BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
SB 1019 (Leno) - Upholstered furniture: flame retardant
chemicals.
Amended: April 21, 2014 Policy Vote: EQ 6-0, BP&ED 9-0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes (see staff
comments)
Hearing Date: May 12, 2014 Consultant: Marie Liu
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 1019 would require upholstered furniture to
include a label indicating whether the product has added flame
retardant chemicals. This bill would also direct the Bureau of
Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal
Insulation (bureau) to ensure compliance with labeling and
documentation and to assess fines for violations.
Fiscal Impact:
Ongoing costs, in the high hundreds of thousands to low
millions of dollars, from the Home Furnishing and Thermal
Insulation Fund (special) to the bureau for testing
associated with enforcing the labeling requirements of
upholstered furniture.
Background: The Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation Act
(act) requires mattresses, box springs, and all seating
furniture, manufactured for the sale in California to be fire
retardant. "Fire retardant" mattresses and boxsprings are
defined as a product that meets the standards for resistance to
an open-flame set in federal regulations (BPC �19161). The
bureau is authorized to adopt regulations to implement those
standards. These regulations are contained in Technical Bulletin
117 (TB-117). TB-117 was first adopted in 1975 and required that
a material be able to withstand a small open flame for at least
12 seconds. This standard was typically met by adding
halogenated organic flame retardants. In 2012, Governor Brown
directed the bureau to review the state's flammability standards
and recommend changes to reduce toxic flame retardants while
continuing to ensure fire safety. This review resulted in a
revision to the regulations in 2013 that allows upholstered
furniture to subject to a smolder standard instead of an
SB 1019 (Leno)
Page 1
open-flame standard, which does not require the use of flame
retardant chemicals in order to be in compliance.
Proposed Law: This bill would require manufactures of
upholstered furniture to label the product with a specified
statement regarding whether the product has flame retardant
chemicals or not. The manufacturer would be required to retain
documentation supporting whether flame retardant chemicals were
added.
This bill would charge the bureau with ensuring compliance with
the labeling and documentation requirements and to receive
customer complaints regarding the labeling requirement. The
bureau would be required to provide the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) with samples to test for the presence
of flame retardant chemicals. DTSC would be required to provide
results to the bureau. If DTSC's tests indicate the presence of
flame retardant chemicals despite the product being labeled as
having no chemicals, the bureau would be able to request
additional testing at the manufacturer's expense to verify the
product's label.
The bureau would be allowed to assess a fine for violation of
this bill's requirements. Fine levels would be based on
specified factors. This bill would establish maximum fines for
failing to maintain documentation and mislabeling a product.
Related Legislation: AB 127 (Skinner) Chapter 579, Statutes of
2013 requires the State Fire Marshal to review the flammability
standards for building insulation materials.
SB 147 (Leno, 2011) would have required the bureau to modify
TB-117 to include a smolder flammability test. (Measure failed
passage in the Senate BP&ED Committee)
SB 1291 (Leno, 2010) would have required DTSC to include flame
retardants under the current chemical of concern regulations for
Green Chemistry. (Measure died on the Senate Floor inactive
file)
SB 772 (Leno, 2009) would have exempted "juvenile products" from
the fire retardant requirements. (Measure failed passage in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee)
SB 1019 (Leno)
Page 2
SB 706 (Leno, 2008) would have prohibited the use of certain
chemicals in bedding products. (Measure failed passage on the
Senate Floor)
Staff Comments: The bureau indicates that it would incur minor
and absorbable costs to develop the regulations required to
implement this bill.
The bureau will incur costs associated with the enforcement of
the bill's requirements and associated regulations, particularly
the testing requirement. This bill does not specify the portion
of products that should be tested by the bureau or the frequency
of testing, although it would only test products that are
labeled as having no added flame retardant chemicals. However,
as a reference point, the bureau currently tests around 300
products annually for compliance with TB-117.
Testing costs would include the cost to transport the samples to
DTSC (which may be minor), equipment costs, and staff time to
conduct the tests. Each product would potentially require 6 to
12 samples (e.g. different components of a couch) with each
sample costing in the range of $1,500 to test (each sample may
be subject to more than one analysis). Assuming the bureau would
only consider testing products that are also being tested for
compliance with TB-117 and assuming that a third of the products
are labeled as having no added flame retardant chemicals (i.e.
100 products), testing costs could range between $900,000 and
$1.8 million. These costs could be higher if DTSC needs to buy
new or additional equipment or if the testing workload would
necessitate the hiring additional staff. Staff notes that these
testing costs are based on testing for chemicals that are known
to be added for flame retardancy (approximately 60 chemicals).
Should the list of chemicals that are considered flame
retardants grow, testing costs could increase. DTSC would
conduct the tests, but the bureau would reimburse DTSC for its
costs.
This bill would also require the bureau to receive complaints
from customers concerning compliance with this bill's labeling
requirements. The Bureau currently has a Complaint Resolution
Unit. It is unknown how this bill might increase the workload of
this unit, but staff assumes that the change in workload would
be minor and absorbable.
SB 1019 (Leno)
Page 3
This bill contains codified findings and declarations. In the
interest of code clarity and efficiency, staff recommends this
bill be amended to place the findings and declarations in an
uncodified section of the bill.
This bill is creates a state mandate as it creates a new crime.
However, this mandate is not reimbursable.