California Proposes Expanding Safer Consumer Products Regulations Under SB 502

On June 6, 2025, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued a Notice of Proposed Action to amend the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Regulations. These proposed amendments implement Senate Bill (SB) 502 and expand public access to DTSC’s regulatory process. Among other changes, the proposal creates a pathway for public petitions to result directly in regulatory action, bypassing the traditional Alternatives Analysis process.

Background

The SCP Regulations were first adopted in 2013 under the 2008 California Green Chemistry Law to reduce exposure to hazardous chemicals in consumer products. It established a process for identifying consumer products that contain certain hazardous chemicals. Products may be designated as “Priority Products” if they contain Candidate Chemicals that pose potential risks to human health or the environment, and have been listed through rulemaking.

Once listed, manufacturers are required to  perform an Alternatives Analysis to evaluate safer substitutes before DTSC may impose a “Regulatory Response” — which are regulatory actions to address potential adverse impacts to human health or the environment. Examples of Regulatory Responses include requests for supplemental information from regulated entities, mandates to provide information to consumers, product sales prohibitions, and funding of research and development into future alternatives.

SB 502, enacted in 2022, expanded the SCP process with several amendments that streamlined the identification of hazardous chemicals and enabled increased public engagement. DTSC determined that these revisions, however, would require additional amendments to SCP’s Framework Regulations, which are the subject of the June 6, 2025, proposed rulemaking.

Scope of the Proposed Amendments

• Expanded Petition Process: The amendments would allow interested parties — including individuals, businesses, competitors, NGOs, and government entities — to petition DTSC to list specific product-chemical combinations as Priority Products and propose corresponding direct Regulatory Responses, bypassing the Alternatives Analysis studies —and essentially allow interested third parties to draft, develop, and suggest regulations they would like to see DTSC adopt.
• Direct-to-Listing/Regulatory Response Pathway: The amendments allow DTSC to grant petitions that result in immediate rulemaking for Regulatory Responses without requiring a manufacturer-led Alternatives Analysis. The proposal to proceed directly to Regulatory Responses can be combined with a proposal to list a chemical-product combination as a Priority Product.
  • Petitions must include studies that meet defined reliability and relevance criteria, such as peer-reviewed publications or reports issued by the U.S. National Academies or governmental agencies. Further, the study’s design must appropriately test the hypothesis and be sufficiently supported, as determined by DTSC on a case-by-case basis. This may include, for example, evaluation as to whether the scientific study was conducted according to generally accepted scientific principles, such as testing protocols in which the test parameters are based on specific testing guidelines.
  • DTSC must evaluate whether the proposed response is justified and feasible using specified selection factors, including public health protection, private sector economic interests, and regulatory cost-efficiency.
  • If the petition is granted, DTSC would then initiate rulemaking (including public notice, an opportunity for comment, and responses to comments) and include a rationale demonstrating that the study meets all regulatory standards. If further data are needed, DTSC may still grant the petition but will identify the areas where it will supplement the record.
  • Following the public notice-and-comment period, DTSC will make a formal determination as to whether the submitted studies or evaluations are applicable, meet the regulatory reliability criteria, and sufficiently address the relevant selection factors. DTSC must publish a summary of its determination and indicate whether it intends to proceed with a Regulatory Response. If DTSC concludes that the criteria are met, it may then issue a Regulatory Response based on that determination.

While a public hearing has not been scheduled, DTSC will conduct a hearing upon receiving a written request from any interested person. Public comments are due by July 21, 2025.

In a separate but concurrent action initiated on May 23, 2025, DTSC proposed additional rulemaking to clarify compliance options for importers when a manufacturer fails to comply with SCP Regulations. This aims to close existing regulatory gaps that could leave importers uncertain of their obligations.

Key Takeaways

These changes mark a significant procedural shift in California’s chemical regulatory landscape. By allowing DTSC to rely on existing studies, the new process expedites regulatory action. While the amendments are not expected to impose significant economic burdens (i.e., they are below the $10 million threshold for major regulations), businesses may face faster timelines for compliance and increased scrutiny of Priority Products.

Stakeholders should closely follow additional updates to California’s SCP Regulations and consider submitting comments on the proposed rulemakings to help shape the factors and criteria DTSC will use when evaluating third-party proposals for regulation.

This post is as of the posting date stated above. Sidley Austin LLP assumes no duty to update this post or post about any subsequent developments having a bearing on this post.