Vermont CHCC Rule (2016) — Chemical Disclosure Program guidance document

This is the Vermont Department of Health’s manufacturer-facing guidance document for the state’s Chemical Disclosure Program, implementing 18 V.S.A. Chapter 38A (Act 188 of 2014) and the Vermont Chemicals of High Concern to Children (CHCC) Rule. The document is the February 16, 2016 DRAFT, issued in advance of the program’s first reporting period that opened on January 1, 2016 and closed on July 1, 2016. The guidance does not establish chemical lists, numerical concentration limits, or product-specific bans on its own face — those are products of the statute (the chemicals-of-high-concern list at 18 V.S.A. § 1773) and a separate CHCC Rule. The guidance explains who must report, what must be reported, when reports are due, how reporting interacts with chemicals intentionally added versus present as contaminants, and which products and chemical uses are exempt. It is one of the four state children’s-products programmes (WA, OR, VT, ME) referenced as a programme model in ny-dec-tccp-2023-chem-pqls-draft.

Key numbers

The guidance document contains no measured contamination values. The structurally important figures are statutory citations, reporting deadlines, the contaminant reporting threshold, the fee schedule, and the list-size figure.

• Document identification (cover page): “Vermont Department of Health, Chemical Disclosure Program Guidance Document, February 16, 2016.” Marked DRAFT as a watermark across the body of the document. Contact: Chemical Disclosure Program Website; Tel: 1-800-439-8550; Email: AHS.VDHChemicalDisclosureProgram@vermont.gov.
• Chemicals of high concern to children list size (§ 2): “There are 66 chemicals of high concern to children listed in statute.” The chemicals are identified by reference to an external list (hyperlinked, “Click HERE to view the list of chemicals”); the guidance does not enumerate them. “The list will be reviewed and updated every two years; beginning in 2017.” (Statutory anchor for review cadence not cited in this section.)
• Reporting threshold — intentionally-added chemicals (§ 4(d)): “Chemicals that are intentionally added to a product, usually to serve a specific function, must be reported when present above the practical quantification level (PQL) for that chemical.” Statutory anchor: 18 V.S.A. § 1772 (9), (11); 18 V.S.A. § 1775 (a)(1), (2). The PQL list is referenced as a separate downloadable document on the Health Department website; the guidance does not enumerate PQLs.
• Reporting threshold — contaminants (§ 4(d)): “Chemicals that are present as contaminants must be reported when present in a component at a concentration of 100 ppm or greater.” The 100 ppm threshold was established by the legislature.
• Post-production by-product carve-out (§ 4(d)): “If a product releases one of the 66 chemicals as a post-production by-product, and the chemical has not been intentionally or unintentionally added to the product during production, the chemical does not need to be reported.”
• Fee structure (§ 4(e)): “The fee for reporting is $200perchemical\ast \ast .Themaximumamountthatcouldpotentiallybepaidbyoneentityis\ast \ast$13,200 if all 66 chemicals are reported.” Statutory anchor: 18 V.S.A. § 1775 (j). (200 × 66 = 13,200, consistent on the face of the document.)
• First reporting cycle and reporting cadence (§§ 4(f)–(g)): Manufacturers are required to report biennially, beginning July 1, 2016. Each report is keyed to a single chemical; thus one manufacturer can submit a maximum of 66 reports per reporting year. “Products can be added to reports throughout the two-year period.” The Department established a six-month reporting period for each reporting year, opening January 1 of each reporting year (beginning 2016 and biennially thereafter); all reports must be submitted by July 1. Every product meeting the reporting criteria should be reported at the time it is placed on the market or before. Reporting captures products offered or planned to be offered for sale through December 31, 2017 in the first cycle.
• Reporting fields required per product (§ 4(e), enumerated 1–7): (1) chemical name and CAS registry number; (2) Global Product Classification (GPC) product brick description; (3) product component containing the chemical (CHCC Rule § 4.6 defines “product component” as the uniquely identifiable material or coating — including ink or dye — intended to be included as part of a finished product); (4) amount of chemical per unit, reported by weight or parts per million (the ppm value being the concentration in the product component, not the concentration in the final children’s product) (18 V.S.A. § 1775(b)(3)); (5) name and address of the manufacturer and a contact-person identity at the manufacturer; (6) function of the chemical in the product; (7) brand name and product model. Statutory anchor: 18 V.S.A. § 1775(b)(1)–(5) and CHCC Rule 6.1.6–6.1.7.
• Trade-secret carve-out (§ 4(j)): manufacturers asserting trade-secret protection under 18 V.S.A. § 1778 must still publicly display the generic class or category of the chemical and its potential health effects; function, concentration, component, and brick are all required even for trade-secret products, but product model and brand name are not.
• Small-business waiver disposition (§ 4(k)): “There are no additional waivers for small businesses.” No phase-in schedule (§ 4(l)): “No, there is not a phased-in schedule for reporting.”
• Children’s-product definition (§ 4(c)): “a children’s product means a consumer product marketed for use by, or marketed to children. Specific exemptions are listed in section 6(e).” Statutory anchor: 18 V.S.A. § 1772 (7)(A).
• Manufacturer definition (§ 3): “the entity whose name is affixed to the product, if that entity has a physical presence in the US.” If the affixed entity does not have a US physical presence, the entity that sells the product in Vermont is the manufacturer. The definition extends to entities that “may not technically fabricate a product, but rather assemble product components or import a final product for sale in the US.” Applies only to products offered for sale in Vermont, not products given away for free. Only one entity must report per children’s product. Statutory anchor: 18 V.S.A. § 1772 (12)(A) and (B).
• Chemical Control Program exemption (§ 5(a)): manufacturers are exempt from reporting chemicals present as contaminants if the manufacturer implements a manufacturing control program and exercises due diligence to minimise the presence of the contaminant. The guidance defines a chemical control program as “a program that includes industry best practices for the minimization of a chemical in a children’s product” and lists examples: methods and procedures for meeting relevant federal regulations; International Standards Organization (ISO) requirements; ASTM International standards; and other widely established certification or standards programmes. Due-diligence actions enumerated: enforcement of contract specifications; procedures to ensure quality/purity of feedstocks (raw or recycled); enforcement of manufacturing-process specifications (e.g., drying and curing times); periodic testing for chemical presence and amount; auditing of contractor or supplier manufacturing processes; and other practices reasonably designed to ensure manufacturer knowledge of presence, use, and amount of chemicals in product components. Statutory anchor: 18 V.S.A. § 1775(e).
• Certificate of Compliance exemption (§ 5(b)): “A certificate of compliance is a document certified by a competent authority stating that the supplied good or service it covers meets the agreed-upon or required specifications.” A certificate of compliance is one way that manufacturers may evaluate whether they are required to report; a manufacturer relying on the certificate to negate the need to report should provide a copy to the Department. Statutory anchor: 18 V.S.A. § 1775(g).
• Out-of-state-sale exemption (§ 5(c)): “Act 188 applies to products for sale within Vermont. Products for sale outside of the state of Vermont are not within the scope of this legislation.” Statutory anchor: 18 V.S.A. § 1775(h).
• Product-category exemptions (§ 5(d), enumerated): batteries; snow sporting equipment (skis, poles, boots, snowboards, sleds, bindings); inaccessible components of a consumer product that during reasonably foreseeable use and abuse would not come into direct contact with a child’s skin or mouth; used consumer products sold in second-hand product markets; a product primarily used or purchased for industrial or business use that does not enter the consumer product market or is not otherwise sold at retail; a food or beverage or an additive to a food or beverage; a tobacco product; a pesticide regulated by the US EPA; a drug or biologic regulated by the US FDA, or the packaging of a drug or biologic that is regulated by the FDA, including over-the-counter drugs, prescription drugs, dietary supplements, medical devices, or products that are both a cosmetic and a drug regulated by the FDA; ammunition or components thereof, firearms, air rifles, hunting or fishing equipment or components thereof; an aircraft, motor vehicle, vessel; consumer electronic products, including personal computers, audio and video equipment, calculators, wireless telephones, game consoles, and hand-held devices incorporating a video screen used to access interactive software intended for leisure and entertainment and their associated peripherals; interactive software intended for leisure and entertainment, such as computer games and their storage media such as compact discs; the packaging in which a product is sold, offered for sale, or distributed; soap; dietary supplements; food and drugs approved by the FDA. Statutory anchors: 18 V.S.A. § 1772 (7)(B), § 1772 (8), § 1772 (10), § 1775 (k).
• Data-sharing posture for first reporting period (§ 6(a)): “For the first reporting period beginning in 2016, Vermont will not be in a reciprocal data-sharing agreement with Washington State. Chemical data that have been disclosed to Washington must be disclosed separately to the state of Vermont, if the products meet Vermont’s requirements.” Once Vermont begins accepting disclosures, the Department will evaluate the ability of the program to work with other states to share data. Statutory anchor: 18 V.S.A. § 1775(c).
• Notice of removal of a chemical (§ 6(b)): a manufacturer who submitted a report may notify the Department that the chemical has been removed from the product or that the product is no longer for sale; upon receipt of the form, the Department will remove the reported information from the website. Statutory anchor: 18 V.S.A. § 1775(f).
• Ban-of-sale review trigger (§ 6(c)): “Beginning in July 2017, and biennially thereafter, Health will review disclosure data to suggest chemicals for review for regulation by the Working Group.” Statutory anchors: 18 V.S.A. § 1776(b), 18 V.S.A. § 1774.
• List-amendment petition right (§ 6(d)): “Under 3 V.S.A. § 805 any person may request that the Commissioner add or remove a chemical from the list of high concern to children.” Statutory anchor: 18 V.S.A. § 1773(d).
• Reporting flowchart (§ 4 chart, page 4): the decision tree confirms the disjunction of the two reporting triggers. The chart asks, in sequence, whether the product is a children’s product as defined in Act 188; whether it is listed as exempt; whether it contains a chemical on the CHCC list; whether the chemical is intentionally added above the PQL; whether the chemical is present as a contaminant above 100 ppm; and, if the latter, whether the manufacturer’s chemical control program documentation suffices for exemption. Reaching “Report the Chemical” requires falling through both reporting-threshold branches without exemption. A footnote confirms that “a certificate of compliance may be used by manufacturers to determine whether or not they are required to report.”

Methods (brief)

Not applicable. This is a state-agency implementation guidance document for a manufacturer-reporting programme, not an analytical study. No analytical chemistry, sample preparation, LOD/LOQ, instrumentation, or measurement methods are reported. The document references three external technical artefacts by hyperlink but does not reproduce them: (1) the list of 66 chemicals of high concern to children at 18 V.S.A. § 1773; (2) the practical quantification level (PQL) document hosted on the Health Department website; (3) the online reporting system (planned to be made accessible from the Health Department website in spring 2016). These external artefacts are separate documents and should be ingested separately when they enter the corpus. The CHCC Rule cross-referenced in the guidance (e.g., § 4.6 for the product-component definition, § 6.1.6–6.1.7 for reporting fields, § 8.3 for the new-product addition rule) is a separate regulatory artefact not in the present corpus.

Implications

Certification (HMTc): This is the manufacturer-facing implementation guidance for the Vermont CHCC programme — the “VT” element of the four-state-programme reference set (WA, OR, VT, ME) cited in ny-dec-tccp-2023-chem-pqls-draft. For HMTc Cat 2 (children’s personal care, contact-route children’s products), the document is jurisdictional and procedural context. The two operative numerical figures on the face of the guidance — the 100 ppm contaminant reporting threshold and the chemical-specific PQLs for intentionally-added chemicals — are reporting triggers under a disclosure rule, not toxicological limits or certification thresholds. The 100 ppm contaminant trigger is set at the product-component level (the uniquely identifiable material or coating containing the chemical) and not at the finished-product level, which is the same component-vs-finished-good distinction made by Washington CHCC and the New York TCCP draft. Heavy-metals-specific Vermont obligations derive from (a) the chemicals-of-high-concern list at 18 V.S.A. § 1773, and (b) the PQL list hosted on the Health Department website; both are separate documents and should be ingested separately when available in the corpus, at which point any specific heavy-metal PQLs will populate the metals-and-products routing.

Courses: Useful as a worked example of (a) the architecture of a children’s-products chemical-disclosure programme — list of chemicals, dual reporting threshold (PQL for intentionally-added, 100 ppm for contaminants), product-component-level versus finished-product-level reporting basis, biennial cadence with a six-month reporting window, per-chemical fee structure, exemption typology (Chemical Control Program, Certificate of Compliance, out-of-state-sale, product-category); (b) the distinction between disclosure-rule reporting thresholds and toxicological or certification limits — reporting thresholds answer “must this be disclosed?” not “is this safe?”; (c) the operational role of a manufacturer-side Chemical Control Program (ISO/ASTM-anchored, documented due diligence on feedstock purity, process specifications, periodic testing, supplier audits) as an exemption pathway for contaminant reporting but not for intentionally-added reporting, which mirrors the structure HMTc certification audits could adopt for batch-level vs supply-chain-level due diligence.

App: Country-of-origin / state-of-sale “US-VT” plus product-category “children’s product as defined in Act 188” triggers Vermont’s framework. Specific app-surface triggers (which chemicals are reportable for which products) are functions of the downstream 18 V.S.A. § 1773 chemicals list and the PQL list, not of this guidance alone. The app should treat this page as a procedural-framework reference and not as a source of numerical thresholds for app-side advisories. The product-category exemptions (food/beverage/dietary supplement/FDA-regulated cosmetic-drug/soap) align with HMI’s existing scope: HMI’s heavy-metals-in-food corpus is not within the scope of the Vermont CHCC reporting programme by statutory definition; the Vermont programme covers the children’s-product (non-food) side of HMI’s coverage.

Wiki pages this source may touch

• children-personal-care
• toys-painted
• toys-substrate-materials
• infant-clothing

Verification notes

• Document status (DRAFT). The guidance is watermarked “DRAFT” across every body page and dated 16 February 2016. The first reporting period was scheduled to open on 1 January 2016, less than seven weeks before this draft date, and to close on 1 July 2016. Whether a final non-draft version of this guidance exists is not determinable from the PDF; the cite-key (vermont-chcc-2016-guidance) and year: 2016 are anchored to the draft document on file. If a final version supersedes this draft in subsequent corpus additions, it should be ingested as a separate source page (with its own cite-key, e.g. vermont-chcc-2016-guidance-final) and back-linked here as near_duplicates.
• Cite-key. Format <jurisdiction>-<programme>-<year>-<document-type> (vermont-chcc-2016-guidance), following the convention used for the companion maine-pl-643-2008-toxic-chemicals-childrens-products page and analogous to ny-dec-tccp-2023-chem-pqls-draft. The statute (Act 188 of 2014 / 18 V.S.A. Chapter 38A) and the implementing CHCC Rule are separate documents with separate cite-keys if and when they enter the corpus.
• Authorship. authors: ["Vermont Department of Health"] matches the document’s institutional issuer (cover page: “Vermont Department of Health”). The convention for state-agency guidance documents is the issuing agency as a single institutional author, matching the cfa2012-cpsia-lead-fact-sheet pattern.
• metals: [] — the document does not name any specific heavy metal in its body. Vermont’s chemicals-of-high-concern-to-children list (at 18 V.S.A. § 1773) is referenced by hyperlink but is not enumerated in the document itself, and the PQL list (which is where any chemical-specific reporting thresholds would appear) is similarly a separate hyperlinked artefact. Adding specific heavy metals to the metals: array would be inference from external documents not on the face of this source, not source-faithful reporting. When the chemicals-of-high-concern list and the PQL list enter the corpus as separate source pages, the routing layer will fan their content out to the relevant metal pages; this guidance page should remain metals: [] so that the routing is driven by the documents that actually carry the numerical lists.
• ingredients: [] is correct: this is a children’s-products programme with statutory exclusions for food, beverages, dietary supplements, and FDA-regulated cosmetic-drugs. No ingredient-level scope.
• products: scope. § 1772 (7)(A) defines “children’s product” as “a consumer product marketed for use by, or marketed to children” without enumerating sub-categories. The guidance does not list specific covered product categories beyond what is necessary to illustrate the manufacturer-definition examples (toys at § 3) and the exemption typology at § 5(d). The products: array is scoped to the four umbrella slugs in the current taxonomy that most directly match the programme’s scope: children-personal-care (children’s personal care products); toys-painted and toys-substrate-materials (toys, with substrate-vs-coating distinction matching the CPSIA-style analysis and the maine-pl-643-2008-toxic-chemicals-childrens-products companion); infant-clothing (clothing). Other potentially in-scope categories are not added because the programme does not single them out from the general children’s-product class and the guidance is procedural (not product-specific). The matrices: field carries the broader scope.
• matrices: vocabulary. The four matrices used here — childrens-product-finished-good, childrens-personal-care, childrens-toy, infant-care — match the vocabulary extension established by ny-dec-tccp-2023-chem-pqls-draft for the children’s-products side of the corpus and used at maine-pl-643-2008-toxic-chemicals-childrens-products. They are not in the docs/gpt-collaboration/system-prompt.md “Common matrices” list (which enumerates food-and-dietary-intake matrices); the children’s-products vocabulary is documented in the Maine page’s verification notes pending formal canonicalisation in system-prompt.md.
• jurisdictions: [US-VT] matches the convention used in ny-dec-tccp-2023-chem-pqls-draft and maine-pl-643-2008-toxic-chemicals-childrens-products for state-level statutes and implementing guidance — ISO 3166-2-style US-state subdivision codes for state-level regulatory documents. The companion federal CPSIA documents hatlelid2009-cpsc-cpsia-lead-childrens-products and cfa2012-cpsia-lead-fact-sheet use [US] correctly because CPSIA is federal.
• source_type: regulation and evidence_tier: A consistent with docs/conventions.md A-tier definition for “government reports.” The Vermont Department of Health CHCC Programme guidance is a state-agency implementation document issued under enacted statutory authority (18 V.S.A. Chapter 38A), an A-tier regulatory source. The DRAFT watermark does not downgrade the tier: the document was issued by the responsible agency through its public Chemical Disclosure Program contact channel and was the operative compliance guidance for the programme’s first reporting cycle.
• access_url: null because the PDF carries no stable persistent URL on its face; the document was issued on the Health Department website but the cover page lists only the “Chemical Disclosure Program Website” hyperlink without a printed URL string. URL not invented per the verify-don’t-fabricate discipline.
• near_duplicates: [] — no other source page in the corpus reproduces or supersedes this guidance. ny-dec-tccp-2023-chem-pqls-draft cites the Vermont programme as one of the four-state-programme reference set but is a separate regulatory document for a different jurisdiction. maine-pl-643-2008-toxic-chemicals-childrens-products is the analogous Maine enabling-statute document, a different document class (enabling statute, not implementation guidance) for a different state.
• Reporting-threshold figures. The two operative numerical figures on the face of the guidance are (1) the 100 ppm contaminant reporting threshold (§ 4(d), legislative-established) and (2) the $200perchemical/$13,200 maximum fee schedule (§ 4(e), 18 V.S.A. § 1775(j)). The PQLs for intentionally-added chemicals are referenced as a separate downloadable document and are not enumerated here. The 100 ppm contaminant threshold is at the product-component level (§ 4(c) and 18 V.S.A. § 1775(b)(3)), not the finished-product level — a point worth preserving for downstream HMTc-versus-disclosure-threshold comparisons. Heavy-metals-specific PQLs (when ingested separately) should be cross-referenced with this guidance’s 100 ppm contaminant threshold for the within-Vermont reporting-trigger picture.
• Brand firewall (Part 12). The guidance names no commercial brands. The § 3 manufacturer-definition examples use placeholder names (“FUNTOY,” “KidToyInc,” “EuroFUNTOY,” “USA Imports”) that are explicitly illustrative, not commercial brands. No Part 12 concern arises.
• Wiki/HMTc firewall (Part 2). The guidance does not set numerical concentration limits beyond the 100 ppm contaminant reporting threshold and is not compared to HMTc thresholds in the body. The Implications section notes that downstream Vermont regulatory products (the chemicals-of-high-concern list and the PQL list) are the operative reference for any heavy-metals-specific reporting obligations; this is a procedural pointer, not an HMTc threshold proposal. The Implications section’s distinction between disclosure-rule reporting thresholds and toxicological/certification limits is methodological, not threshold-proposing.
• Speciation flag. Not applicable; the guidance does not specify analytical methods or speciation for any chemical. Any speciation distinctions (iAs vs tAs, MeHg vs tHg, Cr-VI vs Cr) will be functions of the chemicals-of-high-concern list and PQL list documents when those are ingested.
• Companion sources in this corpus segment. The Kimi 05_Regulatory_CPSIA_CPSC_FDA folder contains companion regulatory sources covering overlapping subject matter under different jurisdictional frameworks: hatlelid2009-cpsc-cpsia-lead-childrens-products (US federal CPSIA Section 101 lead-in-children’s-products), cfa2012-cpsia-lead-fact-sheet (US federal CPSIA fact-sheet companion), maine-pl-643-2008-toxic-chemicals-childrens-products (ME state CHCC framework statute), ny-dec-tccp-2023-chem-pqls-draft (NY state TCCP draft list and PQLs), iso2020-8124-3-toy-migration-elements (international voluntary consensus toy-migration standard), and sgs2009-canada-toy-coating-heavy-metals (Canada Health Canada heavy-metal limits on toy surface coatings). Cross-comparison of these regimes is a synthesis-pass concern (Part 9), not an ingest-time concern; no synthesis is performed here per the Part 2 firewall.
• Source-document internal cross-reference defects (preserved for citation transparency). Two latent inconsistencies inside the guidance document itself, surfaced during fresh-eyes audit (2026-06-01), are reproduced faithfully in the Key numbers section above and worth flagging here so they are not mistaken for errors in this page: (1) The PDF assigns the lettered subsection “(e)” to two different questions inside § 4 — the fee question on page 3 (which the wiki page cites as ”§ 4(e)” for the fee figure) and the reporting-fields question on page 4 (which the wiki page also cites as ”§ 4(e)” for the seven enumerated reporting fields). The duplication is in the source’s own numbering, not in the wiki page; both wiki-page citations are page-faithful to the PDF. (2) The PDF’s § 4(c) text ends with “Specific exemptions are listed in section 6(e).” The actual exemptions are listed at § 5(d) of the same document (a typographical defect in the source). The wiki page reproduces the source’s own “section 6(e)” cross-reference where it quotes § 4(c), then separately and correctly identifies the operative exemption list at § 5(d). Both wiki-page references are correct on their face; the source’s “6(e)” pointer is the source’s own defect.
• Vermont downstream regulatory products not in corpus. The chemicals-of-high-concern list at 18 V.S.A. § 1773 (66 chemicals as of the document’s issue date), the PQL list hosted on the Health Department website, the implementing CHCC Rule cross-referenced in the guidance (§§ 4.6, 6.1.6–6.1.7, 8.3), the eventual sale-prohibition rules under 18 V.S.A. § 1776, and the Working Group’s biennial review under § 1774 are separate regulatory artefacts that descend from this programme. None are presently in the HMI corpus. When they enter, they should be ingested as separate source pages with their own cite-keys; this guidance is the manufacturer-facing implementation document and should be wikilinked from each.

Page history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page. The full version history lives in git; when DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.