Regulatory Issues

Written on: February 1, 2018 by Doug Raymond


The year is starting out busy. We started out the year with a couple of meetings.

 Department of Toxic Substance Control

On Jan. 8, the Dept. of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) held a public hearing on its third proposed Priority Product—Methylene Chloride Paint or Varnish Strippers. The hearing was held in Sacramento, CA at the California Environmental Protection Agency building.

DTSC is working on the Safer Consumer Products Regulation, which some will remember as “Green Chemistry.” The meeting remained open until all speakers had presented and DTSC took statements from both industry and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Industry commented on the adequacy of existing regulations, issues related to hazard communication and deficiencies in existing accident and injury information. Several public interest NGOs entered testimony about the hazards of methylene chloride. Listing it as a priority product would allow DTSC the opportunity to work with industry to evaluate and minimize risks. It will consider comment and make a decision. Once listed, manufacturers have 180 days to conduct an alternatives assessment or remove methylene chloride from products sold in California.

Written comments on the proposed regulation closed on Jan. 18, 2018. DTSC staff will review all oral comments and written comments before proceeding with the regulation.

California Air Resources Board

California Air Resources Board (CARB) held a Public Workshop on Jan. 17, 2018 in Sacramento. The public workshop was held to invite participants to comment on proposed amendments to the Consumer Products regulations. These amendments propose to add an alternative compliance option for manufacturers to meet the Multi-purpose Lubricant (MPL) future effective standard of 10% volatile organic compounds (VOC).

The proposed amendment includes adding a reactivity limit that can be met as an alternative to meeting the 10% mass-based limit. Reactivity limits measure the amount of ozone produced, unlike mass-based limits that regulate the amount of VOC but do not measure ozone creation. Therefore, a reduction in the reactivity of a product always reduces ozone production. The same cannot be said for mass-based reductions.

CARB staff has been working diligently on these proposed changes. In this workshop, the proposed language was released for review. This will likely be the last workshop on these proposed changes. Included in the changes is a postponement of the limit until July of 2019.

The next step will be a public hearing in front of the CARB Executive Board to approve these changes, scheduled for May 2018.

CARB also released the 2014 Architectural Coating Survey data The survey collected data from architectural coating companies that sold products in California during 2013.

This survey will likely be used to develop a new model Architectural Coating Suggested Control Measures. Timing on this development is unknown.

Ozone Transport Commission

The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) is in the process of developing yet another Model Rule, with plans to have it ready by the end of the first quarter of 2018. OTC Model Rules now number three; we need to work with the OTC to narrow the number of Model Rules out there.  SPRAY