Proposed California Regulations Discourage Use of Flame Retardant Chemicals
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.15.13
As a result of recent studies linking certain flame retardant chemicals to potential carcinogenic, developmental and neurological effects, California seeks to revise flammability standards that have long encouraged manufacturers to use such flame retardants in their products. The proposed revisions, announced on February 8, 2013 by the California Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (BEARHFTI), are intended to allow manufacturers to comply with those standards without using the implicated chemicals.
In the wake of recent publicity regarding the presence of one such chemical, chlorinated Tris (TDCCP), in furniture and baby products, manufacturers of furniture and other consumer products containing this compound have begun receiving 60-Day Notices of intent to sue under California’s Proposition 65.
California’s Technical Bulletin 117 (TB 117) outlines flammability and testing requirements for upholstered foam furniture manufactured or distributed in the State. For example, it requires that foam filling in furniture must withstand a 12-second exposure to an open flame. Manufacturers are required to indicate on their labels whether a product is in compliance with TB 117. While flame retardant chemicals are not mandated under TB 117, manufacturers have found them to be the most efficacious and cost-effective way to comply.
The Proposed Regulations (TB 117-2013), to be administered by the BEARHFTI, would substantially alter the requirements of TB 117. Among the key proposed changes:
- Flammability tests would be based on exposure to a smoldering cigarette, rather than an open flame.
- All cover fabrics would need to be tested. The current regulations require testing of only certain furniture fabrics.
- The list of baby and infant products exempted from flammability standards would be expanded substantially.
Public comments on the proposed regulations must be received by March 26, 2013. A public hearing will be conducted shortly thereafter.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
