ELECTRONIC WASTE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS (SB 20)
REGULATORY ISSUE: LABELING ON COVERED PRODUCTS
All covered devices sold in California after January 1, 2005, must be labeled to identify the manufacturer. At issue is whether this requirement needs greater specificity or definition through regulation.
II. RELEVENT ? STATUTE
Section #: PRC 42465.1.
42465.1. On and after January 1, 2005, a person may not sell or offer for sale in this state a covered electronic device unless the device is labeled with the name of the manufacturer or the manufacturer’s brand label, so that it is readily visible.
III. APPROACH #1
Require strict standards for labeling, such as size, placement and other physical parameters (embossed/imprinted, sticker, print, etc), to fulfill statutory intent.
There is potential for a wide range of variability between product labeling practices, including the existence of “generic” devices that do not identify manufacturer or label that are indecipherable. State needs to know who is marketing in California. Consumers need to know who to look to for product end-of-life guidance.
Standards would subject all manufacturers to same labeling requirements/expectations.
Prescriptive labeling requirements may infringe on manufacturer’s brand identity without necessarily improving consumer information. There may be cost implications as well.
IV. APPROACH #2
Require general standards without prescriptive requirements. Direction could be as simple as requiring a permanently affixed label anywhere on exterior of device other than underneath.
Most manufacturers want consumers to know who makes the products they use.
General standards allows for brand identity and innovation.
Remote possibility of labeling practice not fulfilling intent of informing consumers where to go with questions, or informing the State of who is selling products in California.
V. APPROACH #3
Enact no regulation at this time regarding product labeling. Instead rely upon statutory requirements for direction. Resort to regulation only if State deems manufacturer performance is inadequate.
The statutory language is fairly clear. It is in a manufacturer’s best interest to provide clear labeling of products to avoid additional State mandates. State can impose more stringent labeling requirements if deemed necessary.
Allows for performance by manufacturers without burden of regulation.
Risk of inconsistent performance.
12/11/03, CIWMB/DTSC SB 20 Stakeholder Workshop, Labeling on Covered Products PAGE 2