I guess it's a little bit of both. The Hazardous Products Act is 37 years old, entirely reactive, and product-by-product focused, all of which is very cumbersome and slow. The example of lead is what I use to illustrate that.
As you know, we have identified in the last 15 years, especially the last 10 years, increasingly the fact that hazardous exposures indoors, where we spend most of our time, are originating from products. The Hazardous Products Act doesn't have the structure, the resiliency, or the ability to prevent those problems from happening. It reacts after a problem has occurred, and so far, anyway, it's only situations of extremely serious hazard, of well-known, well-established hazards of a small number of substances.
CEPA is addressing the entire range of chemicals in commerce and has the ability, and can increasingly have the ability, to address more chronic toxicity and a broader range of health effects.
The notion of materials use is an efficiency measure as well, as you get beyond that product-by-product focus. To me, it's more logically situated in CEPA than in a product-focused statute such as the Hazardous Products Act, but the two need to dovetail.