Amendment
Vetoed on 10/13/25
This bill aims to restrict the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in various consumer products in California. It establishes a regulatory framework to phase out PFAS in products such as juvenile items, textiles, food packaging, cookware, and cleaning products due to their persistent nature and potential health risks. The legislation sets timelines for prohibiting the sale and distribution of certain PFAS-containing products, requires manufacturers to register covered products and certify compliance, and grants regulatory authority to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to implement and enforce these restrictions.
The bill prohibits the distribution, sale, or offer for sale of certain '2028 products' containing intentionally added PFAS in California after January 1, 2028. These products include cleaning supplies, cookware, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging, and ski wax. It further bans cookware containing intentionally added PFAS after January 1, 2030. The legislation defines key terms such as 'covered product', 'food packaging', and 'intentionally added PFAS'. It requires manufacturers of covered products to register with the Department of Toxic Substances Control by July 1, 2029, providing product information, applicable fees, and compliance certifications. The bill places the burden of proof on manufacturers to demonstrate that PFAS is not intentionally added or is solely present in inaccessible components. It also grants the department authority to adopt implementing regulations by January 1, 2029.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control is the primary agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the PFAS restrictions. The department is authorized to adopt regulations to administer the program by January 1, 2029. This includes prescribing the registration process, setting applicable fees based on reasonable implementation costs, and publishing accepted testing methods for PFAS compliance on its website by January 1, 2029. The department may request technical documentation and test results from manufacturers to verify compliance. Funding for implementation is expected to come from registration fees paid by manufacturers of covered products. The bill establishes a framework for the department to enforce PFAS restrictions starting July 1, 2030, though specific enforcement mechanisms are not detailed in the available information.
The primary beneficiaries of this legislation are California consumers, who will have reduced exposure to PFAS through everyday products. The bill is expected to have a significant impact on manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of products containing PFAS, requiring them to reformulate products, establish compliance processes, and potentially incur costs for registration and testing. The administrative burden on the Department of Toxic Substances Control will increase as it develops regulations, manages product registrations, and enforces compliance. While specific cost estimates are not provided, the bill aims to cover implementation costs through registration fees. The expected outcomes include a reduction in PFAS contamination in California's environment and potential health benefits for residents. The bill includes some exemptions, such as for off-highway vehicles and certain motorcycles until January 1, 2032, but does not appear to have a general sunset provision.
The bill operates within California's authority to regulate consumer products and environmental contaminants. It amends and adds sections to the California Health and Safety Code, particularly focusing on expanding regulations related to toxic substances. The legislation appears to build upon existing statutory authorities governing chemical regulations in consumer products. While the bill establishes state-level restrictions on PFAS, it includes provisions acknowledging potential federal preemption, exempting products where federal law governs PFAS presence and preempts state authority. The bill does not explicitly address judicial review provisions, but as a state law, it would be subject to standard procedures for challenging California statutes.
Several critical issues may arise from this legislation. Implementation challenges include developing effective testing methods for PFAS in diverse product categories and ensuring compliance across complex supply chains. The broad definition of PFAS may lead to difficulties in distinguishing between harmful and potentially benign applications. Cost implications for businesses, particularly small manufacturers, could be significant as they reformulate products and establish compliance processes. There may be unintended consequences such as the use of alternative substances that prove to be equally problematic. Opposition arguments might focus on the economic burden on businesses, potential job losses in affected industries, and claims of overregulation. Additionally, the bill's approach of regulating PFAS as a class rather than specific compounds could face scientific and legal challenges.