Product Category Rules

In 2020, ACA published a Product Category Rule (PCR) for Powder Coatings, engaging a third-party developer of public health standards certification programs to develop the PCR. This is the third PCR that ACA has facilitated for industry, following publication of its PCR for Architectural Coatings and PCR for Resinous Floor Coatings.

A PCR provides an agreed-upon framework for measuring the environmental impacts of a product based on a defined set of criteria. This allows manufacturers to conduct Life-cycle Assessments (LCAs) on their products in a standardized way, and publish this information in an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD), if they so choose.

The utility of PCRs is timely and considerable, since retailers, architects, standard-setting bodies, and consumers are increasingly considering or requiring information about the life-cycle impacts of products when selecting which products they choose to sell, specify, or use.

Notably, LCAs are reframing the discussion about the actual environmental impacts and benefits of coatings. There has been steadily increasing demand for LCAs because of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) credits and increasing regulatory pressures. ACA’s PCRs are important tools that assist members with the publication of verifiable EPDs and aid members in achieving additional LEED credits.

Recognizing the need to respond to this market demand, ACA is also facilitating development of a PCR for Coil Coatings, now underway. With these new PCRs, ACA aims to position the industry to compete with other building materials that already have PCRs, and continue to grow ACA and industry presence in the PCR space.

ACA Architectural Coatings Sustainability Program

Given the demand for industry product sustainability information sought by architects, designers, end users, in 2020, ACA progressed its work with a third party, NSF International, to develop a multi-attribute ACA Architectural Coatings Sustainability Program. The program would be incorporated into LEED through pilot credit 112, allowing members to achieve maximum credits under LEED by streamlining testing requirements. The ACA program would also help mitigate problematic green building standards and building codes that were developed without industry input.

Specifically, the ACA program in development aims to:

• Use an LCA approach to evaluate the environmental impacts of architectural coatings on the environment and provide transparency to the public on these impacts;
• Gather and analyze industry performance metrics;
• Identify and communicate environmentally preferable products, and provide market recognition for conforming products and manufacturers; and
• Recognize what paint and coatings companies are already doing in the green building space.

Over the past year, ACA worked with stakeholders to refine program criteria and collect product and company data from stakeholders on the following:

• Social Responsibility
• Low Emissions Products
• Low Impact Materials
• Manufacturing & Supply Chain Management
• Life-Cycle Assessment
• Corporate Sustainability
• Performance Attributes & Durability

ACA’s program framework timeline is set to coincide with the 2021 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) public comment period. ANSI is a private, non-profit organization that administers and coordinates the U.S. voluntary standards and conformity assessment system.

2020 ACA Sustainability Report

In 2020, ACA published its second ACA Sustainability Report, following publication of its inaugural report in 2018. The 2020 ACA Sustainability Report focuses on the coatings industry’s Sustainability efforts as framed by five specific United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs):

• Good Health and Well-Being (UNSDG#3)
• Decent Work and Economic Growth (UNSDG#8)
• Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (UNSDG#9)
• Responsible Consumption and Production (UNSDG#12)
• Partnerships for the Goals (UN SDG #17)

This report shares examples of the critical role coatings play in contributing to the UN SDGs, showcasing industry’s advancements in product design technology and processes that have led to significantly reduced environmental impact; industry’s landmark environmental stewardship program PaintCare; and ACA member company stories of how they undertake Sustainability.

Development of a Global Sustainability Report

Over the last year, ACA, as Secretariat of the World Coatings Council, surveyed council members on their sustainability efforts. The results showed that most member associations have established programs that demonstrate the industry’s role in supporting sustainable development, a key factor in affirming the essential nature of the industry and its products.

At the council’s March 2020 Annual Meeting, a Sustainability workshop focused on determining how the industry could work collectively to develop meaningful programs and practices that support the UN SDGs. Working in small groups, delegates identified SDGs and ways to establish Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s).

Now, ACA is spearheading the World Coatings Council’s development of a comprehensive global industry sustainability report and identifying ways in which the global industry can affirm and advance the UN SDGs.

Addressing Plastics

The use and future of plastic materials utilized by industry is being scrutinized by governments, environmental groups, and academic researchers around the world. From the breakdown of macroplastics and plastic materials used in formulations for consumer and industrial products that researchers cite as the cause for the rise in microplastics throughout the world’s water sources, to re-examining product packaging and use of single use plastics — at the state level, legislative bodies and regulatory agencies are responding with proposals to either limit those industry uses to curtail environmental impacts, or with Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) measures that would fall on industry. For the first time, a similar bill has been introduced at the federal level, signifying a trend that is gaining momentum and will likely see more action in the coming year.

In 2020, ACA worked on a holistic plastics strategy to address both the issue of microplastics and plastic packaging/containers. On both fronts, ACA is actively working to achieve a realistic view of the paint and coatings industry’s use of plastics and role in the environmental impact discussion. That understanding will direct ACA’s industry’s advocacy stance in opposition to varied regulatory proposals that would place restrictions, fees, or extended producer responsibility mandates on industry.

Microplastics

Where microplastics are concerned — that is small pieces of plastic, typically less than 5 mm in size — studies out of Europe, Canada, and California have specifically identified coatings that could potentially be unfiltered by water treatment facilities or result from decomposition of coating sand discharged to the marine environment, as presenting potential health risk to marine animals and food supply. Already, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has proposed requirements to limit intentional industry uses of microplastics in products including paint. The proposed restriction in Europe comprises three types of measures: product sales restrictions, labeling, and reporting requirements.

While the EU product sales restrictions are not relevant to paint — largely due to World Coatings Council efforts and successful advocacy by ACA’s European industry partners, ECHA issued derogations (exemptions) for the polymer fragments in paints and coatings, acknowledging that, while falling within the definition of microplastic, they are not contributing to microplastics release — coating manufacturers would still need to report on the use of any type of microplastics in consumer and industrial coatings, as well as develop product labels to help users properly manage wastes to limit microplastic discharges (i.e., during cleanup).

If adopted, Europe’s microplastic regulations could be effective in 2022. But regulatory action and discussion is not limited to Europe. Canada has initiated a regulatory process under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to regulate microplastics, releasing a Draft Science Assessment of Plastics Pollution, that could be utilized in the development of future microplastic regulations.

And in the United States, EPA has awarded grants for studies to address microplastic pollution; California’s California State Water Resources Control Board formally adopted a definition of microplastics in drinking water and is developing standard microplastic testing for a 4-year study; and the California State University Council on Ocean Affairs, Science & Technology is conducting research to quantify microplastic sources, ecotoxicology, and the economics of microplastics source control.

ACA has created a Plastics Workgroup and is coordinating with the Word Coatings Council to study what is being done by industry, regionally, to address current uses of microplastics, including efforts to control paint releases (i.e. spills, overspray control, surface prep releases, post-application clean-up, etc.). Additionally, ACA is considering research protocols to evaluate microplastics and their impacts including quantitative release estimates from coatings-related sources.

Single-Use Plastics, Extended User Responsibility

Alongside the microplastics discourse, management challenges of the large volume of discarded plastic containers and packaging products has resulted in varied state proposals calling for EPR measures and single-use packaging regulations. These include proposals to impose recycling rates, collection requirements, and fees on industry.

In 2020, ACA efforts helped stall several state bills focused on single-use plastic containers from advancing, including those in Vermont and Maine. A similar California bill was also not successful. While these bills differed in their construct, each would have imposed significant fees on paint manufacturers and required strict recycling standards. ACA’s engagement allowed for negotiation of advantageous language in these bills, while still articulating the significant negative impacts on the industry, but none of these bills passed their legislatures this year. The result is a reprieve from significant fees that would have been levied on manufacturers in three states.

Notably, these are states where PaintCare operations exist, where ACA is able to connect the value and role of the industry product stewardship program in collecting post- consumer paint containers.

However, while ACA and industry were able to stave off these regulatory schemes, ACA is seeking to better understand the quantity and type of packaging that is used in the coatings industry and how this packaging is recycled or disposed.

To that end, in 2020 ACA solicited proposals to conduct research on current management of leftover or post-consumer architectural paint containers/cans in the United States. The aim is to outline methods, barriers, and opportunities for the disposal and recycling of empty paint cans and containers, including those used for stain, varnish, colorant containers, and other architectural coatings.

Once the study and metrics are developed with an independent firm, results should help determine a path forward to improve recycling and waste management of paint containers in the industry.

Spearheading Industry’s Product Stewardship Efforts

2020 marked the beginning of PaintCare’s second decade of operations, and it was a year that demonstrated the program’s resilience in the face of adversity. COVID-19 challenged the program’s routine operations; yet, despite those hurdles, the industry-led stewardship program for post-consumer paint reached new heights. To date, PaintCare has collected and recycled (or responsibly managed) over 45 million gallons of leftover paint — managing nearly 525,000 gallons monthly. Of that total, approximately 78 percent was latex-based paint, and 22 percent was oil-based paint. Meanwhile, PaintCare began developing major new programs for Washington and New York, set to launch in 2021. Following California, these are poised to be the next largest state programs.

In the states and jurisdictions where the program is currently operating, PaintCare has continued to serve households and businesses with more than 1,800 year- round paint drop-off sites, most of which are paint retailers. In addition to year-round sites, PaintCare has held more than 200 paint collection events in underserved areas and managed paint from more than 5,000 household hazardous waste (HHW) events to date. PaintCare has also performed more than 4,200 large-volume pickups (LVP) for businesses and households with at least 200 gallons of paint, measured by container size.

In 2020, PaintCare’s achievements received acknowledgement and distinction for demonstrating the U.S. paint and coatings industry’s leadership in the product stewardship sphere. In March, PaintCare’s California program was named “Best Public/Private Partnership” by CalRecycle in recognition of the success of the program, its partnerships with 120 HHW facilities throughout California, and its support of more than 300 HHW events each year in that state alone. In September 2020, PaintCare earned international recognition, winning the Recycling and Waste Management Award for “Best Paint Recycling Initiative-USA,” given by BUILD, a UK-based publication that covers innovations in the global building and construction industries.

COVID-19 Impacts

PaintCare experienced significant service impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in March 2020 and was well positioned to navigate this ongoing challenge. PaintCare’s newly formed crisis communications team analyzed operational impacts, organized a response, and ensured clear communications to stakeholders. By the end of March, PaintCare had temporarily suspended the LVP service, postponed all paint drop-off events planned through May, and suspended all in-person site visits by staff. At peak, 805 drop-off sites (45 percent) reported temporary closures or suspensions of post-consumer paint collection, including 640 retail sites and 103 HHW programs. PaintCare placed a prominent alert on its website directed to a special status page informing the public about service impacts, encouraging delaying paint drop off until local and federal guidance to avoid discretionary travel lifted, and requesting that appropriate precautions be taken when using PaintCare’s sites and services. An alert was also added to the site locator tool, PaintCare’s most used web resource, advising the public to confirm site availability before attempting to drop off paint.

Throughout this period, PaintCare halted advertising campaigns and pivoted to reuse in place of encouraging recycling. Field staff communicated with all drop-off sites and other stakeholders by phone and email and continued to manage program operations and site needs effectively.

By July 2020, while pandemic conditions continued to evolve, most of PaintCare’s operations came back online. LVPs were resumed; some of the planned drop- off events moved forward where possible; all but a few drop-off sites resumed post-consumer paint collection; staff site visits resumed in most areas; and planning commenced for fall 2020 public outreach campaigns.

Growing & Protecting the Program Across the Country

PaintCare’s operations continue to grow and mature. With new paint stewardship laws enacted in 2019, over the past year, PaintCare staff focused on developing new programs in Washington and New York, set to launch in April and November 2021, respectively. Following California, they will be PaintCare’s second and third largest programs by population. In 2020, PaintCare drafted and submitted program plans to state oversight agencies in both states ahead of deadline.

ACA also continued to develop inroads in other new states, with a long-view strategy to engage with the state legislators to increase understanding of Product Stewardship and become champions of PaintCare legislation. ACA shepherded paint stewardship legislation in Massachusetts, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.

In New Jersey, bills passed both the New Jersey Assembly and Senate, and the legislation was sent to Gov. Phil Murphy for his signature in January 2020. However, the governor pocket-vetoed it. A new bill has already been introduced in New Jersey and ACA is working with the governor’s office to address his concerns. In Maryland, the bill passed the House of Delegates and had a very good chance of passage in the Senate; however, the legislature adjourned 30 days early due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At this writing, Massachusetts’s legislature is still in session, and efforts continue to move that bill toward passage.

ACA will continue to pursue programs in these states and others, working with lawmakers and stakeholders to fully understand the program and its environmental and cost benefits.

In addition to encouraging new states to embrace PaintCare, ACA worked in 2020 to protect state programs already in place. In Rhode Island, where PaintCare program operations began in June 2014, ACA was once again successful in convincing the Rhode Island Senate to reject a bill that would have required the oversight agency to allow for public bids to operate the paint stewardship program. And in Connecticut, where program operations commenced in July 2013, ACA avoided any action on a bill that would have decreased the amount of the PaintCare fee assessment.

Engagement on Biocides

Biocides in paints and coatings are used to prevent microbial growth and degradation during manufacturing and product shelf-life, as well as to ensure the product does not spoil before being used, and also protect the paint film after application. Increasingly, low VOC waterborne coatings require the use of “in-can” preservatives. Without these, the paint can spoil and, in extreme cases, microbial decomposition can generate gases that rupture containers.

However, the expanding use of biocides in construction products, including paints and coatings, has resulted in increased scrutiny of their inherent safety by regulatory bodies worldwide. To date, the European Union, Canada, and the United States are all evaluating several biocides used in paints and coatings for risk to human health and the environment. On the health side, regulators express concerns about skin sensitization, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, often based on a review of hazard characteristics and/or use in products that are directly applied to the skin.

ACA, through its Preservation Product Stewardship Working Group domestically, and working with the World Coatings Council internationally, has established an advocacy initiative to ensure continued availability of these critical raw materials in the United States and around the world. These efforts seek to support the availability of products to preserve paint in the container, protect the painted surface, and maintain desired conditions.

Preservatives Life-Cycle Assessment

In 2020, ACA conducted a larger, follow-up study to its 2017 investigation to assess the environmental performance of nine different architectural coating preservation scenarios using a Cradle-to-Grave LCA (the original 2017 study examined five scenarios). The primary goals of the LCA were to determine the environmental impacts and benefits that wet-state and dry-film preservatives play in architectural coating systems, and to see how reducing, eliminating, or replacing certain preservatives impacted the coating’s overall sustainability profile.

The study found that, relative to the baseline scenario, changing the preservation strategy increased the environmental burden of the system, ranging from a 50 percent higher impact to an almost 400 percent higher impact, depending on the specific scenario. The LCA models also showcased that the preservatives themselves were typically responsible for alternatives to traditional preservatives: notably, the legacy solvent-based system (which would not require a wet-state preservative), was the worst overall environmentally and demonstrates how much of an improvement the industry has made by moving from solvent-based to water-based chemistries for architectural products.

The study findings clearly affirm that the actual environmental impact of preservatives is extremely modest relative to their benefit, and the tradeoffs associated with preservative substitution are severe compared to the other parts of the coating formulation. Moreover, the significant amount of spoilage from improper preservation would lead to a staggering increase in waste generated by the coatings industry.

This study will help buoy ACA’s advocacy arguments about the critical role of preservatives in enhancing shelf-life, protecting the painted surface, and protecting the dried coating film from biologic growth.

Global Biocide Evaluations

Regulatory bodies in the United States, Canada, and the EU are all conducting evaluations of biocides on their own schedules. To date, Canada has completed a cluster analysis of eight biocides used in paints and coatings, and published draft re-evaluations. In May 2020, U.S. EPA published draft re-evaluations of several biocides common to paint and coatings. EPA is required to conduct re- evaluations every 15 years.

The EU has scheduled final evaluations of several isothiazolinones by the end of 2022. However, the EU has revised hazard classifications for several of these, requiring revised hazard labels at lower thresholds than the GHS thresholds. Some hazard classifications automatically bar the biocide from approval. Hazard classification of a biocide may also prevent manufacturers from using ecolabel and other similar marks on paint and coatings products with the classified biocide.

Notably, the United States, Canada, and the European Union have similar registration requirements for biocides. Typically, a manufacturer or importer must register a biocide for use in specified products or product types. The regulatory authority must approve use and specify any labeling requirements and concentration limits. Once a biocide is registered for use in a product, the product containing biocide does not need to be registered, unless the product label bears a public health claim related to the biocidal additive (e.g. “anti-viral,” “controls bacteria,” etc.).

However, in May 2019, Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) implemented a ban of the commonly-used preservative OIT (octhilinone) over industry objections, both from the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association (CPCA), and ACA. With 45 percent of paint products sold in Canada being manufactured in the United States, the ban raised concerns for U.S. manufacturers. Many U.S. companies questioned the scope of the ban as it applied to raw materials with residual amounts of OIT. While a U.S. company could continue to use such raw materials to make paint products for the Canadian market if the OIT in the final product is not added for an intentional preservative effect, companies had to evaluate for an intentional preservative effect considering concentration of OIT in the final product, typical uses of OIT, and any claims related to biocidal properties on the label of the final product.

While ACA created extensive guidance for U.S. manufacturers to understand the implications of the ban, it supported CPCA’s advocacy efforts to reverse or mitigate the ban. CPCA’s efforts were successful, and in late 2020, PMRA re-instated the use of OIT in paint and coatings products at a slightly lower limit (1.2 to 1.8 Kg/1000 L). This action will ensure paint products access to a critical biocide preservative.

Coordinating Industry’s Response

To help align regulatory policy and practice in both the United States and Canada, in 2020, ACA and CPCA sought the aid of the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC). The RCC’s mission is to facilitate consistent health, safety, and environmental protection mandates and reduce unnecessary differences between their regulatory frameworks for similar products crossing the border both ways. Both ACA and CPCA have urged the RCC to provide a forum for stakeholders, including industry, consumers, and non-government organizations, to address and prioritize the biocides issues and the regulatory barriers. ACA and CPCA will continue to create and pursue opportunities for regulatory cooperation on this issue.

And Canada’s PMRA, in late 2020, agreed to CPCA’s request, supported by ACA, to form a new Working Group to promote the exchange of technical information. This will assist in the evaluation of material preservatives registered for use in the Coatings Adhesives Sealants and Elastomers (CASE) sector in Canada, while improving the industry’s understanding of Canada’s pesticide regulations.

ACA is coordinating a concerted advocacy response on biocides through its Preservation Product Stewardship Working Group, collaborating with the American Chemistry Council’s Biocides Panel and U.S.-based biocide manufacturers to develop comments on EPA’s biocide re-evaluations. The group convenes weekly to coordinate both biocide supplier and coatings manufacturer efforts. In 2020, ACA completed a survey that provided much needed input on biocide management practices at coatings manufacturing facilities, as well as information on EPA assumptions related to consumer and commercial airless sprayer usage rates.

ACA is also working through the World Coatings Council to consider methods of sharing health and safety data to provide regulators with accurate exposure information specific to paint and coatings products. These efforts aim to help regulators understand industry’s stance on biocide use and allay any deleterious regulatory impacts on industry.

Engagement with EPA on TSCA

Scoping Documents Data Sources

In April 2020, U.S. EPA published 20 draft scoping documents for high-priority chemicals undergoing Risk Evaluation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). These are the 20 high priority chemicals that EPA designated for TSCA Risk Evaluation in December 2019. The scope documents include the proposed conditions of use, hazards, exposures, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA expects to consider in the TSCA risk evaluations.

ACA submitted extensive comments on several of the high- priority chemicals, but highlighted a major flaw in the scoping documents: EPA’s failure to identify specific data sources to evaluate each condition of use and the studies EPA will exclude from consideration, based on its systematic review process. To promote transparency, understanding, and consistency for stakeholders, ACA urged EPA to include in its final scoping documents, a list of studies that it chose to exclude from risk evaluation for each chemical, while providing an explanation of how it applied systematic review criteria to exclude each study and identifying any relevant data contained therein.

The importance of transparency and consistency cannot be underestimated, as they are foundational elements of TSCA’s weight of scientific evidence standard.

EPA heeded ACA’s comment, and in the final scoping documents released in August 2020, noted that it is including interactive Health Assessment Workspace Collaborative (HAWC) diagrams. These diagrams present studies that have been screened for inclusion and exclusion for each of the disciplines involved in risk evaluation: engineering, exposure, hazard, fate and physical-chemical properties. In the final scope documents, EPA also incorporated the criteria for inclusion, also known as PECO statements. These statements identify critical data points for EPA’s risk evaluations, providing a clearer statement of EPA’s data needs for companies seeking to provide EPA with relevant information.

Petition for Risk Management Procedural Framework

In June 2020, ACA filed a joint petition with other trade associations, requesting that U.S. EPA initiate a risk management procedural rule under TSCA, to establish how the agency will regulate chemicals determined to present unreasonable risks and provide for public participation in the process. ACA believes that a procedural rule would provide guard rails to ensure consistency, transparency and effective public communication in developing risk mitigation requirements for companies following EPA completion of a Risk Evaluation under TSCA.

The petition seeks clear procedures addressing how EPA will explore multiple risk mitigation approaches while evaluating a variety of factors for each measure, as required in Section 6 of TSCA, rather than simply imposing bans on chemicals, when other measures may adequately control identified risks. These would include procedures to address data gaps and margin of error in the risk evaluation and policies addressing de minimis amounts, essential uses, state-level exemptions, product recalls, deadlines for compliance, notice, effective dates, exemptions for critical or essential use, coordination with and/or delegation to other agencies, and processes to amend a risk mitigation rule.

EPA’s preliminary response to the petition indicates that it will provide guidance to agency staff and stakeholders to ensure transparency and public participation, while considering a rulemaking process to establish criteria for issues identified in the petition. issues identified in the petition.

Titanium Dioxide Classification in Europe

On Feb. 18, 2020, the European Commission published a regulation classifying titanium dioxide (TiO₂) containing greater than 1% respirable dust content by inhalation as a Category 2 [Animal] Carcinogen. This action was the culmination of a more than two-year effort by the Commission and European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) under the EU’s chemicals classification and labeling regulations — REACH and CLP.

The final Category 2 cancer hazard classification by respirable dust inhalation has been focused on conveying that specific hazard where respirable dust exposures occur (i.e., exposure to particles less than 10 μm in diameter). For TiO₂ in formulated products — like liquid paints — this distinction mitigates the required hazard warnings somewhat; it does, however, retain them for powder coatings since they may contain more than 1% of respirable dust size particles.

The requirements for labeling in the new regulation will be enforced after Sept. 9, 2021. Compliance efforts are now underway to implement the required hazard and precautionary labeling for products containing TiO₂ offered for sale and use in the EU, and amend worker hazard communication programs to reinforce the new classification and its impact on industrial hygiene practice.

ACA Efforts

From the start of this process, ACA joined with others to oppose efforts to arrive at this classification for TiO₂, noting that this is a clear departure from the UN GHS criteria, and is inconsistent with a variety of other hazard classification and regulatory findings around the world. ACA repeatedly warned that this divergence will present compliance issues for products shipped into the EU and is very likely to create confusion in the marketplace and impact global trade. ACA also repeatedly stressed that unwarranted and unscientifically supported classification runs counter to the fact that paints, coatings, inks and other polymer products have a long history of safe use, as does TiO₂ and other organic and organo-metallic pigments and dyes used in these and other applications. ACA has cited this record and still points to the myriad of national chemicals management schemes that acknowledge the lack of exposure and pursuant health risk for substances like TiO₂ and other particles embedded in polymers.

ACA had also taken its concerns directly to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade Committee and through the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration (ITA).

In September 2020, ACA, with two European counterparts, CEPE and the British Coatings Federation (BCF), filed a motion to intervene in support of a legal challenge against the EU classification. This litigation initiated by the Titanium Dioxide Manufacturers Association in the General Court of the European Union, maintains that there is no reliable, acceptable or available data to suggest that TiO₂ causes cancer; asserts that the classification was adopted in breach of the commission’s duty of care and several principles of EU law, including the principles of legal certainty, proportionality, and the right of interested parties to be heard; and seeks nullification of the EU classification.

It is expected that the classification will come into force before resolution of the action before the General Court of the European Union. Accordingly, ACA will continue to provide members guidance regarding implementation of the regulation, as well as continue to seek relief from the EU classification of TiO₂.

Chemicals Management Efforts

In Maryland, ACA worked to defeat a bill that would have prohibited from selling or offering for sale coal tar pavement products or from applying coal tar pavement products to a pavement or a similar surface. ACA’s written testimony in opposition to this proposal and collaboration with allied industries helped ensure that this measure was not successful.

Due to ACA advocacy, EPA issued a “No Action Assurance,” saving companies importing high priority chemicals as by-products or impurities from reporting to EPA and paying fees for TSCA Risk Evaluation, as would normally be required.

In April 2020, ACA and a coalition of industry sought forbearance of the TSCA Risk Evaluation user fees during the COVID-19 pandemic. The agency is now exploring options for payment flexibilities, including payment plans and extended due dates for fees.