California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently took a further step toward expanding the scope of state Proposition 65 regulations to out-of-state online retailers that sell into California when it issued an emergency regulation under Proposition 65 for canned and bottled foods and beverages containing bisphenol A (BPA).[1] The emergency regulation provides recommended "safe harbor" warning language for products containing BPA, a substance commonly used to line food containers, including metal cans, bottle caps, and jar lids, and requires retailers—including online retailers if the products are offered for sale in California—to place warnings at checkout areas explaining that exposure to BPA is known to cause reproductive harm to women.
The emergency BPA regulation appears to be part of a larger effort to update Prop 65 to address consumer goods sold online.Recent consent judgments signed by businesses that violated Prop 65 have require the businesses to provide online warnings, even though the current statute and regulations do not address sales of products over the Internet.[2] Additionally, OEHHA has proposed an amendment to California's regulations governing Prop 65 warnings that would require online retailers to clearly warn consumers of all products containing listed chemicals before consumers complete their online purchases.[3]
Here is a brief background on Prop 65, the emergency regulation, and the online warning requirements.
What is Prop 65?
Prop 65 is a California right-to-know law, requiring businesses to warn consumers of potential exposures to carcinogens and reproductive toxicants.Prop65有两个相关特征:
- 并
- a要求企业先向个人提供清晰合理的警告,然后知情并故意向个人披露该列表中的任何化学品。
The standard Prop 65 warning for consumer products containing reproductive toxicants calls for warnings to be provided "prior to exposure," which can be satisfied by posting a warning on or near the product in question (such as a label or a shelf sign) that reads, "WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm."[7]
OEHHA Requires More Detailed Warnings for Canned and Bottled Foods and Beverages Containing BPA
The BPA regulation requires businesses to adopt warnings that are more detailed than typical Prop 65 consumer product warnings.OEHHA警告罐装食品和饮料列表BPA名称详解哪些产品含有该化学物,并提供网站客户访问更多信息:
WARNING: 多食品和饮料罐装双酚A(BPA)焦盖和瓶盖也可能含有BPA食用
容器打包的食物或饮料时可接触BPA详情查询: www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/BPA.制造商可以通过授权代理商或通过行业协会直接通知零售商此外,制造商、生产商、打包商、进口商和经销商必须免费向零售商提供或主动提供所有必须遵守紧急规则的警告数家行业协会已建立网站,其中载有含有BPA产品列表和这些产品的警告 。
在线警告要求
OEHHA要求零售商在每个批量销售点发布BPA警告,在线零售商可遵守紧急BPA规范,在产品显示页、报到页或购买完成前别处警告消费者,只要警告显出这一要求估计同时适用于州内和州外网上零售商首席检察官表示, “ 提供消费者警告的要求适用于所有州外企业,包括州外网上零售商 。
OEHA网站校验页面OEHHA正在修改Prop65规则,要求在线零售商在消费者完成在线购买前清晰警告所有含有化学物的产品。>>[1]
.
EPA has scheduled a stakeholder meeting in Washington, D.C.on June 11 to discuss its proposed nanoscale materials rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The proposed rule would require manufacturers of nanoscale materials to provide EPA certain information, including health and safety-related information, regarding their nanoscale materials. Public comments are due by July 6, 2015. EPA's proposed rule is significant in part because EPA intends to use the information gathered under the proposed rule to determine whether to take further action under TSCA regarding nanoscale substances.
EPA issued its proposed rule on April 6, 2015. The rule would require entities that manufactured nanoscale substances during the three years prior to the rule to provide the required information to EPA within six months after the rule is finalized. EPA also proposes a continuing requirement that manufacturers who begin to produce nanoscale materials after the date of the rule provide the same information to EPA at least 135 days before they commence manufacturing. The information required to be reported to EPA includes chemical identity, production volume, methods of manufacture, exposure and release information, and health and safety information.
Information gathered through this proposed reporting rule will be used to "determine if any further action under TSCA," such as additional information collection or regulation, is necessary. EPA has requested comments on a number of aspects of the proposed rule, including regarding a potential future rule that would require regular, periodic reporting of the manufacture of nanoscale substances, and has invited participants at the upcoming stakeholder meeting to provide input on these issues.
The proposed rule recognizes that nanoscale materials have "a range of potentially beneficial" applications, such as "clean energy, pollution reduction and environmental cleanup," but also states that nanomaterials can raise "questions" as to whether the material can "present increased hazards to humans and the environment." That a material is nanoscale is not "an indication of, or criterion for, hazard or exposure potential," that the proposal does not make any finding about the potential risks of nanoscale material, and that all evaluations of nanomaterials "will be based on the specific nanoscale chemical substance's own properties." Nevertheless, an underlying premise of EPA's rulemaking efforts is that nanoscale substances may have significantly different characteristics from the same substances on a more conventional scale.
The proposed rule aims to provide some clarity on an issue that had been muddied by the Supreme Court in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v.U.S.工兵团 ,531US万博体育app手机登录159 (2001) ("SWANCC") and Rapanos v.美国 ,567 U.S.715(2006年)。万博体育app手机登录依据这些判断 机构开发出