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, 2011
-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 Thinner1)

Hearing Amended Submitted to EPA

September 24, 2009 August 6, 2010 January 28, 2011

SIP Approved Rule:

Hearing Amended Submitted to EPA

June 26, 2008 May 5, 2009 February 16, 2010

Approved into the SIP May 12, 2011 (76 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 that adequate data exist to establish both of the following:

(1) The regulations are necessary to attain state and federal ambient air quality 

standards.

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

CARB’s consumer products 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 – Alternative Control Plan

Article 5 – Hairspray Credit Program

The current submittal involves amendments to Article 2, CARB's general Consumer 

Products regulation. CARB estimates these amendments will achieve 8.4 tons per day

(tpd) of VOC reductions Statewide in 2010 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 Solvents and Paint Thinners prior to 

CARB's action.

RULE SUMMARY –

On January 28, 2011, CARB submitted amendments to their Consumer Products 

regulation 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 Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners and new VOC limits for Multi-purpose 

Solvents, and Paint Thinners. CARB also added or amended the definitions for several 

products, prohibited the use of three hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and adopted a 

global warming potential limit for these product categories. CARB's VOC limits for Multipurpose Solvents and Paint Thinners 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 multi-purpose solvent survey update. Their 

rule lowers the VOC limit for Double Phase Aerosol Air Freshener from 25 weight 

percent down to 20 weight percent and will take effect in December 2012. Limits for two 

new categories, Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners, 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 Multipurpose Solvents and Paint Thinners 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 Multipurpose 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 states 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 act on those limits in our proposed action.

CARB's August 7, 2009 Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR) estimates 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 approximately 

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-

without further actions, consumer product emissions are expected to grow to 

approximately 283 tons per day in 2020, representing 14 percent of statewide VOC 

emissions. 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 products by approximately 200 tons per day or an overall 44 percent 

reduction in VOC emissions from consumer products4. Although emissions from 

individual consumer products may seem small, collectively, they represent a significant 

source of emissions given that 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 Solvents and Paint Thinners 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 Multipurpose Solvents and Paint Thinners:

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 231 products when fragrance variants for 

Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners 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. Industrial maintenance coating

e. Zinc-rich primer

4. Modified definitions for:

a. ASTM

b. Multi-purpose Solvent (clarified what products are included/excluded from the 

definition)

c. Paint Thinner (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 windshield washer fluids are sold in containers

greater than 1 quart but less than 10 gallons

5. Added additional requirements for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners:

a. Prohibits the use of methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and 

trichloroethylene

b. Temporarily prohibits flammable or extremely flammable products from using 

generic product names such as ―Multi-purpose Solvent,‖ ―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 displays the name of the flammable chemical, 

(e.g., Acetone) on the principle display panel.

c. Prohibits 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. Prohibits the use of chemical compounds with a Global Warming Potential 

(GWP) of >150.

f. Requires 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) prohibits 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 enforceability 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 Products 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 allows manufacturers 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 data7, and use of hairspray credits to reconcile emissions shortfalls.

We 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, or alternative test methods made by the Executive Officer. Any 

such approval determinations for innovative products/variances/alternative test methods 

has no effect under federal law, unless the Executive Officer submits the innovative 

product determination/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 identity, 

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 concentration of the product, but also the product sales 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 that EPA’s rule covers.

CARB's regulation contains more stringent VOC 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 Freshners

8

compared to CARB's 20 percent limit in their SIP 

submittal.

o To support California local air districts' need 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 proposed amendments.

 Many of industry's comments expressed concern about limiting

reformulation options by imposing a 1 percent aromatic content limit 

on Multi-purpose Solvents 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 reactivitybased limits.

CARB's response to comments indicates they are limiting the 

aromatic compound content because use of highly reactive 

aromatic solvents in reformulated products 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 reactivitybased 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 comments 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 nonattainment 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 points out that while the limits may be challenging, they

are technologically and economically feasible.

 For Double Phase Aerosol Air Fresheners, CARB allows three years 

for manufacturers 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 Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners, CARB states 18 

products representing 11.3 percent of the market share comply 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 CARB's 1/28/2011 submittal letter also asks EPA not to include the second 

tier 3 percent VOC limit for Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners11 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 stringent limit for Double 

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

and Paint Thinners.

 

10 CARB Initial Statement of Reasons, August 7, 2009, Chapter IV-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 years for Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Fresheners and Multi-purpose Solvents and Paint Thinners.

o EPA allows an unlimited sell-through period for Double Phase Aerosol Air 

Fresheners.

CARB determines compliance to the emissions limit by laboratory testing or 

calculation.

o EPA determines compliance with the VOC limits in the national consumer 

products rule by calculation.

CARB prohibits or limits the use of certain toxic air contaminates, ozone depleting 

substances, and greenhouse gas compounds in specified products.

o EPA’s Consumer Products rulemaking 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 covers retailers.

o EPA’s rule does not cover retailers.

EPA ACTION –

The submitted Consumer Products regulation fulfills the relevant CAA §110 and part D 

requirements. EPA staff recommends approval of the submitted amendments to 

CARB’s Consumer Products Regulation consistent with CAA §110(k)(3).

As stated above, although included in their current amendments, CARB is not 

submitting the Tier 2 Multi-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 Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Amendments to the 

California Consumer Products Regulation, August 7, 2009,

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

5. State of California Air Resources Board Resolution 09-51, 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.pdf.

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/ozonetech/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 

Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/sips/littlebluebook2001.pdf