BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 763 Hearing Date: April 13,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Leno |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 6, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Mark Mendoza |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Juvenile products: flame retardant chemicals.
SUMMARY: Requires a juvenile product manufacturer to indicate whether or
not a product contains added flame retardant chemicals, by
including a specified statement; requires a manufacturer to
retain documentation, as specified, of whether or not flame
retardant chemicals were added to the product, and provide that
documentation to the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair,
Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation upon request; and
authorizes the Bureau to assess fines for violations of the
above provisions, as specified.
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation Act
(Act), administered by the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance
Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (Bureau)
within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). The Bureau
is under the supervision and control of a Chief appointed by
the Governor, and the Chief is under the supervision and
control of the Director of DCA.
2) Provides for the licensing and inspection of businesses that
manufacture and sell upholstered furniture, bedding and
thermal insulation, and requires all mattresses and box
springs manufactured for sale in this state to be fire
retardant, as defined to meet the federal standards for
resistance to open-flame test, and authorizes the Bureau to
SB 763 (Leno) Page 2
of ?
adopt regulations to implement those standards. (Business
and Professions Code (BPC) § 19161)
3) Requires other bedding products to comply with regulations
adopted by the Bureau specifying that those products be
resistant to open-flame ignition; requires all seating
furniture to be fire retardant and labeled as specified.
(BPC § 19161)
4) Requires all flexible polyurethane foam, except as specified,
that is offered for retail sale to be fire retardant, and
defines "fire retardant" to mean a product that meets the
regulations adopted by the Bureau. (BPC § 19161.3)
5) Authorizes the Chief, subject to the approval of the Director
of DCA, to exempt items of upholstered furniture which are
deemed not to pose a serious fire hazard from the fire
retardant requirements. (BPC § 19161.5)
6) Bureau regulations, beginning January 1, 2015, require all
filling materials and cover fabrics contained in upholstered
furniture sold in California to meet certain smolder
resistant testing standards, and to be labeled as specified.
Specifically, the Bureau regulations require filling
materials and cover fabrics contained in any article of
upholstered furniture and added to reupholstered furniture to
be tested and meet the requirements of Technical Bulletin
(TB) 117-2013. (Article 13, Division 3, Title 4, California
Code of Regulations (CCR) § 1374)
7) Bureau regulations exempt eighteen juvenile products from
meeting the flammability requirements of Technical Bulletin
(TB) 117-2013. (Article 13, Division 3, Title 4, CCR §
1374.2)
This bill:
1) Requires a manufacturer of juvenile products to indicate
whether or not a product contains added flame retardant
chemicals, by including a specified statement.
2) Outlines the list of juvenile products requiring a flame
retardant chemical statement.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 3
of ?
3) Requires a manufacturer of juvenile products sold in
California to retain documentation to show whether flame
retardant chemicals were added. Provides that a written
affidavit by the supplier of each component of a juvenile
product attesting that flame retardant chemicals were added
or not added shall be sufficient documentation.
4) Requires, within 30 days of a request by the Bureau, a
manufacturer of a product sold in California to provide the
Bureau with the documentation establishing the accuracy of
the flame retardant chemical statement on the label.
5) Requires the Bureau to provide the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) with samples of the product
or components of the product sold in California from products
marked "contains NO added flame retardant chemicals" for
testing for the presence of added flame retardant chemicals.
Requires DTSC to provide the results of all testing to the
Bureau.
6) Authorizes the Bureau to issue citations and assess fines for
violations of the above provisions, as specified.
7) Provides that a manufacturer of juvenile products and
component suppliers shall be jointly and severally liable for
violations of these provisions, as specified.
8) Specifies that it shall be the duty of the Bureau to receive
complaints from consumers regarding juvenile products sold in
California.
9) Authorizes the Bureau to adopt regulations to carry out the
provisions of the bill.
10)Codifies the current fire retardant regulatory exemption
applicable to certain juvenile products.
FISCAL
EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been keyed "fiscal" by
Legislative Counsel.
COMMENTS:
SB 763 (Leno) Page 4
of ?
1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by California Professional
Firefighters , Center for Environmental Health , and Consumer
Federation of California . According to the Author, "SB 763
requires manufacturers of certain products for infants and
children to disclose on a label whether these chemicals have
been added. Due to the low fire risk of many children's
products and health concerns associated with flame retardant
chemicals, manufacturers have the ability to design these
items without added chemicals. However, without SB 763,
consumers have no way of knowing which ones are free of flame
retardant chemicals. This bill empowers parents and other
consumers to make educated decisions at the point of purchase
and gives businesses a uniform way to communicate important
information about their products." The Author further adds,
"The Bureau has found that the children's products included
in SB 763 do not pose a serious fire hazard. In addition, a
growing body of evidence suggests that the flame retardant
chemicals found in these products harm both the environment
and human health. They are associated with a variety of
health concerns, including cancer, decreased fertility,
hormone disruption, lower IQ and hyperactivity. The
cancer-causing smoke created by the chemicals also puts
firefighters at increased risk."
2. Technical Bulletin 117. In 1975, California adopted
Technical Bulletin 117
(TB 117), which required that each component material (such as
polyurethane foam) used to fill furniture be able to
withstand a small open flame, equivalent to a candle, for at
least 12 seconds.
The Bureau was responsible for publishing and enforcing TB
117. This performance-based standard did not prescribe the
use of flame-retardant chemicals, manufacturing methods, or
specific materials to meet the standards. However, according
to the Green Science Policy Institute, furniture
manufacturers typically met TB 117 with additive halogenated
organic flame retardants. California is the only state to
have established such a standard, and since California
provides such a large portion of the national market, many
manufacturers chose to meet the requirements of TB 117 in
products that they distribute across the United States.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 5
of ?
The Bureau requires manufacturers to make upholstered
furniture and bedding products sold in California
flame-retardant. The Bureau encouraged the industry to use
innovative solutions and products to achieve flame resistance
without compromising the environment. Manufacturers are
required to strictly adhere to state and federal laws
governing the manufacture and sale of upholstered furniture
and bedding products.
Significant concerns were raised in recent years with the TB
117 standard and the environmental and health impacts of the
chemicals that are used by manufacturers to meet the
standard.
3. New Technical Bulletin 117-2013 Regarding the Flammability
Standard.
In 2012, Governor Brown directed the Bureau to revise
flammability standards for upholstered furniture sold in the
state. The Governor asked the Bureau to review the state's
four-decade-old flammability standards outlined in TB 117 and
recommend changes to reduce the use of toxic flame retardants
while continuing to ensure fire safety. At the time, the
Governor stated that "toxic flame retardants are found in
everything from high chairs to couches and a growing body of
evidence suggests that these chemicals harm human health and
the environment. We must find better ways to meet fire
safety standards by reducing and eliminating wherever
possible dangerous chemicals."
In recognition of TB 117's perceived inadequacy in addressing
the flammability performance of upholstery cover fabric and
its interactions with underlying filling materials, as well
as in response to health concerns raised about the use of
these chemicals, the Bureau published TB 117-2013 which
establishes a smolder standard that does not require the use
of flame retardant chemicals for a manufacturer to be in
compliance with the standard. Now, rather than performing an
open flame method of testing a product, under TB 117-2013, a
smoldering test is utilized. These test methods consist of
four tests used to evaluate the cigarette ignition resistance
of upholstery cover fabrics, barrier (interliner) materials,
resilient filling materials, and decking materials (used for
support under loose seat cushions) used in the manufacture of
upholstered furniture.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 6
of ?
TB 117-2013, which became effective on January 1, 2014,
supersedes the original TB 117 and the new TB 117-2013
standard applies to upholstered furniture sold in California.
Bedding products such as mattresses, comforters, mattress
pads, bed pillows as well as decorative pillows are not
subject to TB 117-2013. These products, however, carry a
label as required by law. According to the Bureau, the TB
117-2013 standard incorporates smoldering tests for several
components of upholstered furniture. However, none of the
components are tested by themselves as was previously the
case under TB 117. TB 117-2013 serves as a "semi-composite"
test in which components are combined with standard test
materials to construct a test specimen.
Manufacturers were provided one year to complete the
transition to be in compliance with TB 117-2013 and were
required to come into full compliance by January 1, 2015.
While it is ultimately the responsibility of the furniture
manufacturers to ensure products meet TB 117-2013 as well as
labeling requirements, wholesalers, importers, and retailers
are also required to ensure products that they sell in
California meet all applicable requirements. Retailers in
California may continue to sell furniture that meets the old
standard until their stock is depleted, but as of January 1,
2015, California retailers must purchase products that meet
the new TB 117-2013 standard. California Business and
Professions Code Section 19072 states: "Responsibility for
compliance with this chapter rests not only with the
manufacturer but also with the importer, wholesaler,
retailer, or any person having in his or her possession with
the intent to sell."
4. Juvenile Products. This bill seeks to build off of the
revised technical bulletin
(TB 117- 2013) by providing greater transparency about the
chemical content of juvenile products. Historically, to
evaluate the potential for a serious fire hazard of juvenile
products, the Bureau examined the fuel load content of a
large number of juvenile products and determined that most
strollers, infant carriers, and nursing pillows available in
the market contain a much lesser amount of resilient filling
materials (e.g. foam, batting) than average adult seating
SB 763 (Leno) Page 7
of ?
furniture. Moreover, it was found that most of these items
contain little or no polyurethane foams which are often the
most flammable component of upholstered seating furniture.
The Bureau determined that in many instances nearly all
inside filling materials contained in these products are
comprised of synthetic batting that met the TB 117 standard
without the need for any fire retardant treatments. These
juvenile products, therefore, were determined by the Bureau
to not cause or sustain a large fire if ignited with a small
open flame, comparable to the size of a match or charcoal
lighter flame. In addition, these products were determined
less likely to be ignited (come in contact with an open
flame) under the exercise of great care and supervision of
adults. The Bureau concluded in 2010 that three proposed
items, strollers, nursing pillows, and infant carriers will
not pose a serious fire hazard to infants and children if
they were exempt from TB 117 flammability requirements.
However, new regulations which became effective on January 1,
2014 added more juvenile products to the exempt list as they
meet the flammability standards set forth in TB 117-2013.
Now, a total of eighteen juvenile products are exempt from
having to undergo testing to determine if they meet the
standards: bassinets, booster seats, car seats, changing
pads, floor play mats, highchair pads, highchairs, infant
bouncers, infant carriers, infant seats, infant swings,
Infant walkers, nursing pads, nursing pillows, play yards,
playpen side pads, portable hook-on chairs and strollers.
The products now exempt from the TB 117-2013 flammability
standard are no longer required to carry a disclosure label
indicating that they are not in compliance with TB 117-2013.
In addition to the eighteen juvenile products, this bill also
seeks to add a disclosure statement on three other products:
a baby carrier worn by an adult, children's nap mat, and
infant foam crib mattress. The Author wishes to add these
additional juvenile products to the list, since they fall
under the umbrella of juvenile products. Also, under the
Bureau's criteria, these are similar to the existing exempt
products and are not subject to the flammability standards.
5. Lawsuit by Chemical Industry Regarding the Revision of TB
117. In January 2014, Chemtura Corporation (Chemtura) sent a
letter to Governor Brown regarding the new regulation
SB 763 (Leno) Page 8
of ?
revising TB 117. Chemtura contended the revised standard
will harm consumers by relaxing the open-flame resistance
requirement and requiring that the furniture only survive a
cigarette-like smolder. Chemtura also filed a lawsuit
(Chemtura Corporation vs. Denise D. Brown) filed January 16,
2014, in Sacramento Superior Court, seeking a Writ of Mandate
to overturn the revised rules. Chemtura contended the
lawsuit is necessary to seek judicial review of the authority
of the Bureau to eliminate the essential requirements of the
fire safety standard. Ultimately, the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento, denied Chemtura's petition
for writ of mandate, declaratory and injunctive relief. The
company did not appeal the superior court's decision.
6. Flame-Retardant Chemicals & Public Health Hazards.
Manufacturers of consumer products commonly add flame
retardant chemicals to plastics and other flammable materials
to reduce the risk of fire. These chemicals are released
into the environment during manufacture, use, and disposal of
products. The following are the types of flame retardants
that were used (banned) or are currently used:
a) PCBs . The earliest flame retardants, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) were banned in the United States in 1977
when it was determined that they are toxic. With the ban,
industries shifted to using brominated flame retardants.
b) PBDEs . The most studied of the brominated flame
retardants are the polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs),
which were first introduced into the market over thirty
years ago. PBDEs are closely related in structure and
behavior to PCBs.
PCBs are known to have neurotoxic and carcinogenic effects
and were banned by Congress in 1977. Because of similarity
of the chemical's molecular structures, concerns were
raised about potential biological hazards of PBDEs.
Studies in laboratory animals and humans have linked PBDEs to
thyroid disruption, memory and learning problems, delayed
mental and physical development, lower IQ, advanced
puberty, and reduced fertility.
A 2009 in vivo animal study conducted by the United States
SB 763 (Leno) Page 9
of ?
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) noted that PBDEs
are particularly toxic to the developing brains of animals.
Peer-reviewed studies have shown that even a single dose
administered to mice during development of the brain can
cause permanent changes in behavior, including
hyperactivity.
A 1998 study in Sweden found the first evidence of potential
for breast milk contamination from PBDEs. In the Swedish
study, archived samples collected between 1972 and 1997
were analyzed for the presence of PBDEs to get an overall
summed total of PBDEs in milk. The data from Sweden show a
drastic increase in the quantity of PBDEs detected in
women's breast milk from 1972 to 1997, with concentrations
doubling every five years.
Sweden's voluntary phase-out of PBDEs by companies and
branches of the government began as early as 1990, and the
Swedish government strongly encouraged the European Union
to ban PBDEs outright.
Since Sweden's voluntary PBDE controls were established, a
number of changes have been noted. Total PBDE levels in
Swedish women's breast milk fell about 30% between 1997 and
2000. The European Union has banned several types of PBDEs
as of 2008; 10 years after the Swedish discovered that they
were accumulating in breast milk.
Sweden is the only nation with a comprehensive breast milk
monitoring program, so it has been difficult to track PBDE
concentration trends elsewhere. However, in regions where
bans and restrictions have not been established, available
studies are showing that PBDE concentrations in breast milk
have risen far past Sweden's 1997 peak.
The highest recorded PBDE levels in humans have been in the
United States. A 2002 study of PBDEs in San Francisco Bay
Area women's breast fat reported an average of 21.5 times
higher than Sweden's 1997 peak. Studies of PBDEs in
maternal blood and milk in Texas and Indiana from 2001 and
2002 reported levels similar to those found in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
In 2003, concerned about the hazards posed by two types of
SB 763 (Leno) Page 10
of ?
PBDEs, especially to breast-fed infants, California enacted
a ban on these chemicals ( AB 302 (Chan) Chapter 205,
Statutes of 2003).
c) Chlorinated Tris . Chlorinated Tris (TDCPP) has been in
use since the 1960s. TDCPP was banned from use in
children's pajamas in 1977, when it was found to be
mutagenic, but remains in use as a foam additive in
furniture, car seats, and other products. Its use has
increased in the United States following the 2006 ban on
the common flame retardant PentaPBDE.
According to studies conducted in rats, TDCPP is associated
with increased tumor rates in kidneys and testes, some of
which were cancerous. Evidence further suggests that there
may be an impact on fertility by influencing hormone levels
and semen quality in men. A recently published study found
that TDCPP was a neurotoxin to brain cells. In an
assessment conducted by the Consumer Product and Safety
Commission (CPSC), TDCPP was found to pose a threat to
human health. Under Proposition 65, the State of
California has listed TDCPP as a chemical known to cause
cancer.
On March 13, 2014, DTSC named TDCPP in children's foam padded
sleep products as a priority product to be evaluated in the
Safer Consumer Products Program for potential regulatory
action.
Other sources indicate that because of molecular similarity,
other flame retardants are similarly linked to cancer and
other above-listed adverse health effects. It has also
been noted that many flame retardants may degrade into
compounds that are also toxic. This could arguably make
the chemical a danger even after its useful life as a flame
retardant is over.
7. Exposure to Flame Retardant Chemicals. According to the
academic journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, nearly
all Americans tested have high levels of flame retardants in
their body. People can be exposed to flame retardants
through several routes, including diet, inhalation of dust
from consumer products in the home, vehicle, or workplace, or
environmental contamination near their home or workplace.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 11
of ?
Infants and toddlers are particularly exposed to flame
retardants found in breast milk and dust. Because many
halogenated flame retardants are fat-soluble, they accumulate
in fatty areas such as breast tissue and are mobilized into
breast milk, delivering high levels of flame retardants to
breast-feeding infants.
As consumer products age, small particles of material become
dust particles in the air and land on surfaces around the
home, including the floor. Young children crawling and
playing on the floor frequently bring their hands to their
mouths, ingesting about twice as much house dust as adults
per day in the United States. Young children in the United
States tend to carry higher levels of flame retardants per
unit body weight than do adults.
Some occupations expose workers to higher levels of halogenated
flame retardants and their degradation products. Studies of
foam recyclers and carpet installers, who handle padding made
from recycled polyurethane foam, often have shown elevated
levels of flame retardants in their tissues. Workers in
electronics recycling plants were also found to have elevated
body levels of flame retardants relative to the general
population.
U.S. firefighters also show elevated levels of PBDEs and high
levels of brominated furans, toxic degradation products of
brominated flame retardants.
8. Chicago Tribune Articles "Playing with Fire". In May 2012,
the Chicago Tribune (Tribune) published a series of articles
titled "Playing With Fire," which focused on the use of flame
retardant chemicals in the United States, and considered the
scientific evidence of the safety of flame retardant
chemicals and their effectiveness in reducing damage from
fire.
The series noted that furniture first became treated with flame
retardants because of the tobacco industry, according to
internal cigarette company documents examined by the Tribune.
A generation ago, tobacco companies were facing growing
pressure to produce fire-safe cigarettes, because so many
house fires started with smoldering cigarettes. The tobacco
industry worked with the chemical industry to advocate for
SB 763 (Leno) Page 12
of ?
policies that would require furniture to contain flame
retardants rather than require fire-safe cigarettes.
The documents examined by the Tribune show that cigarette
lobbyists secretly organized the National Association of
State Fire Marshals and then guided its agenda so that it
pushed for flame retardants in furniture.
The Tribune also found that the chemical industry established an
advocacy group called Citizens for Fire Safety. The Citizens
for Fire Safety described itself as "a coalition of fire
professionals, educators, community activists, burn centers,
doctors, fire departments and industry leaders." The Tribune
states, "the group's efforts to influence fire-safety
policies is guided by a mission to 'promote common business
interests of members involved with the chemical manufacturing
industry,' tax records show." According to documents
obtained from the California Secretary of State, the
organization was a trade association with only three members:
Albemarle Corporation, ICL Industrial Products, and Chemtura
Corporation. The Tribune article states, "Those three
companies are the largest manufacturers of flame retardants
and together control 40% of the world market for these
chemicals, according to The Freedonia Group, a
Cleveland-based research firm."
The Tribune reporters write: "These powerful industries
distorted science in ways that overstated the benefits of the
chemicals, created a phony consumer watchdog group that
stoked the public's fear of fire and helped organize and
steer an association of top fire officials that spent more
than a decade campaigning for their [the tobacco and chemical
industries] cause."
According to the Tribune articles, Citizens for Fire Safety
paid a prominent Seattle physician, Dr. David Heimbach, the
former president of the American Burn Association, to testify
before California state lawmakers in a hearing of this
Committee against SB 147 (Leno, 2011). SB 147 would have
required the Bureau to modify TB 117 regarding product
standards for fire retardant furniture to provide an
alternative method of compliance that can be met without the
use of chemical fire retardants and that would not compromise
fire safety.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 13
of ?
Dr. Heimbach testified that he treated a 7-week-old girl who
was burned in a fire started by a candle that ignited a
pillow that did not have flame retardant chemicals. The
Tribune's investigation found that Dr. Heimbach made-up his
testimony before the Committee. Their investigation found
that there was no 7-week-old burn victim and no candle fire
or patient that he treated as a result of fire where flame
retardants could have prevented injury. After the Chicago
Tribune investigation, Heimbach told the Tribune his
testimony in California was "an anecdotal story rather than
anything which I would say was absolutely true under oath,
because I wasn't under oath."
In March, 2014, the State of Washington's Department of
Health Medical Quality Assurance Commission issued
disciplinary charges against Dr. Heimbach. The Statement of
Charges states, that from 2009 through 2012, Heimbach
testified at legislative hearings in Washington, California
and Alaska. The medical licensing authorities allege that
Heimbach fabricated testimony and failed to disclose his ties
to the chemical industry and falsely presented himself as an
unbiased burn expert when he was in fact collecting $240,000
from flame retardant manufacturers. The charges state that
"Most of [Heimbach's] testimony, which he presented as
documented facts, was fabricated. [His] misrepresentations
to legislators, to burn experts and to other doctors is
conduct which harms the reputation of the profession . . .
[T]his conduct demonstrates an unfitness to bear the
responsibilities, or enjoy the privileges, of the
profession." He faces numerous charges, including
unprofessional conduct and violating patient privacy.
After the Tribune's expose of the coalition, the group
eventually shuttered and elected to conduct all advocacy and
communications efforts through the American Chemistry
Council's (ACC) North American Flame Retardant Alliance.
This series of articles raises serious questions as to
whether false information and testimony provided to
California's Legislature influenced the failure of prior
legislation.
9. Prior Legislation. SB 1019 (Leno, Chapter 862, Statutes of
SB 763 (Leno) Page 14
of ?
2014) required an upholstered furniture manufacturer to
indicate on the product label whether or not a product
contains added flame retardant chemicals, by including a
specified statement; required manufacturer to retain
documentation, as specified, of whether or not flame
retardant chemicals were added to the product, and provide
that documentation to the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance
Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation upon request;
and authorized the Bureau to assess fines for violations of
the above provisions, as specified.
AB 127 (Skinner, Chapter 579, Statutes of 2013) required the
State Fire Marshal, in consultation with the Bureau, to
review the flammability standards for building insulation
materials, including whether the flammability standards for
some insulation materials can only be met with the addition
of chemical flame retardants and requires, if deemed
appropriate by the State Fire Marshal based on this review,
the State Fire Marshal to, by July 1, 2015, propose, for
consideration by the Building Standards Commission, updated
insulation flammability standards.
SB 147 (Leno, 2011) would have required the Bureau, on or
before March 1, 2013, to modify TB 117 regarding product
standards for fire retardant furniture to include a smolder
flammability test to provide an alternative method of
compliance that can be met without the use of chemical fire
retardants and does not compromise fire safety; required the
Bureau, in developing the smolder flammability test, to
consider the draft smolder standard proposed by the federal
Consumer Product Safety Commission, to take into
consideration the cost to manufacturers and consumers, and
amend existing label specifications to identify any products
meeting that adopted standard. The bill further authorized
the Bureau Chief to additionally exempt polyurethane foam
from the fire retardant requirements, as specified.
Note : the provisions of this bill have been largely
implemented through the revision of TB 117 in TB 117-2013.
( Status : SB 147 failed passage in Senate BP&ED Committee.)
SB 1291 (Leno, 2010) would have required the DTSC to include,
as a chemical under consideration, any chemical that is used,
or is proposed to be used, as a flame retardant, in
accordance with the review process (Green Chemistry Process)
SB 763 (Leno) Page 15
of ?
under the current chemical of concern regulations. ( Status :
SB 1291 was placed on the inactive file on the Senate Floor
and died on file.)
SB 772 (Leno, 2009) would have exempted "juvenile products,"
as defined, from the fire retardant requirements pursuant to
federal law and the regulations of the Bureau, except that
the Bureau could have, by regulation modified this exemption
if the Bureau determined that any juvenile products posed a
serious fire hazard. The provisions of SB 772 have been
largely implemented through regulation by the Bureau
effective December 29, 2010. ( Status : SB 772 was held under
submission in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.)
AB 706 (Leno, 2008), commencing July 1, 2010, would have
required bedding products to comply with certain
requirements, including that they not contain a chemical or
component not in compliance with alternatives assessment
requirements as specified, and required the DTSC to develop
and adopt methodology for the coordination and conduct of an
alternative assessment to review the classes of chemicals
used to meet the fire retardant standards set by the Bureau
and to meet other requirements as specified. ( Status : AB
706 failed passage on the Senate Floor.)
AB 302 (Chan, Chapter 205, Statutes of 2003) banned the use
of penta and octa PBDEs after January 1, 2008.
10.Arguments in Support. The California Professional
Firefighters Association (Sponsor) states, "SB 763 provides
consumers a pathway to exercise a choice in purchasing safer
juvenile products, which, in turn, creates a direct and
positive impact on the reduction of toxic exposures to
firefighters."
The Consumer Federation of California (Sponsor) writes, "SB
763 will ensure that the public is able to make informed
choices, as consumers currently have no way of knowing ether
a child's product contains fire retardant chemicals."
The Center for Environmental Health (Sponsor) underscores
that "juvenile products are routinely handed down to family
and friends as well as donated to thrift stores, so the
ability of these second-hand users to identify products that
SB 763 (Leno) Page 16
of ?
do or do not contain family retardant chemicals is essential.
It will also provide businesses a standard format to
communicate the information to families."
A number of supporters, including California League of
Conservation Voters , Earthjustice , and San Francisco Bay Area
Physicians for Social Responsibility underscore that "flame
retardant chemicals migrate out of products into the air and
into household dust. Young children, who often crawl on the
floor and put their hands in their mouths, have some of the
highest levels of flame retardants in their blood. These
chemicals are associated with a variety of health concerns,
including cancer, decreased fertility, hormone disruption,
lower IQ, and hyperactivity. Families have a right to know if
the products they purchase for young children contain flame
retardant chemicals."
11.Arguments in Opposition. A joint letter of opposition by the
American Chemistry Council , California Manufacturers and
Technology Association , California Citizens Against Lawsuit
Abuse , Juvenile Products Manufactures Association , and
National Federation of Independent Business argues that
"these new requirements lack scientific justification,
conflict with existing California consumer product and
chemical safety laws and regulations, and as proposed, would
mislead consumers about the safety of products that contain
flame retardant chemicals."
12.Policy Issue: Should an additional label be added on to the
specified juvenile products to clearly display a
flame-retardant chemical statement? Through the
implementation of SB 1019, upholstered furniture
manufacturers are required to have a flame retardant chemical
statement follow the flammability standard verbiage on the
flammability label. However, unlike upholstered furniture,
juvenile products do not have a flammability label. Thus,
with the lack of flammability label for juvenile products,
the placement and visibility of the flame retardant chemical
statement is unclear. Since the Bureau is not in favor of
adding this statement to the current law label, the Author
may wish to create a separate label that displays the flame
retardant chemical statement.
NOTE : Double-referral to Senate Committee on Environmental Quality.
SB 763 (Leno) Page 17
of ?
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
California League of Conservation Voters
California Professional Firefighters (Sponsor)
Californians for a Healthy and Green Economy
CALPIRG
Center for Environmental Health (Sponsor)
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Federation of California (Sponsor)
Dignity Health
Earthjustice
Environment California
Environmental Working Group
Friends of the Earth
Health Care Without Harm
International Association of Fire Fighters
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Pesticide Action Network North America
San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility (SF
Bay Area PSR)
The Alliance for Toxic Free Fire Safety (ATFFS)
The Breast Cancer Fund
Trauma Foundation
Opposition:
American Chemistry Council
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Juvenile Products Manufactures Association
National Federation of Independent Business
-- END --