SB 772
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
SB 772 (Leno) – As Amended: May 5, 2009
SENATE VOTE: 23-14
SUBJECT: Home furnishings: juvenile products.
SUMMARY: Exempts juvenile products, as defined, from fire retardant requirements and
regulations unless the Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (BHFTI) determine
the product poses a serious fire hazard. Specifically, this bill:
1) Exempts juvenile products from fire retardant requirements and the regulations adopted
there-under for specified bedding products and seating furniture.
2) Defines “juvenile products” as any item of bedding or seating furniture with a primary
intended use for children six years of age or younger. The term includes, but is not limited
to, portable cribs, car seats, strollers, bassinets, infant carriers, walkers, backpack child
carriers, infant and toddler pillows, and toddler chairs.
3) Authorizes BHFTI, by regulation, to modify the exemption if the BHFTI determines that any
juvenile products pose a serious fire hazard.
4) Provides that the exemption under this section does not apply to products regulated by
federal law.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Requires all mattresses and mattress sets manufactured for sale in this state to be fire
retardant.
2) Defines "fire retardant," as a product that meets the standards for resistance to open-flame
test adopted by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC) and set
forth in federal regulations.
3) Authorizes the BHFTI to adopt regulations it deems necessary to implement these fire
retardant standards.
4) Requires all other bedding products that BHFTI determines contribute to mattress bedding
fires to comply with regulations adopted by the BHFTI specifying that those products be
resistant to open-flame ignition.
5) Requires all seating furniture sold or offered for sale by an importer, manufacturer, or
wholesaler for use in this state, and reupholstered furniture to which filling materials are
added, to be fire retardant and labeled as such. Exempts physical fitness and exercise
equipment from this requirement.

 SB 772
Page 2
6)
Prohibits a person from manufacturing, processing, or distributing in commerce a
product containing more than 0.1% pentaBDE (penta brominated diphenyl ether) or
octaBDE (octa brominated diphenyl ether), both of which are flame retardant chemicals.
7)
Authorizes, under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), the CPSC to
regulate hazards to children.
8)
Authorizes, under the Flammable Fabrics Act, the CPSC to regulate fire risks
associated with interior furnishings.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
Purpose: According to the author, "The California home furnishing flammability requirement
known as Technical Bulletin 117 (TB 117) has led to the annual use of millions of pounds of fire
retardant chemicals in California since the early 1980’s. Halogenated fire retardants—the least
expensive and most likely chemicals used to meet this regulation—have been linked to endocrine
disruption, neurological and developmental impairments, cancer, birth defects, learning
disabilities such as attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity, and a host of other health
disorders. These toxic chemicals migrate from products in the home into household dust,
humans, pets, and the environment. A typical household can contain up to several pounds of
these chemicals, and their extensive use to meet TB 117 has led to contamination of the global
environment…
"Today, virtually every Californian tested has been found to have fire retardants chemicals stored
in their bodies, with babies and young children showing the highest “body burdens”. Elevated
levels have also been found throughout the food chain, especially in, dairy products, meat,
poultry, and fish. Most alarming of all, tests have found that halogenated fire retardants are
present in the polyurethane foam in baby products including portable cribs, bassinets, car seats,
strollers, playpens, swings, nursing pillows, high chairs and toddler chairs. These juvenile
products are treated with these toxins in order to meet the standards required under TB 117,
despite no credible scientific documentation showing that they represent a fire risk… It’s time
for that to change. California needs to permit manufacturers to remove these toxins from
products that infants and young children come into repeated and intimate contact with on a daily
basis."
California’s flammability standards: In California, mattresses, mattress sets, bedding products
and upholstered furniture manufactured or sold in the state is required to meet flammability
standards specified in Technical Bulletin No. 117 (TB 117), promulgated by BHFTI. According
to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments (OEHHA), TB 117, which requires
that foam in a product withstand ignition if exposed to an open flame for 12 seconds, has resulted
in the extensive use of additive chemical flame retardants in furniture sold in California for over
25 years. To avoid the expense of creating a separate product line for California and to
voluntarily comply with the most stringent flammability requirements in the U.S., many large
manufacturers and distributors of furniture or furniture components add flame retardant
chemicals to their products sold in other states as well.

 SB 772
Page 3
Common flame retardant chemicals and their potential health effects: According to OEHHA, TB
117 has resulted in the extensive use of brominated and chlorinated organic chemical compounds
(BFRs and CFRs). Many brominated and chlorinated compounds have been shown to persist in
the environment and have been associated with adverse health effects including cancer,
reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurological dysfunction and endocrine disruption.
Prior to 2006, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) were the primary additive flame
retardants in furniture foam. PBDEs are a type of BFRs which migrate from furniture into
indoor and outdoor environments. Some of the highest PBDE concentrations in the world have
been found in California homes and within the bodies of California residents. PBDEs are closely
related in structure and behavior of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs are known to have
neurotoxic and carcinogenic effects and were banned by Congress in 1976.
In 2003, the California Legislature was sufficiently concerned about the hazards posed by two
types of PBDEs (pentaBDEs and octaBDEs), that it passed, and Governor enacted, a ban on
these chemicals (AB 302, Chan, Chapter 205, Statutes of 2003). Such similarity of the
chemicals' molecular structures raises concern about potential biological hazards of all of these
types of flame retardant chemicals.
BHFT’s expansion of flame retardancy regulations: BHFTI is considering extending
flammability requirements to include filled bed clothing, such as pillows, mattress pads and
comforters, in a new guideline, Technical Bulletin 604 or TB 604. The Chair of this Committee,
along with the author and other Chairs of Senate and Assembly Committees, sent a letter on
April 8, 2009 to the Governor requesting that TB 604 be suspended and that a multi-agency task
force be convened to evaluate current fire safety standards in light of reported health and
environmental hazards posed by toxic flame retardant chemicals and materials. Other requests
included ensuring that development and promulgation of TB 604 does not add even more toxic
flame retardant chemicals or materials to California households and ensuring that fire safety
requirements, current and future, are in keeping with the goals of the California Green Chemistry
Initiative. The authors of the letter have not received a response from the Administration.
New approach - not a ban bill: Prior legislation has attempted to prohibit the manufacture, use
and sale of specified flame retardant chemicals that are linked to negative public health impacts.
The author has this year taken a new approach to limiting children’s exposure to potentially
harmful flame retardants. Rather than propose a chemical ban, he instead proposes exempting
certain children’s products, unless they pose a fire hazard, from state flammability standards.
This approach does not explicitly restrict or prohibit the use of any flame retardant chemicals in
juvenile products, but it does eliminate manufacturers' need to use them. It also eliminates the
concern that manufacturers, if prohibited from using a certain chemical but still required to
adhere to flammability standards, might substitute a regrettable alternative for the banned
chemical.
Trading a reduction of fire risk for a reduction in chemical toxicity risks? The use of flame
retardant chemicals in juvenile furniture does not appear to actually increase public safety. In a
response to the author’s request for information on fire risks associated with children’s
furnishings and other juvenile products containing polyurethane foam, in October 2008 the
CPSC responded, "The CPSC can regulate specific products if it determines that the products
pose an unreasonable risk of death or injury under foreseeable conditions of use. To date, the
CPSC has not made such a determination with respect to the risk of fire of most of the juvenile

 SB 772
Page 4
products [in the bill]… A review of the available consumer product-related fire injury data from
the Commission’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) for 2000 – 2008 does
not identify any incidents in which a stroller, infant carrier, bassinet or nursing pillow first
ignited.”
Additionally, according to a 2006 study by the National Fire Protection Association, the rate of
reduction of fire deaths in California over the last 20 years, during which halogenated fire
retardants were used heavily in furniture, is statistically similar to other states that did not have
furniture flammability standards.
According to the author's office, in recent years, the CPSC has been developing a national
furniture flammability standard. In 2008, the CPSC proposed a draft flammability standard that
will not lead to the de-facto use of fire retardant chemicals. CPSC Commissioner Thomas
Moore concluded “No one wants to trade fire risks for chemical toxicity risks.”
Arguments in support: According to the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association, "The
Federal Hazardous Substances Act already restricts exposure... Most furniture is already subject
to exclusion of up to ½ inch of filling or backing under existing California law. Unfortunately,
this exclusion was not applied to juvenile furniture. Given the overly broad definition of
upholstered furniture in this state, this has resulted in needless cost to consumers and restricted
choices of materials available to California parents and caregivers." The Consumer Federation
of America writes, "SB 772 strikes the proper balance between protecting infants and children
from harmful toxic exposures and any legitimate but limited use of fire retardants."
Environmental Working Group notes, "Some of the [flame retardant] chemicals being used today
in juvenile products were banned from use in children’s sleepwear in 1977 by the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, but are still creating exposure to children through direct physical or
oral contact with furniture."
Arguments in opposition: According to the California Chamber of Commerce, the California
Manufacturers Technology Association, and other organizations, "This proposal is based on fears
about the potential human health effects of exposure to fire retardants, even though there is no
peer-reviewed empirical data supporting these fears. In effect, this bill prioritizes such
theoretical health risks above the very real risks of injury and death that flame retarded products
seek to prevent… The Green Chemistry legislation enacted last year will ensure that any health
risks posed by fire retardant chemicals are clearly identified and appropriately regulated." The
California Black Chamber of Commerce Foundation writes, "California's fire safety standards
have caused fire-related injuries and deaths to decline by more than 64 percent in recent years.
We cannot abdicate these standards and leave the most vulnerable at the most risk."
Similar recent legislation:
AB 302 (Chan, Chapter 205, Statutes of 2003), banned the use of penta- and octa- brominated
diphenyl ethers (pentaBDE or octaBDE) after January 1, 2008.
AB 513 (Leiber, 2007), would have extended the prohibition on pentaBDE or octaBDE to
include decaBDE, but only with regard to electronic products. This measure failed passage on
the Assembly floor.

 SB 772
Page 5
SB 509 (Simitian, Chapter 560, Statutes of 2008), requires DTSC to establish a Toxics
Information Clearinghouse for the collection, maintenance, and distribution of specified
chemical information.
AB 1879 (Feuer, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2008), requires DTSC to develop, in regulation,
processes by which chemicals of concern and their alternatives are identified and assessed, and
methods of reducing exposure are established.
AB 706 (Leno, 2008), would have required bedding products to comply with certain
requirements, including not containing a chemical that doesn’t comply with alternatives
assessment requirements, as specified. Required DTSC to develop and adopt methodology an
alternative assessment to review the classes of chemicals used to meet the fire retardancy
standards set by the BHFTI. This measure failed passage on the Senate floor.
Double referral: This bill was double-referred by the Assembly Rules Committee to the
Assembly Business and Professions Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Friends of the Earth (sponsor)
As You Sow Foundation
The Baum Foundation
Breast Cancer Fund
California Professional Firefighters
Center for Biological Diversity
Center for Environmental Health
Commonweal
Consumer Federation of California
Contra Costa Health Services
Diversified Health Services
Environment California
Environmental Working Group
Friends of Earth
Green California (alert)
Healthy African American Families II
Healthy Child Health World
Humane Society of the United States
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association
Ocean Conservancy
Making Our Milk Safe
MomsRising.org
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) (alert)
Natural Resources Defense Counsel
Planning and Conservation League
San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation
Santa Barbara Channelkeeper
Sierra Club California

 SB 772
Page 6
Stentorians of Los Angeles County
The Trauma Foundation
Opposition
American Chemistry Council
California Building Industry Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Black Chamber of Commerce Foundation
California Business Properties Association
California Manufacturers Technology Association
California Retailers Association
Chemical Industry Council of California
Citizens for Fire Safety
Green Chemistry Alliance (alert)
Kern County Taxpayers Association
National Tax Limitation Committee
Orange County Professional Firefighters Association
San Joaquin County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
The Thursday Group (alert)
Several individuals
Analysis Prepared by: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965