Go to Top

May 2016

Get Ready for CDR

The reporting period for the Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule starts on June 1, 2016 and continues through September 30, 2016. The CDR rule requires manufacturers (including importers) to provide EPA with information on the production and use of chemicals in commerce in large quantities. Notwithstanding significant progress in TSCA reform, with amendments likely to be passed this year, it is unlikely that those legislative changes will affect this upcoming regulatory obligation. The rule applies to manufacturers and importers only. Generally, these entities are required to report if the production volume of a chemical substance is 25,000 lbs or more at any single site. However, a lower production volume of 2,500 lbs applies to chemical substances that are the subject of certain TSCA actions, such as Significant New Use Rules. See https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-reporting/how-report-under-chemical-data-reporting for further information. The data collected through CDR is used to support EPA’s regulatory activities such …Read More

TSCA Amendments Move Forward

Ultimate passage of amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act continues to gain momentum, as the House of Representatives agreed to Senate amendments to H.R. 2576 on May 24, 2016. The House approval followed months of negotiations among lawmakers to reconcile H.R. 2576, which the House passed in June 2015, with S. 697, passed by the Senate in December 2015. Expected to be sent back to the Senate this week, H.R. 2576 likely will be considered by the Senate after June 6, 2016, after a request for unanimous consent to vote on the measure was blocked by Senator Rand (R-Kentucky).

New York State Assembly Passes Proposition 65-Like Law for Children’s Products

On May 4, 2016, the New York State Assembly passed Assembly Bill A5612A, which would regulate priority chemicals and chemicals of concern in children’s products.  The bill, modeled after similar programs in Washington, Maine and California, has been referred to the New York Senate’s Environmental Conservation Committee for evaluation. With its notification requirements, the bill creates Proposition 65-like obligations on manufacturers, importers and retailers of children’s products. Children’s Products The bill applies only to children’s products, defined as products primarily intended for, made for, or marketed for use by children aged twelve and under, including children’s apparel.  The term does not include batteries, consumer electronic products, foods or beverages, pesticides, or drugs and medical devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Although the bill also exempts motor vehicles, car seats are not exempt. In addition, the law would apply to new, not used, children’s products. Duty to Report and …Read More

OEHHA Releases Revised Proposition 65 Warning Proposal

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has released a revised Proposition 65 safe harbor warning proposal.  Public comments are due no later than June 6, 2016. OEHHA initiated this regulatory process to revise the Proposition 65 warning regulations on November 27, 2015, meaning that its own deadline to finalize the proposal is November 27, 2016.  The agency revised that proposal on March 25, 2016. With six months left to meet its deadline, and the long process of responding to all comments in writing, the pending proposal could be OEHHA’s last version published for public comment.

OEHHA Adds Styrene to the Proposition 65 List and Proposes NSRL

On April 22, 2016, OEHHA added styrene as a carcinogen to the Proposition 65 list.  In a separate regulatory proceeding, OEHHA also is proposing a “No Significant Risk Level”  (NSRL) for styrene of 27 micrograms per day.  Comments on the proposed NSRL must be submitted no later than June 6, 2016. The NSRL is the level of exposure for a carcinogen, above which a Proposition 65 warning is required.  (The equivalent level for a Proposition 65 reproductive toxicant is the “Maximum Acceptable Dose Level,” or MADL.)  OEHHA’s proposal is surprising in that the agency’s promulgation of NSRLs and MADLs historically has lagged far behind the agency’s chemical listings, leaving businesses to develop their own NSRLs and MADLs at significant cost. Worse, where a business has undertaken the resource-intensive burden of calculating an NSRL or MADL to evaluate its own potential warning obligations, a plaintiff may dispute the calculation of the warning level and the …Read More