Public Comments to Safer Consumer Product Regulations

41'T O~S AND P.AlQc RACTI ASSOCIATION, ;n, f October 10,2012 Krysia Von Burg, Regulations Coordinator California's Great America Regulations Section Department of Toxic Substances Control Children's Fairyland P.O. Box 806 Disneyland Parks Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 and Resorts Funderland Re: Comments on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control- Proposed Regulation: Safer Consumer Product Alternatives Gilroy Gardens Theme Park Golfland Entertainment Dear Ms. Von Burg: Centers Knott's Berry Farm The California Attractions and Parks Association (CAPA) would like to express our concern over aspects of the proposed Department of Toxic LEGOLAND California Substances Control (DTSC) Regulations for Safer Consumer Products Pacific Park Alternatives (SCP). Palace Entertainment CAPA is a trade association which represents virtually all of California's Pixieland Amusement Park theme, amusement and water parks. Our members directly employ more than 125,000 workers; generate more than $12 billion in annual state Redwood Valley Railway commerce; and form the economic foundation for communities around the Santa Cruz Beach state. Our members range from world renowned destination resorts, to Boardwalk small family-owned entertainment centers. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment Our industry provides a wide variety of entertainment offerings and a wide Six Flags Discovery variety of retail sales products manufactured locally, nationally and Kingdom internationally. Six Flags Magic Mountain We agree with, and support, the comments also submitted by the Toy Sonoma Train Town Industry Association (TIA) and the Green Chemistry Alliance, of which CAPA is a member. The Wave Water Park Universal Parks and Resorts In addition to the detailed analysis and comments provided by those Water World California organizations, we would also like to raise the following issues: Wild Rivers Water Park ·Partial list CAPA 1201 K Street, Suite 800 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone 916.498.7772 Fax 916.448.4923 Email [email protected] 1. Retailers should not shoulder the burden of SCP regulations and compliance: Compliance with the proposed regulations is simply impossible for most retailers. Retailers should not be included in the group of "responsible parties" under the regulations. Currently, the SCP regulations set up a tiered joint liability scheme where manufacturers (the product manufacturer or entity that controls the specifications and design of, or use of materials in, the product) have the primary responsibility for compliance. The importer has responsibility for compliance if the manufacturer fails to comply. Finally, the retailer must comply if the manufacturer and importer fail to comply, and the DTSC lists their noncompliance on the "Failure to Comply" list. However, retailers do not have the resources or capabilities to comply with SCP regulations. Retailers do not generally know the chemical composition of the various products they sell; they have no visibility to the supply chain of the manufacturer; and they cannot specify what chemicals or components will be included in the products. This simply places an unfair and impossible burden on most retailers. Compliance would require resources that retailers do not have, and cannot afford to obtain. 2. Alternative analysis exemption notification: Requiring manufacturers to apply for a small quantity exemption is counter to the spirit and intent of the regulations, which acknowledge that minimal concern exists for such extremely small levels of a chemical in a product. Additionally, the process is unnecessarily cumbersome and requires the release of proprietary data, which may become public, for products that are not a priority and pose no human health or environmental concerns. 3. Inaccessible components: For assembled products where chemicals of concern do not come in contact with humans or the environment, "inaccessible components" should be clearly defined and removed from prioritization. An example of an inaccessible component is lead solder on embedded printed circuit boards. 4. Contaminant definitions: Contaminant is referenced in Section 69503.5(c) (1) (A) and (C), but is not defined in the regulations. Contaminant should be clearly defined in the regulation and such definition should not be more restrictive than the definitions used in other states, such as Washington and Maine. We feel the true scope, cost and practicality of these proposed regulations have not been fully considered. We urge the DTSC to take a more comprehensive and measured approach which recognizes the very limited ability of retailers to address the compliance issues raised in the proposed regulations. 2 .

Load more