In India, 'extended producer responsibility' was introduced as an important feature in which of the following?

States explicitly that the e‑waste rules 'for the first time' bring producers under Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).

A student could use this wording to infer that EPR was introduced later in sector‑specific rules (e.g., e‑waste), so check whether EPR language appears in earlier 1998 biomedical rules—if 'first time' refers to e‑waste, biomedical 1998 likely did not introduce EPR.

Describes the new EPR regime and specific obligations (registration, targets) under e‑waste rules, showing EPR is a salient, documented innovation in later rules.

Compare these concrete EPR elements (registration, targets) with the text of the 1998 biomedical rules to see if similar obligations were present then.

Explains 'Extended Producer Responsibility: Earlier, EPR was left to the discretion of the local bodies. First time, the producers and brand owners have been made responsible...' in context of (plastic) waste rules.

Use this as a pattern that EPR was explicitly introduced in later plastic/waste rules; therefore check whether the 1998 biomedical rules contain any comparable shift from local discretion to producer responsibility.

Notes what the 1998 Bio‑medical Waste Rules prompted (segregation, collection, treatment and disposal) but does not mention producer obligations.

A student could treat the absence of EPR language here as a clue to test the statement by directly comparing the 1998 rules' provisions to those later rules that explicitly name EPR.

Confirms the year and existence of the Bio‑medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998 as a distinct environmental law entry.

Use the confirmed date to construct a timeline of when EPR appears in various Indian waste rules (1998 biomedical vs later e‑waste/plastic rules) to assess whether EPR was first introduced in 1998 or later.

This snippet defines EPR in the context of plastic rules: producers and brand owners have been made responsible for collecting waste generated from their products.

A student could check the text/date of the Recycled Plastic Rules (1999) to see if this specific producer-responsibility language appears there or only in later amendments.

Mentions a CPCB committee recommending measures for effective implementation of EPR and amendments to EPR guidelines — ties EPR explicitly to plastic-rule implementation processes.

Use this to infer that EPR was a recognized implementation issue for plastics and then look up when CPCB/EPR guidance for plastics was first issued relative to 1999.

States that provisions for generation and transaction of EPR Certificates have been introduced (in the discussed rules), indicating EPR mechanisms were added to plastic-related rules at some point.

A student can compare the 1999 rule text with later rule texts/amendments to see when EPR certificate provisions first appeared.

Policy measures (e.g., changing minimum plastic thickness to facilitate collection and recycling) show regulatory focus on making waste easier to manage/recycle — a goal consistent with EPR approaches.

Combine this policy objective with timelines of regulations to judge whether such measures accompanied an EPR introduction in 1999 or were added later.

Shows how EPR was explicitly introduced for e-waste rules ('for the first time, the Rules will bring the producers under Extended Producer Responsibility') which provides a comparative example of when regulators introduced EPR in another waste stream.

Use the known timing of E-waste EPR introduction to build a chronology and check whether plastics predated, coincided with, or followed that EPR adoption.