California Environmental Protection Agency 

 Air Resources Board

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION 

Release Date: 

May 9, 2008

State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION

To be considered by the Air Resources Board at a 

Public Hearing on June 26, 2008, at: 

Byron Sher Auditorium 

Air Resources Board, Cal/EPA Headquarters 

1001 I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Air Resources Board 

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

This report has been prepared by the staff of the California Air Resources Board. 

Publication does not signify that the contents reflect the views and policies of the 

Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products 

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION 

Prepared by: 

Stationary Source Division 

Air Resources Board 

Reviewed by: 

Carla D. Takemoto, Manager, Technical Evaluation Section 

David Mallory, P.E., Manager, Measures Development Section 

Judy Yee, Manager, Implementation Section 

Janette M. Brooks, Chief, Air Quality Measures Branch 

Robert Barham, Ph.D., Assistant Chief, Stationary Source Division 

Robert Fletcher, P.E., Chief, Stationary Source Division 

May 9, 2008

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report and the proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation were 

developed by the following Air Resources Board staff: 

Olufemi Olaluwoye (Lead) 

Katherine Akins 

Jeff Austin 

Robert Barrera 

Nicholas Berger 

John Constantino 

Richard Corey, M.B.A 

Deborah Drechsler, Ph.D. 

Barbara Fry 

Steve Giorgi 

Marline Hicks 

Trish Johnson 

Deborah Kerns, Esq. 

Jennifer Kiger 

Marja-Liisa Magnuson 

Reza Mahdavi, Ph.D. 

Nehzat Motallebi, Ph.D. 

Tina Najjar 

Jasmine Nguyen 

Jose Saldana 

Linda Smith, Ph.D. 

Hien Tran, Ph.D. 

Maryana Visina 

Zuzana Vona 

Barbara Weller, Ph.D. 

Evan Wong 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .................................................................................................. ES-1

A. Authority to Regulate Consumer Products ..................................................... ES-2

B. Existing Regulations ....................................................................................... ES-3

C. Regulatory Development Process .................................................................. ES-3

D. Emissions ....................................................................................................... ES-4

E. Emission Reduction Mandates ....................................................................... ES-6

F. Estimated Emissions from Categories Proposed to be Regulated ................. ES-8

G. Summary of Proposed Amendments.............................................................. ES-8

H. Compliance with the Proposed Amendments............................................... ES-16

I. Economic Impacts ........................................................................................ ES-18

J. Environmental Impacts ................................................................................. ES-21

K. Future Plans ................................................................................................. ES-23

L. Recommendation ......................................................................................... ES-23

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

A. Overview .............................................................................................................. 1

B. Enabling Legislation ............................................................................................. 2

C. Background .......................................................................................................... 3

II. Development of Proposed Amendments................................................................. 9

A. Public Process for Developing Proposed Limits ................................................... 9

B. Staff Evaluation of Emission Reduction Opportunities........................................ 11

C. Alternatives Considered ..................................................................................... 12

III. Statutory Requirements for Emission Reductions................................................. 14

A. VOC Reductions................................................................................................. 14

B. GHG Reductions ................................................................................................ 15

C. Technological and Commercial Feasibility of VOC Limits .................................. 15

D. Requirements of AB 32 ...................................................................................... 17

E. Compliance with the Proposed Amendments..................................................... 22

IV. Emissions.............................................................................................................. 26

A. Criteria Pollutants and Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................... 26

B. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006........................................ 34
ii 

C. Importance of Regulating Consumer Products................................................... 37

D. Estimated Emissions from Categories Proposed to be Regulated ..................... 42

V. Proposed Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation ............................ 51

A. Definitions (Section 94508) ................................................................................ 51

B. Standards for Consumer Products (Section 94509) ........................................... 54

C. Exemptions (Section 94510 (h) and (l)).............................................................. 59

D. Administrative Requirements (Section 94512).................................................... 59

E. Reporting Requirements (Section 94513) .......................................................... 59

F. Test Methods (Section 94515)............................................................................ 60

VI. Description of Product Categories......................................................................... 62

A. Categories for which VOC Limits are Proposed ................................................. 62

B. Categories for which a Greenhouse Gas Limit is Proposed ............................. 140

VII. Economic Impacts............................................................................................... 148

A. Introduction....................................................................................................... 148

B. Summary of Findings........................................................................................ 149

C. Economic Impacts Analysis on California Businesses, Consumers, and 

Employment...................................................................................................... 151

D. Analysis of Potential Impacts to California State or Local Agencies................. 158

E. Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness (C.E.) of the Proposed Limits..................... 159

F. Analysis of the Impacts to Raw Materials Cost................................................. 166

G. Analysis of the Combined Impacts on Per-Unit Cost from Recurring and 

Nonrecurring Costs........................................................................................... 170

H. Other Possible Economic Impacts from Proposed Amendments ..................... 173

I. Mitigation of Potential Impacts through Additional Regulatory Flexibility.......... 175

VIII. Environmental Impacts........................................................................................ 179

A. Legal Requirements Applicable to the Analysis................................................ 179

B. Summary of Proposed Amendments................................................................ 180

C. Summary of Impacts on Atmospheric Processes ............................................. 181

D. Other Potential Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 191

E. Analysis of Reasonably Foreseeable Mitigation Measures .............................. 194

F. Risk Assessment for Reduced Exposure to Ozone and TACs ......................... 201

G. Alternative Means of Compliance..................................................................... 202

H. Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 202
iii 

IX. Future and Ongoing Activities ............................................................................. 207

A. Consumer Product Emissions Reduction Commitments in the 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP)................................................................................ 207

B. Greenhouse Gas Reductions from Consumer Products................................... 207

C. Review and Compilation of the 2006 Consumer Products Survey ................... 207

D. Paint and Lacquer Thinner Workplan ............................................................... 208

E. Nail Coatings Workplan .................................................................................... 208

F. Innovative Emission Reduction Strategies ....................................................... 209
iv 

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1 Global Warming Potential of Selected Compounds Used in .................. 

Consumer Products........................................................................ ES-6

Table ES-2 Proposed New and Modified Definitions....................................... ES-10

Table ES-3 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective ............ 

Date.............................................................................................. ES-12

Table ES-4 Summary of Complying Products and Complying ................................. 

Marketshares................................................................................ ES-17

Table III-1 Summary of Complying Products and Complying Marketshares........ 24

Table IV-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5................. 29

Table IV-2 Global Warming Potential of Selected Compounds used in .................. 

Consumer Products............................................................................ 41

Table IV-3 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective ............ 

Date.................................................................................................... 44

Table IV-4 Pressurized Gas Duster ..................................................................... 45

Table V-1 New Definitions Proposed for Addition ............................................... 52

Table V-2 Existing Definitions Proposed for Modification.................................... 53

Table V-3 Proposed VOC Limit, Product Forms, and Effective Dates ................ 55

Table VI-1 Astringent/Toner................................................................................. 63

Table VI-2 Astringent/Toner Proposal.................................................................. 64

Table VI-3 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner................................................................. 67

Table VI-4 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner Proposal.................................................. 69

Table VI-5 Dusting Aid ......................................................................................... 72

Table VI-6 Dusting Aid Proposal.......................................................................... 74

Table VI-7 Fabric Protectant ................................................................................ 75

Table VI-8 Fabric Protectant Proposal................................................................. 76

Table VI-9 Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product....................................... 79

Table VI-10 Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product Proposal........................ 82

Table VI-11 Floor Maintenance Product ................................................................ 86

Table VI-12 Floor Maintenance Product Proposal ................................................. 87

Table VI-13 Floor Polish or Wax: Wood Floor Wax............................................... 89

Table VI-14 Floor Polish or Wax: Wood Floor Wax Proposal ............................... 90
v 

Table VI-15 Glass Cleaner – aerosol..................................................................... 91

Table VI-16 Glass Cleaner – aerosol Proposal...................................................... 92

Table VI-17 Motor Vehicle Wash ........................................................................... 94

Table Vl-18 Motor Vehicle Wash Proposal ............................................................ 95

Table VI-19 Multi-purpose Lubricant...................................................................... 97

Table VI-20 Multi-purpose Lubricant Proposal..................................................... 100

Table VI-21 Odor Eliminator/Remover ................................................................. 104

Table VI-22 Odor Eliminator/Remover Proposal.................................................. 105

Table VI-23 Penetrant.......................................................................................... 106

Table VI-24 Penetrant Proposal........................................................................... 108

Table VI-25 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percent or less 

fragrance)......................................................................................... 112

Table VI-26 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percent or less 

fragrance) Proposal.......................................................................... 114

Table VI-27 Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol) ................................. 119

Table VI-28a Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound ....................... 

(non-aerosol) Subcategory Proposal................................................ 124

Table VI-28b Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol) 

Subcategory Proposal ...................................................................... 124

Table VI-29 Spot Remover .................................................................................. 129

Table VI-30 Spot Remover Proposal ................................................................... 131

Table VI-31 Tire or Wheel Cleaner ...................................................................... 135

Table Vl-32 Tire or Wheel Cleaner Proposal ....................................................... 137

Table VI-33 Windshield Water Repellent ............................................................. 138

Table VI-34 Windshield Water Repellent Proposal .............................................. 139

Table VI-35 Pressurized Gas Duster ................................................................... 142

Table VI-36a Pressurized Gas Duster GHG Proposal ........................................... 144

Table VI-36b Pressurized Gas Duster VOC Proposal............................................ 145

Table VII-1 Industries with Businesses Potentially Affected by the Proposed .......... 

Limits................................................................................................ 153

Table VII-2 Estimated Total Impacts to Businesses from Both Annualized 

Nonrecurring and Annual Recurring Costs....................................... 155

Table VII-3 Changes in Return on Owner’s Equity (ROEs) for Typical .................... 

Businesses in Affected Industries..................................................... 156

Table VII-4 California Employment and Payroll in Affected Industries ................ 159
vi 

Table VII-5 Estimated Total Nonrecurring Fixed Costs to Comply with .................... 

Proposed Limits................................................................................ 165

Table VII-6 Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for ARB Consumer Product 

Regulations/Measures...................................................................... 166

Table VII-7 Estimated Impacts to Raw Materials Cost Per Unit .......................... 168

Table VII-8 Comparison of Raw Materials Cost Impacts for the Proposed .............. 

Limits and Other ARB Consumer Product Regulations ......................... 

(unadjusted dollars).......................................................................... 170

Table VII-9 Estimated Per-Unit Cost Increases from Both Annualized 

Nonrecurring and Annual Recurring Costs....................................... 174

Table VIII-1 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective ............ 

Date.................................................................................................. 183

Table VIII-2 Pollutant-Specific Health Effects Values Used for Determining 

Potential Health Impacts................................................................... 195
vii 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES-1 Consumer Products VOC Emission Trends ................................... ES-5

Figure IV-1 2007 Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards ......... 

OZONE............................................................................................... 30

Figure IV-2 South Coast Air Basin Ozone Trend................................................... 31

Figure IV-3 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Ozone Trend........................................ 32

Figure IV-4 2007 Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

PM2.5................................................................................................. 33

Figure IV-5 Consumer Products VOC Emission Trends ....................................... 39
viii 

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Technical Support Document 

Appendix B: Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Emissions from 

Consumer Products 

Appendix C: Summary of Consumer Products Regulatory Actions 

Appendix D: Summary of Ingredient Reformulation Costs 

Appendix E: Acronyms Used in This Report 
State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the 

California Consumer Products Regulation 

Executive Summary 

Executive Summary - 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 In this rulemaking, California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff is 

proposing amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation that are designed to 

reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) and air toxic emissions. The proposed 

amendments would also reduce the global warming potential (GWP) of greenhouse gas 

(GHG) compounds used in a specific product category. The regulation is codified in title 

17, California Code of Regulations, sections 94507-94517. The proposed amendments 

to reduce VOC emissions would partially fulfill the consumer products reduction 

commitment contained in the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation 

Plan (Strategy) to meet the federal ozone standard. The proposed amendment to 

reduce the use of compounds with high GWP is designed in accordance with the 

Discrete Early Action Measure requirements as set forth in the California Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). 

 The proposed amendments would set new VOC limits for multiple product 

categories. When fully implemented, about 5.8 tons per day VOC emission reduction 

would be achieved. The proposed amendments would also set the first GWP limit for 

consumer products. Reductions in the use of compounds with high GWP is equivalent 

to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 0.20 million metric tons (MMT CO2e) per year. 

Air toxics emissions would be reduced by about 0.2 tons per day by prohibiting the use 

of certain chlorinated toxic air contaminants (TAC) in seven categories. 

 As proposed, other amendments would exempt a compound from the definition 

of VOC, and language modifications would clarify and improve existing regulatory 

provisions. 

 In developing the proposal, staff evaluated the economic and environmental 

impacts. Staff found that the proposed amendments should result in an overall 

environmental benefit in that exposure to ground-level ozone and TACs would be 

reduced. Reducing the use of compounds with high GWP would have a beneficial 

impact on climate change. No significant adverse environmental or economic impacts 

were identified. 

 This Executive Summary, together with Appendix A, the Technical Support 

Document, is the Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking required by the 

California Administrative Procedures Act. Appendix B contains the regulation with the 

proposed changes shown in underline and strikeout form. 

 Among other things, this Executive Summary, provides a description of the staff’s 

proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation, and explains the 

rationale for the proposed changes. In accordance with Government Code 

section 11346.2(a)(1), Chapter V of the Technical Support Document (Appendix A) 

provides a “plain English” summary of the proposal in more detail. 

 
Executive Summary - 2 

A. AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CONSUMER PRODUCTS

 Consumer products are chemically formulated products used by household and 

institutional consumers. Examples include detergents; cleaning products; floor finishes; 

personal care products; lawn and garden products; disinfectants; automotive specialty 

products; and aerosol paints. 

 The Health and Safety Code sets forth ARB’s authority to regulate consumer 

products to control VOCs and GHGs. Section 41712 specifies requirements to reduce 

VOC emissions as a ground-level ozone control strategy. Section 38500 et seq., 

establishes authority to reduce the impacts of GHGs used in consumer products to slow 

climate change. 

1. Health and Safety Code section 41712 

In 1988, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA or “the Act”) added section 41712 to 

the California Health and Safety Code. Section 41712, along with subsequent 

amendments, requires ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible 

reduction in VOC emissions from consumer products. The CCAA specified that 

attainment of the California State ambient air quality standard is necessary to promote 

and protect public health, particularly of children, older people, and those with 

respiratory diseases. The Legislature also directed that these standards be attained by 

the earliest practicable date. 

Prior to adoption, the Board must determine that adequate data exist to establish 

that the regulations are necessary to attain State and federal ambient air quality 

standards; and the regulations are commercially and technologically feasible. The Act 

further stipulates that regulations adopted must not eliminate any product form, and that 

recommendations from health professionals be considered when developing VOC 

control measures for health benefit products. The intent of section 41712 is primarily to 

reduce ground-level ozone concentrations. 

2. Health and Safety Code section 38500 et seq.

 In 2006, AB 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was 

signed into law. This law created a comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce GHG 

emissions in California. Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 38500, 

contains the provisions. AB 32 requires ARB to develop regulations and consider 

market-based compliance mechanisms that will ultimately restore California’s GHG 

emissions to the 1990 baseline year by 2020. Beyond the requirements of AB 32, the 

Governor’s Executive Order EO-S-03-05 calls for an additional GHG reduction of 

80 percent by 2050. 

AB 32, among other things, requires immediate progress, described as Discrete 

Early Action Measures, to reduce GHGs. Discrete Early Action Measures are defined 

as regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions that become enforceable by 
Executive Summary - 3 

January 1, 2010. Reduction of compounds with high GWP that are used in consumer 

products has been designated as a Discrete Early Action Measure. 

B. EXISTING REGULATIONS 

 Over the last twenty years, the Board has taken numerous actions to fulfill the 

legislative mandate pertaining to the regulation of consumer products. Three 

regulations have been adopted that affect 115 consumer product categories by setting 

150 VOC limits. These limits, when fully effective, will have resulted in reducing 

emissions by about 200 tons per day, an overall 44 percent reduction in VOC 

emissions. We have also reduced exposure to TACs. Emissions of TACs have been 

reduced by 13 tons per day by prohibiting use of chlorinated compounds in 

63 categories. In addition, two voluntary regulations, the Alternative Control Plan and 

the Hairspray Credit Program have been adopted to provide compliance flexibility to 

companies. These five regulations are codified in title 17, California Code of 

Regulations, sections 94500 to 94575. 

C. REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

 In order to involve the public, the Consumer Products Regulation Workgroup 

(CPRWG), was established in 2004. Participation in the CPRWG was open to any 

member of the public. The CPRWG participated in the development of the 

2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Survey), which serves as the 

basis for this proposal. The CPRWG was instrumental in the development of the 2004 

and 2006 amendments, as well as these proposed amendments. Consumer product 

manufacturers, chemical producers, marketers, trade associations, environmental 

groups, air districts, and various other stakeholders, have all actively participated. 

 Further outreach, beyond the CPRWG, was conducted to identify and involve 

stakeholders in the development of the Discrete Early Action Measure for GHG 

reductions. For example, in February 2008, ARB conducted a survey for the 

Pressurized Gas Duster category to update sales and formulation data for the 

2007 calendar year (ARB, 2008c). 

The categories proposed for regulation in this rulemaking were deferred from 

consideration as part of the 2006 rulemaking. During that rulemaking, numerous issues 

were raised that required additional evaluation and analysis in these categories. In 

addition to the outreach for the 2006 rulemaking, where proposals for these categories 

were initially discussed, a public CPRWG meeting and a public workshop were 

conducted on August 29, 2007 and March 5, 2008, respectively. Prior to meetings, staff 

posted materials for review and comment to the CPRWG activity website. 
Executive Summary - 4 

D. EMISSIONS 

Although each consumer product may seem to be a small source of emissions, 

the cumulative use of these products by over 37 million Californians results in significant 

emissions (CA DOF, 2007). 

 1. VOC Emissions 

Consumer products are a significant source of VOC emissions in California and 

contribute to the formation of both ground-level ozone and particulate matter pollution. 

This section, however, focuses on reducing emissions from consumer products as a 

ground-level ozone control strategy. As evidence of the magnitude of consumer 

product VOC emissions, it is estimated that in 2010 consumer products emissions will 

be approximately 243 tons per day, or about 12 percent of the overall VOC inventory. 

In this same year, consumer product emissions will comprise about 18 and 7 percent of 

VOC emissions in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), respectively. Without 

further actions, consumer product emissions are expected to grow to approximately 

270 tons per day in 2020, representing 14 percent of statewide VOC emissions 

(ARB, 2007h). 

 As control measures for other VOC sources (i.e. on-road motor vehicles) become 

effective, consumer product emissions become more important in the SCAQMD. In 

fact, it is estimated that emissions from consumer products will be the number one 

source of VOC emissions in the SCAQMD in 2020. While the ozone forming potential 

of consumer product emissions is less than some other source categories (for e.g., 

mobile sources), clearly, further reductions in VOC emissions from consumer products 

and other VOC sources are needed, if ozone attainment is to be achieved. 

Despite these projections, ARB’s consumer products program is a success story. 

Since 1989, regulations adopted by the ARB, and subsequent amendments, have 

significantly reduced VOC emissions from consumer products. Absent these 

regulations today, consumer product emissions would likely be over 440 tons per day. 

Figure ES-1 shows that statewide consumer product VOC emissions will have been 

reduced by over 200 tons per day in 2010. However, Figure ES-1 also shows that 

without further actions population growth would likely reverse the trend. 
Executive Summary - 5 

230

260

290

320

350

380

410

440

470

500

530

560

1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Year

Emissions (tpd)

Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th an d e m ission red uctions )

Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th o nly )

200 tpd

*Includes 2006 CP Regulation Amendments Data

Figure ES-1 

Consumer Products VOC Emission Trends 

 The emission values in Figure ES-1 are derived from several data sources. 

Emissions for 1990 to 2006 are taken from the ARB Forecasted Emissions by Summary 

Category, 2007 Almanac (ARB, 2007h). Emissions are then grown in proportion to 

population increase. Population growth is in accordance with estimates in the California 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found 

in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). For categories regulated in 

the 2006 Consumer Products Amendments, emission values from the 2003 Survey and 

the projected emissions reductions resulting from the VOC limits approved in 2006, are 

reflected in the Figure. 

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Greenhouse gas emissions from consumer products are small relative to other 

sources, such as vehicle exhaust. However, the magnitude of the climate change 

problem justifies reductions from both large and small sources, wherever such measures 

are feasible and cost-effective. While staff is still in the process of developing the 

consumer product GHG inventory, we do know from past surveys that several 

compounds with high GWP are used in consumer products. 

Consumer products use various GHGs, mostly as propellants. To a much lesser 

degree, several solvents with fairly high GWPs are used. The propellants are typically 

low photochemically reactive compounds that are exempt VOCs. They have been used 

as a reformulation strategy to reduce VOC content. Compounds of interest include 
Executive Summary - 6 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluoroethers 

(HFEs), carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrous oxide (N2O). However, the propellants 

HFC-134a and HFC-152a are the predominate GHGs used in consumer products today. 

Compressed CO2 is also used as a propellant, but the GHG emissions are negligible 

compared to the emissions from HFCs. Table ES-1 shows some examples of GHGs 

that are used in consumer products. 

Table ES-1 

Global Warming Potential of Selected Compounds Used in Consumer Products 

Compound SAR GWP* FAR GWP** 

CO2 1 1 

HFE-7200 N/A 59 

HFC-152a 140 124 

HCFC-141b N/A 725 

HFC-134a 1300 1430 

HFC-43 10mee 1300 1640 

* 100 year timeframe, IPCC Second Assessment Report value 

** 100 year timeframe, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report value 

Using the values in Table ES-1, we see that the GWP for HFC-134a is 

approximately ten times greater than the GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than 

CO2. Reductions in the use of HFC-134a are being pursued in this rulemaking. 

 

 GHG emissions data are available from a 2003 Survey of consumer products. 

Staff has evaluated these data for possible GHG reductions and development of new 

regulations for this rulemaking. In the 2006 Survey, we collected information from 

manufacturers of consumer products to determine the usage of compounds with high 

GWP in additional categories of consumer products. Staff will use the 2006 Survey 

data to develop the GHG inventory for consumer products, and evaluate the data for 

product categories where compounds with high GWP are used to determine if there is a 

potential to reduce their use without increasing the use of VOCs. 

E. EMISSION REDUCTION MANDATES 

Reduction of VOCs and GHGs are necessary to attain California’s ambient air 

quality standards and climate change reduction goals, respectively. The role of 

consumer products to meet these mandates is described in this section. 

 1. Consumer Products and California’s State Implementation Plan 

In 1988, with the passing of the CCAA, the importance of controlling emissions 

from consumer products was set forth. To meet the federal standards, in 1994 emission 

reductions from consumer products became part of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for ozone. In this SIP, consumer products measures were put in place to 

work towards attaining the federal peak one-hour ambient air quality standard for ozone. 

In 2003 SIP, ARB again reiterated the commitment to reduce consumer products VOC 

emissions to meet the one-hour federal ozone standard. 
Executive Summary - 7 

In response to these mandates, three regulations with 150 VOC limits for 

115 categories of consumer products (including antiperspirants and deodorants and 

36 aerosol coatings categories) have been established to date. The adopted limits will 

achieve a 44 percent reduction in overall VOC emissions from consumer products by 

the year 2010. 

The 2003 SIP was withdrawn, however, the remaining consumer product 

emission reduction commitment was incorporated into the Strategy, which includes 

California’s plan to attain the national ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) 

averaged over eight-hours. In the Strategy, ARB has committed to an additional 30 to 

40 tons per day VOC reduction from consumer products by 2014. Under the 

commitment, rulemakings are to occur in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe with reductions 

occurring between 2010 to 2012. Further rulemakings between 2010 and 2012, with 

implementation dates in the 2012 to 2014 timeframe, are to complete the emission 

reduction commitment. 

The Strategy also acknowledges that VOC reductions from consumer products 

are becoming more difficult to achieve. In light of this, the Strategy includes a 

commitment to explore innovative reduction strategies in the longer term. These 

measures would include investigating emission reduction opportunities through 

reactivity-based standards and alternative market-based mechanisms. If these 

mechanisms cannot produce meaningful emission reductions from the consumer 

products source category, then other approaches would be evaluated. Some of these 

approaches include the purchase of VOC credits; and funding of special projects to 

reduce emissions or accelerate reductions from pollution sources outside of the 

consumer products industry. 

The amendments proposed in this rulemaking are intended to partially fulfill the 

Strategy commitment for VOC reductions from consumer products. 

2. Discrete Early Action Measures and Scoping Plan 

Among other things, AB 32 requires ARB to design and adopt an overall Scoping 

Plan, by January 1, 2009, that identifies how GHG emissions can be reduced back to 

1990 levels. AB 32 additionally recognizes that immediate progress in reducing GHG 

emissions can and should be made. Accordingly, AB 32 required ARB to identify a list 

of “Discrete Early Action GHG Reduction Measures” by June 30, 2007. Discrete Early 

Actions are Board adopted regulations to reduce GHG emissions that become legally 

effective by January 1, 2010. These measures are to become part of the State’s 

comprehensive strategy for achieving GHG reductions. Beyond the requirements of 

AB 32, the Governor’s Executive Order EO-S-03-05 calls for an additional GHG 

reduction of 80 percent by 2050. 

 In June 2007, ARB approved a list of early action GHG reduction measures. 

Additions to the list were approved by the Board at its October 2007 hearing. A subset 
Executive Summary - 8 

of these early action measures was identified as “Discrete Early Action Measures.” One 

of the approved Discrete Early Action Measures designated in the Early Action Report 

calls for the reduction in use of high GWP GHGs in consumer products. The measure 

was estimated to achieve an emissions reduction of 0.25 MMT CO2e per year from 

consumer products (ARB, 2007b). 

 The objective of the Consumer Products Discrete Early Action Measure is to 

reduce the use of compounds with high GWP when alternatives are available. To 

achieve reductions of GHG emissions, consumer product formulations would need to be 

changed to reduce or eliminate the use of compounds with high GWPs. The reduction 

in use of compounds with high GWP in consumer products is a long-term effort. We are 

continuing to develop an emission inventory that will be used to evaluate reduction 

opportunities. 

 We are proposing a GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster products. If adopted 

by ARB, this will be the first GWP limit in place for consumer products. In future 

rulemakings, staff anticipates developing proposals for reductions of GHGs from other 

consumer product categories. 

F. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM CATEGORIES PROPOSED TO BE 

REGULATED 

 The 2003 Survey serves as the basis for the proposed amendments to reduce 

VOC emissions. The 2003 Survey provided staff with detailed information on the 

formulations of consumer products, including complete speciation of VOCs, low vapor 

pressure VOC (LVP-VOC) solvents, and key exempt ingredients. Total volumes of 

inorganic and other compounds were also provided. Information on sales, product form, 

customer types, and company size and economics were also included. For this 

rulemaking, the 2008 emissions and reduction estimates for 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 

and 2015 were grown from 2003 sales data and the state Department of Finance’s 

population estimates. Annual population growth factors were calculated using the 2008 

State population figures and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(Cal/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicle 

Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). We estimate that the categories proposed for VOC 

regulation contribute about 22.6 tons per day of 2008 VOC emissions. 

The GHG emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters are estimated to be 

0.37 MMT CO2e per year. This estimate is based on the results of the Pressurized Gas 

Duster Survey update collected in February, 2008 (ARB, 2008a). 

G. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

 

 First of all, to reflect that the “Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compounds 

from Consumer Products” now contains requirements for both VOC and GHG 

reductions, we are proposing to rename the regulation. As proposed, the regulation 

would be re-titled “Regulation to Reduce Emissions from Consumer Products.” 
Executive Summary - 9 

 Amendments are being proposed to six sections in the Consumer Products 

Regulation: section 94508 “Definitions,” section 94509 “Standards for Consumer 

Products,” section 94510 “Exemptions,” section 94512 "Administrative Requirements,” 

section 94513 “Reporting Requirements,” and section 94515 “Test Methods.” In 

addition to the amendments described below, a number of non-substantive grammatical 

and organizational changes are also proposed. Chapter V of the Technical Support 

Document contains more complete information on each proposal. 

1. Definitions (Section 94508) 

 Section 94508, “Definitions,” provides all the terms used in the Consumer 

Products Regulation which are not self-explanatory. As shown in Table ES-2, the 

proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation include new or revised 

definitions. These definitions are necessary to define categories proposed for VOC 

limits or greenhouse gas limits, or to improve enforceability of the Consumer Products 

Regulation. Note that a number of categories have been previously regulated and we 

are now proposing lower VOC limits. Several definitions require further clarification. 

Global Warming Potential and Global Warming Potential Value: We are 

proposing new definitions for Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Global Warming 

Potential Value (GWP Value). These definitions are necessary to implement our 

proposal to reduce the use of compounds with high GWPs in Pressurized Gas Dusters. 

We are using the GWP definition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC). GWP provides a measure of a compound’s impact on global warming 

compared to CO2. The GWP Value definition specifies that the IPCC Second 

Assessment Report (SAR) would be used to determine GWP values (IPCC, 1996). To 

enforce the proposal for reducing the use of compounds with high GWP, the definition 

would further specify that, if the SAR does not contain a GWP value for a specific 

chemical or compound, then the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) GWP value for 

that chemical or compound will be used. If there is no GWP value listed for a chemical 

or compound in the SAR or the FAR, then the GWP value will be assumed to be equal 

to the applicable GWP limit (i.e. the GWP limit established for specific consumer 

product categories), for the purpose of determining compliance with any GWP limit. 

 Pressurized Gas Duster Definition: Currently, the definition for Pressurized Gas 

Duster describes a product used to remove dust on surfaces that cannot be cleaned 

with a solvent. In developing the proposal for Pressurized Gas Dusters, staff became 

aware that there are certain niche uses of these products where flammability is a 
Executive Summary-10 

Table ES-2 

Proposed New and Modified Definitions

Previously Unregulated Categories with New VOC Limits

Astringent/Toner Odor Remover/Eliminator 

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer 

Product 

Pressurized Gas Duster 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner 

Floor Maintenance Product Windshield Water Repellent 

Motor Vehicle Wash 

Previously Regulated Category with Lower Limit 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner 

Dusting Aid 

Personal Fragrance Product (products 

 with 20% or less Fragrance) 

Fabric Protectant 

Floor Polish or Wax --Wood Floor Wax 

Sealant or Caulking Compound-- 

 Chemically Curing 

Glass Cleaner 

Multi-Purpose Lubricant 

Sealant or Caulking Compound-- 

 Non-chemically Curing 

 Penetrant Spot Remover 

Other New or Modified Definitions 

Existing Product Lubricant 

Disinfectant Metal Polish/Cleanser 

Fabric Refresher Not for Retail Sale 

Global Warming Potential Volatile Organic Compound 

Global Warming Potential Value 

concern. These products rely on a non-flammable propellant with a high GWP. At the 

present time, no technology exists that would maintain this non-flammable aspect if 

these products were mandated to comply with our proposed GWP limit for this category. 

Therefore, we are proposing a modification to the definition for Pressurized Gas Duster 

to exclude products used on energized equipment as long as the Principal Display 

Panel specifies “Energized Equipment use only.” As proposed, products so-labeled 

would neither be subject to the GWP limit nor the VOC limit. 

 Not for Retail Sale: The current regulation includes several provisions where an 

exemption from compliance is provided if certain criteria are met. For example, General 

Purpose Degreasers and Lubricants are not subject to VOC limits if they are sold 

exclusively to establishments which manufacture or construct good or commodities and 

are labeled “not for retail sale.” Staff has received numerous inquiries as to what “not 

for retail sale” means. Therefore, staff is proposing to define this term. As proposed, 

Not for Retail Sale means that a product is sold exclusively to establishments that 

manufacture or construct goods or commodities, or are products sold to holders of 

commercial licenses (e.g. an electrician). For purposes of the regulation, “Not for Retail 

Sale” means the product is not sold in retail outlets or wholesale locations where 

household consumers may purchase it. 
Executive Summary -11 

VOC Definition: We are proposing to modify the definition of VOC to exclude 

hydrofluoroether (HFE) 7200. HFE 7200 is a solvent used in precision cleaning. In a 

report titled “Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals” 

ARB staff determined that use of HFE 7200 has negligible impacts on ground-level 

ozone formation. It also has a fairly low GWP. No other adverse impacts were 

identified (ARB, 2008b). Therefore, to provide an additional reformulation option that 

could result in further VOC reductions, staff believes the exemption is appropriate.

2. Proposed Amendments to Section 94509 

 

 Table of Standards: The proposed regulatory action would amend the existing 

Consumer Products Regulation by specifying VOC limits for the product categories 

shown in Table ES-3. Some of the categories are previously unregulated and others 

are currently regulated. For the currently regulated categories we are proposing lower 

VOC limits. The new or modified VOC limits would become effective between 

December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2015, as indicated in Table ES-3. An additional 

lower limit for Multi-purpose Lubricant is proposed to become effective on 

December 31, 2015. All of these changes would be reflected in the Table of Standards 

in section 94509(a). Note that in some cases different VOC limits are proposed based 

on product form. 

 Extended effective dates are proposed for categories where the proposed limits, 

while feasible, will require additional resources to develop complying products. This is 

especially true for the technology forcing second tier VOC limit proposed for the Multipurpose Lubricant category. Table ES-3 also shows that statewide VOC emissions 

would be reduced by about 5.8 tons per day when all limits are fully effective. These 

reductions would partially fulfill the consumer products element in the Strategy. Several 

VOC limit proposals in Table ES-3 warrant further explanation as provided below. 

 a. Proposal for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product: Fabric SoftenerSingle Use Dryer Product is a previously unregulated category. As shown 

in Table ES-3, a grams of VOC per use limit is being proposed for these 

products, rather than a percent by weight limit. Our rationale for this 

proposal is described later in this subsection. 

 b. Proposal for Personal Fragrance Products: Staff is proposing that any 

Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance be 

required to meet the existing January 1, 1999, limit of 75 percent by 

weight VOC limit. This would remove the so called “Grandfather” clause 

currently contained in subsections 94510(h) and (l). Our proposal is 

further described in subsection 3 of this Executive Summary. 
Executive Summary -12 

Table ES-3 

Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective Date

Product Category 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit

(percent by 

weight)

2008 VOC 

Emissions*

(tons per day)

Reductions 

at Effective 

Date 

(tons per day)

Astringent / Toner 

(non-FDA regulated) a All 35 0.62 0.11 

Aerosol 5 0.32 0.07 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleanera

Nonaerosol 1 0.29 0.07 

Aerosol 17 0.27 0.08 

Dusting Aida

Nonaerosol 3 0.01 0.00 

Fabric Protectanta Nonaerosol 1 0.18 0.08 

Fabric Softener – 

 Single Use Dryer Producta All 0.05 grams 

per use** 0.52 0.21 

Floor Maintenance Producta All 1 0.11 0.07 

Floor Polish or Wax – 

 Wood Floor Waxa All 70 0.06 0.01 

Glass Cleanerb Aerosol 10 0.33 0.03 

Motor Vehicle Washa All 0.2 0.38 0.14 

25c

Multi-purpose Lubricant – 4.08 2.04 

 excluding solid & semisolidc/e All 

10e

 1.27 

Aerosol 25 *** 0.00 

Odor Remover/Eliminatora

Nonaerosol 6 0.12 0.03 

Penetrantc All 25 0.40 0.15 

Personal Fragrance Product 

(products with 20% or less fragrance)d All 75+

 10.89 0.41 

Pressurized Gas Dustera All 1 0 0 

Chemically Curingb Nonaerosol Sealant or 3 1.9 0.22 

Caulking 

Compound Non-Chemically 

Curinga

Nonaerosol 1.5 0.68 0.12 

Aerosol 15 0.76 0.24 

Spot Removera

Nonaerosol 3 0.29 0.05 

Aerosol 8 0.01 0.00 

Tire or Wheel Cleanera

Nonaerosol 2 0.14 0.06 

Windshield Water Repellenta All 75 0.23 0.04 

Total Emissions 2008 22.61 tons per day

Total VOC Reductions 2015 5.76 tons per day 

 * Survey emissions adjusted for market coverage, Effective Dates: 

 and grown to the 2008 calendar year a: 12/31/2010 

 ** Grams per use limit provides emissions reductions equivalent b: 12/31/2012 

 to 2.6% VOC limit, including fragrance c: 12/31/2013 

 *** Omitted to protect confidentiality d: 12/31/2014 

 + Remove “Grandfather” clauses e: 12/31/2015 
Executive Summary -13 

 c. Proposal for Furniture Maintenance Product: Although not shown in 

Table ES-3, staff is proposing to reinstate the long-standing exemption for 

solid and paste forms of Furniture Maintenance Products. This exemption 

was inadvertently omitted during the 2006 rulemaking. The exemption 

clarifies that solid and paste forms of this type of product are not subject to 

the current VOC limit of three percent by weight. 

Proposed Requirement for Dilutable Products: Currently, the VOC limits for 

products, that are to be diluted prior to use, are applied after the minimum 

recommended dilution. Staff has become aware of products packaged in pump spray 

containers that appear to be marketed as “ready-to-use” products, but are designed to 

be diluted by the user prior to use. Staff believes this approach to packaging may be 

diminishing anticipated VOC reductions, and is a potential circumvention of the intent of 

the regulation. Therefore, staff proposes a modification to section 94509(b)(4), 

clarifying that products sold in pump spray containers are required to meet the specified 

VOC limit prior to any minimum recommended dilution. 

 Date Coding Requirements: Subsections 94509 (i), (m), (n), (o) and (p) specify 

prohibitions on use of certain chlorinated compounds in specified categories. We are 

proposing to clarify the date coding requirement that must be met to qualify as a “sellthrough” product. As proposed, the product would need to comply with the product 

dating requirements in section 94512(b). 

Prohibition of Toxics from Specific Categories: To mitigate a potential adverse 

environmental impact, staff is proposing a new subsection (q) within section 94509 to 

prohibit the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in 

“Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner,” “Fabric Protectant,” “Multi-Purpose Lubricant,” “Penetrant,” 

“Sealant or Caulking Compound,” and “Spot Remover.” 

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), ARB is required to 

identify and mitigate any possible adverse environmental impacts of regulatory 

actions. We believe that it is unlikely, but possible, that manufacturers may, in 

response to new VOC limits, choose to reformulate with chlorinated solvents that are 

TACs. Therefore, because there are many products that comply with the proposed 

limits, without the use of these chlorinated solvents, prohibiting their use is appropriate 

to protect the public from exposure to these TACs. 

In evaluating the use of these TACs, staff has become aware that certain 

Penetrants are designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations the 

products must be non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide this nonflammable aspect, the chlorinated solvents are used. At the present time, staff is not 

aware of alternative solvents that can perform this function. Therefore, staff is 

proposing that Penetrants that include on the Principal Display Panel: “Nonflammable: For use on Energized Equipment Only,” not be subject to this prohibition. 

They would, however, be required to meet the proposed VOC limits. 
Executive Summary -14 

Proposal for Pressurized Gas Dusters: The reduction of GHGs in consumer 

products has been designated as a Discrete Early Action Measure in accordance with 

AB 32. One of the first consumer product emission sources identified is GHG 

compounds used in aerosol products. As a first step, staff is proposing, in new 

subsection 94509(r)(1), that Pressurized Gas Dusters shall not contain any compound 

that has a GWP of 150 or greater. Staff is also proposing in section 94509(r)(2) that 

Pressurized Gas Dusters would be provided a one-year sell-through after the effective 

date of the limits. 

In accordance with CEQA, to ensure that the VOC content of these products 

does not increase as a result of reformulation to meet GWP limits, a one percent by 

weight VOC limit, including fragrance, is also being proposed for Pressurized Gas 

Dusters. The proposal would also prohibit use of the TACs, perchloroethylene and 

methylene chloride. 

We are also proposing to specify that any chemical compounds that are 

present as impurities in an amount, in aggregate, of 0.1 percent by weight or less, are 

not subject to the GWP limit or toxics prohibition for Pressurized Gas Dusters. Some 

of the chemical compounds used in Pressurized Gas Dusters may contain very small 

quantities of contaminants. This provision would allow Pressurized Gas Dusters that 

contain those contaminants, present at very low levels, to comply with the regulatory 

provisions. 

Staff has also become aware that certain Pressurized Gas Dusters are 

designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations the products must be 

non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide this non-flammable aspect, higher 

GWP propellants are used. At present time, staff is not aware of alternative 

propellants that can perform this function. Therefore, staff is proposing that 

Pressurized Gas Dusters that specify on the Principal Display Panel “Energized 

Equipment use only” be exempt from compliance with both the VOC and GWP limit. 

Requirements for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product: Staff is proposing 

a new subsection 94509(s) to describe the VOC content limit for Fabric SoftenerSingle Use Dryer Product. Rather than a percent by weight limit, a 0.05 grams of 

VOC per use limit is proposed. The limit is designed to provide a level playing field 

and to ensure that the size of the sheet substrate does not increase. In developing 

the limit for these products, staff determined that establishing a percent by weight limit 

could result in manufacturers using larger size sheets to comply. This would diminish 

emission reductions and potentially lead to increasing the solid waste stream. 

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, the grams per use limit is proposed. The 

0.05 grams of VOC limit is designed to provide emission reductions roughly equivalent 

to a 2.6 percent by weight VOC per use limit, including fragrance. Because the limit 

already accounts for the fragrance, there is no need to provide the fragrance 

exemption contained in section 94510(c) for these products. This modification is 

proposed in section 94510(c). 
Executive Summary -15 

3. Proposed Amendments to Section 94510, Exemptions (subsections 

(h) and (l)) 

 At present, Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance are 

required to meet an 80 percent or a 75 percent by weight VOC limit, depending on 

when they first were introduced to the market. Products existing prior to ARB setting 

these two-tier limits do not need to comply with either limit. Products that were 

introduced between 1995 and 1999 are required to meet the 80 percent limit, but did 

not need to reformulate to meet the second-tier January 1, 1999, limit. Only products 

introduced after January 1, 1999, are required to meet the 75 percent limit. These 

exemptions, or “Grandfather” clauses, are contained in subsections 94510(h) and (l). 

Staff is proposing to remove these “Grandfather” clauses. Under this proposal, all 

Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance would be required to 

meet the 75 percent limit effective December 31, 2014. The additional compliance 

deadline is proposed to account for the large number of products that will need to be 

reformulated. These proposals are contained in new subsections 94510(h)(3) and 

(l)(1). 

 

4. Proposed Amendments to Section 94512, Administrative 

Requirements 

 

Proposed Modification to Product Dating Requirements: Currently, 

section 94512(b)(1) specifies that a product must clearly display the date or code 

indicating the date of manufacture. We are proposing language to clarify that a 

sequential batch number on a product package does not satisfy the product dating 

requirements. 

 Proposed Modification to Labeling Requirements: Staff is proposing that nonaerosol Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound 

products would be required to display the applicable regulatory category and VOC limit 

as a percent by weight. Because different VOC limits are proposed, staff believes this 

is necessary to easily distinguish between Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically 

Curing Sealant or Caulking Compounds for enforcement purposes. This proposal is 

contained in section 94512(d). 

5. Proposed Amendments to Section 94513, Reporting Requirements 

 Staff is proposing 25 percent by weight VOC limits for Multi-purpose Lubricants 

and Penetrants, effective December 31, 2013. These are challenging but feasible limits 

within the time-frame proposed. For Multi-purpose Lubricants staff is proposing a 

technology forcing 10 percent second tier VOC limit, effective December 31, 2015. To 

ensure that manufacturers are on track, and that technology advances as expected, 

staff believes that manufacturers should demonstrate their progress toward meeting 

these limits. 
Executive Summary -16 

 As proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Multi-purpose Lubricant and Penetrant 

manufacturers would need to supply by March 31, 2012, detailed written updates on 

their research and development efforts undertaken to achieve compliance with the 

25 percent by weight VOC limits. The reports would include sales and formulation data 

for products sold in 2011, as well as detailed information on the raw materials evaluated 

for use, maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) values for any VOC or LVP-VOC used or 

evaluated, the function of the raw material evaluated, hardware evaluated, testing 

protocols used, the results of the testing, and the cost of reformulation efforts. A second 

report on reformulation to meet the 10 percent VOC limit for Multi-purpose Lubricants 

would be due on March 31, 2014. Sales data would be for calendar year 2013. 

 Should technical or commercial issues arise, or if it appears reductions could 

occur within a shorter timeframe, staff would develop appropriate measures to ensure 

air quality benefits occur as soon as possible. 

6. Proposed Amendments to Section 94515, Test Methods 

 Staff is proposing to clarify that ARB’s Method 310 be used as the analytical 

method to determine GWP content. This method already contains the necessary 

protocols to analyze for both HFC-152a and HFC-134a content. 

H. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

 Manufacturers of non-complying products will need to reformulate their products 

to meet the applicable VOC or GWP limits. Manufacturers have the flexibility to choose 

any formulation that meets the applicable limit and the reformulation options vary with 

each product category (see Chapter VI of the Technical Support Document). To comply 

with VOC limits, VOC solvents or propellants will need to be replaced, or partially 

replaced, with non-VOC ingredients. This may require switching to a water-based 

formulation, using acetone or another exempt solvent, increasing product solids, or 

formulating with a non-VOC propellant. Manufacturers may also need to change the 

valve, container, delivery system, or the other components of the consumer product 

depending on the individual formulation. ARB staff has proposed VOC limits that can 

be met without the increased use of toxic air contaminants. 

To meet the GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster, manufacturers of noncomplying products will need to substitute a lower GWP propellant for the currently used 

higher GWP propellant. We expect that manufacturers will substitute HFC-152a for 

HFC-134a. We are also proposing a VOC limit for Pressurized Gas Duster products to 

ensure that VOC emissions do not increase as products reformulate. Because 

HFC- 152a is an exempt VOC, meeting a 1 percent VOC limit is very feasible. 

 Table ES-4 summarizes, for the proposed VOC limits, data related to the 

complying market-shares (based on sales), as well as the number of products that 

currently comply relative to total number of products reported. 
Executive Summary -17 

Table ES-4 

Summary of Complying Products and Complying Marketshares

 Product Category 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt%) 

Number of 

Complying 

Products/ 

Total 

Complying 

Market 

Share (%) 

Astringent / Toner (non-FDA regulated) All 35 177 / 203 70 

Aerosol 5 7 / 59 10 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner Nonaerosol 1 54 / 117 25 

Aerosol 17 13 / 41 5 

Dusting Aid Nonaerosol 3 33 / 38 74 

Fabric Protectant Nonaerosol 1 42 / 63 95 

Fabric Softener – 

 Single Use Dryer Product All 

0.05 

grams per 

use* 

20 / 26 24 

Floor Maintenance Product All 1 57 / 98 53 

Floor Polish or Wax – 

 Wood Floor Wax All 70 *** / 7 *** 

Glass Cleaner Aerosol 10 32 / 95 37 

Motor Vehicle Wash All 0.2 311 / 366 89 

All 25 38 / 176 4 Multi-purpose Lubricant – 

 excluding solid & semisolid All 10 22 / 176 3 

Aerosol 25 *** / *** 100 

Odor Remover/Eliminator Nonaerosol 6 154 / 184 82 

Penetrant All 25 14 / 84 30 

Personal Fragrance Product (products with 

20% or less fragrance) All 75** 679 / 1101 37 

Pressurized Gas Duster All 1 89 / 90 > 99 

Chemically Curing Nonaerosol Sealant or 3 95 / 196 23 

Caulking 

Compound Non-Chemically 

Curing 

Nonaerosol 1.5 201 / 344 76 

Aerosol 15 18 / 70 4 

Spot Remover Nonaerosol 3 231 / 261 94 

Aerosol 8 *** / 8 *** 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner Nonaerosol 2 63 / 102 69 

Windshield Water Repellant All 75 *** / 30 *** 

Source: 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a) grown to 2008, and the 2007 

 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update 

* Grams per use limit provides emissions reductions equivalent to 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit, 

 including fragrance 

** Remove “Grandfather” clauses 

*** Omitted to protect confidentiality 

 
Executive Summary -18 

 Manufacturers can also comply with the proposed amendments through the use 

of the Innovative Products Provision (IPP), or the Alternative Control Plan (ACP). The 

IPP allows manufacturers of “innovative products” to comply with the Consumer 

Products Regulation if they demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that 

their product will result in less VOC emissions than a complying product that meets the 

applicable VOC limit. The innovative product may result in less emissions due to some 

characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery system, or other factors. 

 The ACP allows manufacturers to average the emissions from products above 

and below the applicable VOC limits, as long as the overall emissions are less than or 

equal to the emissions that would have occurred had all the products complied with the 

VOC limits. Manufacturers must submit an application which includes the VOC content 

of the products in the plan, a method of verifying the sales of each product in the plan, 

and other information necessary to track overall emissions. 

 Although not shown in Tables ES-4, the complying market-share (based on 

sales) for the GHG limit for the Pressurized Gas Duster category is 86 percent. 

Moreover, 18 of 90 products currently comply with the GWP limit of 150. Based on 

these complying market-shares and the number of complying products, staff believes 

the proposed VOC and GHG limits are commercially and technologically feasible. 

I. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

 Staff evaluated the costs to comply with the proposed limits for potential impacts 

on profitability and other aspects of businesses (with particular attention to California 

businesses), the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the limits, and the estimated cost impacts to 

consumers. Chapter VII of the Technical Support Document contains a more thorough 

assessment of the economic impacts associated with the proposal. 

 CE is one measure of a regulation’s efficiency in reducing a given amount of 

pollutant (often reported in “dollars spent per pound of pollutant reduced”). Based on 

our analyses, we estimate the cost-effectiveness of the proposed VOC limits is about 

$6.23 per pound VOC reduced. This CE is higher than most other consumer product 

regulations. For example, the CE of amendments proposed in 2004 and 2006 was 

about $2.40 and $2.35, respectively, per pound of VOC reduced, over a 10-year 

lifetime. However, the CE of other consumer product rulemakings has been 

comparable to this proposal. For example, the CE of amendments related to aerosol 

adhesives in 2000, was about $6.00 per pound of VOC reduced. 

The CE for the proposed amendments reflects that VOC reductions from 

consumer products are becoming more difficult to achieve. A number of smaller 

emitting categories are being proposed for regulation, with resulting small reductions. 

Several categories are relatively costly because large numbers of products need to be 

reformulated to achieve fairly low VOC emission reduction totals. 
Executive Summary -19 

It was further determined that the cost of the measure to reduce GHG from 

Pressurized Gas Duster products is about $450,000 over ten years, or $45,000 per 

year. This yields a CE of about $0.22 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalents. The 

cost is fairly low because, as described below, the raw materials used in the 

reformulation are considerably less expensive than those currently used. 

 The estimated costs were derived using methodologies previously used for the 

Consumer Products Regulations and Cal/EPA guidelines for conducting cost analyses 

for major regulations. We determined that the regulation would cost businesses and 

individuals about $260 million over the 10-year lifetime. Because the costs incurred by 

industry to comply with this rulemaking are about $26 million per year, for ten years, it is 

considered a major regulation. The cost estimates are based on assumptions specific 

to each category depending on reformulation needs. For some categories it was 

assumed that manufacturers would either drop certain products or undergo minor 

product formulation changes, and for other categories, manufacturers would undergo 

complete production line overhaul and equipment replacement rather than simple retooling. 

Staff believes that the regulation cost and CE determination methodologies are 

quite conservative, and are thus in most cases over-estimated. There are several 

factors that contribute to the over estimation of costs. The mid-range cost (used to 

determine the overall cost and cost effectiveness of the regulation), is the average of 

the estimated high and low cost scenarios. The low cost scenario assumes that 

companies would choose the lowest cost reformulation pathway, making minor 

adjustments to a product’s formulation, or simply eliminating higher VOC products. We 

believe that most manufacturers would choose the lowest cost reformulation option. For 

the high cost scenario, it is assumed that there is significant research and development, 

and new equipment is needed to reformulate the product. We believe that few 

manufacturers would need to take the high cost reformulation approach. 

In the economic analysis, staff determined that the VOC limits for Multi-purpose 

Lubricants would be the most challenging and costly to comply with. Staff separately 

calculated the estimated costs of reformulation for each of the proposed tiers of the 

Multipurpose Lubricant proposal. Further, cost estimates were performed separately for 

aerosol and non-aerosol products respectively. The analysis shows that greater costs 

will be incurred during the first tier reformulation than the second tier reformulation. This 

results from the assumption that significant high end costs will be incurred in the first tier 

reformulation, but not all of these costs would necessarily be duplicated in the second 

tier reformulation. If major plant modifications or new equipment purchases are needed 

to meet either tier of the VOC limits, a manufacturer would likely choose to make these 

significant changes during one plant modification, rather than making significant 

changes more than once. In fact, certain companies may choose to reformulate only 

once, (i.e. reformulate to meet the second tier VOC limit before 2013.) Regardless of 

whether this assumption is correct, we believe that it is appropriate to assume that high 

end reformulation costs will be incurred during either the first tier reformulation or the 

second tier reformulation, but not both. Either assumption, that higher costs would be 
Executive Summary -20 

incurred during a given tier relative to the other, would yield the same amount of total 

costs being incurred to meet both tiers. 

 Another factor that can contribute to an over-estimation of costs is the 

assumptions used for the raw ingredient costs of the reformulated products. For the 

product categories for which VOC limits are proposed, we assumed that if the raw 

ingredients used in the reformulated product yielded a cost savings, the cost of the 

ingredients necessary to meet the new VOC limit is zero. This is an appropriate, 

conservative assumption because there are many reformulation options. However, in 

the case of Pressurized Gas Dusters we assumed that reformulation would yield a raw 

material savings, and incorporated the decreased cost in to the overall cost estimate. 

We believe that this approach is appropriate because, in order to comply with the 

proposed GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters, there is only one identified 

reformulation pathway, replacing HFC-134a with HFC-152a. Because HFC-152a is less 

expensive per pound that HFC-134a, it is appropriate that there would be a cost savings 

in virtually every case. 

 Consumers may have to pay more for some products subject to the proposed 

amendments, depending on the extent to which manufacturers are able and do pass 

along their costs to consumers. The average increase in cost per unit to the 

manufacturer is estimated to be about $0.03. This estimated cost increase per unit 

value is lower than the estimate derived for the 2006 Amendments. In that rulemaking, 

we found the average cost per unit increase to be about $0.17 per unit. 

 Based on our analysis, we expect most manufacturers to be able to absorb the 

added costs of the proposed regulation without an adverse impact on their profitability. 

However, it is likely that manufacturers would pass along some of their costs to product 

purchasers, thus lowering the impacts to business. 

 We also estimated the change in “return-on-owner’s equity” (ROE) as an 

indicator of the proposed limits’ potential impacts on business profitability. The cost to 

comply with the proposed regulation, through increased research and development, 

equipment purchase and other investment costs, is presumed to impact a business’ 

ROE and, therefore, its profitability. Our analysis indicates the estimated change in 

ROE is about a 0.7 to 4.0 percent change. The average change in ROE is about 

2.5 percent, relative to the current situation. A reduction of more than ten percent in 

profitability is considered to indicate a potential for adverse impacts. 

 Our ROE analysis for the proposed limits may overestimate the impact on 

business because it assumes that all of the costs of the proposed limits will be absorbed 

by manufacturers. In reality, we expect that at least some of the investment costs to 

comply with the proposed limits will be passed on to consumers. The analysis 

presumes that some cost mitigation will occur due to “technology-transfer” between 

product lines and from third-party manufacturers (i.e., contract fillers) who fill essentially 

equivalent products for a number of competing businesses. 

 
Executive Summary -21 

While we expect that most businesses will be able to absorb, or pass through, 

the costs of the proposed amendments without significant adverse impacts on their 

profitability, there is the possibility that some individual businesses will be adversely 

affected by this regulatory action. Therefore, it is possible that the proposed 

amendments may have a significant adverse impact on some businesses that are not in 

a market position to invest monies to develop complying products, or to absorb and/or 

pass through the increased cost resulting from their compliance with the proposed 

amendments. 

 Based on our analysis, we do not expect the proposed amendments to have a 

significant impact on employment, or business creation, elimination, or expansion. We 

also do not expect the regulation to have a significant impact on the competitiveness of 

California businesses compared with those outside of California. This is because all 

companies that sell these products in California would have to meet the proposed 

requirements, whether located in California or outside of California. 

 The Air Resources Board (ARB) would have costs associated with adoption of 

the proposed amendments. Adoption of the amendments would necessitate an 

increase in ARB staff to properly enforce the Consumer Products Regulation. These 

proposed amendments are setting new limits for a number of previously unregulated 

categories. It has been determined that to enforce these new limits, two ARB staff will 

be needed. This would result in an increased cost to the State of approximately 

$300,000 per year. 

J. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

 The proposed amendments would reduce VOC and air toxic emissions. The 

proposed amendments would also reduce the use of compounds with high GWP in 

Pressurized Gas Duster products. Because of this, staff has determined that the 

amendments would have an overall positive impact on the environment. No significant 

adverse impacts were identified. We evaluated the effects of these reductions, as well 

as the other proposed amendments, on ground-level ozone concentrations, climate 

change, stratospheric ozone depletion, air toxic emissions, water quality, solid waste 

disposal, and energy use. A complete analysis of potential environmental impacts is 

contained in Chapter VIII of the Technical Support Document. 

 Because VOCs are ozone precursors, the VOC reduction of 5.8 tons per day 

would result in reductions in ozone concentrations. If we assume that the average 

ozone forming potential of consumer product VOC emissions is about 1.50 pounds of 

ozone per pound of VOC emitted (based on the MIR scale, title 17, CCR, 

sections 94700-94701), then we predict the resulting ozone reductions would be about 

9 tons per day. No other significant positive or negative impacts were identified. 

 The expected reduction in use of compounds with high GWP would be equivalent 

to reducing 0.20 MMT of CO2 per year. This reduction will help meet California’s desire 

for early reductions and also assist in meeting our 2020 target. All technologically 
Executive Summary -22 

feasible cost-effective reductions need to be pursued to meet the requirements of 

AB 32. Because we are proposing to establish a VOC limit for Pressurized Gas 

Dusters, no increase in VOC emissions will occur. No increased use of TACs would 

occur because the proposal would also prohibit use of methylene chloride and 

perchloroethylene. Related to solid waste, reformulated products are potentially more 

efficient than existing products, so a reduction in the solid waste stream should occur 

(DuPont and Falcon, 2004). No other significant positive or negative impacts were 

identified. 

 The proposal would also prohibit the use of the TAC solvents methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in six categories (except in certain niche 

applications where non-flammable products are needed). Exposure to these air toxics 

would be reduced by about 0.2 tons per day. The prohibition is proposed as a 

mitigation measure under CEQA. The prohibition would ensure that manufacturers will 

not switch to using these solvents as a reformulation option. However, it is likely that 

this could lead to a very slight increase in VOC emissions because products currently 

formulated with these TAC compounds would have to replace them—likely with VOC 

ingredients. Staff has determined that the reduction in exposure to these carcinogens 

outweighs the very small potential increase in VOC emissions. No other significant 

positive or negative impacts were identified. 

 The proposal to exempt HFE 7200 from the definition of VOC should have an 

overall benefit in reducing VOC emissions and stratospheric ozone depleting emissions. 

HFE 7200 could be a suitable substitute for some VOCs, and can be used to replace 

stratospheric ozone depleting compounds such as HCFC-141b. No other significant 

positive or negative impacts were identified. 

 Related to solid waste and energy impact, no significant impacts were identified. 

However, it has been suggested that end-use consumers of Fabric Softener-Single Use 

Dryer Products may begin using more than a single sheet per drying cycle, or may 

switch to using the liquid product form. This could result in more dryer sheets being 

land-filled, and/or increased transportation costs because of the differential in weight 

between liquid and dryer sheet products. However, no data were provided to support 

these claims. As is always done, we intend to monitor product sales trends to ensure 

that unintended consequences of establishing the proposed VOC limit do not occur. 

 Other language and definitional changes proposed should have an overall 

positive impact because these provisions are designed to aid in enforcing the 

regulation. 

This proposal is consistent with the ARB’s Environmental Justice Policy to 

reduce health risks in all communities, including low-income and minority communities. 

Generally, use of consumer products is fairly uniform across the State, tracking with 

population, and their emissions are spread over the course of a day, rather than 

concentrated at a particular time of day. For these reasons, we do not believe that 

people of any given race, culture, or income would be more impacted than any others 
Executive Summary -23 

would. All Californians should benefit equally from the reduction in VOC, GHG and TAC 

emissions from the consumer product categories proposed for regulation. 

K. FUTURE PLANS

 Future activities include continued review of the 2006 Consumer Products 

Survey. This survey will serve as the basis for additional VOC and GHG reductions 

measures for consumer products. Additional reductions are needed to meet consumer 

product reduction commitments in the Strategy and as a Discrete Early Action Measure 

under AB 32. Work is also ongoing to assess the most feasible approach to regulating 

Paint and Lacquer Thinner, and evaluating exposure to TACs used in Nail Coatings. 

 The Strategy also includes a longer term commitment to assess innovative 

measures to further reduce VOC emissions from consumer products. 

L. RECOMMENDATION

 We recommend that the Board adopt the proposed amendments to the 

Consumer Products Regulation. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected 

Halogenated Chemicals – Staff Report. March, 2008. (ARB, 2008b) 

2. Air Resources Board. 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. 

February, 2008. (ARB, 2008c) 

3. Air Resources Board. Statewide Human Population Chart: Population and 

Vehicle Trends Report. 2008. (ARB, 2008d) 

4. Air Resources Board. List Of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. 

 October 17, 2007. (ARB, 2007b) 

5. Air Resources Board. ARB Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category, 2007 

Almanac. http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/fcemssumcat2007.php. 2007. 

(ARB, 2007h) 

6. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

7. California Department of Finance. Report: State Adds 444,000 in 2006: 2007 

Population Nears 37.7 Million. May 1, 2007. (CA DOF, 2007) 
Executive Summary -24 

8. DuPont Company in association with Falcon Safety Products. Fluorochemicals 

Laboratory DuPont Company, Technical Report – Cleaning Tests for Aerosol 

Dusting Aids (Dusters). December 1, 2004. Schweitzer, M., Lubert, J., 

 Hitches, B., Bilsback, B., McLeer, D., Creazzo, J.A., (Dupont & Falcon, 2004) 

9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995, The 

Science of Climate Change; Contribution of Working Group I to the Second 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. 

Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and 

 K. Maskell, eds. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, U.K. (IPCC, 1996) 
Appendix A 

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the 

California Consumer Products Regulation 

Technical Support Document

Technical Support Document Chapter I - 1 

I. INTRODUCTION

A. OVERVIEW 

 In this rulemaking, California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff is 

proposing amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation. The 

amendments are designed to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) and air toxic 

emissions. The amendments would also reduce the use of compounds with high global 

warming potential (GWP) in consumer products. The regulation is codified in 

title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 94507-94517. The proposed 

amendments to reduce VOC emissions would partially fulfill the consumer product 

reduction commitment contained in the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan. The proposed amendment to reduce the use of high GWP 

compounds is designed in accordance with the Discrete Early Action Measure 

requirements set forth in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). 

 As proposed, other amendments would exclude a compound from the definition 

of VOC, language modifications would clarify and improve existing regulatory 

provisions, and use of toxic air contaminants (TACs) in seven categories would be 

prohibited. The toxics prohibition is a mitigation measure, as required by the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to ensure that certain TACs are not used as 

products are reformulated to meet new limits. 

 This Technical Support Document, Appendix A, presents ARB staff’s technical 

justification and analysis of the proposed amendments. It is part of the Initial Statement 

of Reasons (ISOR) for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products 

Regulation. The proposed amendments can be found in Appendix B of this document. 

Appendix E provides a complete list of the acronyms used in this ISOR. 

 Included in this Technical Support Document is the following information: 

• background information on the consumer products program related to the 

control of VOC and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; 

• information on the process used to develop the proposed amendments; 

• an assessment of why the proposed amendments meet the requirements of 

State law; 

• a review of the emissions from the categories proposed for regulation and the 

overall need for the emission reductions; 

• a description of the proposed amendments; 

• an analysis of the environmental and expected economic impacts from the 

proposed amendments; and 

• a summary of future activities. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 2 

B. ENABLING LEGISLATION

 In 1988, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA or “the Act”) became law to address 

the State’s serious air pollution problems and the inability of many areas in California to 

attain the State and federal ambient air quality standards. The CCAA added 

section 41712 to the California Health and Safety Code. Section 41712, along with 

subsequent amendments, requires ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum 

feasible reduction in VOC emissions from consumer products. Prior to adoption, the 

Board must determine that adequate data exist to establish both of the following: 

• the regulations are necessary to attain State and federal ambient air quality 

standards; and 

• the regulations are commercially and technologically feasible. 

 Section 41712 defines a consumer product as a chemically formulated product 

used by household and institutional consumers. Consumer products include, but are 

not limited to: detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; 

personal care products such as antiperspirants and hairsprays; home, lawn, and garden 

products; disinfectants; sanitizers; automotive specialty products; and aerosol paints. 

Other paint products, such as furniture or architectural coatings, are not part of ARB’s 

consumer products program because local air districts regulate them. 

 The Act further stipulates that regulations adopted must not eliminate any 

product form, and that recommendations from health professionals be considered when 

developing VOC control measures for health benefit products. Health and Safety Code 

section 41712, gives ARB authority to control emissions from a very diverse number of 

products sold statewide to household and commercial consumers. The primary goal of 

this section was to set forth a program to reduce ground-level ozone concentrations, as 

part of the overall effort to attain ambient air quality standards. 

 In 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 was signed into law. This law created a 

comprehensive, multi-year program to reduce global warming compound emissions in 

California. AB 32 added section 1. division 25.5 (commencing with section 38500) to 

the California Health and Safety Code. These sections require ARB to develop 

regulations and consider market mechanisms that will ultimately reduce California’s 

GHG emissions equivalent to the 1990 baseline year by 2020. Among other things, 

AB 32 requires ARB to make immediate progress towards the reduction of GHG 

emissions. Specific Discrete Early Action Measures are to be identified and regulations 

are to be adopted and enforceable by January 1, 2010. Beyond the requirements of 

AB 32, the Governor’s Executive Order EO-S-03-05 calls for an additional GHG 

reduction of 80 percent by 2050. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 3 

C. BACKGROUND 

 1. Existing Consumer Product Regulations 

 To date, the Board has taken numerous actions to fulfill the legislative mandate 

pertaining to the regulation of VOCs in consumer products, including antiperspirants, 

deodorants, and aerosol coating products. Three regulations have been adopted that 

affect 115 consumer product categories by setting 150 VOC limits. These limits have 

resulted in reducing emissions by about 200 tons per day, an overall 44 percent 

reduction in VOC emissions. We have also reduced exposure to TACs. Emissions of 

TACs have been reduced by 13 tons per day by prohibiting use of certain chlorinated 

compounds in 63 categories. In addition, two voluntary regulations, the Alternative 

Control Plan and the Hairspray Credit Program have been adopted to provide 

compliance flexibility to companies. These five regulations are codified in 

title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 94500 to 94575: 

• Antiperspirants and Deodorants (Article 1, sections 94500-94506.5); 

• Consumer Products (Article 2, sections 94507-94517); 

• Aerosol Coating Products (Article 3, sections 94520-94528); 

• Alternative Control Plan (Article 4, sections 94540-94555); and 

• Hairspray Credit Program (Article 5, sections 94560-94575). 

Regulation of consumer products began in 1989 with adoption of the 

Antiperspirants and Deodorants Regulation. The “general” Consumer Products 

Regulation was approved in 1990 and has been amended numerous times. The most 

recent amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation were approved in 2004 and 

2006 (ARB, 2004b; ARB, 2006a). The Aerosol Coatings Regulation was adopted in 

1995 and was amended in 2000. A complete summary of consumer products program 

regulatory actions with dates of regulatory amendments are provided in Appendix C. 

2. Consumer Products and the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

State Implementation Plans

 Federal clean air laws require areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, carbon 

monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and inhalable particulate matter to develop 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) describing how they will attain national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). 

 

 A SIP is a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as 

monitoring, modeling, permitting, etc.), local air district rules, and State and federal 

regulations. Many of California's strategies apply statewide, including emission 

standards for cars and heavy-duty trucks, fuel regulations, and limits on emissions from 

consumer products. State law designates ARB as the lead agency for all purposes 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 4 

related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies, such as the Department of 

Pesticide Regulation, prepare SIP elements and submit them to ARB for review and 

approval. ARB forwards SIP revisions to the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (U.S. EPA) for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The Code of 

Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter I, Part 52, Subpart F, Section 52.220 lists all of 

the items which are included in the California SIP. Some California SIP submittals are 

pending U.S. EPA approval. 

 Consumer product VOC emissions are known to contribute to concentrations of 

both ground-level ozone and particulate matter with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or 

less (PM2.5). The link between consumer product VOC emissions and ground-level 

ozone concentrations is well-established, and quantified. However, their impact on 

PM2.5 concentrations is less clear. Because VOCs are ozone precursors, specific 

consumer product control measures have been developed related to ozone control. 

These measures have been included in SIPs. For this reason, our summary here 

focuses on consumer product strategies that have been, and are, designed to meet 

ambient air quality standards for ozone. 

 1994 California State Implementation Plan for Ozone 

 On November 15, 1994, the ARB adopted the California State Implementation 

Plan for Ozone (1994 SIP). This plan included measures designed to meet the previous 

federal peak one-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm). Achieving 

significant VOC reductions from consumer products was a key element of the 1994 SIP. 

Several rulemakings were proposed and adopted to work toward meeting the SIP 

commitment. 

 2003 State and Federal Strategy and 2003 South Coast SIP 

On October 23, 2003, the ARB adopted the 2003 Statewide Strategy, which 

identified the Board’s near term regulatory agenda to reduce ozone and particulate 

matter and to adopt new measures for each year from 2003 to 2008. The ozone control 

elements were again designed toward attainment of the federal one-hour ozone 

standard. 

The 2003 SIP contained two measures for consumer products. These measures 

were designated as CONS-1 and CONS-2, and are summarized below. 

• Measure CONS-1: Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2006. 

The CONS-1 measure was designed to achieve VOC emission reductions from 

consumer products of at least 2.3 tons per day in the South Coast Air Basin and 

5.3 tons per day statewide by 2010. On June 26, 2004, the Board approved a CONS-1 

measure (the “2004 Amendments”), which will achieve 3.0 tons per day in VOC 

emission reductions in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010, and achieve 6.9 tons per day 

in VOC emission reductions statewide by 2010 (ARB, 2004b). The CONS-1 measure 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 5 

became legally effective on June 20, 2005. As of this writing, all but one of the CONS-1 

VOC limits are in full effect. The CONS-1 commitment has been fulfilled. 

• Measure CONS-2: Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2008-2010. 

The ARB also committed to present new consumer product category limits to the 

Board between 2006 and 2008 to achieve VOC emission reductions from consumer 

products of between 8.5 tons per day and 15 tons per day in the South Coast Air Basin 

by 2010. Statewide, the CONS-2 measure was to achieve 20-35 tons per day in 

emission reductions by 2010. Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation in 

2006, which will result in reductions of 4.9 tons per day in South Coast and 11.5 tons 

per day statewide, partially fulfilled this commitment (ARB, 2006a). 

The 2003 SIP was withdrawn from consideration and is no longer in effect. 

However, the remaining commitment from the CONS-2 measure has been incorporated 

in the 2007 Strategy commitment which is described below. 

State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (Strategy)

In July 1997, U.S. EPA established a new federal ozone standard. As opposed 

to a one-hour peak ozone standard, the new ozone standard established a limit of 

0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours (U.S. EPA, 1997). On April 15, 2004, U.S. EPA 

designated 15 areas as non-attainment in California for the eight-hour ozone standard 

(U.S. EPA, 2004). Many, but not all of these areas were also designated as nonattainment for the federal one-hour standard. New non-attainment areas include a 

number of rural Sierra Nevada foothill counties and additional parts of the Sacramento 

Valley. The one-hour standard was revoked on June 15, 2005, one year after the 

effective date of the designation, and SIPs showing how each area will meet the eighthour standard were submitted to U.S. EPA in 2007. 

 

To address the eight-hour standard, the Strategy was adopted at the 

September 25, 2007 Board hearing (ARB, 2007d). This is a comprehensive Strategy 

designed to attain federal air quality standards through technologically feasible, cost 

effective, and far reaching measures. The Strategy describes the scope of the State’s 

ozone and PM2.5 non-attainment problems and sets forth ARB’s plan on how California 

can comply with federal standards. 

The Strategy is the first plan designed to show how California will meet the 

national eight-hour ozone standard. Because the eight-hour standard is more stringent 

than the one-hour standard, U.S. EPA set presumptive deadlines that allow more time 

for attainment. Nonetheless, the measures California has adopted to meet the one-hour 

standard remain in place and will deliver substantial new reductions over the next few 

years. 

Specific to consumer products, in the Strategy ARB committed to reducing 

consumer product VOC emissions by 30 to 40 tons per day by 2014. To achieve this 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 6 

commitment, rulemakings are to be initiated in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe with limits 

becoming effective between 2010 and 2012. These actions are to be followed with 

additional rulemakings in the 2010 to 2012 timeframe. Reductions are to occur between 

2012 and 2014 (ARB, 2007d). 

Further reductions from consumer products are important because VOC 

emissions from consumer products are predicted to become the largest source of VOC 

emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, and the third largest source in the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin by 2020. The Strategy, in combination with local actions, provides 

emission reductions necessary to meet the eight-hour ozone standard in these two most 

challenging regions. 

VOC reductions from consumer products are becoming more difficult to achieve. 

In light of this, the Strategy includes a commitment to explore innovative reduction 

strategies in the longer term. One such measure would include investigating emission 

reduction opportunities through reactivity-based standards. A reactivity-based approach 

relies on the scientific principle that different chemical compounds react to form different 

amounts of ozone in the atmosphere. Reactivity-based standards reduce emissions of 

the most photochemically reactive compounds. 

Alternative market-based mechanisms would also be explored to encourage the 

development, distribution, and purchase of cleaner, very low, or zero emitting products. 

Examples of mechanisms to explore are an environmental product labeling program, 

programs where companies set their own emission reduction goals, and the use of print 

and broadcast media for public education. If these mechanisms cannot produce 

meaningful emission reductions from the consumer products source category, then 

other approaches would be evaluated. Some of these approaches include the purchase 

of VOC emission credits; and funding of special projects to reduce emissions or 

accelerate reductions from pollution sources outside of the consumer products industry. 

 Future State Implementation Plans 

Up-to-date information on SIP activities can be found on ARB’s website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm. On March 12, 2008, U.S. EPA reduced the 

eight-hour “primary” ozone standard to a level of 0.075 ppm. U.S. EPA also 

strengthened the secondary eight-hour ozone standard to the level of 0.075 ppm, 

making it identical to the revised primary standard. The final rulemaking is to be 

effective on May 27, 2008. These changes will improve both public health protection 

and the protection of sensitive trees and plants. Because California’s eight-hour air 

quality standard for ozone is lower still, additional measures beyond those to meet the 

federal standard will be needed. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 7 

3. Consumer Products and the California Global Warming Solutions Act 

of 2006 (AB 32)

Various consumer products may contain GHGs in their formulations. Most often 

these GHGs are propellants such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and carbon dioxide 

(CO2). To a lesser extent some GHGs are used as solvents. 

As mentioned earlier, AB 32 requires immediate progress, described as Discrete 

Early Action Measures. These measures require ARB to identify and adopt regulations 

to reduce GHG emissions. These early actions are to be enforceable by 

January 1, 2010. Reduction of compounds with high GWP used in consumer products 

has been designated as a Discrete Early Action Measure. Therefore, as a Discrete 

Early Action measure, ARB staff has committed to eliminate or reduce the use of GHG 

compounds with high GWP that are used in consumer products. The GHG emission 

reduction from consumer products is estimated to be 0.25 million metric tons of CO2

equivalents (this metric is described in Chapter IV) or more, if feasible. 

 

4. National Consumer Products Regulations

 On September 11, 1998, U.S. EPA promulgated a national consumer products 

regulation, the “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer 

Products (40 CFR Part 59, Subpart C, Sections 59.201 et seq.; see the 

September 11, 1998, Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 176, pages 48819-48847).” 

(U.S. EPA, 1998). This action set national VOC emission standards for 24 categories of 

consumer products. The rule became effective on September 11, 1998, and the VOC 

limits became effective on December 10, 1998. There are similarities and differences 

between the California and national consumer products regulations; however, the 

national rule does not preclude states from adopting more stringent regulations. 

 In the summer of 2006 U.S. EPA began work on amendments to their existing 

national consumer products rules. Their amendments are based on California’s 

CONS-1 (2004 Consumer Products Regulation Amendments) categories and limits. 

The amendments are expected to become effective on January 1, 2009. 

U.S. EPA has also recently promulgated a national rule for aerosol coatings 

(spray paints) based on ARB’s Aerosol Coatings Regulation. This is a reactivity-based 

regulation. The national aerosol coatings rule will become effective on January 1, 2009. 

(U.S. EPA, 2007). 

 Although the national consumer products rule is similar in many aspects to the 

California regulation, it is less effective in reducing VOC emissions from consumer 

products. The national regulations are generally less stringent than ARB’s and apply to 

fewer categories. The existing national consumer products rule achieves a 20 percent 

reduction in VOC emissions, while California’s existing consumer products and aerosol 

coatings regulations have already achieved a 50 percent reduction in the regulated 

categories. The federal regulation also does not prohibit use of any toxic compounds. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 8 

 The California Consumer Products Regulation has prohibited use of certain toxic 

compounds in 63 categories, resulting in a reduction of toxic compound emissions of 

13 tons per day. Because California has unique air quality problems, reducing VOC 

emissions from all categories, including consumer products, to the maximum extent 

feasible, is necessary to attain the federal and State ambient air quality standards for 

ozone. 

 There are no national consumer products rules related to reducing GHG 

emissions. 

 REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. State Strategy for California’s 2007 Implementation Plan. 

Released April 26, 2007. Adopted by the Air Resources Board on 

 September 27, 2007. (ARB, 2007d) 

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings 

Regulation. September 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006a) 

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresheners 

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products. May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b) 

4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings. (40 CFR Parts 51 and 59)

 Federal Register: July 16, 2007. Volume 72. Number 135. (U.S. EPA, 2007) 

5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Designations and 

Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; 

Early Action Compact Areas with Deferred Effective Dates. Federal Register: 

April 30, 2004. Volume 69. Number 84: 23857-23951. (U.S. EPA, 2004) 

6. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products. (40 CFR Part 59). 

Federal Register: September 11, 1998. Volume 63. Number 176: 48819-48847. 

(U.S. EPA, 1998) 

7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone; Final Rule. Federal Register: July 18, 1997. 

 Volume 62. Number 138: 38855-38896. (U.S. EPA, 1997)
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 9 

II. DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

 This Chapter contains a description of the public process used to develop the 

proposed amendments. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (Government Code 

section 11340 et seq.) requires that development of regulations must allow for public 

input. This Chapter also describes the staff’s evaluation of emission reduction 

opportunities, and alternatives to the final proposal that were considered. 

A. PUBLIC PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING PROPOSED LIMITS 

 In this Chapter, we describe our process to involve the public in developing the 

proposed amendments, and the staff’s evaluation of emission reduction strategies. In 

order to involve the public, the Consumer Products Regulation Workgroup (CPRWG), 

was established in 2004. Participation in the CPRWG was, and continues to be open to 

any member of the public. The CPRWG participated in the development of the 2003 

Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Survey), which serves as the basis 

for this proposal. The CPRWG was also instrumental in the development of the 2004 

and 2006 amendments, as well as these proposed amendments. 

 Further outreach, beyond the CPRWG, was conducted to identify and involve 

stakeholders in the development of the Discrete Early Action Measure for greenhouse 

gas reductions. As part of the process, in February 2008, ARB conducted a survey 

update for the Pressurized Gas Duster category. The intent of the survey update was to 

evaluate propellant technology and to update sales data for the 2007 calendar year. 

The survey was conducted in response to comments from stakeholders that indicated 

the market for Pressurized Gas Dusters had changed since our 2003 Survey. 

 Consumer product manufacturers, chemical producers, marketers, trade 

associations, and various other stakeholders listed below, have actively participated in 

the process. 

• Adhesives and Sealants Council 

• Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy 

• American Beauty Association 

• American Chemistry Council 

• Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association

• Automotive Specialty Products Association

• California Fire Chief Association

• California Grocers Association

• California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative

• California League of Food Processors

• Coalition for Clean Air

• Consumer Specialty Products Association 

• Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (now known as Personal Care 

Products Council) 

• Environmental Working Group 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 10 

• Fire District Association of California 

• Fragrance Materials Association 

• Institute for Research and Technical Assistance 

• International Sanitary Supply Association 

• Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association 

• National Aerosol Association 

• National Paint and Coatings Association 

• Soap and Detergent Association 

• Western Aerosol Information Bureau 

 Representatives from local air districts and agencies, including the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District and the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency were also involved in the process. 

 ARB staff maintains a mailing list of over 5,000 companies and interested parties, 

including environmental organizations, which received information throughout the 

development of the proposed amendments. We have established an electronic list 

serve, which has over 1,300 subscribers, to allow subscribers to receive pertinent 

information. We also have a public website for the 2008 Consumer Products 

Regulatory Work Group Activity. 

Among other things, these amendments address categories that were deferred 

from the 2006 rulemaking as a result of input from stakeholders. Numerous issues 

were raised that required additional evaluation and analysis in these categories. In 

addition to the outreach for the 2006 rulemaking, a public CPRWG meeting and an 

additional public workshop were conducted on August 29, 2007 and March 5, 2008, 

respectively, to develop this proposal. 

 On August 23, 2007, staff posted the first proposal for the 2008 Consumer 

Products Regulation Amendments to the CPRWG activity website. These proposals 

were discussed at the CPRWG meeting on August 29, 2007. At the meeting, staff 

discussed the draft regulatory categories, proposed limits, and the rulemaking timeline. 

The meeting served as a forum for stakeholder comments on the proposals and 

schedule. 

 On January 11, 2008, staff posted a revised table of proposed limits, for further 

review and comment. This proposal reflected some modifications based on comments 

received at the August 2007 CPRWG meeting. 

 A public workshop for this rulemaking was held on March 5, 2008. Materials 

describing the proposals were posted to the website on February 29, 2008. At the 

workshop, staff described proposals for modifications to the Consumer Products 

Regulation. These included the proposed definitions and volatile organic compound 

(VOC) limits, the toxics prohibition proposal, a Discrete Early Action greenhouse gas 

Measure (GHG), and a proposal to exclude a compound from the VOC definition. 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 11 

 To solicit additional information and comments, staff held numerous individual 

meetings, and teleconferences, with stakeholders. At several of these meetings, 

requested by industry associations, industry representatives presented technical 

information related to reformulation of products for which VOC and GHG limits are 

proposed. Staff also reviewed survey data, performed shelf surveys, and researched 

technical literature, patents, and trade journals during the development of this proposal. 

B. STAFF EVALUATION OF EMISSION REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES 

 Development of the proposed amendments began with the review of the 2003 

Survey. The 2003 Survey collected information on about 250 categories of consumer 

products. These 250 categories comprise about two-thirds of the overall consumer 

products emissions inventory, or about 160 tons per day. Over 915 companies 

responded to the 2003 Survey with information on over 26,000 products (ARB, 2004a). 

The 2003 Survey, in conjunction with the recently conducted 2006 survey, and the 2007 

Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update, conducted in 2008 (ARB, 2008c), are designed 

to obtain the comprehensive information necessary to develop new consumer product 

emission standards that together would achieve a minimum VOC emission reduction of 

30 to 40 tons per day by 2014, and GHG emission reductions equivalent to reducing an 

estimated 0.25 million metric tons of CO2 (MMT CO2e) by 2020 (see Chapter I, Section 

C. Background). 

 The focus of the 2003 Survey was primarily on categories where an opportunity 

for emission reductions was identified. After the 2003 Survey data were compiled, staff 

prioritized product categories for possible regulation. This process began with the 

elimination of categories where staff believed no viable opportunity for reduction existed 

at the current time. As a result of this process, staff initially identified 61 product 

categories for potential emission reduction opportunities which included 21 previously 

unregulated categories. As a result, in 2006, lower VOC limits were set for 

13 previously regulated categories and new VOC limits were set for 3 categories. 

 In this same timeframe, staff postponed consideration of some product 

categories to provide adequate time to evaluate the feasibility of VOC reductions and/or 

time to address technical issues. In addition, staff revised emission estimates to 

address product mis-categorization, products that were already regulated under local air 

district rules, and reporting errors. The categories that are the subject of this 

rulemaking were primarily those that were postponed in the 2006 rulemaking. Further 

evaluation of the 2003 Survey data indicated that it was also possible to reduce the use 

of compounds with high GWPs in Pressurized Gas Dusters. 

 

 During the workgroup and workshop process, staff presented specific proposals 

and alternatives to the public for consideration. The proposed amendments were 

developed based on the 2003 Survey results, as well as the results from the 2007 

Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update conducted in early 2008. 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 12 

 Staff also identified an additional VOC emission reduction possibility. In March 

2008, a final report by ARB staff recommended that a VOC exemption be granted for 

hydrofluoroether 7200 (HFE 7200). To the extent this compound is used to replace 

VOCs, providing an exemption will result in additional VOC emission reductions. 

 In developing the proposed amendments, staff reorganized survey categories 

based on similarities in product function or other criteria. Staff further developed the 

proposed VOC and GHG limits for product categories based on technical information 

provided by interested parties and staff’s research efforts. Staff made some 

modifications to the original proposal after consideration and evaluation of comments. 

C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

 Government Code section 11346.2 requires ARB to consider and evaluate 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed regulation and provide reasons for rejecting 

those alternatives. Staff identified three alternative approaches to the current proposal: 

“No Action,” “Set Different Limits,” and “Set Limits for Different Categories.” 

 Alternative One- No Action

A “No Action” alternative would be to forego adopting the proposed amendments, 

or delay adoption of the proposed measures. The “No Action” alternative would result in 

failing to make progress toward meeting our SIP commitment, and failing to make 

progress in reducing the use of high-GWP compounds in consumer products (See 

Chapter I. Introduction). In the case of not meeting the SIP commitments, there is a 

potential for loss of federal funds. The citizens of California would not benefit from the 

improved air quality that would result from the reduction of emissions being proposed. 

This alternative would have no cost on business. 

Alternative Two – Set Different Limits

 As was discussed in section B above, staff thoroughly evaluated each category 

for which a limit is proposed. Staff proposed limits based on low emitting technologies 

reported in the 2003 Survey. Stakeholders provided additional information pertinent to 

the categories and, in some cases, proposed alternative limits. Staff evaluated all 

comments and determined the most feasible limit from all of the alternatives proposed 

or considered. The final proposal contains limits that were determined to obtain the 

maximum feasible reduction, were commercially and technologically feasible, preserved 

product forms (as required by Health and Safety Code Section 41712), and together 

achieved the necessary emission reductions to partially fulfill ARB’s SIP commitments 

and the Discrete Early Action Measures to reduce GHGs. 

Alternative Three – Set Limits for Different Categories

 Staff carefully reviewed the 2003 Survey data to select categories where 

reductions were feasible. Considering all available information, staff determined that at 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 13 

this time, for certain categories, limits would not achieve significant reductions, or could 

not be set such that it could be demonstrated that the limits were commercially or 

technologically feasible without further investigation. Examples of categories where 

further investigation is needed include Air Fresheners, Nail Coatings, and Paint and 

Lacquer Thinners. 

 Related to GHG reductions, the Pressurized Gas Duster category presented the 

best opportunity for reductions. We have the best available data to set the proposed 

GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters. 

 For this current action, staff is proposing new or lower VOC limits for multiple 

categories and a GWP limit for one category that would achieve the maximum feasible 

reductions, and partially fulfill ARB’s commitments. It should be noted that ARB has 

already set VOC limits for 115 product categories, with 150 VOC limits, achieving a 

50 percent reduction in VOC emissions from the regulated categories. 

 We also note that categories surveyed in the 2006 Consumer and Commercial 

Products Survey will be evaluated and additional opportunities for further reductions in 

VOCs and GHGs may be identified. 

 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. 

 February, 2008. (ARB, 2008c) 

2. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

Technical Support Document Chapter III - 14 

III. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR EMISSION REDUCTIONS

 In this Chapter, we describe State law requirements related to setting volatile 

organic compound (VOC) and Global Warming Potential (GWP) limits, and how our 

proposals meet these criteria. We also provide the information related to complying 

products and complying marketshares which indicate the limits are commercially and 

technologically feasible in the timeframes provided. 

A. VOC REDUCTIONS 

Health and Safety Code section 41712 gives ARB authority to control emissions 

from a very diverse number of products sold statewide to household and commercial 

consumers. By law, “Consumer Product" means a chemically formulated product used 

by household and institutional consumers, including, but not limited to, detergents; 

cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, 

lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive 

specialty products; but does not include other paint products, furniture coatings, or 

architectural coatings. 

 Section 41712 requires the Board to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum 

feasible reduction in VOCs emitted by consumer products after making certain 

determinations. Prior to adoption, the Board must determine that adequate data exist to 

establish that the regulations are necessary to attain State and federal ambient air 

quality standards and the regulations are commercially and technologically feasible and 

necessary. Amendments to section 41712 in 1996 specified that regulations adopted 

by the Board cannot result in the elimination of a product form. Product form refers to 

the shape and structure of the product, such as liquid, solid, powder, gel, crystal, 

aerosol, or pump spray. 

The Board must consider the effect that the limits or requirements proposed for 

health benefit products will have on the efficacy of those products in killing or 

inactivating agents of infectious diseases such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi. In this 

regard, the Board must consult with health professionals when developing VOC control 

measures for health benefit products. 

The Board must also meet its obligations under the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). ARB’s SIP commitments are described in both the Executive Summary and in 

Chapter I. 

 Related to VOC reductions, Chapter IV describes why the proposed 

amendments are necessary to attain ambient air quality standards, and why the data 

are adequate to adopt the proposed limits. Our focus in this Chapter is related to our 

rationale of why the proposed VOC limits are commercially and technologically feasible. 

During the early development of consumer product regulations, ARB staff established 

guidelines in setting the limits to ensure that these statutory criteria were met. These 

guidelines and statutory criteria were followed in developing the proposed amendments. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 15 

Section C describes the terms “technologically feasible” and “commercially feasible,” as 

they relate to VOC reductions. 

B. GHG REDUCTIONS 

 Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) was signed into law in 2006. It is codified in Health and 

Safety Code section 38500 et. seq. These sections require ARB to develop regulations 

and consider market mechanisms that will ultimately reduce California’s greenhouse 

gas emissions equivalent to the 1990 levels by 2020. It requires ARB to identify a list of 

Early Action Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures by June 30, 2007. A subset of 

these has been identified as Discrete Early Action Measures. These actions are to be 

adopted and legally enforceable (approved by Office of Administrative Law) by 

January 1, 2010. Reduction of compounds with high GWP that are used in consumer 

products is designated as one of the approved early actions. 

In developing regulations to meet GHG reduction goals, in accordance with 

section 38562, certain criteria are to be met. Among other things, the regulations must 

be equitable, minimize costs, and maximize the benefits to California. The GHG 

regulations are also required to be technologically feasible and cost-effective. 

Section D describes the criteria to be met in developing GHG reductions. 

C. TECHNOLOGICAL AND COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY OF VOC LIMITS 

 The proposed VOC limits were set based on the lower VOC content technologies 

existing within a product category, or are based on low emitting technology transfer from 

other products. In doing this, staff made sure that the various product forms within each 

category would be preserved. For the majority of the categories proposed for 

regulation, there are products on the market which currently comply. Where there is low 

complying market share, lower emission technology exists that can provide a pathway 

for compliance. 

 1. Technologically Feasible

 Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) requires that the Board adopt 

consumer product regulations that are “technologically feasible.” Technological 

feasibility is a different concept than "commercial feasibility," and does not take into 

account the cost of reformulating a product. Staff believes that a proposed limit is 

technologically feasible if it meets at least one of the following criteria: (1) the limit is 

already being met by at least one product within the same category, or (2) the limit can 

reasonably be expected to be met in the time frame provided through additional 

development efforts. 

 In setting the proposed VOC limits, staff made an effort, wherever possible, to 

ensure that multiple reformulation technologies exist which would allow products to 

comply. Proposed limits were set at VOC levels that staff determined could be met 

without increased use of toxic air contaminants, GHGs, or ozone-depleting compounds. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 16 

General reformulation options include addition of water with co-solvents, development 

of emulsion products, use of low vapor pressure (LVP)-VOC solvents, use of non-VOC 

propellants, and use of exempt solvents. 

2. Commercially Feasible 

 Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) also requires the Board to adopt 

consumer product regulations that are “commercially feasible.” The term “commercially 

feasible” is not defined in State law. In interpreting this term, the staff has utilized the 

reasoning employed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

in interpreting the federal Clean Air Act. In the leading case of International Harvester 

Company v. Ruckelshaus, (D.C. Cir. 1973) 478 F. 2d 615, the Court held that the 

U. S. EPA could promulgate technology-forcing motor vehicle emission limits which 

might result in fewer models and a more limited choice of engine types for consumers, 

as long as the basic market demand for new passenger automobiles could be generally 

met. 

 Following this reasoning, staff has concluded that a regulation is “commercially 

feasible” as long as the “basic market demand” for a particular consumer product can 

be met. “Basic market demand” is the underlying need of consumers for a product to 

fulfill a basic, necessary function. This must be distinguished from consumer 

“preference,” which may be towards specific attributes of a particular product. A 

“preference” is the choice of consumers for a certain product or products based upon 

fragrance, cost, texture, etc. 

 By way of example, a consumer has a basic market demand for a glass cleaner 

to remove soils, grease, dirt or grime from their windows. Glass cleaners may be 

formulated with glycol ether solvents or with ammonia. Consumers may choose an 

ammoniated glass cleaner because they prefer the performance characteristics, or they 

may choose a non-ammoniated glass cleaner because they dislike the smell of 

ammonia. This distinction is not recognized by all parties. Some stakeholders have 

expressed the view that consumers do not have a “basic market demand” for a general 

class of products, but that consumers instead have a number of separate and distinct 

“basic market demands” for many specialty products with differing characteristics. 

 ARB staff believes the consumer “preference” interpretation of “basic market 

demand” is inconsistent with the reasoning from the International Harvester case. To 

adopt such a narrow interpretation would be inconsistent with the clearly expressed 

legislative intent that “...the State board shall adopt regulations to achieve the maximum 

feasible reduction in reactive organic compounds emitted by consumer products...” 

(Health and Safety Code section 41712(a)). In order to achieve emission reductions, 

manufacturers of high VOC products which perform the same basic function as lower 

VOC counterparts must reduce the VOCs in their products. It is expected that when a 

product formulation changes, some attributes of the product will also change. If ARB 

were to establish limits which accounted for every distinct feature of every product, then 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 17 

each product would require a limit unto itself. Using this approach, it would be 

impossible to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOC emissions. 

 Every currently marketed product has some unique features that differentiate it 

from other products. Consumers who purchase a product have demonstrated a 

preference over other competing products. This distinction between “preference” and 

“basic market demand” was clearly made in the International Harvester case. In the 

International Harvester case, the court stated that the proposed emission limits would 

be feasible even though they may result in the unavailability of certain kinds of vehicles 

and engine types people preferred (e.g. fast “muscle” cars), as long as the basic market 

demand for passenger cars could be generally met. Applying this principle to consumer 

products, the proposed amendments allow the basic market demand to be met for each 

product category, even though it may no longer be possible to manufacture products 

with some specific attributes. ARB staff believes that this approach complies with 

Health and Safety Code section 41712. 

D. REQUIREMENTS OF AB 32

AB 32 requires that ARB adopt regulations by January 1, 2010 to achieve the 

maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHGs. Among other 

things, the reductions must be real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable. 

ARB is also required to adopt rules and regulations in an open, public process. In 

developing regulations to meet GHG reduction goals, in accordance with section 38562, 

certain criteria are to be met. These criteria are summarized here with our assessment 

as to why the proposed regulatory action meets them, or is not specifically applicable. 

In this rulemaking, we are proposing to regulate the GHG content for one 

category, Pressurized Gas Dusters. These products are used to clean computer parts 

and other sensitive electronics. Below is a discussion of why we believe that this 

rulemaking meets the requirements of State law. 

1. The State Board shall adopt rules and regulations in an open public 

process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and costeffective greenhouse gas emission reduction from sources or 

categories of sources. 

The proposal to reduce the potency of GHG emissions from Pressurized Gas 

Dusters was developed in consultation with affected parties in an open, public process 

through a public workshop and several individual consultation meetings. See 

Chapter II, Development of Proposed Amendments, for a description of the public 

process. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 18 

2. Design the regulations, including distribution of emissions 

allowances where appropriate, in a manner that is equitable, seeks to 

minimize costs and maximize the total benefits to California, and 

encourages early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

The Pressurized Gas Dusters proposed limit was set to maximize emission 

reductions uniformly through out the State, while minimizing costs. All manufacturers of 

Pressurized Gas Dusters, intended for sale in California, are required to meet the 

specified emission limit. No manufacturer or retailer would be allowed to sell 

non-complying products in California, therefore no user anywhere in California should 

be able to purchase non-complying products. Reductions in the potency of emissions 

will track with sales of Pressurized Gas Dusters. Therefore, as Pressurized Gas 

Dusters are used throughout the State, reductions would occur throughout the State. 

Greater reductions will likely occur in population centers. 

The cost-effectiveness (CE) of the proposed limit is about $0.22 per metric ton of 

carbon dioxide equivalents. See Chapter VII, Economic Impacts, for the detailed 

description. 

The emission limit yields the maximum technically feasible reduction in the 

potency of GHG. As set forth in Chapter VI, Description of Product Categories, 

Section B, Greenhouse Gas Categories, further reductions from this category were 

determined not to be technologically and commercially feasible. 

Nothing in the regulation discourages early action to reduce GHG emissions. In 

fact, many manufacturers have reduced the potency of GHG emissions over the last ten 

years by reformulating products to contain compounds with lower GWP. We expect this 

trend to continue prior to the effective date of the proposed emission limit. In addition to 

setting an effective date for the GWP limit, we are limiting to one year, the time product 

manufactured before the effective date can be sold. Once the sell-through period is 

over, the old product must be removed from store shelves. 

3. Ensure that activities undertaken to comply with the regulations do 

not disproportionately impact low-income communities. 

Use of consumer products is ubiquitous; no disproportionate localized impacts 

are expected. Greater reductions would occur in population centers, where more 

people reside. Compliance with this proposal will not require manufacturing plant 

changes that could cause a localized emission impact. Therefore, residents living near 

a plant producing or using Pressurized Gas Dusters, whether low-income or not, would 

not be disproportionately impacted. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 19 

4. Ensure that entities that have voluntarily reduced their greenhouse 

gas emissions prior to the implementation of this section receive 

appropriate credit for early voluntary reductions. 

This requirement is not applicable to this proposed rulemaking. 

5. Ensure that activities undertaken pursuant to the regulations 

complement, and do not interfere with, efforts to achieve and 

maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to 

reduce toxic air contaminant emissions. 

GHG limits from consumer products will be set only for categories where there 

would be no significant increase in the use of criteria pollutants or toxic air 

contaminants. For Pressurized Gas Dusters specifically, to prevent any possible 

increase in the emissions of criteria pollutants, a VOC limit of 1 percent by weight, 

including fragrance, is proposed. This VOC limit proposal will prevent manufacturers 

from replacing high GWP compounds with hydrocarbon propellants. While hydrocarbon 

propellants have low GWP, and would meet the GWP limit of 150, they contribute to the 

formation of ground-level ozone. In addition, a prohibition on the use of the toxic 

chlorinated compounds Methylene Chloride (MeCl) and Perchloroethylene (Perc) is 

proposed for Pressurized Gas Dusters. This prohibition will prevent manufacturers from 

using MeCl and Perc in Pressurized Gas Duster products. While unlikely, 

manufacturers could choose to use MeCl and/or Perc in Pressurized Gas Dusters 

because they are good solvents, have relatively low GWP, and are exempt as VOCs. 

The 1 percent VOC limit, and the prohibition of the use of MeCl and Perc, is consistent 

with the requirements under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA 

requires that adverse impacts from adopting regulations be mitigated. See Chapter VIII, 

Environmental Impacts, for a more detailed description. 

6. Consider cost-effectiveness of these regulations. 

The CE of the proposed limit is about $0.22 per metric ton of carbon dioxide 

equivalents. See Chapter VII, Economic Impacts, for the detailed description. 

7. Consider overall societal benefits, including reductions in other air 

pollutants, diversification of energy sources, and other benefits to 

the economy, environment, and public health. 

 

The proposed emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters is not expected to 

cause any adverse impacts to society or the environment. California will benefit from 

the reduction of GHG emissions. As discussed in the response to criterion five above, 

the proposal will not cause an increase in VOC or toxic air contaminant emissions. See 

Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, for a detailed description. In addition, no increase 

in the solid waste stream is anticipated. Reformulated products will be at least as 

effective as non-complying products. Packaging and the number of cans used should 

not increase. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 20 

8. Minimize the administrative burden of implementing and complying 

with these regulations. 

The administrative burden of complying with the proposed emission limit to 

manufacturers and marketers is minimal. Product reformulation will require replacing 

one propellant with another, and should be fairly straight-forward. The proposal has 

very few administrative requirements. Affected products would be required to include 

on the label or can a date, or date code, indicating date of manufacture. No 

recordkeeping or product registration would be required. However, certain Pressurized 

Gas Dusters products may need to modify their product labels. The proposed modified 

definition for Pressurized Gas Dusters includes an exemption for products that are 

labeled to be used “exclusively on energized equipment.” To qualify for the exemption 

from the GWP and VOC limits, the product label must contain specific language. For 

existing products used on energized equipment that do not contain the language, 

administrative and other costs may be incurred in changing the labels. 

9. Minimize leakage. 

Leakage is not expected as a result of the proposed emission limitation for 

Pressurized Gas Dusters. Leakage occurs when an emission limit set by the State 

causes manufacturing or other activities to be displaced outside of California. If leakage 

were to occur, emissions, jobs and other economic benefits to California would be lost. 

The emission benefits of the proposed limit track with sales of Pressurized Gas Dusters. 

In addition, the proposed emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters requires that all 

products manufactured for sale in California comply with the limit regardless of where 

they are manufactured. Therefore, there would not be a situation where a 

manufacturing plant inside the State would be at a competitive disadvantage compared 

to plants located outside of the State. 

10. Consider the significance of the contribution of each source or 

category of sources to statewide emissions of greenhouse gases. 

The projected reductions that will be achieved through implementation of the 

proposed limit are equivalent to reducing about 0.20 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent per year. While this reduction may appear somewhat modest, when 

the reduction is considered in conjunction with anticipated future GHG reductions from 

consumer products, and current and future reductions from other categories, the total 

reductions could become quite significant. The consumer products category 

encompasses hundreds of categories. When each is considered alone they are 

relatively small emitters, but with regard to GHG emissions the aggregate emissions 

may become more important. This situation necessitates achieving relatively small 

reductions from a large number of categories to achieve significant overall reductions. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 21 

11. The greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved are real, 

permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable by the state 

board. 

The emissions and emission reductions for Pressurized Gas Dusters were 

calculated based on data submitted by manufacturers and marketers of the affected 

products. The data were submitted in accordance with State law and were certified by 

an officer of each company that submitted the data. The GHG emissions and 

reductions were calculated based on GWP values defined by the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change 1995: Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996). The 

Consumer Products Regulation specifies the date upon which the proposed emission 

limit would become effective and further specifies how the emission limit is to be 

enforced. Further, the regulation specifies the test methods used to determine if 

products comply with the applicable emission standards. Finally, the regulation requires 

that products subject to emission limits must be dated or date coded. The date of 

manufacture enables enforcement personnel to ascertain if a product is subject to the 

applicable emission limit, based on the limit effective date. Once the amendments to 

the Consumer Products Regulation are approved by the Office of Administrative Law, 

the proposed emission limit will become State law. Based on the above, upon the 

effective date of the proposed emission limit, the reductions become real, permanent, 

quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable. 

12. For regulations.... ....the reduction is in addition to any greenhouse 

gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and 

any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that otherwise would 

occur. 

While many manufacturers have shifted from HFC-134a to HFC-152a resulting in 

a reduction in emission potency, HFC-134a products remain on the market. Therefore, 

the emission reductions, realized by requiring that most of the remaining Pressurized 

Gas Dusters reformulate, are new and would not have occurred in the absence of the 

proposed limit. The proposed emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters is the first 

emission limitation affecting the product category. No other existing State, federal or 

other requirements, specific to products sold in California, affecting emissions of GHG 

from Pressurized Gas Dusters exist. We are aware of requirements affecting GHG 

emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters products sold in the state of Wisconsin, but 

those requirements do not affect products sold in California. 

13. If applicable, the greenhouse gas emission reduction occurs over the 

same time period and is equivalent in amount to any direct emission 

reduction required pursuant to this division. 

This requirement is not specifically applicable to the proposed emission limit for 

Pressurized Gas Dusters. The emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters is in fact a 

direct emission limit. There are no proposals for any market based or other “flexibilitybased” compliance options for the proposed emission limit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 22 

14. The state board shall rely upon the best available economic and 

scientific information and its assessment of existing and projected 

technological capabilities when adopting the regulations required by 

the law. 

 ARB staff used the best available economic and scientific information available to 

develop the proposed emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters. The description in 

this Section B documents that the proposal was developed in accordance with 

AB 32 requirements. Chapter VII, Economic Impacts, contains a detailed description of 

the economic impact of the proposed emission limit. In addition, a rigorous 

technological assessment of Pressurized Gas Dusters was performed. See the detailed 

technical discussion in Chapter VI, Description of Product Categories, Section B, 

Categories for Which a Greenhouse Gas Limit is Proposed, Subsection 1, Pressurized 

Gas Duster. 

E. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

 Manufacturers of non-complying products will need to reformulate their products 

to meet the applicable VOC or GWP limits. Manufacturers have the flexibility to choose 

any formulation that meets the applicable limit and the reformulation options vary with 

each product category (see Chapter VI of the Technical Support Document). To comply 

with VOC limits, VOC solvents or propellants will need to be replaced, or partially 

replaced, with non-VOC ingredients. This may require switching to a water-based 

formulation, using acetone or another exempt solvent, increasing product solids, or 

formulating with a non-VOC propellant. Manufacturers may also need to change the 

valve, container, delivery system, or the other components of the consumer product 

depending on the individual formulation. ARB staff has proposed VOC limits that can 

be met without the increased use of toxic air contaminants. 

To meet the GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster, manufacturers of 

non-complying products will need to substitute a lower GWP propellant for the currently 

used higher GWP propellant. We expect that manufacturers will substitute HFC-152a 

for HFC-134a. We are also proposing a VOC limit for Pressurized Gas Duster products 

to ensure that VOC emissions do not increase as products reformulate. Because 

HFC- 152a is an exempt VOC meeting a 1 percent VOC limit is very feasible. 

 Table III-1 summarizes, for the proposed VOC limits, data related to the 

complying market-shares (based on sales), as well as the number of products that 

currently comply relative to total number of products reported. 

 Manufacturers can also comply with the proposed amendments through the use 

of the Innovative Products Provision (IPP), or the Alternative Control Plan (ACP). The 

IPP allows manufacturers of “innovative products” to comply with the Consumer 

Products Regulation if they demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that 

their product will result in less VOC emissions than a complying product that meets the 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 23 

applicable VOC limit. The innovative product may result in less emissions due to some 

characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery system, or other factors. 

 The ACP allows manufacturers to average the emissions from products above 

and below the applicable VOC limits, as long as the overall emissions are less than or 

equal to the emissions that would have occurred had all the products complied with the 

VOC limits. Manufacturers must submit an application which includes the VOC content 

of the products in the plan, a method of verifying the sales of each product in the plan, 

and other information necessary to track overall emissions. 

 Table III-1 shows that the complying marketshares (except where confidential) 

range from 3 to 100 percent. Generally, in those categories where the complying 

marketshare is low, more time is provided to comply with the limit. 

 Although not shown in Table III-1, 86 percent of reported products (based on 

sales) comply with the GWP limit for the Pressurized Gas Duster category. Moreover, 

18 of 90 products currently comply with the GWP limit of 150. Based on these 

complying marketshares and the number of complying products, staff believes the 

proposed VOC and GHG limits are commercially and technologically feasible. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 24 

Table III-1 

 Summary of Complying Products and Complying Marketshares

 Product Category 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(weight %) 

Number of 

Complying 

Products/ 

Total 

Complying 

Market 

Share (%) 

Astringent / Toner (non-FDA regulated) All 35 177 / 203 70 

Aerosol 5 7 / 59 10 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner Nonaerosol 1 54 / 117 25 

Aerosol 17 13 / 41 5 

Dusting Aid Nonaerosol 3 33 / 38 74 

Fabric Protectant Nonaerosol 1 42 / 63 95 

Fabric Softener – 

 Single Use Dryer Product All 

0.05 

grams per 

use* 

20 / 26 24 

Floor Maintenance Product All 1 57 / 98 53 

Floor Polish or Wax – 

 Wood Floor Wax All 70 *** / 7 *** 

Glass Cleaner Aerosol 10 32 / 95 37 

Motor Vehicle Wash All 0.2 311 / 366 89 

All 25 38 / 176 4 Multi-purpose Lubricant – 

 excluding solid & semisolid All 10 22 / 176 3 

Aerosol 25 *** / *** 100 

Odor Remover/Eliminator Nonaerosol 6 154 / 184 82 

Penetrant All 25 14 / 84 30 

Personal Fragrance Product (products with 

20% or less fragrance) All 75** 679 / 1101 37 

Pressurized Gas Duster All 1 89 / 90 > 99 

Chemically Curing Nonaerosol Sealant or 3 95 / 196 23 

Caulking 

Compound Non-Chemically 

Curing 

Nonaerosol 1.5 201 / 344 76 

Aerosol 15 18 / 70 4 

Spot Remover Nonaerosol 3 231 / 261 94 

Aerosol 8 *** / 8 *** 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner Nonaerosol 2 63 / 102 69 

Windshield Water Repellant All 75 *** / 30 *** 

Source: 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a) grown to 2008, and the 2007 

 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update 

* Grams per use limit provides emissions reductions equivalent to 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit, 

 including fragrance 

** Remove “Grandfather” clauses 

*** Omitted to protect confidentiality 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 25 

REFERENCES 

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. 

Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. 

Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: 

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate 

Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007) 

2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995, The 

Science of Climate Change; Contribution of Working Group I to the Second 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. 

Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and 

 K. Maskell, eds. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, U.K. (IPCC, 1996)
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 26 

IV. EMISSIONS

 California’s extreme air quality problems require unique strategies for improving 

air quality and slowing climate change. In this Chapter, we provide an overview of 

criteria pollutant air quality and climate change problems, which are germane to the 

regulation of consumer products. We also describe the need for significant emission 

reductions from all sources contributing to these problems. This Chapter includes a 

description of the need for the regulation of consumer products and provides a 

summary of the emissions from the categories proposed for regulation. For a detailed 

summary of the product categories, the reader is referred to Chapter VI. 

A. CRITERIA POLLUTANTS AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been established to protect 

California’s population from the harmful effects of ozone and particulate matter (PM). 

An ambient air quality standard sets legal limits on the level of an air pollutant in the 

outdoor (ambient) air necessary to protect public health. Both ARB and U.S. EPA are 

authorized to set standards. 

Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from consumer products contribute 

to the formation of both ozone and fine PM. Other sources of VOCs include emissions 

from fuel combustion, coatings and paints. PM pollution is the result of both direct and 

indirect emissions. Direct sources of PM include emissions from fuel combustion and 

wind erosion of soil. Indirect PM emissions result from the chemical reaction of VOCs, 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides and other chemicals in the atmosphere. 

 1. Ozone 

 Ozone formation in the lower atmosphere results from a series of chemical 

reactions between VOCs and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. The rate of 

ozone generation is related closely to both the amount and reactivity of VOC emissions 

as well as the amount of NOx emissions available in the atmosphere 

(Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). Ozone is a colorless gas and the chief component of 

urban smog. It is one of the State’s more persistent air quality problems. Ninety-three 

percent of Californians, or 36 million people, live in areas designated as non-attainment 

for the federal eight-hour ozone standard. California experienced 41 percent of the total 

national ozone exposure, based on analysis of population exposure conducted by ARB 

staff for the years 2000 through 2002 (ARB, 2006b). California occupies the top five 

spots and has six out of the top ten areas with the highest levels of ozone (2004 design 

values). 

 It has been well documented that ozone adversely affects respiratory function of 

humans and animals. Human health studies show that short-term exposure to ozone 

injures the lung (ARB, 2005, 2000a; U.S. EPA, 2006). In some animal studies, 

permanent structural changes with long-term exposures to ozone concentrations 

considerably above ambient were seen; these changes remain even after periods of 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 27 

exposure to clean air (U.S. EPA, 2006). Exposure to levels of ozone above the current 

ambient air quality standard can lead to lung inflammation, lung tissue damage, and a 

reduction in the amount of air inhaled into the lungs. 

 Ozone is a strong irritant that can cause constriction of the muscle cells in the 

airways that result in symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, 

and increased asthma symptoms (ARB, 2005). Recent evidence suggests that ozone 

may be linked to the onset of new asthma in very active children 

(McConnell et al., 2002). Ozone has also been associated with premature death. 

Based on 2001-03, premature deaths from ozone exposure in California are estimated 

at 630 (ARB, 2005). Ozone in sufficient doses can also increase the permeability of 

lung cells, rendering them more susceptible to toxins and microorganisms. Other health 

effects associated with ozone exposure include hospitalizations and school absences. 

Of course, the greatest risk from ozone exposure is to those who are active outdoors 

during smoggy periods, such as children, athletes, and outdoor workers. 

 Not only does ozone adversely affect human and animal health, but it also affects 

vegetation, throughout most of California, resulting in reduced yield and quality in 

agricultural crops, disfiguration or unsatisfactory growth in ornamental vegetation, and 

damage to native plants. During the summer, ozone levels are often highest in the 

urban centers in Southern California, the San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento Valley, 

which are adjacent to the principal production areas in the State’s multibillion-dollar 

agricultural industry (USDA, 2006). ARB studies indicate that ozone pollution damage 

to crops is estimated to cost agriculture over $500 million dollars annually (ARB, 1987; 

ARB, 2006b). 

 2. Fine Particulate Matter 

 PM is a complex mixture of tiny particles that may consist of dry solid fragments, 

solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These particles vary greatly 

in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of many different 

materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust. As described above, PM can be directly 

emitted from sources, such as diesel PM, or can be produced indirectly from sources 

which emit precursors that are converted to PM by atmospheric processes. Particles 

10 micrometers or less in diameter are defined as "respirable particulate matter" or 

"PM10.” PM10 and particles 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM2.5) can be inhaled 

deep into the lungs. PM2.5 contributes significantly to regional haze and reduction of 

visibility in California. Besides reducing visibility, the acidic portion of PM (nitrates, 

sulfates) can harm crops, forests, aquatic and other ecosystems (ARB, 2002). 

 Considerable epidemiologic research over the past 15 years has investigated the 

responses of humans to PM. The principal health effects of PM exposure are 

summarized below: 

• Many studies have consistently found statistical associations between PM2.5 and 

premature death with both long-term (Pope et al., 2004; Pope et al., 2002; 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 28 

Krewski et al., 2000; Laden et al., 2006) and daily exposures (e.g., Dominici et 

al., 2005; Dominici et al .2003; Schwartz et al., 2003; Laden et al., 2000). The 

association with premature mortality is considerably stronger for annual average 

PM2.5 exposure than for daily average PM2.5. That is, long-term exposure appears 

to pose a greater risk of death than short-term exposure. 

• A recent study suggests that long-term exposure to PM2.5 may influence the risk 

of adverse cardiovascular events in women (Miller et al., 2007), including 

hospitalization or death from heart attack or stroke. 

• Daily exposure to PM2.5 has been associated with hospitalization for heart and 

lung related causes (Moolgavkar, 2003; Schwartz et al., 2003; Zanobetti et al., 

2003). Others have found that exposure to PM2.5 resulted in increased 

emergency room visits; exacerbation of asthma, and other respiratory diseases 

(Peel et al., 2005; Sheppard et al., 2003). Other research indicates that 

exposure to PM2.5 leads to increased asthma medication usage (Gent et al., 

2003), and increased asthma symptoms (e.g., Delfino et al., 2002; Whittemore 

and Korn, 1980). Exposure to PM2.5 has also been associated with increased 

work loss days (Ostro et al., 1993; Ostro et al., 1989). 

• Older adults with pre-existing chronic heart or lung disease are at greatest risk of 

experiencing adverse effects related to PM2.5 exposure (Moolgavkar, 2003; 

Dominici et al., 2006; Symons et al., 2006). 

 There is some evidence suggesting that air pollution may have greater effects in 

children than in adults. This may be because they inhale more PM2.5 per pound of body 

weight than do adults, and because they breathe more rapidly than adults. Adverse 

effects reported in children include reduced lung function and growth in higher pollution 

areas (Gauderman et al., 2004; Gauderman et al., 2002; Gauderman et al., 2000) that 

may at least partially reverse if the child moves to an area with cleaner air (Avol et al., 

2001); increased asthma and bronchitis symptoms (Gauderman et al., 2005; et al., 

1999); increased school absenteeism (Gilliland et al., 2001); and increased risk of 

acquiring asthma for children who engage in three or more outdoor sports and live in 

areas with high ozone concentrations (McConnell et al., 2002). 

 

 3. Ambient Air Quality Standards 

In April 2005, the Board reviewed California's one-hour peak standard for ozone 

and determined that it alone was not sufficiently protecting public health. Consequently, 

ARB adopted a new eight-hour ozone standard of 0.070 parts per million (ppm) 

averaged over eight hours, while retaining the existing one-hour ozone standard at 

0.09 ppm. Regarding particulate matter, the Board adopted stricter standards in 2002, 

which include a PM10 annual average standard of 20 micrograms per cubic meter 

(μg/m3) and a new annual average PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m3. The State PM10

standard for a 24-hour period remains at 50 μg/m3. The national and State ambient air 

quality standards for ozone and PM are shown in Table IV-1. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 29 

Table IV-1 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 

Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard National Standard

Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm 

(180 μg/m3) 

--------- 

8 hour 0.070 ppm 

(137 μg/m3) 

0.075 ppm* 

( 147 μg/m3) 

PM10

24 hour 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 

50 μg/m3 

20 μg/m3

150 μg/m3 

--------- 

PM2.5

24 hour 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 

--------- 

12 μg/m3

35 μg/m3 

15 μg/m3

Source: Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards April 1, 2008 (ARB, 2008a). 

 * This standard became effective on March 12, 2008. The 2007 SIP demonstrates attainment with 

 the previous standard of 0.08ppm. 

Table IV-1 reflects the newly revised national eight-hour standard for ozone of 

0.075 ppm, which was promulgated on March 12, 2008. The U.S. EPA’s rescission of 

its one-hour ozone standard is also reflected (U.S. EPA, 1997). Despite these revisions 

to the national standards, Table IV-1 clearly shows that California's standards for PM 

and ozone continue to be more heath protective than those at the federal level. 

 

4. Area Designations for California Ambient Air Ozone Standard. 

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 has the fundamental goal that all 

areas of California are to attain the State ambient air quality standards for ozone by the 

earliest practicable date. As specified in the CCAA ARB has designated areas of 

California to be in "attainment" or "non-attainment" for the State ozone standards. 

For the year 2007, Figure IV-1 shows the counties designated as non-attainment (or 

non-attainment-transitional, which is a subcategory of non-attainment) for the State 

ozone standard. As shown, unhealthy levels of ozone are not limited to urban areas, 

but can be found in nearly every county in California. This map clearly indicates the 

extent and magnitude of the ozone problem in California. 

The areas that are non-attainment for the State ozone standards are also nonattainment for the previous 0.08 ppm federal eight-hour ozone standard. The federal 

non-attainment designations include a number of rural Sierra Nevada foothill counties 

and additional parts of the Sacramento Valley. The federal one-hour standard was 

revoked on June 15, 2005, one year after the effective date of the designations. SIPs 

showing how each non-attainment area will meet the 0.08 ppm eight-hour ozone 

standard were submitted in 2007. In order to maintain progress towards clean air, the 

federal Clean Air Act prohibits backsliding on the control program. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 30 

Figure IV-1 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 31 

 Recent air quality trends have shown that progress is being made towards 

achieving the State ozone standard. For the South Coast Air Basin all of the ozone 

statistics show an overall steady decline, as seen in Figure IV-2. The 2005 three-year 

average of the maximum eight-hour concentration is almost 41 percent lower than 1985. 

Also, the number of days above the standards has declined dramatically. The 

downward trend for both the eight-hour and one-hour ozone concentrations is similar 

(ARB, 2007g). 

Figure IV-2 

South Coast Air Basin Ozone Trend 

 Source: ARB 2007 Almanac 

 The ozone problem in the San Joaquin Valley ranks among the most severe in 

the State. Peak levels have not declined as much as the number of days that standards 

are exceeded. From 1985 to 2004, the maximum peak eight-hour indicator decreased 

only two percent. The number of national eight-hour standard exceedance days has 

been quite variable over the years. This variability is due, in part, to the influence of 

meteorology as well as changes to the monitoring network. The monitoring network 

was not as extensive during the 1980’s as it has been during the last 14 years. For this 

reason, the period between 1990 to 2005 provides a better indication of trends. During 

this period, there has been an eight percent decrease in the three-year average of the 

number of exceedance days of the national eight-hour standard (ARB, 2007g). 

Figure IV-3 shows the ozone trend between years 1986 and 2006. 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 32 

Figure IV-3 

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Ozone Trend 

Source: ARB 2007 Almanac 

 Despite over 25 years of regulatory efforts and the decline of smog levels in 

areas such as the South Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin Air Basin, ozone 

continues to be an important environmental and health concern in California and more 

emission reductions are necessary. The State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan addresses the State measures necessary to meet the previous 

national ozone standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 

5. Area Designations for California Ambient Air PM2.5 Standard 

Figure IV-4 shows the counties designated as non-attainment for the State PM2.5 

standard. As with ozone, unhealthy levels of PM2.5 are not limited to urban areas, but 

can be found in many counties throughout California. 

Related to the federal PM2.5 standard, in December 2007, ARB submitted nonattainment area recommendations and appropriate boundaries to U.S. EPA, in 

response to the new federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m3 established on 

December 18, 2006. The non-attainment area recommendations are based on 

2004-2006 PM2.5 air quality monitoring data. ARB recommended that the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVAPCD), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the 

Sacramento Air Quality Management District, the combined cities of Yuba 

City/Marysville, the city of Chico, and the city of Calexico be designated as non-
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 33 

attainment for the new 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Thus, most of the areas shown in 

Figure IV-4 are also non-attainment for the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The 

SCAQMD SIP was approved by the Board in September, 2007 and it was submitted to 

U.S. EPA in November, 2007. The PM2.5 SIP for SJVAPCD is expected to be 

considered at the May Board meeting. 

Figure IV-4 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 34 

B. THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006 

Scientists have concluded that the evidence is overwhelming that the planet is 

warming from the higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

Although greenhouse gases (GHG) are naturally occurring, the steep increase in these 

heat-trapping gases since the Industrial Revolution leaves very little doubt that human 

activity is to blame for these recent climate change trends. The fact that GHGs remain 

in the atmosphere for a very long time, and that man-made emissions of GHGs are 

continuing to increase, mean that the world will continue to warm in the centuries 

ahead. This warming, or climate change, is a global problem. Clearly, no single state 

or country can single-handedly solve the problem. However, California is stepping 

forward to do its part. To address the problem, Assembly Bill 32, the California Global 

Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), was signed into law by the Governor in 

September 2006. By enacting this Legislation, the legislature declared: 

“Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, 

natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse 

impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a 

reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra 

snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of 

coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the 

natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, 

asthma, and other human health-related problems.” 

This legislation is codified in the California Health and Safety Code, commencing 

with section 38500. Beyond the AB 32 requirements the Governor’s Executive Order 

EO-S-03-05 calls for an additional 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. 

While carbon dioxide (CO2) is the GHG emitted in the largest quantity, other

GHGs include, but are not limited to, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs). Related to the role of consumer products, HFCs are the primary source of 

GHG emissions. To a lesser extent hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFC) and 

hydrofluoroethers (HFE) play a role. 

1. Climate Change 

Climate change, or global warming, is the process whereby emissions of 

anthropogenic pollutants, together with other naturally-occurring gases, absorb infrared 

radiation in the atmosphere, leading to increases in the overall average global 

temperature. The standard definition of “greenhouse gas” includes, but is not limited to, 

six substances as identified in the Kyoto Protocol; carbon dioxide (CO2), methane 

(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride 

(SF6). Changes in the atmospheric abundance of GHGs alter the energy balance of the 

climate system. These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing. While CO2

is the largest contributor to radiative forcing, methane, halocarbon, N2O, and other 

species also contribute to climate change. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 35 

Controlling multiple substances that jointly contribute to climate warming requires 

some method to compare the effects of the different gases because the physical 

properties (climate warming impact and persistence in the atmosphere) of the GHGs 

are very different. The current solution to this problem is the calculation made by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), known as Global Warming 

Potentials (GWP) (IPCC, 2007; IPCC, 1996). The basic idea is to calculate the 

cumulative climate warming over a specified time span resulting from one unit mass of 

the GHG emitted. The estimates of GWPs have extensively been reviewed by many 

climate scientists around the world. The IPCC is constantly evaluating GWP values and 

the assessment is generally updated every 6 years. 

By convention, the GWP index is defined relative to CO2 which has a GWP of 1. 

The Second Assessment Report (SAR) (IPCC, 1996), defines the GWP of a GHG as 

the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing impact from an instantaneous release of 

1 kilogram (kg) of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of CO2. The standard units 

of measurement used to express the emissions of a GHG is, million metric tons of CO2

equivalents (MMT CO2e) per year. 

The GWP values used by ARB are generally the 1996 SAR GWP values (ARB, 

2007c). These values are used when converting emissions of GHGs to carbon dioxide 

equivalent values (CO2e). The SAR GWP values are used to be consistent with the 

Board’s Discrete Early Action Report, other statewide and national GHG inventories, 

and the upcoming Scoping Plan. 

The climate warming impact from emissions of GHGs is the product of two 

factors: (1) the mass of GHG emitted, and (2) its warming potential. In addition to 

uncertainty in the mass of emissions, there is also uncertainty in attributes of warming 

potential (as a function of direct and indirect warming impacts and the atmospheric 

lifetime) and thus in the assessment of GWP. 

The GWP of a compound may reflect a direct effect as well as an indirect effect 

on global warming. The direct effect is the warming due to the absorption of radiation 

by molecules of the compound in question. VOCs, CO2, and HFCs all have direct 

effects. The indirect effect is due to the impact that the presence of the compound has 

on the concentration of other GHGs. For example, VOCs contribute indirectly to global 

warming, because they react chemically in the atmosphere to increase greenhouse gas 

concentrations of ozone and methane. While VOCs do have direct effects, they are 

considered GHGs primarily because of their role in creating ozone, and in prolonging 

the life of methane in the atmosphere. For consumer products, as mentioned earlier, 

direct emissions of HFCs are the primary concern. HCFCs, HFEs, CO2, and N2O are 

also compounds of interest. 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 36 

2. Predicted Climate Change Impacts 

Global average temperatures have risen both on land and in the oceans, with 

observable impacts already occurring. Scientists predict that if the increase in GHG 

emissions continues unabated, temperatures will rise by as much as 10 degrees 

Fahrenheit by the end of this century (Pew, 2006). It is impossible to predict exactly 

how climate change will affect California's ecosystems and economy in the future. 

However, the expected physical changes will impact California's public health, economy 

and ecology. There are many areas of concern. 

One area of considerable concern is the effect of climate change on California's 

water supply. During the winter, in our mountains, snow accumulates in a deep pack, 

preserving much of California's water supply. If winter temperatures are warmer 

however, more precipitation will fall as rain, decreasing the size of the snowpack. 

Heavier rainfall in the winter could bring increased flooding. Less spring runoff from a 

smaller snowpack will reduce the amount of water available for hydroelectric power 

production and agricultural irrigation. Evidence of this problem already exists. 

Throughout the 20th century, annual April to July spring runoff in the Sierra Nevada has 

been decreasing, with water runoff declining by about ten percent over the last 

100 years. 

Another predicted outcome of climate change is a rise in sea level. California 

has already experienced a 3 to 8 inch rise in the last century. If the trend continues, 

large populations living along California's coast will face serious consequences such as 

flooding of low-lying property, loss of coastal wetlands, erosion of cliffs and beaches, 

saltwater contamination of drinking water, and damage to roads and bridges. 

Air quality will also be exacerbated by increasing temperatures. Higher 

temperatures, strong sunlight, and stable air masses could lead to increased 

concentrations of ground-level ozone. 

Climate change could impact California agriculture by increasing demand for 

irrigation to meet higher evaporative demand, while supply will become less reliable due 

to declining snowpack in the mountains. Climate change will also put our forests at 

greater risk for fire and disease (ARB, 2003). 

3. Discrete Early Action Plan and Scoping Plan 

Among other things, AB 32 requires ARB to design and adopt an overall Scoping 

Plan, by January 1, 2009, that identifies how GHG emissions can be reduced back to 

1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 additionally recognizes that immediate progress in 

reducing GHG emissions can and should be made. Accordingly, AB 32 required ARB 

to identify a list of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures” by June 30, 2007. 

Discrete Early Actions are Board adopted regulations to reduce GHG emissions which 

are legally effective by January 1, 2010. These measures are to become part of the 

State’s comprehensive strategy for achieving GHG reductions. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 37 

 In June 2007, the ARB approved a list of early action GHG reduction measures. 

Additions to the list were approved by the Board at its October 2007 hearing. A subset 

of these early action measures was identified as discrete early action measures. One of 

the approved Discrete Early Action Measures designated in the Early Action Report 

calls for the reduction in use of compounds with high GWP in consumer products. The 

measure is estimated to achieve an emission reduction of 0.25 MMT CO2e per year 

from consumer products (ARB, 2007b). 

 The objective of the consumer products Discrete Early Action measure is to 

reduce the impact of compounds with high GWPs when alternatives are available. 

Consumer product formulations may be required to reduce or eliminate the use of 

GHGs with high GWPs. The primary compounds of interest are HFCs. These 

compounds have direct impacts on global warming. As mentioned previously, VOCs 

have an indirect effect on increasing temperatures, in that they participate in reactions 

leading to the formation of ground level ozone. Therefore, our VOC reduction strategies 

for consumer products will also reduce the impact of consumer products’ emissions on 

climate change. 

 The reduction in use of compounds with high GWPs in consumer products is a 

long-term effort. We are continuing to develop an emission inventory. Thus, we are 

unable to quantify what the overall total GWP emission reduction will be at this time. As 

we move forward, evaluate product categories, and identify areas where emission 

reductions are possible, we will quantify additional emission reductions as GWP limits 

are adopted. However, we expect to achieve the estimated reduction of 

0.25 MMT CO2e per year through this and subsequent rulemakings.

 In this rulemaking, we are making our initial proposal to reduce GHGs in 

consumer products. We are proposing a GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster 

products. If adopted by ARB, this will be the first GWP standard in place for consumer 

products in California. ARB staff estimates the reduction from this measure to be 

equivalent to reducing 0.20 MMT CO2 per year. 

C. IMPORTANCE OF REGULATING CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

As described in Section A and Section B of this Chapter, consumer products 

emissions contribute to the formation of ground level ozone, PM2.5, and climate change. 

In this section, we provide information on the importance of regulating these emissions. 

 1. VOC Emissions 

Consumer products are a significant source of VOC emissions in California. This 

section focuses on reducing emissions from consumer products as a ground-level 

ozone control strategy. Although each consumer product may seem to be a small 

source of emissions, the cumulative use of these products by over 37 million 

Californians results in significant emissions (CA DOF, 2007). Given the severity of the 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 38 

air pollution problems in California further dramatic emission reductions from all sources 

contributing to ground-level ozone are necessary. 

As evidence of the magnitude of consumer product VOC emissions, it is 

estimated that in 2010 consumer products emissions will be approximately 243 tons per 

day, or about 12 percent of the overall VOC inventory. In this same year, consumer 

product emissions will comprise about 18 and 7 percent of VOC emissions in the 

SCAQMD and SJVAPCD, respectively. Without further actions, consumer product 

emissions are expected to grow to approximately 270 tons per day in 2020, 

representing 14 percent of statewide VOC emissions. (ARB, 2007h). 

As control measures for other VOC sources (i.e. mobile sources) become 

effective, consumer product emissions become more important in the SCAQMD. In 

fact, it is estimated that emissions from consumer products will be the number one 

source of VOC emissions in the South Coast AQMD in 2020. However, using the 

maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) scale (see title 17, CCR section 94700-94701) as 

the basis for comparison, consumer product emissions are over two times less reactive 

than are emissions from on-road motor vehicles. Regardless of the ozone-forming 

potential of various source categories, clearly, further reductions in VOC emissions from 

consumer products and other VOC sources are needed, if ozone attainment is to be 

achieved and maintained. 

Despite these projections, ARB’s consumer products program is a success story. 

Since 1989, regulations adopted by the ARB, along with numerous amendments to the 

regulations, have significantly reduced VOC emissions from consumer products. 

Absent these regulations today, consumer product emissions would likely be over 

440 tons per day. Figure IV-5 shows that statewide consumer product VOC emissions 

have been reduced by over 200 tons per day in 2010. However, Figure IV-5 also shows 

that without further actions population growth would likely reverse the trend. 

The emission values in Figure IV-5 are derived from several data sources. 

The 1990 to 2006 emissions are taken from the ARB Forecasted Emissions by 

Summary Category, 2007 Almanac (ARB 2007h). Emissions are then grown in 

proportion to population increase. Population growth is in accordance with estimates in 

the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewide Human 

Population Table found in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). For 

categories regulated in the 2006 Consumer Products Amendments, emission values 

from the 2003 Survey and the projected emissions reductions resulting from the VOC 

limits approved in 2006, are reflected in Figure IV-5. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 39 

230

260

290

320

350

380

410

440

470

500

530

560

1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

Year

Emissions (tpd)

Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th an d e m ission red uctions )

Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th o nly )

200 tpd

*Includes 2006 CP Regulation Amendments Data

Figure IV-5 

Consumer Products VOC Emission Trends 

As shown in Figure IV-5, the important emission reductions that have been 

realized from the ARB’s Consumer Products Program are beginning to be partially 

offset by population growth. California’s population is expected to grow to 40 million by 

2010 (CA DOF, 2007). Therefore, ARB must continue its commitment to pursue 

additional technologically and commercially feasible reductions in consumer products 

emissions. 

In 1988, with the passing of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the importance 

of controlling emissions from consumer products was set forth. To meet California 

ambient air quality standards the CCAA added section 41712 to the Health and Safety 

Code. This section requires that ARB adopt regulations to achieve the maximum 

feasible reduction in VOCs emitted by consumer products. As part of the regulatory 

process, ARB must determine that adequate data exist to adopt the regulations. ARB 

must also determine that the regulations are technologically and commercially feasible, 

necessary, and do not eliminate any product form. 

To meet the federal standards, in 1994 emission reductions from consumer 

products became part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In 

this SIP, consumer products measures were put in place to work towards attaining the 

federal one-hour ambient air quality standard for ozone. In 2003, ARB again reiterated 

the commitment to reduce consumer products VOC emissions to meet the one-hour 

federal ozone standard. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 40 

In response to these mandates, three regulations with 150 VOC limits for 

115 categories of consumer products (including antiperspirants and deodorants and 

36 aerosol coatings categories) have been established to date. The adopted limits will 

achieve a 44 percent reduction in overall VOC emissions from consumer products by 

the year 2010. 

In 2007, a new SIP was adopted. This State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (Strategy) includes California’s plan to attain the national ozone 

standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. The consumer products commitment 

in this strategy supplements the 1994 and 2003 commitments. In the Strategy, ARB 

has committed to an additional 30 to 40 ton per day VOC reduction from consumer 

products by 2014. As planned, rulemakings are to occur between 2007 and 2008 with 

reductions occurring in the 2010 to 2012 timeframe. Further rulemakings between 2010 

and 2012, with implementation dates between 2012 to 2014, are to complete the 

emission reduction commitment (ARB, 2007d). This will continue ARB’s commitment to 

reduce VOC emissions from consumer products. As previously mentioned, consumer 

products are expected to become the largest source of VOC emissions in the South 

Coast Air Basin, and the third largest source in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin by 

2020. 

The Strategy also acknowledges that VOC reductions from consumer products 

are becoming more difficult to achieve. In light of this, the Strategy includes a 

commitment to explore innovative reduction strategies in the longer term. These 

measures would include investigating emission reduction opportunities through 

reactivity-based standards and alternative market-based mechanisms. If these 

mechanisms cannot produce meaningful emission reductions from the consumer 

products source category, then other approaches would be evaluated. Some of these 

approaches include the purchase of VOC credits; and funding of special projects to 

reduce emissions or accelerate reductions from pollution sources outside of the 

consumer products industry. 

Because significant further VOC reductions are necessary to attain the federal 

ozone standard, the reductions from the amendments proposed in this report are 

therefore “necessary” within the meaning of section 41712 of the Health and Safety 

Code. In addition, section 41712(b)(1) of the Health and Safety Code provides that a 

regulation’s “necessity” is to be evaluated in terms of both the State and federal 

standards. 

The applicable State and federal laws show that both the U.S. Congress and the 

California Legislature intended progress toward clean air to be made as quickly as 

possible. The CCAA specifically declares that it is the intent of the Legislature that the 

State air quality standards be achieved “...by the earliest practicable date...” (See Health 

and Safety Code, sections 40910 and 40913(a); see also the uncodified section 1(b)(2) 

of the Act (Stats. 1988, Chapter 1568)). A similar intent is expressed in the federal 

Clean Air Act, which declares that the federal air quality standards are to be achieved 

“...as expeditiously as practicable...” (See sections 172(a)(2), 181(a), and 188(c) of the 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 41 

federal Clean Air Act). For all of the reasons described above, the proposed 

amendments are “necessary” within the meaning of section 41712 of the Health and 

Safety Code. 

The amendments proposed in this rulemaking are intended to partially fulfill the 

2007 Strategy commitment for VOC reductions from consumer products. 

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

We acknowledge that the GHG contribution of consumer products is modest 

relative to other sources, such as vehicle exhaust. However, the severity of the problem 

requires reductions from any source where it is feasible. While staff is still in the process 

of developing the consumer product GHG inventory, we do know from past surveys that 

several GHGs are used in consumer products. 

Consumer products use various GHGs, mostly as propellants. To a much lesser 

degree, several solvents with fairly high GWPs are used. These compounds are 

typically low photochemically reactive compounds that are non-VOCs and have been 

used as a reformulation strategy to reduce VOC content. Compounds of interest include 

HFCs, HCFCs, HFEs, CO2, and N2O. However, the propellants HFC-134a and 

HFC-152a are the predominate GHGs used in consumer products today. In instances 

where flammability is a concern, HFC-134a is used. HFC-134a is a non-flammable 

propellant, whereas HFC-152a is minimally flammable. Compressed CO2 is also used 

as a propellant, but the GHG emissions are negligible compared to the emissions from 

HFCs. Table IV-2 shows some examples of GHGs that are used in consumer products. 

Table IV-2 

Global Warming Potential of Selected Compounds used in Consumer Products 

Compound SAR GWP* FAR GWP** 

CO2 1 1 

HFE-7200 N/A 59 

HFC-152a 140 124 

HCFC-141b N/A 725 

HFC-134a 1300 1430 

HFC-43 10mee 1300 1640 

* 100 year timeframe, SAR value 

** 100 year timeframe, FAR value 

 

As shown in Table IV-2, HFC-152a has a GWP of 140, while HFC-134a has a 

GWP of 1300. The value for HFC-134a is approximately ten times greater than the 

GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than CO2. Reductions of HFC-134a are 

being pursued in this rulemaking. 

 GHG emissions data are available from the 2003 Survey of consumer products. 

Staff has evaluated these data for possible GHG reductions and development of new 

regulations for this rulemaking. Additionally, in the 2006 Survey, we surveyed 

manufacturers of consumer products to determine the usage of compounds with high 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 42 

GWP in several more categories of consumer products (ARB, 2007f). Staff will use the 

2006 survey data to develop the GHG inventory for consumer products, and evaluate 

the data for product categories where compounds with high GWP are used to determine 

if there is a potential to reduce them without increasing the use of VOCs. 

Because reductions are necessary to slow climate change, the reductions from 

the amendments proposed in this report are necessary. The California Global Warming 

Solutions Act of 2006, by specifying adoption of Discrete Early Action Measures in 

Health and Safety Code section 38560, shows that the California Legislature intended 

progress toward reducing GHGs be made as quickly as possible. Because GHG 

reductions from consumer products have been designated as a Discrete Early Action 

Measure, to comply with State law, the proposed amendment to reduce the use of 

compounds with high GWP is necessary. 

D. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM CATEGORIES PROPOSED TO BE 

REGULATED 

1. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey 

 The 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Survey) was 

mailed to over 5,000 companies in November 2004 (Appendix D). Data received from 

the 2003 Survey formed the basis for the emissions used in this rulemaking. 

A complete discussion of the extensive survey process is found in Chapter IV of “The 

Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation and the 

Aerosol Coatings Regulation” released on September 29, 2006 (the 2006 

Amendments). 

 In summary, the 2003 Survey provided staff with detailed information on the 

formulations of consumer products, including complete speciation of VOCs, low vapor 

pressure VOC (LVP-VOC) solvents, and key exempt ingredients (ARB, 2004a). Total 

volumes of inorganic and other compounds were also provided. Information on sales, 

product form, customer types, and company size and economics were also requested. 

 ARB provided extensive summaries to industry detailing the aggregate sales, 

VOC speciation, VOC tonnage, and other key information. Summary tables were also 

provided (certain specific data were omitted to protect confidential information) detailing 

VOC content, product form, LVP-VOC content, and other information. The results of the 

2003 Survey were discussed at workgroup meetings, and input from industry was used 

to correct inaccuracies in the data. For this rulemaking, the 2008 emissions and 

reduction estimates in the years when the limits become effective (2010-2015) were 

grown from 2003 sales data and the State Department of Finance’s population 

estimates. Annual population growth factors were calculated using the 2008 State 

population figures and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) 

Statewide Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report 

(ARB, 2008d). 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 43 

 Staff is confident that the 2003 Survey had adequate representation of the 

available technologies in the market place and finds that the data meet the requirement 

in Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) to base regulations on “adequate data.” 

This assumption has been verified by discussions with manufacturers, category 

research and the wide range of VOC content reported for products in the categories 

slated for regulation. The Pressurized Gas Duster Survey update, conducted in early 

2008 for 2007 sales, also provided the best data for use in GHG proposal (ARB, 2008c). 

 In developing these proposals, staff worked extensively with stakeholders on 

each category proposed for regulation. In meetings with members of industry and other 

interested stakeholders, extensive discussions on the types of technologies used in 

each category were discussed. Numerous product labels and associated literature for 

each category were analyzed. Category information was also obtained from trade 

journals, Internet sites, textbooks, patents, and directly from manufacturers. 

2. Emission Estimates for Categories 

 The total emissions from the categories proposed for regulation are estimated to 

be about 22.6 tons per day in 2008. Table IV-3 summarizes these emissions, as well as 

the anticipated VOC reduction when the proposed limits become effective. 

 If adopted, once all limits become effective, the VOC emission reductions will be 

approximately 5.8 tons per day. 

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Development of the proposed amendment to reduce the use of compounds with 

high GWP began with the GHG emissions data available from the 2003 Survey of 

consumer products. Staff evaluated these data for possible GHG reductions and 

development of new regulations for this rulemaking. 

Based on these data it appeared that a GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters 

was feasible. During the public process of developing the proposed GWP limit, staff 

held meetings and teleconferences to solicit information and comments from industry 

associations and industry representatives. At this time, industry representatives alerted 

ARB staff that significant changes in the gas duster market had occurred since 2003. In 

response, staff conducted the Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update to collect 

updated data (ARB, 2008c). The GHG emissions from the Pressurized Gas Dusters for 

2003 and 2007 were estimated using reported information from the 2003 Consumer 

Products Survey and from the Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update gathered during 

February 2008 for 2007 sales. Information from both surveys is shown in Table IV-4. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 44 

Table IV-3 

Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective Date 

Product Category 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(percent by 

weight)

2008 VOC 

Emissions* 

(tons per day)

Reductions 

at Effective 

Date 

(tons per day)

Astringent / Toner 

(non-FDA regulated) a All 35 0.62 0.11 

Aerosol 5 0.32 0.07 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleanera

Nonaerosol 1 0.29 0.07 

Aerosol 17 0.27 0.08 

Dusting Aida

Nonaerosol 3 0.01 0.00 

Fabric Protectanta Nonaerosol 1 0.18 0.08 

Fabric Softener – 

 Single Use Dryer Producta All 0.05 grams per use** 0.52 0.21 

Floor Maintenance Producta All 1 0.11 0.07 

Floor Polish or Wax – 

 Wood Floor Waxa All 70 0.06 0.01 

Glass Cleanerb Aerosol 10 0.33 0.03 

Motor Vehicle Washa All 0.2 0.38 0.14 

25c

Multi-purpose Lubricant – 4.08 2.04 

 excluding solid & semisolidc/e All 

10e 1.27 

Aerosol 25 *** 0.00 

Odor Remover/Eliminatora

Nonaerosol 6 0.12 0.03 

Penetrantc All 25 0.40 0.15 

Personal Fragrance Product 

(products with 20% or less 

fragrance) d

All 75+

 10.89 0.41 

Pressurized Gas Dustera All 1 0 0 

Chemically Curingb Nonaerosol Sealant or 3 1.91 0.22 

Caulking 

Compound Non-Chemically 

Curinga

Nonaerosol 1.5 0.68 0.12 

Aerosol 15 0.76 0.24 

Spot Removera

Nonaerosol 3 0.29 0.05 

Aerosol 8 0.01 0.00 

Tire or Wheel Cleanera

Nonaerosol 2 0.14 0.06 

Windshield Water Repellenta All 75 0.23 0.04 

Total Emissions 2008 22.61 tons per day

Total VOC Reductions 2015 5.76 tons per day 

 * Survey emissions adjusted for market coverage, Effective Dates: 

 and grown to the 2008 calendar year a: 12/31/2010 

 ** Grams per use limit provides emissions reductions equivalent b: 12/31/2012 

 to 2.6% VOC limit, including fragrance c: 12/31/2013 

 *** Omitted to protect confidentiality d: 12/31/2014 

 + Remove “Grandfather” clauses e: 12/31/2015
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 45 

Table IV-4 

Pressurized Gas Duster 

Survey 

Data

Product 

Form 

Number 

of 

Products

2008 

Category 

Sales 

(lbs/day)

2008 Adjusted 

GHG Emissions 

(CO2e lbs/day)

2008 Adjusted 

GHG Emissions 

(CO2e MMT/year)

2003 Aerosol 39 3,657 2,242,171 0.37 

2007 Aerosol 90 7,292 2,179,855 0.36 

Pressurized Gas Dusters have a sales-weighted average GHG content of over 

99 percent by weight. As shown in Table IV-4, 39 duster products were reported for 

2003 with adjusted sales of 3,657 pounds per day for 2008, and estimated GHG 

emissions of about 0.37 MMT CO2e per year in California. Additionally, as shown in the 

table, 90 duster products were reported for 2007 with adjusted sales of 7,292 pounds 

per day for 2008, and estimated GHG emissions of about 0.36 MMT CO2e per year. 

 Manufacturers of Pressurized Gas Dusters have been proactive in taking actions 

to reduce GHG emissions from gas dusters. Prior to 2003, where feasible, industry 

leaders voluntarily shifted away from using HFC-134a as the propellant in gas dusters 

to using HFC-152a (CSPA, 2008). These changes were captured and quantified in the 

2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. This is why the 2008 adjusted GHG 

emissions, shown above, have not increased proportionate to the category sales, which 

have nearly doubled. (For more details on the Pressurized Gas Duster proposal see 

Chapter VI). 

 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards. April 1, 2008 

 (ARB, 2008a). 

2. Air Resources Board. 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. 

 February, 2008. (ARB, 2008c) 

3. Air Resources Board. Statewide Human Population Chart: Population and 

Vehicle Trends Report. (ARB, 2008d) 

4. Air Resources Board. List Of Early Action Measures To Reduce Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board Consideration. 

 October 17, 2007. (ARB, 2007b) 

 

5. Air Resources Board. ARB Compendium of Emission Factors and Methods to 

Support Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October, 2007. 

(ARB, 2007c) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 46 

6. Air Resources Board. State Strategy for California’s 2007 Implementation Plan. 

Released April 26, 2007. Adopted by the Air Resources Board on 

 September 27, 2007. (ARB, 2007d) 

7. Air Resources Board. 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 July 24, 2007. (ARB, 2007f) 

8. Air Resources Board. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality –

2007 Edition. 2007. (ARB, 2007g) 

9. Air Resources Board. ARB Forecasted Emissions by Summary Category, 2007 

Almanac. http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/fcemssumcat2007.php. 2007. 

 (ARB, 2007h) 

10. Air Resources Board. Comparison of California’s Ozone Problem to the Rest of 

the Country. July 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006b) 

11. Air Resources Board. Review of the California Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

Ozone. October, 2005. (ARB, 2005) 

12. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

13. Air Resources Board. Fact sheets Backgrounder: The Greenhouse Effect and 

California. March, 2003. (ARB, 2003) 

14. Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

Staff Report - Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. May 3, 2002. (ARB, 2002) 

15. Air Resources Board. Effect of Ozone on Vegetation and Possible Alternative 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. March, 1987. (ARB, 1987) 

16. Avol, E.L., Gauderman, W.J., Tan, S.M., London, S.J., and Peters, J.M. 

Respiratory Effects of Relocating to Areas of Differing Air Pollution Levels. 2001. 

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Volume 164: 2067-

2072. (Avol, et al., 2001) 

 

17. California Department of Finance. Report: State Adds 444,000 in 2006: 2007 

Population Nears 37.7 Million. May 1, 2007. (CA DOF, 2007) 

 

18. Consumer Specialty Products Association. Technology of Pressurized Gas 

Duster Products - Meeting with ARB Staff. Andrew Steinman, Executive Vice 

President, Falcon Safety Products, Inc. March 5, 2008. (CSPA, 2008) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 47 

19. Delfino RJ, Zeiger RS, Seltzer JM, Street DH, McLaren CE. Association of 

Asthma Symptoms with Peak Particulate Air Pollution and Effect Modification by 

Anti-inflammatory Medication Use. 2002. Environmental Health Perspectives. 

Volume 110. Number 10: A607-617. (Delfino, et al., 2002) 

20. Dominici F, Peng RD, Bell ML, Pham L, McDermott A, Zeger SL, Samet JM. 

Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Admission for Cardiovascular and 

Respiratory Diseases. 2006. Journal of American Medical Association. 

 Volume 925. Number 10: 1127-1134. (Dominici et al., 2006) 

 

21. Dominici F, McDermott A, Daniels M, Zeger SL, Samet JM. Revised Analyses of 

the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study: Mortality Among 

Residents of 90 Cities. 2005. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 

A. 68:1071-92. (Dominici et al., 2005) 

22. Dominici F, McDermott A, Daniels M, Zeger SL, Samet JM. Revised Analyses of 

the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study, Part II. 2003. Health 

Effects Institute Special Report. (Dominici et al., 2003) 

 

23. Gauderman, W.J., Avol, E., Lurmann, F., Kunzli, N., Gilliland, F., Peters, J., and 

McConnell, R. Childhood Asthma and Exposure to Traffic and Nitrogen Dioxide. 

2005. Epidemiology. Volume 16. Number 6: 737-743. (Gauderman et al., 2005) 

 

24. Gauderman, W.J., Vora, H., McConnell, R., Berhane, K., Gilliland, F., Thomas, 

D., Lurmann, F., Avol, E., Kunzli, N., Jerrett, M., and Peters, J. The Effect of Air 

Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 Years of Age. 2004. New England 

Journal of Medicine. Volume 351. Number 11: 1057-1067. 

(Gauderman et al., 2004) 

25. Gauderman, W.J., Gilliland, G.F., Vora, H., Avol, E., Stram, D., McConnell, R., 

Thomas, D., Lurmann, F., Margolis, H.G., Rappaport, E.B., Berhane, K., and 

Peters, J.M. Association between Air Pollution and Lung Function Growth in 

Southern California Children: Results from a Second Cohort. 2002. American 

Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. Volume 166: 76-84. 

 (Gauderman et al., 2002) 

26. Gauderman, W.J., McConnell, R., Gilliland, F., London, S., Thomas, D., Avol, E., 

Vora, H., Berhane, K., Rappaport, E.B., Lurmann, F., Margolis, H.G., and Peters, 

J. Association Between Air Pollution and Lung Function Growth in Southern 

California Children. 2000. American Journal Respiratory and Critical Care 

Medicine. Volume 162. pp.1383-1390. (Gauderman et al., 2000) 

27. Gent JF, Triche EW, Holford TR, Belanger K, Bracken MB, Beckett WS, 

Leaderer BP. Association of Low-level Ozone and Fine Particles with 

Respiratory Symptoms in Children with Asthma. 2003. Journal of American 

Medical Association. Volume 290. Number 14: 1859-1867. (Gent et al., 2003) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 48 

28. Gilliland, F.D., Berhand, K., Rappaport, E.B., Thomas, D.C., Avol, E., 

Gauderman, W.J., London, S.J., Margolis, H.G., McConnell, R., Islam, K.T., and 

Peters, J.M. The Effects of Ambient Air Pollution on School Absenteeism Due to 

Respiratory Illnesses. 2001. Epidemiology. Volume 12. Number 1: 12-43. 

(Gilliland et al., 2001) 

29. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. 

Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. 

Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: 

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate 

Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

 Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007) 

30. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995, The 

Science of Climate Change; Contribution of Working Group I to the Second 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. J.T. 

Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. 

Maskell, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. 

(IPCC, 1996) 

31. Krewski D, Burnett R, Goldberg MS, Koover K, Siemiatycki J, Jerrett M et al. 

Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society 

Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. 2000. Research Report of the 

Health Effects Institute. (Krewski et al., 2000) 

32. Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer FE, Dockery DW. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 

Pollution and Mortality. 2006. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care 

Medicine. Volume 173: 667-672. (Laden et al., 2006) 

33. Laden F, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Schwartz J. Association of Fine Particulate 

Matter from Different Sources with Daily Mortality in Six U.S. Cities. 2000. 

Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 108. Number 10: 941-947. 

 (Laden et al., 2000) 

34. McConnell, R., K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S.J. London, T. Islam, W.J. Gauderman, 

E. Avol, H.G. Margolis, and J.M. Peters. Asthma in Exercising Children Exposed 

to Ozone: A Cohort Study. 2002. Lancet. Volume 359: 386-391. 

 (McConnell et al., 2002) 

35. McConnell, R., Berhane, K., London, S.J., Vora, H., Avol, E., Gauderman, W.J., 

Margolis, H.G., Lurmann, F., Thomas, D.C., and Peters, J.M. Air Pollution and 

Bronchitic Symptoms in Southern California Children with Asthma. 1999. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 49 

Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 107. Number 9: 757-760. 

(McConnell et al., 1999) 

36. Miller KA, Siscovick DS, Sheppard L, Shepherd K, Sullivan JH, Anderson GL, 

and Kaufman JD. Long-term Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence of -

Cardiovascular Events in Women. 2007. New England Journal of American 

Medicine. Volume 356. Number 5: 447-458. (Miller et al., 2007) 

37. Moolgavkar, SH. Air Pollution and Daily Deaths and Hospital Admissions in Los 

Angeles and Cook Counties. Revised Analyses of Time-Series Studies of Air 

Pollution and Health. 2003. Special Report. Health Effects Institute: 183-198. 

(Moolgavkar, 2003) 

38. Ostro BD, Lipsett MJ, Mann JK, Krupnick A, Harrington W. Air Pollution and 

Respiratory Morbidity among Adults in Southern California. 1993. American 

Journal of Epidemiology. Volume 137. Number 7: 691-700. (Ostro et al., 1993) 

39. Ostro BD, Rothschild S. Air Pollution and Acute Respiratory Morbidity: An 

Observational Study of Multiple Pollutants. 1989. Environmental Research. 

 Volume 50: 238-247. (Ostro et al., 1989) 

40. Peel JL, Tolbert PE, Klein M, Metzger KB, Flanders WD, Todd K, Mulholland JA, 

Ryan PB, Frumkin H. Ambient Air Pollution and Respiratory Emergency 

Department Visits. 2005. Epidemiology. Volume 16. Number 2: 164-174. 

 (Peel et al., 2005) 

41. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Pew Center on the States. 

Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change. 

December, 2006. (Pew, 2006) 

42. Pope, CA 3rd, Burnett RT, Thurston GE, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, and 

Godleski, JJ. Cardiovascular Mortality and Long-Term Exposure to Particulate 

Air Pollution: Epidemiological Evidence of General Pathophysiological Pathways 

of Disease. 2004. Circulation. Volume 109: 71-77. (Pope et al., 2004) 

43. Pope, CA 3rd, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD. 

Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution. 2002. Journal of American Medical Association. Volume 

287. Number 9: 1132-41. (Pope et al., 2002) 

44. Seinfeld, John H., and Pandis, Spyros N. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics -

From Air Pollution to Climate Change. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1998. 

(Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 50 

45. Sheppard L. Ambient Air Pollution and Nonelderly Asthma Hospital Admissions 

in Seattle, Washington, 1987-1994. Revised Analyses of Time-Series Studies of 

Air Pollution and Health. Special Report. 2003. Health Effects Institute. 

 pp. 227-240. (Sheppard et al., 2003) 

46. Symons JM, Wang L, Guallar E, Howell E, Dominici F, Schwab M, Ange BA, 

Samet J, Ondov J, Harrison D, Geyh A. A Case-crossover Study of Fine 

Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Onset of Congestive Heart Failure Symptom 

Exacerbation Leading to Hospitalization. 2006. American Journal of 

Epidemiology. Volume 164. Number 5: 421-433. (Symons et al., 2006) 

47. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Outlook: Statistical 

Indicators, Table 34.-Cash Receipts from Farm Marketing, by State. July, 2006, 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/Agoutlook/AOTables/. (USDA, 2006) 

48. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Review of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical 

Information OAQPS Staff Paper – Second Draft. July, 2006. (U.S. EPA, 2006) 

49. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone; Final Rule. Federal Register: July 18, 1997. 

 Volume 62. Number 138. (U.S. EPA, 1997) 

50. Whittemore A, Korn E. Asthma and Air Pollution in the Los Angeles Area. 1980. 

American Journal of Public Health. Volume 70. Number 7: 687-696. (Whittemore 

and Korn, 1980) 

51. Zanobetti A, Schwartz J. Airborne particles and hospital admissions for heart 

and lung disease. Revised Analyses of Time-Series Studies of Air Pollution and 

Health. Special Report. 2003. Health Effects Institute. pp. 241-248. 

 (Zanobetti et al., 2003)

Technical Support Document Chapter V - 51

V. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION

 In this Chapter, we provide a plain English description of the proposed 

amendments to the California Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound 

(VOC) Emissions from Consumer Products and explain the rationale for the 

amendments. The regulation is codified in title 17, California Code of Regulations, 

Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5, Article 2, Consumer Products, sections 

94507-94517 (Consumer Products Regulation). 

 Where applicable, key terms or concepts involved in each proposed amendment 

are described. The discussion in this Chapter is intended to satisfy the requirements of 

Government Code Section 11343.2, which requires that a noncontrolling “plain English” 

summary of the regulation be made available to the public. The proposed amendments 

to the Consumer Products Regulation can be found in Appendix B. 

 First of all, the current title of the regulation, “Regulation for Reducing Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products,” implies that the intent of the 

regulation is solely to reduce VOC emissions from consumer products. In this 

rulemaking, however, we are proposing to add requirements related to climate change. 

To clarify that the regulation now specifies requirements to reduce VOCs and 

greenhouse gases (GHG), we are proposing to change the title of the regulation to 

“Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Products.” Additionally, 

amendments are being proposed to six sections in the Consumer Products Regulation: 

section 94508 “Definitions,” section 94509 “Standards for Consumer Products,” 

section 94510 “Exemptions,” section 94512 “Administrative Requirements,” section 

94513, “Reporting Requirements,” and section 94515, “Test Methods.” These 

amendments are discussed below in detail. 

 In the sections below, we describe the proposed amendments and the rationale 

for them. The proposal includes the addition and modification of numerous definitions, 

a change in the definition of VOC to exclude a hydrofluoroether, new and lower VOC 

limits for multiple categories, and several changes to clarify existing sections of the 

Consumer Products Regulation. In addition, we are proposing to prohibit use of certain 

toxic compounds in several product categories. Our proposal also includes a provision 

to restrict the use of compounds with high global warming potential (GWP) in 

Pressurized Gas Duster products. A more detailed discussion of the existing regulatory 

requirements are referred to at the end of this Chapter (ARB, 2006a; ARB 2004b; ARB, 

1999; ARB, 1997b; ARB, 1991a; ARB, 1990c). 

A. DEFINITIONS (SECTION 94508)

 Section 94508, “Definitions,” provides all the terms used in the Consumer 

Products Regulation which are not self-explanatory. The proposed amendments to the 

Regulation include new or revised definitions. These definitions are necessary to define 

categories proposed for VOC limits or GWP limits, or to improve enforceability of the 

Regulation. 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 52

 

 Table V-1 lists proposed new definitions that are needed for product categories 

proposed for regulation. Because of the proposed definitional changes, 

section 94508(a) would also be reorganized to reflect proper alphabetical order. 

Chapter VI, contains a detailed discussion related to the proposal for each category. 

Table V-1 

New Definitions Proposed for Addition 

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking 

Compound 

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or 

Caulking Compound 

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product Not for Retail Sale 

Floor Maintenance Product Odor Remover/Eliminator 

Global Warming Potential Tire or Wheel Cleaner 

Global Warming Potential Value Windshield Water Repellant 

Motor Vehicle Wash 

 

 Several of these definitions warrant a further description. 

Global Warming Potential and Global Warming Potential Value

Of particular note, we are proposing new definitions for GWP and GWP Value. 

These definitions are necessary to implement our proposal to reduce the use of 

compounds with high GWPs used in Pressurized Gas Dusters. We are proposing to 

use the GWP definition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

GWP provides a measure of a compound’s impact on global warming compared to 

carbon dioxide. The GWP Value definition specifies that the 100-year GWP values in 

the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of IPCC would be used to determine 

compliance. To enforce our proposal to reduce the use of compounds with high GWPs 

in Pressurized Gas Duster, the definition further specifies that, if the SAR does not 

contain a GWP value for a specific chemical or compound, then the IPCC, Fourth 

Assessment Report (FAR) GWP value for that chemical or compound can be used. If 

there is no GWP value listed for a specific chemical or compound in the SAR or the 

FAR, then the GWP value is assumed to be equal to the applicable GWP limit (i.e. the 

GWP limit established for specific consumer product categories). 

 Not for Retail Sale

 We are also proposing to clarify what is meant by “not for retail sale.” The 

current regulation includes several provisions where an exemption from compliance is 

provided if certain criteria are met. For example, General Purpose Degreasers and 

Lubricants are not subject to VOC limits if they are sold exclusively to establishments 

which manufacture or construct good or commodities, and are labeled “not for retail 

sale.” Staff has received numerous inquiries as to what “not for retail sale” means, 

therefore, staff is proposing to define this term. As proposed, “Not for Retail Sale” 

means that a product is sold exclusively to establishments that manufacture or construct 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 53

goods or commodities, or are products sold to holders of commercial licenses (e.g. an 

electrician). For purposes of the regulation, “Not for Retail Sale” means the product is 

not sold in retail outlets or wholesale locations where household consumers may 

purchase them. 

 Table V-2, contains the list of existing definitions that are proposed to be 

modified. These changes are necessary to improve clarity, improve enforceability, or to 

describe the types of products that are excluded from another category definition. 

Table V-2 

Existing Definitions Proposed for Modification

Air Freshener Lubricant 

Astringent/Toner Metal Polish/Cleanser 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner Multi-Purpose Dry Lubricant 

Disinfectant Multi-Purpose Lubricant 

Dusting Aid Penetrant 

Existing Product Personal Fragrance Product 

Fabric Protectant Pressurized Gas Duster 

Fabric Refresher Sealant or Caulking Compound 

Floor Polish or Wax – Wood Floor Wax Spot Remover 

Glass Cleaner Volatile Organic Compound 

 

Two of the definitions listed in Table V-2 that are proposed for modification 

warrant a further description. 

 VOC Definition

 As noted above, we are proposing to modify the definition of VOC to exclude 

hydrofluoroether (HFE) 7200. HFE 7200 is a solvent used in precision cleaning. In a 

report titled “Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals,” 

ARB staff determined that use of HFE 7200 has negligible impacts on ground-level 

ozone formation. It also has a fairly low GWP. No other adverse impacts were 

identified (ARB, 2008b). Therefore, to provide an additional reformulation option that 

could result in further VOC reductions, staff believes the exemption is appropriate. 

 Pressurized Gas Duster Definition

 Currently, the definition for Pressurized Gas Duster describes a product used to 

remove dust on surfaces that cannot be cleaned with a solvent. In developing the 

proposal for Pressurized Gas Dusters, staff became aware that there are certain niche 

uses of these products where flammability is a concern. These products are formulated 

with a non-flammable propellant with a high GWP. At present time, no technology 

exists that would maintain this non-flammable aspect if these products were mandated 

to comply with our proposed GWP limit for this category. Therefore, staff is proposing a 

modification to the definition for Pressurized Gas Duster to exclude products used on 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 54

energized equipment as long as the Principal Display Panel specifies “Energized 

Equipment use only.” As proposed, products so-labeled would neither be subject to the 

GWP limit nor the VOC limit. 

B. STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS (SECTION 94509)

 1. Proposed Amendments to Section 94509(a) - Table of Standards 

 The proposed regulatory action would amend the existing Consumer Products 

Regulation by specifying VOC limits for the product categories shown in Table V-3. 

Some of the categories are previously unregulated and others are currently regulated. 

For the currently regulated categories we are proposing lower VOC limits. The new or 

modified VOC limits would become effective between December 31, 2010 and 

December 31, 2015, as indicated in Table V-3. Note that in some cases different VOC 

limits are proposed based on product form. All of these changes would be reflected in 

the Table of Standards in section 94509(a). Several of the proposed VOC limits warrant 

additional explanation. 

Proposal for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product

 

 Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product is a previously unregulated category. 

As shown in Table V-3, a grams of VOC per use limit is being proposed for these 

products, rather than a percent by weight limit. Our rationale for this proposal is 

described in section 2 below. 

 Proposal for Personal Fragrance Products

 Staff is proposing that Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less 

fragrance would be required to meet the existing January 1, 1999, limit of 75 percent by 

weight VOC. This would remove the so-called “Grandfather” clauses currently 

contained in subsections 94510(h) and (l). The reader if referred to Section C below for 

more information on this proposal.

 Proposal for Furniture Maintenance Product

 Although not shown in Table V-3, staff is proposing to reinstate the long-standing 

exemption for solid and paste forms of Furniture Maintenance Products. This 

exemption was inadvertently omitted during the 2006 rulemaking. The exemption 

clarifies that solid and paste forms of this type of product are not subject to the current 

VOC limit of three percent by weight. 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 55

Table V-3 

Proposed VOC Limit, Product Forms, and Effective Dates 

Product Category Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt%)

Effective 

Date

Astringent/Toner All 35 12/31/10 

Aerosol 5 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner 

Non-aerosol 1 

12/31/10 

Aerosol 17 Dusting Aid 

Non-aerosol 3 

12/31/10 

Fabric Protectant Non-aerosol 1 12/31/10 

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer 

Product All 0.05 grams per use 

12/31/10 

Floor Maintenance Product All 1 12/31/10 

Floor Polish or Wax 

(Wood Floor Wax) All 70 12/31/10 

Glass Cleaner Aerosol 10 12/31/12 

Motor Vehicle Wash All 0.2 12/31/10 

All* 25 12/31/13 

Multi-Purpose Lubricant 

All* 10 12/31/15 

Aerosol 25 

Odor Remover/Eliminator 

Non-aerosol 6 

12/31/10 

Penetrant All 25 12/31/13 

Personal Fragrance Product 

(products with 20% or less fragrance) All 75** 12/31/14 

Pressurized Gas Duster Aerosol 1 12/31/10 

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking 

Compound Non-aerosol 3 12/31/12 

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or 

Caulking Compound Non-aerosol 1.5 12/31/10 

Aerosol 15 Spot Remover 

Non-aerosol 3 

12/31/10 

Aerosol 8 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner 

Non-aerosol 2 

12/31/10 

Windshield Water Repellent All 75 12/31/10 

* Excluding solid and semisolid ** Remove “Grandfather” clauses 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 56

2. Other Proposed Amendments to section 94509 

 The following proposals pertain to other subsections of section 94509. 

Proposed Requirement for Dilutable Products - Section 94509(b)(4)

 Currently, section 94509(b) in the Consumer Products Regulation states that any 

product that is designed to be diluted prior to use is subject to the VOC limits specified 

in section 94509(a) after the product has been diluted. Staff has become aware of 

products packaged in pump spray containers that appear to be marketed as “ready-touse” products, but are designed to be diluted by the user prior to use. Staff believes this 

approach to packaging may be diminishing anticipated VOC reductions, and is a 

potential circumvention of the intent of the regulation. Therefore, staff is proposing a 

modification to section 94509(b)(4), clarifying that the VOC limit for products sold in 

pump spray containers is applied prior to any minimum suggested dilution. 

 Date Coding Requirements – Section 94509 (i), (m), (n), (o) and (p)

 Subsections 94509 (i), (m), (n), (o) and (p) specify prohibitions on use of certain 

chlorinated compounds in specified categories. We are proposing to clarify the date 

coding requirement that must be met to qualify as a “sell-through” product. As 

proposed, the product would need to comply with the product dating requirements 

beginning in section 94512(b). 

 Prohibition of Toxics from Specific Categories - Section 94509(q)

 

 To mitigate a potential adverse environmental impact, staff is proposing a new 

subsection (q) within section 94509 to prohibit the use of methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in “Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner,” “Fabric 

Protectant,” “Multi-Purpose Lubricant,” “Penetrants,” “Sealant or Caulking Compound,” 

and “Spot Remover.” 

 Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), ARB is required to 

identify and mitigate any possible adverse environmental impacts of regulatory 

actions. We believe that it is unlikely, but possible, that manufacturers may, in 

response to new VOC limits, choose to reformulate with chlorinated solvents that are 

Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). Therefore, because there are many products that 

comply with the proposed limits, none of which contain chlorinated solvents, 

prohibiting their use is appropriate to reduce the public’s exposure to these TACs. 

 Staff is also proposing, in new subsection 94509(q)(2), language to describe 

the sell-through period and date coding requirements for the products listed above. It 

is being proposed that any of these products manufactured before 

December 31, 2010, can be sold, supplied, or offered for sale until 

December 31, 2013, as long as they comply with the date coding requirements 

beginning in section 94512(b). 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 57

 Language for the notification requirements of the suppliers of the products 

listed above is being proposed in new subsection 94509(q)(3). This section requires 

that the seller must notify the purchaser of the sell-through period described in 

94509(q)(2) only if the product is being sold or supplied to a distributor or retailer, and 

the product is being sold or supplied on or after June 30, 2013. 

 New subsection 94509(q)(4) is being proposed to establish that the 

requirements of 94509(q)(1) and 94509(q)(3) do not apply to products that contain 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene present as an impurity, or 

in amounts equal or less than 0.01 percent by weight. 

 In evaluating the use of these TACs, staff has become aware that certain 

Penetrants are designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations, the 

products must be non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide this nonflammable aspect, the chlorinated solvents are used. At present time, staff is not 

aware of alternative solvents that can perform this function. Therefore, staff is 

proposing that Penetrants labeled “Non-flammable: For use on Energized Equipment 

Only” not be subject to this prohibition. This language would have to be displayed on 

the Principal Display Panel. Thee products would, however, be required to meet the 

proposed VOC limits. 

Proposal for Pressurized Gas Dusters - Section 94509(r)

 The reduction of GHGs from consumer products has been designated as a 

Discrete Early Action Measure in accordance with The California Global Warming 

Solutions Act of 2006. The emission reduction estimated for Consumer Products is 

0.25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MMT CO2e) per year. One of 

the first emission sources that has been identified is compounds used in aerosol 

products. As a first step, staff is proposing, in new subsection 94509(r)(1), that 

Pressurized Gas Dusters could not contain a chemical compound that has a Global 

Warming Potential of 150 or greater. 

In accordance with CEQA, to ensure that the VOC content of these products do 

not increase as a result of reformulation to meet GWP limits, a one percent by weight 

VOC limit is also being proposed for Pressurized Gas Dusters. As a further mitigation 

measure, we are also proposing that Pressurized Gas Dusters could not contain the 

VOC exempt compounds methylene chloride or perchloroethylene. While 

reformulating with these TACs is unlikely, we believe prohibiting their use is prudent to 

ensure that there is no increase in exposure to these TACs. 

 Staff is also proposing in section 94509(r)(2) that Pressurized Gas Dusters 

manufactured before the effective date of the limit can be sold, supplied, or offered for 

sale until December 31, 2011, as long as the product complies with the product dating 

requirements beginning in section 94512(b). 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 58

Section 94509(r)(3) is being proposed to specify that any seller or supplier of 

Pressurized Gas Dusters must notify a purchaser of the product that the sell-through 

period ends on December 31, 2011. However, this notice must only be given if the 

product is being sold to a distributor or retailer, and the product is sold or supplied on 

or after June 30, 2011. 

Section 94509(r)(4) is being proposed to specify that the fragrance exemption 

does not apply to Pressurized Gas Dusters. This proposal ensures that even with 

fragrance, the total VOCs in a Pressurized Gas Duster will not exceed one percent by 

weight. This is consistent with requirements under CEQA, as discussed above, to 

ensure that VOC emissions do not increase as a result of the proposed regulation. 

Finally, Section 94509(r)(5) is being proposed to specify that any chemical 

compounds that are present as impurities in an amount, in aggregate, of 0.1 percent 

by weight or less, are not subject to the GWP limit or toxics prohibition for Pressurized 

Gas Dusters. Some of the chemical compounds used in Pressurized Gas Dusters 

may contain very small quantities of contaminants. This provision allows Pressurized 

Gas Dusters that contain those contaminants, present at very low levels, to comply 

with the regulatory provisions. 

 Staff has also become aware that certain Pressurized Gas Dusters are 

designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations the products must be 

non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide this non-flammable aspect, 

propellants with high GWPs are used. At present time, staff is not aware of alternative 

propellants that can perform this function. Therefore, staff is proposing that 

Pressurized Gas Dusters that specify on the Principal Display Panel “Energized 

Equipment use only.” be exempt from both the VOC and GWP limits. 

Requirements for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product – Section 

94509(s)

 

Staff is proposing a new subsection 94509(s) to describe the VOC content limit 

for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product. These products are typically made by 

applying liquid materials to a non-woven sheet substrate. Rather than a percent by 

weight limit, a 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit is proposed. The limit is designed to 

provide a level playing field and to ensure that the size of each dryer sheet does not 

increase. In developing the limit for these products, staff determined that establishing 

a percent by weight limit could result in the use of larger sheets to comply. This would 

diminish emission reductions and potentially lead to increasing the solid waste stream. 

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA requirements to mitigate potential environmental 

impacts, the grams per sheet limit is proposed. The 0.05 grams per use VOC limit is 

designed to provide a VOC reduction equivalent to that which would be achieved by 

setting a 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit (including 2 percent for fragrance). Because 

the limit already accounts for the fragrance, there is no need to provide the fragrance 

exemption contained in section 94510(c) for these products. This modification is 

proposed in section 94510(c). 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 59

C. EXEMPTIONS (SECTION 94510 (h) and (l)) 

At present, Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance are 

required to meet an 80 percent by weight or a 75 percent by weight VOC limit, 

depending on when they first were introduced to the market. Products existing prior to 

setting these limits do not need to comply with either limit. Products that were 

introduced between 1995 and 1999 were required to meet the 80 percent by weight 

VOC limit, but were not required to reformulate to meet the January 1, 1999, limit. 

Only products introduced after January 1, 1999, are required to meet the 75 percent 

by weight VOC limit. These provisions are contained in subsections 94509(h) and (l). 

Staff is proposing to remove these “Grandfather” clauses. Under this proposal, all 

Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance would be required to 

meet the 75 percent by weight VOC limit effective on December 31, 2014. These 

proposals are contained in new subsections 94510(h)(3) and (l)(1). 

 D. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 94512) 

 

 Proposed Modification to Product Dating Requirements – Section 94512(b)(1)

 

Currently, section 94512(b)(1) specifies that a product must clearly display the 

date or code indicating the date of manufacture. We are proposing language to clarify 

that a sequential batch number on a product package does not satisfy the product 

dating requirements. 

 Proposed Modification to Labeling Requirements – Section 94512(d)

 

 Staff is proposing that non-aerosol Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically 

Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound products comply with additional labeling 

requirements specified in section 94512(d). Because different VOC limits are proposed, 

staff believes this is necessary to easily distinguish between Chemically Curing Sealant 

or Caulking Compound and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound. 

Section 94512(d) requires products to display the applicable regulatory category and 

VOC limit as a percent by weight. The information must be clearly visible. These 

provisions will improve enforceability. 

E. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 94513) 

 Staff is proposing a 25 percent by weight VOC limit for Multi-purpose Lubricants 

and Penetrants, effective December 31, 2013. These are challenging but feasible limits 

within the time-frame proposed. For Multi-purpose Lubricants staff is proposing a 

technology forcing 10 percent second tier VOC limit, effective December 31, 2015. To 

ensure that manufacturers are on track, and that technology advances as expected, 

staff believes that manufacturers should demonstrate their progress toward meeting 

these limits. 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 60

 Therefore, as proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Multi-purpose Lubricant and 

Penetrant manufacturers would need to supply detailed written updates on their 

research and development efforts undertaken to achieve compliance with the VOC 

limits. The reports would include sales and formulation data for products, as well as 

detailed information on the raw materials evaluated for use, maximum incremental 

reactivity (MIR) values for any VOC or LVP-VOC used or evaluated, the function of the 

raw material evaluated, testing protocols used, the results of the testing, the hardware 

evaluated, and the cost of reformulation efforts. The first report would be due on 

March 31, 2012, and would provide data for the 2011 calendar year. For Multi-purpose 

Lubricants, a second report would be due on March 31, 2014, and would provide data 

for the 2013 calendar year. 

 Should technical or commercial issues arise, or if it appears reductions could 

occur within a shorter timeframe, staff would develop appropriate measures to ensure 

air quality benefits occur as soon as possible. 

F. TEST METHODS (SECTION 94515) 

 Staff is proposing to clarify that ARB’s Method 310 be used as the analytical 

method to determine GWP content. This method already contains the necessary 

protocols to analyze for both HFC-152a and HFC-134a content. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected 

Halogenated Chemicals – Staff Report. March, 2008. (ARB, 2008b) 

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings 

Regulation. September 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006a) 

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and 

Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure for para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresheners and Toilet/Urinal Care 

Products. May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b) 

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Mid-term Measures II. 

 September 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999) 

5. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures I. 

 June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b) 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 61

6. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to 

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – 

 Phase II – Technical Support Document. October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a) 

7. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technical Support Document. 

August, 1990. (ARB, 1990c)

Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 62 

VI. DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT CATEGORIES

 In this Chapter, we provide the technical basis for the proposed limits for each 

category proposed for regulation. The following information is described for each of the 

product categories: 

• a product category description; 

• information on product use and marketing; 

• information on the product formulations; 

• a discussion of the proposed volatile organic compound (VOC) and/or global 

warming potential (GWP) limit, our rationale for the proposed limit, and the 

options for compliance; and 

• if applicable, a discussion of outstanding issues associated with the proposal. 

 Chapter VI is divided into two parts. Section A includes descriptions of the 

product categories for which VOC limits are proposed. The product categories in 

Section A are in alphabetical order. Section B describes the product category for which 

a greenhouse gas (GHG) limit is proposed. 

A. CATEGORIES FOR WHICH VOC LIMITS ARE PROPOSED 

1. Astringent/Toner 

Product Category Description: 

 The Astringent/Toner category consists of products which are designed or 

labeled to be applied to skin for the purpose of cleaning and tightening pores. For this 

rulemaking, only those Astringents/Toners not regulated by the Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) are included. These products may also exfoliate, refresh, remove 

excess dirt, oil, impurities, and/or prepare the skin for moisturizing. While most 

Astringents/Toners are liquid products, there are also products sold in the form of 

substrate-impregnated pads. Astringent/Toner does not include any hand, face, or body 

cleaner or soap product, Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner, Personal Fragrance 

Product, cold cream, lotion or Antiperspirant. Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner 

means any product regulated as a drug by the FDA which is applied to the skin for the 

purpose of cleaning or tightening pores. In accordance with FDA rules, Medicated 

Astringents/Medicated Toners must be labeled such that the active ingredients in the 

product are identified. 

 Astringent/Toner is a previously unregulated category. Table VI-1 below 

summarizes the sales and emissions from Astringents/Toners based on the results of 

ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar 

year. Total category sales are about 5,910 pounds per day. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 63 

Table VI-1 

Astringent/Toner* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

All Forms 203 5,910 1,240 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

 As indicated, 203 different branded Astringents/Toners were sold in California in 

2003 by 73 companies. Astringent/Toner VOC emissions, adjusted to 2008, are about 

1,240 pounds per day, or 0.62 tons per day, in California. Although not shown in 

Table VI-1, the sales-weighted average VOC content for this category is about 

21 percent by weight. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Astringents/Toners are used by both health professionals and household 

consumers to eliminate oil, decrease pore size, and/or remove dirt remaining on skin 

after cleansing. They may also exfoliate, refresh, tighten, and prepare the skin for 

moisturizing. Typically, the Astringent/Toner is dispensed onto a cotton ball or pad and 

the moistened cotton is wiped across clean and dry skin. The product is not rinsed but 

allowed to dry/evaporate off the skin. Many products recommend the use of a 

moisturizer once the Astringent/Toner has dried (Cote, 2006). 

 Astringents/Toners are sold in a variety of retail outlets including grocery stores, 

drug stores, beauty supply stores, discount stores, and department stores. 

Astringents/Toners are also available for purchase over the Internet. Examples of 

additional terms for Astringents/Toners include but are not limited to, skin tonic, 

freshener, refresher, and/or a clarifying lotion. The most common Astringent/Toner size 

is eight fluid ounces, although some companies offer smaller and larger sizes. 

Product Formulation: 

 The VOC content of products in this category ranges from 0 to 60 percent by 

weight, with a sales-weighted average of 21 percent by weight. Astringents/Toners 

utilize ingredients that will dissolve excess oil and readily evaporate. These products 

typically contain water, low vapor pressure volatile organic compounds (LVP-VOC), 

fragrance and either ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, and/or witch hazel. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 As shown in Table VI-2 below, the proposed VOC limit for Astringent/Toner, is 

35 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. Using emissions adjusted to 2010, 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 64 

the proposed limit would result in an estimated emission reduction of 220 pounds per 

day, or about 0.11 tons per day. 

 Table VI-2 also shows that 70 percent of the market currently complies with the 

proposed 35 percent VOC limit. 

Table VI-2 

Astringent/Toner Proposal* 

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

All Forms 35 177 70 215 220 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

 As shown in Table VI-2, at the time of the 2003 Survey, over two-thirds of the 

market complied with the proposed VOC limit of 35 percent by weight. Most of these 

products comply by using slightly lower amounts of alcohol or volatile organic 

ingredients. We believe manufacturers will be able to comply by using the same 

ingredients that are being used today. 

 The proposed 35 percent VOC limit is designed to maintain efficacy among the 

variety of Astringent/Toner products currently available. Staff has information that 

indicates a 2:1 part water to alcohol ratio may be necessary for some products used on 

oily skin. This ratio of water to alcohol is needed for the Astringent/Toner to effectively 

dissolve sebum on oily skin (Idelle, 2008). 

 Staff has determined that reformulation to the proposed limit is technically 

feasible. The majority of products in this category are already low VOC, and there are 

many effective non-VOC alternatives available for substitution. Numerous products with 

VOC content below 35 percent are already available and well-accepted by consumers. 

Reformulation options that can be used by manufacturers to meet the proposed limit 

include reducing the level of alcohol and increasing the amount of water, LVP-VOCs, 

and/or exempted VOCs. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 65 

Issues:

a. Issue: The full range of products that contain all levels of VOCs is necessary to 

maintain efficacy, and provide consumers with all options for skin treatment. 

 

Response: All of the products within this category make similar claims on the 

label, including those containing 35 percent or less VOC. 

b. Issue: Manufacturers will change their non-medicated products to medicated 

allowing the use of the full range of VOCs. 

Response: Staff disagrees. The cost to change a non-medicated product to 

medicated is considerable because of U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

requirements. These requirements would necessitate a change in formulation, 

the use of specific active ingredients such as salicylic acid, labeling modifications, 

and extensive record keeping. 

c. Issue: Any VOC limit on these products will negatively impact public health. 

Response: As required in the California Health and Safety Code, we have 

consulted with staff at California Department of Public Health (DPH) with the 

specifics of our proposal. DPH staff do not oppose a VOC limit for nonmedicated Astringents/Toners. 

d. Issue: Adequate sebum removal occurs with a two parts water to one part 

alcohol (by weight) ratio. 

Response: Staff acknowledges and as a result is proposing a 35 percent VOC 

limit to accommodate products using alcohol to address oily skin. 

e. Issue: Setting a low VOC limit will eliminate some needed products. 

Response: Staff disagrees. We believe all necessary functions of an 

Astringent/Toner can be met at a VOC level of 35 percent or less. In addition, 

70 percent of the market already meets this limit which shows both technological 

and commercial feasibility with the proposed limit. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

2. Cote, Ryan. How to Use an Astringent Skin Toner in Your Skin Care Routine. 

http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Use-an-Astringent-Skin-Toner-in-Your-SkinCare-Routine&id=360826 (April 8, 2008). (Cote, 2006) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 66 

3. Idelle Labs. Telephone Conversation with ARB Staff. March 20, 2008. 

 (Idelle, 2008) 

2. Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner

Product Category Description: 

 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner products are used for routine cleaning of soils on 

carpet and/or upholstery in homes, businesses, institutions, and vehicles. Typical 

fabrics include wool; cotton; nylon; and other carpet, rug, furniture, and automotive 

interior synthetic fibers. The category includes cleaning products with or without fabric 

protectant claims. Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner does not include Spot Removers, used 

for removing localized spots and stains; vinyl or leather cleaners; or products for 

exclusive use at industrial facilities engaged in furniture or carpet manufacture 

(i.e. industrial cleaners used only in production of carpet or furniture). The category also 

does not include Dry Cleaning Fluids (ARB, 1997b). 

 While there are three existing subcategories based on product form, each with a 

different VOC standard, only two VOC standards are being proposed for regulatory 

changes at this time: aerosol products and ready-to-use (RTU) non-aerosol products. 

The third VOC standard, applicable to dilutable non-aerosol products, is being retained 

at the current limit of 0.1 percent VOC (based on minimum dilution concentration). 

However, the proposal to clarify the category definition would apply to all product forms. 

 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners were regulated under Midterm Measures I of the 

Consumer Products Regulation approved on July 24, 1997, and a description of the 

products is also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (ARB, 1997b). At that 

time, the Board adopted a 7 percent VOC limit for aerosol products, a 0.1 percent VOC 

limit for dilutable non-aerosol products, and a 3 percent VOC limit for RTU non-aerosol 

products. The adopted limits became effective January 1, 2001. 

As discussed, the Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner category is intended to include 

products for routine cleaning of carpets/upholstery. The category does not include Spot 

Remover products for localized spots and stains. 

 Table VI-3 below summarizes the sales and emissions from Carpet/Upholstery 

Cleaners, based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have 

been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 26,788 pounds 

per day. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 67 

Table VI-3 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Aerosol 59 9,376 651 

Non-Aerosol 117 17,412 583 

Total 176 26,788 1,234 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

 As shown in Table VI-3, estimated VOC emissions are about 1,234 pounds per 

day, or about 0.61 tons per day, in California. The sales-weighted average VOC 

content of the aerosol and non-aerosol products reported in the 2003 Survey was 

approximately 7 and 3 percent by weight, respectively. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Aerosol products for carpets and rugs typically use an invertible aerosol container 

for downward spray application. The dispensed liquid or foam is left on the carpet or 

rug for several minutes to penetrate and loosen dirt, with or without agitation. To lift and 

remove the dirt, the area is either wiped with cloth (damp or dry, depending on the 

product) before the treated area is dry, or allowed to dry and then brushed or 

vacuumed. Products for upholstery are used in a similar manner. 

 The RTU non-aerosol products include not-to-be-diluted liquids, solids, and 

gel/semisolids. The liquids may be dispensed by mechanical spray (trigger or 

hand-pump-pressurized tank) and used in a manner similar to aerosols. The solids and 

gel/semisolids are granular or powder products applied to carpeting, brushed or 

agitated, and then vacuumed. Some products are used for pre-cleaning sections of 

carpeting, such as traffic lanes, prior to main cleaning such as by hot-water extraction. 

 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners are used by household consumers, janitors, 

professional carpet/upholstery cleaners, and auto detailers in homes, businesses, 

institutions, and vehicles. Aerosol products are typically used by household consumers, 

while the RTU non-aerosol products are used by both household and 

commercial/institutional users. 

 Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners are available in general merchandise stores, super 

markets, auto parts stores, hardware stores, janitorial and maintenance supply 

warehouses, and over the Internet. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 68 

Product Formulation: 

 Aerosol products may contain 4 to 7 percent hydrocarbon propellant, VOC 

solvent cleaners, surfactants, emulsifiers, various inorganic and LVP-VOC ingredients, 

fragrance, ingredients to protect the metal aerosol container (corrosion inhibitors), and 

water. The VOC ingredients include glycol ethers (such as 2-butoxyethanol), alcohol, 

and hydrocarbon distillates. Some products use LVP-VOC glycol ethers. Many 

products contain surfactant cleaners (which are generally LVP-VOCs). When fabric 

protection is claimed, the product contains a polymer to be left behind on the fabric. 

Other propellants include carbon dioxide, dimethyl ether, and nitrous oxide (N2O). The 

very low-VOC products are generally surfactant-based, and VOC levels largely reflect 

only the hydrocarbon propellants. 

 While the RTU non-aerosol products show a greater variety of formulations and 

ingredients, there are some similarities to the aerosol products when considering there 

is no propellant. The VOC ingredients may include glycol ethers (such as 

2-butoxyethanol), alcohol, hydrocarbon distillates, and d-limonene. Some products use 

LVP-VOC glycol ether or LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvents. Surfactants are common; 

sodium lauryl sulfate is typical. Some products are shampoos, formulated to remove 

particles and inorganic contaminants, and may address oily dirt to some extent as well. 

The few that reported solid (powder or granular) and gel/semisolid products in this 

subcategory showed varied formulations. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limits for Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner are 5 percent VOC by 

weight for aerosol products, and 1 percent VOC for RTU non-aerosol products, effective 

December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-4, using emissions adjusted to 2010, the 

proposed limits will result in an estimated emission reduction of 302 pounds per day, or 

about 0.15 tons per day. 

 Table VI-4 also shows that about 10 percent of the market for aerosol products, 

and 25 percent of the RTU non-aerosol market, currently comply with the proposed 

VOC limits. 

 The proposed 5 percent VOC limit for aerosol products would allow 

approximately 1 to 2 percent VOC cleaning solvent, along with 3 to 4 percent VOC 

hydrocarbon propellant, in water-based formulations. The VOC may be glycol ethers 

such as 2-butoxyethanol, alcohol, or hydrocarbon solvent. Another option is use of 

non-VOC propellants, such as N2O, to enable up to 5 percent VOC cleaning solvent. A 

third option is to use up to 5 percent VOC hydrocarbon propellant, and rely on 

LVP-VOC surfactant cleaners, LVP-VOC solvent cleaners such as glycol ethers, and 

inorganic cleaners. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 69 

Table VI-4 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner Proposal* 

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Aerosol 5 7 10 147 150 

Non-Aerosol 1 54 25 149 152 

Total -------- 61 --------- 296 302 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

 The proposed 1 percent VOC limit for RTU non-aerosol products is intended to 

enable up to 1 percent VOC cleaning solvent. Many products are already below 

1 percent VOC. As with aerosol products, the main cleaning ingredients are LVP-VOC 

surfactant or LVP-VOC glycol ethers. 

 The 2003 survey data show very limited use of perchloroethylene (an exempt 

chlorinated compound) and trichloroethylene (a VOC chlorinated compound) in this 

category. While ARB staff believes these toxic air contaminants are not likely to be 

used as cleaning solvents in the future reformulated products, ARB staff is proposing 

that perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride be prohibited in 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners. This prohibition is proposed to ensure that manufacturers 

do not choose to reformulate with toxic chlorinated solvents in response to the lower 

VOC limits. Staff has determined that currently available formulation technologies do 

not contain perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, or methylene chloride, thus they are 

not needed to comply with the proposed standard. See Chapter VIII for a discussion of 

the health effects of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride. 

Issues:

a. Issue: The sales-weighted average (SWA) for Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner 

(non-aerosol-RTU), complying market share, and tons per day VOC reduction do 

not appear consistent. 

Response: The SWA includes high-VOC sell-through and non-complying 

products, some with VOC content considerably above the 3 percent VOC limit in 

effect in 2003. However, the emission reduction must be corrected to avoid 

double-counting reductions associated with a prior rulemaking, and to not 

overestimate the emission reduction from the current rulemaking. The correction 

is done by lowering all high-VOC products above the limit, down to the 3 percent 

VOC limit in effect in 2003. This makes the uncorrected SWA appear 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 70 

inconsistently high, compared with the corrected VOC reduction. Also, there 

were substantial sales of low-VOC products complying with the proposed 

1 percent VOC level, and hence well below the 3 percent VOC limit in effect in 

2003. This additionally makes the SWA appear inconsistently high compared 

with the relatively high complying market share with the 1 percent VOC proposed 

limit. 

b. Issue: Lowering of the VOC limit for aerosol Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner to 

5 percent by weight could impact the feasibility of foaming products to not leave 

soil-attracting residues. A lowering of the VOC limit could also adversely impact 

the ability of the propellant to empty the can. As such, we suggest the VOC limit 

be set no lower than 6 percent by weight. 

Response: The 2003 survey data show several aerosol foaming products, using 

conventional hydrocarbon propellants, complying with the proposed 5 percent 

VOC limit for aerosol products. Also, we do not expect the concentration of LVPVOC cleaners, in reformulated products, to be high enough to cause residue 

problems. Regarding propellant use, a few reported products contained only 3.0 

to 3.5 percent VOC propellant. We therefore believe there would be no problem 

with either soil-attracting residues or with emptying the aerosol container. 

c. Issue: Non-VOC propellants such as HFC-152a are not suitable for foaming 

aerosol products, because the non-VOC propellants lack the solubility of 

conventional hydrocarbon propellants, needed for adequate foam generation. 

Response: As discussed above, the 2003 survey data show several foaming 

products, using conventional hydrocarbon propellants, complying with the 

proposed 5 percent VOC limit for aerosol products. We believe the use of nonVOC propellants, such as HFC-152a, is generally not necessary, so there should 

be no problem with foam generation. 

d. Issue: For Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner (non-aerosol-RTU), any lowering of the 

current 3 percent VOC limit could impact the feasibility of products to not leave 

soil-attracting residues. 

Response: The 2003 survey data show that many RTU non-aerosol products 

comprising 25 percent market share already comply with the proposed 1 percent 

VOC limit. Therefore, we believe there should be no problem with soil-attracting 

residues. 

e. Issue: Some products listed as Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner (non-aerosol-RTU) 

may actually be Spot Removers, which do not belong with Carpet/Upholstery 

Cleaners. 

Response: Generally, products are categorized as reported by the marketer, 

and if clearly mis-categorized, with adjustments by ARB staff. Some product 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 71 

names and label claims may be inconsistent. If a product is both a Spot 

Remover and a Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, we would consider the product a 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner if label directions recommend broad-area (nonlocalized) use of the product. 

f. Issue: Precleaner liquid and powder products are not Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner 

- non-aerosol RTU products. 

Response: These products already fall into the definition of Carpet and 

Upholstery Cleaner in section 94508(a)(26) of the Consumer Products 

Regulation. As non-aerosol RTU products, they have been subject to the 

currently effective 3 percent VOC limit since January 1, 2001. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures I. 

June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b) 

3. Dusting Aid 

Product Category Description:

Dusting Aid means a product designed to assist in removing dust and other soils 

from floors and other surfaces without leaving a wax or silicone-based coating. Dusting 

Aids do not include Pressurized Gas Duster Products, or Furniture Maintenance 

Products, which are regulated as separate categories. 

 

 The Board adopted standards limiting the VOC content of Dusting Aids in 

January of 1992 as part of Phase II of the consumer products rulemaking. Two tiers of 

standards were adopted for aerosol products. The first tier set a VOC limit of 

35 percent by weight, effective on January 1, 1995. The VOC limit was reduced to 

25 percent by weight, effective January 1, 1997. In addition, the Board adopted a 

7 percent VOC limit for non-aerosol Dusting Aids, effective January 1, 1995, (ARB, 

1991a). 

Table VI-5 below summarizes sales and VOC emissions from Dusting Aids 

based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown 

to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 3,108 pounds per day. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 72 

Table VI-5 

Dusting Aid* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Aerosol 41 2451 565 

Non-aerosol 38 657 13 

Total 79 3108 578 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions). 

Estimated VOC emissions from the entire category are 578 pounds per day, or 

about 0.29 tons per day. As shown in Table VI-5, aerosol Dusting Aids account for 

79 percent of the total category emissions. Aerosol Dusting Aids have a sales-weighted 

average VOC content of about 23 percent by weight. The non-aerosol products, which 

include liquids, liquid impregnated wipes, and pump sprays, have a sales-weighted 

average VOC content of approximately 21 percent. 

Product Use and Marketing:

Dusting Aids are products that assist in removing dust and other soils from floors 

and other surfaces without leaving a wax or silicone based coating. The product is 

applied to dust mops, dust cloths, or feather dusters to increase the ability of the mop 

head or cloth to attract and hold dust particles, lint, pet dander, hair, and dirt. These 

products are used on furniture, molding, window blinds, ceiling fans, window frames and 

sills, radiators, woodwork, floors and any other surface where dust collects. Dusting 

Aids are also used as a filter dressing for heating and cooling systems to attract dust, 

dirt, lint, and pollen to keep it from entering the system. Some products may also be 

labeled to remove fingerprints, allergens, smudges, or oil-based stains from surfaces 

such as wood paneling, cabinets, furniture, or floors. 

Dusting Aids contain oils or cationic quaternary ammonium compounds that 

attract negatively charged dust to the cloth or mop head. To prevent leaving a slippery 

residue on floors, some products recommend that the product be applied to the mop 

head the day prior to use. This cure time allows the product to penetrate and diffuse 

throughout the dust mop strands. For wood surfaces, Dusting Aids are marketed to be 

used between polishes to remove surface dullness. 

While there is some overlap in the functions provided by Furniture Maintenance 

Products and Dusting Aids, the categories can be distinguished. Dusting Aids are 

primarily used for dusting, including dusting of furniture and floors, without leaving a wax 

or silicone-based coating. Furniture Maintenance Products are used primarily to polish 

furniture, leaving a wax or silicone-based protective coating. Although some Furniture 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 73 

Maintenance Products may be used to dust furniture, they are not used for dusting 

floors, because they would leave a slippery residue. 

Product Formulation: 

Dusting Aids typically contain water, LVP-VOCs, VOCs, hydrocarbon propellants 

(in aerosols), and small amounts of other agents such as emulsifiers, dust attractants 

and fragrances (ARB, 2004a). The active ingredients used to lift and absorb dust 

particles can be a light hydrocarbon oil, orange oil, or a cationic quaternary ammonium 

compound. 

The solvents used in Dusting Aids include water; hydrocarbons, such as odorless 

mineral spirits or petroleum distillates; LVP-VOCs such as glycol ethers; or volatile 

methyl siloxanes. Aerosol products typically contain hydrocarbon propellants such as 

propane and isobutane. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

The proposed VOC limit for aerosol Dusting Aids is 17 percent by weight, 

effective December 31, 2010. The proposed VOC limit for non-aerosol Dusting Aids is 

3 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-6, the 

proposed limits will result in an estimated VOC reduction of 155 pounds per day, or 

about 0.08 tons per day. The proposed 3 percent by weight VOC limit for non-aerosol 

products is not expected to achieve reductions in VOC emissions. Requiring further 

reductions was not cost-effective. The limits are designed to be consistent with those 

for Furniture Maintenance Products. 

Table VI-6 also shows that about 5 percent of the market currently complies with 

the proposed 17 percent VOC limit for aerosol Dusting Aids. For non-aerosol Dusting 

Aids, 77 percent of the market complies with the proposed 3 percent VOC limit. 

As described in the Product Use and Marketing section, there is some overlap in 

the functions provided by Furniture Maintenance Products and Dusting Aids. Because 

of the similarity in formulation and function, we expect that the technology used in 

Furniture Maintenance Products can be transferred for use in Dusting Aids. 

Reformulation options include the use of LVP-VOC hydrocarbons, LVP-VOC glycol 

ethers, and water. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 74 

Table VI-6 

Dusting Aid Proposal*

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Aerosol 17 13 5 151 155 

Non-aerosol 3 33 77 0 0 

Total ------ 46 ------ 151 155 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to 

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products –

Phase II – Technical Support Document. October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a) 

4. Fabric Protectant (non-aerosol)

Product Category Description: 

 Fabric Protectants are applied to fabric substrates to protect the surface from dirt, 

soil, and other contaminants, and from stains that may result. While some products 

also provide water repellency, Fabric Protectants are used specifically to protect against 

dirt, soil, or stains. Products which solely provide water repellency (i.e. water-proofing 

protection), without any claim for dirt, soil, or stain protection, are considered 

Waterproofer products, and are not included in the Fabric Protectant category. 

Typically, Waterproofer products are silicone-based, while some Fabric Protectant 

products (notably the aerosols) are fluoropolymer-based (ARB, 1991a). 

 Fabric Protectants were regulated under Phase II of the Consumer Products 

Regulation adopted in January 1992, and a description of the product category is also 

included in the staff report for that rulemaking (ARB, 1991a). At that time, the Board 

approved the staff recommendation of a 75 percent VOC limit for all product forms 

effective January 1, 1995, along with a 60 percent VOC limit for all product forms 

subsequently effective January 1, 1997. The 60 percent VOC limit for all product forms 

remains in effect. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 75 

 The current proposal for a specifying a lower VOC limit pertains only to the nonaerosol products, for reasons discussed later. Table VI-7 below summarizes the sales 

and emissions from ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to 

the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 5,517 pounds per day. 

Table VI-7 

Fabric Protectant* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Non-Aerosol 63 5,517 366 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

 Estimated VOC emissions of non-aerosol Fabric Protectants are 366 pounds per 

day, or about 0.18 tons per day. Although not shown, the sales-weighted average VOC 

content for this category is 5 percent by weight. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Fabric Protectants are used by household consumers and outdoor recreational 

enthusiasts; as well as commercial and professional workers for clothing care, 

upholstery care, carpet care, and automotive interior care. Fabric Protectants may be 

used for household fabric articles such as bed covers, quilts, craft, and vehicle 

upholstery. Fabric Protectants are also used on the fabric tops of convertible 

automobiles. 

 Non-aerosol products are typically applied by mechanical spray on clean fabric 

articles, and left to dry. A resin film, usually very thin and often invisible, is formed and 

left behind on the fabric fibers. Occasional re-application may be needed to maintain 

protection (ARB, 1991a). 

 Fabric Protectants are sold in general merchandise stores, supermarkets, 

hardware stores, recreational equipment stores, auto parts stores, janitorial and 

maintenance supply warehouses, and over the Internet. 

Product Formulation: 

 The non-aerosol products are liquid, mechanical-spray-applied products, some 

sold as dilutables (i.e. concentrates). Most formulations are water-based with low levels 

of VOCs. Typical VOCs include glycol ethers and alcohol. Non-VOC products 

represented approximately 42 percent of the non-aerosol sales. The sales-weighted 

average VOC content of the products reported in the 2003 Survey was 5 percent by 

weight. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 76 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limit for non-aerosol products is 1 percent VOC by weight, 

effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-8, using emissions adjusted to 

2010, the proposed limit will result in an estimated emission reduction of 163 pounds 

per day, or about 0.08 tons per day. Table VI-8 also shows that about 95 percent of the 

non-aerosol market currently complies with the proposed 1 percent VOC limit. 

Table VI-8 

Fabric Protectant Proposal*

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Non-Aerosol 1 42 95 159 163 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

 The proposed 1 percent VOC limit is intended to allow for complying water-based 

formulations. As discussed above, the 2003 survey data showed many non-aerosol 

products are water-based and already are low or non-VOC. 

 The 2003 survey data show very limited use of perchloroethylene (an exempt 

chlorinated compound) and trichloroethylene (a VOC chlorinated compound) in this 

category. While it is not likely these toxic air contaminants will be used as cleaning 

solvents in the future reformulated products, ARB staff is proposing that 

perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride be prohibited from use in 

Fabric Protectant products. This prohibition is proposed to ensure that manufacturers 

do not choose to reformulate with toxic chlorinated solvents in response to the lower 

VOC limits. Staff has determined that currently available formulation technologies do 

not contain perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, or methylene chloride, thus they are 

not needed to comply with the proposed standard. See Chapter VIII for a discussion of 

the health effects of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride. 

Issues:

a. Issue: The proposed 1 percent VOC limit for non-aerosol Fabric Protectants 

may be feasible for some types of products, but not others. 

Response: The commenter did not identify which types of products for which 

the proposal may not be feasible. A review of labels for products that comply 

with the proposed standard shows a variety of claims, demonstrating the 

proposal is feasible for many types of products. No specific claims were found 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 77 

on the labels of non-complying products that could not also be found on the 

labels of complying products. In addition, the large complying market share for 

the non-aerosol products suggests that the proposal is feasible. 

b. Issue: The proposed VOC limit for aerosol products is not feasible for products 

labeled for use on upholstery. 

Response: Regarding the aerosol products, ARB staff believes that survey year 

2003 was likely within the transition period during which industry conducted 

research and development and phased in replacement products using new 

chemical technologies, following the phase-out of the perfluorooctanyl chemistry 

products at the end of 2000 (3M, 2007; 3M, 2000a; 3M, 2000b; U.S. EPA 2000). 

Also, five years have passed since the 2003 survey, so current products may be 

the result of several transitional changes. Therefore, products marketed now 

may be substantially different in terms of product formulations, sales, and 

possible VOC emission reductions, compared with the products in the 2003 

survey. Staff therefore plans to defer proposing a VOC standard for aerosol 

Fabric Protectants and intends to re-survey the aerosol products to obtain more 

representative data. Staff will reconsider the VOC limit for aerosol products in a 

future rulemaking, assuming that the phase-in of new technologies has largely 

been accomplished. 

REFERENCES 

1. 3M. What you should know about 3M’s ‘next generation’ ScotchgardTM Protector 

products. 2007. 

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Scotchgard/Home/Resources/Envi

ronmental. October 29, 2007. (3M, 2007) 

2. 3M. RE: Phase-out Plan for POSF-Based Products. July 7, 2000. 

http://www.fluoridealert.org/pesticides/pfos.fr.final.docket.0009.pdf. 

(July 10, 2000). (3M, 2000a) 

3. 3M. 3M Phasing Out Some of its Specialty Materials. May 16, 2000. 

http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecrets/scotchgard/pdfs/226-

0641.pdf#page=1. (September 1, 2000). (3M, 2000b) 

4. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

5. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to 

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - Phase 

II – Technical Support Document. October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 78 

6. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Memo from Charles Auer to 

Barbara Leczynski, Mary Dominiak, Frank Kover, Ward Penberthy, and Karen 

Lannon. Subject: Phaseout of PFOS. May 16, 2000. (U.S. EPA, 2000) 

5. Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product 

Product Category Description: 

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product is a laundry care product designed or 

labeled for single use in the clothes dryer to impart softness to, or control static cling of, 

a load of washable fabrics; and may impart a fragrance or scent. For the purpose of 

this definition only, “single use” means a product that is intended for one time use during 

a single drying cycle and is removed after completion of the drying cycle. A “load” is the 

amount of washable fabrics in a single drying cycle. Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer 

Product includes treated non-woven sheets which are typically packaged in boxes with 

a multiple number of sheets. Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product does not 

include products applied to washable fabrics prior to placing the washable fabrics in the 

clothes dryer and multiple use dryer-added products. 

These products are often sold in packages of as little as 20 sheets to as many as 

200 sheets per box and are available in both scented and unscented varieties. A 

product brand may have more than one fragrance variant. Based on the shelf survey 

conducted by ARB staff in 2006 and Internet searches, the majority of dryer-added 

fabric softener products are sold as single use sheets but are also available to 

consumers in multiple use products such as packets, sachets, blocks and dryer balls. 

However, the Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product category only applies to 

single use products. 

 Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product is a previously unregulated category. 

Table VI-9 below summarizes the sales and emissions from products in the Fabric 

Softener – Single Use Dryer Product category based on the results of ARB’s 2003 

Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total 

category sales are about 26,804 pounds per day. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 79 

Table VI-9 

Fabric Softener--Single Use Dryer Product * 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

All Forms+26 26,804 1,037 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Only the amount of product impregnated on a sheet reported. The mass of the sheet is not 

included.

 As shown in Table VI-9, products in the Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer 

Product category have estimated VOC emissions of about 1,037 pounds per day, or 

about 0.52 tons per day, in California. Although not shown, the SWA-VOC content for 

this category is about 4 percent by weight (including all fragrance but excludes the 

sheet) or about 0.08 grams of VOC per sheet. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Fabric softener products can often be found as liquid and sheet products. 

According to the Soap and Detergent Association (SDA), 86 percent of households use 

a fabric softener product; with 40 percent preferring a dryer-added sheet product, 

21 percent using a washer-added product, and 25 percent using both (SDA, 2006b). 

Dryer-added products are used to treat laundered fabrics in the clothes dryer. These 

products claim to soften clothes and eliminate static cling, or add a fresh scent. To 

impart softness refers to a “quality of the fabric in which its “hand” or feel to the touch is 

smooth, pliable and fluffy, as distinguished from coarse or scratchy” (US Patent, 2005). 

The term static cling refers to the “tendency of articles of clothing to adhere to one 

another after being dried in clothes dryer as a result of static electrical charges created 

on the surface of the fabric” (US Patent, 2005). 

 

The dryer-added and washer-added products provide the same softening and 

anti-static benefits. The dryer-added sheet products are perceived to be more 

convenient to use, being added into the clothes dryer as opposed to the washer rinse 

cycle. Dryer-added sheet products are generally sold as single use products. Single 

use and multiple use products refers to “the number of drying cycles in which the fabric 

treatment composition can be used and release an effective amount of a fabric 

treatment agent to fabric that is being dried during the operation of a dryer (US Patent, 

2007).” Typically, one sheet is used per drying cycle, with larger/atypical loads requiring 

up to two sheets per drying cycle. While dryer-added fabric softener products are more 

commonly used, liquid fabric softeners added to the clothes washer are more effective 

at softening clothes. This is because the wash water allows the softening ingredients to 

more easily penetrate into the fabric (SDA, 2006b). 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 80 

Both scented and unscented fabric softener products are marketed. According to 

the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, “15 percent of the U.S. population is 

hypersensitive to chemicals, including fragrances” (Clements, 2006). In order to meet 

market demand, companies have responded with unscented products. 

Fabric softener products are typically found in both household and commercial 

settings. They are available to consumers through national and private store label 

brands, with the national brands owning a large share of the market. Most fabric 

softener products are available for purchase in grocery stores, diversified pharmacies, 

warehouses, superstores, laundromats, and from Internet companies. 

Product Formulation: 

 Products in the Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product category are 

formulated with cationic and nonionic softening agents, used to soften fabric and control 

static cling; water, used as a perfume carrier; fragrances, for aesthetic appeal; and/or 

inorganic materials such as preservatives, effective in “preventing biological degradation 

of the composition and substrate” (US Patent, 2005). These ingredients are typically 

impregnated on a non-woven sheet of synthetic fabric, and released by the heat and 

direct contact with the fabrics during the tumbling action of the clothes dryer. 

Dryer-added fabric softener products contain the same types of cationic 

compounds as those found in the washer-added fabric softener products, however, the 

dryer-added products contain alkyl sulfate salts instead of chloride salts (SDA, 2006a). 

The active ingredient consists of cationic fabric softening agents, known as quaternary 

ammonium compounds, used to impart softness to laundered fabrics. One side of the 

quaternary molecule contains a positively charged atom that binds to the negatively 

charged fabrics. The other side of the molecule consists of a long chain fatty material 

that leaves a coating on the fabric, making the fabric soft and controlling static cling 

(Kozen, 2006). Dryer-added fabric softener products may also contain long chain fatty 

based hydrocarbon nonionic molecules. “These nonionics have no positive charge but 

are effective in the dryer where deposition depends mostly on physical contact” (SDA, 

2006a). 

Along with its cationic and nonionic ingredients, dryer-added fabric softener 

products may also contain fragrances in their formulation. Data reported in the 2003 

Survey shows that the VOC ingredients found in dryer-added fabric softener products 

are mostly attributed to fragrances, with fragrance ranging from zero to 8 percent by 

weight (ARB, 2004a). According to the Fragrance Material Association (FMA), there are 

approximately 2,500 individual fragrance materials currently available, with mixtures of 

these materials containing as many as 50 to 300 individual chemical entities (FMA, 

2006). These fragrance materials may be naturally derived or synthetic, having a floral, 

woody or citrus scent. Because of the vast combination of mixtures to work with, 

companies are able to offer fabric softener products with different types of scents. 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 81 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limit for products in the Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer 

Product category is 0.05 grams of VOC per use. Staff believes, and some industry 

stakeholders have agreed, that the proposed gram of VOC per use limit, instead of a 

percent by weight VOC limit, is more appropriate for this category as it would provide a 

level playing field and ensure that the size of the sheet substrate does not increase 

(SDA, 2008a). This proposed limit includes all VOCs in the product, including 

fragrance. 

Staff’s proposal for grams of VOC per use limit would provide a level playing field 

as manufacturers apply varying amounts of liquid to the sheet substrate and the VOC 

content on the sheet substrate may not be the same as the formulation of the liquid 

applied to the sheet during manufacture. As indicated by manufacturers, some of the 

water or fragrance in the liquid formulation could be driven off during the drying process. 

Also, a liquid with a lower VOC weight percent that is applied to the sheet in a large 

quantity could deposit more VOC on the sheet compared to a higher VOC weight 

percent liquid that is applied in a smaller quantity. 

The grams of VOC per use limit is designed to ensure that the size of the sheet 

substrate does not increase. In developing the limit for these products, staff determined 

that establishing a VOC percent by weight limit could result in manufacturers using 

larger size sheets to comply. This would diminish emissions reductions and potentially 

lead to increasing the solid waste stream. Therefore, to mitigate this potential and in 

accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the grams of VOC 

per use limit is proposed. 

The 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit provides emission reductions equivalent to 

setting a 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit (including fragrance). Because the limit 

already accounts for the fragrance, there is no need for the fragrance exemption 

provided in section 94510(c) for these products (ARB, 2007a). This modification is 

proposed in section 94510(c). 

Compliance with the VOC limit shall be determined per sheet, or equivalent 

delivery substrate, based on the minimum recommended use for a single drying cycle 

specified on the product packaging or label. In other words, if one sheet is the minimum 

recommended use for a single drying cycle, then the VOC limit applies per sheet. If two 

sheets are the minimum recommended use for a single drying cycle, then the VOC limit 

applies to the aggregate VOC content in two sheets. “Minimum recommended use” 

does not include recommendations for incidental use of additional sheets, or equivalent 

delivery substrate, for limited applications such as for extra large or double loads of 

washable fabrics in large capacity clothes dryers. 

 

As shown in Table VI-10, using adjusted 2010 emissions, the proposed limit 

would result in an estimated emission reduction of 414 pounds per day, or about 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 82 

0.21 tons per day. Table VI-10 also shows that 24 percent of the market currently 

complies with the proposed 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit. This limit would become 

effective December 31, 2010. 

Table VI-10 

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product Proposal*

Product Form

Proposed 

Grams of 

VOC per 

Use Limit

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

All Forms++ 0.05 20 24 404 414 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

++ Only the amount of product impregnated on a sheet reported. The mass of the sheet is not 

included. 

 In proposing this limit, we find that 24 percent of the market (20 out of 26 

products, both scented and unscented) complies with the proposed 0.05 grams of VOC 

per use limit (ARB, 2004a). The proposed limit will not require a change to the active 

ingredients or in the amount of active ingredients used in the formulation of the product. 

The active ingredients, LVP-VOCs, are not considered when determining compliance 

with the proposed limit, per the exemption provided in section 94510(d) (ARB, 2007a). 

 

As described above, the main ingredients found in dryer-added fabric softener 

products are cationic and nonionic softening agents also known as quaternary 

ammonium compounds, water, fragrances and inorganics. The active ingredients used 

are LVP-VOCs. The primary VOC ingredient in this category is the fragrance, which 

currently ranges from zero to 8 percent by weight (ARB, 2004a). Staff believes 

fragrance is the VOC ingredient most likely to be reduced in the reformulation of a 

product. Reformulation under the grams of VOC per use strategy would only require 

manufacturers to reduce the amount of fragrance while keeping the active ingredients 

the same. 

Although fragrances provide an important attribute for many customers, 

fragrances do not contribute to the primary function of softening fabric. Manufacturers 

should not have significant difficulty reformulating their products to meet the proposed 

limit of 0.05 grams of VOC per use. As indicated by the 2003 Survey, only a small 

number of companies would have to reformulate to meet this limit. Private label 

companies would not have to reformulate, but only request that their formulators use 

existing formulations which currently meet the proposed limit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 83 

Issues:

a. Issue: ARB has proposed a new category (Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer 

Product) and definition that go substantially beyond the category covered by the 

2003 Consumer Product Survey. ARB surveyed for all the “sheet” form of dryer 

products and did not include “packets, sachets, and dryer balls.” 

Response: The CARB 2003 Consumer Products Survey not only surveyed for 

“Dryer Sheets” but “Other Laundry Products,” “In-Dryer Fabric Care” and “Fabric 

Softener.” All dryer-added products that were sold in California in 2003 should 

have been reported in one of these four categories. Dryer-added products are 

available not only as sheets, but in other forms. However, staff’s proposal only 

applies to singe use dryer products. 

b. Issue: The products reported in this category of the survey all appear to soften 

fabric. Although they may provide other benefits in terms of fabric care, their 

primary purpose is softening. Inclusion of products that “prevent static cling, 

reduce wrinkles, reduce drying time, [and] make ironing easier” would be 

inappropriate since it would capture products on the market now or in the future 

that are designed with these primary purposes and may not, as the category 

name implies, soften fabrics. 

Response: Based on staff evaluation of the product labels submitted by 

manufacturers, a large percent of products surveyed made claims of both 

softening as well as controlling static cling. ARB staff revised the definition as 

suggested by SDA but retained the anti-static property as this claim is often seen 

on the labels of most fabric softener products. 

c. Issue: Fragrance is a very desirable quality for consumers who use fabric 

softener sheets. If the amount of fragrance per softener sheet is reduced, 

consumers will use more to compensate. This will result in less emissions 

reduction achieved. There will be a significant impact on the environment from 

increased solid waste and shipping-related energy and air emissions. 

Response: While acknowledging that some consumers may increase their 

usage of fabric softener sheets in response to reduced fragrance, ARB staff does 

not believe that the proposed regulation will significantly increase consumer 

usage. No data were provided to support this claim. Consumer use data 

provided by SDA indicate that 80 percent of consumers use one sheet or less per 

drying cycle (SDA, 2008b). Increasing usage to two sheets would translate to 

added cost that many consumers may not be willing to pay. In addition, using 

two sheets would deposit more softening ingredients on the fabric and customers 

may notice a different “feel” to the fabrics. However, staff will use its periodic 

surveys to monitor product sales and take appropriate action if any unanticipated 

increased usage is occurring. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 84 

d. Issue: The low market share, 24 percent, for existing products complying with 

the proposed 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit indicates that this limit is not 

technologically and commercially feasible. If sales of unscented products were 

excluded, then the complying market share is even lower. Customers will find 

that reformulated products will not meet their needs and switch to liquid fabric 

softener products. These products are heavier than dryer sheet products and 

are packaged in bulky plastic containers. This will result in a significant impact 

on the environment from increased solid waste and shipping-related energy and 

air emissions. 

Response: Staff disagrees. No data were provided to support this claim. The 

24 percent complying market share, with 20 complying products out of 

26 products, indicates that the proposed 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit is 

technologically and commercially feasible. However, staff intends to monitor 

product sales through periodic surveys, as is always done, to ensure that 

unintended consequences of establishing the proposed VOC limit does not 

occur. 

e. Issue: The up to 2 percent by weight fragrance exemption per section 94510(c) 

should be provided to Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product. It sets a bad 

precedent to treat Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product differently from 

other regulated product categories. 

Response: The softening and anti-static active ingredients in fabric softeners 

are LVP-VOCs. Fragrance, therefore, is the primary ingredient restrained by the 

proposed 0.05 grams VOC per use limit. The 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit 

provides emission reductions equivalent to setting a 2.6 percent by weight limit 

including fragrance (or a 0.6 percent by weight limit with the fragrance exemption 

in section 94510(c)). Because the proposed limit already accounts for the 

fragrance, there is no need for the fragrance exemption in section 94510(c). 

f. Issue: Manufacturers will have to consider increasing the sheet sizes. This will 

result in less emissions reduction achieved. There will be a significant impact on 

the environment from increased solid waste and shipping-related energy and air 

emissions. (This comment is in reference to an earlier staff proposal for a 

percent by weight limit). 

Response: Staff believes that the existing corporate environmental policies will 

not favor the option of increasing sheet size. In addition, staff’s proposal for a 

grams of VOC per use limit, instead of a percent by weight limit, mitigates the 

potential for increases in sheet sizes. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 85 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. The California Consumer Products Regulations. 

December, 2007. (ARB, 2007a) 

2. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

3. Clement, Carla. Fragrance Facts. May, 2005. 

http://www.alive.com/3163a6a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=179. (August 15, 

2006). (Clement, 2006) 

4. Fragrance Materials Association. Presentation to ARB staff. July 24, 2006. 

 (FMA, 2006) 

5. Kozen, Frances. Liquid Surfactant on Dryer Sheets Coat Fabric, Eliminating

Cling. February 8, 2006. Cornell University. 

http://www.ccmr.cornee.edu/education/ask/index.html. (August 15, 2006). 

(Kozen, 2006) 

6. Soap and Detergent Association. Telephone Conference with ARB staff. 

April 10, 2008. (SDA, 2008a) 

7. Soap and Detergent Association. Comment Letter Re: Fabric Softeners – Dryer 

Sheets. February 1, 2008. (SDA, 2008b) 

 

8. Soap and Detergent Association. Facts About Laundry. 

http://www.cleaning 101.com/laundry/fact/fact_sheet4.html. (January 17, 2006). 

(SDA, 2006a) 

9. Soap and Detergent Association. Liquid Fabric Softeners and Dryer Sheets 

Presentation. July 24, 2006. (SDA, 2006b) 

10. United States Patent 7250393B2. Fabric Treatment Compositions and Methods 

for Treating Fabric in a Dryer. July 31, 2007. (US Patent, 2007) 

11. United States Patent, 20050020475. Fabric Softener System and Method for use 

in Clothes Dryer. January 27, 2005. (US Patent, 2005) 

6. Floor Maintenance Product

Product Category Description: 

 The Floor Maintenance Product category consists of products that are labeled as 

Spray Buff products as well as products labeled as maintainers and restorers. Products 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 86 

in this category are designed or labeled to restore, maintain, or enhance a previously 

applied floor finish. Spray Buff products are designed or labeled to be used in 

conjunction with a floor buffing machine and special pad. Floor maintainers or restorers 

are designed or labeled to be applied with a mop and burnished with a floor buffing 

machine. Though the application methods for these two types of products differ, their 

formulations are similar. This category does not include floor polish products, products 

designed solely for the purpose of cleaning, or products designed specifically for the 

use on marble floors. 

 Floor Maintenance Products are a previously unregulated category. Table VI-11 

below summarizes the sales and emissions from Floor Maintenance Products based on 

the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). Floor Maintenance Products have 

estimated VOC emissions of 194 pounds per day, or about 0.1 tons per day in 

California. 

Table VI-11 

Floor Maintenance Product* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

All Forms 98 3,540 194 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

 As shown in Table VI-11, this category contains 98 products with sales of 

3,540 pounds per day. Although not shown, the sales-weighted average VOC content 

is about 5 percent by weight. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Floor Maintenance Products are primarily used by commercial/institutional users 

and are designed for use on finishes previously applied to resilient and non-resilient 

floors. These products are able to remove traffic damage, soils, and reduce 

maintenance costs by extending the time between topcoating and stripping the previous 

finish (Rohm and Haas, 2006). The process may take place in the presence of 

pedestrian traffic resulting in minimum floor down-time (Rohm and Haas, 2006). 

 Products labeled as Spray Buffs are applied to a clean and dry floor surface. The 

user or machine will spray the product in a small area of the floor, avoiding excess 

application or allowing the product to puddle. The final step is then to buff the product 

using a buffer or burnishing machine. 

 Products labeled as floor maintainers or restorers are usually applied to a clean 

and dry floor surface with a mop in a thin, even layer, avoiding using excess product or 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 87 

allowing the product to puddle. The user allows the product to dry (usually about 20 

minutes) before burnishing or buffing with a machine. 

 Floor Maintenance Products are sold to commercial and industrial 

establishments. They can be found at janitorial stores, the Internet, as well as through 

manufacturers’ and distributors’ sales representatives. 

Product Formulation: 

 Floor Maintenance Products are primarily composed of water and polymer solids. 

Other ingredients include coalescent aids and other modifiers (such as levelers, 

plasticizers, viscosity modifiers, etc.) that optimize product properties. The coalescent 

aids are typically volatile glycol ethers that help the polymer solids form a smooth 

continuous coating over the floor surface. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limit for Floor Maintenance Products is 1 percent by weight, 

effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-12, using adjusted 2003 emissions, 

the proposed limit will result in an estimated emission reduction of 142 pounds per day, 

or about 0.07 tons per day, by 2010. Table VI-12 also shows that 53 percent of the 

market currently complies with the proposed 1 percent VOC limit. 

Table VI-12 

Floor Maintenance Product Proposal*

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

All Forms 1 57 53 140 142 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+

Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

 There are reformulation options available that make reductions in VOC content 

technologically and commercially feasible. We expect manufacturers of noncompliant 

products to reformulate similarly to the compliant products. We also expect the 

technology used to reformulate floor polish for resilient and non-resilient floors may be 

used to reformulate Floor Maintenance Products. A 1 percent VOC limit was set for 

Resilient and Non-Resilient Floor Polish products in 2006. Reformulation options that 

can be used to meet the proposed limit include the use of water, LVP-VOC hydrocarbon 

solvents, LVP-VOC glycol ethers, as well as non-VOC alternatives available for 

substitution. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 88 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

2. Rohm and Haas. Presentation to ARB staff. June 2006 

(Rohm and Haas, 2006) 

7. Floor Polish or Wax: Wood Floor Wax

Product Category Description: 

 Floor Polish or Wax is divided into three subcategories: products for Resilient 

Flooring Material, products for Nonresilient Flooring Material, and Wood Floor Wax. 

Floor Polish or Wax products for Resilient and Nonresilient floors were regulated as part 

of the 2006 Amendments. The proposal described here relates to Wood Floor Wax 

products only. 

 Wood Floor Wax products are designed or labeled for use solely on wood floors. 

These products are designed to polish, protect, wax, condition, protect, temporarily seal, 

or otherwise enhance floor surfaces by leaving a protective finish that is designed or 

labeled to be periodically replenished. This category does not include Floor 

Maintenance Products, Floor Wax Strippers, or coatings subject to architectural 

coatings regulations. Wood Floor Wax products that claim to “clean and wax” or “clean 

and polish” are Wood Cleaner products. 

 Floor Polish or Wax products were first regulated under Phase I of the Consumer 

Products Regulation adopted in October of 1990, and a description of these products is 

also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (ARB, 1990b). At that time, the 

Board adopted a 90 percent VOC limit for products used on wood floors, effective on 

January 1, 1994. 

 Table VI-13 below summarizes the sales and emissions reported for Wood Floor 

Wax products, based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data 

have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 

136 pounds per day. 

 As shown in Table VI-13, Wood Floor Wax products have estimated VOC 

emissions of 112 pounds per day, or about 0.06 tons per day in California in 2008. 

Although not shown, the sales-weighted average VOC content is about 82 percent by 

weight. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 89 

Table VI-13 

 Floor Polish or Wax: Wood Floor Wax* 

Product Form:

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

All Forms 7 136 112 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Wood Floor Wax is used by general consumers, as well as commercial and 

institutional customers. Commercial and institutional products account for the majority 

of reported products and total sales. 

 These products are historically designed to provide a temporary, water resistant 

seal to a finished or unfinished wood floor. Unfinished wood flooring material is 

becoming increasingly rare as evidenced by small sales in this category. Today they 

are being replaced with factory sealed wood flooring material. Generally anhydrous 

wax-based products (such as a paste wax) are used on unsealed wood floors, whereas 

a wax-based, but not necessarily anhydrous product is used on sealed wood floors. 

Because there is a potential for “side-bonding” or water damage if water-based products 

are used on an unsealed wood floor, anhydrous products are still needed (Owens, 

2006). 

 Wood Floor Wax products are generally applied with a sponge or cloth to a dry 

floor, and are then rubbed into the wood in a circular motion and allowed to dry. 

Depending on the manufacturer recommendations, the final step may then be to buff 

the finish to a shine using a buffer or burnishing machine, or to polish by hand with a 

clean cloth. 

 Wood Floor Wax products are sold to household consumers, commercial, and 

industrial establishments. They can be found at janitorial stores, supermarkets, 

warehouse and hardware stores, and the Internet, as well as through manufacturers’ 

and distributors’ sales representatives. 

Product Formulation: 

 

Wood Floor Waxes typically contain a suspension of natural wax such as 

carnauba or montan or other polymer in a hydrocarbon solvent such as mineral spirits. 

A solid form of Wood Floor Wax is generally composed of approximately 70 percent 

solids (wax) and 30 percent hydrocarbon solvent or LVP-VOC solvent. A liquid form of 

wood floor wax is generally composed of a mixture of water, a polymer solid, and an 

LVP-VOC solvent. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 90 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limit for Wood Floor Wax products is 70 percent by weight, 

effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-2, using adjusted 2003 emissions, 

the proposed limit will result in an estimated emission reduction of 24 pounds per day, 

or about 0.012 tons per day in 2010. 

 Table VI-14 does not show the number of complying products or complying 

marketshare due to data confidentiality. 

Table VI-14 

 Floor Polish or Wax: Wood Floor Wax Proposal*

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

All Forms 70 *** *** 22 24 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

 Reformulation options for Wood Floor Wax products include the substitution of 

hydrocarbon solvents with LVP-VOC solvents. Manufacturers may also develop a 

polymer technology that requires less VOC solvent. A minimal number of product 

reformulations are anticipated, as the market for these products is small and is 

anticipated to continue to decrease. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technical Support Document. 

August, 1990. (ARB, 1990b) 

3. Owens, Joseph M. Presentation to ARB staff. August, 2006. (Owens, 2006) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 91 

8. Glass Cleaner – aerosol

Product Category Description: 

Glass Cleaners are specialty cleaning products designed primarily for cleaning 

surfaces made of glass such as windows, mirrors, glass tabletops, and computer 

screens. However, the Glass Cleaner category does not include products designed 

solely for the purpose of cleaning optical materials used in eyeglasses, photographic 

equipment, scientific equipment and photocopying machines. Products marketed as 

“glass and surface cleaner” are not included in this category; they are regulated as 

General Purpose Cleaner. 

Glass Cleaners were first regulated under “Phase I” of the Consumer Products 

Regulation adopted in October of 1990, and a description of these products is also 

included in the staff report for that rulemaking (ARB, 1990b). At that time, the Board 

adopted a 12 percent VOC limit for these products which was effective on 

January 1, 1993. Although past regulatory actions resulted in significant emission 

reductions, we believe that technology now exists to further reduce VOC emissions from 

the aerosol product form. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the regulation to 

reduce the VOC content limit for aerosol Glass Cleaners to 10 percent by weight VOC. 

 Table VI-15 below summarizes the sales and emissions from aerosol Glass 

Cleaners based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have 

been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 6,087 pounds 

per day. 

Table VI-15 

Glass Cleaner – aerosol* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Aerosol 95 6087 663 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

Estimated VOC emissions are 663 pounds per day, or about 0.33 tons per day. 

Although not shown, the sales-weighted average VOC content for this category is about 

11 percent. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

Aerosol Glass Cleaners are used by household, institutional and industrial users 

for cleaning surfaces made primarily of glass and may have additional claims for 

cleaning surfaces such as chrome and plastic which require a “non-streaking” cleaning 

performance – leaving no non-volatile residues which show up readily on such surfaces. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 92 

They are marketed towards automotive, household, office, institutional, professional and 

other specialty uses. 

These products can be purchased through many sales outlets including grocery 

stores, discount stores, wholesalers, mass merchandisers, hardware stores, automotive 

parts stores, warehouse stores and home centers. These products are labeled primarily 

for use on glass. If the product makes a “multi-surface” claim on the front panel, it is 

categorized as a General Purpose Cleaner. 

Product Formulation: 

Glass Cleaners are typically formulated with a high water content. Short carbon 

chain alcohols (such as isopropyl alcohol or ethyl alcohol) and/or glycol ethers are used 

to dissolve oily soils. Trace amounts of surfactant are included to emulsify oily soils. 

The surfactant also creates a layer of foam which forms on the sprayed surface. This 

allows the product to cling to the surface making the cleaning agents more effective and 

preventing run-off while the user wipes the surface clean. Trace amounts of a suitable 

inorganic material prevent corrosion in the can. Fragrance imparts a pleasant odor into 

the air and contributes to the overall aesthetic of the product. It can also mask the 

solvent and ammonia odor, if present. Non-volatiles, also known as residuals, are left 

behind on the surface after the rest of the product evaporates and can contribute to 

streaking, and are, therefore, kept to a minimum in the formulation. All of the products 

reported in the 2003 Survey are propelled by hydrocarbon propellants, typically in the 4 

to 5 percent by weight range. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance

 The proposed VOC limit for aerosol Glass Cleaners is 10 percent by weight, 

effective December 31, 2012. As shown in Table VI-16, using adjusted 2012 emissions, 

the proposed limit will result in an estimated emission reduction of 65 pounds per day, 

or about 0.03 tons per day. Table VI-16 also shows that 37 percent of the market 

currently complies with the proposed 10 percent VOC limit. 

Table VI-16 

Glass Cleaner – aerosol Proposal* 

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2012 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Aerosol 10 32 37 62 65 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2012 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions). 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 93 

The proposed standard for aerosol Glass Cleaner was established after review of 

the 2003 survey data, consultation with industry representatives, review of available 

literature materials, and analysis of the technological and commercial feasibility of the 

standard. 

 As shown in Table VI-16, over a third of the market currently meets the proposed 

10 percent VOC limit. These complying products are using a combination of alcohol 

and glycol ether solvents, and hydrocarbon propellant in order to reach the proposed 

10 percent VOC level. 

 

For most aerosol Glass Cleaners, the reformulation will involve replacing some of 

the VOC solvent and/or propellant with water. Many products at, or below, the 

10 percent VOC level already claim to clean glass while leaving the surface streakfree. Besides products categorized as Glass Cleaner, there is a substantial market 

volume of products making equivalent claims in addition to cleaning claims for other 

hard surfaces. 

 

 Reformulated products, while effective, may have different attributes than the 

consumer is used to for some products. Staff believes this will require extensive test 

marketing before bringing the reformulated product to market. For these reasons, staff 

believes more time for compliance is warranted. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technical Support Document. 

August, 1990. (ARB, 1990b) 

9. Motor Vehicle Wash 

Product Category Description: 

 Motor Vehicle Wash means a product designed or labeled to wash, wash and 

wax, wash and shine, or wash and/or clean the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles. 

Motor Vehicle Wash includes, but is not limited to, products for use in commercial, fleet, 

hand, and “drive through” car washes, commercial truck washing or large vehicle 

washing stations, and vehicle dealers and repair shops, as well as products intended for 

household use. Motor Vehicle Wash does not include Bug and Tar Remover, Glass 

Cleaner, Engine Degreaser, Brake Cleaner, Tire or Wheel Cleaner, and products 

labeled exclusively for use on locomotives or aircraft. 

 Motor Vehicle Wash is a previously unregulated category. Table VI-l7 below 

summarizes the sales and emissions from Motor Vehicle Wash based on the results of 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 94 

ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar 

year. Total category sales are about 53,680 pounds per day. 

Table VI-17 

Motor Vehicle Wash*

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

All Forms 366 53,680 752 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions). 

 Estimated VOC emissions are 752 pounds per day, or about 0.38 tons per day. 

Motor Vehicle Wash, while primarily marketed as liquid, can also be found in nonaerosol product forms such as solid, foam/mousse, mist/dispersed spray, and postfoaming gel. No aerosol products were reported in the 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

Although not shown, the sales-weighted average VOC content for this category is 

approximately 1 percent by weight. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

Motor Vehicle Wash products are sold to household or “do-it-yourself” 

consumers, commercial, and industrial establishments. They are to be used on the 

exterior surfaces of motor vehicles such as automobiles, vans, sport utility vehicles 

(SUV), motorcycles, commercial trucks and trailers, noncommercial trucks, service 

vehicles, and recreational vehicles. These products are used to safely remove dirt, 

grime, and other road soils from a variety of material surfaces including, but not limited 

to, painted metal, vinyl, and metallic trim. In some instances, the product cleans the 

vehicle and leaves a shine or wax finish in a single step. These one-step products are 

unlike wax products, which must be applied separately to a clean vehicle surface. Both 

“wash and shine” and “wash and wax” products are able to be applied to a dirty vehicle 

surface. 

For the “do-it-yourself” consumers, Motor Vehicle Wash products are available in, 

but not limited to, retail outlets such as supermarkets, diversified pharmacies, home 

improvement stores, auto supply stores, super stores, and specialty stores. Auto 

dealers, repair shops, catalog sales, and the Internet are additional marketing locations. 

For commercial and industrial businesses, products are available from manufacturers 

and/or distributors, warehouses, as well as the Internet and retail outlets. 

The majority of Motor Vehicle Wash products are sold as liquid concentrates and 

must be diluted prior to use. A typical dilution would be one ounce of Motor Vehicle 

Wash to one gallon of clean water. Directions for product use indicate that the water 

should be cool, and the solution should be applied to a cool surface with soft material. 

The directions also often direct consumers to wash vehicles from the top down and 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 95 

rinse after the wash is applied. Using a terry cloth towel or other material such as a 

chamois to remove water is recommended. 

Concentrated Motor Vehicle Wash products that are used in commercial 

establishments, such as car wash or auto detailing businesses, may be used in 

proportioning units through which the concentrate passes in order to achieve the proper 

dilution ratio. An example of a commercial dilution ratio can be 1 part product to 300 to 

500 parts water. After the wash cycle, vehicles are rinsed. Depending on the 

properties of the concentrate or other additives, vehicles may air dry or need to be dried 

either mechanically or by hand to avoid spotting. 

Product Formulation: 

Motor Vehicle Wash products are primarily very near-zero VOC water-based 

formulations. Surfactants are the active ingredient of the products in this category. 

These surfactants are typically detergents and comprise the LVP-VOC portion of the 

product. Typical formulations include water and a small amount of LVP-VOCs, or water 

and a small amount of inorganics, or water and both LVP-VOCs and inorganics. The 

VOCs used in this category include small amounts of 2-butoxyethanol and isopropyl 

alcohol. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

The proposed limit for Motor Vehicle Wash is 0.2 percent VOC by weight, 

effective December 31, 2010. The proposed limit is applicable to both ready-to-use and 

dilutable products. The limit applies to diluted products after the minimum dilution is 

made. As shown in Table VI-18, using adjusted 2010 emissions, the proposed limit will 

result in an estimated reduction of 284 pounds per day, or about 0.14 tons per day. 

Table Vl-18 also shows that 89 percent of the market currently complies with the 

proposed 0.2 percent VOC limit. 

Table Vl-18 

Motor Vehicle Wash Proposal* 

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

All Forms 0.2 311 89 276 284 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

Reformulation options that could be used by manufacturers to meet the proposed 

limit include the use of water and LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvents; water and 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 96 

inorganics; or water in combination with both LVP-VOC solvents and inorganics. 

Because there are many viable non-VOC alternatives available for substitution, we 

believe the proposed limit is commercially and technologically feasible. 

Issues:

a. Issue: Wash-and-wax should be removed from the definition as it is a different 

product “type” from wash and cleaner. 

Response: Staff maintains that motor vehicle “wash and wax” products and 

“wash and shine” products should be included in the definition because these 

products are marketed as vehicle washes and are formulated similarly. Both 

Motor Vehicle Wash ingredients and wax or shine ingredients are combined in 

the product and labeled to be applied to vehicles in the same manner as other 

Motor Vehicle Wash products. They are usually applied to dirty surfaces, unlike 

waxes which must be applied to clean surfaces. Retail outlets from 

supermarkets to superstores and auto supply stores, for example, stock and 

feature “wash and wax” and “wash and shine” products with other Motor Vehicle 

Wash products and not with vehicle wax products. 

b. Issue: Industry only assumed one product “type” (i.e., wash only products) when 

responding to the 2003 Consumer Products Survey and the data may not be 

available to support meeting the criteria for this new category. 

Response: Industry did not assume only one motor vehicle wash and cleaner 

product type when responding to the 2003 Consumer Products Survey. Twentyfive companies responded with 38 products that are either wash and wax or 

wash and shine which they identified as belonging in the vehicle wash category 

along with the other 300-plus products that were reported in the category. After 

considering dilution ratios, most of these products already comply with the 

proposed 0.2 percent VOC by weight limit. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

10. Multi-purpose Lubricant

Product Category Description: 

 Multi-purpose Lubricants are lubricant products designed for general purpose 

lubrication, or lubricants labeled for use in a wide variety of applications. This category 

includes products that are labeled for household use and for institutional and industrial 

use (for example, use by mechanics, professional contractors, and manufacturing 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 97 

facilities). This category includes products that are simply labeled as “lubricants;” multifunctional products that provide light duty lubrication; products labeled as aerosol spray 

greases; and liquid or aerosol products containing heavier base oils. This category 

includes multi-functional Multi-purpose Lubricants, which may also make claims to 

function as demoisturants, penetrants, and rust preventatives. 

 This category does not include specialty lubricant products, such as products 

labeled only for use on chains, even if the label specifies use on different types of 

chains. As defined in the Consumer Products Regulation, Multi-purpose Dry Lubricants, 

Penetrants, and Silicone-based Multi-purpose Lubricants are excluded from the Multipurpose Lubricant category. The Multi-purpose Lubricant category also excludes 

lubricant products that are (1) sold exclusively to establishments which manufacture or 

construct goods or commodities, and are (2) labeled “not for retail sale.” Automotive 

power steering fluids, lubricant products for use inside power generating motors, 

engines, and turbines, and their associated power-transfer gearboxes, two cycle oils or 

other products designed to be added to fuels, and products for use on the human body 

or animals are excluded from this category as well. Multi-purpose Lubricant products 

that are marketed in solid and semisolid-forms, as defined in the Consumer Products 

Regulation, are excluded from this category. 

 Multi-purpose Lubricants were first regulated under “Midterm Measures I” of the 

Consumer Products Regulation approved in July of 1997, and a description of these 

products is also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (ARB, 1997b). At that 

time, the Board adopted a 50 percent by weight VOC limit for these products which 

became effective on January 1, 2003. 

 Table VI-19 below summarizes the sales and emissions from Multi-purpose 

Lubricants based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have 

been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 16,337 pounds 

per day. 

Table VI-19 

Multi-purpose Lubricant* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Aerosol 146 11,568 5,784 

Liquid 30 4,769 2,384 

Total 176 16,337 8,168 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a); Includes products 

containing exempt chlorinated solvents. 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions). 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 98 

Estimated 2008 VOC emissions for Multi-purpose Lubricants are 8,168 pounds 

per day, or about 4.08 tons per day in California. Table VI-19 shows the lubricant 

products separated into aerosol and liquid forms, with the aerosol form dominating the 

market in both sales and emissions. According to our data, the sales-weighted average 

VOC content for this category is about 48 percent by weight. 

 

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Multi-purpose Lubricants are used by household, institutional, and industrial 

users. Household consumers use multi-purpose lubricants on a variety of objects, 

including door hinges, bicycle chains, garage door tracks, window tracks, camping and 

sporting equipment, gardening tools, locks and firearms. Institutional and industrial 

consumers use Multi-purpose Lubricant products on the above mentioned items, as well 

as on more specialized equipment such as conveyors, open gears, electrical 

equipment, nuts, bolts, cables, and machinery. 

 Some Multi-purpose Lubricants are designed to deposit a heavier coating that 

provides lubricity under higher loads. These products include aerosol spray greases, 

such as “white lithium grease;” liquid or aerosol lubricants containing heavier base oils; 

and lubricants that provide extra protection against corrosion. 

 The Multi-purpose Lubricant category includes multi-functional products that are 

typically designed to provide a light lubricant film that penetrates surfaces, displaces 

water and inhibits rust and corrosion (ARB, 2004a). They are more often used for light 

duty lubrication, or for use as a penetrant, demoisturant, or for corrosion prevention. 

Typical applications include lubrication of locks or sliding mechanisms. 

 Multi-purpose Lubricants for household use are sold in various retail venues such 

as hardware stores, supermarkets, do-it-yourself home building supply stores, on the 

Internet, and everywhere automotive supplies are sold. Products may also be sold to 

institutional users through distributors. 

Product Formulation: 

 Multi-purpose Lubricants provide lubrication through use of base oils. These 

base oils are typically various grades of petroleum oils or greases. In some cases, 

synthetic oils are used. The balance of the product is usually a hydrocarbon solvent 

which may be a VOC, a LVP-VOC, or a mixture of VOC and LVP-VOC hydrocarbon 

solvents. A small number of products use chlorinated solvents. The propellant, in 

aerosol products, is either a liquefied petroleum gas or carbon dioxide. After the 

product is sprayed, the solvent and propellant evaporate away, leaving a coating of oil 

or grease. Liquid products are typically comprised of pure base oils, or base oils 

thinned in any of the solvents used in aerosol products. 

 The oils or greases used in aerosol Multi-purpose Lubricants constitute 

approximately 15 to 40 percent of the formulation by weight (ARB, 2004a). The base 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 99 

oils, are generally chosen based on their viscosity and typically consist of highly refined 

aliphatic or naphthenic hydrocarbon mixtures. Some Multi-purpose Lubricants, such as 

aerosol spray greases, use synthetic oils in their formulations (ARB, 2004a). 

 The solvents used in Multi-purpose Lubricants comprise 35 to 90 percent of 

aerosol formulations. Various grades of petroleum distillates are used. VOC solvents 

used include heptanes, hexanes, toluene, trichloroethylene, and glycol ethers. 

LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvents are also used. 

 The propellants used in aerosol Multi-purpose Lubricants are either liquefied 

petroleum gases (propane, isobutane, normal butane), or carbon dioxide. Liquefied 

petroleum gases constitute approximately 20 to 30 percent of the product weight, 

compared to 2 to 3 percent when carbon dioxide is used. 

 Specialized extreme pressure additives may also be added in small amounts to 

Multi-purpose Lubricant formulations to enhance the ability of the base oil to protect 

surfaces under high load conditions. These specialized additives include graphite, 

Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene), and “moly” (molybdenum disulfide). Multi-purpose 

Lubricants that contain these additives are not considered Multi-purpose Dry Lubricants. 

 Multi-purpose Dry Lubricants provide lubricity solely through use of graphite, 

molybdenum disulfide, or polytetrafluoroethylene or closely related fluoropolymer. Multipurpose Dry Lubricants do not contain oils. The proposed amendments include a 

modification to the Multi-purpose Dry Lubricant definition. The proposed modification 

clarifies that lubricity is provided solely by these compounds. The modification is 

intended to clearly distinguish these products from Multi-purpose Lubricants. 

 Corrosion inhibitors may also be added to Multi-purpose Lubricant formulations to 

prevent corrosion on the coated surfaces. These compounds generally make up a 

small percentage of the overall lubricant formulation and they may consist of organic 

acids, esters, amino acid derivatives, and various alkaline compounds. 

 Aerosol spray greases (i.e. white lithium grease, or red grease) are Multi-purpose 

Lubricants made up of oils which are thickened with a “metal soap,” such as lithium 

hydroxystearate) or a gelling agent, such as silica or clay. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 We are proposing two tiers of VOC limits for Multi-purpose Lubricants. The first 

tier VOC limit for Multi-purpose Lubricants is 25 percent by weight for both aerosol and 

liquid forms, effective December 31, 2013. As shown in Table VI-20, using adjusted 

2003 emissions, the proposed limit will result in an estimated VOC emission reduction 

of 4,084 pounds per day, or about 2 tons per day, in 2013. A technology-forcing second 

tier VOC limit of 10 percent VOC by weight, effective December 31, 2015, is also 

proposed. As shown in Table VI-20, the 10 percent limit would reduce emissions by 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 100 

2,545 pounds per day, or about 1.3 tons per day. When fully effective, these two limits 

would reduce emissions from Multi-purpose Lubricants by about 3.3 tons per day. 

 

 Table VI-20 also shows that 38 products, representing approximately 4 percent of 

the total Multi-purpose Lubricant market, currently comply with the proposed 25 percent 

VOC limit. Table VI-20 also shows that 22 products, representing 3 percent of the 

market currently comply with the proposed 10 percent limit. Only those products 

complying without the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and 

trichloroethylene, are included in the complying market share data. The complying 

products include both aerosol and liquid Multi-purpose Lubricants for household, 

commercial and institutional use. 

Table VI-20 

Multi-purpose Lubricant Proposal*

Product 

Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

25 27 3 2,748 2,924 Aerosol 

10 11 2 1,677 1,827 

25 11 6 1,090 1,160 

Liquid 

10 11 6 659 718 

25 38 4 3,838 4,084 

Total 

10 22 3 2,336 2,545 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2013 

for the 25% VOC limit; and to 2015 for the 10% VOC limit (see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

 The proposed VOC limits are designed to restrict the use of VOCs in Multipurpose Lubricant formulations. Reformulation options include adding more base oil to 

the formulation; replacing some of the VOC solvents with LVP-VOC solvents; and using 

carbon dioxide as an alternative to liquefied gas hydrocarbon propellants. 

 We believe that the small complying market shares demonstrate that the 

VOC limits are feasible, but challenging - especially for aerosols. Therefore, staff is 

proposing extended effective dates for the limits. As proposed, the compliance date to 

meet the 25 percent limit is December 31, 2013. The 10 percent limit is proposed to 

become effective on December 31, 2015. The second tier technology-forcing limit of 

10 percent is designed to encourage manufacturers to explore emerging technologies. 

Staff’s research indicates that use of materials such as soy-based products provide a 

partial path forward. However, maintaining many other attributes of Multi-purpose 

Lubricants will require extensive research and development. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 101 

 While the reformulation options may appear straight-forward, maintaining existing 

lubricity and evaporative characteristics will be challenging. As mentioned earlier, Multipurpose Lubricants may also function as demoisturants, penetrants, and rust inhibitors. 

Research to find additives for corrosion protection and to maintain the products’ 

penetrating ability will be required. Utilizing emerging technologies in an aerosol 

product also presents challenges. Many reformulated products, while effective, may 

have different attributes than the consumer is used to. Staff believes this will lead to 

extensive test marketing before bringing the reformulated products to the market. For 

these reasons, staff believes additional time is needed to successfully reformulate and 

bring products into the market. 

 The Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA)conducted lubricant 

research in 2004 and 2006 with a focus on finding alternatives to high VOC 

petroleum-based and chlorinated oils. The alternatives that IRTA tested, and 

demonstrated in the industrial setting during the two projects, were water-based and 

vegetable-based products. Some businesses have been using these products as 

cutting oils or for honing, machining, or stamping (IRTA, 2006; IRTA, 2004). These 

operations are not typical consumer uses. We also note the products used were not 

aerosols, which household consumers prefer. Nevertheless, we believe, given more 

time, that Multi-purpose Lubricant products, including aerosols, could be formulated to 

lower VOC levels. 

 While staff believes that technologies are progressing to allow for Multi-purpose 

Lubricants at VOC content levels of 25 percent and, in the future 10 percent, staff 

intends to work with industry to assess progress as compliance dates near. To that 

end, staff is proposing two technology assessments. To ensure that manufacturers are 

on track, and that technology advances as expected, staff believes that manufacturers 

should demonstrate their progress toward meeting these limits. 

 As proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Multi-purpose Lubricant manufacturers 

would need to supply detailed written updates on their research and development 

efforts undertaken to achieve compliance with the VOC limits. The reports would 

include sales and formulation data for products, as well as detailed information on the 

raw materials evaluated for use, maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) values for any 

VOC or LVP-VOC used or evaluated, the function of the raw material evaluated, testing 

protocols used, the results of the testing, the hardware evaluated, and the cost of 

reformulation efforts. The first report would be due on March 31, 2012, and would 

provide data for the 2011 calendar year. A second report would be due on 

March 31, 2014, and would provide data for the 2013 calendar year. 

 Because our data show compliance can be achieved without the use of 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene we are proposing to 

prohibit the use of these TACs from the Multi-purpose Lubricant category effective 

December 31, 2010. Methylene chloride and perchloroethylene are exempt VOC 

solvents. Therefore, without the prohibition, their use could increase as products 

reformulate to comply. Trichloroethylene is a VOC, and its use would likely decrease to 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 102 

meet the proposed limit. However, other solvents are available that make its use 

unnecessary. Prohibiting these three TACs will lead to approximately 0.01 tons per day 

of toxic compound emission reductions from this category. The health effects 

associated with exposure to perchloroethylene, methylene chloride and 

trichloroethylene, are summarized in Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts. 

 

Issues:

a. Issue: This limit should be set at 10 percent or lower based on findings in the 

Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) lubricant research 

summary. 

Response: ARB staff agrees, but believes that additional time is necessary to 

successfully reformulate complying products. Staff is proposing that Multipurpose Lubricants meet a 10 percent by weight VOC limit effective 

December 31, 2015. We believe that lubricant research conducted by IRTA is 

useful data for manufacturers to evaluate as they develop complying products. 

However, there are some limitations. Staff reviewed the lubricant studies 

conducted by IRTA in 2004 and 2006 (IRTA, 2006; IRTA, 2004). It is unclear 

whether the products tested would work well in various household consumer 

applications. Typical household consumers use multi-purpose lubricants for a 

host of lubrication needs, as well as for penetration, water displacement, and rust 

inhibition. IRTA studies focused on commercial manufacturing and repair 

operations with specific lubricating needs. Additionally, IRTA did not test any 

aerosol lubricant products. Our data show that consumers prefer aerosol 

products for their general lubrication needs. 

b. Issue: We believe it may be technologically and commercially feasible to 

reformulate Multi-Purpose Lubricants to a 25 percent VOC limit by 

December 31, 2014. However, the Automotive Specialty Products Association 

(ASPA) asserts that the ARB must commit to conducting a thorough assessment 

for this product category in 2010, 2012 and 2013 to determine the commercial 

and technological feasibility of the 25 percent VOC limit, if requested by our 

industry. 

Response: Staff agrees in part. We have evaluated technology and are 

proposing that products meet a 25 percent VOC limit by December 31, 2013, and 

a technology-forcing limit of 10 percent by December 31, 2015. We also agree 

that technology reviews are appropriate, and are proposing two as described 

earlier. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 103 

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures I. 

June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b) 

3. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance. Assessment, Development and

Demonstration of Alternatives to VOC-emitting Lubricants, Vanishing Oils and

Rust Inhibitors. August, 2006. (IRTA, 2006)

4. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance. Alternatives to VOC Emitting 

Petroleum Based Lubricants and Chlorinated Paraffin Lubricants: Minimizing the 

Health and Environmental Consequences. November, 2004. (IRTA, 2004) 

 

11. Odor Eliminator/Remover

Product Category Description: 

 Odor Eliminator/Remover means a product that is designed or labeled to be 

applied exclusively to hard surfaces to inhibit the ability of soils to create malodors, or 

functions to entrap, encapsulate, neutralize, convert or eliminate malodor molecules. 

Odor Eliminator/Remover does not include products designed or labeled for use in 

cleaning soils from hard surfaces, laundering, softening, de-wrinkling or cleaning 

fabrics, or dishwashing, or products that are defined as Air Freshener, Bathroom and 

Tile Cleaner, Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, Fabric Refresher, General Purpose Cleaner, 

Toilet/Urinal Care Product, Disinfectant, or Sanitizer. Odor Eliminator/Remover is used 

in household, automotive, institutional and commercial settings to counteract unpleasant 

odors. These products may employ bacterial cultures, enzymes or anti-bacterial 

chemical active ingredients to counteract odor causing substances. Use of Odor 

Eliminator/Remover, Air Fresheners and Fabric Refreshers may result in similar 

outcomes such as freshening air or removing odors. Odor Eliminators/Removers are 

distinguished from Air Fresheners, which are released directly to the air, and Fabric 

Refreshers, which are applied to fabric or other soft surfaces. 

 

 Odor Eliminators/Removers are a previously unregulated category. Table VI-21 

below summarizes the sales and emissions from Odor Eliminator/Remover based on 

the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). Category sales are 7,034 pounds per 

day, or about 3.5 tons per day, adjusted for complete market coverage and grown by 

population, to 2008. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 104 

Table VI-21 

Odor Eliminator/Remover* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Aerosol < 5 *** *** 

Liquid 184 7034 247 

Total > 184 *** *** 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

*** Data not shown due to confidentiality.

 Estimated VOC emissions (grown, by population, to 2008) are 247 pounds per 

day, or about 0.12 tons per day. Because there were less than five aerosol products 

reported in the survey, the sales data are not shown to protect data confidentiality. The 

sales-weighted average VOC content for liquid products as packaged is 3.5 percent and 

2.2 percent as diluted. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

Odor Eliminator/Remover products are used on hard surfaces in household, 

automotive, institutional, and commercial settings to eliminate, neutralize, remove, 

encapsulate, inhibit, control, destroy and/or counteract odor. The household products 

are generally available through retailers, while the institutional and commercial 

products are sold via wholesalers through distribution channels or direct sales. 

Household Odor Eliminators/Removers are used on hard surfaces to treat 

bathroom and kitchen odors, closets, basements, floor mats, drawers, odors from 

ventilation systems, pet odors, cat litter odors, garbage odors, smoke, and odors 

caused by moisture. These products are generally applied as needed with the user 

controlling the amount of product used (ARB, 2004a). 

Automotive Odor Eliminator/Remover products are used to eliminate musty odors 

due to mildew formation in the persistently damp surfaces of automobile air conditioning 

vents and ducts (ARB, 2004a). 

Odor Eliminators/Removers used on hard surfaces in institutional and 

commercial settings control odors from bathrooms, laundry areas, food preparation 

areas and specific industries such as diaper services (ARB, 2004a). Odor 

Eliminator/Remover products used in commercial settings are used to control garbage 

odors from trash compactors/dumpsters; mold and mildew and waste in bathrooms; 

body odor and mold and mildew in locker rooms; odors in air ducts and pipelines; odors 

in transportation settings such as airplanes and buses and odors in remediation 

services (ARB, 2004a). 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 105 

Product Formulation: 

 The VOC content of products in the liquid category ranges from 0 to about 

53 percent by weight as diluted. Fragrance oils constitute from 0 to 53 percent of the 

product’s weight as diluted. They produce the product’s scent. Although fragrance 

oils are VOCs by definition, the Consumer Products Regulation allows an exemption of 

up to two percent by weight of the product, as long as the vapor pressure of the 

fragrance and other functional components of the fragrance are less than 2 millimeters 

mercury (mm Hg) at 20 degrees Celsius. 

Emulsifiers are used in the product formulation to aid the mixing of the fragrance 

oil in the water phase by creating a homogeneous liquid. Because the desired 

emulsions are oil-in-water, surfactants with higher hydrophilic-lipophilic balance 

values are more suitable in oil-in-water formulations. 

Active ingredients include bacterial cultures, enzymes, or chemical agents which 

are used to inactivate odor causing molecules. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limit for liquid Odor Eliminator/Remover is 6 percent by 

weight, effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-22, using adjusted 2010 

emissions, the proposed limits will result in an estimated emission reduction of 

50 pounds per day, or about 0.03 tons per day. Table VI-22 also shows that 82 percent 

of the market currently complies with the proposed 6 percent VOC limit for liquid Odor 

Eliminator/Remover products. The proposed limit for aerosol Odor Eliminator/Remover 

is 25 percent VOC by weight. The aerosol products reported in the survey comply with 

the 25 percent limit. 

Table VI-22 

Odor Eliminator/Remover Proposal*

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Aerosol 25 < 5 100 0 0 

Liquid 6 154 82 49 50 

Total ------- > 154 ------- 49 50 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 106 

 Generally, reformulation to the 6 percent VOC level will involve replacing some of 

the VOC solvent and/or fragrance with water keeping the active “odor eliminating” 

ingredient constant, or possibly increasing it as appropriate. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

12. Penetrant 

Product Category Description: 

 Penetrants are lubricant products designed and labeled primarily to loosen metal 

parts that have bonded together due to rusting, oxidation, or other causes. This 

category does not include Multi-purpose Lubricants that claim to have penetrating 

qualities, but are not labeled primarily to loosen bonded parts. Penetrants that are 

(1) sold exclusively to establishments which manufacture or construct goods or 

commodities, and are (2) labeled “not for retail sale” are also excluded from this 

category. 

 Penetrants were first regulated under “Midterm Measures I” of the Consumer 

Products Regulation approved in July of 1997, and a description of these products is 

also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (ARB, 1997b). At that time, the 

Board adopted a 50 percent by weight VOC limit for these products, which became 

effective on January 1, 2003. 

 Table VI-23 below summarizes the sales and emissions from Penetrants based 

on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey. The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar 

year. Total category sales are about 2,021 pounds per day. 

Table VI-23 

Penetrant*

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)** 

Aerosol 68 1,709 714 

Liquid 16 312 79 

Total 84 2,021 793 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a); Includes products 

containing chlorinated compounds. 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 107 

 Estimated 2008 VOC emissions for Penetrants are 793 pounds per day, or about 

0.4 tons per day, in California. Table VI-23 shows the Penetrant products separated 

into aerosol and liquid forms, with the aerosol form dominating the market in both sales 

and emissions. According to our data, the sales-weighted average for this category is 

38 percent VOC by weight. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Penetrants are used by household, institutional and industrial users to loosen 

immovable parts such as rusted pipe fittings, automotive parts, and nuts and bolts. 

Some product labels instruct the user to tap extremely rusted parts after spraying to set 

up vibrations that assist in the penetration of the product (ARB, 2004a). Some 

Penetrants claim to have lubricating properties and many claim corrosion protection 

(ARB, 2004a). 

 Penetrants are sold in hardware stores, automotive parts stores, by specialty 

retailers, by mass merchandisers, and on the Internet. Penetrants are also sold to 

industrial or institutional users through distributors that serve these customers, or 

directly to large customers. 

Product Formulation: 

 Penetrant formulations are similar to Multi-purpose Lubricants in that they contain 

lubricating oils, solvents, and, in some cases, extreme pressure additives, such as a 

fluoropolymer, or molybdenum disulfide. Penetrants are typically comprised of light 

petroleum oils that vary in range from 10 to 40 percent. Liquefied petroleum gas, 

carbon dioxide, or nitrogen gas act as propellants for the aerosol products. The balance 

of the product formulation is comprised of various hydrocarbon solvents. A few 

Penetrants contain chlorinated solvents, such as methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, 

and trichloroethylene. Some contain synthetic oils; vegetable oils; and others utilize 

water-based formulations (ARB, 2004a). 

 Penetrants contain a balance of solvents and oils in order to achieve both low 

viscosity and low surface tension. According to the 2003 Survey, some of the VOC 

solvents used in Penetrants include various grades of petroleum distillates such as 

kerosene (VOC portion), mineral spirits and trichloroethylene. A variety of LVP-VOC 

solvents used in Penetrants include hydrocarbon solvents and fatty acid methyl esters. 

Water is also used. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limit for Penetrants is 25 percent by weight for both aerosol 

and liquid forms, effective December 31, 2013. As shown in Table VI-24, using 

adjusted 2003 emissions, the proposed limit will result in an estimated emission 

reduction of 305 pounds per day, or about 0.15 tons per day, in 2013. 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 108 

 Table VI-24 also shows that 14 products, representing about 30 percent of the 

total Penetrant market share, currently comply with the proposed 25 percent VOC limit. 

Only those products complying without the use of methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene are included in the complying market share 

data. The complying products include both aerosol and liquid Penetrants for household, 

commercial and institutional use. 

Table VI-24 

Penetrant Proposal*

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2013 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Aerosol 25 9 28 255 271 

Liquid 25 5 36 32 34 

Total 14 30 287 305 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2012 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

 Penetrants that already comply with the proposed VOC limit are using a 

combination of LVP-VOC solvents, VOC solvents, oils, and various additives. 

Reformulation options include adding more oil to the formulation; replacing some of the 

VOC solvents with LVP-VOC solvents, or water; and using non-VOC alternatives to 

liquefied gas propellants, such as carbon dioxide. Reformulation may also require use of 

less viscous oils. Different solvents may be used to reduce the overall viscosity of some 

Penetrant formulations. 

 

 Because Penetrants are closely related to Multi-purpose Lubricants in formulation 

and their uses, the VOC limits and effective dates for these two categories have 

historically tracked. For this reason, the reformulation efforts for Penetrants are similar 

to Multi-purpose Lubricants in that research to find the correct balance of oils, solvents 

and additives without sacrificing the products’ penetrating ability will be required. 

Therefore, the proposed effective date for the VOC limit for Penetrants is 

December 31, 2013. 

 While staff believes that technologies are progressing to allow for Penetrant 

products at a VOC content level of 25 percent staff intends to work with industry to 

assess progress as the compliance date nears. To that end, staff is proposing a 

technology assessment. To ensure that manufacturers are on track, and that 

technology advances as expected, staff believes that manufacturers should 

demonstrate their progress toward meeting the limit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 109 

 As proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Penetrant product manufacturers would 

need to supply detailed written updates on their research and development efforts 

undertaken to achieve compliance with the VOC limits. The reports would include sales 

and formulation data for products, as well as detailed information on the raw materials 

evaluated for use, MIR values for any VOC or LVP-VOC used or evaluated, the function 

of the raw material evaluated, testing protocols used, the results of the testing, the 

hardware evaluated, and the cost of reformulation efforts. The report would be due on 

March 31, 2012, and would provide data for the 2011 calendar year. Should technical 

or commercial issues arise, or if it appears reductions could occur within a shorter 

timeframe, staff would develop appropriate measures to ensure air quality benefits 

occur as soon as possible. 

 Because our data show compliance can be achieved without the use of 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene, we are proposing to 

prohibit the use of these TACs from the Penetrant category, effective 

December 31, 2010. Methylene chloride and perchloroethylene are exempt VOC 

solvents. Therefore, without the prohibition, their use could increase as products 

reformulate to comply. Trichloroethylene is a VOC, and its use would likely decrease to 

meet the proposed limit. However, other solvents are available that make its use 

unnecessary. Prohibiting these three TACs will lead to approximately 0.01 tons per day 

of toxic compound emission reductions from this category. The health effects 

associated with exposure to perchloroethylene, methylene chloride and 

trichloroethylene, are summarized in Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts. 

 

 We have received information that suggests usage of non-flammable solvents in 

Penetrants is necessary in situations where Penetrants are used on energized 

equipment, near heat, flame, or other ignition sources. Staff agrees. Applying 

Penetrants to energized equipment may pose a safety risk. However, at the present 

time, use of chlorinated solvents is the only option for these applications. 

 Therefore, because of toxicity concerns, we are proposing to prohibit the use of 

perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, and trichloroethylene in Penetrants. However, 

we believe there is a small niche use for non-flammable products. Therefore, we are 

also proposing that Penetrants labeled as non-flammable and for use on energized 

equipment not be subject to the prohibition. To account for this specialized use, but to 

restrict the use of TACs to the extent possible, we are proposing that to qualify for the 

exemption from the toxic prohibition, Penetrants would have to include on the product’s 

Principal Display Panel: “Non-flammable and only for use where equipment is 

energized.” This proposal is set forth in new section 94509(q) of the Consumer 

Products Regulation. 

Issues:

a. Issue: This limit should be set at 10 percent or lower based on findings in the 

Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) lubricant research 

summary.
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 110 

Response: ARB staff disagrees. Staff reviewed the studies conducted by IRTA 

in 2004 and 2006 (IRTA, 2006; IRTA, 2004). The focus was on lubrication rather 

than penetration, therefore it is unclear whether the products tested would work 

well in various penetrant applications. However, as noted above, we are 

proposing a technology review in 2012 to assess progress and to determine if 

future further VOC reductions are feasible. 

b. Issue: We believe it may be technologically and commercially feasible to 

reformulate Penetrants to a 25 percent VOC limit by December 31, 2014. 

However, Automotive Specialty Products Association (ASPA) asserts that the 

ARB must commit to conducting a thorough assessment for this product category 

in 2010, 2012 and 2013 to determine the commercial and technological feasibility 

of the 25 percent VOC limit, if requested by our industry. 

Response: Staff agrees in part. We have evaluated technology and are 

proposing that products meet the 25 percent VOC limit by December 31, 2013. 

We also agree that a technology review is appropriate, and are proposing one in 

2012 as described earlier. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures I. 

June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b) 

3. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance. Assessment, Development and 

Demonstration of Alternatives to VOC-emitting Lubricants, Vanishing Oils and 

Rust Inhibitors. August, 2006. (IRTA, 2006)

4. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance. Alternatives to VOC Emitting 

Petroleum Based Lubricants and Chlorinated Paraffin Lubricants: Minimizing the 

Health and Environmental Consequences. November, 2004. (IRTA, 2004) 

13. Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percent or less fragrance)

Product Category Description: 

Personal Fragrance Product is currently defined as any product which is applied 

to the human body or clothing for the primary purpose of adding a scent or masking a 

malodor, including cologne, perfume, aftershave, and toilet water. Personal Fragrance 

Product does not include: (A) Deodorant, as defined in section 94501(d); 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 111 

(B) medicated products designed primarily to alleviate fungal or bacterial growth 

on feet or other areas of the body; (C) mouthwashes, breath fresheners and 

deodorizers; (D) lotions, moisturizers, powders or other skin care products used 

primarily to alleviate skin conditions such as dryness and irritations; (E) products 

designed exclusively for use on human genitalia; (F) soaps, shampoos, and products 

primarily used to clean the human body; and (G) fragrance products designed to be 

used exclusively on non-human animals. 

Staff is proposing to add clarifying language to the definition to indicate that 

Personal Fragrance Product includes, but is not limited to, lotions, powders, body mists, 

and body sprays. 

 Personal Fragrance Products were regulated under “Phase II” of the Consumer 

Products Regulation adopted in January of 1992, and a description of these products is 

also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (ARB, 1991a). However, instead of 

the product forms and standards described in that staff report, the Board divided the 

category into two subcategories, based on fragrance content, and adopted two tiers of 

VOC limits for each subcategory. Products with 20 percent or less fragrance were 

required to meet a VOC limit of 80 percent by weight, effective in 1995. A future lower 

limit of 75 percent by weight became effective in 1999. Products with more than 

20 percent fragrance were required to meet a VOC limit of 70 percent by weight, 

effective in 1995. A lower limit of 65 percent became effective in 1999 (ARB, 1992). 

 However, an exemption from compliance with the initial VOC limit was adopted 

for existing products, and products “in development” on or before April 1, 1992, provided 

that such products were registered with ARB prior to July 1, 1993, and were sold in 

California before January 1, 1994. The regulation was further amended to specify 

(section 94510(l)) that the January 1, 1999 VOC limits do not apply to products which 

were sold in California prior to January 1, 1999 (ARB, 2007a). The overall effect of 

these two exemptions (“Grandfather” clauses) has meant that products in existence 

prior to 1992 were not reformulated to comply with VOC limits, and products subject to 

the 1995 first tier limit did not have to reformulate to meet the second tier 1999 VOC 

limits. Only products introduced after 1999 have been required to meet the second tier 

limits (ARB, 1992). 

In addition, section 94510(j) of the Consumer Product Regulation specifies that the 

VOC standards specified in section 94509(a) do not apply to any VOC which is a 

fragrance in a Personal Fragrance Product (ARB, 2007a). 

 The Personal Fragrance Product category (products with 20 percent or less 

fragrance) is one of the larger emissions sources within the personal fragrance 

category. The proposal for this rulemaking affects only those Personal Fragrance 

Products with 20 percent or less fragrance. Table VI-25 below summarizes the sales 

and emissions from Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less fragrance, 

based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown 

to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 26,905 pounds per day. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 112 

Table VI-25 

Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percent or less fragrance)* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

All Forms 1101 26,905 21,809 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions). 

 

 This category includes all product forms and includes, but is not limited to, 

colognes, perfumes, aftershaves, toilet waters, lotions, powders, body mists, and body 

sprays. Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percent or less fragrance) have 

estimated VOC emissions of 21,809 pounds per day , or about 10.9 tons per day, in 

California. Although not shown in Table VI-25, the sales-weighted average VOC 

content for this category is about 81 percent by weight including fragrance and about 

76 percent by weight excluding fragrance. 

Product Use and Marketing:

Personal Fragrance Products (products with 20 percent or less fragrance) are 

used by both men and women to impart a fragrance or scent. The concentration of 

fragrance oil found in different products can vary widely. Perfumes, toilet waters, 

colognes, and aftershaves make up the largest segment of the personal fragrance 

market. Perfumes, colognes, and toilet waters are generally more concentrated in 

fragrance, than body sprays or aftershaves, and are used in smaller quantities. In 

general, perfumes are the most expensive and concentrated, followed by toilet waters 

(or eau de toilettes), and colognes (or eau de colognes) (ARB, 1991a). Perfumes are 

typically used in small quantities and are intended for “spot” or “pulse point” application. 

Colognes and toilet waters are the most common fragrance form and are intended for 

“everyday” use (ARB, 1991a). These products are typically less concentrated and are 

used more liberally. 

Personal Fragrance Products are typically sold in retail stores, department 

stores, and diversified drug stores, but are also available to consumers for purchase 

from discount warehouses, Internet companies, home sales, and catalog sales. It is 

estimated that sales of women’s fragrances are approximately twice as much as sales 

of men’s fragrance products (PCPC, 2006). 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 113 

Product Formulation: 

 The main ingredients found in Personal Fragrance Products (products with 

20 percent or less fragrance) are denatured alcohol (ethanol), fragrances, and water. 

Aerosol products also contain VOC propellants such as n-Butane, propane, isobutane, 

and/or the non-VOC propellant, HFC-152a. It should be noted that denatured alcohol 

often contains 5 to 7 percent water and that any VOC which is a fragrance in a Personal 

Fragrance Product is exempt from the VOC limits. Ethanol is the primary VOC 

ingredient in this category and is most likely to be the VOC ingredient that is reduced in 

the reformulation of a product. 

The majority of Personal Fragrance Products (products with 20 percent or less 

fragrance) contain fragrance oil dissolved in ethanol and, to a lesser degree, water. 

Small amounts of other ingredients may also be included, such as preservatives, 

colorants, and agents used to prevent photodegradation or oxidation of fragrance 

ingredients (ARB, 1991a). 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

Staff is not proposing to lower existing VOC limits for Personal Fragrance Product 

(products with 20 percent or less fragrance), but instead is proposing to eliminate the 

“Grandfather” clauses for this category. This would require that all products, new and 

existing, be subject to the same VOC standard, namely 75 percent by weight. 

Based on the 2003 Survey, products within a signature line contain varying 

amounts of ethanol and fragrance, but continue to be labeled and sold under the same 

signature line as the same scent (ARB, 2004a). This is an indication that reformulation 

is possible, while preserving a signature scent. Companies with products covered 

under the “Grandfather” clauses may have been operating with a competitive advantage 

since 1995, having avoided the cost of reformulation, consumer testing, and marketing. 

This proposal will require companies to reformulate their products to meet the 

75 percent by weight VOC limit, regardless of when they were first sold in California. 

As shown in Table V-26 below, 679 products comply with the 75 percent by weight 

VOC standard; indicating that products can be reformulated to comply with the 

standard. The complying products account for about 37 percent of the market. 

 

 Removing the “Grandfather” clauses will result in an estimated emission 

reduction of 824 pounds per day, or 0.41 tons per day, using emissions adjusted to 

2014. If adopted, the removal of the “Grandfather” clauses would become effective 

December 31, 2014. We are proposing to extend the effective date until 

December 31, 2014 because of the large number of products that would need to be 

reformulated. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 114 

Table VI-26 

Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percent or less fragrance) 

Proposal* 

Product 

Form

Proposed VOC 

Limit (wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2014 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

All Forms 

75 (Remove 

“Grandfather” 

clauses) 

679 37 765 824 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2014 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Compliance with the Standard:

Removing the exemption for existing products will subject both new and existing 

Personal Fragrance Products (products with 20 percent or less fragrance) to a 

75 percent by weight VOC standard. Reformulation options could include reducing 

ethanol content, adding water, making adjustments to fragrance components that can 

tolerate higher levels of water, and, if applicable, replacing VOC propellants with nonVOC propellants. 

The most straightforward method of reformulating Personal Fragrance Products 

(products with 20 percent or less fragrance) is to replace some of the alcohol with water 

or some other non-VOC ingredients. Simple replacement, as industry has pointed out, 

may lead to an altered fragrance due to some of the fragrance oil ingredients "coming 

out of solution." However, emulsion technology or fragrance modification may be 

utilized to minimize fragrance alteration (ARB, 1991a). 

Reformulation options also include adjustments to the fragrance oil components 

to allow for higher water content. For example, fractional distillation of the polar 

compounds, in some essential oils, would yield water-soluble extracts retaining the 

same fragrance as their essential oil even though they may differ greatly in chemical 

nature. Examples would include the distilled aromatic waters from rose, witch hazel, 

yarrow, orange flowers, chamomile, balm mint and linden (ARB, 1991a). One study 

reported that by lowering the quantities of crystalline materials such as vanillin, 

coumarin, and heliotropin and using resins such as oak moss and Mousse de Chene 

sparingly, fragrance solubility in aerosol products can be increased (ARB, 1991a). 

Another reformulation option for aerosol products could include adjusting 

propellant. For example, the amount of VOC propellant could be adjusted or VOC 

propellant could be blended with non-VOC propellant, such as HFC-152a. However, we 

do not expect such propellant blending to occur as the limit is feasible without the use of 

HFC-152a, a more expensive propellant. Although hydrocarbon propellants function 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 115 

also as solvents in aerosol formulations, they are poor solvents for some fragrance 

constituents. According to an article in "Cosmetics and Toiletries," hydrocarbon 

propellants are poor solvents for many of the polar constituents of perfume oils (ARB, 

1991a). We conclude, for the reasons given, above, that it is unlikely propellant 

adjustments will result in fragrance alterations. 

Issues: 

a. Issue: Reducing the alcohol content of personal fragrance products will result in 

some fragrance components precipitating out of solution, resulting in an altered 

fragrance. 

Response: While simple replacement of alcohol with water may result in some 

fragrance components precipitating out, emulsifying agents may be used to 

prevent this. In addition, certain fragrance oil components are more compatible 

with water. By properly selecting the components from these fragrance oils, a 

formulator can create a scent that can tolerate high levels of water. According to 

the 1991 and 2003 ARB Consumer Products Surveys, many aftershave products 

with water content ranging from 10 to 90 percent have been identified. Colognes 

with 1 to 90 percent water content and perfumes with zero to 10 percent water 

content have also been identified. 

b. Issue: The proposed VOC restrictions will hinder the creative process of 

developing a fragrance by limiting the choice of fragrance oils. 

Response: According to the 2003 Survey, there are over 670 products that 

comply with the existing 75 percent by weight VOC limit. ARB staff has identified 

complying colognes and perfumes from a number of the fragrance families, 

including, but not limited to the following: musk, floral, chypre, aldehydic, 

tobacco and leather, spicy, and oriental. This indicates that manufacturers 

will not be limited to a narrow range of scent types. In addition, the staff 

has identified a number of technologies that can be used to comply with the VOC 

standards in the regulation without necessarily limiting manufacturers to fewer 

fragrance oils. We are confident the creative abilities of perfumers and 

manufacturers will allow development of products that meet consumers’ needs 

and reduce VOC emissions. 

c. Issue: The Personal Care Products Council has provided ARB staff with a twotiered proposal for consideration. Products between 75 to 80 percent by weight 

VOC would be subject to a VOC limit of 75 percent by weight. Products above 

80 percent by weight VOC would be reformulated to a VOC limit of 80 percent by 

weight. In addition, industry requests a lengthier compliance period of 5 years. 

Response: Companies with products covered under the “Grandfather” clauses 

may have been operating with a competitive advantage since 1995, when the 

first-tier VOC limit of 80 percent by weight became effective. In order to level the 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 116 

playing field for all stakeholders, staff is proposing a single VOC standard. 

However, staff is proposing an extended future effective date of 

December 31, 2014, to provide sufficient time for companies to reformulate and 

conduct consumer testing of the hundreds of currently “grandfathered” products. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. The California Consumer Products Regulations. 

December, 2007. (ARB, 2007a) 

2. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

3. Air Resources Board. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Public 

Hearing to Consider the Adoption of Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing 

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - Phase II. 

January 9, 1992. (ARB, 1992) 

4. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to 

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - Phase 

II – Technical Support Document. October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a) 

5. Personal Care Products Council (formerly known as Cosmetic, Toiletry and 

Fragrance Association). Presentation to ARB staff. July 26, 2006. 

 (PCPC, 2006) 

14. Sealant or Caulking Compound 

Product Category Description:

Sealant or Caulking Compound is any product with adhesive properties that is 

designed to fill, seal, waterproof, or weatherproof gaps or joints between two surfaces, 

including threaded pipe sealants and gasket makers. Sealant or Caulking Compound 

does not include roof cements and roof sealants; insulating foams; removable caulking 

compounds; clear/paintable/water resistant caulking compounds; floor seam sealers; 

products designed exclusively for automotive uses; or sealers that are applied as 

continuous coatings. Sealant or Caulking Compound also does not include units of 

product, less packaging, which weigh more than one pound and consist of more than 

16 fluid ounces. 

“Removable caulking compounds” means a compound which temporarily seals 

windows or doors for three to six month time intervals. “Clear/paintable/water resistant 

compounds” means a compound which contains no appreciable level of opaque fillers 

or pigments; transmits most or all visible light through the caulk when cured; is 

paintable; and is immediately resistant to precipitation upon application. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 117 

Sealant and caulking products, packaged in aerosol and non-aerosol forms, were 

first regulated statewide under the “Midterm Measures II” of the Consumer Products 

Regulation, adopted in October of 1999, and a description of these products is also 

included in the staff report for that rulemaking (ARB, 1999). At that time, the Board 

adopted a single VOC limit of 4 percent by weight for all forms of these products, which 

became effective on December 31, 2002. We believe technology now exists to further 

reduce the VOC content limit for non-aerosol Sealant or Caulking Compound products. 

For this current rulemaking, staff is proposing to change the category name from 

Sealant and Caulking Compound to Sealant or Caulking Compound. In addition, staff 

has proposed to subcategorize the category into Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or 

Caulking Compound and Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound with 

different proposed VOC limits for non-aerosol products in these two subcategories. 

Other minor clarifications in the definition are also proposed, such as clarifying that the 

Sealant or Caulking Compound definition includes threaded pipe sealants and gasket 

makers. 

 We are proposing to divide the non-aerosol products into two subcategories 

based on the formulation technologies used. A Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking 

Compound is defined as any Sealant or Caulking Compound which achieves its final 

composition and physical form through a catalyst-driven chemical reaction. The 

reaction causes a change in chemical structure, and leads to the release of chemical 

by-products. Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound includes, but is not 

limited to products that utilize silicone, polyurethane, silyl-terminated polyether or silylterminated polyurethane reactive chemistries. Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking 

Compound does not include products, which are not solely dependent on a chemically 

curing process to achieve the cured state. Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking 

Compound means any Sealant or Caulking Compound which is not a Chemically Curing 

Sealant or Caulking Compound. 

Staff is proposing to add clarifying language that the Sealant or Caulking 

Compound definition includes pipe thread sealants and gasket makers as these 

products are designed to fill, seal, waterproof or weatherproof gaps or joints between 

two surfaces. Staff has made a number of product reviews, at the request of 

manufacturers, and determined that such products are subject to the Consumer 

Products Regulation requirements for Sealant or Caulking Compounds. 

While Sealant or Caulking Compound products come in several forms, ten to 

eleven fluid ounce disposable cartridges that fit in half-barrel caulking guns are the most 

common. Smaller squeeze tubes are also available. Sealant or Caulking Compound 

products vary in their ability to adhere to different materials and in their resilience, 

durability, cost, and ease of clean-up. Some products have special properties, such as 

mildew resistance, high flexibility, temperature resistance, abrasion resistance, 

paintability, and the ability to self-level.
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 118 

 By definition, the proposal affects products that consist of 16 fluid ounces or less 

and weigh one pound or less. The local air districts in California regulate the use of 

large size (greater than 16 fluid ounces or one pound) and industrial-use sealants and 

caulks. Following is a list of local air districts and their corresponding currently 

applicable Sealant or Caulking Compound regulations: 

• Bay Area AQMD, Rule 8-51, Adhesives and Sealant Products; 

• Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, Rule 460, Adhesives and Sealants; 

• Santa Barbara County APCD, Rule 353, Adhesives and Sealants; 

• Shasta County APCD, Rule 3-32, Adhesives and Sealants; 

• South Coast AQMD, Rule 1168, Adhesive and Sealant Applications; 

• Tehama County APCD, Rule 4-40, Adhesives and Sealants; and 

• Ventura County APCD, Rule 74.20, Adhesives and Sealants. 

 Table VI-27 summarizes the sales and emissions from Sealant or Caulking 

Compound products based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The 

data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 

141,927 pounds per day. 

Estimated combined VOC emissions from the non-aerosol Sealant or Caulking 

Compound category are 5,168 pounds per day, or about 2.6 tons per day, in California. 

Although not shown in Table VI-27, the sales-weighted average VOC content was about 

2 percent by weight for the non-aerosol products in the Non-Chemically Curing Sealant 

or Caulking Compound subcategory, and about 7 percent by weight for the non-aerosol 

products in the Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound subcategory, 

according to the 2003 Survey. The sales-weighted average VOC content values for the 

two subcategories were based on the group of products that also included sell-through 

products with VOC content above the current VOC limit of 4 percent for the category. 

Due to the impact of sell-through products with higher VOC content, the calculated 

values for the sales-weighted average are greater than what they would be with all 

products reformulated to meet the current VOC limit. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

Non-aerosol Sealant or Caulking Compound products are used to prevent air 

infiltration, heat loss, water penetration, insect entry, or to improve appearance while 

being flexible and resistant to substrate movement. These products are also used to 

prevent the passage of a liquid or gas between two surfaces, while being flexible and 

resistant to substrate movement. 

 Non-aerosol Sealant or Caulking Compound products are used extensively in the 

construction, remodeling, and maintenance of houses and other structures in order to 

further weatherize and protect the structure. There are many different types and uses 

for sealants and caulks, including: exterior sealants and caulks; all-purpose 

indoor/outdoor sealant and caulks; removable sealant and caulks; roof repair sealants 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 119 

Table VI-27 

Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol)* 

Product Subcategory

Number of 

Products

2008 Category 

Sales (lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Non-Chemically Curing 

Sealant or Caulking 

Compound (non-aerosol) 

344 83,915 1,354 

Chemically Curing Sealant 

or Caulking Compound 

(non-aerosol) 

196 58,012 3,814 

Total 540 141,927 5,168 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

and caulks; elastomeric sealant and caulks; high temperature sealants and caulks; 

waterproof (submerged) sealant and caulks; gasket makers; and pipe thread sealants. 

These products are used for filling gaps and cracks in a foundation; around windows 

and doors; vents; faucets; pipes; wiring; electrical and utility boxes; outlets; ceiling 

fixtures; drains; bathtubs; tiles; air conditioners; ceiling and wall joints; chimneys; and 

other uses. 

 The market offers Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound products 

and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound products. Chemically 

curing products undergo a chemical reaction in the presence of a catalyst leading to a 

change in chemical structure, such as cross-linking of a polymer, as part of the curing 

process. Non-chemically curing products do not participate in such chemical reactions. 

The curing actually occurs through a physical change by water or solvent evaporation. 

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol): 

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol products do 

not cure through a chemical reaction. The curing results from solvent evaporation. 

Some of the basic types of sealants and caulks on the market today include acrylic latex 

caulks, solvent-based synthetic rubber products, butyl caulks, and oil-based sealants 

and caulks. Some non-chemically curing sealants and caulks use the terms 

“siliconized” or “polyurethane acrylic product” but they do not chemically cure. 

Acrylic latex caulks are often chosen for general use because of their low price, 

durability, convenience, low odor, low toxicity, and effectiveness on both inside and 

outside surfaces. These compounds remain durable and flexible after they have been 

applied, and are not affected by the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays, alkali surfaces, or water. 

According to product labels, acrylic latex sealants will also adhere well to concrete, 

ceramic tile, paint, wood, sheet rock, plaster, bricks, plastic, and glass. However, they 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 120 

are not recommended for use in extreme temperatures, continuously damp areas, or for 

high-movement areas (ARB, 1999). 

Siliconized latex caulks have some of the performance characteristics of siliconebased chemically curing caulks. Silicone is added to latex for increased durability, 

better adhesion, and increased flexibility. Application is easy, clean-up is with water, 

and the cost is lower than pure silicone caulks. This caulk is paintable and comes in a 

variety of colors. Cure time is between 12-24 hours and the caulk should not be 

exposed to water in this period of time (ARB, 1999). 

Solvent-based synthetic rubber sealants and caulks also claim to adhere well to 

most surfaces and can be applied under harsh weather conditions. They have an ability 

to recover, stretch and are paintable with water-based paints. These products are more 

prone to shrinkage and are flammable until they cure. They are also higher in VOC 

content (Pontolilo, 2004). 

Butyl caulks are used to seal exterior metal and masonry surfaces. They are 

solvent-based with a life expectancy of 2 to 5 years. Although butyl caulks can be 

painted, they usually take 3 to 7 days to dry. Purported advantages of butyl caulks 

include their relatively low cost, good water resistance, and good adhesion without 

primers. Disadvantages may include limited joint movement tolerance, a tendency for 

shrinkage, and difficulty in forming a neat bead. However, butyl caulks will not become 

brittle and have good resiliency. Clean up can be difficult because they require special 

chemical solutions (ARB, 1999). 

Oil-based sealants and caulks are usually inexpensive, low durability caulks 

composed of drying oils, such as linseed oil, and fillers. The oils slowly dry out and the 

caulk could show significant hardening and cracking within a year. They also can 

discolor and stain the surface to which they are applied when the surface is not primed 

(ARB, 1999).

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol): 

 

 Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol products include, 

but are not limited to, products that utilize silicone, polyurethane, silyl-terminated 

polyether and silyl-terminated polyurethane reactive chemistries. Products based on 

these reactive chemistries cure by absorbing atmospheric moisture. 

Products with silicone chemical cure have a wide variety of performance 

characteristics. Silicone sealants and caulks have very little shrinkage, high flexibility, 

and are available both in clear and pigmented formula. According to manufacturers, 

these products are chosen by many consumers for their long term durability and UV 

resistance. As stated on product labels, silicone sealants and caulks are good for joints 

that move extensively, will perform at very low and high temperatures, and have a fast 

cure rate. These products are formulated for most substrates and are claimed to be 

good for adhesion to nonporous surfaces, such as glass, metal, ceramic tile and 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 121 

porcelain. However, most silicone-based compounds cannot be painted and tear easily 

(Pontolilo, 2004). 

Products utilizing polyurethane chemical cure claim to have versatile properties 

and are used in a wide range of commercial applications. Product labels indicate that 

they are flexible, can be painted and can adhere to most surfaces. In addition, these 

products have good chemical resistance. Consumers have a choice of non-sagging or 

self-leveling formulas (HPI, 2008). Polyurethanes are able to fill larger cracks because 

they expand when curing and can act as both an insulation and air barrier. However, 

polyurethanes must be protected from UV radiation (ARB, 1999). 

Modified silicone polymer sealants are relatively new products that offer the 

benefits of water-based, silicone and polyurethane sealants. These products are also 

more expensive. According to product labels, modified silicone polymer sealants and 

caulks can be applied in extreme temperatures, are watertight almost immediately, are 

very durable and adhere well to most substrate materials. Modified silicone polymers 

include silyl-terminated polyether products. These products claim to be flexible, 

paintable, quick curing and do not shrink. They are also low in VOC content (Pontolilo, 

2004). Silyl-terminated polyurethane products are purported to have several distinct 

advantages over conventional polyurethanes. These products show improved adhesion 

to glass, UV stability and weatherability (O’Connor, 2004). 

Sealants and caulks are sold in hardware stores, home supply stores, paint 

stores, hobby and craft stores, and by mass merchandisers. Sealants are also sold to 

industrial or institutional users through distributors or through direct sales by the 

manufacturer.

Product Formulation: 

 Sealant or Caulking Compound products generally have low solvent levels, high 

concentrations of fillers, and are thick and nonpourable. 

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol): 

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol products are 

either water-based or solvent-based. One of the advantages of water-based caulking 

compounds is that they can be cleaned up with water prior to curing. Solvent-based 

compounds must be cleaned up with solvents. Each type of sealant or caulking 

compound formulation offers its own particular strength and weakness depending on 

how it is used. Many products are formulated to meet the performance requirements 

described in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) C-920, the “Standard 

Specification for Elastomeric Joint Sealants.” 

A typical formulation might consist of the following: 

1. Polymer – Polymer is the most important contributing factor to sealant or caulk 

performance. It provides elastomeric and adhesive properties. Different types of resins 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 122 

include oil-based, butyl, solvent-based acrylic, block copolymer, polyvinyl acetate and 

water-based acrylic polymers (ARB, 1999). 

2. Plasticizer – Plasticizers improve sealant flexibility, extrudability of uncured product, 

and can reduce cost. The plasticizer must be compatible with the polymer system being 

used. As the plasticizer content increases, adhesion decreases. Types of plasticizers 

include phthalates, benzoate, and epoxidized oils (ARB, 1999). 

3. Filler – Fillers provide reinforcement to the product, can reduce product raw material 

cost, add desired color to the product, and can impart sag or slump resistance. Types 

of fillers include calcium carbonate (chalk), aluminum silicate (clay), magnesium silicate 

(talc), fumed silica, cellulosic fiber, organic clays, titanium dioxide, carbon blacks, and 

metal oxides (ARB, 1999). 

4. Specialty Additives – Additives are used to improve and enhance specific aspects 

of the sealant or caulk such as weatherability, adhesion, package stability, and cure 

rate. Examples of specialty additives are adhesion promoters, UV absorbers, biocides, 

pigments, and waterborne additives. Adhesion promoters, such as organotitanates and 

silane coupling agents, provide adhesion to specific substrates. UV absorbers, which 

include hindered amines and benzotriazoles, provide long term stability of the cured 

product and eliminate surface cracking, chalking, or discoloration. Finally, waterborne 

additives, such as freeze thaw stabilizers, are used to preserve the integrity of latex 

particles. Examples of common waterborne additives are: ethylene glycol, propylene 

glycol, urea, and isopropanol (ARB, 1999). Biocides are added to provide antimicrobial 

protection, which is especially important in sealants or caulks used in the kitchen and 

bathroom, where water and mildew are common (Pontolilo, 2004). 

5. Diluents – Diluents reduce the viscosity and aid in the application of the sealant or 

caulk. For water-based formulations, water is the primary diluent, however, some VOC 

co-solvents are used including: acetates (acetic acid, butyl acetate, vinyl acetate, etc.), 

alcohols (ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, etc.), and glycols (ethylene glycol, propylene 

glycol, diethylene glycol methyl ether, etc.). Diluents used in solvent-based formulations 

include: mineral spirits, hexane, stoddard solvent, toluene, and xylene. Manufacturers 

limit the amount of diluents to control shrinkage resulting from the evaporation of the 

diluent during curing (ARB, 1999). A few products reported in the 2003 Survey contain 

perchloroethylene, an exempt VOC solvent. 

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol): 

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol products 

participate in a chemical reaction. The reaction usually involves the formation of new 

internal bonds and results in a change in the chemical structure of the product, such as 

cross-linking of a polymer. As compounds undergo cross-linking reactions as part of 

the curing process, products become more stable and chemical by-products are 

released. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 123 

 Chemically curing products that utilize silicone, polyurethane, or modified silicone 

polyether reactive chemistries react in the presence of moisture. Similar to 

non-chemically curing products, chemically curing products also contain fillers, 

polymers, plasticizers and specialty additives. These products also contain catalysts 

and cross-linkers. Catalysts are used to initiate the reaction, and examples include 

peroxides, tertiary amines, and compounds based on nickel, tin, or platinum (ARB, 

1999). Cross-linkers are involved in the actual cross-linking once the cure reaction is 

initiated. 

 Silicone sealants contain siloxane polymers and plasticizers. Most of these are 

based on polydimethylsiloxane. Depending on whether the formula is based on an 

acetoxy, neutral or basic cure type, cross-linkers involved can be acetoxy, oxime or 

alcohol. Consequently, groups released during the reaction would include an acetic 

acid, an oxime, such as 2-oximobutane, or amine, such as cyclohexylamine, depending 

on the cure type (Macco, 2006). 

 Polyurethane cure reaction is based on the cross-linking of isocyanates and an 

alcohol (polyol) during cure. Some common isocyanates used in a formula include 

toluene diisocyanate, isophorone diisocyanate and hexamethylene diisocyanate 

(Macco, 2006). 

 Products that are based on silyl-terminated polyethers are very similar to silicone 

sealants and caulks with acidic cure. They differ in the types of cross-linker functional 

groups, leading to the release of an alcohol during the reaction, such as methanol, 

ethanol or propanol, instead of an acid (Macco, 2006). Silyl-terminated polyurethanes 

contain urethane prepolymers, prepared from the reaction of a diisocyante and a 

conventional polyol, that are end-capped with an organo-functional silane. Silylterminated polyurethane sealants have been prepared with varying isocyanates, polyol, 

and silanes (O’Connor, 2004). 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limit for the Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking 

Compound non-aerosol subcategory is 1.5 percent by weight, effective 

December 31, 2010. The proposed VOC limit for the Chemically Curing Sealant or 

Caulking Compound non-aerosol subcategory is 3 percent by weight, effective 

December 31, 2012. 

 As shown in Table VI-28a, using emissions adjusted to 2010, the proposed limit 

will result in an estimated emission reduction of 246 pounds per day, or about 

0.12 tons per day, for the Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound nonaerosol subcategory. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 124 

Table VI-28a 

Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol) 

Subcategory Proposal) 

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Non-aerosol 1.5 201 76 240 246 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

 Complying products in the Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking 

Compound non-aerosol subcategory include water-based and solvent-based 

technologies. Only those products complying without the use of perchloroethylene are 

included in the complying market share data. Most of the complying products are 

water-based formulations. Reformulation options include switching from solvent-based 

formulations to water-based formulations, using alternative LVP-VOC solvents or a 

combination of VOC and LVP- VOC solvents. These alternative ingredients are already 

being used in many products. 

 As shown in Table VI-28b, using emissions adjusted to 2012, the proposed limit 

will result in an estimated emission reduction of 446 pounds per day, or about 

0.22 tons per day, for the Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound nonaerosol subcategory. 

Table VI-28b 

Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol) Subcategory 

Proposal*

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2012 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Non-aerosol 3 95 23 420 446 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2012 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

 Non-complying products in the Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking 

Compound non-aerosol subcategory may reformulate by lowering the amount of VOC 

solvents, using alternative LVP-VOC solvents or a combination of both. Where the 

essential formulation components involved in the chemical cure reaction contribute to 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 125 

VOC content themselves or lead to the formation and release of VOC compounds as 

by-products of the cure, products may reformulate by slightly reducing the levels of VOC 

cross-linkers or other VOC ingredients and increasing the levels of non-VOC 

ingredients, such as fillers, non-VOC polymers and resins, and other additives. 

 In some cases, reformulation efforts will involve modification of the existing 

resins/polymers or development of new resins for some of the reactive chemistries. 

Currently, the market resin supply is somewhat uncertain. Resins are not developed 

specifically for sealants and caulks because it is a small market. Hence, manufacturers 

have to select from those available and test different resins and combinations. Because 

of this, staff believes an extended effective date is warranted. The Chemically Curing 

Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol subcategory would be given until 

December 31, 2012, to comply with the proposed VOC limit. This extra time should 

give manufacturers the time required for research and development efforts to work with 

resin and polymer reactive chemistry systems to develop a complying formula. 

 Staff is also proposing in section 92412(d) additional labeling requirements for 

non-aerosol Sealant or Caulking Compound. The product category as specified in 

section 94509(a), or an abbreviation of the category, and the applicable VOC standard 

shall be displayed. This requirement is to facilitate enforcement of the applicable 

standards for Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically Curing products. 

 Aerosol Sealant or Caulking Compound products continue to be subject to the 

4 percent VOC by weight limit, effective December 31, 2002. Our data show that there 

are existing compliant Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically Curing aerosol products. 

 Because our data for both aerosol and non-aerosol products show compliance 

can be achieved without the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and 

trichloroethylene, we are proposing to prohibit the use of these TACs from the Sealant 

or Caulking Compound category, effective December 31, 2010. Methylene chloride and 

perchloroethylene are exempt VOC solvents. Therefore, without the prohibition, their 

use could increase as products reformulate to comply. Trichloroethylene is a VOC, and 

its use would likely decrease to meet the proposed limit. However, other solvents are 

available that make its use unnecessary. Prohibiting these three TACs will lead to 

approximately 0.12 tons per day of toxic compound emission reductions from this 

category. The health effects associated with exposure to perchloroethylene, methylene 

chloride and trichloroethylene, are summarized in Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts. 

Issues: 

a. Issue: Non-Chemically Curing Sealants or Caulks serve a wide range of 

applications, including many specialty uses and substrates. The VOC standard 

should allow for the whole range of general use and specialty applications. 

Response: Analysis of 2003 Survey data indicates that 76 percent of the market 

complies with the proposal for the Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 126 

Compound non-aerosol subcategory. Many of these products can be applied to 

a varied range of substrates, including many specialty use applications. Staff 

believes, and some industry stakeholders have agreed, that the proposed VOC 

standard allows for a wide range of general and specialty use product 

applications. 

b. Issue: The lower VOC limit proposed for Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or 

Caulking Compound products will have a negative effect on product 

performance, causing the market to shift to the use of Chemically Curing Sealant 

or Caulking Compound products, which have a higher VOC standard. 

Response: As stated in response to the first issue, staff believes that the 

proposed VOC limit for Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound 

non-aerosol products will accommodate a wide range of product applications. In 

addition, there are existing products that meet the definition of the Chemically 

Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol subcategory that are low in 

VOC content. These products claim to perform well under extreme weather 

conditions and can be used for many applications. 

c. Issue: Staff is adding pipe thread sealants and gasket makers to the definition of 

Sealant or Caulking Compound. Pipe thread sealants and gasket makers were 

not included in the original proposal to regulate Sealant or Caulking Compounds 

and should not be added to the definition. 

Response: Staff is making a clarification that the Sealant or Caulking Compound 

category definition does include pipe thread sealants and gasket makers as 

these products are designed to fill, seal, waterproof or weatherproof gaps or 

joints between two surfaces. Staff has made a number of product reviews, at the 

request of manufacturers, and determined that such products are subject to the 

Consumer Products Regulation requirements for sealant or caulking compounds. 

A number of chemically curing and non-chemically curing pipe thread sealants 

and gasket makers were reported in the 2003 Survey, with complying products 

existing in both subcategories. 

d. Issue: The proposed lower VOC limits will eliminate the aerosol product form. 

Response: Staff’s proposal sets lower VOC limits for non-aerosol products only. 

The current VOC limit of 4 percent by weight for the Sealant or Caulking 

Compound category is applicable to all product forms and will continue to be 

applicable to aerosol forms. The 2003 Survey indicates that there are products 

utilizing aerosol technologies available on the market, in both the Chemically 

Curing and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol 

subcategories that comply with the existing 4 percent by weight VOC limit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 127 

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures II. September, 

10, 1999. (ARB, 1999) 

3. Air Resources Board. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology 

and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Adhesives and Sealants. 

December, 1998. (ARB, 1998) 

4. House-Painting-Info. Polyurethane Caulk Possibly the Best. March 20, 2008. 

http://www.house-painting-info.com/polyurethane-caulk.html. (April 9, 2008). 

(HPI, 2008) 

5. Macco Adhesives. Notes on Chemically Curing Adhesive and Sealant Systems. 

August 1, 2006. (Macco, 2006) 

6. O’Connor, AE. Silyl-Terminated Polyurethanes for Construction Sealants. 

Kingston, T. ASTM International, Volume 1, Issue 3 – Online Abstract. 

March 10, 2004. 

http://www.astm.org/cgibin/SoftCart.exe/JOURNALS/JAI/PAGES/460.htm?E+my

store. (April 9, 2008). (O’Conner, 2004) 

7. Pontolilo, Brian. Making Sense of Caulks and Sealants. Fine Homebuilding. 

April/May, 2004. http://www.tauton.com/finehomebuilding/PDF/Free/

021162097.pdf. (Pontolilo, 2004) 

15. Spot Removers 

Product Category Description: 

 Spot Removers are used to remove localized spots or stains on articles such as 

carpets, rugs, upholstery, drapes, or clothing. Subsequent laundering is not required to 

achieve stain removal. Spots and stains include visible contamination from spills and 

other mishaps. The distinction between Spot Removers and related cleaning products, 

such as Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, is that Spot Removers are “on-demand” products 

for local treatment/cleaning of areas with heavier dirt or stains, while the cleaning 

products are for general cleaning of the majority of, or an entire article, after routine 

accumulation of contaminants over time. Generally, Spot Removers use more powerful 

cleaning ingredients than Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners. Some products are intended for 

specific types of soils. Spot Removers do not include products that treat spots and 

stains on clothes or other fabrics that need subsequent laundering (machine or hand 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 128 

wash) to remove the stain. Such products are included in the category of Laundry 

Prewash. 

 Spot Removers include products designed to remove tough, localized stains, 

such as grease, oil, oxidized oil (old, dried-out), tar, dry paint spots (latex, oil-based, 

enamels), blood, urine, vomit, feces, most foods, make-up, crayon, lipstick, nail polish, 

floor waxes, rust, or ink. A product may be intended for one type of stain, or for several. 

While the cause and contamination in some spots/stains may be known such that an 

appropriate type of Spot Remover is chosen, others may be of unknown origin. 

“Unknown” spots and stains may be treated by “universal” Spot Removers intended for 

several types of contamination, or by “trial-and-error” with a series of different Spot 

Removers, each for a different type of spot/stain. For treating localized odor 

contamination, Spot Removers may use biologically-derived odor destroying ingredients 

(e.g. enzymes or live bacterial culture). 

 Spot Removers were regulated under “Mid-term Measures 1” of the Consumer 

Products Regulation approved on July 24, 1997, and a description of these products is 

also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (ARB, 1997b). At that time, the 

Board adopted, as staff had recommended, a VOC limit of 25 percent by weight for 

aerosol products, and a VOC limit of 8 percent by weight for non-aerosol products. 

Both VOC limits became effective January 1, 2001. 

The Spot Remover category does not include Dry Cleaning Fluid. Dry Cleaning 

Fluid includes non-aqueous liquid products used exclusively on fabrics labeled "for dry 

clean only" or on "S-coded" fabrics specified by the Joint Industry Fabric Standards 

Committee to be cleaned only with water-free spot cleaning products. 

 Also historically, the category excluded Multi-purpose Solvents, which are 

defined as organic liquid products with no VOC limit. However, the 2006 Consumer 

Products Regulation amendments (ARB, 2006a; ARB, 2007e) to section 94508(a) 

modified requirements. Multi-purpose Solvent products manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2008, with multiple-use claims, are subject to the Spot Remover VOC limit if 

the product label includes a claim for spot or stain removal from fabric surfaces. The 

product would also be subject to the "most-restrictive-limit" provisions of section 

94512(a). 

 Table VI-29 below summarizes the sales and emissions from Spot Remover 

products based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have 

been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are 42,308 pounds per 

day. 

 As shown in Table VI-29, Spot Remover products are sold in both the aerosol 

and non-aerosol forms, with estimated VOC emissions of 2,105 pounds per day, or 

about 1.05 tons per day, in California. Although not shown, the sales-weighted average 

VOC content of the aerosol and non-aerosol products are about 22 and 2 percent by 

weight, respectively. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 129 

Table VI-29 

Spot Remover* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Aerosol 70 6,910 1,520 

Non-Aerosol 361 35,398 585 

Total 431 42,308 2,105 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Spot Removers are used by household consumers for cleaning localized spots, 

stains, and soiled areas on fabric articles in homes and vehicles. Spot Removers are 

also used by commercial/institutional professionals such as janitors; carpet, furniture, 

drapery, and laundry workers; commercial detailers of automotive interiors; workers in 

health care facilities; and remediation specialists for fabric articles in buildings after 

fire/smoke damage. 

 Spot Removers are applied by aerosol spray, mechanical sprayer, bottle 

dispenser, or special applicator, to the affected area, and left to soak to release/treat the 

spot or stain in the fibers. The area is then blotted with a dry cloth or scrubbing cap to 

lift and remove the contaminants from the substrate. Sometimes repeat application is 

needed to adequately remove the spot or stain. The area may be dampened with water 

from a clean cloth, and blotted with a dry cloth to dilute and remove residual cleaner. 

The area is then allowed to dry (ARB, 1997b). 

 Both Spot Removers and Laundry Pre-wash products claim to treat or remove 

localized spots. However, the products differ in that Laundry Pre-wash products contain 

instructions for treating stains on articles prior to laundering, while Spot Removers do 

not. 

 The Spot Remover category is currently regulated as “aerosol” and “non-aerosol” 

products with different VOC limits. Spot Removers are sold in general merchandise, 

hardware, drug stores, supermarkets, automotive parts stores, janitorial and 

maintenance supply warehouses, and over the Internet. Some products are packaged 

as kits containing products formulated for different types of spots or stains 

(ARB, 1997b). 

Product Formulation: 

 Spot Removers are generally water-based products containing ingredients such 

as glycol ethers, isopropyl alcohol, surfactants, enzymes, and various inorganic 

cleaning compounds. Ingredients vary depending on the types of spots and stains, 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 130 

although many products are formulated for general use to address several types of 

stains. A common ingredient is 2-butoxyethanol (also called ethylene glycol monobutyl 

ether) which is used to treat many solvent-based and water-based stains. Other glycol 

ethers are also used, some of which are VOCs, but others are LVP-VOCs and are thus, 

slower drying. 

 Typically, products complying with the current 25 percent VOC limit for aerosols, 

may contain zero to 20 percent VOC cleaners such as VOC glycol ethers, alcohol, or 

other organic compounds such as surfactants, and 5 to 10 percent hydrocarbon 

propellant. Surfactants or enzymes, typically classified as LVP-VOCs, may be part of 

the formulation to clean soils, including oily spots and stains. Enzymes and other 

biologically-derived ingredients, such as non-pathogenic bacterial cultures may be used 

to address odor, grease, and other organic contamination. Some products use oxygen 

compounds (e.g. bleach) to clean stains. With non-VOC propellants such as HFC152a, products may contain up to 25 percent VOC cleaning ingredients under the 

current VOC limit. Some products rely on surfactants, containing minimal or no VOCs, 

for removal of various contaminants including oil and grease. Inorganic ingredients may 

be used as cleaners, or to enhance the cleaning effectiveness of surfactants. 

 The non-aerosol products are generally liquids applied by trigger sprayer, 

hand-pump-pressurized tank sprayer, or bottle dispenser. Low-VOC products are 

typically water-based and may include LVP-VOC cleaners, such as surfactants and 

LVP-VOC glycol ethers, and inorganic ingredients. Some products for 

commercial/institutional use are sold in dilutable (i.e. concentrated) liquid form. 

 Specialized products also exist in this category. For example, products 

containing mainly acid or bleach (inorganic and thus zero-VOC) are used to remove rust 

and certain water-based stains. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limit for Spot Remover is 15 percent by weight for aerosols 

and 3 percent by weight for non-aerosols, effective December 31, 2010. As shown in 

Table VI-30, using emissions adjusted to 2010, the proposed limits for the category will 

result in an estimated emission reduction of 573 pounds per day, or about 0.29 tons per 

day statewide. 

 Table VI-30 also shows that about 4 percent of the aerosol market currently 

complies with the proposed 15 percent VOC limit, and 94 percent of the non-aerosol 

market complies with the 3 percent VOC limit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 131 

Table VI-30 

Spot Remover Proposal*

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Aerosol 15 18 4 468 479 

Non-Aerosol 3 231 94 91 94 

Total ----- 249 ----- 559 573 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

 The proposed 15 percent VOC limit for aerosol products is intended to allow both 

sufficient VOC solvent for removing grease or oil-type spots and stains, and sufficient 

hydrocarbon propellant for adequate spray performance. Products may be formulated 

to contain LVP-VOCs and non-VOC ingredients such as surfactants, enzymes, live 

bacterial cultures, inorganic compounds, or exempt compounds. 

 Alternative formulations with non-VOC propellant would enable up to 15 percent 

VOC solvent ingredients, with the addition of non-VOC ingredients as discussed above. 

Non-VOC propellants available include compressed carbon dioxide. 

 A reformulation option is limited use of acetone (a VOC exempt compound). 

Because it is an aggressive solvent that may damage common materials, acetone may 

have limited applications for certain fabrics with nearby surfaces vulnerable to 

over-spray. Acetone is not suitable for use on acetate, triacetate, and modacrylic 

fabrics, and must be used away from plastic or wood finishes. Acetone, as well as 

certain other organic and hydrocarbon solvents, may have limited use with carpets and 

rugs with vulnerable backing material. Because of its fast drying characteristics, 

acetone in a formulation may be used to supplement and partially offset the slower 

drying characteristics of LVP-VOC ingredients. 

 Regarding non-aerosol products, the VOC proposal would allow up to 3 percent 

VOC cleaning solvent. The balance would be primarily water with small amounts of 

LVP-VOC solvents, acetone, surfactants, enzymes, live bacterial cultures, inorganic 

compounds, or other exempt compounds. 

 The few products with perchloroethylene (an exempt chlorinated compound and 

thus non-VOC) are aerosols and generally low-VOC. However, the combined sales of 

these products were minimal and are not portrayed in the complying market share. The 

15 percent VOC proposal is minimally affected by the presence or absence of the 

perchloroethylene products in the data. The 2003 Survey data show very limited use of 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 132 

perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene (a VOC chlorinated compound) in this category. 

While ARB staff believes these toxic air contaminants are not likely to be used as 

cleaning solvents in the future reformulated products, ARB staff is proposing that 

perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride be prohibited in the Spot 

Remover category. This prohibition is proposed to ensure that manufacturers do not 

choose to reformulate with toxic chlorinated solvents in response to the lower VOC 

limits. Staff has determined that currently available formulation technologies that do not 

contain perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, or methylene chloride are readily available 

and thus they are not needed to comply with the proposed standard. See Chapter VIII 

for a discussion of the health effects of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and 

methylene chloride. 

 To update and strengthen regulatory requirements, the Multi-purpose Solvent 

exclusion in the definition is proposed to be eliminated. This revision would make the 

requirements for Spot Remover consistent with the adopted 2006 update for Multipurpose Solvent. Also, when a product is subject to more than one VOC limit, the most 

restrictive limit would apply, in accordance with section 94512(a). 

 A new exclusion for aerosol gum remover products is proposed for the category 

definition. A literal interpretation of the current Spot Remover definition may include 

aerosol gum removers, since gum contamination on fabric may be considered "spots." 

Since the formulation and method of operation of aerosol gum removers are very 

different from typical Spot Removers, staff believes it is not appropriate to include 

aerosol gum removers in this category. Aerosol gum remover products, will be 

evaluated for regulation in the future. 

Issues:

a. Issue: VOC solvents are needed to remove oil-based stains such as lipstick, nail 

polish, ink, tar, oxidized oils (old, dried-out), dry paint spots (latex, oil-based, 

enamels), floor waxes, and crayon. LVP-VOC solvents do not work well because 

they do not evaporate quickly and are very sticky. The resulting sticky residues 

attract more soil. The cleaning of fabrics is different than the cleaning of hard 

surfaces, which can be easily wiped off for faster drying. 

Response: When LVP-VOC solvent cleaners are used, the extent of the slower 

drying time will depend on the amount used, how thoroughly residual cleaners 

are diluted and removed, and how crucial the longer drying time is. Products 

already exist with LVP-VOC solvent cleaners, as indicated by the 2003 Survey, 

that comply with the proposed VOC limits. For products that will need 

reformulation, greater use of a wet cloth for diluting residual cleaners, and more 

thorough blotting with dry absorbent cloth, may be appropriate. Increased 

caution and customer education by product marketers, to avoid product-over-use 

and encourage appropriate drying procedures and proper article return-toservice, should address the concerns with LVP-VOCs.
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 133 

b. Issue: This category includes a broad range of products for a variety of fabrics 

and soils. Reported products include many based on non-VOC ingredients, such 

as bleach, hydrogen peroxide, acid, or surfactant, which are appropriate for some 

types of soils. Hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorite, and certain enzymes can not be 

used on all types of fabrics due to possible damage to fabrics. There is a wide 

range of VOC levels, which reflect the variety of intended uses. In some cases, 

higher VOC levels are needed to remove difficult stains and soils. 

Response: We have considered the functions of low-VOC products and 

inorganic ingredients for particular types of spots and stains, as well as the 

advantages and limitations. We are also aware that many complying products 

make universal spot removing claims, some not needing VOC solvents. High 

VOC products may create emissions without a cleaning benefit when treating 

spots and stains that do not need VOC solvents. Our proposal addresses both 

those products for specific spot removal, and products for general spot removal. 

Regarding damage to fabrics, the product marketer should determine the type of 

product for the type of spots and stains to be addressed for different fabrics and 

articles, and to provide appropriate label warnings. Label instructions now 

commonly suggest that the customer test the Spot Remover on an inconspicuous 

location on the fabric before fully using it. 

c. Issue: Products containing perchloroethylene (an exempt compound) in the 

2003 Survey data provide a false impression of the extent of low-VOC products. 

These products should be removed from the data, since use of 

perchloroethylene, a toxic air contaminant, should not be considered a realistic 

reformulation option to lower VOC content in this category. 

Response: We agree that perchloroethylene products should not be relied on 

as a basis to lower VOC limits. We also believe that these products should not 

be marketed in the future because of air toxics concerns. However, the amount 

of product sales in 2003 with this compound was low and minimally affected the 

complying market share or the basis of our proposal, as discussed above. We 

have also reviewed the survey data with and without the perchloroethylenecontaining products, and have presented the 2003 Survey results with the 

products included since that was the historical reality at the time. We believe 

there is no misrepresentation of the survey results as shown. 

d. Issue: Products with label claims for general carpet cleaning, in addition to 

localized cleaning, should be move from the Spot Remover category to the 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner category. 

Response: To a certain extent, we agree that products should be considered in 

one product category or another. If a product is labeled clearly as 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner with only incidental use as Spot Remover, we would 

agree. However, a product label may have several equally important recommend 

uses, and thus fall under more than one category. For regulatory development 

purposes, a product as labeled may be appropriately considered in more than 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 134 

one categories for review, depending on the wording of the various category 

definitions and the product label, although the regulatory emission reduction 

should be counted for only one category. We also consider the category 

identified by the marketer, since the marketer is most familiar with the product 

and has the first opportunity to categorize the product when submitting the 

survey. Please note that data review is separate from any enforcement 

evaluation for individual products. 

e. Issue: ARB should regulate non-aerosol Spot Removers used by dry cleaning 

establishments. Water-based and soy-based alternative Spot Removers are 

available alternatives to the currently used and more toxic perchloroethylene and 

trichloroethylene-based Spot Removers. Alternative Spot Removers perform well 

and are less costly. 

Response: While currently available data are encouraging for spot removal for 

water-tolerant or water-washable articles, data are currently lacking on suitable 

low-VOC, non-chlorinated, Spot Remover products for dry-clean-only fabrics. 

ARB staff intends to reevaluate the "dry-clean-only" exclusion in the Spot 

Remover definition, when more data become available regarding the suitability of 

low-VOC, non-chlorinated products for use on dry-clean-only fabrics. However, 

with products for other types of fabric (i.e. water-tolerant or water-washable), the 

exclusion does not apply, and hence the proposed VOC limits would apply to 

Spot Remover products labeled for general spot removal (i.e. suitable for watertolerant or water-washable fabrics) that may be used in dry cleaning 

establishments. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including 

Summary of Comments and Agency Responses -- Public Hearing to Consider 

Adoption of Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products 

Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regulation - Scheduled for Consideration 

November 17, 2006 - Agenda Item No. 06-10-8. Submitted to Office of 

Administrative Law on September 26, 2007. (ARB, 2007e) 

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings 

Regulation. September 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006a) 

3. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures I. 

June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 135 

5. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance. Spotting Chemicals: 

Alternatives to Perchloroethylene and Trichloroethylene in the Textile Cleaning 

Industry. Prepared by Katy Wolf and Mike Morris for Cal/EPA's Department of 

Toxic Substances Control and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX. 

January 2007. (IRTA, 2007) 

6. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance. Evaluation of New and 

Emerging Technologies for Textile Cleaning. Prepared by Michael Morris and Dr. 

Katy Wolf for Air Resources Board and Cal/EPA (Agreement Number 02-408), 

and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August, 2005. (IRTA, 2005) 

16. Tire or Wheel Cleaner

Product Category Description: 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner means a product designed or labeled exclusively to clean 

either tires, wheels, or both. Tire or Wheel Cleaner includes, but is not limited to, 

products for use in commercial, fleet, hand, and “drive-through” car washes, commercial 

truck or large vehicle washing stations, vehicle dealers and repair shops as well as 

products intended for household consumer use. Tire or Wheel Cleaners include aerosol 

products as well as non-aerosol products, which can be found in both dilutable and 

ready-to-use forms. Tire or Wheel Cleaners do not include products identified as 

Rubber/Vinyl Protectant and Motor Vehicle Wash. 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner is a previously unregulated category. Table VI-31 below 

summarizes the sales and emissions from Tire or Wheel Cleaners based on the results 

of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar 

year. Total category sales are about 9,829 pounds per day. 

Table VI-31 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Aerosol 8 189 17 

Non-aerosol 102 9,640 278 

Total 110 9,829 295 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a). 

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

 

Estimated VOC emissions are 295 pounds per day, or about 0.15 tons per day. 

As shown in Table VI-31, non-aerosol Tire or Wheel Cleaner products dominate the 

marketplace. Although not shown in the table, aerosol Tire or Wheel Cleaners have a 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 136 

sales-weighted average of about 8 percent by weight VOC, while the non-aerosol 

products have a sales-weighted average of 2 percent by weight VOC. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Tire or Wheel Cleaners are used by both commercial businesses and “do-ityourself” consumers. For the “do-it-yourself” consumers, tire cleaners, wheel cleaners, 

and combination tire and wheel cleaners are available in, but not limited to, retail outlets 

such as supermarkets, diversified pharmacies, home improvement stores, auto supply 

stores, super stores, and specialty stores. Auto dealers, catalog sales, and the Internet 

are additional marketing locations. For commercial businesses, products are available 

from manufacturers and/or distributors, and warehouses as well as retail outlets. 

 Tire or Wheel Cleaners are normally designed to be sprayed onto the part and 

then washed or wiped off. The majority of the products in this category are non-aerosol 

products that are designed to be applied either by pump spray or diluted with water 

before use. Tire or Wheel Cleaner products claim to remove dirt, debris, and other soils 

from the surfaces of tires, wheels, or both. Most wheel cleaners claim to be available 

for use on all wheel surfaces, including chrome and aluminum. Tire cleaners claim to 

be usable on either regular tires or specifically on whitewall tires. 

Product Formulation: 

 Tire or Wheel Cleaners are water-based products containing glycol ethers, 

alcohols, VOC and LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvents, and inorganic compounds. The 

glycol ethers, VOC solvents, and alcohols make up the majority of the product’s VOC 

content and act as the active ingredients. The inorganics and LVP-VOC solvents are 

normally surfactants to aid in cleaning. The aerosol products normally use a small 

amount of hydrocarbon propellant. 

Proposed VOC limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limits for aerosol and non-aerosol Tire or Wheel Cleaner are 

8 and 2 percent VOC by weight, respectively, effective December 31, 2010. As shown 

in Table VI-32 using adjusted emissions, the proposed limits will result in an estimated 

reduction of 130 pounds per day, or about 0.06 tons per day. 

Table Vl-32 also shows that 69 percent of the non-aerosol market currently 

complies with the proposed VOC limit. The percent of the market that currently 

complies with the proposed aerosol limit of 8 percent VOC is small and therefore treated 

as confidential. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 137 

Table Vl-32 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner Proposal* 

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Aerosol 8 *** *** 2 2 

Non-aerosol 2 63 69 126 128 

Total ___ ___ ___ 128 130 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

 

Most of the non-complying products are already formulated close to the proposed 

limits, so the proposed effective date is feasible. The few manufacturers that would 

have to reformulate should be able to meet the proposed limits by increasing the 

product’s water and/or LVP-VOC content. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

17. Windshield Water Repellent

Product Category Description: 

 Windshield Water Repellents are products designed or labeled exclusively to 

repel water from motor vehicle windshields and other exterior glass surfaces. These 

products claim to improve driving visibility during inclement weather by repelling rain, 

sleet and snow. Windshield Water Repellents do not include Automotive Windshield 

Washer Fluid. Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids are designed, or labeled, to clean 

glass surfaces, while Windshield Water Repellents are applied to surfaces that have 

already been cleaned. 

 Windshield Water Repellent is a previously unregulated category. Table VI-33 

below summarizes the sales and emissions from Windshield Water Repellent based on 

the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The emissions have been grown to 

the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales are about 538 pounds per day. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 138 

Table VI-33 

Windshield Water Repellent* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2008 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

All Forms 30 538 462 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions).

 As shown in Table VI-33, Windshield Water Repellent products have estimated 

VOC emissions of 462 pounds per day, or about 0.23 tons per day, in California. 

Although not shown, Windshield Water Repellent has a sales-weighted average VOC 

content of about 86 percent. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

 Windshield Water Repellents are used by both commercial businesses and “doit-yourself” consumers. For the “do-it-yourself” consumers, Windshield Water 

Repellents are available in, but not limited to, retail outlets such as supermarkets, 

diversified pharmacies, home improvement stores, auto supply stores, super stores, 

and specialty stores. Auto dealers, catalog sales, and the Internet are additional 

marketing locations. Products for commercial businesses are available from 

manufacturers and/or distributors, and warehouses, as well as retail outlets. Windshield 

Water Repellents are sometimes applied to glass surfaces by the original equipment 

manufacturer. 

 Windshield Water Repellent products are sprayed, or rubbed, onto clean, exterior 

windshields and other glass surfaces to provide a water repellent coating. This coating 

repels rain by producing a high water contact angle such that bead droplets form and 

roll down the surface, instead of sticking to the glass, leaving the windshield clear 

(CSPA, 2006). This is especially useful during the more hazardous weather conditions 

that contribute to lowered visibility. 

Product Formulation: 

 Windshield Water Repellents have essential performance needs. They must 

provide a static, high, contact angle. Water should bead and roll down the windshield, 

rather than leave a droplet trail, and it must function with the current windshield wiper. 

Use of the product must not result in abrasion, streaking, or haze on the glass, due to 

the product’s use, as these instances would reduce visibility, thereby becoming a 

potential consumer safety issue. 

 To provide this function, Windshield Water Repellents are typically formulated 

with alcohols and inorganics. The alcohols provide solvency for the inorganic coating, 

normally a surfactant, so that it can be readily applied onto the surface of the windshield 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 139 

or other automotive glass surfaces. Alcohol-based products with a silicone catalyst 

dominate the market. Some products were also found to contain LVP-VOC 

compounds, as well as VOC propellants. 

 Available technologies include silicone with an acid catalyst, organo-silanes, 

silicone functionalized surfactants, carnauba wax, silicone emulsion, diamond-like 

carbon coatings, and hydrophobic treated nano-particulates (CSPA, 2006). 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 The proposed VOC limit for Windshield Water Repellent is 75 percent, by weight, 

effective December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-34, using adjusted emissions, the 

proposed limit will result in an estimated emission reduction of 84 pounds per day, or 

about 0.04 tons per day. 

 Table VI-34 also shows that the percent of the market that currently complies 

with the proposed 75 percent VOC limit is small and therefore treated as confidential. 

Table VI-34 

Windshield Water Repellent Proposal*

Product Form

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market 

Share (%)

2008 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

All Forms 75 *** *** 83 84 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2008 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage and grown, by population, to 2010 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions).

 

 Water-based technology, for Windshield Water Repellent, is being researched by 

manufacturers. However, at present time, further development is necessary. We 

believe that technology is advancing that would allow lower VOC products in the future. 

The proposed 75 percent VOC limit is set as low as current technology allows. Staff 

believes manufacturers will be able to use current LVP-VOC technology to formulate 

effective products while developing the technology to implement more LVP-VOC solvent 

use as well as water-based technology. 

Issues:

a. Issue: The effective date for the limit should be extended until 2012 to allow 

adequate time for reformulation. 

Response: Staff believes that the current effective date of 2010 is sufficient time 

to allow for reformulation to meet the proposed 75 percent VOC limit and make 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 140 

complying products available in the marketplace. We also note that in a 2006 

presentation industry indicated that a 75 percent VOC limit was feasible. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

2. Consumer Specialty Products Association. CSPA Automotive and Solvent 

Products Technical Seminar for ARB Staff. July 13, 2006. (CSPA, 2006) 

B. CATEGORIES FOR WHICH A GREENHOUSE GAS LIMIT IS PROPOSED 

1. Pressurized Gas Duster

Product Category Description:

Pressurized Gas Duster is a product designed to remove foreign particles such 

as dust, dirt, lint, and other particles from sensitive equipment and materials, solely by 

the means of mass air or gas flow. Pressurized Gas Dusters are distinguished from 

Electronic Cleaners which remove foreign particles primarily by means of a solvent. 

The Board first defined Pressurized Gas Duster in the 2004 rulemaking (ARB, 

2004b). However, at that time, no VOC standard for Pressurized Gas Duster was 

established. 

In this rulemaking, we are proposing to limit the global warming potential (GWP) 

of compounds used in Pressurized Gas Dusters. To implement this proposal, we are 

proposing to add definitions for “Global Warming Potential” and “Global Warming 

Potential Value.” These definitions are necessary to implement our proposal to reduce 

the potency of greenhouse gas emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters. We are using 

the GWP definition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). GWP 

provides a measure of a compound’s impact on global warming compared to CO2. The 

GWP value definition specifies that the 100-year GWP values in the Second 

Assessment Report (SAR) of IPCC would be used to determine compliance. To 

enforce our proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Pressurized Gas 

Duster, the definition further specifies that, if the SAR does not contain a GWP value for 

a specific chemical or compound, then the IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) 

GWP value for that chemical or compound can be used. If there is no GWP value listed 

for a specific chemical or compound in the SAR or the FAR, then the GWP value is 

assumed to be equal to the GWP applicable standard.

As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1995: Second 

Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996), the GWP of a greenhouse gas (GHG) is defined as 

the radiative forcing impact of one mass-based unit of a given greenhouse gas relative 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 141 

to an equivalent unit of carbon dioxide over a given period of time. The standard units 

of measurement used to express the emissions of a GHG are million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO2e) per year. 

The global warming potential (GWP) of products in this category is high due to the 

use of hydrofluorocarbon-134a (HFC-134a) and hydrofluorocarbon-152a (HFC-152a). 

HFC-152a has a GWP of 140, which is one hundred and forty times greater than the 

GWP of carbon dioxide (CO2). HFC-134a has a GWP of 1300, which is approximately 

ten times greater than the GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than CO2 (IPCC, 

1996; IPCC, 2007). 

We are also proposing to modify the definition for Pressurized Gas Duster to 

exclude electronic cleaners, electrical cleaners, or energized electrical cleaners. 

However, we are proposing to add an exemption to the definition for the niche uses 

where non-flammable dusters are needed. HFC-134a is a non-flammable propellant, 

whereas HFC-152a is moderately flammable. The proposed exemption is for nonflammable products labeled exclusively to remove dust from equipment where dust 

removal is accomplished when: electric current exists; residual electrical potential from 

a component such as a capacitor exists; or an open flame exists. In addition, the 

product’s “Principal Display Panel” must clearly contain the statement: “Energized 

Equipment use only.” Additionally, to ensure that there are no increases in VOC or air 

toxics emissions, as a result of the proposed GWP limit, staff is proposing a 1 percent 

by weight VOC standard and a prohibition on the use of perchloroethylene and 

methylene chloride as mitigation measures as required by the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA). 

The GHG emission reductions from the Pressurized Gas Dusters were estimated 

using reported information from the 2003 Consumer Products Survey and the 2007 

Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update gathered during February 2008. During the 

public process of developing the proposed GWP limit, staff held numerous meetings 

and teleconferences to solicit information and comments from industry associations and 

industry representatives. At that time, industry representatives advised ARB staff that 

changes in the gas duster market had occurred since 2003. In response, staff 

conducted the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update to collect updated 

information. 

The emissions and reduction estimates for 2010 and 2020 were grown from 2007 

sales data and the state Department of Finance’s population estimates. Annual 

population growth factors were calculated using the 2007 state population figures and 

the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewide Human 

Population Table found in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). It 

was assumed that without the proposed GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters, the 

annual sales would grow proportionate to population growth. Staff used GWP values 

from the IPCC Climate Change 1995; The Science of Climate Change (IPCC, 1996) for 

calculating the CO2 equivalent emissions and CO2 equivalent reductions for this 

category of products. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 142 

 Table VI-35 below summarizes the 2003 and 2007 sales and GHG emissions 

from Pressurized Gas Dusters based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey 

(ARB, 2004a) and the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update (ARB, 2008c). 

 As shown in Table VI-35, 39 duster products were reported for 2003 with adjusted 

sales of 3,657 pounds per day for 2008. Although not shown on the table, Pressurized 

Gas Dusters had a sales-weighted average GHG content of over 99 percent by weight, 

with estimated GHG emissions of 2,242,171 CO2e pounds per day, or about 

0.37 MMT CO2e per year in California. 

Table VI-35 

Pressurized Gas Duster 

Survey 

Data

Product 

Form 

Number of 

Products

2008 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)

2008 Adjusted 

GHG Emissions 

(CO2e lbs/day)+ 

2003* Aerosol 39 3,657 2,242,171 

2007** Aerosol 90 7,292 2,179,855 

 * Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 2004a) 

 ** Based on 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. (ARB, 2008c) 

 + Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

 Additionally, as shown in Table VI-35, 90 duster products were reported for 2007 

with adjusted sales of 7,292 pounds per day for 2008. Although not shown in the table, 

the sales-weighted average GHG content is over 99 percent by weight, and the 

estimated adjusted GHG emissions are 2,179,855 CO2e pounds per day, or about 0.36 

MMT CO2e per year. 

 Prior to 2003, industry leaders voluntarily shifted away from using HFC-134a as 

the propellant in gas dusters to using HFC-152a (CSPA, 2008). Changes in the market 

between 2003 and 2007 were captured in the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey 

Update (ARB, 2008c). In 2003, HFC-134a gas dusters made up approximately 41 

percent of the market. The updated sales information shows that HFC-134a gas 

dusters were approximately 14 percent of the market in 2007, while HFC-152a gas 

dusters made up 85 percent of the market. This is why the 2008 adjusted GHG 

emissions have not increased proportionate to the category sales, which have nearly 

doubled. The potency of GHG emissions from this category have been decreasing with 

the increased use of HFC-152a. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

Pressurized Gas Dusters are aerosol sprays that produce a burst of pressurized 

gas that is used to remove dust, dirt, lint and other particles from a surface. Pressurized 

Gas Dusters differ from products such as “Electronic Cleaners” as they do not use 

liquids or solvents to remove dirt or grease. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 143 

These products are used in applications where no-touch, moisture-free, precision 

cleaning is needed, or in cleaning applications of hard to reach, hidden spots, in 

equipment and delicate instruments and their housings. 

 Pressurized Gas Dusters are used by “do-it-yourself” consumers, technicians, 

and professional engineers. These products are used in applications such as cleaning 

computers and other internal workings of equipment and delicate instruments, in 

addition to the surface of delicate materials such as photographic lenses, photographs, 

film, and negatives that require no-touch, moisture-free cleaning. They are often 

marketed as no residue, moisture-free, ultra pure or filtered to 0.2 micrometers, and 

plastics safe. 

These products are labeled for cleaning delicate equipment such as: electronic, 

photographic and office equipment; laboratory equipment and medical devices; audio 

and video equipment; computer keyboards and printers, the inside of computer 

housings, copiers and TVs; disc drives, and tape heads of cassette players. These 

products are also used to clean delicate materials such as: photographs, photographic 

film, negatives, and slides; audio and video cartridges and cassettes, and other types of 

surfaces that cannot be cleaned with solvents. These products are sometimes labeled 

“For Industrial and Institutional Use Only.” 

 Pressurized Gas Dusters are sold in computer and electronic stores, mass 

market chain-stores, warehouse club stores, office supply stores, hardware stores, 

scientific or laboratory supply catalogs, and on the Internet. 

Product Formulation: 

 Pressurized Gas Dusters are composed of 99 – 100 percent propellant. The 

propellant is typically a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC): HFC-134a or HFC-152a. A few 

products are composed of a blend of hydrocarbon propellants or a blend of hydrocarbon 

propellants, HFC-134a, and dimethyl ether (DME). Some formulations may contain a 

bittering agent (to prevent product misuse), or other additives at trace concentrations. 

The GWP for products in this category is high due to the use of HFC-134a and 

HFC-152a. As mentioned previously, HFC-152a has a GWP of 140, which is one 

hundred and forty times greater than the GWP of carbon dioxide (CO2). HFC-134a has 

a GWP of 1300, which is approximately ten times greater than the GWP of HFC-152a 

and 1300 times greater than CO2 (IPCC, 1996; IPCC, 2007). 

Proposed GWP Limit and Compliance: 

 We are proposing a GWP limit of 150 for any chemical compound used in 

Pressurized Gas Duster products, effective December, 31, 2010. The GWP limit does 

not apply to any chemicals present as contaminants, which, in aggregate, are 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 144 

0.1 percent by weight or less. The proposed GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters is 

designed to be equivalent to reducing 0.20 MMT CO2e per year, effective December 31, 

2010, with HFC-134a emissions reductions of approximately 0.23 MMT CO2e per year 

by 2020. The reductions in 2020 are important because AB 32 requires a reduction of 

GHG emissions equal to the 1990 baseline level in California by the year 2020.

We expect that compliance with the proposed limit will be achieved by 

substituting HFC-152a with a GWP of 140 for the HFC-134a propellant with a GWP of 

1300. Pressurized Gas Dusters formulated with HFC-152a already exist on the market 

today. 

As shown in Table VI-36a using adjusted 2007 emissions, we expect an 

estimated emission reduction of 1,198,574 CO2e pounds per day, or about 

0.20 MMT CO2e tons per year, by 2010. The GWP limit was set at 150 rather than 140 

because it is anticipated that GWP values may change as the “state-of-the-science” 

evolves. The GWP of HFC-152a (140) was used to estimate emission reductions. 

Table VI-36a below shows the emission reductions from the GWP limit of 150 for 

this category, and that about 86 percent of the market currently complies with the limit. 

Table VI-36a 

Pressurized Gas Duster GHG Proposal

Survey 

Data

Proposed 

GWP Limit

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market Share 

(%)

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(CO2e lbs/day)+

2020 

Emission 

Reductions 

(CO2e lbs/day)+

2003* 150 7/39 59 1,776,263 2,007,387 

2007** 150 18/90 86 1,198,574 1,348,396 

* Based on 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 2004a) 

** Based on 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. (ARB, 2008c) 

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

 Note: Emission reductions have been adjusted from 2003 to 2008 using a population growth factor. 

 

 Reformulation options that could be used by manufacturers to meet the proposed 

limit include the use of 100 percent HFC-152a. We are aware of some compressed 

CO2 duster products available on the Internet. Staff initially considered a technology 

forcing, second tier lower limit of 10 for Pressurized Gas Dusters, effective 

December 31, 2015, based on CO2 technology and new lower GWP refrigerant 

technology. However, after further investigation and discussions with manufacturers, 

staff believes that CO2 (compressed gas) dusters are a different product than 

Pressurized Gas Dusters that use liquefied propellant. Dusters using CO2, as they exist 

today, are not a commercially competitive product (DuPont & Falcon, 2004). 

 We are also aware of new lower GWP refrigerants in development. Indications 

are that these new refrigerants may have very low GWPs. The newly emerging 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 145 

refrigerants are in the process of under going toxicity and safety testing, and the results 

are not yet available. The VOC status of these new refrigerants and their applicability 

for use as propellants in consumer products, particularly Pressurized Gas Dusters, is 

unknown at this time. Staff intends to work with Pressurized Gas Duster manufacturers, 

and other stakeholders to monitor new technologies and conduct a technical 

assessment of low-GWP propellants that might be appropriate for Pressurized Gas 

Dusters in the future. 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

 We are also proposing a 1 percent by weight VOC limit, effective 

December 31, 2010. The limit is designed to prevent the use of hydrocarbon 

propellants, and other VOCs, as products are reformulated to meet the 150 GWP limit. 

Hydrocarbon propellants (butane, propane, isobutane) may have lower GWPs, but 

contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. As proposed, the VOC limit would 

also apply to any added fragrance. We believe the limit is feasible even if a small 

amount of fragrance is added. Therefore, we are proposing, in section 94510(c), that 

Pressurized Gas Dusters do not qualify for the two percent by weight fragrance 

exemption. The 1 percent limit is designed as a CEQA mitigation measure to prevent 

VOC emission increases. From the standpoint of cleaning shots and total cleaning 

force available per container and potential environmental impact, HFC-152a is more 

efficient than HFC-134a or CO2 (DuPont & Falcon, 2004). As shown in Table VI-36b, 

using 2008 VOC emissions, the proposed limit will result in an estimated emission 

reduction of 1.0 pound per day, or about 0.0005 tons per day. 

 Table VI-36b also shows that more than 99 percent of the market currently 

complies with the proposed 1 percent VOC limit. 

Table VI-36b 

Pressurized Gas Duster VOC Proposal

Survey Data

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market Share 

(%)

2010 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)**

2007** 1.0 89/90 >99 1.0 

** Based on 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. (ARB, 2008c)

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

 We expect products to be able to comply with both the VOC and GWP limits 

using HFC-152a. HFC-152a is negligibly reactive with respect to ozone formation and 

has been excluded from the definition of VOC. While ARB staff believes toxic air 

contaminants are not likely to be used in future reformulated products, ARB staff is 

proposing that perchloroethylene and methylene chloride be prohibited in the 

Pressurized Gas Duster category. This prohibition is proposed to ensure that 

manufacturers do not choose to reformulate with toxic chlorinated solvents in response 

to the new VOC and GWP limits. The prohibition does not apply to any chemicals 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 146 

present as contaminants, which, in aggregate, are 0.1 percent by weight or less. Staff 

has determined that currently available formulation technologies that do not contain 

perchloroethylene or methylene chloride are readily available and thus they are not 

needed to comply with the proposed standard. See Chapter VIII for a discussion of the 

health effects of perchloroethylene and methylene chloride. 

Issues:

a. Issue: Industry recommends a narrow exclusion in the definition, for products 

that are completely nonflammable. 

Response: The proposed modification to the definition of Pressurized Gas 

Duster includes a narrow exemption for products that are labeled exclusively to 

remove dust from equipment where dust removal is accomplished when: electric 

current exists; residual electrical potential from a component such as a capacitor 

exists; or an open flame exists. In addition, the “Principal Display Panel” must 

clearly contain the statement: “Energized Equipment use only.” [Title 17, CCR, 

Section 94508(a)(118)] 

b. Issue: Industry recommends that the GWP values contained in the IPCC 4th 

Assessment Report from 2007 be adopted, and that these GWP values be 

included in the regulation as a table. 

 Response: Staff acknowledges the comment. ARB’s policy is to use the IPCC: 

1995 Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) GWP values where they exist for 

a specific compound. If there is no SAR value, the 2007 Fourth Assessment 

Report (IPCC, 2007) GWP value shall be used. In the case where neither the 

SAR nor the FAR contain a GWP value for the specific compound, then the GWP 

value is assumed to be equal to the emission standard. These values are used 

to be consistent with other statewide and national Greenhouse Gas inventories 

(ARB, 2007c). 

c. Issue: Industry urges ARB to provide stable values over time while allowing 

updating as new materials are developed and new GWP values develop. 

 Response: See response to Issue #2 above. 

d. Issue: Industry urges ARB to ensure the proposed regulation (i.e., Table of 

GWPs) states clearly that compounds not listed as having a GWP value shall be 

considered to have a GWP value of 0. 

 Response: See response to Issue #2 above. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 147 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. 

 February, 2008. (ARB, 2008c) 

2. Air Resources Board. Statewide Human Population Chart: Population and 

Vehicle Trends Report. April, 2008. (ARB, 2008d) 

3. Air Resources Board. ARB Compendium of Emission Factors and Methods to 

Support Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October, 2007. 

(ARB, 2007c) 

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresheners 

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products. May 7, 2004 (ARB, 2004b) 

5. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

6. Consumer Specialty Products Association. Technology of Pressurized Gas 

Duster Products – Meeting with ARB staff. Andrew Steinman, Executive Vice 

President, Falcon Safety Products, Inc. March 5, 2008. (CSPA, 2008) 

7. DuPont Company in association with Falcon Safety Products. Fluorochemical

 Fluorochemicals Laboratory DuPont Company Technical Report, Subject: 

Cleaning Tests for Aerosol Dusting Aids (Dusters). December 1, 2004. Melodie 

Schweitzer, Janet Ludert, Bruce Hitches (DuPont Company). Brian Bilsback, 

Dermot McLeer (Falcon Safety Products). (Dupont & Falcon, 2004) 

8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. 

Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. 

Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: 

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate 

Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

 Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007) 

9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995, The 

Science of Climate Change; Contribution of Working Group I to the Second 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [J.T. 

Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. 

Maskell, (eds.)] Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, U.K. (IPCC, 1996)
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 148 

VII. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

A. INTRODUCTION

 This Chapter provides our analysis of the estimated economic impacts we predict 

from implementation of the proposed VOC limits, one global warming potential (GWP) 

limit, and other proposed amendments to the regulation. In general, economic impact 

analyses are inherently imprecise by nature, given the unpredictable behavior of 

companies in a highly competitive market such as consumer products. While staff has 

quantified the economic impacts to the extent feasible, some projections are necessarily 

qualitative, and based on general observations and facts known about the consumer 

products industry. This analysis, therefore, serves to provide a general picture of the 

economic impacts typical businesses subject to the proposed limits might encounter. 

Individual companies may experience different impacts than projected. 

 The overall impacts are first summarized in Section B. A description of specific 

aspects of the economic impacts then follows in the sections listed below: 

C. Economic Impacts Analysis on California Businesses, Consumers, and 

Employment; 

D. Analysis of Potential Impacts to California State or Local Agencies; 

E. Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness (CE) of the Proposed Limits; 

F. Analysis of the Impacts to Raw Materials Cost; 

G. Analysis of the Combined Impacts on Per-Unit Cost from Recurring and 

Nonrecurring Costs; 

H. Other Possible Economic Impacts from Proposed Amendments; and 

I. Mitigation of Potential Impacts through Additional Regulatory Flexibility. 

 It is important to note that we conducted this economic impacts analysis in 

accordance with the current legal requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA). This analysis uses similar methodologies and assumptions as were used in the 

last four major consumer products rulemakings, the “Mid-Term Measures” regulations 

adopted by the Board in 1997, 1999, and in the 2004 and 2006 amendments to the 

regulation (ARB, 1997b; ARB, 1999; ARB, 2004b; ARB, 2006a). However, we have 

used updated methodologies to determine the high cost estimates for nonrecurring 

costs as was done in the 2004 and 2006 amendments (ARB, 2004b; ARB, 2006a). We 

have determined a likely high cost scenario specific to each category. See Section G of 

this Chapter for a detailed description of the nonrecurring cost determination 

methodology. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 149 

B. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

 Overall, most affected businesses will be able to absorb the costs (or will likely 

pass through some of the costs to the consumer) of the proposed limits and 

requirements with no significant adverse impacts on their profitability. This finding is 

indicated by the staff’s estimated change in “return on owner’s equity” (ROE) analysis. 

The analysis found that the overall change in ROE ranges from a low of 0.7 percent to a 

high of about 4.0 percent, with an average change in ROE of about 2.5 percent. 

However, the proposed measures may impose economic hardship on some businesses 

with very little or no margin of profitability. These businesses, if hard pressed, can seek 

relief under the variance provision of the consumer products regulation for extensions to 

the compliance dates. Such extensions may provide sufficient time to minimize the cost 

impacts to these businesses. Because the proposed measures would not significantly 

alter the profitability of most businesses, we do not expect a noticeable change in 

employment; business creation, elimination or expansion; and business 

competitiveness in California. We also found no significant adverse economic impacts 

to any local or State agencies. 

 Our analysis shows that the CE of the proposed amendments is higher than 

other existing VOC ARB regulatory programs. This is not surprising given that many 

categories proposed for regulation are smaller, in terms of emissions, and therefore, 

smaller emissions reductions result. We estimate the total overall CE of the proposed 

VOC limits and other requirements to be about $6.23 per pound of VOC reduced. We 

have also determined the CE of the proposed GHG limit relative to reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions. We estimate the CE of the proposed GHG limit for Pressurized Gas 

Dusters to be $0.22 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent (MT CO2e) reduced. 

 

 We estimate that the total cost incurred by industry to comply with this regulation 

is about $26 million per year for 10 years. These cost estimates are based on 

assumptions specific to each category depending on reformulation needs, and 

represent the mid-range of the cost estimates. Staff believes the mid-range costs are 

the most likely to be incurred by industry to comply with the proposed limits. For some 

categories, it was assumed that manufacturers would either drop certain products or 

undergo minor product formulation changes, and for other categories manufacturers 

would undergo complete production line overhaul and equipment replacement rather 

than simple re-tooling. 

 One way to estimate the potential change in cost to produce a product is to 

determine the change in raw materials cost, which generally has the biggest influence 

on product cost for most product categories. Our analysis indicates that reformulations 

to comply with the proposed limits can result in raw material changes ranging from 

negligible cost (net savings or no cost) up to a cost increase of about $0.63 per unit. 

The value of $0.63 represents the maximum, worst case, per-unit cost increase. This 

range compares favorably to the change in per unit cost projected for the Phase I and II, 

the Mid-Term Measures I and II regulations and the 2004 and 2006 Amendments. The 

analysis assumed the present cost for raw materials; these costs may be lower or 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 150 

higher at the time of the limit effective date depending on the formulations chosen by 

manufacturers and the future price of raw materials. To the extent that the projected 

cost savings or increases are ultimately passed on to the consumer, the actual retail 

price of products after the proposed limits become effective may be higher or lower than 

suggested by this analysis. 

 Even if all annualized nonrecurring costs (research and development, capital 

equipment purchases, etc.) and recurring raw material cost increases are factored into 

the affected products manufacturing costs, the potential increase in production per-unit 

costs are comparable to previous ARB consumer product rulemakings. The estimated 

per-unit cost increases from both annualized nonrecurring and annual recurring costs 

range from negligible cost (net savings or no cost) to about $2.05 per unit. The value of 

$2.05 represents the maximum, worst case, per-unit cost increase for a product which is 

typically packaged in a one gallon container. When averaged over the total number of 

unit sales in California of noncomplying products, (those that need to reformulate) the 

product weighted average cost increase is about $0.20 per unit. As noted before, these 

per unit cost increases compare favorably to the change in per unit cost projected for 

previous ARB consumer product rulemakings. 

Staff believes that the regulation cost and CE determination methodologies are 

quite conservative, and are thus in most cases, over-estimated. There are several 

factors that contribute to the over estimation of costs. The mid-range cost, (used to 

determine the overall cost and cost effectiveness of the regulation) is the average of the 

estimated high and low cost scenarios. The low cost scenario assumes that companies 

would choose the lowest cost reformulation pathway, making minor adjustments to a 

product’s formulation, or simply eliminating higher VOC products. We believe that most 

manufacturers would choose the lowest cost reformulation option. For the high cost 

scenario, it is assumed that there is significant research and development, and new 

equipment is needed to reformulate the product. We believe that few manufacturers 

would need to take the high cost reformulation approach. 

In the economic analysis, staff assumed that the VOC limits for Multi-purpose 

Lubricants would be the most challenging and costly to comply with. Staff separately 

calculated the estimated costs of reformulation for each of the proposed tiers of the 

Multi-purpose Lubricant proposal. Further, cost estimates were performed separately 

for aerosol and non-aerosol products respectively. The analysis shows that greater 

costs will be incurred during the first tier reformulation than the second tier 

reformulation. This results from the assumption that significant high end costs will be 

incurred in the first tier reformulation, but not all of these costs would necessarily be 

duplicated in the second tier reformulation. If major plant modifications or new 

equipment purchases are needed to meet either tier of the VOC limits, a manufacturer 

would likely choose to make these significant changes during one plant modification, 

rather than making significant more than once. In fact, certain companies may choose 

to reformulate only once, (i.e. reformulate to meet the second tier VOC limit before 

2013.) Regardless of whether this assumption is correct, we believe that it is 

appropriate to assume that high end reformulation costs will be incurred during either 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 151 

the first tier reformulation or the second tier reformulation, but not both. Either 

assumption, that higher costs would be incurred during a given tier relative to the other, 

would yield the same amount of total costs being incurred to meet both tiers. 

Another factor that can contribute to an over estimation of costs are the 

assumptions used for the raw ingredient costs. For the product categories for which 

VOC limits are proposed, we assumed that if the raw ingredients used in the 

reformulated product yielded a cost savings, the cost of the raw ingredients necessary 

to meet the new VOC limit is zero. This is a conservative assumption because for most 

product categories, there is more than one reformulation option. However, it is possible 

that a given manufacturer will choose more expensive ingredients to preserve certain 

specific product attributes. 

However, in the case of Pressurized Gas Dusters we assumed that reformulation 

would yield a raw ingredient savings, and incorporated the decreased cost into the 

overall cost estimate. We believe that this approach is appropriate because in order to 

comply with the proposed GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters, there is only one 

identified reformulation pathway, replacing HFC-134a with HFC-152a. Because HFC152a is less expensive per pound that HFC-134a, it is appropriate that there would be a 

cost savings in virtually every case. Therefore, for Pressurized Gas Dusters, instead of 

assuming that the raw material cost is zero, the raw material cost savings was 

subtracted from the anticipated equipment and research and development costs of 

reformulation. 

C. ECONOMIC IMPACTS ANALYSIS ON CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES,

CONSUMERS, AND EMPLOYMENT

 1. Legal Requirements 

 Section 11346.3 of the Government Code requires State agencies to assess the 

potential for adverse economic impacts on California business enterprises and 

individuals when proposing to adopt or amend any administrative regulation. The 

assessment must include a consideration of the impact of the proposed regulation on 

California jobs; business expansion, elimination or creation; and the ability of California 

business to compete with businesses in other states. 

 Also, State agencies are required to estimate the cost or savings to any State or 

local agency and school district in accordance with instructions adopted by the 

Department of Finance. The estimate shall include any nondiscretionary cost or 

savings to local agencies and the cost or savings in federal funding to the State. 

2. Potential Impact on California Businesses 

 Overall, most affected businesses will be able to absorb the costs of the 

proposed measures with no significant adverse impacts on their profitability. It is likely 

that all cost will not be absorbed by businesses, by passing a portion through to 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 152 

consumers. However, the proposed measures may impose economic hardship on 

some businesses with very little or no margin of profitability. These businesses, if hard 

pressed, can seek relief under the variance provision of the consumer products 

regulation for extensions to their compliance dates. Such extensions may provide 

sufficient time to minimize the cost impacts to these businesses. Additional mitigation 

may be achieved by taking advantage of the compliance flexibility offered by the 

existing Innovative Product Provision (IPP) and the Alternative Control Plan (ACP) 

Regulation (see Subsection I of this Chapter). Because the change on the return on 

owners’ equity (ROE) has been determined to be quite low, the proposed measures 

would not significantly alter the profitability of most businesses. Further, we do not 

expect a noticeable change in employment; business creation, elimination or expansion; 

and business competitiveness in California. 

a. Return on Owners’ Equity

 This portion of the economic impacts analysis is based on a comparison of the 

ROE for affected businesses before and after inclusion of the cost to comply with the 

proposed requirements. The data used in this analysis are obtained from Dun and 

Bradstreet Industry Norms and Key Business Ratio (D&B, 2006-2007), the ARB’s 2003 

Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Survey), and the staff’s CE analysis 

discussed later in this Chapter. 

 b. Affected Businesses

 Any business which manufactures or markets consumer products subject to the 

proposed new limits and requirements can be directly affected by this regulation. Also 

potentially affected are businesses which supply raw materials or equipment to 

manufacturers or marketers, and those that distribute or sell consumer products in 

California. The focus of this analysis, however, will be on manufacturers, marketers, 

and distributors that are most affected by the proposed measures. 

 The consumer products subject to the proposed measures are manufactured, 

marketed, or distributed by a large number of companies worldwide. According to the 

2003 Survey, there are about 300 companies that market the affected products in 

California. These companies manufacture, market, and distribute a broad range of 

solvent, adhesive, household, and personal care products, including an estimated total 

of 2,366 complying and 1,535 noncomplying products (based on reported figures). Of 

the companies manufacturing these products, about 60 firms (mostly medium- or smallsized firms) are located in California. 

 These 300 companies fall primarily into 5 North American Industry Classification 

System codes (NAICS). A list of these industries which we have been able to identify is 

provided in Table VII-1. As shown in Table VII-1, the industries with the most 

noncomplying products fall under the NAICS for Lubricant Manufacturing; Adhesive 

Manufacturing; Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing, Toilet Preparation 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 153 

Manufacturing and All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing. 

Table VII-1 

Industries with Businesses Potentially Affected by the Proposed Limits 

NAICS* Industry

Number of 

Product 

Categories*

Number of 

Noncompliant 

Products**

Includes: 

324191 Lubricant Manufacturing 2 226 

Multi-Purpose Lubricant –

excluding solid & semisolid; 

Penetrant 

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 2 271 

Sealant or Caulking Compound – 

Chemically Curing; 

 Sealant or Caulking Compound 

– Non-Chemically Curing 

325612

Polish & Other Sanitation Good 

Manufacturing 10 637 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; 

Dusting Aid; Fabric Protectant; 

 Fabric Softener – Single Use 

Dryer Product; Floor 

Maintenance Product; Floor 

Polish or Wax; Glass Cleaner; 

Odor Remover/Eliminator; 

Pressurized Gas Duster; Spot 

Remover 

325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 2 498 

Astringent/Toner (non-FDA 

regulated); Personal Fragrance 

Product – 20% or less fragrance 

325998

All Other Miscellaneous Chemical 

Product & Preparation 

Manufacturing 3 140 

Motor Vehicle Wash; 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner; 

Windshield Water Repellent 

 *As reported in the 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. (ARB, 2004a) 

** Some noncomplying products may relate to more than one NAICS code. Number of products may be different 

than those indicated in Table VII-5, due to calculations based on representative product size. 

 c. Study Approach

 This study covers 5 industries with at least 300 affected businesses. The 

approach used in evaluating the potential economic impact of the proposed measures 

on these businesses is as follows: 

 

(1) A typical business from each product category was selected from the 2003 

Survey respondents. 

(2) A range of compliance costs were estimated for each affected product 

category. The mid-range cost for each category was used in this analysis. 

(3) Compliance cost to a typical business was then estimated based on a 

weighted average of all product category costs in an affected industry. 

(4) Estimated cost was adjusted for federal and State taxes. 

(5) The Return on Owner’s equity (ROE) was calculated for each of these 

businesses by dividing the net profit by the net worth. The adjusted cost 

was then subtracted from net profit data. The results were used to 

calculate an adjusted ROE. The adjusted ROE was then compared with 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 154 

the ROE before the subtraction of the cost to determine the potential 

impact on the profitability of the business. 

 A reduction of more than 10 percent in profitability is considered to indicate a 

potential for significant adverse economic impacts. This value has been used 

consistently by the ARB staff to determine impact severity (ARB,1990c; ARB, 1991a; 

ARB, 1995; ARB, 1997b; ARB, 1999; ARB, 2004b; and ARB, 2006a). This threshold is 

consistent with the thresholds used by the U.S. EPA. 

d. Assumptions

 This study uses 2004-2006 Dun and Bradstreet financial data for a nationwide 

typical business in each affected industry except for Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 

and All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation manufacturing where 

2005 and 2004-2005 Dun and Bradstreet financial data were used, respectively, due to 

lack of complete financial data. These data were used to calculate the ROEs before 

and after the subtraction of the compliance costs for a typical business in each industry 

listed in Table VII-1. The calculations were based on the following assumptions: 

(1) A typical business on a nationwide basis in each industry is representative 

of a typical California business in that industry; 

(2) All affected businesses were subject to federal and State tax rates of 

35 percent and 9.3 percent respectively; and 

(3) Affected businesses are not able to increase the prices of their products, 

nor can they lower their costs of doing business through short-term costcutting measures. 

 Given the limitation of available data, staff believes these assumptions are 

reasonable for most businesses at least in the short run; however, they may not be 

applicable to all businesses. 

 e. Results

 Typical California businesses are affected by the proposed new limits to the 

extent that the implementation of these requirements would change their profitability. 

Based on our assessment of the proposed limits’ CE (see Subsection E of this 

Chapter), we estimate the per-business compliance costs to range from about $1,700

(low cost for typical Penetrant manufacturer) to about $54,000 per year (high cost for 

typical Multi-Purpose Lubricant manufacturer) as shown in Table VII-2. Table VII-7 also 

shows total mid-range, per product cost of about $14,000 per year.
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 155 

Table VII-2 

Estimated Total Impacts to Businesses from Both Annualized Nonrecurring and 

Annual Recurring Costs 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 156 

 Using ROE to measure profitability, we found that the average ROE of sample 

businesses in affected industries declined by about 2.5 percent as shown in 

Table VII-3. This represents a minor change in the average profitability of typical 

businesses in California. 

Table VII-3 

Changes in Return on Owner’s Equity (ROEs) for Typical Businesses in 

Affected Industries

NAICS* Industry % Change 

in ROE

324191 Lubricant Manufacturing 2.8 

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 4.0 

325612 Polish & Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing 2.8 

325620 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing 2.4 

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product & Preparation 

Manufacturing 

0.7 

Average 2.5 

Note: Changes in ROE mean change or difference; all changes in ROEs shown are negative (i.e., shows 

a decline in profitability). 

 

 As shown in Table VII-3, the projected change in profitability of typical 

businesses in the 5 affected industries varies by industry sector. Within the NAICS 

shown, the predicted change (decline) in profitability of a typical business ranged from a 

high of about 4.0 percent to a low of 0.7 percent. This variation in the impact of the 

proposed measures can be attributed primarily to two factors. First, some businesses 

incur higher costs due to the type of products or the number of noncompliant products 

they manufacture or market. For instance, the estimated annualized costs for typical 

businesses in each affected industry ranged from a high of approximately $35,000 to a 

low of about $5,000. These values are a product weighted average cost of the 

respective annualized costs for all products. Second, the performance of businesses 

may differ from year to year. Hence, the financial data used may not be representative 

of an average-year performance for some businesses. 

 The potential impacts to businesses’ ROEs may be overestimated for the 

following reasons. First, annualized costs of compliance are estimated using, in part, 

the current prices of raw materials. Raw material prices usually tend to rise as oil prices 

increase, but tend to fall as higher demand for these materials induces economy of 

scale production in the long run. Second, affected businesses would not absorb all of 

the increase in their costs of doing business. They may be able to either pass some of 

the cost on to consumers in the form of higher prices, reduce their costs, or do both. 

 In this analysis, as in 2004 and 2006, we allocated nonrecurring reformulation 

costs only to the noncomplying products. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 157 

 3. Potential Impact on Business Creation, Elimination or Expansion 

 The proposed measures would have no noticeable impact on the status of 

California businesses. This is because the reformulation costs are not expected to 

impose a significant impact on the profitability of businesses in California. However, 

some small businesses with little or no margin of profitability may lack the financial 

resources to reformulate their products on a timely basis. Should the proposed 

measures impose significant hardship on these businesses, temporary relief in the form 

of a compliance date extension under the variance provision may be warranted. 

 On the other hand, the proposed measures may provide business opportunities 

for some California businesses or result in the creation of new businesses. California 

businesses which supply raw materials and equipment or provide consulting services to 

affected industries may benefit from increased industry spending on reformulation. 

 4. Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness 

The proposed measures would have no significant impact on the ability of 

California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Because the 

proposed measures would apply to all businesses that manufacture or market certain 

consumer products regardless of their location, the staff’s proposal should not present 

any economic disadvantages specific to California businesses. 

 Nonetheless, the proposed measures may have an adverse impact on the 

competitive position of some small, marginal businesses in California if these 

businesses lack resources to develop commercially acceptable products in a timely 

manner. As stated above, such impacts can be mitigated to a degree with a justifiable 

compliance extension under the variance provision of the Consumer Products 

Regulation, or through additional regulatory flexibility afforded by the IPP or the ACP 

Regulation (see Subsection H). 

 5. Potential Impact on California Consumers 

The potential impact of the proposed measures on consumers depends upon the ability 

of affected businesses to pass on the cost increases to consumers. In the short run, 

competitive market forces may prevent businesses from passing their cost increases on 

to consumers. Thus, we do not expect a significant change in retail prices in the short 

run. In the long run, however, if businesses are unable to bring down their costs of 

doing business they will likely pass their cost increases on to consumers. 

 To estimate the price increase, we adjusted per unit compliance costs for each 

affected industry by its profit margin as provided by Dun and Bradstreet. Assuming 

affected industries will pass on the entire compliance costs to consumers in terms of 

higher prices, we estimate the average price of a product would increase by about 

$0.03 per unit. Product price increases, however, would vary from industry to industry. 

They would range from a low of $0.01 per unit of the products sold by the Personal 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 158 

Care Products Industry to a high of about $0.05 per unit of the products sold by 

Household Care Products. 

 The proposed measures may also affect consumers adversely if they result in 

reduced performance attributes of the products. However, this scenario is unlikely to 

occur for the following reasons. First, for nearly every proposed limit, there are already 

complying products that represent significant market share in many of their respective 

categories. Thus, the industry already has the technology to manufacture compliant 

products that satisfy consumers. Second, marketers are unlikely to introduce a product 

which does not meet their consumers’ expectations. This is because such an 

introduction would be damaging not only to the product sale, but also to the sale of 

other products sold under the same brand name (impairing so-called “brand loyalty”). 

Finally, the Board has provided flexibility, under the existing consumer products 

program, to businesses whose situations warrant an extension to their compliance 

dates. For companies that can justify such variances, the additional time may afford 

more opportunity to explore different formulation, cost-cutting, performance-enhancing, 

or other marketing strategies which can help make the transition to new complying 

products nearly transparent to consumers. 

 6. Potential Impact on California Employment 

 The proposed measures are not expected to cause a noticeable change in 

California employment and payroll. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, 

California employment in industries affected by the proposed measures was 13,885 in 

2005, as shown in Table VII-4, or about 9.7 percent of national employment in the 

affected industries. This represents less than 1 percent of manufacturing employment 

in California. These employees working in the 458 establishments generated about 

$667 million in payroll, or about 9.4 percent of national payroll in the affected industries. 

This also accounts for less than 1 percent of the total California manufacturing payroll in 

2005. 

D. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CALIFORNIA STATE OR LOCAL 

AGENCIES 

We have identified two State agencies that could/or would be impacted. The 

California Prison Industry Authority (PIA) manufactures and markets consumer products 

for use in State service. This is the only State agency we are aware of that makes 

consumer products. The PIA manufactures a drain maintainer, which could be subject 

to the proposed six percent limit for non-aerosol Odor Remover/Eliminator. This 

product, if subject, would meet the proposed new limit for Odor Removers/Eliminators. 

The PIA also sells bar soaps, powder bleaches, liquid glass cleaners, liquid 

multipurpose cleaner and degreasers, floor finishes, and liquid and powder detergents 

(PIA, 2008). The proposed measures do not affect these categories and, as such, will 

not have an impact on the PIA. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 159 

Table VII-4 

California Employment and Payroll in Affected Industries 

NAICS

Number of Employees Payroll

 California CA Share as % of US California 

 (million in 2005$)

CA Share as % 

of US 

324191 720 5.4 39,807 5.5 

325520 2,452 11.9 130,584 12.4 

325612 1,081 6.0 44,846 5.2 

325620 7,542 13.3 346,387 13.2 

325998 2,090 5.9 105,257 5.9 

Total 13,885 9.7 666,881 9.4 

Source: (U.S. Census, 2005) 

 The Air Resources Board (ARB) would have costs associated with adoption of 

the proposed amendments. Adoption of the amendments would necessitate an 

increase in ARB staff to properly enforce the Consumer Products Regulation. These 

proposed amendments are setting new limits for a number of previously unregulated 

categories. It has been determined that to enforce these new limits, two ARB staff will 

be needed. This would result in an increased cost to the State of approximately 

$300,000 per year. 

E. ANALYSIS OF THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS (CE) OF THE PROPOSED 

LIMITS

 1. Introduction 

 In the following analysis, we evaluated the anticipated CE of the proposed new 

limits. Such an evaluation allows us to compare the efficiency of the proposed limits in 

reducing a pound of VOC or a metric ton of CO2e relative to other existing regulatory 

programs. To do this, we applied a well-established methodology for converting 

compliance costs, both nonrecurring and recurring, to an annual basis. We then report 

the ratio of the annualized costs to the annual emission reductions in terms of “dollars 

(to be) spent per pound of VOC reduced or metric ton of CO2e reduced in the case of 

Pressurized Gas Duster. For perspective, we compare the estimated cost-effectiveness 

of the proposed limits to the cost-effectiveness of other ARB regulations and control 

measures. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 160 

2. Methodology 

 The CE of a reduction strategy is generally defined as the ratio of total dollars to 

be spent to comply with the strategy (as an annual cost) to the mass reduction of the 

pollutant(s) to be achieved by complying with that strategy (in annual pounds or metric 

tons). Annual costs include annualized nonrecurring fixed costs (e.g., total research 

and development (R&D), product and consumer testing, equipment 

purchases/modifications, etc.) and annual recurring costs (e.g., raw materials, labeling, 

packaging, etc.). 

 

 We annualized nonrecurring fixed costs using the Capital Recovery Method, as 

recommended under guidelines issued by the California Environmental Protection 

Agency (Cal/EPA). Using this method, we multiply the estimated total fixed costs to 

comply with the limits by the Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) to convert these costs into 

equal annual payments over a project horizon (i.e., the projected useful life of the 

investment) at a discount rate. We then sum the annualized fixed costs with the annual 

recurring costs and divide that sum by the annual emission 

reductions to calculate the cost-effectiveness of the regulation, as shown by the 

following general equation: 

Cost-Effectiveness 

= (Annualized Fixed Costs) + (Annual Recurring Cost) 

 (Annual Mass Reduction in VOC) 

 

 

where: 

Annualized Fixed Costs = 

 

 i(1+i)n/((1+i)n-1) = Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) 

 i = discount interest rate over project horizon, % 

 n = number of years in project horizon 

 Fixed Costs = total nonrecurring cost per product category 

 = (Nonrecurring Cost per Product) x (Total 

Noncompliant Products in the Category)

 As shown by the raw materials cost analyses in Appendix D, a convenient 

method for estimating the annual recurring cost portion of overall cost-effectiveness is to 

separate Equation (1) into two fractions, one for the nonrecurring costs and one for the 

recurring costs. It can then be shown that the CE fraction for recurring costs can be 

simplified and calculated as follows: 

- 1

n

(1 i)+

n

(1 i i)+

(Fixed Costs) x 

(1) 

(2) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 161 

Annual 

Recurring Costs CE= 

where, 

 

 Baseline Materials Cost = cost of raw materials for product before 

reformulation to the proposed limit $/lb product 

 Baseline VOC Content = product VOC weight fraction before 

reformulation to limit, lb VOC/lb product 

 Compliant Materials Cost = cost of raw materials for compliant product, $/lb 

product 

 Compliant VOC Content = product VOC weight fraction of compliant 

product, lb VOC/lb product. 

 In the case of Pressurized Gas Duster, the calculations are similar except that in 

place of VOC content, product GWP value content is used. To use Equation (3), staff 

determined typical VOC or GWP value content of both compliant and noncompliant 

products in each of the product categories/subcategories, based on sales data and the 

speciated formulations as reported by manufacturers in the ARB’s 2003 Survey. To the 

extent feasible, staff determined the detailed formulations that most closely reflect the 

“typical” compliant and noncompliant VOC or GWP value contents. These formulations, 

in turn, were designated as compliant and baseline formulations, respectively (See 

Appendix D). 

 For most ingredients, we used the most recent, distributor-level bulk prices from 

the ICIS Chemical Business web site (ICIS, 2008). Costs for other ingredients were 

obtained from discussions with chemical suppliers, or from web searches of analytical 

grade chemicals. All of these data sources were used to calculate the baseline and 

compliant material costs based on these designated formulations shown in Appendix D. 

Inorganic compounds were assigned a low and high cost of $0.09 and $0.91 per pound 

based on the costs found of the most common inorganic compounds found in the 

product categories. Other unspecified ingredients or ingredients for which prices were 

unknown were grouped into an “all others” classification and assigned a default low and 

high cost of $3.50 and $7.00 per pound, respectively (ARB, 1997c). These analyses 

are shown in Appendix D and discussed in more detail in “Analysis of Impacts to Raw 

Materials Cost” later in this section. 

 We used a very similar methodology to determine the CE of the proposal to 

reduce the potency of greenhouse gas emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters, as 

described above. Instead of evaluating costs relative to VOC reductions, for 

Pressurized Gas Dusters we evaluated the costs of reducing GHG emissions equivalent 

to reducing a metric ton of carbon dioxide. 

(BaselineVOC Content) - (CompliantVOC Content)

(Compliant Materials Cost) - (Baseline Materials Cost)

(3) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 162 

 3. Assumptions 

 We calculated the CE with an assumed project horizon of 10 years, a commonly 

cited period for an investment’s useful lifetime in the chemical processing industry. We 

also assumed a fixed interest rate of 10 percent throughout the project horizon. These 

assumptions are conservative and constitute standard practice in CE analyses of air 

pollution regulations, including previous consumer product rulemakings. Based on 

these assumptions, the Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) is 0.16275. 

 For this rulemaking, we assumed products reformulated to meet the proposed 

limits will be marketed throughout the U.S. by national marketers (ARB, 1997b). We 

earlier determined that businesses generally formulate for, and distribute to the entire 

nation, products compliant with our regulations rather than incurring the additional cost 

of setting up a California specific product distribution system. We believe the same 

strategy will be employed by companies subject to the proposed new limits. We, 

therefore, assumed in the Midterm II analysis in 1999 that, for the annualized fixed cost 

portion of Equation (1), it was appropriate to use the fixed cost for national production 

divided by the national emission reductions. 

 However, an alternative but equivalent approach, which we used in the 2004 and 

2006 analyses, and in this analysis, is to report the California-apportioned (by 

population) annualized fixed cost divided by the California-apportioned emission 

reductions. To illustrate, a manufacturer may need to install $10 million worth of 

equipment to produce its national sales volume of products compliant with the proposed 

limits. However, if the company were to produce a California and 49-state product, the 

company may only need to install $1 million worth of equipment to produce unit sales 

sufficient for the smaller California market. Using this alternative approach, we 

discounted the total fixed costs for producing national sales volumes by the Californiaapportionment factor (i.e., the current ratio of California to U.S. population, or 

12.5 percent (CA DOF, 2007)), which we then divided by the California-only emission 

reductions. It is important to note that, while both of the approaches described above -- 

the national marketing and California-only approaches -- reach the same conclusion, 

they do so for different reasons as discussed above. 

 For the annual recurring costs, we assumed compliant reformulations would 

result in cost changes as a result of changes in a product’s raw materials and their 

associated prices. Changes in packaging, labeling, distribution and other recurring 

costs were assumed to be negligible relative to baseline levels of these costs. This 

assumption is based on our previous regulatory experiences. To illustrate, in 1996, we 

conducted a comprehensive technical assessment of the 55 percent by weight VOC 

hairspray limit, which required extensive reformulations to existing products (ARB, 

1997c). The hairspray limit is generally considered to be among the most challenging of 

the consumer product limits; it likely resulted in more changes to the regulated product, 

relative to pre-regulatory products, than any other VOC limit. However, our assessment 

found that changes to recurring costs other than hairspray raw material costs were 

expected to be negligible (ARB, 1997c). Based on this finding and because the 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 163 

proposed new limits are designed to preserve product forms, we believe our 

assumptions regarding the recurring costs are reasonable. 

 4. Results 

 A review of relevant technical literature and industry trade journals provided little 

information that we could use to estimate costs directly. This is not surprising, because 

the consumer products industry is very competitive, and production cost data specific to 

a company are closely-guarded trade secrets. We have received significant comments 

regarding our assumptions for fixed costs from specific interested parties. We worked 

with these industry representatives to obtain new, updated, substantiated fixed cost 

data. The information we received generally confirms our cost assumptions to be 

correct. We therefore developed estimates for the nonrecurring costs based on 

analogous costs reported by ARB staff for the Phase II consumer products rulemaking 

(Id, Appendix D1). The Phase II nonrecurring costs are applicable for this analysis 

since they were based on staff’s detailed estimates of labor, research and development, 

equipment purchase, and other costs involved in product reformulations for generic 

household, automotive, and personal care categories, all of which are impacted by 

proposed limits. This is the same approach we used for the 1997 Mid-Term Measures 

rulemaking, the 1999 Mid-Term Measures II rulemaking, and the 2004 and 2006 

rulemakings. 

 The Phase II nonrecurring investment costs, reported in 1991 dollars, were 

adjusted to 2007 dollars using a well-established method of ratioing chemical 

engineering plant cost indices as follows (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1980): 

)4(

C.E.1991 Index

C.E. 2007 Index

10

Non Recurring Costs (in 1991dollars) Non - Recurring Costs (in 2007 dollars) ×−

=

where, 

 CE 2007 index = 2007 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index = 525.0

 (Chemical Engineering, April 2008). 

 CE 1991 index = 1991 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index = 361.3 

 (Chemical Engineering, April 1997). 

 

 We believe the original Phase II cost estimates were beneficial at the time of the 

rulemaking for predicting the costs to comply with those limits. However, it was 

discovered during Midterm II that these original cost estimates grossly overestimated 

the true nonrecurring costs for Phase II by a factor of ten (ARB, 1999, op cit. at Vol II, 

Chapter VII, Page 211). We therefore estimated the nonrecurring costs for the 

proposed new limits by adjusting the Phase II estimates to be consistent as shown in 

Equation (4). 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 164 

 Table VII-5 shows our estimates for per-product and total annualized 

nonrecurring costs for each of the product categories/subcategories subject to the 

proposed limits. 

 As shown, we project a per-product annualized nonrecurring cost ranging from a

low of about $8,000 to a high of about $243,000. With 1,535 noncompliant products 

that would need to be reformulated, the overall total annualized fixed cost to industry is 

projected to range from about $4 million to just about $16 million dollars per year, with a 

general breakdown of this range as follows: automotive care products (2 percent), 

household care products (72 percent), personal care products (16 percent) and 

adhesives (10 percent). 

 Our analysis shows that the CE of the proposed requirements is higher than the 

CE of other rulemakings for consumer products or the Suggested Control Measure for 

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings. We estimate the total overall CE of 

the initial proposed limits and other requirements to be about $6.23 per pound of VOC 

reduced, and about $0.22 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent reduced. 

 It should be noted that a contributing factor to the total average cost per pound of 

VOC reduced is that the VOC emission reductions achieved from some of the proposed 

limits specific to individual categories may be quite low. A limit may have been set 

largely as a cap, with the few reductions being achieved resulting in a few VOC 

reductions and a low CE. While the costs incurred by manufacturers to reformulate 

small categories is not excessive, when those costs are apportioned to a relatively small 

emission reduction, the CE may appear low (high cost per pound of VOC reduced). 

Therefore, when presenting the overall CE of the proposal, one should consider the 

effect of relatively low CE in some categories.

 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 165 

Table VII-5 

Estimated Total Nonrecurring Fixed Costs to Comply with Proposed Limits 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 166 

 Table VII-6 shows a comparison of the CE for the proposed limits relative to 

other ARB consumer product regulations and control measures. As expected, costs for 

the proposed amendments are higher than other recent consumer products measures. 

These higher costs can be attributed to regulating smaller emitting and/or more 

challenging categories than in the past. 

Table VII-6 

Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for ARB Consumer Product 

Regulations/Measures 

Regulation/Control Measure 

Cost-Effectiveness 

(Dollars per Pound VOC Reduced)

2008 Amendments $6.23 

2006 Amendments1$2.35 

2004 Amendments1$2.01 to $2.34 

Aerosol Adhesives2$6.00 

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance 

Coatings3

$1.12 

 1 Categories where reduction of toxic air contaminant emissions occurred were included (ARB, 

2004b; ARB, 2006a). 

2 ARB, 2000c. 

3 Suggested Control Measure, developed with the California Air Pollution Control Officers 

Association (ARB, 2007i). 

F. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS TO RAW MATERIALS COST 

1. Introduction 

 As part of the economic impact analysis, we evaluated the expected cost impacts 

from the proposed limits on raw material costs. As stated previously, the raw material 

costs generally constitute the major portion of the compliance costs for most categories. 

However, evaluating the impacts to raw material costs provides only an indicator of 

possible impacts to the retail prices of the affected products (assuming the cost impacts 

are passed on partially or fully to consumers). Because of unpredictable factors such 

as the highly competitive nature of the consumer products market, it is not possible to 

accurately predict the final retail price of products that will comply with the proposed 

limits when they become effective. To the extent the cost impacts are passed on to 

consumers, the final retail prices may be lower or higher than suggested by this 

analysis. 

 2. Methodology 

 As discussed previously, staff determined the formulations which most closely 

reflect the “typical” compliant and noncompliant VOC contents. These formulations, in 

turn, were designated as compliant and non-compliant formulations, respectively. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 167 

Distributor-level ingredient prices from ICIS Chemical Business website (ICIS, 2008), 

and chemical materials distributors were used to calculate the baseline and compliant 

material costs for these formulations. Sources of cost information were used for 

selected ingredients as discussed previously. Other than compounds specifically 

requested, the 2003 Survey did not ask for specific ingredient details for exempt, 

fragrance, some low vapor pressure VOCs, and inorganic compounds. Unspecified 

ingredients or ingredients for which prices were unknown were grouped into an “all 

others” classification and assigned a default low and high cost of $3.50 and $7.00 per 

pound, respectively (ARB, 1997b), with the exception of fragrance which was assumed 

to have a default low and high cost of $5.00 and $10.00 per pound respectively. 

However, inorganic compounds tend to be less expensive and using the default low and 

high cost would not give an accurate representation of inorganic compound cost. 

Therefore inorganic compounds were assigned a low and high cost of $0.09 and $0.91 

per pound based on the costs found of the most common inorganic compounds found in 

the product categories. These analyses and the formulations evaluated (with individual 

weight fractions and unit prices per pound) are shown as cost spreadsheets in 

Appendix D. While these formulations may not reflect the exact composition of existing 

noncompliant products and compliant products that will be marketed, we believe they 

are reasonably representative for the purposes of this analysis. 

 3. Assumptions 

 As noted previously, we assumed changes in packaging, labeling, distribution 

and other recurring costs to be negligible relative to baseline levels of these costs (ARB, 

1997b. The most likely pathway for reformulation was assumed for noncompliant 

products. Despite this assumption, alternative formulations may allow lower-cost 

compliant products than shown in our analysis. 

 4. Results 

 As shown in Table VII-7, the anticipated raw materials cost changes range from 

no cost (net savings or no cost) to about $0.63 increase per unit (for Floor Polish or 

Wax – Wood Floor Wax).
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 168 

Table VII-7 

Estimated Impacts to Raw Materials Cost Per Unit 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 169 

Table VII-7 

Estimated Impacts to Raw Materials Cost Per Unit (continued) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 170 

 Table VII-8 shows a comparison of the impacts to raw materials cost under the 

proposed limits relative to those of other ARB consumer product regulations. 

Table VII-8 

Comparison of Raw Materials Cost Impacts for the Proposed Limits and Other 

ARB Consumer Product Regulations (unadjusted dollars) 

Regulation 

Cost Impacts 

(Dollars per Unit of Product) 

2008 Amendments $0.00 to $0.63 

2006 Amendments1$0.00 to $0.44 

2004 Amendments2$0.00 to $0.77 

Mid-Term Measures II3$0.00 to $0.25 

Aerosol Adhesives4$0.00 to $0.60 

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance 

Coatings5 

$0.00 to $4.40 

1. (ARB, 2006a) 

2. (ARB, 2004b) 

3. (ARB, 1999) 

4. (ARB, 2000c) 

5. Suggested Control Measure, developed with the California Air Pollution Control Officers 

Association (ARB, 2007i) 

G. ANALYSIS OF THE COMBINED IMPACTS ON PER-UNIT COST FROM 

RECURRING AND NONRECURRING COSTS

 1. Introduction 

 In this analysis, we evaluated the combined impacts of both recurring (i.e., raw 

materials costs) and nonrecurring costs from the proposed limits on per-unit costs. 

Although the raw material costs generally constitute the major portion of the compliance 

costs, in some categories, the nonrecurring (fixed) cost was the major contributor. In 

performing this analysis, we used the fixed costs, raw material costs, assumptions, and 

other facts discussed previously. 

 2. Methodology 

 

 Nonrecurring Costs

 Historically, staff has considered a variety of costs in its calculations to determine 

the costs of complying with proposed VOC limits affecting consumer products. In the 

1991 Phase II Consumer Products Rulemaking, staff developed a methodology to 

determine nonrecurring reformulation costs (non-raw material costs) for proposed VOC 

limits. These costs were broken down by each process needed for reformulation to 

occur (ARB, 1991a). It was subsequently determined through a thorough cost analysis 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 171 

of the reformulations that was done to comply with the 55 percent by weight VOC limit 

for hairspray, that these costs were overestimated by a factor of 10. It was widely 

believed that the 55 percent by weight VOC limit for hairspray represented the most 

aggressive, challenging, and expensive reformulation that had been required by the 

Consumer Products Regulations. Therefore, subsequent cost analyses grew the 

factors by the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index then divided these reformulation 

factors by 10 (see Section C, Equation (4)). 

 There are many variables in producing a product for market, and assumptions 

about those variables will greatly affect the outcome of any cost analysis. For each 

assumption, a test of “reasonableness” was applied to determine if this was a likely 

approach to take or if the event had a high probability of occurring. Results were also 

compared to data provided by other agencies and industry to verify that the numbers 

are “reasonable.” Significant input regarding reformulation costs have been provided by 

industry representatives. In all cases, only new or additional costs were considered. 

Costs were not considered that would have been expected in the normal course of 

business if the regulation had not been in effect. 

 To estimate nonrecurring cost numbers, the staff considered two cost estimate 

approaches for each product category, one for low cost, and one for high cost, with a 

different set of assumptions for each approach. To further refine the analyses, the 

product categories proposed for regulation were grouped under “adhesives,” 

“automotive,” “household care,” and “personal care” to better reflect the impact on each 

category. 

 3. Approach 

 For a systematic approach to the cost analysis, the entire time from initial 

statement of development goals to final delivery of the new product to the marketplace 

shelves was divided into eight phases. The phases are: product development, 

including reformulation and development of a new delivery system if necessary; stability 

testing; efficacy testing; safety testing; labeling modification; registration with regulatory 

agencies, if necessary; manufacturing change; and marketing. The length of time in 

each phase was estimated based on an industry analysis of 80 new product 

innovations. Most of the phases occur in sequence; however, there is some time 

overlap in each phase. 

 

 Next, estimated personnel resources were allocated against each phase 

considering the most probable types of skills needed including general engineering; 

technician; drafting; packaging engineering; specification engineering; model making; 

chemical engineering; technical publication; production support; quality assurance; 

marketing; warehousing; word processing; and clerical. For high cost elements, 

additional personnel were allocated to each phase. 

 After the personnel costs were determined, additional cost elements were 

considered at each phase and added as appropriate. These cost elements are facility; 

equipment; tool; jig; fixture and miscellaneous materials handling equipment; purchased 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 172 

material; packaging; distribution; warehousing; technical data; research studies and 

tests; promotional literature; residual inventory and disposal; consumer tests; general 

and administrative expense; patent; registration fees; and computer support. The result 

of these considerations is a per-product cost for developing a reformulated product and 

putting it on the market. 

 4. Assumptions 

 The staff used different assumptions for the low and high cost analyses, and 

considered the specific likelihood that each of the cost elements would occur for each 

product category individually. In reviewing the 2003 Survey, staff found that many of 

the products which would technically be noncomplying are within a couple of 

percentage points of VOC weight from being in compliance with the standard. These 

products may require only minor modification to their current formulation to come into 

compliance. Therefore, for the low cost analysis no major costs were added for 

changing delivery systems or other product attributes. 

 In addition, it is common that large companies having significant market-share 

and broad product lines offer both low VOC complying products and higher VOC 

noncomplying products. In many cases, relatively low costs would be incurred where 

these companies could increase sales and distribution of complying products and 

discontinue noncomplying products. 

 If products do not change significantly, it is assumed that major retooling of 

manufacturing equipment would not be required, technical data changes would be 

minor, and the change in marketing costs would be small. It was also assumed that 

these reformulated products would be marketed nationally. 

 For the high cost approach, each category was analyzed individually to 

determine which of the elements, discussed above, manufacturers would likely include 

in their reformulation efforts. High costs for specific steps of the reformulation process 

were only included in the cost analysis where staff believed they were likely to occur. 

If staff believed a markedly different product would be needed to comply with the 

proposed limit, such as a new delivery system, then high personnel and capital 

resources, especially in product development and manufacturing changes, were 

assumed. In addition, a new delivery system would require investment for prototypes, 

new filling machines training, and technical data, so these high costs were also included 

in these scenarios. Additional costs were also added for packaging, distribution and 

warehousing. In areas where it was expected that little or no reformulation would occur, 

or that the cost of reformulation would be minimal, the value for low cost was used 

(Tire or Wheel Cleaner, Motor Vehicle Wash). 

 For especially challenging limits, it was assumed for the high cost approach that, 

because of a markedly different product, there would also be additional marketing costs, 

including research studies and tests, promotional literature, and consumer tests. These 

costs vary by the type of product, with household products typically having a larger 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 173 

expense in this area. The cost analysis did not include the costs for an extensive 

advertising campaign. New products are regularly brought onto the market, and the 

advertising for a new product, whether reformulated or not, would replace the 

advertising for the existing product, and would be a normal cost. It was assumed that 

the new product would be marketed nationally. 

 The staff also recognized that development of a new product does not occur in 

isolation. Few companies have only one product line; for those that have more than 

one product line, the product lines can be very similar. Development and production 

tasks, from the initial concept through marketing, would be proceeding simultaneously 

on more than one product line, with a transfer of information and work-sharing between 

the products. For these companies, this “technology transfer” would substantially 

reduce the cost of developing and marketing a new product on a per product basis. 

For categories where the majority of products were held by a few companies it was 

assumed that this “technology transfer” would occur, and high costs adjusted 

accordingly. 

 Therefore, staff has considered only nonrecurring costs that are likely to occur on 

a per category basis. If it was determined that for a majority of products in the category, 

the most likely scenario was that only minor changes to the product’s reformulation 

were necessary to comply with the new proposed limit then only the lower end of the 

nonrecurring cost was included. For some categories, it was appropriate, based on the 

variety of products and reformulation approaches needed to meet the proposed limit, 

that certain high cost factors be included in the analysis, but not others, on a case-bycase basis. We believe that this approach gives a more realistic estimate of the costs of 

a given limit. 

 5. Results 

 As shown in Table VII-9, the combined fixed and raw material cost changes to 

per-unit production costs ranged from no cost increase (net savings or no cost for 

various categories) to about $2.05 per unit (for 1 gallon of non-aerosol Penetrant). 

Averaged over all of the noncomplying products affected by the proposed limits and 

other requirements, the product-weighted average cost increase is about $0.20 per unit. 

H. OTHER POSSIBLE ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED 

AMENDMENTS 

Beyond the VOC and GHG limits, there are other proposed amendments to the 

Consumer Products Regulation, some of which may have a potential economic impact 

on affected businesses. While we do not expect any significant economic impact from 

any of the proposals, it is possible that there could be some increased cost to business 

resulting from proposed changes. 

 Some products that do not need to reformulate, because they already comply 

with the VOC limits, may need to relabel because of other proposed changes to the 

regulation. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 174 

Table VII-9 

Estimated Per-Unit Cost Increases from Both Annualized Nonrecurring and 

Annual Recurring Costs 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 175 

 We expect that businesses will benefit economically from the exemption of HFE 

7200 from the definition of VOC, because it could offer more formulation flexibility. 

There may be minimal reformulation costs incurred by those very few companies 

that use chlorinated solvents in those categories for which staff has proposed to prohibit 

the toxic compounds. 

I. MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS THROUGH ADDITIONAL 

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY

 If adopted by the Board, the proposed limits will be incorporated in section 94509 

of the Consumer Products Regulation (title 17, California Code of Regulations, 

sections 94507-94517). To complement the mandatory VOC limits specified in section 

94509, the existing consumer products program provides a very high degree of 

compliance flexibility, through two voluntary, market-based programs: the IPP and the 

ACP Regulation. These options could be evaluated to minimize cost impacts. The IPP 

(section 94511) allows qualified manufacturers to sell products that have VOC contents 

greater than the applicable VOC limit, provided they demonstrate that such products 

actually emit less VOCs than representative products that comply with the VOC limit. 

Using the emissions averaging approach, the ACP is a voluntary regulation 

(title 17, CCR, sections 94540-94555) designed to allow multi-product VOC averaging 

as an alternative means of complying with the VOC limits. 

 Various manufacturers have formulated technologically-advanced IPP products 

that are more concentrated, higher in efficacy, or have some other chemical or physical 

properties that permit users to release less VOCs when using such products. To date, 

14 manufacturers have submitted and obtained approval for 25 IPP applications 

involving 23 products. Based on their participation in the program, it is reasonable to 

conclude that manufacturers are using this program to provide consumers with products 

that meet their needs, while lowering costs, improving the “market value” of their 

products, or otherwise maintaining profit margins. 

 The potential benefits of emissions averaging or “bubbling” for consumer product 

manufacturers under the ACP regulation have been documented by ARB staff (ARB, 

1994). In general, emissions averaging under approved ACPs allows manufacturers to 

choose the least-cost or other advantageous reformulation options for its product lines. 

Rather than directly complying with each and every VOC limit, manufacturers can 

choose to “overcomply” with some reformulations in order to offset the 

“undercompliance” of other product lines. The ACP regulation requires the net resulting 

emissions from products under such averaging plans to be no greater than the level 

which would have resulted had all the products under the ACP bubble directly complied 

with the applicable limits. In short, the same emission reductions are achieved while 

providing a high degree of formulation and marketing flexibility to manufacturers. To 

date, three manufacturers have implemented approved ACP averaging programs, 

reducing VOC emissions by about 4.9 million pounds more than would have occurred 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 176 

under the mandatory VOC limits. We expect that such emissions averaging will also 

benefit manufacturers subject to the proposed limits. 

 Overall, most affected businesses will benefit from the IPP and the ACP 

Regulation. Both programs are completely voluntary and impose no additional costs to 

businesses to meet their requirements other than testing and reporting requirements. 

Manufacturers who take advantage of these market-based programs presumably do so 

because it costs less than direct compliance with the limits or it provides some other 

market benefits. It should be noted that because the IPP and ACP provisions apply to 

VOC only, manufacturers of Pressurized Gas Dusters would not have the opportunity to 

use the provisions to address GWP limits. 

 According to previous staff analyses, the potential cost differential which might 

result from competition under the ACP between small and large firms would not 

necessarily cause extreme hardship on small firms. However, inclusion of the proposed 

limits in the ACP regulation may increase the level of competition for some products and 

may lead to the elimination of some marginal producers for those products. Such 

competition may also have minor impacts on California employment and payroll. 

However, the impact is expected to be positive in the long term. Any potential impacts 

on the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states are 

also expected to be minimal. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Technical Support Document for Proposed Amendments to 

the Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings. 

 September, 2007. (ARB, 2007i) 

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer 

Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regulation. 

 September 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006a) 

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresherners 

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products. May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b) 

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation Relating to 

Aerosol Adhesives. April 7, 2000. (ARB, 2000c) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 177 

5. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures II. 

 September 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999) 

6. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures I. 

 June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b) 

7. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments 

Pertaining to Hairspray in the California Consumer Products Regulation. 

 February 7, 1997. (ARB, 1997c) 

8 Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for a Proposed Statewide

Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol

Coating Products and Amendments to the Alternative Control Plan for Consumer

Products. February 3, 1995. Volume II. pp. VIII.1-VIII.20, X.1-X.13, and 

Appendix G. (ARB, 1995) 

9. Air Resources Board. Proposed Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products. 

August, 1994. (ARB, 1994) 

10. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to 

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products - Phase 

II-Technical Support Document. October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a) 

11. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technical Support Document. 

 August, 1990. (ARB, 1990c) 

12. Air Resources Board. Technical Review Group’s Proposed Architectural 

Coatings Suggested Control Measure – Staff Report. April 20, 1989. 

 (ARB, 1989c) 

13. California Department of Finance. Report: State Adds Almost 470,000 in 2006: 

2007 Population Nears 37.7 Million. May 1, 2007. (CA DOF, 2007) 

14. California Prison Industry Authority. On-Line Catalog. 2008. 

 http://catalog.pia.ca.gov/store.php?t=1210100718. (PIA, 2008) 

15. Chemical Engineering magazine. Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index. 

 April, 2008. (Chemical Engineering, 2008) 

16. Chemical Engineering magazine. Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index. 

 April, 1997. (Chemical Engineering, 1997) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 178 

17. Dun and Bradstreet. Industry Norms and Key Business Ratios. Manufacturing - 

Volume 1. SIC # 2000-2999. 2006-2007. (D&B, 2006-2007) 

18. ICIS. ICIS Chemical Business. http://icispricing.com. April 11, 2008. (ICIS, 2008) 

19. United States Census Bureau. 2005 County Business Patterns (NAICS). 

California, 31 – Manufacturing. http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpdetl.pl. 

April 22, 2008. (U.S. Census, 2005) 

Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -179

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

 In this rulemaking, ARB staff is proposing amendments to the Consumer 

Products Regulation that are designed to reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

air toxic emissions. The amendments would also reduce the use of greenhouse gas 

(GHG) compounds with high global warming potential (GWP) used in consumer 

products. 

 We have evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposed amendments on 

atmospheric processes and other media. Overall, we found that the proposed 

amendments would have beneficial effects and reduce exposure to ground-level ozone 

and air toxics. No significant adverse impacts were identified. However, several 

measures are proposed to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts to occur. In 

making these determinations, we evaluated how the proposed amendments would 

impact ground-level ozone concentrations, particulate matter (particularly secondary 

organic aerosols), climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, air toxic emission 

exposure, water quality, solid waste, and energy use. 

Staff has conducted a qualitative health risk assessment that concludes that 

because VOCs are ozone precursors, public health is further protected by reducing 

VOC emissions. Staff has also determined that ambient air and personal exposures to 

perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride (MeCl), and trichloroethylene (TCE) will 

be reduced by prohibiting the use of these chlorinated toxic air contaminants (TAC). 

Our analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the 

methods of compliance is presented in subsections C through H below. Regarding 

reasonably foreseeable mitigation measures, the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) requires an agency to identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures that 

would minimize any significant adverse environmental impacts described in the 

environmental analysis. 

A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE ANALYSIS 

 

The CEQA and ARB policy require an analysis to determine the potential 

adverse environmental impacts of proposed regulations. Because ARB’s program 

involving the adoption of regulations has been certified by the Secretary of Resources 

(see Public Resources Code section 21080.5), the CEQA environmental analysis 

requirements are allowed to be included in ARB’s Initial Statement of Reasons instead 

of preparing an environmental impact report or negative declaration. In addition, ARB 

will respond in writing to all significant environmental points raised by the public during 

the public review period or at the Board hearing. These responses will be contained in 

the Final Statement of Reasons for the proposed amendments to the Consumer 

Products Regulation. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -180

Public Resources Code section 21159 requires that the environmental impact 

analysis conducted by ARB include the following: (1) an analysis of the reasonably 

foreseeable environmental impacts of the methods of compliance; (2) an analysis of 

reasonably foreseeable feasible mitigation measures; and, (3) an analysis of reasonably 

foreseeable alternative means of compliance with the regulation. Before we present our 

analysis of the environmental impacts, for ease of the reader the proposed amendments 

are summarized in Part B. 

B. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

1. Proposed VOC Standards 

Staff is proposing to establish new or lower VOC limits for multiple categories. 

These limits would reduce VOC emissions by about 5.8 tons per day when fully 

effective. The proposed amendments to reduce VOC emissions would partially fulfill the 

consumer product reduction commitment contained in the 2007 Strategy to meet the 

federal ozone standard. 

 

2. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure 

We are proposing an amendment to reduce the use of GHG with high GWP in 

Pressurized Gas Duster products. Pressurized Gas Duster products would not be 

allowed to contain a compound that has a GWP of 150 or greater. This proposal would 

essentially eliminate use of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) 134a in this category. In 2010, we 

anticipate that this measure would achieve a reduction equivalent to reducing of 

0.20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year. 

To ensure that the VOC content of these products does not increase as a result 

of reformulation to meet the GWP limit, a 1 percent by weight, including fragrance, VOC 

limit is also being proposed for Pressurized Gas Duster products. To mitigate potential 

exposure to air toxics, we are also proposing to prohibit use of MeCl and Perc in this 

category. 

3. Proposed VOC Exemption 

Staff is proposing that the definition of VOC be modified to exclude two isomers 

of hydrofluoroether (HFE) 7200. In a report titled “Environmental Impact Assessment of 

Selected Halogenated Chemicals,” (ARB, 2008b) ARB staff determined that use of 

HFE-7200 has negligible impacts on ground-level ozone formation. Staff believes that 

exemption of this negligibly reactive compound would provide additional reformulation 

flexibility. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -181

4. Proposed Toxics Prohibition 

Staff is also proposing a measure to reduce emissions of three TACs in the 

categories proposed for VOC regulation where they are, or could potentially, be used. 

The proposed prohibition on the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in six categories would 

result in a reduction of about 0.20 tons per day when fully effective. 

5. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language 

 Staff is also proposing additional language modifications. These modifications 

include clarifying language for the product date coding requirement, requirements for 

dilutable products sold in pump spray containers, toxic compound prohibitions, and 

additional requirements for categories such as Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer 

Product, Personal Fragrance Product with 20 percent or less fragrance, and Sealant or 

Caulking Compound. Other proposals include the correction of a drafting error in the 

Table of Standards regarding Furniture Maintenance Product. The long-standing 

exemption for solid/paste wax forms would be reinstated. 

C. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES 

In this section, we evaluate the impacts on atmospheric processes. The 

evaluation includes our assessment on whether the proposed amendments would have 

a positive, negative, or no impact on these atmospheric processes. 

1. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Ground-level Ozone 

Concentrations 

Enhanced ground-level ozone formation involves the interaction between VOCs 

and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. The rate of ozone generation 

is related closely to both the amount and reactivity of VOC emissions as well as the 

amount of NOx emissions available in the atmosphere (Seinfeld and Pandis,1998). 

Ozone is a colorless gas and the chief component of urban smog. It is one of the 

State’s more persistent air quality problems. Ninety-three percent of Californians, or 

36 million people, live in areas designated as non-attainment for the federal 8-hour 

ozone standard. It has been well documented that ozone adversely affects respiratory 

function of humans and animals. Research has shown that, when inhaled, ozone can 

cause respiratory problems, aggravate asthma, impair the immune system, and cause 

increased risk of premature death. 

Not only does ozone adversely affect human and animal health, but it also affects 

vegetation throughout most of California resulting in reduced yield and quality in 

agricultural crops, disfiguration or unsatisfactory growth in ornamental vegetation, and 

damage to native plants. More information on the impacts of exposure to ozone can be 

found in Chapter IV, of this Technical Support Document. 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -182

a. Proposed VOC Standards

The proposed amendments are designed to reduce VOC emissions by about 

5.8 tons per day when fully effective. Reducing these ozone precursor emissions will 

result in a positive environmental impact by lowering the concentrations of ground-level 

ozone in the atmosphere. If we assume that the average ozone forming potential of 

consumer product VOC emissions is about 1.50 pounds of ozone per pound of VOC 

emitted (based on the maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) scale, see title 17, CCR, 

sections 94700-94701), then we would predict the resulting ozone reductions would be 

about 9 tons per day. The categories proposed for regulation and the corresponding 

VOC emission reductions are shown in Table VIII-1. 

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

The proposed GHG measure would have no impact on ground-level ozone 

concentrations. This is because the proposal essentially requires replacing HFC-134a 

with HFC-152a. Both HFC-134a and HFC-152a are excluded from the definition of 

VOC due to negligible photochemical reactivity with respect to ozone. However, to 

ensure VOC emissions do not increase, as a mitigation measure, staff is proposing to 

set a 1 percent by weight VOC limit to prevent VOC increases as products reformulate. 

c. Proposed VOC Exemption 

The exemption of HFE-7200 will likely have a positive impact on ground-level 

ozone concentrations. Whenever this negligibly reactive compound replaces more 

reactive VOCs the result will be a reduction in ground-level ozone concentrations. 

Replacing HFE-7200 for similarly unreactive compounds, such as MeCl, Perc, and 

hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) 141b, should have no impact on ground-level ozone 

concentrations. 

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

In accordance with CEQA, we are proposing a mitigation measure to ensure that 

emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE do not increase when products are reformulated. As 

such, we are proposing to prohibit the use of these TACs in Carpet/Upholstery 

Cleaners; Fabric Protectants; Multi-Purpose Lubricants; Penetrants; Sealant or Caulking 

Compounds; and Spot Removers. The prohibition of these three solvents is necessary, 

particularly for MeCl and Perc because they are also exempt VOCs. However, this 

proposal to prohibit the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in these six categories could result 

in a slight increase in VOC emissions. Products containing these TACs may have to 

reformulate using VOC solvents. Staff, therefore, evaluated the potential for VOC 

emission increases resulting from this proposal. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -183

Table VIII-1 

Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective Date 

Product Category 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(percent by 

weight)

2008 VOC 

Emissions* 

(tons per day)

Reductions 

at Effective 

Date 

(tons per day)

Astringent/Toner 

(non-FDA regulated) a All 35 0.62 0.11 

Aerosol 5 0.32 0.07 

Carpet/Upholstery Cleanera

Nonaerosol 1 0.29 0.07 

Aerosol 17 0.27 0.08 

Dusting Aida

Nonaerosol 3 0.01 0.00 

Fabric Protectanta Nonaerosol 1 0.18 0.08 

Fabric Softener – 

 Single Use Dryer Producta All 0.05 grams per use** 0.52 0.21 

Floor Maintenance Producta All 1 0.11 0.07 

Floor Polish or Wax – 

 Wood Floor Waxa All 70 0.06 0.01 

Glass Cleanerb Aerosol 10 0.33 0.03 

Motor Vehicle Washa All 0.2 0.38 0.14 

25c

Multi-purpose Lubricant – 4.08 2.04 

 excluding solid & semisolidc/e All 

10e 1.27 

Aerosol 25 *** 0.00 

Odor Remover/Eliminatora

Nonaerosol 6 0.12 0.03 

Penetrantc All 25 0.40 0.15 

Personal Fragrance Product 

(products with 20% or less 

fragrance) d

All 75+

 10.89 0.41 

Pressurized Gas Dustera All 1 0 0 

Chemically Curingb Nonaerosol Sealant or 3 1.9 0.22 

Caulking 

Compound Non-Chemically 

Curinga

Nonaerosol 1.5 0.68 0.12 

Aerosol 15 0.76 0.24 

Spot Removera

Nonaerosol 3 0.29 0.05 

Aerosol 8 0.01 0.00 

Tire or Wheel Cleanera

Nonaerosol 2 0.14 0.06 

Windshield Water Repellenta All 75 0.23 0.04 

Total Emissions 2008 22.61 tons per day

Total Reductions 2015 5.76 tons per day 

 * Survey emissions adjusted for market coverage, Effective Dates: 

 and grown to the 2008 calendar year a: 12/31/2010 

 ** Grams per use limit provides emissions reductions equivalent b: 12/31/2012 

 to 2.6% VOC limit, including fragrance c: 12/31/2013 

 *** Omitted to protect confidentiality d: 12/31/2014 

 + Remove “Grandfather” clauses e: 12/31/2015
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -184

The emissions of chlorinated solvents in these categories is about 0.20 tons per 

day. If we assume that these solvents are replaced one-to-one with VOC solvents, then 

the increase in VOC emissions would be no more than 0.20 tons per day. We expect 

VOC increases will be less because other reformulation options are available. Note, 

however, that TCE is a VOC. This is a neutral impact because VOC would replace 

VOC. Although no aerosol or non-aerosol Fabric Protectant products currently contain 

any of these chlorinated solvents, this category is included in the proposed prohibition to 

prevent use in reformulations. The 5.8 tons per day VOC reduction already accounts 

for the increase of VOC emissions due to the toxics prohibition proposal. Staff believes 

the potential slight increase in VOC emissions is out-weighed by the benefit of reducing 

exposure to these probable human carcinogens. 

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language 

We expect no impact or a slight benefit on ground-level ozone concentrations 

resulting from the proposed changes to definitions and language change proposals. 

Currently, the Consumer Products Regulation states that any product that is designed to 

be diluted prior to use is subject to the VOC limits after the product has been diluted. 

Staff has become aware of products packaged in pump spray containers that appear to 

be marketed as “ready-to-use” products, but are designed to be diluted by the consumer 

prior to use. Staff believes this approach to packaging may be diminishing VOC 

reductions, and is a potential circumvention of the intent of the regulation. 

Therefore, the proposal to apply the VOC limit for dilutable products sold in pump 

spray containers, prior to the minimum recommended dilution, could provide a slight 

benefit. It is likely these products are used undiluted, resulting in higher VOC emissions 

than allowed by the VOC limit. The other language changes add clarity and do not 

impact emissions. 

 

2. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Particulate Matter (Secondary 

Organic Aerosols) 

Fine particulate matter (PM) is prevalent in the urban atmosphere (see, for 

example, Pandis et al., 1992), and ambient PM, especially those with diameters less 

than two and a half micrometers (PM2.5), is known to have negative impacts on human 

health (Schwartz et al.,1996; Moolgavkar and Luebeck, 1996). Like ozone, PM can be 

formed via atmospheric oxidation of organic compounds (Finlayson-Pitts and 

Pitts, 2000). Significant advances have been made in the theoretical and the 

experimental studies of the formation of secondary organic aerosols (SOA) 

(Pankow, 1994a, Pankow, 1994b; Odum et al., 1996; Seinfeld and Pandis,1998; Harner 

and Bidleman, 1998; Kleindienst, et al., 1999; Yu et al., 1999). In addition, modeling 

techniques to determine the amount of ozone as well as the amount of aerosol formed 

from a VOC have been established (Bowman et al., 1994), and the concept similar to 

maximum incremental reactivity is being applied to quantitatively assess the aerosol 

formation potential of a VOC (i.e. incremental aerosol reactivity) (Griffin et al., 1999). 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -185

Based on the results of these studies, we now know that there is a mechanistic 

linkage between ozone formation and SOA formation of a VOC. Because of this 

relationship, the proposed amendments may also affect the SOA formation potential of 

consumer products. The analysis of the impact on SOA formation resulting from 

implementing the proposed VOC limits is detailed below. 

Although most organic compounds contribute to ozone formation, SOA is usually 

formed from photooxidation of organic compounds with carbon numbers equal to six or 

more (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). It has also been shown that aromatic compounds 

are more likely to participate in the formation of SOA than are alkanes (Grosjean, 1992; 

Pandis et al., 1992). In other words, only chemicals that react fast enough in the 

atmosphere will generate sufficient amounts of low volatility products for forming 

aerosols. In general terms, the potential to form SOA among commonly used classes of 

VOCs used in consumer products could be described by the following order, with the 

lower molecular weight alkanes and ketones being least likely: 

Least Likely Lower molecular weight alkanes and ketones (6 carbons or 

less) 

Higher molecular weight alkanes 

Higher molecular weight aromatics (polysubstituted benzenes) 

More Likely Lower molecular weight aromatics (C6 - C8 compounds) 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

The analysis of the potential impact on PM formation from the proposed VOC 

limits assumes that to meet the proposed limits will require replacing 5.8 tons per day of 

VOCs for 5.8 tons per day of non-VOC ingredients or exempt VOCs. To meet the 

proposed VOC limits, manufacturers generally have five reformulation options: use of 

exempt VOCs, such as acetone or methyl acetate; use of LVP-VOC solvents; use of 

water; increasing ‘solids’ content; or use of non-VOC propellants. Substitution for VOCs 

with water, higher solids content, or non-VOC propellants would likely result in a small 

reduction in SOA formation. The most likely exempt VOC solvents to be used to 

comply, acetone and methyl acetate, both having three carbon atoms, have little 

potential to contribute to SOA formation. Indeed, it has been predicted that there would 

be no SOA yield from acetone (Pandis et al., 1992). Hence, use of these compounds 

could also result in a reduction in SOA. 

To the extent manufacturers may reduce overall VOC content but formulate with 

stronger solvents could result in increased SOA formation. This is because the 

commonly used stronger solvents are aromatic compounds, such as xylenes and 

toluene, which are known to have higher SOA potentials than other commonly used 

VOCs. On the other hand, if product reformulation involves the substitution of an 

aromatic by a non-aromatic species, the SOA formation potential of the product is likely 

to be reduced. If VOC aromatics are replaced with LVP-VOC aromatic compounds, a 

decrease in SOA potential should also occur. However, substitution of LVP-VOC 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -186

alkane or aromatic compounds for smaller low molecular weight alkanes could result in 

a slight SOA increase (Grosjean, 1992). 

Because we can not predict how manufacturers will choose to reformulate, we 

can not fully evaluate the potential for increased SOA formation. However, it is likely to 

be only a slight potential for increase, if any, due to the variety of reformulation options 

available. At any rate, it will not be a significant adverse impact. Additionally, any 

reformulations that result in increased SOA would likely be offset by reformulations 

resulting in lower SOA. We will continue to monitor implementation of the regulation 

and reassess the impacts as more data become available. 

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

 Because this proposal essentially requires the replacement of one compound for 

another – each with two carbon atoms – we expect the proposal to have no impact on 

PM2.5 concentrations or SOA. 

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

 As mentioned above, SOA is generally formed from oxidation of compounds with 

six or more carbon atoms. We do not expect HFE-7200 to increase SOA 

concentrations because HFE-7200 is comprised of two isomers, each with four carbon 

atoms. 

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition 

The proposal to prohibit TACs in six categories should have no or negligible 

impacts on SOA formation because replacements for these TACs (alkanes or exempt 

compounds) are not known to have strong SOA formation potentials. Prohibiting use of 

Perc and MeCl in Pressurized Gas Duster products also should have no impact. 

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

 Because proposed language changes and definitions generally only clarify or 

provide descriptions, we expect no impact on PM2.5 or SOA. 

3. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Climate Change 

Climate change, or global warming is the process whereby emissions of 

anthropogenic pollutants, together with other naturally-occurring gases, absorb infrared 

radiation in the atmosphere, leading to increases in the overall average global 

temperature. While CO2 is the largest contributor to radiative forcing, methane, 

halocarbon, N2O, and other species also contribute to climate change. 

Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to the greenhouse effect both directly 

and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself is a GHG. While there is relative 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -187

agreement on how to account for these direct effects of GHG emissions, accounting for 

indirect effects is more problematic. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical 

transformations of the original gas produce other GHGs, when a gas influences the 

atmospheric lifetimes of CH4, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes that 

alter the radiative balance of the earth (e.g., affect cloud formation). 

As mentioned earlier, the GWP of a compound may reflect a direct effect as well 

as an indirect effect on global warming. The direct effect is the warming due to the 

absorption of radiation by molecules of the compound in question. VOCs, CO2, HFCs, 

HFEs, and HCFCs all have direct effects. The indirect effect is due to the impact that 

the presence of the compound has on the concentration of other GHGs. For example, 

VOCs contribute indirectly to global warming, in-so-far as they react chemically in the 

atmosphere in ways that increase GHG concentrations, most notably, concentrations of 

ozone and methane. The indirect forcing of VOCs is, however, still poorly quantified 

and requires the use of global three-dimensional chemical transport models. 

Even though VOCs have direct effects, they are considered as GHGs because of 

their role in creating ozone and in prolonging the life of methane in the atmosphere, 

although the effect varies depending on local air quality. A further narrative on climate 

change and expected impacts is included in Chapter IV of this Technical Support 

Document. 

 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

 As just described, VOCs are considered GHGs because of their role in creation 

of ozone. However, because the VOC limits will reduce the total amount of VOCs, and 

thereby ground-level ozone concentrations, the proposed VOC limits should reduce 

consumer product’s impacts on climate change. While we expect an overall positive 

impact, two reformulation options may lead to very slight increases in GHG emissions. 

These are discussed below. 

To meet the proposed VOC limits to a limited extent, CO2 may replace 

hydrocarbon propellants in some products. The 2003 Survey data indicate that CO2 is 

already used in certain consumer products considered for regulation, including MultiPurpose Lubricants, and Penetrants. In these categories, CO2 use is likely to increase 

as manufacturers reformulate to meet the lower proposed VOC limits. In other 

categories with aerosol product forms, CO2 may also be a reformulation pathway. Even 

though CO2 has a direct effect on climate change, co-benefits are expected to the extent 

that CO2 replaces VOC propellants in consumer products. Specifically, less ozone and 

methane will be formed, thus lowering the population’s exposure to a pollutant with 

serious health effects. Further, the contribution of CO2 to global warming is likely less 

than that of the VOC being replaced. In addition, most CO2 used as a propellant is a 

recycled by-product of existing processes and, therefore, does not increase global 

warming from a lifecycle standpoint (ARB, 1999). 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -188

 Another reformulation path for some aerosol product manufacturers may be to 

replace some or all the typical hydrocarbon propellants with HFC-152a or HFC-134a. 

These compounds are exempt VOCs. We do not predict increased usage of HFC-134a 

due to its higher GWP, and because its use is not recommended except in certain 

specific uses. In consumer products, HFC-134a is generally used when flammability is 

a concern. 

 Staff believes that for the Spot Remover category under consideration for 

regulation, HFC-152a may be a potential reformulation option. If all VOC propellants in 

these categories were replaced with HFC-152a, total emissions of HFC-152a would be 

0.17 tons per day. This represents a worst-case scenario. Staff believes usage would 

be considerably less because of raw material cost and because other reformulation 

options are available. 

Also, when cost considerations are factored in (HFC-152a is about $1.80 per 

pound, HFC-134a is $3.50 versus VOC propellants at $1.00 per pound), it is anticipated 

that manufacturers will use as little HFC-152a as possible, or none at all, when 

reformulating their aerosol products. ARB staff does not expect the price of HFCs to 

change appreciably in the near future, thus a significant increase in use is not 

anticipated. 

Based on the foregoing, while there is a slight potential for a very small increase 

in the emissions of HFC-152a, the proposed VOC limits will likely more than offset this 

impact by reducing concentrations of ground-level ozone. 

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

The proposal to reduce the use of compounds with high GWP in Pressurized 

Gas Dusters will have an overall beneficial impact on climate change. As proposed, the 

GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters would require products using HFC-134a to 

reformulate with HFC-152a. This reformulation would be equivalent to reducing 

0.20 MMT CO2 per year, effective December 31, 2010. 

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

HFE-7200 is a solvent proposed for exemption from the VOC definition based on 

its photochemical reactivity. It has a relatively low GWP of 59 based on the FAR 

values. Its main use is in precision cleaning, and its use will likely be limited to 

applications where HCFC-141b is, or has been, used. Because it is a stratospheric 

ozone depleting compound, HCFC-141b production is no longer allowed. However, use 

of existing stockpiles is allowed. In addition to depleting stratospheric ozone 

concentrations, HCFC-141b is also a fairly potent global warming compound with a FAR 

GWP value of 725. HFE-7200 is purported as an all or partial replacement for 

HCFC-141b in that it provides mild cleaning ability and reduces flammability. In the 

short-term, to the extent HFE-7200 is used to replace HCFC-141b, a reduction in the 

potency of GHG emissions is expected. This is a direct emission benefit related to 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -189

climate change. To the extent HFE-7200 replaces VOCs in various consumer product 

categories, there will be a small increase in direct GHG emissions. This will likely be 

offset by the indirect benefit of reduced ground-level ozone concentrations. 

A longer term potential benefit may also be expected. Precision cleaning 

products where flammability is a concern generally rely on use of the propellant 

HFC-134a, a potent global warming gas. Because of the ability to reduce flammability, 

as well as its solubility with CO2, in the future, it is possible that use of HFE-7200 in 

combination with CO2 as a propellant, could lead to further limiting the use of HFC-134a 

(Werner, 2008). 

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The prohibition on the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE will likely have a negligible to 

positive impact on GHG emissions. If VOCs are used to replace these TACs, because 

VOCs play a role in both direct and indirect impacts on global warming, this would lead 

to a very slight increase in global warming emissions. We believe the reduced 

exposure to these TACs out-weighs this potential increase. 

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

 Clarifying language and proposed definition changes should have no impact on 

global warming. 

 

4. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

The stratospheric ozone layer shields the earth from harmful ultraviolet (UV) 

radiation. Depletion of the earth’s ozone layer allows a higher penetration of UV 

radiation to the earth's surface. This increase in UV radiation penetration leads to a 

greater incidence of skin cancer, cataracts, and impaired immune systems. Reduced 

crop yields and diminished ocean productivity are also expected. Because the chemical 

reactions which form ground-level ozone are driven by UV radiation, it is conceivable 

that a reduction in stratospheric ozone may also result in an increase in the formation of 

photochemical smog because of the increased levels of UV radiation on the earth’s 

surface (ARB, 2000b). The chemicals most implicated as causing stratospheric ozone 

depletion are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and 

halons (U.S. EPA, 2003). Specifically, the chlorine or bromine atoms released by 

photolysis of the compounds react in chain reactions leading to the catalytic destruction 

of ozone (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000). 

Solar irradiation in the stratosphere contains sufficient UV light to break down 

CFCs and HCFCs to yield chlorine atoms that convert ozone to molecular oxygen. 

However, this UV light is not strong enough to break down HFCs and HFEs to create 

fluorine atoms. In addition, the molecular structure of HFCs and HFEs includes 

hydrogen atoms, which renders them susceptible to attack by hydroxyl radicals in the 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -190

troposphere. Therefore, these chemicals have a relatively short atmospheric lifetime 

which does not allow any appreciable amounts to penetrate into the stratosphere 

(ARB, 2008b). 

To address stratospheric ozone depletion, the Montreal protocol was enacted in 

1989, to phase out a number of CFCs, HCFCs, and halons. As a signatory of this 

protocol, the United States, in the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990 established timetables 

for ceasing production (see part 40, Code of Federal Regulations, section 602). In 

general, the protocol establishes dates by which certain compounds can no longer be 

manufactured; however, existing stocks can continue to be used in some applications 

until exhausted. 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

Reducing VOCs will have no impact on stratospheric ozone depletion. As 

products reformulate to meet the proposed VOC limits, provisions in the Consumer 

Products Regulation (see section 94509(e)) already prohibit the use of various 

stratospheric ozone depleting compounds. This provision ensures there will be no 

increased use of stratospheric ozone depleting compounds. 

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

The proposed GHG measure will have no impact on stratospheric ozone 

depletion. Neither HFC-134a nor HFC-152a contribute to stratospheric ozone 

depletion. This is mainly because these compounds do not contain chlorine. Therefore, 

substituting HFC-152a for HFC-134a in Pressurized Gas Dusters has no impact. 

Additionally, these compounds have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes. Both 

compounds contain hydrogen which makes them susceptible to hydroxyl radical attack 

in the troposphere. 

 

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

Use of HFE-7200 would be a positive impact if it replaces HCFC-141b, a known 

stratospheric ozone depleting compound. HFE-7200 itself is not an ozone depleting 

compound because it does not contain chlorine. In addition, because the compound 

contains hydrogen it may be susceptible to hydroxyl radical attack in the troposphere. 

 

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

 

 The proposed prohibition on the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE will likely have a 

negligible impact on stratospheric ozone depletion. In order to comply with this 

prohibition, VOCs may replace these TACs in reformulated products. If this occurs, 

VOCs are not stratospheric ozone depleting compounds. Additionally, manufacturers 

are precluded from reformulating with stratospheric ozone depleting compounds 

because provisions in the regulation already prohibit use of various stratospheric ozone 

depleting compounds (94509(e)). 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -191

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

 Clarifying language and proposed definition changes will have no impact on 

stratospheric ozone depletion. 

D. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Solid Waste Disposal 

Consumer products contribute to the solid waste stream by virtue of the 

containers and the towelettes or “wipes” used to deliver the product. Therefore, we 

evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed amendments on the solid waste stream. 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

We do not expect an adverse impact on solid waste disposal from the proposed 

amendments relating to VOC limits. This is because we do not anticipate any changes 

in packaging or disposal due to the amendments. We also designed the VOC limit for 

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product so that the waste stream will not be 

adversely impacted by increasing sheet size to comply. To mitigate the potential for 

solid waste impacts from this category, staff is proposing a VOC standard based on 

grams of VOC per use (typically a single dryer sheet per load), as opposed to a percent 

by weight VOC limit. 

It has been suggested that end-use consumers of Fabric Softeners – Single Use 

Dryer Products may begin using more than a single dryer sheet per load of laundry. 

The contention is that the reformulated dryer sheet products will be perceived to be 

inadequate, because of the reductions in fragrance. No data were provided to support 

this claim. Moreover, this suggestion implies that the consumer will essentially begin 

doubling the cost per load of clothes dried. This is highly unlikely. Absent data, staff 

has determined this potential increased use to be unfounded. It has also been 

suggested that the end-use consumers will switch use to liquid products which are 

packaged in bulkier plastic containers. Again, no data were provided to support this 

claim. However, we intend to monitor product sales trends through periodic surveys, as 

is always done, to ensure that unintended consequences of establishing the proposed 

VOC limit do not occur. 

 

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

We expect that the GHG proposal could result in reducing the solid waste 

stream. This is because data show that Pressurized Gas Duster products that use 

HFC-152a typically get more uses per can than products that use HFC-134a (Dupont & 

Falcon, 2004). We also note that no significant changes in packaging will be needed to 

reformulate with HFC-152a. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -192

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

The proposed VOC exemption should have no solid waste impacts because we 

expect HFE-7200 to replace VOCs on a one-to-one basis. No new or additional 

packaging should be needed. 

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The proposed TAC prohibition should have no impact because the compounds 

used to replace Perc, MeCl, and TCE (VOCs or exempt compounds) require no 

different packaging, or additional packaging. 

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

By specifying that VOC content be determined prior to the minimum dilution, for 

products intended for dilution, but sold in ready-to-use pump sprays should reduce the 

amount of solid waste. If products are used as is, without making the dilution, the 

number of uses per container would be greatly reduced, compared to if the product 

were properly diluted. The overall result, without this provision, would be that more 

containers would be landfilled. 

2. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Water Quality 

Because of how consumer products are used there are potential water quality 

impacts. Therefore, we evaluated the impacts of the proposed amendments on water 

quality. 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

Reducing VOCs should have no impact on water quality and could ultimately 

result in a positive impact. As products reformulate to meet the proposed VOC limits, to 

a limited extent, water may replace VOCs in some products. This would have a positive 

impact on water quality by reducing the quantity of VOCs that might be introduced to the 

water supply. If exempt compounds replace VOCs in reformulated products, there 

should be no impact. This is because as far as water chemistry is concerned, VOCs 

and VOC exempt compounds are similar compounds. It is also true that many VOCs 

are biodegraded as they pass through the waste water stream. 

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

 The proposal to reduce the use of compounds with high GWP in Pressurized 

Gas Duster products will have no impact on water quality. Both HFC-134a and 

HFC-152a have an air fate and are not likely to enter the water. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -193

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

Use of HFE-7200 is expected to have no impact or a slightly beneficial impact on 

water quality. HFE-7200 is volatile, and based on its intended use, emissions have an 

air fate. However, there may be a slight benefit to sanitation districts resulting from the 

potential decrease in the amount of chlorinated solvents reaching water treatment 

facilities if HFE-7200 is used in place of Perc, MeCl, or TCE in products (ARB, 2008b). 

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

Current use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric 

Protectant; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and 

Spot Remover is not expected to have an impact on water quality. This is because as 

used, these solvents have an air fate. However, the proposed prohibition of Perc, MeCl, 

and TCE from these six categories may prevent an increase in the amount of 

chlorinated solvents reaching storm drains, and waste water treatment plants if these 

products are misused or improperly discarded. As a result of this proposal, TAC 

emissions will be reduced by about 0.20 tons per day in 2010. 

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language 

Because the proposed language changes and definitions generally only clarify or 

provide descriptions, we expect no impacts on water quality. 

3. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Energy 

 We do not expect the proposed amendments to result in an increase in energy 

use because production and shipment of the reformulated products will be similar to 

existing products. 

It has been suggested that end-use consumers of Fabric Softeners – Single Use 

Dryer Products may shift use to liquid products. The contention is that the reformulated 

dryer sheet products will be perceived to be inadequate, related to potential reductions 

in fragrance. If this were to occur, fuel usage could increase as products are 

transported, due to the weight differential between Fabric Softeners – Single Use Dryer 

Products and liquid products. No data were provided to support this claim. Absent 

data, we believe the concern with this potential switch is unfounded. Moreover, other 

data show that consumers favor the use of Fabric Softeners – Single Use Dryer 

Products (SDA, 2006a). However, we intend to monitor product sales trends through 

periodic surveys, as is always done, to ensure that unintended consequences of 

establishing the proposed VOC limit do not occur. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -194

E. ANALYSIS OF REASONABLY FORESEEABLE MITIGATION MEASURES 

As part of our obligations under CEQA, the ARB staff is required to evaluate and 

mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from regulatory proposals. 

Also, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39650 et seq., the ARB is required to 

identify and control TACs. The Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “...an air 

pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or 

which may pose a hazard to human health.” Moreover, in accordance with 

section 39666 of the Health and Safety Code, for TACs for which no safe exposure 

threshold has been established, the ARB is required to “.... reduce emissions to the 

lowest level achievable through application of best available control technology or a 

more effective control method....” 

Several chemicals currently used in the consumer product formulations 

considered for regulation have been identified as TACs. An increased or continued use 

of TACs in any of the consumer product categories considered for regulation could lead 

to a potential adverse environmental impact. ARB staff has evaluated this potential and 

has concluded that there would be a potential adverse environmental impact of 

implementing the VOC limits. Therefore, staff is proposing mitigation measures 

designed to ensure that use of TACs will be reduced or prohibited, resulting in a positive 

environmental impact. 

 We also found that the GHG measure could result in increased VOC emissions 

as products are reformulated to comply with the GWP limit. A mitigation measure is 

proposed to address this potential. 

 In evaluating proposed VOC reduction opportunities for Fabric Softener – Single 

Use Dryer Product we considered, as is typically done, a percent by weight VOC limit. 

However, we determined using this approach could result in simply increasing the sheet 

size to comply. Therefore, the gram of VOC per use limit is designed as a mitigation 

measure to address this potential impact on the solid waste stream. 

1. Proposed Mitigation Measure Related to Establishing VOC Limits 

 

Staff believes that specific mitigation measures are necessary to restrict the use 

of three chlorinated solvents, Perc, MeCl, and TCE because of their potential to cause 

cancer. Two of these TACs used in some consumer products, MeCl, and Perc, are 

specifically exempted from the VOC definition (section 94508 of the Regulation) in 

recognition of their very low ozone-forming capability. Thus, the potential exists that to 

meet VOC limits, manufacturers could reformulate using these exempt VOC TACs 

leading to an adverse impact. Trichloroethylene is regulated as a VOC, such that its 

use should not increase as products reformulate to meet VOC limits. However, 

because it is a probable human carcinogen, we are proposing a specific mitigation 

measure to address its use. Below, we provide some general information on toxicity, 

and the usage of Perc, MeCl, and TCE. Further information on these chemicals is 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -195

included in “The Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products 

Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regulation,” released September 29, 2006. 

 

Presented in Table VIII-2 are pollutant-specific health effects values developed 

for Perc, MeCl, and TCE to characterize the relationship between a person's exposure 

to these TACs and the incidence or occurrence of an adverse health effect. Unit risk 

factors (URF), cancer potency factors, and reference exposure levels (RELs) are 

shown in Table VIII-2. Also included in Table VIII-2 are the non-cancer acute and 

chronic toxicological endpoints for Perc, MeCl, and TCE. 

Table VIII-2 

Pollutant-Specific Health Effects Values Used for Determining 

Potential Health Impacts 1 

 1 Health effects values and toxicological endpoints were obtained from the following three sources: 

 (OEHHA, 2005a; OEHHA, 2005b; OEHHA, 2000) 

A URF is defined as the estimated upper-confidence limit (usually 95 percent) 

probability of a person contracting cancer as a result of constant exposure to a 

concentration of 1μg/m3

 over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, using the URF for Perc 

as an example, which is 5.9 x 10-6 (microgram per cubic meter)-1 or (μg/m3)

-1, the 

potential excess cancer risk for a person continuously exposed over a 70-year lifetime 

to 1μg/m3

 of Perc is estimated to be no greater than 5.9 chances per 1 million exposed 

people (ARB, 2000c). 

A cancer potency factor is the toxicity criterion, or health guidance value used for 

carcinogens, to describe the potential risk of developing cancer per unit of average daily 

dose over a 70-year lifetime. Cancer potency values are expressed as the upper bound 

probability of developing cancer assuming continuous lifetime exposure to a substance 

at a dose of one milligram per kilogram of body weight, and are expressed in units of 

(mg/kg-day)-1. The derivation of inhalation cancer potency factors takes into account 

Non-cancer 

Reference 

Exposure Levels 

(μg/m3) 

Compound Toxicological Endpoints Cancer Unit 

Risk Factor 

(μg/m3

)

-1

Cancer 

Potency 

Factor 

(mg/kg-day)-1

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic 

Perchloroethylene 

(Perc) 5.9 E-6 2.1 E-02 20,000 35 

central nervous 

system; eye & 

respiratory 

irritation 

kidney; 

alimentary 

system (liver) 

Methylene Chloride 

(MeCl) 1.0 E-6 3.5 E-03 14,000 400 central nervous system 

cardiovascular 

system; 

nervous 

system; 

Trichloroethylene 

(TCE) 2.0 E-6 7.0 E-03 None 600 none nervous system; eyes 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -196

the available information on pharmacokinetics and on the mechanism of carcinogenic 

action. These values are generally the 95 percent upper confidence limits on the doseresponse slope. It is a more accurate measure of a person’s chance of developing 

cancer than is the URF because it considers breathing rate and weight of the individual. 

A REL is used as an indicator of potential non-cancer adverse health effects and 

is defined as a concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are 

anticipated. RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the 

population by including safety factors in their development and can be created for both 

acute and chronic exposures. An acute exposure is defined as one or a series of shortterm exposures generally lasting less than 24 hours. Consistent with risk guidelines, a 

1-hour exposure is used to determine acute non-cancer impacts. Chronic exposure is 

defined as long-term exposure usually lasting from one year to a lifetime. Generally, 

hazard indices of less than 1.0 are not considered to be a concern to public health. A 

hazard index is the ratio of the modeled concentration for a toxic pollutant and the 

reference exposure level for that pollutant (ARB, 2000d). A further discussion of the 

health effects that may result from exposure to Perc, MeCl, and TCE follows. 

a. Perchloroethylene

 i. Health Impacts from Exposure to Perchloroethylene 

 Exposure to Perc may result in both cancer and non-cancer health effects. The 

probable route of human exposure to Perc is inhalation (ARB, 1997a). Table VIII-2 

presents the current health effects values that are used for determining the potential 

health impacts. 

 Perc is a potential human carcinogen with no identifiable threshold below which 

no carcinogenic effects are likely to occur. The Board formally identified Perc as a TAC 

in October 1991 (ARB, 1991b). The State of California under Proposition 65 listed Perc 

as a carcinogen in April 1988 (OEHHA, 2006). 

 

 Short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposure to Perc may result in 

non-cancer health effects. Acute toxic health effects resulting from short term exposure 

to high levels of Perc may include headaches, dizziness, rapid heartbeat, and irritation 

or burns on the skin, eyes, or respiratory tract. Massive acute doses can induce central 

nervous system depression resulting in respiratory failure. Chronic exposure to lower 

Perc concentration levels may result in dizziness, impaired judgement and perception, 

and damage to the liver and kidneys (ARB, 2000d). 

 

 ii. Sources and Emissions of Perchlororethylene 

Perc is currently used in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; 

Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover product. Perc is not 

currently used in any Fabric Protectant products. If Perc is not prohibited from use in 

these categories, it could conceivably be used as an avenue for compliance with the 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -197

proposed lower VOC limits, increasing human exposure. Emissions of Perc in these 

categories are expected to grow to 0.19 tons per day by 2010. 

b. Methylene Chloride

 i. Health Impacts from Exposure to Methylene Chloride 

 Exposure to MeCl (also known as dichloromethane) may result in both cancer 

and non-cancer health effects. The probable route of human exposure to MeCl is 

inhalation (ARB, 1997). Table VIII-2 presents the current health effects values that are 

used to determine potential health impacts. 

 MeCl is either a possible or probable human carcinogen with no identifiable 

threshold below which no carcinogenic effects are likely to occur. The Board formally 

identified MeCl as a TAC in July 1989 (ARB, 1989b. The State of California under 

Proposition 65 listed MeCl as a carcinogen in April 1988 (OEHHA, 2006). 

Short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposure to MeCl may result in 

non-cancer health effects. MeCl vapor is irritating to the eyes, respiratory tract, and 

skin. It is also a central nervous system depressant including decreased visual and 

auditory functions and may cause headache, nausea, and vomiting. Acute toxic health 

effects resulting from short term exposure to high levels of MeCl may include pulmonary 

edema, cardiac arrhythmias, and loss of consciousness. Chronic exposure can lead to 

bone marrow, hepatic, and renal toxicity. MeCl is metabolized by the liver with resultant 

carboxyhemoglobin formation (ARB, 1997a). 

 ii. Sources and Emissions of Methylene Chloride 

MeCl is currently used in Multi-Purpose Lubricant; and Penetrant products. MeCl 

is not currently used in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; or Sealant or 

Caulking Compound products. If its use is not prohibited in these categories, MeCl 

could conceivably be used as an avenue for compliance with the proposed lower 

VOC limit, increasing human exposure. Emissions of MeCl are expected to grow to 

0.01 tons per day by 2010. 

c. Trichloroethylene

 i. Health Impacts from Exposure to Trichloroethylene 

Exposure to TCE may result in both cancer and non-cancer health effects. The 

probable routes of human exposure to TCE are inhalation and ingestion (ARB, 1997a). 

Table VIII-2 presents the current health effects values that are used to determine 

potential health impacts. 

TCE is a probable human carcinogen with no identifiable threshold below which 

no carcinogenic effects are likely to occur. The Board formally identified TCE as a TAC 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -198

in October 1990 (ARB, 1990d. The State of California under Proposition 65 listed TCE 

as a carcinogen in April, 1988 (OEHHA, 2006). 

Short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposure to TCE may result in 

non-cancer health effects. TCE is a central nervous system depressant. It is mildly 

irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract. Occupational exposure to TCE has resulted 

in nausea, headache, loss of appetite, weakness, dizziness, ataxia, and tremors. Acute 

exposures to high concentrations have caused irreversible cardiac arrhythmias, nerve 

and liver damage and death. Chronic exposure to TCE has also been shown to cause 

respiratory irritation, renal toxicity, and immune system depression. Alcohol 

consumption in humans increases the toxicity of TCE and causes "degreaser's flush," 

which are red blotches on the skin (ARB, 1997a). 

 ii. Sources and Emissions of Trichloroethylene 

TCE is currently used in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; 

Penetrant; and Spot Remover. TCE is not currently used in Fabric Protectant products 

and Sealant or Caulking Compound products. TCE is regulated as a VOC, such that its 

use should not increase as products reformulate to meet VOC limits. However, 

because TCE is a probable human carcinogen, we are proposing to prohibit its use in 

these categories. In 2010, this proposal will reduce emissions of TCE by 0.02 tons per 

day. 

 d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

 In this rulemaking, staff is proposing to prohibit the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE 

in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; Multi-purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; 

Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover products. This proposal is based 

on data suggesting that there would be potential excess cancer cases resulting from 

their use. In proposing this prohibition we are relying on previous work conducted by 

ARB staff. 

 Specifically we are relying on two previous rulemakings. To review the complete 

analyses relied upon to propose these prohibitions, the reader is referred to the 

following two documents: 

 1. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from 

Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities. March 10, 2000. 

(ARB, 2000d). 

 2. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Amendments to the 

California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and 

Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic 

Control Measure for Para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresheners and 

Toilet/Urinal Care Products. May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b). 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -199

In the above listed rulemakings, staff found that use of these chlorinated 

compounds posed an unnecessary health hazard. As detailed in the March 10, 2000, 

report, modeling results showed the potential for increased cases of cancer. Because 

many alternative products were available, the ARB, in 2000, prohibited the use of Perc, 

MeCl, and TCE in General Purpose Degreasers designed for automotive use, Engine 

Degreasers, Brake Cleaners, and Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaners. The 

2004 report provided the rationale for prohibiting the use of these three chlorinated 

solvents in Adhesive Removers, Contact Adhesives, Electrical Cleaners, Electronic 

Cleaners, Footwear or Leather Care Product, Graffiti Removers, and General Purpose 

Degreasers. In total, not including this rulemaking, ARB has prohibited the use of Perc, 

MeCl, and TCE in 62 categories. 

Staff has determined that the proposed prohibition is necessary to mitigate 

potential adverse impacts that would result from implementing VOC limits for these 

categories, and to ensure a level playing field among all products. 

 

 The proposed prohibition of chlorinated solvents in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; 

Fabric Protectant; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; 

and Spot Remover is being proposed as a mitigation measure under CEQA (Public 

Resources Code section 2100 et seq.). An alternative basis for the prohibition, 

however, is the authority granted the ARB to control toxic air contaminants (TACs) 

under Health and Safety Code section 39665 et seq. This section E, comprises the 

"needs assessment" report for the prohibition on chlorinated solvents, as specified in 

Health and Safety Code section 39665. 

 Additional information to support the proposed prohibition on use of Perc, 

MeCl, and TCE in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; Multi-Purpose 

Lubricant; Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover are contained 

in other documents and within other chapters of this Technical Support Document. 

Information regarding sources of these TACs (sources of emissions other than what is 

discussed in this Chapter) and atmospheric persistence has already been presented in 

the Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for 

Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and 

Repair Activities, March 10, 2000, (ARB, 2000d). The reader is referred to this 

document for further information. 

 In each category, staff has determined that alternative compounds are available 

to successfully formulate or reformulate products. More detailed information on 

alternative products and chemicals that can be used as replacements to Perc, MeCl, 

and TCE is contained in sections contained in Chapter VI that are specific to these 

product categories. Costs for reformulating and cost effectiveness of the proposal are 

contained in Chapter VII of this report. 

In the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) identified Perc, MeCl, and TCE as 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -200

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) because evidence indicated the substances may have 

adverse effects on human health or the environment. As of the writing of this report, the 

U.S. EPA has not promulgated a comparable NESHAP control measure specifically for 

consumer products containing Perc, MeCl, or TCE. The U.S. EPA has adopted 

NESHAP standards which control emissions of these HAPs from other sources. These 

other measures are described in the ATCM for AMR facilities (ARB, 2000d). 

 To summarize, staff finds that the proposed prohibition on use of Perc, MeCl, and 

TCE in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; 

Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover products is necessary to 

reduce exposure and the health risk associated with use of these compounds. Without 

control, emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from these six categories would be just over 

0.20 tons per day in 2010. Staff has identified that there is a potential for increased 

chances of contracting cancer from using products containing these compounds. The 

proposed prohibitions are necessary to mitigate potential adverse impacts that would 

result from implementing VOC limits for these categories. The prohibitions would also 

align with State law that requires use of best available control technology in instances 

where no safe exposure threshold is known. 

2. Proposed Mitigation Measures Related to Greenhouse Gas 

 Emissions 

 Staff is proposing, in new subsection 94509(r)(1), that Pressurized Gas Duster 

products shall not contain a compound that has a GWP of 150 or greater. 

 In accordance with CEQA, to ensure that the VOC content of these products 

does not increase as a result of reformulation to meet GWP limits, a 1 percent by 

weight, including fragrance, VOC limit is also being proposed for Pressurized Gas 

Dusters. Also to ensure VOC exempt TAC solvents are not used, staff is proposing to 

prohibit use of Perc and MeCl in Pressurized Gas Duster products. 

3. Proposed Mitigation Measure Related to Fabric Softeners – Single 

Use Dryer Product 

Staff is proposing a new subsection 94509(s) to describe the VOC content limit 

for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product. Rather than a percent by weight limit, a 

0.05 gram of VOC per use limit is proposed. The limit is designed to ensure that the 

size of each dryer sheet does not increase. In developing the limit for these products, 

staff determined that establishing a percent by weight limit could result in product 

reformulation using larger sheets to comply. This would diminish emissions reductions 

and potentially lead to increasing the solid waste stream. Therefore, in accordance with 

CEQA, the gram of VOC per use limit is proposed. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -201

F. RISK ASSESSMENT FOR REDUCED EXPOSURE TO OZONE AND TACS 

 The health risks associated with ozone exposure have been known for many 

years and are discussed in detail in Chapter IV. Studies have shown that when inhaled, 

even at relatively low levels, ozone can impact lung tissue and lung function. The 

greatest risk is to those who are more active outdoors during smoggy periods, such as 

children, athletes, and outdoor workers. Exposure to levels of ozone above the current 

ambient air standard leads to lung inflammation and lung tissue damage, and a 

reduction in the amount of air inhaled into the lungs. Recent evidence has, for the first 

time, linked the onset of asthma to exposure to elevated ozone levels in exercising 

children (McConnell et al., 2002). 

The actual lowering of health risks that would result from reducing VOC 

emissions, if the staff’s proposal were to be adopted, is not quantified in this report. 

However, qualitatively, we are able to conclude that reducing VOC emissions, because 

of their role as ozone precursors, will result in incremental improvement of the public’s 

health – whether it be in fewer incidences of asthma or hospitalizations, improvement in 

lung function, or fewer premature deaths. 

The VOC reductions from the proposed amendments are designed as partial 

fulfillment of the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan. Thus, 

one can conclude that increments of progress towards attainment improve the public’s 

health. As shown in Table VIII-1, the proposed amendments to the Regulation are 

designed to achieve the maximum feasible VOC emission reduction from the categories 

proposed for regulation at this time. When fully effective, adopting the amendments 

would result in a VOC emissions reduction of about 5.8 tons per day. The impacts of 

our proposal on SOA formation are not clear, although we do not expect a disbenefit. 

 We are better able to assess the reduced health risk associated with prohibiting 

the use of the chlorinated solvents Perc, MeCl, and TCE in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; 

Fabric Protectant; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; 

and Spot Remover products. Overall, the proposed amendments would prevent 

chlorinated solvent emissions by about 0.20 tons per day annually in 2010. It should 

also be noted that the scenarios analyzed to determine increased cancer risk evaluated 

concentrations in the outdoor air. It is likely that, in indoor environments, workers’ and 

other end-users’ chances of increased cancers would be higher from use of products 

containing these chlorinated solvents. 

 In summary, our health risk analysis shows that, by achieving these VOC 

reductions, the proposed amendments would reduce health risks posed by ground-level 

ozone by slightly lowering ambient concentrations. We predict that almost nine less 

tons per day of ozone would be formed. Moreover, exposure to probable carcinogens 

would be reduced by prohibiting the use of chlorinated TACs. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -202

G. ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE 

Two alternative means of compliance with the Regulation have been developed. 

A current compliance alternative for manufacturers of consumer products is the 

Alternative Control Plan (ACP). The ACP Regulation, title 17, California Code of 

Regulations, sections 94540-94555, is a voluntary emissions averaging program. 

Under the ACP, an overall limit on the VOC content of emissions from each individual 

product in the ACP is determined. To be approved, an ACP must demonstrate that the 

total VOC emissions within the ACP would not exceed the emissions that would have 

resulted had the products been formulated to meet the VOC limit established for each 

product category. In other words, some products in the ACP could exceed the 

established VOC limits in the Regulation as long as those increased emissions were 

offset by additional products that over-comply with the established VOC limits. The 

ACP provides manufacturers with flexibility, but preserves the overall environmental 

benefits of emission reductions. 

Another compliance alternative that is available for manufacturers is the 

Innovative Products Provision specified in title 17, California Code of Regulations, 

section 94511. This provision allows a manufacturer to formulate products that exceed 

the mass-based limit specified in the Regulation for a particular product category. The 

manufacturer must demonstrate that, through some characteristic of the higher VOC 

product, its use will result in less VOC emissions compared to a representative 

complying product. This alternative is also specifically designed to allow manufacturers 

flexibility, while preserving the emission benefits of the Regulation. 

Absent use of either of these alternatives, staff is not aware of any additional 

compliance means, other than direct compliance with the proposed amendments. 

H. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

State law defines environmental justice as the fair treatment of people of all 

races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The 

ARB is committed to evaluating community impacts of proposed regulations, including 

environmental justice concerns. 

Consumer products are considered area sources and, as such their use is not 

focused in a particular area leading to a potential “hot spot.” Generally, use of 

consumer products is fairly uniform across the State, tracking with housing units, and 

their emissions are spread over the course of a day, rather than concentrated at a 

particular time of day. For these reasons, we do not believe that people of any given 

race, culture, or income would be more impacted than any others would. All 

Californians should benefit equally from the reduction in VOC emissions from the 

consumer product categories proposed for regulation, as well as from the prohibition on 

use of chlorinated solvents that are TACs, and the reduction in potency of GHGs. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -203

Some manufacturers of Astringent/Toner products assert that regulation of these 

products would adversely affect individuals who cannot afford professional 

dermatological care. They also contend that higher VOC-containing products may be 

necessary for people of certain ethnicities to prevent scarring and/or increased 

pigmentation. ARB staff disagrees with these assertions. We have evaluated the 

claims and directions on the labels of Astringent/Toner products and researched sales 

prices of products via in-store shelf surveys and on the Internet. We found that 

complying products that make all Astringent/Toner functional claims are readily 

available over-the-counter in a variety of retail outlets. Purchase of these products does 

not require a medical prescription, and these products are not priced differently. 

Moreover, we have not found or been presented with any data that support these 

claims. Therefore, we do not believe that the regulation of Astringent/Toner would 

adversely or disproportionately impact people of any given age, race, culture, or 

income. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assessment of 

 Selected Halogenated Chemicals – Staff Report. March, 2008. (ARB, 2008b) 

2. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

 November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a) 

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresheners 

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products. May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b) 

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products and Proposed Tables of Maximum 

Incremental Reactivity (MIR) Values, and Proposed Amendments to Method 310, 

“Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products. 

May 5, 2000. (ARB, 2000b) 

5. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation Relating to 

Aerosol Adhesives. April 7, 2000. (ARB, 2000c) 

6. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Airborne 

Toxic Control Measures for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants 

from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities. March 10, 2000. 

(ARB, 2000d) 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -204

7. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures II. 

 September 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999) 

8. Air Resources Board. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List – Summaries. 

September, 1997. (ARB, 1997a) 

9. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Staff 

Report/Executive Summary, Proposed Identification of Perchloroethylene as a 

Toxic Air Contaminant. August, 1991. (ARB, 1991b) 

10. Air Resources Board. Proposed Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant - Staff Report/Executive Summary. August, 1990. (ARB, 1990d) 

11. Air Resources Board. Proposed Identification of Methylene Chloride as a Toxic 

Air Contaminant - Technical Support Document. May, 1989. (ARB, 1989b) 

12. Bowman, F. M., Pilinis, C. and Seinfeld, J. H. Ozone and Aerosol Productivity of 

Reactive Organics. 1995. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 29: 579-589. 

(Bowman et al., 1994) 

13. DuPont Company in association with Falcon Safety Products. Fluorochemicals 

Laboratory DuPont Company, Technical Report – Cleaning Tests for Aerosol 

Dusting Aids (Dusters). December 1, 2004. Schweitzer, M., Lubert, J., Hitches, 

B., Bilsback, B., McLeer, D., Creazzo, J.A. (DuPont & Falcon, 2004) 

14. Finlayson-Pitts, B. J. and J. N. Pitts Jr. Chemistry of the Upper and Lower 

Atmosphere. Chapter 9, Academic Press, New York, 2000. 

(Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000) 

15. Griffin, R. J., Cocker III, D. R., and Seinfeld, J. H. Incremental Aerosol Reactivity: 

Application to Aromatic and Biogenic Hydrocarbons. 1999. Environmental 

Science & Technology. Volume 33: 2403-2408. (Griffin et al., 1999) 

16. Grosjean, D. In Situ Organic Aerosol Formation during a Smog Episode: 

Estimated Production and Chemical Functionality. 1992. Atmospheric 

Environment. Volume 26A. Number 6: 953-963. (Grosjean, 1992) 

17. Harner, T. and Bidleman, T. F. Octanol-air Partition Coefficient for Describing 

Particle/Gas Partitioning of Aromatic Compounds in Urban Air. 1998. 

Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 32: 1494-1502. 

 (Harner and Bidleman, 1998) 

18. Kleindienst, T. E., Smith, D. F., Li, W., Edney, E. O., Driscoll, D. J., Speer, R. E., 

and Weathers, W. S. Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation from the Oxidation 

of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Presence of Dry Submicron Ammonium Sulfate 

Aerosol. 1999. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 33 : 3669-3681. 

 (Kleindienst et al., 1999) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -205

19. McConnell, R., K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S.J. London, T. Islam, W.J. Gauderman, 

E. Avol, H.G. Margolis, and J.M. Peters. Asthma in Exercising Children Exposed 

to Ozone: A Cohort Study. 2002. Lancet. Volume 359: 386-391. 

 (McConnell et al., 2002) 

20. Moolgavkar, S. H. and Luebeck, E. G. A Critical Review of the Evidence on 

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. 1996. Epidemiology. Volume 7. 

 Number 4: 420-428. (Moolgavkar and Luebeck, 1996) 

21. Odum, J. R., T. Hoffmann, F. Bowman, D. Collins, R. C. Flagan, and 

J. H. Seinfeld. Gas/Particle Partitioning and Secondary Organic Aerosol Yields. 

1996. Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 30. Number 8: 2580-2585. 

(Odum et al., 1996) 

22. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. State of California, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment, Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Chemical 

Known To The State To Cause Cancer And Reproductive Toxicity. 

 August, 2006. (OEHHA, 2006) 

23. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air Toxic Hot Spots 

Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part II, Technical Support Document for 

Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors. May, 2005. (OEHHA, 2005a) 

24. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. All Chronic Reference 

Exposure Levels Adopted by OEHHA as of February 2005. (OEHHA, 2005b) 

25. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. All Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels Developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment as of May 2000. (OEHHA, 2000) 

26. Pandis, S. N., R. A. Harley, G. R. Cass, and J. H. Seinfeld. Secondary Organic 

Aerosol Formation and Transport. 1992. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 26A: 

2269-2282. (Pandis et al., 1992) 

27. Pankow, J. F. An Absorption Model of Gas/Particle Partitioning of Organic 

Compounds in the Atmosphere. 1994. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 28. 

Number 2: 185-188. (Pankow, 1994a) 

28. Pankow, J. F. An Absorption Model of the Gas/Aerosol Partitioning Involved in 

the Formation of Secondary Organic Aerosol. 1994. Atmospheric Environment. 

 Volume 28. Number 2: 189-193. (Pankow, 1994b) 

29. Seinfeld J. H. and Pandis S. N. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics-from Air 

Pollution to Climate Change. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1998. 

(Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -206

 

30. Schwartz, J., Dockery, D. W., and Neas, L. M. Is Daily Mortality Associated 

Specifically with Fine Particles. 1996. Journal of Air & Waste Management 

Association. Volume 46: 927-939. (Schwartz et al., 1996) 

31. Soap and Detergent Association. Liquid Fabric Softeners and Dryer Sheets 

Presentation. July 24, 2006. (SDA, 2006a) 

32. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Indicators: 

Ozone Depletion. July 7, 2003. http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/science/indicat/. 

(July 8, 2003). (U.S. EPA, 2003) 

33. Werner, Kurt. Re: CO2 propellant can be use with solvent HFE-7200. Email to 

Femi Olaluwoye. April, 4 2008. (Werner, 2008) 

34. Yu, J., Cocker III, D. R., Griffin, R. J., Flagan, R. C., and Seinfeld, J. H. 

Gas-phase Ozone Oxidation of Monoterpenes: Gaseous and Particulate 

Products. 1999. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry. Volume 34: 207-258. 

 (Yu et al., 1999) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IX - 207 

IX. FUTURE AND ONGOING ACTIVITIES

 In this Chapter, we describe future and ongoing activities related to the consumer 

products program. These activities are directed at developing proposals to further 

reduce VOC, air toxic and greenhouse gas emissions from consumer products. As 

always, our rulemaking activities will be conducted in an open, public process, allowing 

for stakeholder input. Major activities are summarized below. 

A. CONSUMER PRODUCT EMISSIONS REDUCTION COMMITMENTS IN THE 

2007 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) 

In the recently adopted SIP, the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan, ARB committed to achieving a further 30 to 40 tons per day VOC 

emission reduction from consumer products. Measures are to be adopted in the 2007 

to 2008 timeframe, with emission reductions achieved by 2010. Additional measures to 

achieve the overall reduction commitment are to be adopted between 2010 and 2012 

with implementation within the 2012 to 2014 timeframe. The VOC reductions proposed 

in this rulemaking are a first step toward meeting these commitments. As described 

below in section C, the 2006 Consumer Products Survey data will serve as the basis for 

identifying and evaluating additional categories for emission reduction opportunities. If 

feasible, additional proposals would be brought before the Board for consideration in 

late 2008 or early 2009. 

B. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS

 As specified in The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), 

Discrete Early Action Measures are to be adopted and implemented by 2010. 

Greenhouse gas reductions from consumer products has been designated as a 

Discrete Early Action Measure. The overall estimate is that greenhouse gas emissions 

from consumer products could be reduced by 0.25 MMT CO2e per year. The 

Pressurized Gas Duster proposal, included in this rulemaking achieves approximately 

0.20 MMT CO2e per year. We expect data collected from the 2006 Consumer Products 

Survey to provide information on other categories where greenhouse gas reductions are 

technologically feasible and cost-effective to implement. Additional reduction strategies 

will be proposed for Board consideration in late 2008 or early 2009. 

C. REVIEW AND COMPILATION OF THE 2006 CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

SURVEY 

 Staff is continuing review of data from the 2006 Consumer Products Survey. 

This survey was designed to collect 2006 calendar year product sales and formulation 

data for a variety of consumer products including aerosol coatings, personal care 

products, cleaning products, lubricants, pesticides, and others. Some categories were 

specifically surveyed to evaluate the use of greenhouse gases. This includes hobby, 
Technical Support Document Chapter IX - 208 

sporting and party products. Over 500 surveys have been received. We expect to 

release non-confidential data summaries in summer 2008. These data will serve as the 

basis for additional VOC and greenhouse gas reduction proposals. 

D. PAINT AND LACQUER THINNER WORKPLAN 

 Data collected in the 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 

Survey) showed Paint and Lacquer Thinner VOC emissions of about 14 tons per day, if 

grown to 2010 using population estimates. Based on available research, and 

regulations in place in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), in 

2007 ARB staff proposed a 3 percent by weight VOC limit for Paint and Lacquer Thinner 

products. These products and their emissions are not part of the consumer product 

emission inventory, even though they do meet the definition of “consumer product.” 

Thus, reductions achieved are not creditable toward the consumer product emission 

reduction commitment, but are creditable toward the State’s overall SIP commitments. 

 In response to this proposal, some stakeholders identified a number of technical 

feasibility issues related to this proposal. Other stakeholders continue to assert that the 

3 percent limit is feasible for all applications. ARB staff’s assessment, at present time, 

is that a 3 percent VOC limit may be feasible for a wide variety of applications, but there 

are remaining end-uses of Paint and Lacquer Thinner where a higher VOC content may 

be necessary. To address the issues raised, ARB is developing a document which 

outlines all stakeholder issues and comments. This document will be reviewed by 

stakeholders and a workgroup meeting to discuss and resolve concerns would be 

scheduled for summer 2008. The goal of this process is to set the lowest VOC limit that 

is commercially and technologically feasible, but ensure that Paint and Lacquer 

Thinners remain available if there are coatings where thinning may still be necessary. If 

all issues are resolved, we will propose a VOC control strategy as part of the next 

rulemaking. 

E. NAIL COATINGS WORKPLAN 

 

 Staff has been evaluating the feasibility of VOC emission reductions from various 

nail coating products. Our evaluation, to date, indicates that a reactivity-based control 

strategy may provide the better regulatory strategy to achieve ozone reductions from 

this category. However, this work has been postponed until such time as the newly 

revised maximum incremental reactivity scale has been peer-reviewed. As part of this 

process, stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the use of the toxic compounds 

xylenes, toluene, dibutyl phthalate, and formaldehyde. We are actively evaluating these 

concerns to determine if use of these compounds in nail coatings poses a health hazard 

in the outdoor ambient air. We are developing modeling scenarios to model emissions 

of these toxic compounds from an individual business, as well as, cumulative emissions 

from multiple facilities. The goal of these analyses is to assess the potential risk posed 

to people living in close proximity to these emission sources. Should a health hazard in 

outdoor ambient air be identified, ARB would evaluate mitigation strategies under our 

authority to reduce air toxic emissions. The goal of this work is to achieve the maximum 
Technical Support Document Chapter IX - 209 

feasible reduction from these products and, if necessary, mitigate toxic air pollutant 

exposures. We expect to propose a regulatory strategy for nail coatings as part of the 

next rulemaking. 

F. INNOVATIVE EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES 

The 2007 SIP acknowledges that further emission reductions from consumer 

products may not be feasible using conventional approaches. Staff intends to work with 

stakeholders to explore alternative market-based mechanisms to encourage the 

development, distribution, and purchase of cleaner, very low, or zero-emitting products. 

We also intend to evaluate other approaches if these market-based mechanisms 

cannot produce meaningful emission reductions. These approaches include the 

purchase of ROG (VOC) credits, funding special projects to reduce emissions, or 

accelerate reductions from pollution sources outside the consumer products source 

category. Emission reductions achieved through these mechanisms would be 

creditable toward the overall consumer product reduction commitment.