adverse health effecns of cigarette smoking and to help organize public h~alth officials to curb smok~n8. ~ have recently returned from the Seventh World Conference on Smokin~ and ~ealth held in Perth, Australia where new evidence was presented that described a pendin8 Elobal epidemic of dieea~e~ caused by cigarette smokinE. ~ am pleased to testify before the Committee today. 2. Descriv~lon of the Problem Smokln~ ra~ee are decllnin8 in developed nations at a rate of 1.5 percen~ ~er an~m, but r~$1n8 2.1 percent a'year in developln8 countries. An e~tima~ed one billi~n persons smoked 5.~ tri111on ciea=ette$ in 19880 resul~ing An 2.5 million ~moking-attrlbutable d~a~%$. By the year 2000, the number o~ deaths will rise to & million annually: 5y ~015, 12 million; and by 20Z5, 25 million. Dr. Richard Peto predicted that of all the children alive in the world today ~50 million are expected to die pEemauurely f~om cigarette smoking, 70 percent of whom are from ~he ThiEd World. Accordln~ to ~he World Heal~h O=eauization, progress made in curbin~ deaths from malnutritlon and infectious diseases in developinE nations will be lo~t to deaths caused by smoking. ~nlesc tobacco consumption is curbed. TI083,80190
Page 344: TI08380191
A major factor in the inc:eased d~m~nd for t~bac~:u in the developin& world is the political and promotional ~hrus~s of the world's transnational tobacco companies. The major transn~hlonnl tobacco companies include Brltl,h American Tobacco (UK) and its ~.S. aubsldlary, Brown & Williamson, Phili~.Mor~i~ (USA). K.J. Reynold~ (USA), American Brands (USA), and RoWboat's (UK]SA). The first two are the largest. Philip Morris held a one-third interest in KoLhmnn'~, which it sold in 1989. The 1988 annual reports of five show uumbi~ed 1988 sale, of $100 hilllon worldwide, of which $45 billion were for cigarettes. The companies and their 90 subsidiaries produco approximately 40 ~zce~t of all the ciBare~tes consumed worldw%d~ (2 trillion). Baszd on U.S. smoklng-attTibut&ble deaths, th~s level of cons~nption resulted in one million deaths las= year. ~f nations with state-owned tobacco monopolies a~d centrally planned economies are excluded (such as China and Eastern Europe) th% number rises ~o 85 percent. The industry is highly concentrated with little real competition o¢currin~ between the six. The transnational tobacco companies ef£ect~vely control 85 percent of the tobacco leaf sold on the world market and, i~ doin5 so, indirectly determine the price of cigarettes. All are currently expandin8 their maEket operations in newly developed countries of As±n and less developed countries world~ide, and are eagerly lookin~ to expand into Eastern Europe and China, The tran|natlorml tobacco companies have used the prospect of expmnded U.S. cigarette exports as a way to have the United States Trade Representative force unwillln8 Asian nations to open their markets to foreiEn brands, thus lowering our trade deficit. In practice, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds manufacture 80 percent of their internationally sold cigarettes overseas usin8 tobacco leaf ~hieh is 8roan primarily in the Third World. Such a policy ha. mar~iDal benefit ~or the farmer and the U.S. trade def~clt, Based on the L~tin American mxperience we can predict with certainty that within ~en ycnrz the Marlhorcs and Ti08380191
Page 345: TI08380192
Winston| sold in Asia will be ~mnufactured in plaQ~ in Hong gong and Singapore u$in$ leaf grown in the Philipp£n~s and China. Even though the transnatlonal tobacco companies amy have ~o~mnrket 8hare in some Third ~o~id marke~ ~helr share is Erow~n~ rapidly and their presenc~ se~ the s~andard for how ci~are~tc~ nr~ nmrke~ed. For e~ample, in Egypt, ~he~e Philip Morris h~s only a snml~ ~har~ through its licensee, the company ran a promotion for Marlboro "Spot ~he Cowboy' ~hi=h Egyptians participated in hoping to win one of ?,0~0 prizes. First prize was a free trip to the U.S. The companies have brought hiZhly effective promotional and adve=tlsing prosrams into Third World markets that serve as Dowerful wegpons t~ expand ~obacco use in ¢ountr~e~ ~here the health risks of smoking are no~ well ~nown. The introduction of these practices dramatically change h~ cigarettes are manufactured, priced, advertised, promoted and sold. ~he companies have also aums~ed large amounts ~f capital from sales at home to use in developin8 new markets overseas. Philip MorEl8 intends to |pend SR billion over the next five y~ars for c~pital improvements in its international tobacco ~perations. Such an enormous expenditure will cause irreparable harm to world health a~ a ~ime when capital from U.S. i~d~s~ie8 is badly needed to i~prove the standard of living in places such as Eastern Europe. The e=pans£0n of the transnational tobacco companies overseas is best seen ~ith Philip Morris. ~n 1976, Philip Morri~ r~ported ne~ sales billion for tobacco products, of which $~ billion were in the U.S. 1988~ to~al cigarette sales were $15.5 billlon, of which $8,5 billion ov, Eseas, Philip Morris's share of ~heworldmarket excluding the ~.S. is 8 percent, ~p fro~ 6 pe~cen~ in 1985. Philip Morris reports tha~ in 37 Third ~orld countries in which it does business, i~ has a i0 percent share of ~hemarket (7~ billion of 780 bill~on clgare~es). In the seven i~ ~he 18 na~ion~ with a licensee i0.5 percent .mr~et ~bare, nnd in the T!08380192
Page 346: TI08380193
with import a~reements. 5 percent. Philip Hot:is sold 351 billion clga~ettes outside the u.s. in 1988, but only 78 billion (21 percent) were made in the ~.$. Only Z3 percent of E.3. Reynolds's international ciEarette sales arc made in the U.S. K.J. ~ey~olds was recently acquired for a ~eco=d purchase of $25 billion. Thl, is one of tho hishest price ever paid for a company and was based in larse par~ on ~he pro~ected h~h earnings that Reynolds predicts a dou~lin8 of tobacco sal~s ~o~ 1988 throuEh 1998 from $7 billion to $16 billion and a triplinE of profit from tobacco ~rom $9.8 billion to $18.Z billlon. R.J. Reynolds has just finished construe=ion of" • $21million plant in Xi~men, China, which will produce ~.S billion Winstons annually. KeEretfully, o£ all the children'alive today in Chlna S0 million are predicted to die prematurely from smoking, maKy of them smokln8 the 'Beet of the USA.' Z[. ~r_ansna~ion~l Tobacco.~9~anles' .Expan~ioP FO110win8 the first Surseon General'~ ~eport, smokln8 rates ~ropp~d in the ~o$, and the U.S. firms internationalized ihei~ operation,, first into 5atln America, la~er into Western E~rope, ~nd most recently into the newly developed countries of Asia. Shepherd nualyze~ how the Latin American markets ware penetrated in the 1950s. Market libe~allzntion resulted in increased competition with the introduction o~ We3tern style advertising. After entry of the trnnsnational tobacco co~panic~ into Arsentina, advertisin8 e~pendit~res tripled, and within a ~ew years, the rate of i~crease in smoking prevalence doubled from ~hat reported prior to market opening. The same occurred in Brazil, By ~he early 19809 diseases caused by smokln~ claimed more lives in Brazil than diseases caused by in£ectlous disease and malnutrition. Many of the same strateEies used to open the markets of South America are bein8 used in the newly developed countries o£ Asia, and will be applied soo~ to China a~d Ea~toz~ Europe- A new TI08380193
Page 347: TI08380194
twi|t ks ~h~ u~e of United States trade threats t~ force resistant cotmtrles to remove public health l=ws that hinder Philip F~or=is o= R.J. Reynolds fr~ndominating the The t~anenatlonal ~obacco companies have three objectives when entering a closed ~rke~. ~e firs~ ~s ~o remove 1~ws that pcohibi~ sale ~es~ricti~ns on~rket~nE. The second is to e~and advertisln~ o~Dortuni~le8 by forcin~ the repeal of ]aw~ that l.~m[t we.tern-styl~ adver~iainE or securinE g~rantees that such advertis~.ng cnn be used. The third is to dena~ionaliz% ~ ~C81 m~o~ol7 sad gradually enter s~rles of ~ket~ng arrangements t~t ult~tely result in its acqu~slticn. Co~trles ~ve ~i£o~ly resis=e~ entry into their ~rkete by tEanenatlonal tobacco companies. ~ny less developed countries and newly developed coun~rles have chosen to operate closed cigarette ~rkets that are do~nated by a s~ate-o~ed tobacco monopolies. This decision is based on the belle£ that scarce consist capital should no~ ~esve the n~ti~n for purchase of a foEei~n cigarette -- a nonessential, i~ good. ~ed monopolies' p~o~ec~ive measures include bans or quotas on foreign cigaretues, which is or~s recently th~ case in S~uth Korea, Col~bia, Thailand and NIEerla. Less overt measures such as high tariffs, ~porn quotas, and re~trict~ons ~ distribution ~nd adver~sin8 of foreign brands are ~ore Zn ~he absence of competition, ~he vas~ ~jor~y of state ~obacco monopolies advertise and peyote smokin5 ~ni~lly nnd 5sacral17 produce a few brands ~hat use high nicotine nnd har.h ~o~acco ie8£. High smokin rs~es are fo~d among adul~ ~les and I~ ra~s .mon~ fe~les and adolescents. F~r c~gare~tes are ~ked per da7 than ~hose in weste~ ~rkeu8 and, because of the hars~ess of ~e ~ob~cco, deep. mole ha~ul in~la~i~ of ~obacco smoke is generally not done. These ~rketin inefficiencies ~y ~ve ~ unlnt~nded public henl~h bene£i~ of curbing TI08380194
Page 348: TI08380195
$~k~n$. AS shown in Table Z, per capita consumption is far lower in the developin~ world thmn the developed world. For example, in Sapan and China, respective].y, male smoking rates are 60 and 80 percent, female rates 12 and 6 percent. Per capita consumption iS alSO lower ths~% that found Inmate competitive markets, with 1.300 cisarettes consumed per person per year in China. 1.600 in Taiwan. and 1.800 in Korea. The United States rate is X.600 cigarettes c~nsumsd per person per year, Shepherd cSserved that the ~Itinational~ used their international brands ms a lure to 8sin a foothold in the market. Accordin8 to Shepherd, the tra~snat~o~al tobacco companle8 promoted sale of contraband international oiSarettes, which helped stimulate local demand. The loss of tax =evenu~ from beotleEgln8 served as an added incentive for local ~overmnents to legalize the sale of foreign brands, and this tactic of the transrmtional tobacco companies is still beltE used today. Sale of contraband cisaEettes is a major problem throughout ~Ii of the markets of Asia, particularly in the closed markets of China. Korea and Thailand. Bra~ds such as Marlboro(a) and Camel(~) convey powerful imaZes of wester~ llf~-style and succes~. Smokin8 such brands ¢onv~y~ status to m~ny citizens of a lees developed or newly dev~iop~d co~nnries. In ~he lon~ ~un. Shepherd found tha~ these brands do not capture , major portion of the market. After the multinational acquires th~ local firm, national ~rands ~ontin~e to be pop~lar and retain a large portion of the market. The mul%ina~ional companies ha~e also arsued that an open market will shift consumer ~reference to "safer" western style low tar]lownlcotine brands. Two rec~nt Surgeon General'~ ~eportz found th~ smokers receive only marKinal, if any benefit f~om smokin8 the~e b~ands. Many smokers smoke more often or inhale more deeply to compensate ~or the low~r yield. Moreover, a I~88 analys~s of Marlboro and Winston lisht ciKarettes sold in the Philippines found their tar and nicotine content t~ be 50 percent hither than that o£ the same bra~ds sold in the United States. TI08380195
Page 349: TI08380196
-I Based on the economies of scale, the Lsti~ American monopol~es were unable to comp~te with the intensive adv~rtisin~ program~ and short-term predatory pricing practices of th~ transnationnl tobucco companies. By 1976 the transnational tobacco companies had formed 12 subsidiaries in 17 LRtln American countries. Today these subsidia:~es control 90 percent or more of th~ market shar~ in their respective countries, and the vast .ma~orlty of them were acquisitions of former nntional companies. Few U.S.-n~de cigarettes a~e le~ally exported to I,n~in mRerican today. However, larks quaRtitles of cheap Brazilian tobacco are imported into the U.$. an~ use4 in domestic ciearett~s. Last year, 33 percent of all the tobacco leaf sold in domestic cigarettes ~as produced overseas ~ith m~ch of it Krown in Brazil. ~n all likelihood the same will occur over ti~e in Asia. " IZI. Ci~arette_A~tlslnE and Effects in Consumption, The U.5. ciearette com~mnles claim that tl~eir advertlsln~ does not increase COnSumption and that they are only encoura~ng current smokers to switch to ~heir brands. Tt should be no~ed that the sm.e industr7 claims that ~okin~ has no~ been shown to cause any disuase amon~ humans. includin~ cancer. The industry analysis relies on the ~orway experience which banned advertisinE 15 years aeo. At the Seventh World Conference o~ Tobau¢o and Health, e~eEes from Norway presented evide.ce shuwin8 that the advertisin~ ban did reduce constunption and that the tobacco industry's analysis omitted critical data relating to a decline in prevalencs after The ind~s~=y also has used data from Eastern Europe to argue that E~stern Europe's h~h smokin8 rates occur even in ~he absence o£ advertisin8 by the transnational tobacco companies. It the conference th&~ multinationals co.duct indirect advertlslnE in Europe, such as Camel ads in Hungary, and that smu881inK of inter~atioD~1l brands is a major problem. The high smokinZ rates ~n Eastern Europe are Ti08380196
Page 350: TI08380197
problem o£ tobacco use in the samu way thuy havu failed to curb environmental pollution. The Eastern Eurnpean ~overnments have not cunduc~ed health education proKrams, sKgress~vely taxed cigarettes or dieeouraeed sm~klng in public places, and the high s~mkin~ ra~es r~flect this. A c~mprehenslve repor~ done recently 5y the Health D~partment of New Zealand on factors affecting tobacco ¢ons~.np~ion ~n 22 countries between 1950 and 1986 showed that restrictions on adve~tjsluZ lower~d cigarette consttmption. An earlie~ report by Ne~ Zealand ~howed that cigarette adver~isin8 is dlrec~ly related ~o the number of cigarettes smoked. The report coneervativel~ estimated a 7 ~ercent reduction in cigarette consumption from an adverti~in5 ban. ~V. Us~of Section ~01 Trade Threat. to Chan~e cigarette Advertisin~ ~ractices in Asla K~ the request ~f the United S~a~es Cigarette Export Association, which represents Philip Morris, K.J. ~eynolds ~nd Brown and Williamson (BAT), the Office of the United States Trade Kepre~en~ative (USTR) conducted three investigations of the allegedly ~nfair tobacco trading practices of Sapen, Taiwan and South Korea between ~.985 and 1988. ~n 198~ Sou~hKoEea had & law prohlbit~n£ ~he sale og foreign cigarettes, and b~th T&lwan and Japan had high ~ariffs on imported b~ands and other restrictions on the importation, distribution, pricing and advertlsln~ of foreign cigarettes. ~et~een 1985 and 1988 the UST~ threatened these nations wi~h s~nct~ons under th~ authority of Section 301 of the Trade Act, as amended, on ~oods ~hey exporu~d to the United u~ese United States cigarette companies ~er~ ~iv~n free access to the ~kets. All ~hre~ capitulated, a~reein8 to USTR's de~nd ~ cigarette advertlsln8 and pr~otion be allowed. 5oth T~iwan and South Karts asked to repeal hans on television advertising o[ cigar~tte~, a practice TI08380197
Page 351: TI08380198
illesal in the United Stares since 1971. ~c~t~ ~:~t~trle~ refused to allow television adver~isinE, but under pressure d~ nllo= p~int cigarette advernisemen~s. Ta~an Talwan aEr~ed to limited adv~r~in~ (I~0 pa~s of ads per brand per year). Th~ U.$. co~pani~s effectlve~y circumvented this restrlc~ion by buylnE space at ~housand~ of small corner food stand~, on which they placed cisare~te ~dv~r~isements and |~ll1~oards. ir, my s~rvey of a snmll street behind a Talpel hiKh school. I counted 17 larKe posters for U.S. ciEarettes. The companies also ran sophisticated cigarette promotions, includln~ the of£erln8 of fcee clckets to ~ t~enaEe disco in exchanse for five empty packases of Winstons. Most recently, free raffle tickets for a MeEcedes Benz have been offered in exchanKe for empty packaSes of Rents. When one U.S. company was found to have ~iola~ed the asreemen~, the American Institute ~n Talwan, which oversees the 301 cigarette a~reement, refused to take action aEainst the company. Since the U.S. cisarette companies' successful 301 action a~ainst Taiwan, there has been a prol~fera~ion of advertisements uhrouEhout all of Talpel. FollowinK the introduction of cisare~te advertisin8, consumption rose 4 percent in 1987, for no othe~ apparent reason. Research by Dr. Ted Chen shows ~h&~ smok!nE rates amon 12-18) rose from 22 percent il 1985 to 32.2 p~rcent i:t 1987. (see ~n 3anua~y ~988, USTK initiated a crad~ ~nve~iSa~ion a~ the reque~ of CEA and demanded that South Korea repeal, a public health law modeled on World Heal~h 0r~anization standards prohibitin8 cisarecte advertisin8. Under trade threats South Korea asreed and portion. In 1988 th~se U.$. companies took oun advertisin8 budset, for $21 million which based on South Korean standards, will make the American cisarette one of the most heavily advertised consumer products in that nation. A survey of Korean hiEh school student& ~resented at the World TI08380198
Page 352: TI08380199
Conference in Perth showed a sharp increase J~ ~mokin~ anmn~msl~ high school students from 1988 to 1989. ~non~ senior boys. the smokin~ ~a~e incre~eed ~rom 23.9 percen~ i~ 1988 eo ~2 perc~n~ in 1989. Prior to USTR trade threa~s, Japan rmd a voluntary polic7 of ~es~rictin~ cigarette adve~tlsin~ to women and children. ~March 1986, ~apan agreed to ~evie@ it~ voluntary agreemen~ to make ~c easier £oc U.$. companies to advertise in response to USTR and CEA pressure. At the sam~ tlnle, the Ministry of Health o£ Japan s~ up Lwo exper~ panels on smoking • and health, the second of which was charged w~th making recommendations to curb smoking, The U,$. Embassy in Tokyo nook no~ and s~aRed £n March 198G: 'Comment: The ~econd panel, on 'Countermeasures." poses the dange~ that, intentionally or not, actlonswh/ch might dlscrim~rmte against foreign cigarettes might be reconrnended,and subsequently adopued. The Em~sss7 will monitor the progres~ of this first study paneL, and will ma~n~aln contact with key MHW officials as the second pnnel £orm=~a~es its ~Counte~measures.' End Co.tent.~ h t~levlslon adver~isin5 war ensued and ndvertls~uE rose from fortieth place ~o second place in total air time by 1987. On an average dny, 90 television ads are seen, many of them duri~ rime. children's viewing times, Two-thirds are for U.$. cignuette$. ~tile an agreement ~o curtail the TV ads went into effect in J~nua~y 1989 and a s~ud7 in Na$~yo, ~ap~n showed a 50 percent decrease in total ~elcvlslou advertising time,. the s~udy also sh~w~d a contin~in~ dispropornionanc level of advercisln~ hy U.S. companies and showed that the advertisements were readil7 seen and ~erstood ~y a panel of Japanese sixth zrade chj.ldren who viewed the advertisements favorably. ~n 1988 Philip Morris paid the pEoduce~ of a n~w James Bond movie "Licence to Kill' $350,000 to have a p.cka~e of Lark cigarettes explode in the movie. Philip Morris does not sell L~rk in the U.S., but does in 3apart, and pl&nned a promolional kick-off in that country ~ith the movie. 3ames Bond is an e~tremely popular figure with adolescent ~apane~e boys. I0 TI08380199
Page 353: TI08380200
A tobacco industry consultant, E.R.C. o~ B~itain. su~mu~rized the situation as follows: • After rel&xat~on o£ import controls in Ig87 a ciEarette advertisinE war broke out° The members of the Japan Tobacco Institute (J.T.~., Philip Morris, reynolds, ~=own & ~illiamson and T.E.~.) =re bound only by th~ v~luntary code they ostensibl7 adhere to. The~e are no penalties for bE~akin~ the code, and in ~he course of one day up to 90 t~levision commercials for cIEare~tee will be screened two-thirds of which wall he promon£nE American brands. Few 0£ these advertisement= adhere ~o the code and ~ny appear duEin~ children's TV prosrams. Amonss~ those that remain strokers will be an increased percenta8~ of women, and new launches will be aimed at the female ~ap~nese consumer, at presen~ this is not permitted under the ~apanese code of advertising." Total consumption in ~apan was declinin~ s~l~htly prior to market liberalization and stabilized from 1985 through 1988. DurStE the first six month~ of 1989 con,umptlon rose 3 percent. Of major concern is the rise in smokln~ rates amon~ youn8 people. A 1988 ~urvey o£ 2,000 ~apanese hish school students found rates of ~0 percent amon~ ~enior boys and 26 ~ercent amon$ senior 8irls. Only 1~ percent of adult ~apanese females smoke. Another study of female ~apanese colleEe ~tudents fou~d that youn$ wo~en are four times more likely to ~,~oke than thei=mothers. Total cisare~te consumption in the ~hree countries that have previously been subjected to Section 301 trade threat~ rose from ~I0 billion in 1986 ¢o ~55 billion in 1989, a ~otnl increase o£ ~5 billion cisarettes. The data stronsly support the ~ind£nE chat the USTE's demands that adveEtislnK E~stEictions be removed has resulted in an increase in total ciEare~te consumption. And the future looks even more prom/sing for the t~ansnatlonal tobacco com~anles. The Ind~stry's consul~in~ firm, EEC, predicts an 8.8 percent increase in South Korea and ~.9 percent in Talw~n between 1988 and 1998. Zn contrast, o~her Asla= governments such as Honk EonE's and Singapore's, which have not been similarly threatened by USTR, have passed effective tobacco control policies, including ad bans, restriction on public smokln8 and increases in taxes. From 1982 to 1987 total consu/np~ion declined from 10.Z billion ciEare~tes to 7.7 billion for th~ T!08380200
Page 354: TI08380201
low. O~her Asian Countries U.$. cigarette companies and their licen~ees advertise heavily in ~theE Asian countries and routinely circumvent local Rdvertislng restrictions. ~n Malaysia, ~herc in i~ illegal to advertise cigarettes on TV, it is common to see ads £o~ "Kent HolidRy~" ~r "Tours of Marlboro Count~.a I~ China, where it is illegal to advertise cigarettes and foreign brands can only be bought in special shops. Philip Morris advertises "Harlhoro Country," without ~howinE cigarettes, aU the end American movies on Shanghai television, which ~eaches 21 million Chinese. ~n Manila, I0 percent of all television ads n~e for cigarettes and children sell single sticks of Marlboro and Camels |;o passing motorists. The children are paid 80 cents a da7 an~ resemblc human vendin~ machines. ~f a fathe~ of a family of four persons ,moke~ I-I/2 cigarettes a day, i0 percent of family income goes for smoking. In 198~ a group of ten Filipino children ~ile~ a class action ~ult agsins~ Philip Morris. Reynolds and their local llcensee~ for ~heir refusal to place wacnin8 labels on packages and restrictions on ndve~:~t~;i.n8 similar to ~hose offered American children. ~n 1988, 36 bills were submitted to the Filipino Congress to curb smoki~8, ~ I~$8, the tobacco industry flew a Filipino born pharmacologist fro~ New Jecsey who consult~ for the tobacco company to testify in Manila against the bills. The "~clentist" persuaslv~ly before the F!l~pino C~ngress that accordin~ ~o the Su~eon General sex, diet, n~trltion and air pollution, no~ cigarc~c ~moking, were linked to cancer and heart disease. He stated th, c ~cudies on zmoklng and cancer cannot 5e used in the Philippines. All 56 bills were defeated and the court house that housed the records of the childrcn's ls~suit ~s burned do.~n in 1988. T108380201
Page 355: TI08380202
l~ould n~a like to sh~w a series of TV ad:~ frc~m Aaia. The first companies have agreed not to advertise ?~ womc~n. The f~rst is for Virginia Slims, the second for the Philip M,,rri~ h,:and which our Bill of RiEht8 is Seine used to advertise in the U.S.. =nd the las£ for Lark. All of these ads are Clearly directed to women. (show select) The next seemen~ is from the Phi].ippine~. The first segment is from ABC'z Z0~20 and sh~ws children sell~n~ American ciEarette brands ~n the streets of Manila. The next ad is for Winston and shows younE people dancln~ to the them that Winston is the "Spirit of the USA." The final advertisement is for 'S~lem' sweepstakes, which offers large cash prizes to pOOr F&llplnos ~or smoki~ that brand. Thiz iz a cynical and irresponslbl~ way ~ e~¢ouxaee people from a v~ry poor .country to smoke. If a father o~ four smokes a pack-and-a-half of Salems a day, 12 percent of f~i!y income EO~$ for smok&nE, lea~in8 less for children's food. (show segment) The final seKm~n% is from Malaysia, whe~ cigarette adv~rtlsin8 is prohlb~ted on television. These a~s ~re for non-tobacco products that use the cigarette brand name to circumvent the TV ad ban. The first advertisement is for "rent" holidays. ~f you call the travel agent in Penang Malaysia foe a tour of "Kent" or "Marlboro Country," you are told that they do not exist. The second ad is for "Mor~" MeK~ movies and the last for "Salem" concerts, which feature~ U.S. rock sin~e:s Cyndi Lauper a~d Tina Tuz-n~r. The last ad is for "Marlboro Country" on Shan~hal TV, which reaches 21 ~lllion consumers. ~t iz illcZal to advertise in China a~d this ad states "Wi~h our spirits high. try to win. This is the ~orld Of Marlboro. Co~e tO the world of Marlboro." The adv~Etlsemen~s show how th~ companie~ circumvent an~ mak~ a ~ockery of public health restrictions on eiKa~ette advertisinK. T!08380202
Page 356: TI08380203
ma=ke~ed clgnrettes ~o nonsmoking group= in A~ia. They h~ve w~n~n and children. In countrie~ that had hann~,d ~:igarette advertisin they have circumvented la~s and =egula~ion~ ~i~.h f~ke advertisements. The most offensive action is that of th~ USTR which ha~ forced the countries of Taiwan and Korea to repeal public hea1~h ].a~s and testrictlon on adveE~Isin~ a~d ~apan to weaken its code. The evidence is increasing the introduction of advertisln~ ~= ].nc~nsln~ ~'ute~: of ~mokln~ R~Ong w~men and children. ~f we, as a nation, are to preven~ =he exportation of our epidentlc overseas, the govez~unent should be prohlhlted from using trade pressure ~o force countries to chan~e cigarette marketln~ practices. The restricted £r~m tEansformin8 noncompetit~vc c~ar~tte markets into competitive ones. Th~ op~ning address ~f the Fir=t World Conference on Smoking and Health, which was h~id uver 2~ year~ ago, ended w~th th~s quotation ~hat ie still true today: "For the Indus~rywe seek ~0 negate ~ powerful and resourceful. E~¢h new effort to r~gulst~ will b~in8 new ways ~o evade. Still, we must be equal to the task. the stakes involved are~hin~ less than the lives and health of millions all over ~he world. Bu~ this is a battle which can be won..,~ know it is a bett%e that will be won." Senator Robert Kennedy ~i=$~ WoEld Conference on SmoklnS and Health New York, NY Sap=ember I~, 1987 14 T108380203
Page 357: TI08380204
7th World Conference oR Smokin~ ~nd Heal~h Proceedings. Australia. April 1990. Chandler WV. Banishln6 tobacco. Wo~id ~anch paper 68. World Institute. Wash/ns~on D.C.:19561-4~. Stebhln~ RE. TObacco or health in the Third ~orld~ a polltlcal economy perspective with ~mphasis o~ He~ico. Int. J. of Health $erv. 17~1987~521- 537. Taylor P. The Smoke Ring. M~ntor Press NY, ~Y AE~o-Economic Services. The Employment, Ta~ Ecvenu~ and ~ealth tha~ the Tobacco IndusRry crea~es. London. Ensland. September 1987. Shepherd PL. Transnational corporation and uhe internation~l cigarette i~duet~y. Fr~: Profits, Progress and Poverty. Univ. of No~re D~% P~%$$ Sou~h Bend, Ind. 63-111. 1985. Stevens Dan. ~o~id ~oba~c~ cons~ptlon to ~ncr~a~e through 2000 Tobacco ~epor~er. January 1990;40-42. DA/PAS. ~orld Tobacco Studies. August 1988. DA/FAS. ~orld Tobacco Studies. BEi~sh~erlcan Tobacco Company. 1988 Ana~al E~por~, London, ~giand. ~7 1989. Philip Morris Inte~a~ional Inc. Activitie~ o£ Philip Morris in the Third World. ~, ~. April 1988. Philip Mo~is, 1988 ~ual Report. Philip Morris, ~Y, ~. 1989. R.J~ Ee~olds Nabisco. 1988 ~pecinl ~nual Report. Atlanta, ApCl! 1988. United Sta~es Cisaret~e ~por~ Assistance. ~u~ssion to T~ade Rep=esentative. Hea~ o~ Thailand Tobacco 301 Case. September 1989. Connolly, GN. The In~ernatlo~l~rketin8 o~ Tobacco. Tobacco Use ~eEica Conference. ~rican Medical Association, ~icaSo, ~11 1989. United S~8tes C~ga~et~e ~port A~soc~ati(m. 3~i Su~sion~Tob~cco produc~e ~apan, To: Office of ~he United States Trade Representative Washington, D.C. ~ov~ber 11, 1985;1-408. ~on~ou~. Asian ~rkets open to U.S. ci~aretne~: Tobacco 1987;12~i. DA/FAS. Wo~id Tobacco Situation Report. ~T-3-Sg, ~rch 1989. DA~FAS. Guarante~ C~edit Export Program. ~achington. D.C. November 1989. T108380204
Page 358: TI08380205
~O:Id B&nk. WashinBton, D.C. Jun= 198~;i-~6. Con=o~ly, GN. Crimes an~ H!~demu~nors. P=e~en~ed ~o 7~h World Co=ference on Smok%~g and Health. Anonymuus, A company with exten~iv~ comm~mity involvement. Tobacco InCern~=ion~l. E.E.C. $=atistlcs International. Thu Votld Cigor~tte M~rket. i~8B;i-1300. International Survey. Suffolk. E~gl&nd. DCs~Eic~ Couc~ for the District of Columbia, United States Miuh~el K, De&v~r: CR-87-0096. Washington, D,C. November 5, 1987~56-814. S~elsser, P, PushinB cigarut=es overse~, N-Y. Times MaBazine. July !~. 1988. 15-67. Jameson S. CiEarette issue riles S. Koreans. LO~ Angeles Times. October 22, ig86~ BrOwn M. CongreSs. Bolster the figh~ by Tobacco to halt foreign snuff ~ans. CouEier ~ou=n~l Loui~ville. June 20, 1988. 16 TI08380205
Page 359: TI08380206
Table I: marce~c L'c~ase in Ci~ ~on for Selected Developed and Developing CoJntries 1973-1983 10.88 Japan N~my switze~land 20.5 14.8 8.19 14.3 1.39 -~.00 19.8 -B. 00 53.5 40.0 27.3 17.6 -S.SO -2.28 34.2 53.8 8.03 -26.05 3.32 4.6 42.92 15.78 47.05 74.80 148.23 3 37 -4.34 20.77 37,03 48.57 61.14 22.75 39.21 3.90 23.83 34.45 51.91 30,43 76.47 43.44 TI08380206
Page 360: TI08380207
TABLE ~: CIGARETTE EX]'OI~['5 I;;" HAJOR I'RODUCE[~S ]/ HILL!0NS OF PIECES, CALENDAR YEAI~S ]983-1980 COUNTRY 1983 1984 ]98b 1986 58.947 75200 46 013 47771 !2 800 39 410 15 048 3,746 6,950 O United States 60,698 56,5J7 Bulgaria 60,800 72,000 Netherlands 36,209 42,203 Germany, Vest 4~,807 44,284 Hone KonE 7,871 11,799 ~n~ted KinEdom 46,235 39,555 Bel~lum-LuxembourE 14,III 13,080 S~nEapore 2,310 2,413 Svi=zerland 9,527 9,300 China 0 0 SUBTOTAL 281,568 291,151 REST OF WORLD 47,052 46,703 WORLD TOTAL 3/ 328,620 337,854 1987 !988 2/ 64,258 i00 72,318 74 47,732 50 53,646 45 17,200 24 29,858 31 15,341 16 4,536 4 7,900 8 5,000 246 800 ,792 ,526 ~930 628 430 30O 508 118,~99 73,300 59,005 ~7,091 38,900 34,442 la 128 9,069 8,500 4,030 305,885 317,789 359,303 ~6,96~ 49,904 45,607 46,794 49,769 355,789 363,396 406,097 456,733 NOTE: 1/ Estimates are included in the absence of data. ~/ Revised. ~/ World ~otal includes incidental countries not listed. PREPARED BY: Tobacco, Cotton and Seeds Division, FAS, USDA. AUGUST 1989 T!08380207
Page 361: TI08380208
Canada Aus~ri~ New Zealand Spain Sweden Per 1987 2,346 1,671 1.927 1,597 2.1SI 2.015 1.634 2,059 1,321 Chin~ B~azil Philipins Thailand Colombia Malaysia Mexico Keny~ Indonesia Uruguay 1,347 1,141 1,086 577 996 632 256 1,013 TI08380208
Page 362: TI08380209
Table 3, Percentage of young Cigarette Smokers in various Studies i~ the Rspublic of China (R. O.C. ) 1982-88 Stay Gr~s School Year Current Cigarette Grade Sample Location S.~kL~ (%) I~vels Size " ~hi Tal~i 1984 12.3 I0 775 ~a~ ~i~i ~84 9.48 7- 9 485 ~ ~i ~85 31.77 ~ - ~ 2,002 ~ ~£ 1987 32.60 7 - ~ 3,117 ~ ~ 1988 34.41 7 - 12 5,031 *Taiwa~ Tt~acco & Wine M~op~ly Bureau, An Investigation of Teenage Cigarette ~ in ~iwan, 19ss. T108380209
Page 363: TI08380210
Table.~o Cigarette Constu~Elon i¢= 301Counkr/es 1982-1989 Japan D 1 1980 304 3.7 307.7 :g82 310.3 4.8 315.1 ]984 306.3 6.5 312.6 1~6 29~.I 11,9 308,4 1985 269.2 37.2 306.4 [9~ 273.5 45.4 318.9 "In billion of cigarettes **Reduction attributed Talwan Korea D ~ T 0 1 28. o4 28.5 32. ,6 32.6 31.8 ,5 32.5 28.3 5.76 34,1 29.8 5.25 35.1 January 1987 T 69.8 • I 69.9 73.7 .I 73.2 76.5 .I 76.6 78.3 .4 78.4 86.0 I .5 87.7 81.5 6.2 87.7 D TOTAL I T 411.9 4.9 416.8 414.6 7.2 421.8 406.9 12.5 419.1 583.5 44.26 427.8 384.8 56.86 44 ! .'I O = Domestic I = Import (USA) T = Total Consumption Source: Japan Tobacco Inc. ~SD&/ForeJgnAgr~¢ulture ServJce Korea Tobacco Monopoly Taiwan Tobacco Monopoly
Page 364: TI08380211
Sex lhzked;to attacks and cancer :. A noted Filipino phar- m~col~'|~ y~f.erdey mid sex. diet. nuCrition and ~r ~llu~o,. not ~o ~ntoking a~ the re~ ~ of ~ar~ d~se~s ~d lung the [muse commit~e on heath l)r. Domin~v Avi~do, q~et~ n re~ of tim US susans gem,~ which enid "the diets~ mt~ im~m~ a~ mawr ~k far- t~ for nla%v h~m~n di~,~, in- kr~wn to ~; wilt seve~l otht'r ~ " .--, .:-- ,I--:..~-:.~ ~f and beverages and ~rolMble factors .~ueh .'~ soy" AU th~ ~me Lime, hVi~do environmen~l tolmceo smoke har~rdn~ to ~hc hcalth of non- 3mok,r$. l[e ~d Ore 10 leadhi~ death in the US a~ini~d with diet arc the heart disea~s, ~troke. ast~io~eleri.sls. :m,l dLnlx.tcs nt~tillitu~ ~e atilt thro. are ~tl¢: OXC~SiVe al~h~l cnmctltltFttinn h,adin~T to inten. inrixl~nt ~n the Philipp;n~s cuss~titutr~ Oltly ]:[ ~t~,reeltL Of TI0838O211
Page 365: TI08380212
TO: 0AR3~Q S.A. Svi¢=e~land Z7-22, Akata~a 2-chime K~na~o-~u, Tokyo 107 ~apan feature film curxen~iZ entitled "LZCE~CE R~VOKE~" Film") the exposure ~f a LARK cigarette ~ack ("T~e media pEomogion ("The Promotion"} ~ coincide A pi¢~ of LA~K ¢igar~t:es to be .clearly iden~fie~ ~tr;~ a scene in ~n¢cn James 8o~d ~pens a pack c~ l~ which James ~ond w~il use ae an action prop (... ~:. illua~ra~1on ac¢ached~. T~e [ARK brand name ~II =~ TI0838021,~
Page 366: TI08380213
~,l]~eq shall have " p=oduccion o~ The Film. consideration o~ ou~ A~ree~en~: se~: oul: above An The FAI~ ~.eo ~u~ne~C-Klt=do here~y a~ree and Leo 8u~ne~=-Kyodo w£11 at its cwn expense ~an~a~ ~o co~pl¥ v~n ~As a~eeaen~. Oan~aq ~ep~oduced ac ~s o~n expense a fuAl • ep~oduc~ion ~! ~he ~ pack, Aden~Ica~ respects vi~h The ~a~er£al suppAA,,d by ~eo Xyodo except ~c As several aA111~e~e~s • eppoAnced a~en~s ~Aor co application.
Page 367: TI08380214
-! ~O~D~ Pro~o:~on for Japan ~h~ch ~11 run :=c ~ open Co ne~oc~a~on ~u= T~ P~omoC~on v~.~i ~nL7 :e Dan~aq or anyone nominated by Dan~aq ~o give approvals ~e~r ~ehal~. (a) Zn consida~a~ion o! '~e Gxposure of Material re~erre~ P=o~o¢ion ~er~ed ~o Ln Clause 3~ Leo aqrme ~o pay Dan]aq ~e au~ o~ U$S350,000 (7~ree Hundred And r£~y Thousand u.$. Oolla=s) The s~t~l Oe $175,000 payable upon s~gnac~re herec:. $17,500 ~or~v~ upon v~eu~ng ~e FLIm con~aLnLnq ~ said exposure an~ T0".~'- ~or~hw~Ch on v~e~Lnq b~ Leo S~ud~os, £nqLand, o~ c~e :eieese pr~ o~ T~e :..- Any tax~s due ~n a~d~tion ~0 ~hm above ~ee ~A~" :e T108380214
Page 368: TI08380215
001 Statement of Prakit Vateesatokit, M.D. Diplomat American Board of Internal Medicine Fellow, American College of Chest Physicians Professor and Chairman, Department o~ Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Medical School, Mahidol University Chairperson Thai-Anti-Smoking Campaizn Project Bangkok Thailand. Apri~ 18, 1990. TI08380215
Page 369: TI08380216
Distingnished members of the US senate My name is Prakit Vateesatokit I am a Professor of Medicine specializing in pulmonary disease. I am currently Chairman of the Department of Medicine of Ramathibodi Hospital Medical School of Mahidol University in Bangkok, Thailand. I have had virtually all myspecialty training in New York and still consider America my second home. I am also Chairperson of the Thai-Anti Smoking-Campaign Project. I am testifying on the issue of American cigarette export to Asia, specifically the current cigarette trade .between the United States and the Royal Thai G6vernment. I am testifying as a doctor and an antismoking advocate w~o is against all kinds of tobacc~ uses and against the promotion .of all cigarettes, Thai and American. I know from my daily work at hospital that cigarette smoking is a severe health hazard. Although I am a Thai citizen, I would like to make clear that I am not testifying on behalf of the Thai government. I am concerned for the health of Thai as well as American citizens since ~here are over 60 million tobacco addicts within these two countries. Finally I would like to share with you mythoughts about the United States tobacco trade policy. I. Tobacco trs~e should be curbed rather thsa p~omo~d and expanded. Tobacco is a hazardous product that can kill when it is used regularly. In the United States alone, cigarettes |mainly US made) cl~imed 390,000 American life annually. When one disregards the question of legality in tobacco trade, there is no difference between the harm done by tobacco {nicotine) addiction and addiction to other illicit drugs such as cocaine and heroin. This was the conclusion in 1988 by the US Surgeon Generalc*). This report, among other things, stated that: I. Cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting. T!08380216
Page 370: TI08380217
3 0' ,3 2. Nicotine is the druE in tobacco that causes addiction. 3. The pharmacologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine. I totally agree with the principle of free trade and free competition. But free competition with an addictive and harmful product should not he promoted, expecially not by the world's most powirful and most prestizious nation; the United States. The world's communities, the United States included, condemn the governments of some small countries for passively permittin~ the flow of heroin or cocaine to other country. The same communities will also condemn eventually any country which promotes tobacco expor6, expeqially by way of threatening trade sanctions for traditional trading partners. The United States should not be p~oud of her current status as the world's largest tobacco and ciEarette exporter. PeopLe all over the world.will ask" has the United States no other products to offer to ~he world?". Is it really 4n America's interest to resort to increase cigarette export to solve problems of trade deficit?. 2. Tobacco trade defeats almost all ~he purposes of the General Agreement on Tariffs amd Trade (GATT). The decision by the United States Government to take the cigarette trade dispute to GATT could set a tragic precedent if GATT rules in favour of the United States. GATT was formed in 1948 with the following objectives:- To Recognize that international relations in the field of trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a .view to: - raisin~ standards of living, - ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand, T!08380217
Page 371: TI08380218
4 004 - developing the full use of the resources of the ~orl~ - expanding the production and exchanges of goods. Tobacco trade defeats almost all the purposes of GATT because of it's unique nature. Tobacco does not raise the standard of living since it is addictive and causes disease and deaths to the consumer. It does not ensure full employment but instead causes premature disability. Tobacco depletes world resources by claiming, human lives, causes deforestation by extensive use of woods in the process of tobacco leaf curing, and decreases the area of cultivation for other more useful aEricultural products. "If GATT rules in favour of the United States, it will go down in history that the United States is responsible for liberalizing the tobacco trade.This would in effect, mean that the United States is responsible for the poor health of a great many of the world's peoples for years to come. 3. Why does Thailand not ~ant to open its market to free cigarette trade. It is certain that transformation from a closed to an open cigarette market will result in free competition in sale and marketing which inevitably will result in an increased rate of smoking. It is true that the Thai Government (RTG) owns the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly (TTM) and that Thai people have been smoking large numbers of Thai as well as smuggled foreign ~iEarettes for a long time. The RTG "has a firm policy of reducing smoking among the Thai. This can be seen from the ~overnment ban of all forms of cigarette advertising includinK sponsorship of sports and cultural events since Febuary 1989. These laws are now being enforced although foreign cigarette firms reEulary evade than. TI08380218
Page 372: TI08380219
005 The TTM, being a state owned monopoly, has been cooperating with the RTG's in this policy. The TTM has been described in a recent document by the Tobacco Merchant Association (1988) as "fat and extremely uncompetitive". "Working for the TTM is a dream, with good wages and no real demands on efficiency"(*~ The TTM has few friends and is a fr#gnent target for the Thai Antismoking activist lobby. With an industry that produces a lethal product and the RTG's wish t6 control tobacco consumption, having an inefficient industry like TTM, creates favourable conditions for Thailand's smoking control measures. Thus, Thailand intends to keep the Thai cigarette (TTM) industry as it is: inefficient, obeying~ government orders, no innovative ideas for promotion and no evident desire f~r improvement in marketing efforts. In contrast, the USCEK spokeman, Mr. Patrick Rek&rt who was in Bangkok in September 19, 1989, had suggested thaiThailand would benifit from allowing free cigarette trade(3. "Permitting imports would allow free competition and transfer of technology ,and expertise in management and marketing for Thailand'~. The RTG appreciates the USCEA's good intention and would, no doubt, benefit from new taxes that would be collected from increased cigarette sales. However, Thailan~ has learned from the US's own experiences that the US cigarette industry's expertise in marketing and management will almost certainly result in increased sales of cigarettes, and definitely will create more obstacles for our smoking control measures. The US cigarette industry's management expertise resulted in the current state where smoking control measures in America now lag far behind many other countries. The US federal government spends billions of dollars treating smoking related illness and hundreds of millions each year in trying to get US citizens to "kick the T!08380219
Page 373: TI08380220
habit", while the US cigarette industry uses it's skills in marketing to recruit new smokers every day. The industry also use it's political clout to impede introduction of smoking control measures. Because of these various factors, as well as the powerful addictive nature of nicotine, the total number of smokers in the US remained at over 50 million despite Z5 years of vigorous campaigns to reduce smoking, The RTG has limited resource and does not want to be in the same position as the US government is now ie. being relatively helpless in it's effort to curb the US' cigarette industry's promotion. It is largely on the receiving end of solving smoking related medical problems which are a severe drain on the t~xpayer. The US has many useful ind healthy products and technical know-how that could be exported to the world but please do not promote export of cigarette and especially not cigarette marketing expertise, ~. The Transnational Tobacco Company's (TTCs) defiant abuses of advertising bans. " • 4.1 The TTCs had introduced cigarette advertising to Thailand in 1986. The sale of foreign cigarettes was then still illegal. This advertising campaign was so intense that it startled and amazed the Thai public and probably stimulated illegal cigarette smuggling activities. Appeals to curb such advertising from health groups have fallen on deaf ears. America is a "trend setter" in technology, fashions, sports and taste. The young, Thai particularly, look up to all things American and try to immitate many. ~he vision of looking American sportsman or sports ~ooman inhaling an cigarette is a powerful salesweapon in Asian countries which, our local marketing exports tell us, many Thai teenagers that smoking is the "thing to do". a healthT American developing convince T108380220
Page 374: TI08380221
0O7 4.2 When the Thai Cabinet passed a resolution calling for a complete ban on cigarette advertising, the TTM abided by this order but the TTCs carried on with their advertising barage and contended that a cabinet resolution is not a law. 4.3 Even after the Thai Government passed legislation banning all forms of advertising including events and sports sponsorshipC4~, the carrying on with periodically still TTCs still challenged the Thai law by smuggled indirect advertisements and engaging in sports sponsorships. 4.4 The TTCs also'engaged in forms of advertising which clearly targeted children and woman. This included brand names on school note books, chewing gum, kites and girl's earrings. I am sure most of you are familiar with the recent story of RJR cigarette company's planned campaign to introduce a new. cigarette "Dakota" targeted at young American females with low educational level. If the cigarette industries can blantantly break their own .code of ethics in America, just imagine what the industry would do in Thailand and other'developing countries with very smoking rates in females. How will Thailand be able to cope with this kind of expert but ruthless marketing practices? 5. The RTG has not yet achieved significant smoking control measures. Critics may brush aside the plea that Thailand is still a developing country and has many national p~oblems to tackle beside smoking control. The United States however, is also still far behind many countries in discouraging it's-citizen from smoking, Data presented at the. recently concluded 7L" World Conference on Tobacco and Health at Perth, Australia (April sh~wed that the United State's tobacco policy lags behind many other countries; Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Singapore to name some. Cigarette taxes in the US have been the lowest TI08380221
Page 375: TI08380222
amon~ the countries cited. The US's federal tax per pac~ of cigarettes has been kept at ~ 16 for almost a decade, while in Canada it is now $ 1.19 (Table 1, Appendix 1,2). This resulted in an average price of $ 1.50 per pack of cigarettes in the US, and over $ 4.0 per pack in Canada. The relatively low tax rate of US cigarettes causes a lower price which will surely encouraged the economically.underprivileged and the young to smoke more, This incidentaly is currently the population with the highest smoking rate in the US. The RTG may lag behind the US in the area of heal~h education, but Thailand is enforcing a total ban on cigarette advertising and sports event sporsorship. This is something which the US has yet to achieve. In addition, the health warning on US cigarette packages are far less discernable than those in Canada and Australia (Appendix 3). The US cigarette industry also refuses to disclose cigarette additives to the American consumer. A good question is why, and why are AmeriCans k~pt ignorant of this. The allegation that the RTG has not put enough effort into'smoking oontrol for it's citizen because the Government is leaping profits from selling cigarettes, has to be seen in proper perspective. Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and many countries in Europe have been very active in smoking control either. That is not beoause of economic reasons. These countries are much better off economically when compared to Thailand. These countries have not initiated active smoking control measures because they need cigarette taxes. It is more likely that many such governments are still not fully aware of the hazards of cigarette smoking, The US, as a leader of the free world, should encourage and help other countries around the world in s~okinE control rather th~n exploit a small friendly country like Thailand ~ith limited resources by helping the TTC's sell more of their harmful products in Thailand. TI08380222
Page 376: TI08380223
9 009 6. Controlling the cigarette industry, a difficult task for the US, will be even more so for Thailand. 6.1 The United States administration want to reduce smoking in America, so does the Thai Government want to curb smoking in Thais. 6.2 ~he US has to deal with it's own cigarette industries. The Thai Government has to deal with the TTM. 6.3 The US administration has not been successful in controlling US cigarette companies. For each of the last 25 years, 50 million American were kept addicted to their products resulting in hundred thousands of deaths each year. The industry has no guilt feeling.whatsoever, the only thing they always refer to is that cigarettes are a legal product, anything else is not their business. The.industry insisted on their right to do business and the US government, unfortunately, has seen to agree with the industry and concentrating on providing resources for treating Americans who suffered from smoking related illness and research to get Americans to stop smoking 'an~.to educate the public to prevent people from taking up the habit. ~ There are 3 ma~or areas in smoking control. A. Legislation - control of smoking in public places - control and, ban of advertising - packages labelings with health warning B, Progressive increse in tobaccotaxes, C. Health education. The US administration may claim credit for having the' American peopl~ with sufficient health education on hazard of tobacco use, but has the government done enough in other two areas, and if nob, why? provided the the T108380223
Page 377: TI08380224
I0 continues the same America" 6.4 Not only has the US administration not done enough to control the cigarette industry at home, the industry has used their political clout to convince certain sectors of the US government to help them gain markets in other countries so that they have more "Playing field". The field where they are asking for the right to play, is in reality at the expense of increased human suffering and death. Is this consistent with the traditional American values?" 7. What price would the US government have to pay if it continue to promote cigarette exports. 7.1 It will seriously impair the US image overseas. 7.2 The US will relinguish its role as the world's moral leader which it has built for a century. 7.3 By generating wide spread resentment of it's cigarette export policy, it will indirectly damage the export of other good American products. This would potentially widen instead of reduce the United States trade imbalance. ~.4 It aay not be difficult for the US to win this dispute in GATT. The consequences of liberalizing world trade in cigarettes will however be far reaching. The United State will be blamed for it's role in prom~tinE smoking consumption world-wide and make it more difficult to achieve smoking control. 7.5 Can Americans face citizens of the world if the US to be'the world's largest cigarette exporter while zt time, at home, it is reaching towards a "smoke free 8. Role the US should take on cigarette trade. The US government should abandone it's current stand of promoting cigarette exports, specifically by using the threat of trade sanctions. It should seek no further action in the Thai case in GATT, and under Section 301. This will avoid the tragedy of America being named TI08380224
Page 378: TI08380225
11 011 the help regain a favourable US image worldwide. This should not result in any losts of jobs in the US industry including tobacco farmers. The powerful country which set the precedent for GATT. This move will policy cigarette addictive nature of nicotine, will continue to recruit many more smokers around the world, and with the existing US market, it will take decades for the total tobacco market of the US (both domestic and export) to decrease. This should provide plenty of t!~e for the US government and to6acco industry to adjust and find alternative work for tobacco farmers and cigarette manufacturers. References U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: The Health Consequences of Smoking.. Nicotine Addiction• A report of the Surgeon General I~88, Rockville, Maryland. Tobacco Merchant Association: US cigarette Export Market Penetration in Thailand. A Multimillion Dollar Opportunity for U.S. Leaf Producers. Princeton N.J. September 1988. Rekirt P. US cigarette group says Thailand will gain from imports. The Bangkok Post. September 20, 1989. The Royal Gazette Vol. 116, Section 25, Febuary 10, 1989. i TI08380225
Page 379: TI08380226
Table 1 0'1.2 [:ANADIAN I08ACCI) TAX RATES PER 200 CIBARETIES AS AI MARCtl 2), 1990 Provinces lobacco tax Sales lax Sales lax Iotal Rate Rates Iotal Provincial (Approx.) taxes Total ]obacco loxes~ Or~tlsh Columbia $12,40 - - $12.40 Alberta 11.20 - - 11.20 Snskatchewur= 15.~6 - ' - 1~.36 Man i tol)a 1).flO 7~ 2.~? 15.~9 oo OntncZo 7.66 8~ 2.34 10.00 Quebec 9.04 - - 9,04 New Brunswzck 1].PB 11~ ].98 17.~6 Nov~ 5cot~l! 9.00 10~ ].08 12.08 Prznce Edward ]sJar~d 1~.00 - - 14.00 Ne~roundl=md 10.56 12# ~.91 1~.~7 $24.29 2~.0~ 25.2~ 27.)8 21.~9 20.9~ 29,45 2~.09 Federal qover=~meot imposes an excise (hlLy oF $~.~0 a~d nr~ exci:;e lax of $4.27 per carton, In addttton~ there ks a 19~ federeJ sales Lax udded Lo t.he Iota[ of the .~=nuFacLucer's przce and exc~se duty. yteJdinq ~ total of nboul. $2.12 per carton, lhe combined federal Lax on 200 cigarettes ks therefore $11 .89.
Page 380: TI08380227
Appendix 1 (,tgareltes are ta×ed Iw the l:eder:d (;overnmeul, Iw all 50 stales a~d the District of Columbia, and by several hundred municipaliti~. State and local taxes range from 2 cents to 38 een~ a package. Federal, Simile alld local tx~es now make t~l~ less than 30 per- cent of the retail price of cigaretles, down from 50 Slate Cigarette Tax Per Pack, 1987 2¢ North Carolina 2.5¢ Virginia 3¢ Kentucky 7¢ Soulh Cbrotina 8¢ Wyoming 12¢ " Georgia 13¢ Maryland Missouri Tennessee 14¢ Delaware 15¢ Arizona New Mexico 15.5¢ Indiana l'obocco Inslilule 16¢ Alaska Louisiana Montana 16.5¢ Alabama 17¢ New Hampshire Dislricl of Columbia Vermon! Wesl Virginia 18¢ Idaho Mississippi Ohio Pennsylvania 20¢ Colorado Nevada Illinois 21¢ Arkansas Michigan New York 23¢ South Dakota Oklahoma Ulah 24¢ Kansas Florida 25¢ Rhode Island 26¢ onnecticul /Iowa i Masso~huselt~ Texas 27¢ Oregon New Jersey North Dokal~ Nebraska 2B¢ Maine 30¢ Wisconsin Hawaii 31¢ Washingto~ 35¢ California 38¢ Minnesota
Page 381: TI08380228
/ price of cigarettes doubled in.the ),ears 1979 and 1987, from 60 cents to 9.19. The ~crease came In the three years between 1981 'L when the Federal excise tax rose by eight tl the retail price rose overall by 25 cents. (In ~rs, cigarette consumption dropped from 640 600 billion.) Prices of Cigarette Packages, 1965-1987 (c~nls) 200 160 120 8O 4O 1965 1967 1969 State & F~deral Taxes 1971 1973 .1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 Weighted Average Price Tobacco Inslilule
Page 382: TI08380229
.'mlix CANADA'S PACKAGE. WARNING SYSTEM CANADA'S EXISTING WARNINGS: 20% of both major package face,~, no border required as in proposed warnings. The existing warnings may also be camouflaged in the package colours. N.B.: We believe that during the public commentary period of our regulatory review process, these warnings will be improved. Check with us or with the Canadian Government before assuming that these warnings are the law. Smoking is addictive CANADA°S PROPOSED NEW WARNINGS (JULY 1991) - 25% of bolh major package faces excluding the border. Half will be black type on white wilh a black border. The other half will be white type on black background with a while border.
Page 383: TI08380230
016 Newspaper Coverage of Thai- US Cigarette Import Dispute. TI08380230
Page 384: TI08380231
017 T108380231
Page 385: TI08380232
new deal on cigarettes "i- es .stand+ on cigarettes rids avai/abilit~ in 9laying down pubIic health issue over impo..rf, s (~ ~vt ~ary ~n cigarette imports' • - .~._., .............. an +;t-o,~ eemmP+reial centTeS. The Cu~- T108380232
Page 386: TI08380233
aci:o exporters see tall of Thai barr~e Health a ~a~~~gf -~i-~-ar-~ffi~-im pot t US asked to un let_..o...bacco issu_e , Cabi-~t continues ban on cigarette imp~ 324 BANGKOK MONDAY NO~EMBEI~ 20, 1989 IUS to iland for cigarettes decision State. Dept offers to aidiTiiailhnd fight cigarette I' , , , , " ' " ' .:_L~.__...:_ ............ ~ ..... ~L_ " by Anupong C=ha.~a_r.lt ~"trv ~..~.~a'='~'=='.'=" -"--''" ................................... ~ ~ t ' likely to react sooner anti-foreign clgarett ro
Page 387: TI08380234
B~ttle against tobacco" "smoking Sir. Our ~tt=e~¢s.~,is ~ • . .~. ~.. . . : Do~:t~.bS"W:~ to "~. !tobacco i lobby i US cigarette pressure the United St.nt..,~ mvl Ihif.nin Irnm the elTe~t~ of the d~emicM~ cuntnined in ~bacco smoke, than die of dru~s. Surely, the Bush administration ~uld seek ~ increase the nltruism ~d reduce the cynical commercialism TI08380234
Page 388: TI08380235
V2t ~USTR urged to stub :out.tQbacco a..ction . IDEM(~"P, AT Rapr~m~sta- t~,~ Ch~,~, ~dr,~ ~d by Pomplmol ~ak ~ Wa~n Tobacco E i US • battle _ t.o deb..ate bll.1 .hots up on cigarette curbs in US • . • ~r _S~_'ety. r~e ~ PIeaR ~oc~tion ~?~ ~ o~ep , ~ ~ ~,_ ~o ~ ..... u0n, ~ ~e it~ ~ ~.- m+ K~ ~a~a~ ~ ~r ~id + P ~n£ ~. ~i~nd would e~ attempt to export ~t,t.e i~ue w/th Com. merce Min/at~r Subin ] t__ • ogarettes deno nced Tlt'~o,-) otter+ r