Hearing on the Fastener Quality Act Before the House Subcommittee on Technology

October 8, 1999

Chairwoman Morella and Ranking Member Barcia, let me thank you and the members of this Committee for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Fastener Quality Act and its implications for American manufacturers and consumer safety.

The Fastener Quality Act was signed into law in 1990. As you know, the central goal of this legislation was to prevent the introduction of defective and mislabeled fasteners into manufactured products, especially those fasteners considered critical to ensure public safety. The need for this legislation arose from complaints about the practices of certain, mostly foreign, fastener manufacturers and a few highly publicized accidents which were ascribed to fastener failures.

First, I think it is important for us to realize that dramatic changes have occurred over the last decade in the fastener manufacturing process. This fact is explicitly recognized by the National Institute of Standards and Technology in their Final Rule implementing the Fastener Quality Act published earlier this year. They conclude that their attempt to provide for new, statistical-based quality control systems in this rule was based upon strong evidence that such a quality assurance plan reduces the defect rate in the fastener manufacturing process. In NISTs own words, A lower defect rate means that fewer fasteners are manufactured that fail to comply with relevant standards and specifications, and thus that fewer defective fasteners will enter into commerce. In fact, these new process controls effectively reduce the defect rate from tens-of-thousands of parts-per-million, to approximately 100-parts-per-million.

Second, I think it is important to note that the increases in fastener quality and public safety has occurred in the absence of the implementation of the Fastener Quality Act. Although this Act was passed nearly a decade ago, no regulations for its implementation have gone into force. Over this period, fastener quality has dramatically increased. Furthermore, there is no evidence that public safety is at risk -- in fact all the evidence is to the contrary, public safety has actually been greatly advanced. If the original aim of the Act was to increase the quality of fasteners and ensure public safety, I think we can conclude that the Act has served its purpose -- without ever being implemented.

Third, as Raymond Kammer, the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, noted during your May 7th hearing, passage of the FQA may have been driven by anecdotal reports about fastener failures and not by analytical studies about the impact of defective fasteners upon public safety. It is my belief that the lack of clear evidence suggesting that fasteners pose a serious risk to public safety is one of the key problems that have plagued the Fastener Quality Act since its inception.

In truth, I think we are all aware that defective, mislabeled, and counterfeit fasteners find their way into American commerce and products. However, it is my belief that the extent to which this poses a danger to public safety is not well understood. This is particularly troublesome since the FQA imposes a significant regulatory burden in terms of both paperwork and compliance costs upon fastener manufacturers. In fact, I believe that implementation of this Act threatens the very survival of many small fastener manufacturers. In addition, the regulations promulgated to enforce the FQA actually threaten some of the advances made by the fastener industry over the last decade. Fastener manufacturers have informed me that their in-process statistical quality control systems -- precisely the manufacturing advances which have served to increase public safety -- are severely hampered, if not outrightly excluded, by these regulations. I do not believe we can increase the quality of fasteners and advance public safety by outlawing the very procedures which have led to the highest quality fasteners.

One of the key problems with the FQA is that it attempts to regulate technological advances in quality. In 1990, end-of-the-line lot sampling was considered the best way to assure that fasteners were of the highest quality. Nowadays, this is simply not the case. Statistical, in-process quality assurance plans have lowered defect rates and increased safety in ways not envisioned ten years ago. More importantly, if the FQA is allowed to go into effect next year, unchanged, what technological advances of the future will we be eliminating?

I believe Congress took a significant step forward earlier this year in passing H.R. 3824, a bill which:

• Eliminated the unnecessary regulatory burden placed upon fasteners produced to the standards and specifications of aviation manufacturers which are already regulated by the FAA;
• Delayed implementation of the Final Rule for the Fastener Quality Act;
• and Requires the Secretary of Commerce to issue a report to Congress on the need for changes in the FQA.

In his report, the Secretary is required to discuss the improvements which have been made in the manufacturing process, as well as, identify any duplication that may exist between the FQA and other regulatory programs.

I look forward to receiving this report with great interest. It is my belief that significant changes need to be made in regards to the FQA to account for both changes in manufacturing processes that have occurred and for those that will occur in the future. It is also my belief that many of the concerns raised originally, especially about counterfeit foreign-made fasteners, are the subject of laws already on the books. Finally, I believe that Congress must re-examine which fasteners need to be covered by the Act. The original intent of the Act envisioned regulation that would apply to only about 1% of fasteners. However, it is clear that the Final Rule envisions more than half of all fasteners being covered by the Act. This expansion of the percentage of fasteners covered by the Act, and whether this is necessary and appropriate, needs to be examined further by members of this Committee.

Once again, let me thank the Committee for this opportunity to express my views about the Fastener Quality Act. Although I will not be able to remain and answer questions from members of the Committee, I look forward to working with you in the future to enact changes to this Act identified by this Committee or the Secretary of Commerce. Thank you.