State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking 

Including Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses 

THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATIONS 

Public Hearing Date: September 24, 2009 

Agenda Item No.: 09-8-4
2 
3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. GENERAL............................................................................................................ 5

II. MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL................................ 8

A. Section 94508. Definitions.................................................................................... 8

B. Section 94509. Standards for Consumer Products............................................... 8 

C. Section 94512. Administrative Requirements....................................................... 8

D. Section 94515. Test Methods............................................................................... 8

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE DURING THE 45-DAY COMMENT 

PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES ............................................................... 9

A. List of Commenters .............................................................................................. 9

B. General Comments ............................................................................................ 11

C. Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener Comments............................................... 12 

D. Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner Comments ......................................... 13

IV. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE DURING THE FIRST 15-DAY 

COMMENT PERIOD AND RESPONSES .......................................................... 34

V. SECOND 15-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.............................................. 36
4 
5 

State of California 

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, 

Including Summary of Public Comments and Agency Responses 

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE 

CALIFORNIA CONSUMER PRODUCTS REGULATIONS 

Public Hearing Date: September 24, 2009 

Agenda Item No.: 09-8-4 

 I. GENERAL 

In this rulemaking, the Air Resources Board (ARB or the Board) has adopted 

amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation that are primarily 

designed to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. The regulation is 

codified in sections 94507-94517, title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR). 

The Board has also adopted amendments to Method 310, “Determination of Volatile 

Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products and Reactive Organic 

Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products.” 

On August 7, 2009, ARB issued a notice of public hearing to consider the proposed 

amendments at the Board’s September 24, 2009 hearing. An “Initial Statement of 

Reasons” (Staff Report or ISOR) was also made available for public review and 

comment starting August 7, 2009. The Staff Report, which is incorporated by 

reference herein, described the rationale for the proposal. The originally proposed 

text of the amended regulation and Method 310 was included as Appendix B to the 

Staff Report. These documents were also posted on ARB’s internet site for this 

rulemaking at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/cpmthd310.htm. 

On September 24, 2009, the Board conducted a public hearing to consider staff’s 

proposal for adoption. Written and oral comments were received at the hearing. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board adopted Resolution 09-51, which initiated 

steps toward final adoption of the proposed amendments. The approved 

amendments included modifications to the originally proposed language. These 

modifications had been suggested by staff in response to public comments made 

after issuance of the original proposal. The text or narrative description of each 

modification was contained in a six page document entitled, “Public Hearing to 

Consider Adoption of Proposed Amendments to the Consumer Products Regulations 

– Staff’s Suggested Modifications to the Original Proposal,” which was distributed at 

the beginning of the hearing and included as Attachment B to the Resolution. 

Resolution 09-51 directed the Executive Officer to adopt the modified regulations 

after making the modified regulatory language available for public comment for a 

period of at least 15 days, in accordance with Government Code section 11346.8(c), 

and to make such additional modifications as may be appropriate in light of the 

comments received. 

A "Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text" together with a copy of the full text of 

the regulation modifications, with the modifications clearly indicated, were distributed 

on January 14, 2010, to each of the individuals described in subsections (a)(1) 

through (a)(4) of section 44, title 1, CCR. By this action, the modified Consumer 

Products Regulation was made available to the public for a 15-day comment period 
6 

from January 14, 2010, to January 29, 2010, pursuant to Government Code section 

11346.8. 

A "Second Notice of Public Availability of Modified Text" together with a copy of the 

full text of the regulation modifications, with the modifications clearly indicated, were 

distributed on June 28, 2010, to each of the individuals described in subsections 

(a)(1) through (a)(4) of section 44, title 1, CCR. By this action, the modified 

Consumer Products Regulation was made available to the public for a 15-day 

comment period from June 28, 2010, to July 13, 2010, pursuant to Government 

Code section 11346.8. The Executive Officer then determined that no additional 

changes should be made to the regulations, and subsequently issued an Executive 

Order, by which the modifications to the Consumer Products Regulation and Method 

310 were adopted. 

This Final Statement of Reasons (FSOR) updates the Staff Report by identifying and 

providing the rationale for the modifications made to the originally proposed 

amendments. The FSOR also contains a summary of the comments received on the 

proposed amendments during the formal regulatory process and ARB’s responses to 

those comments. Modifications to the original proposal are described in Section II of 

this FSOR entitled "Modifications Made to the Original Proposal." 

In Section 94508(a)(14), the definition of “Artist’s Solvent/Thinner” incorporates by 

reference ASTM Standard D4236 – 95 Standard Practice for Labeling Art Materials 

for Chronic Health Hazards, as one criteria that must be met for a consumer product 

to qualify as an “Artist’s Solvent/Thinner.” Additionally, in this rulemaking action, 

references to ASTM standards that are already listed in the existing regulation were 

clarified by adding the title and publication date of each ASTM standard. All of these 

documents are referenced and incorporated into the CCR because it would be 

cumbersome, unduly expensive, and otherwise impractical to publish them in the 

CCR. ARB administrative practice has long been to have specifications, test 

procedures, and similar documents incorporated by reference rather than printed in 

the CCR because these specifications and procedures are highly technical and 

complex. Because ARB has never printed complete test procedures and similar 

documents in the CCR, the directly affected public is accustomed to the 

incorporation format used in the regulation. These test procedures and similar 

documents as a whole are extensive, and it would be both cumbersome and 

expensive to print these lengthy, technically complex procedures in the CCR for a 

limited audience. For similar reasons, it has been a longstanding and accepted 

practice of ARB to incorporate ASTM International standards and test methods into 

the CCR by reference. Among other things, this enables interested parties to verify 

the standards or practices have been adopted by a consensus-driven, authoritative 

source. 

As defined in Government Code section 11345.5(a)(6), the Board has determined 

that this regulatory action will not create costs or savings to any State agency, nor 

affect federal funding to the State. The Board has also determined that this 

regulatory action will not create costs or impose a mandate upon any local agency or 

school district, whether or not it is reimbursable by the State pursuant to part 7 

(commencing with section 17500), division 4, title 2 of the Government Code; or 

affect other non-discretionary savings to state or local agencies. In preparing the 

regulatory proposal, the ARB staff considered the potential economic impacts on 

California business enterprises and individuals. A detailed discussion of these 

impacts is included in the ISOR. The adopted regulations are considered “major 

regulations” within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 57005 (enacted 
7 

by Senate Bill 1082: Stats.1993, ch. 418), because the regulations will have an 

economic impact on the State's business enterprises in an amount of approximately 

$3.1 million dollars per year for ten years. During the 45-day and 15-day comment 

periods, no alternatives or combination of alternatives were submitted to the ARB 

which would be equally effective as the proposed regulations (i.e., no alternatives, or 

combination of alternatives, were submitted which would achieve at least the 

equivalent level of environmental protection within the same time frame as the 

proposed regulations.) 

The Board has further determined that no alternative considered by the agency 

would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulatory action 

was proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private 

persons than the action taken by the Board.
8 

II. MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 

Various modifications to the original proposal were made in order to address 

comments received during the 45-day public comment period, and to clarify the 

regulatory language. These modifications are described below. 

A. Section 94508. Definitions. 

1. In Section 94508(a)(13), the definition of “Aromatic Compound” was modified to 

further clarify the specific compounds subject to the 1 percent by weight aromatic 

compound content limit. 

2. In Section 94508(a)(87), the definition of “Industrial Maintenance Coating” was 

modified to include additional language which may be on product labels. 

3. In Section 94508(a)(106), the definition of “Multi-purpose Solvent” was modified 

to include the definition of “Paint Clean-up” to clarify that such products are 

included in the “Multi-purpose Solvent” category, not excluded. 

4. In Section 94508(a)(114), the definition of “Paint Clean-up” was removed as a 

separate definition in section 94508 and instead placed within the definition of 

“Multi-purpose Solvent.” 

5. In Section 94508(a)(115), the definition of “Paint Thinner” was modified to further 

clarify the criteria that must be met in order for the product to be excluded from 

the definition of “Paint Thinner.” 

6. In Section 94508(a)(163), the definition of “Zinc-Rich Primer” was modified to 

include additional language which may be on product labels. 

B. Section 94509. Standards for Consumer Products.

In Section 94509(u), several minor modifications were made to make the proposed 

new regulatory language consistent with existing regulatory language. 

C. Section 94512. Administrative Requirements. 

1. The originally proposed VOC labeling requirement for Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner products was deleted as a result of concerns that the requirement 

conflicted with existing requirements of the local air districts. 

2. A modification was made allowing manufacturers to have the option to also 

display the proposed language for the labeling of flammable or extremely 

flammable Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners in a contrasting square or 

rectangle on the product label. 

3. Modifications were also made to the proposed language for the labeling of 

flammable or extremely flammable Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners, 

specifying font size and a requirement that the statements be expressed in 

Spanish as well as English. 

D. Section 94515. Test Methods. 

1. Section 94515(c) was added to clarify the compliance testing procedures for the 

aromatic compound content limit and what constitutes a violation. 

2. Section 94515(h) was removed. 
9 

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE DURING THE 45-DAY COMMENT PERIOD AND 

AGENCY RESPONSES 

The Board received written and oral comments during the 45-day comment period 

for this regulatory action. A list of commenters is shown below, along with an 

abbreviation for each commenter. Following the list, staff has summarized each 

comment provided regarding the proposal with an explanation of how the proposed 

action has been changed to accommodate the comment, or the reasons for making 

no change. 

A. List of Commenters 

The table below identifies the comments received during the 45-day comment period 

that presented an objection or recommendation specifically directed towards the 

regulation or the procedures followed. The table provides a correlation between 

(1) the abbreviation used in this Section III to refer to a comment letter or testimony; 

and (2) the name of the person(s) signing the comment letter or presenting the 

testimony. Written submittals were received between August 7, 2009, and 

September 23, 2009. Oral testimony was presented at the September 24, 2009 

hearing. 

Comment 

Abbreviation 

Commenter 

ACCSIG1 Leslie Berry, American Chemistry Council Solvents Industry Group 

Written testimony: September 22, 2009 

ACCSIG2 Chet Thompson, American Chemistry Council Solvents Industry Group 

Oral and written testimony: September 24, 2009 

ACCSIG3 Dave Laucella, Shell Chemical on behalf of American Chemistry Council 

Solvents Industry Group 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

CCA1 Luis R. Cabrales, Coalition for Clean Air; James J. Provenzano, C.Ph, 

Clean Air Now; Mike Garcia, SEIU-USWW; Eveline Shen, Asian 

Communities for Reproductive Justice; Pamela King Palitz, Environment 

California; Lenny Siegel, Center for Public Environmental Oversight; 

Wafaa Aborashed, Bay Area Healthy 880 Communities-SL; Adrian 

Martinez, Natural Resources Defense Council; Bonnie Holmes-Gen, 

American Lung Association in California; Mara Burstein, Environment 

Now; Bill Magavern, Sierra Club California; Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley 

CAREs; Erin Switalski, Women’s Voices for the Earth; Anne KelseyLamb, Regional Asthma Management and Prevention and

Community Action to Fight Asthma; Deborah Moore, Green Schools 

Initiative; Jim Stewart, PhD, Sierra Club Angeles Chapter 

Global Warming, Energy & Air Quality Committee; Raul Anorve, Instituto 

De Educación Popular Del Sur De California; Bahram Fazeli, 

Communities for a Better Environment; Julia Liou, California Healthy Nail 

Salon Collaborative; Judi.Shils, Teens Turning Green 

Written testimony: September 23, 2009 

CCA2 Luis Cabrales, Coalition for Clean Air 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

CCA3 Sheila Nem, Coalition for Clean Air 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

CSPA1 Joseph Yost, Consumer Specialty Products Association 

Written testimony: September 21, 2009 

CSPA2 Joseph Yost, Consumer Specialty Products Association 
10 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

CSPA3 D. Douglas Fratz, Consumer Specialty Products Association 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

FORMLETTER Dency Nelson 

**179 additional commenters submitted same comments** 

Written testimony: September 21, 2009 

IRTA Katy Wolf, Institute for Research and Technical Assistance 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

LBACA1 Elena Rodriquez, Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

LBACA2 Yolanda Chavez, Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

LBACA3 Maria Yolanda Lopez, Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

LBACA4 Martha Cota, Long Beach Alliance for Children with Asthma 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

NAA1 Doug Raymond, The National Aerosol Association

Written testimony: September 22, 2009 

NPCA1 James Sell, National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA/SCCT) 

Written testimony: September 14, 2009 

NPCA2 David Darling, National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA/FSCT) 

Written testimony: September 21, 2009 

NPCA3 David Darling, National Paint and Coatings Association 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

NPCA4 Heidi McAuliffe, National Paint and Coatings Association (SPMC/CSA) 

Written testimony: September 24, 2009 

NRDC Morgan Wyenn, Natural Resources Defense Council 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

OPPL Reinhard Oppl (No Affiliation Given) 

Written testimony: August 17, 2009 

RB Eileen Moyer, Reckitt Benckiser 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

SANDOVAL Heriberta Sandoval (No Affiliation Given) 

Written testimony: September 23, 2009 

SCAQMD1 Barry Wallerstein, South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Written testimony: September 24, 2009 

SCAQMD2 Naveen Berry, South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

SMAQMD Larry Greene, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 

Written testimony: September 22, 2009 

SCFPO1 Steve Bunting, Southern California Fire Prevention Officers 

Written testimony: August 17, 2009 

SCFPO2 Steve Bunting, Southern California Fire Prevention Officers 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

SCJ F. H. Brewer, S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. 

Written testimony: September 21, 2009 

SIERRACLB Jim Stewart, Sierra Club 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

SW1 Gregory Johnson, Sherwin-Williams Diversified Brands 

Written testimony: September 15, 2009 

SW2 Gregory Johnson, Sherwin-Williams Diversified Brands 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

TENNANT Daniel Tennant, (No Affiliation Given) 
11 

Written testimony: September 22, 2009 

WMB1 Doug Raymond, WM Barr and Company, Inc. 

Written testimony: September 22, 2009 

WMB2 Doug Raymond, WM Barr and Company, Inc. 

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 

B. General Comments 

B-1. Comment: SMAQMD commends and supports the efforts to develop this regulation 

which will provide the needed emissions reductions committed to in the recently 

adopted State Implementation Plan for the Sacramento region. [SMAQMD] 

 

B-2. Comment: We applaud your agency’s efforts to reduce emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) from consumer products and commend your staff for listening to 

CARB board members’ orders to help protect the health of California residents, 

consumers and workers. [CCA1; SANDOVAL] 

B-3. Comment: CSPA supports the proposed clarifications affecting the Automotive 

Windshield Washer Fluid category. [CSPA1] 

Response to Comments B-1 through B-3: Comments noted. The Board 

approved staff’s proposal with the suggested modifications. 

B-4. Comment: SIG supports CARB's goal of continued improvements in air quality 

through effective and efficient regulation of VOCs in consumer products, and we 

stand ready to help. We also commend CARB staff. They are true professionals 

and have been a pleasure to work with. [ACCSIG2] 

Response: Comment noted. 

B-5. Comment: We are very supportive of staff’s efforts to look at global warming 

emissions from consumer products. Prohibiting chemical compounds with high 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) value is a great start. [CCA1] 

Response: Comment noted. 

B-6. Comment: The elimination of emissions of consumer products, that strikes at what 

every person in this state uses and sells. I don't know what this is aimed at, but I see 

the price of every product in this state going up, while the wind blows China's 

pollution to our shore. [TENNANT] 

Response: While this comment is not directed at the proposed amendments, VOC 

emissions reductions from consumer products are needed to attain the ambient air 

quality standards for ozone. The commenter should consult Chapter IV, Emissions, 

of the Staff Report. 

B-7. Comment: Janitors like me, are waiting for a strong regulation of janitorial products 

and hope you will remind your staff they need to include them in the 2010 Consumer 

Products regulation. The regulation of janitorial products is a very important 

protection in our work. [SANDOVAL] 
12 

B-8. Comment: Janitors are waiting for a strong regulation of janitorial product and 

would like to remind your staff they need to include them in the 2010 consumer 

products regulation. [CCA3] 

Response to Comments B-7 and B-8: Comments noted. Recently, staff proposed 

lower VOC limits for four cleaning product categories. The proposed amendments to 

the consumer products regulation are scheduled to be considered by the Board at its 

November 18-19, 2010, hearing. 

C. Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener Comments

C-1. Comment: SC Johnson urges Board adoption of the staff recommendations for the 

Air Freshener category. SCJ supports the staff proposal because they provided an 

additional year, in their proposed effective date, for companies to research, develop, 

and implement reformulation options. [SCJ] 

C-2. Comment: I’m here to support the proposal that the ARB staff has put forward. We 

believe that the limit is feasible. [RB] 

C-3. Comment: CSPA member companies commit to reformulate Double Phase Aerosol 

Air Freshener products to meet the new VOC limit by December 31, 2012. [CSPA1] 

Response to Comments C-1 through C-3: Comments noted. The Board 

approved staff’s proposal with the suggested modifications. 

C-4. Comment: CSPA respectfully requests the Board to direct staff to conduct another 

cost analysis applying more reasonable assumptions and better taking into account 

the information provided by manufacturers that substantiates the significant 

difficulties they will encounter in reformulating their Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Freshener products to meet the proposed VOC limit. [CSPA1] 

Response: In a subsequent discussion with the commenter, it became clear that 

the commenter misinterpreted the total estimated costs of the regulation. In 

developing the estimated cost to comply with the proposed VOC limit for this 

category, staff assumed a project horizon of ten years and stated in Chapter VII of 

the Staff Report that the various Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener costs shown 

are per year for ten years. The commenter indicated that the estimated cost of the 

regulation was a total $3.1 million, when this is the cost for one year and the overall 

cost of the regulation is actually $3.1 million per year for ten years, for a total of 

$31 million. Staff believes that the commenter now agrees that the cost analysis was 

conducted with reasonable assumptions, which yielded appropriate cost estimates. 

C-5. Comment: Regarding restriction of Global Warming Potential for Double Phase Air 

Freshener aerosols, there is no non-flammable alternative to HFC-134a which would 

be the only compound that could be used as a propellant. There should be an 

exemption for this situation. [NAA1] 

Response: Staff disagrees with the comment. Staff has not found or been made 

aware of any Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners containing HFC-134a currently 

being sold. Additionally, no non-flammable products were reported in the 2006 

Consumer & Commercial Products Survey. Therefore, staff believes it is appropriate 

to prohibit the use of compounds with global warming potential values of 150 or 

greater, such as HFC-143a, to ensure there is no increase in greenhouse gas 

emissions from reformulated products. 
13 

C-6. Comment: The proposed limit for air fresheners presents very significant 

technological challenges for product manufacturers. We request ARB staff to work 

with us to re-evaluate this limit in the future if it proves to be technologically and 

commercially infeasible. [CSPA2] 

Response: Staff recognizes that the proposed limit is challenging. Therefore we 

proposed an effective date of December 31, 2012, to allow manufacturers additional 

time to reformulate affected products. Additionally, Resolution 09-51 directs the 

Executive Officer to monitor the progress of manufacturers in meeting the limits. 

This directive is typical of previous consumer products regulatory proposals and 

commits staff to performing a technical assessment prior to the December 31, 2012, 

effective date. 

D. Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner Comments 

D-1. Comment: We applaud the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) efforts to 

reduce the emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from consumer 

products. CARB should continue to lead the way and set the precedent for 

protecting our environment and public health, in reducing harmful toxics in consumer 

and industrial products, specifically. The regulations on multipurpose solvents and 

paint thinners will reduce danger to health of children with asthma, and reduce risks 

of organ damage and cancer to workers using these products. [FORMLETTER] 

D-2. Comment: The South Coast Air Quality Management District supports the proposal 

before you today and recognizes upon full implementation this proposed rule will 

significantly reduce VOC emissions throughout California. [SCAQMD1; SCAQMD2] 

D-3. Comment: During the 2008 ARB hearing, the Board gave instructions to staff to 

regulate this category. We urge this Board to support your staff. [LBACA3] 

D-4. Comment: We’re asking CARB to adopt regulations that are more strict so that we 

can feel that we are being protected with your work. Also, we’re 100 percent in 

support of ARB’s staff proposal to ban all those toxic chemicals in solvents and paint 

thinners. We hope you will show your leadership in favor of our communities 

impacted by air pollution and toxic chemicals in consumer products. [LBACA4; 

SANDOVAL] 

D-5. Comment: We also want to express our strong support to the proposed new 

subsection 94509(u), which would prohibit perchloroethylene, methylene chloride, 

and trichloroethylene on multi-purpose solvents and paint thinners. [CCA1] 

Response to Comments D-1 through D-5: Comments noted. 

D-6. Comment: We're asking CARB to adopt staff's proposal to reduce the percentage 

of emissions of VOCs in paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents down to three 

percent. We urge CARB to change the timeline and move it to 2012, closer to rule 

1143, shortening the deadline for these emissions. [LBACA1; SANDOVAL] 

D-7. Comment: All of our comments are obviously in support of this regulation. And, in 

fact, we would like to see it strengthened by moving the deadline for solvents from 

2013 to 2012 and make it closer to AQMD's rule 1143. We completely disagree that 

these regulations will end this industry as we know it. [CCA2] 
14 

D-8. Comment: She would like to strongly encourage you to support your staff by setting 

the VOC limit to three percent and asks you to move implementation date for multipurpose solvents to 2012. [CCA3] 

D-9. Comment: Let’s make sure we’re including the knowledge of the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District. Let’s move up the 2013 deadline by the end of 2012. 

[SIERRACLB] 

D-10. Comment: We are very hopeful about the estimated reductions from this regulation, 

but are concerned about the disparity with the SCAQMD’s Rule 1143 implementation 

dates. We strongly encourage CARB to align the VOC limit implementation date for 

multipurpose solvents closer to Rule 1143, setting 2012 as the implementation 

timeline. We believe that by aligning the effective date for multi-purpose solvents 

closer to that of Rule 1143, CARB will reduce the health impacts associated with the 

misuse of these products, and will achieve VOC reductions one year earlier. [CCA1] 

D-11. Comment: We urge CARB to adopt these regulations to better protect the health of 

consumers and workers. We urge CARB to adopt a reduction in VOCs for multipurpose solvents and paint thinners to three percent. However, CARB should align 

its VOC three percent limit date closer to the AQMD's Rule 1143 by shifting the 

2013 implementation date to 2012. An implementation date of 2012 is more 

appropriate for this regulation. We encourage CARB to expand these efforts and to 

reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from other kinds of consumer products and 

ingredients contributing to global warming. We encourage CARB to make California 

the first state that officially reduces our global warming footprint from consumer 

products. [NRDC] 

D-12. Comment: I’m here to request ARB to get the timeline closer to AQMD's to reduce 

VOCs from these solvents. [LBACA2] 

D-13. Comment: I strongly support this regulation today, but hope you will move the 

effective date of the final VOC limit of three percent up earlier to be more consistent 

with the South Coast standard, which goes into effect in 2011. [IRTA] 

D-14. Comment: We need to express a concern that the proposed implementation 

schedule is too lengthy for Southern California health needs. As you know, the 

SCAQMD has already adopted a similar regulation, Rule 1143, with tighter 

implementation dates for the interim and final limits of January 2010 and 

January 2011, respectively. [SCAQMD1] 

Response to Comments D-6 through D-14: Comments noted. Staff believes the 

proposed effective date of December 31, 2013, is necessary because it has not been 

demonstrated that low VOC products available today in commerce adequately thin 

all types of coatings. The additional time is also needed to develop less flammable 

and/or less costly product technologies that may also provide greater ozone 

reductions. 

D-15. Comment: ARB’s proposed statewide regulatory limits are generally more stringent 

than the District Rule. In the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) for this rule, ARB 

states that the ARB percent-VOC and SCAQMD weight-per-volume limits for 

thinners and solvents are “virtually equivalent” except for the CARB 30% limit being 

effective one year later and the 3% limit three years later than the respective South 

Coast limits. To be precise, however, the two limits are not “virtually equivalent,” due 
15 

to the relatively low density (specific gravity) of acetone and other types of solvents 

used in these products. [CSPA1; NPCA2] 

Response: Staff acknowledges that there are a number of solvents currently used 

in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, and that these solvents span a 

range of densities. Depending on the solvent used in reformulated products, there is 

a potential that ARB’s proposed VOC limit in percent by weight will differ from 

SCAQMD’s VOC limit in grams per liter. Throughout the development of the

proposed limits, we worked with SCAQMD staff to identify technologically and 

commercially feasible VOC limits from Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners. 

Additionally, on numerous occasions staff disclosed its intention to propose virtually 

equivalent limits given the historical differences between ARB’s adoption of 

consumer products VOC limits in percent by weight and SCAQMD’s adoption of 

VOC limits in grams per liter. Staff agrees with the commenter’s contention that 

there is potential that the proposed statewide limits may differ slightly from 

SCAQMD’s limits depending on the solvent used in the reformulated products. 

However, this is not a compliance issue for manufacturers because if the product 

meets the SCAQMD Rule 1143 requirements, it will meet the ARB limits. 

SCAQMD’s first tier limit of 300 grams per liter (virtually equivalent to 30 percent 

VOC by weight) went into effect on January 1, 2010. ARB’s first tier, 30 percent 

VOC limit, is effective on December 31, 2010, one day before SCAQMD’s second 

tier limit of 25 grams per liter (equivalent to 3 percent VOC by weight) goes into 

effect. 

D-16. Comment: ARB should use its authority to make the VOC limits for the Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner product categories supersede South Coast Air 

Quality Management District limits, or make the State limits apply only outside the 

District. In South Coast, there are four separate requirements that would need to be 

met within four years, the way the current regulation proposal is written (assuming 

acetone is a major component in reformulations). Differing requirements in different 

parts of the state (South Coast vs. rest of California) will be difficult to meet. [CSPA1; 

NPCA2] 

Response: Under the circumstances involved here, ARB does not have the legal 

authority to supersede or preempt the limits adopted by the SCAQMD. The 

Governing Board of the SCAQMD adopted limits for multi-purpose solvent and paint 

thinners before ARB adopted limits for the same categories. This raises two 

questions: (1) does the SCAQMD have the authority to adopt VOC limits for 

categories of consumer products that ARB has not previously regulated, and (2) if 

the SCAQMD adopts VOC limits for a consumer product category before ARB has 

regulated this category, do these limits remain legally effective if ARB subsequently 

adopts VOC limits for the same category? 

The ARB Office of Legal Affairs first considered these questions in 1992, and issued 

a legal opinion on December 3, 1992, which reached two conclusions. The first 

conclusion is that once ARB has adopted a VOC regulation for a particular category 

of consumer products, Health and Safety Code section 41712(e) prohibits local dir 

districts from subsequently adopting any VOC regulation that is different than the 

ARB regulation for that category; but until ARB formally adopts a regulation for a 

product category, districts retain their existing legal authority to adopt a regulation for 

this category. The second conclusion is that if a district adopts a regulation for a 

product category that has not been regulated by ARB, and then ARB subsequently 

adopts a regulation for this product category, the district regulation remains legally 
16 

effective and is not preempted by the subsequent ARB adoption. Following is a 

discussion of the reasoning ARB used to reach these conclusions. 

Before 1988, ARB did not have the authority to regulate consumer products. 

Consumer products are nonvehicular sources, and the primary authority to regulate 

nonvehicular sources lay with the local air districts (see Health and Safety Code 

section 39002). In 1988, the Legislature enacted the California Clean Air Act of 1988 

(the "Act"; Stats. 1988, Chapter 1568). The Act added a number of new provisions 

to the Health and Safety Code, including section 41712. Section 41712 requires 

ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by consumer products. Health and Safety Code 

section 41712(f) contains language limiting the authority of local air pollution control 

and air quality management districts (districts) to regulate consumer products. 

Section 41712(f) currently states: 

“(f) A district shall adopt no regulation pertaining to disinfectants, nor any 

regulation pertaining to a consumer product that is different than any 

regulation adopted by the state board for that purpose." 

The language above is the result of several bills enacted by the Legislature. The 

original version of this language was included in the California Clean Air Act of 1998, 

and this language was amended in 1992 by AB 2783 (Sher, Stats. 1992, ch. 945). 

After the 1992 amendments the language read as follows: 

“(e) A district shall adopt no regulation relating to a consumer product that is 

different than any regulation adopted by the state board for that purpose." 

The 1992 language was essentially the same as the current language, except that 

the current language prohibits any regulation of disinfectants by the districts. The 

language regarding disinfectants was added in 1997 (Stats. 1997, ch. 689) and is not 

relevant to this analysis; the critical question is how the language restricts districts 

from regulating other consumer product categories that are not disinfectants. 

By its terms, section 41712(e) does not restrict district authority unless ARB has 

already adopted a regulation "for that purpose." The ARB Office of Legal Affairs has 

long taken the position that the qualifying phrases "... regulation relating to a 

consumer product ..." (e.g., not a regulation relating to consumer products in 

general) and "... for that purpose ..." indicate that the restriction on district action 

applies only to the regulation of those specific consumer product categories (e.g., 

hairsprays, glass cleaners, etc.) for which VOC standards have already been 

specified in an ARB regulation. The language does not restrict district authority to 

regulate a particular consumer product category unless it has already been regulated 

by the ARB. However, once ARB has adopted a VOC regulation for a particular 

category of consumer products, Health and Safety Code section 41712(e) prohibits 

local districts from subsequently adopting any VOC regulation that is different than 

the ARB regulation for that category. 

So what happens if a district adopts a regulation for a product category that has not 

been regulated by ARB, and then ARB subsequently adopts a regulation for the 

same product category? The language of section 41712(e) does not specifically 

state that a previously adopted district regulation is automatically preempted by the 

subsequent ARB adoption of a different regulation. Section 41712(e) merely 

provides that " ... A district shall adopt no regulation ... " that is different from any 

ARB regulation. The Legislature did not state, as it could easily have done, that a 
17 

district " ... shall not adopt or enforce any regulation ... " that is different from an ARB 

regulation. The use of the term "enforce," or similar language, would have made it 

clear that previously adopted district regulations were preempted once the ARB 

acted to adopt its own regulation. For example, subsection (i) of Health and Safety 

Code section 41712 states that air pollution control standards for aerosol paints “... 

shall be set solely by the state board...” and that “A district shall not adopt or enforce 

any regulation...” that is different than an ARB aerosol paint regulation. 

From the foregoing analysis, it is apparent that the language of section 41712(e) 

contains significant ambiguities. In an attempt to clarify these ambiguities, ARB 

lawyers reviewed the legislative history of both AB 2783 and the California Clean Air 

Act of 1988, which enacted the original version of Health and Safety Code section 

41712. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the legislative history of either bill which is 

dispositive in answering the specific questions posed above. It is possible to surmise 

that section 41712(e) was intended to promote some kind of statewide uniformity in 

consumer product regulations. However, the unusual and ambiguous wording of the 

language makes it unclear as to exactly how preexisting district regulations should 

be treated. In light of the textual ambiguities and the lack of any useful guidance in 

the legislative history, the question is to what extent it is appropriate to conclude that 

the Legislature intended to repeal by implication the districts' longstanding authority 

(see Health and Safety Code section 39002 and 41508) to regulate consumer 

products as nonvehicular emission source categories. 

The California Supreme Court addressed a similar question in the case of Western 

Oil and Gas Association (WOGA) v. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control 

District, 49 Cal.3d 408; 261 Cal. Rptr. 384 (Aug. 1989). In this case, the Court 

discussed the circumstances under which it may validly be concluded that a statute 

operates to preempt or repeal by implication the authority of local air districts to 

control nonvehicular sources. In discussing the applicable precedents the Court 

stated: 

"... All presumptions are against repeal by implication ... The presumption 

against implied repeal is so strong that 'To overcome the presumption the two 

acts must be irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent that the 

two cannot have concurrent operation’ ... There must be no possibility of 

concurrent operation. Implied repeal should not be found unless the later 

provision gives undebatable evidence of an intent to supersede the earlier ..." 

49 Cal.3d 408, 419-420. 

Based on the principles set forth in the WOGA case and the reasoning discussed 

above, ARB concluded in 1992 that previously adopted district consumer product 

regulations are not preempted when ARB adopts a regulation for the same product 

category. We believe that both the reasoning and conclusion are still valid. 

The commenters also suggest that instead of using ARB’s authority to supersede the 

SCAQMD limits (which ARB cannot do for the reasons stated above), ARB might 

instead “...make the State limits apply only outside the District.” ARB disagrees with 

the commenters and does not believe that this alternative will help the regulated 

community. Consumer products are widely distributed throughout the State through 

multiple distribution channels, and ARB’s experience is that uniform statewide 

standards are preferable to region-specific standards. As the commenters 

themselves state: “Differing requirements in different parts of the state (South Coast 

vs. rest of California) will be difficult to meet.” In this case the SCAQMD is acting 

within its authority to establish its own standards, in order to address its 
18 

commitments in the State Implementation Plan and the serious air pollution problems 

of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. There will be separate 

standards within the SCAQMD in any event, and the situation will not be improved if 

ARB limits its standards for these product categories to areas outside of the 

SCAQMD. 

D-17. Comment: For products which include an attached “hang tag,” we believe the hang 

tag or sticker shall be large enough to display the statement in Chinese, English, 

Korean, Spanish, and Vietnamese in a minimum size 14 font. We also believe the 

font color of the statement be in sharp visual contrast to the background color of the 

hang tag or sticker. Lastly, hang tags shall be attached by wire, plastic tie, selfadhesive, or threaded cap and not obscure any other warning messages printed on 

the container. [SCFPO1] 

Response: Based on subsequent discussions with industry experts and fire 

officials, staff agreed that the flammable or extremely flammable labeling provision 

should contain a font size requirement and statements in both English and Spanish. 

Due to size limitations on product labels, hang tags, and stickers staff believes it is 

impractical to require warnings in all five languages recommended by the 

commenter. The modifications to section 94512(e) were proposed in the first 15-day 

public comment period. Additionally, prior to the effective date of the limits, staff 

intends to provide Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner flammable labeling 

information on ARB’s Consumer Products Program website in English, Spanish, 

Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese. The commenter supported staff’s additional 

modifications as shown in Comment D-18, below. 

D-18. Comment: We believe the modifications that staff has recommended for this 

regulation will reduce the hazard by letting people know they're not using a product 

that they've been used to using all along. [SCFPO2]

Response: Comment noted. 

D-19. Comment: NPCA/FSCT is concerned the “tag” label statement is problematic in that 

they may compel manufacturers to provide “dual” Spanish language on the labels for 

the affected products. This would increase burden on the industry by forcing 

companies to redo their product labels, and discard existing labels. [NPCA2] 

Response: Prior to the receipt to this comment, staff identified that a majority of 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner product labels contained all wording in both 

English and Spanish. Additionally, it was brought to staff’s attention in Comment D17, that the labeling provision statement would be more effective in additional 

languages. The Response to Comment D-17 is incorporated herein. Additionally, 

staff believes there are a number of non-flammable and non-extremely flammable 

formulations currently in commerce that can meet the first tier 30 percent VOC limit. 

However, we acknowledge that the second tier 3 percent VOC limit is technology 

forcing. Therefore, the Board adopted an effective date of December 31, 2013, for 

the second tier limit to allow manufacturers time to develop less flammable products. 

This long lead time should also provide the regulated industry an opportunity to plan 

ahead and minimize costs to change labels. Staff will also conduct a technical 

assessment in 2012 to evaluate manufacturers’ progress in developing less 

flammable products. Nevertheless, based on comments received from stakeholders 

and fire officials, staff believes that it is necessary to alert the consumer of a potential 

change in reformulation and it is most effective to require the label statement in both 
19 

English and Spanish. It should also be noted that the labeling provision will sunset 

on December 31, 2015. 

D-20. Comment: There will be an increased fire risk to consumers for the 3% VOC limit 

because manufacturers will be forced to use exempt compounds that are extremely 

flammable. [NAA1] 

D-21. Comment: There will be a significant fire hazard as a result of forcing 

manufacturers to use acetone in reformulation of multipurpose solvents and paint 

thinners. Acetone bursts into flames around ignition sources at almost all ambient 

temperatures (flashpoint of 5 degrees F). Regular paint thinner has a flashpoint of 

100 degrees F or higher, making it much less of a fire hazard. Fire department 

representatives and the CPSC have expressed their concerns over this rulemaking. 

[WMB1] 

D-22. Comment: Our first concern is the fire risk to the consumer, especially from the 

future three percent limit. The three percent limit will force us to use acetone and 

what will happen is it will make the product an extremely flammable product which 

will increase the flammability risk to consumers. [WMB2] 

D-23. Comment: We're concerned the proposal would likely result in the formulation of 

products that pose a higher fire risk to consumers. We do not believe the CARB staff 

has demonstrated how those provisions would alleviate the undoubted increase in 

safety risk. [ACCSIG2] 

D-24. Comment: While CARB has attempted to mitigate the increased risk of fire hazards, 

we believe the risk still remains. [NPCA2; NPCA3] 

D-25. Comment: The tier 2 standard could result in increased fire hazards for consumers 

and the public at large. CARB has not explained how it would abate this hazard. 

CARB should reassess its preliminary conclusion that “No significant adverse 

impacts were identified.” [ACCSIG1] 

Response to Comments D-20 through D-25: For persons who choose to sell, 

supply, offer for sale, or manufacture for use any flammable or extremely flammable 

Multi-purpose Solvent or Paint Thinner labeled as “Paint Thinner;” “Multi-purpose 

Solvent;” “Clean-up Solvent;” or “Paint Clean-up;” ARB agrees that it is necessary to 

alert consumers that the product has been reformulated and may have different 

characteristics than previous products. Therefore, the Board approved a labeling 

provision that requires manufacturers to alert the consumer of a potential change in 

formulation which could present a fire hazard if used improperly. In developing this 

regulatory provision, ARB staff worked with a California Fire Department Chief, 

representing a broad coalition of California fire officials. The Fire Chief testified 

before the Board and stated that “...the modifications that staff has recommended for 

this regulation will reduce the hazard by letting people know they’re not using a 

product that they’ve been used to using all along.” As stated in Chapter VIII, 

Environmental Impacts, of the Staff Report (beginning with page 116), “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.” Additionally, the United States 

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulations require precautionary 

labeling of hazardous household products including flammable or extremely 

flammable Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. The Fire Chief also 

testified that “Our concern from the beginning has not been with the use of acetone 
20 

or another solvent to meet this regulation; our concern has been putting one product 

in a can and calling it something else.” 

In addition to the labeling provision, staff has proposed an effective date of 

December 31, 2013, for the second tier limit to allow manufacturers time to develop 

less flammable products. Staff has also committed to evaluating public safety as 

part of the technical assessment to be conducted in 2012. Based on staff’s work 

with the Fire Chief, ARB has concluded that the combination of measures described 

above will effectively mitigate the potential adverse public safety impacts. It should 

be noted that accidents from misuse of acetone are rare, even though acetone and 

acetone-containing products (e.g. lacquer thinner) have been sold to consumers for 

many years and are widely available at home improvement and mass market retail 

stores. While it cannot be ruled out that a small residual risk may remain from the 

proposed amendments, ARB has concluded that the risk (if any) is not significant. 

D-26. Comment: The small container exemptions could potentially create unintended 

loopholes. [SCAQMD1] 

Response: The temporary exemption for small containers was proposed because it 

was brought to staff’s attention that some California consumers may have previously 

purchased solvent-borne paints in their possession that may require a small volume 

of Paint Thinner. Secondly, there is an existing exemption from the VOC limits for 

architectural coatings packaged in containers with a volume of one liter or less. Staff 

has also been made aware of several categories of architectural paints with VOC 

limits primarily, but not exclusively, outside the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, that allow for fairly high concentrations of solvents. It is anticipated that the 

emissions impacts from the small size exemption (8 fluid ounces or less) will be 

minimal. In addition, the small container exemption will sunset on 

December 31, 2013, which will further serve to minimize any impacts from the 

exemption. 

D-27. Comment: We are concerned about staff’s proposal to exempt artist’s 

solvent/thinner sold in containers of up to 32 fl. oz. We feel this exemption is not 

necessary, and will continue to expose people to these dangerous chemicals. 

[CCA1] 

Response: ARB staff surveyed Artists’ Solvents and Thinners in the 2006 

Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. The category sales reported for these 

products resulted in about 0.1 tons per day of VOC emissions compared to about 

22 tons per day for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners combined. The 

Artist’s Solvent/Thinner exemption was suggested by industry experts and we 

agreed with this recommendation based on the category’s low emissions and 

substantially higher sales price compared to Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products sold at home improvement and paint stores. In addition, ASTM D 4236 

requires that these products be reviewed by a board certified or qualified toxicologist 

and labeled consistent with the standard because these products are intended for 

use in the household or by children. 

D-28. Comment: We request the Board proceed without delay toward the development of 

reactivity-based limits for the solvents products in cooperation with the District with 

the goal of replacing both State and District mass-based limits. Reactivity limits 

based on PW-MIR should be used in this Regulation, as they are for Aerosol 

Coatings. Waiting until 2012 to look into shifting to a reactivity limit is very 

unfeasible. Flammability and safety issues along with ozone formation potential 
21 

should be investigated sooner and considered in reactivity-based regulations. 

[CSPA1] 

D-29. Comment: We suggest ARB proceed forward immediately with a reactivity rule that 

would provide equivalent ozone reductions and will also provide the industry 

formulation flexibility. [NPCA3] 

D-30. Comment: I would like to emphasize the very high importance for the solvents and 

thinner products of moving expeditiously toward development of reactivity-based 

standards for these products to replace the mass-based standards that I expect you 

will adopt today. [CSPA3] 

D-31. Comment: This category would be very suitable for a reactivity regulation and we 

would recommend dropping the mass based proposal in favor of a reactivity limit. 

[SW1] 

D-32. Comment: We're asking that you take the time to include reactivity at this point. 

Contrary to staff's comments here, we are not proposing that reactivity should 

replace the mass approach. We’re proposing an alternative control plan that would 

go alongside a mass-based approach. [ACCSIG3] 

D-33. Comment: SIG strongly supports the adoption of reactivity-based standards either 

as the sole or at least an alternative compliance option for paint thinners and multipurpose solvents. The proposed mass-based approach, in stark contrast, is 

outdated, needlessly rigid, and potentially counterproductive. [ACCSIG2] 

D-34. Comment: CARB has been successful with using reactivity-based regulation for 

aerosol coatings, and should use this type of regulation for Multipurpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner as well. Reactivity-based regulation would ensure emission reductions 

and provide flexibility for manufacturers. [WMB1] 

Response to Comments D-28 through D-34: These commenters all contend that 

reactivity-based limits instead of mass-based VOC limits should be adopted. Staff 

disagrees with these comments. ARB’s long-standing practice has been to pursue 

mass-based VOC limits when feasible, and only to pursue reactivity-based limits 

when mass-based limits are unfeasible or do not provide the needed ozone 

reduction benefits. In following this strategy, staff routinely evaluates whether a 

reactivity-based or mass-based approach would provide a greater overall reduction. 

In Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, of the Staff Report (beginning with page 

100), staff determined that the proposed mass-based VOC limits coupled with the 

aromatic compound content limit would provide greater ozone reduction benefits 

than a reactivity-based limit, and would provide better statewide consistency. 

Therefore, the mass-based approach was proposed by staff and approved by the 

Board. However, we do agree that reactivity is a viable VOC control strategy and 

that it has worked well for regulating aerosol coatings. As part of a technical 

assessment to be conducted in 2012, after the implementation of the first tier, 

30 percent VOC limit, staff will again evaluate whether a reactivity-based strategy, 

rather than implementing the 3 percent mass-based VOC limit, may be the better 

regulatory approach for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. 

One commenter also suggests that the Board act to override mass-based limits 

adopted by the SCAQMD and replace them with reactivity-based limits. As 

explained in the Response to Comment D-16, the SCAQMD has authority to adopt 

limits for those categories of consumer products where no State standard exists. 
22 

Because the SCAQMD acted prior to the ARB for these categories, the District acted 

within its legal authority to adopt VOC limits and ARB does not have the authority to 

preempt them. 

The commenters request that for reactivity-based regulations, flammability, safety 

and ozone forming potential should be addressed sooner. Staff disagrees with this 

comment and directs the commenters to the near-term and longer-term provisions in 

the amendments that address these issues. The Response to Comments D-20 

through D-25 is incorporated herein. For example, for public safety in the near-term, 

some flammable or extremely flammable products would have to be appropriately 

labeled to alert the consumer that the product has been reformulated and is different 

from the previous product. Ozone forming potential is also addressed in the near 

term by limiting the use of highly reactive aromatic compounds to no more than 

1 percent by weight in reformulated products. 

With regard to the proposed limits in the current rulemaking action, staff’s technical 

assessment conducted in 2012, will further evaluate flammability, safety and ozone 

forming potential of products reformulated to meet the 30 percent VOC limit, as well 

as the predicted reformulation pathways to meet the 3 percent VOC limit. Because 

the assessment relies on evaluating the products reformulated to meet the 

30 percent limit effective December 31, 2010, 2012 is the appropriate time to 

conduct this assessment because formulation data for the 30 percent VOC products 

will be available for the 2011 calendar year. Results of the assessment will be used 

to determine whether further regulatory changes are needed to address public 

safety. The assessment will also compare ozone forming potential of the 30 percent 

VOC products and assess whether formulations to meet the 3 percent VOC limit 

could result in higher reactive products, and thereby result in an ozone disbenefit. 

Depending on the assessment results, staff may propose reactivity limits to replace 

the 3 percent VOC mass limit. Staff also notes that one goal of allowing until 

December 31, 2013, to implement the 3 percent limit was to provide time for further 

development of less flammable and lower ozone forming product technologies. 

The commenters also recommend that reactivity-based limits be adopted to give 

formulators flexibility. While we agree that reactivity limits do allow reformulation 

flexibility, survey data also indicate that to meet the mass-based VOC limits a 

number of viable reformulation options exist that will provide flexibility. 

As to providing reactivity-based limits as a compliance alternative, staff determined 

during development of the reactivity-based Aerosol Coatings Regulation that using 

reactivity-based limits as an alternative compliance option to mass-based limits 

would not ensure that air quality benefits would be preserved. In an optional 

program, a manufacturer could choose the easier pathway to compliance for each 

product, which could result in reduced and unpredictable air quality benefits. For 

these reasons providing reactivity as an option is not appropriate. 

Staff also disagrees with the contention that the mass-based approach is outdated, 

needlessly rigid, and potentially counterproductive. While ARB agrees that reactivity 

is a viable control strategy, ARB’s general VOC control strategy has been to reduce 

the mass of VOCs. Air quality data clearly indicate that reducing the mass of VOCs 

has not been counterproductive, but rather has been very effective in reducing 

ground level ozone concentrations. 

The commenters contend that use of reactivity will ensure that emission reductions 

are achieved. However, because reactivity limits allow for VOC substitution rather 
23 

than VOC replacement, staff finds that use of reactivity may not reduce mass 

emissions as effectively as will mass-based limits. Both strategies will result in 

ozone reductions, however, if correctly designed. 

D-35. Comment: It is widely acknowledged that manufacturers will be forced to 

reformulate their products with Acetone. Acetone was exempted from the category 

of VOC because of its relatively low reactivity once it enters the atmosphere. 

However “reactivity” is only one variable influencing the capacity of a chemical to 

produce ozone in the atmosphere. The purpose of CARB’s proposed regulation is to 

reduce ozone formation. However the opposite will likely occur given that Barr and 

other manufacturers will be forced to use Acetone. Barr strongly urges the Board to 

reject this proposed regulation. There are more reactive compounds besides 

aromatics that would be worse with regards to ozone-formation potential, which 

could be used under this proposal. In particular, there is potential for an increase in 

ozone formation due to acetone as a reformulation option to meet the 3% VOC limit. 

Acetone’s volatility is very high, outweighing its low reactivity when it comes to ozone 

formation. This could cause it to form more ozone than a less volatile, but more 

reactive compound. Certain thinners that Barr currently sells which do not even 

meet the 30% VOC limit would form less ozone on a per-use basis than acetone, 

based on volatility and MIR values. [WMB1] 

Response: The commenter contends that the amendments would force 

manufacturers to use acetone. While staff agrees that use of the VOC exempt 

solvent acetone is a feasible, likely option to meet the 3 percent VOC limit, the 

amendments do not force manufacturers to use acetone. Survey data, as well as 

staff’s research into emerging technologies, indicate that other reformulation options 

are available to meet both the 30 percent and the 3 percent VOC limits. Staff 

believes use of acetone is a likely reformulation option because it is a more costeffective option than other technologies. 

The commenter also suggests that use of acetone will result in increasing ozone 

concentrations rather than reducing them. Staff agrees that there is some potential 

for this to happen as products reformulate to meet the 3 percent VOC limit. In 

Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, of the Staff Report (beginning with page 101), 

staff determined that depending upon the reformulation option chosen to meet the 

30 percent limit, formulations using primarily acetone to meet the 3 percent limit 

could result in a slight increase in ozone forming potential from Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner products. Therefore, staff committed to conduct an assessment of 

products reformulated to meet the 30 percent VOC limit, along with their ozone 

forming potential, prior to the effective date of the 3 percent limit. To facilitate this 

assessment, special reporting requirements for these products were included in new 

subsection 94513(g). The goal of the assessment would be to determine whether 

the technologies available to meet the 3 percent limit would likely result in higher 

ozone forming potential than the reformulated 30 percent products. Depending on 

results of this evaluation, staff would propose any necessary changes to the VOC 

limits to ensure that the air quality benefits are preserved. Because we are aware of 

this potential, we proposed an effective date of December 31, 2013, for the 3 percent 

limit to allow for the development of additional, less reactive, technologies. 

The commenter also contends that use of acetone, because of its high volatility, will 

result in more product use and thereby result in additional ozone being formed. 

While we agree that acetone is a fast evaporating solvent, the documentation staff 

were provided was not convincing evidence that use of Multi-purpose Solvent and 
24 

Paint Thinner products reformulated with acetone will cause appreciably more 

product use. 

Staff also disagrees that the reasons cited in these comments provide a basis for 

rejecting the proposal. Staff believes the proposal contains commercially and 

technologically feasible limits, as required by State law, and achieves the maximum 

feasible reduction in VOC emissions from these categories. The proposal also has 

provisions in place to ensure that the predicted benefits occur. 

D-36. Comment: I don't believe that they can ensure their emission reductions with a 

mass-based regulation. [WMB2] 

Response: Staff disagrees that the amendments would not ensure emission 

reductions are achieved. As described in the Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, 

of the Staff Report (beginning with page 98), our analysis found that there would be a 

large mass and ozone reduction benefit from implementing the first tier, 30 percent 

VOC limit. Both mass-based and reactivity-based limits result in reducing ozone 

concentrations. However, mass-based VOC limits are more likely to effectively 

reduce VOC emissions than reactivity-based limits. This is because reactivity-based 

limits allow for VOC substitution rather than VOC reduction. 

D-37. Comment: This is the first time that ARB has contemplated and proposed to use 

reactivity in a manner that is counterproductive or limiting to formulators. One of the 

fundamental principles of employing a reactivity strategy is to provide formulators the 

necessary flexibility to develop new product formulas. In this instance, however, 

such a reactivity element in the control strategy is specifically designed to limit a 

formulators options. This use of reactivity is contrary, counterproductive and will 

further handcuff formulators. [NPCA4] 

D-38. Comment: The current proposed regulation contains a lack of flexibility for the 

manufacturer to develop future products due to restrictions on aromatics. This 

restriction is not necessary and stifles R&D efforts for the 3% proposed VOC limit. 

[WMB1] 

D-39. Comment: The proposed 1% limitation on aromatic compounds restricts formulation 

flexibility and should be eliminated from the regulation. ARB should consider 

replacing this requirement with reactivity-based limits. NPCA is concerned about the 

precedent that this regulation may set for other consumer product categories in the 

future. [NPCA2; NPCA4] 

D-40. Comment: We feel these aromatics provisions are reactivity concepts attached onto 

a mass-based rule. We don’t feel that’s been adequately demonstrated why CARB 

choose aromatics in particular, why they choose one percent. [ACCSIG3] 

D-41. Comment: The inclusion of a restriction in the use of aromatic solvents or any other 

solvent class is very problematic for formulators of Paint Thinner or Multi-Purpose 

Solvent products. It is incomprehensible to manufacturers of consumer products that 

this or any other consumer products regulation would simultaneously use both, 

mass-based and reactivity based standards from a historical and technical 

perspective. The proposed restriction of 1% by weight for aromatic solvents restricts 

the use of all such aromatics, regardless of their reactivity value. Such a wholesale 

restriction on an entire class of compounds is not based upon sound science and will 

rob formulators of important reformulation strategies and tools. The proposed 

restriction on the amount of aromatic solvents that can be used in a formula is an 
25 

attempt to incorporate a reactivity element into a mass-based proposal for these 

categories. We believe that ARB could have a greater impact in the reduction and 

the exposure of VOCs by not adopting this aromatic solvent proposal. [NPCA4] 

D-42. Comment: Limiting aromatics to 1 percent was proposed for reactivity reasons. 

However, if the ARB wishes to continue with a mass based regulation we strongly 

urge the 1 percent aromatic restriction be dropped from the regulation. [SW1] 

D-43. Comment: The inclusion of an “aromatic” restriction would not be necessary if a 

reactivity-based standard were adopted. Numerous non-aromatic compounds are 

more reactive than aromatic compounds. [NAA1] 

D-44. Comment: The one percent aromatic restriction will further restrict alternatives to 

acetone. Therefore, we also recommend ARB remove the one percent restriction. 

[NPCA3] 

D-45. Comment: CARB's proposed aromatics prohibition is arbitrary and capacious. The 

proposed standard is essentially a reactivity-based provision grafted onto a 

conventional mass-based approach. CARB's selective use of reactivity unfairly 

serves only to make the mass-based approach more onerous and denies formulators 

needed flexibility. [ACCSIG2; NPCA4] 

D-46. Comment: SIG requests that CARB suspend consideration of the proposed 

amendments because the proposed aromatics prohibition is arbitrary and capricious. 

If CARB is going to rely on reactivity-based concepts, then it ought to adopt the 

concept in its entirety. It is not justified to limit aromatics so much, when other types 

of compounds that are more reactive than aromatics could be used to reformulate 

Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner and thereby undermine the reductions 

sought. Why the 1% limit on aromatics? Why not 2 or 5%? CARB should account 

for the reason on 1% limit and allow stakeholders to comment before finalizing. 

[ACCSIG1] 

Response to Comments D-37 through D-46: These comments are directed at the 

provision of the proposed amendments that would limit the use of aromatic 

compounds to 1 percent by weight. Staff disagrees that the aromatic compound limit 

should be eliminated. As part of the evaluation required by the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), we determined that use of highly reactive, 

aromatic solvents in reformulated products could result in increasing the ozoneforming potential of products reformulated to meet the 30 percent VOC limit, thereby 

eroding the predicted ozone reduction benefits. Staff’s evaluation and rationale for 

the limit is set forth in Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, of the Staff Report 

(beginning with page 100). Because staff determined there would be a potential 

adverse impact if aromatic compounds were used in significant quantities, as a 

mitigation measure, staff proposed and the Board approved a limit on the amount of 

aromatic solvents used in the products’ final formulation to 1 percent by weight. The 

1 percent aromatic compound limit preserves, and more likely improves, the air 

quality benefits of the proposed VOC limits. 

The commenters contend that limiting the aromatic content of Multi-purpose Solvent 

and Paint Thinner products is proposed for reactivity reasons and that use of 

reactivity should not be combined with mass-based VOC limits. Staff agrees that the 

aromatic compound limit is a reactivity-based provision. However, we disagree that 

the two control strategies cannot be used together. Our analysis demonstrates that 
26 

this approach provides the best overall air quality benefit in the regulation of these 

products. 

The commenters also contend that the aromatic compound content limit would not 

be needed if reactivity-based limits were adopted rather than mass-based limits. 

They further contend that greater reductions could be achieved by not adopting the 

1 percent aromatic compound limit. ARB disagrees with these comments. Because 

staff’s analysis found that significant use of aromatic compounds in reformulations 

could erode ozone reduction benefits, any reactivity-based limits would have to 

account for this and be set at a low enough level to preclude use of highly reactive 

compounds. The commenters offer no evidence to support the contention that 

greater reductions could be achieved by not adopting the 1 percent aromatic 

compound limit. To the contrary, staff’s analysis found that this proposal provides 

the maximum feasible reduction from Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner 

products. 

The commenters further contend that the rationale for the restriction on use of 

aromatic compounds is not adequately explained. Staff disagrees with this 

comment. The rationale for the proposal is set forth in Chapter VIII, Environmental 

Impacts, of the Staff Report (beginning with page 100). As explained previously, 

staff determined that use of highly reactive solvents in reformulated products could 

result in higher ozone forming potential. In determining what level of aromatic 

compound restriction would be appropriate, staff evaluated the most likely 

reformulation pathways and the resulting reactivity of those products. This analysis 

revealed that the reactivity of a typical product complying with the 30 percent VOC 

limit using a water-hydrocarbon emulsion would be about 0.35 grams ozone per 

gram product and contain less than 1 percent aromatic compound content. Based 

on this, staff determined that in order to preserve the predicted ozone benefits, a 

1 percent aromatic compound limit was necessary. Limiting aromatic content to 

1 percent by weight maintains consistency of ozone forming potential of reformulated 

products. This analysis, contained in the Staff Report, was made available for public 

comment for 45 days prior to the Board hearing. 

The commenters also contend that more reactive solvents, that do not meet the 

aromatic compound definition, could still be used in reformulated Multi-purpose 

Solvent and Paint Thinner products. While the commenters do not provide the 

identification of the more reactive solvents that could be used in reformulated Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, staff acknowledges that VOCs do have 

wide ranging reactivities, and that some classes of compounds may be nearly as 

reactive as aromatic compounds. However, staff evaluated potential reformulation 

options and determined that limiting use of aromatic compounds would best preserve 

the ozone reduction benefits of the proposal. As part of the evaluation, staff had to 

ensure that several viable reformulation options would remain if aromatic compound 

use was restricted. Prohibiting additional classes of organic compounds that have 

reactivities close to those of aromatic compounds could restrict reformulation 

flexibility and result in infeasible products. Therefore staff proposed the restriction on 

the compounds with among the highest ozone impacts. Staff acknowledges that the 

1 percent VOC limit may eliminate one potential reformulation option, but other 

reformulation options are available to provide flexibility to produce effective products. 

Moreover, as part of the technical assessment to be conducted in 2012, staff will 

evaluate the continued need for the aromatic compound restriction. 

The commenters also contend that the 1 percent aromatic compound limit will restrict 

formulators to the use of acetone, and that it restricts use of all aromatic compounds 
27 

regardless of their reactivity. Staff disagrees with these contentions. To meet the 

30 percent VOC limit, survey data show that a variety of other organic chemicals can 

be used to formulate complying products. To meet the 3 percent VOC limit, fewer 

reformulation strategies are currently available. However, the contention that all 

aromatic compounds are limited to 1 percent by weight is incorrect. The definition for 

“Aromatic Compound” excludes the VOC exempt aromatic compounds such as parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF). 

As to the aromatic compound limit setting a precedent, staff disagrees. As always, 

each category proposed for regulation is in accordance with CEQA. Only where a 

potential adverse impact is identified would staff recommend a similar restriction. 

Staff disagrees that the 1 percent aromatic compound limit is arbitrary and capricious 

and is not based on sound science. The rationale and need for this provision was 

clearly set forth in Chapter VIII of the Staff Report. While the commenters suggest 

that this provision is not based on sound science, the commenters also urge 

adoption of a reactivity-based regulation. If the science of reactivity is sound science 

for developing an entire regulation, it can also be suitable for setting a 1 percent 

aromatic compound limit.

It should also be noted that staff acknowledged that there are some paint products 

that require thinning with an aromatic solvent in order for the paint to be usable. 

These types of thinning products were specifically excluded, temporarily, from 

compliance with the VOC and aromatic compound limits. 

D-47. Comment: The definition for the aromatics that has been proposed is also too 

broad. [SW2] 

D-48. Comment: The definition of aromatic compounds is too broad and difficult to verify 

through testing. [NAA1] 

D-49. Comment: The aromatic restriction is broadly defined, it’s going to impede our R&D, 

and it’s just not a good precedence. [WMB1; WMB2]

D-50. Comment: The current definition of aromatics is overly broad and may include 

several compounds that do not contribute to ozone formation. [WMB1] 

D-51. Comment: Limiting PCBTF to 1%, will restrict safer alternatives to acetone. 

[NPCA2; NPCA4] 

D-52. Comment: The Board should eliminate the provision on aromatic compounds, or 

adjust the definition to include only reactive, ozone-forming compounds. [CSPA1] 

Response to Comments D-47 through D-52: These commenters suggested that 

the proposed definition of “Aromatic Compound” was too broad and should be further 

clarified. Staff agreed and at the hearing proposed that the definition of “Aromatic 

Compound” be further clarified. The Board approved staff’s recommendations. The 

modified definition would limit “Aromatic Compound” to mean an aromatic compound 

with an initial boiling point less than or equal to 280 degrees Celsius. 

These commenters further indicated that it was unclear if the proposed definition 

would exclude VOC-exempt aromatic solvents, such as PCBTF, from the 1 percent 

aromatic compound limit. The intent of the originally proposed definition was to 

exclude negligibly reactive exempt compounds such as PCBTF. In light of the 
28 

confusion, staff proposed further modifications to the definition of “Aromatic 

Compound” to clarify that VOC-exempt aromatic compounds, such as PCBTF, would 

not meet the definition. Thus, the definition only includes reactive, ozone-forming 

compounds, and clarifies that use of exempt VOC compounds can be part of 

manufacturers’ research and development efforts. These definitional modifications 

were proposed as part of the first 15-day public comment period. 

 Staff disagrees with the comment that the laboratory analysis for aromatic compound 

content is too difficult. ARB laboratory staff routinely tests for common aromatics, 

such as the xylene isomers and toluene. These analytical capabilities will need to be 

expanded, and that work is underway. Standard test methods exist that will allow 

quantification of aromatic content. 

As to the aromatic compound limit setting a precedent, staff disagrees. As always, 

each category proposed for regulation is in accordance with CEQA. Only where a 

potential adverse impact is identified would staff recommend a similar restriction. 

D-53. Comment: SIG requests that CARB suspend consideration of the proposed 

amendments based on the following concerns: 1) Reactivity-based standards more 

effectively reduce the ozone-forming potential of solvent-based products while 

providing formulators with greater flexibility to produce products that meet 

performance and safety specifications. SIG strongly supports the adoption of 

reactivity-based standards either as the sole compliance option or at least as an 

alternative compliance option for product categories, including paint thinners and 

multipurpose solvents; 2) CARB has not considered and evaluated a reactivity-based 

approach as a reasonable alternative to its mass-based proposal as required by 

Government Code section 11346.2. This approach has worked for Aerosol 

Coatings, and is used now by US EPA as the standard approach for aerosol coatings 

as well. Reactivity-based control of ozone producing compounds is superior to 

mass-based controls. Mass-based controls could reduce the expected amount of 

ozone reduction because of reformulations that use compounds of higher reactivity 

than are currently used. Concerns of reactivity-based standards increasing 

concentrations of PM2.5 or secondary aerosol formation are unfounded. Toxicity of 

compounds is not the same as risk factors—these limitations should be determined 

based on actual risk. The four alternatives CARB has considered are legally 

insufficient because they do not include considering the fifth alternative which is a 

reactivity-based approach. CARB is legally obligated to state its reasoning for 

rejecting reactivity. CARB’s concerns that reactivity-based limits would have 

questionable enforceability, is no different than any other kind of compliance 

regulation enforceability. SIG offers to help with obtaining third-party certification if 

that would help. If a reactivity approach is not adopted over the mass-based 

regulation, and a 1% limit on aromatics is implemented (based on the high reactivity 

of aromatics), then a reactivity-based option should be available as an Alternative 

Control Plan for reformulating Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner. [ACCSIG1] 

Response: Staff disagrees with this comment. In response to the first point, the 

Response to Comments D-28 through D-34 is incorporated herein. While ARB 

supports the use of reactivity in regulations, in the case of Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner products, it was determined that mass-based limits provided the best 

air quality benefit. The technical assessment to be conducted in 2012, however, will 

include an evaluation regarding whether a reactivity-based strategy should be 

implemented rather than the 3 percent mass-based VOC limit. The evaluation will 

analyze reformulations to meet the 30 percent limit and compare the reactivities of 

these products to those of likely reformulations to meet the 3 percent limit. At that 
29 

time, if it appears that a reactivity-based VOC limit better preserves the air quality 

benefits, staff would propose appropriate amendments to the Board for their 

consideration. 

Regarding the commenter’s point on staff’s evaluation of alternatives, staff did 

evaluate a reactivity-based strategy, as explained in Chapter VIII of the Staff Report 

(beginning with page 98), and rejected this approach in the near term because massbased VOC limits provided greater ozone reduction benefits. Staff determined that 

the 30 percent VOC limit, in combination with the 1 percent aromatic compound limit, 

provided the better air quality benefit. 

Contrary to what the commenter further suggests, in the analysis to determine 

whether mass-based or reactivity-based limits were more appropriate, staff also 

considered PM2.5, secondary organic aerosol formation, as well as toxicity. Staff 

determined that neither approach would exacerbate or improve these air quality 

problems more than the other approach. Moreover, in determining the better 

regulatory approach, enforceability of reactivity-based limits was not the rationale for 

rejecting this approach; mass-based limits provided greater ozone reduction benefits, 

and promote statewide consistency in consideration of the SCAQMD’s mass-based 

limits for these product categories. However, staff appreciates SIG’s offer to assist, if 

needed. 

Finally, regarding reactivity-based limits as a compliance option, staff determined 

during development of the reactivity-based Aerosol Coatings Regulation that using 

reactivity-based limits as an alternative compliance option to mass-based limits did 

not ensure the air quality benefits would be preserved.

D-54. Comment: The restrictions proposed for global warming, chlorinated chemicals, and 

aromatics take away too many tools available to formulators. [SW1] 

Response: Staff disagrees with this comment. In evaluating survey data for 

complying and non-complying products, staff found no use of compounds with high 

global warming potentials, or use of the chlorinated toxic air contaminant solvents 

methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene. Because of this, staff 

determined that their use was not essential for these products and proposed 

mitigation measures to restrict their use in reformulated products. The rationale for 

these restrictions is set forth in Chapter VIII of the Staff Report. Related to the 

aromatic compound content limit, the Response to Comments D-37 through D-46 is 

incorporated herein. Survey data show that complying products can be formulated 

without the use of aromatic compounds. 

D-55. Comment: NAA recommends removing the 3% limit and the aromatic compound 

restriction and focus on adopting a reactivity based regulation, which will also 

remove the fire risk issue. [NAA1] 

 

D-56. Comment: We recommend that you remove the three percent effective VOC limits, 

remove the aromatic restrictions, instruct the staff to develop a future reactivity 

regulation to be effective by 12/31/2013. [WMB1; WMB2] 

Response to Comments D-55 and D-56: These commenters contend that the 

3 percent VOC limit and aromatic compound content limit should be removed from 

the amendments. Staff disagrees with these comments. State law requires ARB to 

achieve the maximum feasible reduction of VOC emissions from consumer products. 

The 3 percent limit would allow the maximum feasible reduction to be achieved. In 
30 

approving the 3 percent limit, the Board directed staff to conduct a technical 

assessment of the feasibility of the limit, prior to the effective date, to determine if a 

reactivity-based approach may be more appropriate. Part of the assessment would 

compare the reactivities of the technologies used to meet the 30 percent limit and 

determine whether technologies to meet the 3 percent limit would result in more 

reactive products than those meeting the 30 percent limit. The assessment would 

also review the ongoing need for the aromatic compound limit. 

The commenters further suggest that a reactivity-based regulation should be 

adopted instead. The Response to Comments D-28 through D-34 is incorporated 

herein. Staff found that the mass-based proposal, along with the aromatic 

compound limit, provided the best overall air quality benefit and was consistent with 

State law. 

As to removing the fire risk if a reactivity-based regulation were adopted instead, 

staff believes the fire risk would remain. The exempt solvent acetone, which is an 

extremely flammable compound, would likely be used extensively to meet reactivitybased VOC limits because of its low reactivity. 

Related to removing the aromatic restriction, the Response to Comments D-37 

through D-46 is incorporated herein. Staff found that without this provision, air 

quality benefits could be eroded. However, the 2012 technical assessment will 

assess the ongoing need for the aromatic compound limit. 

D-57. Comment: Method 310 has not been proven to be able to adequately test aromatics 

at less than 1% and therefore the regulation would be unenforceable. [WMB1; SW2] 

Response: Staff disagrees with the commenters. Method 310, the existing 

enforcement test method for the consumer products program, has been shown to 

adequately test for common aromatic compounds such as benzene; toluene; xylene 

isomers; ethyl benzene; and trimethyl benzene. Our analysis of survey data show 

that these compounds constitute the vast majority of aromatic compounds used in 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Nevertheless, Method 310 will be 

amended to incorporate other standardized test methods to enable analysis for all 

“Aromatic Compounds.” The modifications will allow us to quantify higher molecular 

weight aromatic compounds that are not currently used in Multi-purpose Solvent and 

Paint Thinner products in significant quantities. Staff’s proposed modifications to 

Method 310 will be made available for a 45-day public comment period and 

presented to the Board for their consideration. Additionally, the proposed 

modifications will ensure that the 1 percent aromatic compound content limit is 

enforceable for all Aromatic Compounds. 

D-58. Comment: NPCA/FSCT continues to be concerned that few effective products exist 

today that will meet the 3% limit, as a result we question the feasibility of the 

proposed rule. [NPCA2] 

D-59. Comment: Staff does not provide information on technical feasibility of the 

proposed 3% limit. The 3% limit is not feasible without the use of Acetone. The 

3% limit should be eliminated from the proposed regulation. [WMB1] 

D-60. Comment: CARB has not met its legal burden of demonstrating that its proposed 

regulations are commercially and technically feasible and necessary. We ask that 

you at least postpone Tier 2 until CARB can complete its assessment that it's 

committed to do by 2012. [ACCSIG2] 
31 

D-61. Comment: The three percent limit being proposed is simply not a viable limit. A 

three percent limit in this category will cause an extreme loss of functionality, and 

many of the current uses and applications will no longer be viable. [SW2] 

D-62. Comment: We are concerned that this rule will restrict the availability of effective 

paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents. We suggest ARB delete that three 

percent limit. [NPCA3] 

Response to Comments D-58 through D-62: While staff disagrees with the 

comments, we acknowledge that there are only a few reformulation pathways 

currently in commerce that will meet the 3 percent limit. Survey data indicate that 

there are existing products that meet the future effective 3 percent VOC limit without 

the use of acetone. Additionally, staff’s research found that additional technologies, 

such as use of low vapor pressure (LVP)-VOC methyl esters or hydrocarbons, or the 

use of other VOC exempt solvents, provide viable alternatives. To allow time for 

additional technologies to be developed as alternatives to acetone, the Board 

approved an effective date of December 31, 2013. In addition, staff has committed 

to conducting 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. 

D-63. Comment: SIG requests that CARB suspend consideration of the proposed 

amendments because CARB has not met its legal burden of demonstrating that its 

proposed regulations are commercially and technologically feasible and necessary. 

The 3% second-tier standard has not been demonstrated for thinners, and impacts 

cannot be fully assessed until more information is obtained. Interested stakeholders 

have not had the opportunity to review and comment on the full detail of CARB’s 

2008 Paint Thinner and Multipurpose Solvent survey update. Since CARB cannot 

conclusively demonstrate that its tier 2 standard is feasible for thinners, it should 

table further consideration of the tier 2 standards until it can complete its technology 

assessment in 2012. CARB has not sufficiently proven that current technology can 

meet the tier 1 limits of 30% VOC without using acetone as the predominant thinner, 

and CARB has admitted that acetone is not adequate for thinning all types of 

coatings. CARB has not demonstrated that this proposal is necessary to attain State 

and federal ambient air quality standards, especially since it is not considering a 

reactivity-based standard. The proposal to limit high GWP compounds to 150 needs 

to be analyzed for projected actual climate benefits, and for cost-benefit and 

feasibility assessments. [ACCSIG1] 

Response: In response to the first point, the commenter is referred to Chapters III 

and IV of the Staff Report where staff explains the commercial and technological 

feasibility of the proposed amendments and the necessity of the modifications to 

attain both State and federal standards. The Response to Comments D-58 through 

D-62 is incorporated herein. Related to the survey update, ARB fully disclosed the 

Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner product survey data received from the 

2003 Consumer & Commercial Products Survey and then, at the suggestion of 

industry, staff conducted a survey update for these products in 2008. However, staff 

acknowledges that for confidentiality purposes, we did not distribute the full data 

summaries for the Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update. Any 

time the same or a similar data set is disclosed more than once, there is potential to 

ascertain confidential business information by comparing the different data sets 

released. Staff make every effort to ensure that under no circumstances is any 

confidential information disclosed. Several members of industry requested specific 
32 

survey update data, and for each request, staff considered whether there was 

potential to disclose any confidential information. Staff was able to furnish industry 

representatives with the information they requested after determining that limited 

survey update data could be disclosed without revealing any confidential information. 

Adequate data was disclosed to demonstrate that the proposals are technologically 

and commercially feasible. 

Staff disagrees that current technology has not demonstrated that the first tier, 

30 percent VOC limit cannot be met without acetone. There are a number of 

technologies currently in commerce, including water/hydrocarbon solvent emulsions, 

that demonstrate that the 30 percent VOC limit can be met without acetone. 

Also, since staff did not find any solvents with high GWP values used in Multipurpose Solvent or Paint Thinner product formulations, staff believes that the GWP 

limit proposal of 150 is feasible, cost-effective, and appropriate to ensure there is no 

significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions from reformulated products. 

D-64. Comment: NPCA/FSCT appreciates the 2012 technology review ARB will have 

regarding Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner reformulations. [NPCA2] 

Response: Comment noted. 

D-65. Comment: We haven't been provided detailed information from CARB's consumer 

products survey update. [ACCSIG3] 

Response: Staff assumes the commenter is referring to information specific to the 

Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Update. The Response to 

Comment D-63 is incorporated herein.

D-66. Comment: The proposed “Multi-purpose Solvent” definition should be modified to 

include “Paint Clean-up.” As originally proposed, the language is contradictory. 

[WMB1] 

Response: Staff agrees with the comment and proposed modifications to the “Multipurpose Solvent” definition in the first 15-day public comment period. The 

modifications included moving the “Paint Clean-up” definition to within the “Multipurpose Solvent” definition, thereby eliminating the contradiction.

D-67. Comment: Given the possible overlap with surface coating rules, we request staff 

work with industry to develop compliance materials to clarify regulatory language 

after the adoption of the rule. [NPCA3] 

Response: Staff agrees with the commenter and intends to provide guidance 

materials related to Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products on ARB’s 

Consumer Products Program website. 

D-68. Comment: Companies should be able to provide 30 days instead of 10 days to 

supply information to allow a reasonable time period for small companies and those 

needing to obtain the information elsewhere. [CSPA1] 

Response: Staff agreed and proposed at the Board hearing that responsible parties 

and manufacturers should be allowed 30 working days, rather than 10 working days, 

to provide to the Executive Officer formulation data for products selected for 

compliance testing with the proposed aromatic compound content limit. 
33 

Subsequently, section 94515(h) was further modified to delete this requirement as 

part of the first 15-day public comment period. 

D-69. Comment: When used for low VOC products, Method 310 is not adequate because 

its sensitivity and accuracy are too low, and its water content determination is 

unreliable. I suggest using ASTM D6886-03 instead for low-VOC products. [OPPL] 

Response: Staff disagrees with this commenter that Method 310 is not an accurate 

method for determining VOC content for all products with low amounts of VOC. 

However, we agree that when products contain high water content, in combination 

with low VOC content, the accuracy of the existing Method 310 is not adequate. 

Therefore, staff developed procedures to directly determine the VOC content of 

these products that does not rely on water content determination. These procedures 

will allow for accurate determination of VOC content in products with high water 

content. In this rulemaking, staff proposed and the Board approved, amendments to 

Method 310 to incorporate these new procedures. Staff disagrees that ASTM D 

6886-03 should be incorporated into Method 310. This method was developed for 

VOC content determinations for latex air-dry coatings and is not appropriate for 

determining VOC content in the wide variety of consumer products categories. 

D-70. Comment: If at all possible, we would like to have CARB state in the rule, in a letter, 

or as an interpretation from enforcement that solvents and reducers that are 

specifically designed to be used with in a marine/pleasure craft coating or for an 

automotive refinish coating are not included in the proposed regulation of multipurpose solvents and paint thinners. We also respectfully request that CARB state 

in the preamble to the rule that refinish operations are not subject to the regulation 

because auto refinish is an “industrial use” of the solvents and moreover the refinish 

operations occur at a stationary source and “consumer product regulations do not 

impose any restrictions on pollution-generating activities that take place at stationary 

sources.” Consumer products regulations do not regulate industrial stationary 

sources of air pollutants. If refinishing operations were subject to Consumer 

Products Regulations, there would be no need for an SCM for automotive refinishing 

operations. If auto refinishing were not considered “industrial,” there is confusion on 

what regulatory rules apply, and no clarity exists on impacts where districts are under 

national VOC refinishing rules. For example in SCAQMD, there is Rule 1171 for 

industrial solvent cleaning, and Rule 1143 for consumer products solvents, so which 

part of CARB’s regulations would apply? Separation and exclusion of industrial 

applications including “professional use” from general retail consumer use should be 

stated in this regulation. [NPCA1] 

Response: Staff acknowledges that clarifications of rule applicability as suggested 

by the commenter would be helpful. Therefore, the following response serves to 

clarify the applicability of the proposed amendments. When considered together, the 

applicability of the regulation found in section 94507 and the definitions of Consumer 

Product; Institutional Product; Multi-purpose Solvent; and Paint Thinner in section 

94508(a), make it clear that solvents and reducers labeled to be used exclusively in 

marine and automotive coatings are not subject to the regulation. The Suggested 

Control Measure that the commenter refers to specifies the VOC content limits of the 

coatings for which the solvent products are a part. However, the use of solvents in 

automotive refinishing is not an industrial application and is subject to local air district 

rules. Further, the Consumer Products Regulation would apply to the VOC content 

of the solvents sold to the facility that were not part of a coating system. The 

Response to Comment D-67 is incorporated herein. 
34 

D-71 Comment: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 

believes that ARB's 3% limit is virtually equivalent to SMAQMD’s Rule 466 25 gram 

limit, even though it is stated in different numerical units. Does ARB agree that 

District Rule 466 is consistent with the proposed regulation and 41712(f)? 

[SMAQMD] 

Response: While staff agrees that the second tier, 3 percent VOC limit is virtually 

equivalent to 25 grams per liter, ARB’s Multi-purpose Solvent limit specifies that “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.” Therefore, ARB is limiting the VOC content of Multipurpose Solvent products, as manufactured, as opposed to the use limitation 

Rule 466 requires of solvent cleaning operations conducted by businesses. ARB’s 

Multi-purpose Solvent VOC limit complements SMAQMD’s Rule 466 and staff 

believes that formulation technologies developed by manufacturers to meet Rule 

466, and other similar California air district rules, may be used to meet ARB’s 

proposed statewide Multi-purpose Solvent VOC limits. 

D-72 Comment: ARB has indicated that South Coast's Rule 1143, which will implement 

ARB's 2013, 3% VOC limit in 2010, is not affected by the ARB rulemaking, even 

though the deadlines for compliance are different. The same issue is raised by the 

District's September, 2009 implementation of its 25 gram VOC limit. Does ARB 

agree that the early implementation of the new limit under Rule 466 is consistent with 

41712(f)? [SMAQMD] 

Response: ARB’s response to Comment D-71 addresses the differences between 

ARB’s proposed statewide Multi-purpose Solvent VOC limits and SMAQMD’s 

Rule 466. Since ARB’s and SMAQMD’s rules contain different requirements, the 

implementation of SMAQMD’s 25 grams per liter limit is not affected by the proposed 

statewide VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvent consumer products. 

IV. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE DURING THE FIRST 15-DAY COMMENT 

PERIOD AND RESPONSES 

The table below identifies the comments received during the first 15-day comment 

period. The table provides a correlation between (1) the abbreviation used in this 

Section IV to refer to a comment letter; and (2) the name of the person(s) signing the 

comment letter. Written submittals were received between January 14, 2010, and 

January 29, 2010. 

Comment 

Abbreviation 

Commenter 

ACA Heidi McAuliffe, American Coatings Association 

Written testimony: January 29, 2010 

ACCSIG4 Leslie Berry, American Chemistry Council Solvents Industry Group 

Written testimony: January 29, 2010 

CSPA4 Joseph Yost, Consumer Specialty Products Association 

Written testimony: January 29, 2010 

NAA2 Doug Raymond, The National Aerosol Association

Written testimony: January 29, 2010 

SCFPO3 Steve Bunting, Southern California Fire Prevention Officers 

Written testimony: January 14, 2010 
35 

WMB3 Michael Cooley, WM Barr and Company, Inc. 

Written testimony: January 28, 2010 

1. Comment: No objection to the changes to the definitions or those in Section 

94512(e). Strongly agree with the addition of the Spanish text in subsection 2, A and 

B. [SCFPO3] 

Response: Comments noted. 

2. Comment: CSPA supports the ARB’s decision to withdraw proposed additional 

labeling requirements for the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner categories. 

CSPA believes only listing the VOC content on a product label fails to account for 

other environmental health and safety factors and important environmental factors 

that may impact potential ozone formation which may mislead consumers. [CSPA4] 

Response: Comments noted, however, staff has committed to continue evaluating 

VOC content labeling and may propose a similar requirement in a future rulemaking. 

3. Comment: NAA recommendations that ARB staff amend the proposed Aromatic 

Compound definition to the following: “Aromatic Compound” means a carbon 

containing compound that contains one or more benzene or equivalent heterocyclic 

rings and has an initial boiling point less than or equal to 280oC. “Aromatic 

Compound” does not include compounds excluded from the definition of Volatile 

Organic Compound (VOC) and compounds defined as a LVP-VOC in this Section 

94508(a). [NAA2] 

4. Comment: Barr supports the NAA’s recommendation to change the Aromatic 

Compound definition to exclude LVP-VOCs. [WMB3] 

5. Comment: CSPA urges ARB to use a definition of “Aromatic Compound” that is 

consistent with the current regulatory definition of “VOC Content.” [CSPA4] 

6. Comment: ACA supports reconciliation of this language in order to ensure that the 

definition of “Aromatic compound” does not include compounds defined as 

LVP-VOC. Both NAA and CSPA's proffered solution will accomplish this. [ACA] 

7. Comment: SIG urges CARB to revise the proposed aromatic definition to the 

following: “Aromatic Compound” means a carbon containing volatile compound 

whose predominant components contain one or more benzene or equivalent 

heterocyclic ring(s) and has an initial boiling point less than or equal to 216 C. 

“Aromatic Compound” does not include compounds excluded from the definition of 

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) in this Section 94508(a). [ACCSIG4] 

Response to Comments 3 through 7: The definition suggested by these 

Commenters is not appropriate. There are reactive aromatic compound solvents 

with initial boiling points greater than 216 degrees Celsius. These aromatic 

compounds do meet the definition of LVP-VOC, and would therefore not ‘count’ 

towards overall VOC content. Because they are highly reactive compounds, 

however, it is prudent to extend the definition of “Aromatic Compound” to include 

these solvents. The initial boiling point criterion of 280 degrees Celsius is designed 

to include these aromatic compounds. 
36 

V. SECOND 15-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 

Additional modifications to the regulatory text were made available to the public for a 

second 15-day comment period from June 28, 2010, to July 13, 2010. No comments 

were received during this comment period.