Ä¢¹½tv

Assembly bills banning PFAS in cleaning products, menstrual products, and artificial turf returned without signature, directed to DTSC

On Oct. 8, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed three bills that would have banned per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in a variety of consumer products.

Assembly Bills , , and — which would have banned PFAS in menstrual products, cleaning products, and artificial turf or synthetic surfaces, respectively — received strong support from the California Senate last month. AB 246 met a unanimous vote, AB 727 passed , and AB 1423 passed . If signed into law, these bills were expected to have significant impacts on product formulations, supply chains, and contract laboratories across the U.S.

Reason for vetoing all three PFAS bans

Governor Newsom explained his reasoning for returning the bills without signature in three nearly identical letters. In each one, he noted that these bills "do not identify or require any regulatory agency to determine compliance with, or enforce, the proposed statute," finding that each bill "falls short of providing enhanced protection to California consumers due to lack of regulatory oversight."

In each letter, the governor further noted that "[p]reviously enacted single-product chemical bans, which also lack oversight, are proving challenging to implement, with inconsistent interpretations and confusion among manufacturers about how to comply with the restrictions." These previously enacted bans include AB 652 on juvenile products and AB 1200 on food packaging signed by the governor in October 2021 and AB 1817 on textiles signed in September 2022.

What's next for PFAS regulations for consumer products in California?

While Governor Newsom's rejection halts these three bills, that doesn't end the effort to regulate PFAS in consumer products. In each letter, the governor also said, "I strongly support the author's intent," and he directed the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) "to engage with the author and the Legislature and consider alternative approaches to regulating the use of these harmful chemicals in consumer products."

DTSC already included beauty, personal care, and hygiene products (among others); cleaning products; and building products and materials used in construction and renovation in their for further evaluation of the potential for chemicals from these products to cause adverse human health or environmental impacts.

DTSC previously adopted "Carpets and Rugs with Perfluoroalkyl or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)" and "Treatments Containing PFASs for Use on Converted Textiles or Leathers" as for PFAS effective July 1, 2021, and April 1, 2022, respectively. According to DTSC, a priority product is a "consumer product that (1) contains one or more Candidate Chemicals that have the potential to harm people or the environment, and (2) has been formally listed in the California Code of Regulations through rulemaking." In the finalized regulatory text for both priority products, DTSC defined PFAS as "a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom, as defined by the California Environmental Contaminant Biomonitoring Program."

Read the full text of Governor Newsom's veto letters regarding , , and .

A growing national trend toward state regulation of PFAS

Despite this delay, manufacturers should continue to prepare for upcoming PFAS restrictions. Although regulation at the federal level is proceeding with attention to specific PFAS, California and other states are proposing and enacting regulation more broadly.

Several U.S. states have passed or are proposing PFAS regulations that vary considerably across product categories, chemical thresholds, testing standards, and compliance timelines. Proposed and passed state bills also vary in their requirements from outright bans to disclosure and product labeling or reporting requirements.