“The coatings industry is hard-hit by regulatory compliance costs”

What upcoming regulatory changes do you expect to have the greatest impact on the U.S. coatings industry over the next 3–5 years?

Regulatory compliance efforts within the paint and coatings industry already require significant efforts. The coatings industry is hard-hit by regulatory compliance costs, due in part by the patchwork of state regulations that are not uniform across the country. This phenomenon is likely to become more pressing in the future as the patchwork of requirements continues to grow. This is most obvious in the arena of extended producer responsibility laws and reporting requirements for per- and poly- fluoro alkylated substances (PFAS).

Seven states have already adopted extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws for packaging and numerous additional states are actively considering legislation to adopt their own version. While these laws share the overall goal of incentivizing producers to adopt more sustainable production and/or packaging methods, they differ widely in their requirements. Due to the lack of harmonization, paint and coatings manufacturers are not able to reasonably optimize product packaging to minimize reporting and fees across all states. In addition, implementation of the existing laws has illustrated the lack of uniformity of definitions, unclear requirements, and a significant lack of transparency with regard to the development and imposition of fees. As these programs are implemented and new states adopt similar, or more likely, dissimilar infrastructures, the regulatory landscape will only become more disjointed, more difficult, and more expensive for the industry.

State regulation of PFAS is following a similar path. Several states, including Maine, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Vermont have passed PFAS laws and many states are considering restrictive PFAS proposals. These laws regulate products that contain chemicals with a fully fluorinated carbon atom, even though many chemicals covered under this broad definition do not have the same hazard or risk profile. None of these state requirements are harmonized in their approach, creating significant difficulties for manufacturers to distribute products in commerce and develop compliance strategies that are expeditious. For example, states differ in their lists of products that are banned from including intentionally added PFAS, whether product packaging is in scope, PFAS testing requirements, reporting requirements, and more. New Mexico recently announced their plans to require product labeling for PFAS, creating even further challenges to manage interstate commerce due to limited labeling space.

Maine, Minnesota and New Mexico have additionally passed laws that ban all products with intentionally added “PFAS” by January 2032, including diverse product categories such as medical devices, pharmaceuticals, industrial coatings, defense and military products, and electronics among other products. By banning this broad array of products in a handful of states, manufacturers will be required to develop strict distribution strategies, state by state, adding to the complexity of regulatory compliance.

How do the proposed restrictions on PFAS affect coatings formulation?

As already mentioned, the patchwork of state laws that trigger reporting requirements for manufacturers of products that contain intentionally added PFAS are complex and several of these laws include bans on future production of these products absent reformulation without PFAS. Consequently, the industry has been working toward reformulation without PFAS where possible. There are products, however, that may not be able to identify suitable substitutes for chemicals considered a PFAS because of the extremely broad definition of that term. ACA will continue to work with our industry members and decisionmakers at the federal and state level to illustrate the complexities of this issue, the impact on the industry, as well as the impact on the performance of highly valuable commodities that may not be able to use PFAS coatings in the future.

What is ACA’s view on U.S. EPA’s proposed changes to the TSCA risk evaluation procedures?

ACA has been engaged in conversations with EPA about the risk evaluation procedures under TSCA since the Lautenberg amendments were adopted and implemented. Generally speaking, ACA is supportive of some of the proposed changes and have provided EPA extensive comments on several issues, seeking clarification in the proposal, and arguing for some additional flexibility in the agency’s process when justified.

One of our concerns is the “whole chemical approach,” which typically results in unnecessary controls without considering the reality of the workplace and controls or practices already in place. EPA should be able to identify conditions of use that do not contribute to a finding of unreasonable during the final risk evaluation. It is important that the risk evaluation process does not lose sight of individual conditions of use that can be a mitigating factor and are subject to evaluation by the agency. We are always concerned that by making a single determination of risk for a chemical substance, EPA is communicating that the entire substance presents an unreasonable risk and identifies all manufacturers and processors of this chemical as “bad actors.” A better, science-based alternative ACA is advocating is for EPA to issue an appropriate finding of risk based upon individual conditions of use in the final risk evaluation.

ACA also provided EPA comments on other aspects of the risk evaluation process, including requiring the consideration of standard workplace risk mitigation practices and justifying any recommended deviation from regulatory exposure limits; defining the “weight of scientific evidence,” so that it includes important procedural guard rails and is codified in the regulations; defining “reasonably foreseen” to promote consistency and transparency in how EPA identifies reasonably foreseen conditions of use; defining “de minimis,” so that it conforms to the OSHA Hazard Communications thresholds and carefully consider how to use de minimis thresholds appropriately; and a process for revising a final risk evaluation if the scientific understanding of a substance evolves or if new conditions of use are identified. Lastly, ACA supports the proposed changes to the data submission requirements for manufacturer-requested risk evaluations, limiting data submissions to conditions of use relevant to the manufacturer’s uses.