Notably, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) authorizes EPA to forego a formal notice and comment period and issue an interim final rule “when the agency for good cause finds…that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” ().

For the aerosol coatings rule, EPA found good cause to issue an interim final rule to extend the compliance date without prior notice and comment. The agency determined that it would be impracticable to follow normal rulemaking procedures in the time available without unavoidable adverse consequences or potential inadvertent violations of the amended requirements. Ultimately, EPA concluded that refraining from amending the compliance date before it goes into effect would “needlessly put many regulated entities out of compliance and ultimately jeopardize the EPA’s ability to work with regulated entities to achieve the protective outcomes envisioned in the aerosol coatings rule.”

While the interim final rule is effective immediately, EPA will still accept and consider comments submitted after the rule takes effect. However, comments will be limited to only the revised compliance date of Jan. 17, 2027 (i.e., the agency will not accept comments on other provisions in the amended aerosol coatings rule).

Background

On Jan. 17, 2025, EPA published , with the July 17, 2025 compliance date. EPA’s national rule establishes reactivity-based emission standards for the aerosol coatings category (aerosol spray paints) under the Clean Air Act. With this action, EPA aligned its rule with the California Air Resources Board’s aerosol coatings rule, which will help aerosol coatings manufacturers with streamlined compliance.

EPA’s final amendments are the direct result of three petitions for rulemaking submitted by ACA, and an eight-year advocacy campaign on behalf of the coatings industry to convince EPA to adopt changes to the national rule so that it largely matches the CARB rule and is informed by the most up-to-date and accepted science.

Notably, the final rule features the following changes, for which �鶹��Ƶadvocated:

• Updated product-weighted reactivity limits by coatings category that align completely with  (see Table 1);
• Updated MIR values for several aerosol coatings compounds that align with  (see Tables 2A, 2B & 2C);
• New compounds and reactivity factors in Tables 2A, 2B & 2C to align with ;
• Revised default reactivity value (18.50 g O₃/g VOC);
• New and updated definitions to better align with CARB’s rule (when appropriate and feasible); and
• Addition of electronic reporting provisions.

�鶹��Ƶbelieves that EPA’s final action will minimize the undue compliance burdens that the divergent regulatory schemes have created for the aerosol coatings industry. Until these amendments were adopted, manufacturers were required to comply with different standards in California and use different Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) values in order to calculate compliance.

Contact ACA’s Rhett Cash, Heidi McAuliffe, or Annebelle Klein for more information.

PHMSA is seeking information on the economic impact of the proposals and regulatory relief on industry, and is accepting comments on all the NPRMs by Sept. 2, 2025.

�鶹��Ƶwill be soliciting feedback from its membership through its Transport Committee and filing comments by the agency’s deadline.

The following provides a summary and initial analysis of several of the PHMSA’s NPRMs with particular implications for the paint and coatings industry.

Revise the Definition of “Aerosol” in the HMR to Align with International Standards ()

PHMSA is proposing to revise the definition of “aerosol” in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) to eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens and maintain consistency with current international hazmat transport standards. The current definition of “aerosol” in the HMR requires that an aerosol be designed for the sole purpose of expelling a liquid, paste or powder (see ). The proposed new definition of “aerosol” would read as follows:

Aerosol means an article consisting of a non-refillable receptacle containing a gas (compressed, liquefied, or dissolved under pressure), with or without a nonpoisonous (other than a Division 6.1 Packing Group III material) liquid, paste, or powder, and fitted with a self-closing release device allowing the contents to be ejected as a foam, paste, or powder or in a liquid state or in a gaseous state.

In 2017, �鶹��Ƶand industry coalition partners submitted a petition asking PHMSA to revise the HMR’s definition of an aerosol to align with definitions found in international regulations (i.e., UN Model Regulations, IMDG Code, ICAO TI, and EU ADR). Specifically, �鶹��Ƶand the coalition noted that the HMR’s definition for aerosol is inconsistent with its international counterparts, which do not include the limitation for gas to be used to expel a liquid, paste, or powder. This particularly affects companies that manufacture, package, or transport hazmat internationally. PHMSA’s proposal is consistent with ACA’s longstanding position, as well as existing special permits allowing shipments of aerosols meeting the international definition.

�鶹��Ƶis generally pleased by PHMSA’s proposal, particularly since the lack of harmonization between the HMR and international standards creates significant challenges for industry engaged in global commerce, leading to confusion, increased compliance costs, and logistical inefficiencies. The lack of harmonization also impedes trade, delays shipments, and reduces the competitiveness of U.S. businesses in the global marketplace.

Improve Efficiencies for Special Permits & Approvals Renewals ()

PHMSA is proposing to streamline the filing requirements in the HMR for special permits and approvals by allowing a grantee to file an application to renew a special permit or approval any time before its expiration date rather than requiring the application to be filed 60 days in advance.

�鶹��Ƶbelieves that the current 60-day requirement is burdensome and no longer necessary due to advances in technology and communication. In fact, the filing process is now completed electronically and longer relies on mail delivery and paper correspondence.

Reduce Recordkeeping & Paperwork Requirements for Domestic Carriers ( & )

PHMSA proposed two separate — but related — proposals to reduce recordkeeping and certain paperwork requirements for domestic carriers. For recordkeeping, PHMSA is proposing to allow motor and vessel carriers the option to carry their PHMSA certificate of registration in electronic form (HM-268I). Similarly, PHMSA is also proposing to revise the HMR to provide domestic carriers the option to maintain electronic copies of emergency response information rather than requiring a hard copy printed on paper (HM-268D).

�鶹��Ƶwelcomes these proposals, since current technology allows documents to be just as readily available to inspectors and first responders via electronic means as hard copies printed on paper.

Reduce Costs to Domestic Shippers & Carriers of Limited Quantities ()

PHMSA is proposing to allow for a reduced sized marking for limited quantity (LQ) shipments of hazardous materials. The proposal will allow for the transportation in commerce of packages containing limited quantities of hazardous materials with a reduced size LQ marking placed on the package shipping label. PHMSA is also proposing to revise § 173.25(a)(6) to specifically state that this marking is not authorized on overpacks.

Notably, this proposal provides regulatory flexibility for offerors of limited quantities whose shipments will be able to use a consolidated marking on the shipping label— which will eliminate the need for a separate LQ label.

Reduce Burden by Allowing Continued Use of DOT Special Permit Packagings ()

PHMSA is proposing to revise the HMR to allow for the continued use of packagings authorized under a manufacturing special permit for the duration of the useful life of the package. Specifically, PHMSA is proposing to add a new exception to to allow approved packagings to be used for the duration of the usable life of the DOT special permit packaging, regardless of the status of the grantee. The current provisions require an otherwise safe and usable package to be discontinued solely because the original special permit has expired or was not renewed.

�鶹��Ƶbelieves that authorizing the continued use of such packagings for the life of the package —  provided the package continues to be in conformance with the terms of the DOT special permit —eliminates that burden without compromising public safety.

�鶹��Ƶwill be doing a deeper analysis of all NPRM’s prior to submitting its comments by the Sept. 2 deadline.

Contact ACA’s Rhett Cash for more information.

�鶹��Ƶwill be submitting comments by the DTSC deadline.

Notably, a listing alone would not trigger regulatory requirements but would allow DTSC to select products containing microplastics for an alternatives analysis and/or regulatory action with possible phase out of the identified use.

Previously, DTSC announced that it is preparing a background document identifying products containing microplastics. It is expected to publish a draft this Fall, open to public comment.

The current proposal proffers the following revised definition of microplastics:

“Microplastics” are plastics that are less than 5 millimeters (mm) in their longest dimension, inclusive of those materials that are intentionally manufactured at those dimensions or are generated by the fragmentation of larger plastics.

DTSC states that the proposal is designed to provide greater flexibility in product identification by broadening the scope of the prior proposed definition:

“ ‘Microplastics’ are defined as solid polymeric materials to which chemical additives or other substances may have been added, which are particles having at least three dimensions that are less than 5,000 micrometers (μm). Polymers derived in nature that have not been chemically modified (other than by hydrolysis) are excluded.”

Notably, the new proposed definition replaces the term solid polymeric materials used in the prior proposal with plastic. DTSC does not directly address this change in its Initial Statement of Reasons. It also removed the prior exclusion of polymers found in nature to allow for greater flexibility in product identification. Additionally, DTSC included a reference to products that generate microplastics by fragmentation to allow for greater flexibility in product identification.

The Safer Consumer Products Statute defines a chemical, in part, as An organic or inorganic substance of a particular molecular identity . . . DTSC explains it is authorized to list mechanistically similar chemicals for which there is a known toxicity profile. (Initial Statement of Reasons, p. 3).

Assuming microplastics qualify as a defined chemical, DTSC focuses further justification in the Technical Document and Initial Statement of Reasons on persistence and mobility of microplastics and exposure potential. Exposure potential is marked by presence in household dust, air and drinking water and presence in human placenta, infant feces and adult organ tissue. DTSC also cites a study noting plant intake of microplastic particles.

DTSC identifies several products associated with release into homes, schools and workplaces and/or containing microplastics. Products include paint and industrial coatings, waxes, polishes, household and industrial detergents, textiles, etc. DTSC will publish a draft report regarding products containing microplastics this Fall.

The proposal and related materials are available on .

Contact ACA’s Riaz Zaman for more information.

• Prohibit the use of solvent cleaning materials that contain PCBTF and TBAC by Jan. 1, 2026 (not VMS)
  • Sell-through period until Jan. 1, 2027
  • Use-through period until Jan. 1, 2028;
• Prohibit the possession of non-compliant solvent cleaning materials on-site;
• Add, revise, and remove definitions for clarity;
• Revise the table of standards and add new solvent cleaning activity categories with corresponding VOC limits;
• Revise the alternative compliance options, including the addition of usage limits for aerosol cleaning and the option to utilize a PW-MIR limit;
• Add recordkeeping requirements for certain activities; and
• Revise exemptions.

The district has also published the and on its website.

Additional information on this rulemaking may be found on .

Contact ACA’s Rhett Cash for more information.

Canada and Mexico are the U.S. coatings industry’s largest trading partners, valued at $1.26 billion with $815 million, respectively; and China is the third largest trading partner, valued at $117 million. The coatings industry enjoys a positive trade surplus of $1.7 billion, a strong sign that our industry is profiting from international trade.

The coatings industry overwhelmingly supported the United States-Canada-Mexico Agreement and has enjoyed the benefits that the certainty of a trade agreement provides. The production of automobiles – for which coatings play a pivotal role, from automotive paint, to specialized “lightweighting” coatings systems – is only one example of an industry that relies on a strong integrated North American supply chain as vehicle parts and inputs are routinely forwarded across borders to assembly facilities.

Many of the raw materials for coatings formulas cannot be produced in the United States and originate in China. Consequently, there are limited options to procure these raw material inputs elsewhere.

The American Coatings Association and the U.S. paint and coatings industry are prepared to assist the Trump Administration in seeking appropriate solutions to trade issues. Fair trade agreements provide level playing fields as well as certainty and predictability in commercial behavior.

The American Coatings Association is the premier U.S. trade association for paint and coatings manufacturers as well as the raw material suppliers to the industry. The coatings industry contributes over $32 billion dollars to the U.S. economy and employs over 313,000 people across the United States.

• Acetaldehyde (CASRN 75-07-0)
• Acrylonitrile (CASRN 107-13-1)
• Benzenamine (CASRN 62-53-3)
• Vinyl chloride (CASRN 75-01-4)
• 4,4′-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (CASRN 101-14-4)

Regardless of whether a company is listed, any company that has manufactured or imported a listed chemical in the prior five years must report to EPA via the (Central Data Exchange). All five chemicals are either directly used in the manufacture of paint, coatings, sealants and adhesives and/or used in the manufacture of resins. Companies that do not qualify for an exemption from fee payment must also provide manufacture or import volumes for the three (3) years prior to publication of this list.

EPA is accepting comments on its preliminary lists by March 3, 2025. The agency expects to publish final lists of manufacturers (including importers) subject to fees no later than concurrently with the publication of the final scope documents for risk evaluations of these five High-Priority Substances. Manufacturers (including importers) identified on the final lists will be subject to the applicable fees.

Exemptions

Companies that qualify for an exemption will not be required to pay fees. To qualify for certain exemptions, companies must report to EPA regardless of whether the company is on the preliminary list. EPA recognizes the following exemptions from fee payment:

1. Import of articles containing the chemical;
2. Manufacture as a non-commercial by-product;
3. Manufacture as an impurity;
4. Manufacture as a non-isolated intermediate;
5. Manufacture as an R&D substance in “small quantities” –  NOTE: EPA implemented a new definition related to R&D substances for fees that varies from the general TSCA definition. The TSCA Fee Rule includes a new definition of small quantities solely for research and development specifying that amounts cannot be greater that than “reasonably necessary for such purposes.” EPA includes a record-keeping requirement to establish reasonably necessary amounts; and
6. Manufacture for an otherwise non-exempt purpose in amounts of 2,500 lbs or less.

To be eligible for Exemptions 1-5:

• Companies must meet one or more of the exemptions (Exemptions 1-5) as of the certification cut-off of Dec. 18, 2023; and
• Qualify for an exemption during the subsequent five years.

Additionally, any manufacturer or importer qualifying for Exemptions 4-6 must self-identify to EPA via CDX (Central Data Exchange), regardless of whether it is included on the preliminary list. Those manufacturers (including importers) meeting the production volume exemption (Exemption 6 above), must report their production volume for the three calendar years prior to publication of the preliminary list. This enables EPA to better track volumes for the purpose of fee allocation. Also, if all manufacturer and import is at or below the 2,500 lb. threshold, the exemption will no longer apply, triggering a fee payment obligation.

Companies that are on the preliminary list, but that qualify for Exemptions 1-3, can submit an exemption certification on the to be removed from the final list. Otherwise, companies meeting Exemptions 1-3 do not need to submit notification.

Companies that qualify for exemptions must maintain records of production volumes for five years from the date of submitting notification (See 40 CFR 700.43(b)(10)). In addition, companies that qualify for the R&D exemption must maintain manufacturing and other business records for five years, such as production volume, plans of study, information from R&D notebooks, study reports or notice for R&D use. Records would establish amounts necessary for R&D purposes.

Contact ACA’s Riaz Zaman for more information.

This action ensures a consistent regulatory framework and aligns with the California Air Resources Board’s aerosol coatings rule, which will help aerosol coatings manufacturers with streamlined compliance.

EPA’s final amendments are the direct result of three petitions for rulemaking submitted by ACA, and an eight-year advocacy campaign on behalf of the coatings industry to convince EPA to adopt changes to the national rule so that it largely matches the CARB rule and is informed by the most up-to-date and accepted science. This final action will minimize the undue compliance burdens that the divergent regulatory schemes have created for the aerosol coatings industry. Until these amendments were adopted, manufacturers were required to comply with different standards in California and use different Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) values in order to calculate compliance.

Notably, the final rule features the following changes, for which �鶹��Ƶadvocated:

• Updated product-weighted reactivity limits by coatings category that align completely with (see Table 1);
• Updated MIR values for several aerosol coatings compounds that align with (see Tables 2A, 2B & 2C);
• New compounds and reactivity factors in Tables 2A, 2B & 2C to align with ;
• Revised default reactivity value (18.50 g O₃/g VOC);
• New and updated definitions to better align with CARB’s rule (when appropriate and feasible); and
• Addition of electronic reporting provisions.

The compliance date for the final amended rule is July 17, 2025; however, �鶹��Ƶis seeking clarification on any implied sell-through provisions associated with the rule, as well as any potential impact from President Trump’s Jan. 20 Executive Order pertaining to a federal regulatory freeze. Please note that �鶹��Ƶand others consistently advocated for a 2-year sell-through period to comply with the new requirements.

EPA notes that in the interim six months, all regulated entities are subject to the national aerosol coatings rule in its current form but may elect to start complying with the amended aerosol coatings rule. This means that regulated entities, including those that are currently in compliance with CARB’s aerosol coatings rule, may elect to begin complying immediately with the new limits, corresponding reactivity factors, and other rule provisions.

In the coming weeks, �鶹��Ƶwill host a webinar on the amendments and provide additional written analysis of the amendments to aid member understanding and compliance.

Contact ACA’s Rhett Cash for more information.

Notable changes from the initial draft rule language to the preliminary draft rule language are as follows:

• Matte-Clear Coating – removal of Phase II VOC limit of 520 g/L (Phase I remains at 550 g/L)
• Color Coating – new effective date for the lower Phase II VOC limit of 250 g/L on 1/1/2032
• Metallic Color Coating – new Phase II VOC limit of 250 g/L with an effective date of 1/1/2032
• Primer Sealer – new Phase II VOC limit of 150 g/L with an effective date of 1/1/2028
• Primer Surfacer – new Phase II VOC limit of 150 g/L with an effective date of 1/1/2028
• New category for “Tinted Mid-Coat” – Phase I VOC limit of 750 g/L and Phase II VOC limit of 250 g/L by 1/1/2032
• Revised alternative VOC limit for color coatings and metallic color coatings supplied in half-pints or smaller (see Footnote 2 of Table 1 and paragraph (d)(3))
• Product-Weighted MIR VOC Limit for Reducers & Thinners (see Table 2)
• Revised PCBTF & TBAC Timelines (see Table 3):
  • Prohibition Effective Date: May 1, 2025
  • Sell-Through End Date: May 1, 2026
  • Use-Through End Date: July 1, 2027
• New definitions for tinted mid-coat, MIR, PW-MIR, and reducer or thinner

SCAQMD is accepting written comments on the proposal through Sept. 13, 2024. The district  SCAQMD intends to present the Proposed Amended Rule 1151 to the Governing Board at a public hearing on Nov. 1 (subject to change).

Additional information on this rulemaking is available on .

Contact ACA’s Rhett Cash for more information.

“The definition of covered ‘emergencies’ requires further refinement,” stated �鶹��Ƶcomments. “�鶹��Ƶfurther recommends changes to terminology referenced in the rule to avoid confusion. �鶹��Ƶalso notes that requirements for emergency team member participation potentially go beyond team members’ designated areas of expertise. �鶹��Ƶrecommends further consideration of compliance costs. Compliance costs do not accurately reflect compliance activities and costs for general industry, especially for small businesses. �鶹��Ƶsupports exemptions for activities covered by other OSHA emergency response standards, while suggesting an additional exemption for activities covered by EPA’s hazardous waste contingency plan requirements.”

In February 2024, OSHA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to replace the “Fire Brigades” standard, published in 1980. The newly named “Emergency Response” standard would update safety and health protections to align them with national consensus standards for workers exposed to hazards related to fires and other emergencies. The initial comment period ended May 6, 2024, but was extended twice in response to public demand.

OSHA has scheduled an informal hearing on Nov. 12, 2024 at 9:30 am EDT, to hear comments and testimony from the public on OSHA’s proposal to update an existing standard and expand safety and health protections for emergency responders, including firefighters, emergency medical service providers and technical search and rescue workers.

�鶹��Ƶwill be participating in the online hearing.

Contact ACA’s Riaz Zaman for more information.

According to OSHA the updated standard aligns with the seventh revision of the United Nations’ Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), and will require labels on small packaging to be more comprehensive and readable and makes changes to help ensure trade secrets no longer prevent workers and first responders from receiving critical hazard information on safety data sheets.

Established in 1983, the HCS provides a standardized approach to workplace hazard communications associated with exposure to hazardous chemicals. OSHA updated the standard in 2012 to align with the third revision of the GHS to provide a common and coherent approach to classifying chemicals and communicating hazard information.

“Workers will also benefit from other changes in the updated standard, including a clearer hazard classification process to provide more complete and accurate hazard information on labels and safety data sheets; updated physical hazard classes to better inform users on safe handling of explosives, aerosols and chemicals under pressure; and updated precautionary statements on how to safely handle, store and dispose of hazardous chemicals,” OSHA stated in its announcement.

The final rule also addresses issues that arose since the implementation of the 2012 standard and improves alignment with other federal agencies and Canada.

provides additional background on the standard.

Contact ACA’s Riaz Zaman for more information.