Massachusetts Flame Retardant Bill Fails to Become Law

Preemption, cost-benefit analysis, an early effective date, and possibly increased consumer prices were the stated reasons for Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) declining to sign a bill limiting flame retardants (FRs) in some products.

He asserted (bit.ly/2APg0OL) that the state would be the only one to cover car seats and non-foam parts of adult mattresses, which NHTSA and CPSC address. He worried that future bans would be based risks only "without any consideration of countervailing benefits." Baker wrote that the five-months until effectiveness was insufficient and half what was in the bill originally.

He also suggested consumer costs would rise, asserting, "The resulting disruption to what is available to consumers in Massachusetts would likely have a disproportionate impact on families with lower incomes who are less able to afford more expensive alternatives."

H 5024 (bit.ly/2su7kso) would have banned an initial 11 chemicals plus "any other chemical flame retardants" added under three-year recurring reviews. It would have covered bedding, carpeting, children's products, residential upholstered furniture, and window treatments. It would have explicitly excluded batteries, inaccessible parts based on use and abuse testing, and most consumer electronics.

Meanwhile, CPSC, since 2017 (PSL, 9/25/17), has been considering a potential rulemaking to ban certain flame retardants in four product classes: children's items, residential furniture, mattresses/pads, and electronic equipment enclosures. The impetus was a 2015 petition (PSL, 8/10/15).

Elsewhere, California last September (PSL, 9/10/18) passed a law to phase out certain flame retardants by 2020 in juvenile products, mattresses and upholstered furniture.