Go to Top

July 2016

DTSC Begins Rulemaking on First Priority Products List under Safer Consumer Products Regulations

On July 15, 2016, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control published its first proposed Priority Products regulation, identifying “children’s foam-padded sleeping products containing [the flame retardants] TDCPP or TCEP” as Priority Products under the Safer Consumer Products Regulations. Comments must be submitted no later than August 29, 2016. DTSC also will be holding a public hearing on August 29, 2016. The proposed regulation has been a long time coming. The Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Regulations were first promulgated in 2013, five years after the authorizing statute, AB 1879, was enacted. DTSC first identified children’s sleeping products containing the flame retardants in a draft Priority Products list in March 2014. DTSC has had to attend to other significant challenges, including the California Legislature’s scrutiny of its operations, which no doubt contributed to delays. However, the recent amendments to the federal Toxic Substances Control Act — and their unusual, labyrinth-like preemption …Read More

California Air Resources Board’s 2015 Data Reporting for the Consumer Products Program Begins

The California Air Resources Board 2015 reporting for the Consumer Products Program began on July 1, 2016 and ends on November 1, 2016. This is the third year of a three year reporting cycle and is mandatory for all “responsible parties” that sold consumer products in California during the 2015 calendar year. Under the Consumer Products Program, ARB imposes requirements and limits on volatile organic compounds (VOCs), toxic air contaminants (TACs) and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in chemically formulated consumer products. According to ARB, “VOCs that are emitted into the air from consumer products and other sources (motor vehicles, stationary sources, etc.) react with other pollutants under sunlight to form ground-level ozone and particulate matter (PM2.5), the main ingredients in smog. Reducing VOC emissions from consumer products therefore plays an integral part in ARB’s effort to reduce smog in California.” As part of the agency’s efforts, ARB requires “responsible parties” to provide …Read More

Proposition 65 Notices of Violation Issued for BPA

In two separate 60-day notices of violation, the Center for Environmental Health has staked its position as the leader in pursuing Proposition 65 claims involving bisphenol A (BPA). One notice (amended on June 27, 2016), sent to Del Taco Restaurants, involves BPA in thermal receipt paper. It alleges exposures through dermal absorption and through hand-to-mouth contact. The other, directed to DS Services of America and Home Depot U.S.A, alleges exposure to BPA in bottled water for use in water coolers, with direct ingestion as the “primary” route of exposure. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment listed BPA as a reproductive toxicant on May 11, 2015, which meant that the warning requirement went into effect May 11, 2016. More recently, OEHHA finalized a Maximum Acceptable Dose Level (MADL) for BPA of 3 micrograms per day for exposures through the dermal route only. That MADL formally goes into effect on October 1, 2016. …Read More

EPA Releases Lautenberg First Year Implementation Plan

On June 29, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its First Year Implementation Plan outlining the agency’s schedule for implementing The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg), which amended the federal Toxic Substances Control Act and which President Obama signed into law on June 22, 2016. Key aspects of Lautenberg went into effect immediately, including the new chemical standard of review requiring EPA to make an affirmative, risk-based determination on the safety of new chemicals. This review standard excludes considerations of costs and other non-risk factors, and includes consideration of effects on vulnerable populations. According to EPA, for those companies having premanufacturing notices pending, Lautenberg resets the 90-day review period (though EPA has stated that it will “make every effort” to complete its review of such PMNs and make the necessary determinations within the time remaining under the original review period for those PMNs). But …Read More