update on u.s. state regulations & testing requirements · update on u.s. state regulations...

Update on U.S. State

Regulations & Testing

Requirements

Hosted by

United States Fashion Industry Association (USFIA)

& SGS

July 19, 2016

2:00 P.M. Eastern/11:00 A.M. Pacific

Today’s Speaker

Louann Spirito

Director of Technical Support for Softlines

SGS North America

Do you have a question?

During the webinar, all attendees will be assigned to listen-only mode. Please use the Questions box on your dashboard to ask a question during the webinar.

Que s t i o n s ?

Please use the “Questions” box on your dashboard on

the right side of your screen.

You can also ask a question after the webinar.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @usfashion

Phone: +1-202-419-0444

Update on U.S. State Regulations &

Testing Requirements

Louann Spirito

Director Technical Support Softlines

July 19, 2016

6© SGS SA 2014 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

GOAL OF STATES

To reduce exposure of harmful chemicals to children

and sometimes adults

To limit chemicals used in certain products sold in

some states

To study and evaluate the chemicals used and their

effect on health and environment

Find alternative chemicals

And do it faster than the Federal Government


CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65



California Proposition 65 includes a list of

chemicals known to cause cancer or birth

defects or other reproductive harm if consumers

are exposed to any listed chemical

This list has grown to include approximately 800

chemicals since it was first published in 1987

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html



Businesses are required to provide a "clear and

reasonable" warning before knowingly and

intentionally exposing anyone to a listed

chemical.

Court case decisions or settlements are used to

establish substance limits believed to be safe for

consumers

Most important substances in our industry are

Lead

Cadmium

Phthalates

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/pdf_zip/RegsArt6.pdf


TRENDS

Number of 60-day notices

2012 – 188

2013 – 160

2014 – 142

2015 – 208

2016 - 74

Continuing to target

Handbags/accessories

Footwear

Focus on

Phthalates

Lead

Cadmium


TRENDS

Settlement limits

Have leveled off to the federal limits

Except in some cases!

0100200300400500600

Original Temp CPSIA CPSIA After CPSIA After CPSIA Occasional

PPM


SETTLEMENTS - LEAD IN BELTS

Product Reference Reformulation

Belts and

Footwear

Reference

County of Alameda, RG-

Case No. 09-459448

Paint 90ppm

Leather 300ppm Lead

PVC 200ppm Lead

Belts Reference

Russell Brimer vs

Franshaw, Inc., and Does

1 through 150

County of Santa Clara

Case No. 11-CV-201061

≤ 1.0 μg Lead (NIOSH 9100) and

< 100 ppm Lead

Payment: $750 to State,

$28,500 attorney fees

Belts Reference

Held vs Fashion Avenue

Sweater Knits LLC

No court case no.

(settlement agreement)

≤ 1.0 μg Lead (NIOSH 9100) and

< 50 ppm Lead, and

≤ 1000 ppm DEHP

Payment: $1,125 to State,

$18,875 attorney fees


PROPOSED REFORM

CA Governor Brown proposes reform in 2014

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.scrapbit.com/2009/10/21/tutfreebie-recoloring-in-word-2007/&sa=U&ei=Mah_U5LaH8SNqAamsICQDA&ved=0CEIQ9QEwCg&usg=AFQjCNFjFQvy45S0buY7dpd4Z2Rl43r9mQ

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.scrapbit.com/2009/10/21/tutfreebie-recoloring-in-word-2007/&sa=U&ei=Mah_U5LaH8SNqAamsICQDA&ved=0CEIQ9QEwCg&usg=AFQjCNFjFQvy45S0buY7dpd4Z2Rl43r9mQ


PROPOSED WARNING REGULATION

Use of familiar “exclamation point” graphic in

most warnings

• Identification of at least one Prop 65 chemical to

which the consumer would be exposed

• Product must list the OEHHA website


WARNING

This product can expose you to formaldehyde, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. For more information go to: www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/product

Warning: This product contains a chemical known

to the State of California to cause cancer.

PROPOSED WARNING LABEL


PROP 65 UPDATES

List is reviewed and substances are added and

deleted

New chemicals added

BPA – Effective date May 12, 2016

No 60 day notices yet

Proposed changes to the law

Not going away


WASHINGTON

Washington State’s Children’s Safe Products Act


Washington State’s

Children’s Safe Products Act

Went into effect July 1, 2009

Purpose:

To prevent exposure of toxic chemicals to children

Lead, Cadmium, Phthalates

To develop a list of chemicals on which

manufacturers must report

To gather information about the quantities of these

chemicals that come into Washington State


Chemicals of High Concern to Children

This list is called the Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC)

Currently CHCC consists of 66 chemicals

considered toxic

bioaccumulative, persistent

found either in children’s tissue (blood, urine) or in children’s products


Reporting

DOE has a web-based reporting form on their website

This is a self-declaration by the manufacturer, and no test results are required

Reporting is done by product category

Clothing

Footwear

Toys/Games




The DOE has recently published an enforcement

guideline for compliance with lead, cadmium and

phthalates

Will enforce state limits for children’s products

that are not covered by a limit under CPSIA

Washington’s limits for lead, cadmium and

phthalates in children’s products cover a broader

range of products and are also generally more

stringent than the CPSIA limits.




The Washington standard for lead, cadmium and

phthalates cannot be enforced for products to

which a federal standard applies

Lead content. There is considerable overlap

between the products covered by the federal lead

limits and children’s products under the

Washington law

Cadmium content. Children’s products such as

childcare articles, clothing, footwear and jewelry

are subject to Washington’s CSPA limits




Phthalates - Children’s products such as

clothing, footwear and cosmetics are subject to

Washington’s CSPA limits

Other than lead, cadmium and phthalates, no

restriction on selling any children’s product which

contains one or more CHCC at any concentration by any state


ENFORCEMENT

DOE selects products at random for testing

If they find a violation, the manufacturer will be notified

He has 45 days to respond before enforcement action is

initiated, if any

Manufacturer will provide evidence of a manufacturing

control program (ISO, ASTM, best manufacturing

practices)

Can provide evidence of due diligence (test results,

audits, quality/purity of feedstock)

DOE prefers investigation/correction to enforcement

action. ($5000 per incident otherwise)


VERMONT

CHEMICALS OF HIGH CONCERN TO CHILDREN


VERMONT

Vermont has regulated the use of individual

chemicals of concern

lead

mercury

bisphenol A

phthalates

decabromodiphenyl ether

tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate

tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate

Inefficient system


VERMONT

Establishes a list of chemicals of high concern to children

– 66 chemicals

Very similar to Washington State CSPA

Beginning July 1, 2016, manufacturers must report each

chemical of high concern

intentionally added

contaminant

Reporting deadline is January 1, 2017

Manufacturers are required to provide disclosures to the

department by this date

The website for reporting is open


VERMONT


DIFFERENCES

Establishes a fee of $200 per chemical

No tiered system for reporting


MAINE

Chemicals of High Concern


MAINE TOXIC CHEMICALS IN

CHILDREN’S PRODUCT LAW

Maine has designated 36 compounds as Chemicals of

High Concern

Four phthalates and formaldehyde changed from "high

concern" to "priority chemical" status under state rules

Manufacturers need to report the use of the chemicals in

children’s products sold in the state

Priority chemicals identified: BPA, NP, NPES, Cadmium,

Arsenic, Mercury, Formaldehyde, Phthalates


OREGON


OREGON

Oregon has recently established the initial list of high

priority chemicals of concern (HPCCs) for reporting in

children’s products

Proposed – currently in Senate Committee

The first biennial notice will be no later than 1 January,

2018

The list of HPCCs would also include the reporting list of

Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCCs) from

Washington State

The criteria for reporting an HPCC are also similar to those

for Washington


NEW YORK STATE & 4

COUNTIES


NEW YORK

Albany Local Law

"P"

(replaces local law

"J")

Westchester

County

Suffolk

County

Rockland County

Local Law No. 3

(amended)

New York City

(proposed)

No Reporting

Requirement

No Reporting

Requirement

No Reporting

Requirement

No Reporting

Requirement

No Reporting

Requirement

7 Heavy Metals

Various limits

7 Heavy Metals

Formaldehyde

Banned

6 Heavy

Metals

Banned

7 Heavy

Metals Banned

7 Heavy Metals

Formaldehyde

Banned

• Counties have agreed not to enforce until the law suit is

settled

• Will only enforce Federal limit

• Have no known ability to enforce

• NY State has passed Assembly, waiting on Senate vote


FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS

PROHIBITION

Many States have proposed or imposed a ban on flame-

retardant chemicals used in children’s products and

upholstered residential furniture

TDCPP (tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate)

Decabromodiphenyl ether;

Hexabromocyclododecane; and

TCEP (tris(2-chloroethyl)phosphate)


TSCA

Toxic Substances Control Act


TSCA

Federal Law

EPA must make a list of high and low priority

chemicals for review

High priority chemicals must be actively

investigated by the EPA for safety and uses

EPA must make a final determination of the

safety of the chemicals using “Good Science”

and taking “Risk” and “Exposure” into account

As chemicals receive final determinations, new

chemicals will be prioritized


TSCA

New TSCA clearly gives the EPA more power to

regulate chemicals in consumer products, along

with more budget to do it

The new TSCA is still focused on regulating

chemicals rather than products

EPA still has to write rules for enforcement and

how the regulations relate to consumer products

and articles; those will need to be written in the

coming year


TSCA

We assume that the regulation of chemicals in

consumer products will be part of the final

determination that is released after an

investigation into the chemicals


TSCA - PREEMPTION

The bill does nothing to preempt existing US

State Chemical Laws in consumer products in

the near future

The bill does preempt NEW state laws while the

EPA is investigating the chemical. A final

determination will also preempt a state law

The bill only preempts new laws about chemicals

that the EPA is actively investigating, and the

preemption is limited to 3.5 years


TSCA - PREEMPTION

Final determinations by the EPA will preempt

existing or NEW state chemical regulations in

consumer products that conflict with the EPA

determination

Final determinations are not expected for several

years, so US laws may start to align around

2019


WHAT DO I DO TO COMPLY?


IS THIS MANAGEABLE?

Regardless of how the chemical got into the

product, the manufacturer must be aware of the

CHCCs in the product or component

Understand how these chemicals are used and

where they can be found

These are NOT a Restricted Substances List

(RSL)

Check with raw material suppliers to obtain the

information


IS THIS MANAGEABLE?

MSDS cannot be relied upon to contain this information

Only required to contain hazardous chemicals if

present at 1.0% or greater

Or carcinogens if present at 0.1% or greater

Not required to list the amount present

Does not account for contaminates

Oeko-tex, bluesign or Eco-Passport certifications

May not include all of the chemicals in question

Some chemicals are either intentionally added or

present as a contaminate above 100ppm and must be

reported

Testing is NOT required by the regulations but is available


IS THIS MANAGEABLE?

It is impractical to test each product offered for sale in

Washington State for all 66 chemicals

A risk-based approach by testing for those chemicals

that are likely to be present can be used

Since not all 66 chemicals will be found in all materials

Testing can be reduced by testing only those

chemicals likely to be found in specific material

categories

If a screening test is conducted and presence of a

CHCC is determined, quantitative analysis must be

performed


IS THIS MANAGEABLE?

Material# of CHCCs suggested for testing after

risk assessment

Plastic / Foam 33

Synthetic Rubber / Silicone Rubber 23

Synthetic Fabric 25

Coating 32

Coating with Substrate 37

Paper and Paperboard 7

Wood 13

Natural Fabric 17

Natural Leather 19

Metal / Ceramic / Glass 6


SOURCES FOR INFORMATION

Work with your third party testing

partner

Have a complete understanding of

the product requirements

Make a written plan for how you will

manage requirements

Know your product & supply chain

Communicate your requirements to

your suppliers


RECOMMENDATIONS

Be Proactive!

Plan to exceed government standards

Understand company requirements before

production

Establish a comprehensive testing program

starting with raw materials through finished

product

Work with a quality partner that understands the

requirements, test methods and quality solutions

WWW.SGS.COM

© S

GS

Gro

up

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

SA

–2

01

5 –

All r

igh

ts r

ese

rve

d -

SG

S is a

re

gis

tere

d tra

de

ma

rk o

f S

GS

Gro

up

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

SA

update on u.s. state regulations & testing requirements · update on u.s. state regulations...

Documents