### State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking Including Summary of Public Comments and Agency Res ponses

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 Res ponses

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF PROPOSED AME NDMENTS 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 Regu lation that are primarily designed to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. The regulation is codified in sections 94507-94517, title 17, Califor nia Code of Regulations (CCR). The Board has also adopted amendments to Method 310 , “Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in Consumer Products and Re active Organic Compounds in Aerosol Coating Products.”

On August 7, 2009, ARB issued a notice of public he aring to consider the proposed amendments at the Board’s September 24, 2009 hearin g. An “Initial Statement of Reasons” (Staff Report or ISOR) was also made avail able for public review and comment starting August 7, 2009. The Staff Report, which is incorporated by reference herein, described the rationale for the p roposal. The originally proposed text of the amended regulation and Method 310 was i ncluded 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/cpmthd3 10.htm

.

On September 24, 2009, the Board conducted a public hearing to consider staff’s proposal for adoption. Written and oral comments w ere 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 amendme nts. The approved amendments included modifications to the originally proposed language. These modifications had been suggested by staff in respon se 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 e ntitled, “Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Proposed Amendments to the Con sumer Products Regulations – Staff’s Suggested Modifications to the Original P roposal,” which was distributed at the beginning of the hearing and included as Attach ment B to the Resolution.

Resolution 09-51 directed the Executive Officer to adopt the modified regulations after making the modified regulatory language avail able for public comment for a period of at least 15 days, in accordance with Gove rnment 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 modification s clearly indicated, were distributed on January 14, 2010, to each of the individuals des cribed in subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4) of section 44, title 1, CCR. By thi s action, the modified Consumer Products Regulation was made available to the publi c for a 15-day comment period

### 6

from January 14, 2010, to January 29, 2010, pursuan t 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 indivi duals 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 d etermined that no additional changes should be made to the regulations, and subs equently issued an Executive Order, by which the modifications to the Consumer P roducts 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 th e comments received on the proposed amendments during the formal regulatory pr ocess and ARB’s responses to those comments. Modifications to the original prop osal are described in Section II of this FSOR entitled "Modifications Made to the Origi nal Proposal."

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

reference ASTM Standard D4236 – 95 Standard Practic e for Labeling Art Materials for Chronic Health Hazards, as one criteria that mu st be met for a consumer product to qualify as an “Artist’s Solvent/Thinner.” Addit ionally, in this rulemaking action, references to ASTM standards that are already liste d 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 impract ical to publish them in the CCR. ARB administrative practice has long been to have specifications, test procedures, and similar documents incorporated by r eference rather than printed in the CCR because these specifications and procedures are highly technical and complex. Because ARB has never printed complete te st 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 compl ex 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 s tandards and test methods into the CCR by reference. Among other things, this ena bles interested parties to verify the standards or practices have been adopted by a c onsensus-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 o r 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 p otential economic impacts on California business enterprises and individuals. A detailed discussion of these impacts is included in the ISOR. The adopted regul ations are considered “major regulations” within the meaning of Health and Safet y 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. Durin g the 45-day and 15-day comment periods, no alternatives or combination of alternat ives were submitted to the ARB which would be equally effective as the proposed re gulations (i.e., no alternatives, or combination of alternatives, were submitted which w ould 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 alternativ e 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 burd ensome 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 descr ibed below.

A. Section 94508. Definitions.

1. In Section 94508(a)(13), the definition of “Arom atic Compound” was modified to further clarify the specific compounds subject to t he 1 percent by weight aromatic compound content limit. 2. In Section 94508(a)(87), the definition of “Indu strial Maintenance Coating” was modified to include additional language which may b e on product labels. 3. In Section 94508(a)(106), the definition of “Mul ti-purpose Solvent” was modified to include the definition of “Paint Clean-up” to cl arify that such products are included in the “Multi-purpose Solvent” category, n ot excluded. 4. In Section 94508(a)(114), the definition of “Pai nt Clean-up” was removed as a separate definition in section 94508 and instead pl aced within the definition of “Multi-purpose Solvent.” 5. In Section 94508(a)(115), the definition of “Pai nt 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 “Zin c-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 we re made to make the proposed new regulatory language consistent with existing re gulatory 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 c oncerns that the requirement conflicted with existing requirements of the local air districts. 2. A modification was made allowing manufacturers t o have the option to also display the proposed language for the labeling of f lammable 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 lan guage for the labeling of flammable or extremely flammable Multi-purpose Solv ents and Paint Thinners, specifying font size and a requirement that the sta tements be expressed in Spanish as well as English.

D. Section 94515. Test Methods.

1. Section 94515(c) was added to clarify the compli ance testing procedures for the aromatic compound content limit and what constitute s a violation. 2. Section 94515(h) was removed.

### 9

III. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE DURING THE 45-DAY CO MMENT 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 i s shown below, along with an abbreviation for each commenter. Following the lis t, staff has summarized each comment provided regarding the proposal with an exp lanation 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 du ring the 45-day comment period that presented an objection or recommendation speci fically directed towards the regulation or the procedures followed. The table p rovides a correlation between (1) the abbreviation used in this Section III to re fer to a comment letter or testimony; and (2) the name of the person(s) signing the comme nt letter or presenting the testimony. Written submittals were received betwee n August 7, 2009, and September 23, 2009. Oral testimony was presented a t the September 24, 2009 hearing.

Comment

Abbreviation Commenter

ACCSIG1 Leslie Berry, American Chemistry Council So lvents Industry Group

Written testimony: September 22, 2009 ACCSIG2 Chet Thompson, American Chemistry Council S olvents 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; Jam es J. Provenzano, C.Ph,

Clean Air Now; Mike Garcia, SEIU-USWW; Eveline Shen , Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice; Pamela King P alitz, Environment California; Lenny Siegel, Center for Public Environ mental Oversight; Wafaa Aborashed, Bay Area Healthy 880 Communities-S L; Adrian Martinez, Natural Resources Defense Council; Bonnie Holmes-Gen, American Lung Association in California; Mara Burst ein, 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, Gr een Schools Initiative; Jim Stewart, PhD, Sierra Club Angeles C hapter Global Warming, Energy & Air Quality Committee; Rau l Anorve, Instituto De Educación Popular Del Sur De California; Bahram Fazeli, Communities for a Better Environment; Julia Liou, C alifornia Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative; Judi.Shils, Teens Turning Gree n 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 Asso ciation

Written testimony: September 21, 2009 CSPA2 Joseph Yost, Consumer Specialty Products Asso ciation

### 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 Technica l Assistance

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 LBACA1 Elena Rodriquez, Long Beach Alliance for Chi ldren with Asthma

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 LBACA2 Yolanda Chavez, Long Beach Alliance for Chil dren 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 Childre n 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 Assoc iation (NPCA/SCCT)

Written testimony: September 14, 2009 NPCA2 David Darling, National Paint and Coatings As sociation (NPCA/FSCT)

Written testimony: September 21, 2009 NPCA3 David Darling, National Paint and Coatings As sociation

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 Counci l

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 Manag ement District

Oral testimony: September 24, 2009 SMAQMD Larry Greene, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Qu ality Management District

Written testimony: September 22, 2009 SCFPO1 Steve Bunting, Southern California Fire Prev ention Officers

Written testimony: August 17, 2009 SCFPO2 Steve Bunting, Southern California Fire Prev ention 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 B rands

Written testimony: September 15, 2009 SW2 Gregory Johnson, Sherwin-Williams Diversified B rands

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 Sacrament o region. [SMAQMD]

B-2. Comment: We applaud your agency’s efforts to reduce emission s of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from consumer products and commend your staff for listening to CARB board members’ orders to help protect the heal th 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 modifi cations.

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 a t global warming emissions from consumer products. Prohibiting chem ical compounds with high Global Warming Potential (GWP) value is a great sta rt. [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 nee ded 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 regulati on of janitorial products and hope you will remind your staff they need to in clude 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 jan itorial product and would like to remind your staff they need to includ e 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 categori es. The proposed amendments to the consumer products regulation are scheduled to b e 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 recomm endations for the Air Freshener category. SCJ supports the staff pro posal 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 modifi cations.

C-4. Comment: CSPA respectfully requests the Board to direct staf f to conduct another cost analysis applying more reasonable assumptions and better taking into account the information provided by manufacturers that subs tantiates the significant difficulties they will encounter in reformulating t heir Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener products to meet the proposed VOC limit. [CSPA1]

Response: In a subsequent discussion with the commenter, it b ecame clear that the commenter misinterpreted the total estimated co sts of the regulation. In developing the estimated cost to comply with the pr oposed VOC limit for this category, staff assumed a project horizon of ten ye ars and stated in Chapter VII of the Staff Report that the various Double Phase Aero sol Air Freshener costs shown are per year for ten years. The commenter indicate d that the estimated cost of the regulation was a total $3.1 million, when this is t he 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 yielde d appropriate cost estimates.

C-5. Comment: Regarding restriction of Global Warming Potential f or Double Phase Air Freshener aerosols, there is no non-flammable alter native to HFC-134a which would be the only compound that could be used as a propel lant. There should be an exemption for this situation. [NAA1]

Response: Staff disagrees with the comment. Staff has not fo und or been made aware of any Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners co ntaining HFC-134a currently being sold. Additionally, no non-flammable product s were reported in the 2006 Consumer & Commercial Products Survey. Therefore, staff believes it is appropriate to prohibit the use of compounds with global warmin g potential values of 150 or greater, such as HFC-143a, to ensure there is no in crease 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 challen ging. Therefore we proposed an effective date of December 31, 2012, to allow manufacturers additional time to reformulate affected products. Additionall y, Resolution 09-51 directs the Executive Officer to monitor the progress of manufa cturers in meeting the limits. This directive is typical of previous consumer prod ucts 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 Comment s

D-1. Comment: We applaud the California Air Resources Board’s (CA RB) 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 re ducing harmful toxics in consumer and industrial products, specifically. The regulat ions on multipurpose solvents and paint thinners will reduce danger to health of chil dren with asthma, and reduce risks of organ damage and cancer to workers using these p roducts. [FORMLETTER]

D-2. Comment: The South Coast Air Quality Management District sup ports the proposal before you today and recognizes upon full implement ation this proposed rule will significantly reduce VOC emissions throughout Calif ornia. [SCAQMD1; SCAQMD2]

D-3. Comment: During the 2008 ARB hearing, the Board gave instruc tions to staff to regulate this category. We urge this Board to supp ort your staff. [LBACA3]

D-4. Comment: We’re asking CARB to adopt regulations that are mor e 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 to xic 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 co nsumer products. [LBACA4; SANDOVAL]

D-5. Comment: We also want to express our strong support to the p roposed new subsection 94509(u), which would prohibit perchloro ethylene, 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 redu ce the percentage of emissions of VOCs in paint thinners and multi-pu rpose solvents down to three percent. We urge CARB to change the timeline and m ove 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 thi s regulation. And, in fact, we would like to see it strengthened by movin g 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 th e South Coast Air Quality Management District. Let’s move up the 201 3 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 SCAQ MD’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 effectiv e date for multi-purpose solvents closer to that of Rule 1143, CARB will reduce the h ealth impacts associated with the misuse of these products, and will achieve VOC redu ctions one year earlier. [CCA1]

D-11. Comment: We urge CARB to adopt these regulations to better p rotect the health of consumers and workers. We urge CARB to adopt a red uction in VOCs for multipurpose solvents and paint thinners to three percen t. 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 implementatio n 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 kind s of consumer products and ingredients contributing to global warming. We enc ourage 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 perc ent up earlier to be more consistent with the South Coast standard, which goes into effe ct in 2011. [IRTA]

D-14. Comment: We need to express a concern that the proposed impl ementation schedule is too lengthy for Southern California hea lth needs. As you know, the SCAQMD has already adopted a similar regulation, Ru le 1143, with tighter implementation dates for the interim and final limi ts 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 ne cessary 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 al so provide greater ozone

reductions.

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

than the District Rule. In the Initial Statement o f Reasons (ISOR) for this rule, ARB states that the ARB percent-VOC and SCAQMD weight-p er-volume limits for thinners and solvents are “virtually equivalent” ex cept for the CARB 30% limit being effective one year later and the 3% limit three yea rs later than the respective South Coast limits. To be precise, however, the two limi ts 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 solv ents 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 percen t 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 ide ntify 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 a nd SCAQMD’s adoption of VOC limits in grams per liter. Staff agrees with t he commenter’s contention that there is potential that the proposed statewide limi ts may differ slightly from SCAQMD’s limits depending on the solvent used in th e reformulated products. However, this is not a compliance issue for manufac turers because if the product meets the SCAQMD Rule 1143 requirements, it will me et the ARB limits. SCAQMD’s first tier limit of 300 grams per liter (v irtually 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 d ay before SCAQMD’s second tier limit of 25 grams per liter (equivalent to 3 p ercent 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 categorie s supersede South Coast Air Quality Management District limits, or make the Sta te 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 regulati on proposal is written (assuming acetone is a major component in reformulations). D iffering requirements in different parts of the state (South Coast vs. rest of Califor nia) will be difficult to meet. [CSPA1; NPCA2]

Response: Under the circumstances involved here, ARB does no t have the legal authority to supersede or preempt the limits adopte d by the SCAQMD. The Governing Board of the SCAQMD adopted limits for mu lti-purpose solvent and paint thinners before ARB adopted limits for the same cat egories. This raises two questions: (1) does the SCAQMD have the authority t o adopt VOC limits for categories of consumer products that ARB has not pr eviously regulated, and (2) if the SCAQMD adopts VOC limits for a consumer product category before ARB has regulated this category, do these limits remain leg ally effective if ARB subsequently adopts VOC limits for the same category?

The ARB Office of Legal Affairs first considered th ese 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 regul ation for a particular category of consumer products, Health and Safety Code sectio n 41712(e) prohibits local dir districts from subsequently adopting any VOC regula tion that is different than the ARB regulation for that category; but until ARB for mally adopts a regulation for a product category, districts retain their existing l egal 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 AR B adoption. Following is a discussion of the reasoning ARB used to reach these conclusions.

Before 1988, ARB did not have the authority to regu late consumer products. Consumer products are nonvehicular sources, and the primary authority to regulate nonvehicular sources lay with the local air distric ts (see Health and Safety Code section 39002). In 1988, the Legislature enacted t he California Clean Air Act of 1988 (the "Act"; Stats. 1988, Chapter 1568). The Act ad ded a number of new provisions to the Health and Safety Code, including section 41 712. Section 41712 requires ARB to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum fea sible reduction in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted by consumer produc ts. Health and Safety Code section 41712(f) contains language limiting the aut hority 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 pertainin g to disinfectants, nor any regulation pertaining to a consumer product that is different than any regulation adopted by the state board for that purp ose."

The language above is the result of several bills e nacted by the Legislature. The original version of this language was included in t he California Clean Air Act of 1998, and this language was amended in 1992 by AB 2783 (S her, Stats. 1992, ch. 945). After the 1992 amendments the language read as foll ows:

“(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 c urrent language, except that the current language prohibits any regulation of di sinfectants 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 t hat are not disinfectants.

By its terms, section 41712(e) does not restrict di strict authority unless ARB has already adopted a regulation "for that purpose." T he 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 relat ing to consumer products in general) and "... for that purpose ..." indicate th at the restriction on district action applies only to the regulation of those specific co nsumer product categories (e.g., hairsprays, glass cleaners, etc.) for which VOC sta ndards have already been specified in an ARB regulation. The language does not restrict district authority to regulate a particular consumer product category unl ess it has already been regulated by the ARB. However, once ARB has adopted a VOC re gulation for a particular category of consumer products, Health and Safety Co de 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 f or a product category that has not been regulated by ARB, and then ARB subsequently ad opts a regulation for the same product category? The language of section 417 12(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 regul ation ... " 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 regul ation ... " that is different from an ARB regulation. The use of the term "enforce," or simi lar language, would have made it clear that previously adopted district regulations were preempted once the ARB acted to adopt its own regulation. For example, su bsection (i) of Health and Safety Code section 41712 states that air pollution contro l 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 aero sol paint regulation.

From the foregoing analysis, it is apparent that th e 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 legi slative history of either bill which is dispositive in answering the specific questions pos ed 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 preexis ting district regulations should be treated. In light of the textual ambiguities an d the lack of any useful guidance in the legislative history, the question is to what ex tent it is appropriate to conclude that the Legislature intended to repeal by implication t he 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 qu estion in the case of Western Oil and Gas Association (WOGA) v. Monterey Bay Unif ied Air Pollution Control

District , 49 Cal.3d 408; 261 Cal. Rptr. 384 (Aug. 1989). I n this case, the Court discussed the circumstances under which it may vali dly be concluded that a statute operates to preempt or repeal by implication the au thority of local air districts to control nonvehicular sources. In discussing the ap plicable precedents the Court

stated:

"... All presumptions are against repeal by implica tion ... The presumption against implied repeal is so strong that 'To overco me 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 t o 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 adopte d district consumer product regulations are not preempted when ARB adopts a reg ulation for the same product category. We believe that both the reasoning and c onclusion are still valid.

The commenters also suggest that instead of using A RB’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 alter native will help the regulated community. Consumer products are widely distribute d throughout the State through multiple distribution channels, and ARB’s experienc e is that uniform statewide standards are preferable to region-specific standar ds. As the commenters themselves state: “Differing requirements in differ ent 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 th e 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 s ituation will not be improved if ARB limits its standards for these product categori es 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 1 4 font. We also believe the font color of the statement be in sharp visual cont rast to the background color of the hang tag or sticker. Lastly, hang tags shall be at tached 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 exper ts and fire officials, staff agreed that the flammable or extre mely flammable labeling provision should contain a font size requirement and statemen ts in both English and Spanish. Due to size limitations on product labels, hang tag s, and stickers staff believes it is impractical to require warnings in all five languag es recommended by the commenter. The modifications to section 94512(e) w ere 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 webs ite in English, Spanish, Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese. The commenter sup ported staff’s additional modifications as shown in Comment D-18, below.

D-18. Comment: We believe the modifications that staff has recomme nded 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” Spa nish 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 identif ied that a majority of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner product lab els 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 incorpo rated herein. Additionally,

staff believes there are a number of non-flammable and non-extremely flammable formulations currently in commerce that can meet th e first tier 30 percent VOC limit. However, we acknowledge that the second tier 3 perc ent 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 t o develop less flammable products. This long lead time should also provide the regulat ed industry an opportunity to plan ahead and minimize costs to change labels. Staff w ill also conduct a technical assessment in 2012 to evaluate manufacturers’ progr ess in developing less flammable products. Nevertheless, based on comment s received from stakeholders and fire officials, staff believes that it is neces sary 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 f or 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 mu ltipurpose solvents and paint thinners. Acetone bursts into flames around igniti on 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 f ire hazard. Fire department representatives and the CPSC have expressed their c oncerns 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 limi t will force us to use acetone and what will happen is it will make the product an ext remely 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 allevia te 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 ho w it would abate this hazard. CARB should reassess its preliminary conclusion tha t “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 reformula ted 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 us ed improperly. In developing this regulatory provision, ARB staff worked with a Calif ornia Fire Department Chief, representing a broad coalition of California fire o fficials. 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 p eople 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 (beginni ng 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) regulatio ns require precautionary labeling of hazardous household products including flammable or extremely flammable Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner p roducts. 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 con cern has been putting one product in a can and calling it something else.”

In addition to the labeling provision, staff has pr oposed an effective date of December 31, 2013, for the second tier limit to all ow 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 com bination of measures described above will effectively mitigate the potential adver se 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 improve ment 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 ris k (if any) is not significant.

D-26. Comment: The small container exemptions could potentially cr eate unintended loopholes. [SCAQMD1]

Response: The temporary exemption for small containers was p roposed because it was brought to staff’s attention that some Californ ia 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 e xemption 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 a rchitectural 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 exemptio n will sunset on December 31, 2013, which will further serve to mini mize any impacts from the exemption.

D-27. Comment: We are concerned about staff’s proposal to exempt a rtist’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 th ese dangerous chemicals. [CCA1]

Response: ARB staff surveyed Artists’ Solvents and Thinners in the 2006 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey. The categ ory 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 Pain t Thinners combined. The Artist’s Solvent/Thinner exemption was suggested by industry experts and we agreed with this recommendation based on the catego ry’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 th ese products are intended for use in the household or by children.

D-28. Comment: We request the Board proceed without delay toward t he development of reactivity-based limits for the solvents products i n 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 w ith ozone formation potential

### 21

should be investigated sooner and considered in rea ctivity-based regulations. [CSPA1]

D-29. Comment: We suggest ARB proceed forward immediately with a r eactivity 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 fo r the solvents and thinner products of moving expeditiously toward dev elopment of reactivity-based standards for these products to replace the mass-ba sed standards that I expect you will adopt today. [CSPA3]

D-31. Comment: This category would be very suitable for a reacti vity 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 reac tivity at this point. Contrary to staff's comments here, we are not propo sing that reactivity should replace the mass approach. We’re proposing an alte rnative control plan that would go alongside a mass-based approach. [ACCSIG3]

D-33. Comment: SIG strongly supports the adoption of reactivity-ba sed standards either as the sole or at least an alternative compliance o ption for paint thinners and multipurpose solvents. The proposed mass-based approach , in stark contrast, is outdated, needlessly rigid, and potentially counter productive. [ACCSIG2]

D-34. Comment: CARB has been successful with using reactivity-base d regulation for aerosol coatings, and should use this type of regul ation 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 l imits 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 pu rsue reactivity-based limits when mass-based limits are unfeasible or do not pro vide the needed ozone reduction benefits. In following this strategy, st aff routinely evaluates whether a reactivity-based or mass-based approach would provi de a greater overall reduction. In Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, of the Staf f Report (beginning with page 100), staff determined that the proposed mass-based VOC limits coupled with the aromatic compound content limit would provide great er ozone reduction benefits than a reactivity-based limit, and would provide be tter statewide consistency. Therefore, the mass-based approach was proposed by staff and approved by the Board. However, we do agree that reactivity is a v iable VOC control strategy and that it has worked well for regulating aerosol coat ings. As part of a technical assessment to be conducted in 2012, after the imple mentation of the first tier, 30 percent VOC limit, staff will again evaluate whe ther a reactivity-based strategy, rather than implementing the 3 percent mass-based V OC limit, may be the better regulatory approach for Multi-purpose Solvent and P aint Thinner products.

One commenter also suggests that the Board act to o verride mass-based limits adopted by the SCAQMD and replace them with reactiv ity-based limits. As explained in the Response to Comment D-16, the SCAQ MD has authority to adopt limits for those categories of consumer products wh ere 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 re gulations, flammability, safety and ozone forming potential should be addressed soo ner. 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 Resp onse 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 woul d 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 aromati c compounds to no more than 1 percent by weight in reformulated products.

With regard to the proposed limits in the current r ulemaking 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 re formulated to meet the 30 percent limit effective December 31, 2010, 2012 is the appropriate time to

conduct this assessment because formulation data fo r the 30 percent VOC products will be available for the 2011 calendar year. Resu lts of the assessment will be used to determine whether further regulatory changes are needed to address public safety. The assessment will also compare ozone for ming potential of the 30 percent VOC products and assess whether formulations to mee t the 3 percent VOC limit could result in higher reactive products, and there by result in an ozone disbenefit. Depending on the assessment results, staff may prop ose reactivity limits to replace the 3 percent VOC mass limit. Staff also notes tha t 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 formi ng product technologies.

The commenters also recommend that reactivity-based limits be adopted to give formulators flexibility. While we agree that react ivity 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 w ill provide flexibility.

As to providing reactivity-based limits as a compli ance alternative, staff determined during development of the reactivity-based Aerosol Coatings Regulation that using reactivity-based limits as an alternative complianc e 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 pat hway to compliance for each product, which could result in reduced and unpredic table air quality benefits. For these reasons providing reactivity as an option is not appropriate.

Staff also disagrees with the contention that the m ass-based approach is outdated, needlessly rigid, and potentially counterproductive . While ARB agrees that reactivity is a viable control strategy, ARB’s general VOC con trol strategy has been to reduce the mass of VOCs. Air quality data clearly indicat e 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 a llow for VOC substitution rather

### 23

than VOC replacement, staff finds that use of react ivity 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 b e forced to reformulate their products with Acetone. Acetone w as exempted from the category of VOC because of its relatively low reactivity onc e it enters the atmosphere. However “reactivity” is only one variable influenci ng the capacity of a chemical to produce ozone in the atmosphere. The purpose of CA RB’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 re active 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 o ption 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 curr ently sells which do not even meet the 30% VOC limit would form less ozone on a p er-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 t hat use of the VOC exempt solvent acetone is a feasible, likely option to mee t the 3 percent VOC limit, the

amendments do not force manufacturers to use aceton e. Survey data, as well as staff’s research into emerging technologies, indica te 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 o ption because it is a more costeffective option than other technologies.

The commenter also suggests that use of acetone wil l result in increasing ozone concentrations rather than reducing them. Staff ag rees 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 R eport (beginning with page 101), staff determined that depending upon the reformulat ion option chosen to meet the 30 percent limit, formulations using primarily acet one 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 commi tted to conduct an assessment of products reformulated to meet the 30 percent VOC li mit, along with their ozone forming potential, prior to the effective date of t he 3 percent limit. To facilitate this assessment, special reporting requirements for thes e products were included in new subsection 94513(g). The goal of the assessment wo uld be to determine whether the technologies available to meet the 3 percent li mit would likely result in higher ozone forming potential than the reformulated 30 pe rcent 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 De cember 31, 2013, for the 3 percent limit to allow for the development of additional, l ess reactive, technologies.

The commenter also contends that use of acetone, be cause of its high volatility, will result in more product use and thereby result in ad ditional ozone being formed. While we agree that acetone is a fast evaporating s olvent, the documentation staff were provided was not convincing evidence that use of Multi-purpose Solvent and

### 24

Paint Thinner products reformulated with acetone wi ll cause appreciably more product use.

Staff also disagrees that the reasons cited in thes e comments provide a basis for rejecting the proposal. Staff believes the proposa l contains commercially and technologically feasible limits, as required by Sta te law, and achieves the maximum

feasible reduction in VOC emissions from these cate gories. The proposal also has provisions in place to ensure that the predicted be nefits 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 ensur e emission reductions are achieved. As described in the Chapt er VIII, Environmental Impacts, of the Staff Report (beginning with page 98), our a nalysis found that there would be a large mass and ozone reduction benefit from impleme nting the first tier, 30 percent VOC limit. Both mass-based and reactivity-based li mits 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 r eduction.

D-37. Comment: This is the first time that ARB has contemplated an d proposed to use reactivity in a manner that is counterproductive or limiting to formulators. One of the fundamental principles of employing a reactivity st rategy is to provide formulators the necessary flexibility to develop new product formul as. In this instance, however, such a reactivity element in the control strategy i s specifically designed to limit a formulators options. This use of reactivity is con trary, 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 rest rictions on aromatics. This restriction is not necessary and stifles R&D effort s for the 3% proposed VOC limit. [WMB1]

D-39. Comment: The proposed 1% limitation on aromatic compounds re stricts formulation flexibility and should be eliminated from the regul ation. ARB should consider replacing this requirement with reactivity-based li mits. NPCA is concerned about the precedent that this regulation may set for other co nsumer product categories in the future. [NPCA2; NPCA4]

D-40. Comment: We feel these aromatics provisions are reactivity c oncepts attached onto a mass-based rule. We don’t feel that’s been adequ ately 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 aromat ic solvents or any other solvent class is very problematic for formulators o f Paint Thinner or Multi-Purpose Solvent products. It is incomprehensible to manufa cturers of consumer products that this or any other consumer products regulation woul d simultaneously use both, mass-based and reactivity based standards from a hi storical and technical perspective. The proposed restriction of 1% by wei ght 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 strategi es 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 great er 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 re activity 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 no t be necessary if a reactivity-based standard were adopted. Numerous n on-aromatic compounds are more reactive than aromatic compounds. [NAA1]

D-44. Comment: The one percent aromatic restriction will further r estrict alternatives to acetone. Therefore, we also recommend ARB remove t he 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 on erous and denies formulators needed flexibility. [ACCSIG2; NPCA4]

D-46. Comment: SIG requests that CARB suspend consideration of the proposed amendments because the proposed aromatics prohibiti on is arbitrary and capricious. If CARB is going to rely on reactivity-based concep ts, then it ought to adopt the concept in its entirety. It is not justified to li mit 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 t o 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 lim it 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 re quired by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), we determined tha t use of highly reactive, aromatic solvents in reformulated products could re sult in increasing the ozoneforming potential of products reformulated to meet the 30 percent VOC limit, thereby eroding the predicted ozone reduction benefits. St aff’s evaluation and rationale for the limit is set forth in Chapter VIII, Environment al Impacts, of the Staff Report (beginning with page 100). Because staff determine d there would be a potential adverse impact if aromatic compounds were used in s ignificant quantities, as a mitigation measure, staff proposed and the Board ap proved a limit on the amount of aromatic solvents used in the products’ final formu lation to 1 percent by weight. The 1 percent aromatic compound limit preserves, and mo re likely improves, the air quality benefits of the proposed VOC limits.

The commenters contend that limiting the aromatic c ontent of Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products is proposed for reactivi ty reasons and that use of reactivity should not be combined with mass-based V OC limits. Staff agrees that the aromatic compound limit is a reactivity-based provi sion. 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 compo und content limit would not be needed if reactivity-based limits were adopted r ather than mass-based limits. They further contend that greater reductions could be achieved by not adopting the 1 percent aromatic compound limit. ARB disagrees w ith these comments. Because staff’s analysis found that significant use of arom atic compounds in reformulations could erode ozone reduction benefits, any reactivit y-based limits would have to account for this and be set at a low enough level t o preclude use of highly reactive compounds. The commenters offer no evidence to sup port the contention that greater reductions could be achieved by not adoptin g the 1 percent aromatic compound limit. To the contrary, staff’s analysis found that this proposal provides the maximum feasible reduction from Multi-purpose S olvent and Paint Thinner products.

The commenters further contend that the rationale f or the restriction on use of aromatic compounds is not adequately explained. St aff disagrees with this comment. The rationale for the proposal is set for th in Chapter VIII, Environmental Impacts, of the Staff Report (beginning with page 1 00). As explained previously, staff determined that use of highly reactive solven ts in reformulated products could result in higher ozone forming potential. In deter mining what level of aromatic compound restriction would be appropriate, staff ev aluated the most likely reformulation pathways and the resulting reactivity of those products. This analysis revealed that the reactivity of a typical product c omplying with the 30 percent VOC limit using a water-hydrocarbon emulsion would be a bout 0.35 grams ozone per gram product and contain less than 1 percent aromat ic compound content. Based on this, staff determined that in order to preserve the predicted ozone benefits, a 1 percent aromatic compound limit was necessary. L imiting aromatic content to 1 percent by weight maintains consistency of ozone forming potential of reformulated products. This analysis, contained in the Staff Re port, was made available for public comment for 45 days prior to the Board hearing.

The commenters also contend that more reactive solv ents, that do not meet the aromatic compound definition, could still be used i n reformulated Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. While the comm enters do not provide the

identification of the more reactive solvents that c ould be used in reformulated Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products, staff a cknowledges that VOCs do have wide ranging reactivities, and that some classes of compounds may be nearly as reactive as aromatic compounds. However, staff eva luated potential reformulation options and determined that limiting use of aromati c compounds would best preserve the ozone reduction benefits of the proposal. As p art of the evaluation, staff had to ensure that several viable reformulation options wo uld remain if aromatic compound use was restricted. Prohibiting additional classes of organic compounds that have reactivities close to those of aromatic compounds c ould restrict reformulation flexibility and result in infeasible products. The refore 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 ref ormulation option, but other reformulation options are available to provide flex ibility 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 compou nd restriction.

The commenters also contend that the 1 percent arom atic compound limit will restrict formulators to the use of acetone, and that it rest ricts use of all aromatic compounds

### 27

regardless of their reactivity. Staff disagrees wi th these contentions. To meet the 30 percent VOC limit, survey data show that a varie ty of other organic chemicals can be used to formulate complying products. To meet t he 3 percent VOC limit, fewer reformulation strategies are currently available. However, the contention that all aromatic compounds are limited to 1 percent by weig ht is incorrect. The definition for “Aromatic Compound” excludes the VOC exempt aromati c compounds such as parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF).

As to the aromatic compound limit setting a precede nt, staff disagrees. As always, each category proposed for regulation is in accorda nce with CEQA. Only where a potential adverse impact is identified would staff recommend a similar restriction.

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

and is not based on sound science. The rationale a nd need for this provision was clearly set forth in Chapter VIII of the Staff Repo rt. 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 tha t there are some paint products that require thinning with an aromatic solvent in o rder for the paint to be usable. These types of thinning products were specifically excluded, temporarily, from compliance with the VOC and aromatic compound limit s.

D-47. Comment: The definition for the aromatics that has been prop osed is also too broad. [SW2]

D-48. Comment: The definition of aromatic compounds is too broad a nd difficult to verify through testing. [NAA1]

D-49. Comment: The aromatic restriction is broadly defined, it’s g oing 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 f ormation. [WMB1]

D-51. Comment: Limiting PCBTF to 1%, will restrict safer alternati ves to acetone. [NPCA2; NPCA4]

D-52. Comment: The Board should eliminate the provision on aromati c compounds, or adjust the definition to include only reactive, ozo ne-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 propose d 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 uncl ear if the proposed definition would exclude VOC-exempt aromatic solvents, such as PCBTF, from the 1 percent aromatic compound limit. The intent of the origina lly proposed definition was to exclude negligibly reactive exempt compounds such a s PCBTF. In light of the

### 28

confusion, staff proposed further modifications to the definition of “Aromatic Compound” to clarify that VOC-exempt aromatic compo unds, such as PCBTF, would not meet the definition. Thus, the definition only includes reactive, ozone-forming compounds, and clarifies that use of exempt VOC com pounds can be part of manufacturers’ research and development efforts. T hese definitional modifications were proposed as part of the first 15-day public co mment period.

Staff disagrees with the comment that the laborato ry analysis for aromatic compound content is too difficult. ARB laboratory staff rou tinely tests for common aromatics, such as the xylene isomers and toluene. These anal ytical 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 precede nt, staff disagrees. As always, each category proposed for regulation is in accorda nce 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) Reac tivity-based standards more effectively reduce the ozone-forming potential of s olvent-based products while providing formulators with greater flexibility to p roduce products that meet performance and safety specifications. SIG strongl y supports the adoption of reactivity-based standards either as the sole compl iance option or at least as an alternative compliance option for product categorie s, including paint thinners and multipurpose solvents; 2) CARB has not considered a nd evaluated a reactivity-based approach as a reasonable alternative to its mass-ba sed 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 produci ng compounds is superior to

mass-based controls. Mass-based controls could red uce the expected amount of

ozone reduction because of reformulations that use compounds of higher reactivity than are currently used. Concerns of reactivity-ba sed standards increasing concentrations of PM2.5 or secondary aerosol format ion are unfounded. Toxicity of compounds is not the same as risk factors—these lim itations should be determined

based on actual risk. The four alternatives CARB h as considered are legally insufficient because they do not include considerin g the fifth alternative which is a reactivity-based approach. CARB is legally obligat ed to state its reasoning for rejecting reactivity. CARB’s concerns that reactiv ity-based limits would have questionable enforceability, is no different than a ny 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 a dopted over the mass-based regulation, and a 1% limit on aromatics is implemen ted (based on the high reactivity of aromatics), then a reactivity-based option shoul d be available as an Alternative Control Plan for reformulating Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner. [ACCSIG1]

Response: Staff disagrees with this comment. In response t o the first point, the Response to Comments D-28 through D-34 is incorpora ted herein. While ARB supports the use of reactivity in regulations, in t he 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 b e conducted in 2012, however, will include an evaluation regarding whether a reactivit y-based strategy should be implemented rather than the 3 percent mass-based VO C 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 lim it better preserves the air quality benefits, staff would propose appropriate amendment s to the Board for their

consideration.

Regarding the commenter’s point on staff’s evaluati on 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 approac h in the near term because massbased VOC limits provided greater ozone reduction b enefits. 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 PM 2.5 , secondary organic aerosol formation, as well as t oxicity. Staff determined that neither approach would exacerbate o r improve these air quality problems more than the other approach. Moreover, i n determining the better regulatory approach, enforceability of reactivity-b ased 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, staf f appreciates SIG’s offer to assist, if

needed.

Finally, regarding reactivity-based limits as a com pliance option, staff determined during development of the reactivity-based Aerosol Coatings Regulation that using reactivity-based limits as an alternative complianc e option to mass-based limits did not ensure the air quality benefits would be preser ved.

D-54. Comment: The restrictions proposed for global warming, chlor inated chemicals, and aromatics take away too many tools available to for mulators. [SW1]

Response: Staff disagrees with this comment. In evaluating s urvey data for complying and non-complying products, staff found n o use of compounds with high global warming potentials, or use of the chlorinate d toxic air contaminant solvents methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichlor oethylene. Because of this, staff

determined that their use was not essential for the se products and proposed mitigation measures to restrict their use in reform ulated 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 Co mments D-37 through D-46 is incorporated herein. Survey data show that complyi ng products can be formulated without the use of aromatic compounds.

D-55. Comment: NAA recommends removing the 3% limit and the aromat ic compound restriction and focus on adopting a reactivity base d regulation, which will also remove the fire risk issue. [NAA1]

D-56. Comment: We recommend that you remove the three percent effe ctive VOC limits,

remove the aromatic restrictions, instruct the staf f to develop a future reactivity regulation to be effective by 12/31/2013. [WMB1; WM B2]

Response to Comments D-55 and D-56: These commenters contend that the 3 percent VOC limit and aromatic compound content l imit should be removed from the amendments. Staff disagrees with these comment s. State law requires ARB to

achieve the maximum feasible reduction of VOC emiss ions from consumer products. The 3 percent limit would allow the maximum feasibl e reduction to be achieved. In

### 30

approving the 3 percent limit, the Board directed s taff to conduct a technical assessment of the feasibility of the limit, prior t o 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 t o meet the 30 percent limit and determine whether technologies to meet the 3 percen t 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 compo und limit.

The commenters further suggest that a reactivity-ba sed regulation should be adopted instead. The Response to Comments D-28 thr ough D-34 is incorporated herein. Staff found that the mass-based proposal, along with the aromatic compound limit, provided the best overall air quali ty 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 exe mpt 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 R esponse to Comments D-37 through D-46 is incorporated herein. Staff found t hat without this provision, air quality benefits could be eroded. However, the 201 2 technical assessment will assess the ongoing need for the aromatic compound l imit.

D-57. Comment: Method 310 has not been proven to be able to adequa tely test aromatics at less than 1% and therefore the regulation would be unenforceable. [WMB1; SW2]

Response: Staff disagrees with the commenters. Method 310, t he existing enforcement test method for the consumer products p rogram, 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 o f aromatic compounds used in Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products. Nevertheless, Method 310 will be amended to incorporate other standardized test meth ods to enable analysis for all “Aromatic Compounds.” The modifications will allow us to quantify higher molecular weight aromatic compounds that are not currently us ed 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 publ ic comment period and presented to the Board for their consideration. Ad ditionally, the proposed modifications will ensure that the 1 percent aromat ic compound content limit is enforceable for all Aromatic Compounds.

D-58. Comment: NPCA/FSCT continues to be concerned that few effect ive products exist today that will meet the 3% limit, as a result we q uestion the feasibility of the proposed rule. [NPCA2]

D-59. Comment: Staff does not provide information on technical fea sibility of the proposed 3% limit. The 3% limit is not feasible wi thout the use of Acetone. The 3% limit should be eliminated from the proposed reg ulation. [WMB1]

D-60. Comment: CARB has not met its legal burden of demonstrating that its proposed regulations are commercially and technically feasib le and necessary. We ask that you at least postpone Tier 2 until CARB can complet e its assessment that it's committed to do by 2012. [ACCSIG2]

### 31

D-61. Comment: The three percent limit being proposed is simply no t 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 l onger be viable. [SW2]

D-62. Comment: We are concerned that this rule will restrict the a vailability of effective paint thinners and multi-purpose solvents. We sugg est 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 ef fective 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 al ternatives. To allow time for additional technologies to be developed as alternat ives to acetone, the Board approved an effective date of December 31, 2013. I n 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 burde n of demonstrating that its proposed regulations are commercially and technolog ically feasible and necessary.

The 3% second-tier standard has not been demonstrat ed 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 i s 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 prov en that current technology can meet the tier 1 limits of 30% VOC without using ace tone 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 prop osal is necessary to attain State and federal ambient air quality standards, especial ly since it is not considering a reactivity-based standard. The proposal to limit h igh GWP compounds to 150 needs to be analyzed for projected actual climate benefit s, and for cost-benefit and feasibility assessments. [ACCSIG1]

Response: In response to the first point, the commenter is re ferred to Chapters III and IV of the Staff Report where staff explains the commercial and technological feasibility of the proposed amendments and the nece ssity of the modifications to attain both State and federal standards. The Respo nse 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 sur vey 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 S olvent Survey Update. Any

time the same or a similar data set is disclosed mo re than once, there is potential to ascertain confidential business information by comp aring the different data sets released. Staff make every effort to ensure that u nder no circumstances is any

confidential information disclosed. Several member s of industry requested specific

### 32

survey update data, and for each request, staff con sidered 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 revea ling any confidential information. Adequate data was disclosed to demonstrate that the proposals are technologically and commercially feasible.

Staff disagrees that current technology has not dem onstrated 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 hi gh GWP values used in Multipurpose Solvent or Paint Thinner product formulatio ns, 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 fr om reformulated products.

D-64. Comment: NPCA/FSCT appreciates the 2012 technology review AR B will have regarding Multipurpose Solvent and Paint Thinner re formulations. [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 informa tion specific to the Paint Thinner and Multi-purpose Solvent Survey Upda te. The Response to Comment D-63 is incorporated herein.

D-66. Comment: The proposed “Multi-purpose Solvent” definition sho uld be modified to include “Paint Clean-up.” As originally proposed, the language is contradictory. [WMB1]

Response: Staff agrees with the comment and proposed modifica tions to the “Multipurpose Solvent” definition in the first 15-day pub lic comment period. The modifications included moving the “Paint Clean-up” definition to within the “Multipurpose Solvent” definition, thereby eliminating th e contradiction.

D-67. Comment: Given the possible overlap with surface coating rul es, 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 prov ide guidance materials related to Multi-purpose Solvent and Pain t 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 perio d 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 dat a for products selected for compliance testing with the proposed aromatic compo und 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 a dequate because its sensitivity and accuracy are too low, and its w ater 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 w ater content, in combination with low VOC content, the accuracy of the existing Method 310 is not adequate. Therefore, staff developed procedures to directly d etermine the VOC content of these products that does not rely on water content determination. These procedures

will allow for accurate determination of VOC conten t in products with high water content. In this rulemaking, staff proposed and th e Board approved, amendments to Method 310 to incorporate these new procedures. St aff disagrees that ASTM D 6886-03 should be incorporated into Method 310. Th is method was developed for VOC content determinations for latex air-dry coatin gs and is not appropriate for determining VOC content in the wide variety of cons umer products categories.

D-70. Comment: If at all possible, we would like to have CARB stat e in the rule, in a letter, or as an interpretation from enforcement that solve nts and reducers that are specifically designed to be used with in a marine/p leasure craft coating or for an automotive refinish coating are not included in the proposed regulation of multipurpose solvents and paint thinners. We also respe ctfully request that CARB state in the preamble to the rule that refinish operation s 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 “consum er product regulations do not impose any restrictions on pollution-generating act ivities that take place at stationary sources.” Consumer products regulations do not reg ulate industrial stationary sources of air pollutants. If refinishing operatio ns were subject to Consumer Products Regulations, there would be no need for an SCM for automotive refinishing operations. If auto refinishing were not considere d “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 SCA QMD, there is Rule 1171 for industrial solvent cleaning, and Rule 1143 for cons umer products solvents, so which part of CARB’s regulations would apply? Separation and exclusion of industrial applications including “professional use” from gene ral retail consumer use should be stated in this regulation. [NPCA1]

Response: Staff acknowledges that clarifications of rule appl icability as suggested by the commenter would be helpful. Therefore, the following response serves to clarify the applicability of the proposed amendment s. When considered together, the applicability of the regulation found in section 94 507 and the definitions of Consumer Product; Institutional Product; Multi-purpose Solve nt; 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 t he regulation. The Suggested Control Measure that the commenter refers to specif ies 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 applica tion and is subject to local air district rules. Further, the Consumer Products Regulation w ould 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 Dist rict (SMAQMD) believes that ARB's 3% limit is virtually equivalen t to SMAQMD’s Rule 466 25 gram limit, even though it is stated in different numeri cal units. Does ARB agree that District Rule 466 is consistent with the proposed r egulation 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-purpo se Solvent limit specifies that “no person shall sell, supply, offer for sale, or manuf acture for sale in California any consumer product which, at the time of sale or manu facture, 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 oppos ed to the use limitation Rule 466 requires of solvent cleaning operations co nducted 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 rule s, 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, whi ch will implement ARB's 2013, 3% VOC limit in 2010, is not affected b y 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 limi t under Rule 466 is consistent with 41712(f)? [SMAQMD]

Response: ARB’s response to Comment D-71 addresses the differ ences between ARB’s proposed statewide Multi-purpose Solvent VOC limits and SMAQMD’s

Rule 466. Since ARB’s and SMAQMD’s rules contain d ifferent requirements, the implementation of SMAQMD’s 25 grams per liter limit is not affected by the proposed statewide VOC limits for Multi-purpose Solvent cons umer products.

IV. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS MADE DURING THE FIRST 15-D AY COMMENT

PERIOD AND RESPONSES

The table below identifies the comments received du ring 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) th e name of the person(s) signing the

comment letter. Written submittals were received be tween 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 So lvents Industry Group

Written testimony: January 29, 2010 CSPA4 Joseph Yost, Consumer Specialty Products Asso ciation

Written testimony: January 29, 2010 NAA2 Doug Raymond, The National Aerosol Association

Written testimony: January 29, 2010 SCFPO3 Steve Bunting, Southern California Fire Prev ention 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 t hose 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 propos ed additional labeling requirements for the Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner categories. CSPA believes only listing the VOC content on a pro duct label fails to account for other environmental health and safety factors and i mportant environmental factors that may impact potential ozone formation which may mislead consumers. [CSPA4]

Response: Comments noted, however, staff has committed to con tinue evaluating VOC content labeling and may propose a similar requ irement in a future rulemaking.

3. Comment: NAA recommendations that ARB staff amend the propos ed Aromatic Compound definition to the following: “Aromatic Com pound” means a carbon containing compound that contains one or more benze ne or equivalent heterocyclic rings and has an initial boiling point less than or equal to 280 o C. “Aromatic Compound” does not include compounds excluded from the definition of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and compounds defined as a L VP-VOC in this Section 94508(a). [NAA2]

4. Comment: Barr supports the NAA’s recommendation to change th e Aromatic Compound definition to exclude LVP-VOCs. [WMB3]

5. Comment: CSPA urges ARB to use a definition of “Aromatic Com pound” that is consistent with the current regulatory definition o f “VOC Content.” [CSPA4]

6. Comment: ACA supports reconciliation of this language in ord er to ensure that the definition of “Aromatic compound” does not include compounds defined as LVP-VOC. Both NAA and CSPA's proffered solution wi ll accomplish this. [ACA]

7. Comment: SIG urges CARB to revise the proposed aromatic defi nition to the following: “Aromatic Compound” means a carbon conta ining volatile compound whose predominant components contain one or more be nzene or equivalent heterocyclic ring(s) and has an initial boiling poi nt less than or equal to 216 C. “Aromatic Compound” does not include compounds excl uded from the definition of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) in this Section 945 08(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 degree s Celsius. These aromatic compounds do meet the definition of LVP-VOC, and wo uld therefore not ‘count’ towards overall VOC content. Because they are high ly reactive compounds, however, it is prudent to extend the definition of “Aromatic Compound” to include these solvents. The initial boiling point criterio n 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 wer e 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.