The chemical commonly known as "TDCPP" or
"Tris" [Tris(1,2-dichloro-2-proply) phosphate)] is
commonly used as a flame retardant in home furnishings (couches,
chairs, pillows, and ottomans) as well as automotive products (seat
padding, overhead liners, foams, and infant car seats). In October
2011, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) listed TDCPP as a chemical on Proposition 65
list of chemicals.
For retailers and manufacturers selling products containing
TDCPP, this means the risk of Proposition 65 enforcement actions if
their products are not either labeled with appropriate Proposition
65 warnings or reformulated prior to October 28, 2012, when
OEHHA's one-year safe harbor on TDCPP will expire. Retailers
and manufacturers will have to balance the competing requirements
of Proposition 65 and California's Bureau of Electronic and
Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, which is
currently in the process of revising its four-decade-old
flammability standard for upholstered furniture (
The current guideline requires furniture and children's
products to withstand igniting when exposed to an open flame for up
to twelve seconds.
OEHHA has proposed a "No Significant Risk Level"
(NSRL) for TDCPP of 5.4 micrograms per day, meaning that daily
exposure below this level would be exempt from Proposition 65.
OEHHA's decision on whether to adopt this NSRL will not be made
until after the public comment process closes on July 16, 2012.
For more information about how to navigate Proposition 65's
risks for TDCPP-containing items, contact Meredith Jones-McKeown
(firstname.lastname@example.org), Betsy McDaniel
(email@example.com) or Heather Zinkiewicz
Neither the content on this blog nor any transmissions between
you and Sheppard Mullin through this blog are intended to provide
legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client
In communicating with us through this blog, you should not provide
any confidential information to us concerning any potential or
actual legal matter you may have. Before providing any such
information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of
By choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval,
you understand and agree that Sheppard Mullin will have no duty to
keep confidential any information you provide.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a recent and much anticipated decision by both natural gas producers and landowners, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finally cleared up confusion about who owns the mineral rights to shale gas in Butler v. Powers Estate.
Natural gas producers and landowners alike breathed a sigh of relief on April 24, 2013 as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (the "Supreme Court" or "Court") overturned a lower court decision that questioned whether subsurface ownership rights of natural gas in shale formations should be treated differently than ownership rights of natural gas in conventional formations.
The city of Lancaster, California recently adopted an ordinance requiring builders of most new homes to install functional solar power generation systems on these homes prior to their sale to the public.
As discussed previously on the blog, the IRS released Notice 2013-29 on April 15 which provided guidance on determining when construction has begun on a qualified renewable energy facility for purposes of the production tax credit.