January 2016 Spray 15 outlook… concerns in the U.S. and abroad. in January 2016. If passed, the measure would exponentially expand the industry’s voluntary ingredient communication program. CSPA and allies are actively advocating against the measure, and are discussing potential amendments with the author and sponsors. In 2013, the California Governor’s Office and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) engaged with stakeholders on proposed reforms to Proposition 65 intended to limit frivolous lawsuits and provide clarity on warnings. A series of small stakeholder meetings were convened in the Governor’s Office in an attempt to further develop language intended to be passed prior to the end of the legislative session. However, discussions quickly broke down when stakeholders could not reach consensus and Governor Brown challenged his regulatory agency—the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)—to take regulatory action in addressing the intent of reform. Significant and controversial changes were proposed, including updates to the requirement for more detailed information—for example, names of the chemicals covered by individual warnings; the ways that individuals are exposed to these chemicals; and how individuals can reduce their exposure to them. OEHHA has revised the proposals several times attempting to address concerns with workability and potential to increase litigation. Another revised proposal was anticipated in November 2015. CSPA is working with allied trades associations to providing comments on the proposals. Nicole Quinonez, Randlett/ Nelson/ Madden, consultant to the National Aerosol Association (NAA) and multiple consumer product manufacturers The year 2016 will be another challenging one for industry in California. The California Legislature will be considering Assembly Bill 708, which would require full ingredient disclosure in all consumer, industrial Quinonez and institutional cleaning, air care, automotive and floor maintenance products. The first 20 ingredients in a product would be required on the product label, plus any ingredients listed on the Safer Consumer Products Candidate Chemical list. Every ingredient, along with a description of its purpose, will be required on the product website. Ingredient disclosure is not a new issue and over the past decade product manufacturers have increasingly volunteered this information. However, this legislation is so broad, it will be a challenge for even those companies already disclosing their ingredients to implement. For example, all fragrance ingredients must be disclosed and there is no de minimis or exception for unintentionally added ingredients. This month, California’s Dept. of Resources Recycling & Recovery (CalRecycle) is hosting the “Manufacturer’s Challenge,” wherein it has invited trade associations to present how their members will voluntarily reduce product packaging going to landfill in the state by 50%. CalRecycle is giving industry a chance to avoid mandatory extended producer responsibility (EPR). It’s no secret that CalRecycle believes EPR is an important tool for waste reduction and it intends to pursue statutory authority to implement EPR through regulation. In May 2015, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which administers Proposition 65 (requiring the State to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm), listed Bisphenol A(BPA) as a female reproductive toxicant. BPA is used as liner in many types of metal containers, including aerosols. This means that by May 2016, products or packaging that contain BPA must have a label warning consumers, or manufacturers must be prepared to show in court that the BPA in their product does not pose a significant risk. Efforts are underway to encourage OEHHA to set a Maximum Allowable Dose Level (MADL) and provide legal cover for products with BPA levels below the MADL. However, at this point, it is unclear if a level will be established prior to May 2016. Doug Raymond, Raymond Regulatory Resources (3R), LLC In 2016, regulatory activity will be less prevalent than in 2015, as it is an election year and most agencies are not likely to make any substantial moves. A review of agencies that affect our industry: California Air Resources Board (CARB) CARB will be in its third year of a three-year survey. Most of its time will be spent crunching numbers and reviewing data. However, two issues will likely be of interest to our industry: 1. Low Vapor Pressure (LVP) studies will be ongoing and reports will need to be reviewed and monitored. 2. Short Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCP) will be a topic of concern for those using hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). We need to monitor CARB’s activity on this. Expect a Board hearing late in the year on exemptions for Consumer Products. AVA CARIDAD, EDITORIAL DIRECTOR Raymond
Spray January 2016
To see the actual publication please follow the link above