April 2020 Spray 17
Today’s consumers seek more clear information
about what is in the products they
purchase and companies and legislators are
looking to meet that need. Ingredient transparency
is already a law in effect in California,
and with New York looking to do the same.
More information than ever before will be
available on labels and online.
ACI is working with member companies to
not just comply, but also help consumers understand
why those ingredients are in the products and the functions
they serve. To that end, ACI has been supporting building
out the SmartLabel repository of products and researching how to
go about ingredient labeling in a way that speaks to consumers.
It will be important for policymakers to align their approaches
for the benefit of consumers. To that end, the California model,
which ACI member companies helped develop and shepherd to
enactment, is a leading pathway
to help consumers understand
ingredient information.
Some States are going beyond
ingredient transparency into piecemeal
ingredient regulation. Manufacturers made clear to New
York policymakers last year that implementing the 1,4-dioxane legislation
as written would be extraordinarily problematic. The ACI
looks to engage thoughtfully and proactively with the New York
Dept. of Environmental Conservation on the regulatory process
to implement the law in a way that will be workable. We continue
to monitor additional States that may want to take this kind of approach
so that we can collaborate on policies that are meaningful
to consumers and workable for manufacturers.
Ultimately, ingredient transparency and regulation will be best
resolved at the Federal level and ACI continues to advocate for
common sense ingredient transparency policies federally.
Donald Bossow, CIH, Senior Regulatory Advisor, Council
on the Safe Transportation of Hazardous Articles (COSTHA)
As a result of collaborative efforts from a number of industry
associations, significant progress has been made in the last several
years toward better aligning regulations with risk. Those efforts
are continuing at the local, national and international levels.
In terms of aerosol products, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) added aerosols to the universal waste list in
December 2019 and, in an earlier rulemaking, the U.S. Dept. of
Transportation (DOT) incorporated some alternatives to the hot
water bath test into the regulations.
Although I do not expect to see any significant new Federal
regulations in 2020, there are several initiatives that have been
underway that would help bring U.S. regulations in-line with
international regulations and we hope to see
some movement on those. One is the updating
of the Occupational Safety & Health
Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication
Standard—which is based on the
3rd revised edition of the Globally Harmonized
System of Classification & Labeling
(GHS)—to the current 8th revised edition.
This update would recognize the non-flammable
aerosol category that does not exist
in the 3rd revised edition and eliminate
the requirement to also classify as a gas under pressure. This has
been on OSHA’s regulatory agenda for several years and a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was slated for late 2018, then
pushed to spring of 2019, but has yet to be published.
On the transportation side, the DOT has been evaluating a
petition from industry to harmonize the definition of an aerosol
with the international
regulations and allow products
that dispense a gas only to
be classified as aerosols. The
current regulations require the
gas to expel a liquid, paste or
powder. A research study commissioned by DOT to evaluate the
safety of gas-only aerosols has been completed and is under review.
Additional testing may be required to support the change.
Jean-Cyril Walker, Partner, Keller & Heckman LLP
As we begin 2020, the waste generated from single-use plastics
is a hot topic on the minds of both consumers and regulators.
Over the course of the past several years, local, State and national
governments have moved to enact bans and restrictions on certain
single-use plastics. We expect 2020 to bring even more scrutiny
upon these products.
Although U.S. regulatory schemes, thus far, have largely
targeted single-use plastics such as plastic bags, straws, beverage
stirrers and food service items, the definitions can be so broad as
to encompass virtually any plastic product. For instance, Vermont
defines “single-use product” to mean a “product that is generally
recognized by the public as an item to be discarded after one use”
(10 V.S.A. § 6691). Such a definition certainly leaves room for
single-use plastic regulations to expand beyond the current scope,
potentially implicating the components of steel and aluminum
aerosol products—such as plastic applicator straws, caps and
nozzles—in future plastic bans and restrictions.
Further, bills touting even more restrictive
measures are currently pending before State
legislatures. For example, the California Circular
Economy Pollution Act (A.B. 1080/ S.B.
54) proposes, among other things, that the
CA Dept. of Resources Recycling & Recovery
(CalRecycle) adopt regulations requiring
producers of single-use packaging and priority
products to ensure that products manufactured
on or after Jan. 1, 2030 and offered
for sale in California are either recyclable or
compostable. We are already seeing an increase
in manufacturers seeking to guarantee the recyclability of their
single-use products in 2020, and the trend is likely to continue.
These recyclability requirements may also constrain manufacturer’s
options when it comes to non-plastic components or those
comprised of a varying resin. For example, plastic spray pumps
may use non-plastic pistons or springs. These items may impact
the overall compatibility of the product by inhibiting the recycling
process or contaminating the intended resin stream.
Nhat T. Nguyen, Chief Analyst, Chemical Watch
While the regulatory landscape is ever-changing, 2020 is shaping
up to be a particularly active year, with a proliferation of initiatives
adopted or proposed across North America. continued on page 32
Troutman
Bossow
Walker