must comply with the first deadline of Jan. 1, 2015 for products in Specialty Category B along with general labeling requirements for all categories. In addition, since the compliance verification issues for aerosol coatings have been addressed in these amendments, the industry should expect renewed and aggressive enforcement efforts. Many of the category definitions have been modified and the “restrictive limit” requirement will be aggressively reviewed by the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Enforcement Division. Until now, the aerosol coatings industry has enjoyed uniform standards as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed to adopt the CARB standards in 2008. With the recent amendments, this uniformity has disappeared and the industry must comply with a California rule and an EPA rule that have different standards, definitions, categories and, most importantly, reactivity values for calculating compliance. In the global marketplace, it is difficult to predict the “regulatory future” for aerosol coatings. To date, efforts to convince the EPA to expedite changes to its rule have fallen on deaf ears. Accomplishing this will require a long term effort. This leads to the question of how other governmental bodies will react to CARB’s more stringent standards. Because CARB amendments have eliminated the consistent and uniform standards for aerosol coatings, and it will likely be years before EPA initiates a rulemaking to address this disparity, it leaves open the possibility that state agencies may again revisit the aerosol coatings for potential rulemaking— especially if the ozone standard is further reduced—placing more pressure on the states to find emission reductions. A few years ago, ACA and the Canadian Paint & Coatings Association convinced Environment Canada to forgo any regulatory action for aerosol coatings specifically because CARB was in the process of a rulemaking. Consequently, Environment Canada may be considering its “regulatory options” for this source category. Given all these considerations, the regulatory environment for aerosol coatings will likely include enhanced enforcement from California and the potential for further regulatory activity at the EPA, potentially some state agencies and Canada. Mike Moffatt, PhD, Director of Communications, Nexreg Compliance Inc. The big regulatory battle in North America (and around the world) in 2015 and beyond will concern the issue of ingredient disclosure. The Canadians have followed the lead of countries around the world with the implementation of the Globally Harmonized System of Classification & Labeling of Moffatt Chemicals (GHS), removing the disclosure exemption for flavors and fragrances. Companies who wish to keep this information secret will have to apply for trade secret status at considerable expense. For products that are in dozens of markets, the costs rise exponentially as trade secret status must be claimed in every jurisdiction. Due to the rising costs of preventing ingredient disclosure and increased demand from consumers, companies may decide that it is simply cheaper and easier to release this information. Expect to see more companies follow the lead of Clorox and disclose the particular fragrances in each of their products. As more large firms in the chemical industry go down that path, legislators will feel more comfortable requiring complete ingredient disclosure, particularly for consumer chemicals. Do not be surprised, when both the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Canadian Consumer Chemicals & Containers Regulations (CCCR) consumer chemical regulations are updated (which will likely happen before the end of the decade), that the rules around ingredient disclosure are far less forgiving than they are now. Douglas Troutman, VP & General Counsel, Government Affairs, The American Cleaning Institute (ACI) Setting the Record Straight on Minnesota’s Triclosan Debate During the public policy debate in Minnesota over efforts to ban the antibacterial ingredient triclosan, the group Friends of the Mississippi River (FMR) pushed for this ban in the face of a great deal of information showing triclosan to be a safe and effective ingredient. The group’s post-mortem (as posted on its website by FMR’s Trevor Russell) is as misleading as the information and arguments they used to get the law passed. This law will effectively restrict consumer choice of antibacterial soaps and washes with triclosan as of January 1, 2017. FMR claims that they worked with “the soap industry” to “develop a negotiated compromise” leading to legislative language that narrowed a ban to “include just consumer cleaning products used for hand and body cleansing.” FMR has the facts wrong. Let the record be clear: the American Cleaning Institute opposed the legislation on behalf of its interested member companies. ACI was in no way involved in this so-called compromise. No one here ever heard from Mr. Russell. As we testified in the legislature and communicated to Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton, triclosan is the most reviewed and researched active ingredient used in antibacterial soaps and body washes. Manufacturers are providing real-world scientific data and information that demonstrates what we already know: antibacterial soaps with triclosan are safe and effective. While triclosan has been found in trace amounts in sediments in aquatic environments, there is no evidence of significant risk to humans or the environment. Research has consistently shown that triclosan and its breakdown products do not pose a risk to aquatic or terrestrial environments, nor do McAuliffe Troutman January 2015 Spray 15
Spray Jan 15
To see the actual publication please follow the link above