Happy New Year from the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA). As 2025 begins, so do the terms for returning and newly elected Congress members, as well as the start of a second Trump Administration. We can expect many changes at both the Federal and State levels that will impact Industry. One area where we know this will be the case is trade, which will likely be dominated by tariffs.

On the campaign trail leading up to his election, President-elect Trump promised to impose significant tariffs on imports. He stated, on more than one occasion, that he wants to reshape global trade through tariffs, including as much as 60% on imports from China and 10–20% on all other foreign [non-U.S.] products.i Trump said this arrangement would favor domestic manufacturing and increase government revenue. As I write this column at the end of November 2024, he has already announced a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tariff on Chinese goods, effective when he takes office.ii Obviously, the specific details are unknown and will likely change as the impacted countries respond and/or negotiate, but it still creates uncertainty in the marketplace.

Recall that, in 2018, the first Trump Administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum at 25% and 10%, respectively, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. Section 232 authorizes the President to adjust the import of goods through tariffs from countries if the goods are deemed a threat to national security.

The Trump Administration also imposed tariffs against China under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, one of the principal means by which the U.S. enforces its trading rights and addresses unfair practices by its trading partners. You may remember that these tariffs were not well received by other governments, who retaliated by imposing their own tariffs on U.S. goods.

The media has discussed at length the impact that tariffs will have on U.S. consumers; however, their impact on U.S. businesses—especially those such as the aerosol industry that rely on imported materials such as steel and aluminum—isn’t discussed to the same extent. According to economists Aaron Flaaen and Justin Pierce,iii using tariffs as a tool for protecting and promoting domestic manufacturing is complicated by globally interconnected supply chains. Tariffs can reduce competitiveness due to retaliation and higher costs in downstream industries.

We don’t know for certain which laws and authorities President-elect Trump will employ during his second administration, but we can speculate that they will be similar to his first term in the White House. It’s likely that any additional tariffs imposed on China will continue to occur through the authority granted under Section 301. For other countries, the Trump Administration may continue to utilize Section 232, but could also use Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the President to impose tariffs of up to 50% of a product’s value when a President finds that a foreign country has either discriminated against or imposed unreasonable charges on U.S. commerce. There’s also the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the President authority to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat (in this case, through a tariff), including national security and the U.S. economy, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to the threat.

Regardless of the avenue pursued, the U.S. should expect retaliation from other countries if Trump moves forward with new and/or additional tariffs in his second term. Consumers aren’t the only stakeholder burdened by tariffs. Like many industries, the aerosol industry doesn’t exist in a domestic vacuum where the impact of tariffs won’t be felt.

Should we see activity related to tariffs in 2025, HCPA will be working with allied trade associations and coalitions to advocate on behalf of the industry and educate policymakers about the negative impact that tariffs could have on business. If you have any questions or would like to be involved, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY

i Washington Post, November 8, 2024
ii Washington Post, November 26, 2024
iii Flaaen, Aaron, and Justin Pierce (2019). “Disentangling the Effects of the 2018–2019 Tariffs on a Globally Connected U.S. Manufacturing Sector,” Finance & Economics Discussion Series 2019-086. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, link.

Most people outside of certain regulated industries have never heard of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). They may recognize that consumer products are regulated, but don’t know by who or the specific requirements that manufacturers and marketers have to meet in order for products to be available for sale.

The Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)i gives CPSC the authority to protect the public from unreasonable risks of injury and/or death from consumer products, including children’s toys, off-road recreational vehicles and consumer chemical products.ii To do this effectively, the CPSC initiates rulemakings; develops voluntary standards (usually in coordination with industry); recalls products and arranges for their repair, replacement or refund; conducts research on product hazards; and provides education to consumers.

CPSC is working on a rulemakingiii on aerosol dusters, which I wrote about in the last edition of Pressure Points, but with the Commission currently considering its Fiscal Year 2025 Operating Plan,iv I want to discuss what else may be on their agenda.

The CPSC has a robust list of priorities, mostly focused on quickly identifying and communicating with consumers about hazardous products, especially those imported and sold online. This focus on aggressive enforcement stemsv from CPSC’s recent “reinvention,” which is demonstrated by the increase in notices of violation and monetary settlements.vi

In 2025, the Commission will aim to prioritize consistent enforcement of e-commerce platforms—as well as monitor post-recall actions to identify if additional compliance, enforcement or communication—is necessary. CPSC has already established numerous performance goals to assess the speed and effectiveness of these priorities.

CPSC will also continue to focus on new and ongoing regulatory activity. Beyond aerosol dusters, the Commission is expected to finalize a rule to amend mandatory information disclosure standards under Section 6(b) of the CPSAvii, which requires CPSC to provide manufacturers and marketers with advance notice and “a reasonable opportunity to submit comments” to the Commission on proposed disclosures of certain information. While this rulemaking is meant to streamline the process by which CPSC shares information with the public, the regulated community has expressed concerns that it could result in incorrect information or unintended consequences, such as damaging brand reputation.

Further, the CPSC plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to review consumer product labeling. The operating plan does not indicate what this would specifically cover, but could include enforcing existing Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) labeling requirements; ensuring products subject to certification and labeling requirements meet these obligations; reviewing consumer understanding of hazard and precautionary labeling; or something else entirely. No matter what the proposal entails, the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) will engage as necessary on behalf of member companies.

Finally, CPSC plans to engage in the development and/or revision of 92 voluntary standards, including chemical test methods, child-resistant packaging and flame mitigation.

The Commission also has several other ongoing projects, including support for the statistical analysis of the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) data, maintenance of the Consumer Product Safety Risk Management System (CPSRMS) and activity related to indoor air quality, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and non-animal alternative test methods.

CPSC is considerably smaller than other Federal agencies that the household and commercial products industry commonly works with, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), but they certainly have a lot on their plate for the remainder of 2024 and into 2025.

To stay up to date on CPSC’s activity or if you have specific questions, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY

i 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051−2089
ii  link
iii  link
iv  link
v  link
vi  link
vii  link

On July 31, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) issued a notice of proposed rulemakingi to prohibit the sale of any aerosol duster that contains more than 18mg in any combination of HFC-152a and/or HFC-134a under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA).

This proposed rulemaking stems from a petitionii submitted in 2021 by Families United Against Inhalant Abuse (FUAIA), which requested CPSC to conduct a rulemaking to address the injuries and deaths associated with the intentional misuse of aerosol dusters through inhalant abuse. The Commission granted the petition in 2023 and directed staff to initiate a rulemaking.

In lieu of a product ban, CPSC staff assessed four alternatives to the proposed rule:

1. Performance requirements
2. Aversive agents (bitterants)
3. Labeling requirements; and
4. Take no regulatory action and continue to rely on the voluntary standards process

Deciding that none of these alternatives would adequately address the hazard associated with aerosol dusters, the Commission pursued a ban under multiple sections of the FHSA, including 15 U.S.C. 1261(q)(1)(B), which grants CPSC the authority to ban any substance or product sold to consumers if the hazard is such that the objective of protecting public health and safety can only be adequately served by keeping the substance/product out of the channels of interstate commerce. According to CPSC’s analysis, HFC-152a and HFC-134a are addictive and can damage the heart when abused, so must be prohibited in aerosol dusters.

In reviewing CPSC’s citations for the analysis, it’s clear that the Commission relied heavily on studies about general inhalant abuse, not specific research related to HFC-152a or HFC-134a. In fact, the primary studyiii that CPSC cited to prove the addictiveness of these propellants is actually about Toluene (a clear, colorless liquid that becomes a vapor when exposed to air at room temperature, typically used in a mixture with other solvents and chemicals, such as paint pigments–Editor).

The Commission also failed to acknowledge that inhalant abuse is a behavioral issue that needs to be addressed at its core, not a problem with a specific product.iv

Additionally, there is an issue with the Commission’s application of the FHSA. The authority to ban substances in products has been utilized previously; however, it has never been done in an instance where the end-user would have to intentionally misuse the product. While CPSC has the authority to address accidental misuse and defects within products, the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) does not believe this authority extends to situations in which a product is safe when used as intended and according to the label directions, but is misused intentionally for the purpose of getting high.

HCPA and member companies agree that it is extremely important to address the dangers of inhalant abuse and that action needs to be taken. With that in mind, HCPA provided an alternative proposal—based on a law enactedv in Minnesota earlier this year—for CPSC to consider rather than a product ban.

(1) Definitions. For the purposes of this voluntary standard, the following terms have the meanings given:

a. “Aerosol duster” means a product used to clean electronics and other items by means of an aerosol sprayed from a pressurized container.
b. “Behind-the-counter” means placement by a retailer of a product to ensure that customers do not have direct access to the product before a sale is made, requiring the seller to deliver the product directly to the buyer.

(2) Requirements for retail sale. A retailer must only sell an aerosol duster product to a consumer:

a. from behind the counter;
b. to a purchaser who presents valid evidence that the purchaser is at least 21 years of age; and
c. in a quantity that complies with the purchasing limit established in the next section (3).

(3) Purchasing limit.

a. A retailer is prohibited from selling a consumer more than three cans of an aerosol duster in a single transaction.
b. A retailer is prohibited from selling consumers aerosol dusters through same day pick up services or same day delivery services.

(4) Exemption.

a. Section 2 and Section 3 do not apply to a business purchasing aerosol dusters online.
b. Office wholesalers can sell more than three cans of aerosol dusters to a business they have a contract with.

(5) Labeling.

a. An aerosol duster manufactured after Jan. 1, 2026, must not be sold in the U.S. unless the aerosol duster clearly warns against the dangers of intentionally misusing duster aerosol products.
b. The font size of this warning shall be the same or larger than other warning language. The font color and background of the label must be in contrasting colors.
c. The label on each can of aerosol duster product must contain the following:

i. The words “DANGER: DEATH! Breathing this product to get high can kill you!”; and
ii. The poison control phone number, 1-800-222-1222.

d. In order to comply with paragraph (a), a label may include, but is not limited to the words:

i. “Deliberate misuse by concentrating and inhaling the contents can be harmful or fatal!”; and
ii. “Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the vapors can be harmful or fatal!”

e. An aerosol duster may not be named or marketed as “compressed air.”
f. The safety symbols and color standards of the label described in this section must conform with the ANSI Z535 safety signage standards guidelines established by the American National Standards Institute.

HCPA recognizes that CPSC does not have the authority to create a regulation with all of these requirements. Therefore, HCPA proposed to the Commission that it create a voluntary standard that it would then make mandatory. Not only did HCPA members collaborate on this proposal, but it was also shared with other stakeholders, including retailer trade associations, so it could ensure consensus moving forward.

It is important to classify inhalant abuse as a form of substance abuse—the same as alcohol, illicit drugs and prescription drugs—and recognize that those people who engage in this behavior often have underlying issues that must be addressed through appropriate treatment. This alternative proposal would help educate people about the dangers of inhalant abuse, hopefully helping to resolve this behavioral issue.

Many consumer products (more than 1,000)vi have the potential of being abused as an inhalant. Banning a product due to this misuse will not solve the problem—people will choose another product or illicit substance to abuse as a way to get high.

HCPA’s comments to the Commission are available onlinevii; it will continue to advocate on this critical issue with both CPSC and Congress. For more information or to discuss this issue further, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY

i link
ii link
iii link
iv Radparvar S. The Clinical Assessment and Treatment of Inhalant Abuse. Perm J. 2023;27(2):99-109. doi:10.7812/TPP/22.164
v link
vi link
vii link

Keeping up with the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) regulatory landscape continues to be a daunting challenge for manufacturers and their supply chains. It’s been a rollercoaster trying to understand which chemicals are considered PFAS due to the lack of a standardized scientific definition of this class of substances and the different statutory interpretations used by jurisdictions across the U.S.

Some jurisdictions treat all substances with at least one fluorinated carbon atom as PFAS, while others use a more measured approach, recognizing that not all fluorinated compounds are identical. A recent example is the Updated Draft State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Reporti by Health Canada (HC) and Environment & Climate Change Canada (ECCC), which indicates that fluoropolymers may have significantly different exposure and hazard profiles compared to other fluorinated compounds. Based on this evidence, HC and ECCC have proposed excluding fluoropolymers from the PFAS chemical class.

Regardless of this evidence, many States in the U.S. continue to define PFAS as one fully fluorinated carbon atom and insist that this entire chemical class is dangerous and must be eliminated from products. With that in mind, it’s important to stay informed about recent activity and upcoming restrictions.

U.S. (Federal)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) updated reporting period for the one-time PFAS Reporting Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is November 2024–July 2025. The March 2024 edition of Pressure Pointsii discussed this reporting obligation in more detail.

California & Colorado
California and Colorado both passed laws restricting the sale of personal care/cosmetics containing intentionally added PFAS, beginning Jan. 1, 2025.

Aerosols are included under the Colorado law; however, hydrofluoroolefins in personal care/cosmetics are exempt through 2027. Cleaning products (among other product categories) will be on the restricted list starting in 2026.

In California, legislation was sent to the Governor to establish a compliance framework for certain products related to registration and testing. While aerosols are not currently in scope, it is important to be aware of the provisions should this new structure be considered for future product categories.

Connecticut
In June, Connecticut passed a law restricting the sale of personal care/cosmetics and cleaning products, beginning in 2028; however, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and hydrofluoroolefins used as propellants in personal care/cosmetics are exempt.

Maine
In April, Maine enacted legislation to amend the State’s PFAS in Products Program. Changes to the bill include the elimination of the broad notification requirement that was scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2025; the addition of numerous exemptions; and allowing the use of aerosol propellants that are considered PFAS to be used until Jan. 1, 2040. Manufacturers should be aware that, starting Jan. 1, 2026, cleaning products and personal care/cosmetics are prohibited from containing intentionally added PFAS (unless that PFAS is an aerosol propellant). The 2026 prohibition also includes products packaged in a fluorinated container.

Maine requires manufacturers of products containing intentionally added PFAS, which the State has determined is a “currently unavoidable use” (CUU), to provide detailed information on the product.iii However, the recent amendments to the PFAS in Products Program have significantly decreased the number of products within scope of the reporting requirements.

Minnesota
In March, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency solicited input on how to consider and make determinations about PFAS applications that qualify as a CUU. These determinations would be for products that may be banned from sale and distribution in Minnesota beginning in 2032. However, beginning Jan. 1, 2025, 11 product categories will be prohibited from containing intentionally added PFAS, including cleaning products and personal care/cosmetics. It should be noted that Minnesota’s 2025 prohibition applies to all primary packaging, including the container and any components that dispense the product.

Minnesota also requires that a product manufacturer using intentionally added PFAS report detailed information about each product to the Commissioner by Jan. 1, 2026, with limited exemptions for pesticides or agricultural products sold, offered for sale or distributed in the State. There are also testing and certification requirements to ensure compliance.iv

Washington State
Under the Safer Products for Washington Program, the Washington Dept. of Ecology is working through the regulatory process that will require either a PFAS reporting requirement or prohibit the use of intentionally added PFAS. Product categories under current review include cleaning products, polishes and waxes, and hard surface sealants. It should be noted that aerosol propellants are currently proposed to be out of scope of the rules.

Canada
Canada is currently collecting information on certain PFAS substances—either alone or in mixtures, products and manufactured items—that are for sale in Canada. This information will help establish baseline use commercial data and inform future regulatory activity related to PFAS. The reporting period opened in July and will close on Jan. 29, 2025.

It is obvious that legislative and regulatory activity on PFAS will not stop anytime soon, and companies need to stay up-to-date on the different requirements to ensure compliance.

For more information about PFAS or State-specific questions, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY

The aerosol products industry [sees] … more than 90%i of aerosol products manufactured and sold in the U.S. However, manufacturing an aerosol product in a U.S. facility is not enough to justify an unqualified claim of “Made in USA.”

In 2021, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which prevents unfairness in the marketplace and investigates claims that can deceive consumers, finalized the Made in USA Labeling Rule,ii which requires that products with a “Made in USA” claim be “all or virtually all” made in the U.S. However, the law doesn’t explain in detail what this means for companies from a practical standpoint.

In July of this year, the FTC published an updated version of its Complying with the Made in USA Standard guidance document.iii The document provides the staff’s view of the law’s requirements and is not binding to the FTC. According to the guidance, to satisfy the “all or virtually all” standard, the final manufacturing must take place in the U.S., all significant processing that goes into the product must occur in the U.S. and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product must be made and sourced in the U.S.

The FTC cautions companies from relying solely on their suppliers to provide information about the domestic content of ingredients, packaging and other product elements. In other words, companies should do their due diligence and request specific information and/or documentation from their suppliers before citing a “Made in USA” claim.

If a company cannot meet the “all or virtually all” standard, they can make a qualified “Made in USA” claim, which discloses that a product is not entirely of U.S. origin. Examples of qualified claims include “60% U.S. content” and “Made in USA of domestic and imported parts.”

Any product claim must be clear and there must be no implication that the product is made of more domestic parts than it actually is. This includes online and other forms of marketing beyond the product label.

The guidance document also addresses imported products and the requirement for a product to identify its country of origin, which is important because a number of companies manufacture aerosol products outside the U.S.

Additionally, U.S. Customs & Border Protection defines the country of origin as the last country in which “substantial transformation” occurs. “Substantial transformation” is a manufacturing process that results in a new and different product—including name, character and use—than what previously existed. U.S. Customs & Border Protection has its own guidance that addresses country of origin claims in more detail.iv

For more information on country of origin claims or the aerosol industry in general, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY

i Based upon 2001–2019 Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA) and Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) Aerosol Pressurized Products Survey.
ii 16 CFR Part 323
iiilink
iv link

There are a number of codes and regulations that can apply to the flammability classification of aerosol products in the U.S. While this usually depends on the aerosol’s product category, manufacturers and marketers must know which test to select for proper classification and compliance. However, it is also required for the safe manufacture, storage, transport and use of these products.

Consumer aerosol productsi that are used in or around the house, including garages and sheds, are regulated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and either do not require a warning or can be classified as Extremely Flammable or Flammable. This is determined by the flame extension test, as detailed in the 16 CFR 1500.45, which measures the results of the distance from the flame projection, a flashback (a flame extending back to the dispenser) and the flashpoint when tested in accordance with the 16 CFR 1500.43a.

Workplace aerosol products are regulated by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) under the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). As explained in a previous edition of Pressure Points, OSHA recently finalized amendments to the HCS, which include changes for how aerosol products are classified for flammability. These requirements can be found in the 29 CFR 1910.1200 Appendix B, which follows the United Nations (UN) Manual of Tests & Criteria.ii Manufacturers must select the appropriate tests depending on how the product is ejected from the product [container], choosing from the ignition distance test, enclosed space ignition test or the aerosol foam flammability test, as well as calculate the chemical heat of combustion.

Aerosol products classified as cosmetics or food are regulated by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). They follow a testing and classification process that is similar to consumer products. Over-the-counter (OTC) drugs need to follow the specifications and requirements from the applicable OTC monograph, although the FDA has also used 16 CFR 1500.45 for many of these products.

The data requirements for pesticide products, which are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are detailed in the Series 830–Product Properties Test Guidelinesiii The OPPTS 830.6315 covers the flame extension and points to the “Standard Method of Test for Flammability of Aerosol Products, ASTM D-3065”iv and the results coincide with those required by CPSC.

The shipping of aerosol products is regulated by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and typically falls under a hazard class of Division 2.1 (flammable) or Division 2.2 (not flammable); however, there is also a Division 2.3 (toxic). To determine whether an aerosol product is a Division 2.1 or 2.2,v most products need to undergo the appropriate tests from the UN Manual of Tests & Criteria, similar to workplace products, unless the amount of flammable material, or lack thereof, and the heat of combustion automatically assigns the product into either Division.

The manufacture and storage of aerosol products is defined in NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture & Storage of Aerosol Products,vi which provides the minimum requirements for the prevention and control of fires and explosions in facilities that manufacture, store and display aerosol products. For most aerosol products in metal containers, there are three levels that are determined by the heat of combustion. Aerosol products in plastic containers are also classified by Levels1, 2, 3 or X because plastic aerosol products open differently in a fire than those in a metal container. However, for both plastic and metal containers, aerosol cooking sprays have their own category.

The disposal of aerosol products with leftover content is regulated by the EPA under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA), and the characteristics of ignitability for aerosol products can be found in 49 CFR 173.115(l). The determination of ignitability also uses the UN Manual of Tests & Criteria, which only applies to the disposal of aerosol products from retailers, manufacturers or workplace settings. Under RCRA, empty aerosol containers are not considered hazardous and can be accepted in recycling programs that accept these products. While consumers are not subject to the requirements under RCRA, they are strongly encouraged to recycle empty aerosols.

If readers have any questions or would like to learn more, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY

i 15 U.S. Code § 2052
ii link
iii link
iv link
v 49 CFR 173.115
vi link

On May 20, the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) published a final rule 1 to update the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) from the Globally Harmonized System of Classification & Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) Revision 3 to GHS Revision 7 with elements of Revision 8. OSHA made these amendments to not only enhance worker protections, but to also align with Health Canada’s Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS).

The scope and framework of the HCS have not changed. Chemical manufacturers and importers are still responsible for providing information about the hazards of chemicals they produce or import, and not every safety data sheet (SDS) and label is impacted. Even so, it’s important to be aware of the various changes.

OSHA has created materials to help highlight the various areas that have been amended, including a Questions & Answers document 2 for the update and a side-by-side comparison document.3 I have also called out some of the changes that I think are relevant for SPRAY readers:

• Label and SDS updates align primarily with GHS Revision 7.

• OSHA had originally proposed to require that a label include the date a chemical is released for shipment; however, OSHA did not implement this change after reviewing comments from stakeholders. Chemicals that have been released for shipment, and are awaiting future distribution, do not need to be relabeled with an update; however, companies must provide an updated label for each individual container with each shipment.

• The existing Flammable Aerosols hazard class (Appendix B.3) has been expanded to include non-flammable aerosols. OSHA is also revising a note (now B.3.1.2.1) to explain that aerosols do not fall within the scope of gases under pressure, but may fall within the scope of other hazard classes.

o OSHA will not allow the optional use of the compressed gas pictogram for aerosol products because it would introduce inconsistency between labels of similar products, cause confusion for downstream users and lead to “over warning.”

• OSHA has included special labeling provisions for 3mL and 100mL small containers, similar to Health Canada’s WHMIS requirements.

• While OSHA still allows the use of concentration ranges when the exact percentage is claimed as a trade secret, OSHA has aligned with the prescribed concentration ranges used by Health Canada’s WHMIS.

• OSHA is allowing the use of non-animal test methods from GHS Revision 8 for skin corrosion/irritation.

OSHA developed a tiered approach for companies and employers to comply with the amended HCS. The final rule takes effect July 19, 2024, and companies should be aware of the following compliance dates:

• Substances

o Manufacturers, importers and distributors that evaluate substances shall be in compliance with all modified provisions no later than Jan. 19, 2026.
o All employers shall, as necessary, update any alternative workplace labeling used by July 20, 2026.

• Mixtures

o Chemical manufactures, importers and distributors that evaluate mixtures shall be in compliance no later than July 19, 2027.
o All employers shall update any alternative workplace labeling for mixtures by Jan. 19, 2028.

Beginning July 19, 2024, companies may comply with either the 2012 HCS (previous standard) or the new amended standard until the compliance dates noted above.

It should be noted that Health Canada’s compliance dates are before OSHA’s and previous attempts at delaying those dates have been for naught, as Health Canada was not willing to extend without knowing when OSHA’s compliance dates will be. Hopefully, with OSHA’s final rule published, we will be able to work with the Canadian Consumer Specialty Products Association (CCSPA) and other allied Canadian trade associations to align the compliance dates between Canada and the U.S.

For further information, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY

1 link
2 link
3 link

Over the last few years, the conversation around Perfluoroalkyl & Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) has focused on the manufacturing process and intentionally added ingredients in a product. However, product packaging could also be a source of PFAS and must be reviewed.

Some products utilize fluorinated packaging to protect and maintain the contents throughout their lifespan. Manufacturers will use fluorinated packaging when the average plastic container is not sufficient to hold the product and other packaging materials are either not compatible or have drawbacks. Through various processes, fluorinated packaging undergoes treatment to form a barrier that ensures there isn’t an unintended reaction or permeation that could degrade the integrity of the packaging.

In 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) learned of potential PFAS contamination in an insecticide. After studying the product, the EPA determined1 that the PFAS was likely formed during the fluorination process of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) containers by Inhance Technologies, which bled into the pesticide formulation.

Following this, the EPA contacted a variety of pesticide stakeholders that may have used fluorinated packaging. Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 6(a)(2), companies are required to report certain information about their products, such as unreasonable adverse effects, including metabolites, degradates and impurities, including PFAS. The EPA studied the potential leaching of PFAS over time in various test solutions and found that even water-based products could leak certain PFAS into the formulation from the container.

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA also requires manufacturers to notify it at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture (including import) or processing of long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC) substances. Inhance Technologies, who had been producing fluorinated packaging for 40 years, did not view their process as new, even though the EPA was learning new information about its processes and what could happen to products in the marketplace.

This led the EPA to issue2,3 content orders on Dec. 1, 2023, to Inhance Technologies to stop producing certain PFAS incidentally and unintentionally by Feb. 28, 2024, under Section 5 of TSCA. The orders required Inhance to stop the manufacture, sale and distribution in commerce of any fluorinated packaging within the scope of the order, which would have profound impacts on industries that rely on fluorinated packaging. At the time of issuing the consent orders, the EPA could measure PFAS in plastic packaging down to 20 parts per trillion (ppt) (although, recently, the EPA published4 a newer methodology that can measure as low as 2ppt). Inhance petitioned a review by the 5th District Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the consent orders and quickly had its motion to stay granted while the Court considered the appeal.

Due to the significant impact these consent orders could have on Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) members that rely on fluorinated packaging for some of their products, HPCA joined and contributed to an amicus brief5 filed by the American Chemistry Council, CropLife America, Outdoor Power Equipment Institute and U.S. Chamber of Commerce in support of Inhance Technologies’ petition. The brief’s key arguments stated that the EPA’s orders are premised on EPA’s incorrect conclusion that Inhance engaged in a “significantly new use” of a substance and highlighted the scale of market disruptions. For example, any replacement packaging would need to undergo compatibility and stability testing along with market considerations.

On March 21, 2024, the 5th District Circuit Court determined6 that the EPA exceeded its authority. The Court’s opinion made it clear that the EPA cannot contort the plain language of TSCA’s Section 5 to deem a 40-year-old manufacturing process a “significant new use” that is subject to the accelerated regulatory process provided by that part of the statute.

This decision does not impede the EPA’s ability to regulate Inhance’s (or other companies’) fluorination processes. In fact, the EPA can utilize the authority7 under Section 6 of TSCA, which nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have already petitioned8 the EPA to do, as well as other authorities, such as those under FIFRA.

It is critical that companies continue to evaluate their packaging, both to ensure stability throughout the life of the product and adjust to the ever-changing regulatory environment. While the Court’s decision provides companies more time to examine their fluorination processes, it is likely that activity in this space will continue.

For more information about the fluorination process or PFAS specifically, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY

1  link
2  link
3  link
4  link
5  link
6  link
7  Unlike Section 5 under TSCA, which requires a company to submit a significant new use notice at least 90 days before manufacturing or import, Section 6 gives EPA the authority to conduct risk evaluations of existing chemicals and their manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce.
8  link

As manufacturers and marketers of aerosol products know, there are many laws, regulations, standards and codes to comply with, such as ingredient disclosure, transportation regulations, and volatile organic compound (VOC) standards. Fire and building codes don’t immediately come to mind when discussing the most influential requirements, but these model codes, which are developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and International Code Council (ICC), are adopted into law and enforced by Federal, State and local governments to regulate the construction and maintenance of buildings and control storage, use and handling of hazardous materials. In fact, they define all aspects of a building where aerosol products are manufactured, stored, sold or used, including building size, construction materials, exiting, sprinkler protection and ventilation. Aerosol product quantities, flammability classification, location in buildings, storage height, sprinkler protection and display layout are also detailed in building and fire codes.

Building and fire codes will be discussed at the upcoming ICC Committee Action Hearings for the next edition of the International Fire Code (IFC). Currently, there are three proposals to amend the fire codes for aerosol products in the IFC during this code cycle, two of which are from the Household & Commercial Products Association (HCPA) to align the IFC with recent amendments to the NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture & Storage of Aerosol Products. However, the third proposal, which was not introduced by Industry, is quite concerning.

Fire officials are proposing to amend a number of codes for a variety of products and materials within the IFC, including for aerosol products, to align with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification & Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) for flammability. Their rationale is that the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) is typically the only available information they have about flammability to verify the proper design of buildings and warehouses. While several industries have concerns about this kind of change, the aerosol products industry is uniquely positioned to argue against it.

The HCPA has been an active participant in the development of building and fire codes since the early 1980s. This involvement came about when the regulatory community attempted to severely restrict the storage and sales of aerosol products through draconian construction requirements and rigorous limits on the quantity of product in storage and sales after major fires caused by aerosols. To combat these requirements, the aerosol industry conducted numerous fire tests to develop a set of controls for the safe storage and sale of aerosol products. The HCPA has recommended many amendments to the U.S.’s complex system of fire and building codes, which are based on data developed from fire tests to ensure that HCPA’s positions are credible and compelling to fire officials, fire insurers and fire engineering professionals.

From this data, we know that alignment with GHS is not appropriate for aerosol products and, if adopted, would lead to inadequate fire protection systems. The amendments could also lead to confusion and would require significant retraining; it would also be costly to review and recategorize each aerosol product.

The aerosol industry would support amendments that are supported by data and show improved fire protection. How could Industry say no to these improvements? However, administrative changes that are not based on testing and that fundamentally change how fire protection is determined cannot—and should not—be accepted.

The HCPA is working on potential modifications to the proposed amendments that represent the aerosol industry’s best interests and we are hopeful to arrive at a common sense solution. However, if Industry’s interests are not considered, HCPA will object. Fire protection is important to everyone—we cannot go backward and Industry has data to demonstrate the most effective codes to be implemented.

For more information about fire and building codes for aerosol products, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY

Having worked in the industry for more than 15 years, I can’t help but notice the marketing claims on products as I walk the aisles of my local grocery store. Recently, I’ve seen more frequent claims about what ingredients a product doesn’t use, such as “BPA free,” “No GMOs” and “Phthalate free.”

For most products, these claims fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims,i better known as the Green Guides. The 2012 version added a section for “free-of” claims,ii which advise that, even if true, claims that a product is “free-of” a substance may be deceptive if:

1. The item contains substances that pose the same or similar environmental risk as the substance not present, or
2. The substance has not been associated with the product category.

The Green Guides also clarify that a “free-of” claim may, in some circumstances, be non-deceptive even though the product contains a “trace amount” of the substance. Since these statements can be confusing, HCPA submitted comments to the FTC last year requesting updated examples of “free-of” claims for inclusion in the next update of the Green Guides.

While the FTC manages “free-of” marketing claims for most products, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluates “absence of an ingredient” claims for products registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Similar to the FTC, the EPA will not allow false or misleading statements;iii however, in certain instances, where information indicates that these types of claims are not misleading, the EPA will allow these types of claims.

Under FIFRA, the EPA reviews a product’s master label as part of the registration process. As part of the EPA’s Label Review Manual,iv the EPA has provided limited guidance since the early 2000s on claims about the absence of an ingredient. However, this guidance, and subsequent updates, have focused on misbranding and did not provide a good pathway for registrants to utilize such claims.

The EPA has approved plenty of pesticide registrations containing a variety of “absence of ingredient” claims on a case-by-case basis; however, the regulated community has long sought clarity on whether and how “free-of” claims can be made and approved by the EPA.

To assist companies, the EPA recently publishedv new guidance for commonly proposed claims, including “bleach free,” “phosphate free” and “DEET free.”

Regarding “bleach-free” claims, the EPA understands that companies typically do not say “bleach-free” for safety reasons, but to inform consumers in situations where bleach may cause damage (e.g., clothing). However, to accurately make this claim, companies should avoid chlorinated chemistries that, when added to a solution, can break down into free available chlorine.

Phosphates are not typically listed as active ingredients, so “phosphate-free” claims are meant to inform consumers that this substance is not an inert ingredient in a product’s formulation since inert ingredients aren’t listed on the product label. Further, some States have restricted the use of phosphates and, in the case of New Yorkvi, there are labeling provisions, so the EPA would not consider such a claim to be misleading (provided that the product does not contain any phosphate[s]).

For companies that manufacture bug sprays, the EPA will also allow an “absence of DEET” claim as long as it’s accompanied by a qualifying statement such as, “Not a safety claim.” The EPA recognizes that consumers have concerns with DEET (N,N-Diethyl-meta-toluamide), despite it being used for many decades and its proven safety when used according to directions on the label.

Within this guidance, the EPA also discusses its applicability to minimum risk pesticides, or 25(b) products. While it has exempted minimum risk pesticides that meet all requirements from FIFRA registration, many States still have some type of registration.vii However, this exemption provides a provisionviii that requires the product to “not include any false or misleading labeling statements…” Accordingly, to the extent that an “absence of an ingredient” claim is not false or misleading, a “free-of” claim would not disqualify an otherwise qualified minimum risk pesticide from exemption.

HCPA has been working with the EPA on this guidance for several years and we are pleased to see its publication to include certain clarities. For more information on either the EPA’s guidance or the next update to the FTC’s Green Guides, please contact me at ngeorges@thehcpa.org. SPRAY

i 16 CFR Part 260
ii 16 CFR 260.9
iii 40 CFR 156.10(a)(5)
iv link
v link
vi NY Environmental Conservation Law §35-0105
vii 40 CFR 152.25(f)
viii 40 CFR 152.25(f)(3)(iv)