## California Environmental Protection Agency

Air Resources Board

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT S 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 C alifornia Air Resources Board. Publication does not signify that the contents refl ect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade name s 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 Se ction David Mallory, P.E., Manager, Measures Development Section Judy Yee, Manager, Implementation Section Janette M. Brooks, Chief, Air Quality Measures Bran ch Robert Barham, Ph.D., Assistant Chief, Stationary S ource Division Robert Fletcher, P.E., Chief, Stationary Source Div ision

May 9, 2008

### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report and the proposed amendments to the Cons umer Products Regulation were developed by the following Air Resources Board staf f:

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 Wongi 

### 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 Opportunitie s........................................ 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 Lim its .................................. 15

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

................................................... ..... 17

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

IV. Emissions..........................................

................................................... ................. 26

A. Criteria Pollutants and Ambient Air Quality Standar ds ....................................... 26

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

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

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

V. Proposed Amendments to the Consumer Products Regula tion ............................ 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 Prop osed ............................. 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 o r Local Agencies................. 158

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

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

G. Analysis of the Combined Impacts on Per-Unit Cost f rom Recurring and Nonrecurring Costs.................................

................................................... ....... 170

H. Other Possible Economic Impacts from Proposed Amend ments ..................... 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 Measu res .............................. 194

F. Risk Assessment for Reduced Exposure to Ozone and T ACs ......................... 201

G. Alternative Means of Compliance.................... ................................................. 20 2

H. Environmental Justice ..............................

................................................... ..... 202iii

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 Product s Survey ................... 207

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

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

................................................... .... 208

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

### LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1 Global Warming Potential of Selected Co mpounds Used in

..................

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

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

Table ES-3 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Red uctions at Effective

............

Date............................................... ............................................... ES-1 2

Table ES-4 Summary of Complying Products and Compl ying

.................................

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

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

Table IV-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone , PM 10 and PM 2.5 ................. 29

Table IV-2 Global Warming Potential of Selected Co mpounds used in

..................

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

Table IV-3 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Red uctions 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 Modifi cation.................................... 53

Table V-3 Proposed VOC Limit, Product Forms, and E ffective 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 ...... ......................... 90v

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 percen t or less

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

Table VI-26 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 perc ent 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 (R OEs) for Typical

....................

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

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

Table VII-5 Estimated Total Nonrecurring Fixed Cos ts to Comply with

....................

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

Table VII-6 Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for A RB Consumer Product

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

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

Table VII-8 Comparison of Raw Materials Cost Impac ts 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 E ffective

............

Date...............................................

................................................... 183

Table VIII-2 Pollutant-Specific Health Effects Values Used for D etermining

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

### LIST OF FIGURES

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

Figure IV-1 2007 Area Designations for State Ambie nt Air Quality Standards

.........

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

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

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

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

PM2.5..............................................

................................................... 33

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

### 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 Regulator y Actions

Appendix D: Summary of Ingredient Reformulation Co sts

Appendix E: Acronyms Used in This Report

### State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendment s to the

California Consumer Products Regulation

Executive SummaryExecutive Summary - 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In this rulemaking, California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff is proposing amendments to the Consumer Products Regul ation that are designed to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) and air toxi c emissions. The proposed amendments would also reduce the global warming pot ential (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 Cali fornia’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 design ed in accordance with the Discrete Early Action Measure requirements as set f orth in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).

The proposed amendments would set new VOC limits f or multiple product categories. When fully implemented, about 5.8 tons per day VOC emission reduction would be achieved. The proposed amendments would a lso set the first GWP limit for consumer products. Reductions in the use of compou nds with high GWP is equivalent to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 0.20 millio n metric tons (MMT CO 2 e) 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 compo und from the definition of VOC, and language modifications would clarify an d improve existing regulatory provisions.

In developing the proposal, staff evaluated the ec onomic and environmental impacts. Staff found that the proposed amendments should result in an overall environmental benefit in that exposure to ground-le vel ozone and TACs would be reduced. Reducing the use of compounds with high G WP would have a beneficial impact on climate change. No significant adverse e nvironmental or economic impacts

were identified.

This Executive Summary, together with Appendix A, the Technical Support Document, is the Initial Statement of Reasons for P roposed 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, provid es a description of the staff’s proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regula tion, and explains the rationale for the proposed changes. In accordance with Government Code section 11346.2(a)(1), Chapter V of the Technical S upport 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 produc ts used by household and institutional consumers. Examples include detergen ts; cleaning products; floor finishes; personal care products; lawn and garden products; d isinfectants; automotive specialty products; and aerosol paints.

The Health and Safety Code sets forth ARB’s author ity to regulate consumer products to control VOCs and GHGs. Section 41712 s pecifies requirements to reduce VOC emissions as a ground-level ozone control strat egy. 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 417 12, along with subsequent amendments, requires ARB to adopt regulations to ac hieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOC emissions from consumer products. The CCAA specified that attainment of the California State ambient air qual ity standard is necessary to promote and protect public health, particularly of children , older people, and those with respiratory diseases. The Legislature also directe d that these standards be attained by the earliest practicable date.

Prior to adoption, the Board must determine that ad equate 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 no t eliminate any product form, and that recommendations from health professionals be consid ered 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 Solu tions 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, c ommencing with section 38500, contains the provisions. AB 32 requires ARB to dev elop regulations and consider market-based compliance mechanisms that will ultima tely restore California’s GHG emissions to the 1990 baseline year by 2020. Beyon d 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 progr ess, described as Discrete Early Action Measures, to reduce GHGs. Discrete Ea rly Action Measures are defined as regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions that become enforceable byExecutive Summary - 3

January 1, 2010. Reduction of compounds with high GWP that are used in consumer products has been designated as a Discrete Early Ac tion Measure.

B. EXISTING REGULATIONS

Over the last twenty years, the Board has taken nu merous actions to fulfill the legislative mandate pertaining to the regulation of consumer products. Three regulations have been adopted that affect 115 consu mer 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 ch lorinated compounds in 63 categories. In addition, two voluntary regulati ons, the Alternative Control Plan and the Hairspray Credit Program have been adopted to p rovide 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 Produ cts Regulation Workgroup (CPRWG), was established in 2004. Participation in the CPRWG was open to any member of the public. The CPRWG participated in th e development of the 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Survey), which serves as the basis for this proposal. The CPRWG was instrumenta l in the development of the 2004 and 2006 amendments, as well as these proposed amen dments. Consumer product manufacturers, chemical producers, marketers, trade associations, environmental groups, air districts, and various other stakeholde rs, have all actively participated.

Further outreach, beyond the CPRWG, was conducted to identify and involve stakeholders in the development of the Discrete Ear ly Action Measure for GHG reductions. For example, in February 2008, ARB con ducted 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 rule making were deferred from consideration as part of the 2006 rulemaking. Duri ng that rulemaking, numerous issues were raised that required additional evaluation and analysis in these categories. In addition to the outreach for the 2006 rulemaking, w here proposals for these categories were initially discussed, a public CPRWG meeting an d a public workshop were conducted on August 29, 2007 and March 5, 2008, res pectively. Prior to meetings, staff posted materials for review and comment to the CPRW G activity website.Executive Summary - 4

D. EMISSIONS

Although each consumer product may seem to be a sma ll source of emissions, the cumulative use of these products by over 37 mil lion Californians results in significant emissions (CA DOF, 2007).

1. VOC Emissions

Consumer products are a significant source of VOC e missions in California and contribute to the formation of both ground-level oz one and particulate matter pollution. This section, however, focuses on reducing emission s from consumer products as a ground-level ozone control strategy. As evidence o f 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 perc ent 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 Manage ment District (SCAQMD) and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District ( SJVAPCD), respectively. Without further actions, consumer product emissions are exp ected to grow to approximately 270 tons per day in 2020, representing 14 percent o f 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 i mportant 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. Whi le the ozone forming potential of consumer product emissions is less than some oth er source categories (for e.g., mobile sources), clearly, further reductions in VOC emissions from consumer products and other VOC sources are needed, if ozone attainme nt is to be achieved.

Despite these projections, ARB’s consumer products program is a success story. Since 1989, regulations adopted by the ARB, and sub sequent amendments, have significantly reduced VOC emissions from consumer p roducts. Absent these regulations today, consumer product emissions would likely be over 440 tons per day. Figure ES-1 shows that statewide consumer product V OC 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 lik ely 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



### YearEmissions (tpd) Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th an d e m ission red u ctions )

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 fro m several data sources.

Emissions for 1990 to 2006 are taken from the ARB F orecasted Emissions by Summary Category, 2007 Almanac (ARB, 2007h). Emissions are then grown in proportion to population increase. Population growth is in accor dance with estimates in the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewi de Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2 008d). For categories regulated in the 2006 Consumer Products Amendments, emission val ues from the 2003 Survey and the projected emissions reductions resulting from t he 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 mag nitude of the climate change problem justifies reductions from both large and sm all sources, wherever such measures

are feasible and cost-effective. While staff is st ill in the process of developing the consumer product GHG inventory, we do know from pas t surveys that several compounds with high GWP are used in consumer produc ts.

Consumer products use various GHGs, mostly as prope llants. To a much lesser degree, several solvents with fairly high GWPs are used. The propellants are typically low photochemically reactive compounds that are exe mpt VOCs. They have been used as a reformulation strategy to reduce VOC content. Compounds of interest includeExecutive Summary - 6

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). However, the propellants HFC-134a and HFC-152a are the predominate GHGs used in consumer products today. Compressed CO 2 is also used as a propellant, but the GHG emission s are negligible compared to the emissions from HFCs. Table ES-1 sh ows 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**

CO 2 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 Repor t 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

CO 2 . Reductions in the use of HFC-134a are being purs ued in this rulemaking.

GHG emissions data are available from a 2003 Surve y of consumer products. Staff has evaluated these data for possible GHG red uctions and development of new regulations for this rulemaking. In the 2006 Surve y, 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 prod ucts, and evaluate the data for product categories where compounds with high GWP ar e used to determine if there is a potential to reduce their use without increasing th e 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 goal s, respectively. The role of consumer products to meet these mandates is describ ed in this section.

1. Consumer Products and California’s State Implem entation Plan

In 1988, with the passing of the CCAA, the importan ce of controlling emissions from consumer products was set forth. To meet the federal standards, in 1994 emission reductions from consumer products became part of th e California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In this SIP, consumer produc ts measures were put in place to work towards attaining the federal peak one-hour am bient 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 standa rd.Executive Summary - 7

In response to these mandates, three regulations wi th 150 VOC limits for 115 categories of consumer products (including antiperspirants and deodorants and 36 aerosol coatings categories) have been establish ed to date. The adopted limits will achieve a 44 percent reduction in overall VOC emiss ions 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 stan dard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight-hours. In the Strategy, ARB ha s committed to an additional 30 to 40 tons per day VOC reduction from consumer product s by 2014. Under the commitment, rulemakings are to occur in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe with reductions occurring between 2010 to 2012. Further rulemaking s 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 o f this, the Strategy includes a commitment to explore innovative reduction strategi es in the longer term. These measures would include investigating emission reduc tion opportunities through reactivity-based standards and alternative market-b ased mechanisms. If these mechanisms cannot produce meaningful emission reduc tions from the consumer products source category, then other approaches wou ld be evaluated. Some of these approaches include the purchase of VOC credits; and funding of special projects to reduce emissions or accelerate reductions from poll ution sources outside of the consumer products industry.

The amendments proposed in this rulemaking are inte nded to partially fulfill the Strategy commitment for VOC reductions from consume r products.

2. Discrete Early Action Measures and Scoping Plan

Among other things, AB 32 requires ARB to design an d adopt an overall Scoping Plan, by January 1, 2009, that identifies how GHG e missions can be reduced back to 1990 levels. AB 32 additionally recognizes that im mediate 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” b y 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 t o 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 ca lls 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 subsetExecutive Summary - 8

of these early action measures was identified as “D iscrete Early Action Measures.” One of the approved Discrete Early Action Measures desi gnated 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 CO 2 e per year from consumer products (ARB, 2007b).

The objective of the Consumer Products Discrete Ea rly Action Measure is to reduce the use of compounds with high GWP when alte rnatives are available. To achieve reductions of GHG emissions, consumer produ ct 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 produ cts is a long-term effort. We are continuing to develop an emission inventory that wi ll be used to evaluate reduction opportunities.

We are proposing a GWP limit for Pressurized Gas D uster products. If adopted by ARB, this will be the first GWP limit in place f or 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 propos ed amendments to reduce VOC emissions. The 2003 Survey provided staff with detailed information on the formulations of consumer products, including comple te speciation of VOCs, low vapor pressure VOC (LVP-VOC) solvents, and key exempt ing redients. 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 estima tes for 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 were grown from 2003 sales data and the st ate Department of Finance’s population estimates. Annual population growth fac tors were calculated using the 2008 State population figures and the California Environ mental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). We estimate that the c ategories proposed for VOC regulation contribute about 22.6 tons per day of 20 08 VOC emissions.

The GHG emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters are estimated to be

0.37 MMT CO 2 e per year. This estimate is based on the results of the Pressurized Gas Duster Survey update collected in February, 2008 (A RB, 2008a).

G. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

First of all, to reflect that the “Regulation to R educe Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products” now contains requirements f or both VOC and GHG reductions, we are proposing to rename the regulati on. 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 t he Consumer Products Regulation: section 94508 “Definitions,” section 9 4509 “Standards for Consumer Products,” section 94510 “Exemptions,” section 9451 2 "Administrative Requirements,” section 94513 “Reporting Requirements,” and section 94515 “Test Methods.” In addition to the amendments described below, a numbe r of non-substantive grammatical and organizational changes are also proposed. Chap ter V of the Technical Support Document contains more complete information on each proposal.

1. Definitions (Section 94508)

Section 94508, “Definitions,” provides all the ter ms used in the Consumer Products Regulation which are not self-explanatory. As shown in Table ES-2, the proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regula tion include new or revised definitions. These definitions are necessary to de fine categories proposed for VOC limits or greenhouse gas limits, or to improve enfo rceability of the Consumer Products Regulation. Note that a number of categories have been previously regulated and we are now proposing lower VOC limits. Several defini tions require further clarification.

Global Warming Potential and Global Warming Potenti al Value : We are proposing new definitions for Global Warming Potent ial (GWP) and Global Warming Potential Value (GWP Value). These definitions are necessary to implement our proposal to reduce the use of compounds with high G WPs in Pressurized Gas Dusters. We are using the GWP definition of the Intergovernm ental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). GWP provides a measure of a compound’s imp act on global warming compared to CO 2 . 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 compou nds with high GWP, the definition would further specify that, if the SAR does not con tain a GWP value for a specific chemical or compound, then the IPCC Fourth Assessme nt Report (FAR) GWP value for that chemical or compound will be used. If there i s no GWP value listed for a chemical or compound in the SAR or the FAR, then the GWP val ue 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 s urfaces that cannot be cleaned with a solvent. In developing the proposal for Pre ssurized Gas Dusters, staff became aware that there are certain niche uses of these pr oducts where flammability is aExecutive Summary-10 Table ES-2 Proposed New and Modified Definitions

Previously Unregulated Categories with New VOC Limi ts

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 pr opellant with a high GWP. At the present time, no technology exists that would maint ain this non-flammable aspect if these products were mandated to comply with our pro posed GWP limit for this category. Therefore, we are proposing a modification to the d efinition 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 V OC limit.

Not for Retail Sale : The current regulation includes several provisio ns where an exemption from compliance is provided if certain cr iteria are met. For example, General Purpose Degreasers and Lubricants are not subject t o 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 recei ved numerous inquiries as to what “not for retail sale” means. Therefore, staff is propos ing to define this term. As proposed, Not for Retail Sale means that a product is sold ex clusively to establishments that manufacture or construct goods or commodities, or a re 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 outle ts 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 S elected Halogenated Chemicals” ARB staff determined that use of HFE 7200 has negli gible 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 belie ves the exemption is appropriate.

2. Proposed Amendments to Section 94509

Table of Standards : The proposed regulatory action would amend the e xisting Consumer Products Regulation by specifying VOC limi ts for the product categories shown in Table ES-3. Some of the categories are pr eviously unregulated and others are currently regulated. For the currently regulat ed categories we are proposing lower

VOC limits. The new or modified VOC limits would b ecome effective between December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2015, as indicat ed 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 r eflected in the Table of Standards in section 94509(a). Note that in some cases diffe rent VOC limits are proposed based on product form.

Extended effective dates are proposed for categori es where the proposed limits, while feasible, will require additional resources t o develop complying products. This is especially true for the technology forcing second t ier 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 pro ducts element in the Strategy. Several VOC limit proposals in Table ES-3 warrant further e xplanation as provided below.

a. Proposal for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer P roduct : Fabric SoftenerSingle Use Dryer Product is a previously unregulate d category. As shown in Table ES-3, a grams of VOC per use limit is bein g proposed for these products, rather than a percent by weight limit. O ur 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, limi t 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 E ffective 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 Cleaner a Nonaerosol 1 0.29 0.07

Aerosol 17 0.27 0.08 Dusting Aid a Nonaerosol 3 0.01 0.00

Fabric Protectant a Nonaerosol 1 0.18 0.08

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product a All 0.05 grams per use** 0.52 0.21

Floor Maintenance Product a All 1 0.11 0.07

Floor Polish or Wax –

Wood Floor Wax a All 70 0.06 0.01

Glass Cleaner b Aerosol 10 0.33 0.03

Motor Vehicle Wash a All 0.2 0.38 0.14

25 c 4.08 2.04 Multi-purpose Lubricant – excluding solid & semisolid c/e All 10 e 1.27

Aerosol 25 *** 0.00

Odor Remover/Eliminator a Nonaerosol 6 0.12 0.03

Penetrant c All 25 0.40 0.15 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20% or less fragrance) d All 75 + 10.89 0.41

Pressurized Gas Duster a All 1 0 0

Chemically Curing b Nonaerosol 3 1.9 0.22 Sealant or Caulking Compound Non-Chemically

Curing a Nonaerosol 1.5 0.68 0.12

Aerosol 15 0.76 0.24 Spot Remover a Nonaerosol 3 0.29 0.05

Aerosol 8 0.01 0.00

Tire or Wheel Cleaner a Nonaerosol 2 0.14 0.06

Windshield Water Repellent a 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 reduct ions equivalent b: 12/31/2012 to 2.6% VOC limit, including fragrance c : 12/31/2013 *** Omitted to protect confidentiality d: 1 2/31/2014

+ Remove “Grandfather” clauses e: 12/31/2 015Executive Summary -13

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

Table ES-3, staff is proposing to reinstate the lon g-standing exemption for solid and paste forms of Furniture Maintenance Prod ucts. This exemption was inadvertently omitted during the 2006 rulemakin g. The exemption clarifies that solid and paste forms of this type o f 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 pr oducts 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 believe s this approach to packaging may be diminishing anticipated VOC reductions, and is a po tential circumvention of the intent of the regulation. Therefore, staff proposes a modifi cation to section 94509(b)(4), clarifying that products sold in pump spray contain ers 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) spe cify prohibitions on use of certain chlorinated compound s in specified categories. We are proposing to clarify the date coding requirement th at must be met to qualify as a “sellthrough” product. As proposed, the product would n eed 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 subs ection (q) within section 94509 to prohibit the use of methylene chloride, perchloroet hylene, 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 (CEQ A), ARB is required to identify and mitigate any possible adverse environm ental impacts of regulatory actions. We believe that it is unlikely, but possi ble, that manufacturers may, in response to new VOC limits, choose to reformulate w ith chlorinated solvents that are TACs. Therefore, because there are many products t hat comply with the proposed limits, without the use of these chlorinated solven ts, prohibiting their use is appropriate to protect the public from exposure to these TACs.

In evaluating the use of these TACs, staff has beco me aware that certain Penetrants are designed for use on energized equipm ent. In these situations the products must be non-flammable as a safety precauti on. 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 Princ ipal Display Panel: “Nonflammable: For use on Energized Equipment Only,” n ot be subject to this prohibition. They would, however, be required to meet the propos ed VOC limits.Executive Summary -14

Proposal for Pressurized Gas Dusters : The reduction of GHGs in consumer products has been designated as a Discrete Early Ac tion 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 ste p, staff is proposing, in new subsection 94509(r)(1), that Pressurized Gas Duster s shall not contain any compound that has a GWP of 150 or greater. Staff is also pr oposing in section 94509(r)(2) that Pressurized Gas Dusters would be provided a one-yea r sell-through after the effective

date of the limits.

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

does not increase as a result of reformulation to m eet GWP limits, a one percent by weight VOC limit, including fragrance, is also bein g proposed for Pressurized Gas Dusters. The proposal would also prohibit use of t he 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, o f 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 D usters may contain very small quantities of contaminants. This provision would a llow Pressurized Gas Dusters that contain those contaminants, present at very low lev els, to comply with the regulatory provisions.

Staff has also become aware that certain Pressurize d Gas Dusters are designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations the products must be non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide t his non-flammable aspect, higher GWP propellants are used. At present time, staff i s not aware of alternative propellants that can perform this function. Theref ore, staff is proposing that Pressurized Gas Dusters that specify on the Princip al Display Panel “Energized Equipment use only” be exempt from compliance with both the VOC and GWP limit.

Requirements for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer P roduct : Staff is proposing a new subsection 94509(s) to describe the VOC conte nt 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 design ed 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 she ets to comply. This would diminish emission reductions and potentially lead to increas ing the solid waste stream. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, the grams per u se limit is proposed. The 0.05 grams of VOC limit is designed to provide emis sion reductions roughly equivalent to a 2.6 percent by weight VOC per use limit, inclu ding fragrance. Because the limit already accounts for the fragrance, there is no nee d to provide the fragrance exemption contained in section 94510(c) for these p roducts. 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 pe rcent or less fragrance are required to meet an 80 percent or a 75 percent by w eight VOC limit, depending on when they first were introduced to the market. Pro ducts existing prior to ARB setting these two-tier limits do not need to comply with ei ther limit. Products that were introduced between 1995 and 1999 are required to me et the 80 percent limit, but did

not need to reformulate to meet the second-tier Jan uary 1, 1999, limit. Only products introduced after January 1, 1999, are required to m eet the 75 percent limit. These exemptions, or “Grandfather” clauses, are contained in subsections 94510(h) and (l). Staff is proposing to remove these “Grandfather” cl auses. 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, 20 14. The additional compliance deadline is proposed to account for the large numbe r 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, Administr ative

Requirements

Proposed Modification to Product Dating Requirement s : Currently, section 94512(b)(1) specifies that a product must c learly display the date or code indicating the date of manufacture. We are proposi ng language to clarify that a sequential batch number on a product package does n ot 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 applicabl e regulatory category and VOC limit as a percent by weight. Because different VOC limi ts are proposed, staff believes this is necessary to easily distinguish between Chemical ly Curing and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compounds for enforcemen t 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 te chnology advances as expected,

staff believes that manufacturers should demonstrat e their progress toward meeting

these limits.Executive Summary -16

As proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Multi-purpo se Lubricant and Penetrant manufacturers would need to supply by March 31, 201 2, detailed written updates on their research and development efforts undertaken t o 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 info rmation on the raw materials evaluated for use, maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) value s for any VOC or LVP-VOC used or evaluated, the function of the raw material evaluat ed, 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 b e for calendar year 2013.

Should technical or commercial issues arise, or if it appears reductions could occur within a shorter timeframe, staff would devel op appropriate measures to ensure air quality benefits occur as soon as possible.

6. Proposed Amendments to Section 94515, Test Metho ds

Staff is proposing to clarify that ARB’s Method 31 0 be used as the analytical

method to determine GWP content. This method alrea dy 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. Manufact urers 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 Techni cal Support Document). To comply with VOC limits, VOC solvents or propellants will n eed to be replaced, or partially replaced, with non-VOC ingredients. This may requi re switching to a water-based formulation, using acetone or another exempt solven t, increasing product solids, or formulating with a non-VOC propellant. Manufacture rs may also need to change the valve, container, delivery system, or the other com ponents 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 conta minants.

To meet the GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster, m anufacturers of noncomplying products will need to substitute a lower GWP propellant for the currently used higher GWP propellant. We expect that manufacturer s will substitute HFC-152a for HFC-134a. We are also proposing a VOC limit for Pr essurized Gas Duster products to ensure that VOC emissions do not increase as produc ts 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 a s the number of products that currently comply relative to total number of produc ts reported.Executive Summary -17 Table ES-4 Summary of Complying Products and Complying Markets hares

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 3 95 / 196 23 Sealant or 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a) grown to 2008, and the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update * Grams per use limit provides emissions reducti ons equivalent to 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit, including fragrance

** Remove “Grandfather” clauses *** Omitted to protect confidentialityExecutive Summary -18

Manufacturers can also comply with the proposed am endments through the use of the Innovative Products Provision (IPP), or the Alternative Control Plan (ACP). The IPP allows manufacturers of “innovative products” t o comply with the Consumer Products Regulation if they demonstrate through cle ar and convincing evidence that their product will result in less VOC emissions tha n a complying product that meets the applicable VOC limit. The innovative product may re sult in less emissions due to some characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery system, or other factors.

The ACP allows manufacturers to average the emissi ons 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 applicati on 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 em issions.

Although not shown in Tables ES-4, the complying m arket-share (based on sales) for the GHG limit for the Pressurized Gas Du ster category is 86 percent. Moreover, 18 of 90 products currently comply with t he GWP limit of 150. Based on these complying market-shares and the number of com plying products, staff believes the proposed VOC and GHG limits are commercially an d technologically feasible.

I. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Staff evaluated the costs to comply with the propo sed limits for potential impacts on profitability and other aspects of businesses (w ith particular attention to California businesses), the cost-effectiveness (CE) of the lim its, and the estimated cost impacts to consumers. Chapter VII of the Technical Support Do cument 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 pou nd 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 tha n most other consumer product regulations. For example, the CE of amendments pro posed in 2004 and 2006 was about $2.40 and $2.35, respectively, per pound of V OC reduced, over a 10-year lifetime. However, the CE of other consumer produc t rulemakings has been comparable to this proposal. For example, the CE o f amendments related to aerosol adhesives in 2000, was about $6.00 per pound of VOC reduced.

The CE for the proposed amendments reflects that VO C reductions from consumer products are becoming more difficult to ac hieve. A number of smaller emitting categories are being proposed for regulati on, with resulting small reductions. Several categories are relatively costly because la rge numbers of products need to be reformulated to achieve fairly low VOC emission red uction totals.Executive Summary -19

It was further determined that the cost of the meas ure to reduce GHG from Pressurized Gas Duster products is about $450,000 o ver ten years, or $45,000 per year. This yields a CE of about $0.22 per metric t on 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 methodologi es previously used for the Consumer Products Regulations and Cal/EPA guideline s for conducting cost analyses for major regulations. We determined that the regu lation would cost businesses and individuals about $260 million over the 10-year lif etime. 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 certai n products or undergo minor product formulation changes, and for other categori es, manufacturers would undergo complete production line overhaul and equipment rep lacement rather than simple retooling.

Staff believes that the regulation cost and CE dete rmination methodologies are quite conservative, and are thus in most cases over -estimated. There are several

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

determine the overall cost and cost effectiveness o f 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 reformulatio n pathway, making minor adjustments to a product’s formulation, or simply e liminating higher VOC products. We

believe that most manufacturers would choose the lo west 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 prod uct. We believe that few manufacturers would need to take the high cost refo rmulation 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 est imates were performed separately for aerosol and non-aerosol products respectively. The analysis shows that greater costs will be incurred during the first tier reformulatio n than the second tier reformulation. This results from the assumption that significant high e nd costs will be incurred in the first tier reformulation, but not all of these costs would nec essarily be duplicated in the second tier reformulation. If major plant modifications o r new equipment purchases are needed to meet either tier of the VOC limits, a manufactur er 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 eit her the first tier reformulation or the second tier reformulation, but not both. Either as sumption, that higher costs would beExecutive 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-esti mation of costs is the assumptions used for the raw ingredient costs of th e reformulated products. For the product categories for which VOC limits are propose d, we assumed that if the raw ingredients used in the reformulated product yielde d 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 refo rmulation options. However, in

the case of Pressurized Gas Dusters we assumed that reformulation would yield a raw material savings, and incorporated the decreased co st in to the overall cost estimate. We believe that this approach is appropriate becaus e, in order to comply with the proposed GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters, the re 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 appropriat e 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 manufa cturers are able and do pass along their costs to consumers. The average increa se 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 20 06 Amendments. In that rulemaking, we found the average cost per unit increase to be a bout $0.17 per unit.

Based on our analysis, we expect most manufacturer s to be able to absorb the added costs of the proposed regulation without an a dverse 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 increa sed research and development, equipment purchase and other investment costs, is p resumed to impact a business’ ROE and, therefore, its profitability. Our analysi s indicates the estimated change in ROE is about a 0.7 to 4.0 percent change. The aver age 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 overe stimate the impact on

business because it assumes that all of the costs o f the proposed limits will be absorbed by manufacturers. In reality, we expect that at le ast some of the investment costs to comply with the proposed limits will be passed on t o consumers. The analysis presumes that some cost mitigation will occur due t o “technology-transfer” between product lines and from third-party manufacturers (i .e., contract fillers) who fill essentially equivalent products for a number of competing busin esses.Executive Summary -21

While we expect that most businesses will be able t o absorb, or pass through, the costs of the proposed amendments without signif icant adverse impacts on their profitability, there is the possibility that some i ndividual 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 compl ying products, or to absorb and/or pass through the increased cost resulting from thei r compliance with the proposed

amendments.

Based on our analysis, we do not expect the propos ed amendments to have a significant impact on employment, or business creat ion, elimination, or expansion. We also do not expect the regulation to have a signifi cant impact on the competitiveness of California businesses compared with those outside o f California. This is because all companies that sell these products in California wo uld have to meet the proposed requirements, whether located in California or outs ide of California.

The Air Resources Board (ARB) would have costs ass ociated with adoption of the proposed amendments. Adoption of the amendment s would necessitate an increase in ARB staff to properly enforce the Consu mer Products Regulation. These proposed amendments are setting new limits for a nu mber 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 t oxic emissions. The proposed amendments would also reduce the use of co mpounds 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 o zone concentrations, climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, air toxic em issions, water quality, solid waste disposal, and energy use. A complete analysis of p otential environmental impacts is contained in Chapter VIII of the Technical Support Document.

Because VOCs are ozone precursors, the VOC reducti on 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 emi ssions is about 1.50 pounds of ozone per pound of VOC emitted (based on the MIR sc ale, title 17, CCR, sections 94700-94701), then we predict the resultin g ozone reductions would be about 9 tons per day. No other significant positive or n egative impacts were identified.

The expected reduction in use of compounds with hi gh GWP would be equivalent to reducing 0.20 MMT of CO 2 per year. This reduction will help meet Californi a’s desire for early reductions and also assist in meeting our 2020 target. All technologicallyExecutive Summary -22

feasible cost-effective reductions need to be pursu ed 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, reformu lated 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 po sitive or negative impacts were

identified.

The proposal would also prohibit the use of the TA C solvents methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in six cat egories (except in certain niche applications where non-flammable products are neede d). Exposure to these air toxics would be reduced by about 0.2 tons per day. The pr ohibition is proposed as a mitigation measure under CEQA. The prohibition wou ld ensure that manufacturers will not switch to using these solvents as a reformulati on option. However, it is likely that this could lead to a very slight increase in VOC em issions because products currently formulated with these TAC compounds would have to r eplace them—likely with VOC ingredients. Staff has determined that the reducti on 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 definitio n of VOC should have an overall benefit in reducing VOC emissions and strat ospheric ozone depleting emissions.

HFE 7200 could be a suitable substitute for some VO Cs, and can be used to replace stratospheric ozone depleting compounds such as HCF C-141b. No other significant positive or negative impacts were identified.

Related to solid waste and energy impact, no signi ficant impacts were identified. However, it has been suggested that end-use consume rs of Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Products may begin using more than a single s heet per drying cycle, or may switch to using the liquid product form. This coul d 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 moni tor product sales trends to ensure that unintended consequences of establishing the pr oposed VOC limit do not occur.

Other language and definitional changes proposed s hould have an overall positive impact because these provisions are design ed to aid in enforcing the regulation.

This proposal is consistent with the ARB’s Environm ental Justice Policy to reduce health risks in all communities, including l ow-income and minority communities. Generally, use of consumer products is fairly unifo rm 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 thes e reasons, we do not believe that people of any given race, culture, or income would be more impacted than any othersExecutive Summary -23

would. All Californians should benefit equally fro m the reduction in VOC, GHG and TAC emissions from the consumer product categories prop osed for regulation.

K. FUTURE PLANS

Future activities include continued review of the 2006 Consumer Products Survey. This survey will serve as the basis for ad ditional VOC and GHG reductions measures for consumer products. Additional reducti ons are needed to meet consumer product reduction commitments in the Strategy and a s a Discrete Early Action Measure under AB 32. Work is also ongoing to assess the mo st feasible approach to regulating Paint and Lacquer Thinner, and evaluating exposure to TACs used in Nail Coatings.

The Strategy also includes a longer term commitmen t to assess innovative

measures to further reduce VOC emissions from consu mer products.

L. RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the Board adopt the proposed ame ndments to the Consumer Products Regulation.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assess ment 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 Measur es To Reduce Greenhouse

Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board C onsideration

. 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 Commercia l 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 – Clean ing 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. Clima te 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. Harr is, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, eds. Cambridge University Press. Cambr idge, U.K. (IPCC, 1996)

### Appendix A

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendment s to the

California Consumer Products Regulation

Technical Support DocumentTechnical 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 Pro ducts Regulation. The amendments are designed to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) and air toxic

emissions. The amendments would also reduce the us e 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 Strateg y for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan. The proposed amendment to red uce the use of high GWP compounds is designed in accordance with the Discre te Early Action Measure requirements set forth in the California Global War ming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).

As proposed, other amendments would exclude a comp ound from the definition of VOC, language modifications would clarify and im prove 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 ce rtain TACs are not used as products are reformulated to meet new limits.

This Technical Support Document, Appendix A, prese nts ARB staff’s technical justification and analysis of the proposed amendmen ts. It is part of the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for Proposed Amendments to the Ca lifornia Consumer Products Regulation. The proposed amendments can be found i n 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 pr ogram related to the control of VOC and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;

• information on the process used to develop the pro posed amendments;

• an assessment of why the proposed amendments meet the requirements of State law;

• a review of the emissions from the categories prop osed for regulation and the overall need for the emission reductions;

• a description of the proposed amendments;

• an analysis of the environmental and expected econ omic 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 “th e 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 st andards. The CCAA added section 41712 to the California Health and Safety C ode. Section 41712, along with subsequent amendments, requires ARB to adopt regula tions to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOC emissions from consumer p roducts. Prior to adoption, the Board must determine that adequate data exist to es tablish both of the following:

• the regulations are necessary to attain State and federal ambient air quality standards; and

• the regulations are commercially and technological ly feasible.

Section 41712 defines a consumer product as a chem ically formulated product used by household and institutional consumers. Con sumer products include, but are not limited to: detergents; cleaning compounds; po lishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products such as antiperspirants and hairsprays; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; automotive spe cialty products; and aerosol paints. Other paint products, such as furniture or architec tural coatings, are not part of ARB’s consumer products program because local air distric ts regulate them.

The Act further stipulates that regulations adopte d 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 emiss ions 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 g round-level ozone concentrations, as part of the overall effort to attain ambient air qu ality 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 secti ons require ARB to develop regulations and consider market mechanisms that wil l 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 towar ds 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, 201 0. Beyond the requirements of AB 32, the Governor’s Executive Order EO-S-03-05 ca lls 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 f ulfill the legislative mandate pertaining to the regulation of VOCs in consumer pr oducts, including antiperspirants, deodorants, and aerosol coating products. Three re gulations have been adopted that affect 115 consumer product categories by setting 1 50 VOC limits. These limits have resulted in reducing emissions by about 200 tons pe r day, an overall 44 percent

reduction in VOC emissions. We have also reduced e xposure to TACs. Emissions of TACs have been reduced by 13 tons per day by prohib iting use of certain chlorinated compounds in 63 categories. In addition, two volun tary regulations, the Alternative Control Plan and the Hairspray Credit Program have been adopted to provide compliance flexibility to companies. These five re gulations are codified in title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 94500 to 94575:

• Antiperspirants and Deodorants (Article 1, section s 94500-94506.5);

• Consumer Products (Article 2, sections 94507-94517 );

• Aerosol Coating Products (Article 3, sections 9452 0-94528);

• Alternative Control Plan (Article 4, sections 9454 0-94555); and

• Hairspray Credit Program (Article 5, sections 9456 0-94575).

Regulation of consumer products began in 1989 with adoption of the Antiperspirants and Deodorants Regulation. The “ge neral” Consumer Products Regulation was approved in 1990 and has been amende d numerous times. The most recent amendments to the Consumer Products Regulati on were approved in 2004 and 2006 (ARB, 2004b; ARB, 2006a). The Aerosol Coating s Regulation was adopted in 1995 and was amended in 2000. A complete summary o f consumer products program regulatory actions with dates of regulatory amendme nts are provided in Appendix C.

2. Consumer Products and the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

State Implementation Plans

Federal clean air laws require areas with unhealth y levels of ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and inha lable particulate matter to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) describing how th ey will attain national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

A SIP is a compilation of new and previously submi tted 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 regu lations, and limits on emissions from consumer products. State law designates ARB as the lead agency for all purposesTechnical 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 subm it 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 t he Federal Register. The Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Chapter I, Part 52, S ubpart 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 contri bute to concentrations of both ground-level ozone and particulate matter with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM 2.5 ). The link between consumer product VOC emissions and ground-level ozone concentrations is well-established, and quant ified. However, their impact on

PM 2.5 concentrations is less clear. Because VOCs are oz one precursors, specific consumer product control measures have been develop ed related to ozone control.

These measures have been included in SIPs. For thi s reason, our summary here focuses on consumer product strategies that have be en, and are, designed to meet ambient air quality standards for ozone.

1994 California State Implementation Plan for Ozon e

On November 15, 1994, the ARB adopted the Californ ia State Implementation Plan for Ozone (1994 SIP). This plan included meas ures 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 w as a key element of the 1994 SIP. Several rulemakings were proposed and adopted to wo rk toward meeting the SIP

commitment.

2003 State and Federal Strategy and 2003 South Coa st SIP

On October 23, 2003, the ARB adopted the 2003 State wide 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 t he federal one-hour ozone

standard.

The 2003 SIP contained two measures for consumer pr oducts. These measures were designated as CONS-1 and CONS-2, and are summa rized below.

• Measure CONS-1: Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2006.

The CONS-1 measure was designed to achieve VOC emis sion reductions from consumer products of at least 2.3 tons per day in t he South Coast Air Basin and 5.3 tons per day statewide by 2010. On June 26, 20 04, 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 measureTechnical Support Document Chapter I - 5

became legally effective on June 20, 2005. As of t his writing, all but one of the CONS-1

VOC limits are in full effect. The CONS-1 commitme nt has been fulfilled.

• Measure CONS-2: Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2008-2010.

The ARB also committed to present new consumer prod uct 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 pe r day in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010. Statewide, the CONS-2 measure was to achi eve 20-35 tons per day in emission reductions by 2010. Amendments to the Con sumer Products Regulation in 2006, which will result in reductions of 4.9 tons p er day in South Coast and 11.5 tons per day statewide, partially fulfilled this commitm ent (ARB, 2006a).

The 2003 SIP was withdrawn from consideration and i s no longer in effect. However, the remaining commitment from the CONS-2 m easure has been incorporated in the 2007 Strategy commitment which is described below.

State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implemen tation Plan (Strategy)

In July 1997, U.S. EPA established a new federal oz one standard. As opposed to a one-hour peak ozone standard, the new ozone st andard 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 wa s adopted at the September 25, 2007 Board hearing (ARB, 2007d). Thi s is a comprehensive Strategy designed to attain federal air quality standards th rough technologically feasible, cost effective, and far reaching measures. The Strategy describes the scope of the State’s

ozone and PM 2.5 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 ei ght-hour standard is more stringent than the one-hour standard, U.S. EPA set presumptiv e deadlines that allow more time for attainment. Nonetheless, the measures Californ ia has adopted to meet the one-hour standard remain in place and will deliver substanti al 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 thisTechnical 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 ac tions are to be followed with additional rulemakings in the 2010 to 2012 timefram e. Reductions are to occur between 2012 and 2014 (ARB, 2007d).

Further reductions from consumer products are impor tant because VOC emissions from consumer products are predicted to b ecome the largest source of VOC emissions in the South Coast Air Basin, and the thi rd largest source in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin by 2020. The Strategy, in combina tion with local actions, provides emission reductions necessary to meet the eight-hou r 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 commitmen t to explore innovative reduction strategies in the longer term. One such measure wo uld include investigating emission reduction opportunities through reactivity-based st andards. A reactivity-based approach relies on the scientific principle that different c hemical compounds react to form different amounts of ozone in the atmosphere. Reactivity-bas ed standards reduce emissions of the most photochemically reactive compounds.

Alternative market-based mechanisms would also be e xplored to encourage the development, distribution, and purchase of cleaner, very low, or zero emitting products. Examples of mechanisms to explore are an environmen tal product labeling program, programs where companies set their own emission red uction goals, and the use of print and broadcast media for public education. If these mechanisms cannot produce meaningful emission reductions from the consumer pr oducts source category, then other approaches would be evaluated. Some of these approaches include the purchase of VOC emission credits; and funding of special pro jects to reduce emissions or accelerate reductions from pollution sources outsid e of the consumer products industry.

Future State Implementation Plans

Up-to-date information on SIP activities can be fou nd on ARB’s website at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm. On Mar ch 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 standar d 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 impr ove 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, addition al measures beyond those to meet the

federal standard will be needed.Technical Support Document Chapter I - 7

3. Consumer Products and the California Global War ming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)

Various consumer products may contain GHGs in their formulations. Most often these GHGs are propellants such as hydrofluorocarbo ns (HFCs) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). To a lesser extent some GHGs are used as solven ts.

As mentioned earlier, AB 32 requires immediate prog ress, described as Discrete Early Action Measures. These measures require ARB to identify and adopt regulations to reduce GHG emissions. These early actions are t o be enforceable by January 1, 2010. Reduction of compounds with high GWP used in consumer products has been designated as a Discrete Early Action Meas ure. Therefore, as a Discrete Early Action measure, ARB staff has committed to el iminate or reduce the use of GHG compounds with high GWP that are used in consumer p roducts. The GHG emission reduction from consumer products is estimated to be 0.25 million metric tons of CO 2 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 nati onal consumer products regulation, the “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products (40 CFR Part 59, Subpart C, Sections 59.20 1 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 emi ssion standards for 24 categories of consumer products. The rule became effective on Se ptember 11, 1998, and the VOC limits became effective on December 10, 1998. Ther e are similarities and differences between the California and national consumer produc ts regulations; however, the national rule does not preclude states from adoptin g more stringent regulations.

In the summer of 2006 U.S. EPA began work on amend ments to their existing national consumer products rules. Their amendments are based on California’s CONS-1 (2004 Consumer Products Regulation Amendment s) categories and limits. The amendments are expected to become effective on January 1, 2009.

U.S. EPA has also recently promulgated a national r ule for aerosol coatings (spray paints) based on ARB’s Aerosol Coatings Regu lation. This is a reactivity-based regulation. The national aerosol coatings rule wil l become effective on January 1, 2009. (U.S. EPA, 2007).

Although the national consumer products rule is si milar in many aspects to the California regulation, it is less effective in redu cing VOC emissions from consumer products. The national regulations are generally l ess stringent than ARB’s and apply to fewer categories. The existing national consumer p roducts rule achieves a 20 percent reduction in VOC emissions, while California’s exis ting consumer products and aerosol coatings regulations have already achieved a 50 per cent reduction in the regulated categories. The federal regulation also does not p rohibit use of any toxic compounds.Technical Support Document Chapter I - 8

The California Consumer Products Regulation has pr ohibited use of certain toxic compounds in 63 categories, resulting in a reductio n of toxic compound emissions of 13 tons per day. Because California has unique air quality problems, reducing VOC emissions from all categories, including consumer p roducts, to the maximum extent feasible, is necessary to attain the federal and St ate ambient air quality standards for

ozone.

There are no national consumer products rules rela ted to reducing GHG

emissions.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. State Strategy for Californ ia’s 2007 Implementation Plan

. Released April 26, 2007. Adopted by the Air Resourc es Board on September 27, 2007. (ARB, 2007d)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s 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 Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Produc ts, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichloroben zene Solid Air Fresheners

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products . May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b)

4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. N ational 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. A ir Quality Designations and

Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambie nt 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. N ational Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products. (40 CFR Part 59)

. Federal Register: September 11, 1998. Volume 63. Nu mber 176: 48819-48847. (U.S. EPA, 1998)

7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. N ational Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone; Final Rule . Federal Register: July 18, 1997. Volume 62. Number 138: 38855-38896. (U.S. EPA, 199 7)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 al low for public input. This Chapter also describes the staff’s eva luation of emission reduction opportunities, and alternatives to the final propos al that were considered.

A. PUBLIC PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING PROPOSED LIMITS

In this Chapter, we describe our process to involv e 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 CPRW G was, and continues to be open to any member of the public. The CPRWG participated i n the development of the 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2003 Surve y), 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 amen dments.

Further outreach, beyond the CPRWG, was conducted to identify and involve stakeholders in the development of the Discrete Ear ly Action Measure for greenhouse gas reductions. As part of the process, in Februar y 2008, ARB conducted a survey update for the Pressurized Gas Duster category. Th e 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 fr om 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 GroupTechnical 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 agenc ies, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the United Stat es Environmental Protection Agency were also involved in the process.

ARB staff maintains a mailing list of over 5,000 c ompanies and interested parties, including environmental organizations, which receiv ed information throughout the development of the proposed amendments. We have es tablished an electronic list serve, which has over 1,300 subscribers, to allow s ubscribers 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 catego ries 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 proposa l for the 2008 Consumer Products Regulation Amendments to the CPRWG activit y website. These proposals were discussed at the CPRWG meeting on August 29, 2 007. At the meeting, staff discussed the draft regulatory categories, proposed limits, and the rulemaking timeline. The meeting served as a forum for stakeholder comme nts 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 m odifications 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 modificatio ns to the Consumer Products Regulation. These included the proposed definition s and volatile organic compound (VOC) limits, the toxics prohibition proposal, a Di screte 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, st aff held numerous individual meetings, and teleconferences, with stakeholders. At several of these meetings, requested by industry associations, industry repres entatives presented technical information related to reformulation of products fo r which VOC and GHG limits are proposed. Staff also reviewed survey data, perform ed shelf surveys, and researched technical literature, patents, and trade journals d uring the development of this proposal.

B. STAFF EVALUATION OF EMISSION REDUCTION OPPORTUNI TIES

Development of the proposed amendments began with the review of the 2003 Survey. The 2003 Survey collected information on a bout 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 ov er 26,000 products (ARB, 2004a). The 2003 Survey, in conjunction with the recently c onducted 2006 survey, and the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update, conducted in 2008 (ARB, 2008c), are designed to obtain the comprehensive information necessary t o develop new consumer product emission standards that together would achieve a mi nimum VOC emission reduction of 30 to 40 tons per day by 2014, and GHG emission red uctions equivalent to reducing an

estimated 0.25 million metric tons of CO 2 (MMT CO 2 e) by 2020 (see Chapter I, Section C. Background).

The focus of the 2003 Survey was primarily on cate gories where an opportunity

for emission reductions was identified. After the 2003 Survey data were compiled, staff prioritized product categories for possible regulat ion. This process began with the elimination of categories where staff believed no v iable opportunity for reduction existed at the current time. As a result of this process, staff initially identified 61 product categories for potential emission reduction opportu nities which included 21 previously unregulated categories. As a result, in 2006, lowe r VOC limits were set for 13 previously regulated categories and new VOC limi ts were set for 3 categories.

In this same timeframe, staff postponed considerat ion of some product categories to provide adequate time to evaluate the feasibility of VOC reductions and/or time to address technical issues. In addition, sta ff revised emission estimates to address product mis-categorization, products that w ere already regulated under local air district rules, and reporting errors. The categori es 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 i t was also possible to reduce the use of compounds with high GWPs in Pressurized Gas Dust ers.

During the workgroup and workshop process, staff p resented 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 e arly 2008.Technical Support Document Chapter II - 12

Staff also identified an additional VOC emission r eduction 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 th is compound is used to replace VOCs, providing an exemption will result in additio nal VOC emission reductions.

In developing the proposed amendments, staff reorg anized 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 consid eration and evaluation of comments.

C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Government Code section 11346.2 requires ARB to co nsider and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed regulation and provide reasons for rejecting

those alternatives. Staff identified three alterna tive approaches to the current proposal: “No Action,” “Set Different Limits,” and “Set Limit s for Different Categories.”

Alternative One- No Action

A “No Action” alternative would be to forego adopti ng the proposed amendments, or delay adoption of the proposed measures. The “N o Action” alternative would result in failing to make progress toward meeting our SIP com mitment, 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 meeti ng 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 red uction 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 thoroug hly evaluated each category for which a limit is proposed. Staff proposed limi ts based on low emitting technologies reported in the 2003 Survey. Stakeholders provided additional information pertinent to the categories and, in some cases, proposed alterna tive limits. Staff evaluated all

comments and determined the most feasible limit fro m all of the alternatives proposed or considered. The final proposal contains limits that were determined to obtain the maximum feasible reduction, were commercially and t echnologically feasible, preserved product forms (as required by Health and Safety Cod e Section 41712), and together achieved the necessary emission reductions to parti ally fulfill ARB’s SIP commitments and the Discrete Early Action Measures to reduce GH Gs.

Alternative Three – Set Limits for Different Catego ries

Staff carefully reviewed the 2003 Survey data to s elect categories where reductions were feasible. Considering all availabl e information, staff determined that atTechnical 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 investigat ion. Examples of categories where further investigation is needed include Air Freshen ers, Nail Coatings, and Paint and Lacquer Thinners.

Related to GHG reductions, the Pressurized Gas Dus ter 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 wo uld 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 regu lated categories.

We also note that categories surveyed in the 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey will be evaluated and additional op portunities 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 Commerci al 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 requirement s 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 auth ority to control emissions from a very diverse number of products sold statewi de to household and commercial consumers. By law, “Consumer Product" means a chem ically formulated product used by household and institutional consumers, including , but not limited to, detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosme tics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizer s; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products; but does not include other pain t products, furniture coatings, or architectural coatings.

Section 41712 requires the Board to adopt regulati ons to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOCs emitted by consumer prod ucts after making certain determinations. Prior to adoption, the Board must determine that adequate data exist to establish that the regulations are necessary to att ain State and federal ambient air quality standards and the regulations are commercia lly and technologically feasible and necessary. Amendments to section 41712 in 1996 spe cified 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 liq uid, 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 o f 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 professi onals 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 wh y the proposed amendments are necessary to attain ambient air qual ity standards, and why the data are adequate to adopt the proposed limits. Our foc us in this Chapter is related to our rationale of why the proposed VOC limits are commer cially and technologically feasible. During the early development of consumer product re gulations, ARB staff established guidelines in setting the limits to ensure that the se 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 feas ible” and “commercially feasible,” as they relate to VOC reductions.

B. GHG REDUCTIONS

Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) was signed into law in 20 06. It is codified in Health and Safety Code section 38500 et. seq . These sections require ARB to develop regulation s 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 J une 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 goa ls, in accordance with section 38562, certain criteria are to be met. Amo ng other things, the regulations must be equitable, minimize costs, and maximize the bene fits to California. The GHG regulations are also required to be technologically feasible and cost-effective.

Section D describes the criteria to be met in devel oping GHG reductions.

C. TECHNOLOGICAL AND COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY OF VOC LIMITS

The proposed VOC limits were set based on the lowe r 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 tha t the various product forms within each category would be preserved. For the majority of t he categories proposed for regulation, there are products on the market which currently comply. Where there is low complying market share, lower emission technology e xists that can provide a pathway for compliance.

1. Technologically Feasible

Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) requires t hat the Board adopt consumer product regulations that are “technologica lly 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 o f the following criteria: (1) the limit is already being met by at least one product within th e 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 exi st which would allow products to comply. Proposed limits were set at VOC levels tha t staff determined could be met without increased use of toxic air contaminants, GH Gs, or ozone-depleting compounds.Technical Support Document Chapter III - 16

General reformulation options include addition of w ater with co-solvents, development of emulsion products, use of low vapor pressure (LV P)-VOC solvents, use of non-VOC propellants, and use of exempt solvents.

2. Commercially Feasible

Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) also requi res the Board to adopt consumer product regulations that are “commercially feasible.” The term “commercially feasible” is not defined in State law. In interpre ting this term, the staff has utilized the reasoning employed by the United States Court of Ap peals 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 th at the U. S. EPA could promulgate technology-forcing motor vehicle emission limits which might result in fewer models and a more limited cho ice of engine types for consumers, as long as the basic market demand for new passenge r 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 ne ed of consumers for a product to fulfill a basic, necessary function. This must be distinguished from consumer “preference,” which may be towards specific attribu tes of a particular product. A “preference” is the choice of consumers for a certa in product or products based upon fragrance, cost, texture, etc.

By way of example, a consumer has a basic market d emand for a glass cleaner to remove soils, grease, dirt or grime from their w indows. Glass cleaners may be formulated with glycol ether solvents or with ammon ia. Consumers may choose an ammoniated glass cleaner because they prefer the performance characteristics, or they may choose a non-ammoniated glass cleaner because t hey 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 “ba sic 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” inter pretation of “basic market demand” is inconsistent with the reasoning from the International Harvester case. To adopt such a narrow interpretation would be inconsi stent with the clearly expressed legislative intent that “...the State board shall a dopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in reactive organic compounds em itted by consumer products...” (Health and Safety Code section 41712(a)). In orde r to achieve emission reductions, manufacturers of high VOC products which perform th e same basic function as lower VOC counterparts must reduce the VOCs in their prod ucts. 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, thenTechnical Support Document Chapter III - 17

each product would require a limit unto itself. Us ing this approach, it would be impossible to achieve the maximum feasible reductio n in VOC emissions.

Every currently marketed product has some unique f eatures that differentiate it from other products. Consumers who purchase a prod uct have demonstrated a preference over other competing products. This dis tinction between “preference” and “basic market demand” was clearly made in the Inter national 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 unav ailability of certain kinds of vehicles and engine types people preferred (e.g. fast “muscl e” 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 m arket demand to be met for each product category, even though it may no longer be p ossible 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 Januar y 1, 2010 to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHGs. Among other things, the reductions must be real, permanent, qua ntifiable, 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 th e GHG content for one category, Pressurized Gas Dusters. These products are used to clean computer parts

and other sensitive electronics. Below is a discus sion of why we believe that this rulemaking meets the requirements of State law.

1. The State Board shall adopt rules and regulation s in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feas ible and costeffective greenhouse gas emission reduction from so urces 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 co nsultation 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 o f emissions allowances where appropriate, in a manner that is e quitable, seeks to

minimize costs and maximize the total benefits to C alifornia, and encourages early action to reduce greenhouse gas em issions.

The Pressurized Gas Dusters proposed limit was set to maximize emission reductions uniformly through out the State, while m inimizing costs. All manufacturers of Pressurized Gas Dusters, intended for sale in Calif ornia, are required to meet the specified emission limit. No manufacturer or retai ler would be allowed to sell non-complying products in California, therefore no user anywhere in California should be able to purchase non-complying products. Reduct ions in the potency of emissions

will track with sales of Pressurized Gas Dusters. Therefore, as Pressurized Gas Dusters are used throughout the State, reductions w ould occur throughout the State. Greater reductions will likely occur in population centers.

The cost-effectiveness (CE) of the proposed limit i s about $0.22 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalents. See Chapter VII, Econo mic Impacts, for the detailed description.

The emission limit yields the maximum technically f easible reduction in the potency of GHG. As set forth in Chapter VI, Descri ption of Product Categories, Section B, Greenhouse Gas Categories, further reduc tions from this category were determined not to be technologically and commercial ly feasible.

Nothing in the regulation discourages early action to reduce GHG emissions. In fact, many manufacturers have reduced the potency o f GHG emissions over the last ten years by reformulating products to contain compound s with lower GWP. We expect this trend to continue prior to the effective date of th e 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 sh elves.

3. Ensure that activities undertaken to comply with the regulations do not disproportionately impact low-income communitie s.

Use of consumer products is ubiquitous; no dispropo rtionate localized impacts are expected. Greater reductions would occur in po pulation centers, where more people reside. Compliance with this proposal will not require manufacturing plant changes that could cause a localized emission impac t. 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 reduc ed their greenhouse gas emissions prior to the implementation of this s ection receive appropriate credit for early voluntary reductions.

This requirement is not applicable to this proposed rulemaking.

5. Ensure that activities undertaken pursuant to th e regulations complement, and do not interfere with, efforts to a chieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality stan dards 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 crit eria pollutants or toxic air contaminants. For Pressurized Gas Dusters specific ally, 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 p roposal will prevent manufacturers from replacing high GWP compounds with hydrocarbon propellants. While hydrocarbon propellants have low GWP, and would meet the GWP li mit of 150, they contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. In addition, a pr ohibition on the use of the toxic chlorinated compounds Methylene Chloride (MeCl) and Perchloroethylene (Perc) is proposed for Pressurized Gas Dusters. This prohibi tion will prevent manufacturers from using MeCl and Perc in Pressurized Gas Duster produ cts. 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 Environmenta l Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that adverse impacts from adopting regulat ions be mitigated. See Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, for a more detailed descript ion.

6. Consider cost-effectiveness of these regulations

.

The CE of the proposed limit is about $0.22 per met ric ton of carbon dioxide equivalents. See Chapter VII, Economic Impacts, fo r the detailed description.

7. Consider overall societal benefits, including re ductions 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 Dus ters is not expected to cause any adverse impacts to society or the environ ment. California will benefit from

the reduction of GHG emissions. As discussed in th e response to criterion five above, the proposal will not cause an increase in VOC or t oxic air contaminant emissions. See Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, for a detailed description. In addition, no increase in the solid waste stream is anticipated. Reformul ated 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 implementi ng and complying with these regulations.

The administrative burden of complying with the pro posed emission limit to

manufacturers and marketers is minimal. Product re formulation will require replacing one propellant with another, and should be fairly s traight-forward. The proposal has very few administrative requirements. Affected pro ducts would be required to include on the label or can a date, or date code, indicatin g date of manufacture. No recordkeeping or product registration would be requ ired. However, certain Pressurized Gas Dusters products may need to modify their produ ct labels. The proposed modified

definition for Pressurized Gas Dusters includes an exemption for products that are labeled to be used “exclusively on energized equipm ent.” 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 c hanging 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 em ission limit set by the State causes manufacturing or other activities to be disp laced outside of California. If leakage were to occur, emissions, jobs and other economic b enefits to California would be lost. The emission benefits of the proposed limit track w ith sales of Pressurized Gas Dusters. In addition, the proposed emission limit for Pressu rized 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 o f each source or category of sources to statewide emissions of green house gases.

The projected reductions that will be achieved thro ugh implementation of the proposed limit are equivalent to reducing about 0.2 0 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. While this reduction may appear somewhat modest, when the reduction is considered in conjunction with ant icipated future GHG reductions from consumer products, and current and future reduction s from other categories, the total reductions could become quite significant. The con sumer products category encompasses hundreds of categories. When each is c onsidered alone they are relatively small emitters, but with regard to GHG e missions the aggregate emissions may become more important. This situation necessit ates achieving relatively small reductions from a large number of categories to ach ieve significant overall reductions.Technical Support Document Chapter III - 21

11. The greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceabl e by the state

board.

The emissions and emission reductions for Pressuriz ed Gas Dusters were calculated based on data submitted by manufacturers and marketers of the affected products. The data were submitted in accordance wi th 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 defi ned by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 1995: Second Assessment Re port (IPCC, 1996). The Consumer Products Regulation specifies the date upo n which the proposed emission limit would become effective and further specifies how the emission limit is to be enforced. Further, the regulation specifies the te st methods used to determine if products comply with the applicable emission standa rds. Finally, the regulation requires that products subject to emission limits must be da ted or date coded. The date of manufacture enables enforcement personnel to ascert ain if a product is subject to the applicable emission limit, based on the limit effec tive date. Once the amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation are approved by th e 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 additio n to any greenhouse gas emission reduction otherwise required by law or regulation, and any other greenhouse gas emission reduction that ot herwise 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 Pr essurized Gas Dusters is the first emission limitation affecting the product category. No other existing State, federal or other requirements, specific to products sold in Ca lifornia, affecting emissions of GHG

from Pressurized Gas Dusters exist. We are aware o f requirements affecting GHG emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters products sol d in the state of Wisconsin, but those requirements do not affect products sold in C alifornia.

13. If applicable, the greenhouse gas emission redu ction 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 Pr essurized 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 availa ble economic and

scientific information and its assessment of existi ng and projected technological capabilities when adopting the regula tions required by

the law.

ARB staff used the best available economic and sci entific information available to develop the proposed emission limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters. The description in this Section B documents that the proposal was deve loped 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 Prop osed, 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. Manufact urers 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 Techni cal Support Document). To comply with VOC limits, VOC solvents or propellants will n eed to be replaced, or partially replaced, with non-VOC ingredients. This may requi re switching to a water-based formulation, using acetone or another exempt solven t, increasing product solids, or formulating with a non-VOC propellant. Manufacture rs may also need to change the valve, container, delivery system, or the other com ponents 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 conta minants.

To meet the GWP limit for Pressurized Gas Duster, m anufacturers of non-complying products will need to substitute a lo wer GWP propellant for the currently used higher GWP propellant. We expect that manufac turers will substitute HFC-152a for HFC-134a. We are also proposing a VOC limit fo r Pressurized Gas Duster products to ensure that VOC emissions do not increase as pro ducts 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 limit s, data related to the complying market-shares (based on sales), as well a s the number of products that currently comply relative to total number of produc ts reported.

Manufacturers can also comply with the proposed am endments through the use of the Innovative Products Provision (IPP), or the Alternative Control Plan (ACP). The IPP allows manufacturers of “innovative products” t o comply with the Consumer Products Regulation if they demonstrate through cle ar and convincing evidence that their product will result in less VOC emissions tha n a complying product that meets theTechnical Support Document Chapter III - 23

applicable VOC limit. The innovative product may re sult in less emissions due to some characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery system, or other factors.

The ACP allows manufacturers to average the emissi ons 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 applicati on 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 em issions.

Table III-1 shows that the complying marketshares (except where confidential) range from 3 to 100 percent. Generally, in those c ategories 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 Pressurize d Gas Duster category. Moreover, 18 of 90 products currently comply with the GWP lim it of 150. Based on these complying marketshares and the number of complying products, staff believes the proposed VOC and GHG limits are commercially and te chnologically feasible.Technical Support Document Chapter III - 24 Table III-1 Summary of Complying Products and Complying Market shares

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 3 95 / 196 23 Sealant or 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a) grown to 2008, and the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update * Grams per use limit provides emissions reducti ons equivalent to 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit, including fragrance

** Remove “Grandfather” clauses *** Omitted to protect confidentialityTechnical Support Document Chapter III - 25

REFERENCES

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fors ter, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywo od, 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 Radiativ e Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contributi on of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernment al Panel on Climate Change

. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marqu is, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge Univers ity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007)

2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climat e 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. Harr is, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, eds. Cambridge University Press. Cambr idge, 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 Ch apter, we provide an overview of criteria pollutant air quality and climate change p roblems, which are germane to the regulation of consumer products. We also describe the need for significant emission reductions from all sources contributing to these p roblems. This Chapter includes a description of the need for the regulation of consu mer products and provides a summary of the emissions from the categories propos ed for regulation. For a detailed summary of the product categories, the reader is re ferred to Chapter VI.

A. CRITERIA POLLUTANTS AND AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STAN DARDS

Federal and state ambient air quality standards hav e 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 o n the level of an air pollutant in the outdoor (ambient) air necessary to protect public h ealth. Both ARB and U.S. EPA are

authorized to set standards.

Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from cons umer products contribute

to the formation of both ozone and fine PM. Other sources of VOCs include emissions from fuel combustion, coatings and paints. PM poll ution is the result of both direct and

indirect emissions. Direct sources of PM include e missions from fuel combustion and

wind erosion of soil. Indirect PM emissions result from the chemical reaction of VOCs, nitrogen oxides (NO x) , sulfur oxides and other chemicals in the atmosphe re.

1. Ozone

Ozone formation in the lower atmosphere results fr om a series of chemical reactions between VOCs and nitrogen oxides in the p resence of sunlight. The rate of ozone generation is related closely to both the amo unt and reactivity of VOC emissions

as well as the amount of NO
x 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 persiste nt 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. Califor nia experienced 41 percent of the total national ozone exposure, based on analysis of popul ation 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 a ffects 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 exposur es to ozone concentrations considerably above ambient were seen; these changes remain even after periods ofTechnical Support Document Chapter IV - 27 exposure to clean air (U.S. EPA, 2006). Exposure t o levels of ozone above the current ambient air quality standard can lead to lung infla mmation, lung tissue damage, and a

reduction in the amount of air inhaled into the lun gs.

Ozone is a strong irritant that can cause constric tion of the muscle cells in the airways that result in symptoms such as coughing, c hest 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 ac tive children (McConnell et al

., 2002). Ozone has also been associated with prem ature death. Based on 2001-03, premature deaths from ozone expos ure 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 toxi ns and microorganisms. Other health effects associated with ozone exposure include hosp italizations 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 ani mal health, but it also affects vegetation, throughout most of California, resultin g 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 Joaqu in Valley, and Sacramento Valley, which are adjacent to the principal production area s in the State’s multibillion-dollar agricultural industry (USDA, 2006). ARB studies in dicate 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 droplet s 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 a tmospheric processes. Particles

10 micrometers or less in diameter are defined as " respirable particulate matter" or

"PM 10 .” PM 10 and particles 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (PM 2.5 ) can be inhaled deep into the lungs. PM 2.5 contributes significantly to regional haze and red uction of visibility in California. Besides reducing visibil ity, the acidic portion of PM (nitrates, sulfates) can harm crops, forests, aquatic and othe r ecosystems (ARB, 2002).

Considerable epidemiologic research over the past 15 years has investigated the responses of humans to PM. The principal health ef fects of PM exposure are

summarized below:

• Many studies have consistently found statistical a ssociations between PM 2.5 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 considerabl y stronger for annual average

PM 2.5 exposure than for daily average PM 2.5 . That is, long-term exposure appears to pose a greater risk of death than short-term exp osure.

• A recent study suggests that long-term exposure to PM 2.5 may influence the risk of adverse cardiovascular events in women (Miller et al ., 2007), including hospitalization or death from heart attack or strok e.

• Daily exposure to PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 PM 2.5 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 lu ng disease are at greatest risk of experiencing adverse effects related to PM 2.5 exposure (Moolgavkar, 2003;

Dominici et al

., 2006; Symons et al

., 2006).

There is some evidence suggesting that air polluti on may have greater effects in children than in adults. This may be because they inhale more PM 2.5 per pound of body weight than do adults, and because they breathe mor e rapidly than adults. Adverse effects reported in children include reduced lung f unction 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 t o an area with cleaner air (Avol et al

., 2001); increased asthma and bronchitis symptoms (Ga uderman 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 o r 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 p rotecting public health. Consequently, ARB adopted a new eight-hour ozone standard of 0.07 0 parts per million (ppm) averaged over eight hours, while retaining the exis ting one-hour ozone standard at 0.09 ppm. Regarding particulate matter, the Board adopted stricter standards in 2002,

which include a PM 10 annual average standard of 20 micrograms per cubic meter ( μ g/m 3 ) and a new annual average PM 2.5 standard of 12 μ g/m 3 . The State PM 10 standard for a 24-hour period remains at 50 μ g/m 3 . The national and State ambient air quality standards for ozone and PM are shown in Tab le IV-1.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 29 Table IV-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, PM 10 and PM 2.5

Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard National Standard

Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 μ g/m 3 ) ---------

8 hour 0.070 ppm

(137 μ g/m 3 ) 0.075 ppm*

( 147 μ g/m 3 )

PM 10 24 hour

Annual Arithmetic Mean 50 μ g/m 3

20 μ g/m 3 150 μ g/m 3

---------

PM 2.5 24 hour

Annual Arithmetic Mean --------- 12 μ g/m 3 35 μ g/m 3

15 μ g/m 3

Source: Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality S tandards 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 eigh t-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 O zone 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 CCA A 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 d esignated as non-attainment (or non-attainment-transitional, which is a subcategory of non-attainment) for the State ozone standard. As shown, unhealthy levels of ozon e are not limited to urban areas, but can be found in nearly every county in Californ ia. This map clearly indicates the extent and magnitude of the ozone problem in Califo rnia.

The areas that are non-attainment for the State ozo ne standards are also nonattainment for the previous 0.08 ppm federal eight- hour ozone standard. The federal non-attainment designations include a number of rur al 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 effect ive 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 maint ain progress towards clean air, the federal Clean Air Act prohibits backsliding on the control program.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 30 Figure IV-1Technical 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 de clined 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 a s 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-hou r standard exceedance days has been quite variable over the years. This variabili ty is due, in part, to the influence of meteorology as well as changes to the monitoring ne twork. The monitoring network was not as extensive during the 1980’s as it has be en 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 decrea se in the three-year average of the number of exceedance days of the national eight-hou r standard (ARB, 2007g). Figure IV-3 shows the ozone trend between years 198 6 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 th e 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 heal th concern in California and more emission reductions are necessary. The State Strat egy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan addresses the State measures ne cessary to meet the previous national ozone standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over e ight hours.

5. Area Designations for California Ambient Air P M 2.5 Standard

Figure IV-4 shows the counties designated as non-at tainment for the State PM 2.5 standard. As with ozone, unhealthy levels of PM 2.5 are not limited to urban areas, but can be found in many counties throughout California

.

Related to the federal PM 2.5 standard, in December 2007, ARB submitted nonattainment area recommendations and appropriate bou ndaries to U.S. EPA, in response to the new federal 24-hour PM 2.5 standard of 35 μ g/m 3 established on December 18, 2006. The non-attainment area recomme ndations are based on

2004-2006 PM 2.5 air quality monitoring data. ARB recommended that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the San J oaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), the Bay Area Air Qualit y Management District, the Sacramento Air Quality Management District, the com bined 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 PM 2.5 standard. Thus, most of the areas shown in Figure IV-4 are also non-attainment for the federal 24-hour PM 2.5 standard. The SCAQMD SIP was approved by the Board in September, 2007 and it was submitted to U.S. EPA in November, 2007. The PM 2.5 SIP for SJVAPCD is expected to be considered at the May Board meeting.

Figure IV-4Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 34 B. THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2 006

Scientists have concluded that the evidence is over whelming that the planet is warming from the higher concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although greenhouse gases (GHG) are naturally occur ring, 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 chang e trends. The fact that GHGs remain in the atmosphere for a very long time, and that ma n-made emissions of GHGs are continuing to increase, mean that the world will co ntinue to warm in the centuries ahead. This warming, or climate change, is a globa l 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, As sembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), was signed i nto law by the Governor in September 2006. By enacting this Legislation, the legislature declared:

“Global warming poses a serious threat to the econo mic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of Californi a. 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 dis placement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the inciden ces of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems.”

This legislation is codified in the California Heal th 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 reduc tion in GHG emissions by 2050.

While carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is the GHG emitted in the largest quantity, other GHGs include, but are not limited to, methane, nitr ous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Related to the role of consumer products, HFCs are the primary source of GHG emissions. To a lesser extent hydrochlorofluor ocarbons (HCFC) and hydrofluoroethers (HFE) play a role.

1. Climate Change

Climate change, or global warming, is the process w hereby emissions of anthropogenic pollutants, together with other natur ally-occurring gases, absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, leading to increases i n the overall average global temperature. The standard definition of “greenhous e gas” includes, but is not limited to, six substances as identified in the Kyoto Protocol; carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), HFCs, perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexaf luoride (SF 6 ). Changes in the atmospheric abundance of GHGs al ter the energy balance of the climate system. These changes are expressed in ter ms of radiative forcing. While CO 2 is the largest contributor to radiative forcing, me thane, halocarbon, N 2 O, and other species also contribute to climate change.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 35 Controlling multiple substances that jointly contri bute 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 p roblem is the calculation made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), k nown as Global Warming Potentials (GWP) (IPCC, 2007; IPCC, 1996). The bas ic idea is to calculate the cumulative climate warming over a specified time sp an resulting from one unit mass of

the GHG emitted. The estimates of GWPs have extens ively been reviewed by many

climate scientists around the world. The IPCC is c onstantly evaluating GWP values and the assessment is generally updated every 6 years.

By convention, the GWP index is defined relative to CO 2 which has a GWP of 1. The Second Assessment Report (SAR) (IPCC, 1996), de fines 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 th at of 1 kg of CO 2 . The standard units of measurement used to express the emissions of a G HG is, million metric tons of CO 2 equivalents (MMT CO 2 e) per year.

The GWP values used by ARB are generally the 1996 S AR GWP values (ARB, 2007c). These values are used when converting emis sions of GHGs to carbon dioxide equivalent values (CO 2 e). The SAR GWP values are used to be consistent w ith the Board’s Discrete Early Action Report, other statewi de and national GHG inventories, and the upcoming Scoping Plan.

The climate warming impact from emissions of GHGs i s 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 war ming impacts and the atmospheric lifetime) and thus in the assessment of GWP.

The GWP of a compound may reflect a direct effect a s well as an indirect effect on global warming. The direct effect is the warmin g due to the absorption of radiation by molecules of the compound in question. VOCs, CO 2 , 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, V OCs contribute indirectly to global warming, because they react chemically in the atmos phere 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 consume r products, as mentioned earlier, direct emissions of HFCs are the primary concern. HCFCs, HFEs, CO 2 , and N 2 O 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 p redict that if the increase in GHG emissions continues unabated, temperatures will ris e 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 ecosyst ems 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 c limate 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 w inter temperatures are warmer however, more precipitation will fall as rain, decr easing the size of the snowpack. Heavier rainfall in the winter could bring increase d flooding. Less spring runoff from a smaller snowpack will reduce the amount of water av ailable for hydroelectric power production and agricultural irrigation. Evidence o f this problem already exists. Throughout the 20th century, annual April to July s pring runoff in the Sierra Nevada has been decreasing, with water runoff declining by abo ut ten percent over the last 100 years.

Another predicted outcome of climate change is a ri se in sea level. California has already experienced a 3 to 8 inch rise in the l ast century. If the trend continues, large populations living along California's coast w ill face serious consequences such as flooding of low-lying property, loss of coastal wet lands, erosion of cliffs and beaches, saltwater contamination of drinking water, and dama ge to roads and bridges.

Air quality will also be exacerbated by increasing temperatures. Higher temperatures, strong sunlight, and stable air masse s 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 ch ange 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 an d adopt an overall Scoping Plan, by January 1, 2009, that identifies how GHG e missions 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. Acc ordingly, AB 32 required ARB to identify a list of “discrete early action GHG re duction measures” by June 30, 2007. Discrete Early Actions are Board adopted regulation s to reduce GHG emissions which are legally effective by January 1, 2010. These me asures are to become part of the State’s comprehensive strategy for achieving GHG re ductions.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 37 In June 2007, the ARB approved a list of early act ion 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 di screte early action measures. One of the approved Discrete Early Action Measures designa ted in the Early Action Report calls for the reduction in use of compounds with hi gh GWP in consumer products. The

measure is estimated to achieve an emission reducti on of 0.25 MMT CO 2 e per year from consumer products (ARB, 2007b).

The objective of the consumer products Discrete Ea rly Action measure is to reduce the impact of compounds with high GWPs when alternatives are available. Consumer product formulations may be required to re duce or eliminate the use of GHGs with high GWPs. The primary compounds of inte rest are HFCs. These compounds have direct impacts on global warming. A s mentioned previously, VOCs have an indirect effect on increasing temperatures, in that they participate in reactions leading to the formation of ground level ozone. Th erefore, our VOC reduction strategies for consumer products will also reduce the impact o f consumer products’ emissions on climate change.

The reduction in use of compounds with high GWPs i n 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 emiss ion reduction will be at this time. As we move forward, evaluate product categories, and i dentify areas where emission reductions are possible, we will quantify additiona l emission reductions as GWP limits are adopted. However, we expect to achieve the est imated reduction of

0.25 MMT CO 2 e per year through this and subsequent rulemakings.

In this rulemaking, we are making our initial prop osal to reduce GHGs in consumer products. We are proposing a GWP limit fo r Pressurized Gas Duster products. If adopted by ARB, this will be the firs t GWP standard in place for consumer products in California. ARB staff estimates the re duction from this measure to be equivalent to reducing 0.20 MMT CO 2 per year.

C. IMPORTANCE OF REGULATING CONSUMER PRODUCTS

As described in Section A and Section B of this Cha pter, consumer products emissions contribute to the formation of ground lev el ozone, PM 2.5 , and climate change. In this section, we provide information on the impo rtance of regulating these emissions.

1. VOC Emissions

Consumer products are a significant source of VOC e missions in California. This section focuses on reducing emissions from consumer products as a ground-level ozone control strategy. Although each consumer pro duct may seem to be a small source of emissions, the cumulative use of these pr oducts by over 37 million Californians results in significant emissions (CA D OF, 2007). Given the severity of theTechnical Support Document Chapter IV - 38 air pollution problems in California further dramat ic emission reductions from all sources contributing to ground-level ozone are necessary.

As evidence of the magnitude of consumer product VO C 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 invento ry. In this same year, consumer product emissions will comprise about 18 and 7 perc ent 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. mob ile sources) become effective, consumer product emissions become more i mportant 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 tit le 17, CCR section 94700-94701) as the basis for comparison, consumer product emission s are over two times less reactive

than are emissions from on-road motor vehicles. Re gardless of the ozone-forming potential of various source categories, clearly, fu rther 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 w ith numerous amendments to the regulations, have significantly reduced VOC emissio ns from consumer products. Absent these regulations today, consumer product em issions 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 woul d 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 F orecasted Emissions by Summary Category, 2007 Almanac (ARB 2007h). Emissi ons are then grown in proportion to population increase. Population grow th is in accordance with estimates in the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (C al/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicl e Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). For categories regulated in the 2006 Consumer Products Amendments, emission values from the 2003 Survey and the projected emissions re ductions 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



### YearEmissions (tpd) Em ission s (with p op ulation grow th an d e m ission red u ctions )

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 red uctions that have been realized from the ARB’s Consumer Products Program a re beginning to be partially offset by population growth. California’s populatio n is expected to grow to 40 million by 2010 (CA DOF, 2007). Therefore, ARB must continue its commitment to pursue additional technologically and commercially feasibl e reductions in consumer products

emissions.

In 1988, with the passing of the California Clean A ir Act (CCAA), the importance of controlling emissions from consumer products was set forth. To meet California ambient air quality standards the CCAA added sectio n 41712 to the Health and Safety Code. This section requires that ARB adopt regulat ions to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOCs emitted by consumer prod ucts. As part of the regulatory process, ARB must determine that adequate data exis t to adopt the regulations. ARB must also determine that the regulations are techno logically and commercially feasible, necessary, and do not eliminate any product form.

To meet the federal standards, in 1994 emission red uctions from consumer products became part of the California State Implem entation Plan (SIP) for ozone. In this SIP, consumer products measures were put in pl ace to work towards attaining the federal one-hour ambient air quality standard for o zone. In 2003, ARB again reiterated the commitment to reduce consumer products VOC emis sions to meet the one-hour

federal ozone standard.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 40 In response to these mandates, three regulations wi th 150 VOC limits for 115 categories of consumer products (including antiperspirants and deodorants and 36 aerosol coatings categories) have been establish ed to date. The adopted limits will achieve a 44 percent reduction in overall VOC emiss ions from consumer products by the year 2010.

In 2007, a new SIP was adopted. This State Strateg y 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. Th e consumer products commitment in this strategy supplements the 1994 and 2003 comm itments. 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 o ccur 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 w ill continue ARB’s commitment to reduce VOC emissions from consumer products. As pr eviously 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 th e 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 o f this, the Strategy includes a commitment to explore innovative reduction strategi es in the longer term. These measures would include investigating emission reduc tion opportunities through reactivity-based standards and alternative market-b ased mechanisms. If these mechanisms cannot produce meaningful emission reduc tions from the consumer products source category, then other approaches wou ld be evaluated. Some of these approaches include the purchase of VOC credits; and funding of special projects to reduce emissions or accelerate reductions from poll ution sources outside of the consumer products industry.

Because significant further VOC reductions are nece ssary 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 Heal th and Safety Code provides that a regulation’s “necessity” is to be evaluated in term s of both the State and federal

standards.

The applicable State and federal laws show that bot h the U.S. Congress and the California Legislature intended progress toward cle an air to be made as quickly as possible. The CCAA specifically declares that it i s 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 a lso 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 sectio ns 172(a)(2), 181(a), and 188(c) of theTechnical Support Document Chapter IV - 41 federal Clean Air Act). For all of the reasons des cribed above, the proposed amendments are “necessary” within the meaning of se ction 41712 of the Health and Safety Code.

The amendments proposed in this rulemaking are inte nded to partially fulfill the 2007 Strategy commitment for VOC reductions from co nsumer products.

2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

We acknowledge that the GHG contribution of consume r 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 fea sible. While staff is still in the process of developing the consumer product GHG inventory, w e do know from past surveys that several GHGs are used in consumer products.

Consumer products use various GHGs, mostly as prope llants. To a much lesser degree, several solvents with fairly high GWPs are used. These compounds are typically low photochemically reactive compounds th at are non-VOCs and have been used as a reformulation strategy to reduce VOC cont ent. Compounds of interest include HFCs, HCFCs, HFEs, CO 2 , and N 2 O. 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 CO 2 is also used as a propellant, but the GHG emissions are negligib le 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**

CO 2 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 approximate ly ten times greater than the GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than CO 2 . Reductions of HFC-134a are being pursued in this rulemaking.

GHG emissions data are available from the 2003 Sur vey of consumer products. Staff has evaluated these data for possible GHG red uctions 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 highTechnical 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 c onsumer products, and evaluate the data for product categories where compounds wit h high GWP are used to determine if there is a potential to reduce them without incr easing the use of VOCs.

Because reductions are necessary to slow climate ch ange, the reductions from the amendments proposed in this report are necessar y. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, by specifying adoption of Di screte Early Action Measures in Health and Safety Code section 38560, shows that th e California Legislature intended progress toward reducing GHGs be made as quickly as possible. Because GHG reductions from consumer products have been designa ted as a Discrete Early Action Measure, to comply with State law, the proposed ame ndment 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 (Ap pendix D). Data received from the 2003 Survey formed the basis for the emissions used in this rulemaking. A complete discussion of the extensive survey proce ss is found in Chapter IV of “The Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Prod ucts Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regulation” released on September 29, 2006 (the 2006 Amendments).

In summary, the 2003 Survey provided staff with de tailed information on the formulations of consumer products, including comple te speciation of VOCs, low vapor pressure VOC (LVP-VOC) solvents, and key exempt ing redients (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 detai ling the aggregate sales, VOC speciation, VOC tonnage, and other key informat ion. Summary tables were also provided (certain specific data were omitted to pro tect confidential information) detailing VOC content, product form, LVP-VOC content, and oth er information. The results of the 2003 Survey were discussed at workgroup meetings, a nd input from industry was used

to correct inaccuracies in the data. For this rule making, the 2008 emissions and reduction estimates in the years when the limits be come effective (2010-2015) were grown from 2003 sales data and the State Department of Finance’s population estimates. Annual population growth factors were c alculated using the 2008 State population figures and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found in the Popul ation and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2008d).Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 43 Staff is confident that the 2003 Survey had adeq uate representation of the available technologies in the market place and find s 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 wi th 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 fo r use in GHG proposal (ARB, 2008c).

In developing these proposals, staff worked extens ively with stakeholders on each category proposed for regulation. In meetings with members of industry and other interested stakeholders, extensive discussions on t he types of technologies used in each category were discussed. Numerous product lab els and associated literature for each category were analyzed. Category information was also obtained from trade journals, Internet sites, textbooks, patents, and d irectly from manufacturers.

2. Emission Estimates for Categories

The total emissions from the categories proposed f or regulation are estimated to be about 22.6 tons per day in 2008. Table IV-3 sum marizes these emissions, as well as the anticipated VOC reduction when the proposed lim its 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 availabl e 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 fo r Pressurized Gas Dusters was feasible. During the public process of develop ing the proposed GWP limit, staff held meetings and teleconferences to solicit inform ation and comments from industry associations and industry representatives. At this time, industry representatives alerted ARB staff that significant changes in the gas duste r market had occurred since 2003. In response, staff conducted the Pressurized Gas Duste r Survey Update to collect updated data (ARB, 2008c). The GHG emissions from the Pressurized Gas Dusters for 2003 and 2007 were estimated using reported informa tion from the 2003 Consumer Products Survey and from the Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update gathered during February 2008 for 2007 sales. Information from bot h surveys is shown in Table IV-4.Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 44 Table IV-3 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at E ffective 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 Cleaner a Nonaerosol 1 0.29 0.07

Aerosol 17 0.27 0.08 Dusting Aid a Nonaerosol 3 0.01 0.00

Fabric Protectant a Nonaerosol 1 0.18 0.08

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product a All 0.05 grams per use** 0.52 0.21

Floor Maintenance Product a All 1 0.11 0.07

Floor Polish or Wax –

Wood Floor Wax a All 70 0.06 0.01

Glass Cleaner b Aerosol 10 0.33 0.03

Motor Vehicle Wash a All 0.2 0.38 0.14

25 c 4.08 2.04 Multi-purpose Lubricant – excluding solid & semisolid c/e All 10 e 1.27

Aerosol 25 *** 0.00

Odor Remover/Eliminator a Nonaerosol 6 0.12 0.03

Penetrant c All 25 0.40 0.15 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20% or less fragrance) d All 75 + 10.89 0.41

Pressurized Gas Duster a All 1 0 0

Chemically Curing b Nonaerosol 3 1.91 0.22 Sealant or Caulking Compound Non-Chemically

Curing a Nonaerosol 1.5 0.68 0.12

Aerosol 15 0.76 0.24 Spot Remover a Nonaerosol 3 0.29 0.05

Aerosol 8 0.01 0.00

Tire or Wheel Cleaner a Nonaerosol 2 0.14 0.06

Windshield Water Repellent a 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 reduct ions 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: 12/31/2015Technical 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 (CO 2 e lbs/day) 2008 Adjusted

GHG Emissions (CO 2 e 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 avera ge GHG content of over 99 percent by weight. As shown in Table IV-4, 39 d uster products were reported for 2003 with adjusted sales of 3,657 pounds per day fo r 2008, and estimated GHG

emissions of about 0.37 MMT CO 2 e per year in California. Additionally, as shown i n the table, 90 duster products were reported for 2007 wi th adjusted sales of 7,292 pounds per day for 2008, and estimated GHG emissions of ab out 0.36 MMT CO 2 e 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-134 a 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 proporti onate to the category sales, which have nearly doubled. (For more details on the Pres surized Gas Duster proposal see Chapter VI).

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standar ds . 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 C onsideration

. October 17, 2007. (ARB, 2007b)

5. Air Resources Board. ARB Compendium of Emission Factors and Methods to Support Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions . October, 2007. (ARB, 2007c)Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 46 6. Air Resources Board. State Strategy for Californ ia’s 2007 Implementation Plan

. Released April 26, 2007. Adopted by the Air Resourc es Board on September 27, 2007. (ARB, 2007d)

7. Air Resources Board. 2006 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. July 24, 2007. (ARB, 2007f)

8. Air Resources Board. The California Almanac of E missions 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 A mbient Air Quality Standard for

Ozone . October, 2005. (ARB, 2005)

12. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commerci al 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 Amendment s to the Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfat es . May 3, 2002. (ARB, 2002)

15. Air Resources Board. Effect of Ozone on Vegetat ion 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 Diffe ring Air Pollution Levels . 2001. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care M edicine. 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. Techno logy of Pressurized Gas Duster Products - Meeting with ARB Staff . Andrew Steinman, Executive Vice President, Falcon Safety Products, Inc. March 5, 20 08. (CSPA, 2008)Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 47 19. Delfino RJ, Zeiger RS, Seltzer JM, Street DH, M cLaren 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 Admissi on for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases . 2006. Journal of American Medical Association. Volume 925. Number 10: 1127-1134. (Domi nici et al ., 2006)

21. Dominici F, McDermott A, Daniels M, Zeger SL, S amet JM. Revised Analyses of the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollutio n Study: Mortality Among

Residents of 90 Cities . 2005. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Hea lth. A. 68:1071-92. (Dominici et al ., 2005)

22. Dominici F, McDermott A, Daniels M, Zeger SL, S amet JM. Revised Analyses of the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollutio n 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 Traf fic and Nitrogen Dioxide

. 2005. Epidemiology. Volume 16. Number 6: 737-743. ( Gauderman et al ., 2005)

24. Gauderman, W.J., Vora, H., McConnell, R., Berha ne, 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 o f Age . 2004. New England

Journal of Medicine. Volume 351. Number 11: 1057-10 67. (Gauderman et al

., 2004)

25. Gauderman, W.J., Gilliland, G.F., Vora, H., Avo l, 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 Funct ion Growth in Southern

California Children . 2000. American Journal Respiratory and Critical C are Medicine. Volume 162. pp.1383-1390. (Gauderman et al ., 2000)

27. Gent JF, Triche EW, Holford TR, Belanger K, Bra cken MB, Beckett WS,

Leaderer BP. Association of Low-level Ozone and Fin e Particles with Respiratory Symptoms in Children with Asthma . 2003. Journal of American

Medical Association. Volume 290. Number 14: 1859-18 67. (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., McCo nnell, R., Islam, K.T., and Peters, J.M. The Effects of Ambient Air Pollution o n School Absenteeism Due to Respiratory Illnesses . 2001. Epidemiology. Volume 12. Number 1: 12-43. (Gilliland et al

., 2001)

29. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For ster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywo od, 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 Radiativ e Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contributi on of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernment al Panel on Climate Change

. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marqu is, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge Univers ity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007)

30. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Clim ate 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. Harr is, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambr idge, United Kingdom. (IPCC, 1996)

31. Krewski D, Burnett R, Goldberg MS, Koover K, Si emiatycki 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. R eduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality . 2006. American Journal of Respiratory and Critica l Care Medicine. Volume 173: 667-672. (Laden et al ., 2006)

33. Laden F, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Schwartz J. Asso ciation of Fine Particulate Matter from Different Sources with Daily Mortality in Six U.S. Cities . 2000. Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 108. Numb er 10: 941-947. (Laden et al ., 2000)

34. McConnell, R., K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S.J. L ondon, 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 Pete rs, 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. Numb er 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: 1 83-198. (Moolgavkar, 2003)

38. Ostro BD, Lipsett MJ, Mann JK, Krupnick A, Harr ington W. Air Pollution and Respiratory Morbidity among Adults in Southern Cali fornia . 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, Fland ers WD, Todd K, Mulholland JA, Ryan PB, Frumkin H. Ambient Air Pollution and Respi ratory 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 3 rd , Burnett RT, Thurston GE, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krews ki D, and Godleski, JJ. Cardiovascular Mortality and Long-Ter m 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 3 rd , Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-te rm Exposure to Fine

Particulate Air Pollution . 2002. Journal of American Medical Association. Vo lume 287. Number 9: 1132-41. (Pope et al ., 2002)

44. Seinfeld, John H., and Pandis, Spyros N. Atmosp heric 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 Nonelderl y 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, Dominic i F, Schwab M, Ange BA, Samet J, Ondov J, Harrison D, Geyh A. A Case-crosso ver Study of Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Onset of Conge stive Heart Failure Symptom Exacerbation Leading to Hospitalization . 2006. American Journal of Epidemiology. Volume 164. Number 5: 421-433. (Symon s et al ., 2006)

47. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricu ltural Outlook: Statistical Indicators, Table 34.-Cash Receipts from Farm Marke ting, by State . July, 2006, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/Agoutlook/AOTa bles/ . (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. Numbe r 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 S tudies 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 REG ULATION

In this Chapter, we provide a plain English descri ption of the proposed amendments to the California Regulation for Reducin g 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, C onsumer Products , sections 94507-94517 (Consumer Products Regulation).

Where applicable, key terms or concepts involved i n each proposed amendment are described. The discussion in this Chapter is i ntended to satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 11343.2, which requires tha t 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 c onsumer products. In this rulemaking, however, we are proposing to add requir ements related to climate change. To clarify that the regulation now specifies requir ements to reduce VOCs and greenhouse gases (GHG), we are proposing to change the title of the regulation to “Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Pr oducts.” Additionally, amendments are being proposed to six sections in th e Consumer Products Regulation: section 94508 “Definitions,” section 94509 “Standar ds for Consumer Products,” section 94510 “Exemptions,” section 94512 “Administ rative 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 am endments and the rationale for them. The proposal includes the addition and m odification of numerous definitions, a change in the definition of VOC to exclude a hydr ofluoroether, 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 w arming potential (GWP) in Pressurized Gas Duster products. A more detailed d iscussion of the existing regulatory requirements are referred to at the end of this Cha pter (ARB, 2006a; ARB 2004b; ARB, 1999; ARB, 1997b; ARB, 1991a; ARB, 1990c).

A. DEFINITIONS (SECTION 94508)

Section 94508, “Definitions,” provides all the ter ms used in the Consumer Products Regulation which are not self-explanatory. The proposed amendments to the Regulation include new or revised definitions. The se definitions are necessary to define categories proposed for VOC limits or GWP limits, o r 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 d efinitional changes, section 94508(a) would also be reorganized to refle ct 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 Rep ellant

Motor Vehicle Wash

Several of these definitions warrant a further des cription.

Global Warming Potential and Global Warming Potenti al Value

Of particular note, we are proposing new definition s for GWP and GWP Value. These definitions are necessary to implement our pr oposal to reduce the use of compounds with high GWPs used in Pressurized Gas Du sters. We are proposing to use the GWP definition of the Intergovernmental Pan el on Climate Change (IPCC). GWP provides a measure of a compound’s impact on gl obal 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 s pecifies that, if the SAR does not contain a GWP value for a specific chemical or comp ound, 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 chemica l or compound in the SAR or the FAR, then the GWP value is assumed to be equal to t he 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 wher e 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 ar e 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 establi shments that manufacture or constructTechnical Support Document Chapter V - 53

goods or commodities, or are products sold to holde rs 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 w here household consumers may purchase them.

Table V-2, contains the list of existing definitio ns that are proposed to be modified. These changes are necessary to improve c larity, improve enforceability, or to describe the types of products that are excluded fr om 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 Lubrica nt 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 def inition of VOC to exclude hydrofluoroether (HFE) 7200. HFE 7200 is a solvent used in precision cleaning. In a report titled “Environmental Impact Assessment of S elected Halogenated Chemicals,” ARB staff determined that use of HFE 7200 has negli gible 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 belie ves the exemption is appropriate.

Pressurized Gas Duster Definition

Currently, the definition for Pressurized Gas Dust er 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 conc ern. These products are formulated with a non-flammable propellant with a high GWP. A t present time, no technology exists that would maintain this non-flammable aspec t if these products were mandated to comply with our proposed GWP limit for this cate gory. Therefore, staff is proposing a

modification to the definition for Pressurized Gas Duster to exclude products used onTechnical Support Document Chapter V - 54

energized equipment as long as the Principal Displa y Panel specifies “Energized Equipment use only.” As proposed, products so-labe led 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 exi sting Consumer Products Regulation by specifying VOC limits for the product categories shown in Table V-3. Some of the categories are previously unregulated a nd others are currently regulated. For the currently regulated categories we are propo sing 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). Severa l of the proposed VOC limits warrant additional explanation.

Proposal for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Produ ct

Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product is a prev iously 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. O ur rationale for this proposal is

described in section 2 below.

Proposal for Personal Fragrance Products

Staff is proposing that Personal Fragrance Product s with 20 percent or less fragrance would be required to meet the existing Ja nuary 1, 1999, limit of 75 percent by weight VOC. This would remove the so-called “Grand father” clauses currently contained in subsections 94510(h) and (l). The rea der 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 proposin g to reinstate the long-standing exemption for solid and paste forms of Furniture Ma intenance Products. This exemption was inadvertently omitted during the 2006 rulemaking. The exemption clarifies that solid and paste forms of this type o f 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 Da tes

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 “Grandf ather” clausesTechnical Support Document Chapter V - 56

2. Other Proposed Amendments to section 94509

The following proposals pertain to other subsectio ns of section 94509.

Proposed Requirement for Dilutable Products - Secti on 94509(b)(4)

Currently, section 94509(b) in the Consumer Produc ts 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 dilu ted. Staff has become aware of products packaged in pump spray containers that app ear to be marketed as “ready-touse” products, but are designed to be diluted by th e user prior to use. Staff believes this approach to packaging may be diminishing anticipate d VOC reductions, and is a potential circumvention of the intent of the regula tion. Therefore, staff is proposing a modification to section 94509(b)(4), clarifying tha t the VOC limit for products sold in pump spray containers is applied prior to any minim um suggested dilution.

Date Coding Requirements – Section 94509 (i), (m), (n), (o) and (p)

Subsections 94509 (i), (m), (n), (o) and (p) speci fy 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 - S ection 94509(q)

To mitigate a potential adverse environmental impa ct, 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 (CE QA), ARB is required to identify and mitigate any possible adverse environm ental impacts of regulatory actions. We believe that it is unlikely, but possi ble, that manufacturers may, in response to new VOC limits, choose to reformulate w ith chlorinated solvents that are Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). Therefore, because t here are many products that comply with the proposed limits, none of which cont ain 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 requirement s for the products listed above. It is being proposed that any of these products manufa ctured before December 31, 2010, can be sold, supplied, or offere d 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 94 509(q)(3). This section requires that the seller must notify the purchaser of the se ll-through period described in 94509(q)(2) only if the product is being sold or su pplied to a distributor or retailer, and the product is being sold or supplied on or after J une 30, 2013.

New subsection 94509(q)(4) is being proposed to es tablish that the requirements of 94509(q)(1) and 94509(q)(3) do not apply to products that contain methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloro ethylene present as an impurity, or in amounts equal or less than 0.01 percent by weigh t.

In evaluating the use of these TACs, staff has bec ome aware that certain Penetrants are designed for use on energized equipm ent. In these situations, the products must be non-flammable as a safety precauti on. 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 lan guage 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 9450 9(r)

The reduction of GHGs from consumer products has b een designated as a Discrete Early Action Measure in accordance with Th e California Global Warming

Solutions Act of 2006. The emission reduction esti mated for Consumer Products is 0.25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivale nts (MMT CO 2 e) 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 chemica l compound that has a Global Warming Potential of 150 or greater.

In accordance with CEQA, to ensure that the VOC con tent of these products do

not increase as a result of reformulation to meet G WP limits, a one percent by weight VOC limit is also being proposed for Pressurized Ga s Dusters. As a further mitigation measure, we are also proposing that Pressurized Gas Dusters could not contain the VOC exempt compounds methylene chloride or perchlor oethylene. While reformulating with these TACs is unlikely, we belie ve prohibiting their use is prudent to ensure that there is no increase in exposure to the se TACs.

Staff is also proposing in section 94509(r)(2) tha t 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 produc t 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 th at 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 no tice 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 th at the fragrance exemption does not apply to Pressurized Gas Dusters. This pr oposal ensures that even with fragrance, the total VOCs in a Pressurized Gas Dust er 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 resu lt of the proposed regulation.

Finally, Section 94509(r)(5) is being proposed to s pecify that any chemical compounds that are present as impurities in an amou nt, 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 i n Pressurized Gas Dusters may contain very small quantities of contaminants. This provision allows Pressurized Gas Dusters that contain those contaminants, presen t at very low levels, to comply with the regulatory provisions.

Staff has also become aware that certain Pressuriz ed Gas Dusters are designed for use on energized equipment. In these situations the products must be non-flammable as a safety precaution. To provide t his non-flammable aspect, propellants with high GWPs are used. At present ti me, staff is not aware of alternative propellants that can perform this function. Theref ore, staff is proposing that Pressurized Gas Dusters that specify on the Princip al Display Panel “Energized Equipment use only.” be exempt from both the VOC an d GWP limits.

Requirements for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product – Section 94509(s)

Staff is proposing a new subsection 94509(s) to des cribe the VOC content limit for Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product. Thes e products are typically made by applying liquid materials to a non-woven sheet subs trate. 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 th e size of each dryer sheet does not increase. In developing the limit for these produc ts, staff determined that establishing a percent by weight limit could result in the use o f larger sheets to comply. This would diminish emission reductions and potentially lead t o increasing the solid waste stream. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA requirements to mitigate potential environmental impacts, the grams per sheet limit is proposed. Th e 0.05 grams per use VOC limit is designed to provide a VOC reduction equivalent to t hat which would be achieved by setting a 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit (includin g 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 p roducts. 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 per cent or less fragrance are required to meet an 80 percent by weight or a 75 pe rcent 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 eit her limit. Products that were introduced between 1995 and 1999 were required to m eet 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 containe d in subsections 94509(h) and (l). Staff is proposing to remove these “Grandfather” cl auses. 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 o n 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 Requiremen ts – Section 94512(b)(1)

Currently, section 94512(b)(1) specifies that a pro duct must clearly display the date or code indicating the date of manufacture. W e 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 – S ection 94512(d)

Staff is proposing that non-aerosol Chemically Cur ing and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound products comply with additional labeling requirements specified in section 94512(d). Becaus e different VOC limits are proposed, staff believes this is necessary to easily distingu ish between Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound and Non-Chemically Curing Seal ant or Caulking Compound. Section 94512(d) requires products to display the a pplicable 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 limi t 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 te chnology advances as expected,

staff believes that manufacturers should demonstrat e 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 detail ed written updates on their research and development efforts undertaken to achi eve compliance with the VOC limits. The reports would include sales and formul ation 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 3 1, 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 devel op 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 31 0 be used as the analytical

method to determine GWP content. This method alrea dy contains the necessary protocols to analyze for both HFC-152a and HFC-134a content.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assess ment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals – Staff Report . March, 2008. (ARB, 2008b)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reas ons 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 Reas ons for Proposed Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspi rants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Freshene rs and Toilet/Urinal Care

Products . May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b)

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Mid-te rm Measures II

. September 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999)

5. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reaso ns for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m 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 Con sumer Products – Phase II – Technical Support Document . October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a)

7. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Red uce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technic al 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 fo r the proposed limits for each category proposed for regulation. The following in formation 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 comp ound (VOC) and/or global warming potential (GWP) limit, our rationale for th e 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 i ncludes descriptions of the product categories for which VOC limits are propose d. The product categories in Section A are in alphabetical order. Section B des cribes 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 cl eaning and tightening pores. For this rulemaking, only those Astringents/Toners not regul ated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are included. These products may also exfoliate, refresh, remove excess dirt, oil, impurities, and/or prepare the sk in for moisturizing. While most Astringents/Toners are liquid products, there are a lso 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/Medic ated Toner, Personal Fragrance Product, cold cream, lotion or Antiperspirant. Med icated Astringent/Medicated Toner means any product regulated as a drug by the FDA wh ich is applied to the skin for the purpose of cleaning or tightening pores. In accord ance with FDA rules, Medicated Astringents/Medicated Toners must be labeled such t hat the active ingredients in the product are identified.

Astringent/Toner is a previously unregulated categ ory. 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

As indicated, 203 different branded Astringents/To ners were sold in California in 2003 by 73 companies. Astringent/Toner VOC emissio ns, 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 profess ionals 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 d ispensed 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 produc ts recommend the use of a moisturizer once the Astringent/Toner has dried (Co te, 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 offe r smaller and larger sizes.

Product Formulation :

The VOC content of products in this category range s 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 a nd readily evaporate. These products typically contain water, low vapor pressure volatil e organic compounds (LVP-VOC), fragrance and either ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, an d/or witch hazel.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

As shown in Table VI-2 below, the proposed VOC lim it 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 emi ssion reduction of 220 pounds per day, or about 0.11 tons per day.

Table VI-2 also shows that 70 percent of the marke t 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

As shown in Table VI-2, at the time of the 2003 Su rvey, over two-thirds of the market complied with the proposed VOC limit of 35 p ercent 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 m aintain efficacy among the variety of Astringent/Toner products currently avai lable. 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 neede d for the Astringent/Toner to effectively dissolve sebum on oily skin (Idelle, 2008).

Staff has determined that reformulation to the pro posed limit is technically feasible. The majority of products in this categor y are already low VOC, and there are many effective non-VOC alternatives available for s ubstitution. Numerous products with VOC content below 35 percent are already available and well-accepted by consumers. Reformulation options that can be used by manufactu rers to meet the proposed limit include reducing the level of alcohol and increasin g 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 level s of VOCs is necessary to maintain efficacy, and provide consumers with all o ptions for skin treatment.

Response : All of the products within this category make simi lar claims on the label, including those containing 35 percent or les s VOC.

b. Issue : Manufacturers will change their non-medicated pro ducts to medicated allowing the use of the full range of VOCs.

Response : Staff disagrees. The cost to change a non-medica ted 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 sali cylic acid, labeling modifications, and extensive record keeping.

c. Issue : Any VOC limit on these products will negatively i mpact public health.

Response : As required in the California Health and Safety C ode, we have consulted with staff at California Department of Pu blic 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 wa ter 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 addr ess oily skin.

e. Issue : Setting a low VOC limit will eliminate some needed products.

Response : Staff disagrees. We believe all necessary functi ons of an Astringent/Toner can be met at a VOC level of 35 pe rcent or less. In addition, 70 percent of the market already meets this limit w hich shows both technological and commercial feasibility with the proposed limit.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l 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 St aff . March 20, 2008. (Idelle, 2008)

2. Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner

Product Category Description :

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner products are used for ro utine cleaning of soils on carpet and/or upholstery in homes, businesses, inst itutions, and vehicles. Typical fabrics include wool; cotton; nylon; and other carp et, rug, furniture, and automotive interior synthetic fibers. The category includes c leaning products with or without fabric protectant claims. Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner does not include Spot Removers, used for removing localized spots and stains; vinyl or l eather cleaners; or products for exclusive use at industrial facilities engaged in f urniture or carpet manufacture (i.e. industrial cleaners used only in production o f 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-t o-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 m inimum dilution concentration). However, the proposal to clarify the category defin ition would apply to all product forms.

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners were regulated under Mi dterm Measures I of the Consumer Products Regulation approved on July 24, 1 997, and a description of the products is also included in the staff report for t hat rulemaking (ARB, 1997b). At that time, the Board adopted a 7 percent VOC limit for a erosol products, a 0.1 percent VOC limit for dilutable non-aerosol products, and a 3 p ercent VOC limit for RTU non-aerosol products. The adopted limits became effective Janu ary 1, 2001.

As discussed, the Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner categor y 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 emission s 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 catego ry 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

As shown in Table VI-3, estimated VOC emissions ar e about 1,234 pounds per day, or about 0.61 tons per day, in California. Th e sales-weighted average VOC content of the aerosol and non-aerosol products rep orted in the 2003 Survey was approximately 7 and 3 percent by weight, respective ly.

Product Use and Marketing :

Aerosol products for carpets and rugs typically us e an invertible aerosol container for downward spray application. The dispensed liqu id or foam is left on the carpet or rug for several minutes to penetrate and loosen dir t, with or without agitation. To lift and remove the dirt, the area is either wiped with clot h (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 si milar manner.

The RTU non-aerosol products include not-to-be-dil uted liquids, solids, and gel/semisolids. The liquids may be dispensed by me chanical spray (trigger or hand-pump-pressurized tank) and used in a manner si milar to aerosols. The solids and gel/semisolids are granular or powder products appl ied to carpeting, brushed or agitated, and then vacuumed. Some products are use d for pre-cleaning sections of carpeting, such as traffic lanes, prior to main cle aning such as by hot-water extraction.

Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners are used by household c onsumers, janitors, professional carpet/upholstery cleaners, and auto d etailers in homes, businesses, institutions, and vehicles. Aerosol products are t ypically 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 genera l merchandise stores, super markets, auto parts stores, hardware stores, janito rial and maintenance supply warehouses, and over the Internet.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 68 Product Formulation :

Aerosol products may contain 4 to 7 percent hydroc arbon 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 gen erally LVP-VOCs). When fabric protection is claimed, the product contains a polym er to be left behind on the fabric. Other propellants include carbon dioxide, dimethyl ether, and nitrous oxide (N 2 O). The very low-VOC products are generally surfactant-base d, 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 aer osol 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 solvent s. Surfactants are common; sodium lauryl sulfate is typical. Some products ar e shampoos, formulated to remove particles and inorganic contaminants, and may addre ss oily dirt to some extent as well. The few that reported solid (powder or granular) an d gel/semisolid products in this subcategory showed varied formulations.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limits for Carpet/Upholstery Clea ner 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 e missions adjusted to 2010, the proposed limits will result in an estimated emissio n 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, curre ntly comply with the proposed

VOC limits.

The proposed 5 percent VOC limit for aerosol produ cts 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 so lvent. Another option is use of non-VOC propellants, such as N 2 O, to enable up to 5 percent VOC cleaning solvent. A third option is to use up to 5 percent VOC hydrocar bon propellant, and rely on LVP-VOC surfactant cleaners, LVP-VOC solvent cleane rs 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

The proposed 1 percent VOC limit for RTU non-aeros ol 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 perc hloroethylene (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 reformulate d products, ARB staff is proposing that perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and meth ylene chloride be prohibited in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners. This prohibition is pr oposed 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 av ailable formulation technologies do not contain perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, o r methylene chloride, thus they are not needed to comply with the proposed standard. S ee Chapter VIII for a discussion of the health effects of perchloroethylene, trichloroe thylene, and methylene chloride.

Issues :

a. Issue : The sales-weighted average (SWA) for Carpet/Uphol stery 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-co mplying products, some with VOC content considerably above the 3 percent VOC limit in effect in 2003. However, the emission reduction mu st be corrected to avoid double-counting reductions associated with a prior rulemaking, and to not

overestimate the emission reduction from the curren t 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 uncorr ected SWA appearTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 70 inconsistently high, compared with the corrected VO C reduction. Also, there were substantial sales of low-VOC products complyin g with the proposed 1 percent VOC level, and hence well below the 3 per cent VOC limit in effect in 2003. This additionally makes the SWA appear incon sistently high compared with the relatively high complying market share wit h the 1 percent VOC proposed

limit.

b. Issue : Lowering of the VOC limit for aerosol Carpet/Upho lstery Cleaner to 5 percent by weight could impact the feasibility of foaming products to not leave soil-attracting residues. A lowering of the VOC li mit 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 wit h the proposed 5 percent VOC limit for aerosol products. Also, we do not ex pect 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 believ e there would be no problem with either soil-attracting residues or with emptyi ng the aerosol container.

c. Issue : Non-VOC propellants such as HFC-152a are not suit able for foaming aerosol products, because the non-VOC propellants l ack the solubility of conventional hydrocarbon propellants, needed for ad equate foam generation.

Response : As discussed above, the 2003 survey data show sev eral foaming products, using conventional hydrocarbon propellant s, 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 feasib ility of products to not leave soil-attracting residues.

Response : The 2003 survey data show that many RTU non-aeros ol products comprising 25 percent market share already comply w ith the proposed 1 percent VOC limit. Therefore, we believe there should be n o 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 b y the marketer, and if clearly mis-categorized, with adjustments by ARB staff. Some productTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 71 names and label claims may be inconsistent. If a p roduct is both a Spot Remover and a Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, we would c onsider the product a Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner if label directions recom mend broad-area (nonlocalized) use of the product.

f. Issue : Precleaner liquid and powder products are not Car pet/Upholstery Cleaner - non-aerosol RTU products.

Response : These products already fall into the definition o f Carpet and Upholstery Cleaner in section 94508(a)(26) of the C onsumer Products Regulation. As non-aerosol RTU products, they have been subject to the currently effective 3 percent VOC limit since Jan uary 1, 2001.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures I

. June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b)

3. Dusting Aid

Product Category Description:

Dusting Aid means a product designed to assist in r emoving dust and other soils from floors and other surfaces without leaving a wa x or silicone-based coating. Dusting

Aids do not include Pressurized Gas Duster Products , or Furniture Maintenance Products, which are regulated as separate categorie s.

The Board adopted standards limiting the VOC conte nt 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 f irst 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. I n addition, the Board adopted a 7 percent VOC limit for non-aerosol Dusting Aids, e ffective 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, 200 4a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales ar e 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Estimated VOC emissions from the entire category ar e 578 pounds per day, or about 0.29 tons per day. As shown in Table VI-5, a erosol Dusting Aids account for 79 percent of the total category emissions. Aeroso l 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 d ust and other soils from floors and other surfaces without leaving a wax or silicon e based coating. The product is applied to dust mops, dust cloths, or feather duste rs to increase the ability of the mop head or cloth to attract and hold dust particles, l int, pet dander, hair, and dirt. These products are used on furniture, molding, window bli nds, ceiling fans, window frames and sills, radiators, woodwork, floors and any other su rface 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 floo rs.

Dusting Aids contain oils or cationic quaternary am monium 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 t he 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 provid ed by Furniture Maintenance Products and Dusting Aids, the categories can be di stinguished. Dusting Aids are primarily used for dusting, including dusting of fu rniture and floors, without leaving a wax or silicone-based coating. Furniture Maintenance P roducts are used primarily to polish furniture, leaving a wax or silicone-based protecti ve coating. Although some FurnitureTechnical 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, VOC s, hydrocarbon propellants (in aerosols), and small amounts of other agents su ch as emulsifiers, dust attractants and fragrances (ARB, 2004a). The active ingredient s used to lift and absorb dust particles can be a light hydrocarbon oil, orange oi l, or a cationic quaternary ammonium compound.

The solvents used in Dusting Aids include water; hy drocarbons, such as odorless mineral spirits or petroleum distillates; LVP-VOCs such as glycol ethers; or volatile methyl siloxanes. Aerosol products typically conta in 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 limi t 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 red uction 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 V OC 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 m arket currently complies with the proposed 17 percent VOC limit for aerosol Dusti ng Aids. For non-aerosol Dusting Aids, 77 percent of the market complies with the pr oposed 3 percent VOC limit.

As described in the Product Use and Marketing section, there is some overlap in the functions provided by Furniture Maintenance Pro ducts and Dusting Aids. Because of the similarity in formulation and function, we e xpect that the technology used in

Furniture Maintenance Products can be transferred f or use in Dusting Aids. Reformulation options include the use of LVP-VOC hy drocarbons, 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 Su rvey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Con sumer Products – Phase II – Technical Support Document . October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a)

4. Fabric Protectant (non-aerosol)

Product Category Description :

Fabric Protectants are applied to fabric substrate s 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 a re used specifically to protect against dirt, soil, or stains. Products which solely provi de water repellency (i.e. water-proofing protection), without any claim for dirt, soil, or s tain 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-b ased (ARB, 1991a).

Fabric Protectants were regulated under Phase II o f the Consumer Products Regulation adopted in January 1992, and a descripti on of the product category is also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (A RB, 1991a). At that time, the Board approved the staff recommendation of a 75 percent V OC 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 per cent 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. Tab le 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 a bout 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Estimated VOC emissions of non-aerosol Fabric Prot ectants are 366 pounds per day, or about 0.18 tons per day. Although not show n, 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 interi or care. Fabric Protectants may be

used for household fabric articles such as bed cove rs, quilts, craft, and vehicle upholstery. Fabric Protectants are also used on th e fabric tops of convertible

automobiles.

Non-aerosol products are typically applied by mech anical spray on clean fabric articles, and left to dry. A resin film, usually v ery thin and often invisible, is formed and left behind on the fabric fibers. Occasional re-ap plication may be needed to maintain protection (ARB, 1991a).

Fabric Protectants are sold in general merchandise stores, supermarkets, hardware stores, recreational equipment stores, aut o parts stores, janitorial and maintenance supply warehouses, and over the Interne t.

Product Formulation :

The non-aerosol products are liquid, mechanical-sp ray-applied products, some sold as dilutables (i.e. concentrates). Most formu lations are water-based with low levels of VOCs. Typical VOCs include glycol ethers and al cohol. Non-VOC products represented approximately 42 percent of the non-aer osol 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 estimate d emission reduction of 163 pounds per day, or about 0.08 tons per day. Table VI-8 al so shows that about 95 percent of the non-aerosol market currently complies with the prop osed 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

The proposed 1 percent VOC limit is intended to al low 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 perc hloroethylene (an exempt chlorinated compound) and trichloroethylene (a VOC chlorinated compound) in this category. While it is not likely these toxic air c ontaminants will be used as cleaning solvents in the future reformulated products, ARB s taff is proposing that perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride be prohibited from use in Fabric Protectant products. This prohibition is pr oposed 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 av ailable formulation technologies do not contain perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, o r methylene chloride, thus they are not needed to comply with the proposed standard. S ee Chapter VIII for a discussion of the health effects of perchloroethylene, trichloroe thylene, 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 produ cts for which the proposal may not be feasible. A review of labe ls for products that comply with the proposed standard shows a variety of claim s, demonstrating the proposal is feasible for many types of products. N o specific claims were foundTechnical 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 lar ge complying market share for the non-aerosol products suggests that the proposal is feasible.

b. Issue : The proposed VOC limit for aerosol products is n ot 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 t he perfluorooctanyl chemistry products at the end of 2000 (3M, 2007; 3M, 2000a; 3 M, 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. Theref ore, 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 aer osol 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 ne w technologies has largely been accomplished.

REFERENCES

1. 3M. What you should know about 3M’s ‘next genera tion’ Scotchgard TM Protector products . 2007. http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Scotchg ard/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.fin al.docket.0009.pdf

. (July 10, 2000). (3M, 2000a)

3. 3M. 3M Phasing Out Some of its Specialty Materia ls . May 16, 2000. http://www.chemicalindustryarchives.org/dirtysecret s/scotchgard/pdfs/226- 0641.pdf#page=1 . (September 1, 2000). (3M, 2000b)

4. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

5. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Con sumer Products - Phase II – Technical Support Document . October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a)Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 78 6. United States Environmental Protection Agency. M emo 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 lau ndry care product designed or labeled for single use in the clothes dryer to impa rt softness to, or control static cling of, a load of washable fabrics; and may impart a fragra nce 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 completi on 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 – Sin gle 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 lit tle as 20 sheets to as many as 200 sheets per box and are available in both scente d and unscented varieties. A product brand may have more than one fragrance vari ant. Based on the shelf survey conducted by ARB staff in 2006 and Internet searche s, the majority of dryer-added fabric softener products are sold as single use she ets 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 Pro duct category only applies to single use products.

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product is a pr eviously 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 t he 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Only the amount of product impregnated on a sheet r eported. The mass of the sheet is not

included.

As shown in Table VI-9, products in the Fabric Sof tener – Single Use Dryer Product category have estimated VOC emissions of ab out 1,037 pounds per day, or about 0.52 tons per day, in California. Although n ot shown, the SWA-VOC content for this category is about 4 percent by weight (includi ng 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 liq uid and sheet products. According to the Soap and Detergent Association (SD A), 86 percent of households use a fabric softener product; with 40 percent preferri ng a dryer-added sheet product, 21 percent using a washer-added product, and 25 per cent using both (SDA, 2006b). Dryer-added products are used to treat laundered fa brics in the clothes dryer. These products claim to soften clothes and eliminate stat ic 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 c oarse or scratchy” (US Patent, 2005). The term static cling refers to the “tendency of ar ticles of clothing to adhere to one another after being dried in clothes dryer as a res ult of static electrical charges created on the surface of the fabric” (US Patent, 2005).

The dryer-added and washer-added products provide t he same softening and anti-static benefits. The dryer-added sheet produc ts are perceived to be more convenient to use, being added into the clothes dry er as opposed to the washer rinse cycle. Dryer-added sheet products are generally so ld 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 ef fective amount of a fabric treatment agent to fabric that is being dried durin g the operation of a dryer (US Patent, 2007).” Typically, one sheet is used per drying cy cle, with larger/atypical loads requiring up to two sheets per drying cycle. While dryer-add ed 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 wat er 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 unscen ted products.

Fabric softener products are typically found in bot h household and commercial settings. They are available to consumers through n ational and private store label brands, with the national brands owning a large sha re of the market. Most fabric softener products are available for purchase in gro cery stores, diversified pharmacies, warehouses, superstores, laundromats, and from Inte rnet companies.

Product Formulation :

Products in the Fabric Softener – Single Use D ryer Product category are formulated with cationic and nonionic softening age nts, used to soften fabric and control static cling; water, used as a perfume carrier; fra grances, for aesthetic appeal; and/or inorganic materials such as preservatives, effectiv e in “preventing biological degradation of the composition and substrate” (US Patent, 2005) . These ingredients are typically impregnated on a non-woven sheet of synthetic fabri c, 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 sa me types of cationic compounds as those found in the washer-added fabric softener products, however, the dryer-added products contain alkyl sulfate salts in stead of chloride salts (SDA, 2006a). The active ingredient consists of cationic fabric s oftening agents, known as quaternary ammonium compounds, used to impart softness to laun dered fabrics. One side of the quaternary molecule contains a positively charged a tom that binds to the negatively charged fabrics. The other side of the molecule co nsists of a long chain fatty material that leaves a coating on the fabric, making the fab ric soft and controlling static cling (Kozen, 2006). Dryer-added fabric softener product s may also contain long chain fatty based hydrocarbon nonionic molecules. “These nonio nics 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, d ryer-added fabric softener products may also contain fragrances in their formu lation. Data reported in the 2003 Survey shows that the VOC ingredients found in drye r-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 Ma terial Association (FMA), there are approximately 2,500 individual fragrance materials currently available, with mixtures of these materials containing as many as 50 to 300 ind ividual chemical entities (FMA, 2006). These fragrance materials may be naturally derived or synthetic, having a floral, woody or citrus scent. Because of the vast combina tion of mixtures to work with, companies are able to offer fabric softener product s 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. Sta ff 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 fo r 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 VOC s in the product, including fragrance.

Staff’s proposal for grams of VOC per use limit wou ld 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 indica ted 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 compar ed to a higher VOC weight percent liquid that is applied in a smaller quantit y.

The grams of VOC per use limit is designed to ensur e that the size of the sheet substrate does not increase. In developing the lim it for these products, staff determined that establishing a VOC percent by weight limit cou ld result in manufacturers using larger size sheets to comply. This would diminish emissions reductions and potentially lead to increasing the solid waste stream. Therefor e, to mitigate this potential and in
accordance with the California Environmental Qualit y Act (CEQA), the grams of VOC per use limit is proposed.

The 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit provides emissi on reductions equivalent to setting a 2.6 percent by weight VOC limit (includin g fragrance). Because the limit already accounts for the fragrance, there is no nee d for the fragrance exemption provided in section 94510(c) for these products (AR B, 2007a). This modification is proposed in section 94510(c).

Compliance with the VOC limit shall be determined p er sheet, or equivalent delivery substrate, based on the minimum recommende d use for a single drying cycle specified on the product packaging or label. In ot her 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 a s for extra large or double loads of washable fabrics in large capacity clothes dryers.

As shown in Table VI-10, using adjusted 2010 emissi ons, the proposed limit

would result in an estimated emission reduction of 414 pounds per day, or aboutTechnical 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 us e 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

++ Only the amount of product impregnated on a sheet r eported. The mass of the sheet is not

included.

In proposing this limit, we find that 24 percent o f 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 wil l 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 considere d 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 d ryer-added fabric softener products are cationic and nonionic softening agents also known as quaternary ammonium compounds, water, fragrances and inorganic s. The active ingredients used are LVP-VOCs. The primary VOC ingredient in this c ategory 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 r educed 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 whi le keeping the active ingredients

the same.

Although fragrances provide an important attribute for many customers, fragrances do not contribute to the primary functio n of softening fabric. Manufacturers should not have significant difficulty reformulatin g their products to meet the proposed limit of 0.05 grams of VOC per use. As indicated b y the 2003 Survey, only a small number of companies would have to reformulate to me et this limit. Private label companies would not have to reformulate, but only r equest that their formulators use existing formulations which currently meet the prop osed 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 beyon d 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 s urveyed for “Dryer Sheets” but “Other Laundry Products,” “In-Dr yer 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 sur vey all appear to soften fabric. Although they may provide other benefits i n terms of fabric care, their primary purpose is softening. Inclusion of product s that “prevent static cling, reduce wrinkles, reduce drying time, [and] make iro ning easier” would be inappropriate since it would capture products on th e market now or in the future that are designed with these primary purposes and m ay not, as the category name implies, soften fabrics.

Response : Based on staff evaluation of the product labels s ubmitted 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 prope rty as this claim is often seen on the labels of most fabric softener products.

c. Issue : Fragrance is a very desirable quality for consume rs who use fabric softener sheets. If the amount of fragrance per so ftener sheet is reduced, consumers will use more to compensate. This will r esult in less emissions reduction achieved. There will be a significant im pact on the environment from increased solid waste and shipping-related energy a nd air emissions.

Response : While acknowledging that some consumers may incre ase their usage of fabric softener sheets in response to redu ced fragrance, ARB staff does not believe that the proposed regulation will signi ficantly increase consumer usage. No data were provided to support this claim . Consumer use data provided by SDA indicate that 80 percent of consume rs 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 t o pay. In addition, using two sheets would deposit more softening ingredients on the fabric and customers may notice a different “feel” to the fabrics. Howe ver, staff will use its periodic surveys to monitor product sales and take appropria te action if any unanticipated increased usage is occurring.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 84 d. Issue : The low market share, 24 percent, for existing pr oducts complying with the proposed 0.05 grams of VOC per use limit indica tes that this limit is not technologically and commercially feasible. If sale s of unscented products were excluded, then the complying market share is even l ower. Customers will find that reformulated products will not meet their need s and switch to liquid fabric softener products. These products are heavier than dryer sheet products and are packaged in bulky plastic containers. This wil l result in a significant impact

on the environment from increased solid waste and s hipping-related energy and

air emissions.

Response : Staff disagrees. No data were provided to suppor t this claim. The 24 percent complying market share, with 20 complyin g 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 alway s done, to ensure that unintended consequences of establishing the propose d 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 Dr yer 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 gr ams 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 lim it with the fragrance exemption in section 94510(c)). Because the proposed limit a lready accounts for the fragrance, there is no need for the fragrance exemp tion in section 94510(c).

f. Issue : Manufacturers will have to consider increasing th e sheet sizes. This will

result in less emissions reduction achieved. There will be a significant impact on the environment from increased solid waste and ship ping-related energy and air emissions. (This comment is in reference to an ear lier staff proposal for a percent by weight limit).

Response : Staff believes that the existing corporate enviro nmental 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 Pro ducts Regulations

. December, 2007. (ARB, 2007a)

2. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

3. Clement, Carla. Fragrance Facts. May, 2005. http://www.alive.com/3163a6a2.php?subject_bread_cra mb=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 Sheet s 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 Confer ence with ARB staff

. April 10, 2008. (SDA, 2008a)

7. Soap and Detergent Association. Comment Letter R e: Fabric Softeners – Dryer

Sheets . February 1, 2008. (SDA, 2008b)

8. Soap and Detergent Association. Facts About Laun dry

. http://www.cleaning 101.com/laundry/fact/fact_sheet 4.html. (January 17, 2006). (SDA, 2006a)

9. Soap and Detergent Association. Liquid Fabric S ofteners and Dryer Sheets

Presentation . July 24, 2006. (SDA, 2006b)

10. United States Patent 7250393B2. Fabric Treatmen t Compositions and Methods for Treating Fabric in a Dryer. July 31, 2007. (US Patent, 2007)

11. United States Patent, 20050020475. Fabric Softe ner 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. ProductsTechnical 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 desi gned or labeled to be used in conjunction with a floor buffing machine and specia l pad. Floor maintainers or restorers are designed or labeled to be applied with a mop an d 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 i nclude floor polish products, products designed solely for the purpose of cleaning, or pro ducts designed specifically for the

use on marble floors.

Floor Maintenance Products are a previously unregu lated 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). Flo or Maintenance Products have estimated VOC emissions of 194 pounds per day, or a bout 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd 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 sale s-weighted average VOC content is about 5 percent by weight.

Product Use and Marketing :

Floor Maintenance Products are primarily used by c ommercial/institutional users and are designed for use on finishes previously app lied to resilient and non-resilient floors. These products are able to remove traffic damage, soils, and reduce maintenance costs by extending the time between top coating 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 c lean and dry floor surface. The user or machine will spray the product in a small a rea 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 la yer, avoiding using excess product orTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 87 allowing the product to puddle. The user allows th e product to dry (usually about 20 minutes) before burnishing or buffing with a machin e.

Floor Maintenance Products are sold to commercial and industrial establishments. They can be found at janitorial st ores, the Internet, as well as through manufacturers’ and distributors’ sales representati ves.

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 optim ize 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 Produ cts 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 emis sion reduction of 142 pounds per day, or about 0.07 tons per day, by 2010. Table VI-12 a lso shows that 53 percent of the market currently complies with the proposed 1 perce nt 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

There are reformulation options available that mak e reductions in VOC content technologically and commercially feasible. We expe ct manufacturers of noncompliant products to reformulate similarly to the compliant products. We also expect the technology used to reformulate floor polish for res ilient 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 i n 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 Commercia l 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 subcateg ories: products for Resilient Flooring Material, products for Nonresilient Floori ng Material, and Wood Floor Wax. Floor Polish or Wax products for Resilient and Nonr esilient floors were regulated as part of the 2006 Amendments. The proposal described her e relates to Wood Floor Wax products only.

Wood Floor Wax products are designed or labeled fo r 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 pr otective finish that is designed or labeled to be periodically replenished. This categ ory does not include Floor Maintenance Products, Floor Wax Strippers, or coati ngs 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 rulemaki ng (ARB, 1990b). At that time, the Board adopted a 90 percent VOC limit for products u sed on wood floors, effective on January 1, 1994.

Table VI-13 below summarizes the sales and emissio ns reported for Wood Floor Wax products, based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Su rvey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total c ategory sales are about 136 pounds per day.

As shown in Table VI-13, Wood Floor Wax products h ave 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Product Use and Marketing :

Wood Floor Wax is used by general consumers, as we ll as commercial and

institutional customers. Commercial and institutio nal products account for the majority of reported products and total sales.

These products are historically designed to provid e a temporary, water resistant

seal to a finished or unfinished wood floor. Unfin ished wood flooring material is becoming increasingly rare as evidenced by small sa les in this category. Today they are being replaced with factory sealed wood floorin g material. Generally anhydrous wax-based products (such as a paste wax) are used o n 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 produ cts 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 circu lar 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 cons umers, commercial, and industrial establishments. They can be found at ja nitorial 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 hydrocarbo n solvent such as mineral spirits. A solid form of Wood Floor Wax is generally compose d 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 o f 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 emis sion 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage 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. Manufa cturers may also develop a polymer technology that requires less VOC solvent. A minimal number of product reformulations are anticipated, as the market for t hese products is small and is anticipated to continue to decrease.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Redu ce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technic al 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 desi gned primarily for cleaning surfaces made of glass such as windows, mirrors, gl ass tabletops, and computer screens. However, the Glass Cleaner category does not include products designed solely for the purpose of cleaning optical material s used in eyeglasses, photographic equipment, scientific equipment and photocopying ma chines. Products marketed as “glass and surface cleaner” are not included in thi s 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 descri ption of these products is also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (A RB, 1990b). At that time, the Board adopted a 12 percent VOC limit for these products w hich was effective on January 1, 1993. Although past regulatory actions resulted in significant emission reductions, we believe that technology now exists t o further reduce VOC emissions from the aerosol product form. Therefore, we are propos ing to amend the regulation to

reduce the VOC content limit for aerosol Glass Clea ners to 10 percent by weight VOC.

Table VI-15 below summarizes the sales and emissio ns 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 catego ry 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd 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, insti tutional and industrial users for cleaning surfaces made primarily of glass and m ay have additional claims for cleaning surfaces such as chrome and plastic which require a “non-streaking” cleaning performance – leaving no non-volatile residues whic h show up readily on such surfaces.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 92 They are marketed towards automotive, household, of fice, institutional, professional and other specialty uses.

These products can be purchased through many sales outlets including grocery stores, discount stores, wholesalers, mass merchand isers, hardware stores, automotive parts stores, warehouse stores and home centers. T hese products are labeled primarily for use on glass. If the product makes a “multi-su rface” 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 surfactan t are included to emulsify oily soils. The surfactant also creates a layer of foam which f orms on the sprayed surface. This allows the product to cling to the surface making t he 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. F ragrance 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-volatile s, 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 hydroc arbon 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 emis sion 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 Su rvey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age 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 re presentatives, review of available literature materials, and analysis of the technolog ical and commercial feasibility of the

standard.

As shown in Table VI-16, over a third of the marke t currently meets the proposed 10 percent VOC limit. These complying products are using a combination of alcohol and glycol ether solvents, and hydrocarbon propella nt 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 w hile leaving the surface streakfree. Besides products categorized as Glass Cleane r, there is a substantial market volume of products making equivalent claims in addi tion to cleaning claims for other

hard surfaces.

Reformulated products, while effective, may have d ifferent attributes than the consumer is used to for some products. Staff belie ves 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 Commerci al Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Redu ce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technic al Support Document

. August, 1990. (ARB, 1990b)

9. Motor Vehicle Wash

Product Category Description :

Motor Vehicle Wash means a product designed or lab eled to wash, wash and wax, wash and shine, or wash and/or clean the exter ior 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 tr uck washing or large vehicle washing stations, and vehicle dealers and repair sh ops, 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 W heel Cleaner, and products labeled exclusively for use on locomotives or aircr aft.

Motor Vehicle Wash is a previously unregulated cat egory. Table VI-l7 below

summarizes the sales and emissions from Motor Vehic le Wash based on the results ofTechnical 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd 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 liq uid, can also be found in nonaerosol product forms such as solid, foam/mousse, m ist/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 o r “do-it-yourself” consumers, commercial, and industrial establishment s. They are to be used on the

exterior surfaces of motor vehicles such as automob iles, vans, sport utility vehicles (SUV), motorcycles, commercial trucks and trailers, noncommercial trucks, service vehicles, and recreational vehicles. These product s are used to safely remove dirt, grime, and other road soils from a variety of mater ial surfaces including, but not limited to, painted metal, vinyl, and metallic trim. In so me instances, the product cleans the vehicle and leaves a shine or wax finish in a singl e step. These one-step products are unlike wax products, which must be applied separate ly to a clean vehicle surface. Both “wash and shine” and “wash and wax” products are ab le to be applied to a dirty vehicle

surface.

For the “do-it-yourself” consumers, Motor Vehicle W ash products are available in, but not limited to, retail outlets such as supermar kets, diversified pharmacies, home improvement stores, auto supply stores, super store s, and specialty stores. Auto dealers, repair shops, catalog sales, and the Inter net are additional marketing locations. For commercial and industrial businesses, products are available from manufacturers and/or distributors, warehouses, as well as the Int ernet and retail outlets.

The majority of Motor Vehicle Wash products are sol d as liquid concentrates and must be diluted prior to use. A typical dilution w ould 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 andTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 95 rinse after the wash is applied. Using a terry clo th towel or other material such as a

chamois to remove water is recommended.

Concentrated Motor Vehicle Wash products that are u sed in commercial establishments, such as car wash or auto detailing businesses, may be used in proportioning units through which the concentrate p asses in order to achieve the proper dilution ratio. An example of a commercial dilutio n ratio can be 1 part product to 300 to 500 parts water. After the wash cycle, vehicles ar e rinsed. Depending on the properties of the concentrate or other additives, v ehicles 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 ingredien t of the products in this category. These surfactants are typically detergents and comp rise 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 pe rcent 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 p roducts 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 marke t 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Reformulation options that could be used by manufac turers to meet the proposed limit include the use of water and LVP-VOC hydrocar bon solvents; water andTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 96 inorganics; or water in combination with both LVP-V OC solvents and inorganics. Because there are many viable non-VOC alternatives available for substitution, we believe the proposed limit is commercially and tech nologically feasible.

Issues:

a. Issue : Wash-and-wax should be removed from the definitio n 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 for mulated similarly. Both Motor Vehicle Wash ingredients and wax or shine ing redients are combined in the product and labeled to be applied to vehicles i n the same manner as other Motor Vehicle Wash products. They are usually app lied to dirty surfaces, unlike waxes which must be applied to clean surfaces. Ret ail outlets from supermarkets to superstores and auto supply stores, for example, stock and feature “wash and wax” and “wash and shine” product s with other Motor Vehicle Wash products and not with vehicle wax products.

b. Issue : Industry only assumed one product “type” (i.e., w ash 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 wa sh and cleaner product type when responding to the 2003 Consumer P roducts Survey. Twentyfive companies responded with 38 products that are either wash and wax or wash and shine which they identified as belonging i n the vehicle wash category along with the other 300-plus products that were re ported 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 Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

10. Multi-purpose Lubricant

Product Category Description :

Multi-purpose Lubricants are lubricant products de signed for general purpose lubrication, or lubricants labeled for use in a wid e variety of applications. This category includes products that are labeled for household us e and for institutional and industrial use (for example, use by mechanics, professional co ntractors, and manufacturingTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 97 facilities). This category includes products that are simply labeled as “lubricants;” multifunctional products that provide light duty lubrica tion; 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 pre ventatives.

This category does not include specialty lubricant products, such as products labeled only for use on chains, even if the label s pecifies use on different types of chains. As defined in the Consumer Products Regula tion, Multi-purpose Dry Lubricants, Penetrants, and Silicone-based Multi-purpose Lubric ants are excluded from the Multipurpose Lubricant category. The Multi-purpose Lubr icant 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 i nside power generating motors, engines, and turbines, and their associated power-t ransfer gearboxes, two cycle oils or other products designed to be added to fuels, and p roducts 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 unde r “Midterm Measures I” of the Consumer Products Regulation approved in July of 19 97, and a description of these products is also included in the staff report for t hat 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 emissio ns from Multi-purpose

Lubricants based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Surve y (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total catego ry 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 Su rvey (ARB, 2004a); Includes products containing exempt chlorinated solvents. ** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverag e and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 98 Estimated 2008 VOC emissions for Multi-purpose Lubr icants 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, w ith the aerosol form dominating the market in both sales and emissions. According to o ur data, the sales-weighted average VOC content for this category is about 48 percent b y weight.

Product Use and Marketing :

Multi-purpose Lubricants are used by household, in stitutional, and industrial users. Household consumers use multi-purpose lubri cants on a variety of objects, including door hinges, bicycle chains, garage door tracks, window tracks, camping and sporting equipment, gardening tools, locks and fire arms. Institutional and industrial consumers use Multi-purpose Lubricant products on t he 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 depo sit a heavier coating that provides lubricity under higher loads. These produ cts include aerosol spray greases, such as “white lithium grease;” liquid or aerosol l ubricants containing heavier base oils; and lubricants that provide extra protection agains t corrosion.

The Multi-purpose Lubricant category includes mult i-functional products that are typically designed to provide a light lubricant fil m 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, demois turant, or for corrosion prevention. Typical applications include lubrication of locks o r sliding mechanisms.

Multi-purpose Lubricants for household use are sol d in various retail venues such as hardware stores, supermarkets, do-it-yourself ho me building supply stores, on the Internet, and everywhere automotive supplies are so ld. Products may also be sold to institutional users through distributors.

Product Formulation :

Multi-purpose Lubricants provide lubrication throu gh 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 produc t 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 chlorinat ed solvents. The propellant, in aerosol products, is either a liquefied petroleum g as or carbon dioxide. After the product is sprayed, the solvent and propellant evap orate 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 prod ucts.

The oils or greases used in aerosol Multi-purpose Lubricants constitute approximately 15 to 40 percent of the formulation b y weight (ARB, 2004a). The baseTechnical 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 comp rise 35 to 90 percent of aerosol formulations. Various grades of petroleum distillates are used. VOC solvents used include heptanes, hexanes, toluene, trichloroe thylene, and glycol ethers. LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvents are also used.

The propellants used in aerosol Multi-purpose Lubr icants are either liquefied petroleum gases (propane, isobutane, normal butane) , or carbon dioxide. Liquefied petroleum gases constitute approximately 20 to 30 p ercent of the product weight, compared to 2 to 3 percent when carbon dioxide is u sed.

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 special ized additives include graphite, Teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene), and “moly” (molyb denum disulfide). Multi-purpose

Lubricants that contain these additives are not con sidered Multi-purpose Dry Lubricants.

Multi-purpose Dry Lubricants provide lubricity sol ely through use of graphite, molybdenum disulfide, or polytetrafluoroethylene orclosely related fluoropolymer. Multipurpose Dry Lubricants do not contain oils. The pr oposed amendments include a modification to the Multi-purpose Dry Lubricant def inition. The proposed modification clarifies that lubricity is provided solely by thes e compounds. The modification is intended to clearly distinguish these products from Multi-purpose Lubricants.

Corrosion inhibitors may also be added to Multi-pu rpose Lubricant formulations to prevent corrosion on the coated surfaces. These co mpounds generally make up a small percentage of the overall lubricant formulati on 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 p ercent by weight for both aerosol and liquid forms, effective December 31, 2013. As show n in Table VI-20, using adjusted 2003 emissions, the proposed limit will result in a n estimated VOC emission reduction of 4,084 pounds per day, or about 2 tons per day, i n 2013. A technology-forcing second tier VOC limit of 10 percent VOC by weight, effecti ve December 31, 2015, is also proposed. As shown in Table VI-20, the 10 percent limit would reduce emissions byTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 100 2,545 pounds per day, or about 1.3 tons per day. W hen fully effective, these two limits would reduce emissions from Multi-purpose Lubricant s by about 3.3 tons per day.

Table VI-20 also shows that 38 products, represent ing 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 percen t limit. Only those products complying without the use of methylene chloride, pe rchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene, are included in the complying ma rket share data. The complying products include both aerosol and liquid Multi-purp ose 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 Su rvey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market c overage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage 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 t he use of VOCs in Multipurpose Lubricant formulations. Reformulation opti ons 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 h ydrocarbon propellants.

We believe that the small complying market shares demonstrate that the VOC limits are feasible, but challenging - especial ly 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. Th e 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 t o explore emerging technologies.

Staff’s research indicates that use of materials su ch as soy-based products provide a partial path forward. However, maintaining many ot her attributes of Multi-purpose Lubricants will require extensive research and deve lopment.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 101 While the reformulation options may appear straigh t-forward, maintaining existing lubricity and evaporative characteristics will be c hallenging. As mentioned earlier, Multipurpose Lubricants may also function as demoisturan ts, penetrants, and rust inhibitors. Research to find additives for corrosion protection and to maintain the products’ penetrating ability will be required. Utilizing em erging technologies in an aerosol product also presents challenges. Many reformulate d 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 reform ulated products to the market. For these reasons, staff believes additional time is ne eded to successfully reformulate and bring products into the market.

The Institute for Research and Technical Assistanc e (IRTA)conducted lubricant research in 2004 and 2006 with a focus on finding a lternatives to high VOC petroleum-based and chlorinated oils. The alternat ives that IRTA tested, and demonstrated in the industrial setting during the t wo projects, were water-based and vegetable-based products. Some businesses have bee n 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. Nevert heless, we believe, given more time, that Multi-purpose Lubricant products, includ ing aerosols, could be formulated to

lower VOC levels.

While staff believes that technologies are progres sing 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 th ese limits.

As proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Multi-purpo se Lubricant manufacturers would need to supply detailed written updates on th eir research and development efforts undertaken to achieve compliance with the V OC limits. The reports would include sales and formulation data for products, as well as detailed information on the raw materials evaluated for use, maximum incrementa l reactivity (MIR) values for any VOC or LVP-VOC used or evaluated, the function of t he raw material evaluated, testing protocols used, the results of the testing, the har dware evaluated, and the cost of reformulation efforts. The first report would be d ue 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 w ithout the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichlor oethylene we are proposing to prohibit the use of these TACs from the Multi-purpo se Lubricant category effective December 31, 2010. Methylene chloride and perchlor oethylene are exempt VOC solvents. Therefore, without the prohibition, thei r use could increase as products reformulate to comply. Trichloroethylene is a VOC, and its use would likely decrease toTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 102 meet the proposed limit. However, other solvents a re available that make its use unnecessary. Prohibiting these three TACs will lea d to approximately 0.01 tons per day of toxic compound emission reductions from this cat egory. The health effects associated with exposure to perchloroethylene, meth ylene chloride and trichloroethylene, are summarized in Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts.

Issues :

a. Issue : This limit should be set at 10 percent or lower b ased on findings in the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IR TA) lubricant research

summary.

Response : ARB staff agrees, but believes that additional ti me 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 resea rch conducted by IRTA is useful data for manufacturers to evaluate as they d evelop complying products. However, there are some limitations. Staff reviewe d the lubricant studies conducted by IRTA in 2004 and 2006 (IRTA, 2006; IRT A, 2004). It is unclear whether the products tested would work well in vari ous household consumer applications. Typical household consumers use mult i-purpose lubricants for a host of lubrication needs, as well as for penetrati on, water displacement, and rust

inhibition. IRTA studies focused on commercial man ufacturing and repair operations with specific lubricating needs. Additi onally, IRTA did not test any aerosol lubricant products. Our data show that con sumers prefer aerosol products for their general lubrication needs.

b. Issue : We believe it may be technologically and commerci ally feasible to reformulate Multi-Purpose Lubricants to a 25 percen t VOC limit by December 31, 2014. However, the Automotive Special ty Products Association (ASPA) asserts that the ARB must commit to conducti ng 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 technolo gy and are proposing that products meet a 25 percent VOC limit by December 31, 2013, and a technology-forcing limit of 10 percent by Decembe r 31, 2015. We also agree that technology reviews are appropriate, and are pr oposing two as described

earlier.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commerci al Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 103 2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reaso ns for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures I

. June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b)

3. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance . Assessment, Development and Demonstration of Alternatives to VOC-emitting Lubri cants, 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 de signed or labeled to be applied exclusively to hard surfaces to inhibit the ability of soils to create malodors, or functions to entrap, encapsulate, neutralize, conve rt or eliminate malodor molecules. Odor Eliminator/Remover does not include products d esigned or labeled for use in cleaning soils from hard surfaces, laundering, soft ening, de-wrinkling or cleaning fabrics, or dishwashing, or products that are defin ed as Air Freshener, Bathroom and Tile Cleaner, Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, Fabric Ref resher, General Purpose Cleaner, Toilet/Urinal Care Product, Disinfectant, or Saniti zer. Odor Eliminator/Remover is used in household, automotive, institutional and commerc ial settings to counteract unpleasant odors. These products may employ bacterial culture s, enzymes or anti-bacterial chemical active ingredients to counteract odor caus ing substances. Use of Odor Eliminator/Remover, Air Fresheners and Fabric Refre shers may result in similar outcomes such as freshening air or removing odors. Odor Eliminators/Removers are distinguished from Air Fresheners, which are releas ed directly to the air, and Fabric Refreshers, which are applied to fabric or other so ft surfaces.

Odor Eliminators/Removers are a previously unregul ated 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). Cat egory sales are 7,034 pounds per day, or about 3.5 tons per day, adjusted for comple te 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd 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 wer e less than five aerosol products reported in the survey, the sales data are not show n to protect data confidentiality. The sales-weighted average VOC content for liquid produ cts as packaged is 3.5 percent and 2.2 percent as diluted.

Product Use and Marketing :

Odor Eliminator/Remover products are used on hard s urfaces in household, automotive, institutional, and commercial settings to eliminate, neutralize, remove, encapsulate, inhibit, control, destroy and/or count eract odor. The household products are generally available through retailers, while th e institutional and commercial products are sold via wholesalers through distribut ion channels or direct sales.

Household Odor Eliminators/Removers are used on har d surfaces to treat bathroom and kitchen odors, closets, basements, flo or mats, drawers, odors from ventilation systems, pet odors, cat litter odors, g arbage odors, smoke, and odors caused by moisture. These products are generally a pplied as needed with the user controlling the amount of product used (ARB, 2004a)

.

Automotive Odor Eliminator/Remover products are use d to eliminate musty odors due to mildew formation in the persistently damp su rfaces 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, l aundry areas, food preparation areas and specific industries such as diaper servic es (ARB, 2004a). Odor Eliminator/Remover products used in commercial sett ings are used to control garbage odors from trash compactors/dumpsters; mold and mil dew and waste in bathrooms; body odor and mold and mildew in locker rooms; odor s in air ducts and pipelines; odors in transportation settings such as airplanes and bu ses 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 co nstitute from 0 to 53 percent of the product’s weight as diluted. They produce the prod uct’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 fr agrance 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 li quid. Because the desired emulsions are oil-in-water, surfactants with higher hydrophilic-lipophilic balance

values are more suitable in oil-in-water formulatio ns.

Active ingredients include bacterial cultures, enzy mes, 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 T able VI-22, using adjusted 2010 emissions, the proposed limits will result in an es timated emission reduction of 50 pounds per day, or about 0.03 tons per day. Tab le 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 fo r 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 106 Generally, reformulation to the 6 percent VOC leve l 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 a ppropriate.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

12. Penetrant

Product Category Description :

Penetrants are lubricant products designed and lab eled primarily to loosen metal parts that have bonded together due to rusting, oxi dation, 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 manufa cture or construct goods or commodities, and are (2) labeled “not for retail sa le” are also excluded from this
category.

Penetrants were first regulated under “Midterm Mea sures 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 rulemaki ng (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 emissio ns 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 Su rvey (ARB, 2004a); Includes products containing chlorinated compounds.
** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 107 Estimated 2008 VOC emissions for Penetrants are 79 3 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 for m dominating the market in both sales and emissions. According to our data, the sales-we ighted average for this category is 38 percent VOC by weight.

Product Use and Marketing :

Penetrants are used by household, institutional an d industrial users to loosen immovable parts such as rusted pipe fittings, autom otive parts, and nuts and bolts. Some product labels instruct the user to tap extrem ely 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 Intern et. Penetrants are also sold to industrial or institutional users through distribut ors that serve these customers, or directly to large customers.

Product Formulation :

Penetrant formulations are similar to Multi-purpos e Lubricants in that they contain lubricating oils, solvents, and, in some cases, ext reme 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 per cent. 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 me thylene 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 th e 2003 Survey, some of the VOC solvents used in Penetrants include various grades of petroleum distillates such as kerosene (VOC portion), mineral spirits and trichlo roethylene. A variety of LVP-VOC solvents used in Penetrants include hydrocarbon sol vents and fatty acid methyl esters.

Water is also used.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limit for Penetrants is 25 percen t 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 re sult 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, represent ing 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 me thylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene are includ ed 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 Su rvey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market c overage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2012 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Penetrants that already comply with the proposed V OC limit are using a combination of LVP-VOC solvents, VOC solvents, oils , and various additives. Reformulation options include adding more oil to th e formulation; replacing some of the VOC solvents with LVP-VOC solvents, or water; and u sing non-VOC alternatives to liquefied gas propellants, such as carbon dioxide. R eformulation 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-pu rpose Lubricants in formulation and their uses, the VOC limits and effective dates for these two categories have historically tracked. For this reason, the reformu lation efforts for Penetrants are similar to Multi-purpose Lubricants in that research to fin d the correct balance of oils, solvents and additives without sacrificing the products’ pen etrating 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 progres sing 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 t hat end, staff is proposing a technology assessment. To ensure that manufacturer s are on track, and that technology advances as expected, staff believes tha t manufacturers should demonstrate their progress toward meeting the limit

.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 109 As proposed in new subsection 94513(f) Penetrant p roduct manufacturers would need to supply detailed written updates on their re search and development efforts undertaken to achieve compliance with the VOC limit s. The reports would include sales and formulation data for products, as well as detai led information on the raw materials evaluated for use, MIR values for any VOC or LVP-VO C used or evaluated, the function of the raw material evaluated, testing protocols us ed, the results of the testing, the hardware evaluated, and the cost of reformulation e fforts. 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 reduct ions 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 w ithout the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichlor oethylene, we are proposing to prohibit the use of these TACs from the Penetrant c ategory, effective December 31, 2010. Methylene chloride and perchlor oethylene are exempt VOC solvents. Therefore, without the prohibition, thei r 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 a re available that make its use unnecessary. Prohibiting these three TACs will lea d to approximately 0.01 tons per day of toxic compound emission reductions from this cat egory. The health effects associated with exposure to perchloroethylene, meth ylene chloride and trichloroethylene, are summarized in Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts.

We have received information that suggests usage o f non-flammable solvents in Penetrants is necessary in situations where Penetra nts are used on energized equipment, near heat, flame, or other ignition sour ces. Staff agrees. Applying Penetrants to energized equipment may pose a safety risk. However, at the present time, use of chlorinated solvents is the only optio n for these applications.

Therefore, because of toxicity concerns, we are pr oposing to prohibit the use of perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, and trichlor oethylene in Penetrants. However,

we believe there is a small niche use for non-flamm able products. Therefore, we are also proposing that Penetrants labeled as non-flamm able and for use on energized equipment not be subject to the prohibition. To ac count 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 wo uld have to include on the product’s Principal Display Panel: “Non-flammable and only f or use where equipment is energized.” This proposal is set forth in new sect ion 94509(q) of the Consumer Products Regulation.

Issues :

a. Issue : This limit should be set at 10 percent or lower b ased on findings in the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IR TA) 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 foc us was on lubrication rather than penetration, therefore it is unclear whether t he products tested would work well in various penetrant applications. However, a s noted above, we are proposing a technology review in 2012 to assess pro gress and to determine if

future further VOC reductions are feasible.

b. Issue: We believe it may be technologically and commerci ally 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 in dustry.

Response : Staff agrees in part. We have evaluated technolo gy and are proposing that products meet the 25 percent VOC lim it by December 31, 2013. We also agree that a technology review is appropria te, and are proposing one in

2012 as described earlier.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commerci al Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reaso ns for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures I

. June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b)

3. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance . Assessment, Development and Demonstration of Alternatives to VOC-emitting Lubri cants, 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 p ercent 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 purpo se of adding a scent or masking a malodor, including cologne, perfume, aftershave, an d toilet water. Personal Fragrance Product does not include: (A) Deodorant, as define d in section 94501(d);Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 111 (B) medicated products designed primarily to allevi ate 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 dryn ess 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) fra grance products designed to be used exclusively on non-human animals.

Staff is proposing to add clarifying language to th e definition to indicate that Personal Fragrance Product includes, but is not lim ited 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 rulemaki ng (ARB, 1991a). However, instead of the product forms and standards described in that s taff 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 weigh t, effective in 1995. A future lower limit of 75 percent by weight became effective in 1 999. Products with more than 20 percent fragrance were required to meet a VOC li mit of 70 percent by weight, effective in 1995. A lower limit of 65 percent bec ame effective in 1999 (ARB, 1992).

However, an exemption from compliance with the ini tial 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 t o 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 lim its do not apply to products which were sold in California prior to January 1, 1999 (A RB, 2007a). The overall effect of these two exemptions (“Grandfather” clauses) has me ant 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 reformula te to meet the second tier 1999 VOC limits. Only products introduced after 1999 have b een required to meet the second tier limits (ARB, 1992).

In addition, section 94510(j) of the Consumer Produ ct 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, 200 7a).

The Personal Fragrance Product category (products with 20 percent or less fragrance) is one of the larger emissions sources w ithin 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, 200 4a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. Total category sales ar e about 26,905 pounds per day.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 112 Table VI-25 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percen t 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 Surv ey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

This category includes all product forms and inclu des, but is not limited to, colognes, perfumes, aftershaves, toilet waters, lot ions, 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 we ight including fragrance and about 76 percent by weight excluding fragrance.

Product Use and Marketing:

Personal Fragrance Products (products with 20 perce nt 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 segme nt 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 concen trated, followed by toilet waters (or eau de toilettes), and colognes (or eau de colo gnes) (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 frag rance form and are intended for “everyday” use (ARB, 1991a). These products are ty pically less concentrated and are used more liberally.

Personal Fragrance Products are typically sold in r etail stores, department stores, and diversified drug stores, but are also a vailable to consumers for purchase from discount warehouses, Internet companies, home sales, and catalog sales. It is estimated that sales of women’s fragrances are appr oximately 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 P roducts (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 VO C which is a fragrance in a Personal Fragrance Product is exempt from the VOC limits. E thanol is the primary VOC ingredient in this category and is most likely to b e the VOC ingredient that is reduced in the reformulation of a product.

The majority of Personal Fragrance Products (produc ts with 20 percent or less fragrance) contain fragrance oil dissolved in ethan ol and, to a lesser degree, water. Small amounts of other ingredients may also be incl uded, such as preservatives, colorants, and agents used to prevent photodegradat ion 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 i nstead is proposing to eliminate the “Grandfather” clauses for this category. This woul d require that all products, new and existing, be subject to the same VOC standard, name ly 75 percent by weight.

Based on the 2003 Survey, products within a signatu re line contain varying amounts of ethanol and fragrance, but continue to b e labeled and sold under the same signature line as the same scent (ARB, 2004a). Thi s is an indication that reformulation is possible, while preserving a signature scent. C ompanies with products covered under the “Grandfather” clauses may have been opera ting with a competitive advantage since 1995, having avoided the cost of reformulatio n, 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 w ith the 75 percent by weight VOC standard; indicating that products can be refor mulated 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 d ay, 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 pr oducts that would need to be

reformulated.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 114 Table VI-26 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20 percen t 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2014 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Compliance with the Standard:

Removing the exemption for existing products will s ubject both new and existing Personal Fragrance Products (products with 20 perce nt or less fragrance) to a 75 percent by weight VOC standard. Reformulation o ptions could include reducing ethanol content, adding water, making adjustments t o fragrance components that can tolerate higher levels of water, and, if applicable , replacing VOC propellants with nonVOC propellants.

The most straightforward method of reformulating Pe rsonal 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 replacem ent, 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, 199 1a).

Reformulation options also include adjustments to t he fragrance oil components to allow for higher water content. For example, fr actional distillation of the polar compounds, in some essential oils, would yield wate r-soluble extracts retaining the same fragrance as their essential oil even though t hey may differ greatly in chemical nature. Examples would include the distilled aroma tic waters from rose, witch hazel, yarrow, orange flowers, chamomile, balm mint and li nden (ARB, 1991a). One study reported that by lowering the quantities of crystal line 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 c ould include adjusting propellant. For example, the amount of VOC propell ant 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 hy drocarbon propellants functionTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 115 also as solvents in aerosol formulations, they are poor solvents for some fragrance constituents. According to an article in "Cosmetic s 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 fragranc e products will result in some fragrance components precipitating out of solu tion, resulting in an altered fragrance.

Response : While simple replacement of alcohol with water ma y result in some fragrance components precipitating out, emulsifying agents may be used to prevent this. In addition, certain fragrance oil c omponents are more compatible with water. By properly selecting the components f rom these fragrance oils, a formulator can create a scent that can tolerate hig h levels of water. According to the 1991 and 2003 ARB Consumer Products Surveys, ma ny aftershave products with water content ranging from 10 to 90 percent ha ve been identified. Colognes with 1 to 90 percent water content and perfumes wit h zero to 10 percent water

content have also been identified.

b. Issue : The proposed VOC restrictions will hinder the cre ative process of developing a fragrance by limiting the choice of fr agrance oils.

Response : According to the 2003 Survey, there are over 670 products that comply with the existing 75 percent by weight VOC l imit. ARB staff has identified complying colognes and perfumes from a number of th e fragrance families, including, but not limited to the following: musk, floral, chypre, aldehydic, tobacco and leather, spicy, and oriental. This ind icates that manufacturers will not be limited to a narrow range of scent type s. 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 lim iting manufacturers to fewer fragrance oils. We are confident the creative abil ities of perfumers and manufacturers will allow development of products th at meet consumers’ needs

and reduce VOC emissions.

c. Issue : The Personal Care Products Council has provided A RB staff with a twotiered proposal for consideration. Products betwee n 75 to 80 percent by weight VOC would be subject to a VOC limit of 75 percent b y 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 “Grandf ather” clauses may have been operating with a competitive advantag e since 1995, when the first-tier VOC limit of 80 percent by weight became effective. In order to level theTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 116 playing field for all stakeholders, staff is propos ing a single VOC standard. However, staff is proposing an extended future effe ctive date of December 31, 2014, to provide sufficient time for c ompanies to reformulate and conduct consumer testing of the hundreds of current ly “grandfathered” products.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. The California Consumer Pro ducts Regulations

. December, 2007. (ARB, 2007a)

2. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l 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 t he Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer P roducts - Phase II

. January 9, 1992. (ARB, 1992)

4. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Con sumer 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 ad hesive 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; in sulating 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 whi ch temporarily seals

windows or doors for three to six month time interv als. “Clear/paintable/water resistant compounds” means a compound which contains no appre ciable level of opaque fillers or pigments; transmits most or all visible light th rough the caulk when cured; is paintable; and is immediately resistant to precipit ation 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 Measur es II” of the Consumer Products Regulation, adopted in October of 1999, and a descr iption of these products is also included in the staff report for that rulemaking (A RB, 1999). At that time, the Board adopted a single VOC limit of 4 percent by weight f or 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 Sealan t or Caulking Compound products. For this current rulemaking, staff is proposing to change the category name from Sealant and Caulking Compound to Sealant or Caulkin g 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 produ cts in these two subcategories.

Other minor clarifications in the definition are al so proposed, such as clarifying that the Sealant or Caulking Compound definition includes th readed pipe sealants and gasket

makers.

We are proposing to divide the non-aerosol product s into two subcategories based on the formulation technologies used. A Chem ically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound is defined as any Sealant or Caulking Comp ound which achieves its final composition and physical form through a catalyst-dr iven 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, polyuret hane, silyl-terminated polyether or silylterminated polyurethane reactive chemistries. Chem ically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound does not include products, which are not s olely dependent on a chemically curing process to achieve the cured state. Non-Che mically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound means any Sealant or Caulking Compound whi ch 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 a nd 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 r eviews, at the request of manufacturers, and determined that such products ar e subject to the Consumer Products Regulation requirements for Sealant or Cau lking Compounds.

While Sealant or Caulking Compound products come in several forms, ten to eleven fluid ounce disposable cartridges that fit i n 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 differe nt materials and in their resilience, durability, cost, and ease of clean-up. Some produ cts have special properties, such as mildew resistance, high flexibility, temperature re sistance, 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 distric ts in California regulate the use of large size (greater than 16 fluid ounces or one pou nd) 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 Pr oducts;

• 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 Seala nts;

• South Coast AQMD, Rule 1168, Adhesive and Sealant Applications;

• Tehama County APCD, Rule 4-40, Adhesives and Seala nts; and

• Ventura County APCD, Rule 74.20, Adhesives and Sea lants.

Table VI-27 summarizes the sales and emissions fro m Sealant or Caulking Compound products based on the results of ARB’s 200 3 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have been grown to the 2008 calendar year. To tal category sales are about 141,927 pounds per day.

Estimated combined VOC emissions from the non-aeros ol Sealant or Caulking Compound category are 5,168 pounds per day, or abou t 2.6 tons per day, in California. Although not shown in Table VI-27, the sales-weight ed 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 perce nt by weight for the non-aerosol products in the Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulki ng Compound subcategory, according to the 2003 Survey. The sales-weighted a verage VOC content values for the two subcategories were based on the group of produc ts that also included sell-through products with VOC content above the current VOC lim it of 4 percent for the category. Due to the impact of sell-through products with hig her VOC content, the calculated values for the sales-weighted average are greater t han 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 a re 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. Ther e are many different types and uses for sealants and caulks, including: exterior sealan ts and caulks; all-purpose indoor/outdoor sealant and caulks; removable sealan t and caulks; roof repair sealantsTechnical 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 Surv ey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

and caulks; elastomeric sealant and caulks; high te mperature sealants and caulks; waterproof (submerged) sealant and caulks; gasket m akers; and pipe thread sealants. These products are used for filling gaps and cracks in a foundation; around windows and doors; vents; faucets; pipes; wiring; electrica l 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 Cau lking Compound products and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compo und 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 par ticipate in such chemical reactions. The curing actually occurs through a physical chang e 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 r esults from solvent evaporation. Some of the basic types of sealants and caulks on t he market today include acrylic latex caulks, solvent-based synthetic rubber products, bu tyl caulks, and oil-based sealants and caulks. Some non-chemically curing sealants an d caulks use the terms “siliconized” or “polyurethane acrylic product” but they do not chemically cure.

Acrylic latex caulks are often chosen for general u se because of their low price, durability, convenience, low odor, low toxicity, an d effectiveness on both inside and outside surfaces. These compounds remain durable a nd flexible after they have been applied, and are not affected by the sun’s ultravio let (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, bri cks, plastic, and glass. However, theyTechnical 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 sil iconebased chemically curing caulks. Silicone is added to latex for increased durability, better adhesion, and increased flexibility. Applic ation is easy, clean-up is with water, and the cost is lower than pure silicone caulks. T his caulk is paintable and comes in a variety of colors. Cure time is between 12-24 hour s 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 weathe r conditions. They have an ability to recover, stretch and are paintable with water-ba sed paints. These products are more prone to shrinkage and are flammable until they cur e. They are also higher in VOC content (Pontolilo, 2004).

Butyl caulks are used to seal exterior metal and ma sonry surfaces. They are solvent-based with a life expectancy of 2 to 5 year s. Although butyl caulks can be painted, they usually take 3 to 7 days to dry. Pur ported advantages of butyl caulks include their relatively low cost, good water resis tance, and good adhesion without primers. Disadvantages may include limited joint m ovement 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 inexpensi ve, low durability caulks composed of drying oils, such as linseed oil, and f illers. 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 ap plied 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 silic one, polyurethane, silyl-terminated polyether and silyl-terminated polyurethane reactiv e chemistries. Products based on these reactive chemistries cure by absorbing atmosp heric moisture.

Products with silicone chemical cure have a wide va riety of performance

characteristics. Silicone sealants and caulks have very little shrinkage, high flexibility, and are available both in clear and pigmented formu la. According to manufacturers, these products are chosen by many consumers for the ir 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 gl ass, metal, ceramic tile andTechnical 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 applicat ions. 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 insu lation and air barrier. However, polyurethanes must be protected from UV radiation ( ARB, 1999).

Modified silicone polymer sealants are relatively n ew products that offer the benefits of water-based, silicone and polyurethane sealants. These products are also more expensive. According to product labels, modif ied silicone polymer sealants and caulks can be applied in extreme temperatures, are watertight almost immediately, are very durable and adhere well to most substrate mate rials. Modified silicone polymers include silyl-terminated polyether products. These products claim to be flexible, paintable, quick curing and do not shrink. They ar e 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, ho me supply stores, paint stores, hobby and craft stores, and by mass merchan disers. Sealants are also sold to industrial or institutional users through distribut ors or through direct sales by the

manufacturer.

Product Formulation :

Sealant or Caulking Compound products generally ha ve low solvent levels, high concentrations of fillers, and are thick and nonpou rable.

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 ad vantages 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 t ype of sealant or caulking compound formulation offers its own particular stre ngth and weakness depending on how it is used. Many products are formulated to me et the performance requirements described in American Society for Testing and Mater ials (ASTM) C-920, the “Standard Specification for Elastomeric Joint Sealants.”

A typical formulation might consist of the followin g:

1. Polymer – Polymer is the most important contributing factor to sealant o r caulk performance. It provides elastomeric and adhesive properties. Different types of resinsTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 122 include oil-based, butyl, solvent-based acrylic, bl ock copolymer, polyvinyl acetate and water-based acrylic polymers (ARB, 1999).

2. Plasticizer – Plasticizers improve sealant flexibility, extrudabi lity of uncured product, and can reduce cost. The plasticizer must be compa tible with the polymer system being used. As the plasticizer content increases, adhesi on decreases. Types of plasticizers include phthalates, benzoate, and epoxidized oils ( ARB, 1999).

3. Filler – Fillers provide reinforcement to the product, can r educe product raw material cost, add desired color to the product, and can imp art sag or slump resistance. Types of fillers include calcium carbonate (chalk), alumi num silicate (clay), magnesium silicate (talc), fumed silica, cellulosic fiber, organic cla ys, 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, adh esion, package stability, and cure rate. Examples of specialty additives are adhesion promoters, UV absorbers, biocides, pigments, and waterborne additives. Adhesion promo ters, such as organotitanates and silane coupling agents, provide adhesion to specifi c substrates. UV absorbers, which include hindered amines and benzotriazoles, provide long term stability of the cured product and eliminate surface cracking, chalking, o r discoloration. Finally, waterborne additives, such as freeze thaw stabilizers, are use d to preserve the integrity of latex particles. Examples of common waterborne additives are: ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, urea, and isopropanol (ARB, 1999). Biocide s are added to provide antimicrobial protection, which is especially important in sealan ts or caulks used in the kitchen and bathroom, where water and mildew are common (Pontol ilo, 2004).

5. Diluents – Diluents reduce the viscosity and aid in the appli cation of the sealant or caulk. For water-based formulations, water is the primary diluent, however, some VOC co-solvents are used including: acetates (acetic ac id, butyl acetate, vinyl acetate, etc.), alcohols (ethanol, methanol, isopropanol, etc.), an d glycols (ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol methyl ether, etc.). Dil uents used in solvent-based formulations include: mineral spirits, hexane, stoddard solvent , toluene, and xylene. Manufacturers limit the amount of diluents to control shrinkage r esulting 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 u sually involves the formation of new internal bonds and results in a change in the chemi cal structure of the product, such as cross-linking of a polymer. As compounds undergo c ross-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 presenc e of moisture. Similar to non-chemically curing products, chemically curing p roducts also contain fillers, polymers, plasticizers and specialty additives. Th ese 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 cr oss-linking once the cure reaction is

initiated.

Silicone sealants contain siloxane polymers and pl asticizers. Most of these are based on polydimethylsiloxane. Depending on whethe r 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, su ch as cyclohexylamine, depending on the cure type (Macco, 2006).

Polyurethane cure reaction is based on the cross-l inking of isocyanates and an alcohol (polyol) during cure. Some common isocyana tes used in a formula include toluene diisocyanate, isophorone diisocyanate and h examethylene diisocyanate (Macco, 2006).

Products that are based on silyl-terminated polyet hers 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, 200 6). Silyl-terminated polyurethanes contain urethane prepolymers, prepared from the rea ction of a diisocyante and a conventional polyol, that are end-capped with an or gano-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 Cur ing 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 perc ent 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 2 46 pounds per day, or about 0.12 tons per day, for the Non-Chemically Curing Se alant 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Complying products in the Non-Chemically Curing Se alant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol subcategory include water-base d and solvent-based technologies. Only those products complying withou t the use of perchloroethylene are included in the complying market share data. Most of the complying products are water-based formulations. Reformulation options in clude switching from solvent-based formulations to water-based formulations, using alt ernative LVP-VOC solvents or a

combination of VOC and LVP- VOC solvents. These al ternative 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 4 46 pounds per day, or about 0.22 tons per day, for the Chemically Curing Sealan t 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2012 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Non-complying products in the Chemically Curing Se alant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol subcategory may reformulate by lowering the amount of VOC solvents, using alternative LVP-VOC solvents or a c ombination of both. Where the essential formulation components involved in the ch emical cure reaction contribute toTechnical 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 b y slightly reducing the levels of VOC cross-linkers or other VOC ingredients and increasi ng 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 so me of the reactive chemistries. Currently, the market resin supply is somewhat unce rtain. 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 differ ent resins and combinations. Because of this, staff believes an extended effective date is warranted. The Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound non-aerosol subcategor y 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 a nd development efforts to work with resin and polymer reactive chemistry systems to dev elop a complying formula.

Staff is also proposing in section 92412(d) additi onal labeling requirements for non-aerosol Sealant or Caulking Compound. The prod uct category as specified in section 94509(a), or an abbreviation of the categor y, and the applicable VOC standard shall be displayed. This requirement is to facilit ate enforcement of the applicable standards for Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically Curing products.

Aerosol Sealant or Caulking Compound products cont inue to be subject to the 4 percent VOC by weight limit, effective December 3 1, 2002. Our data show that there are existing compliant Chemically Curing and Non-Ch emically Curing aerosol products.

Because our data for both aerosol and non-aerosol products show compliance can be achieved without the use of methylene chlori de, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene, we are proposing to prohibit the use of these TACs from the Sealant or Caulking Compound category, effective December 3 1, 2010. Methylene chloride and perchloroethylene are exempt VOC solvents. Therefo re, without the prohibition, their use could increase as products reformulate to compl y. 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. Prohibiti ng these three TACs will lead to approximately 0.12 tons per day of toxic compound e mission reductions from this category. The health effects associated with expos ure to perchloroethylene, methylene chloride and trichloroethylene, are summarized in C hapter VIII, Environmental Impacts.

Issues :

a. Issue : Non-Chemically Curing Sealants or Caulks serve a w ide range of applications, including many specialty uses and sub strates. The VOC standard should allow for the whole range of general use and specialty applications.

Response : Analysis of 2003 Survey data indicates that 76 pe rcent of the market complies with the proposal for the Non-Chemically C uring Sealant or CaulkingTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 126 Compound non-aerosol subcategory. Many of these pr oducts can be applied to a varied range of substrates, including many specia lty use applications. Staff believes, and some industry stakeholders have agree d, that the proposed VOC standard allows for a wide range of general and spe cialty use product applications.

b. Issue : The lower VOC limit proposed for Non-Chemically C uring Sealant or Caulking Compound products will have a negative eff ect 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 b elieves that the proposed VOC limit for Non-Chemically Curing Sealan t 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 sub category 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 S ealant 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 sealan ts and gasket makers as these products are designed to fill, seal, waterpro of or weatherproof gaps or joints between two surfaces. Staff has made a numb er of product reviews, at the request of manufacturers, and determined that such products are subject to the Consumer Products Regulation requirements for seala nt or caulking compounds. A number of chemically curing and non-chemically cu ring 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-a erosol products only. The current VOC limit of 4 percent by weight for th e Sealant or Caulking Compound category is applicable to all product form s and will continue to be applicable to aerosol forms. The 2003 Survey indic ates that there are products utilizing aerosol technologies available on the mar ket, in both the Chemically Curing and Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulkin g Compound non-aerosol subcategories that comply with the existing 4 perce nt by weight VOC limit.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 127 REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m 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-cau lk.html . (April 9, 2008). (HPI, 2008)

5. Macco Adhesives. Notes on Chemically Curing Adhe sive 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/JA I/PAGES/460.htm?E+my

store . (April 9, 2008). (O’Conner, 2004)

7. Pontolilo, Brian. Making Sense of Caulks and Sea lants . Fine Homebuilding. April/May, 2004. http://www.tauton.com/finehomebuil ding/PDF/Free/ 021162097.pdf . (Pontolilo, 2004)

15. Spot Removers

Product Category Description :

Spot Removers are used to remove localized spots o r stains on articles such as carpets, rugs, upholstery, drapes, or clothing. Su bsequent laundering is not required to achieve stain removal. Spots and stains include vi sible contamination from spills and other mishaps. The distinction between Spot Remove rs and related cleaning products, such as Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, is that Spot Rem overs 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 o f, or an entire article, after routine accumulation of contaminants over time. Generally, Spot Removers use more powerful cleaning ingredients than Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner s. Some products are intended for specific types of soils. Spot Removers do not incl ude products that treat spots and stains on clothes or other fabrics that need subseq uent laundering (machine or handTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 128 wash) to remove the stain. Such products are inclu ded 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, m ake-up, crayon, lipstick, nail polish, floor waxes, rust, or ink. A product may be intend ed for one type of stain, or for several. While the cause and contamination in some spots/sta ins 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 “unive rsal” Spot Removers intended for several types of contamination, or by “trial-and-er ror” 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-d erived odor destroying ingredients (e.g. enzymes or live bacterial culture).

Spot Removers were regulated under “Mid-term Measu res 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 rulemaki ng (ARB, 1997b). At that time, the Board adopted, as staff had recommended, a VOC limi t of 25 percent by weight for aerosol products, and a VOC limit of 8 percent by w eight for non-aerosol products. Both VOC limits became effective January 1, 2001. The Spot Remover category does not include Dry Clea ning Fluid. Dry Cleaning Fluid includes non-aqueous liquid products used exc lusively on fabrics labeled "for dry clean only" or on "S-coded" fabrics specified by th e Joint Industry Fabric Standards Committee to be cleaned only with water-free spot c leaning products.

Also historically, the category excluded Multi-pur pose Solvents, which are defined as organic liquid products with no VOC limi t. However, the 2006 Consumer Products Regulation amendments (ARB, 2006a; ARB, 20 07e) to section 94508(a) modified requirements. Multi-purpose Solvent produ cts manufactured on or after January 1, 2008, with multiple-use claims, are subj ect to the Spot Remover VOC limit if the product label includes a claim for spot or stai n removal from fabric surfaces. The product would also be subject to the "most-restrict ive-limit" provisions of section 94512(a).

Table VI-29 below summarizes the sales and emissio ns 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 catego ry 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 n ot 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd 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 home s 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, mechan ical sprayer, bottle dispenser, or special applicator, to the affected a rea, and left to soak to release/treat the spot or stain in the fibers. The area is then blot ted 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 c laim to treat or remove localized spots. However, the products differ in t hat 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 a s “aerosol” and “non-aerosol” products with different VOC limits. Spot Removers are sold in general merchandise, hardware, drug stores, supermarkets, automotive par ts stores, janitorial and maintenance supply warehouses, and over the Interne t. Some products are packaged as kits containing products formulated for differen t types of spots or stains (ARB, 1997b).

Product Formulation :

Spot Removers are generally water-based products c ontaining ingredients such as glycol ethers, isopropyl alcohol, surfactants, e nzymes, 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 u se to address several types of stains. A common ingredient is 2-butoxyethanol (al so called ethylene glycol monobutyl ether) which is used to treat many solvent-based an d water-based stains. Other glycol ethers are also used, some of which are VOCs, but o thers 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 clas sified as LVP-VOCs, may be part of the formulation to clean soils, including oily spot s and stains. Enzymes and other biologically-derived ingredients, such as non-patho genic bacterial cultures may be used to address odor, grease, and other organic contamin ation. 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 cle aning ingredients under the current VOC limit. Some products rely on surfactan ts, containing minimal or no VOCs, for removal of various contaminants including oil a nd grease. Inorganic ingredients may be used as cleaners, or to enhance the cleaning eff ectiveness of surfactants.

The non-aerosol products are generally liquids app lied by trigger sprayer, hand-pump-pressurized tank sprayer, or bottle dispe nser. Low-VOC products are typically water-based and may include LVP-VOC clean ers, 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 thu s 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 perc ent 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 po unds 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, an d 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

The proposed 15 percent VOC limit for aerosol prod ucts is intended to allow both sufficient VOC solvent for removing grease or oil-t ype spots and stains, and sufficient hydrocarbon propellant for adequate spray performan ce. 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 w ould enable up to 15 percent VOC solvent ingredients, with the addition of non-V OC ingredients as discussed above. Non-VOC propellants available include compressed ca rbon 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 ace tate, 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 w ould allow up to 3 percent VOC cleaning solvent. The balance would be primari ly water with small amounts of LVP-VOC solvents, acetone, surfactants, enzymes, li ve 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 i n the complying market share. The 15 percent VOC proposal is minimally affected by th e presence or absence of the perchloroethylene products in the data. The 2003 S urvey data show very limited use ofTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 132 perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene (a VOC chlo rinated compound) in this category.

While ARB staff believes these toxic air contaminan ts are not likely to be used as cleaning solvents in the future reformulated produc ts, 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 solven ts in response to the lower VOC limits. Staff has determined that currently availa ble formulation technologies that do not contain perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, or me thylene chloride are readily available and thus they are not needed to comply with the pro posed standard. See Chapter VIII for a discussion of the health effects of perchloro ethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene chloride.

To update and strengthen regulatory requirements, the Multi-purpose Solvent exclusion in the definition is proposed to be elimi nated. This revision would make the requirements for Spot Remover consistent with the a dopted 2006 update for Multipurpose Solvent. Also, when a product is subject t o more than one VOC limit, the most restrictive limit would apply, in accordance with s ection 94512(a).

A new exclusion for aerosol gum remover products i s proposed for the category definition. A literal interpretation of the curren t Spot Remover definition may include aerosol gum removers, since gum contamination on fa bric may be considered "spots." Since the formulation and method of operation of ae rosol gum removers are very different from typical Spot Removers, staff believe s 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), d ry paint spots (latex, oil-based, enamels), floor waxes, and crayon. LVP-VOC solvent s 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 diff erent 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 tho roughly residual cleaners are diluted and removed, and how crucial the longer drying time is. Products already exist with LVP-VOC solvent cleaners, as ind icated by the 2003 Survey, that comply with the proposed VOC limits. For prod ucts that will need reformulation, greater use of a wet cloth for dilut ing 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 pro per 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, a nd 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 i ntended uses. In some cases, higher VOC levels are needed to remove difficult st ains and soils.

Response : We have considered the functions of low-VOC produc ts 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 needi ng VOC solvents. High VOC products may create emissions without a cleanin g benefit when treating spots and stains that do not need VOC solvents. Ou r proposal addresses both those products for specific spot removal, and produ cts for general spot removal. Regarding damage to fabrics, the product marketer s hould determine the type of product for the type of spots and stains to be addr essed for different fabrics and articles, and to provide appropriate label warnings . Label instructions now commonly suggest that the customer test the Spot Re mover 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, sin ce use of perchloroethylene, a toxic air contaminant, should not be considered a realistic reformulation option to lower VOC content in this c ategory. Response : We agree that perchloroethylene products should not be relied on

as a basis to lower VOC limits. We also believe th at these products should not

be marketed in the future because of air toxics con cerns. 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 Su rvey results with the products included since that was the historical rea lity at the time. We believe there is no misrepresentation of the survey results as shown.

d. Issue : Products with label claims for general carpet cl eaning, in addition to localized cleaning, should be move from the Spot Re mover 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 l abeled clearly as Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner with only incidental use as Spot Remover, we would agree. However, a product label may have several e qually 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 thanTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 134 one categories for review, depending on the wording of the various category definitions and the product label, although the reg ulatory emission reduction should be counted for only one category. We also c onsider the category identified by the marketer, since the marketer is m ost familiar with the product and has the first opportunity to categorize the pro duct when submitting the survey. Please note that data review is separate f rom any enforcement evaluation for individual products.

e. Issue : ARB should regulate non-aerosol Spot Removers us ed by dry cleaning establishments. Water-based and soy-based alternat ive Spot Removers are available alternatives to the currently used and mo re 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-cl ean-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 VO C limits would apply to Spot Remover products labeled for general spot remo val (i.e. suitable for watertolerant or water-washable fabrics) that may be use d 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 C onsumer 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, 200 7e)

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s 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 Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m 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 Trichloroethy lene 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 Pro tection 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 (Agre ement Number 02-408), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. August, 2 005. (IRTA, 2005)

16. Tire or Wheel Cleaner

Product Category Description :

Tire or Wheel Cleaner means a product designed or l abeled exclusively to clean either tires, wheels, or both. Tire or Wheel Clean er includes, but is not limited to, products for use in commercial, fleet, hand, and “d rive-through” car washes, commercial truck or large vehicle washing stations, vehicle de alers 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 c ategory. Table VI-31 below

summarizes the sales and emissions from Tire or Whe el Cleaners based on the results of ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a). The data have b een 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd 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, aero sol Tire or Wheel Cleaners have aTechnical 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” cons umers, tire cleaners, wheel cleaners,

and combination tire and wheel cleaners are availab le in, but not limited to, retail outlets such as supermarkets, diversified pharmacies, home improvement stores, auto supply stores, super stores, and specialty stores. Auto d ealers, catalog sales, and the Internet are additional marketing locations. For commercial businesses, products are available from manufacturers and/or distributors, and warehou ses 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 prod ucts 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 t o 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 o n whitewall tires.

Product Formulation :

Tire or Wheel Cleaners are water-based products co ntaining glycol ethers, alcohols, VOC and LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvents, and inorganic compounds. The glycol ethers, VOC solvents, and alcohols make up t he majority of the product’s VOC content and act as the active ingredients. The ino rganics and LVP-VOC solvents are normally surfactants to aid in cleaning. The aeros ol products normally use a small amount of hydrocarbon propellant.

Proposed VOC limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limits for aerosol and non-aeroso l Tire or Wheel Cleaner are 8 and 2 percent VOC by weight, respectively, effect ive December 31, 2010. As shown in Table VI-32 using adjusted emissions, the propos ed 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-a erosol market currently complies with the proposed VOC limit. The percent of the market that currently complies with the proposed aerosol limit of 8 perce nt 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Most of the non-complying products are already form ulated 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 prop osed limits by increasing the product’s water and/or LVP-VOC content.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l 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 othe r 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 a re applied to surfaces that have already been cleaned.

Windshield Water Repellent is a previously unregul ated category. Table VI-33

below summarizes the sales and emissions from Winds hield 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 a bout 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage a nd grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

As shown in Table VI-33, Windshield Water Repellen t 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 comme rcial businesses and “doit-yourself” consumers. For the “do-it-yourself” c onsumers, Windshield Water Repellents are available in, but not limited to, re tail outlets such as supermarkets, diversified pharmacies, home improvement stores, au to supply stores, super stores, and specialty stores. Auto dealers, catalog sales, and the Internet are additional marketing locations. Products for commercial busin esses are available from manufacturers and/or distributors, and warehouses, as well as retail outlets. Windshield Water Repellents are sometimes applied to glass sur faces by the original equipment

manufacturer.

Windshield Water Repellent products are sprayed, o r rubbed, onto clean, exterior windshields and other glass surfaces to provide a w ater 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 g lass, 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 perform ance needs. They must provide a static, high, contact angle. Water shoul d bead and roll down the windshield, rather than leave a droplet trail, and it must func tion with the current windshield wiper. Use of the product must not result in abrasion, str eaking, 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 Repelle nts are typically formulated with alcohols and inorganics. The alcohols provide solvency for the inorganic coating, normally a surfactant, so that it can be readily ap plied onto the surface of the windshieldTechnical 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 ac id catalyst, organo-silanes, silicone functionalized surfactants, carnauba wax, silicone emulsion, diamond-like carbon coatings, and hydrophobic treated nano-parti culates (CSPA, 2006).

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

The proposed VOC limit for Windshield Water Repell ent 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 mar ket 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 Surv ey (ARB, 2004a).

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2008 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market co verage and grown, by population, to 2010 (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Water-based technology, for Windshield Water Repel lent, is being researched by manufacturers. However, at present time, further d evelopment is necessary. We believe that technology is advancing that would all ow 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 exten ded 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 makeTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 140 complying products available in the marketplace. W e also note that in a 2006 presentation industry indicated that a 75 percent V OC limit was feasible.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

2. Consumer Specialty Products Association. CSPA Au tomotive and Solvent

Products Technical Seminar for ARB Staff . July 13, 2006. (CSPA, 2006)

B. CATEGORIES FOR WHICH A GREENHOUSE GAS LIMIT IS P ROPOSED

1. Pressurized Gas Duster

Product Category Description:

Pressurized Gas Duster is a product designed to rem ove foreign particles such as dust, dirt, lint, and other particles from sensi tive 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 t he 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 g lobal warming potential (GWP) of compounds used in Pressurized Gas Dusters. To i mplement this proposal, we are proposing to add definitions for “Global Warming Po tential” and “Global Warming Potential Value.” These definitions are necessary to implement our proposal to reduce the potency of greenhouse gas emissions from Pressu rized Gas Dusters. We are using the GWP definition of the Intergovernmental Panel o n Climate Change (IPCC). GWP provides a measure of a compound’s impact on global warming compared to CO 2 . The GWP value definition specifies that the 100-year GW P values in the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of IPCC would be used to de termine compliance. To enforce our proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emiss ions from Pressurized Gas Duster, the definition further specifies that, if t he SAR does not contain a GWP value for a specific chemical or compound, then the IPCC, Fou rth 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 t he FAR, then the GWP value is assumed to be equal to the GWP applicable standard.

As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climat e Change 1995: Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996), the GWP of a greenh ouse gas (GHG) is defined as the radiative forcing impact of one mass-based unit of a given greenhouse gas relativeTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 141 to an equivalent unit of carbon dioxide over a give n period of time. The standard units of measurement used to express the emissions of a G HG are million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMT CO 2 e) per year.

The global warming potential (GWP) of products in t his category is high due to the use of hydrofluorocarbon-134a (HFC-134a) and hydrof luorocarbon-152a (HFC-152a). HFC-152a has a GWP of 140, which is one hundred and forty times greater than the GWP of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). HFC-134a has a GWP of 1300, which is approximat ely ten times greater than the GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than CO 2 (IPCC, 1996; IPCC, 2007).

We are also proposing to modify the definition for Pressurized Gas Duster to exclude electronic cleaners, electrical cleaners, o r energized electrical cleaners. However, we are proposing to add an exemption to th e definition for the niche uses

where non-flammable dusters are needed. HFC-134a i s a non-flammable propellant, whereas HFC-152a is moderately flammable. The prop osed exemption is for nonflammable products labeled exclusively to remove du st from equipment where dust removal is accomplished when: electric current exi sts; 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 co ntain 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 l imit, 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 requir ed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The GHG emission reductions from the Pressurized Ga s Dusters were estimated using reported information from the 2003 Consumer P roducts Survey and the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update gathered durin g February 2008. During the public process of developing the proposed GWP limit , staff held numerous meetings

and teleconferences to solicit information and comm ents from industry associations and industry representatives. At that time, industry r epresentatives advised ARB staff that changes in the gas duster market had occurred since 2003. In response, staff conducted the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Up date 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 po pulation estimates. Annual population growth factors were calculated using the 2007 state population figures and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (C al/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicl e 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 C limate Change (IPCC, 1996) for calculating the CO 2 equivalent emissions and CO 2 equivalent reductions for this category of products.Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 142 Table VI-35 below summarizes the 2003 and 2007 sal es and GHG emissions

from Pressurized Gas Dusters based on the results o f ARB’s 2003 Survey (ARB, 2004a) and the 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Su rvey Update (ARB, 2008c).

As shown in Table VI-35, 39 duster products were r eported for 2003 with adjusted sales of 3,657 pounds per day for 2008. Although n ot shown on the table, Pressurized Gas Dusters had a sales-weighted average GHG conten t of over 99 percent by weight, with estimated GHG emissions of 2,242,171 CO 2 e pounds per day, or about

0.37 MMT CO 2 e 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 (CO 2 e 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 Surv ey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Based on 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. (ARB, 2008c)

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age (see Chapter IV, Emissions).

Additionally, as shown in Table VI-35, 90 duster p roducts were reported for 2007 with adjusted sales of 7,292 pounds per day for 200 8. Although not shown in the table, the sales-weighted average GHG content is over 99 p ercent by weight, and the estimated adjusted GHG emissions are 2,179,855 CO 2 e pounds per day, or about 0.36

MMT CO 2 e per year.

Prior to 2003, industry leaders voluntarily shifte d away from using HFC-134a as the propellant in gas dusters to using HFC-152a (CS PA, 2008). Changes in the market between 2003 and 2007 were captured in the 2007 Pre ssurized Gas Duster Survey Update (ARB, 2008c). In 2003, HFC-134a gas dusters made up approximately 41 percent of the market. The updated sales informati on 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 c ategory sales, which have nearly doubled. The potency of GHG emissions from this ca tegory have been decreasing with

the increased use of HFC-152a.

Product Use and Marketing :

Pressurized Gas Dusters are aerosol sprays that pro duce a burst of pressurized gas that is used to remove dust, dirt, lint and oth er particles from a surface. Pressurized Gas Dusters differ from products such as “Electroni c 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-to uch, moisture-free, precision cleaning is needed, or in cleaning applications of hard to reach, hidden spots, in equipment and delicate instruments and their housin gs.

Pressurized Gas Dusters are used by “do-it-yoursel f” consumers, technicians, and professional engineers. These products are use d 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 o r filtered to 0.2 micrometers, and plastics safe.

These products are labeled for cleaning delicate eq uipment such as: electronic, photographic and office equipment; laboratory equip ment and medical devices; audio and video equipment; computer keyboards and printer s, the inside of computer housings, copiers and TVs; disc drives, and tape he ads of cassette players. These products are also used to clean delicate materials such as: photographs, photographic film, negatives, and slides; audio and video cartri dges and cassettes, and other types of

surfaces that cannot be cleaned with solvents. The se products are sometimes labeled “For Industrial and Institutional Use Only.”

Pressurized Gas Dusters are sold in computer and e lectronic stores, mass market chain-stores, warehouse club stores, office supply stores, hardware stores, scientific or laboratory supply catalogs, and on th e Internet.

Product Formulation :

Pressurized Gas Dusters are composed of 99 – 100 p ercent propellant. The propellant is typically a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC): HFC-134a or HFC-152a. A few products are composed of a blend of hydrocarbon pro pellants or a blend of hydrocarbon propellants, HFC-134a, and dimethyl ether (DME). S ome formulations may contain a bittering agent (to prevent product misuse), or oth er additives at trace concentrations.

The GWP for products in this category is high due t o 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 car bon dioxide (CO 2 ). HFC-134a has a GWP of 1300, which is approximately ten times gre ater than the GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than CO 2 (IPCC, 1996; IPCC, 2007).

Proposed GWP Limit and Compliance :

We are proposing a GWP limit of 150 for any chemic al 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, areTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 144 0.1 percent by weight or less. The proposed GWP li mit for Pressurized Gas Dusters is designed to be equivalent to reducing 0.20 MMT CO 2 e per year, effective December 31, 2010, with HFC-134a emissions reductions of approxi mately 0.23 MMT CO 2 e per year by 2020. The reductions in 2020 are important beca use AB 32 requires a reduction of GHG emissions equal to the 1990 baseline level in C alifornia by the year 2020.

We expect that compliance with the proposed limit w ill 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 emissi ons, we expect an estimated emission reduction of 1,198,574 CO 2 e pounds per day, or about

0.20 MMT CO 2 e tons per year, by 2010. The GWP limit was set at 150 rather than 140 because it is anticipated that GWP values may chang e as the “state-of-the-science” evolves. The GWP of HFC-152a (140) was used to est imate emission reductions.

Table VI-36a below shows the emission reductions from the GWP li mit of 150 for this category, and that about 86 percent of the market currently complies with the l imit.

Table VI-36a Pressurized Gas Duster GHG Proposal

Survey

Data Proposed

GWP Limit Complying

Products Complying

Market Share (%) 2010

Emission

Reductions (CO 2 e lbs/day) + 2020

Emission

Reductions (CO 2 e 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 Surv ey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Based on 2007 Pressurized Gas Duster Survey Update. (ARB, 2008c)

+ Survey emissions adjusted for complete market cover age (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 manufa cturers to meet the proposed limit include the use of 100 percent HFC-152a. We are aware of some compressed

CO 2 duster products available on the Internet. Staff initially considered a technology forcing, second tier lower limit of 10 for Pressuri zed Gas Dusters, effective December 31, 2015, based on CO 2 technology and new lower GWP refrigerant technology. However, after further investigation a nd discussions with manufacturers,

staff believes that CO 2 (compressed gas) dusters are a different product t han Pressurized Gas Dusters that use liquefied propella nt. Dusters using CO 2 , 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 G WPs. The newly emergingTechnical Support Document Chapter VI - 145 refrigerants are in the process of under going toxi city 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, partic ularly Pressurized Gas Dusters, is

unknown at this time. Staff intends to work with P ressurized Gas Duster manufacturers, and other stakeholders to monitor new technologies and conduct a technical assessment of low-GWP propellants that might be app ropriate for Pressurized Gas

Dusters in the future.

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance :

We are also proposing a 1 percent by weight VOC li mit, effective December 31, 2010. The limit is designed to preven t the use of hydrocarbon propellants, and other VOCs, as products are reform ulated 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 pr oposing, 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 CE QA mitigation measure to prevent VOC emission increases. From the standpoint of cle aning shots and total cleaning force available per container and potential environ mental impact, HFC-152a is more

efficient than HFC-134a or CO 2 (DuPont & Falcon, 2004). As shown in Table VI-36b

, using 2008 VOC emissions, the proposed limit will r esult 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 cover age (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 wi th respect to ozone formation and

has been excluded from the definition of VOC. Whil e ARB staff believes toxic air contaminants are not likely to be used in future re formulated products, ARB staff is proposing that perchloroethylene and methylene chlo ride be prohibited in the Pressurized Gas Duster category. This prohibition is proposed to ensure that

manufacturers do not choose to reformulate with tox ic chlorinated solvents in response to the new VOC and GWP limits. The prohibition doe s not apply to any chemicalsTechnical 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 C hapter VIII for a discussion of the health effects of perchloroethylene and methylene c hloride.

Issues :

a. Issue : Industry recommends a narrow exclusion in the defi nition, for products that are completely nonflammable.

Response : The proposed modification to the definition of Pr essurized Gas Duster includes a narrow exemption for products tha t are labeled exclusively to remove dust from equipment where dust removal is ac complished 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 Equipmen t 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 th ese 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 valu es 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 th e case where neither the SAR nor the FAR contain a GWP value for the specifi c compound, then the GWP value is assumed to be equal to the emission standa rd. 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 regulat ion (i.e., Table of GWPs) states clearly that compounds not listed as h aving 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 Emiss ions . October, 2007. (ARB, 2007c)

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Produc ts, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Para-Dichloroben zene Solid Air Fresheners

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products . May 7, 2004 (ARB, 2004b)

5. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

6. Consumer Specialty Products Association. Technol ogy of Pressurized Gas Duster Products – Meeting with ARB staff . Andrew Steinman, Executive Vice President, Falcon Safety Products, Inc. March 5, 20 08. (CSPA, 2008)

7. DuPont Company in association with Falcon Safety Products. Fluorochemical Fluorochemicals Laboratory DuPont Company Technica l Report, Subject: Cleaning Tests for Aerosol Dusting Aids (Dusters) . December 1, 2004. Melodie Schweitzer, Janet Ludert, Bruce Hitches (DuPont Com pany). Brian Bilsback, Dermot McLeer (Falcon Safety Products). (Dupont & F alcon, 2004)

8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fors ter, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywo od, 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 Radiativ e Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribut ion of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernment al Panel on Climate Change

. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marqu is, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge Univer sity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007)

9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Clima te 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. Harr is, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, (eds.)] Cambridge University Press. Cambri dge, U.K. (IPCC, 1996)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 148

VII. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

A. INTRODUCTION

This Chapter provides our analysis of the estimate d economic impacts we predict from implementation of the proposed VOC limits, one global warming potential (GWP) limit, and other proposed amendments to the regulat ion. In general, economic impact analyses are inherently imprecise by nature, given the unpredictable behavior of companies in a highly competitive market such as co nsumer products. While staff has quantified the economic impacts to the extent feasi ble, some projections are necessarily qualitative, and based on general observations and facts known about the consumer products industry. This analysis, therefore, serve s to provide a general picture of the economic impacts typical businesses subject to the proposed limits might encounter. Individual companies may experience different impac ts than projected.

The overall impacts are first summarized in Sectio n 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 Pro posed 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 Amen dments; and

I. Mitigation of Potential Impacts through Additional Regulatory Flexibility.

It is important to note that we conducted this eco nomic impacts analysis in accordance with the current legal requirements unde r the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This analysis uses similar methodologies an d 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 co st 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 specifi c to each category. See Section G of this Chapter for a detailed description of the nonr ecurring 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 “retur n on owner’s equity” (ROE) analysis. The analysis found that the overall change in ROE r anges from a low of 0.7 percent to a high of about 4.0 percent, with an average change i n 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. Th ese 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 n ot expect a noticeable change in employment; business creation, elimination or expan sion; and business competitiveness in California. We also found no si gnificant adverse economic impacts to any local or State agencies.

Our analysis shows that the CE of the proposed ame ndments is higher than other existing VOC ARB regulatory programs. This i s not surprising given that many categories proposed for regulation are smaller, in terms of emissions, and therefore,

smaller emissions reductions result. We estimate t he 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 lim it relative to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We estimate the CE of the propo sed GHG limit for Pressurized Gas Dusters to be $0.22 per metric ton of CO 2 equivalent (MT CO 2 e) reduced.

We estimate that the total cost incurred by indust ry 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. Sta ff believes the mid-range costs are the most likely to be incurred by industry to compl y 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 t o produce a product is to determine the change in raw materials cost, which g enerally has the biggest influence on product cost for most product categories. Our a nalysis indicates that reformulations to comply with the proposed limits can result in ra w material changes ranging from negligible cost (net savings or no cost) up to a co st increase of about $0.63 per unit. The value of $0.63 represents the maximum, worst ca se, per-unit cost increase. This range compares favorably to the change in per unit cost projected for the Ph ase 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 orTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 150

higher at the time of the limit effective date depe nding 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 (researc h and development, capital equipment purchases, etc.) and recurring raw materi al cost increases are factored into the affected products manufacturing costs, the pote ntial increase in production per-unit costs are comparable to previous ARB consumer produ ct rulemakings. The estimated per-unit cost increases from both annualized nonrec urring 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 ch ange in per unit cost projected for previous ARB consumer product rulemakings.

Staff believes that the regulation cost and CE dete rmination methodologies are quite conservative, and are thus in most cases, ove r-estimated. There are several

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

determine the overall cost and cost effectiveness o f the regulation) is the average of the estimated high and low cost scenarios. The low cos t 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 reformul ation option. For the high cost scenario, it is assumed that there is significant r esearch and development, and new equipment is needed to reformulate the product. We believe that few manufacturers would need to take the high cost reformulation appr oach.

In the economic analysis, staff assumed that the VO C 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 es timates were performed separately for aerosol and non-aerosol products respectively. The analysis shows that greater costs will be incurred during the first tier reform ulation than the second tier reformulation. This results from the assumption th at significant high end costs will be incurred in the first tier reformulation, but not a ll of these costs would necessarily be duplicated in the second tier reformulation. If ma jor 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 chang es 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 co rrect, we believe that it is appropriate to assume that high end reformulation c osts will be incurred during eitherTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 151

the first tier reformulation or the second tier ref ormulation, but not both. Either assumption, that higher costs would be incurred dur ing a given tier relative to the other, would yield the same amount of total costs being in curred to meet both tiers.

Another factor that can contribute to an over estim ation 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 co st of the raw ingredients necessary

to meet the new VOC limit is zero. This is a conse rvative assumption because for most product categories, there is more than one reformul ation option. However, it is possible that a given manufacturer will choose more expensiv e 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 incorpora ted the decreased cost into the overall cost estimate. We believe that this approa ch 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-134 a 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, f or Pressurized Gas Dusters, instead of assuming that the raw material cost is zero, the ra w material cost savings was subtracted from the anticipated equipment and resea rch 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 St ate agencies to assess the potential for adverse economic impacts on Californi a business enterprises and individuals when proposing to adopt or amend any ad ministrative regulation. The assessment must include a consideration of the impa ct 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 i n 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 profitabili ty. It is likely that all cost will not be absorbed by businesses, b y passing a portion through toTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 152

consumers. However, the proposed measures may impo se economic hardship on some businesses with very little or no margin of pr ofitability. These businesses, if hard pressed, can seek relief under the variance provisi on of the consumer products regulation for extensions to their compliance dates . Such extensions may provide sufficient time to minimize the cost impacts to the se businesses. Additional mitigation may be achieved by taking advantage of the complian ce flexibility offered by the existing Innovative Product Provision (IPP) and the Alternative Control Plan (ACP) Regulation (see Subsection I of this Chapter). Bec ause the change on the return on owners’ equity (ROE) has been determined to be quit e 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 b ased on a comparison of the

ROE for affected businesses before and after inclus ion of the cost to comply with the proposed requirements. The data used in this analy sis 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 Surve y), and the staff’s CE analysis discussed later in this Chapter.

b. Affected Businesses

Any business which manufactures or markets consume r products subject to the proposed new limits and requirements can be directl y affected by this regulation. Also potentially affected are businesses which supply ra w materials or equipment to manufacturers or marketers, and those that distribu te or sell consumer products in California. The focus of this analysis, however, w ill be on manufacturers, marketers, and distributors that are most affected by the prop osed measures.

The consumer products subject to the proposed meas ures are manufactured, marketed, or distributed by a large number of compa nies worldwide. According to the 2003 Survey, there are about 300 companies that mar ket the affected products in California. These companies manufacture, market, a nd distribute a broad range of solvent, adhesive, household, and personal care pro ducts, including an estimated total of 2,366 complying and 1,535 noncomplying products (based on reported figures). Of the companies manufacturing these products, about 6 0 firms (mostly medium- or smallsized firms) are located in California.

These 300 companies fall primarily into 5 North Am erican Industry Classification System codes (NAICS). A list of these industries w hich 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 Lubr icant Manufacturing; Adhesive Manufacturing; Polish and Other Sanitation Good Man ufacturing, Toilet PreparationTechnical 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 P roducts Survey. (ARB, 2004a)

** Some noncomplying products may relate to more than one NAICS code. Number of products may be differen t than those indicated in Table VII-5, due to calcula tions based on representative product size.

c. Study Approach

This study covers 5 industries with at least 300 a ffected 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 w as 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 a n affected industry. (4) Estimated cost was adjusted for federal and Sta te taxes. (5) The Return on Owner’s equity (ROE) was calculat ed for each of these businesses by dividing the net profit by the net wo rth. The adjusted cost was then subtracted from net profit data. The resu lts were used to calculate an adjusted ROE. The adjusted ROE was th en compared withTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 154 the ROE before the subtraction of the cost to deter mine the potential impact on the profitability of the business.

A reduction of more than 10 percent in profitabili ty is considered to indicate a potential for significant adverse economic impacts. This value has been used consistently by the ARB staff to determine impact s everity (ARB,1990c; ARB, 1991a; ARB, 1995; ARB, 1997b; ARB, 1999; ARB, 2004b; and A RB, 2006a). This threshold is consistent with the thresholds used by the U.S. EPA

.

d. Assumptions

This study uses 2004-2006 Dun and Bradstreet finan cial data for a nationwide typical business in each affected industry except f or Toilet Preparation Manufacturing

and All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Pr eparation manufacturing where

2005 and 2004-2005 Dun and Bradstreet financial dat a were used, respectively, due to lack of complete financial data. These data were u sed to calculate the ROEs before and after the subtraction of the compliance costs f or 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 eac h 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 th e prices of their products, nor can they lower their costs of doing business th rough short-term costcutting measures.

Given the limitation of available data, staff beli eves these assumptions are

reasonable for most businesses at least in the shor t run; however, they may not be applicable to all businesses.

e. Results

Typical California businesses are affected by t he proposed new limits to the

extent that the implementation of these requirement s 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 c osts to range from about $1,700 (low cost for typical Penetrant manufacturer) to ab out $54,000 per year (high cost for typical Multi-Purpose Lubricant manufacturer) as sh own in Table VII-2. Table VII-7 also shows total mid-range, per product cost of about $1 4,000 per year.Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 155 Table VII-2 Estimated Total Impacts to Businesses from Both Ann ualized Nonrecurring and Annual Recurring CostsTechnical 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 Typi cal 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 & Preparat ion

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 p rofitability of typical businesses in the 5 affected industries varies by i ndustry sector. Within the NAICS shown, the predicted change (decline) in profitabil ity 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 tw o factors. First, some businesses incur higher costs due to the type of products or t he number of noncompliant products they manufacture or market. For instance, the esti mated 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 we ighted average cost of the respective annualized costs for all products. Seco nd, 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 o verestimated for the following reasons. First, annualized costs of comp liance 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 the se 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. The y may be able to either pass some of the cost on to consumers in the form of higher pric es, reduce their costs, or do both.

In this analysis, as in 2004 and 2006, we allocate d nonrecurring reformulation costs only to the noncomplying products.Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 157

3. Potential Impact on Business Creation, Eliminat ion or Expansion

The proposed measures would have no noticeable impact on the status of

California businesses. This is because the reformu lation 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 p rofitability may lack the financial resources to reformulate their products on a timely basis. Should the proposed measures impose significant hardship on these busin esses, temporary relief in the form of a compliance date extension under the variance p rovision may be warranted.

On the other hand, the proposed measures may provi de business opportunities

for some California businesses or result in the cre ation of new businesses. California businesses which supply raw materials and equipment or provide consulting services to affected industries may benefit from increased indu stry spending on reformulation.

4. Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness

The proposed measures would have no significant imp act on the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Because the proposed measures would apply to all businesses tha t 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 adv erse impact on the competitive position of some small, marginal busine sses in California if these businesses lack resources to develop commercially a cceptable products in a timely manner. As stated above, such impacts can be mitig ated to a degree with a justifiable compliance extension under the variance provision o f the Consumer Products Regulation, or through additional regulatory flexib ility 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 co nsumers depends upon the ability of affected businesses to pass on the cost increase s to consumers. In the short run, competitive market forces may prevent businesses fr om 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 u nable to bring down their costs of doing business they will likely pass their cost inc reases on to consumers.

To estimate the price increase, we adjusted per un it compliance costs for each affected industry by its profit margin as provided by Dun and Bradstreet. Assuming affected industries will pass on the entire complia nce costs to consumers in terms of higher prices, we estimate the average price of a p roduct 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 th e products sold by the PersonalTechnical 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 ad versely if they result in reduced performance attributes of the products. Ho wever, this scenario is unlikely to occur for the following reasons. First, for nearly every proposed limit, there are already complying products that represent significant marke t share in many of their respective categories. Thus, the industry already has the tec hnology 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 prod uct sale, but also to the sale of other products sold under the same brand name (impa iring 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 varianc es, the additional time may afford more opportunity to explore different formulation, cost-cutting, performance-enhancing, or other marketing strategies which can help make t he 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 th e 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 p ercent of manufacturing employment in California. These employees working in the 458 establishments generated about $667 million in payroll, or about 9.4 percent of na tional payroll in the affected industries. This also accounts for less than 1 percent of the t otal California manufacturing payroll in

2005.

D. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CALIFORNIA STATE O R LOCAL

AGENCIES

We have identified two State agencies that could/or would be impacted. The California Prison Industry Authority (PIA) manufact ures and markets consumer products for use in State service. This is the only State a gency we are aware of that makes consumer products. The PIA manufactures a drain ma intainer, which could be subject to the proposed six percent limit for non-aerosol O dor Remover/Eliminator. This product, if subject, would meet the proposed new li mit for Odor Removers/Eliminators. The PIA also sells bar soaps, powder bleaches, liqu id glass cleaners, liquid multipurpose cleaner and degreasers, floor finishes , and liquid and powder detergents (PIA, 2008). The proposed measures do not affect t hese 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 Indus tries

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 ass ociated with adoption of the proposed amendments. Adoption of the amendment s would necessitate an increase in ARB staff to properly enforce the Consu mer Products Regulation. These proposed amendments are setting new limits for a nu mber 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 PROP OSED

LIMITS

1. Introduction

In the following analysis, we evaluated the antici pated CE of the proposed new limits. Such an evaluation allows us to compare th e efficiency of the proposed limits in reducing a pound of VOC or a metric ton of CO 2 e relative to other existing regulatory programs. To do this, we applied a well-establishe d 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 emi ssion reductions in terms of “dollars (to be) spent per pound of VOC reduced or metric to n of CO 2 e reduced in the case of Pressurized Gas Duster. For perspective, we compar e 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 define d 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 nonrecurrin g 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 C apital Recovery Method, as recommended under guidelines issued by the Californ ia Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). Using this method, we multiply t he estimated total fixed costs to comply with the limits by the Capital Recovery Fact or (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 an nualized fixed costs with the annual recurring costs and divide that sum by the annual e mission

reductions to calculate the cost-effectiveness of t he 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 prod uct category = (Nonrecurring Cost per Product) x (Total Noncompliant Products in the Category)

As shown by the raw materials cost analyses in App endix D, a convenient method for estimating the annual recurring cost por tion of overall cost-effectiveness is to separate Equation (1) into two fractions, one for t he 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 i)+ (1 n i)+ (1 i

x Costs) (Fixed (1)

(2)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 161

Annual Recurring Costs CE=

where,

Baseline Materials Cost = cost of raw materials fo r 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 f or compliant product, $/lb product Compliant VOC Content = product VOC weight fractio n of compliant product, lb VOC/lb product.

In the case of Pressurized Gas Duster, the calcula tions 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/subcateg ories, 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 form ulations that most closely reflect the “typical” compliant and noncompliant VOC or GWP val ue contents. These formulations, in turn, were designated as compliant and baseline formulations, respectively (See Appendix D).

For most ingredients, we used the most recent, dis tributor-level bulk prices from

the ICIS Chemical Business web site (ICIS, 2008). Costs for other ingredient s were obtained from discussions with chemical suppliers, or from web searches of analytical grade chemicals. All of these data sources were us ed 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 co st of $0.09 and $0.91 per pound based on the costs found of the most common inorgan ic compounds found in the product categories. Other unspecified ingredients or ingredients for which prices were unknown were grouped into an “all others” classific ation and assigned a default low and high cost of $3.50 and $7.00 per pound, respectivel y (ARB, 1997c). These analyses are shown in Appendix D and discussed in more detai l in “Analysis of Impacts to Raw

Materials Cost” later in this section.

We used a very similar methodology to determine th e CE of the proposal to reduce the potency of greenhouse gas emissions from Pressurized Gas Dusters, as described above. Instead of evaluating costs relat ive to VOC reductions, for

Pressurized Gas Dusters we evaluated the costs of r educing GHG emissions equivalent to reducing a metric ton of carbon dioxide. Content) VOC (Compliant - Content) VOC (Baseline Cost) Materials (Baseline - Cost) Materials (Compliant (3)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 162

3. Assumptions

We calculated the CE with an assumed project horiz on 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 th roughout the project horizon. These assumptions are conservative and constitute standar d 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 mee t the proposed limits will be marketed throughout the U.S. by nati onal marketers (ARB, 1997b). We earlier determined that businesses generally formul ate for, and distribute to the entire nation, products compliant with our regulations rat her than incurring the additional cost of setting up a California specific product distrib ution system. We believe the same strategy will be employed by companies subject to t he proposed new limits. We, therefore, assumed in the Midterm II analysis in 19 99 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, w hich we used in the 2004 and 2006 analyses, and in this analysis, is to report t he California-apportioned (by population) annualized fixed cost divided by the Ca lifornia-apportioned emission reductions. To illustrate, a manufacturer may need to install $10 million worth of equipment to produce its national sales volume of p roducts 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. Usin g this alternative approach, we discounted the total fixed costs for producing nati onal sales volumes by the Californiaapportionment factor (i.e., the current ratio of Ca lifornia 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 bo th of the approaches described above -- the national marketing and California-only approach es -- reach the same conclusion, they do so for different reasons as discussed above

.

For the annual recurring costs, we assumed complia nt 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 bas eline levels of these costs. This assumption is based on our previous regulatory expe riences. To illustrate, in 1996, we conducted a comprehensive technical assessment of t he 55 percent by weight VOC hairspray limit, which required extensive reformula tions to existing products (ARB, 1997c). The hairspray limit is generally considere d 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 ha irspray raw material costs were expected to be negligible (ARB, 1997c). Based on t his finding and because theTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 163

proposed new limits are designed to preserve produc t forms, we believe our assumptions regarding the recurring costs are reaso nable.

4. Results

A review of relevant technical literature and indu stry trade journals provided little

information that we could use to estimate costs dir ectly. 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 ha ve received significant comments regarding our assumptions for fixed costs from spec ific interested parties. We worked with these industry representatives to obtain new, updated, substantiated fixed cost data. The information we received generally confir ms 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 ar e 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 pro duct 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 rulemakin g, and the 2004 and 2006 rulemakings.

The Phase II nonrecurring investment costs, report ed in 1991 dollars, were adjusted to 2007 dollars using a well-established m ethod of ratioing chemical engineering plant cost indices as follows (Peters a nd Timmerhaus, 1980):

)4( Index 1991 C.E. Index 2007 C.E.

10 dollars) 1991 (in Costs Recurring Non dollars) 2007 (in Costs Recurring

- Non × −

=

where,

CE 2007 index = 2007 Chemical Engineering Plant C ost Index = 525.0 ( Chemical Engineering , April 2008).

CE 1991 index = 1991 Chemical Engineering Plant Co st Index = 361.3 ( Chemical Engineering , April 1997).

We believe the original Phase II cost estimates we re 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 co st estimates grossly overestimated the true nonrecurring costs for Phase II by a facto r 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 estim ates to be consistent as shown in Equation (4).Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 164

Table VII-5 shows our estimates for per-product an d total annualized nonrecurring costs for each of the product categori es/subcategories subject to the proposed limits.

As shown, we project a per-product annualized nonr ecurring cost ranging from a low of about $8,000 to a high of about $243,000. W ith 1,535 noncompliant products that would need to be reformulated, the overall tot al annualized fixed cost to industry is projected to range from about $4 million to just ab out $16 million dollars per year, with a general breakdown of this range as follows: automot ive 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 req uirements is higher than the CE of other rulemakings for consumer products or th e 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 CO 2 equivalent reduced.

It should be noted that a contributing factor to t he total average cost per pound of

VOC reduced is that the VOC emission reductions ach ieved from some of the proposed limits specific to individual categories may be qui te low. A limit may have been set largely as a cap, with the few reductions being ach ieved 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 cos t per pound of VOC reduced). Therefore, when presenting the overall CE of the pr oposal, 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 LimitsTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 166

Table VII-6 shows a comparison of the CE for the p roposed limits relative to other ARB consumer product regulations and control measures. As expected, costs for the proposed amendments are higher than other recen t 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 P roduct

Regulations/Measures

Regulation/Control Measure Cost-Effectiveness (Dollars per Pound VOC Reduced)

2008 Amendments $6.23

2006 Amendments 1 $2.35

2004 Amendments 1 $2.01 to $2.34

Aerosol Adhesives 2 $6.00

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings 3 $1.12

1 Categories where reduction of toxic air contam inant emissions occurred were included (ARB, 2004b; ARB, 2006a). 2 ARB, 2000c. 3 Suggested Control Measure, developed with the Cal ifornia 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 evalua ted 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 cos ts provides only an indicator of possible impacts to the retail prices of the affect ed products (assuming the cost impacts are passed on partially or fully to consumers). Be cause of unpredictable factors such as the highly competitive nature of the consumer pr oducts market, it is not possible to accurately predict the final retail price of produc ts that will comply with the proposed limits when they become effective. To the extent t he 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 form ulations which most closely reflect the “typical” compliant and noncompliant VO C contents. These formulations, in turn, were designated as compliant and non-complian t 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 ca lculate the baseline and compliant

material costs for these formulations. Sources of cost information were used for selected ingredients as discussed previously. Othe r than compounds specifically requested, the 2003 Survey did not ask for specific ingredient details for exempt, fragrance, some low vapor pressure VOCs, and inorga nic compounds. Unspecified ingredients or ingredients for which prices were un known were grouped into an “all others” classification and assigned a default low a nd high cost of $3.50 and $7.00 per pound, respectively (ARB, 1997b), with the exceptio n of fragrance which was assumed to have a default low and high cost of $5.00 and $1 0.00 per pound respectively. However, inorganic compounds tend to be less expens ive 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 a nd high cost of $0.09 and $0.91 per pound based on the costs found of the most comm on inorganic compounds found in the product categories. These analyses and the for mulations evaluated (with individual weight fractions and unit prices per pound) are sho wn as cost spreadsheets in Appendix D. While these formulations may not refle ct the exact composition of existing noncompliant products and compliant products that w ill be marketed, we believe they are reasonably representative for the purposes of t his analysis.

3. Assumptions

As noted previously, we assumed changes in packagi ng, labeling, distribution and other recurring costs to be negligible relative to baseline levels of these costs (ARB, 1997b. The most likely pathway for reformulation w as assumed for noncompliant products. Despite this assumption, alternative for mulations may allow lower-cost compliant products than shown in our analysis.

4. Results

As shown in Table VII-7, the anticipated raw mater ials cost changes range from no cost (net savings or no cost) to about $0.63 inc rease 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 UnitTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 169 Table VII-7 Estimated Impacts to Raw Materials Cost Per Unit (c ontinued)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 170

Table VII-8 shows a comparison of the impacts to r aw materials cost under the proposed limits relative to those of other ARB cons umer product regulations.

Table VII-8 Comparison of Raw Materials Cost Impacts for the Pr oposed Limits and Other

ARB Consumer Product Regulations (unadjusted dollar s)

Regulation Cost Impacts (Dollars per Unit of Product)

2008 Amendments $0.00 to $0.63

2006 Amendments 1 $0.00 to $0.44

2004 Amendments 2 $0.00 to $0.77

Mid-Term Measures II 3 $0.00 to $0.25

Aerosol Adhesives 4 $0.00 to $0.60

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings 5 $0.00 to $4.40

1. (ARB, 2006a) 2. (ARB, 2004b) 3. (ARB, 1999) 4. (ARB, 2000c) 5. Suggested Control Measure, developed with the Ca lifornia Air Pollution Control Officers Association (ARB, 2007i)

G. ANALYSIS OF THE COMBINED IMPACTS ON PER-UNIT CO ST FROM

RECURRING AND NONRECURRING COSTS

1. Introduction

In this analysis, we evaluated the combined impac ts of both recurring (i.e., raw materials costs) and nonrecurring costs from the pr oposed limits on per-unit costs. Although the raw material costs generally constitut e 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 c osts in its calculations to determine the costs of complying with proposed VOC limits aff ecting consumer products. In the 1991 Phase II Consumer Products Rulemaking, staff d eveloped a methodology to determine nonrecurring reformulation costs (non-raw material costs) for proposed VOC limits. These costs were broken down by each proce ss needed for reformulation to occur (ARB, 1991a). It was subsequently determined through a thorough cost analysisTechnical 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 fo r hairspray represented the most aggressive, challenging, and expensive reformulatio n that had been required by the Consumer Products Regulations. Therefore, subseque nt 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 f or market, and assumptions about those variables will greatly affect the outco me 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 probabi lity of occurring. Results were also compared to data provided by other agencies and ind ustry to verify that the numbers are “reasonable.” Significant input regarding refo rmulation costs have been provided by industry representatives. In all cases, only new o r additional costs were considered. Costs were not considered that would have been expe cted in the normal course of business if the regulation had not been in effect.

To estimate nonrecurring cost numbers, the staff c onsidered two cost estimate approaches for each product category, one for low c ost, 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 gro uped 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, th e 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 de livery system if necessary; stability testing; efficacy testing; safety testing; labeling modification; registration with regulatory agencies, if necessary; manufacturing change; and m arketing. The length of time in each phase was estimated based on an industry analy sis 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 neede d including general engineering; technician; drafting; packaging engineering; specif ication engineering; model making; chemical engineering; technical publication; produc tion support; quality assurance; marketing; warehousing; word processing; and cleric al. For high cost elements, additional personnel were allocated to each phase.

After the personnel costs were determined, additio nal cost elements were considered at each phase and added as appropriate. These cost elements are facility; equipment; tool; jig; fixture and miscellaneous mat erials handling equipment; purchasedTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 172

material; packaging; distribution; warehousing; tec hnical data; research studies and tests; promotional literature; residual inventory a nd disposal; consumer tests; general and administrative expense; patent; registration fe es; and computer support. The result of these considerations is a per-product cost for d eveloping a reformulated product and putting it on the market.

4. Assumptions

The staff used different assumptions for the low a nd high cost analyses, and considered the specific likelihood that each of the cost elements would occur for each product category individually. In reviewing the 20 03 Survey, staff found that many of the products which would technically be noncomplyin g are within a couple of percentage points of VOC weight from being in compl iance with the standard. These products may require only minor modification to the ir current formulation to come into compliance. Therefore, for the low cost analysis n o major costs were added for changing delivery systems or other product attribut es.

In addition, it is common that large companies hav ing significant market-share and broad product lines offer both low VOC complyin g products and higher VOC noncomplying products. In many cases, relatively l ow costs would be incurred where these companies could increase sales and distributi on of complying products and discontinue noncomplying products.

If products do not change significantly, it is ass umed that major retooling of manufacturing equipment would not be required, tech nical data changes would be minor, and the change in marketing costs would be s mall. It was also assumed that these reformulated products would be marketed natio nally.

For the high cost approach, each category was anal yzed individually to determine which of the elements, discussed above, m anufacturers would likely include in their reformulation efforts. High costs for spe cific 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 woul d 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 ma nufacturing 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 add ed for packaging, distribution and warehousing. In areas where it was expected that l ittle 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 woul d also be additional marketing costs, including research studies and tests, promotional l iterature, and consumer tests. These costs vary by the type of product, with household p roducts typically having a largerTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 173

expense in this area. The cost analysis did not in clude the costs for an extensive advertising campaign. New products are regularly b rought 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 ne w product does not occur in isolation. Few companies have only one product lin e; for those that have more than one product line, the product lines can be very sim ilar. Development and production tasks, from the initial concept through marketing, would be proceeding simultaneously on more than one product line, with a transfer of i nformation and work-sharing between the products. For these companies, this “technolog y transfer” would substantially reduce the cost of developing and marketing a new p roduct 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 fo r a majority of products in the category, the most likely scenario was that only minor change s to the product’s reformulation were necessary to comply with the new proposed limi t then only the lower end of the nonrecurring cost was included. For some categorie s, it was appropriate, based on the variety of products and reformulation approaches ne eded to meet the proposed limit, that certain high cost factors be included in the a nalysis, 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 r aw material cost changes to per-unit production costs ranged from no cost incre ase (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 affe cted by the proposed limits and other requirements, the product-weighted average co st increase is about $0.20 per unit.

H. OTHER POSSIBLE ECONOMIC IMPACTS FROM PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

Beyond the VOC and GHG limits, there are other prop osed amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation, some of which may hav e 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 cou ld be some increased cost to business resulting from proposed changes.

Some products that do not need to reformulate, be cause 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 Annuali zed Nonrecurring and Annual Recurring CostsTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 175

We expect that businesses will benefit economical ly from the exemption of HFE 7200 from the definition of VOC, because it could o ffer more formulation flexibility.

There may be minimal reformulation costs incurred b y those very few companies that use chlorinated solvents in those categories f or which staff has proposed to prohibit the toxic compounds.

I. MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS THROUGH ADDITION AL

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY

If adopted by the Board, the proposed limits will b e incorporated in section 94509 of the Consumer Products Regulation (title 17, Cali fornia Code of Regulations, sections 94507-94517). To complement the mandatory VOC limits specified in section 94509, the existing consumer products program provi des a very high degree of compliance flexibility, through two voluntary, mark et-based programs: the IPP and the ACP Regulation. These options could be evaluated t o minimize cost impacts. The IPP (section 94511) allows qualified manufacturers to s ell products that have VOC contents greater than the applicable VOC limit, provided the y demonstrate that such products actually emit less VOCs than representative product s 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 a llow multi-product VOC averaging as an alternative means of complying with the VOC l imits.

Various manufacturers have formulated technologic ally-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 w hen using such products. To date, 14 manufacturers have submitted and obtained approv al for 25 IPP applications involving 23 products. Based on their participatio n 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, improv ing 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 do cumented by ARB staff (ARB, 1994). In general, emissions averaging under appro ved ACPs allows manufacturers to choose the least-cost or other advantageous reformu lation 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 unde r the ACP bubble directly complied with the applicable limits. In short, the same emi ssion reductions are achieved while providing a high degree of formulation and marketin g 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 occurredTechnical Support Document Chapter VII - 176

under the mandatory VOC limits. We expect that suc h emissions averaging will also benefit manufacturers subject to the proposed limit s.

Overall, most affected businesses will benefit fr om the IPP and the ACP Regulation. Both programs are completely voluntary and impose no additional costs to businesses to meet their requirements other than te sting and reporting requirements. Manufacturers who take advantage of these market-ba sed programs presumably do so because it costs less than direct compliance with t he limits or it provides some other

market benefits. It should be noted that because t he 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 potenti al 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 produc ers for those products. Such competition may also have minor impacts on Californ ia employment and payroll. However, the impact is expected to be positive in t he 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 Coa tings

. September, 2007. (ARB, 2007i)

2. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regula tion

. September 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006a)

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Produc ts, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichloroben zene Solid Air Fresherners

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products . May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b)

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regu lation Relating to

Aerosol Adhesives . April 7, 2000. (ARB, 2000c)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 177

5. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures II

. September 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999)

6. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures I

. June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b)

7. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s 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 Emis sions 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 Contro l 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 Con sumer Products - Phase II-Technical Support Document . October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a)

11. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Red uce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technic al Support Document

. August, 1990. (ARB, 1990c)

12. Air Resources Board. Technical Review Group’s P roposed 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 C atalog . 2008. http://catalog.pia.ca.gov/store.php?t=1210100718 . (PIA, 2008)

15. Chemical Engineering magazine. Chemical Enginee ring Plant Cost Index

. April, 2008. (Chemical Engineering, 2008)

16. Chemical Engineering magazine. Chemical Enginee ring Plant Cost Index

. April, 1997. (Chemical Engineering, 1997)Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 178

17. Dun and Bradstreet. Industry Norms and Key Busi ness Ratios . Manufacturing - Volume 1. SIC # 2000-2999. 2006-2007. (D&B, 2006-20 07)

18. ICIS. ICIS Chemical Business

. http://icispricing.com . April 11, 2008. (ICIS, 2008)

19. United States Census Bureau. 2005 County Busine ss 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 amendme nts to the Consumer Products Regulation that are designed to reduce vol atile organic compounds (VOC) and

air toxic emissions. The amendments would also red uce 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 wer e identified. However, several measures are proposed to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts to occur. In making these determinations, we evaluated how the p roposed amendments would impact ground-level ozone concentrations, particula te matter (particularly secondary organic aerosols), climate change, stratospheric oz one depletion, air toxic emission exposure, water quality, solid waste, and energy us e.

Staff has conducted a qualitative health risk asses sment that concludes that because VOCs are ozone precursors, public health is further protected by reducing

VOC emissions. Staff has also determined that ambi ent air and personal exposures to perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride (MeCl) , and trichloroethylene (TCE) will be reduced by prohibiting the use of these chlorina ted toxic air contaminants (TAC).

Our analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environm ental impacts of the methods of compliance is presented in subsections C through H below. Regarding reasonably foreseeable mitigation measures, the Cal ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires an agency to identify and adopt fea sible mitigation measures that would minimize any significant adverse environmenta l impacts described in the environmental analysis.

A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE ANALYSIS

The CEQA and ARB policy require an analysis to dete rmine the potential adverse environmental impacts of proposed regulatio ns. Because ARB’s program involving the adoption of regulations has been cert ified by the Secretary of Resources (see Public Resources Code section 21080.5), the CE QA environmental analysis requirements are allowed to be included in ARB’s In itial Statement of Reasons instead of preparing an environmental impact report or nega tive declaration. In addition, ARB will respond in writing to all significant environm ental 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 ame ndments to the Consumer Products Regulation.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -180

Public Resources Code section 21159 requires that t he 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 th e 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 li mits 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 e missions 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 D uster 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 reduct ion equivalent to reducing of 0.20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) per year.

To ensure that the VOC content of these products do es 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 Du ster products. To mitigate potential exposure to air toxics, we are also proposing to pr ohibit use of MeCl and Perc in this
category.

3. Proposed VOC Exemption

Staff is proposing that the definition of VOC be mo dified to exclude two isomers of hydrofluoroether (HFE) 7200. In a report titled “Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals,” (ARB, 2008b) ARB s taff determined that use of HFE-7200 has negligible impacts on ground-level ozo ne formation. Staff believes that exemption of this negligibly reactive compound woul d provide additional reformulation flexibility.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -181

4. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

Staff is also proposing a measure to reduce emissio ns of three TACs in the categories proposed for VOC regulation where they a re, 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 wh en fully effective.

5. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

Staff is also proposing additional language modifi cations. These modifications include clarifying language for the product date co ding requirement, requirements for dilutable products sold in pump spray containers, t oxic compound prohibitions, and additional requirements for categories such as Fabr ic Softener – Single Use Dryer Product, Personal Fragrance Product with 20 percent or less fragrance, and Sealant or Caulking Compound. Other proposals include the cor rection of a drafting error in the Table of Standards regarding Furniture Maintenance Product. The long-standing exemption for solid/paste wax forms would be reinst ated.

C. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES

In this section, we evaluate the impacts on atmosph eric processes. The evaluation includes our assessment on whether the p roposed amendments would have a positive, negative, or no impact on these atmosph eric processes.

1. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Ground-level O zone Concentrations

Enhanced ground-level ozone formation involves the interaction between VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sun light. The rate of ozone generation is related closely to both the amount and reactivit y of VOC emissions as well as the

amount of NO x 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. Nine ty-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 o zone adversely affects respiratory

function of humans and animals. Research has shown that, when inhaled, ozone can cause respiratory problems, aggravate asthma, impai r the immune system, and cause increased risk of premature death.

Not only does ozone adversely affect human and anim al 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 i mpacts of exposure to ozone can be found in Chapter IV, of this Technical Support Docu ment.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 th ese ozone precursor emissions will result in a positive environmental impact by loweri ng the concentrations of ground-level ozone in the atmosphere. If we assume that the ave rage 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 reactivit y (MIR) scale, see title 17, CCR, sections 94700-94701), then we would predict the re sulting 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 gr ound-level ozone concentrations. This is because the proposal essen tially requires replacing HFC-134a

with HFC-152a. Both HFC-134a and HFC-152a are excl uded from the definition of VOC due to negligible photochemical reactivity with respect to ozone. However, to ensure VOC emissions do not increase, as a mitigati on 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 positi ve impact on ground-level ozone concentrations. Whenever this negligibly rea ctive compound replaces more reactive VOCs the result will be a reduction in gro und-level ozone concentrations. Replacing HFE-7200 for similarly unreactive compoun ds, 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 mitigat ion measure to ensure that emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE do not increase wh en products are reformulated. As such, we are proposing to prohibit the use of these TACs in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners; Fabric Protectants; Multi-Purpose Lubrica nts; Penetrants; Sealant or Caulking Compounds; and Spot Removers. The prohibition of t hese three solvents is necessary, particularly for MeCl and Perc because they are als o 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 co ntaining 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 E ffective 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 Cleaner a Nonaerosol 1 0.29 0.07

Aerosol 17 0.27 0.08 Dusting Aid a Nonaerosol 3 0.01 0.00

Fabric Protectant a Nonaerosol 1 0.18 0.08

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product a All 0.05 grams per use** 0.52 0.21

Floor Maintenance Product a All 1 0.11 0.07

Floor Polish or Wax –

Wood Floor Wax a All 70 0.06 0.01

Glass Cleaner b Aerosol 10 0.33 0.03

Motor Vehicle Wash a All 0.2 0.38 0.14

25 c 4.08 2.04 Multi-purpose Lubricant – excluding solid & semisolid c/e All 10 e 1.27

Aerosol 25 *** 0.00

Odor Remover/Eliminator a Nonaerosol 6 0.12 0.03

Penetrant c All 25 0.40 0.15 Personal Fragrance Product (products with 20% or less fragrance) d All 75 + 10.89 0.41

Pressurized Gas Duster a All 1 0 0

Chemically Curing b Nonaerosol 3 1.9 0.22 Sealant or Caulking Compound Non-Chemically

Curing a Nonaerosol 1.5 0.68 0.12

Aerosol 15 0.76 0.24 Spot Remover a Nonaerosol 3 0.29 0.05

Aerosol 8 0.01 0.00

Tire or Wheel Cleaner a Nonaerosol 2 0.14 0.06

Windshield Water Repellent a 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 reduct ions 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: 12/31/2015Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -184

The emissions of chlorinated solvents in these cate gories 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 reformulat ion options are available. Note, however, that TCE is a VOC. This is a neutral impa ct because VOC would replace VOC. Although no aerosol or non-aerosol Fabric Pro tectant 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 da y 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 o ut-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-l evel 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 limit s 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 des igned to be diluted by the consumer prior to use. Staff believes this approach to pack aging 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 undi luted, 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 Ma tter (Secondary Organic Aerosols)

Fine particulate matter (PM) is prevalent in the ur ban atmosphere (see, for example, Pandis et al., 1992), and ambient PM, especially those with diamet ers less than two and a half micrometers (PM 2.5 ), 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 compoun ds (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 aero sol 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 o f a VOC. Because of this relationship, the proposed amendments may also affe ct the SOA formation potential of consumer products. The analysis of the impact on S OA formation resulting from implementing the proposed VOC limits is detailed be low.

Although most organic compounds contribute to ozone formation, SOA is usually formed from photooxidation of organic compounds wit h 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 f ast 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 b y the following order, with the lower molecular weight alkanes and ketones being le ast likely:

Least Likely Lower molecular weight alkanes and ke tones (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 formatio n from the proposed VOC limits assumes that to meet the proposed limits wil l 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 f ive 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-V OC propellants. Substitution for VOCs with water, higher solids content, or non-VOC prope llants 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 thr ee 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 for mation. This is because the commonly used stronger solvents are aromatic compou nds, such as xylenes and toluene, which are known to have higher SOA potenti als 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 formati on 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. Howev er, substitution of LVP-VOCTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -186

alkane or aromatic compounds for smaller low molecu lar weight alkanes could result in a slight SOA increase (Grosjean, 1992).

Because we can not predict how manufacturers will c hoose 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, du e to the variety of reformulation options available. At any rate, it will not be a significa nt adverse impact. Additionally, any

reformulations that result in increased SOA would l ikely be offset by reformulations resulting in lower SOA. We will continue to monito r implementation of the regulation and reassess the impacts as more data become availa ble.

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

Because this proposal essentially requires the rep lacement of one compound for another – each with two carbon atoms – we expect th e proposal to have no impact on

PM 2.5 concentrations or SOA.

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

As mentioned above, SOA is generally formed from o xidation of compounds with six or more carbon atoms. We do not expect HFE-720 0 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 sho uld have no or negligible impacts on SOA formation because replacements for t hese TACs (alkanes or exempt compounds) are not known to have strong SOA formati on potentials. Prohibiting use of Perc and MeCl in Pressurized Gas Duster products al so 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 PM 2.5 or SOA.

3. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Climate Change

Climate change, or global warming is the process wh ereby emissions of anthropogenic pollutants, together with other natur ally-occurring gases, absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, leading to increases i n the overall average global temperature. While CO 2 is the largest contributor to radiative forcing, m ethane, halocarbon, N 2 O, and other species also contribute to climate cha nge.

Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to the green house effect both directly and indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself is a GHG. While there is relativeTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -187

agreement on how to account for these direct effect s of GHG emissions, accounting for indirect effects is more problematic. Indirect rad iative forcing occurs when chemical transformations of the original gas produce other G HGs, when a gas influences the atmospheric lifetimes of CH 4 , and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes t hat alter the radiative balance of the earth (e.g., aff ect cloud formation).

As mentioned earlier, the GWP of a compound may ref lect a direct effect as well as an indirect effect on global warming. The direc t effect is the warming due to the absorption of radiation by molecules of the compoun d in question. VOCs, CO 2 , HFCs, HFEs, and HCFCs all have direct effects. The indir ect effect is due to the impact that the presence of the compound has on the concentrati on 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 ch emical transport models.

Even though VOCs have direct effects, they are cons idered 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 q uality. 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 becaus e of their role in creation of ozone. However, because the VOC limits will red uce the total amount of VOCs, and thereby ground-level ozone concentrations, the prop osed VOC limits should reduce consumer product’s impacts on climate change. Whil e 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 , CO 2 may replace hydrocarbon propellants in some products. The 2003 Survey data indicate that CO 2 is already used in certain consumer products considere d for regulation, including MultiPurpose Lubricants, and Penetrants. In these categ ories, CO 2 use is likely to increase as manufacturers reformulate to meet the lower prop osed VOC limits. In other categories with aerosol product forms, CO 2 may also be a reformulation pathway. Even though CO 2 has a direct effect on climate change, co-benefits are expected to the extent

that CO 2 replaces VOC propellants in consumer products. Sp ecifically, less ozone and methane will be formed, thus lowering the populatio n’s exposure to a pollutant with serious health effects. Further, the contribution of CO 2 to global warming is likely less than that of the VOC being replaced. In addition, most CO 2 used as a propellant is a recycled by-product of existing processes and, ther efore, does not increase global warming from a lifecycle standpoint (ARB, 1999).Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -188

Another reformulation path for some aerosol produc t manufacturers may be to replace some or all the typical hydrocarbon propell ants 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 r ecommended except in certain specific uses. In consumer products, HFC-134a is g enerally used when flammability is

a concern.

Staff believes that for the Spot Remover category under consideration for regulation, HFC-152a may be a potential reformulati on 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 sc enario. Staff believes usage would be considerably less because of raw material cost a nd 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 p ossible, or none at all, when reformulating their aerosol products. ARB staff do es not expect the price of HFCs to change appreciably in the near future, thus a signi ficant increase in use is not anticipated.

Based on the foregoing, while there is a slight pot ential for a very small increase in the emissions of HFC-152a, the proposed VOC limi ts will likely more than offset this impact by reducing concentrations of ground-level o zone.

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

The proposal to reduce the use of compounds with hi gh 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 woul d be equivalent to reducing

0.20 MMT CO 2 per year, effective December 31, 2010.

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

HFE-7200 is a solvent proposed for exemption from t he 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 n o longer allowed. However, use of existing stockpiles is allowed. In addition to depleting stratospheric ozone concentrations, HCFC-141b is also a fairly potent g lobal 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 repla ce HCFC-141b, a reduction in the potency of GHG emissions is expected. This is a di rect emission benefit related toTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -189

climate change. To the extent HFE-7200 replaces VO Cs in various consumer product categories, there will be a small increase in direc t GHG emissions. This will likely be offset by the indirect benefit of reduced ground-le vel ozone concentrations.

A longer term potential benefit may also be expecte d. 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 CO 2 , in the future, it is possible that use of HFE-720 0 in

combination with CO 2 as a propellant, could lead to further limiting th e use of HFC-134a (Werner, 2008).

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The prohibition on the use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE w ill 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 impact s on global warming, this would lead to a very slight increase in global warming emissio ns. We believe the reduced exposure to these TACs out-weighs this potential in crease.

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

Clarifying language and proposed definition change s should have no impact on global warming.

4. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

The stratospheric ozone layer shields the earth fro m harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Depletion of the earth’s ozone layer al lows 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 im paired immune systems. Reduced crop yields and diminished ocean productivity are a lso 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 re sult 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 implicate d as causing stratospheric ozone depletion are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlo rofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons (U.S. EPA, 2003). Specifically, the chlorin e or bromine atoms released by photolysis of the compounds react in chain reaction s leading to the catalytic destruction of ozone (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000).

Solar irradiation in the stratosphere contains suff icient 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 brea k down HFCs and HFEs to create fluorine atoms. In addition, the molecular structu re of HFCs and HFEs includes hydrogen atoms, which renders them susceptible to a ttack by hydroxyl radicals in theTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -190

troposphere. Therefore, these chemicals have a rel atively short atmospheric lifetime which does not allow any appreciable amounts to pen etrate into the stratosphere (ARB, 2008b).

To address stratospheric ozone depletion, the Montr eal protocol was enacted in 1989, to phase out a number of CFCs, HCFCs, and hal ons. As a signatory of this protocol, the United States, in the Federal Clean A ir Act of 1990 established timetables for ceasing production (see part 40, Code of Federa l Regulations, section 602). In general, the protocol establishes dates by which ce rtain 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 limit s, provisions in the Consumer Products Regulation (see section 94509(e)) already prohibit the use of various stratospheric ozone depleting compounds. This prov ision ensures there will be no increased use of stratospheric ozone depleting comp ounds.

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

The proposed GHG measure will have no impact on str atospheric ozone depletion. Neither HFC-134a nor HFC-152a contribut e to stratospheric ozone depletion. This is mainly because these compounds do not contain chlorine. Therefore, substituting HFC-152a for HFC-134a in Pressurized G as Dusters has no impact. Additionally, these compounds have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes. Both compounds contain hydrogen which makes them suscept ible to hydroxyl radical attack in the troposphere.

c. Proposed VOC Exemption

Use of HFE-7200 would be a positive impact if it re places HCFC-141b, a known stratospheric ozone depleting compound. HFE-7200 i tself 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 reformu lated products. If this occurs, VOCs are not stratospheric ozone depleting compound s. Additionally, manufacturers are precluded from reformulating with stratospheric ozone depleting compounds because provisions in the regulation already prohib it 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 change s will have no impact on stratospheric ozone depletion.

D. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Solid Waste Di sposal

Consumer products contribute to the solid waste str eam by virtue of the containers and the towelettes or “wipes” used to de liver the product. Therefore, we evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed ame ndments on the solid waste stream.

a. Proposed VOC Standards

We do not expect an adverse impact on solid waste d isposal 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 comp ly. To mitigate the potential for solid waste impacts from this category, staff is pr oposing a VOC standard based on grams of VOC per use (typically a single dryer shee t per load), as opposed to a percent by weight VOC limit.

It has been suggested that end-use consumers of Fab ric Softeners – Single Use Dryer Products may begin using more than a single d ryer 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 u nfounded. It has also been suggested that the end-use consumers will switch us e 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 consequen ces of establishing the proposed

VOC limit do not occur.

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

We expect that the GHG proposal could result in red ucing 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 produ cts that use HFC-134a (Dupont & Falcon, 2004). We also note that no significant ch anges 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 was te impacts because we expect HFE-7200 to replace VOCs on a one-to-one bas is. 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-t o-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 reduc ed, 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 th e proposed amendments on water quality.

a. Proposed VOC Standards

Reducing VOCs should have no impact on water qualit y and could ultimately result in a positive impact. As products reformula te to meet the proposed VOC limits, to a limited extent, water may replace VOCs in some pr oducts. 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 wat er 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 wate r stream.

b. Proposed Greenhouse Gas Measure

The proposal to reduce the use of compounds with h igh GWP in Pressurized Gas Duster products will have no impact on water qu ality. Both HFC-134a and HFC-152a have an air fate and are not likely to ent er 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 t o sanitation districts resulting from the potential decrease in the amount of chlorinated sol vents reaching water treatment facilities if HFE-7200 is used in place of Perc, Me Cl, or TCE in products (ARB, 2008b).

d. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

Current use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in Carpet/Uphols tery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; Sea lant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover is not expected to have an impact on w ater quality. This is because as used, these solvents have an air fate. However, th e proposed prohibition of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from these six categories may prevent an in crease in the amount of chlorinated solvents reaching storm drains, and was te 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 da y in 2010.

e. Proposed Definitions and Clarifying Language

Because the proposed language changes and definitio ns 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 reformul ated products will be similar to existing products.

It has been suggested that end-use consumers of Fab ric Softeners – Single Use Dryer Products may shift use to liquid products. T he contention is that the reformulated dryer sheet products will be perceived to be inadeq uate, related to potential reductions in fragrance. If this were to occur, fuel usage co uld increase as products are transported, due to the weight differential between Fabric Softeners – Single Use Dryer Products and liquid products. No data were provide d to support this claim. Absent data, we believe the concern with this potential sw itch is unfounded. Moreover, other

data show that consumers favor the use of Fabric So fteners – Single Use Dryer Products (SDA, 2006a). However, we intend to monit or 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 M EASURES

As part of our obligations under CEQA, the ARB staf f is required to evaluate and mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts re sulting from regulatory proposals. Also, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39 650 et seq ., the ARB is required to identify and control TACs. The Health and Safety C ode defines a TAC as “...an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an incre ase 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 TA Cs 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 pr oduct formulations considered for regulation have been identified as T ACs. An increased or continued use of TACs in any of the consumer product categories c onsidered for regulation could lead to a potential adverse environmental impact. ARB s taff has evaluated this potential and has concluded that there would be a potential adver se environmental impact of implementing the VOC limits. Therefore, staff is p roposing 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 do ne, a percent by weight VOC limit. However, we determined using this approach could re sult 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 sol id waste stream.

1. Proposed Mitigation Measure Related to Establish ing VOC Limits

Staff believes that specific mitigation measures ar e 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 pr oducts, MeCl, and Perc, are specifically exempted from the VOC definition (sect ion 94508 of the Regulation) in recognition of their very low ozone-forming capabil ity. Thus, the potential exists that to meet VOC limits, manufacturers could reformulate us ing 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 p roposing 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 info rmation on these chemicals isTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -195

included in “The Proposed Amendments to the Califor nia Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regulation,” re leased September 29, 2006.

Presented in Table VIII-2 are pollutant-specific he alth effects values developed for Perc, MeCl, and TCE to characterize the relatio nship 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 referenc e 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 D etermining

Potential Health Impacts 1

1 Health effects values and toxicological endpoints w ere 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 res ult of constant exposure to a concentration of 1μg/m 3 over a 70-year lifetime. In other words, using th e URF for Perc as an example, which is 5.9 x 10 -6 (microgram per cubic meter) -1 or (μg/m 3 ) -1 , the potential excess cancer risk for a person continuou sly exposed over a 70-year lifetime to 1μg/m 3 of Perc is estimated to be no greater than 5.9 cha nces 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 deve loping cancer per unit of average daily dose over a 70-year lifetime. Cancer potency value s are expressed as the upper bound probability of developing cancer assuming continuou s lifetime exposure to a substance at a dose of one milligram per kilogram of body wei ght, and are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day) -1 . The derivation of inhalation cancer potency fact ors takes into account Non-cancer

Reference Exposure Levels (μg/m 3 ) Toxicological Endpoints Compound Cancer Unit

Risk Factor (μg/m 3 ) -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; eyesTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -196

the available information on pharmacokinetics and o n 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 breathi ng rate and weight of the individual.

A REL is used as an indicator of potential non-canc er adverse health effects and

is defined as a concentration level at or below whi ch no adverse health effects are anticipated. RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by including safety factors in their dev elopment 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-canc er 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 concentrat ion for a toxic pollutant and the reference exposure level for that pollutant (ARB, 2 000d). A further discussion of the health effects that may result from exposure to Per c, MeCl, and TCE follows.

a. Perchloroethylene

i. Health Impacts from Exposure to Perchloroethyl ene

Exposure to Perc may result in both cancer and non -cancer health effects. The probable route of human exposure to Perc is inhalat ion (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 ident ifiable threshold below which no carcinogenic effects are likely to occur. The B oard formally identified Perc as a TAC in October 1991 (ARB, 1991b). The State of Califor nia under Proposition 65 listed Perc as a carcinogen in April 1988 (OEHHA, 2006).

Short-term (acute) and long-term (chronic) exposur e to Perc may result in

non-cancer health effects. Acute toxic health effe cts resulting from short term exposure to high levels of Perc may include headaches, dizzi ness, 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 R emover 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 a n avenue for compliance with theTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -197

proposed lower VOC limits, increasing human exposur e. Emissions of Perc in these categories are expected to grow to 0.19 tons per da y by 2010.

b. Methylene Chloride

i. Health Impacts from Exposure to Methylene Chlo ride

Exposure to MeCl (also known as dichloromethane) m ay 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 carcin ogen with no identifiable threshold below which no carcinogenic effects are l ikely 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 irritatin g to the eyes, respiratory tract, and skin. It is also a central nervous system depressa nt 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 consciousne ss. 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 proh ibited in these categories, MeCl could conceivably be used as an avenue for complian ce 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 Trichloroethyle ne

Exposure to TCE may result in both cancer and non-c ancer health effects. The probable routes of human exposure to TCE are inhala tion and ingestion (ARB, 1997a). Table VIII-2 presents the current health effects va lues that are used to determine potential health impacts.

TCE is a probable human carcinogen with no identifi able threshold below which no carcinogenic effects are likely to occur. The B oard formally identified TCE as a TACTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -198

in October 1990 (ARB, 1990d. The State of Californ ia 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 nervou s system depressant. It is mildly irritating to the eyes and respiratory tract. Occu pational exposure to TCE has resulted in nausea, headache, loss of appetite, weakness, di zziness, ataxia, and tremors. Acute exposures to high concentrations have caused irreve rsible cardiac arrhythmias, nerve and liver damage and death. Chronic exposure to TC E 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 redu ce 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; Mu lti-purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover prod ucts. This proposal is based on data suggesting that there would be potential ex cess cancer cases resulting from their use. In proposing this prohibition we are re lying on previous work conducted by

ARB staff.

Specifically we are relying on two previous rulema kings. 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 A irborne Toxic Control

Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Cont aminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities . March 10, 2000. (ARB, 2000d).

2. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed A mendments to the

California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirant s 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 u se of these chlorinated compounds posed an unnecessary health hazard. As d etailed in the March 10, 2000, report, modeling results showed the potential for i ncreased 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 designe d 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, E lectrical Cleaners, Electronic Cleaners, Footwear or Leather Care Product, Graffit i Removers, and General Purpose Degreasers. In total, not including this rulemakin g, 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 im plementing VOC limits for these categories, and to ensure a level playing field amo ng all products.

The proposed prohibition of chlorinated solvents i n Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetra nt; 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 contro l 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 ch lorinated solvents, as specified in Health and Safety Code section 39665.

Additional information to support the proposed pro hibition 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 thi s Technical Support Document. Information regarding sources of these TACs (source s of emissions other than what is discussed in this Chapter) and atmospheric persiste nce has already been presented in the Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed A irborne Toxic Control Measure for

Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants fro m Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities, March 10, 2000, (ARB, 2000d). T he reader is referred to this

document for further information.

In each category, staff has determined that altern ative 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 Chapt er VI that are specific to these product categories. Costs for reformulating and co st effectiveness of the proposal are contained in Chapter VII of this report.

In the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, th e United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) identifi ed Perc, MeCl, and TCE asTechnical Support Document Chapter VIII -200

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) because evidence in dicated 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 co ntrol measure specifically for consumer products containing Perc, MeCl, or TCE. T he U.S. EPA has adopted

NESHAP standards which control emissions of these H APs from other sources. These

other measures are described in the ATCM for AMR fa cilities (ARB, 2000d).

To summarize, staff finds that the proposed prohib ition on use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant ; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetrant; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot R emover 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 thes e six categories would be just over 0.20 tons per day in 2010. Staff has identified th at there is a potential for increased chances of contracting cancer from using products c ontaining these compounds. The proposed prohibitions are necessary to mitigate pot ential adverse impacts that would result from implementing VOC limits for these categ ories. The prohibitions would also align with State law that requires use of best avai lable control technology in instances where no safe exposure threshold is known.

2. Proposed Mitigation Measures Related to Greenhou se Gas

Emissions

Staff is proposing, in new subsection 94509(r)(1), that Pressurized Gas Duster products shall not contain a compound that has a GW P of 150 or greater.

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

does not increase as a result of reformulation to m eet GWP limits, a 1 percent by weight, including fragrance, VOC limit is also bein g proposed for Pressurized Gas Dusters. Also to ensure VOC exempt TAC solvents ar e not used, staff is proposing to prohibit use of Perc and MeCl in Pressurized Gas Du ster products.

3. Proposed Mitigation Measure Related to Fabric So fteners – Single Use Dryer Product

Staff is proposing a new subsection 94509(s) to des cribe the VOC content limit for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product. Ra ther than a percent by weight limit, a 0.05 gram of VOC per use limit is proposed. The li mit is designed to ensure that the size of each dryer sheet does not increase. In dev eloping the limit for these products, staff determined that establishing a percent by wei ght 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 A ND TACS

The health risks associated with ozone exposure ha ve been known for many years and are discussed in detail in Chapter IV. S tudies have shown that when inhaled, even at relatively low levels, ozone can impact lun g tissue and lung function. The greatest risk is to those who are more active outdo ors 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 lun gs. Recent evidence has, for the first time, linked the onset of asthma to exposure to ele vated ozone levels in exercising children (McConnell et al. , 2002).

The actual lowering of health risks that would resu lt from reducing VOC emissions, if the staff’s proposal were to be adopt ed, is not quantified in this report. However, qualitatively, we are able to conclude tha t reducing VOC emissions, because of their role as ozone precursors, will result in i ncremental improvement of the public’s

health – whether it be in fewer incidences of asthm a 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 toward s attainment improve the public’s health. As shown in Table VIII-1, the proposed ame ndments to the Regulation are designed to achieve the maximum feasible VOC emissi on reduction from the categories proposed for regulation at this time. When fully e ffective, 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, althou gh we do not expect a disbenefit.

We are better able to assess the reduced health ri sk associated with prohibiting the use of the chlorinated solvents Perc, MeCl, and TCE in Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner; Fabric Protectant; Multi-Purpose Lubricant; Penetra nt; Sealant or Caulking Compound; and Spot Remover products. Overall, the proposed a mendments would prevent chlorinated solvent emissions by about 0.20 tons pe r day annually in 2010. It should also be noted that the scenarios analyzed to determ ine increased cancer risk evaluated concentrations in the outdoor air. It is likely th at, 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, b y achieving these VOC reductions, the proposed amendments would reduce he alth 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, e xposure to probable carcinogens would be reduced by prohibiting the use of chlorina ted TACs.Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -202

G. ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE

Two alternative means of compliance with the Regula tion 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 e missions 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 t he 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 pr eserves the overall environmental

benefits of emission reductions.

Another compliance alternative that is available fo r manufacturers is the Innovative Products Provision specified in title 17 , California Code of Regulations, section 94511. This provision allows a manufacture r to formulate products that exceed the mass-based limit specified in the Regulation fo r a particular product category. The manufacturer must demonstrate that, through some ch aracteristic of the higher VOC product, its use will result in less VOC emissions compared to a representative complying product. This alternative is also specif ically designed to allow manufacturers flexibility, while preserving the emission benefits of the Regulation.

Absent use of either of these alternatives, staff i s 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 de velopment, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental la ws, 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 Stat e, 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 n ot believe that people of any given race, culture, or income would be more impacted tha n any others would. All Californians should benefit equally from the reduct ion 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 ass ert that regulation of these products would adversely affect individuals who can not afford professional dermatological care. They also contend that higher VOC-containing products may be necessary for people of certain ethnicities to prev ent scarring and/or increased pigmentation. ARB staff disagrees with these asser tions. We have evaluated the claims and directions on the labels of Astringent/T oner products and researched sales prices of products via in-store shelf surveys and on the Internet. We fo und that complying products that make all Astringent/Toner f unctional claims are readily available over-the-counter in a variety of retail o utlets. Purchase of these products does not require a medical prescription, and these produ cts 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 regu lation of Astringent/Toner would adversely or disproportionately impact people of an y given age, race, culture, or

income.

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assess ment of Selected Halogenated Chemicals – Staff Report . March, 2008. (ARB, 2008b)

2. Air Resources Board. 2003 Consumer and Commercia l Products Survey

. November, 2004. (ARB, 2004a)

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Produc ts, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichloroben zene Solid Air Fresheners

and Toilet/Urinal Care Products . May 7, 2004. (ARB, 2004b)

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products and Propose d Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) Values, and Proposed A mendments to Method 310, “Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Con sumer Products

. May 5, 2000. (ARB, 2000b)

5. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for the Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regu lation Relating to

Aerosol Adhesives . April 7, 2000. (ARB, 2000c)

6. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s 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 Reason s for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midter m Measures II

. September 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999)

8. Air Resources Board. Toxic Air Contaminant Ident ification List – Summaries

. September, 1997. (ARB, 1997a)

9. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reason s for Rulemaking, Staff Report/Executive Summary, Proposed Identification o f 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 Safet y Products. Fluorochemicals Laboratory DuPont Company, Technical Report – Clean ing Tests for Aerosol Dusting Aids (Dusters) . December 1, 2004. Schweitzer, M., Lubert, J., Hit ches, B., Bilsback, B., McLeer, D., Creazzo, J.A. (DuPont & Falcon, 2004)

14. Finlayson-Pitts, B. J. and J. N. Pitts Jr. Chem istry 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. (Griffi n 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. (Grosje an, 1992)

17. Harner, T. and Bidleman, T. F. Octanol-air Part ition 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 Forma tion from the Oxidation of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Presence of Dry Sub micron Ammonium Sulfate

Aerosol . 1999. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 33 : 3669-3 681. (Kleindienst et al. , 1999)Technical Support Document Chapter VIII -205

19. McConnell, R., K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S.J. L ondon, 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 Secon dary Organic Aerosol Yields

. 1996. Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 30 . Number 8: 2580-2585. (Odum et al. , 1996)

22. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen t. State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environm ental Health Hazard Assessment, Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforceme nt Act of 1986, Chemical Known To The State To Cause Cancer And Reproductive Toxicity

. August, 2006. (OEHHA, 2006)

23. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen t. Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Part II, Techni cal Support Document for Describing Available Cancer Potency Factors . May, 2005. (OEHHA, 2005a)

24. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen t. All Chronic Reference Exposure Levels Adopted by OEHHA as of February 200 5 . (OEHHA, 2005b)

25. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessmen t. All Acute Reference Exposure Levels Developed by the Office of Environm ental 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/Partic le 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/Ae rosol 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 Che mistry 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. I s 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 S ofteners 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: CO 2 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., Flag an, 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 ac tivities 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 summar ized 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 f urther 30 to 40 tons per day VOC emission reduction from consumer products. Measure s are to be adopted in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe, with emission reductions achieve d 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 timefra me. 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 Surv ey data will serve as the basis for identifying and evaluating additional categories fo r emission reduction opportunities. If feasible, additional proposals would be brought bef ore the Board for consideration in late 2008 or early 2009.

B. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS

As specified in The California Global Warming Solu tions Act of 2006 (AB 32), Discrete Early Action Measures are to be adopted an d implemented by 2010. Greenhouse gas reductions from consumer products ha s been designated as a Discrete Early Action Measure. The overall estimat e is that greenhouse gas emissions from consumer products could be reduced by 0.25 MMT CO 2 e per year. The Pressurized Gas Duster proposal, included in this r ulemaking achieves approximately

0.20 MMT CO 2 e per year. We expect data collected from the 2006 Consumer Products Survey to provide information on other categories w here greenhouse gas reductions are technologically feasible and cost-effective to impl ement. Additional reduction strategies will be proposed for Board consideration in late 20 08 or early 2009.

C. REVIEW AND COMPILATION OF THE 2006 CONSUMER PROD UCTS

SURVEY

Staff is continuing review of data from the 2006 C onsumer Products Survey. This survey was designed to collect 2006 calendar y ear product sales and formulation data for a variety of consumer products including a erosol coatings, personal care products, cleaning products, lubricants, pesticides , and others. Some categories were specifically surveyed to evaluate the use of greenh ouse 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 2 008. These data will serve as the basis for additional VOC and greenhouse gas reducti on 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 emissi ons 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 l imit for Paint and Lacquer Thinner products. These products and their emissions are n ot part of the consumer product emission inventory, even though they do meet the de finition 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 id entified 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 proces s is to set the lowest VOC limit that is commercially and technologically feasible, but e nsure that Paint and Lacquer Thinners remain available if there are coatings whe re thinning may still be necessary. If all issues are resolved, we will propose a VOC cont rol strategy as part of the next rulemaking.

E. NAIL COATINGS WORKPLAN

Staff has been evaluating the feasibility of VOC e mission reductions from various nail coating products. Our evaluation, to date, in dicates that a reactivity-based control strategy may provide the better regulatory strategy to achieve ozone reductions from this category. However, this work has been postpon ed until such time as the newly revised maximum incremental reactivity scale has be en peer-reviewed. As part of this process, stakeholders have raised concerns regardin g the use of the toxic compounds xylenes, toluene, dibutyl phthalate, and formaldehy de. 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 mode ling scenarios to model emissions of these toxic compounds from an individual busines s, as well as, cumulative emissions from multiple facilities. The goal of these analys es is to assess the potential risk posed to people living in close proximity to these emissi on sources. Should a health hazard in outdoor ambient air be identified, ARB would evalua te mitigation strategies under our authority to reduce air toxic emissions. The goal of this work is to achieve the maximumTechnical Support Document Chapter IX - 209

feasible reduction from these products and, if nece ssary, mitigate toxic air pollutant exposures. We expect to propose a regulatory strat egy for nail coatings as part of the next rulemaking.

F. INNOVATIVE EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES

The 2007 SIP acknowledges that further emission red uctions from consumer products may not be feasible using conventional app roaches. Staff intends to work with stakeholders to explore alternative market-based me chanisms to encourage the development, distribution, and purchase of cleaner, very low, or zero-emitting products.

We also intend to evaluate other approaches if thes e market-based mechanisms cannot produce meaningful emission reductions. The se approaches include the purchase of ROG (VOC) credits, funding special proj ects to reduce emissions, or accelerate reductions from pollution sources outsid e the consumer products source category. Emission reductions achieved through the se mechanisms would be creditable toward the overall consumer product redu ction commitment.