Proposed VOC Concentration Limits for Certain Products Regulations: response to comments on the 2013 consultation document

Background

In January 2013, we published a consultation document, Revisions to the Proposed Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Concentration Limits for Certain Products Regulations, for a 60-day period to solicit comments from stakeholders.

In February 2013, over 60 stakeholders attended a consultation session to clarify and obtain feedback on the revisions to the regulatory proposal. Representatives from industry, industry associations, environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and other government departments participated. A total of 29 written submissions were received from stakeholders throughout the public consultation process: 26 from industry and 3 from ENGOs.

Comments on the consultation document were provided by:

Adhesive and Sealant Council (ASC)
American Coatings Association (ACA)
Amway
Canadian Association of Chemical Distributors (CACD)
Canadian Consumer Speciality Products Association (CCSPA)
Canadian Environnemental Law Association (CELA)
Canadian Paints and Coatings Association (CPCA)
Canadian Vehicle Manufacturer’s Association (CVMA)
Car Freshener Corp.
Chemical Sensitives Manitoba
Consumer Speciality Products Association (CSPA)
CP Industries
Cosmetics Alliance Canada (CAC)
Dow Chemical Canada ULC
Ecolab
Home Hardware
International Institute of Concern for Public Health (IICPH)
Kleen-Flo
Laurentide
National Aerosol Association (NAA)
Personal Care Products Council (PCPC)
Procter & Gamble
Recochem Inc.
Raymond Regulatory Resources (3R), LLC
Radiator Speciality Company (RSC)
Schwartz
SC Johnson
Vulsay Industries Ltd.
WD-40 Company

In spring 2018, we met with key industry associations to present updates. We also shared a cost-benefit analysis framework with industry associations and ENGOs, which outlined the methodology, assumptions and sources of data we intended to use in estimating costs and benefits of the proposed regulations. Comments on the framework were provided by CCSPA.

This document summarizes the comments received from stakeholders on the revised regulatory proposal and the framework and our responses on how they have been considered in the proposed regulations. They are organized by topic.

List of acronyms

ACP: Alternative Control Plan
CARB: California Air Resources Board
CEPA: Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
LVOC: Low Vapour Pressure VOCs
OTC: Ozone Transport Commission
RIAS: Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement
SMEs: Small and Medium Enterprises
U.S. EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC: Volatile Organic Compound

Overarching comments

The need to regulate volatile organic compounds in certain products

Comment summary: Stakeholders had divergent comments on the need for the proposed regulations, and whether or not it would be the best way to achieve federal air quality standards while maintaining economic feasibility. Some stakeholders showed full support for these proposed regulations. Others questioned its necessity in anticipation of the 2013 survey results that would potentially show that products are already in compliance.

Response: The proposed regulations are required to protect the environment and health of Canadians from the effects of air pollution and to provide a level playing field for Canadian manufactures and importers. The results of the 2013 Survey showed that the proposed regulations would lead to an estimated 24 kilotonne reduction in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted per year.

A cost benefit analysis was presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) published alongside the proposed Regulations on July 6, 2019. According to this analysis, health benefits attributable to air quality changes from the proposed regulations are estimated to be $697 million over the period of 2023-2030. The majority of health benefits are a result of reduced risks of premature death, hospital admissions, doctor visits, emergency room visits as well as lost work and school days.

Combining the proposed regulations with the two existing regulations for volatile organic compounds

Comment summary: Stakeholders had divergent comments on combining the proposed regulations with the two existing VOC regulations (Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Concentration Limits for Automotive Refinishing Products Regulations and the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Concentration Limits for Architectural Coatings Regulations. Many commented that combining them would increase administrative burden on small and medium enterprises (SMEs), claiming that this proposal is a misapplication of the one-for-one rule. In addition, one association was concerned that this proposal would be used to also amend the architectural coatings and the automotive refinishing regulations.

Response: The 2013 consultation document suggested combining the three regulations as part of a Regulatory Reform initiative to provide stakeholders with ease of reference, reduce administrative burden and to satisfy the requirements of the one-for-one rule. However, based on feedback received, we are no longer proposing to combine the proposed regulations with the two existing VOC regulations.

Impacts of proposed limits on Canadian companies

Comment summary: A few stakeholders raised concerns on the proposed VOC limits, claiming that they are too aggressive and they would put Canadian companies at a competitive disadvantage. Stakeholders have also commented that Canadian companies do not benefit from the same flexibility to select alternative chemicals and substitutes on the domestic substances list as currently exists in the United States. One company expressed concern for Canadian companies, particularly SMEs that do not market products in the United States, claiming that they have a steep learning curve to develop competitive products that meet the California VOC standards.

Response: Initial work on this regulatory proposal began over a decade ago. This is expected to have given industry, including SMEs, sufficient time to reformulate or find alternatives for their products. These regulations will come into force on January 1, two years after the regulations are registered (disinfectants would have an additional year to comply). This is expected to give time for industry to comply. Additionally, a number of alternative compliance options are proposed to provide flexibility to comply with the regulations:

If a regulatee has a product that makes it not technically or economically feasible to reduce the VOC content after the regulations come into force, a temporary permit may be granted for up to 2 years. This is renewable one time.
If a regulatee has a product that as a result of product design, formulation, delivery or other factors - emits lower total VOC emissions than a comparable compliant product, a 4-year renewable permit may be granted.
A regulatee can choose to participate in the VOC Tradeable Unit Credit Program, where regulatees could balance product(s) that exceed the concentration limit(s) with credits earned from products that were reformulated to have a VOC concentration lower than the regulatory limits; or by purchasing credits from other regulatees.

These options may be used if the provisions prescribed in the regulations are met.

These flexibilities should ease the regulatory burden on some Canadian regulatees including SMEs.

Product performance in Canadian climate

Comment summary: One company commented that Canada has different climatic conditions than California and therefore some products may not work effectively in the Canadian climate at low VOC concentrations.

Response: The intent of these proposed regulations is to align with the provisions of the 2010 California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations where technically feasible, but may include minor differences to ensure that reductions in VOC emissions in Canada are safely, effectively and efficiently achieved. Adjustments have been made to limits for non-chemically curing and chemically curing sealant and caulking products to address this concern. Windshield washer fluid has also been removed from the regulatory proposal. The proposed regulations have also been modified to include an acoustical sealant product category, as they are needed in Canada’s colder climate.

Timeline for publishing the proposed regulations

Comment summary: Stakeholders had divergent comments on the timeline for publication. Several supported the proposed timeline for publication, others commented that they would need more time to comply with the proposed regulations, especially when reformulation is required. One ENGO expressed concern about the delays in publication and urged for quicker implementation of the proposed regulations.

Response: Stakeholders were first consulted on the Government of Canada’s intention to regulate VOC emissions from certain products in 2005. In 2008, a regulatory proposal was published in Canada Gazette, Part I. Revisions were made to the proposed regulations and public consultations were held in 2013. We believe the time for coming into force is reasonable (January 1, two years after the regulations are registered and one additional year for disinfectants) and provides enough time for manufacturers to reformulate their products and for importers to find alternatives.

Alignment with regulatory initiatives in the United States

Comment summary: Diverging viewpoints were expressed covering a wide range of possibilities, including alignment with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), CARB, Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO). The majority of stakeholders supported alignment with the 2010 CARB regulations while taking into account the Canadian context, claiming that CARB limits are the industry standard.

Response: We intend to align with the 2010 CARB regulations instead of the U.S. EPA, OTC or LADCO, as stakeholders have indicated that the CARB limits are the industry standard. Aligning with CARB will create a level playing field allowing manufacturers to produce the same line of products for the North American market. These proposed regulations may include minor differences to ensure that maximum reductions in VOC emissions in Canada are effectively and efficiently achieved, while maintaining consistency with other Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) regulations.

Reactivity

Comment summary: One stakeholder noted that we should include maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) values for aerosols that are aligned with CARB. Another stakeholder supported our efforts to align with CARB, and that reactivity considerations are a technological approach that can deliver benefits in all aspects (environment, human health, product efficiency/demand) to address this air quality issue.

Response: Canada does not currently have regulations specifically targeting aerosols. However, some aerosol products would be covered by the proposed regulations. Any aerosol product that falls under a listed product category, would be subject to these regulations. The regulatory proposal is aligned, in principle, with California’s Consumer Products regulations, which are considered the North American standard for these products.

Excluding sellers from the scope of the proposed regulations

Comment summary: Stakeholders had divergent comments on excluding sellers from the proposed regulations. Some stakeholders indicated that not including sellers could create a loophole for distributors to stockpile non-compliant products, claiming that this will affect the market as compliant products are generally more expensive and will not sell in a market saturated with non-compliant products. Other stakeholders supported the removal of sellers but requested a sell-through period ranging from 3 years to an unlimited period.

Response: We have determined that including sellers in these proposed regulations is not necessary as once these regulations are in effect, manufacturers and importers would be required to produce and import compliant products. Products manufactured and imported before the regulations come into force may still be sold. The sell-through period is expected to be relatively quick. Not including sellers will reduce burden, especially for SMEs. Over time, these regulations are expected to eliminate non-compliant products in the Canadian market.

Harmonization across North America

The title of the proposed regulations

Comment summary: One association suggested adding the word “consumer” to the title of the proposed regulations to be in line with the terminology used by CARB.

Response: The term “certain products” is being proposed as these regulations would cover all products from the product categories including products used in commercial or industrial settings, as well as consumer products unless otherwise noted.

Definitions of product categories and sub-categories

Comment summary: Several key associations and stakeholders commented that product category and sub-category definitions should be consistent and harmonized with CARB’s regulations.

Response: We intend to align product category definitions with the 2010 CARB regulations, where appropriate, However, the American wording in product category definitions found in CARB’s regulations is not consistent with Canadian regulatory drafting conventions. Canadian regulations are drafted in two languages, and must be drafted in a way that can be interpreted in both languages and under both the common and civil systems of law. Canada does not define commonly-known terms or dictionary definitions. Additional text was added to product categories for clarification where necessary.

Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council

Comment summary: Stakeholders had divergent comments on whether or not the proposed regulations are consistent with the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) goals, while one stakeholder recommended that it should be assigned to the RCC.

Response: The Government of Canada understands the importance of aligning regulations across North America to provide a level playing field for regulatees. Other jurisdictions in the United States, such as the OTC either have adopted the limits established by California, or are in the process of moving towards those limits. Therefore, aligning Canada’s proposed regulations with those of California will facilitate consistency across North America and avoid varying requirements across jurisdictions.

Data collection and information gathering

2013 Voluntary survey

Comment summary: Most stakeholders supported the voluntary survey while others suggested that a mandatory survey would be more effective.

Response: We collect scientific data from a variety of sources and mechanisms, including but not limited to voluntary approaches and mandatory provisions under CEPA. Since its publication in Canada Gazette, Part I in 2008, the proposed regulations have undergone substantive changes. A survey was needed to gather information on the new proposed categories/subcategories to assess the level of compliant products in the Canadian market, to fill data gaps and to update cost-benefits information to support the RIAS.

A voluntary survey was deemed the best data collection approach at the time and has provided sufficient data to support a robust cost benefit analysis while minimizing the burden on stakeholders.

Request to conduct a new survey in 2018

Comment summary: In spring 2018, we met with key industry associations and presented updates on the revised regulatory proposal. We also shared a cost benefit analysis framework with stakeholders that outlines the methodology and assumptions we intended to use to estimate compliance and administrative costs to businesses, and to estimate health and environmental benefits for Canadians. Comments were received from one stakeholder association requesting a new survey be conducted in 2018 to capture the current Canadian market and to ensure an accurate analysis.

Response: When gathering data to support regulatory activities, we work carefully to ensure that data of sufficient quality are available to support robust regulatory development, and to enable timely decision-making and minimize the burden on stakeholders.

Two voluntary surveys were administered in 2006 and 2013. The second covered the full range of product categories/sub-categories included in the regulatory proposal including Canadian only products. In 2018, this stakeholder association was invited to submit updated data to supplement their 2013 submission.

We believe that a new survey would not significantly impact the conclusions of the analysis that the proposed regulations would lead to net benefits. However, to address these concerns, we have conducted a sensitivity analysis that takes into account a high cost scenario to demonstrate the proposed regulations would result in net benefits over a range of cost assumptions. This analysis is presented in the RIAS published alongside the proposed regulations.

Update the urban volatile organic compound emissions data

Comment summary: One stakeholder commented on the need to update the urban VOC emissions used to inform the decision for the development of the proposed regulations.

Response: During the period of 2003 to 2013, we collected VOC concentration data for a broad range of products sold in Canada, this includes emissions from products sold in urban areas. This data was modelled against various VOC concentration limits in other United States jurisdictions. The data collected was sufficient to indicate that VOC reductions are needed and that the greatest potential for their reduction in Canada would be achieved by establishing VOC concentration limits similar to CARB’s Consumer Product Regulations.

Comments on the body of the proposed regulations

Volatile organic compound definition

Alignment with the United States Environmental Protection Agency

Comment summary: Many stakeholders supported aligning the substances excluded under the CEPA VOC definition with the exclusions under the U.S. EPA VOC definition. More specifically, many stakeholders supported the exclusion of acetic acid, 1,1-dimethylethyl ester (C₆H₁₂O₂) (TBAc) from the list of VOCs that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. Others suggested to exclude Dimethyl Carbonate, Propylene Carbonate and HFO-1234ze.

Response: On June 15, 2016, we published the Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 in the Canada Gazette, Part II. The objective is to ensure that the List of Toxic Substances includes only those VOCs that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone and address inconsistencies between the list of compounds excluded from the regulatory definition of VOCs in the United States and Canada. A total of 16 compounds were added to the list of exempt compounds including Dimethyl Carbonate, Propylene Carbonate and HFO-1234ze.

Future exclusions and regular updates to list of exempt compounds

Comment summary: Several stakeholders were seeking a commitment to accept future U.S. EPA exclusions through some sort of mechanism, process or policy and to continually modify the list of exempt compounds to align with the U.S. EPA.

Response: For the purposes of these regulations, VOCs are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions and are not excluded under item 65 of Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. As such, any future exempt compounds that are added to the VOC definition would be automatically excluded from the scope of the proposed regulations.

Future risk management

Comment summary: One stakeholder indicated that any addition to the list of exempt compounds should not prevent future risk management measures.

Response: VOCs are organic compounds containing one or more carbon atoms that have high vapour pressures and therefore evaporate readily to the atmosphere. There are thousands of compounds that meet this definition. VOCs are defined under Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. This definition excludes photo-chemically, low-reactive compounds such as methane, ethane and the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). An exclusion under the VOC definition does not prevent future risk management measures if a substance is determined to be toxic to the environment or human health.

Definition for consumer, household and institutional products

Comment summary: A few stakeholders requested to add definitions for consumer, household and institutional products.

Response: These terms are not used in the proposed regulations and will therefore not be defined. The intent is to regulate all products within the proposed product categories, whether they are consumer, institutional or industrial/commercial products, unless otherwise indicated. This intent will be clearly stated in the RIAS accompanying the proposed regulations.

Exemptions

Products used solely in a manufacturing or processing activity

Comment summary: A few stakeholders commented that “products used solely in a manufacturing or processing activity" could lead to misinterpretation.

Response: The intent of this proposal is to exempt products that used solely in a manufacturing or processing activity. However, products used in a manufacturing or processing activity and sold to the public would be subject to the proposed regulations.

Products regulated under the Pest Control Products Act

Comment summary: One stakeholder recommended that we consider extending the exemptions for products under the Pest Control Products Act to include other regulations such as the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001.

Response: It is the general policy of the Government of Canada to harmonize regulations to avoid duplication. Pest control products are exempt from the proposed regulations because the Pest Control Products Act, 2001 addresses the environmental risks of those types of products. Products covered under other regulations that do not address environmental risks, including the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001, are not exempt from the proposed regulations.

Personal use

Comment summary: One stakeholder commented that there should be a personal use exemption.

Response: A personal use exemption will not be included in the proposed regulations to be consistent with California’s Consumer Products Regulations and with the existing VOC regulations in Canada including the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Concentration Limits for Architectural Coatings Regulations and the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Concentration Limits for Automotive Refinishing Products Regulations.

Incidental presence and de minimis

Comment summary: One stakeholder recommended consideration for incidental presence and to specify a de minimis concentration.

Response: We have proposed to align where possible with the CARB regulations and since they do not contain a general de minimis, we are not proposing to include one in the proposed regulations.

Low vapour pressure volatile organic compounds

Comment summary: Stakeholders requested the exemption for low vapour pressure volatile organic compounds (LVOC) to align with CARB. Concerns were expressed about Canada’s ability to keep up with the United States exemptions for LVOC.

Response: We continue to propose excluding LVOC when determining the VOC content for product categories other than antiperspirants and deodorants to be in alignment with the exemption under California’s 2010Consumer Products Regulations.

VOC Tradeable Unit Credit Program

Inclusion of an emission credit and trading program

Comment summary: The majority of stakeholders who commented on the proposed program, supported the initiative and suggested that it should be harmonized to the extent possible with the CARB Alternative Control Plan (ACP). A few other stakeholders do not support this inclusion due to its complexity and the potential for conflict with other laws and regulations.

Response: The proposed program provides an alternative method for compliance. Regulatees participating in this program will be required to demonstrate that overall VOC emissions are neutral or reduced. While we have proposed alignment with CARB’s ACP, stakeholders would be required to provide Canada-specific data where needed.

Acceptance of California Air Resources Board -approved alternative control plans

Comment summary: A few stakeholders suggested that we adopt a provision that expressly accepts a CARB-approved ACP similar to the OTC model rule.

Response: We have proposed alignment to the extent possible with CARB in that regulatees with products under the CARB ACP can utilize information submitted to California for their approval process. However they would also be required to provide Canada-specific data where needed. For example, Canadian manufacturers and importers would be required to provide manufacture and import data to demonstrate that overall emissions are neutral or reduced in Canada. This is consistent with OTC’s 2012 Model Rule for Consumer Products which requires the submission of state-specific data under section 11(c).

Time limit to earn and use credits

Comment summary: The majority of stakeholders who commented on the VOC Tradeable Unit Credit Program are unhappy with the 1-year limit on the use of credits and requested a longer timeframe. Some stakeholders have suggested that earned credits should not be linked to a reformulation date.

Response: We have revised the VOC Tradeable Unit Credit Program and are proposing a 2-year timeframe to use credits. Manufacturers accepted into the program can earn credits with no link to a reformulation date if they continue to meet the requirements outlined in the proposed regulations such as reporting annually on quantities in Canada and demonstrating that overall their products are emissions-neutral, or reduced by averaging or trading.

Trading

Comment summary: A few stakeholders do not support the “trading” aspect of the VOC Tradeable Unit Credit Program because it will increase the cost and administrative burden for both governments and the regulated community.

Response: The trading provisions exist and are used by stakeholders under other CEPA regulations such as the Solvent Degreasing Regulations. Trading needs to be included in a proposed credit and trading program to ensure a level playing field for small enterprises with limited product lines.

Permit for products resulting in lesser VOC emissions

Inclusion of the permit

Comment summary: Stakeholders who commented on this permit, supported its inclusion.

Response: We are proposing the inclusion of a permit allowing products to exceed the VOC concentration limits if, as a result of product design, formulation, delivery or other factors, the total VOC emissions from that product would be lower than those from a comparable compliant product when used in accordance with the manufacturer’s written instructions.

Alignment with California Air Resources Board

Comment summary: A few stakeholders requested that Canada automatically allow the manufacture and import of products that are permitted under the innovative product exemption in California.

Response: We are unable to automatically exempt products that are exempted under the innovative product exemption in California. However, applicants may submit similar technical information provided to CARB as part of their application for a permit for a product resulting in lesser VOC emissions.

Comment summary: Two stakeholders requested exact alignment with CARB and the acceptance of CARB-approved innovative product permits.

Response: We are unable to accept CARB-approved permits for the product resulting in lesser VOC emissions permits as the Canadian VOC definition differs slightly from California’s definition.

Single Window Initiative managed by Canada Border Services Agency

Comment summary: One stakeholder asked if permits issued would be covered under the Single Window Initiative of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

Response: CBSA is looking to eventually include all regulations from all departments in the Single Window Initiative in order to go completely paperless at the border and to decrease the burden on importers/brokers. We are actively involved in integrating all regulations in the Single Window Initiative. The timeline for these particular proposed regulations is yet to be determined. Until then, permits issued under the proposed regulations would not need to be submitted to a CBSA officer at the border, but provided to enforcement officers when requested.

Permit when compliance is not technically or economically feasible

Inclusion of the permit

Comment summary: The majority of stakeholders who commented on this permit supported the initiative. One ENGO does not support this permit claiming that industry had more than ample time to prepare and conform to the limits of the proposed regulations, particularly in light of limits that have been in place in the United States for a number of years.

Response: A temporary permit regime for regulated products that would not meet the regulatory requirements for technical or economic reasons is included in the proposed regulations. A regulatee holding a permit could continue manufacturing or importing products if the conditions outlined in the proposed regulations are met. The temporary permits would be issued for up to two years, with the possibility of a two-year extension.

Permit validity timeline

Comment summary: The majority of stakeholders who commented on this permit supported a 2-year timeline with the possibility of an extension of 2 additional years. One ENGO suggested that permits be valid for a 2-year non-renewable period.

Response: We do not agree that there is a need to eliminate the permit regime, nor to adjust its timeline. The 2-year timeline with the possibility of a 2-year extension is consistent with the permit provisions found in the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Concentration Limits for Automotive Refinishing Products Regulations and the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Concentration Limits for Architectural Coatings Regulations.

Test methods

Comment summary: Most stakeholders are supportive of the proposal to not include mandatory testing. One stakeholder noted a preference for product formulation records to be used instead, while another suggested that 3rd-party testing be performed.

Response: While the regulatees would need to ensure that their products are in compliance, no mandatory testing requirements will be included in the revised proposed regulations. We will publish guidance materials to identify the test methods that will be used for enforcement purposes.

Labelling

Comment summary: A few stakeholders expressed support for the labelling proposal.One requested adoption of CARB labelling requirements so that they would not have to provide an explanation if the CARB standard is used. Other stakeholders requested that labels be required to include the product's VOC content and the regulatory limit.

Response: For enforcement purposes, the specific date of manufacture is required to ensure that products are compliant when these regulations come into force. Regulatees may use the YY DDD code as prescribed by CARB. The proposed regulations state we will also accept a manufacturing date code (e.g. a batch code) that represents the date of manufacture. If a code is used, an explanation of that code must be provided upon request. The addition of VOC content to product labels has not been proposed due to the costs associated with compliance.

Record keeping

Comment summary: Many stakeholders felt that the proposed requirements were too onerous and instead should be limited to data that is necessary to verify regulatory compliance. A number of stakeholders stated that records should not be required to be physically kept in Canada and that they should only need to be maintained for 3 years or less, instead of 5 as proposed. One company suggested alignment with other regulations such as the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001. It was also noted that VOC content should be included as one of the record keeping requirements.

Response: We consider the proposed record keeping provisions to be minimal and consistent with existing CEPA regulations as most of the information required would already be included in the bill of lading. The proposed record keeping provisions are required for enforcement officers to verify compliance with these regulations. Records must be kept at the stakeholder’s principal place of business in Canada or at any other place in Canada where they can be inspected by enforcement officers to verify compliance. Records must be kept for a period of at least 5 years after the day they are made.

Comments on the product categories

Contact adhesives

Comment summary: One stakeholder suggested changing the contact adhesive packaging limit to one gallon or less.

Response: The size limit for contact adhesives has been modified to align with the 2013 Ozone Transport Commission Model Rule for Consumer Products, as this limit is more in-line with industry standards across the United States. The VOC content limit for general-purpose contact adhesive would apply to adhesives packaged in a volume of less than 3.785 litres. The VOC content limit for special-purpose contact adhesive would apply to adhesives packaged in a volume of more than 236 ml but less than 3.785 litres.

Antiperspirants and deodorants

Comment summary: One stakeholder commented that ethanol should be exempt from antiperspirants and deodorants.

Response: For the antiperspirant and deodorant product categories, we are proposing to exclude:

VOCs that have a vapour pressure of 0.267 kPa or less when measured at 20 ^oC, or
if the vapour pressure is unknown, VOCs that contain more than 10 carbon atoms per molecule
colorants and fragrances that combined, constitute 2% or less of the product’s net weight
ethanol

Hair shine

Comment summary: One stakeholder suggested that the proposed definition is not clear on whether it includes dual-use shine products as under the CARB regulations.

Response: For the Hair Shine product category, the proposed definition aligns with California's intent to cover products whose primary purpose is to create a shine to the hair.

Hair spray

Comment summary: One stakeholder requested to verify that the terms "hold" and "holding" are intended to reflect and equate to the "finishing" elements as outlined in the CARB regulations.

Response: For the hair spray product category, California defines "finish" or "finishing" as maintaining and/or holding of previously styled hair for a period of time. Our proposed definition is in alignment with California's intent: "Hair spray, excluding spray products that aid in styling without holding the hair.”

Any hair styling products

Comment summary: One stakeholder suggested that the integration of hair styling gel into the generic “any hair styling product” category should be clearly indicated in any corresponding technical guidance documents.

Response: This product category is intended to capture all other hair styling products that are not specifically listed as product categories which would include hair styling gel.

Air freshener

Comment summary: One stakeholder requested an exemption for air fresheners that are comprised entirely of fragrance.

Response: To align with California’s Consumer Products Regulations, we are proposing to provide an exemption for air fresheners that consist entirely of fragrance and any combination of low vapour pressure VOCs and compounds other than VOCs.

Floor wax strippers and general-purpose cleaners

Comment summary: One stakeholder suggested the need for VOC limits to apply to final product dilutions.

Response: In the case of concentrated products requiring dilution before use, the limit would apply to the diluted product when diluted according to manufacturer’s written instructions supplied with the product. However, for multi-purpose solvents and paint thinners, limits are proposed to apply before dilution.

Furniture maintenance products

Comment summary: One stakeholder was concerned that non-VOC solvents would not perform properly and they would lose their business if the proposed VOC limit is enacted.

Response: The responses to the 2013 survey suggest that all products belonging to the furniture maintenance product category available on the Canadian market are compliant with the proposed limit. Since the proposed limit is also in line with CARB’s limit which has been in effect since 2008, it will be maintained.

Multi-purpose solvents and paint thinners

Comment summary: Many stakeholders did not support the use of future effective limits for the multi-purpose solvent and paint thinner product categories. Some stakeholders indicated that a 3% limit would pose safety issues as acetone would be used in compliant formulations. Other stakeholders do not want these product categories to be included in these proposed regulations.

Response: Due to high concentration products on the Canadian market, the limits for both the multi-purpose solvent and paint thinners categories have been modified to align with CARB’s previous concentration limit of 30%. This is still expected to achieve significant reductions. However, we may review the limits for both categories in the future.

Comment summary: Some stakeholders requested language similar to that used in CARB to clarify products exempted.

Response: We have made every effort to align the definitions in the proposed regulations with those of CARB, following the usual Canadian federal regulatory drafting conventions. For multi-purpose solvents and paint thinners, text regarding exclusions was added for clarification where necessary.

Canadian regulations are drafted in two languages and must be drafted in a way that can be interpreted in both languages, and under both the common and civil systems of law. As well, commonly understood terms and known dictionary definitions generally are not defined in regulations.

Multi-purpose lubricant

Comment Summary: One association recommended that we adopt CARB’s most recent VOC limit for multi-purpose lubricant product category, which is 25%.

Response: We recognize that significant challenges remain in reformulating multi-purpose lubricants to meet a 10% limit and we have modified the limit to 25% (w/w basis).

Acoustical sealant

Comment summary: One stakeholder requested the addition of an acoustical sealant product category as it is used in Canada and in the United States where freezing temperatures are experienced.

Response: We added a new category for acoustical sealant products because it is a vital component of exterior walls in cold weather. The limit for this new category is 10% VOCs by weight.

Sealant and caulking compounds

Comment summary: A number of stakeholders raised concerns about the technical feasibility of the proposed limits for chemically curing and non-chemically curing sealant and caulking compounds due to performance at the lowered VOC levels, and due to differences in climates. Other stakeholders have requested that we align with OTC rather than CARB.

Response: We have amended the limit for sealant and caulking compounds to align with the OTC limit of 4% for this product category.

Comment summary: One stakeholder suggested an exemption for insulated foam products.

Response: As noted in the 2013 consultation document, it is proposed that insulating foams be exempt from the sealants and caulking compounds product category.

Windshield washer fluid

Comment summary: Most stakeholders requested that a category for windshield washer fluid not be included in the proposed regulations. Others suggested the need for a higher limit ranging from 38% to 50% w/w VOC content. One stakeholder also noted that summer washer fluids are currently on the market with 4% VOC content.

Response: We have conducted an analysis based on quantities of windshield washer fluid and 10 years of weather data. Given it shows that at this time, achieving significant reductions in emissions of VOCs would necessitate setting a national limit that would not be appropriate for the Canadian climate, the category has been removed from the proposed regulations.

Incidental use exemption for hard-to-remove stains

Comment summary: One stakeholder recommended inclusion of the incidental use exemption for hard-to-remove stains.

Response: The VOC concentration of a product may not be greater than the limit set out in the schedule of the proposed regulations. In the case of concentrated products requiring dilution before use, the limit applies to the diluted product. An incidental use provision was not included in the proposed regulations to provide a level playing field for all products on the Canadian market, and to ensure that the VOC content limits apply to all regulated products once the products are diluted according to the manufacturer’s written instructions. However, manufacturers or importers may apply for a permit if proof is provided that incidental use of the concentrated product, pursuant to the manufacturer’s written instructions results in lower VOC emissions than for a comparable compliant product.

Disinfectants and sanitizers

Comment summary: One stakeholder was surprised that disinfectants would be included in the proposed regulations, but sanitizers would not.

Response: Sanitizers were not included in these proposed regulations because they are considered to be pesticides and therefore are regulated under the Pest Control Products Act. However, disinfectants are included in the proposed regulations, as they are not regulated under the Pest Control Products Act.

Comment summary: Three stakeholders requested a 3-year timeline for the coming into force of the VOC limit for disinfectants.

Response: We consulted with Health Canada and determined that typical approval processes take from four months to 1 year. They indicated that approvals for disinfectants should be provided within the 2-year period before these regulations come into force. However, an additional year is being proposed for the coming into force date of these regulations to take into account potential delays in approvals for disinfectants.

Page details

Date modified:: 2019-07-05