7575 FULTON STREET EAST

ADA, MICHIGAN 49355-0001

www.amway.com

October 11,2012

Krysia Von Burg, Regulations Coordinator Regulations Section Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, CA 95812-0806 (via e-mail: gcregs@dtsc.ca.go.{)

Dear Ms. Von Burg

YOUR BUSINESS

Amway would like to express sincere concern regarding the Proposed Safer Consumer Products Regulations released for comment on July 27, 2012 by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). While we do very much appreciate the extension given in the comment period, our company believes strongly that the regulatory process outlined misses a real opportunity to advance the goals set out in the enabling legislation. This is particularly disturbing in light of the effort made by our company and many others in industry to support and inform the process of developing these regulations.

Amway is a global business with $10.9 billion in sales. The Access Business Group, the operations component that supports Amway independent business owners (IBOs) with pr9ducts, is engaged in the development, production and distribution of a wide variety of consumer products. Our company has manufacturing facilities in California and supports tens of thousands of small businesses selling our products in the state. Because of our commitment to California business and to the health and safety of California consumers and environment, we have been pleased to actively engage the California Legislature and DTSC to support and improve the Green Chemistry Initiative. Our comments to the earlier, informal proposals did identify both pOints of agreement and suggested corrections. We continue to support the intent of the legislation and the effort of DTSC to draft meaningful rules. The comments below are made in the same constructive spirit although we will limit ourselves to focus on the needs we see for improvement.

Chemicals of Concern Identification Process

As written, the proposed regulations would develop a list of Chemicals of Concern (CoC) derived from 22 lists from various government bodies. The Department has estimated that this "List-of-Lists" approach will result in

0-7110 100% Recycled Paper

identifying approximately 1,200 chemicals. This is inconsistent with a review by the Green Chemistry Alliance which enumerated over 4,000 chemicals that are the detailed in the subject lists. This results in a continuing confusion over the process by which CoC are ultimately identified.

Moreover, the approach taken by DTSC fails to meet the statutory mandate to prioritize chemicals of concern. The various lists are certainly appropriate as a pool from which to identify candidate chemicals. However, citizens of the state and those companies subject to the alternatives assessment process deserve clear criteria for selection of the highest priority concerns. Ideally, this would be accompanied by a screening process to select those chemicals and products for which action would be taken.

Focusing attention on a limited number of high priority programs is clearly appropriate since DTSC has acknowledged that only a few alternative assessments can be performed initially. The current framework does not give assurance that resources are being directed toward a highest priority item, only one of over one thousand possibilities.

Consumer Product Prioritization Process

The process to identify and list Priority Products is still unclear which leads to further uncertainty in establishing clear priorities for the program. The Initial Statement of Reason (ISOR) states that there will be a two-fold evaluation but DTSC performs the evaluation by a private assessment rather than one transparent to scrutiny. By contrast the prioritization of product selection should be a predictably open as the alternatives assessment to the Department expects to hold the subject companies.

Allowance for Contaminants

The proposed regulations do not make a distinction between intentionally-added ingredients and incidental contaminants. Treating the incidental presence of a substance with the same rigor as purposeful addition will frequently misdirect the energy of manufacturers toward performance of AAs that are of low or no value and defeat the purpose of the program. There may be some rare occasion of high hazard but these instances have typically been managed by other programs of ingredient restriction.

Other regulations provide for such an allowance, e.g. Washington State's Children's Safe Products Act. In that regulation intentionally added chemical is distinguished from a contaminant. DTSC would be wise to adopt the same distinction and deal with ingredient purity in a separate evaluation for priority.

Risk for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs)

The Alternatives Assessment requirements established by the Department and the threat of regulatory intervention are unnecessarily restrictive for smaller companies. Even if larger companies are able to adapt to the proposed requirements, SMEs could find themselves overwhelmed by the number of their

ingredients and products subject to this regulation. DTSC should consider the effect on SMEs and recognize that these businesses are likely to provide innovative solutions and stable employment if they are not pressured by multiple requirements and short response time frames. If they are given relief from some AA requirements, these companies can be a great resource for Green Chemistry program success and a boost to the California economy.

Conclusion In addition to the comments outlined above, Amway would like to see DTSC address the lack of any meaningful encouragement of voluntary product improvements. As currently written, the proposed regulation would reward companies delay until required to perform the AA. If DTSC were to provide some compensatory advantage, regulatory relief for example, to early implementation, there might be more innovation unleashed in an effort to reduce likely priority CoCs in higher priority product categories.

We continue to be supportive of the intent of the Green Chemistry Initiative but believe that the current regulatory proposal is very unlikely to deliver the benefits foreseen by the coalition that had endorsed that concept.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert W. Hamilton Regulatory Policy Director Amway