California's Nail Rule Is a Filing Duty, Not a Ban

What is the signal?

California's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has finalised a regulation under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) Regulations listing nail products containing triphenyl phosphate at concentrations greater than 250 parts per million as a Priority Product, effective 1 October 2026. The scope is nail coatings and nail or cuticle treatments. DTSC states that domestic and foreign manufacturers alike must comply where such products are sold in California.

Read the nature of the programme first. In its FAQ, DTSC says that listing a product-chemical combination as a Priority Product does not mean the product is banned from sale in California. The listing starts a process that requires manufacturers to evaluate safer alternatives to the Chemical of Concern in their product and to submit certain documents to DTSC. A manufacturer may also choose to remove the product from the California market, or to remove or substitute the chemical.

There are two dates. DTSC's product page says each manufacturer must submit a Priority Product Notification (PPN) by 30 November 2026, naming all of that manufacturer's nail products sold in California containing TPhP above 250 ppm. After the PPN, the manufacturer must submit by 30 March 2027 one of the following: a chemical, product, or product-chemical replacement notification, a Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, or one of the alternate reporting options.

TPhP is in nail products for a functional reason. A DTSC background document describes TPhP as a commonly used alternative to DBP (dibutyl phthalate) — a substance brought in to move away from one restriction has become the subject of the next. The scale is narrower than it may sound. According to DTSC's product-chemical profile, ingredients were reported for 13,108 nail products of all types, of which 1,154, about 9%, were reported to contain TPhP, and the overall percentage of new TPhP-containing products has been decreasing in recent years. The health basis cited includes changes in the liver, thyroid hormone blood levels, metabolism, and behaviour.

Let me set the limits of this reading. The dates, threshold and duties here were confirmed on DTSC's own pages and rulemaking notice, through searches narrowed to the DTSC domain because direct page fetching was blocked. The 9% figure is a tally of California product-reporting data, not a U.S. market share, and it reflects ingredients companies reported rather than measured use. I also could not confirm from the search results whether DTSC's amendment on how duties pass to importers ('Clarifying Compliance Options for Importers') has been adopted, so section 4 below follows only what DTSC's published guidance for retailers states, not that amendment. Check CalSAFER and DTSC's own text for the exact submission mechanics and final regulatory wording.

1. It is easier to miss precisely because it is not a ban

The usual question asked of a foreign regulation is whether a substance may be used or not. If it is on a banned list, the formula changes; if not, the matter is closed. This rule fits neither box. The substance may still be used, but the fact that it is used must be reported to a regulator within a deadline.

That is why rules of this kind tend to stop at the formulator's desk. Nothing needs reformulating, so nothing moves on, and the export side receives it summarised as 'not banned'. The problem is that the duty sits with the manufacturer, not the brand. DTSC's rulemaking notice states that the principal duty to comply with the notification and reporting requirements falls on manufacturers. Where nail products are made in Korea and supplied to a U.S. brand, the party that has to file is on the other side of the ocean.

So the first thing to settle is who the 'manufacturer' is in your trading structure. Where a brand sells under its own name but production sits elsewhere, who files depends on the contract and the actual roles. That determination should not be made by assumption; it belongs with the regulatory text and local counsel. Something can still be done before it is settled, though: list which of your nail items go to California.

• Whether the nail items entering California are written out as a list
• Whether the filing party for each item was confirmed from the contract
• Whether this was summarised to the export team as merely 'not banned'
• Whether 30 November is on the internal calendar as a date

2. 250 ppm also catches what you did not add on purpose

250 ppm is 0.025% by weight. A plasticiser added on purpose normally goes in far above that, so the formula sheet answers the question immediately. The difficulty sits below that line. DTSC explains that it chose 250 ppm to focus on products where manufacturers are likely intentionally adding TPhP, or where TPhP is present as a contaminant at higher concentrations. The threshold is designed to look at both at once.

Turned around, the same number is a release. DTSC states that manufacturers of nail coatings and nail treatments containing less than 250 ppm TPhP do not need to take any action. 250 ppm is an Alternatives Analysis Threshold, and below it no duty arises. So the first task under this rule is not reformulation but being able to answer which side of the line each product sits on.

There are two routes to that answer. If TPhP is intentionally in the formula, the batch sheet gives it directly. If it is not, the possibility of it arriving with a raw material has to be checked, and that can only be established from supplier documentation or analytical testing. The two take different amounts of time, so counting backwards from 30 November decides which to start first.

One caution when testing. The lower the threshold, the more the method and detection limit shape the result. Without deciding in advance what to do with a value near 250 ppm, several more weeks pass after the report arrives.

• Whether intentional TPhP use was checked first from the batch sheet, per item
• Whether a supplier check or analytical route is set for items without it
• Whether the method and detection limit were agreed before commissioning the test
• Whether a decision rule for results near 250 ppm is written down

3. 30 November and 30 March are different kinds of deadline

Treating the two dates as the same kind of deadline throws the schedule out. The notification due by 30 November is a document that says the product exists. Per DTSC's product page, it must name every one of the manufacturer's nail products sold in California containing TPhP above 250 ppm. Most of the work is identifying items; no formula has to change.

What is due by 30 March 2027 is different in kind, and it offers choices: a notification that the chemical, the product, or the product-chemical combination has been replaced, a Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report, or one of the alternate reporting options. An alternatives analysis is closer to technical work than paperwork, and if replacement is the chosen route, reformulation and verification have to fit inside that window.

What has to be decided now, therefore, is not which document to file but which direction to take: keep TPhP and go through the alternatives analysis, or remove it from the formula and file a replacement notification. In a nail coating the plasticiser contributes to the flexibility and adhesion of the film, so choosing removal means re-evaluating drying time, chipping, gloss and adhesion. Which route is faster depends on how many items are involved and on the production schedule.

Smaller volumes tend to simplify the choice. With one or two California-bound nail items, replacing or withdrawing those items is viable; with several, reworking a shared formula base once is usually less total work.

• Whether the 30 November filing (identification) and the 30 March filing (replacement or analysis) are scheduled separately
• Whether the keep-or-remove direction is decided per item
• Whether the properties to re-evaluate on removal (drying, adhesion, gloss, wear) are written down
• Whether isolating California volumes was compared against changing the formula outright

4. Without the filing, the orders stop first

What gives this programme practical force is not the penalty but the supply chain. DTSC's guidance for retailers explains that the duty passes down in sequence: when a manufacturer does not comply, the duty falls to the importer, and if neither complies, the product is posted on the Failure to Comply List and the duty reaches retailers and assemblers.

The same guidance describes what a retailer does at that point. DTSC expects that retailers will most likely opt to cease ordering non-compliant products and notify DTSC, rather than meet the alternatives analysis requirements themselves. Existing inventory can still be sold, but new orders stop.

Read from the manufacturer's side, that changes the shape of the risk. A question from the U.S. customer is likelier to arrive before any notice from the regulator — one line: 'has a PPN been filed for this item?'. Without an answer ready, the item becomes a candidate for replacement, and a replaced listing is hard to win back.

So it is better to brief customers before the end of November. Even mid-analysis, 'we are checking these items and will have a conclusion by this date' beats silence. Much of regulatory response is judged on speed of reply rather than on the result.

• Whether an answer is ready for a customer asking whether the PPN was filed
• Whether manufacturer and importer have agreed who files
• Whether the order-stop exposure per item was estimated for a Failure to Comply listing
• Whether a point to share progress before the conclusion was set

5. Same state, opposite logic to AB 496

California runs cosmetic regulation on two tracks, and the two work in opposite ways. Confusing them produces the wrong response.

One track is prohibition. AB 496, amending the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, was approved on 8 October 2023 and, from 1 January 2027, bans the manufacture, delivery or sale of cosmetic products containing 26 intentionally added ingredients. Cosmetics under California law include nail polish. This track carries an exemption: trace quantities that are technically unavoidable and stem from impurities, manufacturing, storage or packaging migration do not violate the prohibition.

The other track, this SCP Priority Product listing, bans nothing. Instead it sets a number, 250 ppm, above which the duty to notify and evaluate arises whether the substance was added on purpose or arrived as contamination. The track that prohibits looks only at intentional addition and exempts trace amounts; the track that does not prohibit puts a number on the trace amounts.

In practice the difference decides the method of verification. A ban list is answered by comparing an ingredient list. A concentration threshold is not; it requires knowing the actual level. 'We do not use that substance' is a sufficient answer on one track and not yet an answer on the other.

If you are preparing to export to the U.S., it is safer to record state-level programmes separately from federal ones. As here, the same product can be clear under federal rules and still carry a filing duty under one state's programme.

• Whether ban-list work and threshold work are being handled the same way
• Whether the 26 ingredients under AB 496 were compared against your nail formulas
• Whether federal rules and state programmes are separated on the export checklist
• Whether you have noted where 'we do not use it' is an answer and where it is not

The first question for the brief

Instead of writing 'for export to the U.S.', add the state. Put in one line which nail items are sold in California, and the scope to check under this rule narrows immediately. Anything that is not a nail coating or a nail or cuticle treatment is outside this listing.

The second thing to write is one numeric column beside the item list. For each item, mark the TPhP level against 250 ppm as above, below, or unverified. The cells still marked unverified are the workload for 30 November. The fact that it was not added on purpose does not fill that column.

The last is one line on direction. For every item confirmed above the threshold, write either 'keep it and go through the alternatives analysis' or 'remove it and file a replacement notification', and if removing, record in the same cell the properties to re-evaluate. How much of the time to 30 March 2027 remains is decided by when that line gets written.