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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
