Regulatory Outlook McAuliffe
AVA CARIDAD,
EDITORIAL DIRECTOR Experts remark upon regulatory concerns in2018
Tom Myers, EVP, Legal & Regulatory, Personal Care Products
Council & Francine Lamoriello, EVP, Global Strategies,
Personal Care Products Council (PCPC)
As federal agencies work to aggressively
roll back dozens of regulations fulfilling
one of President Trump’s major
campaign promises, we expect 2018
to be very active as many states begin
using their legislative and regulatory
authorities to go beyond what is at the
federal level. This will create a national
patchwork of regulations and a more
confusing regulatory environment.
For example, California intends to
select certain personal care products
for regulation this year under its Safer
Consumer Products program. Likewise,
Washington, Oregon, Maine, Vermont
and others may increase the number
of “chemicals of concern” regulated
under their Green Chemistry laws.
Other states, such as Hawaii, will step
up efforts to ban the use of ingredients
in certain consumer products under
the perception that they may cause
environmental damage despite conflicting science.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) will likely
be active during 2018 and beyond as it finishes assessing the
massive amount of data collected from consumer product
companies as part of its three-year Volatile Organic Compound
(VOC) survey. CARB will then aggregate and publish the
data for comment in early 2018, examine the data for “areas of
growth” targeted for future VOC reductions and identify new
product categories to be regulated.
We expect retailers to continue developing and expanding
the use of “chemical policies” that mandate the reduction
or elimination of certain chemicals from consumer products.
Retailers have used these policies to meet perceived consumer
demand for “healthier” products along with their own
sustainability goals. This “regulation by retailer” is especially
challenging for manufacturers since retailers are not public
regulatory bodies subject to Administrative Procedure Act
requirements of notice and comment, so opportunities to
educate them are far more limited.
While both federal and state legislators address important
regulatory issues, PCPC and its member companies are
steadfastly committed to modernizing regulatory oversight for
cosmetics and personal care products. As different legislative
and regulatory approaches are considered, we look forward to
working with legislators, regulators and other stakeholders at
both the federal and state levels to create a more contemporary
regulatory system that advances innovation, safety and consumer
As 2018 kicks into gear, it brings with it many
questions regarding what the regulatory playing
field will look like. In an effort to bring readers a
variety of perspectives, SPRAY surveyed experts and
researched multiple sources to bring together a comprehensive
look at what lies ahead for the aerosol and related industries.
•••
Heidi McAuliffe VP, Government Affairs & Rhett Cash, Counsel
for Government Affairs, American Coatings Association (ACA)
The regulatory outlook for aerosol
coatings products during 2018 appears
uncertain because some factors indicate
that the federal agencies will not be
active; however, these same factors may
cause state agencies to be more aggressive
in rulemaking and, particularly, in
enforcement.
In 2017, we witnessed President
Trump’s efforts to re-shape the federal
agencies. Executive Orders 13771
and 13777 have significantly changed
the focus of rulemaking by creating
additional hurdles and requiring
symbiotic de-regulatory actions. As a
result, federal agencies have remained
stagnant in their rulemaking activities
and may feel pressured to prioritize
the issues they face in the future.
Furthermore, the lack of personnel and
additional resources has contributed to
the difficulty in getting any regulatory
Cash
actions accomplished at the federal level. Consequently, the
American Coatings Association’s (ACA) petition for rulemaking
to add compounds to the table of reactivity factors in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) aerosol coatings rule
has not progressed through any rulemaking stages so far.
However, the very fact that the federal agencies appear to have
been neutralized may generate more rulemaking and enforcement
activity at the state level. Early in the year, there was at least one
bill in states that sought to freeze the status of environmental
regulations. The most significant rulemaking for aerosol
adhesives, Rule 1168 in California’s South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD), was finalized last year after
an aggressive rulemaking schedule resumed. This rulemaking
included new categories and limits, additional reporting
requirements and changed requirements for aerosol adhesives
subject to California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Consumer
Products Regulation. While ACA anticipates additional activity
at the state level, there is a good chance that this activity could
be more focused on enforcement than rulemaking.
18 Spray February 2018
Myers
Lamoriello