(Date)

Dear Assembly Member (Recipient Name):

Re: AMEND SB 1019

I am writing to request that critical amendments be made to SB 1019 (Leno) before it becomes law and creates an unworkable regulatory regime for both the State of California and the regulated community.

SB 1019 requires manufacturers of upholstered furniture to check YES or NO to the presence of added flame retardant chemicals but FAILS TO DEFINE what a flame retardant chemical is.

Consider this scenario…

Company A manufactures upholstered furniture for sale in the State of California.  They have asked their suppliers for components with no added flame retardant chemicals only.  Under SB 1019 they check NO to the presence of these chemicals.

Under SB 1019, BEARHFTI then purchases this product, takes samples, and sends those samples to the Department of Toxic Substances Control to test for the presence of added flame retardant chemicals.

What is DTSC actually being asked to test for?  Hundreds of chemicals can be utilized as flame retardants, including water and some metal salts, but only a handful of these chemicals have been identified as a potential concern.  A single test does not exist to test for these chemicals.  Without a definition identifying the specific chemicals or family of chemicals DTSC must test for, SB 1019 IS UNENFORCABLE.

Additionally regulated companies will not be able to identify what chemicals are covered by the law and will be hesitant to check NO to the presence of these undefined chemicals.  As a result they will be forced to check YES and will create unnecessary confusion in the marketplace.

“FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS” MUST BE DEFINED IN SB 1019.  Providing a clear definition will allow DTSC to identify appropriate test methods to enforce the law.  It will also provide manufacturers an ability to comply with the law.

Sincerely,

(Your Name)
(State), (ZIP Code)