The Biobased and Renewable Products Advocacy Group (BRAG) helps members develop and bring to market their innovative biobased and renewable chemical products through insightful policy and regulatory advocacy. BRAG is managed by B&C® Consortia Management, L.L.C., an affiliate of Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC or Department) Safer Consumer Products Regulations (Regulations) take effect today. Memoranda providing background information on the Regulations are available online. The Regulations and Final Statement of Reasons are available online.

The most onerous requirements for "responsible entities" (i.e., manufacturers, importers, assemblers, and retailers) will not be felt until DTSC identifies the first Priority Products, that is, a consumer product containing a listed Candidate Chemical for which responsible entities must conduct an Alternatives Analysis (AA) to determine how best to limit potential exposures or the level of potential adverse public health and environmental impacts posed by the substance in the Priority Product.

There are, however, initial steps that companies can take to understand how these Regulations may affect operations in the near future. DTSC has created a Safer Consumer Products Web Portal where it has posted, and will continue to add, information pertinent to the Regulations.  Please see BRAG's full memorandum, for more information.

 

Tags:

 

On September 18, 2013, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a December 2011 district court ruling and held that California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution on its face. The district court had sided with groups from the oil and gas, ethanol, and trucking industries and found that the LCFS violated the Dormant Commerce Clause because the statute gave higher carbon intensity values to out-of-state, Midwest, ethanol, putting that fuel at a disadvantage in California. At the time of the 2011 decision, the district court had also issued a preliminary injunction preventing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) from enforcing the LCFS.


In its decision this week, the appeals court held that the LCFS does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause on its face, and it remanded to the district court whether the statute violates the clause "in purpose or in practical effect." The appeals court also vacated the preliminary injunction.


It has been reported that the ethanol industry is looking at their legal options in light of the appeals court decision.
 


 

On August 8, 2013, the Fifth District Court of Appeals denied a petition from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for a rehearing of the case in which the court found on July 15, 2013, that CARB had improperly approved California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) in violation of administrative procedures (more information is available online). The July 15 decision stands and while CARB may continue to implement the LCFS, it must hold a new 45-day public comment period to receive input on the LCFS regulations, including CARB's calculation of indirect land use from the increased use of biofuels.


 
‹ First  < 6 7 8