ILMA Compoundings May 2018 - 27

STATE ADOPTION AT A GLANCE
Nineteen states automatically codify the latest version of
the NCWM's NIST Handbook 130. They are: Arkansas,
Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Leiter said
those states account for more than one-quarter of the U.S.
population, so it is a significant amount.
Other states adopt by edition; they may need to take
additional action to adopt the changes so that marketers in
those areas would have more time to comply. Johnson said
the earliest possible effective date for Alaska, for example, is
mid-2018 and Arizona is October 2018, while Oregon will
likely have a late 2018 effective date.
California has taken a different approach to ATFs.
California has had the authority to regulate automatic
transmission fluids since 1962, said Allan Morrison, senior
environmental scientist, supervisor, division of measurement standard at the California Department of Food and
Agriculture. "At that time there were only three ATFs on the
market," he explained. "The law basically started out stating
that you had to label the can with the duty type and you
had to meet whatever specification you claimed."
In 2016, the Department of Food and Agriculture's
Division of Measurement Standards (DMS) started a public
workshop process to address a set of petroleum product
requirements in AB 808, including transmission fluid.
Morrison said California struck the requirements that it
be for ATF as part of AB 808 and simply called it "transmission fluid," dropping the word "automatic," which he felt
was hindering the industry. "AB 808 opened up the labeling
to different types of transmissions," he said. "As far as the
duty type of OEM specification, it didn't change how we
were looking at those products."
"They initially proposed codifying an interpretation they
started enforcing in 2015 that favored OEM-brand products
and put at risk the future of multiuse products," Johnson
said. "The crux of the matter was a labeling requirement
that turned into a market-busting quality mandate, as their
concept of acceptable quality was linked directly to meeting
OEM proprietary fluid specifications rather than the normal
lubricant industry testing process to demonstrate fluid
quality 'suitable for use' in specified equipment."
Johnson said that because of "ferocious industry
objection" to that approach, the agency carved out the
transmission fluid regulations to be addressed in a separate
rulemaking. "The last information received from DMS is
that they anticipate public workshops to begin in June,

which means the earliest possible effective date of any resulting regulations would be 2019," she said.
Currently, the requirement to meet the OEM specification
in California is still there, and it is being enforced as it always
has been. "Any claim made on the label or product data sheet
has to be met," Morrison said. "When somebody makes a
claim on meeting an OEM specification, our law requires you
to meet that OEM specification. We interpret the label on
anything that says it meets, is recommended for, or suitable
for to mean this product meets this specification."
Under AB 808, California is given the authority to adopt the
method of sale in Handbook 130 for fuels, motor oils and gear
oils, but nothing more. However, the state could use Handbook
130 as a guide when establishing regulations, Morrison said.
Morrison said he is interested in industry feedback. "I would
like to put together a workshop, but I'd like to have it be more
than me just talking," he said. "If the ILMA members can
communicate to me their concerns and give me information,
that will help me be able to put together their workshop."
Morrison said ILMA members are welcome to contact him
at allan.morrison@cdfa.ca.gov or 916-229-3046. "We try to
work with the industry as much as we can," he said, adding
that he tried to put together a working group or consensus
ATF through SAE, but neither the additive suppliers nor the
OEMs wanted to participate. "It was disheartening."
ILMA members should treat California differently than
everyone else right now because of the way it interprets
the statute, Leiter said. "They've never gone forward and
finalized everything," he explained. "In the meantime, the
one issue in California is that folks have been marketing
multivehicle fluids and have segregated the market into the
high-viscosity and low-viscosity market."
California remains a wild card, Leiter said. "You have the
weights and measures interpreting their standards as having
you list every transmission you claim you meet," he explained.
"Our enforcement is based on California statue," Morrison said, "and requires that any OEM claim on the label
be met. We see cases of transmission fluids that are totally
inadequate for their claim. We have to walk the line of what
the aftermarket says is suitable for use and what the fraudulent market is doing, to protect everybody."
The DMS has indicated that it plans to cherry-pick
preferred requirements from the 2018 NIST Handbook 130
rather than adopting it wholesale. "Based on past experience,
it is likely they remain interested in challenging multiuse
products with labels indicating coverage of both low- and
high-viscosity fluid standards, as well as the use of transmission
fluid additive products referred to as 'converters,'" Johnson said.
Ferrick said California will also have to identify how
it's going to enforce the requirements. "They are using

ILMA Compoundings May 2018

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of ILMA Compoundings May 2018