From OEHHA:

Effective March 16, 2012, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is adding methanol (CAS No. 67-56-1) to the list of chemicals known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of Proposition 65.¹

The listing of methanol is based on formal identification by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an authoritative body,² in a report by the NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, that methanol causes reproductive toxicity (developmental endpoint).  The criteria used by OEHHA for the listing of chemicals under the “authoritative bodies” mechanism can be found in Title 27, Cal. Code of Regs., section 25306.

The documentation supporting OEHHA’s determination that the criteria for administrative listing have been satisfied for methanol is included in the Notice of Intent to List [Can you create a hyperlink to this Notice of Intent to List] published in the January 2, 2009 issue of the California Regulatory Notice Register (Register 2009, No. 1-Z).

A complete, updated chemical list is published in this issue of the California Regulatory Notice Register and is available on the OEHHA website at www.oehha.ca.gov.  In summary, methanol is being listed under Proposition 65 as known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity, as follows:

¹The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code section 25249.5 et seq.

² See Health and Safety Code, section 25249.8(b) and Title 27, Cal. Code of Regs., section 25306.

³ Listing mechanism:  AB – “authoritative bodies” mechanism (Title 27, Cal. Code of Regs. Section 25306).

Because of the significant public interest in methanol, an Interpretive Guideline No. 2012-001 is being published concurrently with this rulemaking notice. Follow this link to download a copy of the Interpretive Guideline.

We will keep you updated with any ongoing Prop 65 developments.

From: California Department of Pesticide Regulation

On January 11, 2011, U.S. EPA released a document entitled, “Determining if a Cleaning Product is a Pesticide Under FIFRA.” U.S. EPA provided examples of cleaning claims it considers to be non-pesticidal, including “cleans or removes stains from algae, mold, mildew or other non-public health organisms.” Products with such claims do not require registration with U.S. EPA.

Effectively immediately, DPR considers labeling claims to control, prevent, mitigate, clean and/or remove (or words meaning the same thing) “mold,” mildew,” “algae,” “fungus” or other organisms to be pesticidal claims. Products with such claims require registration with both U.S. EPA and DPR.

Product labeling claims to control or prevent, (or words meaning the same thing) “mold stains,” “mildew stains,” “algae stains,” “fungal stains” or stains from other organisms are also pesticidal. Products with such claims must be registered with both U.S. EPA and DPR prior to sale and use. The use of the word “control” implies growth which can only take place if the organism itself is present. Similarly, a stain can only be “prevented” by controlling the organism that causes the stain.

Click on the above link for a document outlining the new DPR policy.

From:  Chemical Watch

The US and Canada are working together in an effort to ensure consistent implementation of the Globally Harmonised System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals. Speaking at GlobalChem Maureen Ruskin, director of the Office of Chemical Hazards at the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), said that the US and Canada had formed a Regulatory Coordination Council and GHS implementation had been included in the current work plan. “The US and Canada will be working together to ensure what we do on GHS is aligned,” she stated.

While Canada is expected to be at least a year behind GHS implementation compared to the US, Ms Ruskin said that once it was implemented in both countries, the Council would work to ensure alignment, particularly on technical issues and the interpretation of data to ensure companies in the US and Canada classified chemicals in the same way.

Click on the link above for more information, including four actions the Council has agreed upon to coordinate GHS implementation in the two countries.

From: OSHA

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has posted a series of 17 videos to help workers learn about the proper use of respirators on the job.

These short videos, nine in English and eight in Spanish, provide valuable information to workers in general industry and construction. Topics include OSHA’s Respiratory Standard, respirator use, training, fit-testing and detecting counterfeit respirators. The videos are available with closed captioning for streaming or download from OSHA’s Web site.

The videos can be found at the following link:
http://www.osha.gov/video/respiratory_protection/index.html

Click on the links for more information.

From: Quarles & Brady LLP

The five-month period to submit required reporting under the Inventory Update Rule, now known as the Chemical Data Rule (“CDR”), begins February 1 and runs through June 30. EPA finalized the CDR on August 16, 2011. The CDR requires manufacturers to report information to EPA regarding the volume of commercial chemical substances and mixtures manufactured, processed, and used by facilities located in the United States. The rule has changed significantly in the five years since reporting was last required in 2007, and the vague nature of the guidance provided with the rule has lead to concerns from some in Congress that EPA is setting industries up for enforcement.

The CDR requires reporting of chemical production volumes for 2010 and chemical production, processing, and use information from 2011. The CDR also requires the reporting of byproducts that are being recycled or reprocessed. Under guidance issued by the agency with the rule, byproducts such as metallic or coke fines, as well as spent solvent solutions may be considered chemicals “manufactured” by a given facility and may require reporting under the rule.

Please click on the links for more information.

From: OEHHA

OEHHA has selected the chemicals below for the DARTIC’s review for possible listing under Proposition 65.  OEHHA is initiating the development of hazard identification materials on these chemicals.

By this notice, OEHHA is giving the public an opportunity to provide information relevant to the assessment of the evidence of developmental and male and female reproductive toxicity for deltamethrin and xylene.  Interested parties or members of the public wishing to provide such information should send it to the address given below.

The publication of this notice marks the start of a 60-day data call-in period.  This period will end on Tuesday, March 20, 2012.  The information received during this data call-in period will be reviewed and considered by OEHHA as it prepares the reproductive toxicity hazard identification materials on these chemicals.

For more information, please click on the above link.

From: OEHHA

Health Canada’s sampling and evaluation program has revealed that the recalled piece of jewellery contains lead in excess of the allowable limit.

Benzophenone, coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide diethanolamine), diethanolamine, and 2-methylimidazole each meet the requirements for listing as known to the state to cause cancer for purposes of Proposition 65.

OEHHA is providing this opportunity to comment as to whether the chemicals identified above meet the requirements for listing as causing cancer specified in Health and Safety Code section 25249.8(a). OEHHA must receive comments by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 21, 2012.

Click on the links for more information.

From: Environmental Expert

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to publish proposed significant new use rules (SNUR) for 17 chemical substances that were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMN). According to EPA, 15 of the substances are subject to consent orders under Section 5(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process any of the 17 substances for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by the proposed rules would be required to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. Of particular interest, seven of the PMN substances’ reported chemical names include the term ‘carbon nanotube’ (CNT) or ‘CNT.’

EPA states that because of a lack of established nomenclature for CNTs, the TSCA Inventory names for CNTs are currently in generic form, e.g., ‘carbon nanotube (CNT), multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT), double-walled carbon nanotube (DWCNT), or single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT).’ EPA uses the specific structural characteristics provided by the PMN submitter to characterize more specifically the TSCA Inventory listing for an individual CNT. According to EPA, all submitters of new chemical notices for CNTs have claimed those specific structural characteristics as confidential business information (CBI). The proposed rule includes the generic chemical name along with the PMN number to identify that a distinct chemical substance was the subject of the PMN without revealing the confidential chemical identity of the PMN substance.

Click on the link for more information.

From: OEHHA

The California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) intends to list the chemical identified in the table below as known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.

OEHHA is providing an opportunity to comment as to whether the chemical identified above meets the requirements for listing as causing reproductive toxicity, specified in Health and Safety Code section 25249.8(a).  Because this is a ministerial listing, comments should be limited to the question whether the ACGIH has assigned a TLV based in whole or in part on an endpoint of reproductive toxicity.

All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, January 30, 2012.

Click on the links for more information.

From: The Wall Street Journal

Colorado and Texas adopted rules Tuesday that require oil and natural-gas companies to disclose the chemicals they inject underground in the drilling technique known as fracking.

The rules are part of a broader effort by states to show they are serious about regulating the rapidly expanding hydraulic fracturing ahead of possible new federal rules governing chemical disclosure, water disposal, air emissions and well construction.

Next month, the federal government is expected to issue guidelines for disposal of water used in fracking, and the Interior Department later will publish rules governing such operations on public lands.

Click on the links for more information.