Daily News

From Home Furnishing Business

Labeling Law Official in Calif.

October 1, 2014  by in Industry, Legal   

After weeks of negotiations with California officials, the American Home Furnishings Alliance succeeded in having the law amended to include a definition of “flame retardant chemical” to give manufacturers more clarity in complying with the measure.

Without a definition, AHFA maintained the bill was not enforceable and provided no meaningful guidance for California consumers. 
 
California Senator Mark Leno introduced Senate Bill 1019 in March in an effort to provide consumers in his state with easily accessible information on whether upholstered furniture contains flame retardant chemicals or not. 

The proposal followed the release of the state’s new flammability standard, Technical Bulletin 117-2013, which replaces an open flame test for upholstered furniture with a smolder test. Upholstery products can pass the new test without using flame retardant chemicals, which were added to upholstery foam in the 1970s in order to meet the previous open flame test in California. Although the new standard can be met without the use of flame retardant chemicals, the law does not prohibit their use. 

Leno wants California shoppers to be able to distinguish furniture that contains added flame retardants from furniture that does not contain these chemicals. His bill requires manufacturers to modify the TB 117-2013 compliance label, which is currently required on all upholstered furniture offered for sale in California. 

In the new section of the label, manufacturers must specify whether the product “contains added flame retardant chemicals” or “contains NO added flame retardant chemicals.” This is done by checking a box on the label next to the appropriate statement. 
 
AHFA is developing a prototype label for its member companies to consult when ordering labels for merchandise shipping into California beginning Jan. 1.  

However, there is no effective date written into the Leno legislation.  AHFA has requested clarification from state officials on the exact implementation timeline for the new labeling requirement.

“At this time, we are advising our members to plan for compliance beginning Jan. 1, 2015--concurrent with the implementation of TB 117-2013,” said Bill Perdue, AHFA’s vice president of regulatory affairs.

AHFA worked with a coalition of furniture associations to draft several amendments that were successfully added to the Leno bill. In addition to the definition for FR chemical, these included:
• Removing a provision that would have required point-of-sale signs for any covered product shipped to California. The signs, like the label, would have had to include the “does contain/does not contain” statement.
• Removing a provision that would have allowed the state to charge manufacturers with perjury if they checked the “does not contain” box on the label and their product was later found to contain an FR chemical.