On April 5, 2022, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) issued a notice recommending additional revisions to its proposal to modify Proposition 65 (Prop 65) Article 6 “clear and reasonable warnings” regulations for “short-form” warnings (Notice). OEHHA first proposed to change the short-form warning requirements on January 8, 2021. This column explains the significance of this development.

On July 13, 2021, Maine became the first state to enact Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation for packaging. On August 6, 2021, Oregon followed, enacting a similar EPR law applicable to packaging. Other states are poised to pass similar legislation. This article discusses the concept of EPR and summarizes the state legislation.

On 13 July 2021, Maine became the first state in the US to enact extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation for packaging. Quickly thereafter, on 6 August, Oregon became the second state to enact a similar EPR law applicable to packaging. Other states are poised to enact similar legislation, following trends more mature in the European Union (EU) and elsewhere around the world.

In a significant victory for industry, on August 27, 2019, the State of New York Supreme Court invalidated the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program. The program is an example of the newest trend in state “information disclosure” programs intended to force product manufacturers to disclose the ingredients in products sold to consumers. This article discusses the program and explains why the court rescinded it.

In the recent past, two important states—California and New York—have launched extensive and precedent‐setting ingredient disclosure laws regarding cleaning products with the clear goal of prompting the deselection of certain chemical substances and forcing product reformulation. Industry prefers to refer to this trend as “ingredient communication,” a goal we can all agree is desirable. By whatever name, these state measures will have a significant impact on ingredient disclosure trends across product lines, likely well beyond their stated application to cleaning products. These state laws are summarized in this article, followed by a discussion of their similarities, key differences, and their implications.

On January 9, 2019, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) announced it was delaying its enforcement of the New York Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program (NYDP) to October 2, 2019. NYDEC’s announcement was published in the Environmental Notice Bulletin. This article explains the significance of this development.

The State of California now has over 900 chemical substances for which warning and labeling is required under Proposition 65 (Prop 65). Recently added to this list are soluble nickel compounds. Given the potential ubiquity of the substance, this could have big implications.

In just a few short months, on August 30, 2018, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) revisions to its Proposition 65 (Prop 65) Article 6 “clear and reasonable warnings” regulations will come into force. By then, companies must be compliant with the revised regulations for consumer product, occupational and environmental exposures.

Big changes are in store for regulated entities subject to Prop 65 based on a rule implemented in August 2016, but with a fast-approaching enforcement date of Aug. 30, 2018.

Proposition 65 (Prop 65) is very much a part of the “right-to-know” landscape in California and, as we all know, Prop 65 warnings are especially visible in that state. This much is clear. What may be less clear are the sweeping changes in the “clear and reasonable warning” requirements now scheduled to take effect from August 30, 2018. This date may seem like a long way off, but it is right around the corner in terms of coming into compliance with these dramatic changes. This Washington Watch column summarizes the new warning requirements and the reasons why companies need to focus now on these changes.

California’s Proposition 65 (Prop 65) has been a keen area of client interest for years. One question repeatedly asked is “what is a clear and reasonable warning?” The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) released a Questions and Answers for Businesses (Q&A) document specifically covering “clear and reasonable warnings” requirements. The Q&A aims to help companies comply with new Prop 65 notice requirements that become effective next August. This column explains the significance of this Q&A document.

On October 15, 2017, California governor Jerry Brown (D) signed the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017. The law requires manufacturers of cleaning products to disclose certain chemical ingredients on the product label and on the manufacturer’s website. The online disclosure requirements apply to a designated product sold in California on or after January 1, 2020, while the product label disclosure requirements cover products sold in California on or after January 1, 2021.

On December 12, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a long-awaited final rule to reduce exposure to formaldehyde vapors from certain wood products produced domestically or imported into the United States. Formaldehyde is found in the adhesives used in a range of composite wood products. This column summarizes the new rule.

On September 13, 2016, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) announced the availability of an updated list of chemicals of high concern. See http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/toxfreekids/highconcern.html#list

Chemicals play a central role in our personal and professional lives. As consumers, we focus keenly on the chemicals in the products we use and with which we come into contact. Globalization and the emergence worldwide of sophisticated chemical management programs invite complex legal, commercial, and scientific challenges. These challenges extend far beyond compliance questions that, by comparison, seem now nostalgically straightforward. Understanding these programs and their evolution can only help inform our judgment as lawyers, consultants, and educated consumers.

On March 7, 2014, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) released a proposal for a draft regulation amending Proposition 65 regulations. The proposal seeks changes to the warning requirements to include more detailed information, including the names of the chemicals covered by individual warnings, the ways that individuals are exposed to these chemicals, and how individuals can avoid or reduce their exposure to these chemicals. This column explains this proposal and its significance.

It is official. California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Safer Consumer Products regulations, and the program went into effect on October 1, 2013. The regulations mark the much-anticipated regulatory implementation of California’s Green Chemistry Initiative. The regulations and final statement of reasons are available at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SCPRegulations.cfm. This new program is a true game-changer, and it will have profound national and international business, regulatory, and commercial implications for consumer product manufacturers and others for the reasons noted in this Washington Watch article. 

On August 28, 2013, California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL) approved the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC or department) Safer Consumer Products Regulations (regulations). The regulations took effect on October 1, 2013. The regulations are the much-anticipated regulatory implementation of California’s Green Chemistry Initiative. The regulations and final statement of reasons are available at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SCPRegulations.cfm.

The scope of the regulations, including the four core elements of the regulations—candidate chemicals, priority products (PP), alternatives analysis (AA), and regulatory responses—is discussed.

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Safer Consumer Products Regulations are now in effect (See "California Cracks Down on Chemicals"). While the most onerous requirements for "responsible entities" (manufacturers, importers, assemblers and retailers) will not hit for a while, companies should consider taking some initial steps now to understand how these regulations may affect operations in the future.

On August 23, 2013, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released changes to the near final Safer Consumer Products Regulations (SCPR). These game-changing regulations took effect October 1, 2013. This column broadly outlines the rule and summarizes the changes.

This article presents the results of a January 2013 workshop convened at the California NanoSystems Institute of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and hosted by the University of California Center for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology, as well as the UCLA Center for Nanobiology and Predictive Toxicology. Using carbon nanotubes as a case study, national and international leaders from government, industry, and academia discussed the utility of alternative test strategies (ATS) for decision-making analyses of engineered nanomaterials (ENM). After discussions, participants generated a short list of generally shared viewpoints, including a general view that ATS approaches for ENMs can significantly benefit chemical safety analysis. The article is available for purchase online.

President Obama won a decisive victory on November 6, 2012, and the forecast for the next four years is clearer now than it was pre-election. This Washington Watch column offers some preliminary observations on what lies ahead for domestic environmental management issues at the legislative and regulatory levels.

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC) is one step closer to implementing the state’s Green Chemistry Initiative (GCI), which directs regulators to evaluate safer alternatives to chemicals that are believed to be toxic. These are not “garden variety” chemical regulations that impose a restriction here or there to prevent a perceived risk. Far from it. These regulations are game-changers. They ultimately will transform the way manufacturers select raw materials and make consumer products. As a result, these regulations are likely to influence significantly — and permanently — the way consumer products are conceived, formulated, and distributed. This “Washington Watch” column summarizes the core elements of the proposed Safer Consumer Products Regulations, highlighting significant changes from prior proposals.

In July, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released proposed Safer Consumer Products regulations, the newest iteration of the much-anticipated regulatory implementation of the state’s Green Chemistry Initiative.

In July, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) released proposed Safer Consumer Products regulations, the newest iteration of the much anticipated regulatory implementation of California's Green Chemistry Initiative. Below is a summary of the core elements of the proposed regulations -- chemicals of concern (COC), priority products (PP), alternative analysis (AA), and regulatory responses.