For an industry built on innovation, convenience and performance, few issues present a greater challenge than balancing product accessibility with public safety. The intentional misuse of legitimate consumer products exemplifies this challenge, existing at the intersection of public health, consumer awareness and responsible product stewardship.
The latest National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NSDUH) from the U.S. Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) underscores the importance of continued industry awareness and prevention efforts.i Inhalants represent a broad category that includes adhesives, degreasers, gasoline, gases, nitrites, aerosols and other products manufactured for legitimate purposes. However, some of these products may be intentionally misused to achieve intoxicating effects, often by depriving the brain of oxygen. Although intentional inhalant misuse occurs at significantly lower rates than the use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, prescription medications and illicit drugs, attention to this issue remains critically important.
For the aerosol industry, this issue is unfortunately not new. Manufacturers, suppliers, marketers and retailers have long recognized that products designed for specific functions can also be targeted for intentional misuse. As a result, Industry has worked to balance maintaining access to essential products with implementing education and other measures that help reduce opportunities for misuse.
Inhalation abuse can be misunderstood because it does not fit neatly into traditional categories of substance misuse. While some substances are intentionally misused as inhalants because of their addictive properties, many others—including aerosol propellants—do not possess those characteristics. Although these substances may not produce physiological dependence or chemical addiction, repeated intentional misuse can contribute to psychological dependence and compulsive behaviors.
Aerosol products have been part of public discussions surrounding inhalant misuse because of their availability and widespread household presence, but they are only one category of products that may be intentionally misused. HCPA is aware of more than 70 State laws addressing inhalant abuse. More recent laws enacted in Minnesotaii and Oregoniii focus specifically on aerosol dusters, while many others address products such as glues, solvents and nitrous oxide.
For industry stakeholders, the key distinction is that intentional misuse does not diminish the value or necessity of legitimate products. Aerosols support industries ranging from manufacturing and automotive maintenance to electronics, food service, personal care and household applications. The appropriate response is therefore one centered on prevention, education and responsible stewardship.
Readers of SPRAY Technology & Marketing may recall that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) previously considered a rulemaking addressing aerosol dusters associated with inhalation abuse. The issue has now reached Capitol Hill, with two separate pieces of legislation introduced this year.
The Duster Inhalation Prevention Act (S. 5002), introduced by Senator Wyden (D-OR), reflects growing Congressional attention on the intentional misuse of aerosol duster products. As currently drafted, the bill would designate HFC-152a and HFC-134a as hazardous substances under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA). It would also prohibit the sale of aerosol products regulated under the FHSA that contain more than 18 mg of one or both of these propellants and authorize the CPSC to designate additional propellants as hazardous.
Separately, the Nitrous Oxide Safety Act (H.R. 7945) was introduced to prohibit the sale of consumer products containing nitrous oxide. The current bill includes important exclusions, including aerosol food products, although some stakeholders continue to advocate for a complete ban.
Regardless of the outcome of these legislative proposals, it is clear that product categories associated with intentional misuse are receiving heightened scrutiny, and industries connected to those products will remain part of the conversation. For the aerosol community, staying informed and engaged is essential. Industry’s message should remain consistent: Aerosol products provide significant benefits across modern life, and those benefits depend on responsible manufacturing, distribution and use.
The challenge is not the existence of these products but rather preventing their intentional misuse while preserving the innovation and value they provide. As new data emerge and legislative discussions continue, collaboration among manufacturers, regulators, retailers, educators and consumers will remain essential to ensuring safety throughout the product lifecycle—from development and distribution to consumer use and disposal.
To stay informed and engage on this critically important issue, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i The 2025 National Survey on Drug Use & Health can be found here.
ii Minn. Stat. § 325F.078
iii Or. Rev. Stat. § 475.376
When ensuring quality control in aerosol product manufacturing, even the simplest of observations can be valuable—such as watching for bubbles.
For decades, the hot water bath test has been one of the industry’s most trusted quality assurance measures. The concept is straightforward: filled aerosol containers pass through a heated water bath, increasing their internal pressure to a prescribed level. If a container has a defect—whether a faulty valve crimp, compromised seam or microscopic pinhole leak—the increased pressure forces product or propellant from the package, creating visible bubbles that indicate a leak.
Despite significant advances in manufacturing technology, the hot water bath remains one of the most widely recognized leak-detection methods in aerosol production. In fact, although the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT) permits alternative testing methods[i], the hot water bath continues to serve as the benchmark against which many leak-detection systems are evaluated.
However, today’s aerosol manufacturing environment bears little resemblance to the industry that existed when the hot water bath test was first introduced.
Historically, aerosol filling lines operated at approximately 40 to 60 containers per minute. At those production rates, it was practical for a trained operator to visually monitor containers as they moved through the water bath and identify leaks based on bubble formation. Today, modern manufacturing lines routinely operate at speeds exceeding 300 containers per minute, with some running even faster depending on product type and package configuration.
This evolution raises an important question: Should leak detection in a modern, high-speed manufacturing environment continue to rely primarily on human observation, or are more advanced technologies better suited to ensuring product quality?
The challenge is not simply one of attention. It’s one of physics and human perception. At high production speeds, containers can create turbulence as they move through the water bath. Air pockets, agitation, splashing and normal movement within the system can generate bubbles unrelated to package leakage. At the same time, very small leaks may produce subtle streams of bubbles that are difficult to distinguish from normal bath activity. Inspectors are expected to differentiate between these conditions in real time while observing hundreds of containers every minute.
As containers move through the bath, their internal pressure increases until reaching the level associated with the required testing temperature of 55°C (131°F), or 50°C (122°F) when the liquid phase does not exceed 95% of the container’s capacity at that temperature. These elevated temperatures and pressures also create safety considerations for employees responsible for removing failed containers from the line.
Although visual observation is widely expected during the hot water bath test, that requirement is not explicitly stated in the Federal regulations governing aerosol products [ii] Rather, the expectation stems from DOT interpretations of the regulation, including Interpretation Response #13-0059, in which DOT states [iii], “The intent of the hot water bath specified in § 173.306(a)(5)(v) is to test the leak proofness of a filled container. Though permanent distortion may be visible during or after the test, leakage must be observed during the test. For this reason, a visual observer must be present for the hot water bath test.”
This interpretation effectively establishes visual observation as a necessary component of the test. While that approach reflected the manufacturing capabilities and production speeds of the past, today’s manufacturing environment presents new opportunities to achieve the same objective through more advanced technologies.
Modern leak-detection systems have advanced significantly and can identify leaks with levels of consistency and sensitivity that often exceed human capability. Unlike human inspectors, automated systems do not experience fatigue, distraction or reduced effectiveness during extended production runs. They can continuously inspect every container, record inspection data and provide traceable documentation that supports both quality assurance and regulatory compliance.
Recognizing these advancements, members of the Household & Commercial Products Association’s (HCPA) Aerosol Products Division formed a task force to explore opportunities for modernizing leak-detection practices while maintaining the industry’s longstanding commitment to safety. The task force is evaluating alternative leak-detection technologies and documenting their performance relative to traditional visual observation. Through data collection, technical analysis and industry education, the group aims to demonstrate that certain automated methods can provide leak-detection performance that is equivalent to, or exceeds, that of a visual observer monitoring a hot water bath test.
As this work continues, the industry has an opportunity to engage regulators in a constructive dialogue about modernizing leak-detection requirements while preserving the rigorous safety standards that have long defined aerosol product manufacturing. The future of leak detection should not be measured by how closely it resembles past practices, but by how effectively it identifies defects, protects consumers and workers, and ensures product integrity in an increasingly advanced manufacturing landscape.
After all, ensuring aerosol product integrity is too important to rely solely on methods developed for a manufacturing landscape that has changed dramatically over time. The aerosol industry has never been afraid to innovate, and leak detection should be no exception. As manufacturing technology continues to evolve, so too should the tools and practices used to ensure every aerosol product meets the highest standards of safety and quality.
To learn more about the Leak Detection Task Force or to get involved, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i For more information on water bath alternatives in the U.S., CLICK
ii For federal regulations concerning the hot water bath test, see 49 CFR §
iii link
Fluorinated organic compounds, once recognized for their unique chemical properties, are now broadly categorized as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).i Regulatory scrutiny of this diverse class of chemicals now extends across a wide range of products, including sprays, making PFAS a critical issue for formulators, raw material suppliers, packaging engineers and marketers.
For manufacturers of personal care products, household products, lubricants, paints and coatings, pesticides and automotive products, PFAS is no longer a future concern—it is a present-day business challenge reshaping the marketplace.
A growing patchwork of State laws, evolving retailer requirements, increasing litigation risk and heightened consumer awareness are transforming the regulatory and commercial landscape at an accelerating pace.
As of early 2026, PFAS restrictions and reporting requirements for cleaning and personal care products had already taken effect in several States, including Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota and Vermont. Additional requirements are expected in Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico and Washington State, while existing State programs are poised to expand over time.
For companies selling products nationally in the U.S., the challenge is clear: regulations enacted in one State often become the de facto national standard. Maintaining separate formulations, distribution channels and compliance systems for different States is often impractical. As a result, many companies have already reformulated—or are actively reformulating—products nationwide to avoid fluorinated organic chemistries.
While States are driving much of the regulatory activity, Federal oversight continues to expand. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is increasing PFAS-related reporting and oversight activities, including risk-management requirements under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), adding PFAS chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and proposing to include PFAS as a class in the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Retailers are also influencing the marketplace by requiring suppliers to certify that products are PFAS-free or contain no intentionally added PFAS. In some cases, these requests extend deep into the supply chain, creating compliance challenges for manufacturers because PFAS may be introduced through upstream chemistries, raw materials, manufacturing processes or inadvertent contamination.
Complicating matters further are inconsistent regulatory definitions and the lack of validated testing methodologies in complex matrices. Depending on the jurisdiction, PFAS may refer to several thousand, or more than 15,000, compounds. Some regulations focus on intentionally added PFAS, though definitions of “intentionally added” vary significantly. Others rely on detectable fluorine thresholds. Certain jurisdictions exempt fluoropolymers or substances listed under the EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Program—including aerosol propellants—while others make no distinction among different categories of fluorinated chemistry.
This fragmentation creates substantial compliance complexity. Faced with uncertainty, some companies are pursuing the simplest path forward: eliminating fluorinated chemistries wherever technically feasible.
Increasingly, that decision is driven by more than regulatory compliance alone. Companies are positioning fluorine-free technologies as part of broader sustainability and risk-management strategies, emphasizing reduced regulatory burden and litigation exposure. As a result, marketing products as “PFAS-free” may become an increasingly common market expectation.
However, reformulation is rarely straightforward. Fluorinated organic chemistries often provide performance characteristics that are difficult to replicate, forcing manufacturers to evaluate trade-offs among cost, performance and/or processing.
For many companies, the key questions have become practical ones:
Companies that can confidently answer these questions will be better positioned to navigate an increasingly complex regulatory environment. While the details of PFAS regulation will continue to evolve, the uncertainty surrounding PFAS is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
The Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) recently developed a PFAS Compliance Tool & Primer designed to help companies understand and manage their regulatory obligations. To learn more, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i The regulatory definition for PFAS varies based on jurisdiction, but the most restrictive definition is one fully fluorinated carbon atom. Fluorinated organic compounds that don’t have at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom are not considered as PFAS under any jurisdiction.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) packaging laws are no longer theoretical constructs in the U.S. They are active, enforceable systems reshaping the financial and operational foundations of recycling and producer responsibility. Yet, recent public disclosures indicate a growing issue—a significant number of producers are not meeting their obligations.
This challenge is especially visible in early-adopter States, such as Oregon, where the first comprehensive packaging EPR program is revealing gaps between policy expectations and implementation. In March, Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) for Oregon, releasedi a searchable registry of producers participating in the program, as required under the State’s EPR law. In April, the Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality published an initial listii, available on CAA’s website, of producers alleged to be non-compliant for failing to register, report and/or pay required fees under the law.
At its core, EPR laws shift the cost of managing packaging waste from municipalities to producers. In practice, this means companies must register with a PRO, report the volume and type of materials they introduce into the market and pay fees that fund recycling infrastructure.
The operational model hinges on a central coordinating body, such as CAA, that administers compliance on behalf of producers. However, this model is dependent on high participation and accurate reporting. Without broad compliance, the system’s financial and operational integrity is at risk, and compliant producers must cover a larger cost.
However, the compliance gap is not simply the result of negligence. It reflects the significant complexity associated with implementing EPR policies across the U.S. Producers must determine whether they are “obligated producers,” track material flows and apply detailed reporting methodologies. Although CAA serves as the PRO across multiple States, each jurisdiction maintains its own rules, timelines and definitions.
Further complicating matters is ongoing litigation surrounding these laws. A notable example is National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) v. Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality et al, which raises constitutional questions regarding the implementation of EPR programs in Oregon and beyond. Although the court granted NAW’s motion to temporarily prohibit enforcement of the law against NAW and its members pending trial, the protection is limited in scope. Only companies that were NAW members as of Feb. 6, 2026, are covered—meaning the vast majority of producers must continue complying with the law, including reporting and fee payments obligations.
A trial, scheduled to begin on July 13, 2026, will determine whether the law is upheld in its current form, which could result in NAW members being subject to retroactive fees.
As legal challenges continue to unfold, the risks associated with non-compliance remain significant. Companies may face financial penalties, late fees and retroactive payment obligations. Regulatory enforcement actions are also possible, and public disclosure of noncompliant entities creates reputational risk that may impact relationships with customers, partners and stakeholders.
EPR laws are rapidly reshaping the regulatory landscape for packaging and recycling in the U.S., and early implementation efforts have highlighted both their potential and operational challenges. While compliance gaps persist, they underscore the need for clearer guidance, stronger coordination and increased awareness among producers. As enforcement mechanisms become more visible and public accountability increases, companies can no longer afford to take a passive approach. Proactive engagement, accurate reporting and a thorough understanding of evolving requirements will be critical not only to avoid penalties, but also to support the long-term viability and credibility of EPR systems.
Accordingly, companies should evaluate their potential responsibility not just in Oregon, but across all States implementing packaging EPR laws, including California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State.
To stay up to date and receive more information on EPR laws in the U.S., please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
As the aerosol products industry continues to evolve, so too must the guidance that supports it. The latest edition of the Household & Commercial Products Association’s (HCPA) Aerosol Guide delivers updated voluntary standards and methods for today’s marketplace.
For more than 65 years, the HCPA Aerosol Guide has served as a trusted resource for aerosol product suppliers, fillers, formulators and marketers, offering the technical insight needed to operate effectively.i Today, the 10th Edition Aerosol Guide is available for free on HCPA’s websiteii to expand access to essential guidance for the industry. The updated guide now incorporates standards and methods developed by the Plastic Aerosol Research Group, LLC (PARG).
The 10th Edition Aerosol Guide reflects the work of HCPA member companies to establish consistent, science-based practices in product development, filling operations and materials supply. This work has helped advance uniformity, improve testing protocols and deliver reliable technical information to those who depend on it. Notably, HCPA members determined that this guide should focus on technical standards and methodologies and removed the regulatory content included in prior editions. However, HCPA continues to develop separate resources that address aerosol regulations, such as the recently published Guide to Water Bath Alternatives in the United States.iii
Removing cost and access barriers helps ensure that these standards reach a wider audience, particularly aerosol fillers and packaging suppliers who may have previously faced limitations. This change broadens the guide’s global impact, enabling international partners to reference and apply these practices, while reinforcing HCPA’s role in discussions with regulatory agencies. Hosting the guide online also supports timely updates, so new standards and methods can be incorporated as they are developed.
The guide is now organized into seven sections, including:
HCPA is grateful to the many contributors who supported this effort, especially Erik Bowdish from Sonoco, whose leadership guided this update, and Rodney Prater from SC Johnson, whose early determinations helped set this latest revision in motion.
For more information about the HCPA Aerosol Guide, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i HCPA operated under the name “Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association (CSMA)” from the 1950s through 2000, then “Consumer Specialties Products Association (CSPA)” from 2000 to 2018. All earlier editions of the HCPA Aerosol Guide were called either the CSMA or CSPA Aerosol Guide.
ii link
iii link
For decades, the hot water bath test has been a standard practice in the aerosol products industry. Despite its widespread use, there are alternative methods available in the U.S. that can be implemented without requiring a special permit.
The Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) recently released the Guide to Water Bath Alternatives in the United States, a resource designed to help companies understand the regulatory framework governing alternative testing methods and how these approaches may be used to comply with Federal requirements.
Since the 1950s, the hot water bath test has played an integral role in aerosol product manufacturing. The process involves submerging filled aerosol containers in heated water to identify leaks and detect over-pressurized units, thereby verifying container integrity and structural soundness. Long recognized and widely accepted as an effective production safeguard, the test serves as a final quality-control step to help ensure the safety of aerosol products before storage, transportation and consumer use.
However, the aerosol industry has evolved significantly over the past several decades. Advances in container design, materials engineering and manufacturing precision have significantly improved overall product quality and reliability. At the same time, modern production lines operate at faster speeds than those in the mid-20th Century. As a result, manufacturers are exploring new technologies and processes that can maintain—and enhance—product safety while increasing operational efficiency.
Companies may consider building new aerosol production lines or upgrading existing ones to increase throughput, strengthen quality control systems and reduce operational costs. Emerging detection technologies can offer enhanced sensitivity, including the ability to identify microleaks that might not be detected through traditional hot water bath testing. Additionally, certain alternative methods may reduce energy and water consumption, optimize plant layouts and better integrate with automated, high-speed production.
This guide was developed to clarify which alternative testing methods are allowed in the U.S. without needing a special permit from the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (U.S. DOT). It outlines the specific regulatory requirements that must be met in order to use these alternatives under existing hazardous materials regulations. The guide also provides practical guidance on implementation, recordkeeping and documentation to support and demonstrate compliance with U.S. DOT requirements.
Strict adherence to the conditions associated with each approved alternative method is essential. If a company wishes to implement an alternative approach but cannot meet all applicable criteria, the company must apply for and obtain a special permit from U.S. DOT. This guide aims to help organizations understand these distinctions and make informed decisions about their compliance strategies.
Beyond outlining regulatory requirements, the guide also highlights alternative technologies that support approved methodologies. Various equipment manufacturers offer systems designed to meet specified performance standards, enabling companies to maintain safety and regulatory compliance while transitioning away from traditional water bath testing.
HCPA members also have access to additional resources and contact information for equipment providers to support this process.
The development of this guidance was a collaborative effort led by Jim McLarty of PLZ Corp. and supported by a dedicated task force of HCPA member volunteers. Their collective industry expertise and commitment have resulted in a practical, authoritative resource for aerosol manufacturers navigating an evolving regulatory and technological landscape.
For more information on approved alternatives to the hot water bath test in the U.S. and guidance on implementing them without a special U.S. DOT permit, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i link
ii 49 CFR 107 Subpart B
While empty aerosol cans are recyclable, acceptance at material recovery facilities (MRFs) across the U.S. remains inconsistent. Operational concerns, safety perceptions, market uncertainty and uneven policy signals continue to limit broader participation.
To help address these challenges, RTI Innovation Advisors developed Yes We Can! A Practical Guide to Aerosol Recycling at MRFs for the Aerosol Recycling Initiative. This guide—also known as the MRF Playbook—supports the efforts of the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) and the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI) to increase the recycling of empty aerosols across the U.S., with a goal of achieving at least an 85% recycling access rate for all aerosol cans by 2030.
The MRF Playbook is designed to help MRFs navigate the risks and concerns associated with aerosol can acceptance by supporting informed internal evaluations and collaboration across the recycling supply chain. It avoids a one-size-fits-all approach, instead providing credible, operations-focused information, grounded in real-world case studies to enable MRFs to evaluate aerosol acceptance within their own, unique systems.
The Playbook is organized into four sections that reflect the practical questions MRFs typically raise when evaluating new materials:
1. It begins with Personas, helping facilities identify where their operations fit and explore common concerns and opportunities associated with recycling aerosol cans.
2. The Benefits section outlines five key advantages of accepting aerosol cans, including both economic considerations and longer-term, future-proofing benefits.
3. The Risks section examines three primary risks identified through interviews with MRFs across the U.S., each illustrated by an overview and real-world case studies.
4. Finally, the Roadmap & Recommendations section distills these insights into a practical roadmap and four recommendations driven by the case studies.
To develop the Playbook, RTI worked closely with HCPA and CMI to examine both the current state of aerosol acceptance and the conditions needed to encourage future participation. Key questions focused on how MRFs evaluate aerosol acceptance in practice, including trends and barriers in acceptance, safety considerations and the influence of State and local policy. RTI also explored how MRFs define success when evaluating aerosol acceptance, including operational considerations and downstream end-markets.
RTI conducted interviews with 13 MRFs across 11 U.S. States, representing a diverse mix of public and privately owned facilities across geographic regions, including MRFs that explicitly accept aerosol cans, do not accept aerosol cans, and those that accept aerosols without publicly advertising acceptance. In parallel, RTI spoke with nine city and State officials to better understand how Government perspectives and policy considerations influence aerosol acceptance at MRFs.
For the aerosol and recycling industries, the MRF Playbook offers a practical, operations-driven resource rooted in the real-world experience. By documenting experiences and lessons learned, it helps facilities evaluate aerosol acceptance with greater confidence while supporting clearer communication across the recycling supply chain. As recycling infrastructure and policy continue to evolve, the Playbook provides a research-backed foundation for more consistent and informed aerosol recycling across the U.S.
Download and read the full MRF Playbook by visiting the Aerosol Recycling Initiative webpage.
If you have any questions about aerosol recycling or would like to get involved with the Aerosol Recycling Initiative, please contact me at ski@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
The Winter season often coincides with travel to warmer destinations to escape the cold, where higher UV exposure makes effective sun protection essential, including the use of aerosol sunscreen products.
In the U.S., aerosol sunscreens are regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug rather than as a cosmetic product. Companies can bring new aerosol sunscreen products to market without approval by the FDA by following the OTC Monograph,i which specifies the permitted active ingredients and their concentrations, labeling and testing procedures. Products that meet all of the OTC Monograph requirements are considered “Generally Recognized As Safe and Effective” (GRASE). It’s important to note that, in recent years, the FDA has raised concerns about inhalation risk to spray sunscreen products, including aerosols;ii however, the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) and other industry stakeholders have disputed these concerns.iii
The next time you find yourself in the sun, remember the importance of sunscreen and the dedicated efforts by companies to ensure that these products are safe and effective.
Many newer UV filters used globally are not currently approved in the U.S. Recently, the FDA proposediv amending the OTC Monograph for sunscreens to include bemotrizinol at concentrations up to 6% as an active ingredient. This marks the first proposed addition of a new UV filter by the FDA in more than two decades. While the proposal represents an important step toward expanding available active sunscreen ingredients in the U.S., key stakeholders, such as the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), continue to advocate for an accelerated pathway for the FDA to approve additional active ingredients for the U.S. market.
Manufacturers and marketers of aerosol sunscreens should be aware of State-level regulations that could impact the distribution and sale of products. Most notably, Hawaii’s sunscreen lawv bans products containing oxybenzone and/or octinoxate. The Hawaiian county of Maui goes even further,vi prohibiting all non-mineral active ingredients.
Companies should also be aware that aerosol sunscreen was included in the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) most recent product survey. While inclusion in the survey does not necessarily mean that CARB will create a future standard for these products, Industry should prepare for it to be discussed.
HCPA, PCPC and allied trade associations, including the Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA) and the National Aerosol Association (NAA), plan to host industry-wide meetings to discuss all 37 product categories being surveyed by CARB. These discussions aim to ensure that the draft aggregate summary data is as accurate as possible when it becomes available, especially since Industry will have only one opportunity to review the draft data.
Once final, the aggregate summary data will serve as the foundation for any emission reductions that CARB pursues and provide the basis for volatile organic compound (VOC) equivalency determinations as CARB develops new standards using maximum incremental reactivity (MIR).
If interested in aerosol sunscreen products or you would like to participate in Industry’s review of CARB’s draft aggregate summary data, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i 21 CFR Part 352
ii link
iii link
iv link
v HI Rev Stat § 342D-21
vi link
When developing the Aerosol Recycling Initiativei, the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) and the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI) envisioned a future where consumers and workers could easily recycle empty aerosol containers and feel confident in the process.
With several U.S. States now implementing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies, and more expected to follow suit, it has been increasingly important to ensure that empty aerosol containers remain recyclable. To date, HCPA and CMI have successfully secured the inclusion of aerosol containers on statewide recycling lists. However, Oregon—currently the furthest along in the implementation process—initially classified aerosol containers as products to be collected only through drop-off programs, rather than through curbside collection. This approach would significantly increase EPR fees for aerosol containers in Oregon and could set a negative precedent for other States.
HCPA argued for the inclusion of aerosol containers in curbside recycling programs and made a compelling case that led the Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to postpone requiring aerosols to be collected through drop-off programs until 2028.
To demonstrate that empty aerosol containers can be safely accepted through curbside recycling, the Aerosol Recycling Initiative has been collaborating with the Circular Action Alliance (CAA) to develop messaging that informs consumers about how to properly empty their aerosol containers before recycling. The messaging instructs consumers to either use the product until the container is empty or take it to a household hazardous waste (HHW) collection site.
The development of this messaging is only one component of a much larger effort. In collaboration with CAA, the Aerosol Recycling Initiative has partnered with Far West Recycling—which operates a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in the metro-Portland, OR, area that accepts aerosol containers—to assess the effectiveness of the messaging by conducting container residue testing. Over the course of a week during the Summer, Far West Recycling collected two totes of aerosol samples and shipped them to Recycle Aerosol LLC in Bells, TN, where specialized equipment was used to measure residue levels. The first set of samples was intentionally collected before the messaging was released to establish a baseline measurement that will allow us to determine the impact of the behavior-change campaign.
Unlike the testing conducted in 2023, in which each sample was evaluated individually,ii this round of testing used Recycle Aerosol’s equipment to assess all samples collectively, providing aggregate results. Steel and aluminum aerosol containers were sorted separately. During the sortation process, we recorded key information for each sample, including product type, container type, container integrity, whether the container felt empty in accordance with the consumer messaging and recycling information on the product label.
Testing Results
A total of 2,385 aerosol containers were collected and tested. The material breakdown was as follows:
Aggregate Residue – 10.7%
Product Sector Breakdown
Does the container “feel” empty?
To evaluate the effectiveness of our messaging, we plan to conduct at least two additional rounds of testing using samples collected from Far West Recycling. These measurements will allow us to compare future results against our baseline data and understand the impact of the consumer messaging. Ultimately, we hope the findings will demonstrate to Oregon DEQ that aerosol containers can be safely recycled through curbside programs, helping keep EPR fees low for aerosol manufacturers and marketers.
I would like to thank the sponsors of the Aerosol Recycling Initiative for providing the funding that makes this work possible. I would also like to acknowledge Recycle Aerosol LLC for supporting the Initiative by allowing us to measure residue levels at their facility, and HCPA member company Diversified CPC for contributing resources to develop the graphics used in the educational materials.
If you would like to get involved, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i link
ii To learn more about the testing we conducted in 2023, please see the Aerosol Recycling Initiative White Paper here
This past year has brought a new wave of reporting obligations for companies, largely due to the implementation of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws across the U.S. Companies must now report annually to Circular Action Alliance (CAA)i for covered products in Oregon,ii Coloradoiii and Californiavi—with more States expected to follow suit.v However, EPR is not the only area where new reporting obligations are emerging. Additional requirements are on the horizon for 2026 that companies should keep in mind.
Next year, companies will face two new reporting obligations, both beginning on March 31, 2026. The first applies to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Technology Transitions regulation under the American Innovation & Manufacturing (AIM) Act.vi The second was initiated by the New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and requires reporting beyond Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under Part 494, Hydrofluorocarbon Standards & Reporting.vii
Under the Technology Transitions regulation—which restricts the use of HFCs with a global warming potential (GWP) greater than 150 in most aerosol products—the EPA now requires annual reporting from manufacturers and importers of covered products and equipment. Please note that the GWP restriction for technical aerosols does not take effect until Jan. 1, 2028, but these products still need to be included in 2026 reporting. For reporting purposes, the “manufacturer” is defined as the company listed on the product label.
Reports must be submitted to the EPA within 90 days of the end of each calendar year, with the initial report covering 2025 data. The scope includes the 18 HFCs listed under the AIM Act, such as HFC-152a.viii While most aerosol products containing HFCs will be subject to these reporting obligations, certain products are excluded, including metered dose inhalers (MDIs) and defense sprays.
The EPA has indicated plans to host webinars and other stakeholder engagement sessions once the reporting tool is ready. The timing of these trainings is unknown as we go to print because of the U.S. Federal Government shutdown.
The original Part 494 regulation, adopted in 2020, focused primarily on HFCs. However, the 2024 amendments significantly broadened the scope and may now apply to additional companies, even those that don’t use HFCs in their products.
While the original regulation drew requirements from the EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) Rules 20 and 21,ix, x the amended rule goes beyond the restrictions imposed by the Technology Transitions regulation. For aerosol products, the amended Part 494 regulation restricts any substance with a GWP above 10, measured over a 20-year timeframe (compared with the 100-year timeframe used in the AIM Act), starting on Jan. 1, 2034. This includes substances other than HFCs, including hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs) and even hydrocarbons. While efforts are underway to modify or roll back some of these upcoming restrictions, companies should still be thinking about how these restrictions may impact their products.
Regarding reporting obligations in New York, suppliers of products and equipment containing substances with a GWP greater than 10 (under the 20-year timeframe) will be required, starting in 2026, to report the total quantities supplied within the State. As of the writing of this column, the reporting tool is not yet available. However, the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) remains engaged with NYSDEC and will provide member companies with information as it’s released.
Although both reports are due on the same day and initially target HFCs, it is important to recognize that the substances and data that companies report on next year may differ depending on their product portfolio.
HCPA continues to engage with both the EPA and NYSDEC to clarify regulatory requirements and advocate for reporting tools that are practical and accessible, ensuring that aerosol manufacturers and marketers may fulfill their obligations efficiently.
To participate in these discussions directly, or if you have any questions, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY
i link
ii Initial reports were due March 31, 2025
iii Initial reports were due July 31, 2025
vi Initial reports were due Nov. 15, 2025
v CAA will require initial reports in May 2026 for Maine; however, companies need to also be aware of additional state registration obligations coming in 2026 as well.
vi link
vii link
viii 42 U.S. Code § 7675(c)(1)
ix link
x link
