UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document

for

EPA ’ s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the
California State Implementation Plan

California Air Resources Board (CARB ) Regulation for Reducing Emissions From

Consumer Products

California Code of Regulations Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1 Subchapter 8.5 Consumer Products

Article 2 Consumer Products

Prepared by: Stanley Tong

September 12 , 20 11- 2

-

RULE IDENTIFICATION

-

Agency: California Air Resources Board (CARB)

Submitted Rule: California Code of Regulations Title 17 , Division 3, Chapter

1

, Subchapter 8.5

- Consumer Products;

Article 2

– Consumer Products
( does not include second tier emission limits for Multi

- purpose Solvent

and Paint Thinner 1 )

Hearing Amended Submitted to EPA
September 24, 2009 August 6, 2010 January 28, 2011

SIP Approved Rule: Hearing A mended Submitted to EPA

June 26, 2008 May 5, 2009 February 16, 2010 Approved into the SIP May 12

, 20 11 ( 7 6 FR 27613 )

RULE BACKGROUND

-

The California Health and Safety Code (Section 41712(b )) requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted by consumer products if the

state board determines t hat adequate data exist to establish both of the following : (1) The regulations are necessary to attain state and federal ambient air quality

s tandards. (2) The regulations are commercially and technologically feasible and necessary.

CARB ’s consumer prod ucts regulations are found under the California Code of Regulations Title 17 , Division 3, Chapter 1

, Subchapter 8.5 and include:

Article 1

– Antiperspirants and Deodorants

Article 2

– Consumer Products

Article 3

– Aerosol Coating Products

Article 4

– Alte rnative Control Plan

Article 5

– Hairspray Credit Program

The current submittal involves amendments to Article 2, CARB's gener al Consumer Products regulation. CARB estimates t hese amendments will achieve 8 .4 tons per day (tpd) of VOC reductions Statewide in 201 0 and 10.4 tpd in 2012

. 2 These values do not

1 CARB’s January 28, 2011 SIP submittal states ―This SIP submission does not include the second tier emission limits and the corresponding emission reduction for Multi

- purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner. "

2 Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Product Regulations, Initial Statement of Reasons, August 7, 2009.- 3

-

include emissions or reductions from Multi

- purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners for the
South Coast Air Basin because the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAMQD) adopted its own rule for Multi

- purpose Solvent s and Paint Thinner s prior to
CARB's action.

RULE SUMMARY

–

On January 28, 2011 , CARB submitted amendments to the ir Consumer Products

r e gulation for inclusion into the State Implementation Plan ( SIP )

. These amendments were presented at CARB's September 24, 2009 Board Hearing and set lower VOC

limits for D ouble P hase Aerosol A ir F resheners and new VOC limits for Multi

- purpose S olvents, and P aint T hinners

. CARB also added or amended the defi nitions for several products, prohibit ed the use of three hazardous air pollutants ( HAPs ) and adopted a global warming potential limit for these product categories

. CARB's VOC limit s for Multi

purpose S olvents and P aint T hinners do not apply in the SCAMQD

, since the SCAQMD adopted limits for these two categories before CARB adopted its limits.

CARB developed its VOC limits for these categories from data in their 2006 consumer products survey and 2008 paint thinner and m ulti

- purpose s olvent survey update. Their

rule lowers the VOC limit for D ouble P hase Aerosol A ir F reshener from 25 weight percent down to 20 weight percent and will take effect in December 201 2. Limits for two new categories, Multi

- purpose S olvents and P aint T hinners, will take effect in two steps.
The first tier limits , which took effect on December 31, 2010 , cap emissions at 30 weight percent VOC and less than 1 percent aromatics. The second tier limits are scheduled to

take effect on December 31

, 2013 and will further reduce the VOC limit for these two categories to 3 percent

. CARB considers the second tier 3 percent limit for Multi

purpose S olvents and P aint T hinners to be technology

- forcing. To evaluate manufacturer's progress towards meeting the December 2013 limits, CARB's Consumer

Products regulation requires that by June 30, 2012, all responsible parties of Multi

purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners to report to CARB information including product sales, product composition, and research and development efforts taken to achieve the 3 percent limit

. 3

CARB’s January 8, 2011 submittal letter state s their SIP submittal does not include the

second tier VOC emission limits for Multi

- purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners, so we do not plan to ac t on those limit s in our proposed action.

CARB's August 7, 2009 Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) estimate s that in 2010 consumer product VOC emissions will represent approximately 255 tons per day, or about 12 percent of the overall statewide VOC inventory. This equates to app roximately

19 and 7 percent of the VOC emissions in the SCAQMD and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), respectively. CARB estimates that

3 CARB’s Consumer Products Regulation 94513(g) http://www.arb.ca.gov/consprod/regs/2009/cpreg2010.pdf- 4

-

w ithout further actions, consumer product emissions are expected to grow to approxima tely 283 tons per day in 2020, representing 14 per cent of statewide VOC

emissions

. The ISOR further states that: " It is estimated that emissions from consumer products will be the largest source of VOC emissions in the SCAQMD in 2020. "

Over the last twenty years CARB has adopted three consumer products regulations covering 125 product categories and 174 VOC limits. When fully effective, CARB estimates their regulations will have resulted in a reduction in VOC emissions from consumer prod ucts by approximately 200 tons per day or an overall 44 percent reduction in VOC emissions from consumer products 4

. Although emissions from individual consumer products may seem small , collectively, they represent a significant

source of emissions given th at 38 million California residents use these products

.

CARB 's survey estimates there are approximately 44 companies that market Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, Multi

- purpose Solvents, and Paint Thinners in California and that their regulation will impact approximately 495 non

- complying products

. 5

The following is a summary of CARB's amendments : 1. Strengthened existing limits for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener category :

a. Reduced the VOC limit from 25 percent by weight down to 20 percent by weight effective December 31, 2012. Expected reductions are 2 tpd VOC.

2. Added new Multi

- purpose Solvent s and Paint Thinner s categories :

a. Established a first tier limit of 30 percent by weight effective December 31, 2010. This is expected to achieve 8.4 tpd VOC statewide ( excluding
SCAQMD ) by January 1, 2011.

i. The expected VOC reductions do not include reductions in the SCAQMD because the District adopted its own rule, Rule 1143,

Consumer Paint Thinners and Multi

- Purpose Solvents, prior to the State's adoption

. b. Established a second tier limit of 3 percent by weight effective December 31,

2013. ( This second tier limit is not a part of this SIP proposed action

. ) 6

3. Added new definitions for the following terms to support the standards for Multi

purpose Solvent s and P aint T hinner s :

a. Aromatic compound

4 CARB Initial Statement of Reasons, August 7, 2009, Chapter I

- 3. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/cpmthdisor.pdf

5 CARB Initial Statement of Reasons, August 7, 2009, page ES

- 13 and Chapter VII

- 85.

The 495 non

- complying products include 23 1 product s when fragrance variants for

Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener s are considered. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/cpmthdisor.pdf

6 CARB 's January 28, 2011 SIP submittal letter and their Rule Evaluation Form, page 2- 5

-

b. Artist’s solvent/thinner

c. High temperature coating

d. In dustrial maintenance coating

e. Zinc

- rich primer

4. Modified definitions for:

a. ASTM

b. Multi

- purpose S olvent (clarified what products are included/excluded from the definition)

c. Paint T hinner (clarified what products are included/excluded from the definition)

d. Automotive windshield washer fluid

i. Clarified dilutable windshield washer fluids are sold in containers > 10 gallons or < one quart)

ii. Clarified pre

- mixed windshiel d washer fluids are sold in container s greater than 1 quart but less than 10 gallons

5. A dded a dditional requirements for Multi

- purpose S olvents and Paint Thinners :

a. Prohibit s the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene

b. Temporarily prohibit s flammable or extremely flammable products from using generic product names such as ―Multi

- purpose S olvent,‖ ―Paint Thinner,‖ or

―Paint Clean

- up.‖ This is to alert the consumer that the product has been reformulated and may be more flammable than products they have used in the past

. i. Exceptions to this prohibition are allowed if a hang tag or sticker stating

― Formulated to meet California VOC limits, see warnings on label;‖ is

on the container or if it display s the name of the flammable chemical, ( e.g., Acetone ) on the principle display panel.

c. Prohibit s the aromatic content of Multi

- purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners from exceeding 1 percent

i. Clarify that a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) does not meet the requirement for formulation data to certify a product’s aromatic content

d. Temporarily exempts from the VOC and aromatic content limit paint thinners that are packaged in containers < 8 fluid ounces

e. Prohibit s the use of chemical compounds with a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of > 150.

f. Require s responsible parties to report specific progress towards meeting the

second tier 3 percent limit by June 30, 2012

.

EPA EVALUATION

–

The following statutory criteria , regulations and guidance documents were used to

evaluate the submitted rule.- 6

-

1. Enforceability

– The Bluebook ( Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations , EPA, May 25, 1988 , revised 1/11/1990 ) and the Little Bluebook ( Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA
§ 110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

2. SIP Revisions

- CAA section 110(I) prohibit s EPA from approving any SIP revision that

would interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA, including requirements for reasonable further progress (RFP) toward or attainment of the NAAQS. We evaluated
this SIP revision to determine whether full approval of the revision is consistent with these requirements.

3. State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498; April 16, 1992) was used to help

evaluate enforceabilit y of CARB's submittal

.

4

. EPA ’ s National Consumer Products rule (40 C.F.R. 59 Subpart C) was used to
evaluate CARB’s amendments against the national rule.

CARB’s Consumer P roducts regulation meets the evaluation criteria listed above. The regulation contains definitions, emission limits, compliance times, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and test methods for compliance determination. CARB’s regulation also allow s manufactur ers an alternative compliance strategy to meet the
VOC limits by participating in an Alternative Control Plan ( ACP ) . EPA has not approved
CARB's ACP into the SIP due to issues such as Executive Officer discretion, public’s

access to emissions data 7 , and use of hairspray credits to reconcile emissions shortfalls.

W e note that CARB's Consumer Products regulation states that for purposes of federal enforceability, EPA is not subject to any approval determinations for innovative products, variances, o r alternative test methods made by the Executive Officer. Any such approval determinations for innovative products/variance s /alternative test methods has no effect under federal law, unless the Executive Officer submits the innovative product d etermination /variance/alternative test method to EPA as a source

- specific SIP revision and EPA approves it under section 110 of the CAA. The rule requires the Executive Officer to submit an innovative product determination/variance/alternative test

method to EPA as a SIP revision request, following public notice and hearing, within 180 days of a request from a person who has received the innovative product determination, variance or alternative test method approval

.

7 The Clean Air Act § 114(c) generally requires that emissions data be made available to the public. EPA has defined emissions data in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2) as information necessary to determine the ident ity, amount, frequency, concentration or any other characteristics (to the extent related to air quality) of any emissions which has been emitted by the source or authorized to emit . For CARB's ACP, we believe this may include, not only the VOC concentrati on of the product, but also the product sale s volume necessary to calculate total emissions being averaged between complying and non

- complying product lines

.- 7

-

CARB’s Consumer Products regulation is more stringent than EPA’s national rule in

several areas: CARB' s regulation covers more than twice the number of consumer product categories tha t EPA ’s rule covers

.

CARB's regulation contains m ore stringent V OC limits than EPA ’s rule for many categories of products

.

o EPA does not currently regulate the VOC content of Multi

- purpose Solvents

or Paint Thinners and has a 30 percent VOC limit for Double Phase

Aerosol Air Freshner s 8 compared to CARB's 20 percent limit in their SIP

submittal.

o To support California local air districts' n eed for further ozone reductions to meet the NAAQS, CARB's regulation goes beyond EPA's 1998 national
Consumer Products rule

. CARB received comments from both industry and the environmental community on their pro posed amendments

.

 Many of i ndustry 's comments expressed concern about limit ing reformulation options by imposing a 1 percent aromatic content limit

on Multi

- purpose S olvents and Paint Thinners and on the difficulty to

achieve the second tier December 31, 2013 3 percent VOC limit. Several comments asked CARB to consider adopting reactivity

based limits.

CARB 's response to comments indicates they are limiting the aromatic compound content because use of highly reactive aromatic solvents in reformulated produ cts could have a potential adverse impact of increasing the ozone forming potential of products which are reformulated to meet the 30 percent first tier limit. 9

In response to comments asking CARB to consider reactivity

based limits, CARB points out that "ARB's long standing practice has been to pursue mass

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

- based limits when

mass

- based limits are unfeasible or do not provide the

needed ozone reduction benefits

.... after implementation of

the first tier, 30 percent VOC limit, staff will again evaluate whether a reactivity

- based strategy, rather than implementing the 3 percent mass

- based VOC limit, may be the better regulatory approach for Multi

- purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner products."

8 See 40 CFR 59 Subpart C, Table 1.

9 CARB Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Public Hearing Date: September 24, 2009

, Agenda

Item No.: 09

- 8

- 4 , page 25.- 8

-  Several com ments were submitted on the increased flammability that will result from products which may be reformulated with a higher concentration of the VOC exempt compound acetone.

CARB 's regulation requires consumers be alerted thorough product labeling that the product has a potential change in formulation which could present a fire hazard if used improperly.

o EPA agrees that continued VOC reductions in consumer products are important to reduce ambient ozone concentrations in California’s non

attainment areas

. In addition to the human health impacts of ozone, there are significant agricultural impacts. CARB indicates that ozone pollution damage to crops is estimated to cost agriculture over $500 million dollars annually. 10 CARB point s out that while the limits may be challenging, they are technologically and economically feasible.

 For Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, CARB allow s three years

for manufacture r s to develop complying products. Options to comply with the 20 percent limit may include reformulating with exempt compounds such as acetone, and possibly modifying the valve and

actuator to work with less propellant or a different propellant.

 For Mu lti

- purpose Solvents and Paint T hinners, CARB states 18 products representing 11.3 per cent of the market share comp ly with

the first tier 30 percent VOC limit. They further point out that there are a number of formulations that are slightly above 30 percent VOC and will only need a ―modest‖ reformulation to comply with the 30 percent limit.

o C ARB's 1/28/2011 submittal letter also asks EPA not to include the second

tier 3 percent VOC limit for Multi

- purpose S olvents and Paint T hinners 11 in

the current submittal. CARB's ISOR concluded that the VOC limits, although challenging, are commercially and technologically feasible based

on an 11 percent complying marketshare for both the first and second tier
VOC limits

.

EPA’s national consumer products regulation has a less string ent limit for Double

Phase Aerosol Air Freshener and does not have a limit for Multi

- purpose Solvent s and Paint Thinner s

.

10 CARB Initial Statement of Reasons, August 7, 2009, Chapter I V

- 21

. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/cpmthdisor.pdf

11 January 28, 2011 letter from CARB ( Robert D. Fletcher ) to EPA Region IX (Jared Blumenfeld), second page, second paragraph.- 9

-

CARB limits the sell

- through period to 3 year s for Double Phase Aerosol Air

Fresheners and Multi

- purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners

.

o EPA allows an unlimited sell

- through perio d for Double Phase Aerosol Air

Fresh e ners.

CARB determines c ompliance to the emissions limit by laboratory testing or

calculation

.

o EPA determines compliance with the VOC limits in the national consumer products rule by c alculation

.

CARB p rohibits or limits the use of certain toxic air contam inates

, ozone depleting

substances , and greenhouse gas compounds in specified produ c ts

.

o EPA ’s Consumer Products rule maki ng authority lies in CAA § 183(e) which

covers VOC

. This section of the CAA does not grant EPA the authority to regulate toxic air contaminates /hazardous air pollutants

, ozone depleting

substances , or greenhouse gas compounds in consumer products.

CARB's regulation c overs retailers

.

o EPA’s rule does not cover retailers

.

EPA ACTION

–

The submitted Consumer Products r egulation fulfil l s the relevant CAA § 110 and part D requirements

. EPA staff recommends approval of the submitted amendments to
CARB’s Consumer Products R egulation consistent with CAA § 110(k)(3)

.

As stated above, although included in their current amendments, CARB is not submitting the Tier 2 Mult i

- purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner limits for approval into the

SIP at this time. Therefore EPA is not acting on the Tier 2 limits in this proposed action.

REFERENCES

–

1. California Code of Regulations Title 17 Chapter 1 Subchapter 8.5

- Consumer Products; Article 2

– Consumer Products

– as submitted on January 28, 2011

. 2. California Code of Regulations Title 17 Chapter 1 Subchapter 8.5

- Consumer Products; Article 2

– Consumer Products

– as approved on May 12, 2011

. 3. National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standards for Consumer Products

, 40 C

. F

. R

. 59, Subpart C

. 4. CARB St aff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the
C alifornia Consumer Products Regulation, August 7, 2009

, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/cpmthdisor .pdf

. 5. State of California Air Resources Board Resolution 0 9

- 51

, September 24, 2009

, Agenda Item No. 09

- 8

- 4 http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/res0951.pdf

.- 10

-

6. Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Including Summary of Comments and Agency Responses

– Considered at a Public Hearing on September 24, 2009

, Agenda Item No. 09

- 804

, http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/cpfsor.pdf

. 7. State of California Air Resources Board Executive Order R10

— 013, August 6, 2010. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/cpmthd310/cpeo.pd f

. 8. ―Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,‖ EPA, May 25, 1988, revised January 11, 2000 (the Bluebook). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozon etech/voc_bluebook.pdf

9. State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498; April 16, 1992).

10. ―Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,‖ EPA Regio n 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/sips/littlebluebook2001.pdf