PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATIONS 

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

Release Date: 

August 7, 2009

State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 

FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATIONS 

To be considered by the Air Resources Board at a 

Public Hearing on September 24-25, 2009, at: 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Auditorium 

21865 E. Copley Dr. 

Diamond Bar, CA 91765 

Air Resources Board 

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

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

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

Air Resources Board, nor does the mention or representation of trade names or 

commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. 

State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATIONS 

Prepared by: 

Stationary Source Division 

Air Resources Board 

Reviewed by: 

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

Carla D. Takemoto, Manager, Technical Evaluation Section 

Judy Yee, Manager, Implementation Section 

James F. Nyarady, P.E., Manager, Strategy Evaluation Section 

Janette M. Brooks, Chief, Air Quality Measures Branch 

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

August 2009

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

developed by the following Air Resources Board staff: 

Trish Johnson (Lead) 

Robert Barrera 

Margaret Chu, Ph. D. 

Terri Edwards 

Steve Giorgi 

Russell Grace 

Marline Hicks 

Robert Jenne, Esq. 

Jenifer Kiger 

Reza Mahdavi, Ph.D. 

Irina Malkina 

Tina Najjar 

Jasmine Nguyen 

Ravi Ramalingam 

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. VOC Emissions .............................................................................................. ES-4

E. Consumer Product VOC Emission Reduction Commitments in the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) .................................................................... ES-5

F. SCAQMD Rule 1143 – Consumer Paint Thinners and 

Multi-purpose Solvents ................................................................................... ES-7

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

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

I. Compliance with the Proposed Amendments............................................... ES-12

J. Economic Impacts ........................................................................................ ES-14

K. Environmental Impacts ................................................................................. ES-16

L. Environmental Justice .................................................................................. ES-18

M. Future Plans ................................................................................................. ES-19

N. Recommendation ......................................................................................... ES-19

Appendix A: Technical Support Document 

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

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

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

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

II. Development of Proposed Amendments ............................................................ 10

A. Public Process for Developing Proposed Limits ................................................. 10

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

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

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

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

B. Greenhouse Gas Reductions ............................................................................. 15

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

D. Compliance with the Proposed Amendments..................................................... 17
IV. Emissions ........................................................................................................... 20

A. Criteria Pollutants, Ambient Air Quality Standards, Climate Change, and 

Toxic Air Contaminants ...................................................................................... 20

B. Importance of Regulating Consumer Products VOC and GHG Emissions and 

Toxic Air Contaminants ...................................................................................... 30

C. Estimated Emissions from Categories Proposed to be Regulated ..................... 34

V. Proposed Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation and 

Method 310......................................................................................................... 42

A. Definitions (Section 94508) ................................................................................ 42

B. Standards For Consumer Products (Section 94509).......................................... 43

C. Temporary Exemption for Small Containers – Proposed New Subsection 

94510(m) ............................................................................................................ 46

D. Labeling Requirements for Multi-Purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner – 

Proposed New Subsection 94512(e).................................................................. 46

E. Proposed New Subsection 94513(g): Special Reporting Requirements for 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner............................................................ 47

F. Proposed Amendments to Section 94515, Test Methods: VOC Aromatic 

Compound Content ............................................................................................ 47

G. “Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products 

and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products” 

(Method 310) ...................................................................................................... 48

VI. Description of Product Categories...................................................................... 50

A. Air Freshener: Double Phase Aerosol ................................................................ 50

B. Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner............................................................ 58

VII. Economic Impacts .............................................................................................. 72

A. Summary of Economic Impacts.......................................................................... 72

B. Costs of Compliance .......................................................................................... 74

C. Return on Owners’ Equity................................................................................... 84

D. Impacts on California Businesses, Consumers, and State and 

Local Agencies ................................................................................................... 88

E. Other Possible Economic Impacts of Regulatory Changes ................................ 91

F. Mitigation of Potential Impacts Through Additional Regulatory Flexibility........... 91

VIII. Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................... 95

A. Legal Requirements Applicable to the Analysis.................................................. 96

B. Summary of Proposed Amendments.................................................................. 96

C. Summary of Impacts on Atmospheric Processes ............................................... 97
D. Other Potential Environmental Impacts ............................................................ 112

E. Analysis of Need for Reasonably Foreseeable Mitigation Measures................ 120

F. Risk Assessment for Reduced Exposure to Ozone and TACs ......................... 122

G. Alternative Means of Compliance..................................................................... 124

H. Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 124

IX. Future and Ongoing Activities........................................................................... 129

A. Consumer Product Emissions Reduction Commitments in the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) ...................................................................... 129

B. Greenhouse Gas Reductions from Consumer Products................................... 130

C. 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey Data Summaries .............. 130

D. Nail Coatings Exposure Assessment................................................................ 131

E. Dry Clean Only Spot Removers........................................................................ 131

F. Paint Removers/ Strippers................................................................................ 131

G. Cleaning Products ............................................................................................ 131

Appendix B: Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing 

Emissions from Consumer Products and Method 310 

Appendix C: Summary of Consumer Products Regulatory Actions 

Appendix D: Summary of Ingredient Reformulation Costs 

Appendix E: Nonrecurring Costs Calculations 

Appendix F: Chemical Characteristics of Conventional and Potential 

Replacement Solvents/Products 
LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1 Consumer Product VOC Reductions Accredited Toward 

SIP Committment............................................................................... ES-6 

Table ES-2 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, Reductions at 

Effective Date..................................................................................... ES-9 

Table ES-3 Summary of Complying Products and Complying Marketshares ..... ES-13

Table III-1 Summary of Complying Products and Complying Marketshares ........... 18

Table IV-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5.................... 23

Table IV-2 Global Warming Potential of Selected Compounds Used in 

Consumer Products ............................................................................... 33 

Table IV-3 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective Date .... 35

Table V-1 Proposed VOC Limits, Product Forms, and Effective Dates .................. 44

Table VI-1 Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener..................................................... 52

Table VI-2 Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener Proposal...................................... 54

Table VI-3 Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner ............................................... 60

Table VI-4 Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner Proposal................................ 61

Table VII-1a Estimated Change in Formula Cost per Unit.......................................... 76

Table VII-1b Total Estimated Recurring Cost ............................................................. 77

Table VII-2 Estimated Nonrecurring Per Product Costs to Comply with the 

Proposed Limits ..................................................................................... 78

Table VII-3 Estimated Total Nonrecurring Cost per Category .................................. 80

Table VII-4 Estimated Total Costs to Compy with the Proposed VOC Limits........... 81

Table VII-5 Estimated Per-Unit Cost Increases from Both Annualized Nonrecurring 

and Annual Recurring Costs .................................................................. 83 

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

Regulations/Measures ........................................................................... 84 

Table VII-7 Summary of Decline in Return on Owners’ Equity (ROE) ...................... 87

Table VII-8 California Employment and Payroll in Affected Industries...................... 89

Table VIII-1 Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective Date .... 98

Table IX-1 Consumer Product VOC Reductions Accredited Toward 

SIP Committment................................................................................. 129 
LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

OZONE .................................................................................................. 24 

Figure IV-2 South Coast Air Basin Ozone Trend ...................................................... 25 

Figure IV-3 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Ozone Trend ........................................... 26

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

Standards – PM2.5 ................................................................................ 27 

Figure IV-5 Consumer Products VOC Emission Trends........................................... 31
State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the 

California Consumer Products Regulations 

Executive Summary 

 Executive Summary - 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Products 

(Consumer Products Regulation) and to Method 310 – Determination of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol 

Coating Products (Method 310). The amendments are designed to reduce VOC 

emissions. The proposed amendments would set new VOC limits for Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products and lower the existing VOC limit for Double Phase 

Aerosol Air Fresheners. When fully implemented, about 14.7 tons per day of VOC 

emission reductions would be achieved. We are proposing to prohibit the use of the 

Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and 

trichloroethylene in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. In addition, the 

aromatic content would be limited to 1 percent by weight in these categories. 

Compounds with high global warming potential (GWP) would be prohibited, under the 

proposal, in all three of the categories proposed for regulation. 

The proposed toxic compound prohibitions and the GWP limits are mitigation measures 

designed to ensure that exposure to chlorinated solvent compounds and compounds 

with a high GWP are not used, respectively, as products are reformulated to meet new 

VOC limits. Further, the limit on the use of aromatic compounds is a mitigation measure 

designed to prevent an increase in ozone forming potential of reformulated 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 products reduction commitment contained in the State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (Strategy). 

As proposed, new language additions to Method 310 would clarify analytical methods 

used to test low VOC or high water content consumer products. Other amendments 

would clarify and improve existing regulatory provisions. 

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

is the Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking required by the California 

Administrative Procedure Act. Appendix B contains the regulation, and Method 310, 

with the proposed changes shown in underline and strikeout format. 

Among other things, this Executive Summary provides a description of the proposed 

amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation and to Method 310, and explains 

the rationale for the proposed changes. In accordance with Government Code 

section 11346.2(a)(1), a “plain English” summary of the proposal is provided in 

Chapter V of the Technical Support Document (Appendix A). 
 Executive Summary - 2 

A. AUTHORITY TO REGULATE CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Consumer products are chemically formulated products used by household and 

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

personal care products; lawn and garden products; air fresheners; disinfectants; 

automotive specialty products; paint thinners; multi-purpose solvents; and aerosol 

paints. 

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

to control VOCs and greenhouse gases (GHG). Section 41712 specifies requirements 

to reduce VOC emissions as a ground-level ozone control strategy. Section 38500 et 

seq., establishes authority to reduce the impacts of GHGs used in consumer products to 

slow climate change. 

1. Health and Safety Code section 41712 

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

California Health and Safety Code. The intent of section 41712 is primarily to reduce 

ground-level ozone concentrations. Section 41712, along with subsequent 

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

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

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

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

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

the earliest practicable date. 

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

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

and the regulations are commercially and technologically feasible. The Act further 

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

recommendations from health professionals be considered when developing VOC 

control measures for health benefit products. 

2. Health and Safety Code section 38500 et seq.

In 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, 

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

GHG emissions in California. The California Health and Safety Code, commencing with 

section 38500, contains the provisions. AB 32 requires ARB to develop regulations and 

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

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

the Governor’s Executive Order EO-S-03-05 calls for an 80 percent GHG reduction from 

1990 levels by 2050. 
 Executive Summary - 3 

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

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

regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions that become enforceable by 

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

products has been designated as a Discrete Early Action Measure (ARB, 2007b). 

B. EXISTING REGULATIONS 

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

mandates pertaining to the regulation of consumer products. Three regulations have 

been adopted that affect 125 consumer product categories by setting 174 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 from consumer 

products. At its June 26, 2008, hearing, the Board approved amendments that set new 

or lower VOC limits for 19 categories of consumer products with an additional 25 VOC 

limits (ARB, 2008e). These amendments became legally effective on July 18, 2009 and 

will reduce VOC emissions by an additional 5.8 tons per day when fully effective. The 

June 2008 amendments also established the first limit to reduce the impact of 

Pressurized Gas Duster product emissions on global warming. Limiting the emissions 

of GHGs in this category is equivalent to reducing about 0.2 million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide per year. 

We have also reduced exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). Emissions of TACs 

have been reduced by over 13 tons per day by prohibiting use of chlorinated 

compounds in 70 categories. 

In addition, two voluntary regulations, the Alternative Control Plan and the Hairspray 

Credit Program, have been adopted to provide compliance flexibility to companies. 

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

sections 94500 to 94575. 

C. REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

In order to involve the public, the Consumer Products Regulation Workgroup (CPRWG), 

was reconvened in 2004. Participation in the CPRWG was, and continues to be, open 

to any member of the public. The CPRWG participated in the development of the 2006 

Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2006 Survey) and 2008 Paint Thinner and 

Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update (Survey Update). These surveys serve as the 

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

proposed amendments. Consumer product manufacturers; chemical producers; 

marketers; trade associations; environmental groups; air districts; and various other 

stakeholders are all active participants. 

 

In addition to the CPRWG meetings, an initial public meeting was held in August of 

2008 to begin the public process of developing this proposal. A public workshop to 

discuss the data from the 2006 Survey and Survey Update, as well as proposed VOC 
 Executive Summary - 4 

limits, was held on April 1, 2009. Prior to the April workshop, we posted materials to the 

consumer products program website for review and comment. A second public 

workshop to discuss the proposed amendments with stakeholders is scheduled for early 

August 2009. 

D. VOC EMISSIONS 

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

the cumulative use of these products by over 38 million Californians results in significant 

VOC emissions (DOF, 2008). Given the severity of the air pollution problems in

California, further emission reductions from all sources contributing to the formation of 

ground-level ozone are necessary. 

Emissions of VOCs from consumer products contribute to the formation of both groundlevel ozone and particulate matter pollution. This section, however, focuses on 

reducing emissions from consumer products as a ground-level ozone control strategy. 

As evidence of the magnitude of consumer product VOC emissions, it is estimated that 

in 2010 consumer products emissions will be approximately 255 tons per day, or about 

12 percent of the overall Statewide VOC inventory. In this same year, consumer 

product emissions will comprise about 19 and 7 percent of VOC emissions in the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), respectively. Without further actions, consumer 

product emissions are expected to grow to approximately 283 tons per day in 2020, 

representing 14 percent of statewide VOC emissions (ARB, 2009a). 

As control measures for other VOC sources become effective, consumer product 

emissions become more important in the SCAQMD. It is estimated that emissions from 

consumer products will be the largest source of VOC emissions in the SCAQMD in 

2020. While the ozone forming potential of consumer product emissions is less than 

some other source categories (e.g., light duty passenger vehicles), clearly, further 

reductions in VOC emissions from consumer products and other VOC sources are 

needed if attainment of the State and federal ozone standards are to be achieved. 

Despite these projections, ARB’s consumer products program has made significant 

progress. Since 1989, ARB regulations, along with numerous amendments to the 

regulations, have substantially reduced VOC emissions from consumer products. 

Absent these regulations today, consumer product emissions would likely be about 450 

tons per day. Figure ES-1 shows that statewide consumer product VOC emissions 

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

shows that without further actions population growth will likely reverse the trend. 
 Executive Summary - 5 

Figure ES-1

 Consumer Products VOC Emission Trends

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

525

1990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014201620182020

Year

Emissions (tpd)

Emissions (with population growth only)

Emissions (with population growth and emission reductions)

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

The 1990 to 2007 emissions are taken from the ARB Forecasted Emissions by 

Summary Category, 2008 Almanac (ARB, 2008c). Emissions are then grown in 

proportion to population increase. Population growth is in accordance with estimates in 

the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewide Human 

Population Table found in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). For 

categories regulated in the 2006 and 2008 Consumer Products Amendments, emission 

values from the 2003 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey and the projected 

emissions reductions resulting from the VOC limits approved in 2006 and 2008, are 

reflected in Figure ES-1. 

E. CONSUMER PRODUCT VOC EMISSION REDUCTION COMMITMENTS IN 

THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) 

Reduction of VOC emissions is necessary to attain the ambient air quality standards for 

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

from consumer products was set forth. To meet the federal ozone standard, in 1994 

emission reductions from consumer products became part of the State Implementation 

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

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

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

VOC emissions to meet the one-hour federal ozone standard. 

200 tpd 
 Executive Summary - 6 

In response to these mandates, three regulations with 174 VOC limits for 

125 categories of consumer products (including antiperspirants and deodorants and 

36 aerosol coating products categories) were established. The adopted limits to meet 

these commitments will achieve a 44 percent reduction in overall VOC emissions from 

consumer products by the year 2010. 

However, the 2003 SIP was withdrawn and the remaining consumer product emission 

reduction commitment was incorporated into the 2007 Strategy. This Strategy includes 

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

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

30 to 40 tons per day VOC reduction from consumer products by January 1, 2014. The 

amendments that became effective on July 18, 2009, provide the first increment, about 

4.5 tons per day, toward meeting the commitment. An additional emission reduction of 

about 1.3 tons per day will be achieved in 2015. 

Table ES-1 shows our progress toward meeting the consumer products commitment in 

the Strategy. The anticipated 2010 Amendments include four cleaning products 

categories, (non-aerosol General Purpose Cleaners and Degreasers, Glass Cleaners, 

and aerosol Furniture Maintenance Products) which staff are currently evaluating for 

further reductions. Additional discussion regarding these categories can be found in 

section L, Future Plans. We are continuing the review of data from the 2006 Consumer 

and Commercial Products Survey as a further basis for identifying and evaluating 

additional categories for emission reduction opportunities. If feasible, additional 

proposals would be brought for consideration before the Board in 2010. 

Table ES-1 

Consumer Product VOC Reductions Accredited Toward SIP Commitment

Consumer Products Rulemaking VOC Reductions (tons per day) 

June 2008 Amendments 4.5 

September 2009 Amendments (this proposal) 14.7 

2010 Cleaning Products Amendments 

(under development) 5 – 8 

Additional Reductions from 

2006 Survey Product Categories 5.8 – 12.8 

Totals Reductions by January 1, 2014 30 – 40 

The Strategy also acknowledges that VOC reductions from consumer products are 

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

to explore innovative reduction strategies in the longer term. These measures would 

include investigating emission reduction opportunities through reactivity-based 

standards and alternative market-based mechanisms. If these mechanisms cannot 

produce meaningful emission reductions from the consumer products source category, 

then other approaches would be evaluated. Some of these approaches include the 

purchase of VOC emission reduction credits; and funding of special projects to reduce 
 Executive Summary - 7 

emissions or accelerate reductions from pollution sources outside of the consumer 

products industry. 

The amendments proposed in this rulemaking are the second increment of emission 

reductions which further fulfill the Strategy commitment for VOC reductions from 

consumer products. 

F. SCAQMD RULE 1143 – CONSUMER PAINT THINNERS AND 

MULTI-PURPOSE SOLVENTS 

In March 2009, SCAQMD adopted Rule 1143, “Consumer Paint Thinners and MultiPurpose Solvents” which, upon the effective date, will achieve VOC emissions 

reductions from consumer Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners used in the South 

Coast Air Basin. The VOC limits we are proposing for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint 

Thinners are new limits for previously unregulated categories. In absence of a 

statewide regulation, SCAQMD has the authority to adopt limits affecting these 

products. 

Upon approval of this proposal and implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1143, 

manufacturers of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products will be required to 

meet the Rule 1143 limits for products sold or supplied for use in the South Coast Air 

Basin, and the statewide limits for products sold to all areas of California, outside the 

South Coast Air Basin. The VOC limits we are proposing are virtually equivalent to 

those adopted by SCAQMD, however, the effective dates are different. The effective 

dates for Rule 1143 are January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2011 for the first and second 

tier VOC limits respectively, while our proposed effective dates are December 31, 2010 

and December 31, 2013. 

We are proposing to provide one additional year for manufacturers to meet the first tier 

limit simply due to the time necessary for State regulations to become legally effective, 

per State law, compared to the shortened time frame for local air district rules to 

become legally effective. For the second tier limit, we believe it has not been 

demonstrated that products meeting the 3 percent VOC limit will function as paint 

thinners for all solvent-borne coatings available in commerce. While we are 

encouraged about the future viability of low VOC thinners, such as soy based products, 

it has not yet been demonstrated that they are ready for introduction into the market. 

There is still a need for paint thinners that are compatible with solvent-borne coatings, 

for a period of time, in areas of the State other than the South Coast Air Basin because 

SCAQMD has more stringent VOC coating limits than many other areas of the state. 

Therefore, we determined it was appropriate that the second tier, 3 percent VOC limit 

be effective December 31, 2013, giving manufacturers sufficent time to develop low 

VOC thinners that are compatible with solvent-borne coatings. 

Additionally, the second tier limit could lead to an increase in sales of more highly 

flammable products, such as acetone. An acetone-based “Paint Thinner” product will 

function differently than the former “Paint Thinner” product. Without enough lead time, 
 Executive Summary - 8 

we are concerned that acetone products will be the most likely pathway to compliance. 

To allow sufficient time for development of less flammable, and/or less costly 

alternatives, we are proposing an effective date of December 31, 2013 for the 3 percent 

VOC limit. 

In order to avoid double-counting category sales and VOC emissions, we have 

subtracted from the statewide values, the portion of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner sales, VOC emissions, and reductions that occur in the South Coast Air Basin, 

based on population (DOF, 2008). The calculated VOC emissions and reductions for 

the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner categories listed in Table ES-2, are the 

correct values which can be credited toward the proposed regulation. More detail on 

our proposal for the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner categories can be found in 

the Technical Support Document, Chapter VI, section B. 

G. ESTIMATED VOC EMISSIONS FROM CATEGORIES PROPOSED TO BE 

REGULATED 

The 2006 Survey and the Survey Update serve as the basis for the proposed 

amendments to reduce VOC emissions. The 2006 Survey and the Survey Update 

provided detailed information on the formulations of consumer products proposed for 

regulation, including complete speciation of VOCs, low vapor pressure VOC (LVP-VOC) 

solvents, and key exempt ingredients. Total volumes of inorganic and other compounds 

were also reported. Information on sales, product form, customer types, and company 

size and economics were also included. For this rulemaking, the 2009 emissions and 

reduction estimates were grown from 2006 and 2008 sales. Annual population growth 

factors were calculated using the California Environmental Protection Agency’s 

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

Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). We estimate that the 2009 VOC emissions from the 

categories proposed for regulation are more than 22 tons per day. 

H. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

 

Amendments are being proposed to the following sections in the Consumer Products 

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

Products;” section 94510 “Exemptions;” section 94512 “Administrative Requirements;” 

section 94513 “Reporting Requirements;” and section 94515 “Test Methods.” The 

proposed amendments to these sections are summarized below. In this section, we are 

also providing a summary of amendments to Method 310. Chapter V of the Technical 

Support Document contains more detailed information on each proposed requirement. 

1. Definitions (Section 94508) 

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

Regulation which are not self-explanatory. The proposed amendments to the 

Regulation include the modification of three definitions, and the addition of six new 

definitions. These definitions are necessary to define categories proposed for VOC 
 Executive Summary - 9 

limits, clarify products that are not subject to the VOC limits, or to improve the 

enforceability of the Consumer Products Regulation. 

2. Proposed Amendments to Standards for Consumer Products 

(Section 94509) 

 

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

Consumer Products Regulation by specifying VOC limits for the product categories 

shown in Table ES-2. Note that for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener we are 

proposing to lower the existing VOC limit to 20 percent, effective December 31, 2012. 

Table ES-2 also shows that statewide VOC emissions would be reduced by 

approximately 14.7 tons per day when the limits are fully effective. These reductions 

would provide further progress toward fulfilling the consumer products element in the 

Strategy. 

Table ES-2 

Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective Date

Product Category Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit

(percent by 

weight)

2009 VOC 

Emissions*

(tons per day)

Effective 

Date 

Reductions 

Upon 

Effective 

Date 

(tons per day)

Double Phase Aerosol 

Air Freshener Aerosol 20 10.2 12/31/2012 2.0 

tier 1: 30 12.5+ 12/31/2010 8.4+ Multi-purpose Solvent 

& Paint Thinner Non-aerosol tier 2: 3 --- 12/31/2013 3.9+

Total Emissions 2009 22.6 tons per day

Total VOC Reductions 

by end of 2013 14.7 tons per day 

 * Survey emissions adjusted for market coverage, grown to the 2009 calendar year, and rounded. 

 

+

 Does not include emissions or reductions in the South Coast Air Basin. 

It should be noted that the emissions and reductions listed for the Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner categories are combined because we have determined that the 

products are used interchangeably. A further discussion can be found in the Technical 

Support Document, Chapter VI, section B, “Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner.” 

Other Provisions: 

a. Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid Label Clarification 

Minor clarifying changes are proposed to the labeling requirements pertaining to 

dilutable automotive windshield washer fluid in section 94509(b). This proposal will 

require automotive windshield washer fluid manufacturers to clearly identify on the 

product label when the product is ready to use versus dilutable. This change is 

intended to ensure that the lowest VOC products are used and previously calculated 

emissions reductions are achieved. 
 Executive Summary - 10 

b. Limit on Use of Global Warming Compounds 

In accordance with AB 32, we are proposing to prohibit the use of compounds with 

global warming potential (GWP) values of 150 or greater in “Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener,” “Multi-Purpose Solvent,” and “Paint Thinner” products. These provisions 

are contained in new subsections 94509(t) and (u). These proposals are intended to 

minimize the climate change impacts of products reformulated to comply with the 

proposed VOC limits. 

 

c. Toxics Prohibition 

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

mitigate any possible significant adverse environmental impacts of regulatory actions. It 

is unlikely, but possible, that manufacturers may, in response to new VOC limits for 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, choose to reformulate with 

chlorinated solvents that are TACs. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, we are 

proposing in new subsection 94509(u), a prohibition of the use of methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in the “Multi-purpose Solvent,” and “Paint 

Thinner” categories. 

 

d. Photochemical Reactivity 

Also in section 94509(u), there is a proposal to limit the use of aromatic compounds in 

“Multi-Purpose Solvent” and “Paint Thinner” products to 1 percent by weight. This 

requirement is intended to mitigate the possibility that manufacturers could replace 

current VOC solvents used in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products with 

highly reactive compounds. 

3. Proposed Amendments to Exemptions, Section 94510(m) 

 

Proposed Temporary Small Size Exemption for Paint Thinner: The proposal contains a 

provision to temporarily exempt very small (eight fluid ounces or less) containers of 

Paint Thinner from compliance with the VOC limits until December 31, 2013. This 

exemption is designed to allow consumers to continue to be able to purchase typical 

Paint Thinners to be used with paints where the established VOC limit allows for fairly 

high concentrations of solvents. In addition, there is an existing exemption from the 

VOC limits for architectural coatings packaged in containers with a volume of one liter 

(1.057 quart) or less. Therefore, we believe a limited and temporary small container 

exemption is appropriate for Paint Thinners. Absent this provision, these solvent-borne 

paint products may be discarded, resulting in increasing the solid or hazardous waste 

stream or affecting water quality. This proposal should mitigate these potential 

consequences. We expect that the emissions impacts of this small size exemption will 

be minimal. 
 Executive Summary - 11 

4. Proposed Amendments to Administrative Requirements, 

Section 94512(e) 

 

Proposed Modification to Labeling Requirements: Under the proposal, Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products would be required to display the percent VOC 

content, by weight, as determined from actual formulation data. This requirement will 

enhance the enforceability of the proposed VOC limits for these products and provide 

useful information to the consumer. 

On May 25, 2000, the Board approved a labeling requirement for Aerosol Adhesive 

Products, requiring that products display the VOC standard as is specified in the 

California Consumer Products Regulation (ARB, 2000). Additionally, on June 24, 2004, 

the Board approved the addition of four other product categories to this requirement. 

While the requirement we are proposing for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products is slightly different, requiring the VOC content of the product rather than the 

VOC standard, it parallels the labeling requirements previously approved by the Board. 

Also, to address the concern regarding the flammability of low-VOC Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products, “Flammable” or “Extremely Flammable” products 

would not be able to display a general name on the principle display panel, such as 

“Paint Thinner;” “Multi-purpose Solvent;” “Clean-up Solvent;” or “Paint Clean-up.” 

Manufacturers may choose to sell a “Flammable” or “Extremely Flammable” product 

with one of these general names if they do one of the following: provide an attached 

hang tag or sticker that includes the statement “Formulated to meet California VOC 

limits, see warnings on label;” or display on the principle display panel in a font size as 

large as or larger than any other words on the panel, the common name of the chemical 

compound that results in the product meeting the criteria for “Flammable” or “Extremely 

Flammable.” 

These requirements are intended to alert the consumer of a potential change in 

formulation of these products which could present a fire hazard if used improperly. 

Additional discussion regarding the flammability concern is provided in K. 

Environmental Impacts. 

5. Proposed Amendments to Reporting Requirements, Section 94513(g) 

 

We are proposing 30 percent by weight VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner products, effective December 31, 2010. These limits are challenging, but 

feasible for manufacturers to meet within the time-frame proposed. We are also 

proposing technology forcing 3 percent by weight second tier VOC limits for Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, effective December 31, 2013. To 

ascertain if manufacturers are on track, and that technology advances as expected, we 

are proposing that manufacturers report their progress towards meeting these limits. 

As proposed in new subsection 94513(g), Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

manufacturers would be required to supply by June 30, 2012, detailed written updates 
 Executive Summary - 12 

on their research and development efforts undertaken to achieve compliance with the 

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

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

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

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

protocols used; the results of the testing; and the cost of reformulation efforts. 

6. Proposed Amendments to Test Methods, Section 94515 

 

To ensure the ozone forming potential of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products does not increase as a result of the implementation of the proposed VOC 

limits, staff is proposing to limit the use of VOC aromatic compound content to no more 

than 1 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. A further discussion regarding 

the need for limiting the use of these highly reactive ingredients is provided in the 

Technical Support Document, Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts. 

I. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

Manufacturers have the flexibility to choose from a variety of formulation options to meet 

the applicable limits (see Chapter VI, Description of Product Categories). To comply 

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

replaced, with VOC exempt ingredients. This may require using acetone or another 

exempt solvent, or formulating with a VOC exempt propellant. Manufacturers may also 

need to change the valve, container, delivery system, or the other components of the 

consumer product depending on the individual formulation. 

To meet the VOC limit for Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, the most 

straightforward reformulation pathway is to utilize less hydrocarbon propellant in the 

formulation and add more water. Another reformulation option is to use VOC exempt 

propellants such as HFC-152a or HFC-134a. The likelihood of this reformulation choice 

is minimal because of the increased cost of these propellants. However, we are 

proposing a GWP limit of 150 for the category to ensure that high GWP propellants are 

not used in reformulations to meet the VOC limit. The proposed VOC limits can be met 

without a significant increase in the use of TACs or GHGs. We believe that products 

can and will be reformulated primarily through reduction in the amount of hydrocarbon 

propellant with possibly some modification or adjustments to the surfactants and/or the 

valve/spray nozzle. 

To meet the proposed first tier VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products, the most likely “reformulation” pathway is product substitution (i.e. increasing 

the sales of existing complying products and discontinuing sale of non-complying 

products). To meet the proposed second tier VOC limit for Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner products, reformulation options include developing water-based 

formulations, in addition to product substitution. We believe that products can and will 

be reformulated through reduction or replacement of VOC solvents with VOC exempt 

ingredients or through technologies that include using LVP–methyl esters, hydrocarbon 
 Executive Summary - 13 

solvents, or water emulsion technology. Possible reformulation options could also 

include chlorinated toxic compounds, and compounds that could compromise the 

predicted ozone benefits of the limits. However, because these formulation options are 

not necessary, and the proposal includes specific prohibitions to prevent them, products 

cannot be reformulated using these options and possible adverse impacts will be 

prevented. 

Table ES-3 summarizes, for the proposed VOC limits, data related to the complying 

marketshares (based on sales), as well as the number of products that currently comply 

relative to total number of products reported. It should be noted that there are currently 

a few Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, with significant market 

presence, formulated slightly above 30 percent VOC by weight. These products will 

only need a modest reformulation to comply with the proposed 30 percent standard. 

The complying marketshare in Table ES-3, for the first tier limit for the Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner categories, would be significantly higher if these products 

already complied with the proposed 30 percent VOC limit. 

 Table ES-3 

 Summary of Complying Products and Complying Marketshares

Product Category 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt%) 

Number of 

Complying 

Products/Total 

Complying 

Marketshare 

(%) 

Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener Aerosol 20 <10 / 60* <1 

Multi-purpose Solvent tier 1: 30 18 / 165 11.3 

& Paint Thinner Non-aerosol tier 2: 3 15 / 165 11.2 

Source: 2006 Consumer & Commercial Products Survey and Paint Thinner & Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update. 

*60 products (product groups) reported. Total of 231 products reported if fragrance variants are considered. 

Manufacturers can also comply with the proposed amendments through the use of the 

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

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

Regulation if they demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that their product 

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

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

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

The ACP allows manufacturers to average the emissions from products above and 

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

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

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

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

other information necessary to track overall emissions. 
 Executive Summary - 14 

J. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

The economic impacts of the proposed amendments are summarized here. Our 

complete analysis of these impacts is contained in Chapter VII of the Technical Support 

Document. 

1. Overall Cost 

We estimate that the overall cost to comply with the proposed amendments is about 

$3.1 million per year for ten years, for a total of $31 million. This amount includes both 

recurring (e.g., raw materials) and nonrecurring (e.g., research and development) costs 

and is estimated based on assumptions specific to each category. The cost represents 

the average of low and high cost estimates and represents our prediction of the costs 

most likely to be incurred. 

2. Cost Effectiveness 

Another measure of the economic impacts of the proposal is to determine the “dollars to 

be spent per pound of VOC reduced,” or cost effectiveness (CE). The CE of the 

proposed amendments has been calculated to be about $0.29 per pound of VOC 

reduced. This is based on expected emission reductions of about 14.7 tons per day. 

This cost effectiveness is better than other recent consumer products rulemakings. The 

CE of amendments proposed in 2004, 2006, and 2008 was about $2.40, $2.35 and 

$6.23 per pound of VOC reduced, respectively. The lower cost per pound of VOC 

reduced for this rulemaking results from the relatively large reduction in VOC emissions 

being achieved from only three product categories. 

3. Return on Owner’s Equity (ROE) 

Another measure of the impacts of the proposed amendments on manufacturers is to 

determine the ROE. ROE is a calculation which compares a company’s percentage 

reduction in profitability after incurring the costs associated with the proposed 

amendments. In calculating ROE, we make the conservative assumption that 

manufacturers will absorb all compliance costs without passing any of these costs on to 

the consumer. Our analysis found that the overall reduction in profitability ranges from 

5.4 percent to about 24.2 percent, with an average reduction in profitability of about 

14.8 percent. The ROE of about 24.2 percent combined the ROEs estimated from the 

first tier and second tier limits for the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

categories. Thus, the potential exists that some businesses may experience a 

significant impact in their profitability. In light of this, the assessment of ROE requires 

further explanation. 

The ROE for sample businesses complying with the proposed limit for Double Phase 

Aerosol Air Freshener, and the first tier limit for the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner categories, declined by about 7.5 percent. This is not a significant change in 

the average profitability of typical businesses in California. In factoring in the second 
 Executive Summary - 15 

tier limit for the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner categories, however, we 

estimated the ROE to decline by up to 14.7 percent. The overall average reduction in 

profitability from complying with all of the VOC limits is 14.8 percent. Because of the 

predicted magnitude of the percent decline in profitability for Multi-purpose Solvent/Paint 

Thinner product manufacturers, we believe they will pass through to the consumer a 

portion, or all, compliance costs to maintain their profitability. We also would expect the 

impact on profitability to be lessened, to a degree, if we assume a normal growth 

pattern occurs for this affected industry sector, with the sales and profits increasing over 

time. 

We believe that overall, most affected businesses profitability will not be adversely 

affected. If they are unable to absorb all or a portion of the compliance costs, these 

costs will be passed through to the consumer. 

4. Impacts on California Businesses 

Because we believe that manufacturers will pass their compliance costs onto the 

consumer, we believe the proposed amendments would not significantly alter the 

profitability of most businesses, as shown in our ROE analysis, we do not expect a 

noticeable change in employment; business creation; elimination or expansion; and 

business competitiveness in California. However, the proposed amendments may 

impose economic hardship on businesses with very little or no margin of profitability. 

5. Increased Cost to Consumers and Licensed Contractors 

As a result of this proposal, consumers may have to pay more for some products, 

depending on the extent to which manufacturers pass along their compliance costs. If 

all assumed compliance costs are passed on to the consumer, we estimate the cost per 

unit increase would range from negligible or no cost for a Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener product to about $0.75 for a Multi-purpose Solvent/Paint Thinner product 

reformulated to meet both tiers of proposed VOC limits. The aforementioned costs do 

not include typical retail mark-up. 

Because we expect that to maintain profitability (see ROE analysis) some businesses 

will pass on compliance costs to the consumer, we estimated the increased cost the 

consumer may experience. By apportioning annual sales of Multi-purpose 

Solvent/Paint Thinner products to the California population, we estimated that residents 

purchase less than one container of Multi-purpose Solvent/Paint Thinner product per 

year. Thus, considering normal retail mark-up, the consumers’ cost increase to 

purchase a Multi-purpose Solvent/Paint Thinner product would increase by about $1.50 

per gallon. 

However, Multi-purpose Solvent/Paint Thinner products are more commonly purchased 

by contractors. If we apportion all sales of the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

categories to licensed contractors, we estimate purchases of approximately five gallons 

per year, per contractor. Considering normal retail mark-up, the cost increase per 
 Executive Summary - 16 

product to licensed contractors purchasing Multi-purpose Solvent/Paint Thinner 

products would be about $8 per year (CDCA, 2009). 

6. Fiscal Impacts 

No significant adverse economic impacts to any local or State agency were identified. 

K. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

The proposed amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation are primarily 

designed to reduce VOC emissions. Therefore, implementing the proposed VOC limits 

would have an overall positive impact on the environment by reducing exposure to 

ground-level ozone. Other proposed amendments would either have no impact or 

would have beneficial impacts on the environment. No significant adverse impacts were 

identified. 

We evaluated how the proposed amendments would impact ground-level ozone 

concentrations; particulate matter (particularly secondary organic aerosols); climate 

change; stratospheric ozone depletion; solid waste disposal; water quality; energy use; 

public safety; agricultural resources; and air toxic emission exposure. While no 

significant adverse impacts are expected, in instances where a potential adverse impact 

was identified, staff is proposing mitigation measures in accordance with CEQA or 

authority granted under AB 32. A complete analysis of the potential environmental 

impacts of the proposal is contained in Chapter VIII of the Technical Support Document. 

The proposed amendments would result in a VOC reduction of about 14.7 tons per day 

by the end of 2013. Our qualitative health risk assessment concludes that because 

VOCs are ozone precursors, public health is further protected by reducing these 

emissions. The actual lowering of health risks has not been quantified. However, it has 

been estimated (Ostro et al., 2006) that about 630 fewer premature deaths would occur 

each year in California from exposure to ozone if California were to attain the State 

ozone standard. The reductions resulting from this proposal would be an incremental 

step toward achieving the State ozone standard. Implementing the proposed VOC 

limits, however, could lead to potential adverse impacts. The potential impacts 

identified and measures to mitigate the impact follows. 

1. Limit on Use of Global Warming Compounds 

Several compounds with high global warming potentials could be used in reformulated 

products. For Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products, the use of VOC-exempt 

propellants such as hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) 152a and HFC-134a are reformulation 

options. For Multi-Purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, there is a slight 

possibility that solvents with high global warming potentials could be used. To minimize 

climate change impacts from implementing the proposed VOC limits, we are proposing 

to prohibit use of compounds with GWP values above 150 in Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener, Multi-Purpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner products. These provisions are 
 Executive Summary - 17 

proposed in subsections 94509(t) and 94509(u). This proposal would allow use of the 

propellant HFC-152a in Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener. However, the proposed 

VOC limit for this category is feasible without the use of this compound. 

2. Potential Toxics Impacts 

In the Survey Update, no use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or 

trichloroethylene was reported for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. 

However, use of these chlorinated TAC solvents, particularly the VOC-exempt 

compounds methylene chloride and perchloroethylene, is a potential option as products 

are reformulated to comply with the proposed limits. Therefore, to ensure that the 

public is not exposed to these chlorinated TAC solvents from use of Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products, we are proposing in new section 94509(u), to 

prohibit the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. No adverse impacts on other media are 

expected from this proposal. 

3. Photochemical Reactivity Considerations 

During development of the proposal for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products, we evaluated the reduction in ozone forming potential that would occur from 

implementation of the first tier 30 percent by weight VOC limit and the second tier 3 

percent by weight VOC limit. This analysis showed that some reformulation options 

could result in products with higher ozone forming potential, which could erode the 

expected air quality benefits. To ensure that predicted reductions in ozone forming 

potential occur, we are proposing to limit the VOC aromatic compound content of 

products to 1 percent by weight. This proposal would not result in further VOC mass 

reductions, but would result in further reducing the ozone formation potential of 

reformulated products. 

4. Safety 

Reformulations of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products could result in 

increased fire hazards should manufacturers choose to reformulate using highly 

flammable solvents such as acetone or methyl acetate, both exempt VOCs. Several 

amendments are proposed to mitigate this potential hazard. First, new provisions are 

proposed in subsection 94512(e). This provision would apply to Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner products required to be labeled “Flammable” or “Extremely 

Flammable,” to comply with federal regulations. As proposed, these products would not 

be able to display a general name on the principle display panel, such as “Paint 

Thinner;” “Multi-purpose Solvent;” “Clean-up Solvent;” “Paint Clean-up;” or other similar 

name. Manufacturers may choose to sell a “Flammable” or “Extremely Flammable” 

product with one of these general names if they do one of the following: provide an 

attached hang tag or sticker that includes the statement “Formulated to meet California 

VOC limits, see warnings on label;” or display on the principle display panel, in a font 

size as large as or larger than any other words on the panel, the common name of the 
 Executive Summary - 18 

chemical compound that results in the product meeting the criteria for “Flammable” or 

“Extremely Flammable.” 

Additionally, to potentially minimize the increased fire hazard from the use of 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, we are proposing an effective date of 

December 31, 2013 for the second tier VOC limit. This additional compliance time is 

provided to allow for development of additional reformulation technologies and 

development of potentially less flammable products. We will assess progress of 

development of low VOC, less flammable products through a technical assessment 

prior to the effective date of the second tier limit. This is described below in “Technical 

Assessment.” 

We are also proposing to temporarily exempt very small (eight fluid ounces or less) 

containers of Paint Thinner from compliance with the VOC limit until 

December 31, 2013. This measure is designed to allow consumers to purchase 

currently marketed Paint Thinner products to be used with previously purchased 

solvent-borne paints. This should further reduce potential fire hazards. Also, absent 

this provision, these paint products could be discarded, resulting in increasing solid or 

hazardous waste disposal or adversely affecting water quality. Therefore, this proposal 

is designed to mitigate these potential consequences. 

5. Technical Assessment 

As described above, several adverse impacts could occur as products reformulate to 

meet the proposed VOC limits, particularly the second tier VOC limit for Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Because of this, we believe that an assessment of 

reformulations should be conducted prior to the December 31, 2013 effective date. As 

proposed in new subsection 94513(g), Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

manufacturers would be required to supply formulation data and detailed written 

updates on research and development efforts undertaken to achieve compliance with 

the second tier, 3 percent by weight VOC limit. These data will enable staff to perform a 

technology assessment in mid-2012 to evaluate manufacturers’ progress toward 

meeting this limit. We also intend to evaluate the safety and ozone forming potential of 

reformulation options, and, if necessary propose further measures to ensure that ozone 

reduction benefits occur and that fire hazards are minimized. 

L. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

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

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

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

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

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

people of any given race, culture, or income would be more impacted than any others 

would. All Californians should benefit equally from the reduction in VOC emissions from 

the consumer product categories proposed for regulation. 
 Executive Summary - 19 

M. FUTURE PLANS

Future activities include continued review of the 2006 Consumer and Commercial 

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

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

consumer product VOC reduction commitments in the Strategy and to reduce the GWP 

of consumer products, under AB 32. 

During 2009, we are conducting a risk assessment regarding public exposure to the 

potentially toxic compounds xylenes, toluene, dibutyl phthalate, and formaldehyde in 

nail coating formulations used in nail salons. Air quality modeling is being done to 

estimate outdoor exposure to these compounds from an individual business, as well as, 

cumulative emissions from multiple facilities. 

The Paint Remover/Stripper category will also be evaluated during 2009 for potential 

VOC and toxic air contaminant reductions upon the completion of the 2006 Consumer 

and Commercial Products Survey Data Summaries. 

Non-aerosol General Purpose Cleaners, General Purpose Degreasers, Glass Cleaners, 

and aerosol Furniture Maintenance Products are under evaluation for further regulation. 

Part of this evaluation is to determine if potential adverse impacts would result from the 

use of predicted reformulations used to comply with proposed lower VOC limits. We are 

working with Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment staff to develop health 

values for various LVP-VOC glycol ethers that could be used in reformulated products. 

We are also working with State Water Resources Control Board staff to evaluate water 

quality impacts from use of cleaning products. Of particular concern is a family of 

surfactants, the alkylphenol ethoxylates. Evidence indicates these surfactants are toxic 

to aquatic organisms, with the main concern being the estrogenic effects of their 

degradation products. Upon completion of this evaluation, we intend to propose to the 

Board in 2010, new limits for these categories, which we expect to achieve 5 – 8 tons 

per day VOC reductions toward the consumer products commitment in the Strategy. 

Sales and formulation information for Dry Clean Only Spot Removers obtained from a 

separate survey sent out to dry cleaning chemical manufacturers on January 14, 2009, 

is currently being evaluated. This evaluation will enable staff to determine if reductions 

of VOCs and/or TACs from Dry Clean Only Spot Removers is feasible. 

N. RECOMMENDATION

We recommend that the Board adopt the proposed amendments to the Consumer 

Products Regulation and Method 310. 
 Executive Summary - 20 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. 2008 Statewide Emissions Inventory by Summary 

Category, 2009 Almanac page 2-7. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac09/almanac09.htm 2009. 

 (ARB, 2009a) 

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation. 

 May 9, 2008. (ARB, 2008e) 

3. Air Resources Board. 2006 Statewide Emissions Inventory by Summary 

Category, 2008 Almanac page 2-7. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac08/almanac08.htm 2008. 

 (ARB, 2008c) 

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

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

5. Air Resources Board. Expanded List Of Early Action Measures To Reduce 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions In California Recommended For Board 

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

6. Air Resources Board. 2006 Consumer & Commercial Products Survey. 

 July 24, 2007. (ARB, 2007f) 

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

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

 (ARB, 2007h) 

8. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation Relating to Aerosol Adhesives. 

 April 7, 2000. (ARB, 2000) 

9. California Department of Consumer Affairs, Contractors State License Board. 

Telephone Conversation with ARB Staff. April 28, 2009. (CDCA, 2009) 

10. California Department of Finance, Population Estimates and Components of 

Change by County, July 1, 2000-2008. December 2008. (DOF, 2008) 

11. Ostro, B.D., H. Tran, and J. I. Levy. The health benefits of reduced tropospheric 

ozone in California,” 2006. Journal of Air & Waste Management Assoc 56: 

1007-1021. (Ostro et al., 2006) 
Appendix A 

Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the 

California Consumer Products Regulations 

Technical Support Document

Technical Support Document Chapter I - 1 

I. INTRODUCTION

A. OVERVIEW 

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

amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Products 

(Consumer Products Regulation) and to Method 310 – Determination of Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol 

Coating Products (Method 310). The amendments are designed to reduce VOC 

emissions. The proposed amendments would set new VOC limits for Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products and lower the existing VOC limit for Double Phase 

Aerosol Air Fresheners. When fully implemented, about 14.7 tons per day of VOC 

emission reductions would be achieved by December 31, 2013. We are proposing to 

prohibit the use of the toxic air contaminants methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and 

trichloroethylene in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. In addition, the 

aromatic content would be limited to 1 percent in these categories. Compounds with 

high global warming potential (GWP) would be prohibited, under the proposal, in all 

three of the categories proposed for regulation. 

The proposed amendments to reduce VOC emissions would partially fulfill the 

consumer product reduction commitment contained in the State Strategy for California’s 

2007 State Implementation Plan. The proposed toxic compound prohibition and the 

GWP limit are mitigation measures designed to ensure that exposure to chlorinated 

solvents and climate change impacts are minimized, respectively, as products are 

reformulated to meet new VOC limits. The limitation on the use of aromatic compounds 

is proposed to ensure that reductions of ozone generated from Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner products being reformulated to meet the mass VOC limits occur as 

predicted. The amendment to Method 310 is to add new language that would clarify 

analytical methods used to test low VOC or high water content consumer products. 

This Technical Support Document, Appendix A, is ARB staff’s technical justification and 

analysis of the proposed amendments. It is part of the Initial Statement of Reasons 

(ISOR) for Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulations. 

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

Included in this Technical Support Document is the following information: 

• background information on the consumer products program related to the 

control of VOC and GHG emissions; 

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

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

State law; 

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

overall need for the emission reductions; 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 2 

• a description of the proposed amendments; 

• an analysis of the estimated economic and environmental impacts of the 

proposed amendments; and 

• a summary of future activities. 

B. ENABLING LEGISLATION 

In 1988, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA or “the Act”) became law and was enacted 

to address the State’s serious air pollution problems and the inability of many areas in 

California to attain the State and federal ambient air quality standards. The CCAA 

added section 41712 to the California Health and Safety Code. Section 41712, along 

with subsequent amendments, requires ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the 

maximum feasible reduction in VOC emissions from consumer products. Prior to 

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

regulations are necessary to attain State and federal ambient air quality standards. The 

regulations must also be commercially and technologically feasible. 

Section 41712 defines a consumer product as a chemically formulated product used by 

household and institutional consumers. Consumer products include, but are not limited 

to: detergents; cleaning compounds; air fresheners; polishes; floor finishes; paint 

thinner; multi-purpose solvents; cosmetics; personal care products such as 

antiperspirants and hairsprays; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; 

sanitizers; automotive specialty products; and aerosol paints. Other paint products, 

such as furniture or architectural coatings, are not part of ARB’s consumer products 

program because local air districts regulate them. 

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

and that recommendations from health professionals be considered when developing 

VOC control measures for health benefit products. Health and Safety Code 

section 41712, gives ARB authority to control emissions from a very diverse number of 

products sold statewide to household, commercial and institutional consumers. The 

primary goal of this section was to set forth a program to reduce ground-level ozone 

concentrations, as part of the overall effort to attain ambient air quality standards. 

In 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 was signed into law. This law created a comprehensive, 

multi-year program to reduce global warming compound emissions in California. AB 32 

added section 1 division 25.5 (commencing with section 38500) to the California Health 

and Safety Code. These sections require ARB to develop regulations and consider 

market mechanisms that will ultimately reduce California’s GHG emissions equivalent to 

the 1990 baseline year by 2020. Among other things, AB 32 requires ARB to make 

immediate progress towards the reduction of GHG emissions. Specific Discrete Early 

Action Measures were to be identified and regulations for the identified sources are to 

be adopted and enforceable by January 1, 2010. Beyond the requirements of AB 32, 

the Governor’s Executive Order EO-S-03-05 calls for an 80 percent GHG reduction from 

1990 levels by 2050. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 3 

C. BACKGROUND 

 1. Existing Consumer Product Regulations 

To date, the Board has taken numerous actions to fulfill the legislative mandate 

pertaining to the regulation of VOCs in consumer products, including antiperspirants, 

deodorants, and aerosol coating products. Three regulations have been adopted that 

affect 125 consumer product categories by setting 174 VOC limits. These limits have 

resulted in reducing emissions by about 200 tons per day, an overall 44 percent 

reduction in VOC emissions. 

We have also reduced exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC). Emissions of TACs 

have been reduced by 13 tons per day by prohibiting use of certain chlorinated 

compounds in 63 categories. 

In addition, two voluntary regulations, the Alternative Control Plan and the Hairspray 

Credit Program have been adopted to provide compliance flexibility to companies. The 

five consumer product regulations are codified in title 17, California Code of 

Regulations, sections 94500 to 94575: 

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

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

• Aerosol Coating Products (Article 3, sections 94520-94528); 

• Alternative Control Plan (Article 4, sections 94540-94555); and 

• Hairspray Credit Program (Article 5, sections 94560-94575). 

Regulation of consumer products began in 1989 with adoption of the Antiperspirants 

and Deodorants Regulation. The “general” Consumer Products Regulation was 

approved in 1990 and has been amended numerous times. The most recent 

amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation were approved June 26, 2008 

(ARB, 2008e). At the June hearing, the Board approved amendments that would set 

new or lower VOC limits for 19 categories of consumer products. These approved 

amendments will reduce VOC emissions by an additional 5.8 tons per day statewide 

when fully effective. Also at the June hearing, the Board approved amendments that 

would prohibit use of certain chlorinated compounds in an additional seven categories 

of consumer products. These approved amendments will reduce TAC emissions by an 

additional 0.2 tons per day when fully effective. The Aerosol Coatings Regulation was 

adopted in 1995 and was amended in 2000. A complete summary of consumer 

products program regulatory actions with dates of regulatory amendments are provided 

in Appendix C. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 4 

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

a. State Implementation Plans

Federal clean air laws require areas with unhealthy levels of ozone, carbon monoxide, 

nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and inhalable particulate matter to develop State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) describing how they will attain national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). 

 

A SIP is a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as 

monitoring, modeling, permitting, etc.), local air district rules, and State and federal 

regulations. Many of California's strategies apply statewide, including emission 

standards for cars and heavy-duty trucks, fuel regulations, and limits on emissions from 

consumer products. State law designates ARB as the lead agency for all purposes 

related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies, such as the Department of 

Pesticide Regulation, prepare SIP elements and submit them to ARB for review and 

approval. ARB forwards SIP revisions to the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (U.S. EPA) for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Chapter I, Part 52, Subpart F, Section 52.220 lists 

all of the items which are included in the California SIP. Some California SIP submittals 

are pending U.S. EPA approval. 

Consumer product VOC emissions are known to contribute to concentrations of both 

ground-level ozone and particulate matter with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or less 

(PM2.5). The link between consumer product VOC emissions and ground-level ozone 

concentrations is well-established. However, their impact on PM2.5 concentrations is 

less clear. Because VOCs are ozone precursors, specific consumer product control 

measures have been developed related to ozone control. These measures have been 

included in SIPs. For this reason, our summary here focuses on consumer product 

strategies that have been, and are, designed to meet ambient air quality standards for 

ozone. 

b. 1994 California State Implementation Plan for Ozone 

On November 15, 1994, ARB adopted the California State Implementation Plan for 

Ozone (1994 SIP). This plan included measures designed to meet the previous federal 

peak one-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million (ppm). Achieving significant 

VOC reductions from consumer products was a key element of the 1994 SIP. Several 

rulemakings were proposed and adopted to work toward meeting the SIP commitment. 

 c. 2003 State and Federal Strategy and 2003 South Coast SIP 

On October 23, 2003, the ARB adopted the 2003 Statewide Strategy, which identified 

the Board’s near term regulatory agenda to reduce ozone and particulate matter and to 

adopt new measures for each year from 2003 to 2008. The ozone control elements 

were again designed toward attaining the federal one-hour ozone standard. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 5 

The 2003 SIP contained two measures for consumer products. These measures were 

designated as CONS-1 and CONS-2. The CONS-1 measure was designed to achieve 

VOC emission reductions from consumer products of at least 2.3 tons per day in the 

South Coast Air Basin and 5.3 tons per day statewide by 2010. On June 26, 2004, the 

Board approved a CONS-1 measure (the “2004 Amendments”), which will achieve 

3.0 tons per day in VOC emission reductions in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010, and 

achieve 6.9 tons per day in VOC emission reductions statewide by 2010 (ARB, 2004b). 

The CONS-1 measure became legally effective on June 20, 2005. As of this writing, all 

but one of the CONS-1 VOC limits are in full effect. The CONS-1 commitment has been 

fulfilled. 

The ARB also committed to present new consumer product category limits to the Board 

between 2006 and 2008 to achieve VOC emission reductions from consumer products 

of between 8.5 tons per day and 15 tons per day in the South Coast Air Basin by 2010. 

Statewide, the CONS-2 measure was to achieve 20-35 tons per day in emission 

reductions by 2010. Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulation in 2006, which 

will result in reductions of 4.9 tons per day in South Coast and 11.5 tons per day 

statewide, partially fulfilled this commitment (ARB, 2006a). 

The 2003 SIP was withdrawn from consideration and is no longer in effect. However, 

the remaining commitment from the CONS-2 measure has been incorporated in the 

2007 Strategy commitment which is described below. 

d. State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan (Strategy) 

In July 1997, U.S. EPA established a new federal ozone standard. As opposed to a 

one-hour peak ozone standard, the new ozone standard established a limit of 0.08 ppm 

averaged over eight hours (U.S. EPA, 1997). On April 15, 2004, U.S. EPA designated 

15 areas as non-attainment in California for the eight-hour ozone standard (ARB, 

2008e). Many, but not all of these areas were also designated as non-attainment 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 onehour standard was revoked on June 15, 2005, one year after the effective date of the 

new designation, and SIPs showing how each area will meet the eight-hour standard 

were submitted to U.S. EPA in 2007. 

 

To address the eight-hour standard, the Strategy was adopted at the 

September 25, 2007, Board hearing (ARB, 2007d). The Strategy describes the scope 

of the State’s ozone and PM2.5 non-attainment problems and sets forth ARB’s plan on 

how California can comply with federal standards. This is a comprehensive Strategy 

designed to attain federal air quality standards through technologically feasible, cost 

effective, and far reaching measures. 

The Strategy is the first plan designed to show how California will meet the national 

eight-hour ozone standard. Because the eight-hour standard is more stringent than the 

one-hour standard, U.S. EPA set presumptive deadlines that allow more time for 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 6 

attainment. Nonetheless, the measures California has adopted to meet the one-hour 

standard remain in place and will deliver substantial new reductions over the next few 

years. 

Specific to consumer products, in the Strategy, ARB committed to reducing consumer 

product VOC emissions statewide by 30 to 40 tons per day by 2014. The amendments 

approved at the June 26, 2008, hearing will provide about 4.5 tons per day toward 

meeting the commitment. An additional 1.3 tons per day of VOC emission reductions 

will occur by the end of 2015. 

Further reductions from consumer products are important because VOC emissions from 

consumer products are predicted to become the largest source of VOC emissions in the 

South Coast Air Basin, and the third largest source in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

by 2020. The Strategy, in combination with local actions, provides emission reductions 

necessary to meet the eight-hour ozone standard in these two most challenging 

regions. 

VOC reductions from consumer products are becoming more difficult to achieve. In 

light of this, the Strategy includes a commitment to explore innovative reduction 

strategies in the longer term. One such measure would include investigating emission 

reduction opportunities through reactivity-based standards. A reactivity-based approach 

relies on the scientific principle that different chemical compounds react to form different 

amounts of ozone in the atmosphere. Reactivity-based standards reduce emissions of 

the most photochemically reactive compounds. 

Alternative market-based mechanisms would also be explored to encourage the 

development, distribution, and purchase of cleaner, very low, or zero VOC emitting 

products. Examples of mechanisms to explore are an environmental product labeling 

program, programs where companies set their own emission reduction goals, and the 

use of print and broadcast media for public education. If these mechanisms cannot 

produce meaningful emission reductions from the consumer products source category, 

then other approaches would be evaluated. Some of these other approaches include 

the purchase of VOC emission reduction credits; and funding of special projects to 

reduce emissions or accelerate reductions from pollution sources outside of the 

consumer products industry. 

e. Future State Implementation Plans 

Up-to-date information on SIP activities can be found on ARB’s website at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm. ARB staff proposes to revise the 2007 SIP 

as may be appropriate in a 2010 mid-course review SIP update to: reflect the emission 

benefits of newly adopted regulations; provide more detail on the State's intended 

actions to fulfill the commitment to achieve emission reductions in total by specific 

dates; update as necessary the emissions inventories for federal ozone and PM2.5 nonattainment areas; and revise as necessary other plan aspects, including motor vehicle 

emissions budgets. The 2010 mid-course review may show the need for additional 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 7 

emission reductions from consumer products. 

 

On March 12, 2008, U.S. EPA reduced the eight-hour “primary” ozone standard to a 

level of 0.075 ppm. U.S. EPA also strengthened the secondary eight-hour ozone 

standard to the level of 0.075 ppm, making it identical to the revised primary standard. 

The final rule became effective on May 27, 2008. These changes will require that new 

SIPs be drafted. A complete new state strategy will be developed for 2013. The 2013 

SIP will likely require more VOC reductions from consumer products. 

3. Consumer Products and the California Global Warming Solutions Act 

of 2006 (AB 32)

Various consumer products may contain GHGs in their formulations. Most often these 

GHGs are propellants such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and carbon dioxide (CO2). 

To a lesser extent some GHGs are used as solvents. 

As mentioned earlier, AB 32 requires immediate progress, described as Discrete Early 

Action Measures. ARB was required to identify measures and adopt regulations to 

reduce GHG emissions, that would be enforceable by January 1, 2010. ARB has since 

approved those early measures and incorporated them into California’s Climate Change 

Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) that was approved by the Board in December 2008. 

Reduction of compounds with high global warming potential (GWP) used in consumer 

products was designated a Discrete Early Action Measure. Therefore, as an approved 

measure, ARB staff has committed to eliminate or reduce the use of GHG compounds 

with high GWP that are used in consumer products. 

The GHG emission reduction from consumer products is estimated to be 0.25 million 

metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalents or more, if feasible. The amendments

approved at the June 26, 2008, Board hearing will provide about 0.23 million metric tons 

of CO2 equivalents per year toward meeting the estimated feasible reduction target. In 

this rulemaking, we are proposing GWP limits as mitigation measures to ensure that 

GHG emission do not increase. These measures will not provide additional GHG 

reductions. However, from information we have gathered from consumer product 

surveys, we are currently evaluating whether GHG emission reductions from other 

consumer product categories are feasible. Based on this evaluation, staff may propose 

additional GHG reduction measures in future rulemakings. 

 

4. National Consumer Products Regulations

On September 11, 1998, U.S. EPA promulgated a national consumer products 

regulation, the “National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer 

Products (40 CFR Part 59, Subpart C, Sections 59.201 et seq.).” This action set 

national VOC emission standards for 24 categories of consumer products. The 

regulation became effective on September 11, 1998, and the VOC limits became 

effective on December 10, 1998. There are similarities and differences between the 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 8 

California and national consumer products regulations; however, the national regulation 

does not preclude states from adopting more stringent regulations. 

In 2006, U.S. EPA began work on amendments to their existing national consumer 

products regulation. Their amendments are based on California’s 

CONS-1 (2004 Consumer Products Regulation Amendments) categories and limits. 

The amendments are expected to become effective in 2009, with a compliance date of 

January 2010. 

U.S. EPA has also recently promulgated a national regulation for aerosol coatings 

(spray paints) based on ARB’s Aerosol Coatings Regulation. This is a reactivity-based 

regulation. The national aerosol coatings regulation was promulgated on 

March 24, 2008. The compliance date is currently being amended to July 1, 2009, 

(U.S. EPA, 2008). 

The national consumer products regulation is similar in many aspects to the California 

regulation. However, even after the federal 2009 amendments become effective; it will 

still be less effective in reducing VOC emissions from consumer products. The national 

regulation does not regulate a number of product categories that are currently regulated 

under the ARB regulation. For the categories that are regulated under both regulations, 

many of ARB’s limits are more stringent than the federal limits. Therefore, ARB’s 

consumer products regulations have achieved significant additional reductions over 

those that would be achieved by federal regulation alone. 

The federal regulation also does not prohibit the use of certain toxic air contaminants. 

The California Consumer Products Regulation already includes prohibitions on the use 

of certain toxic air contaminants in 70 categories, including the amendments approved 

at the June 26, 2008, Board hearing, resulting in a reduction of toxic compound 

emissions of over 13 tons per day. 

Because California has unique air quality problems, reducing VOC emissions from all 

categories, including consumer products, to the maximum extent feasible, is necessary 

to attain the federal and State ambient air quality standards for ozone. 

As of the date of this staff report, there are no national consumer products regulations 

related to reducing GHG emissions. 
Technical Support Document Chapter I - 9 

REFERENCES

1. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking 

Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation. 

May 9, 2008. (ARB, 2008e) 

2. Air Resources Board. Technical and Clarifying Modifications to

April 26, 2007 Revised Draft Air Resources Board’s State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 Implementation Plan. Released April 26, 2007. Adopted by the 

Air Resources Board on September 27, 2007. (ARB, 2007d) 

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings 

Regulation. September 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006a) 

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresheners 

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

5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Volatile Organic 

Compound Emission Standards for Aerosol Coatings; Direct Final Rule. (40 CFR 

Parts 51 and 59) Federal Register: March 24, 2008. Volume 73. Number 57. 

(U.S. EPA, 2008) 

6. United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone; Final Rule. Federal Register: July 18, 1997. 

Volume 62. Number 138: 38855-38896. (U.S. EPA, 1997) 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 10 

II. DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

This chapter contains a description of the public process used to develop the proposed 

amendments. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Government Code 

section 11340 et seq.) requires that development of regulations must allow for public 

input. This chapter also describes our evaluation of emission reduction opportunities, 

and alternatives to the final proposal that were considered. 

A. PUBLIC PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING PROPOSED LIMITS 

In order to involve the public, the Consumer Products Regulation Workgroup (CPRWG), 

was reconvened in 2004. Participation in the CPRWG was, and continues to be open to 

any member of the public. The CPRWG participated in the development of the 2006 

Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2006 Survey), which serves as the basis 

for portions of this proposal (ARB, 2007f). The CPRWG was also involved in the 

development of these proposed amendments. 

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

stakeholders in the development of the proposed paint thinner and multi-purpose 

solvent amendments. As part of the process, in November 2008, ARB conducted a 

survey update for the Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent categories 

(ARB, 2008f). The intent of the survey update was to obtain sales data for the 

12-month period starting from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The 

survey was conducted in response to comments from stakeholders that indicated the 

market for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners had changed since our 2003 

Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

Consumer product manufacturers, chemical producers, marketers, trade associations, 

consultants, and various other stakeholders listed below, have actively participated in 

the process. 

• American Chemistry Council 

• Coalition for Clean Air

• Consumer Specialty Products Association 

• Environmental Working Group 

• Institute for Research and Technical Assistance 

• National Aerosol Association 

• National Paint and Coatings Association 

• Office of the State Fire Marshal 

• Western Aerosol Information Bureau 

Representatives from local air districts and agencies, including the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District and the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

were also involved in the process. 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 11 

ARB staff maintains a mailing list of over 5,000 companies and interested parties, 

including environmental and community organizations, which received information 

throughout the development of the proposed amendments. We have established an 

electronic list serve for ARB’s Consumer Products Program, which has over 

1,300 subscribers, to allow subscribers to receive timely, pertinent information. We also 

have a consumer products program public website with a webpage for the 2009 

Consumer Products Regulatory Work Group Activity. 

An initial public meeting was held in August of 2008 to announce to interested parties 

ARB’s intent to regulate the products affected by this proposal. On March 30, 2009, 

staff posted draft volatile organic compound (VOC) limits and definitions for the 

categories proposed for regulation to the website. The data and proposals were 

discussed at a public workshop on April 1, 2009. At the meeting, staff discussed the 

draft regulatory categories, proposed limits, and the rulemaking timeline. The meeting 

served as a forum for stakeholder comments on the proposals and schedule. A second 

public workshop for this rulemaking is scheduled for early August 2009 to seek further 

input on the staff’s proposal. 

To solicit additional information and comments, numerous individual meetings and 

teleconferences were held with stakeholders. At several of these meetings, which were 

requested by industry associations, interested parties presented technical information 

related to reformulation of products. We also reviewed survey data, and researched 

technical literature, patents, and trade journals during the development of this proposal. 

B. STAFF EVALUATION OF EMISSION REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES 

Development of the proposed amendments began with review of the data submitted for 

the categories proposed for regulation. These data were reported as part of the 2006 

Survey and the 2008 Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update 

(Survey Update). Over 570 companies responded to the surveys with information on 

over 12,000 products (ARB, 2007f). The 2006 Survey was designed to obtain the 

comprehensive information necessary to develop new consumer product emission 

standards that together would achieve a minimum VOC emission reduction of 30 to 40 

tons per day by 2014, and GHG emission reductions equivalent to reducing an 

estimated 0.25 million metric tons of CO2 (MMT CO2e) by 2020. The Survey Update 

was designed to obtain sales data for the 12 month period starting from 

October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. 

In addition to the survey data and staff’s research, the proposal also considered 

technical information provided by interested parties. During the workgroup and 

workshop process, we presented specific proposals and alternatives to the public for 

consideration. Modifications were made to the original proposal after consideration and 

evaluation of comments. 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 12 

C. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

Government Code section 11346.2 requires ARB to consider and evaluate reasonable 

alternatives to the proposed regulation and provide reasons for rejecting those 

alternatives. We identified three alternative approaches to the current proposal: “No 

Action,” “Set Different Limits,” and “Set Limits for Different Categories.” 

 1. Alternative One – No Action

A “No Action” alternative would be to forego adopting the proposed amendments, or 

delay adoption of the proposed measures. The “No Action” alternative would result in 

failing to make progress toward meeting our SIP commitments (see Chapter I, 

Introduction). In the case of not meeting the SIP commitments, there is a potential for 

loss of federal funds. The citizens of California would not benefit from the improved air 

quality that would result from the reduction of emissions being proposed. This 

alternative would have no cost to business. 

2. Alternative Two – Set Different Limits

As was discussed in section B above, we thoroughly evaluated each category for which 

a limit is proposed. Limits were proposed based on low emitting technologies reported 

in the 2006 Survey and Survey Update. Stakeholders provided additional information 

pertinent to the categories and, in some cases, proposed alternative limits. We 

evaluated all comments and determined the most feasible limit and effective dates from 

all of the alternatives proposed or considered. The final proposal contains limits that 

were determined to obtain the maximum feasible reduction, were commercially and 

technologically feasible, preserved product forms (as required by Health and Safety 

Code Section 41712), and together achieved the necessary emission reductions to 

partially fulfill ARB’s SIP commitments. 

3. Alternative Three – Set Different Effective Dates

For the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner categories, a specific alternative we 

analyzed was to propose the same VOC limits and time frames that the SCAQMD 

approved in March 2009 under Rule 1143, Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-purpose 

Solvents. Rule 1143 contains two tiers of VOC limits, virtually equivalent to our 

proposed limits. However, the effective dates are significantly different; Rule 1143 

being January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2011 for the first and second tier VOC limits 

respectively, while our proposed effective dates are December 31, 2010 and 

December 31, 2013. In our proposal, we are providing one additional year for 

manufacturers to meet the first tier limit simply due to the time necessary for State 

regulations to become legally effective, per State law, compared to the shortened time 

frame for local air district rules to become legally effective. 

For the second tier limit, we believe it has not been demonstrated that products meeting 

the 3 percent VOC limit will function as paint thinners for all solvent-borne coatings 
Technical Support Document Chapter II - 13 

available in commerce. While we are encouraged about the future viability of low VOC 

thinners, such as soy based products, it has not yet been demonstrated that they are 

ready for introduction into the market. There is still a need for paint thinners that are 

compatible with solvent-borne coatings, for a period of time, in areas of the State other 

than SCAQMD because SCAQMD has more stringent VOC coating limits than many 

other areas of the state. Therefore, we determined it was appropriate that the second 

tier, 3 percent VOC limit be effective December 31, 2013, giving manufacturers ample 

time to develop low VOC thinners that are compatible with solvent-borne coatings. 

Additionally, the second tier limit could lead to an increase in sales of extremely 

flammable products, such as acetone. An acetone-based product labeled “Paint 

Thinner,” will be formulated differently than the former “Paint Thinner” product and will 

behave differently than what the household consumer is used to. Without enough lead 

time for manufacturers, we are concerned that acetone products will be the most likely 

of a limited number of known pathways to compliance. To allow ample time for 

development of less flammable, and/or less costly alternatives, we are proposing an 

effective date of December 31, 2013 for the 3 percent VOC limit. 

4. Alternative Four – Set Limits for Different Categories

The proposed categories, for this current action, include three categories that were 

deferred during the June 2008 Amendments to the California Consumer Products 

Regulation, because at the time, staff could not set limits and demonstrate that the limits 

were commercially or technologically feasible without further investigation. 

For this current action, staff is proposing new or lower VOC limits for three categories 

that would achieve the maximum feasible reductions, and partially fulfill ARB’s SIP 

commitments. It should be noted that ARB has already set 174 VOC limits which, when 

fully effective, will have resulted in reducing emissions by about 200 tons per day, an 

overall 44 percent reduction in VOC emissions from consumer products. Additional 

product categories surveyed in the 2006 Survey will be evaluated for future regulatory 

action. 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update. 

November 4, 2008. (ARB, 2008f) 

2. Air Resources Board. 2006 Consumer & Commercial Products Survey. 

 July 24, 2007. (ARB, 2007f) 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 14 

III. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR EMISSION REDUCTIONS

In this chapter, we describe State law requirements related to setting volatile organic 

compound (VOC) limits, and how our proposals meet these criteria. We also provide 

information related to the number of complying products and the marketshare they hold, 

which indicates that the limits are commercially and technologically feasible within the 

timeframes provided. 

A. VOC REDUCTIONS 

Health and Safety Code section 41712 gives ARB authority to control emissions from a 

very diverse number of products sold statewide to household and commercial 

consumers. By law, “Consumer Product" means a chemically formulated product used 

by household and institutional consumers, including, but not limited to, detergents; 

cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, 

lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive 

specialty products; but does not include other paint products, furniture coatings, or 

architectural coatings. 

Section 41712 requires the Board to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible 

reduction in VOCs emitted by consumer products after making certain determinations. 

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

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

and the regulations are commercially and technologically feasible, and necessary. 

Amendments to section 41712 in 1996 specified that regulations adopted by the Board 

cannot result in the elimination of a product form. Product form refers to the shape 

and/or structure of the product such as liquid; solid; powder; gel; crystal; aerosol; or 

pump spray. 

The Board must consider the effect that the limits or requirements proposed for health 

benefit products will have on the efficacy of those products in killing or inactivating 

agents of infectious diseases such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi. In this regard, the 

Board must consult with health professionals when developing VOC control measures 

for health benefit products. 

The Board must also meet its obligations under the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

ARB’s SIP commitments are described in both the Executive Summary and in 

Chapter I. 

Related to VOC reductions, Chapter IV describes why the proposed amendments are 

necessary to attain ambient air quality standards, and why the data are adequate to 

adopt the proposed limits. Our focus in this chapter is on why the proposed VOC limits 

are commercially and technologically feasible. During the early development of 

consumer product regulations, guidelines were established to ensure that these 

statutory criteria were met when setting limits. These guidelines and statutory criteria 

were followed in developing the proposed amendments. Section C, below, describes 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 15 

the terms “technologically feasible” and “commercially feasible,” as they relate to VOC 

reductions. 

B. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS 

Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) was signed into law in 2006. It is codified in Health and 

Safety Code section 38500 et. seq. These sections require ARB to develop regulations 

and consider market mechanisms that will ultimately reduce California’s greenhouse 

gas emissions equivalent to the 1990 levels by 2020. It required ARB to identify a list of 

“discrete early action greenhouse gas reduction measures” by June 30, 2007. Once on 

the list, these measures are to be developed into regulatory proposals, adopted by the 

Board, and made legally enforceable (approved by Office of Administrative Law) by 

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

products was designated as one of these measures, and became part of the State’s 

comprehensive strategy when the Board approved the Scoping Plan on 

December 12, 2008. 

 

In accordance with section 38562, certain criteria are to be met in developing 

regulations to meet GHG reduction goals. Among other things, the regulations must be 

equitable, minimize costs, and maximize the benefits to California. The GHG 

regulations are also required to be technologically feasible and cost-effective. AB 32 

requires ARB to identify and evaluate emission reduction and mitigation opportunities 

for anthropogenic non-CO2 GHGs such as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFC). 

For this rulemaking, we evaluated the potential use of GHGs as products are 

reformulated to meet the VOC limits. As we found that there existed a possibility that 

high GWP compounds could be used, we are proposing mitigation measures.

C. TECHNOLOGICAL AND COMMERCIAL FEASIBILITY OF VOC LIMITS 

The proposed VOC limits were set based on the lower VOC content technologies 

existing within a product category, or are based on low emitting technology transfer from 

other products. In doing this, staff made sure that the various product forms within each 

category would be preserved. For the categories proposed for regulation, there are 

products on the market which currently comply. Where there is low complying market 

share, lower emission technology exists that can provide a pathway for compliance. 

 1. Technologically Feasible

Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) requires that the Board adopt consumer 

product regulations that are “technologically feasible.” Technological feasibility is a 

different concept than "commercial feasibility," and does not take into account the cost 

of reformulating a product. We believe that a proposed limit is technologically feasible if 

it meets at least one of the following criteria: (1) the limit is already being met by at 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 16 

least one product within the same category, or (2) the limit can reasonably be expected 

to be met in the time frame provided through additional development efforts. 

In setting the proposed VOC limits, an effort was made, wherever possible, to ensure 

that multiple reformulation technologies exist which would allow products to comply. 

Proposed limits were set at VOC levels that staff determined could be met without 

increased use of toxic air contaminants, greenhouse gases, or ozone-depleting 

compounds. General reformulation options include addition of exempt solvents such as 

acetone, use of low vapor pressure (LVP)-VOC solvents, use of VOC exempt 

propellants, increased use of surfactants, and use of inorganic compounds. 

2. Commercially Feasible 

Health and Safety Code section 41712(b) also requires the Board to adopt consumer 

product regulations that are “commercially feasible.” The term “commercially feasible” 

is not defined in State law. In interpreting this term, the staff has utilized the reasoning 

employed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 

interpreting the federal Clean Air Act. In the leading case of International Harvester 

Company v. Ruckelshaus, (D.C. Cir. 1973) 478 F. 2d 615, the Court held that the 

U.S. EPA could promulgate technology-forcing motor vehicle emission limits which 

might result in fewer models and a more limited choice of engine types for consumers, 

as long as the basic market demand for new passenger automobiles could be generally 

met. 

Following this reasoning, we have concluded that a regulation is “commercially feasible” 

as long as the “basic market demand” for a particular consumer product can be met. 

“Basic market demand” is the underlying need of consumers for a product to fulfill a 

basic, necessary function. This must be distinguished from consumer “preference,” 

which may be towards specific attributes of a particular product. A “preference” is the 

choice of consumers for a certain product or products based upon fragrance, cost, 

texture, etc. 

By way of example, a consumer has a basic market demand for a glass cleaner to 

remove soils, grease, dirt or grime from their windows. Glass cleaners may be 

formulated with glycol ether solvents or with ammonia. Consumers may choose an 

ammoniated glass cleaner because they prefer the performance characteristics, or they 

may choose a non-ammoniated glass cleaner because they dislike the smell of 

ammonia. This distinction is not recognized by all parties. Some stakeholders have 

expressed the view that consumers do not have a “basic market demand” for a general 

class of products, but that consumers instead have a number of separate and distinct 

“basic market demands” for many specialty products with differing characteristics. 

ARB staff believes the consumer “preference” interpretation of “basic market demand” is 

inconsistent with the reasoning from the International Harvester case. To adopt such a 

narrow interpretation would be inconsistent with the clearly expressed legislative intent 

that “...the State board shall adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 17 

reduction in reactive organic compounds emitted by consumer products...” (Health and 

Safety Code section 41712(a)). In order to achieve emission reductions, manufacturers 

of high VOC products which perform the same basic function as lower VOC 

counterparts must reduce the amount of VOCs in their products. It is expected that 

when a product’s formulation changes, some attributes of the product will also change. 

If ARB were to establish limits which accounted for every distinct feature of every 

product, then each product would require a limit unto itself. Using this approach, it 

would be impossible to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in VOC emissions. 

Most currently marketed products have some unique features that differentiate them 

from other products. Consumers who purchase a product have demonstrated a 

preference over other competing products. This distinction between “preference” and 

“basic market demand” was clearly made in the International Harvester case. In the 

International Harvester case, the court stated that the proposed emission limits would 

be feasible even though they may result in the unavailability of certain kinds of vehicles 

and engine types people preferred, as long as the basic market demand for passenger 

cars could be generally met. Applying this principle to consumer products, the 

proposed amendments allow the basic market demand to be met for each product 

category, even though it may no longer be possible to manufacture products with some 

specific attributes. ARB staff believes that this approach complies with Health and 

Safety Code section 41712. 

D. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

Manufacturers have the flexibility to choose from a variety of formulation options to meet 

the applicable limits (see Chapter VI). To comply with VOC limits, VOC solvents or 

propellants may need to be replaced, or partially replaced, with VOC exempt 

ingredients. This may require using acetone or another exempt solvent, increasing 

product solids, or formulating with a VOC exempt propellant. Manufacturers may also 

need to change the valve, container, delivery system, or the other components of the 

consumer product depending on the individual formulation. 

To meet the VOC limit for Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, the most 

straightforward reformulation pathway for manufacturers of non-complying products is to 

replace some of the hydrocarbon propellant with water. Although another reformulation 

option is to use VOC exempt propellants such as HFC-152a or HFC-134a. The 

likelihood of this reformulation choice is minimal because of the increased cost of these 

propellants. However, we are proposing a GWP limit of 150 for the category to ensure 

that incremental use of high GWP propellants are not used in reformulations to meet the 

VOC limit. ARB staff has proposed VOC limits that can be met without a significant 

increase in the use of Toxic Air Contaminants or greenhouse gases. We believe that 

products can and will be reformulated primarily through reduction in the amount of 

hydrocarbon propellant with possibly some modification or adjustments to the 

surfactants and/or the valve/spray nozzle. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 18 

To meet the proposed Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner first tier VOC limit, the 

most likely “reformulation” pathway is product substitution (i.e. increasing the sales of 

existing complying products and discontinuing sale of non-complying products). To 

meet the proposed second tier Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner VOC limits, 

reformulation options for manufacturers of non-complying products include, in addition 

to product substitution, developing water-based formulations. We believe that products 

can and will be reformulated through reduction or replacement of VOC solvents with 

VOC exempt ingredients, such as LVP-methyl esters, or water emulsion technology. 

Possible reformulation options could also include chlorinated toxic compounds, and 

compounds that could compromise the predicted ozone benefits of the limits. However, 

because these formulation options are not necessary, and the proposal includes 

specific prohibitions to prevent them, products can not be reformulated using these 

options and possible adverse impacts will be prevented. 

Table III-1 summarizes, for the proposed VOC limits, data related to the complying 

market shares (based on sales), as well as the number of products or product groups 

that currently comply relative to total number of products reported. 

Table III-1 

Summary of Complying Products and Complying Marketshares

Product Category 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt%) 

Number of 

Complying 

Products/Total 

Complying 

Market Share 

(%) 

Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener Aerosol 20 <10 / 60 <1 

Multi-purpose Solvent & Tier 1: 30 18 / 165 11.3 

Paint Thinner Non-aerosol Tier 2: 3 15 / 165 11.2 

Source: 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey and 2008 Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent

Survey Update. 

Table III-1 shows that the complying marketshares range from less than 1 percent to 

11.3 percent. Based on these complying marketshares and the number of complying 

products, we believe the proposed VOC limits, although challenging, are commercially 

and technologically feasible within the timeframes proposed. It should be noted that 

there are currently a few Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, with 

significant market presence, formulated slightly above 30 percent VOC by weight. 

These products will only need a modest reformulation to comply with the proposed 

30 percent standard. The complying marketshare in Table III-1, for the first tier limit for 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner, would be significantly higher if these products 

already complied with the proposed 30 percent VOC limit. 

Manufacturers can also comply with the proposed amendments through the use of the 

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

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

Regulation if they demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that their product 

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

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

characteristic of the product formulation, design, delivery system, or other factors. 
Technical Support Document Chapter III - 19 

The ACP allows manufacturers to average the emissions from products above and 

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

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

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

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

other information necessary to track overall emissions. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 20 

IV. EMISSIONS

California’s extreme air quality problems require unique strategies for improving air 

quality and slowing climate change. In this chapter, we provide an overview of criteria 

pollutant air quality and climate change problems which are germane to the regulation 

of consumer products. We also describe the need for significant emission reductions 

from all sources contributing to these problems. This chapter includes a description of 

the need for the regulation of consumer products and provides a summary of the 

emissions from the categories proposed for regulation. For a detailed summary of the 

product categories, the reader is referred to Chapter VI. 

A. CRITERIA POLLUTANTS, AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, CLIMATE 

CHANGE, AND TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS 

Federal and state ambient air quality standards have been established to protect 

California’s population from the harmful effects of ozone and particulate matter (PM). 

An ambient air quality standard sets legal limits on the level of an air pollutant in the 

outdoor (ambient) air necessary to protect public health. Both ARB and U.S. EPA are 

authorized to set standards. Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions 

Act of 2006 (AB 32), was signed into law by the Governor in September 2006 to 

address climate change. 

Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from consumer products contribute to the 

formation of both ozone and fine PM. Other sources of VOCs include emissions from 

fuel combustion, coatings and paints. PM pollution is the result of both direct and 

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

wind erosion of soil. Indirect PM emissions result from the chemical reaction of VOCs, 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides, and other chemicals in the atmosphere. While 

carbon dioxide (CO2) is the greenhouse gas (GHG) emitted in the largest quantity, other 

significant GHGs include, but are not limited to, methane, nitrous oxide, and 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Related to the role of consumer products, HFCs are the 

primary source of GHG emissions. To a lesser extent hydrochlorofluorocarbons 

(HCFC), and hydrofluoroethers (HFE) play a role. 

 1. Ozone 

Ozone formation in the lower atmosphere results from a series of chemical reactions 

between VOCs and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. The rate of ozone 

generation is related closely to both the amount and reactivity of VOC emissions as well 

as the amount of NOx emissions available in the atmosphere (Seinfeld and Pandis, 

1998). Ozone is a colorless gas and the chief component of urban smog. It is one of 

the State’s more persistent air quality problems. Ninety-three percent of Californians, or 

36 million people, live in areas designated as non-attainment for the federal eight-hour 

ozone standard. California experienced 41 percent of the total national ozone 

exposure, based on analysis of population exposure conducted by ARB staff for the 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 21 

years 2000 through 2002 (ARB, 2006b). California occupies the top five spots and has 

six out of the top ten areas with the highest levels of ozone (2004 design values). 

It has been well documented that ozone adversely affects the respiratory function of 

humans and animals. Research has shown that, when inhaled, ozone can cause 

respiratory problems, aggravate asthma, impair the immune system, and cause 

increased risk of premature death. Human health studies show that short-term 

exposure to ozone injures the lung (ARB, 2008e). In some animal studies, permanent 

structural changes with long-term exposures to ozone concentrations considerably 

above ambient were seen; these changes remain even after periods of exposure to 

clean air (U.S. EPA, 2006). Exposure to levels of ozone above the current ambient air 

quality standard can lead to lung inflammation, lung tissue damage, and a reduction in 

the amount of air inhaled into the lungs. 

Ozone is a strong irritant that can cause constriction of the muscle cells in the airways 

that result in symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and 

increased asthma symptoms (ARB, 2008e). Recent evidence suggests that ozone may 

be linked to the onset of new asthma in very active children (McConnell et al., 2002). 

Ozone has also been associated with premature death. Based on 2004 - 2006 data, 

premature deaths from ozone exposure in California are estimated at 590. Ozone in 

sufficient doses can also increase the permeability of lung cells, rendering them more 

susceptible to toxins and microorganisms. Other health effects associated with ozone 

exposure include hospitalizations and school absences. Of course, the greatest risk 

from ozone exposure is to those who are active outdoors during smoggy periods, such 

as children, athletes, and outdoor workers. 

Not only does ozone adversely affect human and animal health, but it also affects 

vegetation, resulting in reduced yield and quality in agricultural crops, disfiguration or 

unsatisfactory growth in ornamental vegetation, and damage to native plants. During 

the summer, ozone levels are often highest in the urban centers in Southern California, 

the San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento Valley, which are adjacent to the principal 

production areas in the State’s multibillion-dollar agricultural industry (USDA, 2006). 

ARB studies indicate that ozone pollution damage to crops is estimated to cost 

agriculture over $500 million dollars annually (ARB, 1987; ARB, 2006b). 

 2. Fine Particulate Matter 

Particulate matter (PM) is a complex mixture of tiny particles that may consist of dry 

solid fragments, solid cores with liquid coatings, and small droplets of liquid. These 

particles vary greatly in shape, size and chemical composition, and can be made up of 

many different materials such as metals, soot, soil, and dust. As described above, PM 

can be directly emitted from sources, such as diesel PM, or can be produced indirectly 

from sources which emit precursors that are converted to PM by atmospheric 

processes. Particles ten micrometers or less in diameter are defined as "respirable 

particulate matter" or "PM10.” PM10 and particles 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter 

(PM2.5) can be inhaled deep into the lungs. PM2.5 contributes significantly to regional 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 22 

haze and reduction of visibility in California. Besides reducing visibility, the acidic 

portion of PM (nitrates, sulfates) can harm crops, forests, aquatic and other ecosystems 

(ARB, 2002). 

Considerable epidemiologic research over the past 15 years has investigated the 

responses of humans to PM. The principal health effects of PM exposure are 

summarized below: 

• Many studies have consistently found statistical associations between PM2.5 and 

premature death with both long-term (Pope et al., 2004; Pope et al., 2002; 

Krewski et al., 2000; Laden et al., 2006) and daily exposures (e.g., Dominici et 

al., 2005; Dominici et al., 2003; Laden et al., 2000). The association with 

premature mortality is considerably stronger for annual average PM2.5 exposure 

than for daily average PM2.5. That is, long-term exposure appears to pose a 

greater risk of death than short-term exposure. 

• A recent study suggests that long-term exposure to PM2.5 may influence the risk 

of adverse cardiovascular events in women (Miller et al., 2007), including 

hospitalization or death from heart attack or stroke. 

• Daily exposure to PM2.5 has been associated with hospitalization for heart and 

lung related causes (Moolgavkar, 2003; Zanobetti et al., 2003). Others have 

found that exposure to PM2.5 resulted in increased emergency room visits, 

exacerbation of asthma, and other respiratory diseases (Peel et al., 2005; 

Sheppard et al., 2003). Other research indicates that exposure to PM2.5 leads to 

increased asthma medication usage (Gent et al., 2003), and increased asthma 

symptoms (e.g., Delfino et al., 2002; Whittemore and Korn, 1980). Exposure to 

PM2.5 has also been associated with an increase in the loss of work days (Ostro 

et al., 1993; Ostro et al., 1989). 

• Older adults with pre-existing chronic heart or lung disease are at greatest risk of 

experiencing adverse effects related to PM2.5 exposure (Moolgavkar, 2003; 

Dominici et al., 2006; Symons et al., 2006). 

There is some evidence that particulate matter and ozone may have greater effects in 

children than in adults. This may be because they inhale more PM2.5 and ozone per 

pound of body weight than do adults, and because they breathe more rapidly than 

adults. Adverse effects reported in children include reduced lung function and reduced 

lung growth in higher pollution areas (Gauderman et al., 2004; Gauderman et al., 2002; 

Gauderman et al., 2000) that may at least partially reverse if the child moves to an area 

with cleaner air (Avol et al., 2001); increased asthma and bronchitis symptoms 

(Gauderman et al., 2005; McConnell et al., 1999); increased school absenteeism 

(Gilliland et al., 2001); and increased risk of acquiring asthma for children who engage 

in three or more outdoor sports and live in areas with high ozone concentrations 

(McConnell et al., 2002). 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 23 

 3. Ambient Air Quality Standards 

In April 2005, the Board reviewed California's one-hour peak standard for ozone and 

determined that it alone was not sufficiently protecting public health. Consequently, 

ARB adopted a new eight-hour ozone standard of 0.07 parts per million (ppm) averaged 

over eight hours, while retaining the existing one-hour ozone standard at 0.09 ppm. 

Regarding particulate matter, the Board adopted stricter standards in 2002, which 

include a PM10 annual average standard of 20 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) and 

a new annual average PM2.5 standard of 12 μg/m3. The State PM10 standard for a 

24-hour period remains at 50 μg/m3. The national and State ambient air quality 

standards for ozone and PM are shown in Table IV-1. 

Table IV-1 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 

Pollutant Averaging Time State Standard National Standard

Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm 

(180 μg/m3) 

--------- 

8 hour 0.070 ppm 

(137 μg/m3) 

0.075 ppm* 

( 147 μg/m3) 

PM10

24 hour 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 

50 μg/m3 

20 μg/m3

150 μg/m3 

--------- 

PM2.5

24 hour 

Annual Arithmetic Mean 

--------- 

12 μg/m3

35 μg/m3 

15 μg/m3

 Source: Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards April 1, 2008 (ARB, 2008a). 

 * This standard became effective on March 27, 2008. The 2007 SIP demonstrates attainment with 

 the previous standard of 0.08ppm. 

Table IV-1 reflects the newly revised national eight-hour standard for ozone of 

0.075 ppm, which was promulgated on March 27, 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 shows that California's standards for PM and 

ozone continue to be more heath protective than those at the federal level. 

 

4. Area Designations for California Ambient Air Ozone Standard 

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) of 1988 has the fundamental goal that all areas of 

California are to attain the State ambient air quality standards for ozone by the earliest 

practicable date. As specified in the CCAA, ARB has designated areas of California to 

be in "attainment" or "non-attainment" for the State ozone standards. 

For the year 2007, Figure IV-1 shows the counties designated as non-attainment (or 

non-attainment transitional, which is a subcategory of non-attainment) for the State 

ozone standard. As shown, unhealthy levels of ozone are not limited to urban areas, 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 24 

but can be found in nearly every county in California. This map clearly indicates the 

extent and magnitude of the ozone problem in California. 

Figure IV-1 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 25 

The areas that are non-attainment for the State ozone standards are also nonattainment for the previous 0.08 ppm federal eight-hour ozone standard. The new 

federal non-attainment designations include a number of rural Sierra Nevada foothill 

counties and additional parts of the Sacramento Valley. The federal one-hour standard 

was revoked on June 15, 2005, one year after the effective date of the designations. 

SIPs showing how each non-attainment area would meet the previous 0.08 ppm eighthour ozone standard were submitted in 2007. In order to maintain progress towards 

clean air, the federal Clean Air Act prohibits backsliding on the control program. 

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 between 

1988 and 2008, show an overall steady decline, as seen in Figure IV-2. The average 

maximum 8-hour ozone concentration for the three year period, 2006 to 2008, was over 

41 percent lower than the maximum 8-hour ozone concentration in 1990. Also, the 

number of days above the standards has declined dramatically. The downward trend 

for both the eight-hour and one-hour ozone concentrations is similar (ARB, 2009). 

Figure IV-2 

South Coast Air Basin Ozone Trend 

 Source: ARB 2009 Almanac 

The ozone problem in the San Joaquin Valley ranks among the most severe in the 

State. Looking at ozone air quality from a historical perspective is challenging because 

of the lack of long-term monitors prior to 1990. Furthermore, monitoring did not include 

the sites in the portions of the basin with the worst pollution problems until 1990. For 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 26 

this reason, we are using 1990 as the beginning year to characterize trends. Similar to 

other areas of the state, exceedence days have declined at a faster rate than peak 

levels. From 1990 to 2008, peak levels declined by an average of 10 percent while the 

number of State and national eight-hour standard exceedence days declined by 

17 percent and 21 percent, respectively. Most of this progress has occurred since 

2003. However, the number of exceedence days in 2005 and 2007 were among the 

lowest in this eighteen year period (ARB, 2009). Figure IV-3 shows the ozone trend 

between years 1988 and 2008 for the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. 

Figure IV-3 

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Ozone Trend 

Source: ARB 2009 Almanac 

Despite over 25 years of regulatory efforts and the decline of smog levels in areas such 

as the South Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin Air Basin, ozone continues to be an 

important environmental and health concern in California and more emission reductions 

are necessary. The State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan 

addresses the State measures necessary to meet the previous national ozone standard 

of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. 

5. Area Designations for California Ambient Air PM2.5 Standard 

Figure IV-4 shows the counties designated as non-attainment for the State PM2.5 

standard. As with ozone, unhealthy levels of PM2.5 are not limited to urban areas, but 

can be found in many counties throughout California. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 27 

Figure IV-4 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 28 

Related to the federal PM2.5 standard, in December 2007, ARB submitted nonattainment area recommendations and appropriate boundaries to U.S. EPA, in 

response to the new federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 μg/m3 established on 

December 18, 2006. The non-attainment area recommendations are based on 

2004-2006 PM2.5 air quality monitoring data. ARB recommended that the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD); San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVAPCD); Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Sacramento Metro Air 

Quality Management District; the combined cities of Marysville/Yuba City; the City of 

Chico; and the City of Calexico be designated as non-attainment for the new 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard. Thus, most of the areas shown in Figure IV-4 are also non-attainment 

for the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

The PM2.5 SIP for SCAQMD was approved by the Board in September 2007 and was 

submitted to U.S. EPA in November 2007. The PM2.5 SIP for SJVAPCD was approved 

by the Board in May 2008 and was submitted to U.S. EPA in June 2008. 

6. Climate Change 

Climate change, or global warming, is the process whereby emissions of anthropogenic 

pollutants, together with other naturally-occuring gases, absorb infrared radiation in the 

atmosphere, leading to increases in the overall average global temperature. Changes 

in the atmospheric abundance of GHGs alter the energy balance of the climate system. 

These changes are expressed in terms of radiative forcing. The standard definition of 

“greenhouse gas” includes, but is not limited to, six substances as identified in the Kyoto 

Protocol; carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). 

The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of a compound may reflect a direct effect as well 

as an indirect effect on global warming. The direct effect is the warming due to the 

absorption of radiation by molecules of the compound in question. VOCs, CO2, and 

HFCs all have direct effects. The indirect effect is due to the impact that the presence 

of the compound has on the concentration of other GHGs. For example, VOCs 

contribute indirectly to global warming, because they react chemically in the atmosphere 

to increase GHG 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. 

By convention, the GWP index is defined relative to CO2 which has a GWP of 1. The 

Second Assessment Report (SAR) (IPCC, 1996), defines the GWP of a GHG as the 

ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing impact from an instantaneous release of 1 

kilogram (kg) of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of CO2. The standard units 

of measurement used to express the emissions of a GHG is, million metric tons of CO2 

equivalents (MMT CO2e) per year. 

The GWP values used by ARB are generally the 1996 SAR GWP values (ARB, 2007c). 

These values are used when converting emissions of GHGs to carbon dioxide 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 29 

equivalent values (CO2e). The SAR GWP values are used to be consistent with the 

Board’s Discrete Early Action Report, other statewide and national GHG inventories, 

and ARB’s Scoping Plan. When no SAR GWP value is listed, ARB uses the 2007 

Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) GWP value (IPCC, 2007). 

The climate warming impact from emissions of GHGs is the product of two factors: 

(1) the mass of GHG emitted, and (2) its warming potential. In addition to uncertainty in 

the mass of emissions, there is also uncertainty in attributes of warming potential (as a 

function of direct and indirect warming impacts and the atmospheric lifetime) and thus in 

the assessment of GWP. 

7. Toxic Air Contaminants 

As part of our obligations under CEQA, the ARB staff is required to evaluate and 

mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from regulatory proposals. 

Also, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39650 et seq., the ARB is required to 

identify and control toxic air contaminants (TACs). The Health and Safety Code defines 

a TAC as “...an air pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or 

serious illness, or which may pose a hazard to human health.” Moreover, in accordance 

with section 39666 of the Health and Safety Code, for TACs for which no safe exposure 

threshold has been established, the ARB is required to “.... reduce emissions to the 

lowest level achievable through application of best available control technology or a 

more effective control method....” 

Several chemicals currently used in the consumer product formulations considered for 

regulation have been identified as TACs. An increased or continued use of TACs in any 

of the consumer product categories considered for regulation could lead to a potential 

adverse environmental impact. ARB staff has evaluated this potential and has 

concluded that there would be a potential adverse environmental impact of 

implementing the VOC limits. Therefore, staff is proposing mitigation measures 

designed to ensure that use of TACs will be reduced or prohibited, resulting in a positive 

environmental impact. 

In the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) identified perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride 

(MeCl), and trichloroethylene (TCE) as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) because 

evidence indicated the substances may have adverse effects on human health or the 

environment. 

Staff found that the proposed prohibition on use of Perc, MeCl, and TCE in Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products is necessary to reduce the health risk 

associated with use of these compounds. Staff has identified the potential for increased 

chances of contracting cancer from using products containing these compounds. The 

proposed prohibitions are necessary to mitigate potential adverse impacts that would 

result from implementing VOC limits for these categories. The prohibitions would also 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 30 

align with State law that requires use of BACT in instances where no safe exposure 

threshold is known. 

B. IMPORTANCE OF REGULATING CONSUMER PRODUCTS VOC AND GHG 

EMISSIONS AND TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS 

In Section A above, we described how consumer products’ emissions contribute to the 

formation of ground level ozone and PM2.5 and climate change. In this section, we 

provide information on the importance of regulating VOC and GHG emissions. 

 1. VOC Emissions 

Consumer products are a significant source of VOC emissions in California. This 

section focuses on reducing emissions from consumer products as a ground-level 

ozone control strategy. Although each consumer product may seem to be a small 

source of emissions, the cumulative use of these products by over 38 million 

Californians results in significant emissions (DOF, 2007). Given the severity of the air 

pollution problems in California, further dramatic emission reductions from all sources 

contributing to ground-level ozone are necessary. 

As evidence of the magnitude of consumer product VOC emissions, it is estimated that 

in 2010 consumer products emissions will be approximately 255 tons per day, or about 

12 percent of the overall statewide VOC inventory. In this same year, consumer 

product emissions will comprise about 19 and 7 percent of VOC emissions in SCAQMD 

and SJVAPCD, respectively. Without further actions, consumer product emissions are 

expected to grow to approximately 283 tons per day in 2020, representing 14 percent of 

statewide VOC emissions (ARB, 2007h). 

As control measures for other VOC sources (i.e. mobile sources) become effective, 

consumer product emissions become more important in the SCAQMD. It is estimated 

that emissions from consumer products will be the largest source of VOC emissions in 

the SCAQMD in 2020. However, using the maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) scale 

(see Title 17, CCR section 94700-94701) as the basis for comparison of ozone forming 

potential, consumer product emissions are over two times less reactive than are 

emissions from on-road motor vehicles. Regardless of the ozone-forming potential of 

various source categories, clearly, further reductions in VOC emissions from consumer 

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

maintained. 

Despite these projections, ARB’s consumer products program has made significant 

progress. Since 1989, regulations adopted by the ARB, along with numerous 

amendments to the regulations, have substantially reduced VOC emissions from 

consumer products. Absent these regulations today, consumer product emissions 

would likely be about 450 tons per day. Figure IV-5 shows that statewide consumer 

product VOC emissions have been reduced by over 200 tons per day in 2010. 

However, Figure IV-5 also shows that without further actions population growth would 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 31 

likely reverse the trend. 

Figure IV-5

 Consumer Products VOC Emission Trends

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

525

19901992

19941996

199820002002

20042006

20082010

2012

20142016

20182020

Year

Emissions (tpd)

Emissions (with population growth only)

Emissions (with population growth and emission reductions)

The emission values in Figure IV-5 are derived from several data sources. 

The 1990 to 2007 emissions are taken from the ARB Forecasted Emissions by 

Summary Category, 2008 Almanac (ARB 2008c). Emissions are then grown in 

proportion to expected population increase. Population growth is in accordance with 

estimates in the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewide 

Human Population Table found in the Population and Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 

2008d). For categories regulated in the 2008 Consumer Products Regulation 

Amendments, emission values from the 2003 Survey and the projected emissions 

reductions resulting from the VOC limits approved by the Board at its June 2008, 

hearing, are reflected in Figure IV-5. 

As shown in Figure IV-5, the important emission reductions that have been realized 

from the ARB’s Consumer Products Program are beginning to be partially offset by 

population growth. California’s population is expected to grow to 40 million by 2010 

(DOF, 2007). Therefore, ARB must continue its commitment to pursue additional 

technologically and commercially feasible reductions in consumer products emissions. 

As was described in Chapter I, the Health and Safety Code, as well as SIPs, set forth 

requirements to control emissions. To meet the federal standards, emission reductions 

from consumer products became part of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

for ozone in 1994. In this SIP, consumer products measures were put in place to work 

200 tpd 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 32 

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

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

emissions to meet the one-hour federal ozone standard. 

In response to these mandates, adopted limits will achieve a 44 percent reduction in 

overall VOC emissions from consumer products by the year 2010. Despite these 

reductions, more are necessary to attain the federal ozone standard. 

In 2007, a new SIP was adopted. This State Strategy for California’s 2007 State 

Implementation Plan (Strategy) includes California’s plan to attain the federal ozone 

standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours. The consumer products commitment 

in this strategy supplements the 1994 and 2003 commitments. In the Strategy, ARB 

has committed to an additional 30 to 40 tons per day VOC emissions reduction from 

consumer products by 2014. 

Because significant further VOC emissions reductions are necessary to attain the 

federal ozone standard, the reductions from the amendments proposed in this report 

are therefore “necessary” within the meaning of section 41712 of the Health and Safety 

Code. In addition, section 41712(b)(1) of the Health and Safety Code provides that a 

regulation’s “necessity” is to be evaluated in terms of both the State and federal 

standards. 

The applicable State and federal laws show that both the U.S. Congress and the 

California Legislature intended progress toward clean air be made as quickly as 

possible. The CCAA specifically declares that it is the intent of the Legislature that the 

State air quality standards be achieved “...by the earliest practicable date...” (See Health 

and Safety Code, sections 40910 and 40913(a); see also the uncodified section 1(b)(2) 

of the Act (Stats. 1988, Chapter 1568)). A similar intent is expressed in the federal 

Clean Air Act, which declares that the federal air quality standards are to be achieved 

“...as expeditiously as practicable...” (See sections 172(a)(2), 181(a), and 188(c) of the 

federal Clean Air Act). For all of the reasons described above, the proposed 

amendments are “necessary” within the meaning of section 41712 of the Health and 

Safety Code. 

The amendments proposed in this rulemaking are the second increment toward fulfilling 

the 2007 Strategy commitment for VOC reductions from consumer products. 

 2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

We acknowledge that the GHG emissions contribution of consumer products is modest 

relative to other sources, such as vehicle exhaust. However, the severe consequences 

of climate change requires reductions from any source where it is feasible. While staff 

is still in the process of developing the consumer product GHG inventory, we do know 

from past surveys that several GHGs are used in consumer products. For categories 

proposed for regulation, no GHGs of concern were reported. However, several GHG 

could be used as products reformulate. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 33 

GHG propellants and several solvents with fairly high GWPs could be used to meet the 

proposed VOC limits. These compounds are typically low photochemically reactive 

compounds that are VOC exempt and have been used as a reformulation strategy to 

reduce VOC content in other categories. Compounds of interest include 

HFCs, HCFCs, HFEs, CO2, and N2O. However, the propellants HFC-134a and 

HFC-152a are the predominate GHGs used in consumer products today. In instances 

where flammability is a concern, HFC-134a is used. HFC-134a is a non-flammable 

propellant, whereas HFC-152a is minimally flammable. Compressed CO2 is also used 

as a propellant, but the GHG emissions are negligible compared to the emissions from 

HFCs. Table IV-2 shows some examples of GHGs that are used in consumer products. 

Table IV-2 

Global Warming Potential of Selected Compounds Used in Consumer Products 

Compound SAR GWP* FAR GWP** 

CO2 1 1 

HFE-7200 N/A 59 

HFC-152a 140 124 

HCFC-141b N/A 725 

HFC-134a 1300 1430 

HFC-43 10mee 1300 1640 

* 100 year timeframe, SAR value 

** 100 year timeframe, FAR value 

As shown in Table IV-2, HFC-152a has a GWP of 140, while HFC-134a has a 

GWP of 1300. The value for HFC-134a is approximately ten times greater than the 

GWP of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than CO2. 

GHG emissions data are available from the 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products 

Survey (2006 Survey). In the 2006 Survey, we surveyed manufacturers of consumer 

products to determine the usage of compounds with high GWP in several categories of 

consumer products. The 2006 Survey will be used to develop the GHG inventory for 

consumer products. We will evaluate the survey data for product categories where 

compounds with high GWP are used to determine if there is a potential to reduce them 

without increasing the use of VOCs. Additionally, we will identify product categories 

where the pathway to reformulation may increase the use of high GWP compounds and 

set GWP limits as a mitigation measure. 

To minimize climate change impacts, we are proposing to prohibit the use of 

compounds with a GWP of 150 or higher. 

 3. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, ARB is required to identify and mitigate 

any possible significant adverse environmental impacts of regulatory actions. It is 

unlikely, but possible, that manufacturers may, in response to new VOC limits for Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, choose to reformulate with chlorinated 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 34 

solvents that are TACs. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, we are proposing in new 

subsection 94509(u), a prohibition of the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, 

and trichloroethylene in the “Multi-purpose Solvent,” and “Paint Thinner” categories. 

C. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM CATEGORIES PROPOSED TO BE 

REGULATED 

1. Consumer and Commercial Products Surveys 

The 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2006 Survey) was mailed to 

over 5,000 companies in July 2007. The Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent 

Survey Update (Survey Update) was sent to twenty-one companies in November 2008. 

Data received from the 2006 Survey and the Survey Update formed the basis for the 

emissions used in this rulemaking. 

The 2006 Survey and the Survey Update provided staff with detailed information on the 

formulations of consumer products proposed for regulation, including complete 

speciation of VOCs, low vapor pressure VOC (LVP-VOC) solvents, and key exempt 

ingredients (ARB, 2007f; ARB, 2008f). 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. 

The results of the Surveys for the categories proposed for regulation were discussed at 

the April 1, 2009, public workshop, and input from industry was used to correct 

inaccuracies in the data. For this rulemaking, the 2009 emissions and reduction 

estimates, when the limits become effective, were grown from 2006 and 2008 sales 

data and the State Department of Finance’s 2008 population estimates. Population 

growth is in accordance with estimates in the California Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (Cal/EPA) Statewide Human Population Table found in the Population and 

Vehicle Trends Report (ARB, 2008d). 

Staff is confident that the 2006 Survey had adequate representation of the available 

technologies for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, and the Survey Update had 

adequate representation of the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner technologies, in 

the market place and finds that the data meet the requirement in Health and Safety 

Code section 41712(b) to base regulations on “adequate data.” This assumption has 

been verified by discussions with manufacturers, category research, shelf surveys, and 

the wide range of VOC content reported for products in the categories slated for 

regulation. 

The proposed amendments were developed based on the 2006 Survey results, as well 

as results from the Survey Update conducted in November 2008. The intent of the 

survey update was to obtain sales data for the 12 month period starting from 

October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008. The survey was conducted in response 

to comments from stakeholders that indicated the market for Multi-purpose Solvent and 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 35 

Paint Thinner had changed since these categories were last surveyed during our 2003 

Survey. 

In developing these proposals, we worked with stakeholders on each category 

proposed for regulation. Numerous product labels and associated literature for each 

category were analyzed. Category information was also obtained from shelf surveys, 

trade journals, Internet sites, textbooks, patents, and directly from manufacturers. 

2. Emission Estimates for Categories 

The total VOC emissions from the categories proposed for regulation are estimated to 

be about 22.7 tons per day in 2009. Table IV-3 summarizes these emissions, as well as 

the anticipated VOC emission reductions when the proposed limits become effective. 

In March 2009, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted 

Rule 1143, Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-purpose Solvents (Rule 1143) which will 

achieve VOC emission reductions from consumer paint thinners and multi-purpose 

solvents used in the South Coast Air Basin. In order to avoid double-counting of VOC 

emissions and emission reductions, staff has subtracted from the statewide values, the 

portion of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner VOC emissions and reductions that 

can be attributed to the South Coast Air Basin, based on population (DOF, 2008). 

Approximately 43 percent of California’s population resides in the South Coast Air 

Basin, therefore 43 percent of the VOC emissions and reductions from the Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner categories were subtracted from the statewide 

values shown in Table IV-3. 

If adopted, once all limits become effective, the VOC emission reductions will be 

approximately 14.7 tons per day. 

Table IV-3 

Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective Date 

Product Category Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit

(percent by 

weight)

2009 VOC 

Emissions*

(tons per day)

Effective 

Date 

Reductions 

Upon 

Effective 

Date 

(tons per day)

Double Phase Aerosol 

Air Freshener Aerosol 20 10.2 12/31/2012 2.0 

Tier 1: 30 12.5+ 12/31/2010 8.4+ Multi-purpose Solvent & 

Paint Thinner 

Nonaerosol Tier 2: 3 --- 12/31/2013 3.9+ 

Total Emissions 2009 22.6 tons per day

Total Reductions by 

end of 2013 14.7 tons per day 

* Survey emissions adjusted for market coverage, grown to the 2009 calendar year, and rounded. 

 

+

 Does not include SCAQMD Rule 1143 reductions. 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 36 

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Development of the proposed amendments to minimize use of high GWP value 

compounds began with the emissions data and product formula data from the 2006 

Survey and the Survey Update. According to the data reported, hydrofluorocarbon 

(HFC) propellants are not currently used in Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener. In 

addition, no high GWP solvents are used in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products. This finding demonstrates that HFC propellants and high GWP solvents, are 

not critical to the formulation of Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, Multi-purpose 

Solvent, or Paint Thinner products. 

However, one reformulation pathway to meet the proposed VOC limit for Double Phase 

Aerosol Air Freshener, could be to replace some of the VOC propellant with VOC 

exempt propellants such as HFC-152a or HFC-134a. HFC-134a has a GWP of 1300 

while HFC-152a has a GWP of 140. In addition, it is possible that manufacturers could 

choose to use high GWP solvents as a reformulation option in response to the VOC 

limits for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner. Consequently, in this rulemaking, we 

are proposing a GWP limit for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products, Multipurpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner products as a mitigation measure to minimize 

climate change impacts as products are reformulated. 

The proposed GWP limit of 150 prevents the use of HFC-134a in reformulated Double 

Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, which would potentially significantly increase GHG 

emissions, but would allow use of HFC-152a. If a small amount of HFC-152a were 

used in formulations the impact on climate change would likely be negligible. The 

proposed GWP limit also prevents the use of high GWP solvents in Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner. Because of cost and corporate policies, we also do not 

believe that it is likely that manufacturers would choose options that would significantly 

increase GHG emissions in these categories. If adopted by ARB, this will be the 

second and third GWP standards in place for consumer products in California. 

3. Toxic Air Contaminants 

In the Survey Update, no use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or 

trichloroethylene was reported for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. 

However, use of these chlorinated TAC solvents, particularly the VOC-exempt 

compounds methylene chloride and perchloroethylene, is a potential option as products 

are reformulated to comply with the proposed limits. Therefore, to ensure that the 

public is not exposed to these chlorinated TAC solvents from use of Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products, we are proposing in new section 94509(u), to 

prohibit the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene in Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. No adverse impacts on other media are 

expected from this proposal. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 37 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality –

2009 Edition. 2009. (ARB, 2009) 

2. Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards. April 1, 2008 

 (ARB, 2008a). 

3. Air Resources Board. 2006 Statewide Emissions Inventory by Summary 

Category, 2008 Almanac page 2-7. 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac08/almanac08.htm. 2008. 

 (ARB, 2008c) 

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking 

Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation. 

 May 9, 2008. (ARB, 2008e) 

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

Vehicle Trends Report. (ARB, 2008d) 

6. Air Resources Board. Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update. 

November 4, 2008. (ARB, 2008f) 

7. Air Resources Board. ARB Compendium of Emission Factors and Methods to 

Support Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October 2007. 

(ARB, 2007c) 

8. Air Resources Board. State Strategy for California’s 2007 Implementation Plan. 

Released April 26, 2007. Adopted by the Air Resources Board on 

 September 27, 2007. (ARB, 2007d) 

9. Air Resources Board. 2006 Consumer & Commercial Products Survey. 

 July 24, 2007. (ARB, 2007f) 

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

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

(ARB, 2007h) 

11. Air Resources Board. Comparison of California’s Ozone Problem to the Rest of 

the Country. July 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006b) 

12. Air Resources Board and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

Staff Report - Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. May 3, 2002. (ARB, 2002) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 38 

13. Air Resources Board. Effect of Ozone on Vegetation and Possible Alternative 

Ambient Air Quality Standards. March, 1987. (ARB, 1987) 

14. Avol, E. L., W. J. Gauderman, S. M. Tan, S. J. London, and J. M. Peters. 

Respiratory Effects of Relocating to Areas of Differing Air Pollution Levels. 2001. 

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 

 Volume 164: 2067-2072. (Avol, et al., 2001) 

15. California Department of Finance. Report: State Adds 470,000 in 2006: 2007 

Population Nears 37.7 Million. May 1, 2007. (DOF, 2007) 

16. California Department of Finance. Population Estimates and Components of 

Change by County, July 1, 2000-2008. December 2008. (DOF, 2008) 

17. Delfino, R. J., R. S. Zeiger, J. M. Seltzer, D. H. Street, C. E. McLaren. 

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) 

18. Dominici , F., R. D. Peng, M. L. Bell, L. Pham, A. McDermott, S. L. Zeger, 

 J. M. Samet. Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Admission for 

Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases. 2006. Journal of American Medical 

Association. Volume 295. Number 10: 1127-1134. (Dominici et al., 2006) 

 

19. Dominici, F., A. McDermott, M. Daniels, S. L. Zeger, J. M. Samet. Revised 

Analyses of the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study: Mortality 

Among Residents of 90 Cities. 2005. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental 

Health. A. 68:1071-92. (Dominici et al., 2005) 

20. Dominici, F., A. McDermott, M. Daniels, S. L. Zeger, J. M. Samet. Revised 

Analyses of the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study, Part II. 

2003. Health Effects Institute Special Report. (Dominici et al., 2003) 

21. Gauderman, W. J., E. Avol, F. Lurmann, N. Kuenzli, F. Gilliland, J. Peters, and R. 

McConnell. Childhood Asthma and Exposure to Traffic and Nitrogen Dioxide. 

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

22. Gauderman, W. J., H. Vora, R. McConnell, K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, D. Thomas, 

F. Lurmann, E. Avol, D. Bates, H. Margolis, E. Rappaport, N. Kuenzli, M. Jerrett, 

and J. Peters. The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development from 10 to 18 

Years of Age. 2004. New England Journal of Medicine. Volume 351. Number 

11: 1057-1067. (Gauderman et al., 2004) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 39 

23. Gauderman, W. J., G. F. Gilliland, H. Vora, E. Avol, D. Stram, R. McConnell, D. 

Thomas, F. Lurmann, H. G. Margolis, E. B. Rappaport, K. Berhane, and J. M. 

Peters. 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) 

24. Gauderman, W. J., R. McConnell, F. Gilliland, S. London, D. Thomas, E. Avol, H. 

Vora, K. Berhane, E. B. Rappaport, F. Lurmann, H. G. Margolis, and J. Peters. 

Association Between Air Pollution and Lung Function Growth in Southern 

California Children. 2000. American Journal Respiratory and Critical Care 

Medicine. Volume 162. pp.1383-1390. (Gauderman et al., 2000) 

25. Gent, J. F., E. W. Triche, T. R. Holford, K. Belanger, M. B. Bracken, W. S. 

Beckett, B. P. Leaderer. Association of Low-level Ozone and Fine Particles with 

Respiratory Symptoms in Children with Asthma. 2003. Journal of American 

Medical Association. Volume 290. Number 14: 1859-1867. (Gent et al., 2003) 

26. Gilliland, F. D., K. Berhand, E. B. Rappaport, D. C. Thomas, E. Avol, W. J. 

Gauderman, S. J. London, H. G. Margolis, R. McConnell, K. T. Islam, and J. M. 

Peters. The Effects of Ambient Air Pollution on School Absenteeism Due to 

Respiratory Illnesses. 2001. Epidemiology. Volume 12. Number 1: 43-54.

(Gilliland et al., 2001) 

27. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. 

Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. 

Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: 

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate 

Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

 Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007) 

28. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Climate Change 1995: 

Second Assessment Report: The Science of Climate Change. (1996) 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, 

B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, (eds.)]. Cambridge 

University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. (IPCC, 1996) 

29. Krewski, D., R. Burnett, M. S. Goldberg, K. Hoover, J. Siemiatycki, M. Jerrett. 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) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 40 

30. Laden, F., J. Schwartz F. E. Speizer D. W. Dockery. Reduction in Fine 

Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. 2006. American Journal of Respiratory and 

Critical Care Medicine. Volume 173: 667-672. (Laden et al., 2006) 

31. Laden, F., L. M. Neas, D. W. Dockery, J. Schwartz. Association of Fine 

Particulate Matter from Different Sources with Daily Mortality in Six U.S. Cities. 

2000. Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 108. Number 10: 941-947. 

 (Laden et al., 2000) 

32. McConnell, R., K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S. J. London, T. Islam, W. J. 

Gauderman, E. Avol, H. G. Margolis, and J. M. Peters. Asthma in Exercising 

Children Exposed to Ozone: A Cohort Study. 2002. Lancet. Volume 359: 386-

391. (McConnell et al., 2002) 

33. McConnell, R., K. Berhane, S. J. London, H. Vora, E. Avol, W. J. Gauderman, H. 

G. Margolis, F. Lurmann, D. C. Thomas, and J. M. Peters. Air Pollution and 

Bronchitic Symptoms in Southern California Children with Asthma. 1999. 

Environmental Health Perspectives. Volume 107. Number 9: 757-760. 

(McConnell et al., 1999) 

34. Miller, K. A., D. S. Siscovick, L. Sheppard, K. Shepherd, J. H. Sullivan, G. L. 

Anderson and J. D. Kaufman. Long-term Exposure to Air Pollution and Incidence 

of Cardiovascular Events in Women. 2007. New England Journal of Medicine. 

Volume 356. Number 5: 447-458. (Miller et al., 2007) 

35. Moolgavkar, S. H. Air Pollution and Daily Deaths and Hospital Admissions in Los 

Angeles and Cook Counties. Revised Analyses of Time-Series Studies of Air 

Pollution and Health. 2003. Special Report. Health Effects Institute: 183-198. 

(Moolgavkar, 2003) 

36. Ostro, B. D., M. J. Mann, A. Krupnick, W. Harrington. Air Pollution and 

Respiratory Morbidity among Adults in Southern California. 1993. American 

Journal of Epidemiology. Volume 137. Number 7: 691-700. (Ostro et al., 1993) 

37. Ostro, B. D., S. Rothschild. Air Pollution and Acute Respiratory Morbidity: An 

Observational Study of Multiple Pollutants. 1989. Environmental Research. 

 Volume 50: 238-247. (Ostro et al., 1989) 

38. Peel, J. L., P. E. Tolbert, M. Klein, K. B. Metzger, W. D. Flanders, K. Todd, J. A. 

Mulholland, P. B. Ryan, H. Frumkin. Ambient Air Pollution and Respiratory 

Emergency Department Visits. 2005. Epidemiology. Volume 16. Number 2: 164-

174. (Peel et al., 2005) 

39. Pope, C. A., 3rd, R. T. Burnett, G. D. Thurston, M. J. Thun, E. E. Calle, D. 

Krewski, and J. J. Godleski. Cardiovascular Mortality and Long-Term Exposure 

to Particulate Air Pollution: Epidemiological Evidence of General 
Technical Support Document Chapter IV - 41 

Pathophysiological Pathways of Disease. 2004. Circulation. Volume 109: 71-77. 

(Pope et al., 2004) 

40. Pope, C. A., 3rd, R. T. Burnett, M. J. Thun, E. E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, G. D. 

Thurston. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to 

Fine Particulate Air Pollution. 2002. Journal of American Medical Association. 

Volume 287. Number 9: 1132-41. (Pope et al., 2002) 

41. Seinfeld, John H., and Spyros N. Pandis. Atmospheric Chemistry and 

Physics-From Air Pollution to Climate Change. John Wiley & Sons. New York. 

1998. (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998) 

42. Sheppard, L. Ambient Air Pollution and Nonelderly Asthma Hospital Admissions 

in Seattle, Washington, 1987-1994. Revised Analyses of Time-Series Studies of 

Air Pollution and Health. Special Report. 2003. Health Effects Institute. 

 pp. 227-240. (Sheppard et al., 2003) 

43. Symons, J. M., L. Wang, E. Guallar, E. Howell, F. Dominici, M. Schwab, B. A. 

Ange, J. Samet, J. Ondov, D. Harrison, A. Geyh. A Case-crossover Study of 

Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Onset of Congestive Heart Failure 

Symptom Exacerbation Leading to Hospitalization. 2006. American Journal of 

Epidemiology. Volume 164. Number 5: 421-433. (Symons et al., 2006) 

44. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Outlook: Statistical 

Indicators, Table 34.-Cash Receipts from Farm Marketing, by State. July, 2006, 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/Agoutlook/AOTables/. (USDA, 2006) 

45. 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) 

46. 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) 

47. Whittemore, A., E. Korn. Asthma and Air Pollution in the Los Angeles Area. 

1980. American Journal of Public Health. Volume 70. Number 7: 687-696. 

 (Whittemore and Korn, 1980) 

48. Zanobetti, A, J. Schwartz. Airborne particles and hospital admissions for heart 

and lung disease. Revised Analyses of Time-Series Studies of Air Pollution and 

Health. Special Report. 2003. Health Effects Institute. pp. 241-248. 

 (Zanobetti et al., 2003) 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 42 

V. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATION

 AND METHOD 310

In this chapter, we provide a plain English description of the proposed amendments to 

the California Regulation for Reducing Emissions from Consumer Products (Consumer 

Products Regulation) and explain the rationale for the amendments. The regulation is 

codified in title 17, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 

8.5, Article 2, Consumer Products, sections 94507-94517. A description of the 

proposed changes to Method 310 “Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products” 

(Method 310) is also included. 

Where applicable, key terms or concepts involved in each proposed amendment are 

described. The discussion in this chapter is intended to satisfy the requirements of 

Government Code section 11343.2, which requires that a non-controlling “plain English” 

summary of the regulation be made available to the public. The proposed amendments 

to the Consumer Products Regulation and Method 310 can be found in Appendix B. 

Amendments are being proposed to the following sections in the Consumer Products 

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

Products;” section 94510 “Exemptions;” section 94511 “Innovative Products;” section 

94512 “Administrative Requirements;” section 94513 “Reporting Requirements;” and 

section 94515 “Test Methods.” New sections are being proposed for Method 310. The 

Method 310 new sections are: 3.3.7, 4.3, 4.3.1, and 4.3.2. All of these amendments 

are discussed below in detail. 

In the sections below, we describe the proposed amendments and the rationale for 

them. The proposal includes six new definitions, the modification of three existing

definitions, a lower VOC limit for one category, new VOC limits for two categories and a 

global warming potential (GWP) limit for the three categories. For Multi-purpose 

Solvents and Paint Thinners, our proposal also includes special labeling and reporting 

requirements; a prohibition on the use of Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) chlorinated 

solvents; a limitation on the VOC aromatic compound content along with a requirement 

to supply information to aid in enforcing this provision; and special labeling and 

reporting requirements. A more detailed discussion of the existing regulatory 

requirements for consumer products can be found in additional ARB publications which 

are referenced at the end of this chapter (ARB, 2008b; ARB, 2006a; ARB, 2004b; 

ARB, 1999; ARB, 1997b; ARB, 1991a; ARB, 1990c). 

A. DEFINITIONS (SECTION 94508)

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

Regulation which are not self-explanatory. The proposed amendments to the regulation 

include new definitions for “Aromatic Compound;” “Artist’s Solvent/Thinner;” “HighTemperature Coating;” “Industrial Maintenance Coating;” “Paint Clean-up;” and “ZincRich Primer.” These new definitions are in support of the new Paint Thinner standards 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 43 

to help clarify products that are not subject to the VOC limits. The proposed 

amendments include modified definitions of “ASTM,” “Multi-purpose Solvent,” and “Paint 

Thinner.” The ASTM definition was changed to reflect the proper name of the 

organization that develops standard analytical test methods. We are proposing to 

modify the “Multi-purpose Solvent” and “Paint Thinner” definitions to clarify products 

included in or excluded from the categories, and to improve enforcement of the 

regulation. The “Paint Thinner” definition was revised to make it clear that it does not 

include “Artist’s Solvent/Thinner” and, therefore, these products are not subject to the 

regulation if the size requirements in the new “Artist’s Solvent/Thinner” definition are 

met. 

Artists’ Solvents and Thinners were surveyed in ARB’s 2006 Consumer and 

Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2007f). The category sales and emissions reported 

for these products were minuscule. Also, based on market research and consultations 

with industry experts, we have learned that these products are required to meet the 

Labeling of Hazardous Art Materials Act (LHAMA) within the Federal Hazardous 

Substances Act. LHAMA requires that any art material, including solvents, meet ASTM 

D 4236, Standard Practice for Labeling Art Materials for Chronic Health Hazards, to 

protect consumers of any age from potential health hazards of these products (ASTM, 

2005). ASTM D 4236 requires that the art material must be reviewed by a board 

certified or qualified toxicologist and labeled consistent with the standard. We visited 

several art material stores and noted that the sales price of Artists’ Solvents and 

Thinners was substantially higher compared to the sales prices per volume of Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products sold at home improvement and paint 

stores. Therefore, we believe that these products are unlikely substitutes for Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products and an exemption from the proposed VOC 

limits and provisions is appropriate for Artist’s Solvents/Thinners, labeled to meet ASTM 

D 4236 and packaged in containers with a capacity less than or equal to 32 fluid 

ounces. 

The proposed amendments to the regulation also include new size parameters for both 

the dilutable and pre-mixed “Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid” products. These 

modifications are intended to clarify the types of products that are included in these 

categories. This change would allow a wider range of dilutable products, to encourage 

manufacturers to ship concentrated products. Allowing smaller containers to be sold in 

concentrated form should reduce product weight leading to reduced transportation costs 

and the air emissions associated with the movement of such products by truck or other 

conveyance. 

B. STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS (SECTION 94509)

 1. Proposed Amendments to Section 94509(a) - Table of Standards 

The proposed regulatory action would amend the existing Consumer Products 

Regulation by specifying VOC limits for the product categories shown in 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 44 

Table V-1. Of the three proposed limits, Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener been has 

previously regulated, while there are two tiers of new limits proposed for Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner. The effective dates of these VOC limits are shown in 

Table V-1 below. 

Table V-1 

Proposed VOC Limits, Product Forms, and Effective Dates 

Product Category Product Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit

(percent by 

weight)

Effective 

Date 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener Aerosol 20 12/31/2012 

Multi-purpose Solvent: Tier 1 Non-aerosol 30 12/31/2010 

Multi-purpose Solvent: Tier 2 Non-aerosol 3 12/31/2013 

Paint Thinner: Tier 1 Non-aerosol 30 12/31/2010 

Paint Thinner: Tier 2 Non-aerosol 3 12/31/2013 

Total Emissions 2009 22.6 tons per day

Total VOC Reductions 2013 14.7 tons per day 

We are also proposing to modify the Table of Standards to delete the “(all forms) 

dilutable and pre-mixed” description under “All other areas” from “Automotive 

Windshield Washer Fluids.” This proposal is intended to clarify that the 1 percent VOC 

limit by weight in non-Type A Areas, applies to concentrates as well as dilutable 

products (after the label recommended dilution has taken place). This proposed 

modification should end the confusion that led some affected parties to believe that 

limits varied for these situations. It should be noted that there are different VOC limits 

pertaining to products sold in different areas of California, Type “A” areas and all other 

areas (non-Type A areas). Type A areas are those portions of California where freezing 

temperatures are expected to occur frequently. 

2. Other Proposed Amendments to Section 94509 

Modification to 94509(b)(3)

We are proposing to modify the provision in subsection 94509(b)(3) related to 

“Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids (Dilutable)” to specify that a product must 

specifically state on the front panel that the product should be diluted prior to use. This 

proposed modification is intended to make it clear to the consumer when a product 

should be diluted prior to use, to ensure that emission reductions continue to occur, and 

to enhance enforceability of the regulation. 

Proposed GWP Limit – 94509(t) and (u)

For Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, one possible reformulation pathway to meet 

lower VOC limits would be to replace, or partially replace, hydrocarbon propellant with 

VOC exempt propellants which could have higher Global Warming Potential (GWP) 

values. To ensure that this does not occur in reformulations to meet the proposed VOC 

limit, we are proposing in new subsection 94509(t)(1) to prohibit the use of any chemical 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 45 

with a GWP value of 150 or greater. In new subsection 94509(u)(1)(A), we are 

proposing language prohibiting the use of any chemical with a GWP value of 150 or 

greater in Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners. This provision is proposed 

because there is a slight possibility that manufacturers could replace current VOC 

solvents used in Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners with compounds with high 

GWP. In subsections 94509(t)(2),(3), and (4), and 94509(u)(2),(3) and (4), we are 

adding provisions, virtually identical to those in provisions pertaining to GWP limits for 

other categories, to support the GWP Value limit. Specifically, these provisions include 

a three year product sell-through allowance for products manufactured prior to the 

effective date, a notification to purchasers from the supplier for products sold during the 

last six months of the sell-through period, and allowance for impurities. These 

proposals are in accordance with ARB’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under 

AB 32. 

Proposed Toxic Air Contaminant Prohibition 94509(u)

In section 94509(u)(1)(B) we are proposing to prohibit the use of specific chlorinated 

TACs in “Multi-purpose Solvent,” and “Paint Thinner.” We believe that it is unlikely, but 

possible, that manufacturers may, in response to new VOC limits, choose to reformulate 

with chlorinated solvents that are Toxic Air Contaminants. To ensure that this does not 

occur, we are proposing in new subsection 94509(u)(1)(B), to prohibit the use of 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. Therefore, in accordance 

with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), we are proposing mitigating 

measures for these two categories for which we are setting new VOC limits. In 

subsection 94509(u)(2), we are proposing language to allow a three year sell through 

for products manufactured prior to the effective date of the TAC prohibition. 

Proposed Aromatic Compound Content Limit Section 94509(u)

 

Further, in section 94509(u)(1)(C), we are proposing to limit the VOC aromatic 

compound content of “Multi-Purpose Solvent” and “Paint Thinner” products to 

1 percent by weight, also in accordance with CEQA. This mitigation measure is 

proposed to ensure that in response to new VOC limits for “Multi-Purpose Solvent” and 

“Paint Thinner,” manufacturers do not formulate with compounds that have the potential 

to increase the ozone forming potential of the products. We conducted an analysis and 

determined that products reformulating to meet the 30 percent limit using highly reactive 

aromatic VOCs would erode or negate the expected ozone reduction benefits predicted. 

For more detail regarding the reactivity analysis see Chapter VIII, Environmental 

Impacts. 

Finally, in section 94509(u)(2), (3) and (4), in addition to the proposals described above, 

we are proposing the following provisions: a three-year product sell-through allowance 

for products manufactured prior to the limit effective date; a notification to purchasers 

from the supplier for products sold during the last six months of the sell-through period; 

and an allowance for impurities with regards to the GWP limit and TAC prohibition. 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 46 

C. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FOR SMALL CONTAINERS – PROPOSED NEW 

SUBSECTION 94510(m) 

We are proposing in section 94510(m) to exempt small containers of “Paint Thinner” 

from the VOC and aromatic compound limits until December 31, 2013. To qualify for 

the exemption, products must be sold and packaged in containers less than or equal to 

eight fluid ounces. We determined that consumers may need small amounts of paint 

thinner to thin solvent-borne paints. These solvent-borne paints might have been 

purchased years ago, before the lower VOC limits for architectural coatings came into 

effect, or are products in small containers that are exempt from such limits. This 

exemption allows these coatings to be used and, if necessary, allowed to be thinned by 

the consumer, rather than having the coatings become unusable and discarded. 

Discarded coatings could cause environmental impacts such as contaminated 

groundwater, or increased landfill load. 

D. LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-PURPOSE SOLVENT AND PAINT 

THINNER – PROPOSED NEW SUBSECTION 94512(e) 

As proposed in new subsection 94512(e)(1)(A), Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner products would be required to clearly display on the product container, the total 

VOC content as a percent by weight contained in the product formulation. This 

proposal would aid with the enforceability of the VOC limits for these categories and 

provide the consumer the information they need to purchase the product with the lowest 

VOC content. 

We have also proposed in subsection 94512(e)(2) that Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner products manufactured after December 31, 2010 until December 31, 2015, and 

labeled “Flammable” or “Extremely Flammable” per federal laws, would not be able to 

display a general name on the principle display panel, such as “Paint Thinner;” “Multipurpose Solvent;” “Clean-up Solvent;” or “Paint Clean-up.” Manufacturers may choose 

to sell a “Flammable” or “Extremely Flammable” product with one of these general 

names if they do one of the following: provide an attached hang tag or sticker that 

includes the statement “Formulated to meet California VOC limits, see warnings on 

label;” or display on the principle display panel in a font size as large as or larger than 

any other words on the panel, the common name of the chemical compound that results 

in the product meeting the criteria for “Flammable” or “Extremely Flammable.” 

Specific federal definitions exist for Combustible, Flammable, and Extremely Flammable 

products that are determined by the liquid’s flashpoint, or the lowest temperature at 

which the vapor of a combustible liquid can be ignited in air. Flammable and Extremely 

Flammable liquids have a lower flashpoint than Combustible liquids and, therefore, 

ignite or burn easier than combustible liquids, making them more hazardous. The 

above proposed requirement is a mitigation measure under CEQA because we 

determined that in response to the new VOC limits, manufacturers may switch a 

Combustible product with a product that is Flammable or Extremely Flammable. If 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 47 

consumers were used to a product that is Combustible and, after the implementation of 

the VOC limits, purchase a Flammable or Extremely Flammable product, they could 

unknowingly risk injury or fire loss if they misused the product near an open flame or 

were otherwise careless with the product. It is the intent of this regulatory requirement 

to alert the consumer that a newly relabeled or newly reformulated product may perform 

differently or may have an increased fire hazard potential than the previous formulation 

and should be used with caution. 

E. PROPOSED NEW SUBSECTION 94513(g): SPECIAL REPORTING 

REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTI-PURPOSE SOLVENT AND PAINT THINNER 

As specified in a new subsection 94513(g), all responsible parties for Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products must report the product formulation and sales 

information to the ARB prior to June 30, 2012. These special reporting requirements 

are necessary to perform a technical assessment of each category prior to the 

implementation of the second tier VOC limits. The technical assessment will include an 

analysis of manufacturers’ progress in developing low flammability and low VOC Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products to meet the 3 percent VOC limit, effective 

on December 31, 2013. In addition, the data collected will enable ARB staff to 

determine whether a reactivity based approach to regulating these products would be 

more appropriate than a mass based approach, and if compounds to be used in the 

new formulations present any unforeseen potential hazards. 

F. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 94515, TEST METHODS: 

VOC AROMATIC COMPOUND CONTENT 

We are proposing to limit the VOC aromatic compound content of Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner products to no more than 1 percent by weight. First, in 

section 94515(h)(1) we are proposing to specify that the VOC content for Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner is to be determined by Method 310, or an alternative method 

approved by the Executive Officer. To enforce the VOC aromatic compound content 

limit provision, we are proposing in subsection 94515(h)(2) that specific formulation 

information be provided to ARB. Upon receipt of written notice, responsible parties 

would have ten days to supply formulation data to guide the analytical testing. 

In section 94515(h)(2)(A)(i), the formulation data to be provided would include the 

weight fraction to the nearest 0.1 percent of each ingredient including: water; VOC; low 

vapor pressure (LVP)-VOC; total inorganic compounds; and exempt compounds 

specified in section 94508(a). For hydrocarbon solvents, the bin number as listed in the 

Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity (MIR) Values in section 94701 (a) or (b), and 

the initial boiling point and dry point of the solvent would be required to be provided. 

To ensure that the notification letter is delivered to the correct responsible party, we are 

proposing in section 94515(h)(2)(A)(ii) that by March 1, 2010, and each year thereafter, 

the responsible party would provide to the Executive Officer contact information for the 

person who is to receive the notification letter. We are also clarifying in 
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 48 

section 94515(h)(2)(A)(iii) that a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) does not meet the 

requirement for formulation data because the information is not detailed enough to 

guide analytical testing. 

Finally, we are proposing in section 94515(h)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) to clarify that a violation is 

established if the formulation data supplied by the responsible party shows that the 

product does not meet the applicable VOC or aromatic content standard; and/or the 

manufacturer fails to respond to the notice and provide formulation data within the ten 

day specified time frame. 

G. “DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) IN 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND REACTIVE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN

AEROSOL COATING PRODUCTS” (METHOD 310) 

Method 310 is the analytical test method utilized to determine compliance with the VOC 

limits and other prohibitions in the Consumer Products Regulation. 

The proposed changes to Method 310 are clarifications to specify the analytical 

approach to be used in instances where a product’s VOC content is below 1 percent. 

These methods are already being used and/or are needed to enhance the enforceability 

of the new, lower VOC limits that will become effective by 2010. The proposed changes 

also include new VOC content calculations for products with high water content or low 

VOC content. 

New section 3.3.7 is proposed to specify the methods to be utilized for low level VOC 

content samples; new section 4.3 is proposed to clarify that products subject to VOC 

limits below 5 percent by weight will have their VOC content determined by a low level 

direct determination; new section 4.3.1 is proposed to specify the equation used to 

determine the VOC content for aerosol products; and new section 4.3.2 is proposed to 

specify the equation used to determine the VOC content of non-aerosol products. 

Previously in section B, number 2 (Proposed Aromatic Compound Content Limit Section 

94509(u)), we describe the proposed aromatic compound content limit for Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Under the procedures and testing methods 

specified under Method 310, laboratory staff routinely quantifies the percent by weight 

of many common aromatic compounds that are expected to be found in Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products. These aromatic compounds include, but are not 

limited to, benzene, xylenes, toluene, and ethyl benzene. Further method development 

may be needed and additional amendments specified in Method 310 may be necessary 

in order to identify and quantify additional aromatic compounds that may be found in 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Work on additional method 

development is currently underway. If further modifications to Method 310 or the 

Consumer Products Regulations are needed to address the aromatic compound content 

limit requirements, they would be included in the next round of regulation amendments, 

which are anticipated to occur in 2010.
Technical Support Document Chapter V - 49 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assessment of Selected 

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

2. Air Resources Board. 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

July 24, 2007. (ARB, 2007f) 

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings 

Regulation. September 29, 2006. (ARB, 2006a) 

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirants and Deodorants, and 

Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure for para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresheners and Toilet/Urinal Care 

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

5. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Mid-term Measures II. 

 September 10, 1999. (ARB, 1999) 

6. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures. 

 June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b) 

7. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Statewide Regulation to 

Reduce Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – 

 Phase II – Technical Support Document. October, 1991. (ARB, 1991a) 

8. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Consumer Products – Technical Support Document. 

August, 1990. (ARB, 1990c) 

9. ASTM International. D 4236 – 94 Standard Practice for Labeling Art Materials for 

Chronic Health Hazards. March 1, 2005. (ASTM, 2005) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 50 

VI. DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT CATEGORIES

In this chapter, we provide the technical basis for the proposed limits for each 

category proposed for regulation. The following information is described for each of the 

product categories: 

• a product category description; 

• information on product use and marketing; 

• information on the product formulations; 

• a discussion of the proposed volatile organic compound (VOC) and/or global 

warming potential (GWP) limit, our rationale for the proposed limit, and the 

options for compliance; and 

• a discussion of outstanding issues associated with the proposal. 

A. AIR FRESHENER: DOUBLE PHASE AEROSOL 

Product Category Description: 

Air Fresheners are currently regulated under the CARB Consumer Products Regulation 

in five subcategories: Double Phase Aerosols; Single Phase Aerosols; Dual Purpose Air 

Fresheners/Disinfectant aerosols; liquid/pump sprays; and solids/semisolid 

(ARB, 2007a). The proposal described here relates solely to Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Fresheners. 

The definition for an Air Freshener is the following: “Air Freshener” means any product 

including, but not limited to, sprays, wicks, wipes, diffusers, powders, and crystals, 

designed or labeled for the purpose of masking odors, or freshening, cleaning, scenting, 

or deodorizing the air. “Air Freshener” includes dual purpose air freshener/disinfectant 

products. “Air Freshener” does not include products that are used on the human body, 

products that function primarily as cleaning products as indicated on a product label, 

Odor Remover/Eliminator,” or “Toilet/Urinal Care Product.” 

A Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener is defined as an aerosol air freshener with the 

liquid contents in two or more distinct phases that require the product container be 

shaken before use to mix the phases, producing an emulsion (ARB, 2007a). An aerosol 

product is a pressurized spray system that dispenses product ingredients by means of a 

propellant contained in a product or a product’s container or a mechanically induced 

force. 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners were first regulated under “Phase I” of the 

Consumer Products Regulation adopted in October 1990. A description of these 

products is included in the Technical Support Document for that rulemaking 

(ARB, 1990b). Products were required to meet a VOC limit of 30 percent by weight, 

effective January 1, 1993. In an effort to obtain further emission reductions, the Board 

adopted in October 1999, as part of “Midterm Measures II” of the Consumer Products 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 51 

rulemaking, a VOC limit of 25 percent by weight effective December 31, 2004 (ARB, 

1999a; ARB 1999b). In this rulemaking, we are proposing to further reduce the VOC 

limit for Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners and add a limit on the GWP of chemical 

compounds used in the products. 

Product Use and Marketing: 

According to ARB’s 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (2006 Survey) 

and product labels, aerosol air fresheners are generally used in household, institutional 

and commercial settings, and automobiles (ARB, 2007f). These products are used to 

treat unpleasant odors and fragrance the air in bathrooms, laundry areas, food 

preparation areas, and institutional settings. According to recent articles in industry 

journals and Internet sites, home fragrance retail sales in the United States in 2007 

were over $5 billion (Esposito, 2008; Euromonitor, 2008). Aerosol air fresheners were 

reported to be the fastest growing home fragrance product category in 2007 with sales 

of almost $500 million. 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners are “instant action” products that produce a fine 

mist when sprayed. The amount of product emitted, or fragrance released, is controlled 

by the user by depressing the actuator button (nozzle) on the product container. 

According to the 2006 Survey, Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products are sold 

predominantly to household consumers (ARB, 2007f). These products can be 

purchased through supermarkets; grocery stores; discount stores; mass merchandisers; 

hardware stores; automotive parts stores; warehouse stores; and home centers. 

Consumers may also purchase products through home sales, catalog sales, and the 

Internet. 

Table VI-1 summarizes the sales and emissions from Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener products, based on the 2006 Survey (ARB, 2007f). Sixty products or product 

groups were reported in the 2006 Survey by about two dozen companies. Each product 

group may have multiple fragrance variants or product sizes, or a combination of both. 

Considering fragrance variants, 231 total individual products were reported for this 

category. The data have been grown to the 2009 calendar year. Total category sales 

are about 82,912 pounds per day with estimated VOC emissions of 20,309 pounds (ten 

tons) per day in California. Although not shown in Table VI-1, the sales-weighted 

average VOC content for this category is 24.5 percent by weight, excluding fragrance. 

This indicates most of the product formulations have VOC content very near the 

maximum allowed by the current 25 percent by weight VOC limit (ARB, 2007f). 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 52 

Table VI-1 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener* 

Product Form

Number of 

Products/Product 

Groups

2009 Category Sales 

(lbs/day)**

2009 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Aerosol 60 82,912 20,309 

* Based on 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2007f). 

 ** Survey data adjusted for complete market coverage and grown by population to 2009 (see 

Chapter IV, Emissions). 

Product Formulation: 

The main ingredients found in Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products are water, 

propellants, and fragrance mixtures. Other ingredients in the product formulation may 

include solvents; co-solvents; emulsifiers; surfactants; and corrosion inhibitors. 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener ingredients contain liquid contents in two or more 

distinct phases that require the product container to be shaken before use to mix the 

phases, producing an emulsion. The top phase consists of hydrocarbon propellant and 

some fragrance or emulsifier. The bottom phase consists of water, which may be as 

high as 80 percent of the product by weight according to the 2006 Survey, and some 

fragrance or emulsifier (CSPA, 2009; ARB, 2007f). 

The propellants used are typically hydrocarbon blends of n-butane, isobutane and 

propane. However, products formulated with dimethyl ether as a propellant were also 

reported in the 2006 Survey (ARB, 2007f). Blends used may vary depending on the 

desired pressure, container and components used. According to the 2006 Survey, 

propellant content in the Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener category ranged from 

15 percent to about 27 percent of product weight (ARB, 2007f).1

 

As in most aerosol products, the propellants in aerosol air fresheners are present in 

both liquid and gas phases. The liquid propellant sits atop the denser liquid phase(s) 

and functions as a reservoir to replenish the propellant in the gas phase. The gas 

phase provides the pressure that discharges the product. When the product is shaken, 

the fragrance and, if present, solvents, emulsifiers and surfactants, produce a 

homogenous oil-in-water emulsion that allows the product to be uniformly sprayed 

(ARB, 1999a). 

Fragrance mixtures typically constitute less than 2 percent of product weight, according 

to the 2006 Survey. Fragrance mixtures contain aroma and other ingredients that scent 

 

1

Products with VOC content greater than 25 percent by weight reported in the 2006 Survey were 

assumed to qualify for the “sell-through of products” provision of the Consumer Products Regulations in 

section 94509(c) (ARB, 2007a). Since there was a December 31, 2004, effective date for the 25 percent

by weight VOC limit, the sell-through period for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products did not end 

until December 31, 2007. For evaluations of VOC reductions achieved by this proposal, we assumed that

such products had been reformulated to comply with the 25 percent by weight VOC limit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 53 

the air, or mask odors. Fragrance mixtures are typically composed of many ingredients, 

including VOC and low vapor pressure-VOC (LVP-VOC) ingredients (FMA, 2006). The 

Consumer Products Regulation allows an exemption from the VOC limits in the Table of 

Standards for fragrance up to 2 percent by weight of the product. Fragrance is defined 

as a substance or complex mixture of aroma chemicals, natural essential oils, and other 

functional components with a combined vapor pressure not in excess of 2 millimeters 

mercury (mm Hg) at 20 degrees Celsius (ARB, 2007a).

Solvents; co-solvents; emulsifiers; surfactants; and corrosion inhibitors may be used in 

the product formulation and are typically present in small amounts. Some ingredients 

may be present to solubilize fragrance, aid mixing of fragrance to create a 

homogeneous liquid that can be sprayed, and control volatilization of the air freshener 

mist droplets. Solvent and other ingredients may be present to increase the vapor 

pressure in a product, and, along with the product valve and nozzle, serve to control 

mist droplet or particle size. VOC solvents reported in the 2006 Survey include ethanol 

and isopropanol. Acetone and Isopar M are examples of exempt and LVP-VOC 

solvents, respectively, that were reported. Emulsifiers and surfactant materials are 

typically LVP-VOC materials (ARB, 2007f; ARB, 1999a). 

LVP-VOC glycols, such as dipropylene glycol and propylene glycol, were reported in the 

2006 Survey for some of the Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products 

(ARB, 2007f). Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products that contained these 

glycols generally made “Deodorizer” and “Odor Eliminator” claims on their labels 

 (ARB, 2007f). 

Proposed VOC Limit and Compliance: 

The proposed VOC limit for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener is 20 percent by 

weight with an effective date of December 31, 2012. As shown in Table VI-2, the 

proposal would result in emission reductions of 3,900 pounds per day, or about 

2.0 tons per day, statewide in 2012. As indicated previously, adjusted VOC emissions 

from Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products are about 20,300 pounds per day, 

or about 10.2 tons per day. The sales weighted average VOC content is 24.5 percent 

by weight, excluding fragrance. A limited number of products with VOC content equal to 

or lower than 20 percent by weight were reported in the 2006 Survey, indicating that 

further reductions can be achieved from this category and that the proposed limit, while 

challenging, is both technologically and commercially feasible (ARB, 2007f). However, 

the complying products represent less than 1 percent of the category sales. 

Recognizing that the 20 percent by weight VOC limit is challenging for manufacturers to 

meet, this proposal provides an extended period of over three years, until 

December 31, 2012, for manufacturers to produce complying products. The extended 

time is proposed to accommodate the complex and lengthy product development 

process necessary for reformulating approximately 200 non-complying products and 

fragrance variants. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 54 

Table VI-2 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener Proposal* 

Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit 

(wt. %) 

Complying 

Products/ 

Product 

Groups 

Complying 

Market 

Share (%) 

2009 

Adjusted 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

2012 

Adjusted 

Emission 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+ 

Aerosol 20 <10 <1 3,750 3,900 

* Based on 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2007f). 

** Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage, grown by population to 2009, and 

rounded (see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

+ Emission reductions adjusted for complete market coverage, grown by population to 2012, and rounded 

 (see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

As described earlier, Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener ingredients include water, 

emulsifiers, surfactants, glycols, solvents, hydrocarbon propellants, and fragrance 

mixtures. The emulsifiers, surfactants and glycols typically used are LVP- VOCs which 

are exempt from applicable VOC limits. Materials such as acetone and Isopar M are 

also exempt from applicable VOC limits. In general, other than the fragrance mixtures 

and VOC solvents such as ethanol or isopropanol, which are found in small amounts, 

the predominant VOC ingredients are the hydrocarbon propellants (ARB, 2007f). For 

most Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, reformulation to meet the proposed VOC 

limit of 20 percent by weight will involve replacing some of the hydrocarbon propellant or 

VOC solvent with water or a VOC exempt solvent. Changes to product components 

such as valves and actuators may be necessary to retain acceptable product 

performance characteristics such as spray mist size and pattern. 

According to the 2006 Survey, exempt compounds, acetone and Isopar M, are used in 

some Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners (ARB, 2007f). Acetone is an exempt VOC 

solvent that is fast drying and is completely miscible with water. The use of acetone 

increases the vapor pressure in the product, reducing the amount of propellant needed 

to discharge the product. An example formulation that may include acetone would use 

water along with the higher pressure propellants propane and dimethyl ether 

(ARB, 1999a). Another example would be to use a LVP-VOC hydrocarbon solvent, 

such as Isopar M, in place of a solvent containing VOCs. 

During discussions with industry representatives in January and March 2009, we 

learned that it would be challenging to reformulate large numbers of non-complying 

products and the removal of propellant would affect product performance. Industry 

representatives stated that lowering the propellant content to comply with the proposed 

20 percent by weight VOC limit would most likely require adjustments to other product 

ingredients, and/or addition of ingredients to ensure acceptable product performance, 

stability, and consumer acceptance of fragrance (CSPA, 2009; S.C. Johnson, 2009b; 

Reckitt Benckiser, 2009). It was indicated that changes in the valve, actuator and 

propellant would likely need to take place to accommodate the formulation adjustments. 

As a result of these changes, additional consumer usage and fragrance preference 

studies would also need to be conducted. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 55 

In light of the potential technical modifications needed to the aerosol spray dispensing 

system, we acknowledge that the reformulation effort will be challenging for 

manufacturers. However, we also believe that products with less propellant can be 

developed. Given these challenges, we determined that an implementation date of 

December 31, 2012, would allow for the necessary modifications and additional testing 

of products to comply with the proposed 20 percent by weight VOC limit. Discussions 

with industry representatives, evaluation of products reported in the 2006 Survey for 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, and our research demonstrate that the proposal 

for a 20 percent by weight VOC limit, effective December 31, 2012, although 

challenging, is both technologically and commercially feasible (ARB, 2007f; CSPA, 

2009a). 

Proposed Global Warming Potential (GWP) Limit and Compliance: 

Pursuant to ARB’s responsibilities under Assembly Bill 32, reductions of greenhouse 

gases (GHGs) from consumer products are necessary (ARB, 2008e). Consumer 

products use various GHGs, mostly as propellants. Although the GHG emissions 

contribution from consumer products can be relatively low, the severity of the climate 

change problem requires reductions from any source where it is feasible. In this 

rulemaking, we are proposing a GWP value2 limit of 150 for Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Fresheners. No high GWP chemical compounds, such as HFC-152a or 

HFC-134a, were reported in the product formulations in the 2006 Survey (ARB, 2007f). 

However, to ensure that there is no significant increase in GHG emissions from 

products reformulated to comply with the proposed 20 percent by weight VOC limit, we 

are proposing, as a mitigation measure, a limit on the GWP for any chemical compound 

used in Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products, effective December 31, 2012. 

The GWP limit of 150 does not apply to any chemicals present as contaminants, which 

in aggregate are 0.1 percent by weight or less. 

The VOC exempt propellants, HFC-134a and HFC-152a, are the predominant GHGs 

used in consumer products today. When flammability is a concern, HFC-134a is used 

because it is a non-flammable propellant. HFC-152a is minimally flammable. 

HFC-152a has a GWP value of 140, which is one hundred and forty times greater than 

the GWP value of CO2. HFC-134a has a GWP value of 1300, which is approximately 

ten times greater than the GWP value of HFC-152a and 1300 times greater than CO2

(ARB, 2008e). 

 

2 We are using the GWP definition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). GWP 

provides a measure of a compound’s impact on global warming compared to carbon dioxide (CO2). The 

GWP value definition specifies that the 100-year GWP values in the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of 

IPCC would be used to determine compliance (IPCC, 1996). The definition further specifies that, if the 

SAR does not contain a GWP value for a specific chemical or compound, then the IPCC, Fourth 

Assessment Report (FAR) GWP value for that chemical or compound can be used (IPCC, 2007). If there 

is no GWP value listed for a specific chemical or compound in the SAR or the FAR, then the GWP value 

is assumed to be equal to the applicable GWP value standard. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 56 

According to the 2006 Survey, hydrocarbon propellants such as n-butane, isobutane 

and propane are the ‘propellant of choice’ for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener 

products (ARB, 2007f). As stated previously, HFC-152a and HFC-134a were not 

present in the products reported, which demonstrates that these VOC exempt 

propellants are not critical to the formulation of Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener 

products. The hydrocarbon propellants and other materials reported in the 2006 

Survey, such as dimethyl ether, acetone and ethanol have GWP values that are less 

than ten or are not listed by the IPCC. In the case where the IPCC does not list a GWP 

value for ingredients used, then the GWP value is assumed to be equal to the emission 

standard. 

Manufacturers can reformulate their products to comply with the proposed 20 percent 

by weight VOC limit without the use of VOC exempt propellants such as HFC-152a or 

HFC-134a. If a manufacturer finds it necessary to formulate a product with a VOC 

exempt propellant, the GWP limit of 150 allows the option of using HFC-152a, but not 

HFC-134a with its higher GWP value of 1300. Incorporating HFC-152a or HFC-134a 

would take considerable product development resources and increase propellant costs 

by as much as 350 percent over hydrocarbon propellants currently in use (ARB, 2008e). 

Because of the additional cost, if a manufacturer were to use a VOC exempt propellant 

to comply with the proposed VOC limit, we would expect small amounts of HFC-152a to 

be blended with less expensive hydrocarbon propellants. 

As previously stated, the proposed GWP limit of 150, effective December 31, 2012, is a 

mitigation measure designed to cap, or limit, the potential for GHG emissions increases 

from Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners reformulated to meet the proposed 

20 percent by weight VOC limit. The GWP limit allows the use of a VOC exempt 

propellant, if necessary. However, no increase in GHG emissions from Double Phase 

Aerosol Air Fresheners is expected as products are most likely to be reformulated to 

meet both the 20 percent by weight VOC limit and the GWP limit of 150 without the use 

of HFC-152a (ARB, 2007f; Reckitt Benckiser, 2009; SC Johnson, 2009b).

Issues: 

a. Issue: A 20 percent by weight VOC limit for Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Fresheners does not seem realistic; especially when there is very little complying 

market share and very few products that comply with the proposed limit. 

Response: We acknowledge that only a limited number of products with VOC 

content equal to or lower than 20 percent by weight, representing less than 

1 percent of the category sales, were reported in the 2006 Survey. However, our 

evaluation of the Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products reported in the 

2006 Survey and discussions with industry representatives demonstrate that our 

proposal of 20 percent by weight VOC limit, effective December 31, 2012, for this 

category, while challenging, is both technologically and commercially feasible. 

b. Issue: The 20 percent by weight VOC limit for Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Fresheners will be a challenge to meet. December 31, 2011, the effective date in 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 57 

the original proposal published in August 2008, does not provide sufficient time 

for manufacturers to reformulate all their products to meet the proposed VOC 

limit. More time is needed to evaluate propellants and valve/actuator 

combinations, conduct laboratory tests, and conduct consumer fragrance 

acceptance and use studies. 

Response: Recognizing that the 20 percent by weight VOC limit may be 

challenging for manufacturers to meet, we agree that an additional year should 

be added to the effective date primarily due to the large number of products 

predicted to be reformulated. An effective date of December 31, 2012, will 

provide manufacturers with additional time that will accommodate the complex 

and lengthy product development process necessary for reformulating 

approximately 200 products and fragrance variants. 

c. Issue: A study funded by a prominent environmental group indicated that 

several different types of air fresheners contain high levels of a number of 

phthalates. ARB should consider banning the use of phthalates in air fresheners. 

Response: The most commonly used phthalate in cosmetics and personal care 

products according to the literature is diethyl phthalate (DEP). When present in 

fragrances, perfumes and other products, it is used as a solvent to help blend 

fragrance ingredients and as a fixative to make fragrances last longer (CI, 2009). 

No phthalates were specifically reported for any Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener product in the 2006 Survey.

We understand, however, that the air freshener industry has taken voluntary 

action to reduce the use of phthalates. The United States fragrance industry has 

instructed its members to use DEP in fragrances and not to use dibutyl phthalate 

(DBP) and diethyl hexyl phthalate (DEHP) (FMA, 2007). Additionally, major 

manufacturers of air fresheners have taken proactive positions and have 

adopted, or are in the process of adopting, a “no-phthalates” policy for their 

products (SC Johnson, 2009a; SC Johnson, 2009b; Reckitt Benckiser, 2009). As 

reported in the 2006 Survey, fragrance in Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener 

products ranged from 0.1 to about 2 percent by weight of total product 

formulation. Therefore, DEP, if used in the fragrance mixtures at all, would most 

likely be present in minimal amounts. We would not expect DBP or DEHP to be 

used in Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners because of their chemical 

properties and industry policies. Considering the industry policies, and the 

limited use, exposure to phthalates in Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, if 

any, would be negligible. Therefore, we believe that mitigation measures related 

to the use of phthalates in Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners cannot be 

justified without additional data. 

d. Issue: Industry representatives recommend that no GWP limit be adopted by 

ARB to allow for the formulation of products with HFC-134a for certain critical 

uses requiring total non-flammability. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 58 

Response: Industry representatives have not indicated that they are aware of 

products containing HFC-134a currently in commerce and have not identified any 

specific critical uses (CSPA, 2009a). Additionally, no non-flammable products 

were reported in the 2006 Survey. Therefore, prohibiting the use of HFC-134a 

(GWP value of 1300) while allowing the use of HFC-152a (GWP value of 140), is 

an appropriate mitigation measure to limit GHG emissions increases from Double 

Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners reformulated to meet the proposed 20 percent by 

weight VOC limit. 

B. MULTI-PURPOSE SOLVENT AND PAINT THINNER

This section provides information on two proposals that are related, one for the category 

"Multi-purpose Solvent," and another for "Paint Thinner." The information in this section 

is presented in the following parts, first, a product category description for Multi-purpose 

Solvent followed by a product category description for Paint Thinner. These 

descriptions will be followed by a discussion of “Thinners and Solvents” combined. 

Product Category Descriptions: 

Multi-purpose Solvent: 

Multi-purpose Solvent (MPS) products are liquid products designed or labeled to be 

used for dispersing, dissolving, or removing contaminants or other organic materials. 

The category also includes products that do not display specific use instructions or a 

specific end-use function on the product container or packaging. MPS also includes 

“Paint Clean-up” products, products labeled to prepare surfaces for painting, and 

solvents used in institutional facilities, except for laboratory reagents used in analytical; 

educational; research; scientific; or other laboratories. 

MPS does not include solvents used in cold cleaners, vapor degreasers, conveyorized 

degreasers or film cleaning machines; solvents labeled for the clean-up of application 

equipment used for polyaspartic and polyurea coatings; or solvents that are 

incorporated into, or used exclusively in the manufacture or construction of, the goods 

or commodities at the site of the establishment. 

The category also does not include any product making any representation that the 

product may be used as, or is suitable for use as, a consumer product which qualifies 

under another definition in section 94508 (the “definitions” section of the general 

consumer products regulation). Such products are not MPS and are subject to the 

“Most Restrictive Limit” provision of section 94512. For example, adhesive removers 

which can technically meet the definition of Multi-purpose Solvent, are not MPS 

because they are defined in section 94508 as “Adhesive Remover.” 

“Multi-Purpose Solvent” was originally defined as an exclusion to the definition of “Spot 

Remover” in the Consumer Products Regulation Amendments of July 1997 (ARB, 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 59 

1997). In the November 2006 Consumer Products Regulation Amendments, the 

definition was modified to clearly exclude multi-function products (products that make 

multiple regulated claims on the label) and clearly include packaged solvents (organic 

solvents without specific use claims, such as mineral spirits or methyl ethyl ketone) 

(ARB, 2006). The above description for MPS, includes new proposed language to the 

existing regulatory definition that will clarify products that are included in the category 

and products that are not included in the category. 

Paint Thinner: 

Paint Thinner products are liquid products used for reducing the viscosity of coating 

compositions or components, that prominently display the term “Paint Thinner,” 

“Lacquer Thinner,” “Thinner,” or “Reducer” on the front panel of its packaging. 

The Board originally approved a definition for “Paint Thinner” in the Consumer Products 

Regulation Amendments of June 2004. We are proposing the following new language 

to the existing regulatory definition that will clarify products that are not included in the 

category. Paint Thinner does not include thinners labeled for the thinning of Industrial 

Maintenance Coatings, Zinc-Rich Primers, and High Temperature Coatings. This 

category also does not include products labeled and used exclusively as a component 

in a specific coating or “Artist’s Solvent/Thinner.” 

Thinners and Solvents: 

We conducted shelf surveys at more than 100 home improvement and mass market 

retail stores throughout California and always found Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner products sold adjacently on store shelves (ARB, 2009). Based on market 

research and consultations with industry experts, we concluded that these products are 

often used interchangeably by consumers to thin solvent-borne paint, clean application 

equipment, and remove contaminants from a variety of surfaces. Therefore, we 

consider it appropriate to present the remaining information in this section for Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner, in one combined discussion, referred to as 

“Thinners and Solvents.” 

Table VI-3 below summarizes the sales and emissions from Thinners and Solvents 

based on the results of the ARB’s Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey 

Update (ARB, 2008f). In November 2008, we conducted a Paint Thinner and Multipurpose Solvent Survey Update for the 12-month period, October 1, 2007 through 

September 30, 2008, because of recent, significant changes to the Thinner and Solvent 

market. Previous to the survey update, we used data from the 2003 Consumer and 

Commercial Products Survey to evaluate these categories (ARB, 2004). We have held 

multiple meetings throughout the development of this proposal. Stakeholders requested 

an update to the 2003 survey data. We conducted the survey update and posted 

updated Thinners and Solvents data to the Consumer Products Program website in 

early March 2009. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 60 

Table VI-3 

Thinners and Solvents* 

Product 

Form

Number of 

Products Jurisdiction 

2009 

Category Sales 

(lbs/day)

2009 Adjusted 

VOC Emissions 

(lbs/day)**

Liquid 165 Statewide 54,380 43,620 

SCAQMD 23,320 18,700 

Total*** 31,060+24,920+

 * Based on Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update. (ARB, 2008f) 

 ** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage and rounded (see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

+

 Does not include Rule 1143 sales or VOC emissions.

On March 6, 2009, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 

adopted Rule 1143, “Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi-Purpose Solvents” 

(Rule 1143) which, upon the effective date, will achieve VOC emissions reductions from 

consumer Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners used in the South Coast Air 

Basin. 

In order to avoid double-counting category sales and VOC emissions, we have 

subtracted from the statewide values in Table VI-3, the portion that can be attributed to 

the South Coast Air Basin based on population (DOF, 2008). Table VI-3 above (see 

“Total” row) shows that Thinners and Solvents have estimated VOC emissions of about 

12.5 tons per day (24,920 pounds per day) in California, excluding the South Coast Air 

Basin. 

Product Uses and Marketing: 

Thinners and Solvents are used by individual consumers, commercial services, and 

institutional users to thin paint prior to applying to surfaces. They are also used to 

remove general contaminants and organic material, other than those contaminants 

removed by products in currently defined categories. These products are used on a 

variety of solvent resistant substrates such as cement and paint application equipment. 

Thinners and Solvents are typically sold to household consumers and paint contractors 

in one quart or one gallon metal containers, and are sold primarily in home improvement 

stores; retail paint stores; general mass market stores; discount stores; and automotive 

aftermarket retail stores. These products are also sold to industrial or institutional users 

through distributors. 

Product Formulations: 

Thinners and Solvents are comprised of chemical compounds such as ethyl alcohol, 

methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, xylene isomers, or acetone; a mixture of these or similar 

chemical compounds; or packaged as hydrocarbon solvents labeled “mineral spirits.” 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 61 

Some products may contain LVP-VOC or VOC exempt compounds, though most 

products are nearly 100 percent VOC. 

Proposed VOC Limits and Compliance: 

We are proposing two tiers of VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner. 

The first tier VOC limit is 30 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. As shown 

in Table VI-4, using adjusted emissions, the proposed 30 percent limit will result in an 

estimated VOC emission reduction of about 17,000 pounds per day, or about 8.4 tons 

per day, in 2010. As stated previously, the VOC emission reductions shown in Table 

VI-4 do not include the reductions achieved by Rule 1143. 

Table VI-4 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner Proposal*

Product 

Form

Proposed 

VOC 

Limit 

(wt. %)

Complying 

Products

Complying 

Market Share 

(%) Jurisdiction 

2009 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)** 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(lbs/day)+

Statewide 29,140 29,510 

SCAQMD 12,500 12,640 

Liquid 30 18 11.3 

Total*** 16,640*** 16,870*** 

Statewide 13,030 13,710 

SCAQMD 5,590 5,850 

Liquid 3 15 11.2 

Total*** 7,440*** 7,860*** 

* Based on Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update. (ARB, 2008f) 

** Survey emissions adjusted for complete market coverage, grown by population to 2009, and rounded 

(see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

*** Does not include Rule 1143 reductions. 

+

 Emissions reductions adjusted for complete market coverage, grown by population to 2010 for the 30 

percent VOC limit; and to 2013 for the 3 percent VOC limit; and rounded (see Chapter IV, Emissions). 

Table VI-4 also shows that 18 products, representing approximately 11.3 percent of the 

total Thinners and Solvents market on a sales basis, currently comply with the proposed 

30 percent VOC limit. There are also a number of water/hydrocarbon solvent 

emulsions, currently in commerce, that are formulated slightly above 30 percent VOC. 

These products will only need a modest reformulation to comply with the 30 percent 

VOC standard. It should be noted that the 11.3 percent complying marketshare, in 

Table VI-4, would be significantly higher if these products already complied with the 

proposed 30 percent VOC limit. We believe this demonstrates that the first tier VOC 

limit of 30 percent by weight can be met using existing technology. 

A technology forcing second tier limit of 3 percent VOC by weight, effective 

December 31, 2013, is also proposed. As shown in Table VI-4, the 3 percent limit 

would reduce emissions by nearly 8,000 additional pounds per day VOC or 3.9 tons per 

day. Table VI-4 also shows that 15 products, representing 11.2 percent of the market, 

currently comply with the proposed 3 percent limit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 62 

The overwhelming majority of existing products that meet the 3 percent VOC limit are 

formulated with pure acetone. We believe that the 3 percent VOC limit is challenging 

because products formulated with pure acetone have not been demonstrated to 

adequately thin all types of coatings. In addition, concerns regarding the flammability of 

acetone have been raised. Later in this section, we discuss our response to this 

concern. Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, also contains a discussion regarding 

flammability. When fully effective, these two limits would reduce VOC emissions from 

Thinners and Solvents by about 12.7 tons per day in the State, outside of the South 

Coast Air Basin. 

The proposed VOC limits are designed to reduce the use of VOCs in Thinner and 

Solvent formulations, resulting in a reduction of ambient ozone formation. For the 

30 percent limit, reformulation options include increasing production of existing 

complying products, switching to water-based formulations, or replacing VOC solvents 

with VOC exempt ingredients. Reformulation options to meet the proposed 3 percent 

limit include emerging technologies such as soy-based products, in addition to the 

methods listed previously with the 30 percent limit. 

Upon approval of the proposed VOC limits, and implementation of SCAQMD Rule 1143, 

manufacturers of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products will be required to 

meet the Rule 1143 limits for products sold or supplied for use in the South Coast Air 

Basin, and the statewide limits for products sold to all areas of California, outside the 

South Coast Air Basin. The VOC limits we are proposing are virtually equivalent to 

those adopted by SCAQMD, however, the effective dates are different. The effective 

dates for Rule 1143 are January 1, 2010, and January 1, 2011 for the first and second 

tier VOC limits respectively, while our proposed effective dates are December 31, 2010 

and December 31, 2013. 

To ensure the ozone forming potential of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products does not increase as a result of the implementation of the proposed VOC 

limits, we are proposing to limit the use of VOC aromatic compounds to no more than 

1 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. We are proposing that Thinners and 

Solvents available Statewide meet this requirement. The proposed limitation on the use 

of VOC aromatic compounds is unique to the State regulation, and is not required by 

SCAQMD Rule 1143. Therefore, this provision would apply statewide and result in an 

additional ozone reduction benefit in the SCAQMD. Additional discussion regarding the 

need for limiting the use of these highly reactive ingredients can be found in Chapter 

VIII, Environmental Impacts. 

While we believe that there are several products and reformulation pathways currently 

available to meet the 30 percent VOC limit, we acknowledge that technology advances 

are necessary to meet the future 3 percent limit. To that end, we are proposing to work 

with industry to assess progress as the December 31, 2013, compliance date 

approaches. We are proposing a technology assessment in 2012, to evaluate 

manufacturers’ progress toward meeting the 3 percent limit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 63 

Proposed Global Warming Potential (GWP) Limit and Compliance: 

Pursuant to ARB’s responsibilities under Assembly Bill 32, reductions of GHGs from 

consumer products are necessary (ARB, 2008e). Consumer products use various 

GHGs, mostly as propellants and to a limited extent as solvents. Although the GHG 

emissions contribution from consumer products can be relatively low, the severity of the 

climate change problem requires reductions or limitations from any source where it is 

feasible. No solvents with high GWP values were reported in the Paint Thinner and 

Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update (ARB, 2008f). However, to ensure that there is 

no significant increase in GHG emissions from products reformulated to comply with the 

proposed VOC limits, we are proposing, as a Statewide mitigation measure, a GWP 

limit of 150 for any chemical compound used in Thinner and Solvent products, effective 

December 31, 2010. The proposed GWP limit is unique to the State regulation, and is 

not required by SCAQMD Rule 1143. Therefore, this provision would apply statewide 

and result in an additional GHG reduction benefit in the SCAQMD. 

Proposed Toxics Prohibition: 

None of the products reported in the survey update, including products that comply with 

the proposed VOC limits, are currently formulated with methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene. To prevent the potential use of these Toxic Air 

Contaminants as manufacturers reformulate products to comply with the proposed 

limits, we are proposing to prohibit their use in the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner categories effective December 31, 2010. Methylene chloride and 

perchloroethylene are exempt VOC solvents, therefore, without the prohibition, high 

concentrations of these solvents could be used as reformulation options. While 

trichloroethylene meets the definition of VOC, without the prohibition, it could be used in 

Thinner and Solvent formulations that meet the proposed VOC limits. The health 

effects associated with exposure to perchloroethylene, methylene chloride and 

trichloroethylene, are well established. More information on the health effects of these 

solvents can be found in Chapter VIII of the Technical Support Document for the June 

2008 Consumer Products Regulation Amendments (ARB, 2008e). In Rule 1143, 

SCAQMD has prohibited from consumer paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents, 

greater than 0.1 percent by weight of “Group II exempt compounds listed in Rule 102.” 

Group II exempt compounds include methylene chloride and perchloroethylene. 

Therefore, the statewide toxics prohibition differs slightly from SCAQMD Rule 1143 in 

that it prohibits one additional toxic compound, trichloroethylene. 

Photochemical Reactivity: 

As mentioned previously, we are proposing in section 94509(u), to limit the use of 

aromatic compounds in products in the Multi-Purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

categories to 1 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. This Statewide 

requirement is intended to mitigate the possibility that manufacturers could replace 

current VOC solvents used in Thinners and Solvents with highly reactive compounds. A 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 64 

discussion related to this proposal and the potential for the VOC reductions achieved 

from the proposed limits for Thinners and Solvents to be eroded without this measure, is 

provided in Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts. The proposed limitation on the use of 

VOC aromatic compounds is unique to the State regulation, and is not required by 

SCAQMD Rule 1143. Therefore, this provision would apply statewide and result in an 

additional ozone reduction benefit in the SCAQMD. 

Small Size Exemption: 

We are proposing to temporarily exempt very small (8 fluid ounces or less) containers of 

Paint Thinner from compliance with the VOC limits until December 31, 2013. This 

exemption is designed to allow consumers to continue to be able to purchase typical 

Paint Thinners to be used with paints where the established VOC limit allows for fairly 

high concentrations of solvents. In addition, there is an existing exemption from the 

VOC limits for architectural coatings packaged in containers with a volume of one liter 

(1.057 quart) or less. Therefore, we believe a limited, temporary small container 

exemption is appropriate for Paint Thinner. Absent this provision, these solvent-borne 

paint products may be discarded, resulting in increasing the solid or hazardous waste 

stream or affecting water quality. This proposal should mitigate these potential 

consequences. We expect the emissions impacts of this small size exemption will be 

minimal. The proposed small size exemption is unique to the State regulation, 

therefore, this provision would only apply to areas of California outside the South Coast 

Air Basin. 

Proposed Labeling Requirements: 

To enhance the enforceability of the regulation, we are proposing that Thinners and 

Solvents would be subject to labeling requirements as specified in proposed new 

subsection 94512(e) of the Consumer Products Regulation. This proposed requirement 

would ensure that all products clearly display the VOC content of the product, in percent 

by weight, as determined from actual formulation data. This information would be 

required to be displayed on the product container such that it is readily observable 

without removing or disassembling any portion of the product container or packaging. 

This requirement would only apply to areas of California outside the South Coast Air 

Basin because SCAQMD has a well established labeling rule, Rule 443.1, Labeling of 

Materials Containing Organic Solvents (SCAQMD, 1986). SCAQMD Rule 443.1 

specifies that within the South Coast Air Basin, products in containers of 0.94 liter (one 

quart) capacity or larger and containing any VOC or material containing VOC 

manufactured after July 1, 1987, must display on the product container, the maximum 

VOC expressed in grams of VOC per liter of material. 

Proposal to Address Product Flammability: 

During the development of the Thinners and Solvents regulation proposal, numerous 

stakeholders expressed concern with the flammability of low-VOC products such as 

those containing acetone. It was brought to our attention by staff of California’s Office 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 65 

of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) and some local fire department representatives, that 

an increased availability of flammable or extremely flammable Thinners and Solvents 

may contribute to additional fire losses. The fire officials believe that consumers may 

not realize that characteristics of products named with general terms such as “Paint 

Thinner” have changed as a result of the proposed VOC limits. Thus, without clear 

notification of this change, they contend the potential for additional fire losses is 

possible. 

The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulations require 

precautionary labeling of hazardous household products, including combustible, 

flammable, and extremely flammable thinners and solvents (USCPSC, 2009a). CPSC 

labeling requirements for hazardous household products are intended to help the 

consumer safely use and store hazardous products and provide information that may be 

necessary in the event of an accident. 

Many products currently in commerce, such as “Paint Thinner” and “Mineral Spirits” are 

combustible products per CPSC because they have “a flashpoint at or above 100o

F 

(37.8oC) to and including 150o

F (65.6oC)” (USCPSC, 2009a). “Acetone” and many 

currently available “Lacquer Thinner” products are considered extremely flammable per 

federal law because they have “a flashpoint at or below 20o

F (-6.7oC)” (USCPSC, 

2009a). The lower the flash point, the more likely the material will ignite. 

As described earlier, we believe manufacturers will meet the proposed VOC limits by 

increasing production of existing complying products, using water-based formulations, 

or replacing VOC solvents with VOC exempt ingredients. Based on market research 

and data we received in the Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update, an 

overwhelming majority of products that currently comply with the proposed VOC limits 

include products labeled as “Acetone” and acetone-based formulations (ARB, 2008f). 

It should be mentioned that water-based Thinners and Solvents, which comply with the 

proposed limits, also have a presence in the market. While water-based Thinners and 

Solvents meet the CPSC definition of a hazardous substance and require precautionary 

labeling, most do not meet the combustible, flammable, or extremely flammable 

definitions; they have flashpoints above 150o

F (65.6oC) (ARB, 2008f). A flashpoint 

above 150oF (65.6oC) can be attributed to the use of water in the product. 

Because we believe some manufacturers may replace some of their high VOC, 

combustible Thinners and Solvents with lower VOC, flammable or extremely flammable 

products, we are proposing to prohibit manufacturers from placing general product 

names on the principle display panel of “Flammable,” or “Extremely Flammable” Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. The general product names used on 

products currently in commerce include, “Paint Thinner,” “Multi-purpose Solvent,” 

“Clean-up Solvent,” “Paint Clean-up.” The proposed prohibition includes two 

alternatives that manufacturers may choose from to continue selling generally named 

“Flammable,” or “Extremely Flammable” Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners. 

The first alternative includes providing a “hang tag” or “sticker” affixed to the product 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 66 

that includes the statement “Formulated to meet California VOC limits, see warnings on 

label.” Manufacturers may also choose to display the common name of the chemical 

that results in the product meeting the criteria for “Flammable” or “Extremely 

Flammable,” in a font as large as or larger, than any of the words on the principle 

display panel. 

The proposed prohibition does not apply to products named “Lacquer Thinner.” Many 

currently available Lacquer Thinners are “Extremely Flammable” because they contain 

greater than 1 percent acetone. 

The proposed Statewide requirement would complement and be in addition to CPSC’s 

labeling requirement for hazardous Thinners and Solvents. Essentially, upon approval 

of the proposed requirement, California will have more stringent labeling requirements 

for hazardous Thinners and Solvents, as a result of stakeholders’ concern. We believe 

additional labeling is necessary to alert the consumer of a potential change in 

formulation of these products which could present a fire hazard if used improperly. 

Additionally, to potentially minimize the increased fire hazard from the use of 

Thinners and Solvents, we have proposed an effective date for the 3 percent VOC limit 

of December 31, 2013. This additional compliance time allows for development of less 

flammable products. The reporting requirement mentioned previously will also allow us 

to evaluate potential reformulations to determine availability of less flammable products. 

Proposed Technology Assessment: 

As proposed in new subsection 94513(g), Thinner and Solvent manufacturers of 

products available Statewide would be required to supply detailed written updates on 

research and development efforts undertaken to achieve future compliance with the 

3 percent VOC limit. The reports would include sales and formulation data for products, 

as well as detailed information on the raw materials evaluated for use; maximum 

incremental reactivity (MIR) values for any VOC or LVP-VOC used or evaluated; the 

function of the raw material evaluated; testing protocols used; the results of the testing; 

and the cost of reformulation efforts. The report would be due on June 30, 2012, and 

would provide data for the 2011 calendar year. 

Issues:

a. Issue: The effective date of the proposed 3 percent VOC limit for Multi-purpose 

Solvents should be earlier than December 31, 2013. 

Response: As described earlier, Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products are used interchangeably by consumers. An earlier effective date for 

the proposed 3 percent VOC limit for Multi-purpose Solvent would provide an 

opportunity for manufacturers to circumvent the limit by adding Paint Thinner 

claims to the product label. We believe the emission reductions attained from an 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 67 

earlier implementation of the 3 percent VOC limit for Multi-purpose Solvent would 

not be achieved. 

b. Issue: ARB’s proposed VOC limits will likely be met with an increase of acetone 

or acetone-based products because acetone is exempt as a VOC. Acetone is an 

extremely flammable solvent that cannot be used in the same manner as a 

combustible product, such as Odorless Mineral Spirits. For a limited time, ARB 

should educate the public to prevent any additional fire losses as a result of the 

proposed limits. 

Response: We agree that the availability of acetone and acetone-based 

products will likely increase as a result of the proposed VOC limits. We also 

agree that an education effort is necessary to alert people to the additional 

hazards of using a flammable or extremely flammable product compared to a 

combustible product such as Odorless Mineral Spirits. We are proposing to 

prohibit manufacturers from placing general product names on the principle 

display panel of “Flammable” or “Extremely Flammable” Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner products. Manufacturers may choose to continue selling 

generally named “Flammable” or “Extremely Flammable” Multi-purpose Solvents 

and Paint Thinners as long as they either: provide a “hang tag” or “sticker” affixed 

to the product that includes the statement “Formulated to meet California VOC 

limits, see warnings on label;” or display the common name of the chemical that 

results in the product meeting the criteria for “Flammable” or “Extremely 

Flammable,” in a font as large as or larger, than any of the words on the principle 

display panel. We believe the proposed requirement will alert the consumer of a 

potential change in formulation of these products which could present a fire 

hazard if used improperly. 

c. Issue: ARB should consider MIR standards for the Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner categories. Reactivity-based regulations will provide 

manufacturers more flexibility in reformulation options and may achieve greater 

ozone reductions. 

Response: We have maintained that a mass-based VOC strategy would be the 

primary focus of this regulatory effort and that a reactivity strategy would only be 

employed if the mass-based strategies did not provide the necessary reductions. 

We believe the proposed mass-based limits are feasible and will achieve 

significant emissions reductions. Notwithstanding the above, we acknowledge 

that it is possible that some existing products that are 100 percent VOC could 

have a lower reactivity compared to some complying 30 percent products. In 

addition, some complying 30 percent products could have lower reactivity 

compared to some technologies available to meet the 3 percent limit, thus 

achieving no additional air quality benefit. As such, we are proposing to limit the 

aromatic content of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner to 1 percent by 

weight, effective December 31, 2010. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 68 

We believe that limiting the aromatic compound content of these products will 

ensure that the ozone forming potential of reformulated products does not 

increase and the maximum air quality benefits are achieved. We are also 

proposing to conduct a technology assessment on or before June 30, 2012, to 

assess manufacturers’ progress towards developing products that meet the 

proposed 3 percent VOC limit. We also intend to evaluate whether a reactivitybased regulation would achieve greater ozone reductions as opposed to the 

mass-based 3 percent VOC limit. 

d. Issue: ARB should consider exempting Tertiary Butyl Acetate (TBAc) from the 

definition of VOC. 

Response: The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment considers 

TBAc a possible human carcinogen, therefore we are not considering exempting 

it as a VOC at this time. However, because we are proposing to exempt Paint 

Thinner products labeled to be used exclusively for Industrial Maintenance 

Coatings, TBAc could be used in those specific instances, if necessary. 

e. Issue: ARB should consider a permanent small container exemption for Paint 

Thinner products intended for use with the solvent-borne paint. Without a small 

container exemption, consumers may resort to gasoline to thin their solventborne paint. 

Response: We acknowledge that there continues to be a limited need for 

thinning small quantities of solvent-borne paint. Based on discussions with 

ARB’s Architectural Coatings Program staff, there are several categories of 

architectural paints with VOC limits that allow for fairly high concentrations of 

solvents. In addition, there is an existing exemption from the VOC limits for 

architectural coatings packaged in containers with a volume of one liter 

(1.057 quart) or less. Therefore, we believe a limited, temporary small container 

exemption is appropriate for Paint Thinner. Additionally, this will give 

manufacturers time to develop low VOC thinners that are compatible with 

solvent-borne coatings. We are proposing an exemption for Paint Thinner 

products, packaged in containers with a capacity less than or equal to 8 fluid 

ounces, until December 31, 2013. 

f. Issue: ARB may be preempted by federal law from requiring additional labeling 

on flammable and extremely flammable Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products. 

Response: We have consulted with staff from the United States Consumer 

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) who have explained the federal preemption 

clause as it pertains to federal labeling for hazardous consumer products. Based 

on discussions with CPSC staff, we have written a proposal that does not conflict 

with federal requirements. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 69 

g. Issue: The proposed 3 percent VOC limit for Paint Thinners will not allow for 

products that will effectively thin all paints, including solvent-borne paint. 

Response: As described earlier, we are proposing to conduct a technology 

assessment on or before June 30, 2012, to assess manufacturers’ progress 

towards developing products that can meet the proposed 3 percent VOC limit. 

We are aware that that currently, there are only a few reformulation pathways 

that meet the 3 percent limit. However, there is information that indicates that 

new technologies are under development. We will evaluate progress toward 

meeting the 3 percent limit in the technology assessment. 

h. Issue: ARB should consider exempting natural solvents, such as d-limonene, 

because of its carbon neutral attributes. 

Response: D-limonene is a highly reactive VOC that contributes significantly to 

ground level ozone formation. Also, none of the products reported in the Survey 

Update were formulated with d-limonene. The commenter did not provide a 

definition for natural solvent or any data about the attributes of natural solvents. 

Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate at this time to consider this 

exemption. 

REFERENCES FOR DOUBLE PHASE AEROSOL AIR FRESHENERS 

1. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation. May, 2008. (ARB, 2008e) 

2. Air Resources Board. The California Consumer Products Regulations. 

December, 2007. (ARB, 2007a) 

3. Air Resources Board. 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. 

August, 2007. (ARB, 2007f) 

4. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation. September, 1999. (ARB, 1999a) 

5. Air Resources Board. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including 

Summary of Comments and Agency Responses Public Hearing to Consider 

Adoption of Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation –

Mid-term Measures II. October, 1999. (ARB, 1999b) 

6. Air Resources Board. Proposed Regulation to Reduce Volatile Organic 

Compound Emissions from Consumer Products Technical Support Document. 

August, 1990. (ARB, 1990b) 

7. Consumer Specialty Products Association. CSPA Product Technology Seminar

for CARB Staff. January, 2009. (CSPA, 2009) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 70 

8. Consumer Specialty Products Association. Draft Staff Proposal for June 2009 

Consumer Products Amendments. Comment Letter to ARB Staff. April, 2009. 

(CSPA, 2009a) 

9. CosmeticsInfo.org (sponsored by the Personal Care Products Council). 

Phthalates. April, 2009. http://www.CosmeticsInfo.org. (CI, 2009) 

10. Fragrance Materials Association of the United States. RE: Docket EPA-HQOPPT-2007-1016, “Citizen Petition to EPA and CPSC Regarding Air 

Fresheners”. November, 2007. (FMA, 2007) 

11. Fragrance Materials Association. Fragrances and the Regulation of Volatile 

Organic Compounds. July, 2006. (FMA, 2006) 

12. Esposito, Christine. Home Sweet Home Fragrance. Household and Personal 

Products Industry. September, 2008. (Esposito, 2008) 

13. Euromonitor International. Home Fragrance: Air Care in the US Market By 

Euromonitor International (Excerpt Only Posted November 12, 2008, from 

November 2008 Issue of P&F Magazine). November, 2008. 

http://PerfumerFlavorist.com. (Euromonitor, 2008) 

14. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. 

Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. 

Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: 

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate 

Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

 Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007) 

15. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Climate Change 1995: 

Second Assessment Report: The Science of Climate Change. (1996) 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, 

B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell, (eds.)]. Cambridge 

University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom. (IPCC, 1996) 

16. Reckitt Benckiser. Telephone Conversation with ARB staff. March 25, 2009. 

(Reckitt Benckiser, 2009) 

17. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. March 12, 2009, Press Release: Phthalates Phasing 

Out and Innovative Ingredient Communication Launched.

http://www.scjohnson.com/family/fam_pre_pre_news.asp?art_id=390

(SC Johnson, 2009a) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VI - 71 

18. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Telephone Conversation with ARB Staff. 

March 24, 2009. (SC Johnson, 2009b) 

REFERENCES FOR MULTI-PURPOSE SOLVENT AND PAINT THINNER 

1. Air Resources Board. Results of Thinners Solvents Shelf Surveys. 

 January, 2009. (ARB, 2009) 

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation. May, 2008. (ARB, 2008e) 

3. Air Resources Board. Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update. 

November 4, 2008. (ARB, 2008f) 

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

November 3, 2004. (ARB, 2004) 

5. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures. 

 June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997) 

6. California Department of Finance, Population Estimates and Components of 

Change by County, July 1, 2000-2008. December 2008. (DOF, 2008) 

7. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Rule 443.1. Labeling 

of Materials Containing Organic Solvents. December 5, 1986. (SCAQMD, 1986) 

8. United States, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Title 16 Commercial 

Practices Part 1500 Hazardous Substances and Articles; Administration and 

Enforcement Regulations. April 2009. (USCPSC, 2009a) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 72 

VII. ECONOMIC IMPACTS

This chapter provides our analysis of the estimated economic and fiscal impacts of the 

proposed amendments. The analysis focuses on costs to comply with the proposed 

VOC limits. We expect the other proposals to result in negligible or no costs. 

Businesses that manufacture air fresheners, multi-purpose solvents and paint thinners 

with VOC contents above the proposed VOC limits would incur costs to reformulate 

their products. Potential fiscal impacts would be costs incurred by State agencies to 

administer, enforce, or comply with the proposal. 

Economic impact analyses are inherently imprecise, given the unpredictable behavior of 

companies in a highly competitive market such as consumer products. While staff has 

quantified the economic impacts to the extent feasible, some projections are necessarily 

qualitative, and based on general observations and facts known about the consumer 

products industry. This analysis, therefore, serves to provide a general picture of the 

economic impacts typical businesses might encounter. Individual companies may 

experience different impacts than projected. 

The summary of economic impacts of the proposed limits is presented in Section A. 

Other possible economic impacts and mitigation paths are provided in the following 

sections: 

 B. Costs of Compliance 

 C. Return on Owners’ Equity 

 D. Impacts on California Businesses, Consumers, and State and Local 

Agencies 

E. Other Possible Economic Impacts of Regulatory Changes 

F. Mitigation of Potential Impacts through Additional Regulatory Flexibility 

This economic impacts analysis was conducted in accordance with the current legal 

requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This analysis uses similar 

methodologies and assumptions as were used in the last consumer products 

rulemakings (ARB, 2004b; ARB, 2006a; ARB, 2008e).

A. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS

Staff has estimated that the overall cost to comply with the proposed VOC limits is 

about $3.1 million per year for ten years ($31 million in total). This amount includes 

both recurring (e.g., raw materials) and nonrecurring (e.g., research and development) 

costs and is estimated based on assumptions specific to each category. The cost 

represents the average of low and high cost estimates and represents staff’s prediction 

of the costs businesses would most likely incur. 

Another measure of the economic impacts of the proposal is to determine the “dollars to 

be spent per pound of VOC reduced,” or cost effectiveness. The cost effectiveness of 

the proposed amendments has been calculated to be about $0.29 per pound of VOC 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 73 

reduced. This is based on expected emission reductions of about 14.7 tons per day. 

This cost effectiveness is comparatively less costly than some other recent consumer 

products rulemakings. 

The impacts of the proposed amendments on manufacturers are estimated by 

determining the “return on owner’s equity” (ROE). ROE is a calculation which compares 

a company’s percentage reduction in profitability before and after incurring the costs 

associated with the proposed amendments. The analysis found that the overall 

reduction in profitability ranges from 5.4 percent for Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener to about 24 percent for reformulation costs incurred for both the first tier and 

second tier limits for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Thus, the 

potential exists that some manufacturers of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products may experience a significant impact in their profitability. In light of this, the 

assessment of ROE requires further explanation. 

Our analysis of ROE found that sample businesses in the affected industries complying 

with the proposed first tier limit for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner, declined by 

about 9.5 percent. When the second tier limit for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner is calculated, the ROE of the affected industries is estimated to decline by up to 

24 percent. This analysis assumes that all compliance costs will be absorbed by the 

affected industry. However, it is most likely that affected businesses will be able to pass 

on at least part of the cost increase to consumers. Since consumers spend only a small 

portion of their annual budget on affected products, they are not expected to be 

sensitive to a small increase in the prices of those products. To the extent that the 

projected costs are passed on to consumers, the impact on business profitability is likely 

to be much less than estimated in our projection. 

Because we expect businesses will pass on compliance costs to the consumer, we 

estimated the increased cost the consumer may experience. If all assumed compliance 

costs are passed on to the consumer, without consideration of typical retail mark-up, we 

estimate the cost per unit increase would range from negligible cost (net savings or no 

cost) for a Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener product to about $0.75 for a Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner product reformulated to meet the proposed second 

tier limit unit of 3 percent VOC by weight. The value of $0.75 represents the summed 

per-unit cost increase for a one gallon of product reformulated to meet the first tier limits 

and reformulated a second time to meet the second tier limits. By apportioning annual 

sales of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products to the California population, 

we estimated that residents purchase less than one container of Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner per year. Thus, considering normal retail mark-up of 100 percent, the 

consumer’s cost increase to purchase Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner would 

increase by about $1.50 per gallon. 

We also estimated costs to contractors because they commonly purchase Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products. If we apportion all sales of Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner products to licensed contractors, we estimate purchases of 

approximately five gallons per year. Considering normal retail mark-up and using our 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 74 

high cost estimate, the cost increase to licensed contractors purchasing Multi-purpose 

Solvent/Paint Thinner products would be about $8 per year (CDCA, 2009). 

Based on our ROE calculations, we believe that overall, most affected businesses will 

be able to absorb the costs, or will pass through some of the costs to the consumer, 

such that there will be no significant adverse impacts on their profitability. Therefore, 

we do not expect a noticeable change in employment; business creation, elimination or 

expansion; or business competitiveness in California. However, the proposed 

amendments may impose economic hardship on some businesses with very little or no 

margin of profitability. 

We determined that there would be no significant adverse fiscal impacts to any local or 

State agencies. 

Staff believes that the regulation cost and CE determination methodologies are 

conservative. For example, the average cost scenario of low and high determines the 

overall cost and cost effectiveness of the regulation. The low cost scenario assumes 

that companies would choose the lowest cost reformulation pathway, making minor 

adjustments to a product’s formulation, or simply ceasing sale of some non-complying 

products. We believe that most manufacturers would choose the lowest cost 

reformulation option. For the high cost scenario, it is assumed that there is significant 

research and development, and new equipment is needed to reformulate the product. 

We believe that few manufacturers would need to take the high cost reformulation 

approach. 

Details of our cost analysis are in the following sections. Additional information as to 

how recurring and nonrecurring costs were estimated is contained in Appendices D 

and E. 

B. COSTS OF COMPLIANCE 

The total cost of compliance of the proposal requires an estimation of the recurring and 

nonrecurring costs that would be expended to reformulate and bring a product to 

market. Recurring costs for this analysis are those associated with the cost of the raw 

materials. Nonrecurring costs are assumed to be one time costs and are those 

associated with research, development, and plant changes that may be necessary to 

develop a reformulated complying product. Our analysis further assumes that 

nonrecurring costs will be amortized over a project horizon of ten years. Summing the 

recurring and amortized nonrecurring costs represents the total cost to reformulate a 

product. We then use the total cost to estimate the potential cost per unit increase to 

the consumer, the cost effectiveness (CE) of the proposed amendments, and the ROE. 

There are many variables in producing a product for market, and assumptions about 

those variables will greatly affect the outcome of any cost analysis. For each 

assumption, staff applied a test of “reasonableness” to determine if this was a likely 

approach to take, or if the event had a high probability of occurring. The following 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 75 

sections describe our process for arriving at the costs to comply with the proposed 

amendments. 

1. Recurring Costs 

As part of the economic impact analysis, we evaluated the expected cost impacts from 

complying with the proposed VOC limits on raw material costs. The change in the cost 

of raw material costs are expected to be ongoing, i.e., they are recurring costs. 

 a. Methodology

Using the data from the 2006 Survey for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products 

and the Survey Update for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, we 

determined the formulations which most closely reflect the “typical” compliant and noncompliant product contents. For each category staff estimated a “low cost” and “high 

cost” by varying costs for ingredients. Information on how raw material costs were 

estimated, as well as formulations evaluated (with individual weight fractions and unit 

prices per pound), are shown in Appendix D. While these formulations may not reflect 

the exact composition of existing non-compliant products and compliant products that 

will be marketed, we believe they are reasonably representative for the purposes of this 

analysis. 

In this rulemaking, we used the same raw material costs as were used in the June 2008 

rulemaking for consumer products (ARB, 2008e). We believe this is reasonable, if not 

conservative, given the declining price of oil and general economic downturn that has 

occurred since that rulemaking. 

Except for ingredient costs, we assumed changes in packaging, delivery systems, 

labeling, distribution and other recurring costs would be negligible relative to baseline 

levels of these costs (ARB, 1997b). We believe this assumption is valid because the 

proposed limits should not require significant packaging or delivery system 

modifications. We also believe distribution costs would be the same because we do not 

expect manufacturers to sell and distribute “California only products.” The most likely 

pathway for reformulation was assumed for non-compliant products. Despite this 

assumption, alternative formulations may allow lower-cost compliant products than 

shown in our analysis. 

b. Results

The estimated cost of typical non-compliant and compliant formulations for each 

category is displayed in Table VII-1a. The values are taken from Appendix D. The 

difference between high and low cost non-compliant and compliant formulations yields 

the change in ingredient costs. As shown in Table VII-1a, Columns C1 and C2, the 

anticipated raw materials cost change ranges from no cost (net savings or no cost) to 

about $0.50 increase per unit (per 83 fluid ounces average unit size of Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner complying with the tier 2 limit). Note that when the cost for 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 76 

raw materials in the predicted reformulated product are comparable or slightly cheaper 

to those currently used, rather than assigning a negative cost, we assume there will be 

no change in the cost of raw materials. 

Table VII-1a 

Estimated Change in Formula Cost per Unit* 

Formula Cost per Unit 

Non-compliant

 Low High 

Compliant 

 Low High 

Cost Increase to Comply 

per Unit 

Low High 

Category A1 A2 B1 B2

C1= 

B1 – A1

C2 = 

B2 –A2

Air Freshener – 

Double Phase 

(aerosol) 

$0.10 $0.20 $0.10 $0.20 $0.00+ $0.00+

Multi-purpose 

Solvent & Paint 

Thinner 

 tier 1 

$3.20 $4.70 $2.90 $4.30 $0.00+ $0.00+

 tier 2 $2.90 $4.30 $2.80 $4.80 $0.00+ $0.50+

* Raw material costs are assumed to be $0.00 when staff estimates that materials used to reformulate

 are comparably priced to current materials or are less expensive than currently used. 

+ Numbers have been rounded in tables, however unrounded numbers are used for calculations in 

subsequent tables. 

Using the change in the cost per unit from Table VII-1a, the total recurring costs per 

category are calculated as shown in Table VII-1b. To arrive at the total cost per 

category, estimated non-compliant unit sales (Column D) are multiplied by the recurring 

costs per unit taken from Table VII-1a. As shown in Table VII-1b, Column E3 the 

average total recurring cost per category ranges from no cost to about $850,000 for the 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products reformulated to comply with the tier 2 

VOC limit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 77 

Table VII-1b 

Total Estimated Recurring Cost 

Annual 

California 

Noncomplying

Unit Sales* 

Total Annual Recurring Cost per Category+

 Low Cost High Cost Average 

Category 

D E1 = 

D X C1

E2 = 

D X C2

E3 = 

(E1 + E2)/2 

Air Freshener – 

Double Phase 

(aerosol) 

53,748,100 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

Multi-purpose 

Solvent & Paint 

Thinner 

 tier 1 

1,723,300 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

 tier 2 1,699,000 $0.00 $854,000 $427,000 

* Assumes “typical” unit size as shown in Appendix D. 

+

 See Table VII-1a footnote about the use of unrounded numbers in calculations. 

 2. Nonrecurring Costs 

In this portion of the analysis, we evaluated the impacts of nonrecurring costs likely to 

be expended to comply with the proposed limits. These are assumed to be costs 

incurred once to conduct the necessary research and development to produce a 

complying product. Technical literature and industry trade journals provide little 

information to estimate nonrecurring costs directly. This is not surprising because the 

consumer products industry is very competitive, and production cost data specific to a 

company are closely guarded trade secrets. Stakeholders have generally concurred 

that our assumptions for nonrecurring costs are reasonable. Appendix E displays the 

various phases of product development and the costs that are assigned to each phase. 

 a. Methodology

To estimate nonrecurring costs, we used two approaches for each product category, 

one for low cost, and one for high cost, with a different set of assumptions for each 

approach. The categories proposed for regulation are considered “household care” 

products. Appendix E displays how nonrecurring costs were apportioned for both high 

and low cost scenarios. For each category only new or additional costs were 

considered. Costs were not considered that would have been expected in the normal 

course of business if the regulation had not been in effect. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 78 

 b. Results

Table VII-2, Columns A1 and A2, display the results of our assessment of the 

nonrecurring costs to be incurred for each category. These costs are taken from 

Appendix E. Estimated nonrecurring costs for the low cost scenario for the categories 

range from about $11,200 to $15,100 per product. Note also that nonrecurring costs for 

the high cost scenario range from about $50,000 to $75,000 per product. 

Table VII-2 

Estimated Nonrecurring per Product Costs to Comply with the Proposed Limits

Cost Per Product 

 Low High 

Amortized Cost Per Product 

 Low High 

Category A1 A2

B1 = 

A1 X CRF* 

B2 = 

A2 X CRF*

Air Freshener – 

Double Phase 

(aerosol) 

$11,200 $50,100 $1,800 $8,200 

Multi-purpose 

Solvent & Paint 

Thinner 

 tier 1 

$15,100 $74,600 $2,500 $12,100 

 tier 2 $15,100 $74,600 $2,500 $12,100 

*CRF = Capital Recovery Factor of 0.16275 

 c. Amortizing Nonrecurring Costs

The next part of our analysis assumes that nonrecurring costs will not be incurred in a 

single year, but would instead be amortized over ten years. To amortize nonrecurring 

costs, the costs shown in Columns A1 and A2 are then amortized using the Capital 

Recovery Method. This is a standard methodology and it is recommended under 

guidelines issued by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 

The equation below shows that the estimated total nonrecurring costs per product is 

multiplied by the Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) to convert these costs into equal 

annual payments over a project horizon (i.e., the projected useful life of the investment) 

at a discount rate. 

 

Annualized nonrecurring costs = (Nonrecurring Costs) X [i(1 + i)n /((1 + i)n-1)] 

 Where: 

 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 

 Nonrecurring Costs = total nonrecurring cost per product 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 79 

 

We assumed a project horizon of ten years, a commonly cited period for an 

investment’s useful lifetime in the chemical processing industry. We also assumed a 

fixed interest rate of 10 percent throughout the project horizon. These assumptions are 

conservative and constitute standard practice in analyses of consumer products 

regulations, including previous consumer product rulemakings. Based on these 

assumptions, the Capital Recovery Factor (CRF), as shown below, is 0.16275. 

 

 CRF = 0.1(1+0.1)10/((1+0.1)10-1) 

 = 0.1(2.59)/1.59 

 = 0.259/1.59 

 = 0.163 (rounded) 

Using the low cost estimate for Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners from Table VII-2, 

Column A1, then the amortized cost is: 

 Amortized Cost: $11,200 X 0.16275 = $1,822.80 

 

For the low cost scenario, as shown in Column B1, of Table VII-2, we project perproduct annualized nonrecurring costs to be about $1,800 to $2,500 for each of ten 

years. For the high cost scenario (Column B2), we project per-product annualized 

nonrecurring costs to range from about $8,200 to $12,100 for ten years. 

Next, nonrecurring costs for all non-compliant products per category are calculated by 

using the low and high amortized costs from Table VII-2. To arrive at the range of total 

nonrecurring cost per category, two different scenarios are calculated. In the low cost 

scenario, we assume that manufacturers will conduct research and other product 

development once for a given product category, and use these efforts as a basis to 

reformulate all their other non-complying products in the same category. As shown in 

Table VII-3, the low cost incurred by all businesses is the product of the low product 

cost (Column C) and number of companies (Column B) that have non-complying 

products within the given category. 

In the total nonrecurring high cost scenario, we assume that reformulation costs would 

be incurred per product. This means that companies that have multiple non-complying 

products in a given category would conduct separate research and development efforts 

for each product in their respective product lines. Thus in this case, the high amortized 

cost (Column D) is multiplied by the number of non-compliant products (Column A). 

As shown in Table VII-3, total category annualized nonrecurring costs range from about 

$43,000 to about $50,000 for the low cost scenario, and from $1.7 million to $1.8 million 

for the high cost scenario. Also as shown in Table VII-3, the total nonrecurring cost to 

industry is projected to range from about $143,000 to just over $5 million dollars per 

year for ten years. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 80 

Table VII-3 

Estimated Total Nonrecurring Cost per Category

# Noncomplying 

Products* 

# 

Companies 

Low Cost 

Per Unit 

High Cost 

Per Unit 

Total Nonrecurring Cost 

per Category++

 Low High 

Category A B C D E1 = 

B X C E2 =D X A 

Air Freshener 

Double Phase 

(aerosol) 

218 24 $1,800 $8,200 $43,200 $1,787,600 

Multipurpose 

Solvent & 

Paint Thinner 

tier 1 

137 20 $2,500 $12,100 $50,000 $1,657,700 

 tier 2 140 20 $2,500 $12,100 $50,000 $1,694,000 

Total: 495+

 44+ $143,200 $5,139,300 

* Adjusted for market covered in survey. Assume 90% for all categories. 

+

 Tier 1 and 2 Multi-purpose Solvent & Paint Thinner products are counted twice because they will be 

reformulated twice. Number of Multi-purpose Solvent & Paint Thinner companies are not counted twice. 

++ See Table VII-1a footnote about the use of unrounded numbers in calculations. 

3. Total Costs 

For each category, the total cost of reformulation is estimated by summing recurring 

costs (see Table VII-1b) with nonrecurring amortized costs (see Table VII-3). 

Table VII-4 displays the total low and high cost to reformulate all non-complying 

products for each category. We estimate the industry compliance costs to range from a 

low of about $43,000 per year for aerosol Double Phase Air Freshener products, to a 

high of about $2.5 million per year to comply with the second tier 2 VOC limit for Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Table VII-4 (Column C3) also shows the 

average cost estimate to range from about $854,000 to $1.3 million. As shown in 

Column C3, the overall average cost to reformulate all non-compliant products for all 

categories is about $3.1 million. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 81 

Table VII-4 

Estimated Total Costs to Comply with the Proposed VOC Limits

Nonrecurring Costs Recurring Costs*

Low High Low High 

A1 A2 B1 B2

Air Freshener – 

Double Phase 

(aerosol) 

$43,200 $1,787,600 $0 $0 

Multi-purpose 

Solvent & Paint 

Thinner 

 tier 1 

$50,000 $1,657,700 $0 $0 

 tier 2 $50,000 $1,694,000 $0 $845,000

Nonrecurring and Recurring Costs+

Low High Average 

C1= C2= C3= 

A1+ B1 A2+ B2 (C1+ C2)/2 

Air Freshener – 

Double Phase 

(aerosol) 

$43,200 $1,787,600 $915,400 

Multi-purpose 

Solvent & Paint 

Thinner 

 tier 1 

$50,000 $1,657,700 $853,900 

 tier 2 $50,000 $2,548,000 $1,299,000 

TOTAL: $143,200 $5,993,300 $3,068,300 

 

*

 A cost of $0 may indicate a per unit cost of less than one-half of one cent. 

 

+

 See Table VII-1a footnote about the use of unrounded numbers in calculations.
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 82 

4. Cost per Unit 

We also evaluated the potential increased cost the consumer would pay if all costs of 

compliance were passed onto the consumer (not including retail mark-up). For this 

estimate, we assumed that all recurring and nonrecurring costs are assessed only to the 

number of non-complying units in each category. Table VII-5 displays the result of this 

analysis. 

For this rulemaking, as with others, we assumed products reformulated to meet the 

proposed limits will be marketed throughout the United States by national marketers. 

From our experience, we know that businesses generally formulate and distribute to the 

entire nation, products complying with California regulations, rather than incurring the 

additional cost of setting up a California specific product distribution system. This 

assumption is valid especially considering the number of jurisdictions that have and are 

continuing to adopt California standards. 

Therefore, we assume that the costs of compliance will not be assessed only to 

products sold in California, but will be spread over products sold across the country. To 

do this, our analysis used the California-apportioned (by population) high and low 

nonrecurring costs (Table VII-3). Using this alternative approach, we discounted the 

nonrecurring cost per unit by the California-apportionment factor (i.e., the current ratio of 

California to U.S. population, or 12.5 percent (CA DOF, 2007)). To illustrate, using the 

total tier 1 nonrecurring high cost for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products 

of $1,657,700 the nonrecurring portion of cost that would be passed onto the consumer 

is 12.5 percent of this amount, or $207,000. The California portion of low and high 

nonrecurring costs are each divided by the number of non-complying units sold in 

California per year (see column D of Table VII-1b). The resulting nonrecurring high and 

low cost per unit is then added to the recurring high and low cost per unit (taken from 

Table VII-1a) to arrive at the total increase in cost per unit to the consumer. 

For Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, the total cost of reformulating one 9 ounce 

product is estimated to be quite minimal. The recurring raw materials costs to 

reformulate Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners to meet the proposed limit is 

projected to be zero. This is because the costs of ingredients of a complying product 

are actually less than the cost of ingredients of a non-complying product. For the 

purposes of our cost calculations, in this case, as was done in economic analyses for 

previous rulemakings, we assume that the ingredient costs are zero. As for the 

recurring (research and development) while the overall costs are significant, the costs 

are spread over more than 50 million units, resulting in an overall negligible cost per 

unit. 

As shown in Table VII-5, we estimate the average cost per unit increase to the 

California consumer to range from no cost increase to about $0.62 for the tier 2 limit for 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Taken together (summing cost for 

tier 1 and tier 2), the worst case scenario cost increase would be about $0.75 per unit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 83 

Because of unpredictable factors such as the highly competitive nature of the consumer 

products market, it is not possible to accurately predict the final retail price of products 

that will comply with the proposed limits when they become effective. To the extent the 

cost impacts are passed on to consumers, the final retail prices may be lower or higher 

than suggested by this analysis. 

Table VII-5 

Estimated Per-Unit Cost Increases from Both Annualized Nonrecurring and 

Annual Recurring Costs

Estimated 

Noncompliant 

Unit Sales 

Per Day in CA

Annualized 

Nonrecurring 

Low 

Cost/Unit 

Annualized 

Nonrecurring 

High 

Cost/Unit 

Annual 

Recurring 

Low 

Cost/Unit 

Annual 

Recurring 

High 

Cost/Unit 

Category A B1 B2 C1 C2

Air Freshener – 

Double Phase 

(aerosol) 147,300 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Multi-purpose Solvent 

& Paint Thinner 

 tier 1 4,700 $0.00 $0.12 $0.00 $0.00

 tier 2 4,700 $0.00 $0.12 $0.00 $0.50

Total 

Increase 

Low/Unit 

Total 

Increase 

High/Unit 

Total 

Increase 

Mid/Unit 

 

 D1 D2 D3 

Air Freshener – 

Double Phase 

(aerosol) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

 

Multi-purpose Solvent 

& Paint Thinner 

 tier 1 $0.00 $0.12 $0.06

 

 tier 2 $0.00 $0.62 $0.31 

*

 A cost of $0 may indicate a per unit cost of less than one-half of one cent. 

+

 See Table VII-1a footnote about the use of unrounded numbers in calculations.

5. Cost-Effectiveness (CE) 

Using the total costs displayed in Table VII-4, we evaluated the anticipated CE of the 

proposed new limits. Such an evaluation allows us to compare the efficiency of the 

proposed limits in reducing a pound of VOC relative to other existing regulatory 

programs. 

The CE of a reduction strategy is generally defined as the ratio of total dollars to be 

spent to comply with the strategy (as an annual cost) to the mass reduction of the 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 84 

pollutant(s) to be achieved by complying with that strategy (in annual pounds). The CE 

is calculated as shown by the following general equation: 

 Cost Effectiveness = Total Cost to Comply

 Annual Mass Reduction in VOC 

We estimate that, when fully effective, the proposed VOC limits will result in an emission 

reduction of about 14.7 tons per day, or 10,731,000 pounds per year. In this chapter, 

we have calculated that the average total cost to comply with the proposed VOC limits 

is three million dollars. 

The CE of the proposed amendments related to complying with the VOC limits is about 

$0.29 per pound of VOC reduced, as shown by the following equation: 

 $3,068,300 = $0.29 per pound 

 10,731,000 pounds 

Table VII-6 shows a comparison of the CE for the proposed limits relative to other 

recent ARB consumer product regulations and control measures. 

Table VII-6 

Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for ARB Consumer Product 

Regulations/Measures

Regulation/Control Measure 

Cost-Effectiveness 

(Dollars per Pound VOC Reduced)

2009 Amendments $0.29 

2008 Amendments (ARB, 2008e) $6.23 

2006 Amendments (ARB, 2006a) $2.35 

2004 Amendments (ARB, 2004b) $2.01 to $2.34 

Aerosol Adhesives (ARB, 2000c) $6.00 

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance 

Coatings (ARB, 2007i)

$1.12 

As shown in Table VII-6, the CE is considerably lower compared to several other recent 

rulemakings. 

C. RETURN ON OWNERS’ EQUITY 

Typical California businesses are affected by the proposed new limits to the extent that 

the implementation of these requirements would change their profitability. To estimate 

reduction in profitability, this portion of the economic impacts analysis compares the 

Return on Owners’ Equity (ROE) for affected businesses before and after inclusion of 

the cost to comply with the proposed requirements. The data used in this analysis are 

obtained from Dun and Bradstreet Industry Norms and Key Business Ratio (D&B, 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 85 

2009), the ARB’s 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey (ARB, 2007f), the 

Survey Update for Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent products (ARB, 2008f), and 

the CE analysis described previously in section B.

1. Affected Businesses 

Any business which manufactures or markets consumer products subject to the 

proposed new limits and requirements can be directly affected by this regulation. Also 

potentially affected are businesses which supply raw materials or equipment to 

manufacturers or marketers, and those that distribute or sell consumer products in 

California. The focus of this analysis, however, will be on manufacturers, marketers, 

and distributors that are most affected by the proposed measures. 

The consumer products subject to the proposed measures are manufactured, marketed, 

or distributed by a large number of companies worldwide. According to our Surveys, 

there are about 44 companies that market the affected products in California. Many of 

these companies manufacture, market, and distribute a broad range of solvent, 

adhesive, household, and personal care products. However, some companies’ 

business is limited to solvent manufacture. All together, there are 495 non-complying 

products (based on reported figures). Of the companies manufacturing these products, 

two small-sized firms are located in California. 

These 44 companies can be described by the North American Industry Classification 

System codes (NAICS): 325612, Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing; and 

325510, Paint and Coatings Manufacturing. 

2. Analysis Approach 

This analysis covers two industries with at least three affected businesses. The 

approach used in evaluating the potential economic impact of the proposed measures 

on these businesses is as follows: 

 

(1) A typical business from each product category was selected from the 

Surveys respondents. 

(2) A range of compliance costs were estimated for each affected product 

category. The average cost (see Table VII-4) 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 the affected industry. 

(4) Estimated cost was adjusted for federal and State taxes. 

(5) The ROE was calculated for each of these businesses by dividing the net 

profit by the net worth. The adjusted cost was then subtracted from net 

profit data. The results were used to calculate an adjusted ROE. 

(6) The adjusted ROE was then compared with the ROE before the 

subtraction of the cost to determine the potential impact on the profitability 

of the business. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 86 

An ROE reduction of more than 10 percent in profitability assuming that all costs are 

absorbed by the affected company and not passed on to the consumer, is considered to 

indicate a potential for significant adverse economic impacts. This value has been used 

consistently by the ARB staff to determine impact severity and is consistent with that 

used by the U.S. EPA.

 3. Assumptions 

This analysis uses 2007-2008 Dun and Bradstreet financial data (D&B, 2009) for a 

nationwide typical business in the Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing 

industry (325612 NAICS code) and Paint and Coatings Manufacturing (325510 NAICS 

code). These data were used to calculate the ROEs before and after the subtraction of 

the compliance costs for a typical business. The calculations were based on the 

following assumptions: 

(1) A typical business on a nationwide basis in each industry is representative 

of a typical California business in that industry; 

(2) All affected businesses were subject to federal and State tax rates of 

35 percent and 9.3 percent respectively; and 

(3) Affected businesses are not able to increase the prices of their products, 

nor can they lower their costs of doing business through short-term costcutting measures. 

Given the limitation of available data, we believe these assumptions are reasonable for 

most businesses at least in the short run; however, they may not be applicable to all 

businesses. 

4. Results 

Table VII-7 shows the results of our analysis of ROE. The percentage in reduction of 

profitability ranges from 5.4 percent for Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners to about 

24.2 percent for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. The ROE of 

24.2 percent combines the ROEs estimated for the tier 1 and tier 2 limits for Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. The average reduction in profitability is 

about 14.8 percent. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 87 

Table VII-7 

Summary of Decline in Return on Owners’ Equity (ROE)

NAICS Company Name 

Percent 

Change in ROE

325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good 

Manufacturing 

 Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener -5.4 

325510 Paint and Coatings Manufacturing 

Multi-purpose Solvent & Paint Thinner –tier 1 -9.5 

Multi-purpose Solvent & Paint Thinner –tier 2 -14.7 

 Total tier 1 & tier 2 -24.2 

Average for both 

Industries -14.8 

Because we calculated a reduction in ROE of more than 10 percent for Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products, we have determined that there is a potential for 

significant impact on profitability. In light of this, the assessment of ROE requires 

further explanation. 

The results in Table VII-7 show that our analysis of ROE found that sample businesses 

in the affected industries, complying with the proposed limit for Double Phase Aerosol 

Air Freshener, declined in profitability by about 5.4 percent. The ROE for a business 

affected by the tier 1 limit for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner, declined by 

about 9.5 percent. These ROE values are not considered significant. 

Factoring in the tier 2 limit for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, the 

ROE is estimated to decline by up to 24.2 percent (combining both limits for Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner). However, our analysis assumes that all 

compliance costs will be absorbed by the affected industry. However, it is most likely 

that affected businesses will be able to pass on at least part of the cost increase to 

consumers. Since consumers spend only a small portion of their annual budget on 

affected products, they are not expected to be sensitive to a small increase in the prices 

of those products. To the extent that the projected costs are passed on to consumers, 

the impact on business profitability is likely to be much less than estimated in our 

projection. 

We believe that overall, most affected businesses will be able to absorb the costs, or 

will pass through some of the costs to the consumer, such that there will be no 

significant adverse impacts on their profitability. However, the proposed amendments 

may impose economic hardship on some businesses with very little or no margin of 

profitability. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 88 

D. IMPACTS ON CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES, CONSUMERS, AND STATE AND 

LOCAL AGENCIES 

Section 11346.3 of the Government Code requires State agencies to assess the 

potential for adverse economic impacts on California business enterprises and 

individuals when proposing to adopt or amend any administrative regulation. The 

assessment must include a consideration of the impact of the proposed regulation on 

California jobs; business expansion, elimination or creation; and the ability of California 

business to compete with businesses in other states. 

1. Potential Impact on California Businesses 

Our profitability analysis shows a significant change in the average profitability of 

affected businesses that manufacture Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products, if they absorbed the entire cost of compliance. We believe that these 

manufacturers will pass through at least a portion of their compliance costs to maintain 

profitability. Based on sales of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, we 

expect the average California resident to buy no more than one product per year. 

Therefore, purchase of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products only accounts 

for a small portion of the consumer’s annual budget. Thus, consumers are likely less 

sensitive to the price changes. For this reason, we believe businesses will be able to 

pass through compliance costs, and are likely to be able to recover the bulk of the cost 

increase from consumers. To the extent that businesses are able to pass on the 

increased cost to consumers, the adverse impact of the proposed measures would be 

less than projected in this analysis. Furthermore, the projected impact will be less if 

businesses are able to improve their operational efficiency, thus reducing their costs. 

Nonetheless, the proposed measures may impose economic hardship on some 

businesses with very little or no margin of profitability. These businesses, if hard 

pressed, can seek relief under the variance provision of the consumer products 

regulation for extensions to their compliance dates. Such extensions may provide 

sufficient time to minimize the cost impacts to these businesses. Additional mitigation 

may be achieved by taking advantage of the compliance flexibility offered by the 

existing Innovative Product Provision (IPP) and the Alternative Control Plan (ACP) 

Regulation (see Section F of this chapter). 

 2. Potential Impact on Business Creation, Elimination or Expansion 

The proposed amendments would have no noticeable impact on the status of California 

businesses. This is because most affected businesses are expected to be able to pass 

on the bulk of the reformulation cost to consumers in terms of higher prices for their 

products. However, if either of the two small California businesses that reported sales 

to us in the Survey Update have little or no margin of profitability, they may lack the 

financial resources to reformulate their products on a timely basis. Should the proposed 

measures impose significant hardship on these businesses, temporary relief in the form 

of a compliance date extension under the variance provision may be warranted. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 89 

On the other hand, the proposed measures may provide business opportunities for 

some California businesses or result in the creation of new businesses. California 

businesses which supply raw materials and equipment or provide consulting services to 

affected industries may benefit from increased industry spending on reformulation. 

 3. Potential Impact on Business Competitiveness 

The proposed measures would have no significant impact on the ability of California 

businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Because the proposed 

measures would apply to all businesses that manufacture or market certain consumer 

products regardless of their location, the staff’s proposal should not present any 

economic disadvantages specific to California businesses. 

Nonetheless, the proposed amendments may have an adverse impact on the 

competitive position of some small, marginal businesses in California if these 

businesses lack resources to develop commercially acceptable products in a timely 

manner. As stated above, such impacts can be mitigated to a degree with a justified 

compliance extension under the variance provision of the Consumer Products 

Regulation, or through additional regulatory flexibility afforded by the IPP or the ACP 

Regulation (see Section F). 

4. Potential Impact on California Employment 

The proposed amendments are not expected to cause a noticeable change in California 

employment and payroll. As shown in Table VII-8, according to the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, California employment in the industries affected by the proposed 

amendments was about 4,627 in 2006, or about 7 percent of national employment in the 

affected industries. This represents less than 1 percent of manufacturing employment 

in California. Also, as shown in Table VII-8, these employees generated about 

$211,541 million in payroll, or about 6.3 percent of national payroll in the affected 

industries. This also accounts for less than 1 percent of the total California 

manufacturing payroll in 2006. 

Table VII-8 

California Employment and Payroll in Affected Industries 

NAICS Number of Employees Payroll

California 

California Share as 

Percent of U.S. 

California 

(thousand dollars in 

2006) 

California Share 

as Percent of 

U.S. 

325612 1,159 6.5 49,738 5.7 

325510 3,468 7.5 161,803 6.5 

Total 4,627 7.2 211,541 6.3 

Source: (U.S. Census, 2006) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 90 

5. Impacts on California Consumers 

The potential impact of the proposed amendments on consumers depends upon the 

ability of affected businesses to pass on the cost increases to consumers. For the 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener proposed VOC limit and proposed tier 1 VOC limit 

for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner, competitive market forces may prevent 

businesses from passing their cost increases on to consumers. Thus, we do not expect 

a significant change in retail prices. However, for the proposed tier 2 VOC limit for 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, businesses will likely be unable to 

absorb their costs of doing business. They will likely pass their cost increases on to 

consumers. 

Assuming the affected industry will pass on the entire compliance costs to consumers in 

terms of higher prices, we estimate the average price of a product (including typical 

retail mark-up) would not increase for Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, and would 

increase by about $0.75 per unit for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners. For 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, while the overall costs to comply with the 

proposed limit are significant, spreading costs over more than 50 million units, results in 

an overall negligible cost per product. 

For Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, apportioning annual sales of the 

categories to the California population, we estimated that residents purchase less than 

one container of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner per year. We also estimated 

in Section B of this chapter that the potential cost increase per unit from compliance 

with both limits would be about $0.75. Thus, considering normal retail mark-up, the 

consumer’s cost increase to purchase Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner would 

increase by about $1.50 per gallon. 

However, Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products are more commonly 

purchased by contractors. If we apportion all sales of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner to licensed contractors we estimate purchases of approximately five gallons per 

year. Considering normal retail mark-up, the cost increase to licensed contractors 

purchasing Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products would be about $8 per 

year. 

The proposed amendments may also affect consumers adversely if they result in 

reduced performance attributes of the products. However, this scenario is unlikely to 

occur for the following reasons. First, for the proposed limits, there are already 

complying products with a market presence. Thus, the industry already has the 

technology to manufacture compliant products that satisfy consumers. Second, 

marketers are unlikely to introduce a product which does not meet their consumers’ 

expectations. This is because such an introduction would be damaging not only to the 

product sale, but also to the sale of other products sold under the same brand name 

(impairing so-called “brand loyalty”). Finally, the Board has provided flexibility, under 

the existing consumer products program, to businesses whose situations warrant an 

extension to their compliance dates. For companies that can justify such variances, the 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 91 

additional time may afford more opportunity to explore different formulation, cost-cutting, 

performance-enhancing, or other marketing strategies which can help make the 

transition to new complying products nearly transparent to consumers. 

6. Potential Impacts to California State or Local Agencies 

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 non-discretionary cost or savings to local 

agencies and the cost or savings in federal funding to the State. 

We have determined that the proposed limits will not create costs or savings, as defined 

in Government Code section 11346.5(a)(6), to any State agency or in federal funding to 

the State, costs or mandate to any local agency or school district whether or not 

reimbursable by the State pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with section 17500), 

Division 4, title 2 of the Government Code, or other non-discretionary savings to local 

agencies. 

E. OTHER POSSIBLE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF REGULATORY CHANGES 

In addition to the proposed VOC limits, there are other proposed amendments to the 

Consumer Products Regulation, some of which may have a potential economic impact 

on affected businesses. While we do not expect any significant economic impact from 

any of the proposals, it is possible that there could be some increased cost to business 

resulting from proposed changes. 

The proposed amendments would require additional labeling for Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner products. Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products would 

be required to include VOC content information on their labels, as well as a sticker or 

hanging tag if their product is considered “flammable” or “extremely flammable.” It is 

likely there will be costs associated with this labeling requirement. We considered these 

costs in determining the total nonrecurring costs. The cost estimates for labeling are 

shown in Appendix E and range from about $1,500 to $7,000. 

F. MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS THROUGH ADDITIONAL 

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY

If adopted by the Board, the proposed limits will be incorporated in section 94509 of the 

Consumer Products Regulation (title 17, California Code of Regulations, 

sections 94507-94517). To complement the mandatory VOC limits, the existing 

consumer products program provides a very high degree of compliance flexibility, 

through two voluntary, market-based programs: the IPP and the ACP Regulation. 

These options could be evaluated to minimize cost impacts. The IPP (section 94511) 

allows qualified manufacturers to sell products that have VOC contents greater than the 

applicable VOC limit, provided they demonstrate that such products actually emit less 

VOCs than representative products that comply with the VOC limit. Using the 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 92 

emissions averaging approach, the ACP is a voluntary regulation (title 17, CCR, 

sections 94540-94555) designed to allow multi-product VOC averaging as an alternative 

means of complying with the VOC limits. 

Various manufacturers have formulated technologically-advanced IPP products that are 

more concentrated, higher in efficacy, or have some other chemical or physical 

properties that permit users to release less VOCs when using such products. To date, 

14 manufacturers have submitted 26 original applications and obtained approval for 

25 IPP applications involving 23 products. Based on their participation in the program, it 

is reasonable to conclude that manufacturers are using this program to provide 

consumers with products that meet their needs, while lowering costs, improving the 

“market value” of their products, or otherwise maintaining profit margins. 

The potential benefits of emissions averaging or “bubbling” for consumer product 

manufacturers under the ACP regulation have been documented by ARB staff (ARB, 

1994). In general, emissions averaging under approved ACPs allows manufacturers to 

choose the least cost or other advantageous reformulation options for its product lines. 

Rather than directly complying with each and every VOC limit, manufacturers can 

choose to “over-comply” with some reformulations in order to offset the “undercompliance” of other product lines. The ACP regulation requires the net resulting 

emissions from products under such averaging plans to be no greater than the level 

which would have resulted had all the products under the ACP bubble directly complied 

with the applicable limits. In short, the same emission reductions are achieved while 

providing a high degree of formulation and marketing flexibility to manufacturers. To 

date, five manufacturers have implemented approved ACP averaging programs, 

reducing VOC emissions by about 8.2 million pounds more than would have occurred 

under the mandatory VOC limits. We expect that such emissions averaging will also 

benefit manufacturers subject to the proposed limits. 

Overall, most affected businesses will benefit from the IPP and the ACP Regulation. 

Both programs are completely voluntary and impose no additional costs to businesses 

to meet the requirements other than testing and reporting requirements. Manufacturers 

who take advantage of these market-based programs presumably do so because it 

costs less than direct compliance with the limits or it provides some other market 

benefits. 

According to previous analyses, the potential cost differential which might result from 

competition under the ACP between small and large firms would not necessarily cause 

extreme hardship on small firms. However, inclusion of products subject to the 

proposed limits in an ACP may affect the level of competition between companies, 

which could lead to the elimination of some marginal producers for those products. 

Such competition may also have minor impacts on California employment and payroll. 

However, the impact is expected to be positive in the long term. Any potential impacts 

on the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states are 

also expected to be minimal. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 93 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons, Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation. May, 2008. (ARB, 2008e) 

2. Air Resources Board. Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update. 

November 4, 2008. (ARB, 2008f) 

3. Air Resources Board. 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey 

 (Including Aerosol Coating Products). July 24, 2007. (ARB, 2007f) 

4. Air Resources Board. Technical Support Document for Proposed Amendments to 

the Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings.

 September, 2007. (ARB, 2007i) 

5. Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer 

Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regulation. September 29, 2006. 

(ARB, 2006a) 

6. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the California Aerosol Coating Products, Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants, and Consumer Products Regulations, Test Method 310, and 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for para-Dichlorobenzene Solid Air Fresheners 

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

7. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation Relating to 

Aerosol Adhesives. April 7, 2000. (ARB, 2000c) 

8. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to 

the California Consumer Products Regulation: Midterm Measures I. 

 June 6, 1997. (ARB, 1997b) 

9. Air Resources Board. Proposed Alternative Control Plan for Consumer Products. 

August, 1994. (ARB, 1994) 

10. California Department of Finance. Report: State Adds Almost 470,000 in 2006: 

2007 Population Nears 37.7 Million. May 1, 2007. (CA DOF, 2007) 

11. California Department of Consumer Affairs, Contractors State License Board. 

Telephone Conversation with ARB Staff. April 28, 2009. (CDCA, 2009)

12. D&B Industry and Financial Consulting Services. Industry Norms & Key 

Business Ratios, Manufacturing – Volume 1. SIC #2000-2999. Three Year 

Edition 2007-2008. January, 2009. (D&B, 2009) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VII - 94 

13. United States Census Bureau. 2006 County Business Patterns (NAICS). 

 March 12, 2006. http://censtats.census.gov/cgi-bin/cbpnaic/cbpdetl.pl 

 (U.S. Census, 2006) 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 95 

VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

In this rulemaking, ARB staff is proposing amendments to the Consumer Products 

Regulation that are designed to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. 

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 by reducing emissions that contribute to the 

formation of ground-level ozone. Because the pathways for reformulation to comply 

with the proposed amendments vary, and are only predicted, there may be some, but 

not significant, potential adverse impacts that could occur as a result of adoption of this 

proposal. Several potential adverse impacts are identified and discussed in this chapter 

along with measures to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts to occur. 

We conducted a qualitative health risk assessment that concludes that because VOCs 

are ozone precursors, public health is further protected by reducing VOC emissions. 

The actual reduction of health risks that would result from reducing VOC emissions, if 

the staff’s proposal were to be adopted, is not quantified in this report. However, it has 

been estimated that each year about 630 fewer people would die prematurely from 

exposure to ozone if California was to attain the State ambient air quality standard for 

ozone (Ostro et al., 2006). About 90 percent of California residents live in areas where 

ozone levels exceed State and federal air quality standards. Therefore, reducing VOC 

emissions from these consumer product categories, because of their role as ozone 

precursors, will result in incremental improvement of the public’s health – whether it is in 

terms of fewer incidences of asthma or hospitalizations, improvement in lung function, 

or fewer premature deaths. 

 

Our analysis of the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the methods of 

compliance is presented in subsections C through H below. Regarding reasonably 

foreseeable mitigation measures, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

requires an agency to identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures that would 

minimize any significant adverse environmental impacts described in the environmental 

analysis. In addition, Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) requires the impact on greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions to be analyzed as part of the analysis under CEQA. 

We have evaluated how the proposed amendments would impact ground-level ozone 

concentrations; particulate matter (particularly secondary organic aerosols); climate 

change; stratospheric ozone depletion; solid waste disposal; water quality; energy use; 

public safety; agricultural resources; and air toxic emission exposure. 

We also reviewed the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Final 

Environmental Assessment for Rule 1143 – Consumer Paint Thinners and Multipurpose Solvents, and used the report as part of our evaluation of the impacts of the 

proposed amendments for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products 

(SCAQMD, 2009). 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 96 

A. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE ANALYSIS 

 

CEQA and ARB policy require an analysis to determine the potential adverse 

environmental impacts of proposed regulations. Because ARB’s program involving the 

adoption of regulations has been certified by the Secretary of Resources (see Public 

Resources Code section 21080.5), the CEQA environmental analysis requirements are 

allowed to be included in ARB’s Initial Statement of Reasons instead of preparing an 

environmental impact report or negative declaration. In addition, ARB will respond in 

writing to all significant environmental points raised by the public during the public 

review period or at the Board hearing. These responses will be contained in the Final 

Statement of Reasons for the proposed amendments to the Consumer Products 

Regulation. 

Public Resources Code section 21159 requires that the environmental impact analysis 

conducted by ARB include the following: (1) an analysis of the reasonably foreseeable 

environmental impacts of the methods of compliance; (2) an analysis of reasonably 

foreseeable feasible mitigation measures; and, (3) an analysis of reasonably 

foreseeable alternative means of compliance with the regulation. For ease of the 

reader, the proposed amendments are summarized below. 

B. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

We are proposing to establish new or lower VOC limits for the categories of Double 

Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner. These limits 

would reduce VOC emissions by about 14.7 tons per day when fully effective and would 

partially fulfill the consumer products reduction commitment contained in the 2007 

Strategy to meet the federal ozone standard. To further reduce the ozone formation 

potential of emissions from Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, the 

proposal limits the amount of aromatic VOC solvent to 1 percent by weight. The 

proposal would also exempt eight fluid ounce containers of Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner products from compliance with the VOC limits until December 31, 2013. 

Artists’ solvents certified to meet ASTM International’s D4236 standard, and that are 

packaged in containers equal to or less than 32 fluid ounces, would be excluded from 

compliance with the VOC limits. 

Several other regulatory modifications are proposed and necessary to implement the 

new requirements. These other regulatory proposals include: 

• Several new and modified definitions; 

• Prohibitions on the use of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and 

methylene chloride in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products; 

• Establishing a Global Warming Potential (GWP) limit for compounds used in 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent, and Paint 

Thinner products; 

• Specific labeling requirements for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products; 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 97 

• A special reporting requirement for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products; and 

• Other clarifying language. 

Amendments to ARB Method 310 are also proposed. The proposed changes are 

clarifications to analytical methods already being used and/or are needed to enhance 

the enforceability of lower VOC limits and the aromatic compound content limit. 

C. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES 

In this section, we evaluate the impacts of the proposed amendments on atmospheric 

processes. The evaluation includes our assessment as to whether the proposed 

amendments would have positive, negative, or no impacts on these atmospheric 

processes. 

1. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Ground-level Ozone 

Concentrations 

Enhanced ground-level ozone formation involves the interaction between VOCs and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. The rate of ozone generation is 

related closely to both the amount and reactivity of VOC emissions as well as the 

amount of NOx emissions available in the atmosphere (Seinfeld and Pandis,1998). 

Ozone is a colorless gas and the chief component of urban smog. It is one of the 

State’s more persistent air quality problems. Ninety-three percent of Californians, or 

36 million people, live in areas designated as non-attainment for the federal 8-hour 

ozone standard. It has been well documented that ozone adversely affects respiratory 

function of humans and animals. Research has shown that, when inhaled, ozone can 

cause respiratory problems, aggravate asthma, impair the immune system, and cause 

increased risk of premature death. 

Not only does ozone adversely affect human and animal health, but it also affects 

vegetation throughout most of California resulting in reduced yield and quality in 

agricultural crops, disfiguration or unsatisfactory growth in ornamental vegetation, and 

damage to native plants. More information on the impacts of exposure to ozone can be 

found in Chapter IV, Emissions. 

 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

The proposed amendments would reduce VOC emissions by about 14.7 tons per day. 

Therefore, we expect an overall positive impact on the environment because VOCs are 

precursors to the formation of ground level ozone. Specific to consumer products, ARB 

committed to reducing consumer product VOC emissions statewide by 30 to 40 tons per 

day by 2014. The amendments approved at the June 26, 2008, hearing will provide 

about 4.5 tons per day toward meeting the commitment. Upon approval of this 

proposal, we will have achieved 19.2 tons per day reduction from consumer products 

toward the 30 to 40 commitment. In addition, staff is currently evaluating further 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 98 

reductions from four cleaning products categories which we plan to take to the Board in 

2010. We expect to achieve 5 to 10 tons per day reductions from the cleaning products 

categories. The categories proposed for regulation and the corresponding VOC 

emission reductions are shown in Table VIII-1. 

Table VIII-1 

Proposed VOC Limits, Emissions, and Reductions at Effective Date 

Product Category Product 

Form 

Proposed 

VOC Limit

(percent by 

weight)

2009 VOC 

Emissions*

(tons per day)

Effective 

Date 

Reductions 

Upon 

Effective 

Date 

(tons per day)

Double Phase Aerosol 

Air Freshener Aerosol 20 10.2 12/31/2012 2.0 

 tier 1: 30 12.5+ 12/31/2010 8.4+ Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner 

Nonaerosol tier 2: 3 --- 12/31/2013 3.9+

Total Emissions 2009 22.6 tons per day

Total VOC Reductions 

by end of 2013 14.7 tons per day 

* Survey emissions adjusted for market coverage, grown to the 2009 calendar year, and rounded. 

 

+

 Does not include emissions or reductions in the South Coast Air Basin. 

As indicated in Table VIII-1, we are proposing to reduce the VOC content of Double 

Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products to 20 percent by weight, effective 

December 31, 2012. The proposed limit would reduce VOC emissions by about two 

tons per day at the effective date. 

We are also proposing two tiers of VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner products. As noted in the table above, emissions and emission reductions are 

adjusted to account for VOC reductions already claimed via implementation of 

SCAQMD’s Rule 1143. Thus, the VOC limits and effective dates proposed by ARB staff 

in this rulemaking would only apply to products sold in areas of California outside the 

South Coast Air Basin. 

Discussion Related to First Tier Standard for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner:

As proposed, the first tier limit for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products 

would reduce VOC content to 30 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2010. The 

second tier limit would further reduce the VOC content of Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner products to 3 percent by weight, effective December 31, 2013. In 

combination, these limits would reduce the mass of VOC emissions by about 12.7 tons 

per day (note that reductions from the first tier limit are grown from the effective date to 

December 31, 2013). In developing the proposal for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner products, we analyzed the tons of ozone that, potentially, would not be formed 

as a result of reducing VOC emissions by mass limitations. This analysis found that the 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 99 

first tier limit would likely provide a large reduction in the amount of ground level ozone 

formed from emissions of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. 

However, the analysis also revealed that, depending on the reformulation option 

chosen, the expected ozone reduction benefit of the first tier limit could be eroded. 

Additionally, the analysis found, that reformulations to meet the second tier limit, could 

result in increasing the ozone forming potential of products, depending on the 

compliance path chosen. A further discussion of this analysis, and proposals to ensure 

that the maximum air quality benefit from the limits is achieved, follows. The data used 

in this analysis are apportioned to account for adoption of SCAQMD’s Rule 1143. VOC 

emissions and sales data are from the 2008 Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent 

Survey Update (Survey Update). Reactivity data are derived by using the July 7, 2004, 

maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) values contained in title 17, California Code of 

Regulations, sections 94700-94701. 

In 2009, sales of 15.5 tons per day of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products 

result in about 12.5 tons per day VOC emissions. Absent regulation, by 2013 sales and 

VOC emissions would grow to 16.4 and 13.1 tons per day, respectively. Examples of 

reported products include products named Paint Thinner; Lacquer Thinners; Mineral 

Spirits; Acetone; Denatured Alcohol; Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK); Xylene; Toluene; and 

Paint Clean-up or surface preparation products. Although the Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner categories are defined separately in the regulation, it was apparent in 

our evaluation of reported Survey Update products that these products are used 

interchangeably. Thus, to ensure that all reductions are achieved in the shortest 

timeframe, staff is proposing limits for both categories with the same effective dates. 

While we believe that Multi-purpose Solvent products could potentially comply with the 

second tier, 3 percent by weight VOC limit in a shorter timeframe, because of the 

interchangeability of these products, we expect most manufacturers would simply relabel their Multi-purpose Solvent products as “Paint Thinner,” resulting in less reductions 

than anticipated. Harmonizing the effective dates maximizes the reductions achievable 

by 2010, using existing technologies. Providing until December 31, 2013, for 

implementation of the second tier, 3 percent by weight VOC limit, allows time for 

development of additional reformulation technologies. 

In the combined category of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, the VOC 

content ranges from 0-100 percent, with a sales-weighted average VOC content of 

80 percent. Products reported as containing no VOCs are comprised of solvents that 

have been excluded from the definition of VOC due to their low propensity to react to 

form ozone, or are formulated with low vapor pressure (LVP) VOC solvents. The salesweighted average reactivity of the VOCs in the reported products is about 1.9 grams of 

ozone per gram of VOC (g O3/g VOC). This reactivity value means that, on average, 

each gram of VOC emitted from these products will react in the atmosphere to form 

almost two grams of ozone. Therefore, the VOC emissions are estimated to react to 

lead to formation of about 24 tons per day of ozone. When considering the reactivity of 

the product (rather than just the reactivity of the VOCs), the product-weighted maximum 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 100 

incremental reactivity (PWMIR) is about 1.5 grams of ozone per gram of product (g O3/g 

product). The reported PWMIRs range from < 0.1 – 7.5 g O3/g product. 

As shown in Table VIII-1, once fully effective, the proposed VOC limits for Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products would reduce VOC emissions by about 12.7 tons 

per day, with the most reductions, 8.4 tons per day, achieved by the first tier, 30 percent 

by weight limit. Not withstanding the above, a number of factors, including ambient 

pollution levels and meteorology, would affect the actual ozone reduction that would be 

achieved. If we use the sales-weighted average reactivity of the VOCs (1.9 g O3/g 

VOC), we predict the 8.4 tons of VOC emission reductions from the first tier limit would 

reduce the formation of ozone by about 16 tons per day. However, the wide range of 

reported PWMIRs also indicates that reformulation options are available that would 

significantly erode—if not negate—the predicted benefit of reduced formation of ozone. 

Therefore, we are proposing to limit the use of highly reactive VOC aromatic 

compounds (i.e., xylenes and toluene) to no more than 1 percent by weight in Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, effective December 31, 2010. This 

provision would not only ensure that the predicted reduction in ozone generation would 

be preserved, but would increase the ozone reduction benefits of the proposal. By way 

of example, in combination, the two tons per day reported emissions of xylenes and 

toluene (MIR values of 7.37 and 3.97 g O3/g VOC, respectively) react leading to 

formation of over ten tons per day of ozone. Thus, about 16 percent of emissions 

represent about 43 percent of the ozone forming potential of the category. For this 

example, we assumed that as products reformulate, the species profile remains the 

same, but the relative amounts are reduced. In other words, the relative proportion of 

VOCs remains as they were reported in the Survey Update, but the mass of each VOC 

is reduced by 70 percent to meet the 30 percent by weight limit. Using this approach, 

we assume that the emissions of xylenes and toluene would be reduced to about 0.6 

tons per day, with a resulting ozone forming potential of about three tons per day. If the 

0.6 tons per day were to be replaced with an odorless mineral spirit product (MIR value 

= 0.91 g O3/g VOC), the ozone forming potential would be reduced to about 0.5 tons per 

day, resulting in additional ozone reduction benefits. 

The reader is reminded that the analysis only considered reported xylenes and toluene 

emissions. Other aromatic compounds are contained as fractions of various 

hydrocarbon solvents but are not speciated. Thus, the proposal would provide an 

additional air quality benefit than we are able to estimate because these aromatic 

constituents would be limited as well. The proposed limitation on the use of VOC 

aromatic compounds is unique to the State regulation, and is not required by SCAQMD 

Rule 1143. Therefore, this provision would apply statewide and result in an additional 

ozone reduction benefit in the SCAQMD. 

In another scenario, if we further assume that the sales of Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner products remain about 16 tons of product per day and the PWMIR was 

about 0.35 g O3/g product (similar to a 30 percent by weight VOC hydrocarbon solvent 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 101 

emulsion product), we would expect about 6 tons per day of ozone to be generated from 

complying 30 percent by weight products. If all products were to reformulate to a 

30 percent xylenes product with a PWMIR of about 2.0 g O3/g product, the predicted 

ozone formation would be about 32 tons per day, a difference of about 26 tons per day. 

Assuming a similar scenario based on toluene (PWMIR ~ 1.2), the reformulated 

products would result in ozone generation of about 19 tons per day, over three times 

more than the ozone generated from the lower reactive emulsion product. 

These scenarios do overstate what would likely occur without the proposed limitation on 

aromatic content. However, we note that there are currently products in commerce with 

similar formulations to those described here. This analysis is also oversimplified 

because of a variety of factors including the products reported in the Survey Update; the 

distribution of emissions; meteorology; and ambient pollution concentrations that affect 

ozone generation; but serves as an example of why the provision to limit use of highly 

reactive VOC aromatics in reformulated products is appropriate. Together, these 

provisions would maximize the air quality benefit of the first tier limit, while preserving a 

variety of feasible reformulation pathways. 

Discussion Related to Second Tier Standard for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner:

The ozone reduction benefit from the proposed 30 percent by weight VOC and 

1 percent by weight VOC aromatic content limits is clear. However, depending on 

reformulation options chosen to meet the proposed 3 percent by weight VOC limit, an 

increase in ozone generation could occur. Products formulated to meet the 3 percent 

by weight VOC limit, utilizing low reactive exempt VOC solvents could be more reactive 

than some products formulated at the 30 percent by weight VOC limit. This means 

potentially more ozone would be generated by the complying 3 percent by weight VOC 

products. Because we can only postulate the reformulations and reactivities of Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinners products developed to comply with the 30 percent 

by weight limit, quantifying the potential ozone disbenefit from implementing the 

3 percent by weight VOC limit is not possible. We can however, provide some 

examples of when ozone disbenefits would occur from reformulations. 

Based on the Survey Update, the weighted reactivity of products complying with the 

3 percent by weight limit ranges from 0–0.83 g O3/g product. The sales-weighted 

average reactivity of a 0.38 g O3/g product is very close to the reactivity of a purely 

acetone product (0.43 g O3/g product). We compared the weighted reactivity to some 

products already in compliance, or near compliance, with the 30 percent by weight limit 

(products with PWMIR less than 0.83) and discovered that there are at least three 

technologies that, at a mass limit of 30 percent, would have PWMIRs below those of 

complying 3 percent by weight products. This demonstrates that reducing VOC content 

from 30 to 3 percent by weight may not always result in an air quality benefit. 

Based on our understanding of the existing market for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner products, including products recently introduced into the market, we believe the 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 102 

most likely reformulation path to meet the 30 percent by weight limit would include 

hydrocarbon solvent emulsion products. In the case of the hydrocarbon solvent 

emulsion products, we estimate that these products’ PWMIRs would be about 

0.3-0.4 g O3/g product, which is lower than some complying 3 percent by weight 

products. It is unlikely that products based on this emulsion technology could 

reformulate to meet a 3 percent by weight limit. Consequently, these products’ sales 

would be replaced, most likely, by the VOC-exempt, but slightly higher reactive solvent, 

acetone. In this case, the 3 percent by weight limit would either provide no additional air 

quality improvement, or could result in a slight disbenefit. 

However, if products reformulated to meet the 30 percent by weight limit by blending 

30 percent MEK with 70 percent acetone, the weighted reactivity would be about 

0.7 g O3/g product. In this scenario, a further ozone benefit would be achieved by 

implementing the 3 percent by weight limit, if these products’ sales were to be replaced 

with a purely acetone product. 

We are also aware of low VOC/exempt solvent products under development. Examples 

of these include soy methyl ester-based products. While likely to comply with the 

proposed 3 percent by weight limit, the reactivity of these products is unknown at this 

time. 

While the 3 percent by weight limit is technologically feasible, based on complying 

products already being sold, and the timeframe proposed for compliance, this analysis 

demonstrates that to fully assess the impact of the 3 percent by weight limit requires 

firm knowledge of pathways chosen to reformulate to meet the 30 percent by weight 

limit. Absent this information, we can only postulate that some reformulations will result 

in further air quality improvement, while others may not. 

Additionally, the 3 percent by weight limit could lead to an increase in sales of extremely 

flammable products, such as acetone. This type of product named “Paint Thinner” is 

unlike what the household consumer may be used to. Without enough lead time for 

manufacturers, we are concerned that acetone products will be the most likely of a 

limited number of known pathways to compliance. To allow ample time for development 

of less flammable, potentially more beneficial in terms of ozone reduction, and/or less 

costly alternatives, we are proposing an effective date for the 3 percent by weight limit 

of December 31, 2013. 

As just mentioned, to fully evaluate the air quality impact of implementing the 3 percent 

by weight limit, and flammability of likely reformulations, would require accurate data on 

products reformulated to comply with the proposed 30 percent by weight VOC limit and 

the 1 percent by weight VOC aromatic compound limit. Thus, in new subsection 

94513(g), we are proposing that manufacturers submit to ARB data for reformulated 

products sold in calendar year 2011 by June 30, 2012. Data required include product 

formulation, sales, and VOC and reactivity content. Manufacturers must also provide 

written updates on the research and development efforts undertaken to achieve the 

3 percent by weight VOC limit. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 103 

Based on data from the 2012 reporting requirement, we will reassess the feasibility of 

the proposed 3 percent by weight VOC limit to ensure that further air quality benefits will 

be achieved. Depending on the outcome of this review, we may modify the 

requirements for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. This may include 

consideration of a reactivity-based strategy rather than requiring further reductions in 

the mass of VOCs. 

b. Proposed New or Modified Definitions and Clarifying Language

We are proposing a new definition for “Artist’s Solvent/Thinner,” and proposing to 

exclude products meeting this definition from compliance with the VOC limits for Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner. This proposal would result in forgoing about an 

additional 200 pounds per day VOC reduction. We believe the provision is necessary, 

however, because Artist’s Solvent/Thinner products are designed to be used with 

specialty artist’s, solvent-borne paints and their formulations are required to be reviewed 

by a toxicologist to meet specific ASTM standards. 

We expect no other impact on ground level ozone concentrations from the proposed 

new and modified definitions and clarifying language. These language modification 

proposals are necessary to clarify regulatory provisions, or implement the proposed 

VOC limits. 

 

c. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

We are proposing a prohibition on the use of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and 

methylene chloride in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. No products 

were reported that currently use these chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC). 

Methylene chloride and perchloroethylene are exempt VOC solvents, while 

trichloroethylene is a VOC. Thus, the prohibition would remove potential exempt VOC 

reformulation options for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Without 

this proposed prohibition, there would be a potential that the proposed VOC limits could 

result in some additional, but small, reduction in the formation of ozone. This is 

because methylene chloride and perchloroethylene are both considerably less reactive 

than other exempt VOC solvents such as acetone. Formulating with trichloroethylene 

would not be likely because it is a VOC, and its use would be restricted by the proposed 

VOC limits. However, we believe that preventing exposure to these TAC solvents that 

are potential human carcinogens outweighs the small additional ozone benefit that 

would be achieved. 

 

d. Proposed Global Warming Potential Limits

The proposed global warming potential (GWP) limit of 150 for compounds used in 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products 

is expected to have a negligible, if any, impact on ground level ozone concentrations. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 104 

As for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products, no use of the exempt VOC 

propellants hydrofluorocarbon-152a (HFC-152a) and hydrofluorocarbon-134a (HFC134a) were reported. However, use of these propellants is a potential reformulation 

option to meet the proposed 20 percent by weight VOC limit. The proposed GWP limit 

of 150 would allow use of HFC-152a, with a GWP of 140, but would preclude use of the 

propellant HFC-134a, which has a GWP of 1,300. The GWP values are 100 year 

values taken from the Second Assessment Report contained within the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (IPCC, 

2007). While the proposal allows use of HFC-152a, we do not expect it to be used 

extensively, if at all. In determining a feasible limit for Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener products we considered the impacts of each potential VOC limit on climate 

change. To balance reductions in ground level ozone without increasing GHG 

emissions, we proposed a VOC limit that is feasible without use of these propellants. 

This balance means that we are potentially forgoing additional VOC reductions. 

In the categories of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner, no use of compounds with 

high GWPs was reported in the Survey Update. Therefore, we believe that chemical 

compounds that have a GWP greater than 150 are not critical to the formulation of 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. We would expect a negligible, if any, 

additional ozone reduction benefit if compounds with higher GWPs could be used. The 

main reformulation options such as use of water, odorless mineral spirits, and VOC 

exempt compounds, including acetone, reported in the Survey Update, have GWP 

values that are below 150 or are not listed by the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

IPCC (IPCC, 2007). 

e. Proposed Changes to Method 310

The proposed changes to Method 310 are clarifications to analytical methods already 

being used and/or that are needed to enhance the enforceability of the lower VOC 

limits. These clarifications are expected to have no impact on ground level ozone 

concentrations. 

 

2. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Particulate Matter (Secondary 

Organic Aerosols) 

Fine particulate matter (PM) is prevalent in the urban atmosphere (see, for example, 

Pandis et al., 1992), and ambient PM, especially those with diameters less than two and 

a half micrometers (PM2.5), is known to have negative impacts on human health 

(Schwartz et al.,1996; Moolgavkar and Luebeck, 1996). Like ozone, PM can be formed 

via atmospheric oxidation of organic compounds (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000). 

Significant advances have been made in the theoretical and the experimental studies of 

the formation of secondary organic aerosols (SOA) (Pankow, 1994a; Pankow, 1994b; 

Odum et al., 1996; Seinfeld and Pandis,1998; Harner and Bidleman, 1998; Kleindienst, 

et al., 1999; Yu et al., 1999). In addition, modeling techniques to determine the amount 

of ozone as well as the amount of aerosol formed from a VOC have been established 

(Bowman et al., 1994), and the concept similar to maximum incremental reactivity is 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 105 

being applied to quantitatively assess the aerosol formation potential of a VOC (i.e.

incremental aerosol reactivity) (Griffin et al., 1999). 

Based on the results of these studies, we now know that there is a mechanistic linkage 

between the ozone formation and SOA formation potentials of a VOC. Because of this 

relationship, the proposed amendments may also affect the SOA formation potential of 

the products proposed for regulation. The analysis of the impact on SOA formation 

resulting from implementing the proposed VOC limits and other amendments is detailed 

below. 

Although most organic compounds contribute to ozone formation, SOA is usually 

formed from photooxidation of organic compounds with carbon numbers equal to six or 

more (Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998). It has also been shown that aromatic compounds 

are more likely to participate in the formation of SOA than are alkanes (Grosjean, 1992; 

Pandis et al., 1992). In other words, only chemicals that react fast enough in the 

atmosphere will generate sufficient amounts of low volatility products for forming 

aerosols. In general terms, the potential to form SOA among commonly used classes of 

VOCs used in consumer products could be described by the following order, with the 

lower molecular weight alkanes and ketones being least likely: 

Least Likely Lower molecular weight alkanes and ketones (6 carbons or 

less) 

Higher molecular weight alkanes 

Higher molecular weight aromatics (polysubstituted benzenes) 

More Likely Lower molecular weight aromatics (C6 - C8 compounds) 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

The analysis of the potential impact on PM formation from the proposed VOC limits 

assumes that to meet the proposed limits will require replacing 14.7 tons per day of 

VOCs with14.7 tons per day of VOC exempt ingredients. To meet the proposed VOC 

limits, manufacturers generally have four reformulation options: use of exempt VOCs, 

such as acetone, para-chloro-benzotrifluoride (PCBTF), or methyl acetate; use of LVPVOC solvents; use of water; or use of exempt VOC propellants. Substitution for VOCs 

with water, or VOC exempt propellants would likely result in a small reduction in SOA 

formation. Two of the more likely exempt VOC solvents to be used to comply, acetone, 

and methyl acetate, both having three carbon atoms, have little potential to contribute to 

SOA formation. Indeed, it has been predicted that there would be no SOA yield from 

acetone (Pandis et al., 1992). Hence, use of these compounds could also result in a 

reduction in SOA. Use of PCBTF, although a heavy molecule that contains seven 

carbon atoms, is not likely a strong PM precursor due to its low reactivity. Therefore, 

use of PCBTF should not result in increasing the formation of SOA. 

The proposal to limit the VOC aromatic compound content of Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner products to 1 percent by weight may provide a small reduction in SOA 

formation. This is because aromatic compounds, such as xylenes and toluene, are 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 106 

known to have higher SOA potentials than other commonly used VOCs. However, 

substitution of LVP-VOC solvents for VOCs could result in a slight SOA increase (Chan 

et.al., 2009). Biogenic hydrocarbons, such as isoprene, emitted from vegetation are 

known to be an important source of SOA (Ng et al., 2008). Based on this study, it is 

reasonable to assume that some use of some bio-based solvents useful in 

reformulations, such as soy methyl esters, may lead to increasing SOA formation. 

Because we cannot predict how manufacturers will choose to reformulate, we cannot 

fully evaluate the potential for an impact on SOA formation. However, it is likely to be 

only a slight potential for increase, if any, due to the variety of reformulation options 

available. At any rate, it would not be a significant adverse impact. Additionally, any 

reformulations that result in increasing SOA would likely be offset by reformulations 

which have a lower propensity to form SOA. We will continue to monitor 

implementation of the regulation and reassess the impacts as more data become 

available. 

b. Proposed New or Modified Definitions and Clarifying Language

We expect no impact on SOA formation from the proposed new and modified definitions 

and clarifying language. These language modification proposals are necessary to 

clarify regulatory provisions, or implement the new VOC limits. 

c. Proposed Toxics Prohibition 

The proposal to prohibit use of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene 

chloride in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products should have negligible or 

no impact on SOA formation. No products were reported in the Survey Update that use 

these chlorinated TAC solvents. Methylene chloride and perchloroethylene are exempt 

VOC solvents, while trichloroethylene is a VOC. These compounds are not expected to 

be potent participants in SOA formation because they are relatively small molecules. 

By precluding use of these solvents as a reformulation option, we would potentially 

forgo some additional small reduction in the production of SOA. For example, if these 

solvents, rather than LVP-VOC or bio-based solvents were to be used, the SOA 

formation potential of reformulated Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products 

could be slightly lower. However, preventing the public’s exposure to these TAC 

solvents that are potential human carcinogens outweighs, we believe, the uncertain 

small potential for a reduction in SOA. 

d. Proposed Global Warming Potential Limits

The proposed GWP limit of 150 for compounds used in the reformulation of Double 

Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner products is 

expected to have negligible or no impact on PM or SOA formation. We do not believe 

that compounds with GWP values above 150 could be substituted in such a way to 

significantly change the amount of SOA formed from these categories. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 107 

e. Proposed Changes to Method 310

The proposed changes to Method 310 are clarifications to analytical methods already 

being used and/or are needed to enhance the enforceability of the lower VOC limits. 

Such changes are not expected to have an impact on SOA formation. 

3. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Climate Change

Climate change, or global warming, is the process whereby emissions of anthropogenic 

pollutants, together with other naturally-occurring gases, absorb infrared radiation in the 

atmosphere, leading to increases in the overall average global temperature. While 

carbon dioxide (CO2) is the largest contributor to radiative forcing leading to warming, 

methane, halocarbons, nitrous oxide (N2O), and other species also contribute to climate 

change. 

Gases in the atmosphere can contribute to the greenhouse effect both directly and 

indirectly. Direct effects occur when the gas itself is a GHG. While there is relative 

agreement on how to account for these direct effects of GHG emissions, accounting for 

indirect effects is more problematic. Indirect radiative forcing occurs when chemical 

transformations of the original gas produce other GHGs, when a gas influences the 

atmospheric lifetimes of methane, and/or when a gas affects atmospheric processes 

that alter the radiative balance of the earth (e.g., affect cloud formation). 

As mentioned earlier, the GWP of a compound may reflect a direct effect as well as an 

indirect effect on global warming. The direct effect is the warming due to the absorption 

of radiation by molecules of the compound in question. Compounds with direct effects 

include VOCs, CO2, HFCs, hydrofluoroethers (HFE), and hydrochlorofluorocarbons 

(HCFC). Even though VOCs 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, although the effect varies depending on local air quality. 

The indirect effect is warming due to the impact that the presence of the compound has 

on the concentration of other GHGs. For example, VOCs contribute indirectly to global 

warming, in-so-far as they react chemically in the atmosphere in ways that increase 

GHG concentrations, most notably, concentrations of ozone and methane. The indirect 

forcing effects of VOCs is, however, still poorly quantified and requires the use of global 

three-dimensional chemical transport models. 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

As just described, VOCs are considered GHGs because of their role in the creation of 

ozone. However, because the VOC limits will reduce the total amount of VOCs, and 

thereby ground-level ozone concentrations, the proposed VOC limits should have a 

slightly beneficial impact on climate change. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 108 

For Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products, we are aware that use of the VOC 

exempt propellants, HFC-152a or HFC-134a, is a compliance option for these products. 

Because these propellants are viable reformulation pathways, a lower VOC limit could 

have been set to achieve a larger VOC reduction. However, HFC-152a and HFC-134a 

have GWPs of 140 and 1,300, respectively (IPCC, 2007). Therefore, to minimize 

climate change impacts, a VOC limit was proposed which we believe to be 

technologically feasible without the use of compounds with high GWPs, such as HFC134a. By considering climate change impacts, we are forgoing some additional VOC 

reductions. 

The proposed VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products are 

achievable without use of compounds with high GWPs. We note that no products were 

reported to contain high GWP compounds in the Survey Update. Therefore, chemical 

compounds that have high GWPs are not critical to the formulation of Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products. We are aware of several HFC and HCFC solvents, 

with relatively high GWP values, that may have limited use in Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner products. However, most of these solvents are considered VOCs in 

California, and/or are stratospheric ozone depleting compounds. Because of these 

designations, the use of these compounds with high GWP values is limited with the 

proposed VOC limits. Thus, they are not expected to be reformulation options. The 

ingredients used in predicted reformulation pathways have GWP values below 150 or 

have no GWP value listed in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC, 2007). 

Therefore, the implementation of the proposed VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner products is not expected to impact climate change emissions. 

b. Proposed New or Modified Definitions and Clarifying Language

We expect no impact on climate change resulting from the proposed new and modified 

definitions and clarifying language. These language modification proposals are 

necessary to clarify regulatory provisions, or implement the new VOC limits. 

 

c. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The proposal to prohibit the use of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene 

chloride in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products should have no impact on 

climate change. No use of these compounds was reported in the Survey Update. 

However, the proposed prohibition would prevent some potential reformulation 

pathways, particularly the option to use methylene chloride and perchloroethylene, 

which are exempt VOCs. The GWP value for methylene chloride is low and no value 

for perchloroethylene is listed in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC, 

2007), so no additional benefit to minimizing climate change impacts would be expected 

in the absence of this proposal. As stated above, the proposed prohibition is not 

expected to increase GHG emissions because the predicted reformulation pathways 

rely on use of compounds that are not significant contributors to global warming. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 109 

d. Proposed Global Warming Potential Limits

In accordance with Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the proposed GWP limit of 150 for 

compounds used in Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent, and 

Paint Thinner products is designed to minimize the climate change impacts of the 

emissions from products in these categories. Therefore, we expect the limit to have 

beneficial impacts on climate change by preventing additional GHG emissions. 

For Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products, two exempt VOC propellants are 

reformulation options: HFC-152a and HFC-134a. HFC-152a and HFC-134a have 

GWPs of 140 and 1,300, respectively (IPCC, 2007). Therefore, the GWP limit of 150 

would allow use of HFC-152a but not HFC-134a. While HFC-152a is a viable 

reformulation option, we do not believe it would be used for the following reasons. First, 

we believe the more likely path to comply with the proposed VOC limit is to make 

modifications or adjustments of the valve and spray nozzle to reduce the amount of 

propellant needed to expel the product. We are also aware of manufacturers with 

internal environmental polices that preclude the use of HFCs. The comparatively high 

cost of HFC-152a also makes its use a less desirable alternative. We also note that to 

minimize use of HFC-152a, the VOC limit is proposed at a level which we believe to be 

technologically feasible without the use of compounds with high GWPs. Nevertheless, 

the proposal would allow for use of the propellant HFC-152a. If manufacturers choose 

to use HFC-152a in their reformulated Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products, 

there is potential for very slight increases in GHG emissions. 

As for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, no products that contain 

compounds with high GWP values were reported in the Survey Update. Therefore, 

chemical compounds that have a GWP greater than 150 are not critical to the 

formulation of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. We are aware of 

several HFC and HCFC solvents, with relatively high GWP values, that may have 

limited use in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Many of these 

solvents are considered VOCs in California, and/or are stratospheric ozone depleting 

compounds. Because of these designations, the use of these compounds with high 

GWPs is already limited by the proposed VOC limits or prohibitions already existing on 

use of stratospheric ozone depleting compounds in the Consumer Products Regulation, 

section 94509(e). The GWP limit of 150 should further ensure that global warming 

emissions from use of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products do not 

increase. We also note that the ingredients used in predicted reformulation pathways 

have GWP values below 150 or have no GWP value listed in the listed in the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPCC, 2007). 

Another aspect to consider with respect to the proposed GWP limit for Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products, is flammability. Although unlikely, as mentioned 

above, several HFC and HCFC solvents with high GWP values could be blended into 

reformulated products. Some of these solvents are non-flammable, therefore, the 

proposed GWP limit would preclude an option to reduce flammability. However, as 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 110 

stated above, the use of most of these compounds is already prohibited, or limited, 

because of their status as VOCs or stratospheric ozone depleting compounds. 

e. Proposed Changes to Method 310

The proposed changes to Method 310 are clarifications to analytical methods already 

being used and/or are needed to enhance the enforceability of the lower VOC limits. 

Such changes are expected to have no impact on climate change. 

4. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Stratospheric Ozone Depletion

The stratospheric ozone layer shields the earth from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation. 

Depletion of the earth’s ozone layer allows a higher penetration of UV radiation to the 

earth's surface. This increase in UV radiation penetration leads to a greater incidence 

of skin cancer, cataracts, and impaired immune systems. Reduced crop yields and 

diminished ocean productivity are also expected. Because the chemical reactions 

which form ground-level ozone are driven by UV radiation, it is conceivable that a 

reduction in stratospheric ozone may also result in an increase in the formation of 

photochemical smog because of the increased levels of UV radiation on the earth’s 

surface (ARB, 2000b). The chemicals most implicated as causing stratospheric ozone 

depletion are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HCFCs, and other halons (U.S. EPA, 2003). 

Specifically, the chlorine or bromine atoms released by photolysis of the compounds 

react in chain reactions leading to the catalytic destruction of ozone (Finlayson-Pitts and 

Pitts, 2000). 

Solar irradiation in the stratosphere contains sufficient UV light to break down CFCs and 

HCFCs to yield chlorine atoms that convert ozone to molecular oxygen. However, this 

UV light is not strong enough to break down HFCs and HFEs to yield fluorine atoms. In 

addition, the molecular structure of HFCs and HFEs includes hydrogen atoms, which 

renders them susceptible to attack by hydroxyl radicals in the troposphere. Therefore, 

these chemicals have a relatively short atmospheric lifetime which does not allow any 

appreciable amounts to penetrate into the stratosphere (ARB, 2008b). 

To address stratospheric ozone depletion, the Montreal protocol was enacted in 1989, 

to phase out a number of CFCs, HCFCs, and halons. As a signatory of this protocol, 

the United States, in the Federal Clean Air Act of 1990, established timetables for 

ceasing production (see Title 6, Clean Air Act, section 602). In general, the protocol 

establishes dates by which certain compounds can no longer be manufactured; 

however, existing stocks can continue to be used in some applications until exhausted. 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

Reducing VOC emissions and reformulating products with HFCs with low GWP values 

will have negligible or no impact on stratospheric ozone depletion. As products 

reformulate to meet the proposed VOC limits, provisions in the Consumer Products 

Regulation (see section 94509(e)) already prohibit the use of various stratospheric 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 111 

ozone depleting compounds. This provision ensures there will be no increased use of 

stratospheric ozone depleting compounds. We also note that predicted reformulation 

options such as LVP-VOCs and exempt VOCs, lack chlorine. Therefore, reformulating 

with these compounds is not expected to increase the rate of stratospheric ozone 

depletion. PCBTF, an exempt VOC that is a viable reformulation option, is a chlorinated 

compound. It is listed under the Significant New Alternatives Program (SNAP) as an 

alternative for ozone-depleting substances (U.S. EPA, 2008), therefore its ozone 

depleting potential is likely low. 

b. Proposed New or Modified Definitions and Clarifying Language

We expect no impact on stratospheric ozone depletion as a result of the proposed new 

and modified definitions and clarifying language. These language modification 

proposals are necessary to clarify regulatory provisions, or implement the new VOC 

limits. 

 

c. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The proposal to prohibit the use of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene 

chloride in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products should have no impact on 

stratospheric ozone depletion. This is because predicted reformulation options rely on 

compounds that are not considered stratospheric ozone depleting compounds. We 

note that no products were reported that contained the above toxic compounds in the 

Survey Update. It should also be noted that use of stratospheric ozone depleting 

compounds is already restricted by section 94509(e). 

d. Proposed Global Warming Potential Limits

The proposed GWP limit of 150 for compounds used in Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner products could have a slight 

benefit of preventing an increase in stratospheric ozone depleting compounds. This is 

because some compounds with higher GWPs are also stratospheric ozone depleting 

compounds. 

e. Proposed Changes to Method 310

The proposed changes to Method 310 are clarifications to analytical methods already 

being used and/or are needed to enhance the enforceability of the lower VOC limits. 

Such changes are expected to have no impact on stratospheric ozone depletion. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 112 

D. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Solid Waste Disposal 

Consumer products contribute to the solid waste stream by the nature of their 

packaging, such as containers used to deliver the products. Therefore, we evaluated 

the potential impacts of the proposed amendments on solid waste disposal. 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

In the case of Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products, we do not expect an 

adverse impact on solid waste disposal from the proposed amendments relating to VOC 

limits. This is because we do not anticipate any changes in packaging or disposal due 

to the amendments. 

In the case of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, reformulation options 

include increasing production of existing complying products, using water-based 

formulations, or replacing VOC solvents with VOC exempt ingredients. Other 

reformulation options that could be used by manufacturers include exploring emerging 

technologies such as soy-based products. None of these reformulation options are 

expected to alter the current methods of packaging or disposal. 

We believe that one of the most likely reformulation pathways is replacing solvents used 

currently in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products with acetone. Some 

stakeholders have asserted that this will result in an increase in the amount of Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products used because of the faster evaporation 

rate of acetone. Hence more packaging, due to increased product use for the same 

task, could occur. While acetone does evaporate faster than the solvents it is predicted 

to replace, an increase in product use would be likely only if the lid of the product 

container is removed, or the product is transferred to a container with a large surface 

area and is exposed to open air for significant periods of time. Therefore, the increase, 

if any, is expected to be relatively small. According to the Institute for Research and 

Technical Assistance (IRTA) report titled “Assessment, Development, and 

Demonstration of Low-VOC Cleaning Systems for SCAQMD Rule 1171,” several 

facilities tested reported they used about ten percent more acetone than their current 

cleaning solvent (IRTA, 2003). We believe this small percentage increase in solvent 

use would not significantly increase sales such that there would be a significant 

increase in the generation of solid waste. 

To further reduce the potential adverse impacts on solid waste disposal, we are 

proposing to temporarily allow small containers (eight fluid ounces or less) of 

Paint Thinner products to exceed the 30 percent by weight VOC limit until 

December 31, 2013. It was brought to our attention that consumers may have 

significant quantities of previously purchased solvent-borne paint, that is either in quart 

containers that are not subject to low VOC limits, or are larger sizes that were 

manufactured prior to the effective date of lower VOC limits. If consumers are unable to 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 113 

thin these products, and they do not perform as expected, the products may be 

discarded. Consequently, the temporary small size exemption for Paint Thinner is 

intended to mitigate a possible increase of solid waste disposal that could also affect 

water quality in the instance where discarded solvents, from solvent-borne paint, leach 

into ground water. 

We also note that most air district architectural coatings rules continue to include an 

exemption from compliance with VOC limits for one liter (1.057 quart) or less containers 

of solvent-borne coatings. There are also a number of paint categories in air district 

rules that have high enough VOC limits that allow for solvent-borne coatings. 

Exempting small sizes of Paint Thinner from the 30 percent by weight limit allows these 

paints to continue to be used. In addition, the proposed small container exemption 

allows manufacturers time to develop low VOC products that are compatible with 

solvent-borne coatings. 

b. Proposed New or Modified Definitions and Clarifying Language

We expect a negligible increase in waste disposal from the proposed special reporting 

and labeling requirements for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. 

Depending upon how manufacturers choose to name their flammable products, 

additional paper waste could be generated. However, the improvement in public safety 

that would result from the labeling outweighs this negligible increase in waste 

generation. 

In the case of the proposed modifications related to Automotive Windshield Washer 

Fluid products, we expect a benefit to waste disposal as the proposed amendment 

would allow additional smaller sizes of dilutable products to be manufactured and sold 

which should result in reduced product weights. 

Other proposed new and modified definitions and clarifying language should have no 

impact on solid waste. These language modification proposals are necessary to clarify 

regulatory provisions, or implement the new VOC limits. 

 

c. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The proposal to prohibit the use of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and methylene 

chloride in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products should have no impact on 

solid waste disposal. This is because the amount of packaging waste to be disposed of 

would not change with or without this proposal. This proposed prohibition on use of the 

chlorinated TAC solvents should ensure that there is no increased hazardous waste 

disposal. 

d. Proposed Global Warming Potential Limits

The proposed GWP limit of 150 for compounds used in reformulated Double Phase 

Aerosol Air Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner products is expected to 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 114 

have no impact on waste disposal. Implementing this proposal does not cause a 

change in the manner in which products are to be disposed. 

e. Proposed Changes to Method 310

The proposed changes to Method 310 are clarifications to analytical methods already 

being used and/or are needed to enhance the enforceability of the lower VOC limits. 

Such changes are not expected to have any impact on waste disposal. 

2. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Water Quality 

Because of how consumer products are used and disposed of, there are potential water 

quality impacts. Therefore, we evaluated the impacts of the proposed amendments on 

water quality. 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

Reducing VOCs should have no impact on water quality and could ultimately result in a 

positive impact if more water-based products are used. As products are reformulated to 

meet the proposed VOC limits, to a limited extent, water may replace VOCs in some 

products. This would have a positive impact on water quality by reducing the quantity of 

VOCs that might be introduced to the water supply. 

In the case of Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products, we do not expect an 

adverse impact on water quality. Because these products are designed to be sprayed 

in indoor air environments, the emissions of these products after reformulation would 

continue to have an air fate and would be unlikely to enter the water system. It is 

possible that some reformulations could result in slightly increasing the use of water. 

In the case of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, reformulation options 

include increasing production of existing complying products, using water-based 

formulations, or replacing VOC solvents with VOC exempt ingredients. While we expect 

no impact on water quality from implementing the first tier and second tier limits of this 

proposal, it is possible that more water will be used to meet the limits. We are not 

proposing to mitigate the potential increased use of water because the amount of 

increase is uncertain given the variety of reformulation options. We also believe the air 

quality benefits of the proposal outweigh this potential impact. We will continue to 

monitor implementation of the regulation and the potential impacts on water quality. 

b. Proposed New or Modified Definitions and Clarifying Language

We expect no impact on water quality resulting from the proposed new and modified 

definitions and clarifying language. These language modification proposals are 

necessary to clarify regulatory provisions, or implement the new VOC limits. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 115 

c. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The proposal to prohibit in the use of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and 

methylene chloride in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products should have a 

positive impact on water quality by ensuring that these TACs will not enter the water 

system and subsequently effect influent and effluent at publicly owned treatment works 

(POTW). 

d. Proposed Global Warming Potential Limits

The proposed GWP limit of 150 for compounds used in Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner products is expected to have no 

impact on water quality. We are not aware of compounds with GWP values greater 

than 150 that could lead to improving water quality if they were to be used in 

formulations. Therefore, we expect no significant adverse impacts from this proposed 

limit. 

e. Proposed Changes to Method 310

The proposed changes to Method 310 are clarifications to analytical methods already 

being used and/or are needed to enhance the enforceability of the lower VOC limits. 

Such changes are expected to have no impact on water quality. 

3. Impacts of Proposed Amendments on Energy 

Use of energy to produce and sell various consumer products primarily comes from the 

manufacturing process and distribution of the products to the point of sale. Therefore, 

we considered whether the proposed amendments would impact energy use. 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

Reformulation of products to meet the proposed VOC limits should have no impact on 

energy use because we do not expect the manufacturing processes or shipping 

practices to be changed. We also do not expect the manufacture of compounds used in 

reformulations to result in energy use above the current situation because the types of 

chemicals predicted to be used are similar to those to be replaced. 

b. Proposed New or Modified Definitions and Clarifying Language

Proposed modifications related to Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid products should 

result in reduced energy usage. The proposals would allow additional smaller sizes of 

dilutable products to be used, which, in turn, should result in reduced product weights. 

Thus, we would expect less energy costs related to transportation. We expect no 

impact on energy use resulting from the other proposed new and modified definitions, 

and clarifying language. These language modification proposals are necessary to 

clarify regulatory provisions, or implement the new VOC limits. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 116 

 

c. Proposed Toxics Prohibition

The proposed prohibition on use of perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, and 

trichloroethylene in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products is expected to 

have negligible, or no impact on energy use. We are not aware of how these 

compounds could be used in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products such 

that there would be an appreciable change in energy use or savings. We also note that 

no use of these compounds was reported in the Survey Update. 

d. Proposed Global Warming Potential Limits

The proposed GWP limit of 150 for compounds used in aerosol Double Phase Aerosol 

Air Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner products is expected to have 

no impact on energy use. In the absence of this provision we are not aware of 

compounds that could be used in reformulations that would result in less energy 

consumption. 

e. Proposed Changes to Method 310

The proposed changes to Method 310 are clarifications to analytical methods already 

being used and/or are needed to enhance the enforceability of the lower VOC limits. 

Such changes are expected to have no impact on energy consumption. 

4. Impact on Public Safety 

As Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner 

products are reformulated to meet the proposed VOC limits, the ingredients used or 

proposed prohibition of certain compounds, could render the reformulated products 

more or less flammable than existing products. 

Because we expect the proposals related to Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener 

products to reduce the flammability of these products, the focus of this section will be on 

potential impacts from use of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

To meet the proposed VOC limits (especially the future effective 3 percent by weight 

VOC limit) for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, increased use of 

acetone is a likely, cost-effective compliance path, because it is an exempt VOC 

compound. However, staff, as well as stakeholders, has expressed safety concerns 

related to increased use of acetone. The use of greater than 1 percent acetone in a 

product meets the federal definition of an “extremely flammable” product. “Extremely 

flammable” is defined as a substance with a flashpoint at or below 20 degrees 

Fahrenheit (o

F). The flashpoint of acetone is -4 oF. This flashpoint means that at a 

temperature of -4 o

F, vapors of acetone will ignite and quickly propagate. Thus, 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 117 

incorrect handling of acetone can create a fire hazard. Appendix F contains information 

related to flammability and other characteristics of a variety of solvents that are currently 

used, or could be used in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. 

Pure acetone has been widely used as an ingredient in a variety of consumer products 

and is readily available for sale as a stand-alone solvent. However, acetone has not 

been widely used by consumers in containers labeled “Paint Thinner” or “Paint Cleanup.” Currently available Paint Thinner products are generally formulated with 

hydrocarbon solvents such as mineral spirits and naphthas. Flash points for these 

products generally range from 80-120 o

F. Products with flash points in this temperature 

range still present hazards if used incorrectly, however the risk of fire is not as great as 

acetone-containing products. Many Paint Thinner products in commerce meet the 

federal definition of a “combustible” product. “Combustible” is defined as a substance 

with a flashpoint at or above 100oF to an including 150oF. 

When ARB began the public process of developing the VOC limits for Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products, the SCAQMD concurrently proposed Rule 1143. 

This rule and ARB staff’s proposal are similar, with respect to VOC limits, but differ in 

effective dates for the limits. As proposals were being developed, safety concerns were 

raised by the Office of the State Fire Marshal, local fire departments and industry 

stakeholders that very low VOC limits would necessitate increased use of acetone. This 

increased use of acetone could increase fire hazards. The concerns relate to the 

significant difference in the flash points between “typical” products labeled as “Paint 

Thinner,” which are generally formulated with hydrocarbon solvents, and “reformulated” 

products labeled as “Paint Thinner,” which may utilize acetone to meet the proposed 

VOC limits. Although the reformulated, acetone-containing products would be labeled 

as “extremely flammable,” a typical consumer may not notice the designation, and may 

handle the reformulated product in the same manner as the former product. Thus, a 

potential increase in fire hazards could occur. 

We agree that this is a potential safety issue. To address this issue, we worked with the 

stakeholders mentioned above on approaches to notify the household consumer, for a 

period of time adjacent to the effective dates of the proposed VOC limits, that they are 

purchasing a more flammable product with different use instructions. As a result, we 

are proposing additional requirements for certain Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner products, which are required under federal law, to be labeled “Flammable” or 

“Extremely Flammable.” 

In new subsection 94512(e), beginning December 31, 2010, until December 31, 2015, 

we are proposing to prohibit manufacturers from placing general product names on the 

principle display panel of “Flammable,” or “Extremely Flammable” Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner products. The general product names used on products currently in 

commerce include, “Paint Thinner,” “Multi-purpose Solvent,” “Clean-up Solvent,” “Paint 

Clean-up.” 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 118 

The proposed prohibition includes two alternatives that manufacturers may choose from 

to continue selling generally named “Flammable,” or “Extremely Flammable” Multipurpose Solvents and Paint Thinners. The first alternative includes providing a “hang 

tag” or “sticker” affixed to the product that includes the statement “Formulated to meet 

California VOC limits, see warnings on label.” Manufacturers may also choose to 

display the common name of the chemical that results in the product meeting the criteria 

for “Flammable” or “Extremely Flammable,” in a font as large as or larger, than any of 

the words on the principle display panel. 

The proposed prohibition does not apply to products named “Lacquer Thinner.” Many 

currently available Lacquer Thinners are “Extremely Flammable” because they contain 

greater than 1 percent acetone. We, and the interested stakeholders, believe 

consumers are already aware of the hazards associated with these products and it is 

not necessary to extend the proposed labeling requirement to these products. 

Additionally, to potentially reduce the increased fire hazard from reliance on highly 

flammable Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, we have proposed an 

effective date for the 3 percent by weight limit of December 31, 2013. This additional 

compliance time should allow for development of additional, less flammable products. 

Also, to assess progress on products being developed to comply with the proposed 

3 percent by weight VOC limit, as proposed in new subsection 94513(g), manufacturers 

must submit data for reformulated products sold in calendar year 2011 by 

June 30, 2012. Data required includes product formulation, sales, flammability, and 

VOC and reactivity content. Based on data received from the 2012 reporting 

requirement, we will reassess the feasibility of the proposed 3 percent by weight VOC 

limit. Depending upon the outcome of this review, we may modify the requirements for 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. 

b. Proposed New or Modified Definitions and Clarifying Language

We expect a net benefit on safety resulting from the labeling proposal for “Flammable,” 

or “Extremely Flammable” Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Other 

proposals are language modifications and are necessary to clarify regulatory provisions, 

or implement the new VOC limits. 

c. Proposed Toxics Prohibition 

We are proposing a prohibition on the use of perchloroethylene, trichloroethylene, and 

methylene chloride in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Use of 

perchloroethylene and methylene chloride could reduce product flammability. However, 

because these are TACs designated as potential human carcinogens, we believe 

preventing the public’s exposure to these compounds outweighs the potential reduction 

in flammability. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 119 

d. Proposed Global Warming Potential Limits

The proposed GWP limit of 150 for compounds used in the reformulation of Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products is expected to have no impact on safety. 

In the absence of this limit there is a remote potential that some solvents with higher 

GWP values could be used in product reformulations, and potentially lower the 

flammability of products. This will be further evaluated as part of the technical 

assessment in 2012. 

e. Proposed Changes to Method 310

The proposed changes to Method 310 are clarifications to analytical methods already 

being used and/or are clarifications needed to enhance the enforceability of the lower 

VOC limits. The changes themselves are expected to have no impact on safety. 

5. Impact on Agricultural Resources 

As discussed in Chapter VI, one of the reformulation options manufacturers may choose 

to comply with the proposed limits for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners is the 

use of soy methyl esters. 

a. Proposed VOC Standards

Soy methyl esters are LVP-VOC solvents that have been shown to be useful as 

ingredients in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. However, we believe 

that not all manufacturers will choose this option, because of the relatively high cost of 

soy methyl esters. For those manufacturers that do choose to formulate with soy 

methyl esters, we believe most will formulate with mixtures of soy and other compounds 

because mixtures containing less than 5 percent soy by weight, have been shown to 

function as Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners for some applications (IRTA, 

2007). Because soy methyl esters are a possible reformulation, below, we provide our 

analysis on the potential impact our proposal could have on worldwide soy production. 

It is estimated that about 230 million acres worldwide are dedicated to soybean 

production, and each acre of soy beans is estimated to yield approximately 460 pounds 

of soy oil (USDA, 2009; Maier et al., 1998). If we assume that as a worst case scenario, 

the entire 15.5 tons per day of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products sold 

were reformulated with 100 percent of soy methyl esters, we predict an increase 

demand of soy oil of about 11.4 million pounds per year. Using the above soy oil per 

acre data, it would take approximately 24,600 acres to produce the soy oil needed for 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products in California. This represents an 

increased demand of about 0.01 percent of worldwide soybean production. We, 

therefore, believe that the impacts on soy production and any environmental impacts 

associated with it are negligible. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 120 

b. Proposed New or Modified Definitions and Clarifying Language

We expect no impact on agricultural resources from the proposed new and modified 

definitions and clarifying language. These language modifications and are necessary to 

clarify regulatory provisions, or implement the new VOC limits. 

c. Proposed Toxics Prohibition 

The proposed prohibition on use of perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, and 

trichloroethylene in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products is expected to 

have negligible, or no impact on agricultural resources. We note that no use of these 

compounds was reported in the Survey Update. 

d. Proposed Global Warming Potential Limits

The proposed GWP limit of 150 for compounds used in the reformulation of Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products is expected to have no impact on 

agricultural resources. This is because compounds with GWPs greater than 150 are 

not likely reformulation options. Therefore, impacts on agricultural resources are 

unchanged by this proposal. 

e. Proposed Changes to Method 310

The proposed changes to Method 310 are clarifications to analytical methods already 

being used and/or are clarifications needed to enhance the enforceability of the lower 

VOC limits. The changes themselves are expected to have no impact on agricultural 

resources. 

E. ANALYSIS OF NEED FOR REASONABLY FORESEEABLE MITIGATION 

MEASURES 

As part of our obligations under CEQA and AB 32, ARB staff is required to evaluate and 

mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from regulatory proposals. 

Also, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 39650 et seq., the ARB is required to 

identify and control TACs. The Health and Safety Code defines a TAC as “...an air 

pollutant which may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness, or 

which may pose a hazard to human health.” Moreover, in accordance with 

section 39666 of the Health and Safety Code, for TACs for which no safe exposure 

threshold has been established, the ARB is required to “.... reduce emissions to the 

lowest level achievable through application of best available control technology or a 

more effective control method....” 

 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 121 

 1. Proposed Mitigation Measure Related to Use of Flammable and 

Extremely Flammable Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

Products

 

In the categories of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner, a likely reformulation 

pathway would be to replace VOC solvent with acetone, an exempt VOC solvent. 

Because acetone is an extremely flammable solvent, due to its low flashpoint, we have 

evaluated the need for mitigation measures related to its use. 

As discussed at length previously, see Section D, number 4 of this chapter, and in 

accordance with CEQA, we are proposing additional labeling for Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner products that, in accordance with federal law, are labeled as 

“flammable” or “extremely flammable.” This measure is designed to inform the public 

that they may be using a reformulated product and use instructions should be noted. 

This proposal is contained in new subsection 94512(e). 

Further, we are proposing a small container (eight fluid ounces) exemption for Paint 

Thinner products, until December 31, 2013, to allow consumers to purchase small 

amounts of thinners to be used with previously purchased solvent-borne paints that may 

require thinning. This measure also could mitigate an increased fire hazard by allowing 

less flammable products to continue to be used for a short period of time. 

 2. Proposed Mitigation Measure Related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

We are proposing new or lower VOC limits for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, 

Multi-purpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner products. To comply with these limits, some 

manufacturers could choose to replace all or a portion of their VOC hydrocarbon 

propellant in Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products with the exempt VOC 

propellants HFC-152a or HFC-134a. In addition, it is possible that manufacturers could 

use solvents with high GWP values in reformulated Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint 

Thinner products. Increased use, or new use of compounds with high GWP would have 

adverse impacts on climate change. 

AB 32 requires GHG emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and also requires 

that increased use of these gases be minimized. Therefore, we are proposing a 

measure to minimize the use of GHGs in Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, Multipurpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner products. As proposed, and contained in 

subsection 94509(u), Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner products could not contain compounds that have GWP values greater 

than 150. To determine the GWP of compounds, the Second Assessment Report 100 

year values contained in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPPC are to be used 

(IPPC, 2007). 

Reformulation options for aerosol Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products include 

the use of the exempt VOC propellants HFC-152a and HFC-134a to meet the proposed 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 122 

20 percent by weight VOC limit. The proposed GWP limit of 150 would allow use of 

HFC-152a, with a GWP of 140, but would preclude use of the propellant HFC-134a, 

which has a GWP of 1,300. While the proposal allows use of HFC-152a, we do not 

expect it to be used extensively, if at all. In determining a feasible limit for Double 

Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products, staff considered the impacts of a VOC limit on 

climate change. To balance reductions in ground level ozone and increasing GHG 

emissions, we proposed a VOC limit that is feasible without use of these GHGs. This 

balance means that we are potentially forgoing additional VOC reductions. 

We also note that in discussions with some major manufacturers of Double Phase 

Aerosol Air Freshener products, it was indicated that they intend to comply with the 

proposal without the use of HFCs. We are aware of manufacturers with internal 

environmental polices precluding the use of HFCs. Finally, HFC-152a is quite 

expensive relative to VOC hydrocarbon propellants currently in commerce. For all of 

these reasons we do not expect much, if any, HFC-152a to be used. 

In the categories of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner, no use of compounds with 

GWP values above 150 was reported in the Survey Update. Therefore, chemical 

compounds that have a GWP greater than 150 are not critical to the formulation of 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. We would expect a negligible, or no, 

additional ozone reduction benefit if compounds with higher GWPs could be used. The 

main reformulation options such as use of water, odorless mineral spirits, acetone, and 

other exempt VOC compounds reported in the Survey Update, have GWP values that 

are below 150, or are not listed by the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (IPPC, 

2007). 

Although we do not expect increased use of GHGs with high GWP values to be used in 

these products, to prevent this possibility, in accordance with AB 32, we are proposing a 

prohibition on the use of any compound with a GWP value of 150 or greater in Double 

Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products as a 

mitigation measure. 

F. RISK ASSESSMENT FOR REDUCED EXPOSURE TO OZONE AND TACS 

The health risks associated with ozone exposure have been known for many years and 

are discussed in further in Chapter IV. Studies have shown that when inhaled, even at 

relatively low levels, ozone can impact lung tissue and lung function. The greatest risk 

is to those who are more active outdoors during smoggy periods, such as children, 

athletes, and outdoor workers. Exposure to levels of ozone above the current ambient 

air standard leads to lung inflammation and lung tissue damage, and a reduction in the 

amount of air inhaled into the lungs. Recent evidence has, for the first time, linked the 

onset of asthma to exposure to elevated ozone levels in exercising children (McConnell 

et al., 2002). 

The actual lowering of health risks from reducing VOC emissions, if the proposal is 

adopted, is not quantified in this report. However, it has been estimated that about 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 123 

630 fewer people would die prematurely each year in California from exposure to ozone 

if the State were to attain the ozone standard (Ostro et al., 2006). In a 2008 report, 

“Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air 

Pollution,” the National Research Council’s (NRC), Committee on Estimating Mortality 

Risk Reduction Benefits from Decreasing Tropospheric Ozone Exposure, of the Board 

on Environmental Studies and Toxicology in the Division on Earth and Life Studies, 

concluded that it is appropriate for regulatory agencies to used mortality risk to analyze 

cost and benefits in setting ozone standards (NRC, 2008). 

About 93 percent of California residents live in areas where ozone levels exceed State 

and federal ambient air quality standards. Qualitatively, we conclude that reducing VOC 

emissions, because of their role as ozone precursors, will result in incremental 

improvement of the public’s health – whether it is in fewer incidences of asthma or 

hospitalizations, improvement in lung function, or fewer premature deaths. 

The VOC reductions from the proposed amendments are designed as partial fulfillment 

of the State Strategy for California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan. Thus, one can 

conclude that increments of progress towards attainment improve the public’s health. 

As shown in Table VIII-1, the proposed amendments to the Regulation are designed to 

achieve the maximum feasible VOC emission reduction from the categories proposed 

for regulation at this time. When fully effective, adopting the amendments would result 

in a VOC emissions reduction of about 14.7 tons per day. The impacts of our proposal 

on SOA formation are not clear, although we do not expect a disbenefit. 

The proposal for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products that would limit the 

amount of aromatic VOC hydrocarbon solvents to no more than 1 percent by weight is 

designed to reduce ground level ozone concentrations. However, as an ancillary 

benefit, this proposal will also reduce exposure to xylenes, ethyl benzene, and toluene. 

These compounds are identified TACs (OEHHA, 2000, 2005). Xylenes cause central 

nervous system effects in humans and irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Ethyl 

benzene is a development toxicant (OEHHA, 2005). Toluene is a reproductive toxicant 

(OEHHA, 2005). 

In addition, the proposed prohibition on the use of methylene chloride , 

trichloroethylene, and perchloroethylene in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products will prevent public exposure to these TACs (ARB, 1989b, 1990d and 1991b) 

resulting in public health protection. 

In summary, our health risk analysis shows that the proposed amendments would 

reduce health risks posed by emissions of Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener, Multipurpose Solvent, and Paint Thinner products by lowering ground level ozone 

concentrations and by reducing or preventing exposure to TACs. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 124 

G. ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE 

Two alternative means of compliance with the Consumer Products Regulation have 

been developed. A current compliance alternative for manufacturers of consumer 

products is the Alternative Control Plan (ACP). The ACP Regulation (see title 17, CCR, 

sections 94540-94555), is a voluntary emissions averaging program. Under the ACP, 

an overall limit on the VOC emissions from a group of products in the ACP is 

determined. To be approved, an ACP must demonstrate that the total VOC emissions 

within the ACP would not exceed the emissions that would have resulted had the 

products been formulated to meet the VOC limit established for each product category. 

In other words, some products in the ACP could exceed the established VOC limits in 

the Consumer Products Regulation as long as those increased emissions were offset by 

additional products that over-comply with the established VOC limits. The ACP 

provides manufacturers with flexibility, but preserves the overall environmental benefits 

of emission reductions. 

Another compliance alternative that is available for manufacturers is the Innovative 

Products Provision (see title 17, CCR, section 94511). This provision allows a 

manufacturer to formulate products that exceed the mass-based VOC limit specified in 

the Consumer Products Regulation for a particular product category. The manufacturer 

must demonstrate that, through some characteristic of the higher VOC product, its use 

will result in less VOC emissions compared to a representative complying product. This 

alternative is also specifically designed to allow manufacturers flexibility, while 

preserving the emission benefits of the Consumer Products Regulation. 

Absent use of either of these alternatives, staff is not aware of any additional 

compliance means, other than direct compliance with the proposed amendments. 

H. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

State law defines environmental justice as the fair treatment of people of all races, 

cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The ARB is committed to 

evaluating community impacts of proposed regulations, including environmental justice 

concerns. 

Consumer products are considered area sources. This is because their use is fairly 

uniform across the State, tracking with housing units, and their emissions are spread 

over the course of a day, rather than concentrated at a particular time of day. For these 

reasons, we do not believe that people of any given race, culture, or income would be 

more impacted than any others would. All Californians should benefit equally from the 

reduction in VOC emissions from the consumer product categories proposed for 

regulation. 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 125 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Environmental Impact Assessment of 

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

2. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed 

Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Aerosol Coating Products and Proposed Tables of Maximum 

Incremental Reactivity (MIR) Values, and Proposed Amendments to Method 310, 

“Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Consumer Products. 

May 5, 2000. (ARB, 2000b) 

3. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Staff 

Report/Executive Summary, Proposed Identification of Perchloroethylene as a 

Toxic Air Contaminant. August, 1991. (ARB, 1991b) 

4. Air Resources Board. Proposed Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant - Staff Report/Executive Summary. August, 1990. (ARB, 1990d) 

5. Air Resources Board. Proposed Identification of Methylene Chloride as a Toxic 

Air Contaminant - Technical Support Document. May, 1989. (ARB, 1989b) 

6. Bowman, F. M., Pilinis, C. and Seinfeld, J. H. Ozone and Aerosol Productivity of 

Reactive Organics. 1994. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 29: 579-589. 

(Bowman et al., 1994) 

7. Chan, A., Kautzman, B., Surratt, J. Chhabra, P., Chan, M. N., Crounse, J., 

Wennberg, P., Flagan, R., John Seinfeld, J., Understanding Secondary Organic

Aerosol (SOA) Formation from Lower-Volatility Precursors: Photooxidation of

Naphthalene and Alkyl-naphthalenes, DOE ASP February 27, 2009. (Chan et 

al., 2009) 

8. Finlayson-Pitts, B. J. and J. N. Pitts Jr. Chemistry of the Upper and Lower 

Atmosphere. Chapter 9, Academic Press, New York, 2000. 

(Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000) 

9. Griffin, R. J., Cocker III, D. R., and Seinfeld, J. H. Incremental Aerosol Reactivity: 

Application to Aromatic and Biogenic Hydrocarbons. 1999. Environmental 

Science & Technology. Volume 33: 2403-2408. (Griffin et al., 1999) 

10. Grosjean, D. In Situ Organic Aerosol Formation during a Smog Episode: 

Estimated Production and Chemical Functionality. 1992. Atmospheric 

Environment. Volume 26A. Number 6: 953-963. (Grosjean, 1992) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 126 

11. Harner, T. and Bidleman, T. F. Octanol-air Partition Coefficient for Describing 

Particle/Gas Partitioning of Aromatic Compounds in Urban Air. 1998. 

Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 32: 1494-1502. 

 (Harner and Bidleman, 1998) 

12. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. 

Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. 

Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: 

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate 

Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

 Change. [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, 

M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. (IPCC, 2007) 

13. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA). Assessment, 

Development and Demonstration of Low-VOC Cleaning Systems for South Coast 

Air Quality Management District Rule 1172 Prepared for South Coast Air Quality 

Management District Under Contract # 01172, prepared by Mike Morris and Katy 

Wolf of IRTA, August 2003. (IRTA, 2003) 

14. Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA). Low-VOC, Low Toxicity

Alternatives for Consumer Product Cleanup and Thinning Solvents. Prepared for 

Cal/EPA’s Department of Toxic Substances Control, prepared by Katy Wolf and 

Mike Morris of IRTA, March 2007. (IRTA, 2007) 

15. Kleindienst, T. E., Smith, D. F., Li, W., Edney, E. O., Driscoll, D. J., Speer, R. E., 

and Weathers, W. S. Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation from the Oxidation 

of Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Presence of Dry Submicron Ammonium Sulfate 

Aerosol. 1999. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 33 : 3669-3681. 

 (Kleindienst et al., 1999) 

16. Maier,D. E., et al., Purdue University Grain Quality Task Force Fact Sheet #39, 

High Value Soybean Composition November 23, 1998. (Maier et al, 1998) 

17. McConnell, R., K. Berhane, F. Gilliland, S.J. London, T. Islam, W.J. Gauderman, 

E. Avol, H.G. Margolis, and J.M. Peters. Asthma in Exercising Children Exposed 

to Ozone: A Cohort Study. 2002. Lancet. Volume 359: 386-391. 

 (McConnell et al., 2002) 

18. 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) 

19. National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Estimating Mortality Risk 

Reduction Benefits from Decreasing Tropospheric Ozone Exposure, Board on 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 127 

Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies. 

Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling 

Ozone Air Pollution. 2008. (NRC, 2008) 

20. Ng, N.L., Kwan, A.J., Surratt, J.D., Chan, A.W.H, Chhabra, P.S., Sorooshian, A., 

Pye, H.O.T., Crounse, J.D., Wennberg, P.O., Flahan, R.C., Seinfeld, J.H. 

Secondary Organic Aerosol (SOA) Formation from Reaction of Isoprene with 

Nitrate Radicals (NO3). Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 8, 3163-3226, 2008. (Ng 

et al., 2008) 

21. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. All Chronic Reference 

Exposure Levels Adopted by OEHHA as of February 2005. (OEHHA, 2005) 

22. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. All Acute Reference 

Exposure Levels Developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment as of May 2000. (OEHHA, 2000) 

23. Odum, J. R., T. Hoffmann, F. Bowman, D. Collins, R. C. Flagan, and 

J. H. Seinfeld. Gas/Particle Partitioning and Secondary Organic Aerosol Yields. 

1996. Environmental Science & Technology. Volume 30. Number 8: 2580-2585. 

(Odum et al., 1996) 

24. Ostro, B.D., H. Tran, and J.I. Levy. The health benefits of reduced tropospheric 

ozone in California,” 2006. J of Air & Waste Management Assoc 56: 1007-1021. 

(Ostro et al., 2006) 

25. 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) 

26. Pankow, J. F. An Absorption Model of Gas/Particle Partitioning of Organic 

Compounds in the Atmosphere. 1994. Atmospheric Environment. Volume 28. 

Number 2: 185-188. (Pankow, 1994a) 

27. Pankow, J. F. An Absorption Model of the Gas/Aerosol Partitioning Involved in 

the Formation of Secondary Organic Aerosol. 1994. Atmospheric Environment. 

 Volume 28. Number 2: 189-193. (Pankow, 1994b) 

28. Seinfeld J. H. and Pandis S. N. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics-from Air 

Pollution to Climate Change. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1998. 

(Seinfeld and Pandis, 1998) 

 

29. Schwartz, J., Dockery, D. W., and Neas, L. M. Is Daily Mortality Associated 

Specifically with Fine Particles. 1996. Journal of Air & Waste Management 

Association. Volume 46: 927-939. (Schwartz et al., 1996) 
Technical Support Document Chapter VIII - 128 

30. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Final Environmental 

Assessment for Proposed Rule 1143 – Consumer Paint Thinners and MultiPurpose Solvents. February 2009. (SCAQMD, 2009) 

31. United States Department of Agriculture. United States Department of 

Agriculture, U. S. Acreage for soybeans

http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/index2.jsp, March 31, 2009. (USDA 2009)

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. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Questions and Answers on 

Alternative Solvents. August 25, 2008. 

http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/snap/solvents/qa.html (U.S. EPA, 2008) 

34. Yu, J., Cocker III, D. R., Griffin, R. J., Flagan, R. C., and Seinfeld, J. H. 

Gas-phase Ozone Oxidation of Monoterpenes: Gaseous and Particulate 

Products. 1999. Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry. Volume 34: 207-258. 

 (Yu et al., 1999) 
Technical Support Document Chapter IX - 129 

IX. FUTURE AND ONGOING ACTIVITIES

In this chapter, we describe future and ongoing activities related to the consumer 

products program. These activities are directed at developing proposals to further 

reduce volatile organic compounds (VOC), air toxic, and greenhouse gas emissions 

from consumer products. As always, our rulemaking activities will be conducted using a 

transparent process, allowing for stakeholder input. Major activities are summarized 

below. 

A. CONSUMER PRODUCT EMISSIONS REDUCTION COMMITMENTS IN THE 

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

As described in Chapter I, in the current SIP, the State Strategy for California’s 2007 

State Implementation Plan (Strategy), ARB committed to achieving a further 30 to 

40 tons per day VOC emissions reduction from consumer products statewide by 2014. 

Initial measures were adopted in the 2007 to 2008 timeframe, with emission reductions 

achieved by 2010. Additional measures to achieve the overall reduction commitment 

are to be adopted between 2010 and 2012 with implementation within the 2012 to 2014 

timeframe. The majority of the 5.8 tons per day of VOC reductions approved by the 

Board at its June 26, 2008, hearing constituted the first increment in meeting this 

commitment. About 1.3 tons per day of the 5.8 tons per day achieved will actually occur 

in 2015, and would be credited toward VOC reductions commitments in the post-2014 

timeframe. The 14.7 tons per day VOC reduction that would occur from adoption of the 

amendments proposed in this rulemaking, mark further progress toward meeting the 

consumer products commitment in the Strategy. Table IX-1 shows our progress toward 

meeting the consumer products commitment in the Strategy. 

Table IX-1 

Consumer Product VOC Reductions Accredited Toward SIP Commitment

Consumer Products Rulemaking VOC Reductions (tons per day) 

June 2008 Amendments 4.5 

September 2009 Amendments (this proposal) 14.7 

2010 Cleaning Products Amendments 

(under development) 5 – 8 

Additional Reductions from 

2006 Survey Product Categories 5.8 – 12.8 

Totals Reductions by January 1, 2014 30 – 40 

We are continuing the review of data from the 2006 Consumer and Commercial 

Products Survey as a further basis for identifying and evaluating additional categories 

for emission reduction opportunities. This survey was designed to collect 2006 calendar 

year product sales and formulation data for a variety of consumer products including 

aerosol coatings; personal care products; other cleaning products; lubricants; 

pesticides; and others. Some categories such as hobby, sporting, and party products 
Technical Support Document Chapter IX - 130 

were specifically surveyed to evaluate the use of GHGs. If feasible, additional 

proposals would be brought for consideration before the Board in 2010. 

ARB staff proposes to revise the Strategy as may be appropriate in a 2010 mid-course 

update: to reflect the emission benefits of newly adopted regulations; provide more 

detail on the State’s intended actions to fulfill the commitment to achieve emission 

reductions in total by specific dates; update as necessary the emissions inventories for 

federal ozone and PM2.5 non-attainment areas; and revise as necessary other plan 

aspects, including motor vehicle emissions budgets. The 2010 mid-course review may 

show the need for additional emission reductions from consumer products. 

On March 12, 2008, U.S. EPA reduced the eight-hour “primary” ozone standard to a 

level of 0.075 ppm. U.S. EPA also strengthened the secondary eight-hour ozone 

standard to the level of 0.075 ppm, making it identical to the revised primary standard. 

The final rule became effective on May 27, 2008. These changes will require that new 

State Implementation Plans (SIP) be drafted. A complete new state strategy will be 

developed for 2013. The 2013 SIP will likely require more VOC reductions from 

consumer products. 

B. GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS

As described in Chapter I, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) 

specifies that Discrete Early Action Measures are to be adopted and implemented by 

2010. Greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from consumer products have been 

designated as a Discrete Early Action Measure. The overall estimate is that 

greenhouse gas emissions from consumer products could be reduced by 0.25 MMT 

CO2e per year. The Pressurized Gas Duster proposal, approved by the Board on 

June 26, 2008, will achieve approximately 0.20 MMT CO2e per year in 2010, and 0.23 

MMT CO2e per year by 2020. From information we have gathered from consumer 

product surveys, we are currently evaluating whether GHG emissions reductions from 

Tire Sealants and Inflators and Chewing Gum Removers is feasible. We also intend to 

continue to evaluate data collected on other categories to determine if GHG emission 

reductions are technologically feasible and cost-effective to implement. 

C. 2006 CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS SURVEY DATA 

SUMMARIES 

We are continuing the review of data from the 2006 Consumer and Commercial 

Products Survey. Over 500 surveys have been received. We expect to release nonconfidential data summaries in the summer of 2009. These data summaries will serve 

as the basis for additional VOC and GHG emissions reduction proposals. 
Technical Support Document Chapter IX - 131 

D. NAIL COATINGS EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 

 

Stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding the use of the toxic compounds 

xylenes; toluene; dibutyl phthalate; and formaldehyde in nail coating formulations. We 

are actively evaluating these concerns to determine if use of these compounds in nail 

coatings pose a health hazard in the outdoor ambient air around nail salons. We are 

modeling emissions of these toxic compounds from an individual business, as well as 

cumulative emissions from multiple facilities. The goal of these analyses is to assess 

the potential risk posed to people living in close proximity to these emission sources. 

Should an adverse health impact in the outdoor ambient air be identified, we would 

evaluate mitigation strategies under our authority to reduce Toxic Air Contaminants. 

E. DRY CLEAN ONLY SPOT REMOVERS 

Based on comments from stakeholders, we are currently evaluating spot remover 

formulas used in commercial dry cleaning facilities. A survey was sent out to dry 

cleaning chemical manufacturers on January 14, 2009, to gather sales and formulation 

data on Dry Clean Only Spot Removers. The data received from this survey are 

currently under review. 

 

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted amendments to 

District Regulation 11, Rule 16 and Regulation 8, Rule 17 which pertain to Dry Cleaning 

Operations. The BAAQMD rules prohibit the use of halogenated solvents, such as 

perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene in spotting solutions. We will evaluate the 

feasibility of regulating Dry Clean Only Spot Removers once the survey data are 

compiled. 

F. PAINT REMOVERS/ STRIPPERS 

The Paint Remover/Stripper category will also be evaluated for potential VOC and Toxic 

Air Contaminant reductions upon the completion of the 2006 Consumer and 

Commercial Products Survey Data Summaries.

G. CLEANING PRODUCTS 

Non-aerosol General Purpose Cleaners, General Purpose Degreasers, Glass Cleaners, 

and aerosol Furniture Maintenance Products are under evaluation for further regulation. 

Part of this evaluation is to determine if potential adverse impacts would result from the 

use of predicted reformulations used to comply with proposed lower VOC limits. We are 

working with Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment staff who are 

developing health values for various low vapor pressure-VOC glycol ethers that could 

be used in reformulated products. In accordance with State law, any new health values 

will need to undergo scientific peer review. Concomitant with this work, exposure 

scenarios are being developed to simulate usage of cleaning products in household and 

institutional settings. Air concentrations resulting from modeling these scenarios will be 
Technical Support Document Chapter IX - 132 

compared to health values to determine if adverse health impacts would result from use 

of potential reformulations. 

We are also working with State Water Resources Control Board staff to evaluate water 

quality impacts from use of cleaning products. Of particular concern is a family of 

surfactants, the alkylphenol ethoxylates. Evidence indicates these surfactants are toxic 

to aquatic organisms, with the main concern being the estrogenic effects of their 

degradation products. 

If these assessments indicate that there is a potential for adverse environmental 

impacts from the proposals to establish lower VOC limits for these categories, then 

mitigation measures will need to be evaluated. During this continued evaluation, 

stakeholders will be given the opportunity to comment and provide input on specific 

proposals. Upon completion of this evaluation, we intend to propose to the Board in 

2010, new limits for these categories, which we expect to achieve 5 – 8 tons per day 

VOC reductions toward the consumer products commitment in the Strategy. 
Appendix B 

Proposed Amendments to the Regulation for Reducing 

Emissions from Consumer Products and Revisions to Test Method 310 

Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-1 nts 

[Note: Proposed amendments are shown in underline to indicate additions and 

strikeout to indicate deletions.] 

Proposed Amendments to the 

REGULATION FOR REDUCING EMISSIONS 

FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

SUBCHAPTER 8.5 CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

Amend title 17, California Code of Regulation, sections 94508, 94509, 94510, 

94512, 94513, and 94515 to read as follows: 

Article 2. Consumer Products 

94507. Applicability. 

Except as provided in Sections 94509(i) and 94510, this article shall apply to any 

person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or manufactures consumer products 

for use in the state of California. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

§ 94508. Definitions.

(a) For the purpose of this article, the following definitions apply: 

(1) “Adhesive” means any product that is used to bond one surface to another by 

attachment. “Adhesive” does not include products used on humans and animals, 

adhesive tape, contact paper, wallpaper, shelf liners, or any other product with an 

adhesive incorporated onto or in an inert substrate. For “Contact Adhesive,” 

“Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesive,” and “General Purpose 

Adhesive” only, “adhesive” also does not include units of product, less 

packaging, which weigh more than one pound and consist of more than 16 fluid 

ounces. This limitation does not apply to aerosol adhesives. 

(2) “Adhesive Remover” means a product designed to remove adhesive from either 

a specific substrate or a variety of substrates. “Adhesive Remover” does not 

include products that remove adhesives intended for use on humans or animals. 

 For the purpose of this definition and “Adhesive Remover” subcategories (A-D), 

the term “adhesive” shall mean a substance used to bond one or more materials. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-2 nts 

Adhesive includes, but is not limited to: caulks; sealants; glues; or similar 

substances used for the purpose of forming a bond. 

(A) “Floor tor Wall Covering Adhesive Remover” means a product 

designed or labeled to remove floor or wall coverings and associated 

adhesive from the underlying substrate. 

(B) “Gasket or Thread Locking Adhesive Remover” means a product designed 

or labeled to remove gaskets or thread locking adhesives. Products 

labeled for dual use as a paint stripper and gasket remover and/or thread 

locking adhesive remover are considered “Gasket or Thread Locking 

Adhesive Remover.” 

(C) “General Purpose Adhesive Remover” means a product designed or 

labeled to remove cyanoacrylate adhesives as well as non-reactive 

adhesives or residue from a variety of substrates. “General Purpose 

Adhesive Remover” includes, but is not limited to, products that remove 

thermoplastic adhesives; pressure sensitive adhesives; dextrine or 

starch-based adhesives; casein glues; rubber or latex-based adhesives; 

as well as products that remove stickers; decals; stencils; or similar 

materials. “General Purpose Adhesive Remover” does not include “Floor 

or Wall Covering Adhesive Remover.” 

 

(D) “Specialty Adhesive Remover” means a product designed to remove 

reactive adhesives from a variety of substrates. Reactive adhesives 

include adhesives that require a hardener or catalyst in order for the bond 

to occur. Examples of reactive adhesives include, but are not limited to: 

epoxies; urethanes; silicones. “Specialty Adhesive Remover” does not 

include “Gasket or Thread Locking Adhesive Remover.” 

(3) “Aerosol Adhesive” means any adhesive packaged as an aerosol product in 

which the spray mechanism is permanently housed in a nonrefillable can 

designed for hand-held application without the need for ancillary hoses or spray 

equipment. Aerosol adhesives include special purpose spray adhesives, mist 

spray adhesives, and web spray adhesives. 

(4) “Aerosol Cooking Spray” means any aerosol product designed either to reduce 

sticking on cooking and baking surfaces or to be applied on food, or both. 

(5) “Aerosol Product” means a pressurized spray system that dispenses product 

ingredients by means of a propellant contained in a product or a product's 

container, or by means of a mechanically induced force. “Aerosol Product” does 

not include “Pump Spray.” 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-3 nts 

(6) “Agricultural Use” means the use of any pesticide or method or device for the 

control of pests in connection with the commercial production, storage or 

processing of any animal or plant crop. “Agricultural Use” does not include the 

sale or use of pesticides in properly labeled packages or containers which are 

intended for: (A) Home use, (B) Use in structural pest control, or (C) Industrial or 

Institutional use. For the purposes of this definition only: 

“Home use” means use in a household or its immediate environment. 

“Structural pest control” means a use requiring a license under Chapter 14 

(commencing with Section 8500), Division 3, of the Business and 

Professions Code. 

“Industrial use” means use for or in a manufacturing, mining, or chemical 

process or use in the operation of factories, processing plants, and similar 

sites. 

 

“Institutional use” means use within the confines of, or on property 

necessary for the operation of buildings such as hospitals, schools, 

libraries, auditoriums, and office complexes. 

(7) “Air Freshener” means any product including, but not limited to, sprays, wicks, 

wipes, diffusers, powders, and crystals, designed or labeled for the purpose of 

masking odors, or freshening, cleaning, scenting, or deodorizing the air. “Air 

Freshener” includes dual purpose air freshener/disinfectant products. “Air 

Freshener” does not include products that are used on the human body, products 

that function primarily as cleaning products as indicated on a product label, “Odor 

Remover/Eliminator,” or “Toilet/Urinal Care Product.” 

(8) “All Other Carbon-Containing Compounds” means all other compounds which 

contain at least one carbon atom and are not a “Table B” or a “LVP-VOC.” 

(9) “All Other Forms” means all consumer product forms for which no form-specific 

VOC standard is specified. Unless specified otherwise by the applicable VOC 

standard, “all other forms” include, but are not limited to, solids, liquids (which 

includes the liquid containing or liquid impregnated portion of the cloth or paper 

wipes (towelettes), wicks, powders, and crystals. 

(10) “Antimicrobial Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap” means a cleaner or soap which is 

designed to reduce the level of microorganisms on the skin through germicidal 

activity, and is regulated as an over-the-counter drug by the U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration. “Antimicrobial Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap” includes, but is 

not limited to, (A) antimicrobial hand or body washes/cleaners, (B) foodhandler 

hand washes, (C) healthcare personnel hand washes, (D) pre-operative skin 

preparations and (E) surgical scrubs. “Antimicrobial Hand or Body Cleaner or 

Soap” does not include prescription drug products, antiperspirants, 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-4 nts 

“Astringent/Toner,” deodorant, “Facial Cleaner or Soap,” “General-use Hand or 

Body Cleaner or Soap,” “Hand Dishwashing Detergent” (including antimicrobial), 

“Heavy-duty Hand Cleaner or Soap,” “Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner,” 

and “Rubbing Alcohol.” 

(11) “Anti-Static Product” means a product that is labeled to eliminate, prevent, or 

inhibit the accumulation of static electricity. “Anti-Static Product” does not include 

“Electronic Cleaner,” “Floor Polish or Wax,” “Floor Coating,” and products that 

meet the definition of “Aerosol Coating Product” or “Architectural Coating.” 

(12) “Architectural Coating” means a coating applied to stationary structures and their 

appurtenances, to mobile homes, to pavements, or to curbs. 

(13) “Aromatic Compound” means a VOC that contains one or more benzene or 

equivalent heterocyclic rings.

(14) “Artist’s Solvent/Thinner” means any liquid product, labeled to meet ASTM 

D4236 – 95 (March 1, 2005) Standard Practice for Labeling Art Materials for 

Chronic Health Hazards, which is incorporated by reference herein, and 

packaged in a container equal to or less than 32 fluid ounces, labeled to reduce

the viscosity of, and or remove, art coating compositions or components. 

(15)(13)“ASTM” means the American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM 

International. 

(16)(14)“Astringent/Toner” means any product designed or labeled to be applied to the 

skin for the purpose of cleaning or tightening pores. This category also includes 

clarifiers and substrate-impregnated products. This category does not include 

any hand, face, or body cleaner or soap product, “Medicated 

Astringent/Medicated Toner,” cold cream, lotion, antiperspirant, or any 

Astringent/Toner product regulated as a drug by the United States Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA). 

(17)(15)“Automotive Hard Paste Wax” means an automotive wax or polish which is: 

 (A) designed to protect and improve the appearance of automotive paint 

surfaces; and (B) a solid at room temperature; and (C) contains 0% water by 

formulation. 

(18)(16)“Automotive Instant Detailer” means a product designed for use in a pump 

spray that is applied to the painted surface of automobiles and wiped off prior to 

the product being allowed to dry. 

(19)(17)“Automotive Rubbing or Polishing Compound” means a product designed 

primarily to remove oxidation, old paint, scratches or “swirl marks,” and other 

defects from the painted surfaces of motor vehicles without leaving a protective 

barrier. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-5 nts 

(20)(18)“Automotive Wax, Polish, Sealant or Glaze” means a product designed to seal 

out moisture, increase gloss, or otherwise enhance a motor vehicle’s painted 

surfaces. “Automotive Wax, Polish, Sealant or Glaze” includes, but is not limited 

to, products designed for use in autobody repair shops and “drive-through” car 

washes, as well as products designed for the general public. “Automotive Wax, 

Polish, Sealant or Glaze” does not include “Automotive Rubbing or Polishing 

Compound,” automotive wash and wax products, surfactant-containing car wash 

products, and products designed for use on unpainted surfaces such as bare 

metal, chrome, glass, or plastic. 

(21)(19)“Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid (Dilutable)” means any liquid which 

meets the following criteria: 

(A) the product is sold either in a container with a capacity of 55 10 gallons or 

more, or a container with a capacity of one quart or less; and

(B) the product is designed or labeled for use in a motor vehicle windshield 

washer fluid system either as an anti-freeze or for the purpose of cleaning, 

washing, bug removal, or wetting the windshield(s).

“Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid (Dilutable)” does not include any fluid 

which is placed in a new motor vehicle at the time the vehicle is manufactured. 

(22)(20)“Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid (Pre-Mixed)” means any liquid which 

meets the following criteria: 

(A) the product is sold in a container with a capacity that is greater than one 

quart, but less than 55 10 gallons; and

(B) the product is designed or labeled for use in a motor vehicle windshield 

washer fluid system as an anti-freeze or for the purpose of cleaning, washing, 

bug removal, or wetting the windshield(s). 

“Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid (Pre-Mixed)” does not include any fluid 

which is placed in a new motor vehicle at the time the vehicle is manufactured. 

(23)(21)“Bathroom and Tile Cleaner” means a product designed or labeled to clean tile 

or surfaces in bathrooms. “Bathroom and Tile Cleaner” does not include 

 “Toilet/Urinal Care Product.” 

(24)(22)“Brake Cleaner” means a cleaning product designed or labeled to remove oil, 

grease, brake fluid, brake pad material or dirt from motor vehicle brake 

mechanisms. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-6 nts 

(25)(23)“Bug and Tar Remover” means a product labeled to remove either or both of the 

following from painted motor vehicle surfaces without causing damage to the 

finish: (A) biological-type residues such as insect carcasses and tree sap and, 

(B) road grime, such as road tar, roadway paint markings, and asphalt. 

(26)(24)“California Sales” means the sales (net pounds of product, less packaging and 

container, per year) in California for either the calendar year immediately prior to 

the year that the information required by the Executive Officer pursuant to section 

94513 (required information) is due or, if that data is not available, any 

consecutive 12 month period commencing no earlier than 2 years prior to the due 

date of the required information. If direct sales data for California is not available, 

sales may be estimated by prorating national or regional sales data by 

population. 

(27)(25)“Carburetor or Fuel-Injection Air Intake Cleaner” means a product designed or 

labeled to remove fuel deposits, dirt, or other contaminants from a carburetor, 

choke, throttle body of a fuel-injection system, or associated linkages. 

“Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake Cleaner” does not include products 

designed or labeled exclusively to be introduced directly into the fuel lines or fuel 

storage tank prior to introduction into the carburetor or fuel injectors, or products 

designed or labeled exclusively to be introduced during engine operation directly 

into air intake vacuum lines by using a pressurized sprayer wand. 

(28)(26)“Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner” means a cleaning product designed or labeled for 

the purpose of eliminating dirt or stains on rugs, carpeting, or objects upholstered 

or covered with fabrics such as wool, cotton, nylon or other synthetic fabrics. 

“Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner” includes, but is not limited to, products used on 

household furniture, the interior of motor vehicles, and products that make 

”Fabric Protectant” claims. “Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner” does not include “Spot 

Remover,” vinyl or leather cleaners, ”Dry Cleaning Fluids,” or products designed 

exclusively for use at industrial facilities engaged in furniture or carpet 

manufacturing. 

(29)(27)“Charcoal Lighter Material” means any combustible material designed to be 

applied on, incorporated in, added to, or used with charcoal to enhance ignition. 

“Charcoal Lighter Material” does not include any of the following: (A) electrical 

starters and probes, (B) metallic cylinders using paper tinder, (C) natural gas, 

(D) propane, and (E) fat wood. 

(30)(28)“Colorant” means any pigment or coloring material used in a consumer product 

for an aesthetic effect, or to dramatize an ingredient. 

(31)(29)“Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesive” means any non-aerosol, 

one-component adhesive that is designed or labeled for the installation, 

remodeling, maintenance, or repair of: (A) structural and building components 

that include, but are not limited to, beams, trusses, studs, paneling (drywall or 

drywall laminates, fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP), plywood, particle board, 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-7 nts 

insulation board, pre-decorated hardboard or tileboard, etc.), ceiling and 

acoustical tile, molding, fixtures, countertops or countertop laminates, cove or 

wall bases, and flooring or subflooring; or (B) floor or wall coverings that include, 

but are not limited to, wood or simulated wood covering, carpet, carpet pad or 

cushion, vinyl-backed carpet, flexible flooring material, nonresilient flooring 

material, mirror tiles and other types of tiles, and artificial grass. “Construction, 

Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesive” does not include “Floor Seam Sealer.” 

(32)(30)“Consumer” means any person who seeks, purchases, or acquires any 

consumer product for personal, family, household, or institutional use. Persons 

acquiring a consumer product for resale are not “consumers” for that product. 

(33)(31)“Consumer Product” means a chemically formulated product used by household 

and institutional consumers including, but not limited to, detergents; cleaning 

compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, 

lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and 

automotive specialty products; but does not include other paint products, 

furniture coatings, or architectural coatings. As used in this article, the term 

“consumer product” shall also refer to aerosol adhesives, including aerosol 

adhesives used for consumer, industrial, and commercial uses. 

(34)(32)“Contact Adhesive” means a non-aerosol adhesive that: (A) is designed for 

application to both surfaces to be bonded together, and (B) is allowed to dry 

before the two surfaces are placed in contact with each other, and (C) forms an 

immediate bond that is impossible, or difficult, to reposition after both adhesivecoated surfaces are placed in contact with each other, and (D) does not need 

sustained pressure or clamping of surfaces after the adhesive-coated surfaces 

have been brought together using sufficient momentary pressure to establish full 

contact between both surfaces. “Contact Adhesive” does not include rubber 

cements that are primarily intended for use on paper substrates. “Contact 

Adhesive” also does not include vulcanizing fluids that are designed and labeled 

for tire repair only. 

(35)(33)“Contact Adhesive - General Purpose” means any contact adhesive that is not a 

“Contact Adhesive - Special Purpose.” 

(36)(34)“Contact Adhesive - Special Purpose” means a contact adhesive that: (A) is 

used to bond melamine-covered board, unprimed metal, unsupported vinyl, 

Teflon, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, rubber, high pressure laminate 

or wood veneer 1/16 inch or less in thickness to any porous or nonporous 

surface, and is sold in units of product, less packaging, that contain more than 

eight fluid ounces, or (B) is used in automotive applications that are (1.) 

automotive under-the-hood applications requiring heat, oil or gasoline resistance, 

or (2.) body-side molding, automotive weatherstrip or decorative trim. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-8 nts 

(37)(35)“Container/Packaging” means the part or parts of the consumer or institutional 

product which serve only to contain, enclose, incorporate, deliver, dispense, wrap 

or store the chemically formulated substance or mixture of substances which is 

solely responsible for accomplishing the purposes for which the product was 

designed or intended. “Container/Packaging” includes any article onto or into 

which the principal display panel and other accompanying literature or graphics 

are incorporated, etched, printed or attached. 

(38)(36)“Crawling Bug Insecticide” means any insecticide product that is designed for 

use against ants, cockroaches, or other household crawling arthropods, 

including, but not limited to, mites, silverfish or spiders. “Crawling Bug 

Insecticide” does not include products designed to be used exclusively on 

humans or animals, or any house dust mite product. For the purposes of this 

definition only: 

“House dust mite product” means a product whose label, packaging, or 

accompanying literature states that the product is suitable for use against 

house dust mites, but does not indicate that the product is suitable for use 

against ants, cockroaches, or other household crawling arthropods. 

“House dust mite” means mites which feed primarily on skin cells shed in the 

home by humans and pets and which belong to the phylum Arthropoda, the 

subphylum Chelicerata, the class Arachnida, the subclass Acari, the order 

Astigmata, and the family Pyroglyphidae. 

(39)(37)“Deodorant Body Spray” means: 

(A) for products manufactured before January 1, 2006: a “Personal 

Fragrance Product” with 20 percent or less fragrance. 

(B) for products manufactured on or after January 1, 2006: a “Personal 

Fragrance Product” with 20 percent or less fragrance, that is designed 

for application all over the human body to provide a scent. A 

“Deodorant Body Spray” product that indicates or depicts on the 

container or packaging, or on any sticker or label affixed thereto, that it 

can be used on or applied to the human axilla, is a “Deodorant” as 

defined in section 94501(d). 

(40)(38)“Device” means any instrument or contrivance (other than a firearm) which is 

designed for trapping, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest or any other 

form of plant or animal life (other than man and other than bacteria, virus, or 

other microorganism on or in living man or other living animals); but not including 

equipment used for the application of pesticides when sold separately therefrom. 

(41)(39)“Disinfectant” means a product that is labeled as a “disinfectant”, or is labeled to 

destroy or irreversibly inactivate infectious or other undesirable bacteria, 

pathogenic fungi, or viruses on surfaces or inanimate objects and whose label is 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-9 nts 

registered as a “disinfectant” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136, et seq.). Products that are labeled as 

both a “sanitizer” and a “disinfectant” are considered disinfectants. “Disinfectant” 

does not include any of the following: (A) products labeled solely for use on 

humans or animals, (B) products labeled solely for agricultural use, (C) products 

labeled solely for use in swimming pools, therapeutic tubs, or hot tubs, (D) 

products which are labeled to be used on heat sensitive critical or semi-critical 

medical devices or medical equipment surfaces, (E) products which are premoistened wipes or towelettes sold exclusively to medical, convalescent, or 

veterinary establishments, (F) products which are labeled to be applied to 

food-contact surfaces and are not required to be rinsed prior to contact with food, 

or (G) products which are labeled as “Bathroom and Tile Cleaners,” “Glass 

Cleaners,” “General Purpose Cleaners,” “Toilet/Urinal Care Products,” “Metal 

Polishes,” “Carpet Cleaners,” or “Fabric Refreshers” that may also make 

disinfecting or anti-microbial claims on the label.

(42)(40)“Distributor” means any person to whom a consumer product is sold or supplied 

for the purposes of resale or distribution in commerce, except that 

manufacturers, retailers, and consumers are not distributors. 

(43)(41)“Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener” means an aerosol air freshener with the 

liquid contents in two or more distinct phases that requires the product container 

be shaken before use to mix the phases, producing an emulsion. 

(44)(42)“Dry Cleaning Fluid” means any non-aqueous liquid product designed and 

labeled exclusively for use on: (1) fabrics which are labeled “for dry clean only,” 

such as clothing or drapery; or (2) “S-coded” fabrics. “Dry Cleaning Fluid” 

includes, but is not limited to, those products used by commercial dry cleaners 

and commercial businesses that clean fabrics such as draperies at the 

customer’s residence or work place. “Dry Cleaning Fluid” does not include “Spot 

Remover” or “Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner.” For the purposes of this definition, Scoded fabric means an upholstery fabric designed to be cleaned only with waterfree spot cleaning products as specified by the Joint Industry Fabric Standards 

Committee.” 

(45)(43)“Dual Purpose Air Freshener/Disinfectant” means an aerosol product that is 

represented on the product container for use as both a disinfectant and an air 

freshener, or is so represented on any sticker, label, packaging, or literature 

attached to the product container. 

(46)(44)“Dusting Aid” means a product designed or labeled to assist in removing dust 

and other soils from floors and other surfaces without leaving a wax or silicone 

based coating. “Dusting Aid” does not include “Pressurized Gas Duster.” 

(47)(45)“Electrical Cleaner” means a product labeled to remove heavy soils such 

as grease, grime, or oil from electrical equipment, including, but not limited 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-10 nts 

to, electric motors, armatures, relays, electric panels, or generators. Electrical 

Cleaner does not include “General Purpose Cleaner,” “General Purpose 

Degreaser,” “Dusting Aid,” “Electronic Cleaner,” “Energized Electrical Cleaner,” 

“Pressurized Gas Duster,” “Engine Degreaser,” “Anti-Static Product,” or products 

designed to clean the casings or housings of electrical equipment. 

(48)(46)“Electronic Cleaner” means a product labeled for the removal of dirt, moisture, 

dust, flux, or oxides from the internal components of electronic or precision 

equipment such as circuit boards, and the internal components of electronic 

devices, including but not limited to, radios, compact disc (CD) players, digital 

video disc (DVD) players, and computers. “Electronic Cleaner” does not include 

“General Purpose Cleaner,” “General Purpose Degreaser,” “Dusting Aid,” 

“Pressurized Gas Duster,” “Engine Degreaser,” “Electrical Cleaner,” “Energized 

Electrical Cleaner,” “Anti-Static Product,” or products labeled to clean the casings 

or housings of electronic equipment. “Electronic Cleaner” does not include any 

product that meets both of the following criteria: 

1) the product is labeled to clean and/or degrease electronic equipment, where 

cleaning and/or degreasing is accomplished when electrical current exists, or 

when there is a residual electrical potential from a component; 

2) the product label clearly displays the statements: “Energized Electronic 

Equipment use only.” 

(49)(47)“Energized Electrical Cleaner” means a product that meets both of the following 

criteria: 

1) the product is labeled to clean and/or degrease electrical equipment, where 

cleaning and/or degreasing is accomplished when electrical current exists, or 

when there is a residual electrical potential from a component such as a 

capacitor; 

 2) the product label clearly displays the statements: “Energized Equipment use 

only. Not to be used for motorized vehicle maintenance, or their parts.” 

 “Energized Electrical Cleaner” does not include “Electronic Cleaner.” 

(50)(48)“Engine Degreaser” means a cleaning product designed or labeled to remove 

grease, grime, oil and other contaminants from the external surfaces of engines 

and other mechanical parts. 

(51)(49)“Executive Officer” means the Executive Officer of the Air Resources Board, or 

his or her delegate. 

(52)(50)“Existing Product” means any formulation of the same product category and 

form sold, supplied, manufactured, or offered for sale in California prior to the 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-11 nts 

following dates, or any subsequently introduced identical formulation: 

 (A) October 21, 1991, for all products listed in section 94509(a) that have initial 

effective dates of January 1, 1993, or January 1, 1994; 

 (B) January 6, 1993, for all products listed in section 94509(a) that have initial 

effective dates of January 1, 1995, or January 1, 1997, and charcoal lighter 

materials subject to section 94509(h); 

 (C) August 16, 1998, for all products listed in section 94509(a) that have initial 

effective dates of January 1, 2001, January 1, 2002, January 1, 2003, or 

 January 1, 2005; 

 (D) November 19, 2000, for all products in the following product categories 

listed in section 94509(a): “Non-aerosol General Purpose Degreaser,” 

“Sealant and Caulking Compound,” and “Tire Sealant and Inflator.” 

 (E) July 20, 2005, for all products listed in section 94509(a) that have an 

effective date of December 31, 2006, December 31, 2008, or 

December 31, 2009; and 

 (F) December 8, 2007, for all products listed in section 94509(a) that have an 

initial effective date of December 31, 2008, or December 31, 2010 for Brake 

Cleaner, Carburetor or Fuel-Injection Air Intake Cleaner, Aerosol Engine 

Degreaser, Resilient Flooring Material, Nonresilient Flooring Material, 

Aerosol General Purpose Degreaser, and Aerosol Temporary Hair Color. 

 (G) July 18, 2009, for all products listed in section 94509(a) that have an initial 

effective date of December 31, 2010, or December 31, 2012, 

 December 31, 2013, or December 31, 2014. 

(53)(51)“Fabric Protectant” means: 

 (A) for products manufactured before December 31, 2008: a product designed 

or labeled to be applied to fabric substrates to protect the surface from 

soiling from dirt and other impurities or to reduce absorption of liquid into the 

fabric’s fibers. “Fabric Protectant” does not include “Waterproofers,” 

products designed for use solely on leather, or products designed for use 

solely on fabrics which are labeled “for dry clean only” and sold in containers 

of 10 fluid ounces or less. 

 (B) for products manufactured on or after December 31, 2008: a product 

designed or labeled to be applied to fabric substrates to protect the surface 

from soiling from dirt or other impurities or to reduce absorption of liquid into 

the fabric’s fibers. “Fabric Protectant” does not include “Waterproofers,” or 

products labeled for use solely on leather. “Fabric Protectant” does not 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-12 nts 

include pigmented products that are designed or labeled to be used primarily 

for coloring, products used for construction, reconstruction, modification, 

structural maintenance or repair of fabric substrates, or products that renew 

or restore fabric and qualifying as either “Clear Coating” or 

“Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate Coating” under section 94521(a). 

(54)(52)“Fabric Refresher” means a product labeled to neutralize or eliminate odors on 

non-laundered fabric including, but not limited to, soft household surfaces, rugs, 

carpeting, draperies, bedding, automotive interiors, footwear, athletic equipment, 

clothing and/or on household furniture or objects upholstered or covered with 

fabrics such as, but not limited to, wool, cotton, or nylon. “Fabric Refresher” does 

not include “Anti-static Product,” “Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner,” “Footwear or 

Leather Care Product,” “Spot Remover,” or “Disinfectant,” or products labeled for 

application to both fabric and human skin. 

(55)(53)“Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product” means a laundry care product 

designed or labeled for single use in the clothes dryer to impart softness to, or 

control static cling of, a load of washable fabrics; and may impart a fragrance or 

scent. For the purpose of this definition only, “single use” means a product that 

is intended for one time use during a single drying cycle and is removed after 

completion of the drying cycle. A “load” is the amount of washable fabrics in a 

single drying cycle. “Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product” includes treated 

nonwoven sheets which are typically packaged in boxes with a multiple number 

of sheets. “Fabric Softener-Single Use Dryer Product” does not include products 

applied to washable fabrics prior to placing the washable fabrics in the clothes 

dryer.

(56)(54)“Facial Cleaner or Soap” means a cleaner or soap designed primarily to clean 

the face. “Facial Cleaner or Soap” includes, but is not limited to, facial cleansing 

creams, semisolids, liquids, lotions, and substrate-impregnated forms. “Facial 

Cleaner or Soap” does not include prescription drug products, “Antimicrobial 

Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap,” “Astringent/Toner,” “General-use Hand or Body 

Cleaner or Soap,” “Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner,” or “Rubbing Alcohol.” 

(57)(55)“Fat Wood” means pieces of wood kindling with high naturally-occurring levels 

of sap or resin which enhance ignition of the kindling. “Fat wood” does not 

include any kindling with substances added to enhance flammability, such as 

wax-covered or wax-impregnated wood-based products.

(58)(56)“Flea and Tick Insecticide” means any insecticide product that is designed for 

use against fleas, ticks, their larvae, or their eggs. “Flea and Tick Insecticide” 

does not include products that are designed to be used exclusively on humans or 

animals and their bedding. 

(59)(57)“Floor Coating” means an opaque coating that is labeled and designed for 

application to flooring, including but not limited to, decks, porches, steps, and 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-13 nts 

other horizontal surfaces which may be subject to foot traffic. 

(60)(58)“Floor Maintenance Product” means any product designed or labeled to restore, 

maintain, or enhance a previously applied floor finish. “Floor Maintenance 

Product” includes, but is not limited to, products that are labeled as Spray Buff 

products or Floor Maintainers or Restorers. “Floor Maintenance Product” does 

not include floor polish products, products designed solely for the purpose of 

cleaning, products designed or labeled exclusively for use on marble floors, or 

coatings subject to architectural coatings regulations.

(61)(59)”Floor Polish or Wax” means a product designed or labeled to polish, wax, 

condition, protect, temporarily seal, or otherwise enhance floor surfaces by 

leaving a protective finish that is designed or labeled to be periodically 

replenished. “Floor Polish or Wax” does not include “Floor Maintenance 

Products,” “Floor Wax Stripper,” or coatings subject to architectural coatings 

regulations. 

 “Floor Polish or Wax” is divided into three subcategories: products for resilient 

flooring materials, products for nonresilient flooring materials and wood floor wax. 

For the purposes of this article: 

(A) “Resilient Flooring Material” means flexible flooring material including but 

is not limited to, asphalt, cork, linoleum, no-wax, rubber, seamless vinyl, 

and vinyl composite flooring. 

 (B) “Nonresilient Flooring Material” means flooring of a mineral content which 

is not flexible. “Nonresilient Flooring material” includes but is not limited to 

terrazzo, marble, slate, granite, brick, stone, ceramic tile, and concrete. 

 (C) “Wood Floor Wax” means any wax-based products designed or labeled for 

use solely on wood floors. “Wood Floor Wax” does not include products 

that make the claim to “clean and wax” or “clean and polish.” 

(62)(60)“Floor Seam Sealer” means any product designed and labeled exclusively for 

bonding, fusing, or sealing (coating) seams between adjoining rolls of installed 

flexible sheet flooring. 

(63)(61)“Floor Wax Stripper” means a product designed to remove natural or synthetic 

floor polishes or waxes through breakdown of the polish or wax polymers, or by 

dissolving or emulsifying the polish or wax. “Floor Wax Stripper” does not 

include aerosol floor wax strippers or products designed to remove floor wax 

solely through abrasion. 

(64)(62)“Flying Bug Insecticide” means any insecticide product that is designed for use 

against flying insects or other flying arthropods, including but not limited to flies, 

mosquitoes, moths, or gnats. “Flying Bug Insecticide” does not include “wasp 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-14 nts 

and hornet insecticide,” products that are designed to be used exclusively on 

humans or animals, or any moth-proofing product. For the purposes of this 

definition only, “moth-proofing product” means a product whose label, packaging, 

or accompanying literature indicates that the product is designed to protect 

fabrics from damage by moths, but does not indicate that the product is suitable 

for use against flying insects or other flying arthropods. 

(65)(63)“Footwear or Leather Care Product” means any product designed or labeled to 

be applied to footwear or to other leather articles/components, to maintain, 

enhance, clean, protect, or modify the appearance, durability, fit, or flexibility of 

the footwear or leather article/component. Footwear includes both leather and 

non-leather foot apparel. “Footwear or Leather Care Product” does not include 

“Fabric Protectant,” “General Purpose Adhesive,” “Contact Adhesive,” 

“Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate Coating,” as defined in section 94521(a), 

“Rubber/Vinyl Protectant,” “Fabric Refresher,” products solely for deodorizing, or 

sealant products with adhesive properties used to create external protective 

layers greater than 2 millimeters thick. 

(66)(64)“Fragrance” means a substance or complex mixture of aroma chemicals, 

natural essential oils, and other functional components with a combined vapor 

pressure not in excess of 2 mm of Hg at 20oC, the sole purpose of which is to 

impart an odor or scent, or to counteract a malodor. 

(67)(65)“Furniture Maintenance Product” means a wax, polish, conditioner, or any other 

product labeled for the purpose of polishing, protecting or enhancing finished 

wood surfaces other than floors, and other furniture surfaces including but not 

limited to acrylics, ceramic, plastics, stone surfaces, metal surfaces, and 

fiberglass. “Furniture Maintenance Product” does not include “Dusting Aids,” 

“Wood Cleaners,” and products designed solely for the purpose of cleaning, or 

products designed to leave a permanent finish such as stains, sanding sealers 

and lacquers. 

(68)(66)“Furniture Coating” means any paint designed for application to room 

furnishings including, but not limited to, cabinets (kitchen, bath and vanity), 

tables, chairs, beds, and sofas. 

(69)(67)“Gel” means a colloid in which the disperse phase has combined with the 

continuous phase to produce a semisolid material, such as jelly. 

(70)(68)“General Purpose Adhesive” means any non-aerosol adhesive designed for use 

on a variety of substrates. “General Purpose Adhesive” does not include 

 (A) contact adhesives, (B) construction, panel, and floor covering adhesives, 

 (C) adhesives designed exclusively for application on one specific category of 

substrates (i.e., substrates that are composed of similar materials, such as 

different types of metals, paper products, ceramics, plastics, rubbers, or vinyls), 

or (D) adhesives designed exclusively for use on one specific category of articles 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-15 nts 

(i.e., articles that may be composed of different materials but perform a specific 

function, such as gaskets, automotive trim, weather-stripping, or carpets). 

(71)(69)“General Purpose Cleaner” means a general purpose cleaning product labeled 

for use on a variety of hard surfaces, including small appliances. “General 

Purpose Cleaner” includes, but is not limited to, products designed or labeled for 

general floor cleaning, kitchen, countertop, or sink cleaning, and cleaners 

designed or labeled to be used on a variety of hard surfaces such as stovetops, 

cooktops, or microwaves. 

(72)(70)“General Purpose Degreaser” means any product labeled to remove or dissolve 

grease, grime, oil and other oil-based contaminants from a variety of substrates, 

including automotive or miscellaneous metallic parts. “General Purpose 

Degreaser” does not include “Engine Degreaser,” “General Purpose Cleaner,” 

“Adhesive Remover,” “Electronic Cleaner,” “Electrical Cleaner,” “Energized 

Electrical Cleaner,” “Metal Polish/Cleanser,” products used exclusively in “solvent 

cleaning tanks or related equipment,” or products that are (A) sold exclusively to 

establishments which manufacture or construct goods or commodities; and (B) 

labeled “not for retail sale.” “Solvent cleaning tanks or related equipment” 

includes, but is not limited to, cold cleaners, vapor degreasers, conveyorized 

degreasers, film cleaning machines, or products designed to clean miscellaneous 

metallic parts by immersion in a container. 

(73)(71)“General-use Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap” means a cleaner or soap 

designed to be used routinely on the skin to clean or remove typical or common 

dirt and soils. “General-use Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap” includes, but is not 

limited to, hand or body washes, dual-purpose shampoo-body cleaners, shower 

or bath gels, and moisturizing cleaners or soaps. “General-use Hand or Body 

Cleaner or Soap” does not include prescription drug products, “Antimicrobial 

Hand or Body Cleaner or Soap,” “Astringent/Toner,” “Facial Cleaner or Soap,” 

“Hand Dishwashing Detergent” (including antimicrobial), “Heavy-duty Hand 

Cleaner or Soap,” “Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner,” or “Rubbing Alcohol.” 

(74)(72)“Glass Cleaner” means a cleaning product designed or labeled primarily for 

cleaning surfaces made of glass. “Glass Cleaner” does not include products 

designed or labeled solely for the purpose of cleaning optical materials used in 

eyeglasses, photographic equipment, scientific equipment and photocopying 

machines. 

(75)(73) “Global Warming Potential (GWP)” means the radiative forcing impact of one 

mass-based unit of a given greenhouse gas relative to an equivalent unit of 

carbon dioxide over a given period of time. 

(76)(74)“Global Warming Potential Value” or “GWP Value” means the global warming 

potential value of a chemical or compound as specified in the IPCC: 1995 

Second Assessment Report (SAR), Table 2.14, in Climate Change 2007: The 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-16 nts 

Physical Sciences Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is 

incorporated by reference herein. 

If Table 2.14 does not contain a SAR 100-year GWP Value for a specific 

chemical or compound, then the 100-year GWP Value in Table 2.14 for that 

chemical or compound shall be used. If there is no 100-year GWP Value for a 

chemical or compound listed in Table 2.14 or GWP Value listed in Table 2.15, 

then the GWP Value is assumed to be equal to the GWP limit of the applicable 

product category. 

(77)(75)“Graffiti Remover” means a product labeled to remove spray paint, ink, marker, 

crayon, lipstick, nail polish, or shoe polish, from a variety of non-cloth or 

non-fabric substrates. “Graffiti Remover” does not include “Paint Remover or 

Stripper,” “Nail Polish Remover,” or “Spot Remover.” Products labeled for dual 

use as both a paint stripper and graffiti remover are considered “Graffiti 

Removers.” 

(78)(76)”Hair Mousse” means a hairstyling foam designed to facilitate styling of a 

coiffure and provide limited holding power. 

(79)(77)”Hair Shine” means any product designed for the primary purpose of creating a 

shine when applied to the hair. “Hair Shine” includes, but is not limited to, 

dual-use products designed primarily to impart a sheen to the hair. “Hair Shine” 

does not include “Hair Spray,” “Hair Mousse,” “Hair Styling Product,” “Hair Styling 

Gel,” or products whose primary purpose is to condition or hold the hair. 

(80)(78)”Hair Styling Gel” means a consumer product manufactured before 

December 31, 2006, that is a high viscosity, often gelatinous, product that 

contains a resin and is designed for the application to hair to aid in styling and 

sculpting of the hair coiffure. 

(81)(79)”Hair Spray” means: 

(A) for products manufactured before December 31, 2006: a consumer product 

designed primarily for the purpose of dispensing droplets of a resin on and 

into a hair coiffure which will impart sufficient rigidity to the coiffure to 

establish or retain the style for a period of time, and 

(B) for products manufactured on or after December 31, 2006: a consumer 

product that is applied to styled hair, and is designed or labeled to provide 

sufficient rigidity, to hold, retain and/or (finish) the style of the hair for a 

period of time. “Hair Spray” includes aerosol hair sprays, pump hair sprays, 

spray waxes; color, glitter, or sparkle hairsprays that make finishing claims; 

and products that are both a styling and finishing product. “Hair Spray” does 

not include spray products that are intended to aid in styling but does not 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-17 nts 

provide finishing of a hairstyle. 

For the purposes of this subchapter, “finish” or “finishing” means the maintaining 

and/or holding of previously styled hair for a period of time. 

For the purposes of this subchapter, “styling” means the forming, sculpting, or 

manipulating the hair to temporarily alter the hair's shape. 

(82)(80)”Hair Styling Product” means a consumer product manufactured on or after 

December 31, 2006, that is designed or labeled for the application to wet, damp 

or dry hair to aid in defining, shaping, lifting, styling and/or sculpting of the hair. 

“Hair Styling Product” includes, but is not limited to hair balm, clay, cream, 

creme, curl straightener, gel, liquid, lotion, paste, pomade, putty, root lifter, 

serum, spray gel, stick, temporary hair straightener, wax, spray products that aid 

in styling but do not provide finishing of a hairstyle, and leave-in volumizers, 

detanglers and/or conditioners that make styling claims. “Hair Styling Product” 

does not include “Hair Mousse,” “Hair Shine,” “Hair Spray,” or shampoos and/or 

conditioners that are rinsed from the hair prior to styling. 

For the purposes of this subchapter, “finish” or “finishing” means the maintaining 

and/or holding of previously styled hair for a period of time. 

For the purposes of this subchapter, “styling” means the forming, sculpting, or 

manipulating the hair to temporarily alter the hair's shape. 

(83)(81)“Heavy-Duty Hand Cleaner or Soap” means a product designed to clean or 

remove difficult dirt and soils such as oil, grease, grime, tar, shellac, putty, 

printer’s ink, paint, graphite, cement, carbon, asphalt, or adhesives from the hand 

with or without the use of water. “Heavy-duty Hand Cleaner or Soap” does not 

include prescription drug products, “Antimicrobial Hand or Body Cleaner or 

Soap,” “Astringent/Toner,” “Facial Cleaner or Soap,” “General-use Hand or Body 

Cleaner or Soap,” “Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner” or “Rubbing Alcohol.” 

(84)(82)“Herbicide” means a pesticide product designed to kill or retard a plant’s 

growth, but excludes products that are: (A) for agricultural use, or 

 (B) restricted materials that require a permit for use and possession. 

(85) “High-Temperature Coating” means a high performance coating labeled and 

formulated for application to substrates exposed continuously or intermittently to 

temperatures above 204oC (400oF).

(86)(83)“Household Product” means any consumer product that is primarily designed to 

be used inside or outside of living quarters or residences that are occupied or 

intended for occupation by individuals, including the immediate surroundings. 

(87) “Industrial Maintenance Coating” means a high performance architectural 

coating, including primers, sealers, undercoaters, intermediate coats, and 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-18 nts 

topcoats formulated for application to substrates, including floors, exposed to one 

or more of the following extreme environmental conditions listed below and 

labeled “For industrial use only” or “For professional use only.” 

 

 (A) Immersion in water, wastewater, or chemical solutions (aqueous and nonaqueous solutions), or chronic exposure of interior surfaces to moisture 

condensation; or 

 (B) Acute or chronic exposure to corrosive, caustic or acidic agents, or to 

chemicals, chemical fumes, or chemical mixtures or solutions; or 

 (C) Frequent exposure to temperatures above 121oC (250o

F); or 

 (D) Frequent heavy abrasion, including mechanical wear and frequent 

scrubbing with industrial solvents, cleansers, or scouring agents; or 

 (E) Exterior exposure of metal structures and structural components.

(88)(84)“Insect Repellent” means a pesticide product that is designed to be applied on 

human skin, hair or attire worn on humans in order to prevent contact with or 

repel biting insects or arthropods. 

(89)(85)“Insecticide” means a pesticide product that is designed for use against insects 

or other arthropods, but excluding products that are: (A) for agricultural use, or 

(B) for a use which requires a structural pest control license under Chapter 14 

(commencing with Section 8500) of the Business and Professions Code, or 

 (C) restricted materials that require a permit for use and possession. 

(90)(86)“Insecticide Fogger” means any insecticide product designed to release all or 

most of its content, as a fog or mist, into indoor areas during a single application. 

(91)(87)“Institutional Product” or “Industrial and Institutional (I&I) Product” means a 

consumer product that is designed for use in the maintenance or operation of an 

establishment that: (A) manufactures, transports, or sells goods or commodities, 

or provides services for profit; or (B) is engaged in the nonprofit promotion of a 

particular public, educational, or charitable cause. “Establishments” include, but 

are not limited to, government agencies, factories, schools, hospitals, 

sanitariums, prisons, restaurants, hotels, stores, automobile service and parts 

centers, health clubs, theaters, or transportation companies. “Institutional 

Product” does not include household products and products that are incorporated 

into or used exclusively in the manufacture or construction of the goods or 

commodities at the site of the establishment. 

(92)(88)“Label” means any written, printed, or graphic matter affixed to, applied to, 

attached to, blown into, formed, molded into, embossed on, or appearing upon 

any consumer product or consumer product package, for purposes of branding, 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-19 nts 

identifying, or giving information with respect to the product or to the contents of 

the package. 

(93)(89)“Laundry Prewash” means a product that is designed for application to a fabric 

prior to laundering and that supplements and contributes to the effectiveness of 

laundry detergents and/or provides specialized performance. 

(94)(90)“Laundry Starch/Sizing/Fabric Finish Product” means a product that is labeled 

for application to a fabric, either during or after laundering, to impart and prolong 

a crisp, fresh look and may also act to help ease ironing of the fabric. “Laundry 

Starch/Sizing/Fabric Finish Product” includes, but is not limited to, starch, sizing, 

and fabric finish. 

(95)(91)“Lawn and Garden Insecticide” means an insecticide product labeled primarily 

to be used in household lawn and garden areas to protect plants from insects or 

other arthropods. Notwithstanding the requirements of section 94512(a) aerosol 

“Lawn and Garden Insecticide” may claim to kill insects or other arthropods. 

(96)(92)“Liquid” means a substance or mixture of substances which is capable of a 

visually detectable flow as determined under ASTM D-4359-90 (May 25, 1990)

Standard Test Method for Determining Whether a Material Is a Liquid or a Solid, 

which is incorporated by reference herein. “Liquid” does not include powders or 

other materials that are composed entirely of solid particles. 

(97)(93)”Lubricant” means a product that reduces friction, heat, noise, or wear between 

moving parts, or loosens rusted or immovable parts or mechanisms. “Lubricant” 

does not include automotive power steering fluids; products for use inside power 

generating motors, engines, and turbines, and their associated power-transfer 

gearboxes; two cycle oils or other products designed to be added to fuels; 

products for use on the human body or animals or products that are (1) sold 

exclusively to establishments which manufacture or construct goods or 

commodities, and (2) labeled “not for retail sale.”

(98)(94)“LVP-VOC” means a chemical “compound” or “mixture” that contains at least 

one carbon atom and meets one of the following: 

 (A) has a vapor pressure less than 0.1 mm Hg at 20oC, as determined by ARB 

 Method 310; or 

 (B) is a chemical “compound” with more than 12 carbon atoms, or a chemical 

“mixture” comprised solely of “compounds” with more than 12 carbon atoms, 

as verified by formulation data, and the vapor pressure and boiling point are 

unknown; or 

 (C) is a chemical “compound” with a boiling point greater than 216oC, as 

determined by ARB Method 310; or 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-20 nts 

(D) is the weight percent of a chemical “mixture” that boils above 216oC, as 

determined by ARB Method 310. 

For the purposes of the definition of LVP-VOC, chemical “compound” means a 

molecule of definite chemical formula and isomeric structure, and chemical 

“mixture” means a substance comprised of two or more chemical “compounds.” 

(99)(95)“Manufacturer” means any person who imports, manufactures, assembles, 

produces, packages, repackages, or relabels a consumer product. 

(100)(96)“Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner” means any product regulated as a 

drug by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which is applied to the skin for 

the purpose of cleaning or tightening pores. “Medicated Astringent/Medicated 

Toner” includes, but is not limited to, clarifiers and substrate-impregnated 

products. “Medicated Astringent/Medicated Toner” does not include hand, face, 

or body cleaner or soap products, “Personal Fragrance Product,” 

“Astringent/Toner,” cold cream, lotion, antiperspirants, or products that must be 

purchased with a doctor’s prescription. 

(101)(97)“Metal Polish/Cleanser” means any product designed primarily to improve the 

appearance of finished metal, metallic, or metallized surfaces by physical or 

chemical action. To “improve the appearance” means to remove or reduce 

stains, impurities, or oxidation from surfaces or to make surfaces smooth and 

shiny. “Metal Polish/Cleanser” includes, but is not limited to, metal polishes used 

on brass, silver, chrome, copper, stainless steel and other ornamental metals. 

“Metal Polish/Cleanser” does not include “Automotive Wax, Polish, Sealant or 

Glaze,” Tire or Wheel Cleaner,” “Paint Remover or Stripper,” products designed 

and labeled exclusively for automotive and marine detailing, or products 

designed for use in degreasing tanks. 

(102)(98) ”Mist Spray Adhesive” means any aerosol adhesive which is not a “Special 

Purpose Spray Adhesive” and which delivers a particle or mist spray, resulting in 

the formation of fine, discrete particles that yield a generally uniform and smooth 

application of adhesive to the substrate. 

(103)(99) “Motor Vehicle Wash” means a product designed or labeled to wash, wash 

and wax, wash and shine, or wash and/or clean the exterior surface of motor 

vehicles. “Motor Vehicle Wash” includes, but is not limited to, products for use in 

commercial, fleet, hand, and “drive through” car washes; commercial truck 

washing or large vehicle washing stations; vehicle dealers and repair shops as 

well as products intended for household consumer use. “Motor Vehicle Wash” 

does not include “Bug and Tar Remover,” “Glass Cleaner,” “Tire or Wheel 

Cleaner,” and products labeled for use exclusively on locomotives or aircraft. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-21 nts 

(104)(100)“Multi-purpose Dry Lubricant” means any lubricant which is: (A) designed or 

labeled to provide lubricity solely by depositing a thin film of graphite, 

molybdenum disulfide (“moly”), or polytetrafluoroethylene or closely related 

fluoropolymer (“teflon”) on surfaces, and (B) designed or labeled for general 

purpose lubrication, or for use in a wide variety of applications. 

(105)(101)“Multi-purpose Lubricant” means any lubricant designed or labeled for 

general purpose lubrication, or a lubricant labeled for use in a wide variety of 

applications. “Multi-purpose Lubricant” does not include “Multi-purpose Dry 

Lubricant,” “Penetrant,” or “Silicone-based Multi-Purpose Lubricant.” 

(106)(102)”Multi-purpose Solvent” means: 

(A) for products manufactured before January 1, 2008: any organic liquid 

designed to be used for a variety of purposes, including cleaning or 

degreasing of a variety of substrates, or thinning, dispersing or dissolving 

other organic materials. “Multi-purpose Solvent” includes solvents used in 

institutional facilities, except for laboratory reagents used in analytical, 

educational, research, scientific or other laboratories. “Multi-purpose 

Solvent” does not include solvents used in cold cleaners, vapor degreasers, 

conveyorized degreasers or film cleaning machines, or solvents that are 

incorporated into, or used exclusively in the manufacture or construction of, 

the goods or commodities at the site of the establishment. 

(B) for products manufactured on or after January 1, 2008: any liquid product 

designed or labeled to be used for dispersing, or dissolving, or removing 

contaminants or other organic materials. “Multi-purpose Solvent” also 

includes: (A)(1) products that do not display specific use instructions on the 

product container or packaging, (B)(2) products that do not specify an enduse function or application on the product container or packaging, and (C)(3)

solvents used in institutional facilities, except for laboratory reagents used in 

analytical, educational, research, scientific or other laboratories., (4) “Paint 

Clean-up” products, and (5) products labeled to prepare surfaces for 

painting. “Multi-purpose Solvent” does not include solvents used in cold 

cleaners, vapor degreasers, conveyorized degreasers or film cleaning 

machines, solvents labeled exclusively for the clean-up of application 

equipment used for polyaspartic and polyurea coatings, or solvents that are 

incorporated into, or used exclusively in the manufacture or construction of, 

the goods or commodities at the site of the establishment. “Multi-purpose 

Solvent” also does not include any product making any representation that 

the product may be used as, or is suitable for use as a consumer product 

which qualifies under another definition in section 94508; such products are 

not Multi-purpose Solvents and are subject to the “Most Restrictive Limit” 

provision of section 94512. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-22 nts 

(107)(103)“Nail Polish” means any clear or colored coating designed for application to 

the fingernails or toenails and including but not limited to, lacquers, enamels, 

acrylics, base coats and top coats. 

(108)(104)“Nail Polish Remover” means a product designed to remove nail polish and 

coatings from fingernails or toenails. 

(109)(105)“Non-Carbon Containing Compound” means any compound which does not 

contain any carbon atoms. 

(110)(106)“Non-Selective Terrestrial Herbicide” means a terrestrial herbicide product 

that is toxic to plants without regard to species. 

(111)(107) “Odor Remover/Eliminator” means a product that is designed or labeled to 

be applied exclusively to hard surfaces to inhibit the ability of soils to create 

malodors, or functions to entrap, encapsulate, neutralize, convert or eliminate 

malodor molecules. “Odor Remover/Eliminator” does not include products 

designed or labeled for use in cleaning soils from hard surfaces, laundering, 

softening, de-wrinkling or cleaning fabrics, or dishwashing, or products that are 

defined as “Air Freshener,” “Bathroom and Tile Cleaner,” “Carpet/Upholstery 

Cleaner,” “Fabric Refresher,” “General Purpose Cleaner,” “Toilet/Urinal Care 

Product,” “Disinfectant,” or “Sanitizer.” 

(112)(108)“Oven Cleaner” means any cleaning product designed or labeled to clean 

and to remove dried or baked on food deposits from oven walls. 

(113)(109)“Paint” means any pigmented liquid, liquefiable, or mastic composition 

designed for application to a substrate in a thin layer which is converted to an 

opaque solid film after application and is used for protection, decoration or 

identification, or to serve some functional purpose such as the filling or 

concealing of surface irregularities or the modification of light and heat radiation 

characteristics. 

(114) “Paint Clean-up” means any liquid product labeled for cleaning oil-based or 

water-based paint, lacquer, varnish, or related coatings from, but not limited to,

painting equipment or tools, plastics, or metals.

(115)(110)“Paint Remover or Stripper” means any product designed to strip or remove 

paints or other related coatings, by chemical action, from a substrate without 

markedly affecting the substrate. “Paint Remover or Stripper” does not include 

“Multi-purpose Solvent,” paint brush cleaners, products designed and labeled 

exclusively as “Graffiti Remover,” and hand cleaner products that claim to 

remove paints and other related coatings from skin.

(116)(111)“Paint Thinner” means any liquid product used for reducing the viscosity of 

coating compositions or components, that prominently displays the term “Paint 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-23 nts 

Thinner,” “Lacquer Thinner,” “Thinner,” or “Reducer” on the front panel of its 

packaging. “Paint Thinner” does not include thinners labeled for the thinning of 

Industrial Maintenance Coatings, Zinc-Rich Primers, and High Temperature 

Coatings. “Paint Thinner” also does not include products labeled and used 

exclusively as a component in a specific coating. “Paint Thinner” also does not 

include “Artist’s Solvent/Thinner.”

(117)(112)“Penetrant” means a lubricant designed or labeled primarily to loosen metal 

parts that have bonded together due to rusting, oxidation, or other causes. 

“Penetrant” does not include “Multi-purpose Lubricant” that claim to have 

penetrating qualities, but are not labeled primarily to loosen bonded parts. 

(118)(113)“Person” shall have the same meaning as defined in Health and Safety Code 

Section 39047. 

(119)(114) “Personal Fragrance Product” means any product which is applied to the 

human body or clothing for the primary purpose of adding a scent or masking a 

malodor, including, but not limited to, cologne, perfume, aftershave, toilet water, 

lotion, powder, body mist, and body spray. “Personal Fragrance Product” does 

not include: (A) Deodorant, as defined in section 94501(d); (B) medicated 

products designed primarily to alleviate fungal or bacterial growth on feet or other 

areas of the body; (C) mouthwashes, breath fresheners and deodorizers; (D) 

lotions, moisturizers, powders or other skin care products designed or labeled to 

be used primarily to alleviate skin conditions such as dryness and irritations; (E) 

products designed exclusively to be applied to human genitalia areas, 

undergarments, and any paper products, napkins or other products that are 

affixed to undergarments, such as sanitary pads; (F) soaps, shampoos, and 

products primarily used to clean the human body; and (G) fragrance products 

designed to be used exclusively on non-human animals. 

(120)(115)“Pesticide” means and includes any substance or mixture of substances 

labeled, designed, or intended for use in preventing, destroying, repelling or 

mitigating any pest, or any substance or mixture of substances labeled, 

designed, or intended for use as a defoliant, desiccant, or plant regulator, 

provided that the term “pesticide” will not include any substance, mixture of 

substances, or device which the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

does not consider to be a pesticide. 

(121)(116)“Pressurized Gas Duster” means a pressurized product labeled to remove 

dust from a surface solely by means of mass air or gas flow, including surfaces 

such as photographs, photographic film negatives, computer keyboards, and 

other types of surfaces that cannot be cleaned with solvents. “Pressurized Gas 

Duster” does not include “Dusting Aid,” “General Purpose Cleaner,” “Electrical 

Cleaner,” “Electronic Cleaner,” “Energized Electrical Cleaner,” or “Anti-Static 

Product.” Pressurized Gas Duster does not include products labeled exclusively 

to remove dust from equipment where dust removal is accomplished when: 

electric current exists; residual electrical potential from a component such as a 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-24 nts 

capacitor exists; or an open flame exists, as long as the “Principal Display Panel” 

clearly displays the statement: “Energized Equipment use only.” 

(122)(117)“Principal Display Panel or Panels” means that part, or those parts of a label 

that are so designed as to most likely be displayed, presented, shown or 

examined under normal and customary conditions of display or purchase. 

Whenever a principal display panel appears more than once, all requirements 

pertaining to the “principal display panel” shall pertain to all such “principal 

display panels.” 

(123)(118)“Product Brand Name” means the name of the product exactly as it appears 

on the principal display panel of the product. 

(124)(119)“Product Category” means the applicable category which best describes the 

product as listed in this Section 94508. 

(125)(120)“Product Form,” for the purpose of complying with Section 94513 only, means 

the applicable form which most accurately describes the product's dispensing 

form as follows: 

A = Aerosol Product 

S = Solid 

P = Pump Spray 

L = Liquid 

SS = Semisolid 

O = Other 

(126)(121) “Propellant” means a liquefied or compressed gas that is used in whole or in 

part, such as a cosolvent, to expel a liquid or any other material from the same 

self-pressurized container or from a separate container. 

(127)(122) “Pump Spray” means a packaging system in which the product ingredients 

within the container are not under pressure and in which the product is expelled 

only while a pumping action is applied to a button, trigger or other actuator. 

(128)(123) “Responsible Party” means the company, firm or establishment which is 

listed on the product's label. If the label lists two companies, firms or 

establishments, the responsible party is the party which the product was 

“manufactured for” or “distributed by,” as noted on the label. 

(129)(124)”Restricted Materials” means pesticides established as restricted materials 

under Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6400. 

(130)(125)”Retailer” means any person who sells, supplies, or offers consumer products 

for sale directly to consumers. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-25 nts 

(131)(126)”Retail Outlet” means any establishment at which consumer products are 

sold, supplied, or offered for sale directly to consumers. 

(132)(127)”Rubber/Vinyl Protectant” means: 

 (A) for products manufactured before December 31, 2008: any product 

designed to protect, preserve or renew vinyl, rubber, and plastic on vehicles, 

tires, luggage, furniture, and household products such as vinyl covers, 

clothing, and accessories. “Rubber/Vinyl Protectant” does not include 

products primarily designed to clean the wheel rim, such as aluminum or 

magnesium wheel cleaners, and tire cleaners that do not leave an 

appearance-enhancing or protective substance on the tire. 

 (B) for products manufactured on or after December 31, 2008: any product 

labeled to protect, preserve or renew vinyl, or rubber on vehicles, tires, 

luggage, furniture, and/or household products such as vinyl covers, clothing, 

or accessories. “Rubber/Vinyl Protectant” does not include: products labeled 

to clean the wheel rim, such as aluminum or magnesium wheel cleaners; tire 

cleaners that do not leave an appearance-enhancing or protective substance 

on the tire; pigmented products designed or labeled to be used primarily for 

coloring; products used for construction, reconstruction, modification, 

structural maintenance or repair of rubber or vinyl substrates; or products, 

other than those labeled to be used on vehicle tires, qualifying as either 

“Clear Coating” or “Vinyl/Fabric/Leather/Polycarbonate Coating” under 

section 94521(a). 

(133)(128)”Rubbing Alcohol” means any product containing isopropyl alcohol (also 

called isopropanol) or denatured ethanol and labeled for topical use, usually to 

decrease germs in minor cuts and scrapes, to relieve minor muscle aches, as a 

rubefacient, and for massage. 

(134)(129)”Sanitizer” means a product that is labeled as a “sanitizer,” or is labeled to 

reduce, but not necessarily eliminate, microorganisms in the air, on surfaces, or 

on inanimate objects, and whose label is registered as a “sanitizer” under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. section 

136 et seq.). Products that are labeled as both a “sanitizer” and a “disinfectant” 

are considered disinfectants. “Sanitizer” does not include (A) “Disinfectant,” 

(B) products labeled solely for use on humans or animals, (C) products labeled 

solely for agricultural use, (D) products labeled solely for use in swimming pools, 

therapeutic tubs, or hot tubs, (E) products which are labeled to be used on heat 

sensitive critical or semi-critical medical devices or medical equipment surfaces, 

(F) products which are pre-moistened wipes or towelettes sold exclusively to 

medical, convalescent or veterinary establishments (G) products which are 

labeled to be applied to food-contact surfaces and are not required to be rinsed 

prior to contact with food, or (H) products which are labeled as “Bathroom and 

Tile Cleaner,” “Glass Cleaner,” “General Purpose Cleaner,” “Toilet/Urinal Care 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-26 nts 

Product,” “Metal Polish,” “Carpet Cleaner,” or “Fabric Refresher” that may also 

make sanitizing or anti-microbial claims on the label. 

(135)(130)”Sealant or Caulking Compound” means any product with adhesive 

properties that is designed to fill, seal, waterproof, or weatherproof gaps or joints 

between two surfaces. “Sealant or Caulking Compound” does not include roof 

cements and roof sealants; insulating foams; removable caulking compounds; 

clear/paintable/water resistant caulking compounds; floor seam sealers; products 

designed exclusively for automotive uses; or sealers that are applied as 

continuous coatings. “Sealant or Caulking Compound” also does not include 

units of product, less packaging, which weigh more than one pound and consist 

of more than 16 fluid ounces. For the purposes of this definition only: 

“Removable caulking compounds” means a compound which temporarily seals 

windows or doors for three to six month time intervals. 

“Clear/paintable/water resistant caulking compounds” means a compound which 

contains no appreciable level of opaque fillers or pigments; transmits most or all 

visible light through the caulk when cured; is paintable; and is immediately 

resistant to precipitation upon application. 

“Sealant or Caulking Compound” is divided into two subcategories: 

(A) “Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound” means any “Sealant or 

Caulking Compound” which achieves its final composition and physical form 

through a chemical curing process, where product ingredients participate in a 

chemical reaction in the presence of a catalyst that causes a change in 

chemical structure and leads to the release of chemical byproducts. 

“Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound” includes, but is not 

limited to, products that utilize silicone, polyurethane, silyl-terminated 

polyether, or silyl-terminated polyurethane reactive chemistries. “Chemically 

Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound” does not include products which are 

not solely dependent on a chemically curing process to achieve the cured 

state.

(B) “Non-Chemically Curing Sealant or Caulking Compound” means any “Sealant 

or Caulking Compound” not defined under “Chemically Curing Sealant or 

Caulking Compound.”

(136)(131)“Semisolid” means a product that, at room temperature, will not pour, but will 

spread or deform easily, including but not limited to gels, pastes, and greases. 

(137)(132)”Shaving Cream” means an aerosol product which dispenses a foam lather 

intended to be used with a blade or cartridge razor, or other wet-shaving system, 

in the removal of facial or other bodily hair. “Shaving Cream” does not include 

“Shaving Gel.” 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-27 nts 

(138)(133) “Shaving Gel” means an aerosol product which dispenses a post-foaming 

semi-solid designed to be used with a blade, cartridge razor, or other shaving 

system in the removal of facial or other bodily hair. “Shaving Gel” does not 

include “Shaving Cream.” 

(139)(134)”Silicone-based Multi-purpose Lubricant” means any lubricant which is: 

 

 (A) designed and labeled to provide lubricity primarily through the use of silicone 

compounds including, but not limited to, polydimethylsiloxane, and 

 (B) designed and labeled for general purpose lubrication, or for use in a wide 

variety of applications. “Silicone-based Multi-purpose Lubricant” does not include 

products designed and labeled exclusively to release manufactured products 

from molds. 

(140)(135)“Single Phase Aerosol Air Freshener” means an aerosol air freshener with 

the liquid contents in a single homogeneous phase and which does not require 

that the product container be shaken before use. 

(141)(136)“Solid” means a substance or mixture of substances which, either whole or 

subdivided (such as the particles comprising a powder), is not capable of visually 

detectable flow as determined under ASTM D-4359-90 (May 25, 1990) Standard 

Test Method for Determining Whether a Material Is a Liquid or a Solid, which is 

incorporated by reference herein. 

(142)(137)“Special Purpose Spray Adhesive” means an aerosol adhesive that meets 

any of the following definitions: 

(A) “Mounting Adhesive” means an aerosol adhesive designed to permanently 

mount photographs, artwork, and any other drawn or printed media to a 

backing (paper, board, cloth, etc.) without causing discoloration to the 

artwork. 

(B) “Flexible Vinyl Adhesive” means an aerosol adhesive designed to bond 

flexible vinyl to substrates. Flexible vinyl means a nonrigid polyvinyl chloride 

plastic with at least five percent, by weight, of plasticizer content. A 

plasticizer is a material, such as a high boiling point organic solvent, that is 

incorporated into a vinyl to increase its flexibility, workability, or distensibility, 

and may be determined using ASTM Method E260-91 (Jan. 25, 1991)

Standard Practice for Packed Column Gas Chromatography, which is 

incorporated by reference herein, or from product formulation data. 

(C) “Polystyrene Foam Adhesive” means an aerosol adhesive designed to bond 

polystyrene foam (e.g. Styrofoam®, expanded polystyrene foam, etc.) to 

substrates. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-28 nts 

(D) “Automobile Headliner Adhesive” means an aerosol adhesive designed to 

bond together layers in motor vehicle headliners. 

(E) “Polyolefin Adhesive” means an aerosol adhesive designed to bond 

polyolefins (e.g. polyethylene, polypropylene, etc.) to substrates. 

(F) “Laminate Repair/Edgebanding Adhesive” means an aerosol adhesive 

designed for: 

 (1) the touch-up or repair of items laminated with high pressure laminates 

(e.g. lifted edges, delaminations, etc.), or for 

 (2) the touch-up, repair, or attachment of edgebanding materials, including, 

but not limited to, other laminates, synthetic marble, veneers, wood 

moulding, and decorative metals. 

 For the purposes of this definition “high pressure laminate” means sheet 

materials which consist of paper, fabric, or other core material that have 

been laminated at temperatures exceeding 265 degrees F, and at pressures 

between 1,000 and 1,400 psi. 

(G) “Automotive Engine Compartment Adhesive” means an aerosol adhesive 

designed for use in motor vehicle under-the-hood applications which require 

oil and plasticizer resistance, as well as high shear strength, at temperatures 

of 200-275o

 F. 

(143)(138) “Spot Remover” means any product labeled to clean localized areas, or 

remove localized spots or stains on cloth or fabric such as drapes, carpets, 

upholstery, or clothing, that does not require subsequent laundering to achieve 

stain removal. “Spot Remover” does not include “Dry Cleaning Fluid,” “Laundry 

Prewash,” or aerosol products labeled solely for gum removal. 

(144)(139)“Spray Buff Product” means a product designed to restore a worn floor finish 

in conjunction with a floor buffing machine and special pad. 

(145)(140)”Table B Compound” means any carbon-containing compound listed as an 

exception to the definition of VOC in Section 94508. 

(146)(141)”Temporary Hair Color” means any product that applies color, glitter, 

or UV-active pigments to hair, wigs, or fur and is removable when washed. 

“Temporary Hair Color” includes hair color mousses and products labeled 

to add texture or thickness to cover thinning/balding areas. “Temporary 

Hair Color” does not include “Hair Spray,” “Hair Styling Product,” or “Hair 

Mousse.” 

(147)(142)”Terrestrial” means to live on or grow from land. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-29 nts 

(148)(143)“Tire or Wheel Cleaner” means a product designed or labeled 

exclusively to clean either tires, wheels, or both. “Tire or Wheel Cleaner” 

includes, but is not limited to, products for use in commercial, fleet, hand, 

and “drive-through” car washes; commercial truck washing or large vehicle 

washing stations; vehicle dealers and repair shops, as well as household 

consumer products. “Tire or Wheel Cleaner” does not include products 

labeled for use exclusively on locomotives or aircraft. 

(149)(144)”Tire Sealant and Inflator” means any pressurized product that is designed to 

temporarily inflate and seal a leaking tire. 

(150)(145)”Toilet/Urinal Care Product” means any product designed or 

labeled to cleanand/or to deodorize toilet bowls, toilet tanks, or urinals. Toilet 

bowls, toilet tanks, or urinals includes, but is not limited to, toilets or urinals 

connected to permanent plumbing in buildings and other structures, portable 

toilets or urinals placed at temporary or remote locations, and toilet or urinals in 

vehicles such as buses, recreational motor homes, boats, ships, and aircraft. 

“Toilet/Urinal Care Product” does not include “Bathroom and Tile Cleaner” or 

“General Purpose Cleaner.” 

(151)(146)”Type A Propellent” means a compressed gas such as CO2, N2, N2O, or 

compressed air which is used as a propellent, and is either incorporated with the 

product or contained in a separate chamber within the product's packaging. 

(152)(147)”Type B Propellent” means any halocarbon which is used as a propellent 

including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). 

(153)(148) “Type C Propellent” means any propellent which is not a Type A or Type B 

propellent, including propane, isobutane, n-butane, and dimethyl ether (also 

known as dimethyl oxide). 

(154)(149) “Undercoating” means any aerosol product designed to impart a protective, 

non-paint layer to the undercarriage, trunk interior, and/or firewall of motor 

vehicles to prevent the formation of rust or to deaden sound. “Undercoating” 

includes, but is not limited to, rubberized, mastic, or asphaltic products. 

(155)(150)”Usage Directions” means the text or graphics on the product's principal 

display panel, label, or accompanying literature which describes to the end user 

how and in what quantity the product is to be used.

(156)(151)”Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)” means any compound containing at 

least one atom of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic 

acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate, and excluding 

the following: 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-30 nts 

 (A) methane, 

 methylene chloride (dichloromethane), 

 1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform), 

 trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), 

 dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12), 

 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane (CFC-113), 

 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (CFC-114), 

 chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115), 

 chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22), 

 1,1,1-trifluoro-2,2-dichloroethane (HCFC-123), 

 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-141b), 

 1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane (HCFC-142b), 

 2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HCFC-124), 

 trifluoromethane (HFC-23), 

 1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134), 

 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFC-134a), 

 pentafluoroethane (HFC-125), 

 1,1,1-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a), 

 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a), 

 ethoxy-nonafluorobutane (HFE 7200), 

 cyclic, branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes, 

 the following classes of perfluorocarbons: 

 1. cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated alkanes; 

2. cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated ethers with no 

unsaturations; 

3. cyclic, branched, or linear, completely fluorinated tertiary amines with 

no unsaturations; and 

4. sulfur-containing perfluorocarbons with no unsaturations and with the 

sulfur bonds to carbon and fluorine, and 

(B) the following low-reactive organic compounds which have been exempted by 

the U.S. EPA: 

acetone, 

ethane, 

methyl acetate, 

parachlorobenzotrifluoride (1-chloro-4-trifluoromethyl benzene), 

perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene). 

(157)(152)”VOC Content” means the total weight of VOC in a product expressed as a 

percentage of the product weight (exclusive of the container or packaging), as 

determined pursuant to sections 94515(a) and (b). 

(158)(153)”Wasp and Hornet Insecticide” means any insecticide product that is 

designed for use against wasps, hornets, yellow jackets or bees by allowing the 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-31 nts 

user to spray from a distance a directed stream or burst at the intended insects, 

or their hiding place. 

(159)(154)”Waterproofer” means a product designed and labeled exclusively to repel 

water from fabric or leather substrates. “Waterproofer” does not include “Fabric 

Protectant.” 

(160)(155)”Wax” means a material or synthetic thermoplastic substance generally of 

high molecular weight hydrocarbons or high molecular weight esters of fatty 

acids or alcohols, except glycerol and high polymers (plastics). “Wax” includes, 

but is not limited to, substances derived from the secretions of plants and 

animals such as carnuba wax and beeswax, substances of a mineral origin such 

as ozocerite and paraffin, and synthetic polymers such as polyethylene. 

(161)(156)”Web Spray Adhesive” means any aerosol adhesive which is not a “Mist 

Spray Adhesive” or “Special Purpose Spray Adhesive.” 

(162)(157) “Windshield Water Repellent” means a product designed or labeled 

exclusively to repel water from motor vehicle exterior automotive glass surfaces. 

“Windshield Water Repellent” does not include “Automotive Windshield Washer 

Fluid.”

(163)(158)“Wood Cleaner” means a product labeled to clean wooden materials 

including but not limited to decking, fences, flooring, logs, cabinetry, and 

furniture. “Wood Cleaner” does not include “Dusting Aid,” General Purpose 

Cleaner,” “Furniture Maintenance Product,” “Floor Wax Stripper,” “Floor Polish or 

Wax,” or products designed and labeled exclusively to preserve or color wood. 

(164) “Zinc-Rich Primer” means a coating that meets all the following specifications: (A) 

coating contains at least 65 percent metallic zinc powder or zinc dust by weight 

of total solids; and (B) coating is formulated for application to metal substrates to 

provide a firm bond between the substrate and subsequent applications of 

coatings; and (C) coating is intended for professional use only and labeled “For 

Professional Use Only.”

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 38501, 38510, 38560, 38560.5, 38562, 38580, 39601, 

39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. Reference: Sections 38501, 38510, 

38560, 38560.5, 38562, 38580, 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety 

Code. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-32 nts 

§ 94509. Standards for Consumer Products.

(a) Except as provided in Sections 94510 (Exemptions), 94511 (Innovative 

Products), 94514 (Variances), 94540 through 94555 (Alternative Control Plan), 

and 94567(a)(1) (Hairspray Credit Program), Title 17, California Code of 

Regulations, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture for sale in 

California any consumer product which, at the time of sale or manufacture, 

contains volatile organic compounds in excess of the limits specified in the 

following Table of Standards after the specified effective dates. 

Table of Standards 

Percent Volatile Organic Compound by Weight 

Product Category Effective 

Date 1

VOC 

Standard 2

Adhesive *: 

 Aerosol** 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Mist Spray Adhesive** 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Web Spray Adhesive** 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Special Purpose Spray Adhesive** 

 Mounting, Automotive Engine Compartment, 

 and Flexible Vinyl Adhesive 

 Polystyrene Foam and Automobile Headliner 

 Adhesive 

 Polyolefin and Laminate Repair/Edgebanding 

 Adhesive 

======================================== 

[**See 94509(i), 94512(d), and 94513(d) for additional 

requirements that apply to aerosol adhesive.] 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering# 

======================================= 

[#See section 94509(k) for the effective date of the 

VOC limit for certain types of “Construction, Panel, 

and Floor Covering Adhesive, and section 94509(p) 

for additional requirements that apply to Construction, 

Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesive.] 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Contact## 

 Contact Adhesive – General Purpose 

 Contact Adhesive – Special Purpose 

1/1/95 

--------------------

1/1/2002 

-------------------- 

1/1/2002 

-------------------- 

1/1/2002 

1/1/2002 

1/1/2002 

=========== 

-------------------- 

1/1/95 

12/31/2002 

12/31/2008 

========== 

------------------- 

1/1/95 

12/31/2006 

12/31/2006 

75 

-----------------

65 

----------------- 

55 

----------------- 

70 

65 

60 

========== 

----------------- 

40 

15 

 7 

========== 

------------------ 

80 

55 

80 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-33 nts 

======================================== 

[##See sections 94509(m) and 94512(d) for additional 

requirements that apply to Contact Adhesive.] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 General Purpose 

======================================== 

*See section 94510(i) for an exemption that applies to 

adhesives sold in containers of one fluid ounce or 

less. 

=========== 

-------------------- 

1/1/95 

=========== 

========== 

----------------- 

10 

========= 

Adhesive Remover*: 

 Floor or Wall Covering Adhesive Remover 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Gasket or Thread Locking Adhesive Remover 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 General Purpose Adhesive Remover 

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Specialty Adhesive Remover 

======================================= 

[*See sections 94509(n) and 94512(d) for additional

requirements that apply to Adhesive Remover.] 

12/31/2006 

-------------------- 

12/31/2006 

-------------------- 

12/31/2006 

-------------------- 

12/31/2006 

=========== 

5 

------------------ 

50 

------------------ 

20 

------------------ 

70 

========== 

Aerosol Cooking Spray 1/1/95 18 

Air Freshener*: 

 Double Phase Aerosol 

[*See section 94509(t) for additional requirements 

that apply to Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Single Phase Aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Dual Purpose Air Freshener/Disinfectant 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 liquid/pump spray 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 solid/semisolid 

======================================== 

[*See sections 94510(f) and 94510(g)(2) for 

exemptions that apply to certain Air Fresheners, and 

94509(o) for additional requirements that apply to Air 

Freshener.] 

1/1/93 

12/31/2004 

12/31/2012

-------------------- 

1/1/93 

1/1/96 

-------------------- 

1/1/94 

-------------------- 

1/1/93 

-------------------- 

1/1/93 

=========== 

30 

25 

20

------------------ 

70 

30 

------------------ 

60 

------------------ 

18 

------------------ 

3 

========== 

Anti-static Product: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

12/31/2008 

-------------------- 

12/31/2006 

80 

------------------ 

11 

Astringent/Toner (Non-FDA regulated) 12/31/2010 35 

Automotive Rubbing or Polishing Compound 1/1/2005 17 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-34 nts 

Automotive Wax/Polish/Sealant/Glaze: 

 all other forms 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 hard paste wax 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 instant detailer 

1/1/2005 

-------------------- 

1/1/2005 

-------------------- 

1/1/2001 

15 

------------------ 

45 

------------------ 

3 

Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid: 

 Type “A” areas*

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 All other areas (all forms)

 Dilutable and Pre-Mixed** 

========================================

**See section 94508(a)(19), section 94508(a)(20), 

and section 94509(l) for provisions that apply to 

Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid. 

======================================== 

* Type “A” areas include only the following: Del 

Norte, Shasta and Trinity Counties; the Great Basin

Valley, Lake Tahoe, Mountain Counties, and 

Northeast Plateau Air Basins, as defined in Title 17, 

California Code of Regulations, Sections 60105, 

60108, 60111, and 60113. 

1/1/93 

12/31/2008 

-------------------- 

1/1/93 

12/31/2002 

=========== 

=========== 

35

25 

------------------ 

10 

1 

========== 

========== 

Bathroom and Tile Cleaner*: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 all other forms 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

======================================== 

[*See section 94509(p) for additional requirements 

that apply to Bathroom and Tile Cleaner.] 

1/1/94 

-------------------- 

1/1/94 

-------------------- 

12/31/2008 

=========== 

7 

------------------ 

5 

------------------ 

1 

========= 

Brake Cleaners 1/1/97 

12/31/2002 

12/31/2008 

12/31/2010 

50 

45 

20 

10 

Bug and Tar Remover 1/1/2002 40 

Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake 

Cleaner *

======================================== 

*See section 94509(k) for the effective date of the

VOC limit for Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake 

Cleaner. 

1/1/95 

12/31/2002 

12/31/2008 

12/31/2010 

=========== 

75 

45 

20 

10 

========== 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-35 nts 

Carpet /Upholstery Cleaner*: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol (dilutable) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol (ready-to-use) 

======================================== 

[*See section 94509(q) for additional requirements 

that apply to Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner] 

1/1/2001 

12/31/2010 

-------------------- 

1/1/2001 

-------------------- 

1/1/2001 

12/31/2010 

=========== 

7 

5 

------------------ 

0.1 

------------------ 

3 

1 

========== 

Charcoal Lighter Material See Section 

94509(h) 

Disinfectant: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

12/31/2008 

------------------ 

12/31/2008 

70 

------------------ 

1 

Dusting Aid: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

1/1/95 

1/1/97 

12/31/2010 

-------------------- 

1/1/95 

12/31/2010 

35 

25 

17 

------------------ 

7 

3 

Electrical Cleaner* 

======================================== 

[*See sections 94509(n) and 94512(d) for additional

requirements that apply to Electrical Cleaner.] 

12/31/2006 

=========== 

45 

========== 

Electronic Cleaner* 

======================================= 

[*See sections 94509(m) and 94512(d) for additional

requirements that apply to Electronic Cleaner.] 

12/31/2007 

=========== 

75 

========== 

Engine Degreaser: 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

1/1/93 

1/1/96 

-------------------- 

12/31/2004 

12/31/2010 

-------------------- 

12/31/2004 

75 

50 

------------------ 

35 

10 

------------------ 

5 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-36 nts 

Fabric Protectant* 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

======================================== 

[*See section 94509(q) for additional requirements 

that apply to Fabric Protectant] 

1/1/95 

1/1/97 

-------------------- 

1/1/95 

1/1/97 

12/31/2010 

=========== 

75 

60 

------------------ 

75 

60 

1 

========== 

Fabric Refresher: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

12/31/2006 

-------------------- 

12/31/2006 

15 

------------------ 

6 

Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product See Section 

94509(s) 

Floor Maintenance Product 12/31/2010 1 

Floor Polish or Wax: 

 Resilient Flooring Material 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Nonresilient Flooring Material 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Wood Floor Wax 

1/1/94 

12/31/2010 

-------------------- 

1/1/94 

12/31/2010 

-------------------- 

1/1/94 

12/31/2010 

7 

1 

------------------ 

10 

1 

------------------ 

90 

70 

Floor Wax Stripper: 

 non-aerosol 

See Section 

94509(j) 

Footwear or Leather Care Product*: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 solid 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 all other forms 

======================================= 

[*See section 94509(m) for additional requirements 

that apply to Footwear or Leather Care Product.] 

12/31/2006 

-------------------- 

12/31/2006 

-------------------- 

12/31/2006 

=========== 

75 

------------------ 

55 

------------------ 

15 

========== 

Furniture Maintenance Product: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 all other forms (except solid/paste forms) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol (except solid/paste forms) 

1/1/94 

12/31/2004 

-------------------- 

1/1/94 

-------------------- 

12/31/2008 

25 

17 

------------------ 

7 

----------------- 

3 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-37 nts 

General Purpose Cleaner*: 

 aerosol and non-aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

======================================== 

[*See section 94509(p) for additional requirements 

that apply to General Purpose Cleaner.] 

1/1/94 

-------------------- 

12/31/2008 

-------------------- 

12/31/2004 

=========== 

10 

------------------ 

8 

------------------ 

4 

========== 

General Purpose Degreaser*: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

======================================== 

[*See section 94509(m) for additional requirements 

that apply to General Purpose Degreaser.] 

1/1/2002 

12/31/2008 

12/31/2010 

-------------------- 

12/31/2004 

=========== 

50 

20 

10 

------------------ 

4 

========== 

Glass Cleaner: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

1/1/93 

12/31/2012 

-------------------- 

1/1/93 

1/1/96 

12/31/2004 

12 

10 

------------------ 

8 

6 

4 

Graffiti Remover*: 

 aerosol 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

======================================= 

[*See section 94509(n) for additional requirements 

that apply to Graffiti Remover.] 

12/31/2006 

-------------------- 

12/31/2006 

=========== 

50 

------------------ 

30 

========== 

Hair Mousse 1/1/94 

12/31/2002 

16 

6 

Hair Shine 1/1/2005 55 

Hair Spray 1/1/93 

6/1/99 

80 

55 

Hair Styling Gel 1/1/94 6 

Hair Styling Product: 

 aerosol and pump spray 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 all other forms 

12/31/2006 

-------------------- 

12/31/2006 

6 

------------------ 

2 

Heavy-duty Hand Cleaner or Soap 1/1/2005 8 

Insect Repellent: 

 aerosol 1/1/94 65 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-38 nts 

Insecticide*: 

 Crawling Bug Insecticide (all forms): 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Flea and Tick Insecticide 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Flying Bug Insecticide (all forms): 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Fogger 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Lawn and Garden Insecticide (all forms) 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Wasp and Hornet Insecticide 

======================================== 

*See sections 94510(g)(1) and 94510(k) for 

exemptions that apply to certain insecticides. 

1/1/95 

1/1/98 

-------------------- 

12/31/2004 

-------------------- 

1/1/95 

-------------------- 

1/1/95 

-------------------- 

12/31/2003 

-------------------- 

1/1/95 

-------------------- 

1/1/95 

-------------------- 

12/31/2003 

----------------- 

1/1/2005 

=========== 

40 

20 

------------------ 

15 

------------------ 

25 

------------------ 

35 

------------------ 

25 

------------------ 

45 

------------------ 

20 

----------------- 

3 

----------------- 

40 

========== 

Laundry Prewash: 

 aerosol/solid 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 all other forms 

1/1/94 

-------------------- 

1/1/94 

22 

------------------ 

5 

Laundry Starch/Sizing/Fabric Finish Product: 1/1/95 

12/31/2008 

5 

4.5 

Metal Polish/Cleanser 1/1/2005 30 

Motor Vehicle Wash 

 non-aerosol 12/31/10 0.2 

Multi-purpose Lubricant: 

 (excluding solid or semisolid products) 

======================================== 

[*See sections 94509(q) and 94513(f) for additional

requirements that apply to Multi-purpose Lubricant]

1/1/2003 

12/31/2013 

12/31/2015

=========== 

50 

25 

10 

========== 

Multi-purpose Solvent

========================================

[*See sections 94509(u), 94512(e), and 94513(g) for

additional requirements that apply to Multi-purpose

Solvent.]

12/31/2010

12/31/2013

============

30

3

==========
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-39 nts 

Nail Polish Remover 1/1/94 

1/1/96 

12/31/2004 

12/31/2007 

85 

75 

0 

1 

Non-selective Terrestrial Herbicide: 

 non-aerosol 1/1/2002 3 

Odor Remover/Eliminator 

 aerosol 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

12/31/2010 

-------------------- 

12/31/2010 

25 

------------------ 

6 

Oven Cleaner*: 

 aerosol/pump spray 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 liquid 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol (including pump spray and liquid) 

======================================= 

[*See section 94509(p) for additional requirements 

that apply to Oven Cleaner.] 

1/1/93 

-------------------- 

1/1/93 

-------------------- 

12/31/2008 

=========== 

8 

------------------ 

5 

------------------ 

1 

========== 

Paint Remover or Stripper 1/1/2005 50 

Paint Thinner

========================================

[*See sections 94509(u), 94510(m), 94512(e), and 

94513(g) for additional requirements that apply to 

Paint Thinner.]

12/31/2010

12/31/2013

============

30

3

==========

Penetrant* 

======================================== 

[*See section 94509(q) and 94513(f) for additional 

requirements that apply to Penetrant] 

1/1/2003 

12/31/2013 

=========== 

50 

25 

========== 

Personal Fragrance Product*: 

 products with 20% or less fragrance 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 products with more than 20% fragrance 

======================================== 

*See sections 94510(h), 94510(j), and 94510(l) for 

exemptions and requirements that apply to Personal 

Fragrance Products. 

1/1/95 

1/1/99 

-------------------- 

1/1/95 

1/1/99 

=========== 

80 

75 

------------------ 

70 

65 

========== 

Pressurized Gas Duster* 

======================================== 

[*See section 94509(r) and 94510(c) for additional 

provisions that apply to Pressurized Gas Duster] 

12/31/2010 

=========== 

1 

========== 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-40 nts 

Rubber /Vinyl Protectant: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

1/1/2005 

------------------ 

1/1/2003 

10 

------------------ 

3 

Sanitizer: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

12/31/2008 

-------------------- 

12/31/2008 

70 

------------------ 

1 

Sealant or Caulking Compound* 

 all forms 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Chemically Curing 

 non-aerosol

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 Non-chemically Curing 

 non-aerosol 

======================================== 

 [*See sections 94509(q) and 94512(d) for additional 

requirements that apply to Sealant or Caulking 

Compound] 

12/31/2002 

-------------------- 

12/31/2012 

-------------------- 

12/31/2010 

=========== 

4 

------------------ 

3 

------------------ 

1.5 

========== 

Shaving Cream 1/1/94 5 

Shaving Gel 12/31/2006 

12/31/2009 

7 

4 

Silicone-based Multi-purpose Lubricant: 

(excluding solid or semisolid products) 

1/1/2005 60 

Spot Remover*: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

======================================== 

[*See section 94509(q) for additional requirements 

that apply to Spot Remover] 

1/1/2001 

12/31/2010 

------------------ 

1/1/2001 

12/31/2010 

=========== 

25 

15 

------------------ 

8 

3 

========== 

Temporary Hair Color: 

 aerosol 12/31/2010 55 

Tire or Wheel Cleaner 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

12/31/2010 

-------------------- 

12/31/2010 

8 

------------------ 

2 

Tire Sealant and Inflator 12/31/2002 20 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-41 nts 

Toilet/Urinal Care Product:* 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

======================================== 

[*See section 94509(o) for additional requirements 

that apply to Toilet/Urinal Care Product] 

12/31/2006 

-------------------- 

12/31/2006 

=========== 

10 

------------------ 

3 

========== 

Undercoating: 

 aerosol 1/1/2002 40 

Windshield Water Repellent 12/31/2010 75 

Wood Cleaner: 

 aerosol 

----------------------------------------------------------------------- 

 non-aerosol 

12/31/2006 

-------------------- 

12/31/2006 

17 

------------------ 

4 

1

See section 94509(d) for the effective date of the VOC standards for products registered under FIFRA, 

and section 94509(c) and (d) for the “sell-through” allowed for products manufactured prior to the 

effective date of standards. 

2

 See section 94510(c) for an exemption that applies to fragrances in consumer products, and section 

94510(d) for an exemption that applies to LVP-VOCs. 

(b) Products that are diluted prior to use

 (1) Except for “Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid (Dilutable),” for consumer 

products for which the label, packaging, or accompanying literature specifically 

states that the product should be diluted with water or non-VOC solvent prior to 

use, the limits specified in subsection (a) shall apply to the product only after the 

minimum recommended dilution has taken place. For purposes of this subsection 

(b), “minimum recommended dilution” shall not include recommendations for 

incidental use of a concentrated product to deal with limited special applications 

such as hard-to-remove soils or stains. 

 (2) For consumer products for which the label, packaging, or accompanying literature 

states that the product should be diluted with any VOC solvent prior to use, the 

limits specified in subsection (a) shall apply to the product only after the maximum 

recommended dilution has taken place. 

 

 (3) For “Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids (Dilutable)” for which the label,

 packaging, or accompanying literature front panel of the product label specifically 

states that the product should be diluted with water or non-VOC solvent (e.g. 

identified as a “concentrate”) prior to use; 

(A) the VOC limits specified in section 94509(a) shall apply to the product only 

after the minimum recommended dilution has taken place; 

(B) for the purpose of complying with the VOC limits specified in section 94509(a), 

different dilution instructions for “Type A areas” and other areas of California 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-42 nts 

may be specified on the product label if the dilution instructions meet the 

following criteria: 

1. The instructions are readily visible, and 

2. The instructions can be easily understood by the consumer, and 

3. The instructions clearly specify the recommended dilutions to apply 

in “Type A areas” and in other areas of California, and 

 If the dilution instructions specified on the product label meet these 

criteria, the VOC limits specified in section 94509(a) shall apply to the 

product only after the minimum recommended dilution has taken place for 

the area in which the product is sold, supplied, or offered for sale. 

(4) For products sold in pump spray containers, the VOC limits specified in section 

94509(a) shall apply to the product prior to any minimum recommended dilution. 

(c) Sell-through of products. 

(1) Sell-through period. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 94509(a) or 

94509(j), a consumer product manufactured prior to each of the effective dates 

specified for that product in the Table of Standards may be sold, supplied, or 

offered for sale for up to three years after each of the specified effective dates. 

This subsection (c) does not apply to: 

(A) any consumer product that does not display on the product container or 

package the date on which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating 

such date, or 

(B) any consumer product on which the manufacturer has used a code indicating 

the date of manufacture that is different than the code specified in 

section 94512(b)(2), but an explanation of the code has not been filed with the 

ARB Executive Officer by the deadlines specified in section 94512(c)(1) or 

section 94512(c)(2), or 

(C) Solid “Air Fresheners” and “Toilet/Urinal Care Product” that contain paradichlorobenzene; these products are subject to the one-year sell-through 

period specified in section 94509(o). 

(D) Products contained in multi-unit packages, as specified below: 

1. Subsection (c)(1) does not apply to any individual consumer products unit 

contained within a multi-unit package that is produced or assembled after 

January 1, 2006, where the multi-unit package does not display the date(s) 

or date-code(s) of the individual product units, or display the date of 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-43 nts 

assembly, such that the displayed information is not readily observable 

without irreversibly disassembling any portion of the container or packaging. 

2. For the purposes of this section, “date of assembly” means the date that the 

individual product units are assembled into the finished multi-unit package. 

3. For multi-unit packages that display the “date of assembly” instead of the 

date(s) or date-code(s) of the individual product units, the “date of 

assembly” shall be the “date of manufacture” for all of the product units 

contained within the multi-unit package. In other words, all of the product 

units shall be deemed to have been manufactured on the date these units 

are assembled into the multi-unit package, even if the individual product 

units show different date(s) or date-code(s). 

(2) Notification for products sold during the sell-through period. Any person who 

sells or supplies a consumer product subject to the Table of Standards in section 

94509 must notify the purchaser of the product in writing of the date on which the 

sell-through period for that product will end, provided, however, that this 

notification must be given only if all of the following conditions are met: 

 (A) the product is being sold or supplied to a distributor or retailer; 

(B) the sell-through period for the product will expire 6 months or less from 

the date the product is sold or supplied; 

 (C) the product does not comply with the lowest VOC standard that applies 

 on the date the sell-through period ends; and 

(D) the product is subject to a VOC standard with an effective date on or 

 after December 31, 2004. 

(d) Products registered under FIFRA. For those consumer products that are 

registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, 

(FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. Section 136-136y), the effective date of the VOC standards 

specified in subsection (a) is one year after the date specified in the Table of 

Standards. For those consumer products that are registered under FIFRA, the 

three year period provided in subsection (c) shall also begin one year after the 

date specified in the Table of Standards. 

(e) Products containing ozone-depleting compounds. For any consumer product for 

which VOC standards are specified under subsection (a), no person shall sell, 

supply, offer for sale, or manufacture for sale in California any consumer product 

which contains any of the following ozone-depleting compounds: 

 CFC-11 (trichlorofluoromethane), 

 CFC-12 (dichlorodifluoromethane), 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-44 nts 

 CFC-113 (1,1,1-trichloro-2,2,2-trifluoroethane), 

 CFC-114 (1-chloro-1,1-difluoro-2-chloro-2,2-difluoroethane), 

 CFC-115 (chloropentafluoroethane), halon 1211 (bromochlorodifluoromethane), 

 halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane), halon 2402 (dibromotetrafluoroethane), 

 HCFC-22 (chlorodifluoromethane), 

 HCFC-123 (2,2-dichloro-1,1,1-trifluoroethane), 

 HCFC-124 (2-chloro-1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane), 

HCFC-141b (1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane), 

HCFC-142b (1-chloro-1,1-difluoroethane), 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and carbon 

tetrachloride. 

(f) The requirements of section 94509 (e) shall not apply to any existing product 

formulation that complies with the Table of Standards or any existing product 

formulation that is reformulated to meet the Table of Standards, provided the 

ozone depleting compound content of the reformulated product does not 

increase. 

(g) The requirements of section 94509 (e) shall not apply to any ozone depleting 

compounds that may be present as impurities in a consumer product in an 

amount equal to or less than 0.01% by weight of the product. 

(h) Requirements for charcoal lighter materials. The following requirements shall 

apply to all charcoal lighter material products as defined in section 94508(a): 

 

(1) Regulatory Standards 

 (A) In all areas of California except the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, no person shall sell, supply, or offer for sale after January 1, 1993 

any charcoal lighter material product unless at the time of the transaction: 

 1. the manufacturer or distributor of the charcoal lighter material has been 

issued a currently effective certification pursuant to subsection (h)(2). 

2. the charcoal lighter material meets the formulation criteria and other 

conditions specified in the applicable Executive Order issued pursuant 

to subsection (h)(2).

 3. the product usage directions for the charcoal lighter material are the 

same as those provided to the Executive Officer pursuant to 

subsection (h)(2)(C). 

(B) In the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the regulatory 

standards specified in subsection (h)(1)(A) shall be applicable upon the 

effective date of this subsection. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-45 nts 

(2) Certification Requirements

 (A) No charcoal lighter material formulation shall be certified under this 

subsection unless the applicant for certification demonstrates to the 

Executive Officer's satisfaction that the VOC emissions from the ignition of 

charcoal with the charcoal lighter material are less than or equal to 0.020 

pound of VOC per start, using the procedures specified in the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District Rule 1174 Ignition Method Compliance 

Certification Protocol, dated February 27, 1991 (the “SCAQMD Rule 1174 

Testing Protocol”). The provisions relating to LVP-VOC in sections 

94508(a) and 94510(d) shall not apply to any charcoal lighter material 

subject to the requirements of sections 94509(a) and (h). 

(B) The Executive Officer may approve alternative test procedures which are 

shown to provide equivalent results to those obtained using the SCAQMD 

Rule 1174 Testing Protocol. 

(C) A manufacturer or distributor of charcoal lighter material may apply to the 

Executive Officer for certification of a charcoal lighter material formulation 

in accordance with this subsection (h)(2). The application shall be in 

writing and shall include, at a minimum, the following: 

 1. the results of testing conducted pursuant to the procedures specified in 

SCAQMD Rule 1174 Testing Protocol. 

 2. the exact text and/or graphics that will appear on the charcoal lighter 

material's principal display panel, label, and any accompanying literature. 

The provided material shall clearly show the usage directions for the 

product. These directions shall accurately reflect the quantity of charcoal 

lighter material per pound of charcoal that was used in the SCAQMD 

Rule 1174 Testing Protocol for that product, unless: 

 i) the charcoal lighter material is intended to be used in fixed amounts 

independent of the amount of charcoal used, such as certain 

paraffin cubes, or 

 ii) the charcoal lighter material is already incorporated into the 

charcoal, such as certain “bag light,” “instant light,” or “match light” 

products. 

 3. For a charcoal lighter material which meets the criteria specified in 

subsection (h)(2)(C)(2.)(i), the usage instructions provided to the 

Executive Officer shall accurately reflect the quantity of charcoal lighter 

material used in the SCAQMD Rule 1174 Testing Protocol for that 

product. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-46 nts 

 4. Any physical property data, formulation data, or other information 

required by the Executive Officer for use in determining when a product 

modification has occurred and for use in determining compliance with 

the conditions specified on the Executive Order issued pursuant to 

section (h)(2). 

(D) Within 30 days of receipt of an application, the Executive Officer shall advise 

the applicant in writing either that it is complete or that specified additional 

information is required to make it complete. Within 30 days of receipt of 

additional information, the Executive Officer shall advise the applicant in 

writing either that the application is complete, or that specified additional 

information or testing is still required before it can be deemed complete. 

(E) If the Executive Officer finds that an application meets the requirements of 

this subsection (h)(2), then he or she shall issue an Executive Order 

certifying the charcoal lighter material formulation and specifying such 

conditions as are necessary to insure that the requirements of this 

subsection (h) are met. The Executive Officer shall act on a complete 

application within 90 days after the application is deemed complete. 

(3) Notice of Modifications

For any charcoal lighter material for which certification has been granted 

pursuant to subsection (h)(2), the applicant for certification shall notify the 

Executive Officer in writing within 30 days of: (i) any change in the usage 

directions, or (ii) any change in product formulation, test results, or any other 

information submitted pursuant to subsection (h)(2) which may result in VOC 

emissions greater than 0.020 pound of VOC per start. 

 (4) Revocation of Certification

If the Executive Officer determines that any certified charcoal lighter material 

formulation results in VOC emissions from the ignition of charcoal which are 

greater than 0.020 pound of VOC per start, as determined by the SCAQMD 

Rule 1174 Testing Protocol and the statistical analysis procedures contained 

therein, the Executive Officer shall revoke or modify the certification as is 

necessary to assure that the charcoal lighter material will result in VOC 

emissions of less than or equal to 0.020 pound of VOC per start. The Executive 

Officer shall not revoke or modify the prior certification without first affording the 

applicant for the certification an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the 

procedures specified in Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, 

Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4 (commencing with section 60040), to 

determine if the certification should be modified or revoked. 

 (5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection 94509(h), charcoal lighter 

material products manufactured prior to January 1, 1993, may be sold, supplied, 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-47 nts 

or offered for sale until July 1, 1994, in all areas of California except the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District. Charcoal lighter material products 

subject to SCAQMD Rule 1174 and sold, supplied, or offered for sale in the 

South Coast Air Quality Management District shall meet the requirements of 

section 94509(h) upon the effective date of this subsection, regardless of the 

date on which the products were manufactured. 

(i) Requirements for aerosol adhesives (as defined in sections 94508(a)(1) and 

94508(a)(3)). 

 (1) As specified in Health and Safety Code section 41712(h)(2), the standards for 

aerosol adhesives apply to all uses of aerosol adhesives, including consumer, 

industrial, and commercial uses. Except as otherwise provided in sections 

94509(c), 94510, 94511, and 94514, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, 

use or manufacture for sale in California any aerosol adhesive which, at the 

time of sale, use, or manufacture, contains VOCs in excess of the specified 

standard. 

 (2)(A) In order to qualify as a “Special Purpose Spray Adhesive” the product must 

meet one or more of the definitions for “Special Purpose Spray Adhesive” 

specified in section 94508(a), but if the product label indicates that the 

product is suitable for use on any substrate or application not listed in one 

of the definitions for “Special Purpose Spray Adhesive,” then the product 

shall be classified as either a “Web Spray Adhesive” or a “Mist Spray 

Adhesive.” 

 (B) If a product meets more than one of the definitions specified in section 

94508(a) for “Special Purpose Spray Adhesive,” and is not classified as a 

“Web Spray Adhesive” or “Mist Spray Adhesive” under subsection (2)(A), 

then the VOC limit for the product shall be the lowest applicable VOC limit 

specified in section 94509(a). 

 (3) Effective 1/1/2002, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or 

 manufacture for use in California any aerosol adhesive which contains any 

of the following compounds: methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or 

trichloroethylene, except that an aerosol adhesive manufactured before 

1/1/2002 may be sold, supplied, or offered for sale until 1/1/2005, so long 

as the product container or package displays the date on which the product 

was manufactured, or a code indicating such date product complies with 

product dating requirements in section 94512(b).

 (4) All aerosol adhesives must comply with the labeling requirements specified 

in section 94512(d), and all manufacturers and responsible parties for 

aerosol adhesives must comply with the special reporting requirements 

specified in section 94513(d). 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-48 nts 

(j) Requirements for Floor Wax Strippers. After an effective date of 

 January 1, 2002, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manufacture 

 for use in California any floor wax stripper unless the following requirements 

are met: 

 (1) The label of each non-aerosol floor wax stripper must specify a dilution ratio for 

light or medium build-up of polish that results in an as-used VOC concentration of 

3 percent by weight or less. 

 (2) If a non-aerosol floor wax stripper is also intended to be used for removal of 

heavy build-up of polish, the label of that floor wax stripper must specify a dilution 

ratio for heavy build-up of polish that results in an as-used VOC concentration of 

12 percent by weight or less. 

(3) The terms “light build-up,” “medium build-up” or “heavy build-up” are not 

specifically required, as long as comparable terminology is used. 

(k) Effective dates of the VOC limits for “Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake 

Cleaners” and “Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesives. “ “The 

definitions for the product categories of “Carburetor or Fuel-injection Air Intake 

Cleaners” and “Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesives” were 

modified as part of the “Mid-term Measures II” rulemaking action that was 

considered by the Board in October 1999. As a result of these modifications, 

certain types of consumer products were included in these definitions that had 

not previously been included. For those consumer products that were included in 

these definitions for the first time as a result of the “Mid-term Measures II” 

rulemaking action, the VOC limits (in section 94509(a)) applicable to these newly 

included products shall not become legally effective until December 31, 2002. 

(l) Automotive Windshield Washer Fluids. The provisions of subsection 94509(b)(1) 

shall not apply to “Automotive Windshield Washer Fluid (Pre-Mixed)” as defined 

in section 94508(a). 

(m) Requirements for Contact Adhesives, Electronic Cleaners, Footwear or Leather 

Care Products, and General Purpose Degreasers. 

 (1) Except as provided below in sections 94509(m)(2) and (m)(4), effective 

December 31, 2005, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or 

manufacture for use in California any Contact Adhesive, Electronic Cleaner, 

Footwear or Leather Care Product, or General Purpose Degreaser that 

contains any of the following compounds: methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene. 

 (2) Sell-through of Products. Contact Adhesives, Electronic Cleaners, Footwear

or Leather Care Products, and General Purpose Degreasers that contain 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-49 nts 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene and were 

manufactured before December 31, 2005, may be sold, supplied, or offered 

for sale until December 31, 2008, so long as the product container or package 

displays the date on which the product was manufactured, or a code 

indicating such date product complies with product dating requirements in 

section 94512(b). 

 (3) Notification for products sold during the sell-through period. Any person who 

sells or supplies a consumer product identified above in section 94509(m)(1) 

must notify the purchaser of the product in writing that the sell-through period 

for that product will end on December 31, 2008, provided, however, that this 

notification must be given only if both of the following conditions are met: 

 (A) the product is sold or supplied to a distributor or retailer; and 

 

 (B) the product is sold or supplied on or after June 30, 2008. 

(4) Impurities. The requirements of section 94509(m)(1) and (m)(3) shall not 

apply to any Contact Adhesive, Electronic Cleaner, Footwear or Leather Care 

Product, or General Purpose Degreaser containing methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene that is present as an impurity in a 

combined amount equal to or less than 0.01% by weight. 

(n) Requirements for Adhesive Removers, Electrical Cleaners, and Graffiti 

Removers. 

 (1) Except as provided below in sections 94509(n)(2) and (n)(4), effective 

December 31, 2006, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or 

manufacture for use in California any Adhesive Remover, Electrical Cleaner, 

or Graffiti Remover that contains any of the following compounds: 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene. 

(2) Sell-through of Products. Adhesive Removers, Electrical Cleaners, and 

Graffiti Removers that contain methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or 

trichloroethylene and were manufactured before December 31, 2006, may be 

sold, supplied, or offered for sale until December 31, 2009, so long as the 

product container or package displays the date on which the product was 

manufactured, or a code indicating such date product complies with product 

dating requirements in section 94512(b).

(3) Notification for products sold during the sell-through period. Any person who 

sells or supplies a consumer product identified above in section 94509(n)(1) 

must notify the purchaser of the product in writing that the sell-through period 

for that product will end on December 31, 2009, provided, however, that this 

notification must be given only if both of the following conditions are met: 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-50 nts 

 (A) the product is sold or supplied to a distributor or retailer; and 

 (B) the product is sold or supplied on or after June 30, 2009. 

(4) Impurities. The requirements of section 94509(n)(1) and (n)(3) shall not apply 

to any Adhesive Remover, Electrical Cleaner, or Graffiti Remover containing 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene that is present as 

an impurity in a combined amount equal to or less than 0.01% by weight. 

(o) Requirements for Solid Air Fresheners and Toilet/Urinal Care Products.

(1) Effective December 31, 2005, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or 

manufacture for use in California any Solid Air Fresheners or Toilet/Urinal 

Care Products that contain para-dichlorobenzene, except thatthose Solid Air 

Fresheners and Toilet/Urinal Care Products that contain paradichlorobenzene and were manufactured before December 31, 2005 may be 

sold, supplied, or offered for sale until December 31, 2006, so long as the 

product container or package displays the date on which the product was 

manufactured, or a code indicating such date. 

(2) Notification for products sold during the sell-through period. Any person who 

sells or supplies any Solid Air Freshener or Toilet/Urinal Care Product that 

contains para-dichlorobenzene must notify the purchaser of the product in 

writing that the sell-through period for the product will end on December 31, 

2006, provided, however, that this notification must be given only if both of the 

following conditions are met: 

 (A) the product is sold or supplied to a distributor or retailer; and 

 (B) the product is sold or supplied on or after June 30, 2006. 

(p) Requirements for Bathroom and Tile Cleaners, Construction, Panel, and Floor 

Covering Adhesives, electronic cleaners labeled as energized electronic 

equipment use only, General Purpose Cleaners, and Oven Cleaners. 

 (1) Except as provided below in sections 94509(p)(2) and (p)(4), effective 

December 31, 2008, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or 

manufacture for use in California any Bathroom and Tile Cleaner, 

Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering Adhesive, electronic cleaners 

labeled as energized electronic equipment use only, General Purpose 

Cleaner, or Oven Cleaner that contains any of the following compounds: 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene. 

(2) Sell-through of Products. Bathroom and Tile Cleaners, Construction, Panel, 

and Floor Covering Adhesives, electronic cleaners labeled as energized 

electronic equipment use only, General Purpose Cleaners, and Oven 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-51 nts 

Cleaners that contain methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or 

trichloroethylene and were manufactured before December 31, 2008, may be 

sold, supplied, or offered for sale until December 31, 2011, so long as the 

product complies with the product dating requirements in section 94512(b) 

(3) Notification for products sold during the sell-through period. Any person who 

sells or supplies a consumer product identified above in section 94509(p)(1) 

must notify the purchaser of the product in writing that the sell-through period 

for that product will end on December 31, 2011, provided, however, that this 

notification must be given only if both of the following conditions are met: 

 (A) the product is sold or supplied to a distributor or retailer; and 

 (B) the product is sold or supplied on or after June 30, 2011. 

(4) Impurities. The requirements of section 94509(p)(1) and (p)(3) shall not apply 

to any Bathroom and Tile Cleaner, Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering 

Adhesive, electronic cleaner labeled as energized electronic equipment use 

only, General Purpose Cleaner, or Oven Cleaner containing methylene 

chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene that is present as an impurity 

in a combined amount equal to or less than 0.01% by weight. 

(q) Requirements for Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, Fabric Protectant, Multi-Purpose 

Lubricant, Penetrant, Sealant or Caulking Compound, and Spot Remover. 

 

(1) Except as provided below in sections 94509(q)(2), (q)(4), and (q)(5), effective 

December 31, 2010, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or 

manufacture for use in California any Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, Fabric 

Protectant, Multi-Purpose Lubricant, Penetrant, Sealant or Caulking 

Compound, or Spot Remover that contains any of the following compounds: 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene. 

(2) Sell-through of Products. Carpet/Upholstery Cleaners, Fabric Protectants, 

Multi-Purpose Lubricants, Penetrants, Sealant or Caulking Compound and 

Spot Removers that contain methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or 

trichloroethylene and were manufactured before December 31, 2010, may be 

sold, supplied, or offered for sale until December 31, 2013, so long as the 

product complies with the product dating requirements in section 94512(b). 

(3) Notification for products sold during the sell-through period. Any person who 

sells or supplies a consumer product identified above in section 94509(q)(1) 

must notify the purchaser of the product in writing that the sell-through period 

for that product will end on December 31, 2013, provided, however, that this 

notification must be given only if both of the following conditions are met: 

 (A) the product is sold or supplied to a distributor or retailer; and 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-52 nts 

 (B) the product is sold or supplied on or after June 30, 2013. 

(4) Impurities. The requirements of section 94509(q)(1) and (q)(3) shall not apply 

to any Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner, Fabric Protectant, Multi-Purpose Lubricant,

Penetrant, Sealant or Caulking Compound, or Spot Remover containing 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene that is present as 

an impurity in a combined amount equal to or less than 0.01% by weight. 

(5) The requirements of this section 94509(q) shall not apply to “Penetrant” 

products used on equipment when electrical current exists; residual electrical 

potential from a component exists; or an open flame exists, as long as the 

“Principal Display Panel” clearly displays the statement: “Non-flammable: 

For use on energized equipment only.” 

(r) Requirements for Pressurized Gas Duster. 

(1) Except as provided below in sections 94509(r)(2) and (r)(3), effective 

December 31, 2010, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or 

manufacture for use in California any Pressurized Gas Duster product that 

contains methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or any chemical compound 

that has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) Value of 150 or greater. 

(2) Sell-through of Products. Pressurized Gas Duster products that contain any 

chemical compound that has a GWP Value greater than 150, and were 

manufactured before December 31, 2010, may be sold, supplied, or offered 

for sale until December 31, 2011, so long as the product complies with the 

product dating requirements in section 94512(b). 

(3) Notification for products sold during the sell-through period. Any person who 

sells or supplies a Pressurized Gas Duster identified above in section 

94509(r)(2) must notify the purchaser of the product, in writing, that the sellthrough period for that product will end on December 31, 2011, provided, 

however, that this notification must be given only if both of the following 

conditions are met: 

(A) the product is sold or supplied to a distributor or retailer; and 

(B) the product is sold or supplied on or after June 30, 2011. 

 (4) The provisions relating to fragrance in section 94510(c) shall not apply to any 

Pressurized Gas Duster subject to the requirements of this subsection 

94509(r). 

(5) Impurities. The requirements of section 94509(r)(1), (r)(2), and (r)(3) shall not 

apply to any Pressurized Gas Duster containing any chemical compound that 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-53 nts 

is present as an impurity in a combined amount equal to or less than 0.1% by 

weight. 

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

 

(1) Effective December 31, 2010, Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product shall 

not contain more than 0.05 grams of VOC per use. Compliance with the VOC 

limit shall be determined per sheet, or equivalent delivery substrate, based on the 

minimum recommended use for a single drying cycle specified on the product 

packaging or label. In other words, if one sheet is the minimum recommended 

use for a single drying cycle, then the VOC limit applies per sheet. If two sheets 

are the minimum recommended use for a single drying cycle, then the VOC limit 

applies to the aggregate VOC content in two sheets. For purposes of this 

subsection, “minimum recommended use” shall not include recommendations for 

incidental use of additional sheets, or equivalent delivery substrate, for limited 

applications such as for extra large or double loads of washable fabrics in large 

capacity clothes dryers. 

(2) The provisions relating to fragrance in section 94510(c) shall not apply to Fabric 

Softener – Single Use Dryer Product subject to the requirements of this 

subsection 94509(s)(1).

(t) Requirements for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener.

(1) Except as provided below in sections 94509(t)(2) and (t)(4), effective 

December 31, 2012, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or 

manufacture for use in California any Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener

that contains any chemical compound that has a Global Warming Potential 

(GWP) Value of 150 or greater.

(2) Sell-through of Products. Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners that contain 

any chemical compound that has a GWP Value of 150 or greater, and were 

manufactured before December 31, 2012, may be sold, supplied, or offered 

for sale until December 31, 2015, so long as the product complies with the 

product dating requirements in section 94512(b). 

(3) Notification for products sold during the sell-through period. Any person who 

sells or supplies a Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener identified above in 

section 94509(t)(2) must notify the purchaser of the product, in writing, that 

the sell-through period for that product will end on December 31, 2015, 

provided, however, that this notification must be given only if both of the 

following conditions are met:

(A) the product is sold or supplied to a distributor or retailer; and

(B) the product is sold or supplied on or after June 30, 2015.
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-54 nts 

(4) Impurities. The requirements of section 94509(t)(1), (t)(2), and (t)(3) shall not 

apply to any chemical compound that is present as an impurity in a combined 

amount equal to or less than 0.1% by weight.

 

(u) Requirements for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner.

 

(1) Except as provided below in sections 94509(u)(2) and (u)(4), effective 

December 31, 2010, no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or 

manufacture for use in California any Multi-purpose Solvent or Paint Thinner

that contains any of the following:

(A) chemical compounds that have a Global Warming Potential (GWP) 

Value of 150 or greater;

(B) methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene;

(C) greater than 1% “Aromatic Compounds” by weight. 

(2) Sell-through of Products. Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners that 

contain any chemical compound that has a GWP Value of 150 or greater;

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene; or greater than 

1% “Aromatic Compounds” by weight; and were manufactured before 

December 31, 2010, may be sold, supplied, or offered for sale until December 

31, 2013, so long as the product complies with the product dating 

requirements in section 94512(b). 

(3) Notification for products sold during the sell-through period. Any person who 

sells or supplies a consumer product identified above in section 94509(u)(2) 

must notify the purchaser of the product in writing that the sell-through period 

for that product will end on December 31, 2013, provided, however, this 

notification must be given only if both of the following conditions are met:

(A) the product is sold or supplied to a distributor or retailer; and 

 (B) the product is sold or supplied on or after June 30, 2013. 

(4) Impurities. The requirements of section 94509(u)(1), (u)(2) and (u)(3) shall not 

apply to any Multi-purpose Solvent, or Paint Thinner that contains any of the 

following:

(A) chemical compounds that have a Global Warming Potential (GWP)

Value of 150 or greater and are present as impurities in a combined 

amount equal to or less than 0.1% by weight;
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-55 nts 

(B) methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, or trichloroethylene that is 

present as an impurity in a combined amount equal to or less than 

0.01% by weight.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 38500, 38501, 38510, 38560, 38560.5, 38562, 38580, 

39600, 39601, 39650, 39658, 39659, 39666, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 38505, 39002, 39600, 39650, 39655, 39656, 39658, 39659, 

39666, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

§ 94510. Exemptions.

(a) This article shall not apply to any consumer product manufactured in California for 

shipment and use outside of California. 

(b) The provisions of this article shall not apply to a manufacturer or distributor who 

sells, supplies, or offers for sale in California a consumer product that does not 

comply with the VOC standards specified in Section 94509, as long as the 

manufacturer or distributor can demonstrate both that the consumer product is 

intended for shipment and use outside of California, and that the manufacturer or 

distributor has taken reasonable prudent precautions to assure that the consumer 

product is not distributed to California. This subsection (b) does not apply to 

consumer products that are sold, supplied, or offered for sale by any person to retail 

outlets in California. 

(c) Except for Fabric Softener – Single Use Dryer Product and Pressurized Gas Duster, 

the VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to fragrances up to a 

combined level of 2 percent by weight contained in any consumer product. 

(d) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to any LVP-VOC. 

(e) The requirements of Section 94512(b) shall not apply to consumer products 

registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, (FIFRA; 7 

U.S.C. Section 136-36y). 

(f) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to air fresheners that 

are comprised entirely of fragrance, less compounds not defined as VOCs under 

Section 94508 or exempted under Section 94510(d). 

 (g) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to: 

 (1) insecticides containing at least 98% para-dichlorobenzene. 

 (2) Until December 30, 2006, the VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not 

apply to solid air fresheners containing at least 98% para-dichlorobenzene. On or 

after December 31, 2006, the provisions of section 94509(o) apply to solid air 

fresheners containing para-dichlorobenzene. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-56 nts 

(h) Except as specified in 94510(h)(3) below, the VOC limits specified in Section 

94509(a) shall not apply to: 

(1) existing personal fragrance products or personal fragrance products in 

development on or before April 1, 1992, provided that both (i) the registration data 

specified in section 94513 is submitted for every such product by the date 

specified in section 94513(a), or prior to July 1, 1993, whichever date occurs later, 

and (ii) such product is sold in California prior to January 1, 1994. For the 

purposes of this subsection, a product “in development” means: 

 (A) a product which a fragrance materials manufacturer is designing at the 

request of a personal fragrance product manufacturer, or 

 (B) a product which is the subject of a written marketing profile or other 

documentation authorizing the creation and marketing of the product. 

(2) personal fragrance products in development may be registered to qualify for this 

exemption under hypothetical trade names or pseudonyms, provided that the 

actual trade name is supplied to the Executive Officer within 30 days of 

marketing such products, or January 1, 1994, whichever occurs first. 

(3) Effective December 31, 2014, subsections 94510(h)(1) and 94510(h)(2) shall no 

longer apply to any “Personal Fragrance Product” that contains 20 percent or 

less fragrance. Products manufactured before December 31, 2014 may be sold, 

supplied, or offered for sale until December 31, 2017, so long as the product 

complies with the product dating requirements in Section 94512(b). 

(i) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to adhesives sold in 

containers of 1 fluid ounce or less. 

(j) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to any VOC which is a 

fragrance in a personal fragrance product. 

(k) The VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) shall not apply to bait station 

insecticides. For the purpose of this section, bait station insecticides are containers 

enclosing an insecticidal bait that is not more than 0.5 ounce by weight, where the 

bait is designed to be ingested by insects and is composed of solid material feeding 

stimulants with less than 5 percent (%) active ingredients. 

(l) Except as specified in 94510(l)(1), the 1/1/99 VOC limits specified in Section 

94509(a) for personal fragrance products shall not apply to such products which 

have been sold in California prior to 1/1/99. 

(1) On or after December 31, 2014, the 75 percent by weight VOC limit shall apply to 

any “Personal Fragrance Product” that contains 20 percent or less fragrance. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-57 nts 

Products manufactured before December 31, 2014 may be sold, supplied, or 

offered for sale until December 31, 2017, so long as the product complies with 

the product dating requirements in Section 94512(b). 

(m) Until December 31, 2013, the VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a), and the 

prohibition of Aromatic Compounds listed in section 94509(u)(5), shall not apply to 

Paint Thinners that are packaged in containers with a capacity less than or equal to 

8 fluid ounces.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601 and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

§ 94511. Innovative Products. 

(a) The Executive Officer shall exempt a consumer product from the VOC limits 

specified in Section 94509(a) if a manufacturer demonstrates by clear and 

convincing evidence that, due to some characteristic of the product formulation, 

design, delivery systems or other factors, the use of the product will result in less 

VOC emissions as compared to: 

 (1) the VOC emissions from a representative consumer product which complies with 

the VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a), or 

 (2) the calculated VOC emissions from a noncomplying representative product, if the 

product had been reformulated to comply with the VOC limits specified in section 

94509(a). VOC emissions shall be calculated using the following equation: 

 

 ER = ENC x VOCSTD ÷ VOCNC 

 where: 

 ER = The VOC emissions from the noncomplying representative 

product, had it been reformulated. 

 ENC = The VOC emissions from the noncomplying representative 

product in its current formulation. 

 VOCSTD = the VOC limit specified in 94509(a). 

 VOCNC = the VOC content of the noncomplying product in its current 

formulation. 

If a manufacturer demonstrates that this equation yields inaccurate results due to 

some characteristic of the product formulation or other factors, an alternative 

method which accurately calculates emissions may be used upon approval of the 

Executive Officer. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-58 nts 

(b) For the purposes of this section, “representative consumer product” means a 

consumer product which meets all of the following criteria: 

 (1) the representative product shall be subject to the same VOC limit in Section 

94509(a) as the innovative product. 

 (2) the representative product shall be of the same product form as the innovative 

product, unless the innovative product uses a new form which does not exist in 

the product category at the time the application is made. 

 (3) the representative product shall have at least similar efficacy as other consumer 

products in the same product category based on tests generally accepted for that 

product category by the consumer products industry.

(c) A manufacturer shall apply in writing to the Executive Officer for any exemption 

claimed under subsection (a). The application shall include the supporting 

documentation that demonstrates the reduction of emissions from the innovative 

product, including the actual physical test methods used to generate the data and, if 

necessary, the consumer testing undertaken to document product usage. In 

addition, the applicant must provide any information necessary to enable the 

Executive Officer to establish enforceable conditions for granting the exemption 

including the VOC content for the innovative product and test methods for 

determining the VOC content. All information submitted by a manufacturer pursuant 

to this section shall be handled in accordance with the procedures specified in Title 

17, California Code of Regulations, Sections 91000-91022. 

(d) Within 30 days of receipt of the exemption application the Executive Officer shall 

determine whether an application is complete as provided in section 60030(a), 

Title 17, California Code of Regulations. 

(e) Within 90 days after an application has been deemed complete, the Executive 

Officer shall determine whether, under what conditions, and to what extent, an 

exemption from the requirements of Section 94509(a) will be permitted. The 

applicant and the Executive Officer may mutually agree to a longer time period for 

reaching a decision, and additional supporting documentation may be submitted by 

the applicant before a decision has been reached. The Executive Officer shall notify 

the applicant of the decision in writing and specify such terms and conditions that 

are necessary to insureensure that emissions from the product will meet the 

emissions reductions specified in subsection (a), and that such emissions reductions 

can be enforced. 

(f) In granting an exemption for a product the Executive Officer shall establish 

conditions that are enforceable. These conditions shall include the VOC content of 

the innovative product, dispensing rates, application rates, application rates, and any 

other parameters determined by the Executive Officer to be necessary. The 

Executive Officer shall also specify the test methods for determining conformance to 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-59 nts 

the conditions established. The test methods shall include criteria for reproducibility, 

accuracy, and sampling and laboratory procedures. 

(g) For any product for which an exemption has been granted pursuant to this section, 

the manufacturer shall notify the Executive Officer in writing within 30 days of any 

change in the product formulation or recommended product usage directions, and 

shall also notify the Executive Officer within 30 days if the manufacturer learns of 

any information which would alter the emissions estimates submitted to the 

Executive Officer in support of the exemption application. 

(h) If the VOC limits specified in Section 94509(a) are lowered for a product category 

through any subsequent rulemaking, all innovative product exemptions granted for 

products in the product category, except as provided in this subsection (h), shall 

have no force and effect as of the effective date of the modified VOC standard. This 

subsection (h) shall not apply to those innovative products which have VOC 

emissions less than the applicable lowered VOC limit and for which a written 

notification of the product's emissions status versus the lowered VOC limit has been 

submitted to and approved by the Executive Officer at least 60 days before the 

effective date of such limits. 

(i) If the Executive Officer believes that a consumer product for which an exemption 

has been granted no longer meets the criteria for an innovative product specified in 

subsection (a), the Executive Officer may modify or revoke the exemption as 

necessary to assure that the product will meet these criteria. The Executive Officer 

shall not modify or revoke an exemption without first affording the applicant an 

opportunity for a public hearing held in accordance with the procedures specified in 

Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, 

Article 4 (commencing with Section 60040), to determine if the exemption should be 

modified or revoked. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

§ 94512. Administrative Requirements. 

(a) Most Restrictive Limit. 

(1) Products Manufactured Before January 1, 2007, and FIFRA-registered 

Insecticides Manufactured Before January 1, 2008. Notwithstanding the definition 

of “Product Category” in Section 94508, if anywhere on the principal display panel of 

any consumer product manufactured before January 1, 2007, or any 

FIFRA-registered insecticide manufactured before January 1, 2008, any 

representation is made that the product may be used as, or is suitable for use as a 

consumer product for which a lower VOC limit is specified in Section 94509(a), then 

the lowest VOC limit shall apply. This requirement does not apply to general 

purpose cleaners and insecticide foggers. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-60 nts 

 (2) Products Manufactured on or After January 1, 2007, and FIFRA-registered 

Insecticides Manufactured on or After January 1, 2008. Notwithstanding the 

definition of “product category” in Section 94508, if anywhere on the container or 

packaging of any consumer product manufactured on or after January 1, 2007, or 

any FIFRA-registered insecticide manufactured on or after January 1, 2008, or on 

any sticker or label affixed thereto, any representation is made that the product may 

be used as, or is suitable for use as a consumer product for which a lower VOC limit 

is specified in Section 94509(a), then the lowest VOC limit shall apply. This 

requirement does not apply to general purpose cleaners and insecticide foggers. 

(3) Rules that Apply when a Product Category Definition Excludes Other Product 

Categories. 

If a definition of a regulated product category in section 94508(a) states that the 

product category “does not include” one or more other product categories, the “most 

restrictive limit” provisions of section 94512(a) apply to regulated products that meet 

the definition of the regulated product category and also make any representation 

that the regulated product may be used as (or is suitable for use as) a product that 

falls within one or more of the excluded product categories. Notwithstanding the 

foregoing above, this provision does not apply to “Disinfectant”/”Sanitizer” products 

labeled as “Bathroom and Tile Cleaners,” “Glass Cleaners,” “General Purpose 

Cleaners,” “Toilet/Urinal Care Products,” “Metal Polishes,” “Carpet Cleaners,” or 

“Fabric Refreshers” that may also make disinfecting/sanitizing or anti-microbial 

claims on the label. 

For example, if the definition for Regulated Product Category A states that it “does 

not include” Regulated Product Category B, then the “most restrictive limit” 

provisions apply to a regulated product that meets the definition of Regulated 

Product Category A, but also makes a representation that it may be used as (or is 

suitable for use as) Regulated Product Category B. In other words, if the regulated 

product makes any representation that it may be used as (or is suitable for use as) 

Regulated Category Product B, then the regulated product would be subject to the 

lowest VOC limit specified in section 94509(a) for either Product Category A or 

Product Category B. 

 For the purposes of this section: 

 

“Regulated product” means a consumer product for which a VOC standard is 

specified in section 94509(a), and 

“Representation” has the same meaning as used above in subsections 

94512(a)(1) and 94512(a)(2) (i.e., what statements qualify as a “representation” 

depends on the date the product was manufactured and whether the statements 

appear on the “principal display panel” or other parts of the product container or 

packaging.) 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-61 nts 

(b) Product Dating. 

(1) Each manufacturer of a consumer product subject to Section 94509 shall clearly 

display on each consumer product container or package, the day, month, and 

year on which the product was manufactured, or a code indicating such date. 

Codes that represent a sequential batch number, or that otherwise cannot be 

attributed to a specific day, month, and year, do not satisfy this requirement. 

(2) A manufacturer who uses the following code to indicate the date of manufacture 

shall not be subject to the requirements of section 94512(c)(1), if the code is 

represented separately from other codes on the product container so that it is 

easily recognizable: 

YY DDD = year year day day day 

 Where: “YY” = two digits representing the year in which the product was 

manufactured, and 

“DDD” = three digits representing the day of the year on which the 

product was manufactured, with “001” representing the first day of the 

year, “002” representing the second day of the year, and so forth 

(i.e. the “Julian date”).

 (3) This date or code shall be displayed on each consumer product container or 

package no later than twelve months prior to the effective date of the applicable 

standard specified in Section 94509. 

(4) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b)(5), for products manufactured on 

or after January 1, 2006, the date or code shall be displayed on the product 

container such that it is readily observable without irreversibly disassembling any 

portion of the product container or packaging. For the purposes of this 

subsection, information may be displayed on the bottom of a container as long as 

it is clearly legible without removing any product packaging. 

(5) Products Sold in Multi-unit Packages. 

(A) Products sold, supplied, or offered for sale in multi-unit packages are not 

required to comply with subsection (b)(4). 

(B) If a multi-unit package does not comply with subsection (b)(4), the 

“sell-through” provisions of section 94509(c)(1) shall not apply to the 

individual product units contained within the multi-unit package. In other 

words, if any multi-unit package produced or assembled after 

January 1, 2006, does not display the date(s) or date-code(s) of the product 

units, such that the displayed information is readily observable without 

irreversibly disassembling any portion of the container or packaging, the 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-62 nts 

individual product units shall be subject to the VOC standards in effect when 

the multi-unit package is sold, supplied, or offered for sale, regardless of the 

date on which the product units were manufactured. 

 (C) A multi-unit package may comply with subsection (b)(4) by displaying the 

date of assembly instead of the date(s) or date-code(s) of the individual 

product units, so long as the date of assembly is readily observable without 

irreversibly disassembling any portion of the container or packaging. The 

“date of assembly” means the date that the individual product units are 

assembled into the finished multi-unit package. If the date of assembly is 

displayed instead of the individual date(s) or date-code(s), the “date of 

assembly” shall be the “date of manufacture” for all of the product units 

contained within the multi-unit package. In other words, all of the product 

units shall be deemed to have been manufactured on the date these units are 

assembled into the multi-unit package, even if the individual product units 

show different date(s) or date-code(s), and the “date of assembly” shall be 

“date of manufacture” of each product unit for the purposes of applying the 

“sell-through” provisions of section 94509(c). 

(6) The requirements of this subsection (b) shall not apply to: 

(A) personal fragrance products of 2 milliliters or less, which are offered to 

consumers free of charge for the purpose of sampling the product; or 

(B) products containing no VOCs (as defined in section 94508), or containing 

VOCs at 0.10% by weight or less. 

(c) Additional Product Dating Requirements.

(1) If a manufacturer uses a code indicating the date of manufacture, for any 

consumer product subject to section 94509 an explanation of the code must 

be filed with the Executive Officer of the ARB no later than twelve months 

prior to the effective date of the applicable standard specified in section 

94509. Thereafter, manufacturers using a code must file an explanation of 

the code with the Executive Officer on an annual basis, beginning in 2006. 

The explanation of the code must be received by the Executive Officer on or 

before January 31st of each year, with the first explanation due on or before 

January 31, 2006. 

(2) If a manufacturer changes any code indicating the date of manufacture for 

any consumer product subject to subsection (c)(1), an explanation of the 

modified code must be received by the Executive Officer before any products 

displaying the modified code are sold, supplied, or offered for sale in 

California. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-63 nts 

 (3) No person shall erase, alter, deface, or otherwise remove or make illegible 

any date or code indicating the date of manufacture from any regulated 

product container without the express authorization of the manufacturer. 

 (4) Codes indicating the date of manufacture are public information and may not 

be claimed as confidential. 

(d) Additional Labeling Requirements for Aerosol Adhesive, Adhesive Remover, 

 Electronic Cleaner, Electrical Cleaner, Energized Electrical Cleaner, Contact 

 Adhesive, and Sealant or Caulking Compound (non-aerosol). 

 (1) In addition to the requirements specified in subsections (a), (b), and (c), both 

 the manufacturer and responsible party for each aerosol adhesive, adhesive 

remover, electronic cleaner, electrical cleaner, energized electrical cleaner, 

contact adhesive product, and sealant or caulking compound (non-aerosol) 

subject to this article shall ensure that all products clearly display the 

following information on each product container which is manufactured on or 

after the effective date for the category specified in section 94509(a), except 

that for non-chemically curing sealant or caulking compound (non-aerosol), 

the effective date of this requirement is December 31, 2010, and for 

chemically curing sealant or caulking compound (non-aerosol), the effective 

date of this requirement is December 31, 2012: 

 (A) The product category as specified in section 94509(a) or an 

abbreviation of the category shall be displayed; 

 (B) 1. The applicable VOC standard for the product that is specified in 

section 94509(a), except for Energized Electrical Cleaner, 

expressed as a percentage by weight, shall be displayed unless 

the product is included in an alternative control plan approved by 

the Executive Officer, as provided in Article 4, Sections 94540-

94555, Title 17, California Code of Regulations, and the product 

exceeds the applicable VOC standard; 

 2. If the product is included in an alternative control plan approved 

by the Executive Officer, and the product exceeds the applicable 

VOC standard specified in section 94509(a), the product shall be 

labeled with the term “ACP” or “ACP product;” 

 (C) If the product is classified as a special purpose spray adhesive, the 

applicable substrate and/or application or an abbreviation of the 

substrate/application that qualifies the product as special purpose shall 

be displayed; 

 (D) If the manufacturer or responsible party uses an abbreviation as allowed 

by this subsection 94512(d)(1)(A), an explanation of the abbreviation 

must be filed with the Executive Officer before the abbreviation is used. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-64 nts 

 

 (2) The information required in section 94512(d)(1), shall be displayed on the 

product container such that it is readily observable without removing or 

disassembling any portion of the product container or packaging. For the 

purposes of this subsection, information may be displayed on the bottom of a 

container as long as it is clearly legible without removing any product 

packaging. 

 (3) No person shall remove, alter, conceal, or deface the information required in 

section 94512(d)(1) prior to final sale of the product. 

(e) Additional Requirements for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner.

 (1) In addition to the requirements specified in section 94512(a), (b), and (c), both 

the manufacturer and responsible party for each Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner sold or offered for sale in areas of California outside the South 

Coast Air Quality Management District shall ensure that all products 

manufactured on or after the effective date for the category specified in section 

94509(a), meet the following requirements:

 (A) Each product container must clearly display the VOC content in percent 

by weight as determined from actual formulation data.

 (B) The information required by this subsection 94512(e)(1), shall be 

displayed on the product container such that it is readily observable 

without removing or disassembling any portion of the product container 

or packaging. 

 (C) No person shall remove, alter, conceal, or deface the information 

required by this subsection 94512(e)(1) prior to final sale of the product.

(2) In addition to the requirements specified in section 94512(a), (b), (c), and 

(e)(1):

 (A) Except as provided below in section 94512(e)(2)(B), effective December 

31, 2010, until December 31, 2015, no person shall sell, supply, offer for 

sale, or manufacture for use in California any “Flammable” or “Extremely 

Flammable” Multi-purpose Solvent or Paint Thinner named, on the 

Principle Display Panel as “Paint Thinner,” “Multi-purpose Solvent,” 

“Clean-up Solvent,” or “Paint Clean-up.”

 (B) Section 94512(e)(2)(A) does not apply to products that meet any of the 

following criteria:

 

 1. Products which include an attached “hang tag” or sticker that 

displays, at a minimum, the following statement: “Formulated to 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-65 nts 

meet California VOC limits; see warnings on label.”

 2. Products where the Principle Display Panel displays, in a font size 

as large as or larger than the font size of any other words on the 

panel, the common name of the chemical compound (e.g., 

“Acetone,” “Methyl acetate,” etc.) that results in the product 

meeting the criteria for “Flammable” or “Extremely Flammable.”

 (C) For the purposes of this subsection (e)(2), a product is “Flammable” or 

Extremely Flammable” if it is labeled as “Flammable” or “Extremely 

Flammable” on the product container, or if the product meets the criteria 

for these terms specified in title16, Code of Federal Regulations, section 

1500.3(c)(6).

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

§ 94513. Reporting Requirements.

(a) Upon 90 days written notice, the Executive Officer may require any 

responsible party to report information for any consumer product or products the 

Executive Officer may specify including, but not limited to, all or part of the 

information: specified in the following subsections (a)(1) through (a)(12). If the 

responsible party does not have or does not provide the information requested by 

the Executive Officer, the Executive Officer may require the reporting of this 

information by the person that has the information, including, but not limited to, any 

formulator, manufacturer, supplier, parent company, private labeler, distributor, or 

repackager. 

(1) the company name, address, telephone number, and designated contact person; 

(2) any claim of confidentiality made pursuant to Title 17, California Code of 

Regulations, Section 91011; 

 

(3) the product brand name for each consumer product and the product label; 

(4) the product category to which the consumer product belongs; 

(5) the applicable product form(s) listed separately; 

(6) an identification of each product brand name and form as a “Household Product,” 

“I&I Product,” or both; 

(7) separate California sales in pounds per year, to the nearest pound, and the 

method used to calculate California sales for each product form; 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-66 nts 

(8) for information submitted by multiple companies, an identification of each 

company which is submitting relevant data separate from that submitted by the 

responsible party. All information from all companies shall be submitted by the 

date specified in Section 94513(a); 

 (9) for each product brand name and form, the net percent by weight of the total 

product, less container and packaging, comprised of the following, rounded to the 

nearest one-tenth of a percent (0.1%): 

 (A) Total Table B Compounds 

 (B) Total LVP-VOCs that are not fragrances 

 (C) Total All Other Carbon-Containing Compounds that are not fragrances 

 (D) Total All Non-Carbon-Containing Compounds 

 (E) Total Fragrance 

 (F) For products containing greater than two percent by weight fragrance, but 

excluding “personal fragrance products”: 

 (i) the percent of fragrance that are LVP-VOCs, and 

 (ii) the percent of fragrance that are all other carbon-containing compounds 

 (G) For “personal fragrance products,” the density of the fragrance 

 (H) Total Para-dichlorobenzene 

 

 (10) for each product brand name and form, the identity, including the specific 

chemical name and associated Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) number, of the 

following: 

 (A) Each Table B Compound 

 (B) Each LVP-VOC that is not a fragrance 

 (11) if applicable, the weight percent comprised of propellant for each product; 

 (12) if applicable, an identification of the type of propellant (Type A, Type B, Type C, 

or a blend of the different types); 

(b) In addition to the requirements of section 94513(a)(10), the responsible party shall 

report or shall arrange to have reported to the Executive Officer the net percent by 

weight of each ozone-depleting compound which is (1) listed in section 94509(e) and 

(2) contained in a product subject to reporting under section 94513(a) in any amount 

greater than 0.1 percent by weight. 

(c) All information submitted by any person pursuant to Section 94513 shall be handled 

in accordance with the procedures specified in Title 17, California Code of 

Regulations, Sections 91000-91022. 

(d) Special Reporting Requirements for Aerosol Adhesives

On or before March 31, 2004, all responsible parties for aerosol adhesives shall 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-67 nts 

report to the Executive Officer the following information for products sold or offered 

for sale in California: 

 (1) data regarding product sales and composition for the year 2003, including the 

information listed in Section 94513(a), and any other information that the 

Executive Officer may specify; and 

(2) a written update of the research and development efforts undertaken to achieve 

VOC limits lower than the limits specified in section 94509(a). The written update 

must include detailed information about the raw materials (solvents, propellants, 

resins, and polymers) and hardware (valves, actuators, cans) used in product 

reformulation, the testing protocols used, the results of the testing, and the cost 

of reformulation efforts. 

(3) On or before December 31, 2003, the Executive Officer shall notify responsible 

parties in writing that they are to submit aerosol adhesive product and research 

data by March 31, 2004. 

(e) Special Reporting Requirements for Consumer Products that Contain 

 Perchloroethylene or Methylene Chloride: 

(1) The requirements of this subsection shall apply to all responsible parties for: 

(A) consumer products that are subject to section 94509(a) and contain 

perchloroethylene or methylene chloride, and 

(B) Energized Electrical Cleaners as defined in section 94508(a), that contain 

perchloroethylene or methylene chloride. For the purposes of this subsection, 

a product “contains perchloroethylene or methylene chloride” if the product 

contains 1.0 percent or more by weight (exclusive of the container or 

packaging) of either perchloroethylene or methylene chloride. 

 (2) For each consumer product that contains perchloroethylene or methylene 

chloride, the responsible party shall report the following information for products 

sold in California during each calendar year, beginning with the year 2000, and 

ending with the year 2010. 

(A) the product brand name and a copy of the product label with legible usage 

instructions; 

(B) the product category to which the consumer product belongs; 

(C) the applicable product form(s) (listed separately); 

(D) for each product form listed in (C), the total sales in California during the 

calendar year to the nearest pound (exclusive of the container or packaging), 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-68 nts 

and the method used for calculating the California sales; 

(E) the weight percent, to the nearest 0.10 percent, of perchloroethylene and 

methylene chloride in the consumer product.

 (3) The information specified in subsection 94513(e)(2) shall be reported for each 

calendar year by March 1 of the following year. The first report shall be due on 

March 1, 2001, for calendar year 2000. A new report is due on March 1 of each 

year thereafter, until March 1, 2011, when the last report is due. 

 (4) Upon request, the Executive Officer shall make the perchloroethylene information 

submitted pursuant to this subsection available to publicly owned treatment 

works in California, in accordance with the procedures for handling of confidential

information specified in Title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 91000-

91022. 

(A) On or before July 1, 2002, the Executive Officer shall evaluate the 

information, along with data on influent and effluent levels of 

perchloroethylene as reported by publicly-owned treatment works personnel 

and any other relevant information, to determine if it is likely that 

publicly-owned treatment works are experiencing increased levels of 

perchloroethylene, relative to 1996 levels, that can be attributed to consumer 

products which contain perchloroethylene. 

 (B) If the Executive Officer determines that it is likely that increased 

perchloroethylene levels at the publicly-owned treatment works are caused 

by increased levels of perchloroethylene in consumer products subject to this 

regulation, then the Executive Officer shall, in conjunction with the 

publicly-owned treatment works and other appropriate parties, implement 

measures which are feasible, appropriate, and necessary for reducing 

perchloroethylene levels at the publicly-owned treatment works. 

(f) Special Reporting Requirements for Multi-purpose Lubricant and Penetrant products 

(1) On or before March 31, 2012, all responsible parties for Multi-purpose Lubricant 

and Penetrant products shall report to the Executive Officer the following 

information for products sold or offered for sale in California: 

 (A) data regarding product sales and composition for the year 2011, including 

the information listed in section 94513(a), and the entire product label; and 

 (B) a written update of the research and development efforts undertaken to 

achieve the 25 percent VOC limits specified in section 94509(a). The written 

update must include detailed information about the raw materials evaluated 

for use, maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) values for any VOC or LVPVOC used or evaluated, the function of the raw material evaluated, hardware 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-69 nts 

used in product reformulation, the testing protocols used, the results of the 

testing, and the cost of reformulation efforts. 

(2) On or before March 31, 2014, all responsible parties for Multi-purpose Lubricant 

products shall report to the Executive Officer the following information for 

products sold or offered for sale in California: 

 (a) data regarding product sales and composition for the year 2013, including 

the information listed in Section 94513(a), and the entire product label; and 

 (b) a written update of the research and development efforts undertaken to 

achieve the 10 percent VOC limit specified in section 94509(a). The written 

update must include detailed information about the raw materials evaluated 

for use, MIR values for any VOC or LVP-VOC used or evaluated, the 

function of the raw material evaluated, hardware used in product 

reformulation, the testing protocols used, the results of the testing, and the 

cost of reformulation efforts. 

(g) Special Reporting Requirements for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products

(1) On or before June 30, 2012, all responsible parties for Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner products shall report to the Executive Officer the following 

information for products sold or offered for sale in California: 

 (a) data regarding product sales and composition for the year 2011, including 

the information listed in section 94513(a), and the entire product label; and

 (b) a written update of the research and development efforts undertaken to 

achieve the 3 percent VOC limits specified in section 94509(a). The written 

update must include detailed information about the raw materials evaluated 

for use; maximum incremental reactivity (MIR) values for any VOC or LVPVOC used or evaluated; the function of the raw material evaluated; the 

testing protocols used; the results of the testing; and the cost of 

reformulation efforts.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 41511, and 41712, Health and Safety 

Code. Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, 41511, and 41712, Health and 

Safety Code. 

§ 94514. Variances. 

(a) Applications for variances. Any person who cannot comply with the requirements 

set forth in Section 94509, because of extraordinary reasons beyond the person's 

reasonable control may apply in writing to the Executive Officer for a variance. The 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-70 nts 

variance application shall set forth: 

 (1) the specific grounds upon which the variance is sought; 

 (2) the proposed date(s) by which compliance with the provisions of Section 94509 

will be achieved; 

 (3) a compliance report reasonably detailing the method(s) by which compliance will 

be achieved, and 

 (4) for applicants requesting a variance from the June 1, 1999, 55 percent VOC 

standard for hairspray products, the variance application shall also include a plan 

describing how the applicant will mitigate the excess VOC emissions that would 

be emitted during the period of the variance. 

(b) Notices and public hearings for variances. Upon receipt of a variance application 

containing the information required in subsection (a), the Executive Officer shall hold 

a public hearing to determine whether, under what conditions, and to what extent, a 

variance from the requirements in Section 94509 is necessary and will be permitted. 

A hearing shall be initiated no later than 75 days after receipt of a variance 

application. Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be sent to the applicant 

by certified mail not less than 30 days prior to the hearing. Notice of the hearing 

shall also be submitted for publication in the California Regulatory Notice Register 

and sent to every person who requests such notice, not less than 30 days prior to 

the hearing. The notice shall state that the parties may, but need not be, 

represented by counsel at the hearing. At least 30 days prior to the hearing, the 

variance application shall be made available to the public for inspection. Interested 

members of the public shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity to testify at the 

hearing and their testimony shall be considered. 

(c) Treatment of confidential information. Information submitted to the Executive Officer 

by a variance applicant may be claimed as confidential, and such information shall 

be handled in accordance with the procedures specified in Title 17, California Code 

of Regulations, Sections 91000-91022. The Executive Officer may consider such 

confidential information in reaching a decision on a variance application. 

(d) Necessary findings for granting variances. No variance shall be granted unless all of 

the following findings are made: 

 (1) that, because of reasons beyond the reasonable control of the applicant, 

requiring compliance with Section 94509 would result in extraordinary economic 

hardship. 

 

 (2) that the public interest in mitigating the extraordinary hardship to the applicant by 

issuing the variance outweighs the public interest in avoiding any increased 

emissions of air contaminants which would result from issuing the variance. 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-71 nts 

 (3) that the compliance report proposed by the applicant can reasonably be 

implemented, and will achieve compliance as expeditiously as possible. 

(e) Variance orders. Any variance order shall specify a final compliance date by which 

the requirements of Section 94509 will be achieved. Any variance order shall 

contain a condition that specifies increments of progress necessary to assure timely 

compliance, and such other conditions that the Executive Officer, in consideration of 

the testimony received at the hearing, finds necessary to carry out the purposes of 

Division 26 of the Health and Safety Code. 

(f) Situations in which variances shall cease to be effective. A variance shall cease to 

be effective upon failure of the party to whom the variance was granted to comply 

with any term or condition of the variance. 

(g) Modification and revocation of variances. Upon the application of any person, the 

Executive Officer may review, and for good cause, modify or revoke a variance from 

requirements of Section 94509 after holding a public hearing in accordance with the 

provisions of subsection (b). 

(h) Special conditions in variance orders for hairspray products.

In imposing conditions in variance orders granted from the June 1, 1999, 55 percent 

VOC standard for hairspray products, the Executive Officer, in addition to any other 

conditions that may be imposed, shall require the applicant to mitigate the excess 

VOC emissions that would be emitted during the period of the variance. If this 

mitigation requirement would result in an extraordinary economic hardship to the 

applicant, or if other good cause exists, the Executive Officer may waive all or part of 

this requirement. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

§ 94515. Test Methods. 

(a)(1) VOC and GWP compound content determination using ARB Method 310. 

Testing to determine compliance with the requirements of this article, shall be 

performed using Air Resources Board Method 310, Determination of Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products, adopted September 25, 1997 

and as last amended on [Date of Amendment] May 5, 2005, which is 

incorporated herein by reference. Alternative methods which are shown to 

accurately determine the concentration of VOCs in a subject product or its 

emissions may be used upon approval of the Executive Officer. 

 (2) In sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 of Air Resources Board (ARB) Method 310, a 

process is specified for the “Initial Determination of VOC Content” and the “Final 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-72 nts 

Determination of VOC Content”. This process is an integral part of testing 

procedure set forth in ARB Method 310, and is reproduced below: 

 Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 of Air Resources Board Method 310 

 3.5 Initial Determination of VOC Content. The Executive Officer will 

determine the VOC content pursuant to sections 3.2 and 3.3. Only those 

components with concentrations equal to or greater than 0.1 percent by 

weight will be reported. 

 3.5.1 Using the appropriate formula specified in section 4.0, the Executive 

Officer will make an initial determination of whether the product meets 

the applicable VOC standards specified in ARB regulations. If initial 

results show that the product does not meet the applicable VOC 

standards, the Executive Officer may perform additional testing to 

confirm the initial results. 

3.5.2 If the results obtained under section 3.5.1 show that the product does 

not meet the applicable VOC standards, the Executive Officer will 

request the product manufacturer or responsible party to supply product 

formulation data. The manufacturer or responsible party shall supply 

the requested information. Information submitted to the ARB Executive 

Officer may be claimed as confidential; such information will be handled 

in accordance with the confidentiality procedures specified in Title 17, 

California Code of Regulations, sections 91000 to 91022. 

 3.5.3 If the information supplied by the manufacturer or responsible party 

shows that the product does not meet the applicable VOC standards, 

then the Executive Officer will take appropriate enforcement action. 

 3.5.4 If the manufacturer or responsible party fails to provide formulation 

data as specified in section 3.5.2, the initial determination of VOC 

content under this section 3.5 shall determine if the product is in 

compliance with the applicable VOC standards. This determination 

may be used to establish a violation of ARB regulations. 

 3.6 Determination of the LVP-VOC status of compounds and mixtures. This 

section does not apply to antiperspirant and deodorants or aerosol coating 

products because there is no LVP-VOC exemption for these products. 

 3.6.1 Formulation data. If the vapor pressure is unknown, the following 

ASTM methods, which are incorporated by reference herein, may be 

used to determine the LVP-VOC status of compounds and mixtures: 

ASTM D 86-01 (Aug. 10, 2001), ASTM D 850-00 (Dec. 10, 2000), 

ASTM D 1078-01 (June 10, 2001), ASTM D 2879-97 (April 10, 1997), 

as modified in Appendix B to this Method 310, ASTM D 2887-01 (May 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-73 nts 

10, 2001) and ASTM E 1719-97 (March 10, 1997). 

 3.6.2 LVP-VOC status of “compounds” or “mixtures.” The Executive Officer 

will test a sample of the LVP-VOC used in the product formulation to 

determine the boiling point for a compound or for a mixture. If the 

boiling point exceeds 216oC, the compound or mixture is an LVP-VOC. 

If the boiling point is less than 216oC, then the weight percent of the 

mixture which boils above 216oC is an LVP-VOC. The Executive 

Officer will use the nearest 5 percent distillation cut that is greater than 

216oC as determined under 3.6.1 to determine the percentage of the 

mixture qualifying as an LVP-VOC. 

 3.6.3 Reference method for identification of LVP-VOC compounds and 

mixtures. If a product does not qualify as an LVP-VOC under 3.6.2, 

the Executive Officer will test a sample of the compound or mixture 

used in a product’s formulation utilizing one or both of the following: 

ASTM D 2879-97 (April 10, 1997), as modified in Appendix B to this 

Method 310, and ASTM E 1719-97 (March 10, 1997), to determine if 

the compound or mixture meets the requirements of Title 17, CCR, 

section 94508(a)(94)(A). 

 3.7 Final Determination of VOC Content. If a product’s compliance status is not 

satisfactorily resolved under sections 3.5 and 3.6, the Executive Officer will 

conduct further analyses and testing as necessary to verify the formulation 

data. 

 3.7.1 If the accuracy of the supplied formulation data is verified and the 

product sample is determined to meet the applicable VOC standards, 

then no enforcement action for violation of the VOC standards will be 

taken. 

 3.7.2 If the Executive Officer is unable to verify the accuracy of the supplied 

formulation data, then the Executive Officer will request the product 

manufacturer or responsible party to supply information to explain the 

discrepancy. 

 3.7.3 If there exists a discrepancy that cannot be resolved between the 

results of Method 310 and the supplied formulation data, then the 

results of Method 310 shall take precedence over the supplied 

formulation data. The results of Method 310 shall then determine if the 

product is in compliance with the applicable VOC standards, and may 

be used to establish a violation of ARB regulations. 

(b) VOC content determinations using product formulation and records. Testing to 

determine compliance with the requirements of this article may also be 

demonstrated through calculation of the VOC content from records of the amounts of 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-74 nts 

constituents used to make the product pursuant to the following criteria: 

(1) Compliance determinations based on these records may not be used unless 

the manufacturer of a consumer product keeps accurate records for each day 

of production of the amount and chemical composition of the individual 

product constituents. These records must be kept for at least three years. 

(2) For the purposes of this section 94515(b), the VOC content shall be 

calculated according to the following equation: 

 where, 

 A = total net weight of unit (excluding container and packaging) 

 B = total weight of all VOCs, as defined in Section 94508(a), per unit 

 C = total weight of VOCs exempted under Section 94510, per unit 

(3) If product records appear to demonstrate compliance with the VOC limits, but 

these records are contradicted by product testing performed using ARB 

 Method 310, the results of ARB Method 310 shall take precedence over the 

product records and may be used to establish a violation of the requirements of 

this article. 

(c) Determination of liquid or solid. Testing to determine whether a product is a liquid or 

solid shall be performed using ASTM D4359-90 (May 25, 1990), which is 

incorporated by reference herein. 

(d) Compliance determinations for charcoal lighter material products. Testing to 

determine compliance with the certification requirements for charcoal lighter material 

shall be performed using the procedures specified in the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District Rule 1174 Ignition Method Compliance Certification Protocol 

(February 28, 1991), which is incorporated by reference herein. 

(e) Testing to determine distillation points of petroleum distillate-based charcoal lighter 

materials shall be performed using ASTM D86-01 Aug. 10, 2001, which is 

incorporated by reference herein. 

(f) Fragrance content determinations for personal fragrance products. Testing to 

determine the percent by weight of fragrance in personal fragrance products shall be 

performed according to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) 

Official Method of Analysis No. 932.11, 1990, “Essential Oil in Flavor Extracts and 

Toilet Preparations, Babcock Method” (AOAC Official Methods of Analysis, 

 15th Edition, 1990), which is incorporated by reference herein. 

 VOC Content = B - C x 100 

 A 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-75 nts 

(g) No person shall create, alter, falsify, or otherwise modify records in such a way that 

the records do not accurately reflect the constituents used to manufacture a product, 

the chemical composition of the individual product, and any other test, processes, or 

records used in connection with product manufacture. 

(h) VOC and Aromatic compound content determination for Multi-purpose Solvent

and Paint Thinner products using ARB Method 310. 

 (1) VOC content: 

 Testing to determine compliance with the requirements of this article, shall 

be performed using Air Resources Board Method 310, Determination of 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products, adopted 

September 25, 1997 and as last amended on [Date of Amendment], which is 

incorporated herein by reference. Alternative methods which are shown to 

accurately determine the concentration of VOCs in a subject product or its 

emissions may be used upon approval of the Executive Officer.

 (2) Aromatic compound content: 

Testing to determine aromatic compound content shall be conducted using 

ARB Method 310 in conjunction with product formulation data. 

(A) Upon written notification from the Executive Officer, the Multi-purpose 

Solvent or Paint Thinner responsible party or manufacturer shall have 10 

working days to provide to the Executive Officer, in writing, formulation 

data as specified in part (i) for products selected for compliance testing: 

 

 (1) The weight fraction to the nearest 0.1 percent of each ingredient 

including: water, VOC, LVP-VOC, total inorganic compounds, 

and any compound specified in section 94508(a)(152). For 

hydrocarbon solvents the BIN number as listed in section 94701 

(a) or (b), and the initial boiling point and dry point of the solvent 

shall be specified. Individual compounds present in an amount 

less than 0.1 percent by weight, are not required to be reported. 

 (2) By March 1, 2010, and each year thereafter the responsible party

shall provide to the Executive Officer contact information for the 

person who is to receive the letter.

 (3) For the purpose of this subsection a Material Safety Data Sheet 

does not meet the requirement for formulation data. 

(B) A violation is established if: 

 (1) the formulation data supplied by the responsible party or 

manufacturer shows that the product does not meet the 

applicable VOC or aromatic content standard; and/or

 (2) the responsible party or manufacturer fails to respond to the 
Consumer Products Regulation 2009 Proposed Amendme B-76 nts 

notice and provide formulation data with the 10 day specified 

time frame specified in this subsection. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 39607, 41511, and 41712, Health and 

Safety Code. Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 39607, 40000, 41511, and 41712, 

Health and Safety Code. 

94516. Severability.

Each part of this article shall be deemed severable, and in the event that any part of 

this article is held to be invalid, the remainder of this article shall continue in full force 

and effect. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 40000, and 41712, Health and Safety Code. 

94517. Federal Enforceability.

For purposes of federal enforceability of this article, the Environmental Protection 

Agency is not subject to approval determinations made by the Executive Officer 

under Sections 94511, 94514, and 94515. Within 180 days of a request from a 

person who has been granted an exemption or variance under Section 94511 or 

94514, an exemption or variance meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act shall 

be submitted by the Executive Officer to the Environmental Protection Agency for 

inclusion in the applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated by the 

Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, 

42 U.S.C., Section 7410. Prior to submitting an exemption granted under Section 

94511 as a revision to the applicable implementation plan, the Executive Officer 

shall hold a public hearing on the proposed exemption. Notice of the time and place 

of the hearing shall be sent to the applicant by certified mail not less than 30 days 

prior to the hearing. Notice of the hearing shall also be submitted for publication in 

the California Regulatory Notice Register and sent to the Environmental Protection 

Agency, every person who requests such notice, and to any person or group of 

persons whom the Executive Officer believes may be interested in the application. 

Within 30 days of the hearing the Executive Officer shall notify the applicant of the 

decision in writing as provided in Section 94511(f). The decision may approve, 

disapprove, or modify an exemption previously granted pursuant to Section 94511. 

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 39600, 39601, 39602, and 41712, Health and Safety 

Code. Reference: Sections 39002, 39600, 39602, 40000, and 41712, Health and 

Safety Code. 
2009 Proposed Amendments 

METHOD 310

 DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 

(VOC) IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND REACTIVE ORGANIC 

COMPOUNDS IN AEROSOL COATING PRODUCTS

(Including Appendices A and B) 

 Adopted: September 25, 1997 

 Amended: September 3, 1999 

 Amended: July 18, 2001 

 Amended: May 5, 2005 

 Amended: ****

DISCLAIMER: Mention of any trade name or commercial product in Method 310 does not 

constitute endorsement or recommendation of this product by the Air Resources Board. 
2009 Proposed Amendments 

METHOD 310 

DETERMINATION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC) IN CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS AND REACTIVE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN AEROSOL COATING 

PRODUCTS 

1 APPLICABILITY

1.1 This method (Method 310) applies to the determination of the percent by weight of: 

(1) volatile organic compounds (VOC) in consumer products, antiperspirant and 

deodorant products, and aerosol coatings products as those terms are defined in Title 17, 

California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5 (Consumer 

Products), commencing with section 94500, and 

(2) low vapor pressure-volatile organic compounds (LVP-VOC) as that term is defined in 

section 94508(a), and 

(3) the reactive organic compounds (ROC) contained in aerosol coating products, as that 

term is defined in Title 17, CCR, section 94521. 

1.2 Method 310 determines the total volatile material in a product and the presence of any 

compounds prohibited by ARB regulations (“prohibited compounds”). Components of 

the product that do not meet the definition of a VOC or are exempted by ARB regulations 

for a specific product category (“exempt compounds”) are subtracted from the total 

volatile material to determine the final VOC content for the product. Method 310 is also 

used to determine the percent by weight of the ROCs contained in aerosol coating 

products, for the purpose of determining compliance with the Regulation for Reducing 

the Ozone Formed from Aerosol Coating Product Emissions, Title 17, CCR, sections 

94520 to 94528 (the “Aerosol Coatings Regulation”).

1.3 Method 310 does not apply to the determination of the composition or concentration of 

fragrance components in products. 

1.4 The term “Executive Officer” as used in this document means the Executive Officer of 

the Air Resources Board or his or her authorized representative. 

2 TEST METHODS

Method 310 incorporates by reference the following American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) International, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH), and United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) analytical test 

methods: 
2009 Proposed Amendments 

2.1 ASTM D 2369-01: Standard Test Method for Volatile Content of Coatings (January 10, 

2001). 

2.2 ASTM D 1426-98: Standard Test Methods for Ammonia Nitrogen in Water (December 

10, 1998). 

2.3 ASTM D 4017-96a: Standard Test Method for Water in Paints and Paint Materials by the 

Karl Fisher Titration Method (July 10, 1996). 

2.4 ASTM D 3792-99: Standard Test Method for Water Content of Water-Reducible Paints 

by Direct Injection Into a Gas Chromatograph (May 10, 1999). 

2.5 ASTM D 859-00: Standard Test Method for Silica in Water (determination of 

polymethylsiloxanes after digestion) (June 10, 2000). 

2.6 ASTM D 3074-94: Standard Test Methods for Pressure in Metal Aerosol Containers 

(November 15, 1994) with the modifications found in Appendix A to this Method 310. 

2.7 ASTM D 3063-94: Standard Test Methods for Pressure in Glass Aerosol Bottles 

(November 15, 1994) with the modifications found in Appendix A to this Method 310. 

2.8 ASTM D 3064-97: Standard Terminology Relating to Aerosol Products (September 10, 

1997). 

2.9 NIOSH: Method 1400 Alcohols I (analysis of acetone and ethanol by gas 

chromatography). NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Volume 1 (August 1994). 

2.10 Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry for Volatile Organics (analysis of exempt and 

prohibited compounds in the product by headspace/gas chromatography/mass 

spectrometry). 

2.10.1 US EPA Method 8240B, September 1994, Revision 2, Volatile Organic Compounds 

by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Test Methods for Evaluating 

Solid Waste, Volume 1 B, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2: Laboratory Manual 

Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, September 1994. 

2.10.2 US EPA Method 8260B, December 1996, Revision 2, Volatile Organic Compounds 

by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), Test Methods for Evaluating 

Solid Waste, Volume 1 B, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2: Laboratory Manual 

Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, December 1996. 
2009 Proposed Amendments 

2.11 US EPA Reference Method 24, Determination of Volatile Matter Content, Water 

Content, Density, Volume Solids, and Weight Solids of Surface Coatings: 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60, Appendix A, as it existed on September 11, 1995. 

2.12 US EPA Reference Method 24A, Determination of Volatile Matter Content and Density 

of Printing Inks and Related Coatings: 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, as it existed on July 

1, 1994. 

2.13 US EPA Reference Method 18, Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions 

by Gas Chromatography: 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A, as it existed on September 25, 

1996. 

2.14 US EPA Method 300.7, March 1986. Dissolved Sodium, Ammonium, Potassium, and 

Calcium in Wet Deposition by Chemically Suppressed Ion Chromatography. 

2.15 ASTM D 86-01: Standard Test Methods for Distillation of Petroleum Products (August 

10, 2001). 

2.16 ASTM D 850-00: Standard Test Methods for Distillation of Industrial Aromatic 

Hydrocarbons and Related Materials (December 10, 2000). 

2.17 ASTM D 1078-01: Standard Test Methods for Distillation Range of Volatile Liquids 

(June 10, 2001). 

2.18 ASTM D 2879-97: Standard Test Method for Vapor-Pressure-Temperature Relationship 

and Initial Decomposition Temperature of Liquids by Isoteniscope (April 10, 1997) with 

the modifications found in Appendix B to this Method 310. 

2.19 ASTM D 2887-01: Standard Test Method for Boiling Range Distribution of Petroleum 

Fractions by Gas Chromatography (May 10, 2001). 

2.20 ASTM E 1719-97: Standard Test Method for Vapor Pressure of Liquids by Ebulliometry 

(March 10, 1997). 

3 CONSUMER PRODUCTS TESTING PROCEDURE 

3.1 The testing begins when the Executive Officer selects a product for analysis by Method 

310. The Executive Officer will maintain sample chain of custody throughout the 

selection and analytical process. 

3.2 Initial Testing of Aerosol Products 

If the sample is an aerosol product, the aerosol propellant is separated from the nonpropellant portion of the product by using ASTM D 3074-94 (as modified in Appendix A 
2009 Proposed Amendments 

for metal aerosol container) or ASTM D 3063-94 (as modified in Appendix A for glass 

aerosol container). The propellant portion is analyzed for exempt or prohibited 

compounds by using US EPA Reference Method 18. The remaining non-propellant 

portion of the product is then analyzed as specified in section 3.3. 

3.3 Initial Testing of Non-Aerosol Products and the Non-Propellant Portion of Aerosol 

Products 

 The non-aerosol product or non-propellant portion of an aerosol product is analyzed to 

determine the total volatile material present in the sample and to determine the presence 

of any exempt or prohibited compounds. This analysis is conducted by performing the 

following tests:1

3.3.1 Gravimetric analysis of samples to determine the weight percent of total volatile 

material, using US EPA Reference Methods 24/24A, ASTM D 2369-01. 

3.3.2 Determination of sample water content. For determination of water content either 

ASTM D 4017-96a, or ASTM D 3792-99 may be used, or results from both 

procedures may be averaged and that value reported.

3.3.3 Determination of ammonium content using ASTM D 1426-98 or US EPA Method 

300.7. 

3.3.4 Determination of ketones and alcohol content using NIOSH Method 1400. 

3.3.5 Analysis of exempt and prohibited compounds, if present (US EPA Reference 

Method 18, US EPA Method 8240B, US EPA Method 8260B, ASTM D 859-00, 

NIOSH Method 1400). 

3.3.6 If LVP-VOC status is claimed or the analysis indicates the presence of an LVP-VOC 

component and the percent VOC is not in compliance, the Executive Officer will 

request formulation data as specified in Section 3.5.2. 

3.3.7 For low level VOC content samples, direct determination using US EPA Reference 

Method 18, US EPA Method 8240B, US EPA Method 8260B, ASTM D 859-00, 

NIOSH Method 1400.

3.4 Prohibited Compounds 

If the sample is found to contain compounds prohibited by ARB regulations (i.e., ozonedepleting compounds) at concentrations equal to or exceeding 0.1 percent by weight, the 

Executive Officer will reanalyze the sample for confirmation. 

 

1 Alternate test methods may be used, as provided in section 7.0 
2009 Proposed Amendments 

3.5 Initial Determination of VOC Content 

The Executive Officer will determine the VOC content pursuant to sections 3.2 and 3.3. 

Only those components with concentrations equal to or greater than 0.1 percent by weight 

will be reported. 

3.5.1 Using the appropriate formula specified in section 4.0, the Executive Officer will 

make an initial determination of whether the product meets the applicable VOC 

standards specified in ARB regulations. If initial results show that the product does 

not meet the applicable VOC standards, the Executive Officer may perform additional 

testing to confirm the initial results. 

3.5.2 If the results obtained under section 3.5.1 show that the product does not meet the 

applicable VOC standards, the Executive Officer will request the product 

manufacturer or responsible party to supply product formulation data. The 

manufacturer or responsible party shall supply the requested information. 

Information submitted to the ARB Executive Officer may be claimed as confidential; 

such information will be handled in accordance with the confidentiality procedures 

specified in Title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 91000 to 91022. 

3.5.3 If the information supplied by the manufacturer or responsible party shows that the 

product does not meet the applicable VOC standards, then the Executive Officer will 

take appropriate enforcement action. 

3.5.4 If the manufacturer or responsible party fails to provide formulation data as specified 

in section 3.5.2, the initial determination of VOC content under this section 3.5 shall 

determine if the product is in compliance with the applicable VOC standards. This 

determination may be used to establish a violation of ARB regulations. 

3.6 Determination of the LVP-VOC status of compounds and mixtures. This section does 

not apply to antiperspirants and deodorants or aerosol coatings products because there is 

no LVP-VOC exemption for these products. 

3.6.1 Formulation data. If the vapor pressure is unknown, the following ASTM methods 

may be used to determine the LVP-VOC status of compounds and mixtures: ASTM 

D 86-01, ASTM D 850-00, ASTM D 1078-01, ASTM D 2879-97, as modified in 

Appendix B to this Method 310, ASTM D 2887-01 and ASTM E 1719-97. 

 

3.6.2 LVP-VOC status of “compounds” or “mixtures.” The Executive Officer will test a 

sample of the LVP-VOC used in the product formulation to determine the boiling 

point for a compound or for a mixture. If the boiling point exceeds 216oC, the 

compound or mixture is an LVP-VOC. If the boiling point is less than 216oC, then 

the weight percent of the mixture which boils above 216oC is an LVP-VOC. The 
2009 Proposed Amendments 

Executive Officer will use the nearest 5 percent distillation cut that is greater than 

216oC as determined under 3.6.1 to determine the percentage of the mixture 

qualifying as an LVP-VOC. 

3.6.3 Reference method for identification of LVP-VOC compounds and mixtures. If a 

product does not qualify as an LVP-VOC under 3.6.2, the Executive Officer will test 

a sample of the compound or mixture used in a product’s formulation utilizing one or 

both of the following: ASTM D 2879-97, as modified in Appendix B to this Method 

310, and ASTM E 1719-97, to determine if the compound or mixture meets the 

definition of LVP-VOC as specified in Title 17, CCR, section 94508(a). 

3.7 Final Determination of VOC Content 

If a product’s compliance status is not satisfactorily resolved under sections 3.5 and 3.6, 

the Executive Officer will conduct further analyses and testing as necessary to verify the 

formulation data. 

3.7.1 If the accuracy of the supplied formulation data is verified and the product sample is 

determined to meet the applicable VOC standards, then no enforcement action for 

violation of the VOC standards will be taken. 

3.7.2 If the Executive Officer is unable to verify the accuracy of the supplied formulation 

data, then the Executive Officer will request the product manufacturer or responsible 

party to supply information to explain the discrepancy. 

3.7.3 If there exists a discrepancy that cannot be resolved between the results of Method 

310 and the supplied formulation data, then the results of Method 310 shall take 

precedence over the supplied formulation data. The results of Method 310 shall then 

determine if the product is in compliance with the applicable VOC standards, and 

may be used to establish a violation of ARB regulations. 

4 CALCULATION OF VOC CONTENT

This section specifies the procedure for determining the final VOC content of a product, which is 

reported as percent by weight of VOC. 

4.1 Aerosol Products 

4.1.1 For aerosol products, except those containing LVP-VOC, the percent VOC content 

shall be calculated using the following equation: 
2009 Proposed Amendments 

Where2: 

 WL = weight (gm) of the non-propellant portion, excluding container and 

packaging.

 

 TV = weight fraction of non-propellant total volatile material. 

 

 A = weight fraction of ammonia (as NH4) in the non-propellant portion. 

 

 H = weight fraction of water in the non-propellant portion.

 

 EL = weight fraction of exempt compounds in the non-propellant portion. 

 

 WP = weight (gm) of propellant. 

 EP = weight (gm) of exempt compounds in propellant. 

4.1.2 For aerosol products containing LVP-VOC, the percent VOC shall be calculated using 

the following equation: 

Where: 

 LVP = weight fraction of LVP-VOC compounds and/or mixtures in the nonpropellant, non-aqueous portion. 

 1 – H = weight fraction of the non-propellant portion that does not contain 

water. 

 1 – LVP= weight fraction of the non-propellant, non-aqueous portion that is

volatile. 

4.2 Non-Aerosol Products 

 

2Alternate test methods, as provided in section 7.0, or appropriate approved methods from section 

2.0 may be used. 

100

WL WP

WL TV( A H EL) WP EP % VOC ×

+

− − − + −

=

[( ) ( ) ] ( ) 100

WL WP

WL 1 H 1 LVP EL WP EP % VOC ×

+

− × − − + −

=
2009 Proposed Amendments 

4.2.1 For non-aerosol products, except those containing LVP-VOC, the percent VOC 

content shall be calculated using the following equation: 

4.2.2 For non-aerosol products containing LVP-VOC, the percent VOC shall be calculated 

using the following equation: 

4.3 Consumer products subject to low VOC limits (below 5.0%) may have their VOC 

content characterized by a low level direct determination.

4.3.1 For aerosol products the percent VOC content may be calculated using the following 

equation:

Where: 

V = weight fraction of non-exempted volatile organic compounds in the non-propellant 

portion.

n = number of non-exempted volatile organic compounds in the non-propellant portion.

WL = weight (gm) of the non-propellant portion, excluding container and packaging.

WP = weight (gm) of propellant.

EP = weight (gm) of exempt compounds in propellant.

4.3.2 For non-aerosol products the percent VOC content shall be calculated using the 

following equation:

% VOC = [ ∑ Vn ]×100

% VOC = TV( − A −H −EL) ×100

% VOC = [(1− H)× (1−LVP) − EL]×100

[ ] % × 100

+

+ −

=

∑

WL WP

WL V WP EP

VOC n
2009 Proposed Amendments 

5 TESTING TO DETERMINE REACTIVE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN AEROSOL 

COATING PRODUCTS 

This section specifies the procedure for determining the percent by weight of the reactive 

organic compounds contained in aerosol coating products, for the purpose of determining 

compliance with the Aerosol Coatings Regulation. 

5.1 The testing begins when the Executive Officer selects a product for analysis. The 

Executive Officer will maintain sample chain of custody throughout the selection and 

analytical process. When a product is selected for testing, the Executive Officer will 

request the product manufacturer or responsible party to supply the product formulation 

data specified in Title 17, CCR, section 94526(b)(2). The manufacturer or responsible 

party shall supply the requested information within 10 working days. Information 

submitted to the Executive Officer may be claimed as confidential; such information will 

be handled in accordance with the confidentiality procedures specified in sections 91000 

to 91022, Title 17, CCR. 

5.2 Initial Testing of the Propellant Portion of Aerosol Coating Products 

The aerosol propellant is separated from the non-propellant portion of the product by 

using ASTM D 3074-94 (as modified in Appendix A for metal aerosol container) or 

ASTM D 3063-94 (as modified in Appendix A for glass aerosol container). The 

propellant portion is analyzed for reactive organic compounds and other compounds by 

using US EPA Reference Method 18. The remaining non-propellant portion of the 

product is then analyzed as specified in section 5.3. 

5.3 Initial Testing of the Non-Propellant Portion of Aerosol Coating Products 

 The non-propellant portion of the product sample is analyzed to determine the reactive 

organic compounds in the sample, including the presence of any prohibited compounds. 

This analysis is conducted by performing the following tests:3

5.3.1 Gravimetric analysis of samples to determine the weight percent of total volatile 

material, using US EPA Reference Methods 24/24A, ASTM D 2369-01. 

5.3.2 Determination of sample water content. For determination of water content either 

ASTM D 4017-96a, or ASTM D 3792-99 may be used, or results from both 

procedures may be averaged and that value reported.

5.3.3 Determination of ammonium content using ASTM D 1426-98 or US EPA Method 

300.7. 

 

3

 Alternate test methods may be used, as provided in section 7.0 
2009 Proposed Amendments 

5.3.4 Determination of ketones and alcohol content using NIOSH Method 1400. 

5.3.5 Analysis of reactive organic compounds and, if present, prohibited compounds (US 

EPA Reference Method 18, US EPA Method 8240B, US EPA Method 8260B, ASTM 

D 859-00, NIOSH Method 1400). 

5.4 Prohibited Compounds 

If the sample is found to contain compounds prohibited by the Aerosol Coatings 

Regulation (e.g., ozone-depleting compounds) at concentrations equal to or exceeding 0.1 

percent by weight, the Executive Officer will reanalyze the sample for confirmation. 

5.5 Initial Determination and Verification of Reactive Organic Compound Content 

The Executive Officer will determine the reactive organic compound content by verifying 

formulation data pursuant to sections 5.2 and 5.3. Only those components with 

concentrations equal to or greater than 0.1 percent by weight will be reported. 

5.5.1 Based on manufacturers formulation data and the analysis conducted under section 5, 

the Executive Officer will make an initial determination of whether the product meets 

the applicable requirements specified in the Aerosol Coatings Regulation. If initial 

results show that the product does not meet the applicable requirements, the 

Executive Officer may perform additional testing to confirm the initial results. 

5.6 Final Determination of Reactive Organic Compound Content 

If a product’s status is not satisfactorily resolved under section 5.1 - 5.5, the Executive 

Officer may conduct additional analyses and testing as necessary to verify the 

formulation data. 

5.6.1 If the Executive Officer is unable to verify the accuracy of the supplied formulation 

data, then the Executive Officer will request the product manufacturer or responsible 

party to supply additional information to explain the discrepancy. 

5.6.2 If the additional information supplied by the manufacturer or responsible party shows 

that the product does not meet the applicable requirements, then the Executive Officer 

will take appropriate enforcement action. 

5.6.3 If the manufacturer or responsible party fails to provide additional information as 

specified in section 5.6.1, the initial determination of reactive organic compound 

content under section 5.1 – 5.5 shall determine if the product is in compliance with 

the applicable reactive organic compound limits. This determination may be used to 

establish a violation of the Aerosol Coatings Regulation. 
2009 Proposed Amendments 

5.6.4 If there exists a discrepancy that cannot be resolved between the results of Method 

310 and the formulation data or additional information supplied by the manufacturer 

or responsible party, then the results of Method 310 shall take precedence over the 

supplied formulation data or additional information. The results of Method 310 shall 

then determine if the product is in compliance with the applicable requirements, and 

may be used to establish a violation of the Aerosol Coatings Regulation. 

6 METHOD PRECISION AND ACCURACY

6.1 The precision of Method 310 for determining VOC content was evaluated using seven 

representative products with known volatile organic compound (VOC) contents ranging 

from 6.2 to 81.2 percent VOC by weight. Each sample was divided into six portions, and 

each portion was separately analyzed to determine the VOC content. Based on the results 

of this analysis, the 95 percent confidence interval for Method 310 is 3.0 percent by 

weight (Wt/Wt%). 

6.2 For determining the percent by weight of the individual ingredients in aerosol coating 

products, the precision and accuracy of the determination for each ingredient is governed 

by the precision and accuracy of the test method used to ascertain the percent by weight 

of each ingredient. 

7 ALTERNATE TEST METHODS

Alternative test methods which are shown to accurately determine the concentration of VOCs 

or constituent components in antiperspirant/deodorants, consumer products, or aerosol 

coating products (or their emissions) may be used upon written approval of the Executive 

Officer. 
 Appendix A: Method 310 Page 1 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Method 310 - Appendix A

PROPELLANT COLLECTION PROCEDURES 

1 APPLICATION 

 The procedure applies to modify ASTM D 3074-94 and D 3063-94 to allow collection of the 

propellant for analysis and density measurement for metal aerosol containers and glass 

aerosol containers, respectively. These modified procedures also retain the aerosol standard 

terminology listed in ASTM D 3064-97. 

2 LIMITATIONS 

 Nitrogen analysis: Nitrogen may be used as a component of the propellant system. Ambient 

air is 78 percent nitrogen and may be present as a contaminate in the system prior to sample 

collection. This is eliminated by sweeping out any connecting lines to the Tedlar bag with 

product before starting sample collection. This procedure will eliminate or reduce nitrogen 

contamination to less than 0.1% by weight of the sample and the analysis of the propellant 

gas will be unaffected. 

 

3 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS 

3.1 Propellant Collection System: See Figure 1 (metal containers) and Figure 3 (glass 

containers). 

3.2 Tedlar Bags equipped with slip valve and septum 

3.3 Density Measurement 

3.3.1 250 mL gas dilution bulb, or 

3.3.2 Density/Specific gravity meter meeting the following minimum specifications: 

3.3.2.1 Measurement Range: 0 – 3 +/- 0.00001 g/cm3

3.3.2.2 Measurement Temperature Range: 4oC ~ 70oC. 

 

3.4 Balance, capable of accurately weighing to 0.1 mg 
 Appendix A: Method 310 Page 2 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

3.5 Sample Venting Platform. See Figure 2 (metal containers)1 and Figure 4 (glass 

containers)2. 

3.6 Platform Shaker, equivalent to Thermolyne M49125 

3.7 Cork Rings, 80 x 32 mm 

4 PROCEDURE 

4.1 Propellant Collection for Metal Aerosol Containers 

4.1.1 Close valves on Propellant Collection System (see Figure 1). 

4.1.2 Remove the actuator from valve on the aerosol can and weigh can to the nearest 

0.01 g. 

4.1.3 Place the can in an inverted position onto the Sample Venting Platform, stabilized by 

cork rings. 

4.1.4 Slowly raise the hydraulic jack until the can is pierced. Note the pressure of the can. 

 

4.1.5 Vent the can until propellant is seen flowing from output 1. Collect the propellant in 

the Tedlar bag from output 1. Density is determined from this same Tedlar bag, as 

necessary. 

4.1.6 After the propellant is collected, close and remove the Tedlar bag and vent the 

remainder of the propellant. 

4.1.7 After the flow ceases from the can, it is removed from the assembly and allowed to 

vent overnight on a platform shaker, to vent the remainder of the propellant. 

4.1.8 Reweigh the can to the nearest 0.01 gm and record weight loss (total gms propellant). 

The can may now be opened for analysis of the non-propellant portion of the sample. 

4.2 Propellant Collection for Glass Aerosol Containers 

 

1

The metal piercing adaptor is available from Mid-West Screw Products, Inc., 3523 North Kenton Ave., Chicago, 

IL 60641. Interim Part Number: 8013A-3/4 45TAPER REV. The gasket is available from Alltech Associate 2051 

Waukegan road, Deerfield, IL 60015, part number 80-16. 

2

The glass aerosol tapered adaptor is available from Armstrong Technologies, Inc. 12780 Earhart Ave., Auburn, CA 

95602.
 Appendix A: Method 310 Page 3 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

4.2.1 Remove the actuator from valve of the aerosol glass container and weigh container to 

the nearest 0.01 gm. 

4.2.2 With container in an inverted position place the valve onto the tapered adaptor. 

4.2.3 Pressurize the air cylinder to actuate the sample container valve onto the tapered 

adaptor. Note the pressure of the sample container. 

4.2.4 Open the sample valve and collect propellant sample into the Tedlar bag. Density is 

determined from this same Tedlar bag, as necessary.

4.2.5 After the propellant is collected, close and remove the Tedlar bag and vent the 

remainder of the propellant. 

4.2.6 Continue to vent the container on the platform assembly until no pressure registers on 

the sample gauge and there in no visable propellant flowing from the sampling tube. 

4.2.7 Remove the container from the platform.

4.2.8 Loosen and remove the container valve assembly. 

4.2.9 Place the container on a platform shaker to vent the remainder of the propellant. 

 

4.2.10 Reweigh the container and valve assembly to the nearest 0.01 gm and record weight 

loss (total gms propellant). The non-propellant portion of the sample is ready to be

analyzed. 
 Appendix A: Method 310 Page 4 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

FIGURE 1 

PROPELLANT COLLECTION SYSTEM 

 METAL AEROSOL CONTAINER 
 Appendix A: Method 310 Page 5 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

FIGURE 2

SAMPLE VENTING PLATFORM 

METAL AEROSOL CONTAINER 
 Appendix A: Method 310 Page 6 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

FIGURE 3 

PROPELLANT COLLECTION SYSTEM 

GLASS AEROSOL CONTAINER 
 Appendix A: Method 310 Page 7 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

FIGURE 4

SAMPLE VENTING PLATFORM 

GLASS AEROSOL CONTAINER 
 Appendix B: Method 310 Page 1 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Method 310 - Appendix B

MODIFICATIONS to ASTM D-2879-97 

This procedure modifies ASTM D-2879-97 as follows: 

1. Modifications to the isoteniscope apparatus include: 

 a. capacitance manometers and digital readout 

b. manifold system made of stainless steel and modified in design 

c. Ultra-torr fittings and Ultra-torr flex-lines 

d. ballast on the vacuum side of the isoteniscope manifold as depicted in ASTM D 2879-97 

schematics, has been removed. 

e. stainless steel liquid nitrogen trap (Cold Trap)

f. stainless steel high vacuum valves 

g. recirculating cooling system (required for extremely low pressure work only) 

h. diffusion pump (required for extremely low pressure work only) 

i. hot ion cathode vacuum gauges (required for extremely low pressure work only) 

2. A purge and degassing procedure consisting of lower pressures and a liquid nitrogen bath 

replaces the step of lightly boiling the sample as outlined in ASTM D 2879-97. 

3. Purge and Degassing Cycle 

a. With the U-tube connected, the system is evacuated to approximately 1.0 mm Hg. This 

readily removes most of the higher volatility gases from the sample. 

 

b. The stainless steel, liquid nitrogen cold trap is filled. The manifold is now brought to 

approximately 300 mm Hg with the purified nitrogen, regulated through the needle valve. 

c. The isoteniscope tube is carefully placed into a Dewar of liquid nitrogen. The 1⁄2 

atmosphere pressure of nitrogen prevents the sample from splashing while being frozen. 

After the sample freezes, the system is evacuated to 0.05 mm Hg. 

d. The U-tube is removed from the Dewar, secured and allowed to warm to room 

temperature. The U-tube bulb head should be angled so the dissolved gases will be 

readily evacuated as the frozen sample starts to melt. When gases build up, it may be 

necessary to tilt the U-tube to release the gases. 

e. Repeat the freeze and degas process once, reducing pressure each time to less than 0.05 

mm Hg. After the sample has returned to room temperature, close valve #3. There 
 Appendix B: Method 310 Page 2 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

should be minimal dissolved gases left once the frozen sample starts to melt. Tilt the 

tube to release any gas pockets (if necessary). Do not push nitrogen into the evacuated 

space between the sample in the arm and the sample in the reservoir. At this point, if the 

sample is properly degassed, a “natural break” should form in the sample. This creates a 

vapor space as the liquid level in the bulb leg of the manometer falls to a quasiequilibrium position, usually with the fluid level higher in the long manometer leg. If 

there is no pendulum effect, and the liquid level in the long leg of the manometer is 

significantly higher than the level in the short leg (> 2 mm), degassing is probably 

incomplete, and the degassing procedure should be repeated. 

 

4. Data Evaluation 

The regression based on the plot of Log P vs. 1/T as outlined in ASTM D 2879-97 has been 

removed and replaced with a nonlinear regression to generate the coefficients for an Antoine 

equation. The data analysis procedure assumes that the measured pressure is the sum of the 

compound’s vapor pressure and a residual fixed gas pressure. The vapor pressure’s 

dependence on absolute temperature is represented by an Antoine expression, and the fixed 

gas as pressure is directly proportional to absolute temperature as outlined in ASTM 2879. 

This leads to the model equations: 

where T is the absolute temperature (K) and B0, B1, B2 and B3 are coefficients to be 

determined via a nonlinear regression which minimizes the sum of squares 

2

∑(Pmeas − Pmod el) for all experimental data points. The vapor pressure at 20o

 C is then 

calculated as: 

(B (/1 293 15. B2)) Pvapor (293 15. K) B0 10 +

= ∗

P B0 10 B3 T

(B1 (/ T B2 ))

model = ∗ + ∗ +

Pmod el Pvapor Pfixed gas

= +
 Appendix B: Method 310 Page 3 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

With a set of pressure vs. temperature measurements, the nonlinear regression can be 

performed using a statistical software packages. The following constraints are imposed to 

obtain meaningful Antoine equation coefficients for low vapor pressure samples: 

 a. Pressures shall be measured at temperatures ranging from room temperature to about 

180o

 C. Narrower ranges will not provide sufficient information to determine the 

Antoine curvature, i.e., B2 coefficient. Wider ranges can lead to experimental difficulties 

maintaining the vapor space in the isoteniscope. A minimum of 12 points is necessary to 

provide ample degrees of freedom for the calculations. 

b. Initial pressures at room temperature shall be less than 1 mm Hg. Higher values are 

indicative of significant levels of dissolved fixed gases. These will vaporize during the 

course of the experiment as temperature is increased and invalidate the model’s 

assumption for the fixed gas contribution. 

 c. -235 ≤ B 2 ≤ 0. Positive values of B2 imply that the heat of vaporization of the substance 

increases with increasing temperature. Thermodynamic data for many compounds 

suggests this is unrealistic. Large negative values can lead to unrealistically low vapor 

pressure values coupled with excessive fixed gas contributions. The -235(K) bound is 

chosen to be consistent with literature values of B2 for many pure compounds. For 

hydrocarbons in the LVP-VOC range, B2 ≥ -100 provides reasonable agreement between 

measured and literature vapor pressures. 

 d. The fixed gas coefficient, B3, should normally be ≥ 0. 
 Appendix B: Method 310 Page 4 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Figure 1 

ISOTENISCOPE VAPOR PRESSURE MEASUREMENT APPARATUS 

 

3

4

5

7

Pressure Transducer

Ballast

Heating Chamber / U-Tube

Vacuum Pump

Diffusion Pump

1

 2

Cold Trap

Nitrogen Gas

Needle Valve
 Appendix B: Method 310 Page 5 

2009 Proposed Amendments 
Appendix C 

Summary of Consumer Products Regulatory Actions 

Summary of Consumer Products Regulatory Actions 

C-1 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Action 

Date/ 

(Effective 

Date) 

Regulatory Action Site Comments 

6/16/89 Consumer Products 

Control Plan. 

N/A First Board action on consumer products. 

Board approved overall plan to fulfill H&SC 

Section 41712 mandate and a goal of 

achieving a 50 percent reduction in VOC 

emissions from consumer products. 

11/8/89/ 

(2/27/91) 

Regulation to 

Reduce VOC 

Emissions from 

Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants. 

Article 2, Sections 

94500-94506, Title 

17, CCR. 

First consumer product regulation adopted 

pursuant to the CCAA. Established VOC 

content limits for aerosol and non-aerosol 

antiperspirants and deodorants. 

6/15/90 Regulation for 

Reducing VOC 

Emissions from 

Consumer Products 

in the Bay Area 

AQMD. 

Article 2, Consumer 

Products, Sections 

94520-94527, Title 

17, CCR. 

This regulation was adopted to reduce VOC 

emissions from consumer products in the Bay 

Area AQMD and establishes VOC limits for 6 

consumer products. 

10/11/90/ 

(10/21/91) 

Regulation for 

Reducing VOC 

Emissions from 

Consumer Products -

Phase I. 

Article 2, Consumer 

Products, Sections 

94507-94516 and 

94503.5, Title 17, 

CCR 

Amendments to 

Article 2, Section 

94505, Title 17, 

CCR 

Establishes VOC limits for 16 consumer 

products, repeals the Bay Area consumer 

product regulation, and amends the AP/DO 

regulation to include an innovative product 

provision and a revised variance procedure. 

1/9/92/ 

(1/6/93) 

Adoption of 

Amendments to the 

Regulation for 

Reducing VOC 

Emissions from 

Consumer Products -

Phase II. 

Article 2, Consumer 

Products, Sections 

94507-94517, Title 

17, CCR. 

Establishes standards for 10 additional 

categories of consumer products and several 

amendments to the existing regulation for 

clarification and improvement. 

9/22/94/ 

(9/9/95) 

Adoption of the 

Alternative Control 

Plan Regulation for 

Consumer Products. 

Article 4, Sections 

94540-94555, Title 

17, CCR. 

A voluntary market-based regulation which 

supplements the existing consumer products 

regulation by providing manufacturers with 

additional flexibility for formulating products. 

11/15/94/ 

(2/14/95) 

Approval of the 

California State 

Implementation Plan 

for Ozone. 

N/A Board approval of Ozone SIP which includes 

consumer products element comprised of 

near, midterm, and long term measures. 

3/23/95/ 

(1/8/96) 

Regulation for 

Reducing VOC 

Emissions from 

Aerosol Coating 

Products and 

Amendments to the 

Alternative Control 

(ACP) Plan. 

Article 3, Sections 

94520-94528, Title 

17, CCR 

Amendments to 

Article 4, Sections 

94540 to 94543, 

94547, 94550, 

94551, and 94553, 

Title 17, CCR. 

Establishes VOC content limits for 35 

categories of aerosol paints. Amendments to 

ACP to incorporate aerosol coating products. 
Summary of Consumer Products Regulatory Actions 

C-2 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Action 

Date/ 

(Effective 

Date) 

Regulatory Action Site Comments 

9/28/95/ 

(2/29/96) 

Amendments to the 

California 

Regulations for 

Reducing VOC 

Emissions from 

Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants, 

Consumer Products, 

and Aerosol Coating 

Products. 

Amendments to 

Article 1, Sections 

94500-94504, Title 

17, CCR, Article 2, 

Section 

94508(a)(90), 

Title17, CCR, and 

Article 3, Section 

94521(a)(62), Title 

17, CCR. 

The amendments to the AP/DO regulation 

address fairness concerns, preserves 

projected emission reductions required by the 

SIP, ensures that manufacturers will continue 

their efforts to develop zero percent products 

and provides a vehicle to monitor progress and 

to make the VOC definition more consistent 

with EPA's VOC definition. The consumer 

products regulation and the aerosol coatings 

regulation is modified to revise the VOC 

definition consistent with EPA's. 

11/21/96/ 

(11/18/97) 

Amendments to the 

California 

Regulations for 

Reducing VOC 

Emissions from 

Consumer Products 

and Aerosol Coating 

Products. 

Amendments to 

Article 2; Sections 

94508, 94515 

94517 and Article 3; 

Section 94521, Title 

17, CCR. 

The amendments to the consumer products 

regulation address postponement of the 25 

percent standard for aerosol adhesives, 

modification to the VOC definition, amendment 

of various regulatory provisions to enhance 

clarity and compliance, and amendment to the 

test methods sections. The proposed 

amendments also modify the VOC definition in 

the aerosol coatings regulation. 

3/27/97/ 

(8/24/98) 

Amendments 

Pertaining to 

Hairspray in the 

California Consumer 

Products Regulation. 

Amendments to 

Article 2, Sections 

94509, 94513, and 

94514,Title 17, 

CCR. 

Postpones the hairspray 55 percent VOC 

standard from 1/1/98 to 6/1/99, require plans 

demonstrating progress toward compliance 

from manufacturers selling hairspray not 

meeting the 55 percent VOC standard from 

1/1/98 to 6/1/99, and modifies the variance 

provision to include a requirement for VOC 

emissions mitigation when granting a variance 

request for hairsprays from the 6/1/99 

standard. 

7/24/97/ 

(7/1/98) 

Amendments to the 

Consumer Products 

Regulation, Mid-term 

Measures I. 

Amendments to 

Article 2, Sections 

94508, 94509, 

94510, 94512, 

94513, and 94514, 

Title 17, CCR. 

All VOC standards with 1/1/2000, effective 

dates were extended to 1/1/2001; First tiers of 

the two-tiered VOC standards and additional 

reporting requirements for four product 

categories were eliminated; Effective dates of 

the VOC standard were changed for five 

product categories. 

11/19/98/ 

(6/24/99) 

Amendments to the 

Aerosol Coating 

Products, the 

Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants 

Regulation, and the 

Consumer Products 

Regulation. 

Amendments to 

Article 3, Section 

94521, 94522, and 

94524, Title 17, 

CCR; Article 1, 

Section 94501, Title 

17, CCR; and to 

Article 2, Section 

94508(a)(124), Title 

17, CCR. 

Relaxation of the second-tier VOC limits of the 

Aerosol Coating Products Regulation. 

Exemption of methyl acetate from the VOC 

definition in the Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants Regulation, the Consumer 

Products Regulation, and the Aerosol Coating 

Products Regulation. 
Summary of Consumer Products Regulatory Actions 

C-3 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Action 

Date/ 

(Effective 

Date) 

Regulatory Action Site Comments 

10/28/99/ 

11/19/2000 

Amendments to the 

Consumer Products 

Regulation, Midterm Measures II. 

Amendments to 

Article 2, Section 

94508, 94509, and 

94513. 

Amends the Consumer Products Regulation by 

adding product category definitions, VOC limits 

for two new categories, more stringent VOC 

limits for fifteen existing categories, and adding 

subcategories for some of the existing product 

categories with separate VOC limits for each 

subcategory. New or modified VOC limits 

become effective from 12/31/2000, to 

12/31/2004. Amendments consolidates and 

expands the existing reporting requirements 

for products containing methylene chloride or 

perchloroethylene. 

5/25/2000/ 

(5/18/2001) 

Amendments to the 

Consumer Products 

Regulation relating 

to Aerosol 

Adhesives. 

Amendments to 

Article 1, Sections 

94508, 94509, 

94512, and 94513, 

Title 17, CCR. 

Amendments eliminate the 25 percent VOC 

limit and establish new VOC limits for three 

new categories of aerosol adhesives, effective 

January 1, 2002. Amendments also include 

labeling and other requirements to facilitate 

compliance and enforcement of the new 

standards. Effective 1/1/2002, amendments 

also prohibit the use of methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene, 

which are toxic air contaminants, in aerosol 

adhesives manufactured for use in California. 

6/22/2000/ 

(7/18/2001) 

Consumer Products 

Relating to Aerosol 

Coating Products, 

Proposed Tables of 

Maximum 

Incremental 

Reactivity (MIR) 

Values, and 

Amendments to 

Method 310.

Amendments to 

Article 3, Sections 

94521, 94522, 

94523, 94524, and 

94526. Added new 

sections 94700 and 

94701, to Title 17, 

CCR. 

Amendments replace the second tier massbased VOC limits for 35 product categories 

with equivalent reactivity-based limits. In 

addition, a new subchapter, Subchapter 8.6, in 

title 17, CCR was adopted. New Subchapter 

8.6, in sections 94700 and 94701, contains 

Tables of MIR Values that are used to set 

reactivity-based limits and determine 

compliance. 

10/26/2000/ 

(4/24/2001) 

Amendments to the 

Regulation to 

Reduce VOC 

Emissions from 

Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants. 

Amendments to 

Article 2, Sections 

94502 and 94504, 

Title 17, CCR. 

Amendments increased the HVOC limit for 

aerosol antiperspirants to 40 percent from the 

current zero percent limit, beginning 1/1/2001. 

The MVOC limit of 10 percent remains 

unchanged. 

6/24/2004/ 

(7/20/2005) 

Continues 

next page 

Amendments to the 

Consumer Products, 

Test Method 310, 

Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants, Aerosol 

Coating Products, 

and an Airborne 

Toxic Control 

Measure (ATCM) for 

ParaAmendments to 

sections 94501, 

94506, 94507, 

94508, 94509, 

94510, 94512, 

94513, 94515, and 

94526, title 17, 

California Code of 

Regulations (CCR) 

and adoption of 

Amendments established new VOC limits for 

15 product categories. Regulatory action also 

prohibited the use of three toxic air 

contaminants--methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene--in 

seven product categories. The ATCM 

prohibits the use of para-dicholorobenzene in 

toilet/urinal care products and solid air 

fresheners. Amendments also modified and 

updated Method 310 used to determine the 
Summary of Consumer Products Regulatory Actions 

C-4 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Action 

Date/ 

(Effective 

Date) 

Regulatory Action Site Comments 

Continued Dichlorobenzene amendments to 

ARB Method 310, 

which is 

incorporated by 

reference in 

sections 94506, 

94515, and 94526, 

title 17, CCR. 

percent by weight of reactive organic 

compounds in aerosol coating products and 

VOCs in consumer products and AP/DO 

products. 

6/24/2004/ 

(7/20/2005) 

Amendments to the 

Consumer Products, 

Test Method 310, 

Antiperspirants and 

Deodorants, Aerosol 

Coating Products, 

and an Airborne 

Toxic Control 

Measure (ATCM) for 

ParaDichlorobenzene 

Amendments to 

sections 94501, 

94506, 94507, 

94508, 94509, 

94510, 94512, 

94513, 94515, and 

94526, title 17, 

California Code of 

Regulations (CCR) 

and adoption of 

amendments to 

ARB Method 310, 

which is 

incorporated by 

reference in 

sections 94506, 

94515, and 94526, 

title 17, CCR. 

Amendments established new VOC limits for 

15 product categories. Regulatory action also 

prohibited the use of three toxic air 

contaminants--methylene chloride, 

perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene--in 

seven product categories. The ATCM 

prohibits the use of para-dicholorobenzene in 

toilet/urinal care products and solid air 

fresheners. Amendments also modified and 

updated Method 310 used to determine the 

percent by weight of reactive organic 

compounds in aerosol coating products and 

VOCs in consumer products and AP/DO 

products. 

11/16/2006/ 

(12/08/2007) 

Amendments to the 

Aerosol Coating 

Products Regulation 

and the Consumer 

Products Regulation 

Amendments to 

sections 94508, 

94509, 94510, 

94513, and 94523 

to title 17, California 

Code of Regulations 

(CCR). Nonsubstantial or solely 

grammatical 

changes are also 

proposed to 

sections 94507, 

94511, 94512, 

94514, 94515, 

94516, and 94517. 

Consumer Products Regulation amended by 

adding and modifying product category 

definitions and by establishing new VOC limits 

for 16 product categories. For some of the 

categories, separate VOC limits are specified 

for different product forms. New or modified 

VOC limits become effective on December 31, 

2008, remainder become effective on 

December 31, 2010. Regulatory action also 

prohibits use of three toxic air contaminants--

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and 

trichloroethylene--in the following products 

categories: “Bathroom and Tile Cleaner,” 

“Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering 

Adhesive,” “General Purpose Cleaner,” and 

“Oven Cleaner.” Amendment was also 

adopted to section 94523 (Exemptions) of the 

Aerosol Coatings Regulation. Amendment 

clarifies several product categories are exempt 

from regulation under the Aerosol Coatings 

Regulation. 
Summary of Consumer Products Regulatory Actions 

C-5 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Action 

Date/ 

(Effective 

Date) 

Regulatory Action Site Comments 

11/16/2006/ 

(12/08/2007) 

Amendments to the 

Aerosol Coating 

Products 

Regulation and the 

Consumer 

Products 

Regulation 

Amendments to 

sections 94508, 

94509, 94510, 

94513, and 94523 to 

title 17, California 

Code of Regulations 

(CCR). Nonsubstantial or solely 

grammatical changes 

are also proposed to 

sections 94507, 

94511, 94512, 

94514, 94515, 

94516, and 94517. 

Consumer Products Regulation amended by 

adding and modifying product category 

definitions and by establishing new VOC limits 

for 16 product categories. For some of the 

categories, separate VOC limits are specified 

for different product forms. New or modified 

VOC limits become effective on December 31, 

2008, remainder become effective on 

December 31, 2010. Regulatory action also 

prohibits use of three toxic air contaminants--

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and 

trichloroethylene--in the following products 

categories: “Bathroom and Tile Cleaner,” 

“Construction, Panel, and Floor Covering 

Adhesive,” “General Purpose Cleaner,” and 

“Oven Cleaner.” Amendment was also 

adopted to section 94523 (Exemptions) of the 

Aerosol Coatings Regulation. Amendment 

clarifies several product categories are exempt 

from regulation under the Aerosol Coatings 

Regulation. 

6/26/2008/ 

(7/18/2009) 

Continues 

next page 

Amendments to the 

Consumer 

Products 

Regulation 

Amendments to 

sections 94508, 

94509, 94510, 

94512, 94513, and 

94515 to title 17, 

California Code of 

Regulations. 

Regulation was amended by adding and 

modifying product category definitions and by 

establishing new or lower VOC limits for 19 

product categories. A mass limit was adopted 

for fabric softener products used in clothes 

dryers. An additional amendment removed the 

“grandfather” clause that pertains to Personal 

Fragrance Products with 20 percent or less 

fragrance. Removal of this clause requires all 

Personal Fragrance Products with 20 percent 

or less fragrance to meet a single VOC limit. 

The new or modified VOC limits become 

effective between December 31, 2010 and 

December 31, 2015. This action also prohibits 

the use of three toxic air contaminants--

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and 

trichloroethylene--in the following product 

categories: “Carpet/Upholstery Cleaner,” 

“Fabric Protectant,” “Multi-Purpose Lubricant,” 

“Penetrant,” “Sealant or Caulking Compound,” 

and “Spot Remover.” Use of methylene 

chloride and perchloroethylene are also 

prohibited in “Pressurized Gas Duster” 

products. To partially fulfill the Discrete Early 

Action Measure for consumer products, the 

amendments will reduce the use of 

compounds with high GWP in Pressurized Gas 

Duster products. These products can only use 

compounds with GWP factors below 150. The 
Summary of Consumer Products Regulatory Actions 

C-6 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Date Regulatory Action Site Comments 

Continued GWP values used to determine compliance

are those set forth in the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, Second 

Assessment Report. The Board also adopted 

a modification to the definition of VOC. This 

modification excludes hydrofluoroether 7200 

from the definition based on its negligible 

impacts on ground-level ozone formation. 
Appendix D 

Summary of Ingredient Reformulation Costs 

D-1 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Methodology of Recurring Cost Research and Analysis

For each category proposed for regulation staff evaluates formulations of complying and 

non-complying products. These formulations are then used to develop example, nonconfidential formulas that are representative of the category. These representative 

complying and non-complying formulas are used to estimate the cost of raw materials to 

produce each formulation. The difference in cost between a pound of complying and 

noncomplying formula is then calculated. Next, the average unit size is used to 

calculate the cost to comply per unit. The average unit size is the predominant unit size 

in a category as reported in the survey. 

To assign costs, distributor-level ingredient prices from ICIS Chemical Business website 

(ICIS, 2008), and chemical materials distributors were used to calculate the baseline 

and compliant material costs for these formulations. Low and high cost scenarios are 

calculated for each category. In the low cost scenario, the cost per pound of product is 

calculated using the low end estimate of the cost of each raw material. In the high cost 

scenario, the high end of the raw material price range is used. Other than compounds 

that were to be quantified, the 2006 Survey did not ask for specific ingredient details for 

exempt compounds, fragrance materials, some low vapor pressure VOCs, and 

inorganic compounds. Therefore, unspecified ingredients or ingredients for which 

prices were unknown were grouped into an “all others” classification and assigned a 

default low and high cost of $3.50 and $7.00 per pound, respectively (ARB, 1997c), low 

and high cost for fragrance materials were estimated at $5.00 and $10.00 per pound 

respectively. Inorganic compounds were assigned a low and high cost of $0.09 and 

$0.91 per pound, respectively, based on the costs found of the most common inorganic 

compounds found in the product categories. 

In some cases, the compliant formula is less expensive than the typical non-compliant 

formula. This is true, for example, when some amount of VOC solvent is replaced with 

water. Also, if the high cost estimate of the solvent is significantly higher than the low 

cost estimate, the net savings to reformulate will increase in the high cost scenario, 

because the cost per pound of the water did not increase in the high cost scenario. 

The costs calculated here are then copied into Table VII-1a in Chapter VII, Economic 

Impacts and used to determine total costs of the proposed amendments. 
D-2 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Air Freshener: Double Phase Aerosol 

Category: Air Freshener 

Subcategory Aerosol – Double Phase 

Typical non-compliant: 24.5 % by weight 

Proposed Limit: 20 % by weight 

Average Unit Size 9.00 wt. oz. 

 LOW COST 

Formulation and Cost Comparison 

Component (A) Unit Cost Typical Non-compliant VOC Compliant 

$/lb 

(B) Cost 

Wt. % (C) (B)x(C)/100 

 Cost 

Wt. % (D) (B)x(D)/100 

Water 0.002 72.80 0.00 77.80 0.00

HC Propellant 0.700 24.00 0.17 19.00 0.13

Alcohol 0.457 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

Glycols 0.620 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.01

Inorganics 0.090 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00

Fragrance 5.000 0.70 0.04 0.70 0.04

 Total Cost, $/pound: 0.22 0.18

 Total Cost, $/Unit: 0.12 0.10

Cost increase to comply, $/unit: (0.02)

HIGH COST 

Component (A) Unit Cost Typical Non-compliant VOC Compliant 

$/lb 

(B) Cost 

Wt. % (C) (B)x(C)/100 

 Cost 

Wt. % (D) (B)x(D)/100 

Water 0.002 72.80 0.00 77.80 0.00

HC Propellant 1.050 24.00 0.25 19.00 0.20

Alcohol 0.940 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.01

Glycols 0.960 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.01

Inorganics 0.910 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00

Fragrance 10.000 0.70 0.07 0.70 0.07

 Total Cost, $/pound: 0.35 0.29

 Total Cost, $/Unit: 0.20 0.17

Cost increase to comply, $/unit: (0.03)
D-3 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Multi-purpose Solvent/Paint Thinner – Tier 1 

Category: Multi-purpose Solvent/Paint Thinner 

Subcategory Non-aerosol 

Typical non-compliant: 100 % by weight 

Proposed Limit: 30 % by weight 

Average Unit Size 93.40 wt. oz. 

 LOW COST 

Formulation and Cost Comparison

Typical Non-compliant VOC Compliant 

TIER 1 – 30% 

Component (A) Unit 

Cost $/lb 

(B) Cost 

Wt. % (C) (B)x(C)/100 

 Cost 

Wt. % (D) (B)x(D)/100 

Hydrocarbon solvent 0.540 100.00 0.54 25.00 0.13

Water 0.002 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00

VOC Glycol Ether 1.150 5.00 0.06

Acetone 0.402 25.00 0.10

Exempt Compound 2.000 5.00 0.10

Non-solvent LVP 3.500 3.00 0.11

 Total Cost, $/pound: 0.54 0.50

 Total Cost, $/Unit: 3.15 2.91

Cost increase to comply, $/unit: (0.24)

HIGH COST 

Typical Non-compliant VOC Compliant 

TIER 1 – 30% 

Component (A) Unit 

Cost $/lb 

(B) Cost 

Wt. % (C) (B)x(C)/100 

 Cost 

Wt. % (D) (B)x(D)/100 

Hydrocarbon solvent 0.800 100.00 0.80 25.00 0.20

Water 0.002 0.00 0.00 37.00 0.00

VOC Glycol Ether 1.200 5.00 0.06

Acetone 0.459 25.00 0.12

Exempt Compound 3.000 5.00 0.15

Non-solvent LVP 7.000 3.00 0.21

 Total Cost, $/pound: 0.80 0.74

 Total Cost, $/Unit: 4.67 4.29

Cost increase to comply, $/unit: (0.38)
D-4 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Multi-purpose Solvent/Paint Thinner – Tier 2 

Category: Multi-purpose Solvent/Paint Thinner 

Subcategory Non-aerosol 

Typical non-compliant: 30 % by weight 

Proposed Limit: 3 % by weight 

Average Unit Size 93.40 wt. oz. 

 LOW COST 

Formulation and Cost Comparison

Typical Non-compliant VOC Compliant 

TIER 2 – 3% 

Component (A) Unit 

Cost $/lb 

(B) Cost 

Wt. % (C) (B)x(C)/100 

 Cost 

Wt. % (D) (B)x(D)/100 

Hydrocarbon solvent 0.540 25.00 0.13 0.00 0.00

Water 0.002 37.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

VOC Glycol Ether 1.150 5.00 0.06 0.00 0.00

Acetone 0.402 25.00 0.10 0.00 0.00

Exempt Compound 2.000 5.00 0.10 0.00 0.00

Non-solvent LVP 3.500 3.00 0.11 0.00 0.00

VOC Mixture 0.845 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.03

Exempt/LVP Emulsion 0.461 0.00 0.00 97.00 0.45

 Total Cost, $/pound: 0.50 0.47

 Total Cost, $/Unit: 2.91 2.76

Cost increase to comply, $/unit: (0.16)

HIGH COST 

Typical Non-compliant VOC Compliant 

TIER 2 – 3% 

Component (A) Unit 

Cost $/lb 

(B) Cost 

Wt. % (C) (B)x(C)/100 

 Cost 

Wt. % (D) (B)x(D)/100 

Hydrocarbon solvent 0.800 25.00 0.20 0.00 0.00

Water 0.002 37.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

VOC Glycol Ether 1.200 5.00 0.06 0.00 0.00

Acetone 0.459 25.00 0.12 0.00 0.00

Exempt Compound 3.000 5.00 0.15 0.00 0.00

Non-solvent LVP 7.000 3.00 0.21 0.00 0.00

VOC mixture 1.000 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.03

Exempt/LVP emulsion 0.816 0.00 0.00 97.00 0.79

 Total Cost, $/pound: 0.74 0.82

 Total Cost, $/Unit: 4.29 4.80

Cost increase to comply, $/unit: 0.50
D-5 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

REFERENCES 

1. Air Resources Board. Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments 

Pertaining to Hairspray in the California Consumer Products Regulation. 

February 7, 1997. (ARB, 1997c) 

2. ICIS. ICIS Chemical Business. http://icispricing.com. April 11, 2008. (ICIS, 2008) 
Appendix E 

Nonrecurring Costs Calculations 

E-1 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Appendix E contains the methodology and costs staff used to assign nonrecurring costs 

for each category. Nonrecurring costs are those associated with research and 

development to reformulate complying products and are independent of, and in addition 

to, the costs of ingredients to produce a product. For each category proposed for 

regulation, staff estimated a low cost and a high cost. 

For both low and high cost scenarios, the initial statement of development goals to final 

delivery of the new product to the marketplace shelves was divided into eight phases. 

The phases are: product development, including reformulation and development of a 

new delivery system if necessary; stability testing; efficacy testing; safety testing; 

labeling modification; registration with regulatory agencies, if necessary; manufacturing 

change; and marketing. 

A detailed description of each of the nonrecurring cost factors listed on the tables 

follows: 

Product Development 

Given a set of new product requirements, develop a laboratory prototype for product 

evaluation and testing. This includes formulating the contents and specifying the 

packaging and raw materials. New packaging and chemical formula components might 

need to be sourced. 

Stability Testing 

Stability testing ensures that the newly formulated chemical composition and/or 

package are compatible with each other and with product function for a reasonable 

period of time. FDA and EPA regulated products require extra steps to ensure the 

stability of active ingredients and kill claims of products such as disinfectant for bacteria 

and germs, for example. 

Efficacy testing 

Efficacy testing seeks to ensure that the product maintains the ability to perform label 

claims and to meet customer expectations. For EPA registered products (for example, 

those which make bacterial kill claims) this will require extensive testing by a specialized 

laboratory (most likely not the manufacturer’s own laboratory). The testing must be 

documented with and meet the approval of the EPA. 

Safety Test 

This includes testing of the new product to ensure safety to manufacturing personnel 

during fabrication, logistics personnel during transit and to consumers during use and 

storage. 

Labeling Modifications 

Labeling modifications are required when product qualities or use instructions change. 
E-2 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Registration Fees 

Registration expenses are incurred for products requiring EPA registration or FDA 

regulation whenever changes are made to the label or formula. 

Marketing 

The factors for marketing include: focus group testing, conducting surveys, advertising 

and design and publication of print and internet materials. 

Manufacturing 

This includes technology and infrastructure required to mass-produce a product. 

A new VOC limit which must be met by changes to these production requirements will 

incur a manufacturing cost proportional to the magnitude of the change. Manufacturing 

cost to comply with proposed standards can include ‘pilot plant’ testing and/or retooling 

of production lines or construction of completely new facilities. 

A pilot plant test is a small scale version of full scale production which is large enough to 

approximate the physical characteristics and challenges which will be encountered in 

the full-scale version. A pilot test run consumes considerably less resources and raw 

materials than a full scale run to produce a batch of product which will not necessarily 

be ready or suitable for a commercial market. 

Literature 

Literature costs are incurred when new sales and marketing and/or technical literature 

need to be developed and distributed in order to inform customers of the attributes of a 

new product. 

Since 1999, a set of per product reformulation costs in 1991 dollars had been 

established for each phase of bringing a reformulated product into the market. The 

costs are adjusted to 2008 dollars using a well-established method of rationing chemical 

engineering plant cost indices as follows (Peters and Timmerhaus, 1980): 

C.E.1991Index

C.E. 2008 Index Non - Recurring Costs (in 2008 dollars) = Non - Recurring Costs (in 1991dollars)×

where, 

 C.E. 2008 index = 2008 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index = 592.0

 (Chemical Engineering, 2009). 

 C.E. 1991 index = 1991 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index = 361.3 

 (Chemical Engineering, 1997). 

Table Appendix E-1 shows the cost assigned to each phase for the low and high cost 

scenario for a “household product.” Both categories in this rulemaking are considered 

“household products”. 
E-3 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

To develop the costs shown in Table Appendix E-1, personnel costs are assigned. 

Beyond personnel costs, additional cost elements were considered at each phase and 

added as appropriate. These cost elements are facility; equipment; tool; jig; fixture and 

miscellaneous materials handling equipment; purchased material; packaging; 

distribution; warehousing; technical data; research studies and tests; promotional 

literature; residual inventory and disposal; consumer tests; general and administrative 

expense; patent; registration fees; and computer support. The result of these 

considerations is a per-product cost for developing a reformulated product and bringing 

it to market. 

The length of time in each phase was estimated based on an industry analysis of 

80 new product innovations. Most of the phases occur in sequence; however, there is 

some time overlap in each phase. 

 

Next, estimated personnel resources were allocated against each phase considering 

the most probable types of skills needed including general engineering; technician; 

drafting; packaging engineering; specification engineering; model making; chemical 

engineering; technical publication; production support; quality assurance; marketing; 

warehousing; word processing; and clerical. For high cost elements, additional 

personnel were allocated to each phase. 

Staff used different assumptions for the low and high cost analyses, and considered the 

specific likelihood that each of the cost elements would occur for each product category 

individually. 
E-4 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Table Appendix E-1 

Assigned Costs for Product Development 

Generic Per Product Reformulation Costs (low and high cost approach) 

Household 

Low Cost High Cost 

Product Development 

Material 

$163.85 $819.26

 Computer Support $163.85 $983.12

Personnel/Formulation $6,062.55 $20,809.30

Personnel/Delivery System $0.00 $26,544.15

Prototype Equipment $0.00 $1,638.53

Testing 

 Material 

$491.56 $491.56

 Computer Support $0.00 $491.56

Personnel/Stability Test $1,310.82 $7,373.37

Personnel/Efficacy Test $1,310.82 $6,062.55

Personnel/Safety Test $3,277.06 $10,978.13

Labeling Modifications 

 Material 

$163.85 $327.71

 Technical Data $327.71 $983.12

Personnel $983.12 $5,898.70

Registration/Fees $327.71 $491.56

Personnel $655.41 $4,915.58

Manufacturing 

 Equipment 

$0.00 $40,963.19

 Technical Data $163.85 $819.26

 Computer Support $0.00 $163.85

Other $0.00 $1,146.97

Personnel $1,474.67 $33,753.67

Marketing 

 Studies 

$327.71 $1,638.53

Literature $163.85 $819.26

 Inventory $0.00 $3,277.06

 Computer Support $0.00 $163.85

Personnel $327.71 $13,435.93

TOTAL $17,696.10 $184,989.77

 

 

2008 C.E. Plant Cost Index = 592 (Final Oct. ’08) 

1991 C.E. Plant Cost Index = 361.3 
E-5 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

i. Low Cost Scenario 

In the low cost scenario it is assumed that only minor modification to the current 

formulation is necessary to come into compliance. Therefore, for the low cost analysis 

no major costs were added for changing delivery systems or other product attributes. 

In addition, it is common that large companies having significant market share and 

broad product lines offer both low VOC complying products and higher VOC noncomplying products. In many cases, relatively low costs would be incurred where these 

companies could increase sales and distribution of complying products and discontinue 

non-complying products. 

If products do not change significantly, it is assumed that major retooling of 

manufacturing equipment would not be required, technical data changes would be 

minor, and the change in marketing costs would be small. It was also assumed that 

these reformulated products would be marketed nationally. 

ii. High Cost Scenario 

Each category was analyzed individually to determine which of the elements, discussed 

above, and shown in Table Appendix E-1, manufacturers would likely include in their 

reformulation efforts. High costs for specific steps of the reformulation process were 

only included in the cost analysis where staff believed they were likely to occur. If staff 

believed a markedly different product would be needed to comply with the proposed 

limit, such as a new delivery system, then high personnel and capital resources, 

especially in product development and manufacturing changes, were assumed. In 

addition, a new delivery system would require investment for prototypes, new filling 

machines training, and technical data, so these high costs were also included in these 

scenarios. Additional costs were also added for packaging, distribution and 

warehousing. In areas where it was expected that little or no reformulation would occur, 

or that the cost of reformulation would be minimal, the value for low cost was used. 

For especially challenging limits, it was assumed for the high cost approach that, 

because of a markedly different product, there would also be additional marketing costs, 

including research studies and tests, promotional literature, and consumer tests. These 

costs vary by the type of product, however the household products being proposed for 

further regulation typically having a larger expense in this area. The cost analysis did 

not include the costs for an extensive advertising campaign. New products are regularly 

brought onto the market, and the advertising for a new product, whether reformulated or 

not, would replace the advertising for the existing product, and would be a normal cost. 

It was assumed that the new product would be marketed nationally. 

The staff also recognized that development of a new product does not occur in isolation. 

Few companies have only one product line; for those that have more than one product 

line, the product lines can be very similar. Development and production tasks, from the 

initial concept through marketing, would be proceeding simultaneously on more than 
E-6 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

one product line, with a transfer of information and work-sharing between the products. 

For these companies, this “technology transfer” would substantially reduce the cost of 

developing and marketing a new product on a per product basis. For categories where 

the majority of products were held by a few companies it was assumed that this 

“technology transfer” would occur, and high costs adjusted accordingly. 

iii. Other Assumptions 

Staff considered only nonrecurring costs that are likely to occur on a per category basis. 

Costs are adjusted from those determined in 1991 by using the Chemical Engineering 

Plant Cost Index. If it was determined that for a majority of products in the category, the 

most likely scenario was that only minor changes to the product’s reformulation were 

necessary to comply with the new proposed limit then only the lower end of the 

nonrecurring cost was included. For some categories, it was appropriate, based on the 

variety of products and reformulation approaches needed to meet the proposed limit, 

that certain high cost factors be included in the analysis, but not others, on a case-bycase basis. We believe that this approach gives a more realistic estimate of the costs of 

a given limit 

The high and low nonrecurring cost assumptions for each category are shown in Tables 

Appendix E-2, E-3, and E-4. 
E-7 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Table Appendix E-2 

Air Freshener Per Product Reformulation Costs (low and high cost approach)

Household 

Low Cost High Cost 

Product Development 

 Material 

$163.85 $409.63

 Computer Support $0.00 $0.00

Personnel/Formulation $6,062.55 $10,404.65

Personnel/Delivery System $0.00 $13,272.07

Prototype Equipment $0.00 $819.26

Testing 

 Material 

$245.78 $245.78

 Computer Support $0.00 $0.00

Personnel/Stability Test $1,310.82 $3,686.69

Personnel/Efficacy Test $1,310.82 $3,031.28

Personnel/Safety Test $0.00 $0.00

Labeling Modifications 

 Material 

$0.00 $0.00

 Technical Data $0.00 $0.00

Personnel $0.00 $0.00

Registration/Fees $0.00 $0.00

Personnel $0.00 $0.00

Manufacturing 

 Equipment 

$0.00 $0.00

 Technical Data $163.85 $409.63

 Computer Support $0.00 $0.00

Other $0.00 $0.00

Personnel $1,474.67 $16,876.83

Marketing 

 Studies 

$327.71 $819.26

Literature $0.00 $0.00

 Inventory $0.00 $0.00

 Computer Support $0.00 $0.00

Personnel $163.85 $163.85

TOTAL $11,223.90 $50,138.93

 

 

2008 C.E. Plant Cost Index = 592 (Final Oct. ’08) 

1991 C.E. Plant Cost Index = 361.3 
E-8 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Table Appendix E-3 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner – 

Tier 1 Per Product Reformulation Costs (low and high cost approach) 

Household 

Low Cost High Cost 

Product Development 

 Material 

$163.85 $819.26

 Computer Support $163.85 $983.12

Personnel/Formulation $6,062.55 $20,809.30

Personnel/Delivery System $0.00 $0.00

Prototype Equipment $0.00 $0.00

Testing 

 Material 

$491.56 $491.56

 Computer Support $0.00 $491.56

Personnel/Stability Test $1,310.82 $7,373.37

Personnel/Efficacy Test $1,310.82 $6,062.55

Personnel/Safety Test $3,277.06 $10,978.13

Labeling Modifications 

 Material 

$163.85 $327.71

 Technical Data $327.71 $983.12

Personnel $983.12 $5,898.70

Registration/Fees $0.00 $0.00

Personnel $0.00 $0.00

Manufacturing 

 Equipment 

$0.00 $0.00

 Technical Data $0.00 $0.00

 Computer Support $0.00 $0.00

Other $0.00 $0.00

Personnel $0.00 $0.00

Marketing 

 Studies 

$327.71 $1,638.53

Literature $163.85 $819.26

 Inventory $0.00 $3,277.06

 Computer Support $0.00 $163.85

Personnel $327.71 $13,435.93

TOTAL $15,074.46 $74,553.01

 

2008 C.E. Plant Cost Index = 592

1991 C.E. Plant Cost Index = 361.3
E-9 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Table Appendix E-4 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner – 

Tier 2 Per Product Reformulation Costs (low and high cost approach) 

Household 

Low Cost High Cost 

Product Development 

 Material 

$163.85 $819.26

 Computer Support $163.85 $983.12

Personnel/Formulation $6,062.55 $20,809.30

Personnel/Delivery System $0.00 $0.00

Prototype Equipment $0.00 $0.00

Testing 

 Material 

$491.56 $491.56

 Computer Support $0.00 $491.56

Personnel/Stability Test $1,310.82 $7,373.37

Personnel/Efficacy Test $1,310.82 $6,062.55

Personnel/Safety Test $3,277.06 $10,978.13

Labeling Modifications 

 Material 

$163.85 $327.71

 Technical Data $327.71 $983.12

Personnel $983.12 $5,898.70

Registration/Fees $0.00 $0.00

Personnel $0.00 $0.00

Manufacturing 

 Equipment 

$0.00 $0.00

 Technical Data $0.00 $0.00

 Computer Support $0.00 $0.00

Other $0.00 $0.00

Personnel $0.00 $0.00

Marketing 

 Studies 

$327.71 $1,638.53

Literature $163.85 $819.26

 Inventory $0.00 $3,277.06

 Computer Support $0.00 $163.85

Personnel $327.71 $13,435.93

TOTAL $15,074.46 $74,553.01

2008 C.E. Plant Cost Index = 592

1991 C.E. Plant Cost Index = 361.3
E-10 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

REFERENCES 

1. Chemical Engineering magazine. Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index. 

 February, 2009. (Chemical Engineering, 2009) 

2. Chemical Engineering magazine. Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index. 

 April, 1997. (Chemical Engineering, 1997) 

3. Peters, M. S. and Timmerhaus, K. D. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical 

Engineers. 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980, pp. 159-162 (Peters 

and Timmerhaus, 1980) 
Appendix F 

Chemical Characteristics of Conventional and Potential 

Replacement Solvents/Products 

F-1 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

Conventional Solvents Sold Today – Phased Out with Rule Implementation 

Chemical 

Compound

M.W. a Boiling Point

(@760 

mmHg, oF)

Evaporation

Rate 

(@25 oC)

Flash 

Point 

(

o

F)

LEL/UELb

(% by Vol.)

Auto-ignition

Temperature

(

oC)

Vapor 

Pressure

(mmHg @

20 oC)

Denatured 

Alcohol 

(Ethanol) 

46 78 2.3 56 3.3/19 435 44 

Isopropyl 

Alcohol 

60 180 2.3 53 2/12.7 399 33 

Lacquer 

Thinner f

-- 212.6 2.7 7.4 2/18.4 238 97.7 

MEK 72 80 4.0 25 1.8/11.5 474 8.7 

Mineral 

Spirits 

(Stoddard)

144 154-188 0.1 109-113 1.0 / 7 232 1.1 

Paint 

Thinner g

-- 299.6 1.4 81- 117 1.0 / 7.3 229 2 

Toluene 92 111 2.0 41 1.3 / 7 538 22 

Turpentine 136 323.7 0.7 94.3 0.8/ n/a 253 5 

VM&P 

Naphtha 

87 266.9 1.2 53.1 1.2/6 288 20 

Xylene 106 139 0.8 81 1.0/6.6 499 6 

Exempt Solvents Used Today, with possible increase in use 

Chemical 

Compound

M.W. a Boiling 

Point 

(@760 

mmHg, oF)

Evaporation

Rate 

(@25 oC)

Flash 

Point 

(

o

F)

LEL/UELb

(% by Vol.)

Auto-ignition

Temperature

(

oC)

Vapor 

Pressure

(mmHg @

20 oC)

Acetone 58 56 6.1 -4 2.6/12.8 538 180 

Methyl 

Acetate 

74 56 5.3 15 3/16 501 171 

PCBTF h 181 282 0.9 109 0.9/10.5 97 5.3 

Other Technologies Used Today, with possible increase in use 

Chemical 

Compound

M.W. a Boiling 

Point 

(@760 

mmHg, oF)

Evaporation

Rate 

(@25 oC)

Flash 

Point 

(

o

F)

LEL/UELb

(% by Vol.)

Auto-ignition

Temperature

(

oC)

Vapor 

Pressure

(mmHg @

20 oC)

Aqueous 

Based - 

Ethoxylates

211.7 1.0 208 

 

Soy-Based 

Products 516.2 2.0 254.9 

a

 Molecular Weight

b Lower Explosive Limit / Upper Explosive Limit

f Lacquer thinner is manufactured from petroleum distillates and blended with other solvents, such as 

 xylene, toluene, isopropyl alcohol, acetone, methanol, and light aliphatic solvent naphtha. Exact 

 blending ratios vary widely. 

g

 While paint thinner is predominantly referred to as “mineral spirits” or “Stoddard solvent” (listed 

 elsewhere in this table, paint thinner is broadly described as being manufactured from petroleum 

 distillates and can be a blend of multiple solvents, including but not limited to, mineral spirits, naphtha, 

 nonanes (mixture), 1,2,4-trimethyl benzene, ethyl benzene, diacetone alcohol, n-butyl acetate, methyl 

 isobutyl ketone, cumene and xylene. 

h

 Source: OxyChem Specialty Business Group 

*Table Derived from SCAQMD Final Environmental Assessment for: Proposed Rule 1143 
F-2 

2009 Proposed Amendments 

REFERENCES 

1. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Final Environmental 

Assessment for Proposed Rule 1143 – Consumer Paint Thinners and MultiPurpose Solvents. February 2009.