Hearing Date: July 9, 2007

Bill No: AB 706

SENATE COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas, Chair
Bill No: AB 706
Author: Leno
As Amended: June 25, 2007
Fiscal: Yes
SUBJECT:

Fire retardants: toxic effects.

SUMMARY: Commencing January 1, 2010, bans the use of brominated fire
retardants (BFRs) and chlorinated fire retardants (CFRs) in all seating furniture,
mattresses, box springs, mattress sets, futons, other bedding products, and
reupholstered furniture to which filling materials are added.
NOTE: This measure is before the Committee for a “vote-only.” Testimony was
presented on this bill before the Committee on July 2, 2007.
Existing law:
1) Provides for the Bureau of Home Furnishings and Insulation (Bureau) within
the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), under the supervision and control of
a Chief who is appointed by the Governor. The Chief is under the supervision
and control of the Director of DCA.
2) Provides that the Bureau administers the Home Furnishings and Thermal
Insulation Act (HFTI Act) that provides for the licensing and inspection of
businesses that manufacture and sell upholstered furniture, bedding and thermal
insulation.
3) Provides that the Bureau also enforces other regulations required by the HFTI
Act, such as health and safety standards, product labeling requirements, and
truth in advertising laws.
4) Requires, pursuant to the HFTI Act, mattresses, and box springs
manufactured for sale in this state to be fire retardant and also requires all
seating furniture sold or offered for sale in this state to be flame retardant.
5) Requires the Bureau to adopt regulations requiring that fire retardant
mattresses and box springs and other bedding products meet a specified
resistance to an open flame test.

 AB 706
Page 2
6) Defines a "fire retardant" product as a product that meets the regulations
adopted by the Bureau and does not include furniture used exclusively for the
purpose of physical fitness and exercise.
7) Prohibits a person from manufacturing, processing, or distributing in
commerce a product, or a flame-retarded part of a product, containing more than
0.1% pentaBDE (penta brominated diphenyl ether) or octaBDE (octa brominated
diphenyl ether) – both are flame retardant chemicals.
This bill:
Enacts the California Furniture Safety and Fire Prevention Act (CFSFP Act).
Specifically the bill:
1) Requires all mattresses and mattress sets manufactured for sale in California
shall be fire retardant.
2) Defines “fire retardant” to mean that a product meets the standards for
resistance to open flame test adopted by the United States consumer Product
Safety Commission set forth in a specified provision of federal law.
3) Bans by January 1, 2010, BFRs and CFRs from, including but not limited to,
commercial, residential and institutional furniture, mattresses, box springs,
futons, and bedding products including, but not limited to, pillows, comforters,
and other filled blanket products, and reupholstered furniture to which filling
materials are added, that are sold or offered for sale in California.
4) Defines “bromated fire retardant” and“ chlorinated fire retardant,” but excludes
from those definitions fiber used in seating, furniture, mattresses or other bedding
products that are inherently fire or flame resistant, and further defines “inherently
fire or flame resistant fiber.”
5) Requires a label, specifying any chemical(s) added to achieve fire or flame
retardancy, to be permanently attached to the items listed in Item # 3) above, and
that the label shall be in a form specified by the Bureau, and shall include the
statement “DOES NOT CONTAIN BROMINATED OR CHLORINATED FIRE
RETARDANTS.”
6) Requires the Bureau, by March 1, 2010, to modify Technical Bulletins 116
and 117 by using product standards for furniture that achieve fire retardancy
properties comparable to existing standards, sufficient to protect human health
and safety, but without BFRs or CFRs and without significant increases in costs
to the consumer.
7) Provides that the Bureau, in consultation with the California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, may adopt regulations prohibiting the
use of a chemical in products under its jurisdiction if the chemical may pose a
threat to human or animal health.

 AB 706
Page 3

8) Makes several legislative findings and declarations regarding the negative
impacts on environmental and human health by BFRs and CFRs.
9) Requires the Bureau to enforce these provisions.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations
analysis, dated May 23, 2007, there would be:
1) Minor one-time costs, in the range of $130,000 primarily in 2008-09, to the Bureau’s
special fund to update technical bulletins related to fire retardant properties for furniture.
2) Moderate cost pressures to the Bureau’s special fund, in the range of $250,000 in a
future fiscal year, to the extent the Bureau exercises its authority to develop regulations
that prohibit, in products under its jurisdiction, the use of chemicals for which the safety
to human or animal health cannot be clearly established.
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose. According to the Author, this bill "will reduce the threat from fires and
health impacts caused by toxic chemical fire retardants." The Author maintains that
BFRs and CFRs cause many health problems, particularly in children, and that
California can achieve a similar level of fire retardancy without using these
chemicals. In addition, the Author asserts that there are viable, "green chemistry"
alternatives to BFRs and CFRs such as phosphates, boric acid, silicon, or fire
resistant materials. The Author also notes that when BFRs and CFRs do burn, they
emit a dark smoke that can reduce the visibility of firefighters and can be converted
into dioxin and furans, thereby exposing firefighters to extremely toxic and cancercausing chemicals. Finally, the Author contends that though California is the only
state with a furniture flammability standard, a comparison of fire deaths in the other
most populous states done by the National Fire Prevention Association "showed
California was statistically equal to states without the tough furniture standard."
2. Description of BFRs & CFRs. Manufacturers of consumer products commonly
add flame-retardant chemicals to plastics and other flammable materials to reduce
the risk of fire. BFRs are chemicals that reduce the spread of fire in a variety of
common products such as electronic casings, polyurethane foam, and commercial
textiles. 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. These chemicals escape into the environment during
manufacture, use, and disposal of products containing this flame retardant. CFRs
are mainly used in plastics. Chlorine is used for the production of polyvinyl chloride
(PVC). PVC is used in many applications including construction and furnishings.
The chlorine in the PVC makes the material flame retardant. Like BFRs, CFRs
accumulate in the environment.
PBDEs, a type of BFR, are closely related in structure and behavior of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs are known to have neurotoxic and
carcinogenic action and were banned by Congress in 1976. Such similarity of the

 AB 706
Page 4
chemicals' molecular structures raises concern about potential biological hazards.
According to the Author, BFRs and CFRs may cause reproductive, developmental,
neurological or other health problems, including cancer, birth defects, learning
disorders, and mental retardation.
3. Arguments in Support. This bill is sponsored by the Friends of the Earth and
MOMS (Making our Milk Safe). The Friends of the Earth state that the bill will ban
two classes of toxic chemicals from seating furniture, mattresses, box springs and
bedding products that have been found to cause reproductive, developmental,
neurological or other health concerns including cancer, birth defects, thyroid
disruption, hearing deficits, learning disorders such as ADHD, and mental
retardation.
MOMS notes that levels of PBDEs in American women are 10 to 100 times those
found in European women. MOMS asserts that "nursing babies take into their
bodies a higher proportion of toxins than other living creatures because they ingest
chemicals that have accumulated at increasing concentrations up the food chain.
PBDEs can interfere with the thyroid gland, which controls metabolism and growth.
Side effects of exposure to PBDEs include impaired learning and memory, delayed
onset of puberty, (and) male and female reproductive defects." Due to these health
concerns, MOMS argues that it is necessary to ban the use of BFRs and CFRs in
furniture.
The Bluewater Network supports this bill arguing that it will require the Bureau "to
modernize fire safety standards for furniture based on the performance
characteristics of a composite of the component parts of the furniture tested. The
new standard would replace outdated standards that require separate furniture
components, such as fabric and foam, to be tested independently." As a result of
the current standard, Bluewater Network argues furniture manufacturers use BFRs
and CFRs that expose children to high levels of toxicity and expose our marine
wildlife and ecosystems to extremely harmful levels of chemical pollution. Bluewater
Network contends that, "California can achieve similar or even superior fire safety
without the use of brominated or chlorinated fire retardants. Improved furniture
design, the use of chemicals that are safer for human health and the environment,
and the implementation of an integrated furniture performance standard to replace
outdated tests that currently test foam separately from fabric, should over time lead
to further increases in furniture safety."
4. Arguments in Opposition. The Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) & the
Department of Toxic Substances control (DTSC) both oppose the bill. The DCA
states that while it recognizes the importance of minimizing hazardous chemical
exposure to the environment and humans and believes the bill’s intent has merit,
without an additional appropriation and necessary revisions to the Bureau’s Chapter
in the Business and Professions code, the Bureau lacks the necessary authority or
means to test [furniture using alternative flame retardants], and enforce the ban on
the specific chemicals.
The DTSC states that it has significant concerns with the wholesale chemical
prohibitions and product bans in the bill, as they can have significant unintended

 AB 706
Page 5
negative consequences and present implementation and enforcement challenges
that could negate or limit the bill’s intended benefits. The DTSC states that without
a systematic method of ensuring that substitutes exist that do not pose the same
risks or hazards as the chemicals being prohibited, and that perform the same
beneficial function of those chemicals being prohibited, measures such as this bill
can easily result in regrettable substitutions. The DTSC argues that before
proceeding with a prohibition on widely used chemicals such as brominated and
chlorinated fire retardants, we must ensure that an evaluation of all these important
factors has been performed so that the result is a reasoned science-based decision.
The DTSC recommends postponing the bill until the Secretary for Environmental
Protection has developed a comprehensive set of recommendations pursuant to the
California Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Chemistry Initiative – promised
to be provided by July 1, 2008.
The California Black Chamber of Commerce opposes the bill stating that it will
disproportionately affect minorities and low income communities who already bear a
disproportionate share of fire related deaths and injuries. The Chamber argues that
without additional resources for enforcement, there will be the likelihood that the bill
will lead to the increase in cheaper imported products that fail to meet our flame
retardancy standards and that will make it into the homes of low income families
who cannot afford more expensive products that do meet our standards.
The Association of Woodworking and Furnishings suppliers (AWFS) opposes the bill
because it fails to ensure that American manufacturers who work cooperatively with
the bureau and whose products meet our flame retardancy standards will be able to
compete fairly against the cheaper, imported products that do not meet our standard
and that will illegally enter the California marketplace and be bought by budgetminded consumers. AWFS says that 50% of imported mattresses fail our
flammability standards but still can be sold because there are easy means by which
to avoid product bas and enforcement thereof by the Bureau.
Carpenter Co., a polyurethane foam manufacturing company, opposes the bill
stating that it will force manufacturers to switch to unspecified alternatives that do
not yet have the same established history of use, and which must comply with new,
but as yet undefined state standard. Carpenter is also concerned by the precedent
set by the bill presuming brominated or chlorinated are guilty of being a health
hazard until they are proven to be innocent.
The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF), among others, opposes
this bill arguing that it "jeopardizes public health and safety by forcing manufacturers
to switch to unspecified alternatives that do not have the same established history of
use and which must comply with an as yet undefined flame resistance standard to
be established by the Bureau" and that it will "likely result in reduced levels of fire
safety for the citizens of California." In addition, BSEF contends that the claims of
the proponents of this bill are not supported scientifically and do not differentiate
between different types of BFRs and CFRs.
BSEF maintains that decisions regarding the use of BFRs and CFRs should be
made on a case-by-case basis that are specific to the manner in which a chemical is

 AB 706
Page 6
being used; a "one-size-fits-all" regulatory approach that bans two entire classes of
flame retardants is misguided. Furthermore, BSEF cites a claim by the
Polyurethane Foam Association that this bill would ban more than 90 percent of the
flame retardants currently used in the production of foam and asserts that "little is
known about the flame retardant efficiency and/or potential adverse environmental
effects of the alternatives that would be used to replace these substances." BSEF
maintains that BFRs and CFRs are effective at reducing the threat of fires and that
"California should not be moving in a direction that could actually make its citizens
less safe from the threats of fire."
Opponents have also questioned whether the Bureau has the necessary expertise
in modifying their fire retardant standards to ascertain whether any alternative fire
retardants that will be used will be “sufficient to protect human health and safety.”
This concern also extends to the authority granted by the bill to the Bureau to adopt
regulations “that protect human health and safety, and the environment” and prohibit
in “products under its jurisdiction the use of components or chemicals for which the
safety to human or animal health cannot be clearly established.” This would require
a manufacturer to know in advance whether any component is safe. Finally,
opponents also question whether the Bureau will have the necessary resources to
administer and enforce the bill’s provisions, and believe that alternatives to the
currently used fire retardants will likely increase the cost to manufacture and cause
an increased reliance on cheaper furniture and bedding that is made outside the
United States.
The Home Safety Council (HSC) opposes this bill contending that it will roll back
California's fire protection standards for furniture and bedding. HSC notes that "the
furniture regulations have been in place for decades and according to the National
Association of State Fire Marshals, fatality rates in California from furniture fires fell
by 64% in the first years after their adoption."
NOTE: Double-referral to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality
(Second).
SUPPORT:
Bluewater Network/Friends of the Earth (Co-Sponsor)
Making Our Milk Safe (MOMS) (Co-Sponsor)
As You Sow
Breast Cancer Action
Breast Cancer Fund
California For a Safe Environment
California Furniture Manufacturers Association
California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO)
California Professional Firefighters
California State Firefighters Association, Inc
Center for Environmental Health
Coalition for a Safe Environment
Clean Water Action
Coalition for Clean Air

 AB 706
Page 7
Commonweal
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Federation of California (CFC)
Diversified Health Services
Environment California
Environmental Working Group
Episcopal Diocese of CA
Firefighters Burn Institute
Friends of the Earth
Get Able
Healthy Children Organizing Project
MomsRising
Monterey Fish Market
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Oceana
Ocean Conservancy
Physicians for Social Responsibility – Los Angeles
Planning and Conservation League
Sacramento Area Firefighters
San Francisco Fire Department
San Francisco Firefighters
Sierra Club California
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition
Trauma Foundation
Opposition:
Phosphate Ester Flame Retardant Consortium (Pefrc)
Former State Fire Marshal
California Black Chamber of Commerce
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA)
Fire Chief – Fresno Fire Department
Carpenter Co.
Association of Woodworking and Furnishings Suppliers
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
American Chemistry Council
American Fire Safety Council
Association of Woodworking & Furnishings Suppliers
Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF)
California Building Industry Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California League of Food Processors
California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Retailers Association
California Space Authority
Chemical Industry Council of California
Chestnut Ridge Foam Inc.
Dietler Group

 AB 706
Page 8
Electronic Industries Alliance (EIA)
Flicker of Hope Foundation
Gordon Damant – former Chief of the Bureau (1978-1993)
Home Safety Council (HSC)
Industrial Environmental Association
Safety First California
W. F. McDonald Company
Wm. T. Burnett & Co.
Consultant: Jay J. DeFuria