Environmental Law Portal

Welcome to the Beveridge & Diamond Environmental Law Portal.

Beveridge & Diamond’s 100 lawyers in seven U.S. offices focus on environmental and natural resource law, litigation and dispute resolution. We help clients around the world resolve critical environmental and sustainability issues relating to their products, facilities, and operations. 

Subscribe for updates via:

Meet the Contributors

Topics

Recent Posts

Click here to learn more about us

Showing 6 posts in Proposition 65.

Introducing Our California Environmental Tracker

The San Francisco Office of Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. is pleased to announce a new series of articles dedicated to developments in California environmental law. California has long been a driver of environmental policy, often setting demanding regulatory standards and leveraging its mammoth market share to compel national compliance. Read More ›

New Proposition 65 Regulation Amendments Modify Clear and Reasonable Warning Requirements and Private Enforcement Settlement Provisions

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the California Attorney General each adopted regulatory amendments to the Proposition 65 regulations at the close of August 2016. The OEHHA amendments modify Article 6 of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations, which sets forth the method and content deemed to be clear and reasonable for Proposition 65 warnings. The California Attorney General amendments (AG Amendments) modify the Proposition 65 private enforcement regulations and affect settlement terms, penalty amounts and attorney’s fees in actions brought by private plaintiffs. Read More ›

OEHHA Issues Additional Modifications to Proposition 65 Article 6: Clear and Reasonable Warning Requirements

On March 25, 2016, the California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (“OEHHA”) released a Notice of Modification to Text of the Proposed Repeal and Adoption of a New Article 6 Clear and Reasonable Warning Requirements (“Article 6”) (“March 25 Modifications”).  The March 25 Modifications include: clarifying language regarding the means by which responsibility for providing a warning transfers from a manufacturer, producer, packager, importer, supplier or distributor to a retail seller, and modifications to the method and content of safe harbor warnings. Read More ›

Prop 65 Regulatory Activity Raises New Compliance Questions for Industry

Summary:  This post explores recent developments in California under Proposition 65, including programmatic changes, new chemical listings, and related litigation. Companies that operate in California should be aware of these developments and the implications for their business. Read More ›

California Attorney General Proposes Proposition 65 Amendments To Address Litigation Abuse

On September 25, 2015, the California Office of the Attorney General published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to amend the regulations implementing the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (“Proposition 65”) (“AG Amendments”).  The AG Amendments would affect settlement terms, attorney’s fees and penalty amounts in civil actions filed by private plaintiffs (a.k.a. “Private Enforcers”).  The Attorney General’s proposal also aims to provide increased transparency and judicial oversight of settlement agreements.  According to the Attorney General, the proposed amendments are designed to help restore public confidence that Proposition 65 is used for its proper health-protective purposes and not abused for private gain.  The full text of the AG Amendments can be found here. Read More ›

California Proposition 65 Warning Requirements for DINP Effective December 20, 2014

On December 20, 2014, California’s Proposition 65 warning requirements for consumer, occupational, and environmental exposures to diisononyl phthalate (“DINP”) will take effect.  In the category of consumer exposures, manufacturers, brand owners, distributors, and retailers of products containing DINP will run the risk of being sued under Proposition 65 unless a clear and reasonable warning is provided for exposure to a Proposition 65 carcinogen or unless the regulated party can demonstrate that exposure from the product is below a level that would create a significant risk of causing cancer (a “no significant risk level,” or “NSRL”). Read More ›