USA – CALIFORNIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Eoghan Gallagher and Catherine Johnson, Environmental General Counsel
These reductions, while significant, represent only a portion of the commitments California must meet under its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone attainment. Under the current SIP, CARB is obligated to secure approximately 20 tpd of additional VOC reductions statewide, including 8 tpd within the South Coast air basin, by 2037. To close this gap, CARB will need to identify further reductions in product catego- ries that contribute disproportionately to emissions, either because of high VOC content or large sales volumes. This keeps sustained regulatory pressure on industries such as personal care, fragrance, hair care, and household cleaning, where aggregate VOC output remains substantial even after recent reforms. To generate the data necessary for the next regula- tory phase, CARB launched its 2023 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey, requiring manufactur- ers to submit detailed formulation and sales informa - tion across 37 product categories by April 2025. The survey results will inform the next rulemaking cycle, anticipated around 2031, which is expected to pursue the remaining VOC-reduction tonnage needed to meet SIP obligations. During the 2023 rulemaking, CARB also deferred sev- eral of its more aggressive proposals, most notably a 50% VOC limit for personal fragrance products, to 2030. While this delay gives manufacturers time to develop low VOC formulations and alternative pro- pellants, it underscores the agency’s intent to reach deeper cuts as it works toward the 2037 targets. For manufacturers and importers, the implications are twofold. Product development timelines must now account for both the phased implementation of the 2023 amendments and the likelihood of additional restrictions driven by the SIP reduction gap. Compa- nies will need to evaluate formulation options well in advance of compliance deadlines and maintain VOC and chemical composition data capable of support- ing regulatory reporting and future reformulation deci- sions. Chemical and Consumer Product Regulation In the chemical and consumer product arena, in recent years, the state has broadened its focus from traditional pollution control toward upstream prod-
uct governance, regulating what ingredients may be used, how they are disclosed and how sustainability is substantiated. These initiatives parallel the European Union’s Chemical Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) and position California as the US jurisdiction most closely aligned with the EU’s hazard-based approach. Through concurrent initiatives led by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the legislature, California is constructing a regulatory framework that connects chemical management, transparency and environmental-marketing oversight. Beauty, personal care, home fragrance and cleaning product compa- nies sit squarely within this evolving framework. PFAS and the expansion of chemical bans California’s targeted action on perfluoroalkyl and poly- fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) remains a cornerstone of its chemical-safety agenda. Assembly Bill 2771 bans intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics begin- ning in 2025, complementing AB 1817’s restriction for textiles and AB 1200’s prohibition for food packaging and cookware. In 2025, the legislature also advanced Senate Bill 682, which would have prohibited inten- tionally added PFAS in a broad range of additional consumer products, including cleaning products, dental floss, juvenile items, ski wax, and cookware, with phased implementation through 2030. Although the bill was vetoed by the Governor, its passage by both chambers underscores the state’s continued legislative intent to expand PFAS restrictions across consumer-product categories. DTSC’s Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme continues to expand, but remains selective in scope compared with major EU chemical-safety frame- works. Since the programme’s launch in 2013, DTSC has designated only a small number of Priority Prod- ucts, including nail products containing toluene, spray foams with diisocyanates, and carpets or tex- tile treatments containing PFAS. Each listing requires manufacturers to undertake an alternatives analysis or reformulate, which can be significant for the affected sector but limited in broader market reach. In contrast to EU programmes such as ECHA’s REACH restric- tion processes or the Scientific Committee on Con- sumer Safety (SCCS) evaluations, California’s SCP programme has generated relatively few final regula-
448 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook